Dep't of Human Serv. v. Ray
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00362-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00362-SCT2007-CA-00362-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 07-22-2008 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-16-2008 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Reimbursement of child support - Fraud - Statute of limitations Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Barnes and Roberts, J. Dissenting Author : Irving, J. dissents in part, without separate written opinion. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: GRIFFIS, J. with separate written opinion. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: MYERS, P.J., CHANDLER AND ISHEE, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-01-2007 Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Jane R. Weathersby Disposition: JUDGMENT ENTERED AGAINST MURPHY AND DHS Case Number: 547 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI AND RUBY J. MURPHY |
TAMEKIA ROCHELLE GOLIDAY,
PETER JOSEPH BAGLEY |
||
| Appellee: | HENRY RAY | HOWARD Q. DAVIS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Reimbursement of child support - Fraud - Statute of limitations |
| Summary of the Facts: | Henry Ray filed a motion for the reimbursement of child support on the basis of fraud. The chancellor ordered the Mississippi Department of Human Services and Ruby Murphy jointly and severally liable to Ray in the amount of $23,183.10, representing the child support payments that Ray made to Murphy through DHS for approximately nineteen years for Murphy’s child, L.J. DHS and Murphy appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The appellants argue that Ray was not entitled to reimbursement for past-due child support payments because they vested in L.J. as they became due and could not be forgiven. They also argue that the evidence failed to establish fraud. Each month when the child support payments became due they vested in L.J., and Ray was not entitled to reimbursement absent a showing of fraud. In order to establish fraud, the burden is on the proponent to prove a representation, its falsity, its materiality, the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth, his intent that it should be acted on by the hearer and in the manner reasonably contemplated, the hearer's ignorance of its falsity, his reliance on its truth, his right to rely thereon, and his consequent and proximate injury. Ray failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was defrauded by Murphy into believing that he was L.J.’s father. Murphy repeatedly testified that she believed that Ray was L.J.’s father at the time she executed the affidavit and affirmation of paternity and thereafter. Murphy testified that she had sex with Ray once or twice a week over the course of their two-year relationship, sometimes without a condom. More importantly, Ray testified that he did not believe Murphy’s representation that he was L.J.’s father. If Ray did not believe that he was L.J.’s father, then it defies logic to say that Ray reasonably relied on Murphy’s representation that he was L.J.’s father. Despite testifying that he did not believe L.J. was his son, for the various reasons stated throughout his testimony, Ray signed the agreement of support and admission of paternity. As to DHS, there is no evidence whatsoever that suggests that any DHS employee possessed any knowledge that Ray was not L.J.’s father. Thus, the chancellor erred in finding that Ray was defrauded into believing that L.J. was his son. In addition, the statute of limitations for fraud is three years. This period begins to run when the action accrues. Approximately twenty years have passed since Ray, according to his own testimony, had reason to believe that he was not L.J.’s father. Clearly, the statute of limitations has run on Ray’s claim of fraud. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
