Blair v. Blair

147 S.W.3d 882 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and W had sexual intercourse on one occasion after having worked together for a couple of years. W gave birth to a son, Devin, on April 26, 1977. H visited W in the hospital but did not discuss the paternity of the child with her and had no further contact with W until 1979. In January 1979, W contacted H, told him that he was Devin's father, and asked whether he had any history of disease in his family that might affect Devin later in life. H resumed a sexual relationship with Wife a few days later. In March 1979, W separated from her present husband and filed a petition for dissolution of that marriage. W became pregnant with H's child, and on March 13, 1980, W gave birth to their daughter, Oralin. W's present marriage was dissolved in December 1980. Several days after her divorce H and W were married on December 22, 1980. H later adopted both Devin and Oralin. On November 20, 2001, W filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. H petitioned that the marriage be annulled. H claimed that W had fraudulently represented to him before their marriage that he was Devin's father and had thereby induced him to marry her. H was indeed not Devin's father and that he was the son of Sam Kelly. The court denied H's petition. The court found: (1) that W had believed that Devin was H's son during their courtship and at the time of marriage; (2) that H would have married W even if he had known the representation to be false and that the representation was not material to his decision to marry her; (3) that H did not detrimentally rely upon W's statement; (4) that W did not intend for her representation about Devin's paternity to be relied upon by H; (5) that even if the marriage had been the result of a misrepresentation related to Devin's paternity, H failed to prove any damages, actual or punitive, resulting from the alleged misrepresentation; (6) that H had 'unclean hands' sufficient to deny equitable relief because H had fraudulently represented to W that he loved her prior to marriage; and (7) H was precluded from equitable relief because of the doctrine of laches in that even though at times he questioned Devin's paternity H did nothing.