Title: TYTANIC v. TYTANIC

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

TYTANIC v. TYTANIC  TYTANIC v. TYTANIC 2002 OK 100 61 P.3d 249 Case Number: 96818, No. 96817 Decided: 12/17/2002 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL DENNIS TYTANIC, DECEASED. JOSEPH CHARLES TYTANIC, Petitioner-Appellant, v. PHILLIP JAMES TYTANIC, Respondent- Appellee. CERTIORARI TO THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION NO. 2 ¶ 0 In the probate proceeding of Michael Dennis Tytanic, deceased, the trial court granted summary judgment for appellee Phillip James Tytanic and against appellant Joseph Charles Tytanic on the ground that the decedent's brother, Joseph Tytanic, lacked standing to raise the issue as to whether Phillip Tytanic was the decedent's son and heir, and insist that Phillip Tytanic's DNA be tested. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court. We granted certiorari on October 21, 2002. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED, COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION VACATED, JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Charles L. Fagin, FAGIN, FAGIN & NIXON, Oklahoma City, for Appellant, J. Michael Entz, LAW OFFICES OF J. MICHAEL ENTZ, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and James L. Menzer, MENZER LAW OFFICES, P.C., Blackwell, Oklahoma, for Appellee. OPINION Watt, Vice Chief Justice, FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶1 The decedent, Michael Dennis Tytanic, was involved in a common law relationship with Brenda Tytanic from 1969 until the parties were divorced on January 15, 1975. Appellee, Phillip Tytanic was born on February 15, 1974. Brenda Tytanic obtained a birth certificate for Phillip Tytanic, which stated that Michael Tytanic was Phillip Tytanic's father. ¶2 On April 15, 1976, decedent sought a modification of the terms of the divorce decree. In his motion to modify decedent alleged, in a verified pleading, that Brenda Tytanic had concealed an adulterous relationship from him, that Brenda Tytanic had prevented him from obtaining a record of Phillip Tytanic's blood type, and that were he able to obtain that information it would prove that Phillip Tytanic was not his natural child. Based on these allegations, decedent sought an order from the court requiring the parties to submit to blood tests. ¶3 The plaintiff, Brenda Tytanic, agreed to an order of the court, which found: (1) "That there is a question of paternity of said child involved." (2) "No further consent of the Defendant shall be necessary in the event Plaintiff desires that said minor child be adopted by her present husband or other person." and (3) "In light of the wishes and desires of both parties, it would be in the best interests of the minor child of these parties to have the parental rights of the Defendant terminated and, likewise, the duty to support said minor child by said Defendant terminated." ¶4 Decedent died intestate on April 4, 2001. Decedent's brother, Joseph Tytanic, filed a petition for [61 P.3d 250] letters of administration on May 1, 2001, in which he alleged that he, his brother, and his sister were Michael Tytanic's sole heirs at law. The brother also alleged that, although Phillip Tytanic claimed to be decedent's son, he was not. In support of this allegation, the brother attached a copy of the agreed order of vacation, discussed above, to his petition for letters and prayed that the court make a factual determination as to who were Michael Tytanic's heirs at law. ¶5 Phillip Tytanic filed an answer (denominated a "Reply") to the brother's petition for letters in which he alleged that he was decedent's son and sole heir. On May 30, 2001 Joseph Tytanic filed a motion to require Phillip Tytanic to submit to DNA testing for the purpose of determining whether Phillip Tytanic was the natural child of the decedent. ¶6 The parties both filed motions for summary judgment in which the issue was whether Joseph Tytanic, as the brother of the decedent is prohibited, as a matter of law, from disputing the statutory presumption of legitimacy created by ¶7 Phillip Tytanic claims that the brother is not one of decedent's "descendants" under § 3 and, therefore, is prohibited, as a matter of law, from having the issue of whether he is decedent's biological child determined by DNA testing. The trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals agreed. The brother, however, claims that the facts presented in this matter entitle him to raise the issue of paternity and that, under ¶8 For the reasons set out in the balance of this opinion, we hold that the brother, Joseph Tytanic, did have standing under DISCUSSION ¶9 Title ¶10 The undisputed facts of this matter show that the decedent filed a verified pleading claiming that the mother had fraudulently concealed from him that Phillip Tytanic was not decedent's son. Further, the mother agreed to an order that recognized that whether Phillip Tytanic was or was not the decedent's child was an issue and relieved decedent of all parental responsibilities. That order also expressly allowed the mother to allow the adoption of Phillip Tytanic by her then husband without the "further consent" of the defendant. These undisputed facts would support the inference that the mother agreed to the trial court's order in order to avoid allowing the decedent to learn her son's blood type. ¶11 This Court analyzed the basis for ¶12 There is another important reason for our holding that the brother has standing to seek DNA testing of Phillip Tytanic. In 1967 the Legislature passed the Genetic Testing to Determine Paternity Act, CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED, COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION VACATED, JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. WATT, V.C.J., HODGES, OPALA, SUMMERS, BOUDREAU, WINCHESTER, JJ. - CONCUR. LAVENDER and KAUGER, JJ. - CONCUR IN RESULT. HARGRAVE, C.J. - DISSENTS. FOOT