Title: R.A.C. v. P.J.S., Jr., et al.

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

The issue in this appeal is whether the Parentage Act s statute of repose, N.J.S.A. 9:17-45b, can be equitably tolled to allow the filing of a child-support-reimbursement complaint against the biological father eight years after the repose period had elapsed. Plaintiff R.A.C. (Roy) and B.E.C. (Bonnie) were married in 1957, and had two children. (Pseudonyms have been used to protect confidentiality.) They became social friends with P.J.S., Jr. (Patrick) and his wife. Between 1968 and 1969, Bonnie and Patrick engaged in an extra-martial affair. In early 1969, Bonnie became pregnant and aware of the strong possibility that Patrick might be the father of her expected child. Although Bonnie shared her suspicions with Patrick, she never breathed a word to her husband. When D.C. (Darren) was born, Roy had no reason to doubt that he was the child s biological father. Both of Patrick s children were afflicted with muscular dystrophy, from which they would die years later. In 1980, for reasons apparently unrelated to the affair, Roy and Bonnie s marriage foundered, and they divorced. During the divorce proceedings, Bonnie did not inform Roy or the court about her doubts concerning Darren s parentage. As part of the property settlement agreement, Roy provided child and educational support for all three children, including Darren. Roy also provided financial support to Darren beyond the court-ordered obligations. During all those years, Roy and Darren maintained a strong father-son relationship. As Darren matured, Bonnie noticed he did not resemble his siblings and came to believe more strongly that Patrick was Darren s father. When Darren was planning to get married, his mother feared that he might be a carrier of the muscular dystrophy gene. Bonnie felt it necessary to tell Darren of his probable biological background so that he could make informed decisions about having a family. She told him that she thought that Patrick might be his father. Although Bonnie told Darren that she would break the news to Roy about Darren s suspected paternity, she waited three years to do so. In 1999, she disclosed to Roy that Patrick was Darren s father. Bonnie explained that she had been unsure for a long time about Darren s paternity, but became convinced as Darren matured into adulthood. Roy was angry that Bonnie and Patrick hid the truth from him. Roy and Darren s relationship, however, remained unaffected. Darren reaffirmed his love and respect for Roy, the person he considered to be his true father. In 2000, Roy filed a verified complaint in Family Part against Patrick seeking a judgment under the Parentage Act that Patrick was Darren s biological father and reimbursement for child support provided to Darren. After DNA testing, the court declared Patrick to be Darren s biological father. Roy and Patrick filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The motion court concluded that the Roy was entitled to reimbursement for the court-ordered child support he paid until Darren s emancipation, but not for any voluntary post-emancipation financial assistance. The court determined that the Parentage Act s statute of limitations (more properly characterized as a statute of repose) did not apply to the reimbursement claim. Both sides appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed Roy s right to reimbursement for all court-ordered pre-emancipation child support expenses. It also found that Patrick and Bonnie engaged in a pattern of deception, concealing from Roy his son s true parentage. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the motion court s decision not to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. R.A.C. v. P.J.S., Jr., 380 N.J. Super. 94 (App. Div. 2005). This Court granted Patrick s petition for certification. HELD: The doctrine of equitable tolling is not applicable and the action against the biological father is barred by the Parentage Act s statute of repose. 1. The New Jersey Parentage Act, N.J.S.A. 9:17-38 to -59, provides all children with a judicially enforceable right to parental support, regardless of their parents martial status. Under the Act, any person who has furnished financial support to a child may institute a proceeding seeking reimbursement for reasonable educational, medical, or other support related expenses from the father. (pp. 12-13). 2. The Parentage Act establishes a twenty-three-year statute of repose during which a child-support-reimbursement complaint must be filed. The statute of repose commences from the date of the child s birth. Roy filed the present action after Darren turned thirty-one years old - - almost eight years beyond the expiration date of the repose statute. (pp. 13-15). 3. The basic feature of a statute of repose is the fixed beginning and end to the time period a party has to file a complaint. A repose period bears no relationship to when the injury occurs or the cause of action accrues, unlike a statute of limitation. Courts generally do not expand limitation periods defined by a statute of repose unless the Legislature carved out exceptions that permit for tolling. A number of jurisdictions do not permit a statute of repose to be tolled for any purpose. New Jersey courts have not extended the discovery rule to a repose statute that commences and ends on specifically timed events. (pp. 15-18). 4. The purpose of a statute of repose is to set a fixed end to the limitations period regardless of when the cause of action accrues. Therefore, although equitable tolling can apply to statutes of repose, such tolling will arise only in extraordinary circumstances consistent with legislative intent. (pp. 19-22). 5. The Act provides a twenty-three-year window for a child, mother, putative father or other interested party to establish paternity and bring an action for child support reimbursement. This twenty-three-year timeframe coincides with the recognized period when a child is in need of financial support and a parent legally bears a financial obligation to provide that support. The major concern of the Parentage Act - - the financial support of children - - is no longer an issue after children have reached the age of twenty-three and are capable of supporting themselves. (pp. 22-24) 6. The repose statute does not contain any carve out for children born of adulterous relationships and who do not know the true identity of their father for more than twenty-three years. Patrick did not engage in overt trickery or active deception. At most, Patrick knew that he was the father of Darren but did nothing to alert Roy to that fact. For Patrick, a course other than silence would have had grave consequences for two families. There is nothing in the Parentage Act that suggests that the Legislature intended for the repose statute not to apply because Patrick did not come forward about his suspected paternity. (pp. 24-26) 7. Because the statutory purpose of the Parentage Act will not be effectuated by tolling the statute of repose, the Appellate Division s approach that a putative father would be required to attempt to establish paternity, even against a mother s wishes, or otherwise face an endless period of responsibility for child support is rejected. (pp. 27-28) The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED. CHIEF JUSTICE ZAZZALI and JUSTICES LONG, LAVECCHIA, WALLACE, RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS join in JUSTICE ALBIN s opinion. Plaintiff-Respondent, v. P.J.S., JR., Defendant-Appellant, and B.E.C., Defendant. Argued November 28, 2006 Decided July 17, 2007 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 380 N.J. Super. 94 (2005). Melvyn H. Bergstein argued the cause for appellant (Walder, Hayden & Brogan and Andrew W. Rubin, attorneys; Mr. Bergstein and Mr. Rubin, on the briefs). Anthony J. Marchetta argued the cause for respondent (Pitney Hardin, attorneys; Mr. Marchetta and Brian E. Moffitt, on the brief). JUSTICE ALBIN delivered the opinion of the Court. Under the New Jersey Parentage Act of 1983 (Parentage Act), N.J.S.A. 9:17-38 to -59, a person determined to be the biological father of a child can be compelled to pay child support. The Parentage Act s statute of repose, N.J.S.A. 9:17-45b, requires that a support claim be filed before the child turns twenty-three years old. A number of years after the expiration of the period of repose, plaintiff in this case learned that he was not the biological father of the child he had raised as his son. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a child-support-reimbursement claim, and other related claims, against the biological father. In this appeal, we must determine whether N.J.S.A. 9:17-45b can be equitably tolled to allow the filing of a child-support-reimbursement complaint against the biological father, eight years after the repose period had elapsed. A. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY NO. A-5 SEPTEMBER TERM 2006 ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court R.A.C., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. P.J.S., JR., Defendant-Appellant, And B.E.C., Defendant. DECIDED July 17, 2007 Chief Justice Zazzali PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Albin CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS BY DISSENTING OPINION BY