Title: Jones v. Eley

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Hassell, Koontz, and 
Kinser, JJ., and Stephenson, Senior Justice 
 
DANIEL L. JONES AND CHARLES JONES, 
 CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF BOBBY JONES 
 
 
 
OPINION BY  
v.  Record No. 971952 
SENIOR JUSTICE ROSCOE B. STEPHENSON, JR.  
 
 
 
June 5, 1998 
SHEILA A. ELEY, ET AL. 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS 
Randolph T. West, Judge 
 
 
In this paternity suit, the trial court found by clear and 
convincing evidence that Sheila A. Eley and Nathan A. Eley (the 
Eleys), who were born out of wedlock, are the biological 
children of Bobby Julius Jones, deceased.  The principal issue 
in this appeal is whether the evidence supports that finding. 
I 
 
On June 15, 1995, the Eleys filed a petition, pursuant to 
Code § 64.1-5.1, to establish that Bobby Julius Jones, who died 
February 24, 1995, was their biological father.  Daniel Jones, 
Charles C. Jones, and David L. Jones, co-administrators of Bobby 
Jones’ estate (the co-administrators), contested the paternity 
claim.  The co-administrators are Bobby Jones’ brothers and 
claim to be his sole heirs at law.1
 
On May 30, 1997, the trial court conducted an ore tenus 
hearing.  On June 19, 1997, the court entered a final order, 
                     
1 David L. Jones died on July 3, 1996, and Daniel and Charles 
Jones continued to serve as co-administrators. 
finding by clear and convincing evidence that the Eleys are the 
biological children and, therefore, the legal heirs at law of 
Bobby Jones.  The co-administrators appeal. 
II 
 
The Eleys prevailed at trial; therefore, pursuant to a 
well-established principle of law, they are entitled to have the 
evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom 
viewed in the light most favorable to them. 
 
In 1957, Alice Eley and Bobby Jones began dating each 
other.  Although they never married, they continued to maintain 
a close relationship.  Bobby and Alice lived together 
continuously during the seven years preceding Bobby’s death. 
 
Alice Eley is the biological mother of Sheila Eley, born in 
November 1958, and Nathan Eley, born in December 1960.  Alice 
testified that Bobby was the children’s biological father.2
 
According to Alice, Bobby assumed financial responsibility 
for the Eleys until they became adults.  Bobby gave Alice money 
"every week" for their support, and he provided extra money when 
needed.  Bobby also sat for a "family portrait," and he and 
Alice took pictures "throughout the lifetimes with the kids." 
 
Bobby acknowledged to a number of family members and 
friends that the Eleys were his children.  During his last 
                     
2 DNA testing was also undertaken.  Two laboratories, however, 
were unable to perform the test on Bobby’s DNA sample. 
 
2
illness and shortly before his death, Bobby acknowledged to his 
attending physician that the Eleys were his children, and the 
physician testified that Nathan was Bobby’s "spitting image." 
 
The Eleys testified that their relationship with Bobby was 
that of parent and children.  They recounted how Bobby often 
would "pick [them] up" and take them to various places such as 
parks and movie theaters.  On several occasions, Bobby took them 
to Jones family reunions and gatherings in North Carolina.  
Bobby bought them clothes, and he "always" took Nathan to the 
barbershop.  He often attended high school and college 
basketball games in which Nathan participated.  After Sheila had 
children, Bobby had a close relationship with his grandchildren, 
whom he affectionately referred to as his "grandboys." 
 
On December 13, 1974, Bobby signed an insurance beneficiary 
designation form on which he stated that Sheila Eley was his 
daughter and Nathan Eley was his son.  Sheila received $12,000 
as the named beneficiary of Bobby’s certificate of deposit with 
his employer’s credit union.  She also received insurance 
proceeds of approximately $25,000 as the named beneficiary of 
Bobby’s life insurance policies.  Bobby named Nathan the 
beneficiary of approximately 160 bonds having a value "well over 
$10,000." 
 
When Bobby died, the Eleys, along with Daniel Jones, made 
the funeral arrangements.  Sheila had Bobby’s mail forwarded to 
 
3
her home so she could pay his outstanding debts.  The Eleys paid 
Bobby’s hospital bill, doctor bills, funeral and burial 
expenses, and property tax. 
III 
 
Great deference is accorded a trial court’s factual 
findings.  This is so because the judge, as fact finder, sees 
and hears the witnesses and, therefore, is better able to 
determine their credibility and weigh their testimony.  Tuomala 
v. Regent University, 252 Va. 368, 375, 477 S.E.2d 501, 505-06 
(1996).  Consequently, a trial court’s factual findings will not 
be disturbed on appeal unless they are plainly wrong or without 
evidence to support them.  Code § 8.01-680; Tauber v. 
Commonwealth, 255 Va. 445, 452, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___ (1998).  
 
Code § 64.1-5.2 provides that "evidence that a man is the 
father of a child born out of wedlock shall be clear and 
convincing."  The section also provides that the evidence "may 
include, but shall not be limited to" eight enumerated items.3
                     
3 The enumerated items in Code § 64.1-5.2 are as follows: 
 
1. That he cohabited openly with the mother 
during all of the ten months immediately prior to the 
time the child was born; 
2. That he gave consent to a physician or other 
person, not including the mother, charged with the 
responsibility of securing information for the 
preparation of a birth record that his name be used as 
 
4
 
The co-administrators contend that the evidence is 
insufficient to prove that Bobby was the biological father of 
the Eleys because none of the eight items set forth in Code 
§ 64.1-5.2 were proved.  While it is true that none of the eight 
items were proved, the statute, as previously noted, expressly 
provides that the evidence relating to paternity "shall not be 
limited to" those items.  Therefore, we must examine the 
evidence that the trial court did consider in finding that Bobby 
was the Eleys’ biological father. 
 
The evidence shows that Bobby acknowledged his paternity to 
a number of people, one of whom was his treating physician 
                                                                  
the father of the child upon the birth records of the 
child; 
3. That he allowed by a general course of conduct 
the common use of his surname by the child; 
4. That he claimed the child as his child on any 
statement, tax return or other document filed and 
signed by him with any local, state or federal 
government or any agency thereof; 
5. That he admitted before any court having 
jurisdiction to try and dispose of the same that he is 
the father of the child; 
6. That he voluntarily admitted paternity in 
writing, under oath; 
7. The results of medically reliable genetic 
blood grouping tests weighted with all the evidence; 
or 
8. Medical or anthropological evidence relating 
to the alleged parentage of the child based on tests 
performed by experts. 
 
5
during his last illness.  This disinterested witness testified 
not only that Bobby acknowledged to him that the Eleys were his 
children, but also that Nathan Eley was Bobby’s "spitting 
image." 
 
The evidence also reveals that Bobby’s interaction with the 
Eleys was indicative of a father and children relationship.  
When the Eleys were young, Bobby would take them to various 
places for recreation and entertainment.  Bobby sat for family 
photographs with Alice and the Eleys, and he took the Eleys to 
Jones family reunions and gatherings. 
 
According to Alice, Bobby always contributed to the support 
and maintenance of the Eleys until they reached adulthood.  
Bobby named the Eleys as beneficiaries of life insurance 
policies, a certificate of deposit, and bonds.  Most 
significantly, Bobby completed and signed an insurance 
beneficiary designation form on which he stated that Nathan Eley 
was his son and Sheila Eley was his daughter. 
 
The co-administrators also assert that the evidence is 
insufficient to prove paternity because Alice never testified 
that she had had sexual intercourse with Bobby.  We are 
unpersuaded by this assertion.  Alice did testify that she and 
Bobby began "dating" in August 1957, that they dated 
continuously thereafter, and that Bobby was the Eleys’ father. 
 
6
 
Finally, the co-administrators contend that the evidence 
should fail because, on one occasion, Alice unsuccessfully 
petitioned a juvenile and domestic relations district court to 
order Bobby to pay support for the Eleys.  To support this 
contention, the co-administrators look to Code § 64.1-5.1(3)(b) 
which states that a person born out of wedlock is the child of a 
man if the paternity is established by clear and convincing 
evidence; "provided, however, that the paternity establishment 
. . . shall be ineffective to qualify the father or his kindred 
to inherit from or through the child unless the father has 
openly treated the child as his and has not refused to support 
the child."  The co-administrators assert that "it is apparent 
that Bobby Jones was refusing to support the children when he 
went to court and the child support case was dismissed."  We do 
not agree. 
 
The record is silent with respect to the basis for the 
dismissal of the petition.  Alice testified, however, that, 
although Bobby always supported the Eleys, she "took him to 
court . . . to get more money because [she] didn’t feel that 
[Bobby] was giving [her] enough at that particular time."  
Viewing, as we must, the evidence and all reasonable inferences 
in the light most favorable to the Eleys, we do not think the 
record supports the contention that Bobby ever refused to 
support them. 
 
7
 
Moreover, we think the co-administrators’ reliance upon the 
quoted clause in Code § 64.1-5.1(3)(b) is misplaced.  The clause 
deals with the right of a father or his kindred to inherit from 
or through a child born out of wedlock, not with the 
establishment of paternity. 
IV 
 
We recognize, as the co-administrators state, that the 
General Assembly, in enacting Code § 64.1-5.1, has placed a 
heavy burden on people who undertake to prove that they are the 
paternal children of a decedent.  It is apparent from the 
record, however, that the trial court was fully cognizant of 
that burden.  Nevertheless, the court found by clear and 
convincing evidence that Bobby Jones was the Eleys’ biological 
father.  Giving that finding the deference to which it is 
entitled, we conclude that the finding is fully supported by the 
evidence.  Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment will be 
affirmed.4
Affirmed. 
JUSTICE KOONTZ, with whom JUSTICE COMPTON and JUSTICE KINSER 
join, dissenting. 
 
 
 
I respectfully dissent.  The majority acknowledges that the 
General Assembly has placed a heavy burden on people who 
                     
4 We have considered the co-administrators’ other assignment of 
error and find it to be without merit. 
 
8
undertake to prove that a decedent is their biological father.  
This burden of proof is appropriate because obviously a decedent 
no longer can speak in defense of the asserted paternity.  Here, 
in my view, Sheila A. Eley and Nathan A. Eley have failed to 
establish by clear and convincing evidence, which was their 
burden under Code § 64.1-5.1, that Bobby Julius Jones, deceased, 
was their biological father. 
 
Code § 64.1-5.2, although permitting other evidence, 
provides statutory evidentiary factors sufficient to establish 
that a man is the biological father of children born out of 
wedlock.  In the present case, none of these factors was proved.  
Thus, there is no evidence that Bobby openly cohabited with the 
Eleys’ mother, Alice Eley, during the ten months immediately 
prior to Sheila’s birth in 1958 or during the ten months 
immediately prior to Nathan’s birth in 1960; that Bobby 
consented that his name be used as the father upon the Eleys’ 
birth certificates; that Bobby allowed the use of his surname by 
the Eleys; that Bobby claimed the Eleys as his children on any 
statement, tax return, or other document filed with a 
government; that Bobby admitted before any court that he was the 
Eleys’ father; that Bobby admitted paternity in writing, under 
oath; or that any genetic blood grouping test or other medical 
evidence established paternity. 
 
9
 
In addition, the record reflects that on one occasion 
during Bobby’s lifetime and the Eleys’ minority, Alice 
unsuccessfully petitioned a juvenile and domestic relations 
district court to order him to pay support for the Eleys.  
Although the record is silent with respect to the basis for the 
dismissal of this petition, it nevertheless establishes that on 
that occasion Alice was not successful in proving that Bobby was 
the Eleys’ biological father. 
 
It is in this context that we must consider whether the 
other evidence, relied upon by the trial court and the majority, 
rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence of the 
asserted paternity.  The Eleys’ evidence establishes that they 
were the objects of Bobby’s affection and his financial support 
and that in many ways Bobby’s conduct toward the Eleys was 
consistent with a relationship between a father and his 
children.  The existence of that relationship is further 
supported by Bobby’s cohabitation with the Eleys’ mother during 
the seven years preceding his death and the financial benefits 
he provided for the Eleys at the time of his death.  However, 
when this evidence is considered against the failure of the 
Eleys’ to prove any one of the express statutory factors to 
support a finding of paternity under Code § 64.1-5.2, coupled 
with the evidence that Alice was not successful in proving that 
paternity in the juvenile and domestic relations district court 
 
10
proceeding during Bobby’s lifetime, it falls short of the 
required clear and convincing standard of proof.  See Fred C. 
Walker Agency, Inc. v. Lucas, 215 Va. 535, 540-41, 211 S.E.2d 
88, 92 (1975). 
 
For these reasons, I would reverse the judgment of the 
trial court and enter final judgment for the co-administrators 
of Bobby’s estate. 
 
11