Court Opinion

ID: 9722698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:45:50.611847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:38.942500
License: Public Domain

CROSBY, J., Dissenting
There are two ways to look at most disputes. Honest judges will usually admit that, human nature being what it is, it is not possible to expect a court to ignore either of them. They are: (1) strict adherence to applicable law and (2) achievement of a just result, notwithstanding precedent. The majority’s solution satisfies neither.
Property, real and personal, can be transferred in a variety of recognized ways. This case will be the first, to my knowledge, where perjury is the vehicle. A possibly salutary addition to our law, to be sure, but I think it should be conceived, if at all, after careful consideration by the Legislature. The next paragraph will illustrate why.
The majority ratifies a windfall to Action Electric, Inc., and Simon’s erstwhile partner, Denny R. Steelman. There is no reason to fret over the hardship that may cause perjurer Simon, of course. But wait a minute. Assuming he lost the paternity action, his out-of-wedlock offspring may be the real loser. The majority has eliminated the possibility that any income from Simon’s stock could be used to provide a source for support or a writ of execution, if necessary. Steelman, greedy to receive these pennies from heaven, has no legal obligation—and, it seems certain, less inclination—to apply them to the welfare of the fruit of Simon’s loins. Some justice, some law.
I dissent from the result and from the decision to publish.