Court Opinion

ID: 9793804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:53:17.701678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:57.637349
License: Public Domain

MAUGHAN, Justice
(dissenting):
For the following reasons I dissent.
The issues in this matter are controlled and disposed of by statute and case law interpreting that statute. The statute, 78-12-22, U.C.A.1953, as amended 1975, is one of limitations. It says:
Within eight years:

An action to enforce any liability due or to become due, for failure to provide support or maintenance for dependent children.
The case law interpreting that statute is found in Martinez v. Romero, 558 P.2d 510. The decision was handed down by a unanimous court in December 1976. It should be borne in mind the legislature had before it the provisions of Title 78, Chapters 45 and 45a, when it enacted the later provisions of 78-12-22.
Succinctly stated, the statute and Martinez clearly state: if eight years have elapsed, since the inception of the claim, any action to enforce any liability due or to become due, for failure to provide support for dependent children, is barred. Also, any such action brought to establish paternity for the purpose of enforcing any such liability is barred. Conversely, any action brought for the purpose of establishing paternity, but not to enforce a support liability, is not barred. The main opinion is correct in saying there is no statute of limitations controlling an action to establish paternity. There are many good reasons for not having such a statute.
The legislature has seen fit, in 78-12-22, to place a time limitation on any action to *1116enforce any liability due or to become due, for failure to provide support for dependent children. That, as I understand it, is the law in this state. It is also the law as understood by the unanimous court in December of last year.
In my view the majority opinion’s interpretation of 78-12-22 defies logic. It appears to constitute a cavalier attempt at judicial legislation, or in this instance judicial repeal.
Any sum accrued at the time of the action is a liability “due”; therefore the phrase, “or to become due” must refer to a prospective liability, viz., payments not due or accrued at the time the action is filed.
The effect of the majority opinion’s interpretation of 78-12-22 is to nullify, in fact, the phrase “or to become due.” The majority states this prospective phrase means suit must be initiated within eight years after an amount accrues. Thus, it becomes a mere tautology, because that is specifically the subject matter covered in the first phrase, “An action to enforce any liability due . . . .”
It is not the prerogative of this court to question the wisdom of the legislature or to speculate that a statute was passed through inadvertence or error. If the legislature were mistaken as to consequences of the language deliberately selected; it is its further duty to rectify its error. This court cannot under the guise of judicial construction reinterpret a clear, unambiguous statute to achieve a desired social policy.
This court has reiterated on many occasions it is its duty to give effect, if such can reasonably be done, to every word, clause, and sentence of a legislative enactment.1 The phrase “or to become due” can only mean a liability not due or accrued at the time the action is filed. Any other interpretation is a distortion of the mother tongue.
Under our Constitution of Utah, the legislative power is vested by Article VI, § I; this court is not included. However, under the constitutional scheme the possibility of a defect or omission in the law was contemplated. Article VIII, § 22, specifically sets forth the role of this court upon such discovery, viz., to send a written report thereof to the Governor. This court should adhere to the constitutional principle set forth in Article V and exercise only the powers and functions of the judicial; it should not arrogate unto itself the legislative function to correct a seemingly erroneous enactment.
With reference to the affidavit of defendant, acknowledging paternity; it is my view the child was thereby legitimized, if the affidavit is genuine. I would sustain the lower court in its dismissal of the claim for support, but would remand the case for the purpose of determining the validity of the subject affidavit for the purpose of establishing paternity and thus the legitimacy of the child. Our statute 78-45a-13 refers only to a settlement of an amount, not to an acknowledgement of paternity. Such an acknowledgement can be made without court approval.
WILKINS, J., concurs in Justice MAU-GHAN’s dissent.

. Gibb v. Dorius, Utah, 533 P.2d 299, 302 (1975).