Powell v. Lane, No. 08-282
This case revolves around a fake marriage and adoption. After mom and dad separated, mom petitioned the court to establish paternity for the child, alleging that she and dad had never been married and that he was the child’s father. Dad was served, but never entered an appearance or filed an answer. Mom obtained a default judgment that the marriage invalid and that dad was the legal father of the child.
Mom later married a second husband, and they petitioned for him to adopt the child. Dad refused to consent to the adoption and filed a petition for divorce. The trial court held the first marriage invalid and granted the adoption because dad had failed to pay child support. Dad appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals, who reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court. Mom and second husband filed a petition for review with the Arkansas Supreme Court.
On appeal, mom argued that dad was barred by res judicata from re-litigating the issue of validity of the first marriage. Res judicata requires a showing that (1) the first suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits, (2) the first suit was based on proper jurisdiction, (3) the first suit was fully contest in good faith, (4) both suits involve the same claim or cause of action, and (5) both suits involve the same parties. The court noted that res judicata also bars claims that could have been litigated in the first suit.
While mom insisted dad’s claim was barred by res judicata, the court stated she intended to assert that collateral estoppel barred his claim. Collateral estoppel requires a showing that (1) the issue sought to be precluded was the same as that involved in the prior suit, (2) the issue was actually litigated, (3) the issue was determined by a valid and final judgment, and (4) the determination was essential to the judgment. The court pointed out that collateral estoppel does not apply to claims that could have been litigated in the first suit, only to claims that were actually litigated.
The court further explained that “actually litigated” meant that (1) the issue was raised in the pleadings, (2) defendant had a full and fair opportunity to be heard, and (3) a decision was rendered on the issue. The court held that because dad had had a full and fair opportunity to be heard regarding the validity of the marriage–but chose not to respond–collateral estoppel applied to bar dad’s new claim regarding validity of the marriage.
The court further held that dad’s consent to the adoption by second husband was unnecessary because dad had failed to pay child support for over a year.
