Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mack v. Mack

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

April 24, 2015

Cory Mack
v.
Maritza Mack

          Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court. (DR-13-900546).

         For Appellant: John T. Robertson IV of Henslee, Robertson, Strawn & Sullivan, L.L.C., Gadsden.

         For Appellee: D. Jason Britt, Brandon C. Stone, and J.C. Webb IV of Stone & Britt, LLC, Millbrook.

         All the judges concur.

          OPINION

Page 45

          PER CURIAM.

         Cory Mack (" the husband" ) appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court divorcing him from Maritza Mack (" the wife" ) insofar as it determined that he is estopped by an affidavit he signed on August 24, 2009, from denying his paternity of E.M., a boy to whom the wife had given birth in March 2005. We reverse and remand with instructions.

         The material facts are undisputed. The wife did not meet the husband until sometime in 2007, approximately one and onehalf years after the birth of E.M., which precludes him from being the biological father of E.M. Moreover, both parties agree that the husband is not the biological father of E.M. At trial, the wife identified

Page 46

E.M.'s biological father as a man who had raped her and with whom she had not had any contact since the rape. That man's last known location was a prison in Pennsylvania. The wife had not sought to terminate that man's parental rights. After meeting in 2007, the husband and the wife began a romantic relationship and began living together. In 2008, they became engaged to marry. On August 24, 2009, the husband and the wife went to the Center for Health Statistics of the Alabama Department of Public Health in Montgomery and told the clerk that they wanted to add a father to E.M.'s birth certificate. The clerk gave them a form containing two affidavits, one of which was to be signed by the wife and the other by the husband. They signed the affidavits before a notary public who notarized their signatures and returned the form containing the two affidavits to the clerk. The affidavit singed by the husband stated:

" I, being first duly sworn, acknowledge that I am the natural father of this child and I understand that execution of this document creates a legal finding of paternity which will affect my legal rights under the laws of Alabama; I understand that any signatory has the right to rescind this affidavit within the earlier of 60 days or the date of an administrative or judicial proceeding relating to the child including a proceeding to establish child support; I understand that after the 60 day period, this document may be challenged in court only on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact with the burden of proof upon the challenger, and the legal responsibilities including child support obligations arising from the acknowledgment may not be suspended during the challenge except for good cause shown; I understand that this affidavit may be used to include my name as the natural father on the child's birth certificate; I understand that the document once signed and notarized may be used to obtain an order of financial and medical support and that, absent a court order to the contrary, I will be legally responsible for providing said support until the child reaches the age of majority, dies, marries, or becomes otherwise emancipated; I understand that I may be responsible for payment of birth expenses; I have received and read or have had read to me written materials that explain the rights and responsibilities that signing this affidavit confers upon me and I understand these rights and responsibilities and voluntarily accept them."

         The husband did not rescind the affidavit within 60 days after he signed it. E.M.'s birth certificate was amended to indicate that the husband is E.M.'s father. The husband and the wife married in April 2011 and separated in August 2012.

         In June 2013, the husband sued the wife for a divorce and sought a determination that he is not the father of E.M. The wife counterclaimed for a divorce and sought a determination that the husband is the father of E.M. by virtue of the affidavit he signed on August 24, 2009. In response, the husband asserted, among other things, that he is not the father of E.M. by virtue of that affidavit because it does not constitute a valid acknowledgment of paternity pursuant to § 26-17-302, Ala. Code 1975. More specifically, the husband argued that the affidavit is not a valid acknowledgment of paternity because, he said, it does not state (1) that E.M. does not have a presumed father or that the husband is E.M.'s presumed father, (2) that E.M. does not have another acknowledged or adjudicated father, (3) that there either has or has not been genetic testing, and (4) that, if there has been genetic testing, the husband's

Page 47

claim of paternity is consistent with the results of that testing.

         The parties resolved all issues other than the issue whether the husband is the father of E.M., which was tried at a bench trial. Following the trial, the trial court entered a divorce judgment that, among other things, stated:

" 5. That on August 24, 20[0]9 the Husband signed an Affidavit of Paternity with the State of Alabama swearing that he was the natural father of [E.M.]. He did not rescind the affidavit within the time provided by law. He admitted he was competent to sign, not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, there was no fraud and that he was not operating under a mistake of fact. Since that time he has treated [E.M.] like his son and listed him on military records as his son. The Husband is estopped to deny that [E.M.] is his child."

         The husband filed a postjudgment motion, which the trial court denied. The husband then timely appealed.

" '" [W]hen a trial court sits in judgment on facts that are undisputed, an appellate court will determine whether the trial court misapplied the law to those undisputed facts." ' Harris v. McKenzie,703 So.2d 309, 313 (Ala. 1997) (quoting Craig Constr. Co., Inc. v. Hendrix,568 So.2d 752, 756 (Ala. 1990)). The ore tenus 'standard's presumption of correctness has no application to a trial court's conclusions on questions of law.' Beavers[ v. Walker Cnty.], 645 So.2d [1365] at 1372 [(Ala. 1994)]. '[O]n appeal, the ruling on a question of law carries no presumption ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.