 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Wallis v. Smith: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=New Mexico Court of Appeals |citation=22 P.3d 682, 130 N.M. 214 |date=April 19, 2001 |subject=Contracts |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link |link=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/wallis-v-smith-no-892177446 |case_text_source=v lex }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link |link=https://casetext.com/case/wallis-v-smith |case_text_source=CaseText }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/wallis-v-smith |...") |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=April 19, 2001 | |date=April 19, 2001 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|other_subjects=Family Law | |||
|facts=*Wallis = man in a consensual intimate relationship | |||
*Smith = woman who gave birth to Wallis's child | |||
*Smith had told Wallis that she would take birth-control pills | |||
*Under New Mexico law, Wallis was required to pay child support until his daughter turned 18 | |||
|procedural_history=*Wallis sued Smith in a New Mexico state court for | |||
*#fraud & | |||
*#breach of contract | |||
*Wallis asked the court for [[damages]] | |||
*Wallis lost in the trial court | |||
|issues=May 1 parent maintain a cause of action against the other for | |||
* breach of contract or | |||
* contra-ceptive fraud | |||
to recover <u>monetary reimbursement (damages)</u> for child-support payments? | |||
|arguments=The man argued that the woman misled him about using birth control. | |||
|holding=No; as a matter of public policy, 1 parent can't maintain a cause of action against the other for breach of contract or contraceptive fraud to recover money reimbursement for child-support payments. | |||
|judgment=Affirmed | |||
|reasons=Judge Bosson: Placing the financial support from both parents means less need for support from the state. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/wallis-v-smith-no-892177446 | |link=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/wallis-v-smith-no-892177446 | ||
Latest revision as of 18:55, January 29, 2024
| Wallis v. Smith | |
| Court | New Mexico Court of Appeals |
|---|---|
| Citation | 22 P.3d 682, 130 N.M. 214 |
| Date decided | April 19, 2001 |
Facts
- Wallis = man in a consensual intimate relationship
- Smith = woman who gave birth to Wallis's child
- Smith had told Wallis that she would take birth-control pills
- Under New Mexico law, Wallis was required to pay child support until his daughter turned 18
Procedural History
- Wallis sued Smith in a New Mexico state court for
- fraud &
- breach of contract
- Wallis asked the court for damages
- Wallis lost in the trial court
Issues
May 1 parent maintain a cause of action against the other for
- breach of contract or
- contra-ceptive fraud
Arguments
The man argued that the woman misled him about using birth control.
Holding
No; as a matter of public policy, 1 parent can't maintain a cause of action against the other for breach of contract or contraceptive fraud to recover money reimbursement for child-support payments.
Judgment
Affirmed
Reasons
Judge Bosson: Placing the financial support from both parents means less need for support from the state.
Resources
