Preview:

RENDERED:

NOVEMBER 24, 2004; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals
NO. 2003-CA-001805-MR

CANDY G. DENZIK (NOW BLAZAR)

APPELLANT

v.

APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE THOMAS R. LEWIS, JUDGE ACTION NO. 00-CI-01647

GARY I. DENZIK

APPELLEE

OPINION REVERSING

** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: BARBER AND McANULTY, JUDGES; MILLER, SENIOR JUDGE.1 Appellant, Candy Denzik Blazar (Blazar), appeals

BARBER, JUDGE:

from a judgment rendered against her for fraudulent misrepresentation, holding that she must pay Appellee, Gary Denzik (Denzik), restitution in the sum of $54,720.26 for child support payments.
1

The payments were made for the benefit of the

Senior Judge John D. Miller sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 21.580.

minor child born during the parties' marriage, and were used for the support and well being of the child. We reverse the

judgment against Blazar, finding that no evidence of fraud was submitted to the jury, and that the child support payments are not recoverable. The parties were initially married in 1981. divorced in May, 1984. They

The parties remarried in December, 1984. During the parties' second The

That marriage ended in March, 1990.

marriage, Blazar gave birth to a daughter in June, 1987.

parties lived together as a family until the 1990 divorce, and neither party sought a paternity determination at the time of the divorce. Dissolution documents show that the parties had Denzik was ordered to pay weekly child Denzik was granted regular visitation with The parties

one child together. support, and did so.

the child and Blazar had custody of the child.

acted in all respects as if Denzik was the child's father for thirteen years. At trial, Blazar testified that she saw a picture of her ex-boyfriend's daughter in the paper in 2000, and claimed to notice a similarity between that child and her daughter. that time her daughter was thirteen years old. Blazar At

approached her former boyfriend and requested that he take a paternity test. He did so, and it was determined that the child

born during the parties' marriage was in fact fathered by the

-2-

ex-boyfriend.

Blazar disclosed this fact to Denzik in The time of the disclosure was shortly after

September, 2000.

the paternity test results showed that Denzik was not the child's father. At no time prior to receipt of the paternity

test results had Blazar ever indicated to Denzik that he might not be the father of the child born during the parties' marriage. Denzik testified before the court that he had

suspected that Blazar had been unfaithful to him during the marriage, but that she had denied such conduct when questioned. Once it was determined that Denzik was not the biological father of the child, Denzik filed a motion to terminate child support obligations. The motion was granted in December, 2000. Denzik

has not paid child support since that date, but has continued to request visitation with the child. After his child support obligations were terminated, Denzik filed the underlying action, claiming that Blazar had fraudulently misrepresented the paternity of the child to him. Denzik sought damages for fraud. Denzik demanded judgment in

the sum of all child support payments made by him for the support of the minor child for the past five years. The parties

had been divorced for ten years at the time Denzik's action was filed, and Denzik had paid child support for all ten of those years. The jury found Blazar guilty of fraud, and awarded

Denzik the damages sought.

-3-

Blazar contends that Denzik's claim was barred by the applicable Statute Of Limitations, KRS 413.120(12) and 413.130(3). Blazar asserts that as the complaint lists the

alleged misrepresentations as having occurred "during the marriage" and "during the divorce," and those dates were ten or more years prior to the filing of the action and therefore, outside the limitations period. KRS 413.120(12) provides a five KRS

year limitations period for actions based on fraud.

413.130(3) provides a discovery rule delaying the date for filing an action for fraud until the fraud is discovered, but states "the action must be commenced within ten (10) years of making the contract or the perpetration of the fraud." As

Denzik's action was not filed within ten years of the marriage or divorce, Blazar contends that the action was untimely. Denzik asserts that the injury resulting from the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations continued up to the time that he last made his required monthly child support payment. He contends that the limitations period began to run on the date of the last payment, in the summer of 2000. During the

underlying action, Denzik requested child support for the five years previous to the disclosure of the paternity test, contending that this claim met with Statute Of Limitations requirements. We agree that the fraud, if there was in fact

fraud, was ongoing such that Denzik's action fell within the

-4-

applicable limitations period.

The underlying action was not

barred by the Statute Of Limitations. Blazar argues that Denzik failed to meet the applicable standard for proof of the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation. Blazar argues that Denzik could not provide

evidence of any instance in which she intentionally misrepresented paternity either during or after the parties' marriage. Blazar also asserts that Denzik failed to plead fraud It was uncontroverted

with the specificity required by CR 9.02.

that Denzik and Blazar had an ongoing sexual relationship during the period of time in which the minor child was conceived. It

is uncontroverted that there was no evidence presented showing that Blazar knew Denzik was not the father of the minor child prior to 2000, other than the fact that she was engaging in sexual relations with both men at the approximate time the child was conceived. There was no evidence presented that Denzik

contacted the child's biological father until 2000 or that she knew that Denzik was not the child's father prior to that time. The record shows that the parties acted as though Denzik was the father of the minor child from the date of her birth through 2000. Denzik sought and received visitation with

the child despite various disputes through the years as to how much visitation was appropriate. During the custody and

visitation battles, Blazar never indicated that that Denzik was

-5-

not the child's father.

In his sworn deposition testimony

Denzik admitted that neither he nor anyone else had ever questioned the child's paternity. He stated that his sister,

who is married to Blazar's brother, never knew he was not the father of the child until Blazar revealed the paternity test results. The record is devoid of any evidence that Blazar

fraudulently concealed paternity of the child. Denzik argues that the jury is the finder of fact, and had the right to determine the veracity of Blazar based on the evidence before it. He contends that a mother "knows" who the

father of her child is, and claims that Blazar must have somehow known he was not the child's father at the time she was conceived. law. This argument is clearly without basis in fact or

As this Court recognizes, even in cases where the child's

skin and hair tone differ markedly from that of the parent, a paternity test is required to prove or disprove paternity. the present case, no such marked difference is present. The In

child's appearance as shown in photographs exhibited at trial is not markedly different from Denzik's. There is a legal

presumption that a child born in wedlock is the natural child of the married parties. (1955). Little v. Little, Ky., 275 S.W.2d 588, 589

No evidence in the record supports a finding that

Blazar intentionally deceived Denzik as to the paternity of the child, or that Blazar knew of the fact that Denzik was not the

-6-

father of the child until 2000.

Upon the discovery of the true

paternity of the child, Blazar promptly notified Denzik, and his child support obligation was stopped. In order to be successful on a claim of fraud, the claimant must prove all applicable elements of fraud. Rivermont

Inn, Inc. v. Bass Hotels & Resorts, Inc., Ky. App., 113 S.W.3d 636, 639 (2003), citing United Parcel Service v. Rickert, Ky., 996 S.W.2d 464 (1999). Denzik failed to provide any evidence in Evidence supporting a claim for

support of his claims of fraud.

fraud must be sufficient to warrant sending the case to the jury. Hanson v. American Nat. Bank & Trust Co., Ky., 865 S.W.2d The record in this action is devoid of any

302, 307 (1993).

evidence supporting the claim of fraud. When reviewing a jury determination, this Court ". . . must accept the evidence as true; draw all reasonable inferences from it in favor of the claimant; refrain from questioning the credibility of the claimant, and refrain from assessing the weight that should be given to any particular item of evidence." United Parcel Service v. Rickert, Ky., 996 S.W.2d 464, 468 (1999), citing Lewis v. Bledsoe Surface Mining Co., Ky., 798 S.W.2d 459 (1990). The reviewing court may reverse the jury's

determination only where the jury verdict is so flagrantly against the weight of the evidence as to indicate passion or prejudice. Bierman v. Klapheke, Ky., 967 S.W.2d 16, 19 (1998).

-7-

In the present case, the record does not contain any evidence of intentional fraud on the part of Blazar. credibility of the witnesses is not an issue here. The The only

evidence submitted was the admitted fact that Blazar had a brief affair during the time that the child was conceived. All

parties agree that at the same time she had an ongoing physical relationship with her husband. There is no showing that she For

knew the child was not his at any point earlier than 2000. this reason, the jury's verdict goes directly against the

evidence before it, even when all reasonable inferences are made in favor of the claimant. verdict. Denzik claims that he is entitled to an award of all child support previously paid by him. Denzik admitted under For this reason, we reverse the jury

oath that he believed all payments made were used to benefit the child, and that he could not provide any evidence that Blazar used the payments inappropriately. Child support is paid for

the benefit of the child, and any change in the amount of support only operates prospectively. 707 S.W.2d 352, 353-54 (1986). Clay v. Clay, Ky. App.,

Child support does not benefit

the mother, and thus she is not liable for support wrongfully paid. McBride v. McBride, 803 So.2d 1168, 1169 (Miss. 2002). A

putative father generally will not be provided restitution for child support made for a child which ultimately turns out not to

-8-

be his.

Miller v. Miller., 956 P.2d 887 (Okla. 1998).

Child

support payments made in error, or in excess of the support legally required are considered gifts to the child, and are not recoverable by the payor. (Iowa, 1990). Newman v. Newman, 451 N.W.2d 843

Recoupment of back child support paid in error is

generally barred by the courts, as such a judgment would inflict harm upon the child. Wigginton v. Commonwealth, Ky. App., 760 Even where, as here, a child support

S.W.2d 885, 886 (1988).

order is vacated, such vacation does not permit the payor a right to recoup payments previously made. App., 707 S.W.2d 352 (1986). Clay v. Clay, Ky.

Under the circumstances in this

case, even if the evidence supported a finding that Blazar acted fraudulently in obtaining child support, Denzik would not be able to recoup payments made in the past which were used for the benefit of the child. be reversed. ALL CONCUR. BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Timothy J. Crocker Mark A. Thurmond Franklin, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Kelly Thompson, Jr. Bowling Green, Kentucky For this reason, the jury's verdict must

-9-



Download 2003-ca-001805.pdf

Kentucky Law