ERNEST P. v. Superior Court

Good Law
111 Cal. App. 3d 234·168 Cal. Rptr. 438·1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 2345
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 20, 1980Civ. 23418California4,541 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Morris, J.

Petitioner, Ernest P., is defendant in an action in the superior court to establish paternity pursuant to Civil Code section 7006, and for support pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 11350.1. Real parties in interest, the plaintiffs in that action, are Anthony P., a minor, represented by his guardian ad litem John B. Koughan, and the County of Orange on behalf of the minor child.

Petitioner moved for summary judgment, asserting that the action is barred by reason of a previous compromise of a paternity claim by the minor’s mother and the petitioner pursuant to Probate Code section 1431.

The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment and petitioner petitioned this court for a writ of mandate to compel the superior court to grant summary judgment. This court denied the writ and petitioner petitioned the Supreme Court seeking the same relief. The Supreme Court granted a hearing and transferred the matter to this court with directions to issue an alternative writ of mandate. We did.

Probate Code Section 1431

The threshold issue to be determined is whether the provisions of Probate Code section 1431 regarding the compromise of minors’ claims apply to…

035concurrenceinpart Opinion

Kaufman, J.

I concur in the judgment and that portion of the majority opinion holding that the Parentage Act as it read in 1976 precluded the compromise of a minor’s claim of paternity under Probate Code section 1431. I would also agree that a claim of paternity is not a “claim for damages, money or other property” under Probate Code section 1431. In other respects, however, I cannot ascribe to the propositions stated in the opinion. In particular I cannot agree that a claim against a parent can in no case be a claim against a “third person,” and I certainly cannot agree that a compromise of a minor’s claim for $2,000 is necessarily patently absurd.

A petition for a rehearing was denied November 19, 1980, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Kaufman, Acting P. J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. Petitioner’s application for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied January 21, 1981.

Opinion

Cecil Hicks, District Attorney, Michael R. Capizzi, Assistant District Attorney, John D. Conley, Bruce M. Patterson and Ellen Isaacs, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Parties in Interest.

OPINION

MORRIS, J.

Petitioner, Ernest P., is defendant in an action in the superior court to establish paternity pursuant to Civil Code section 7006, and for support pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 11350.1. Real parties in interest, the plaintiffs in that action, are Anthony P., a minor, represented by his guardian ad litem John B. Koughan, and the County of Orange on behalf of the minor child.

Petitioner moved for summary judgment, asserting that the action is barred by reason of a previous compromise of a paternity claim by the minor's mother and the petitioner pursuant to Probate Code section 1431.

The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment and petitioner petitioned this court for a writ of mandate to compel the superior court to grant summary judgment. This court denied the writ and petitioner petitioned the Supreme Court seeking the same relief. The Supreme Court granted a hearing and transferred the matter to this court with directions to issue an…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.