Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

H and W had sexual intercourse on one occasion after having worked together for a couple of years. W gave birth to a son, Devin, on April 26, 1977. H visited W in the hospital but did not discuss the paternity of the child with her and had no further contact with W until 1979. In January 1979, W contacted H, told him that he was Devin's father, and asked whether he had any history of disease in his family that might affect Devin later in life. H resumed a sexual relationship with Wife a few days later. In March 1979, W separated from her present husband and filed a petition for dissolution of that marriage. W became pregnant with H's child, and on March 13, 1980, W gave birth to their daughter, Oralin. W's present marriage was dissolved in December 1980. Several days after her divorce H and W were married on December 22, 1980. H later adopted both Devin and Oralin. On November 20, 2001, W filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. H petitioned that the marriage be annulled. H claimed that W had fraudulently represented to him before their marriage that he was Devin's father and had thereby induced him to marry her. H was indeed not Devin's father and that he was the son of Sam Kelly. The court denied H's petition. The court found: (1) that W had believed that Devin was H's son during their courtship and at the time of marriage; (2) that H would have married W even if he had known the representation to be false and that the representation was not material to his decision to marry her; (3) that H did not detrimentally rely upon W's statement; (4) that W did not intend for her representation about Devin's paternity to be relied upon by H; (5) that even if the marriage had been the result of a misrepresentation related to Devin's paternity, H failed to prove any damages, actual or punitive, resulting from the alleged misrepresentation; (6) that H had 'unclean hands' sufficient to deny equitable relief because H had fraudulently represented to W that he loved her prior to marriage; and (7) H was precluded from equitable relief because of the doctrine of laches in that even though at times he questioned Devin's paternity H did nothing.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.