Court of Appeals of New Mexico - 130 N.M. 214, 130 N.M. 214, 22 P.3d 682, 2001-NMCA-017
Tags: Public Policy
In Wallis v. Smith (2001), a New Mexico Court of Appeals case, Peter Wallis sued Kellie Rae Smith for financial damages, claiming fraud, breach of contract, conversion, and prima facie tort. Wallis and Smith had a sexual relationship based on Smith's use of birth control, as Wallis did not want children. However, Smith stopped using birth control without telling Wallis, got pregnant, and asked Wallis for child support.
Wallis then sued Smith for the child support money and other expenses, arguing that she tricked him and broke their agreement. The district court dismissed Wallis's case, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals agreed with the dismissal, stating that Wallis's claims went against public policy. The court's test for public policy is determining if a contract or tort is against society's or justice's interests. They found that Wallis's claims went against the child support policy, as both parents must support their children financially, despite any agreements or intentions.
The court also denied Wallis's efforts to apply traditional contract and tort principles to the contraception agreement, finding them irrelevant and fruitless. Wallis had no legal basis for his claims, and his case was correctly dismissed.
This case highlights public policy, a legal principle that can invalidate a contract or tort if it goes against society's or justice's interests. Public policy is influenced by statutory law, common law, moral, and ethical considerations affecting the parties' rights and duties. It recognizes the legal limitations and restrictions on contracts and torts and invalidates those that violate these constraints.
The court dismissed Peter Wallis's lawsuit against Kellie Rae Smith for fraud, breach of contract, conversion, and prima facie tort after fathering her child due to her alleged misrepresentation of practicing birth control. The court affirmed the dismissal, stating that the causes of action are not cognizable in New Mexico due to contravening the public policy of the state. The court recognized the importance of the public policy of child support and rejected Wallis's attempt to apply traditional contract and tort principles to his contraceptive agreement. The court ruled that seeking monetary compensation for child support is not permitted, regardless of gender, and cited previous cases where claims of contraceptive fraud were dismissed. The court granted Smith's motion to quash the subpoenas and sanctioned Wallis with a $1,000 fine for seeking the materials by a subpoena after Smith had raised a privilege objection.
Judge Alarid agrees with the majority's decision to uphold the trial court's ruling, but expresses concern that the majority opinion may suggest acceptance of Wallis' argument regarding legally-enforceable rights based on Smith's commitment to birth control. Judge Alarid notes that New Mexico courts prioritize privacy interests in cases involving intimate interpersonal behavior and have rejected causes of action that regulate such relationships. He argues that recognizing a claim based on intentional misrepresentation in reproductive relationships would establish standards of conduct in a private and important form of interpersonal relations. Without a clear balance favoring the imposition of legal duties of disclosure in reproductive relations between competent adult sex partners, the law should not interfere with the ethics of the participants. The plaintiff has not shown a clear balance in favor of recognizing a cause of action for contraceptive fraud or breach of promise to practice birth control.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.