Hyatt v. Hill

714 P.2d 299, 26 Utah Adv. Rep. 27, 1986 Utah LEXIS 743

Opinions

HALL, Chief Justice:

On interlocutory appeal, defendant challenges the denial of his petition for a jury trial in a paternity case. We affirm.

On January 12, 1983, plaintiff filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that defendant was the father of plaintiffs child. Plaintiff also sought judgment for the costs of plaintiffs hospital and medical care during pregnancy and delivery and for $150 per month child support.

Defendant filed a demand for a jury trial. The district court denied the demand, ruling that there is no entitlement to a trial by jury in a paternity case. Defendant petitioned this Court to allow an interlocutory appeal on the issue of whether defendant had a right to a jury trial in a paternity action. This Court granted the petition.

The proceeding involved in the present case was brought pursuant to Utah’s Uniform Act on Paternity, U.C.A., 1953, §§ 78-45a-l to -17.¹ A paternity proceeding is a civil proceeding² brought to determine the identity of the father of an illegitimate child, to provide support for that child, and to prevent the child from becoming a public charge.³

In International Harvester Credit Corp. v. Pioneer Tractor & Implement, Inc.,⁴ this Court held that article I, section 10 of the Utah Constitution guaranteed the right to trial by jury on legal issues in civil cases.⁵ The Court said that the proceedings of the Utah Constitutional Convention disclosed “a virtually unanimous intention on the part of the framers of the Constitution to preserve a constitutional right to trial by jury in civil cases.”⁶ (Emphasis added.) In so saying, the Court recognized what has been held virtually unanimously by jurisdictions across the country: the constitutional right to a trial by jury is preserved and currently exists only in actions so triable when the constitution was adopted.⁷

The common law in this state prior to the adoption of the Utah Constitution did not afford a remedy to compel a putative father to contribute to the support of his illegitimate offspring. Further, such a right was not recognized in the Utah territorial statutes. Therefore, defendant has no constitutional right to a jury trial in this paternity action.

This is not to say that the legislature could not provide for trial by jury in paternity actions if it chose to do so.⁸ In fact, Utah’s bastardy statute, which was repealed in 1980, did provide for a jury trial.⁹ The legislature, by repealing the bastardy statute, also repealed the included statutory right to a jury trial. No other Utah statute currently guarantees a right to a jury trial in paternity actions. In particular, the legislature did not provide for a jury trial in the Uniform Act on Paternity. Therefore, since there is no inherent constitutional right to a trial by jury in paternity proceedings in this state and the legislature has not provided for such a right by statute, defendant has no right to a trial by jury in this action.

DURHAM and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.

1 .The Uniform Act on Paternity has no provision for jury trial and does not address the right to a jury trial in any fashion. The Uniform Act on Paternity has been adopted by only four other states: Kentucky, Ky.Rev.Stat. §§ 406.011 to .180 (1984); Maine, Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 19 §§ 271 to 287 (1964); Mississippi, Miss.Code Ann. §§ 93-9-1 to -75 (1972 & Supp.1985); New Hampshire, N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 168-A:1 to -A:12 (1977 & Supp.1983). The alternate uniform act, the Uniform Parentage Act, in section 14(d), affirmatively,states that trial shall be by the court without a jury. Fifteen states have adopted this uniform act. Some have deleted section 14(d). See, e.g., Mont.Code Ann. § 40-6-115(1985). Others have adopted it. See, e.g., Wash.Rev.Code § 26. 26.120(5) (1985) (upheld as constitutional, State ex rel. Goodner v. Speed, 96 Wash.2d 838, 845-46, 640 P.2d 13, 17, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 863, 103 S.Ct. 140, 74 L.Ed.2d 119 (1982)).

2 . See Brown v. Marrelli, Utah, 527 P,2d 230, 231 (1974) (bastardy cases are civil cases). See also Annot., 94 A.L.R.2d 1128, 1129 (1964) (in jurisdictions where the proceeding is to compel the putative father to support his child, it is almost uniformly held to be civil in nature).

3 . People ex rel. Cizek v. Azzarello, 81 Ill.App.3d 1102, 1105, 37 Ill.Dec. 84, 88, 401 N.E.2d 1177, 1181 (1980).

4 . Utah, 626 P.2d 418 (1981).

5 . Welch Transfer & Storage, Inc. v. Oldham, Utah, 663 P.2d 73, 75-76 (1983). Cf. Coleman v. Dillman, Utah, 624 P.2d 713, 716 (1981) (where issues are equitable in nature, a litigant is not entitled to a trial by jury as a matter of right).

6 . International Harvester Credit Corp., 626 P.2d at 419.

7 .E.g., Robertson v. Apuzzo, 170 Conn. 367, 381, 365 A.2d 824, 831, cert denied, 429 U.S. 852, 97 S.Ct. 142, 50 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976); Azzarello, 81 Ill.App.3d at 1105, 37 Ill.Dec. at 88, 401 N.E.2d at 1181; Miller v. Russell, Mo.App., 593 S.W.2d 598, 604-05 (1979); Speed, 96 Wash.2d at 840-43, 640 P.2d at 14-16. See also Annot., 94 A.L. R.2d 1128, 1130-31 (1964) (and cases cited therein). Cf. Smith v. Bailen, Minn., 258 N.W.2d 118 (1977) (defendant in paternity action had constitutional right to jury trial where right to jury trial in such proceedings existed at the time of the adoption of the Minnesota Constitution).

8 . See, e.g., Robertson, 170 Conn, at 381, 365 A.2d 824; Azzarello, 81 Ill.App.3d at 1106, 37 Ill.Dec. at 88, 401 N.E.2d at 1181.

9 . U.C.A., 1953, §§ 77-60-1, et seq., was repealed by Act of January 31, 1980, ch. 15, § 1, 1980 Utah Laws 110, 111.