## Facts

- A mother allegedly told Joseph Dier he was the biological father of her child despite knowing he was not.
- In reliance on that representation, Dier provided financial support during the pregnancy and after the child’s birth, paying various expenses for the mother and child.
- Believing he was the father, Dier filed a district court action seeking custody.
- The mother requested genetic testing; two tests established Dier was not the biological father.
- After paternity was disestablished, Dier sued the mother for common-law fraud, seeking reimbursement of expenditures made in reliance on the misrepresentation and litigation costs incurred in the custody proceeding.
- The district court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim, reasoning Iowa did not recognize an independent tort of “paternity fraud.”

## Issues

1. Whether Iowa law permits a disestablished or putative father to pursue a common-law fraud claim against a mother who allegedly misrepresented biological paternity, inducing support payments and related litigation expenses.
2. Whether Iowa’s paternity and child-support statutes, or public policy, bar such a fraud action.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held the petition stated a cognizable claim under traditional Iowa common-law fraud principles.
- The court rejected arguments that paternity/support statutes or public policy categorically preclude fraud claims based on paternity misrepresentations, particularly where the plaintiff seeks tort damages for voluntary payments and related expenses rather than retroactive modification of court-ordered support.

## Legal Principles

- A claim for common-law fraud requires: (1) a representation, (2) falsity, (3) materiality, (4) knowledge of falsity, (5) intent to deceive, (6) justifiable reliance, and (7) resulting damages.
- Misrepresentations about biological paternity are not categorically exempt from ordinary fraud doctrine; if the elements are pleaded and proven, a plaintiff may recover tort damages.
- Iowa’s statutory framework governing paternity and child support does not, without an express bar, eliminate traditional tort remedies between adults for intentional misrepresentation.
- Public policy against fraud may justify permitting an action between adults even if the subject matter involves a child; concerns about disruption do not create immunity from intentional deceit.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court allowed a disestablished father’s lawsuit to proceed, holding that intentional misrepresentation of paternity can support a standard common-law fraud claim for damages and is not automatically barred by Iowa statutes or public policy.


Dier v. Peters, 815 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2012)