## Facts

- Tina Marie Hodge and Chadwick Craig began dating in high school.
- During the period of conception, Hodge had sexual relations with another man but told Craig she was certain Craig was the child’s biological father.
- Craig relied on the representation, married Hodge in 1991, and the child was born in 1992.
- Craig raised the child believing he was the biological father, adopted Hodge’s older child, and later underwent a vasectomy after the couple decided not to have more children.
- The parties divorced in 2001; the dissolution agreement required Craig to pay child support and provide medical insurance.
- In 2007 Craig obtained genetic testing and learned he was not the child’s biological father; the parties acknowledged nonpaternity in court.
- A trial-court order terminated Craig’s future child-support obligation but left other matters for later determination.
- Craig then sought damages against Hodge for intentional and negligent misrepresentation regarding paternity, including compensatory and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether Tennessee common law permits a former husband to sue a former wife for intentional misrepresentation based on knowingly false statements that he is a child’s biological father.
2. Whether awarding tort damages measured by amounts previously paid as child support, medical expenses, and insurance premiums is a prohibited retroactive modification of a child-support order.
3. Whether negligent misrepresentation provides an alternative basis for recovery in this context.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court held that Tennessee’s existing tort of intentional misrepresentation encompasses claims based on deliberate misstatements about a child’s paternity.
- The Court concluded the evidence supported findings that Hodge knowingly made false representations, Craig reasonably relied on them, and he suffered damages.
- The Court held that awarding damages measured by Craig’s post-divorce child support, medical, and insurance payments was not an impermissible retroactive modification of child support.
- The Court reinstated the trial court’s damages award insofar as it was based on those post-divorce support-related payments.

## Legal Principles

- Tennessee’s intentional misrepresentation (fraud) claim applies to new fact patterns when traditional elements are satisfied, including knowing falsity, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and resulting damages.
- A paternity-based fraud claim between former spouses may proceed where the alleged wrongdoing is the mother’s intentional deception and the suit seeks damages from the mother, not relief against the child.
- Tort damages may reference amounts paid under prior support orders without constituting a retroactive child-support modification when the judgment does not alter past-due support obligations and the claimant is not seeking to revise arrearages.
- The measure of damages in fraud may include financial obligations assumed in reliance on the misrepresentation, including support-related payments made after divorce.

## Conclusion

The Tennessee Supreme Court permitted a former husband to recover for intentional misrepresentation when a mother knowingly lied about paternity, and it allowed support-related payments to serve as a measure of fraud damages without violating the statutory bar on retroactive child-support modification.


Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012)