Wallis v. Smith

Court of Appeals of New Mexico · 2001 · Contracts

22 P.3d 682 (2001)

Updated July 26, 2026

Contractscontraceptive fraudchild supportpublic policydiscoveryfraudbreach of contractconversion

Facts

Wallis and Smith were in a consensual sexual relationship and discussed contraception, agreeing that Smith would use birth control pills and that the relationship would continue only so long as she did so because Wallis did not want to father a child. According to the complaint, Smith later stopped taking birth control without telling Wallis, who relied on her and took no contraceptive precautions himself. Smith became pregnant and gave birth to a healthy child. Wallis sued for fraud, breach of contract, conversion, and prima facie tort, seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on the economic burden of child support.

Issue

Whether New Mexico recognizes tort or contract claims by one parent against the other for damages measured by the cost of supporting a healthy child when the defendant allegedly misrepresented use of birth control. Also, whether sanctions were proper when Wallis used Rule 1-045 subpoenas to seek medical records after Smith had objected on privilege grounds.

Rule

In New Mexico, causes of action such as fraud, breach of contract, conversion, or prima facie tort are not cognizable when used by one parent to recoup the financial obligations of raising a child from the other parent based on alleged contraceptive misrepresentations, because such claims contravene the state's public policy of child support and parental responsibility. Separately, a party may not use Rule 1-045 to pursue discovery of material subject to an ongoing discovery dispute that has not been resolved by the parties or decided by the court.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Santa Fe, Nora Vega and Daniel Price were dating. Daniel told Nora he would continue using condoms, then secretly stopped doing so; after their healthy son was born, Nora sued Daniel for breach of their agreement and sought damages equal to the child support she expected to pay over the next eighteen years.

Under the majority rule, what is the strongest argument for dismissing Nora's contract claim?

Explanation. The majority held that tort and contract theories cannot be used by one parent to recoup the financial obligations of raising a healthy child from the other parent when the damages sought are measured by child-support obligations. The defect is not lack of writing or failure to prove intent; it is that the suit would undermine New Mexico's public policy that each parent remains financially responsible for the child.