McBride v. Boughton
California Court of Appeal
123 Cal. App. 4th 379 (2004)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Richard McBride (plaintiff) had a romantic relationship with Garianne Boughton (defendant). They were unmarried. In late 1996, Boughton informed McBride that she was pregnant and that McBride was the father. In May 1997, the child was born. McBride made various lifestyle changes to support the child, provided for the child financially, and at one point became the child’s full-time caregiver. McBride and Boughton had an informal, shared custody arrangement. In the fall of 1999, Boughton decided that she wished to move out of town with the child, who was then two and a half years old. The move would affect McBride’s share of custody. McBride initiated a paternity proceeding and, through genetic testing, discovered that he was not the child’s biological father. McBride then abandoned his attempt to gain custody. Thereafter, McBride sued Boughton and the child’s biological father (defendant) to recover amounts McBride had paid for the care and support of Boughton and the child. McBride claimed that Boughton and the actual father were unjustly enriched because they were legally responsible for incurring the expenses that McBride had paid for in reliance on Boughton’s representation that McBride was the father. The trial court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the action. McBride appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ruvolo, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
