Alamuri v. Yadagiri (In re Marriage of Yadagiri)

1

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ANGELA MARIE YADAGIRI AND NARENDRA YADAGIRI:

VISHNU CHAITANYA ALAMURI, APPELLANT, v. ANGELA MARIE YADAGIRI AND NARENDRA YADAGIRI, RESPONDENTS.

IN RE THE SUPPORT OR MAINTENANCE OF R.K.Y.:

VISHNU CHAITANYA ALAMURI, APPELLANT, v. ANGELA M. YADAGIRI AND NARENDRA YADAGIRI, RESPONDENTS.

Nos. 2023AP1401, 2023AP1805

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District IV

June 20, 2024

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.

Appeal from orders of the circuit court for Dane County: Cir. Ct. Nos. 2022FA1824 2019FA846 STEPHEN E. EHLKE and JACOB B FROST, Judges.

Before Blanchard, Graham, and Taylor, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Vishnu Chaitanya Alamuri appeals the circuit court's denial of his motions to intervene in two actions, for child support and divorce, as a matter of right pursuant to WIS STAT. § 803.09(1) (2021-22) and, in the alternative through application of the circuit court's discretion under § 803.09(2).^[1] Angela Krattiger and her now ex-spouse Narendra Yadagiri are parties in both actions, and both actions involve the same child, R.K.Y.^[2] R.K.Y. was born during the marriage of Krattiger and Yadagiri, but they allege that Alamuri is R.K.Y.'s biological father. Alamuri also appeals the denial of his motions to reopen the court rulings, made in each of the two actions, that Krattiger and Yadagiri rebutted Wisconsin's statutory presumption that Yadagiri is R.K.Y.'s legally recognized father due to his marriage to Krattiger. See WIS. STAT. § 891.41. More specifically, Alamuri seeks to intervene in order to attempt to persuade the court to restore the presumption that Yadagiri is the legally recognized father.

¶2 We conclude that the circuit court did not err by denying Alamuri's motion to intervene as a matter of right because Alamuri fails to provide a legally supported argument articulating how, absent intervention, he will be impeded or impaired in protecting an interest that is sufficiently related to those actions. See WIS STAT. § 803.09(1). Regarding permissive intervention, we conclude that Alamuri's motions fail as a matter of law because he fails to identify a question of law or fact that is common between Alamuri's claim or defense and the Dane County actions. Identification of a common question of law or fact is required before a circuit court could exercise its discretion to admit Alamuri as a party. See § 803.09(2).^[3] ¶3 Accordingly, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶4 Krattiger and Yadagiri were married in December 2018. R.K.Y. was born two months later. This means that Yadagiri is statutorily presumed to be R.K.Y. 's legally recognized father, unless and until the presumption is rebutted. See WIS. STAT. §891.41.^[4]

¶5 In May 2019, the Dane County Child Support Agency commenced a child support action, with Krattiger named as petitioner and Yadagiri as respondent.^[5] In July 2019, the circuit court commissioner filed a judgment setting child support at $0, based on an agreement between Krattiger and Yadagiri.

¶6 In April 2022, Krattiger, acting pro se, apparently attempted to request that the child support judgment be reopened, but this was rejected by the circuit court commissioner in June 2022. The commissioner made findings that included the following: Krattiger "attempted to file a paternity action ... and name a different person as the father," apparently in Dane County Circuit Court, but this was dismissed for a lack of personal jurisdiction; and Krattiger "moved to North Carolina and has sought a finding of paternity" in the courts of that state, but there had been no order determining that the marital presumption of paternity was rebutted.

¶7 Krattiger through counsel formally moved to reopen and vacate the child support judgment in June 2022. In support, Krattiger submitted what purported to be genetic test results for Alamuri and Yadagiri, along with her own affidavit averring that Alamuri is R.K.Y.'s biological father, based on the test results and "a physical encounter" that she had with Alamuri before marrying Yadagiri. The court commissioner appointed a guardian ad litem ("GAL") to represent R.K.Y.'s interests in the child support action. The GAL recommended that the commissioner deny Krattiger's request and uphold the marital presumption that Yadagiri is the legally responsible father. The commissioner agreed with this recommendation, denying Krattiger's motion to reopen and vacate.^[6] ¶8 Krattiger filed for a legal separation from Yadagiri in December 2022 in Dane County Circuit Court, commencing what would later become the proceeding that we refer to as "the divorce action." The petition listed R.K. Y. as a child born during the marriage and requested a determination that the marital presumption has been rebutted that Yadagiri, as the spouse of the mother at the time of birth, is the legally recognized parent. Krattiger and Yadagiri submitted a marital settlement agreement that sought a ruling that the marital presumption had been rebutted. The agreement stipulated that Yadagiri would assume no financial or care responsibilities to Krattiger or to the child.

¶9 In February 2023, the circuit court in the divorce action appointed a GAL for R.K. Y., choosing a different attorney from the one who served as GAL in the child support action. This GAL recommended that the court in the divorce action rule that the presumption of Yadagiri's paternity was rebutted. On March 10, 2023, the court issued the following ruling:

[B]ased on the guardian ad litem's recommendations ..., [the] agreement of the parties, and the reasons set forth on the record, the marital presumption of paternity for the marital child is rebutted, pursuant to Wis.Stat. § 767.803^[7] and [Wis. Stat.] § 891.41. Narendra Yadagiri is determined not to be the father of [R.K.Y].

¶10 In March 2023, Krattiger filed a letter with the circuit court in the child support action requesting that the court vacate the child support order naming Yadagiri. The letter noted that the court in the divorce action ruled that the marital presumption had been rebutted. However, the letter further represented that the trial court in a North Carolina-based paternity action had taken the position that it would not proceed in that North Carolina action until the Dane County child support order had been "fixed," apparently meaning altered to reflect the ruling in the Dane County divorce action that the marital presumption had been rebutted.

¶11 The circuit court treated Krattiger's request as a motion to reopen the child support judgment under WIS. STAT. § 806.07. The court granted the motion on the ground that the court deemed it to be "no longer equitable that the judgment in [the child support] case should have prospective application." See § 806.07(1)(g). Toward this end, on April 21, 2023, the court issued a written order stating that the child support judgment naming Yadagiri as the legally responsible father was "a legal nullity" and declaring that the child support judgment was "void and of no further effect going forward," having been superseded by the judgment of divorce and the legal findings of that court.

¶12 On May 8, 2023, the court commissioner in the divorce action granted a judgment of divorce to Krattiger and Yadagiri.

¶13 On June 21, 2023, Alamuri made limited appearances in both the child support action and the divorce action in order to move to intervene as a matter of right under WIS. STAT. § 803.09(1), or in the alternative requesting permissive intervention under § 803.09(2). Alamuri also moved in each action to reopen the pertinent orders that had determined that the marital presumption was rebutted. Specifically, in the divorce action, Alamuri sought to vacate the March 10, 2023 order ruling that the marital presumption was rebutted. In the child support action, he sought to vacate the April 21, 2023 order declaring the child support judgment naming Yadagiri as the legally responsible father to be a nullity.

¶14 This brings us to the order that Alamuri challenges in this appeal. Authored jointly by the two judges presiding over the child support and divorce actions, the order denied Alamuri's motions to intervene in each action. In this order, the circuit court also denied the motions to reopen "as moot" based on its decisions to deny the motions to intervene.

¶15 Alamuri appeals. Krattiger and Yadagiri file a joint response brief on appeal.

DISCUSSION

¶16 Alamuri argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motions to intervene as a matter of right under WIS. STAT § 803.09(1) and that it erroneously exercised its discretion in denying him permissive intervention under § 803.09(2). Krattiger and Yadagiri argue that Alamuri's motions fail to meet the requirements for intervention under § 803.09(1) or (2).

¶17 We review de novo whether Alamuri meets the elements for intervention as a matter of right, with the exception of one element that is not pertinent to our analysis on the mandatory intervention issue.^[8] See Town of Mentor v. State, 2021 WI.App. 85, ¶18, 400 Wis.2d 138, 968 N.W.2d 716.

¶18 Regarding permissive intervention, a circuit court generally "has discretion to decide whether a movant may be permitted to intervene." Helgeland v. Wisconsin Muni's, 2008 WI 9, ¶120, 307 Wis.2d 1, 745 N.W.2d 1. But, as stated in an unpublished but authored opinion that we consider persuasive, the unambiguous language of WIS. STAT. § 803.09(2) establishes that a circuit court's discretion on this topic is to be exercised only in those instances in which '"the movant's claim or defense and the main action have a...