DEBRA S. JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
DANNY P. JOHNSON, APPELLEE; EVELYN AASEN RIGGS, APPELLANT, V. PAUL W. RIGGS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Two former wives sought writs of certiorari challenging orders requiring them and their children to submit to Human Leukocyte Antigen blood tests to determine paternity, more than three years after final judgments of dissolution that resolved paternity issues. The court held that res judicata bars relitigation of paternity after final dissolution judgments, even with newly available scientific evidence.
The court held that res judicata bars relitigation of paternity after final dissolution judgments have resolved the issue. Final judgments of dissolution that address paternity cannot be reopened to allow former husbands to challenge the legitimacy of children born during their marriages based on new scientific testing methods.
[1] A final judgment of dissolution of marriage, which resolves issues of child support and implicitly paternity, is res judicata and bars relitigation of paternity after the…
[2] A court may not reopen final judgments of dissolution to relitigate paternity based on newly available scientific evidence, such as Human Leukocyte Antigen blood tests, a…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If a husband has doubts concerning the paternity of a child born during the marriage, he should raise and resolve that question during the dissolution proceedings.”
Establishes that paternity challenges must occur during dissolution proceedings, not years later
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn the Johnson case, the trial court dissolved the marriage in 1977 and approved a stipulation in which the husband agreed to support the minor child …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Paternity cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Chief Judge.
Petitioners each seek a writ of certiorari. Prior to entry of the challenged orders, the trial court had entered final judgments of dissolution of marriages in each of these cases. It had dissolved the Johnson marriage on April 19,1977, and the Riggs marriage on February 23, 1976.
In the Johnson case the former husband signed a stipulation agreeing to support the minor child born during the marriage. In the Riggs case the former husband entered into a property settlement agreement with his former wife in which he agreed to pay child support for the minor child born during that marriage. The court approved both the stipulation and the property settlement agreement and awarded child support in each case. Neither judgment was appealed.
In 1979 each of the former wives filed a petition for enforcement of child support. Each husband responded by requesting the court to order his former wife and her child to submit to physical examinations to determine their blood types. The husbands were attempting to exclude themselves as the fathers of the children on the basis of the newly developed Human Leukocyte Antigen blood test. On August 28, 1980, the trial court, in each case, ordered the wife and child to submit to physical examinations.
Each of the wives now seeks a writ of certiorari on the ground that the court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering her and her child to submit to physical examinations to determine paternity more than three years after the judgment of dissolution. We agree.
If a husband has doubts concerning the paternity of a child born during the marriage, he should raise and resolve that question during the dissolution proceedings. Here, the issue of each child’s paternity was resolved in the final judgments of dissolution. Those judgments are res judicata inasmuch as they involved an identity of causes of action and parties and involved the same issue as the husbands now attempt to relitigate. De Weese v. Unick, 102 Cal.App.3d 100, 162 Cal.Rptr. 259 (1980); see Matthews v. Matthews, 133 So. 2d 91 (Fla.2d DCA 1961). Therefore, the final judgments bar any redetermination of the paternity of either child.
Recently, scientific advances have provided an additional method to assist courts in determining paternity. The husbands correctly state that Human Leukocyte Antigen blood tests are now admissible in paternity litigation. McQueen v. Stratton, 389 So. 2d 1190 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); Carlyon v. Weeks, 387 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Nevertheless, this does not authorize a court to reopen proceedings and relitigate matters previously resolved. To allow former husbands to come into court long after entry of final judgment and challenge the legitimacy of children born during their marriages would be chaotic at best. In addition, to require former wives and their children to submit to blood tests would, in many instances, be a humiliating experience for them.
Accordingly, we vacate the orders entered in these consolidated cases and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
Van Nostrand v. Nunzio J. Olivieri and Carol A. Olivieri, 427 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…the child’s father. Here, the Olivieris directly attack the presumption that a child born during wedlock is legitimate. See Eldridge v. Eldridge, 153 Fla. 873, 16 So. 2d 163 (Fla.1944). The companion cases of Johnson v. Johnson and Riggs v. Riggs, 395 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), involved dissolution proceedings in which the husbands had agreed to support the minor children which were born during their marriages. The former wives later brought petitions for enforcement of child support. In opposition, the…
-
Michelle Miller & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Cowart, 546 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…peared at the hearing on the motion for contempt, denied paternity, and requested an HLA blood test. The trial court granted the request and ordered respondent, petitioner Miller, and the child to submit to HLA blood testing. In Johnson v. Johnson, 395 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), two former wives sought review of orders which required them and their children to undergo HLA blood tests. In each case, the former husbands had previously been ordered to provide child support pursuant to final judgments of dis…1 / 2
-
Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Chambers, 472 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…ty question was resolved six years ago by Chambers’ acknowledgment of paternity and by the court’s order awarding child support. As such, res judicata principles preclude Chambers from now attempting to relitigate the same issue. Johnson v. Johnson, 395 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). In Johnson, while we recognized the current admissibility of the HLA tests in paternity litigation, we held that that did not authorize the court to reopen proceedings and relitigate matters previously decided. Accordingly, we v…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Matthews v. Olive M. Matthews, 133 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- McQUEEN v. Lucinda B. Stratton, 389 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Miles Edward Carlyon v. Weeks, 387 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)