THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, ON BEHALF OF KRAJAB SMITH AND KRAJAB SMITH, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES E. SMITH, 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.
The People of Arkansas appealed a Florida trial court judgment denying child support based on the defendant's unchallenged oral denial of paternity. The court reversed, holding that the state was entitled to a new hearing where it could present evidence of a New York court's prior factual finding that the child was the issue of the marriage, which would be binding under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Yes. The trial court erred in failing to continue the hearing and must be reversed. If the state can prove the New York court determined the child was the issue of the marriage, that finding is binding under Full Faith and Credit, and the state is entitled to a new hearing to present its case on paternity.
[1] A prior court's factual determination of paternity, made after proper notice and opportunity to be heard, is binding on subsequent proceedings under the Full Faith and Cr…
[2] A trial court errs by denying a motion to set aside a judgment when the moving party presents newly discovered evidence that the prior court had already determined the pa…
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 the state can prove that the New York court determined as a matter of fact that this child is the issue of the Smith marriage, that issue could not be further litigated between the parties, and the courts of this state would be bound to give full faith and credit to that determination.”
Establishes the Full Faith and Credit principle that would bind Florida courts to the New York court's factual finding on paternity if proven
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Smiths were married in Thailand in 1974 and had a child in 1975. Mr. Smith obtained a divorce in New York in 1978 without the mother's participati…
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 Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Of Support Act cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
The Smiths were married in Thailand December 11, 1974, and Mrs. Smith gave birth to a child on August 30, 1975. In 1978 Mr. Smith obtained a divorce in the State of New York. Mrs. Smith did not appear or defend in that proceeding. The final judgment in that court was silent as to the custody and support of the child. Such questions were referred to the Family Court of New York for determination. The record does not reflect the results in that court.
The instant proceeding was initiated by Mrs. Smith in Arkansas to obtain child support under the provisions of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA). At the hearing on the order to show cause returnable before the circuit court of Pasco County, Mr. Smith appeared with an attorney and orally (and for the first time) denied paternity of the child. The objections of the assistant state attorney representing Mrs. Smith, who was not present, were overruled, as was his motion for a continuance so that Mrs. Smith could come to Florida from Arkansas and testify. Later the court entered a “Final Judgment Concerning Support” which found that Mr. Smith was not the father of the child and therefore had no duty to support it.
The state filed appropriate motions for a new trial and also to set aside the judgment under rule 1.540, Florida Statutes, and supported its motions with a showing that newly discovered evidence indicated that Mr. Smith had alleged in his New York divorce petition, and the court there had specifically found, that the child in question was indeed the issue of the marriage. Nevertheless, the trial court in the instant case denied all motions and the state has prosecuted this appeal. We reverse.
The better solution would have been a continuance of the hearing on the order to show cause to afford the state (and the mother) an opportunity to meet the paternity issue injected orally by Mr. Smith at that hearing. Unfortunately, the time for ap peal had run before the state discovered the full nature of the New York proceedings.
If the state can prove that the New York court determined as a matter of fact that this child is the issue of the Smith marriage, that issue could not be further litigated between the parties, and the courts of this state would be bound to give full faith and credit to that determination. Under the circumstances, we think the court below erred in failing to set aside the judgment so as to permit the state an opportunity to fully present its case on the paternity issue.
The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new hearing in accordance with this opinion.
BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hodge v. Maith, 435 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…f support may be enforced in any responding state where jurisdiction over the father can be obtained. Johnson v. Ross, 405 N.E. 2d 569 (Ind.App. 1980); Vigil v. Vigil, 30 Colo.App. 452, 494 P. 2d 609 (1972). In People of State of Arkansas v. Smith, 398 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), the Second District Court of Appeal recognized, at least by implication, that a non-resident mother could bring an action under URESA in this state for child support and that it would be appropriate for the Florida court to decid…
-
State v. Wright, 489 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…t in placing the burden of child support upon the taxpayers of this state because the natural mother has a remedy under The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Law, Chapter 88, Florida Statutes (1983). See People of State of Arkansas v. Smith, 398 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The mother alternatively may litigate the matter in the state in which the nonresident putative father resides. AFFIRMED. DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur. . Some states have found jurisdiction under statutes that broadly…
-
State v. Opel, 620 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…,” and also that the Indiana court never properly served him in the original paternity action. Petitioners correctly assert that the Indiana judgment is entitled to full faith and credit. People of the State of Arkansas on Behalf of Smith v. Smith, 398 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Schaffer v. Overby, 613 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). In Smith the former husband denied paternity for the first time when answering a URESA petition initiated in Arkansas. The Florida court made a finding he was not the father…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence