CHARLIE J. CARTEE, APPELLANT,
v.
JEANETTE CARSWELL, 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.
In this paternity case, the trial court declared appellant to be the biological father of a child born in 1967 to his ex-wife and ordered child support. Appellant appealed arguing res judicata, laches, and insufficiency of evidence. The court affirmed, holding that paternity was not adjudicated in the prior divorce proceeding and that the child's welfare paramount over appellant's defenses.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment. Res judicata did not apply because paternity was not identified and litigated in the divorce action. The equitable defense of laches was properly rejected because appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to bar the child support claim, and the child's welfare is paramount. The trial court's factual finding that appellant fathered the child was not clearly erroneous.
[1] Res judicata requires identity of the matter sued upon, cause of action, parties, and the quality or capacity of the parties for or against whom a claim is made.
[2] A prior divorce judgment does not preclude a later paternity action if the issue of paternity was not identified and litigated in the divorce proceedings.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In order to apply the doctrine of res judicata, the following points must have been raised before the tribunal: (a) Identity of the matter sued upon; (b) Identity of the cause of action; (c) Identity of the parties; and (d) Identity of the quality or capacity of the person for or against whom any claim is made.”
Establishes the four-part test for res judicata and why it did not apply to bar the paternity claim based on the prior divorce judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant and the natural mother were married on February 14, 1967, and divorced on October 4, 1967. A child was born on November 21, 1967, after the …
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 Presumption Of Legitimacy cases and more on FLexlaw
WEINBERG, RICHARD G„ Associate Judge.
Appellant, putative father of a child born November 21, 1967, was declared the natural father in a paternity proceeding initiated in 1981 by the natural mother (appellant’s ex-wife). On December 30,1981, the trial court entered its final judgment, confirming the paternity and ordering child support. Arguing res judicata, laches, and sufficiency of the evidence, appellant contends the trial court erred in declaring him to be the father of the child, it following that there can be no liability for child support. We affirm.
The mother and father were lawfully married February 14,1967, and subsequently divorced by the circuit court, Brevard County, Florida, on October 4,1967, prior to the birth of the child. The divorce complaint initially filed by tbe husband did not raise the issue of paternity of the child, simply alleging there had been no children born as issue of the marriage. However, the wife’s answer, while admitting no children had been born of the marriage, alleged appellant was the father of the unborn child she was carrying at the time. She additionally counterclaimed for divorce without addressing the paternity issue again. The divorce proceeded on the wife’s counterclaim without adjudication of paternity concerning the forthcoming birth of her child.
In order to apply the doctrine of res judicata, the following points must have been raised before the tribunal:
(a) Identity of the matter sued upon;
(b) Identity of the cause of action;
(c) Identity of the parties; and
(d) Identity of the quality or capacity of the person for or against whom any claim is made.
See, e.g., Donahue v. Davis, 68 So. 2d 163 (Fla.1953); Husky Industries, Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Pumo v. Pumo, 405 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Here, the divorce action in 1967 did not identify and litigate the key issue of alleged paternity. Therefore, the matter was not foreclosed by the divorce judgment. Appellant’s reliance on Johnson v. Johnson, 395 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), is misplaced. In Johnson, child paternity was resolved by the dissolution judgment and the father was precluded from relitigating the same issue at a later time.
In arguing the equitable defense of laches, rejected by the trial court, appellant failed to demonstrate those exceptional circumstances that would bar the child support claim arising out of paternity. Armour v. Allen, 377 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), succinctly addresses the question:
A number of cases recognize that claims for child support arrearages may be defeated by laches, but rarely have the courts found the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify the application of that doctrine. In all events the welfare of the child is paramount and in the absence of extraordinary facts or strongly compelling circumstances, the action or inaction of a parent will not give rise to a defense of laches barring enforcement of child support arrearage.
Id. at 801.
In the instant case the trial court correctly applied legal principles to protect the paramount interest of the child and no abuse of discretion was shown.
Appellant further failed to overcome the presumption of legitimacy by clear and convincing evidence. Appellant concedes the child was conceived during the legal marriage of the parties. He disputes only his fathership. This factual issue was resolved against appellant and such finding will not be disturbed, absent compelling evidence to the contrary. Blitch v. Blitch, 341 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Therefore the final judgment determining paternity and awarding support is
AFFIRMED.
SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Thomas, 477 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…DCA 1981). However, it is clear that under Florida law, laches may serve to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance.3 Robinson v. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 473 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Cartee v. Carswell, 425 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Armour v. Allen, 377 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). We think that this is an appropriate case to justify the application of the laches doctrine. This case is similar to the recent case of Wing v. Wing, 464 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 1s…
-
Pyne v. Black, 650 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…anganiban v. Panganiban, 396 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Warrick v. Hender, 198 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Denton v. Denton, 147 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). . See Brumby v. Brumby, 647 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Cartee v. Carswell, 425 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Jimenez v. Jimenez, 309 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). . Katz v. Fankhanel, 608 So. 2d 873, 877 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Parrish v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 525 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Bloom v. Bloo…1 / 2
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Holley, 86 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ine applied. See Sun Cruz Casinos, L.L.C. v. City of Hollywood, Fla., 844 So. 2d 681, 684-85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (recognizing the abuse of discretion standard and the requirement of evidentiary support for a finding of estoppel); Cartee v. Carswell, 425 So. 2d 204, 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (finding no abuse of discretion where the trial court found that no equitable principles, including laches, relieved the father of the duty to pay child support); Fla. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Hewett v. Grant, 913 So. 2d 108…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Donahue v. Davis, 68 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1953)
- Baumann v. Agudelo (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Armour v. Allen, 377 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Husky Indus., Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 395 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Anne Pumo v. Pumo, 405 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Blitch v. Blitch, 341 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)