WILLIAM R. WHITNEY, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM MICHAEL HALL, 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.
A putative father may maintain a declaratory judgment action to establish paternity despite a prior dissolution decree addressing the child's paternity, because he was not a party to that decree and res judicata does not apply.
A prior dissolution decree does not preclude a putative father who was not a party to that decree from maintaining a declaratory judgment action to establish paternity of a minor child.
[1] A putative father who was not a party to a prior dissolution decree addressing a child's paternity may maintain a declaratory judgment action to establish paternity if he…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sought to determine the paternity of a minor child. A prior dissolution decree between the child's mother and another man had addressed 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 Paternity Action cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee in an action brought by appellant to determine the paternity of a minor child. The summary judgment was predicated upon the existence of a prior order dissolving the marriage of appellee and the child’s mother and adopting a settlement agreement indicating that the minor is a child of the marriage. We conclude that the dissolution decree does not preclude appellant from maintaining his declaratory judgment action, and we therefore reverse the order appealed.
Although the paternity of the child was addressed in the prior order of dissolution, appellant was not a party to that order and the record on appeal does not indicate that he either participated in or acquiesced to that adjudication; therefore, neither res judicata nor estoppel would apply to bar the instant action. See Nostrand v. Olivieri, 427 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). In the circumstances of the present case we agree with Nostrand that, if the requisite standing under Kendrick v. Everheart, 390 So. 2d 53 (Fla.1980), is established, the existence of a prior dissolution decree addressing the issue does not preclude a putative father from obtaining a declaratory judgment as to the paternity of a minor child.
Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fernandez v. McKENNEY, 776 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…and Daniel Calls for Statutory Reform, 26 Fla. St. U.L.Rev. (1999). . Chris W. Altenbernd, Quasi-Marital Children: The Common Law's Failure in Privette and Daniel Calls for Statutory Reform, 26 Fla. St. U.L.Rev. (1999). . See also Whitney v. Hall, 434 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In addition, McKenney may also have a federal constitutional right to establish and protect his parental rights. See Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). . Although Javier's name is on the ol…
Authorities Cited
- Kendrick v. Everheart, 390 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1980)
- Van Nostrand v. Nunzio J. Olivieri and Carol A. Olivieri, 427 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)