JACQUELINE DIXON, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
DAVID KING MADDOX, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Trial court erred in dismissing a paternity complaint solely because it alleged alternative potential fathers, but the complaint was properly dismissible for failure to allege ultimate facts regarding the circumstances of the alleged sexual relations, and the case is reversed and remanded to allow amendment.
A paternity complaint may not be dismissed merely because it alleges alternative potential fathers, but must be dismissed if it fails to allege ultimate facts identifying the circumstances of the alleged sexual relations.
[1] A paternity complaint alleging alternative potential fathers is not subject to dismissal solely on that ground, but must contain ultimate facts regarding the circumstance…
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 intelligence“alternative pleading alleging that one of two or one of a group of potential fathers is the actual father is not proper or appropriate in a paternity action”
Trial court's erroneous ground for dismissal, which the appellate court rejected.
Jacqueline Dixon filed a paternity action naming David King Maddox and others as potential fathers of her child, but the complaint failed to specify t…
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 Alternative Pleading cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court dismissed the complaint in this paternity action with prejudice because “alternative pleading alleging that one of two or one of a group of potential fathers is the actual father is not proper or appropriate in a paternity action” and because the allegations “concede that said plaintiff is unable to determine the father of the child in question.” It was error to dismiss the complaint on this ground. Holliman v. Green, 439 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
We find the complaint deficient in other respects, however. For example, it wholly fails to allege any ultimate facts identifying the circumstances of the occurrences alleged, such as the place where the alleged sexual relations occurred, the dates or time periods during which the alleged relations occurred, or whether plaintiff had sexual relations with other men during the alleged time period. Omission of these allegations renders the complaint insufficient, warranting affirmance of the trial court’s order of dismissal. These deficiencies may be cured by amendment, however; and even though plaintiff refused to amend the complaint further, obviously for the reason that she could not cure the deficiency found in the trial court’s order, we reverse the dismissal with prejudice and remand with directions to afford the plaintiffs leave to amend.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lucy Ann Holliman & the State of Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Green, 439 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)