DONNA RICHARDSON AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
KENNETH HELMS, 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 Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Donna Richardson appeal an award of attorney's fees to Kenneth Helms in a paternity action that determined he was not the biological father of the Richardson child. The court reverses the fee award, holding that HRS brought the action in good faith reliance on information indicating justiciable issues existed.
The court reverses the attorney's fees award. A putative father is not entitled to attorney's fees under section 742.031, and Helms is not entitled to fees under section 57.105 because HRS brought the paternity action in good faith reliance on information from Richardson that indicated justiciable issues existed.
[1] A putative father is not entitled to attorney's fees under Florida Statute § 742.031.
[2] A party is not entitled to attorney's fees under Florida Statute § 57.105 when a paternity action is brought in good faith reliance on information provided by the mother,…
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“A putative father is not a party entitled to receive attorney's fees under section 742.031, Florida Statutes (1985).”
Establishes the primary legal basis for reversing the fee award—putative fathers lack statutory entitlement to attorney's fees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn November 1985, HRS filed a paternity complaint against Helms based on Donna Richardson's sworn affidavit stating he was 'very likely' the child's f…
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 Justiciable Issue cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) Judge.
Appellants, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and Donna Richardson, appeal from the court’s award of attorney’s fees to appellee as a result of final judgment in the paternity action finding that appellee was not the natural father of the minor child.
In November, 1985, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, pursuant to its statutory authority under sections 409.2561 and 409.2564, Florida Statutes (1985), filed a complaint against appel-lee to determine paternity of the minor child, James Dustin Richardson, son of Donna Richardson. According to a sworn affidavit signed by Donna Richardson, appellee was “very likely” the child’s father. Both appellee and Donna Richardson admitted to having sexual relations during the critical month. However, Human Leukocytes Antigens (HCLA) blood tests later excluded the possibility that appellee was the biological father of the child; therefore, the court entered final judgment in favor of appellee.
After hearing on appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees, the court found that no justiciable issue existed regarding Donna Richardson’s claim against appellee and awarded $600 attorney’s fees against Donna Richardson in favor of appellee.
Appellants raise three points on appeal. We need discuss only one.
Appellants argue that the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees in favor of appellee because there were justiciable issues of law and fact raised. We agree. A putative father is not a party entitled to receive attorney’s fees under section 742.031, Florida Statutes (1985). Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Cisneros, 446 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). In addition, we find that appellee is not entitled to attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1985), because HRS brought the paternity action in good faith reliance on information provided by Donna Richardson which at the time HRS brought the action indicated there were justiciable issues of law and fact raised. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Carr, 501 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Moreover, appellee himself admitted to sexual relations with Donna Richardson during the critical time which further leads us to conclude that the action was not frivolous.
The fact that the fees were awarded against Donna Richardson instead of HRS does not change this result since HRS stands in the place and stead of the mother in this paternity action.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees in favor of appellee.
Reversed.
DANAHY, C.J., and SANDERLIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
P.N. & the State of Fla. v. D.P., 626 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…t he is not the children’s father may not recover attorney’s fees on the ground of a complete absence of justiciable issue of law or fact where H.R.S. brings an action in good faith rebanee on information provided by the mother. Richardson v. Helms, 502 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA1987). H.R.S. filed its petition against the appellee based on affidavits of paternity from the children’s mother R.P. and their sister P.N. which had been submitted with their applications for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. T…
-
Baron v. Fieldstone, 581 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ations from his client to support this theory. This being so, attorney’s fees were improperly assessed against plaintiff’s counsel. Muckerman v. Burris, 553 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 567 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1990); Richardson v. Helms, 502 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Snow v. Rosse, 455 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Reversed.…
-
Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. Hannah, 745 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…ees under subsection 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, because under those circumstances there were justiciable issues of law and fact at the time of the filing of the action. See P.N. v. D.P., 626 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Richardson v. Helms, 502 So. 2d 1372, 1373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). On the facts presented here, the same rule applies. The paternity of the child is something that in the normal course of events a grandmother would likely know. In filing its suit, it was not unreasonable under the circumst…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kern v. Ming P'ship NO. 2, 501 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Cisneros, 446 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)