WILLIAM LACHAPPELLE, III, APPELLANT,
v.
LYNNE BUMSTED AND DAVID KARL BUMSTED, APPELLEES

Fla. 5th DCA | 2000-12-29
No. 5D00-1242
W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
773 So. 2d 1287 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2000) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion of the Court
GRIFFIN, J.

GRIFFIN, J.

We believe the lower court did not err in dismissing appellant’s paternity suit based on the current state of the law. See G.F.C. v. S.G., 686 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). This is a changing legal landscape, however, and the status of this family may also change. For example, assuming Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So. 2d 1253 (Fla.1997), remains good law and Mr. Bumsted elects to avoid his support obligation in reliance upon it in a subsequent dissolution of marriage proceeding, the reasons for precluding the present paternity suit likely would no longer pertain. Given the facts alleged in the amended complaint, however, we agree with the lower court that appellant has no right to institute a paternity action.

AFFIRMED.

W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • McCONNELL v. Moore, 819 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
    …stion, however, nor offered any reason to revisit our conclusion in Black v. Moore, 768 So. 2d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), that Gomez resolved the methodology question for periods beginning on and after July 1, 1985. See also Hernandez v. Moore, 773 So. 2d 1287, 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. WOLF and KAHN, JJ„ CONCUR.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw