STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BY AND ON BEHALF OF MEGAN L. MARTIN, PETITIONER,
v.
RODDRICK L. BRADLEY, RESPONDENT; STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BY AND ON BEHALF OF CORLINE REGISTE, PETITIONER, V. STEVEN GRANT, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida's Department of Revenue failed to demonstrate a clear departure from law when trial courts granted genetic testing motions after respondents who had acknowledged paternity raised issues of fraud or material mistake of fact under Fla. Stat. § 742.10(4).
A trial court does not abuse its discretion by granting genetic testing when a respondent who previously acknowledged paternity raises sufficient evidence of fraud or material mistake of fact under section 742.10(4), Florida Statutes.
[1] A trial court may grant genetic testing to determine paternity when a respondent who previously acknowledged paternity raises sufficient evidence of fraud or material mistake of fact under Fla. …
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 intelligenceTwo respondents had previously acknowledged paternity of children born out of wedlock but later questioned their paternity in legal proceedings and so…
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 Genetic Testing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM
The Department of Revenue petitions for writs of certiorari in these two consolidated cases, challenging orders by which the trial court granted the respondents’ motions for genetic testing to determine paternity, and directed the Department to arrange genetic tissue typing. In both cases the respondents had previously acknowledged paternity of children born out of wedlock, but later questioned their paternity in a legal proceeding and sought the genetic testing. The respondents testified at hearings on their motions, with the Department asserting that paternity could only be challenged on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact as indicated in section 742.10(4), Florida Statutes. In seeking certiorari the Department argues that the testimony did not establish any of these statutory crite ria. However, the court did not rule that any of these criteria were proved, and did not make any ruling as to the ultimate question of paternity. Rather, the court made findings based on the testimony, and .determined that the respondents had sufficiently raised the issue of fraud or material mistake. Because section 742.10(4) permits a paternity challenge on this basis, the Department has failed to show any clear departure from the essential requirements of law.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.
ALLEN, LAWRENCE and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.