DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE O/B/O FRANCES BLANCHARD, PETITIONER,
v.
DERRICK T. CLARK, 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.
A paternity order is res judicata on the issue of paternity and cannot be relitigated absent a showing of fraud upon the court.
The Department of Revenue appealed an order requiring DNA testing to determine paternity, entered two years after a final judgment establishing patern…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Department of Revenue, on behalf of the mother, has appealed an order requiring the parties to submit to DNA testing in order to determine paternity. This order was entered two years after a final judgment established paternity.
This case is indistinguishable from Department of Revenue ex rel. Freckleton v. Gouldbourne, 648 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), in which the trial court, two years after a judgment of paternity, ordered testing to determine paternity. We granted certiorari relief and quashed the order, stating:
Absent a showing of fraud upon the court, a paternity order is res judicata on the issue of paternity and re-litigation of paternity issues would be unauthorized in connection with a subsequently-filed motion for contempt for failure to pay court-ordered child support.
We treat the notice of appeal in this case as a petition for certiorari and, as we did in Freckleton, quash the order requiring DNA testing.
POLEN, KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cliff Berry, Inc. v. State, 116 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…DCA 2005) (holding the lower court erred in failing to give the requested instruction in a self-defense case where the defendant testified that he suffered from a nervous condition and that he reacted out of fear for his own safety); Owens v. State, 866 So. 2d 129, 131-32 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (finding that defendant’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to properly request a good faith special instruction where the defendant testified in his own behalf that he had a good faith b…1 / 2
-
T.D.W. v. State, 42 So. 3d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…theft is indispensable to a robbery conviction, Arnold v. State, 83 So. 2d 105, 108 (Fla. 1955), to a robbery case as well. Accord, Alfaro v. State, 837 So. 2d 429, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (error to deny claim-of-right instruction); Owens v. State, 866 So. 2d 129, 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that trial court was obliged to instruct jury that a well-founded belief in one’s right to possess property constitutes a complete defense to a charge of theft). Owens further explained that [a]s to how the defend…
Authorities Cited
- Henderson v. State, 648 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)