ERIC W. SHULTZ, FORMER HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
JEANNE SHULTZ, FORMER WIFE, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's order finding the former husband in contempt for failing to pay court-ordered alimony, and affirmed the finding that he had the present ability to pay.
The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the former husband had the present ability to pay the required alimony and affirmed the contempt order.
The former husband challenged a contempt order for failing to pay alimony, arguing he had a reduced ability to pay due to a change in employment and 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 Legitimacy Of Children cases and more on FLexlaw
We conclude that the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s petition to disestablish paternity. He proved by un-rebutted scientific evidence that he was not the biological father of the two children born during his marriage to the ap-pellee. Consequently, he has no enforceable legal obligation to make child support payments to the appellee. See Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1997). We share the trial court’s concern regarding the legitimacy of the children, but legitimacy and paternity are distinct concepts. A child born during the course of a valid marriage is legitimate even if a paternity test conclusively establishes that the husband or former husband is not the biological father. See Daniel; Ferradaz v. Ortiz, 754 So.2d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
For these reasons, we reverse with instructions to enter a new final judgment of dissolution that reflects that the appellant is not the father of the children. The new judgment must contain no provision impos- ■ ing a legal obligation on the appellant to make child support payments to his former spouse for the one child who is still a minor. Both of the children retain their status as legitimate children.
Reversed.
BENTON, C.J., PADOVANO, and ROBERTS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martinez v. Iris Marina Cuevas (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1997)
- Leonel Ferradaz v. Ortiz, 754 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)