PATRICIA L. PRYOR, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT LOUIS JAMES, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1979-12-05
No. 78-2167
SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.
377 So. 2d 252 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1979) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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.

Synopsis

Patricia Pryor appealed a dismissal of her paternity and child support petition against Robert James. The trial court granted James's motion for directed verdict, finding Pryor failed to establish a prima facie case because she did not testify that she had not had intercourse with other men during the conception period. The appellate court reversed, holding that the burden of proving an affirmative defense rests with the party raising it, not the opposing party.


Holding

The burden of proving matters raised as an affirmative defense rests on the party who raises the defense. A trial court erred in dismissing a paternity case for failure to negate an affirmative defense prior to the presentation of any evidence by the opposing party on that issue.


Headnotes

[1] A party seeking to establish paternity and child support must present substantial evidence on each material allegation in their petition.

[2] The burden of proving an affirmative defense rests on the party asserting the defense.

Previewing 2 of 3 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

Key Quotes

“the burden of proving matters raised as an affirmative defense is on the party who raises the defense”

Establishes the fundamental principle that Pryor properly raised the issue that James bore the burden of proving his affirmative defense

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Pryor, an unmarried woman, alleged she engaged in sexual intercourse with James between December 11, 1976 and January 1977. She testified she missed h…

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.


Opinion of the Court
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.

HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant Patricia Pryor appeals a final judgment which granted appellee Robert James’ motion for dismissal. We reverse.

Appellant filed a petition asking the court to determine paternity of her child and to award child support. The petition designated Robert James as respondent. James filed his answer denying paternity and raising the affirmative defense that Pryor “had sexual intercourse with one or more men which resulted in her becoming pregnant and delivering a child on or about August 7, 1977.” Appellant responded to this defense with a denial.

The matter was tried before the court without a court reporter.1 Appellant testified that she was an unmarried woman; that the parties engaged in sexual intercourse on several occasions between December 11, 1976 and January, 1977; that in January, 1977, she missed her first menstrual period and subsequently received a positive pregnancy diagnosis from a medical doctor; that the child was born on August 7, 1977; and that Robert James and his mother visited Pryor at her home and gave her a bassinet for the baby.

Pryor’s sister confirmed the testimony that Pryor was unmarried at the time of the events in question and that James and [*CCCXXXIII] his mother had visited Pryor and given her a bassinet.

At the conclusion of Pryor’s case, James rested without offering evidence and renewed his motion for a directed verdict on the ground that Pryor had failed to show a prima facie case because she offered no testimony that she had not engaged in sexual intercourse with any other man during the period of time in which conception occurred. The trial judge granted James’ motion for directed verdict and entered a final judgment which stated in pertinent part:

. On the evidence presented, the Court finds that although Petitioner and Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse on several occasions between December 11, 1976, and February 1, 1977, there was an absence in Petitioner’s evidence that Petitioner did not engage in sexual intercourse with any other man during this period of time which could have resulted in her pregnancy and that, therefore, Respondent’s Motion for Dismissal should be granted.”

Appellant Pryor contends that she presented substantial evidence on each material allegation in her petition and thus established a prima facie case. She further argues that the burden of proving matters raised as an affirmative defense is on the party who raises the defense.

The trial judge erred in dismissing appellant’s case because she failed to present evidence to negate appellee’s affirmative defense prior to the presentation of any evidence on that issue by appellee.

For this reason, we reverse the final judgment of dismissal and remand this cause for further action consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur. . The record consists of appellant’s statement of the evidence, appellee’s reply and the court’s statement of the evidence pursuant to Fla.R. A.P. 9.200(b)(3).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Thibodeaux, 547 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
    …ment of the cause of action pleaded, a motion for involuntary dismissal must be denied. Murphy v. Community Centers Corp., 393 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In this case, Ms. Williams’s testimony established a prima facie case. See Pryor v. James, 377 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). As mentioned above, the final judgment contained findings that Ms. Williams’s testimony was not credible and that the appel [*1245] lants had failed to meet their burden proof. To reach these conclusions, the court had to weight…
  • Pena v. Carias, 440 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Pryor v. James, 377 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw