Christopher Sheridan v. Samantha K. Rennhack
200 So. 3d 255
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Final judgment of paternity entered October 6, 2014, declaring Sheridan the legal and biological father and ordering child support; Sheridan did not appeal that judgment.
- Sheridan filed a Rule 1.540(b)(3) motion (Jan. 11, 2015) alleging the mother committed fraud/misrepresentation; he asserted he obtained DNA results (received Jan. 5, 2015) showing 0% probability he was the father.
- The trial court denied Sheridan’s Rule 1.540 motion without detailed findings (Feb. 20, 2015).
- Sheridan then filed a petition to disestablish paternity under section 742.18 (Mar. 3, 2015), alleging the DNA constituted newly discovered evidence; the mother disputed the new-evidence claim and Sheridan’s child-support status.
- At the summary-judgment hearing on the mother’s motion, no live evidence was introduced; the court relied on the file and ruled for the mother, citing Hooks, and entered final judgment against Sheridan.
- The First DCA reversed, holding genuine issues of material fact remained about when Sheridan learned of doubts and whether he exercised due diligence in obtaining DNA evidence; the prior denial of relief under Rule 1.540 did not decide the section 742.18 “newly discovered evidence” issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sheridan’s petition under §742.18 raised genuine issues of material fact about newly discovered evidence and diligence | Sheridan: DNA test (0% paternity) obtained soon after he first doubted paternity; constitutes newly discovered evidence and shows due diligence | Mother: Sheridan admitted paternity earlier and could have tested before judgment; DNA is not newly discovered and is inadmissible; Hooks bars relief | Court: Reversed summary judgment; genuine factual disputes exist about timing and diligence that preclude summary disposition |
| Whether prior denial of Rule 1.540(b)(3) relief resolved issues under §742.18 | Sheridan: Rule 1.540 denial did not address "newly discovered evidence" elements of §742.18 | Mother: Trial court treated prior order as dispositive of factual disputes | Court: Rule 1.540(b)(3) fraud inquiry is different from §742.18; prior denial did not resolve §742.18 issues |
| Applicability of Hooks v. Quaintance to bar Sheridan’s petition | Mother: Hooks requires diligence showing; Sheridan failed to show due diligence so Hooks mandates summary judgment | Sheridan: Facts differ—petition filed within months of judgment; Hooks facts distinguishable | Court: Hooks was overbroadly applied; Hooks sets diligence standard but facts here raise disputed issues requiring trial |
| Whether summary judgment was proper without weighing credibility or admitting evidence | Mother: Relied on court file; argued no material fact in dispute | Sheridan: Disputed facts exist; court improperly resolved fact issues without evidence or credibility determinations | Court: Summary judgment improper because genuine disputes of material fact remained and court cannot weigh credibility on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Hooks v. Quaintance, 71 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (explaining §742.18 requires diligence analysis for newly discovered evidence)
- Johnston v. Johnston, 979 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (noting §742.18 created a new statutory cause of action distinct from Rule 1.540)
- P.G. v. E.W., 75 So. 3d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (reversing denial where facts supported petitioner’s due diligence in obtaining DNA)
- Parker v. Parker, 950 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2007) (intrinsic fraud in paternity context governed by Rule 1.540 timeliness)
- Wadlington v. Continental Med. Servs., Inc., 907 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (elements of fraud)
- State, Dep’t of Revenue v. Fackler, 843 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (summary judgment reversible if evidence supports reasonable inference of a genuine dispute of material fact)