Department of Revenue v. M.J.M.
217 So. 3d 1148
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2005 DOR obtained a default final judgment establishing M.J.M. as father of M.R. and ordering support after M.J.M. failed to answer/process.
- In 2010 the mother allegedly admitted to M.J.M. that he was not the father; M.J.M. obtained a DNA test in June 2010 showing he was not the biological father.
- M.J.M. (through counsel) filed a § 742.18 petition to disestablish paternity in December 2012, attaching the 2010 test and an affidavit claiming substantial compliance with support or just cause for any delinquency.
- DOR contested only child-support compliance (alleging ~$24,000–$36,000 arrears); it did not prove up defenses to the newly discovered evidence claim and agreed to a court-ordered new DNA test, which again excluded paternity.
- The trial court disestablished paternity, finding the mother’s admission and DNA results were newly discovered evidence and that just cause “may have existed” for nonpayment; it did not make clear findings on substantial compliance or just cause as required by § 742.18(2)(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (M.J.M.) | Defendant's Argument (DOR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother’s admission and DNA results are "newly discovered evidence" under § 742.18 | Those items came to his knowledge after the initial paternity determination and satisfy the statute | He knew (or suspected) earlier, so evidence is not "newly discovered" and statute’s diligence requirements apply | Court: New evidence test focuses on what came to petitioner’s knowledge after initial determination; satisfied here (P.G. controlling) |
| Whether petition was time‑barred because not filed within 90 days of the 2010 DNA test under § 742.18(1)(b) | Petition complied—trial court later obtained a new DNA test within 90 days of hearing; statutory 90‑day requirement governs what must be attached to petition, not a substantive time‑bar | Section 742.18(1)(b) operates as a statute of limitation/repose requiring action within 90 days of first positive exculpatory test | Court: § 742.18(1)(b) prescribes contents of the petition (a DNA result <90 days old) but is not a jurisdictional time‑bar; trial court properly accepted a court‑ordered new test as functional equivalent |
| Whether petitioner must be current or have "substantially complied" with support and that any delinquency arose from just cause (§ 742.18(2)(c)) | He alleged and testified he was unemployed and unable to pay; affidavit claimed substantial compliance or just cause | DOR produced records of large arrearages and earlier contempt findings showing willful nonpayment | Court: Trial court failed to make the statutorily required findings on substantial compliance and just cause; reversal and remand required for proper factfinding |
| Whether remand for further evidentiary development is appropriate | Petitioner was prevented from fully presenting evidence at trial; deserves opportunity to meet burden on support issue | DOR and concurring/dissenting judge argued record shows petitioner cannot meet burden and remand is futile; appellate courts should not give a second chance after failure of proof | Court: Remand required because trial court’s procedure limited petitioner’s opportunity and the trial court did not make required findings; give full hearing on support issues |
Key Cases Cited
- P.G. v. E.W., 75 So.3d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA) (DNA results obtained after initial paternity determination qualify as "newly discovered evidence")
- Hooks v. Quaintance, 71 So.3d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA) (contrasting view that petitioner’s prior knowledge and lack of diligence can bar relief)
- Aulet v. Castro, 44 So.3d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA) (held statutory testing requirement is mandatory; interpreted to require action within 90 days of test)
- J.C.J. v. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. O.S.B., 80 So.3d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA) (minor, nonprejudicial pleading deficiencies may be cured where functional equivalent of statutory affidavit/test exists)
- Gotsis v. Gotsis, 813 So.2d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA) (remand required where statutorily required findings are missing)
- Healy v. Healy, 884 So.2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA) (equivocal findings insufficient; clarify on remand)
- Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. M.J.W. v. G.A.T., 76 So.3d 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA) (remand for evidentiary hearing to allow party to show good cause when testing not done)