Hooks v. Quaintance
71 So. 3d 908
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hooks petitioned to disestablish paternity under section 742.18 after DNA testing showed he is not the biological father.
- Trial court dismissed for failure to include newly discovered evidence as required by 742.18(1).
- Child was born January 2, 2005; no father named at birth; Hooks’ name added to birth certificate September 21, 2005 with consent.
- Hooks married appellee September 22, 2005; divorce decree (November 30, 2006) identified the child as issue of the marriage.
- Hooks acknowledged only a fifty percent chance of paternity and chose not to pursue DNA testing in 2005.
- Court explains 742.18 requires both newly discovered evidence and proper testing, with due diligence required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does DNA testing alone satisfy 742.18(1) as newly discovered evidence? | Hooks contends DNA results are newly discovered evidence under 742.18(1). | Quaintance argues newly discovered evidence and DNA testing are separate requirements; due diligence required. | No; DNA results alone are not newly discovered evidence; due diligence lacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strod v. Lewenstark, 958 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (statutory interpretation and due diligence guidance)
- Johnston v. Johnston, 979 So.2d 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (Rule 1.540 context prior to 742.18)
- Phenion Dev. Grp., Inc. v. Love, 940 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (newly discovered evidence limitations; not a second chance)
- Junda v. Diez, 848 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (finality of litigation; exuberance of new proof rare)
- Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla.1984) (statutory interpretation caution; avoid extending plain terms)
- State v. Goode, 830 So.2d 817 (Fla.2002) (avoid meaningless readings; give effect to every word)