Jose Francisco Cuevas Martinez v. Iris Marina Cuevas
5D2024-2832
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.Jul 3, 2025Background
- Husband (Jose Francisco Cuevas Martinez) and Wife (Iris Marina Cuevas) married in 2005 and had three children during the marriage: MMC (2008), AMC (2010), and JMC (2015).
- Husband had a vasectomy in 2012/2013 but did not confirm its success; he suspected his paternity of JMC but was reassured by Wife.
- During divorce proceedings, Husband obtained DNA tests showing he was not the biological father of JMC or MMC.
- Husband amended his dissolution petition to disestablish paternity and avoid child support for JMC and MMC, citing newly discovered DNA evidence; Wife's pleadings supported the DNA findings.
- The trial court denied the request, reasoning Husband's prior vasectomy meant the DNA results were not 'newly discovered evidence,' and ordered him to pay child support for all three children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Husband satisfied the statutory requirements to disestablish paternity under § 742.18 | DNA tests are newly discovered evidence; satisfied statutory requirements | No new evidence—Husband knew/should've known from vasectomy | Trial court erred; vasectomy reasoning factually and legally flawed; remanded for full statutory analysis |
| Whether the DNA testing qualifies as 'newly discovered evidence' | Yes, as results were unknown until recently obtained | No, Husband was put on notice by vasectomy | DNA testing qualifies as 'newly discovered evidence' under both statutory interpretations |
| Applicability of Hooks v. Quaintance precedent | Facts distinguishable; Husband relied on Wife's assurances and later testing | Hooks supports denial where doubts exist pre-paternity | Hooks not dispositive; Husband acted on new developments, unlike in Hooks |
| Requirement to address all statutory findings for disestablishment | Court failed to address all statutory elements | N/A | Reversed and remanded to complete analysis under § 742.18 |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Rev. v. M.J.M., 217 So. 3d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (clarified that DNA test results can constitute newly discovered evidence for disestablishing paternity)
- Hooks v. Quaintance, 71 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (addressed when newly discovered evidence requirement is distinct from DNA testing)
- P.G. v. E.W., 75 So. 3d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (held DNA results post-initial paternity determination qualify as newly discovered evidence)
- Sheridan v. Rennhack, 200 So. 3d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (explained distinction between initial doubts and newly discovered evidence for disestablishing paternity)
- Johnston v. Johnston, 979 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (remanded for proper statutory analysis where trial court had not completed it)