Nevitt v. Bonomo, 53 So. 3d 1078

Nevitt sought a paternity determination after the dissolution of Bonomos’ marriage; child conceived during marriage but born after divorce, with birth alleged around April 20, 2010.
Nevitt filed a 742.10 (2009) paternity action on February 11, 2010, alleging lack of intact marriage and substantial concern for the child.
Amended complaint (Feb. 25, 2010) added that Bonomo had undergone a vasectomy and that the marriage was not intact at conception.
Trial court granted an emergency DNA test order and initially found Nevitt to be the biological father based on an agreement with Bonomo’s consent; Bonomo later admitted Nevitt is the biological father.
Appellees filed a motion to dismiss (May 6, 2010) arguing Nevitt lacked standing because the final dissolution judgment had been set aside nunc pro tunc, restoring the marriage.
Trial court dismissed the paternity action (May 12, 2010) and Nevitt appealed seeking reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nevitt has standing to pursue paternity after nunc pro tunc dissolution order.	Nevitt asserts standing despite dissolution set‑aside; the birth and custody context remain valid.	Bonomos contend the set‑aside restored marriage, defeating paternity action.	No automatic bar; standing can be considered despite nunc pro tunc order.
Whether the trial court could consider extrinsic nunc pro tunc order at a motion to dismiss.	Allegations should be evaluated within the complaint; extrinsic orders cannot be used to defeat standing at dismissal.	Order affects marital status and should bar paternity action.	Extrinsic order cannot be considered on a motion to dismiss; reversal warranted.

Kendrick v. Everheart, 390 So.2d 53 (Fla. 1980) (require substantial concern for the child to contest paternity when conceived during marriage)
L.J. v. A.S., 25 So.3d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (standing requires opportunity to present evidence; biological father willing to parent weighs)
G.F.C. v. S.G., 686 So.2d 1382 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (mere biological link insufficient to establish paternity; need developed relationship)
Lander v. Smith, 906 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (intactness of marriage concept; no pending divorce needed for context (as discussed))
S.B. v. D.H., 736 So.2d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (policy of paternity actions in quasi-marital contexts)
T.B. v. M.M., 945 So.2d 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (defensive steps to undo divorce not automatic bar to paternity action)
Lohman v. Carnahan, 963 So.2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (distinguishable; timing of paternity action relative to birth and divorce matters)
J.W.T. v. S.T., 974 So.2d 436 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (motion to dismiss based on outside factors cannot rely on facts not in complaint)
Baby James Doe, In re Adoption of, 572 So.2d 986 (Fla. 1990) (strong presumption of legitimacy for child conceived during marriage)