Dep't of Revenue v. M.J.M.
| Decision Date | 28 April 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2D15–3246 |
| Parties | DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. M.J.M. and A.M.R., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William H. Branch, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa; and Carrie R. McNair, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee (substituted as counsel of record), for Appellant.
No appearance for Appellees.
The Department of Revenue appeals from a final order granting M.J.M.'s petition to disestablish paternity pursuant to section 742.18, Florida Statutes (2012). DOR asserts that the order runs afoul of the requirements of that statute because (1) M.J.M.'s petition was not based on newly discovered evidence, (2) M.J.M. did not file the petition within ninety days of a DNA test establishing that he was not the father, and (3) M.J.M. did not prove, and the trial court did not find, that M.J.M. substantially complied with his child support obligations and that any delinquency was attributable to just cause. As we explain below, we find no merit in DOR's arguments regarding newly discovered evidence and the timeliness of M.J.M.'s petition. We agree with DOR, however, that the trial court failed to make legally required findings on the child support issue, and we therefore reverse its order and remand for that purpose.
Section 742.18(1) identifies the "circumstances under which a male may disestablish paternity or terminate a child support obligation when the male is not the biological father of the child." The statute regulates both the manner in which a male seeking to disestablish paternity or terminate a support obligation must seek that relief and the findings that a trial court must make to order those remedies. As to the manner in which relief should be sought, the statute provides that the male must file a petition with the trial court that includes the following:
§ 742.18(1). The statute also provides that a court must grant relief upon a finding of several facts, which include the following that are relevant to DOR's appellate arguments in this case:
§ 742.18(2).
With this brief explanation of the statutory requirements behind us, we turn to the facts of this case.
In May 2005, DOR filed a complaint to establish paternity against M.J.M., who the mother then claimed was the father of M.R. M.J.M. did not serve an answer to that complaint. Nor did he otherwise appear in the action or defend himself in that action. As a result, in August 2005, the trial court entered a final judgment establishing that M.J.M. was M.R.'s father and ordering him to make payments for the support of M.R.
On December 6, 2012, M.J.M. through counsel filed a petition to disestablish paternity pursuant to section 742.18. He named DOR and M.R.'s mother as respondents. The petition alleged that after paternity was established, M.R.'s mother called M.J.M. and admitted, for the first time, that M.R. was not his child. With the mother's blessing, M.J.M. thereafter took a paternity test in June 2010 which confirmed her admission. The petition alleged that these two things constituted newly discovered evidence and attached the results of the DNA test. M.J.M. further alleged in an affidavit attached to the petition that he was either current on his child support obligation or in substantial compliance with the obligation and that any delinquency in his obligation arose from his inability for just cause to pay it.
DOR filed an answer in which it neither admitted nor denied M.J.M.'s allegations regarding the mother's admission and the DNA test and asserted no defenses related to either the newly discovered evidence claim or the timeliness of the DNA test. It did, however, contest M.J.M.'s claim that he was in compliance with his child support obligation by stating he owed more than $20,000 in back child support. M.R.'s mother filed an answer in which she stated that she was not contesting the disestablishment of paternity.
The petition was heard over the course of several hearings at which M.J.M. appeared pro se. The trial court asked M.J.M., under oath, a series of questions related both to the issue of paternity and to the issue of child support. In the main, its questions called for short, unelaborated answers. M.J.M. often attempted to explain his answers or other circumstances he thought relevant to his case but was summarily prevented from doing so by the trial court. DOR did not present any evidence and relied solely on the argument of counsel.
As to the alleged newly discovered evidence—the conversation with M.R.'s mother and the DNA test results—M.J.M. testified consistently with the allegations of his petition. He further testified that he and M.R.'s mother were in the middle of a breakup and no longer having sex around the time she became pregnant. For that reason, M.J.M. stated at different points both that he "knew" he was not M.R.'s father and, alternatively, that he "had a feeling" he was not. He explained that he was unable to appear at the hearing on the initial petition to establish paternity because he had been in a car accident. He testified that he hired an attorney in March 2011 to address the paternity issue. The attorney inexplicably failed to file the petition until December 2012.
As to the question of child support, M.J.M. admitted that he was delinquent on those payments, which DOR alleged were $24,000 in arrears. M.J.M. testified that he could not make his payments because he was unemployed and not able to do so. He tried to explain that because of his stated inability to pay support, his driver's license had been suspended—in fact, he had been jailed for driving on a suspended license—and that his employment prospects had become limited as a result of his inability to drive. The trial court did not, however, permit M.J.M. to offer a complete explanation of his reasons for nonpayment.
DOR argued that the trial court was required to deny the petition under section 742.18 because the evidence was not newly discovered. In its view, M.J.M. knew at the time paternity was established that he was not the father and was obligated to have sought DNA testing at that time. In addition, DOR argued that M.J.M. was barred from seeking disestablishment under the statute because he failed to file his petition within ninety days of the DNA test that he took after M.R.'s mother told him he was not the father. After the trial court stated that it was inclined to disestablish paternity, DOR requested, and the trial court ordered, that M.J.M. submit to a second DNA test. The results showed again that M.J.M. was not M.R.'s father.
After additional hearings, the trial court entered an order disestablishing paternity. It found, in relevant part, that the mother's admission and DNA test results constituted newly discovered evidence sufficient to justify the disestablishment of paternity and, further, that just cause "may have existed" for M.J.M.'s failure to pay the delinquent child support. Based on these and other findings, the trial court disestablished paternity.
We review the trial court's findings of the facts necessary to grant relief under section 742.18 for competent substantial evidence, P.G. v. E.W. , 75 So.3d 777, 780 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), and its interpretation of that statute de novo, Dep't of Revenue ex rel. T.L.S. v. S.J.W. , 113 So.3d 85, 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). DOR asserts that the trial court erred in determining that the mother's admission and the 2010 DNA test constituted newly discovered evidence under section 742.18(2)(a). It also argues that M.J.M.'s petition is time-barred because it was not brought within ninety days of the 2010 DNA test under 742.18(1)(b). Finally, it asserts that the trial court failed to make the findings required by section 742.18(2)(c). We address each argument in turn.
DOR argues that the mother's admission and the DNA test results did not amount to newly discovered evidence because M.J.M....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tracey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
...(as opposed to having evidence erroneously admitted), a remand for a new trial may be the correct remedy. See Dep't of Revenue v. M.J.M, 217 So.3d 1148, 1157 n.3 (Fla 2d DCA 2017) ; cf. infra n.8 (distinguishing cases on remand where the trial court had prohibited a party from presenting ev......
- Nunez v. State
- Blackwood v. State, Case No. 2D16–1351
-
Alimony and support
...not constitute “newly discovered evidence” for purposes of disestablishing paternity of the child); but see Dep’t of Revenue v. M.J.M. , 217 So. 3d 1148, 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (certifying conflict with Hooks to the extent its holding is inconsistent with 2d DCA’s holding about the meaning......