Yohanan v. deClaire, s. 81-551
| Citation | 421 So.2d 551 |
| Decision Date | 15 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | 81-819,Nos. 81-551,s. 81-551 |
| Parties | Donna deClaire YOHANAN, Appellant/Cross appellee, v. George F. deCLAIRE, Appellee/Cross appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
James M. Tuthill of Christiansen & Jacknin, Palm Beach, for appellant/cross appellee.
Edna L. Caruso and Montgomery, Lytal, Reiter, Denney & Searcy, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee/cross appellant.
Donna deClaire Yohanan, appeals the trial court's denial of her petition to set aside a final judgment of dissolution for fraud on the court. The petition alleged that appellee, George F. deClaire, misled the court by filing a fraudulent financial affidavit executed pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.611. Appellee cross-appeals both the granting of the petition for increase of child support payments and the awarding of a cost and fees judgment to the appellant.
The parties were married in 1958 and divorced in 1977. The final judgment of dissolution incorporated by reference a property settlement agreement which, inter alia, limited the appellee's child support obligations to $100 per child per month. In 1980, appellant filed a petition for increase of child support, citing an increase in both the children's needs and appellee's ability to pay. Appellant subsequently amended her petition to include an independent action to set aside the judgment of dissolution for fraud on the court, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), alleging that appellee committed fraud on the court when he filed a Rule 1.611 financial affidavit that materially misrepresented his income, assets, liabilities and net worth to the court.
After a final hearing on appellant's petition, the trial court entered an order finding that in 1977 appellee fraudulently filed his financial affidavit because it failed to accurately reflect the true facts of his assets and liabilities. Appellee underestimated his net income by approximately $1,775 per month and financial statements submitted to various banks demonstrated a much greater net worth than that shown by appellee's financial affidavit. Despite the trial court's disapproval of appellee's conduct, the trial judge refused to set aside the property settlement agreement. The trial judge found that because appellant had prior to the filing of the dissolution co-signed a financial statement which reflected the appellee's net worth at approximately $500,000 above that stated in his financial affidavit she either knew or should have known of his true net worth. Appellant and her attorney testified that they thought appellee had told the truth in his financial affidavit. The trial court held that appellant had waived her claim to set aside the property settlement agreement because she should have known his true net worth and did not timely contest the property settlement agreement within one year.
The trial court also found that changed circumstances justified an increase in the child support award and entered a cost and fees judgment against the appellee. This appeal and cross appeal followed.
Appellant argues that she had a right to rely on the truthfulness of the appellee's financial affidavit and that his fraudulent filing constituted fraud upon the court. We agree and reverse the trial court's refusal to set aside the property settlement agreement. In all other respects, we affirm the orders below.
It is clear that appellant's independent action to set aside the property settlement agreement was untimely unless the fraud alleged constituted fraud upon the court. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b); August v. August, 350 So.2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). This Court has limited the application of the fraud on the court concept for public policy reasons.
"Fraud on the court" is a somewhat elusive concept. See 7 J. Moore Federal Practice, 1972, pp 60.33, 60.36, 60.37, and Toscano v. C.I.R., 9 Cir.1971, 441 F.2d 930, 933. If it is given a broad application so as to comprehend any type of misrepresentation by a witness or party which induced an incorrect factual determination by the trier of fact, judgments would be subject to frequent attack by independent actions, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daugharty v. Commissioner
...(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984).4 The District Court of Appeal stated: Because the principles of law enunciated in Yohanan [v. DeClaire, 421 So.2d 551 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. 1982)] and Brown [v. Brown, 432 So.2d 704 (Fla. App. 3d Dist. 1983)], have been disapproved by our Supreme Court, we would b......
-
DeClaire v. Yohanan
...OVERTON, Justice. This is a petition to review a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal reported as Yohanan v. DeClaire, 421 So.2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The district court held that the petitioner-husband's filing of a false financial affidavit in the parties' dissolution action......
-
Daugharty v. Daugharty, AV-467
...purported to represent her interest in the dissolution of marriage proceeding." The trial judge, expressly relying on Yohanan v. DeClaire, 421 So.2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) and Brown v. Brown, 432 So.2d 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), concluded that the property settlement portions of the divorce d......
-
Yohanan v. deClaire
...by the trial court upon due notice and hearing, subject to review by this court under Rule 9.400(c), Fla.R.App.P. Yohanan v. deClaire, 421 So.2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In preparing for the trial court's hearing to assess fees, respondent, former husband, attempted to discover the extent t......
-
A serious penalty for perjury.
...1983). [16] Miele, 407 So. 2d 292; Bird v. Hardrives of Delray, Inc., 644 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1994). [17] Yohanan v. deClaire, 421 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1982), quashed on other grounds sub nom. DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1984); Weinstein v. Weinstein, 447 So. 2d ......