Escarmant v. Knight

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Escarmant v. Knight

420 So. 2d 942, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21514

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 26, 1982

DocketNo. 81-2675

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 420 So. 2d 942 (Escarmant v. Knight) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Escarmant v. Knight, 420 So. 2d 942, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21514 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court which found the appellee not to be the father of appellant’s child. Although a blood grouping test established a likelihood that Knight was the father and the appellant unequivocally testified that only Knight could have been, appellant’s credibility was severely eroded by her admissions, inter alia, that she had told a number of persons that a man named Smith had fathered the child; when the child was born (some six years before the paternity proceedings were instituted), she gave the surname Smith to the child; and she lived with Smith during her pregnancy and thereafter married him. Clearly, the trial court was free to find unworthy of belief the appellant’s testimony that she never had intercourse with Smith until after the child was born and free to conclude, as it did, that Knight was not the father.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court which found the appellee not to be the father of appellant’s child. Although a blood grouping test established a likelihood that Knight was the father and the appellant unequivocally testified that only Knight could have been, appellant’s credibility was severely eroded by her admissions, inter alia, that she had told a number of persons that a man named Smith had fathered the child; when the child was born (some six years before the paternity proceedings were instituted), she gave the surname Smith to the child; and she lived with Smith during her pregnancy and thereafter married him. Clearly, the trial court was free to find unworthy of belief the appellant’s testimony that she never had intercourse with Smith until after the child was born and free to conclude, as it did, that Knight was not the father.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

420 So. 2d 942, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/escarmant-v-knight-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack