Stewart v. Department of Revenue, State , Child Support Enforcement Program ex rel. Cooper

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stewart v. Department of Revenue, State , Child Support Enforcement Program ex rel. Cooper

695 So. 2d 831, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6934, 1997 WL 336624

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1997

DocketNo. 96-174

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 695 So. 2d 831 (Stewart v. Department of Revenue, State , Child Support Enforcement Program ex rel. Cooper) 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

Stewart v. Department of Revenue, State , Child Support Enforcement Program ex rel. Cooper, 695 So. 2d 831, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6934, 1997 WL 336624 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRIS, Judge.

This action commenced as an action by the Department of Revenue on behalf of the mother to collect child support arrearages under a Pennsylvania judgment. In our view, by ordering Mr. Stewart to pay child support, the Pennsylvania court determined that he was the father of the child. Mr. Stewart did not appeal that decision. He now urges in the case below that although he was aware of the Pennsylvania ease and had the opportunity to defend, he did not appear and that in his absence, the mother committed fraud on the court by testifying that he was the father of the child although she knew he had had a vasectomy. Even if there is a valid basis for this challenge, since Mr. Stewart does not challenge the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania court, such argument should have been made there. See generally Archbold Health Services, Inc. v. Future Tech Business Systems, Inc., 659 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Baron v. Baron, 454 So.2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

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

HARRIS, Judge.

This action commenced as an action by the Department of Revenue on behalf of the mother to collect child support arrearages under a Pennsylvania judgment. In our view, by ordering Mr. Stewart to pay child support, the Pennsylvania court determined that he was the father of the child. Mr. Stewart did not appeal that decision. He now urges in the case below that although he was aware of the Pennsylvania ease and had the opportunity to defend, he did not appear and that in his absence, the mother committed fraud on the court by testifying that he was the father of the child although she knew he had had a vasectomy. Even if there is a valid basis for this challenge, since Mr. Stewart does not challenge the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania court, such argument should have been made there. See generally Archbold Health Services, Inc. v. Future Tech Business Systems, Inc., 659 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Baron v. Baron, 454 So.2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

695 So. 2d 831, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6934, 1997 WL 336624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-department-of-revenue-state-child-support-enforcement-program-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack