Watson v. Griffith

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Watson v. Griffith

665 So. 2d 357, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13506, 1995 WL 761209

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 28, 1995

DocketNo. 94-4287

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 665 So. 2d 357 (Watson v. Griffith) 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

Watson v. Griffith, 665 So. 2d 357, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13506, 1995 WL 761209 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph A. Watson appeals an order denying his motion for reconsideration of a paternity judgment that was based in part on the results of an human leukocyte antigen blood test. In his motion, Watson seeks to reopen the case below 20 months after entry of the final judgment of paternity and to redetermine paternity based upon DNA testing. Because a paternity order is res judica-ta on the issue of paternity, and relitigation of paternity issues is unauthorized absent a cognizable motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1.540, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, we affirm. See e.g., Department of Revenue o/b/o Freckleton v. Goulbourne, 648 So.2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also Department of Revenue, o/b/o Betrand v. Saunders, 659 So.2d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant seeking visitation rights with the child in an appropriate proceeding.

AFFIRMED.

MINER, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Joseph A. Watson appeals an order denying his motion for reconsideration of a paternity judgment that was based in part on the results of an human leukocyte antigen blood test. In his motion, Watson seeks to reopen the case below 20 months after entry of the final judgment of paternity and to redetermine paternity based upon DNA testing. Because a paternity order is res judica-ta on the issue of paternity, and relitigation of paternity issues is unauthorized absent a cognizable motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1.540, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, we affirm. See e.g., Department of Revenue o/b/o Freckleton v. Goulbourne, 648 So.2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also Department of Revenue, o/b/o Betrand v. Saunders, 659 So.2d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant seeking visitation rights with the child in an appropriate proceeding.

AFFIRMED.

MINER, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

665 So. 2d 357, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13506, 1995 WL 761209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-griffith-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack