## Facts

- The parties married in 1996; a child was born in 1998.
- During the dissolution proceeding, the wife represented to the husband and the court that the husband was the child’s biological father; the husband had no reason to suspect otherwise.
- In December 2001, the parties executed a marital settlement agreement requiring the husband to pay $1,200 per month in child support; the agreement was incorporated into a final judgment of dissolution entered December 7, 2001.
- In March 2003, the wife sought contempt/enforcement for support and medical expense arrearages.
- The husband obtained DNA testing shortly thereafter; the results excluded him as the child’s biological father.
- The husband filed an independent civil action alleging the wife knowingly misrepresented and concealed paternity to obtain child support.
- The trial court dismissed the action with prejudice; on appeal, the filing was treated as a request for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b).

## Issues

1. Whether a former wife’s misrepresentation of paternity in a dissolution proceeding is intrinsic or extrinsic fraud for purposes of post-judgment relief.
2. Whether relief from the dissolution judgment is barred when the alleged fraud is discovered and asserted more than one year after entry of the final judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b).
3. Whether a former husband may pursue an independent damages action for fraud based on paternity misrepresentation when post-judgment relief is time-barred.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed dismissal with prejudice.
- The court held that misrepresentation of paternity in a dissolution proceeding is intrinsic fraud.
- Because the claim was asserted more than one year after the final judgment, it was time-barred under Rule 1.540(b).
- The court rejected use of an independent civil action as a means to obtain relief inconsistent with the final dissolution judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), relief from a final judgment for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an adverse party must be sought within one year of the judgment.
- Fraud is intrinsic when it concerns an issue that was, or could have been, litigated in the original action; it is extrinsic when it prevents a party from having a fair opportunity to present the case.
- Misrepresentation of paternity affecting support obligations in a dissolution case concerns issues within the dissolution court’s authority and is treated as intrinsic fraud.
- A litigant may not use a collateral damages suit to circumvent the one-year limitation and the finality of the dissolution judgment.

## Conclusion

The court held that a spouse’s paternity misrepresentation in a dissolution proceeding constitutes intrinsic fraud subject to Rule 1.540(b)’s one-year deadline; once that period expires, the judgment and support obligations cannot be reopened, nor can an independent fraud action be used to sidestep the time bar and finality of the dissolution judgment.


Parker v. Parker, 916 So. 2d 926 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)