Fla. court rules man can't contest child support award despite lack of paternity

A man cannot have his child support obligations set aside even though his ex-wife falsely claimed he was the biological father, because her actions were "intrinsic fraud" subject to a one-year statute of limitations, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled.

At the time of the couple's divorce, the wife asserted that the plaintiff was the biological father of her child. Several years later, after a DNA test showed this was false, the plaintiff sought to have the child support agreement nullified and obtain compensatory damages for the payments he had already made.

But the court said that his suit was time-barred because the wife's fraud was "intrinsic" rather than "extrinsic." The statute of limitations for claims of intrinsic fraud is one year, while there is no time limit for extrinsic fraud claims.

The court defined intrinsic fraud as "fraudulent conduct that arises within a proceeding," including "false testimony" such as the wife's.

Extrinsic fraud, in contrast, is fraud which prevents a party from trying an issue before the court.

Further, said the court, "[w]e find that the balance of policy considerations favors protecting the best interests of the child over protecting the interests of one parent defrauded by the other parent in the midst of a divorce."

It noted that this was the majority view, citing similar decisions from Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Vermont.

Parker v. Parker (Lawyers USA No. 9935045) Florida Supreme Court No. SC05-2346. Feb. 1, 2007.