# Department of Revenue ex rel. T.E.P. v. Price

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · June 13, 2007 · 958 So. 2d 1045

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7789005

## Case

- **Full name:** DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, o/b/o T.E.P. v. Pearson PRICE
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** June 13, 2007
- **Citations:** 958 So. 2d 1045; 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 9142; 2007 WL 1688133
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Villanti
- **Judges:** Casanueva, Salcines, Villanti
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7789005

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding order compelling genetic test would be irremediable on direct appeal, as “the improper genetic testing requiring a blood draw would have already been completed”
- holding the order “for the improper genetic testing requiring a blood draw” cannot be corrected on direct appeal

## Opinion text

VILLANTI, Judge,
Specially concurring.
I concur in the majority holding but write to emphasize that, while the trial court may have believed that “[t]he Statutes have not kept up with the advances in science[,]” the trial court was still obligated to follow those duly enacted statutes. Mr. Price did not contest that he signed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity more than sixty days before filing his answer in this collection action which purportedly sought to challenge his paternity. As a result, under section 742.10(4), Mr. Price’s acknowledgement constituted “an establishment of paternity and may be challenged in court only on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact.” Mr. Price alleged none of these bases in his answer. Further, section 742.12 only authorizes the trial court to order DNA testing “[i]n any proceeding to establish paternity.” Because paternity had previously been established and Mr. Price did not properly bring a proceeding to challenge that establishment of paternity, the law suit below did not involve an action to establish paternity. Under these facts, the trial court did not have authority to order DNA testing. Consequently, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when it ordered DNA testing. I note that our holding does not in any way preclude Mr. Price from challenging his paternity by following all statutory requirements in the future.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7789005. Public record. Not legal advice.