Florida’s appellate courts delivered a packed slate of opinions this week—covering everything from paternity testing and child relocation to unlawful detainer jurisdiction, skeleton-based neighbor disputes, and whether creditors can reach spousal bank accounts. If you practice family law, civil litigation, or property law, there’s something here for you.
Let’s break it down.
🧬 Paternity Isn’t Automatic—Even With DNA
Rosich-Medina v. Chilaud (3d DCA)
This case is a reminder that biology alone doesn’t control paternity determinations in Florida.
The trial court ordered genetic testing at the request of a putative biological father—but the Third DCA quashed that order. Why? Because the court skipped a critical step: determining whether the child already had a legal father.
If a child has a legal father, the court must determine whether genetic testing is in the child’s best interests before ordering it. That analysis never happened.
Key takeaway:
➡️ You can’t jump straight to DNA testing without first addressing legal paternity and best interests—especially under Chapter 742.
✈️ You Can’t Relocate the Kids Before the Case Exists
Dunn v. Flores (3d DCA)
Here, a husband unilaterally relocated the parties’ children out of state before a dissolution case was filed. The trial court ordered their emergency return to Florida.
The Third DCA stayed that order.
Why? Because Florida’s relocation statute doesn’t apply until a dissolution action is filed, and no best-interests determination had yet been made. The appellate court hit pause, gave the trial court 30 days to conduct a proper hearing, and emphasized due process over urgency.
Key takeaway:
➡️ Relocation law depends heavily on timing. Courts still need a best-interests analysis—even in emergency situations.
🏠 If There’s an Equitable Interest, County Court Is Out
Voss v. Voss (2d DCA)
This one’s for the civil litigators.
A county court denied a motion to dismiss an unlawful detainer action—but the tenant had asserted an equitable interest in the property. That transformed the case into an ejectment action, which only circuit courts can hear.
The Second DCA reversed.
Key takeaway:
➡️ Jurisdiction matters. If equitable ownership is in play, county court doesn’t get to keep the case.
☠️ A Skeleton Is Not (Always) Stalking
Heule v. Humphrey (1st DCA)
Yes, this is the skeleton case.
Neighbors hung a skeleton on their front door and dressed it up to mirror events in the petitioners’ lives. Creepy? Maybe. Legally sufficient for a stalking injunction? No.
The First DCA held that—even assuming the conduct was intentional—the evidence didn’t establish substantial emotional distress, which is required for a permanent injunction.
Key takeaway:
➡️ Annoying, bizarre, or passive-aggressive conduct isn’t automatically stalking. The emotional distress element still matters.
🧾 Partition Means Accounting—Even After Divorce
Lantz v. Gibson (1st DCA)
After divorce, former spouses owned property as tenants in common. Their marital settlement agreement allocated sale proceeds and relieved the former husband of mortgage obligations—but said nothing about other ownership expenses.
The First DCA held the former wife could still seek reimbursement for those expenses in a partition action.
Key takeaway:
➡️ Partition rights survive divorce, and silence in an MSA doesn’t eliminate statutory accounting rights.
💰 Spousal Bank Accounts Can Be Off-Limits to Creditors
Loumpos v. Bank One (Florida Supreme Court)
This is a big one.
The Florida Supreme Court clarified that a bank account originally opened by one spouse—but later converted into a joint spousal account—can qualify as tenancy by the entireties and be shielded from garnishment by a creditor of only one spouse.
The Court rejected a narrow reading of section 655.79 and confirmed that the 2008 amendment changed the analysis established in Beal Bank.
Key takeaway:
➡️ How an account starts matters less than how it’s titled and treated later. Creditors don’t automatically win.
⚖️ Final Thought
This week’s cases are a reminder that Florida law is deeply procedural:
- Timing matters
- Jurisdiction matters
- Labels matter
- And yes—even skeletons require proof of emotional distress
If you’re litigating in family law or civil court, these opinions are worth a close read—and may save you from a reversible error.