GUS ANDY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF YIANNIS BARON ANTONIADIS, APPELLANT,
v.
KELLY PAGE LESSEM, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a probate trial court's rejection of the Estate of Yiannis Baron Antoniadis's defense challenging the validity of an adoption decree. The court held that a circuit court order setting aside an adoption cannot be disregarded by another court merely because it was allegedly erroneous, and that the biological father lacked standing to challenge the adoption in the first place since he was not an essential party to the original proceeding.
The trial court correctly rejected the Estate's affirmative defense and was required to recognize the validity of the January 9, 1987, order. A circuit court cannot disregard another circuit court's orders on the theory that they were erroneously entered. Additionally, the biological father was not an essential party to the original adoption proceeding and was not entitled to notice because his consent was not required under Florida law.
[1] A biological father is not an essential party to an adoption proceeding and is not required to be notified if his consent is not required due to the child being born out…
[2] A circuit court has jurisdiction and authority to enter an order that reaches a different result than a prior order from another circuit court.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a circuit court clearly cannot disregard the orders of another circuit court on the theory that such orders were erroneously entered”
Establishes the fundamental principle that courts must respect the orders of coordinate courts even if those orders may be erroneous.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYiannis Baron Antoniadis was the biological father of Kelly Page Lessem, born out of wedlock. Antoniadis never established paternity through court pro…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Vacate Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After a careful examination of the record, briefs, and applicable law in this case, we conclude that the final order under review should be affirmed. At the outset, we have considerable doubt as to the correctness of the January 9, 1987, circuit court order which set aside the adoption of Kelly Page Lessem as, in our view, it is dubious whether a fraud upon the court was ever shown. Yiannis Baron Antoniadis, the biological father of Kelly, was not an essential party to the original adoption proceeding and was not required to be notified of such proceedings, as his consent to the adoption was not required— given the fact that (a) Kelly was born out of wedlock, (b) Antoniadis’ paternity was never established by court proceedings, and (c) Antoniadis never filed an official acknowledgement of his paternity nor supported or adopted Kelly. DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So. 2d 375, 377 (Fla.1984); In re A.J.B., 548 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Wylie v. Botos, 416 So. 2d 1253, 1255-56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); In re Adoption of Mullenix, 359 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); §§ 63.062(1), 63.122(4)(c), Fla.Stat. (1979).
Nonetheless, we are convinced that the circuit court in Hillsborough County had the jurisdiction and authority to reach a different result by entering the subject order and that, accordingly, the trial court below, sitting in probate, was eminently correct in rejecting the affirmative defense asserted by the Estate of Yiannis Baron Antoniadis that the January 9, 1987, order was erroneously entered and should be disregarded; a circuit court clearly cannot disregard the orders of another circuit court on the theory that such orders were erroneously entered. See Eastern Shores Sales Co. v. City of N. Miami Beach, 363 So. 2d 321, 323 (Fla.1978).
Moreover, we are totally unpersuaded that the January 9, 1987, order did not invalidate the adoption decree ab initio as it is plain that the subject order had just that effect. Bemis v. Loftin, 127 Fla. 515, 173 So. 683, 688-89 (1937); Shields v. Flinn, 528 So. 2d 967, 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
Finally, we reach our result herein, as did the Second District Court of Appeal [which affirmed a trial court order denying the Estate of Yiannis Baron Antoniadis’ motion to vacate the January 9, 1987, order for lack of standing], “without prejudice to the appellant’s ability to initiate an independent action” to set aside the subject order on the ground that the original adoption was not obtained through a fraud upon the court. In re Adoption of Lessem, 536 So. 2d 343, 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (emphasis added). Unless and until the January 9, 1987, order is set aside in such an independent action, the trial court was plainly required to recognize, as it did, the validity of said order.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peregood v. Cosmides, 663 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…am adoption appears patently against this child’s best interests. Florida cases hold that where fraud has entered into an adoption proceeding, the adoption decree can be set aside. Jefferis v. May, 603 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Andy v. Lessem, 595 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The fraudulent procurement of a natural parent’s consent to the adoption of a child is sufficient to warrant setting aside the adoption. Lambert v. Taylor, 150 Fla. 680, 8 So. 2d 393 (1942). It logically follows that consent to a…
-
Janine Preston v. Tolone, 661 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…n Mar, Inc. v. Cillis, 483 So .2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). . See In re Adoption of Shea, 86 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1956); Lambert v. Taylor, 8 So. 2d 393 (Fla.1942). . See State ex rel. Warren v. City of Miami, 15 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1943); Andy v. Lessem, 595 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Groover v. Groover, 383 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); In re Kant's Estate, 265 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).…
Authorities Cited
- DeCLAIRE v. Yohanan, 453 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1984)
- Shields v. Flinn, 528 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Bemis v. Loftin, 127 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1937)
- In re Adoption OF Bradley Joel Mullenix, 359 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Pownall v. Loucks, 416 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- E. Shores Sales Co. v. City OF N. Miami Beach, 363 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1978)
- Salmon v. State, 548 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- In the Interest of A.J.B., 548 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- In re The Adoption OF Kelly Paige Lessem v. Lessem, 536 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)