Florida Decisions

This case is before the Court on M.B.S.'s motion for rehearing of this Court's order denying him admission to The Florida Bar. Court have jurisdiction. See art. V, S 15, Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, court reaffirm previous decision to deny M.B.S. admission to The Florida Bar.

This case is before the Court on M.B.S.'s motion for rehearing of this Court's order denying him admission to The Florida Bar. Court have jurisdiction. See art. V, S 15, Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, court reaffirm previous decision to deny M.B.S. admission to The Florida Bar.

Court have review Parker v. Parker, 916 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the First District Court of Appeal's decision in M.A.F. v. G.L.K., 573 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).1 The conflict issue is whether a wife's misrepresentation of paternity in a dissolution of marriage proceeding is extrinsic or intrinsic fraud. This differentiation is significant because of the one year limitation for filing a motion for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). As explained below, we agree with the Fourth District that this type of misconduct is intrinsic fraud and, therefore, relief from any judgment based upon such fraud must be sought within one year. Consequently, court approve the Fourth District's decision in Parker finding that the petitioner's motion is time barred, and court disapprove the First District's conflicting decision in M.A.F. Consistent with our resolution of this issue, court also reject the petitioner's alternative request that court reinstate his independent action against his former wife for damages based on this fraud.

Court accepted jurisdiction to review Barnett v. Department of Management Services, 931 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified a question of great public importance. After further consideration, court conclude that court should exercise our discretion and decline review because the circumstances of this case are fact specific. Accordingly, this review proceeding is dismissed.
It is so ordered.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to the Florida Probate Rules.On October 30, 2006, the Florida Probate Rules Committee (Committee) filed a fast track report recommending various amendments to the Florida Probate Rules in response to 2006 legislation. The Committee has proposed amendments to a number of rules, mostly in response to statutory changes made by chapters 2006 77 and 2006 178, Laws of Florida. Chapter 2006 77 became effective June 6, 2006, and chapter 206 178 became effective July 1, 2006. In addition, the Committee has recommended amendments to several rules in order to reflect the recent renumbering of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. See In re Amend. to Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin., 939 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2006). All proposed amendments were approved by unanimous vote of the Committee and the Executive Committee of The Florida Bar Board of Governors. The Committee published the proposals in the November 1, 2006, edition of The Florida Bar News, with a request that comments be filed directly with the Court. No comments have been filed. Accordingly, upon consideration of the Committee's report and the relevant legislation, we hereby amend the Florida Probate Rules as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck through type. The committee notes are offered for explanation only and are not adopted as an official part of the rules. The amendments shall become effective immediately.
It is so ordered.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to the Florida Probate Rules.On October 30, 2006, the Florida Probate Rules Committee (Committee) filed a fast track report recommending various amendments to the Florida Probate Rules in response to 2006 legislation. The Committee has proposed amendments to a number of rules, mostly in response to statutory changes made by chapters 2006 77 and 2006 178, Laws of Florida. Chapter 2006 77 became effective June 6, 2006, and chapter 206 178 became effective July 1, 2006. In addition, the Committee has recommended amendments to several rules in order to reflect the recent renumbering of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. See In re Amend. to Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin., 939 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2006). All proposed amendments were approved by unanimous vote of the Committee and the Executive Committee of The Florida Bar Board of Governors. The Committee published the proposals in the November 1, 2006, edition of The Florida Bar News, with a request that comments be filed directly with the Court. No comments have been filed. Accordingly, upon consideration of the Committee's report and the relevant legislation, we hereby amend the Florida Probate Rules as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck through type. The committee notes are offered for explanation only and are not adopted as an official part of the rules. The amendments shall become effective immediately.
It is so ordered.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to the Florida Probate Rules.On October 30, 2006, the Florida Probate Rules Committee (Committee) filed a fast track report recommending various amendments to the Florida Probate Rules in response to 2006 legislation. The Committee has proposed amendments to a number of rules, mostly in response to statutory changes made by chapters 2006 77 and 2006 178, Laws of Florida. Chapter 2006 77 became effective June 6, 2006, and chapter 206 178 became effective July 1, 2006. In addition, the Committee has recommended amendments to several rules in order to reflect the recent renumbering of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. See In re Amend. to Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin., 939 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2006). All proposed amendments were approved by unanimous vote of the Committee and the Executive Committee of The Florida Bar Board of Governors. The Committee published the proposals in the November 1, 2006, edition of The Florida Bar News, with a request that comments be filed directly with the Court. No comments have been filed. Accordingly, upon consideration of the Committee's report and the relevant legislation, we hereby amend the Florida Probate Rules as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck through type. The committee notes are offered for explanation only and are not adopted as an official part of the rules. The amendments shall become effective immediately.
It is so ordered.

Court have for review R.R.K. v. State, 904 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal cited V.K.E. v. State, 902 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), quashed, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006), and certified the same question as Court have jurisdiction. See art. V, S 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981). Court have since quashed V.K.E. and answered the certified question in a manner contrary to the decision presently on review. See V.K.E. v. State, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006). Court have thus determined, and respondent agrees, that court should exercise its jurisdiction to grant the petition for review, quash the decision under review, and remand to the Fifth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court's decision in V.K.E.
It is so ordered.

Court have for review B.W.H. v. State, 904 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal cited V.K.E. v. State, 902 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), quashed, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006), and certified the same question as was then pending review in this Court in V.K.E. Court have jurisdiction. See art. V, S 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981).
Court have since quashed V.K.E. and answered the certified question in a manner contrary to the decision presently on review. See V.K.E. v. State, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006). Court have thus determined, and respondent agrees, that court should exercise its jurisdiction to grant the petition for review, quash the decision under review, and remand to the Fifth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court's decision in V.K.E.
It is so ordered.

Court have for review A.J.N. v. State, 906 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal cited V.K.E. v. State, 902 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), quashed, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006), and certified the same question as was then pending review in this Court in V.K.E. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, S 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981).
Court have since quashed V.K.E. and answered the certified question in a manner contrary to the decision presently on review. See V.K.E. v. State, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006). Court have thus determined, and respondent agrees, that court should exercise its jurisdiction to grant the petition for review, quash the decision under review, and remand to the Fifth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court's decision in V.K.E.
It is so ordered.