Opinion ID: 1908176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: request to reinstate civil suit

Text: Finally, we reject the petitioner's alternative argument that his original cause of action for damages should be reinstated. First, as determined above, the petitioner cannot sustain an independent action for fraud because his former wife's misrepresentations concerning his paternity did not constitute extrinsic fraud. Furthermore, a civil suit for compensatory damages based on fraud is not the proper vehicle for attacking a final judgment based on alleged extrinsic fraud. Rather, as stated above, the proper vehicle is an action in equity. See DeClaire, 453 So.2d at 378 (stating that rule 1.540(b) preserves the equitable remedy of an independent action where extrinsic fraud is established). [6] Accordingly, we deny the petitioner's request to reinstate his independent action for damages.