726 So. 2d 393 (1999) Steven R. JOHNSON, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Denise P. JOHNSON, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. No. 98-1223. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. February 15, 1999. *394 Gary Work, Pensacola, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Karen Lessard, Pensacola, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. LAWRENCE, J. Steven Johnson (Husband) appeals from a final judgment of dissolution, and Denise Johnson (Wife) cross appeals. While numerous issues were raised by the parties, we find only ..

413 So. 2d 1261 (1982) Paul F. WALLACE, Appellant, v. Beverly McFarlan WALLACE, Appellee. No. 81-1719. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. May 14, 1982. *1262 John M. Edman of Meros, Coit, Edman, Meros, Smith & Meros, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant. Mark C. Payne of Goza, Hall, Peters & Smith, P.A., Clearwater, for appellee. HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge. Paul Wallace (husband) appeals a portion of a final order in favor of his former wife, Beverly Wallace (wife), which held t..

555 So. 2d 839 (1990) Florida HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, et al., Petitioners, v. Bob MARTINEZ, Etc., et al., Respondents. No. 74747. Supreme Court of Florida. January 11, 1990. Rehearing Denied February 14, 1990. *840 Kevin X. Crowley of Cobb, Cole & Bell, Tallahassee, for petitioners. Peter M. Dunbar, Gen. Counsel, Office of Governor, Tallahassee, and Alan C. Sundberg and Cynthia S. Tunnicliff of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith and Cutler, P.A., Tallahassee, for The Hon. Bob Martinez. Kenn..

576 So. 2d 264 (1990) Kathy MURRAY, Petitioner, v. Gerald LEWIS, etc., et al., Respondents. No. 76383. Supreme Court of Florida. December 20, 1990. Cindy Huddleston of Florida Legal Services, Inc., Tallahassee, and Suzanne Harris of Florida Rural Services, Inc., Bartow, for petitioner. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Denis Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Jo Ann Levin, Deputy Gen. Counsel of Office of the Comptroller, Tallahassee, for respondents. BARKETT, Justice. Kathy Murray petitions for a ..

Whether Leroy Wise, Jr., is entitled to the $805.00 prize for a winning lottery ticket presented by Mr. Wise to the Department of the Lottery for collection?Lottery prize used to offset child support payments of petitioner. Fact that petitioner submitted ticket for another who bought it did not matter.

Whether Willie J. Thompson is entitled to the $5,000.00 prize for a winning lottery ticket presented by Mr. Thompson to the Department of the Lottery for collection?Winning lottery ticket proceeds paid to DHRS for child support arrears of petitioner even though he submitted ticket for relative who bought ticket.

Whether the five thousand dollars of prize money claimed by the Petitioner should be paid to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services due to the Petitioner's outstanding debt for child support collected through a court.Petitioner's entire $5000 lottery prize is to apply to his child support debt.

Whether Leroy Smith and/or Alice Longwood are entitled to the $5,000.00 prize for a winning lottery ticket presented by Leroy Smith to the Lottery for collection?Winning lottery ticket proceeds paid to DHRS for child support arrears of petitioner even though he submitted ticket for relative who bought ticket.

The issue for determination is whether $3,940.92 was properly deducted from James Arnstein's $5,000.00 lottery prize.Respondent entitled to refund of some lottery winnings withheld for payment of child support where HRS failed to prove basis for full amount withheld

The issue in this case concerns the application of Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, to a claim for payment of a $5,000.00 lottery prize where the winning lottery ticket was purchased by two individuals, one of whom has a substantial court-ordered child support arrearage, one of whom does not, and the prize claim form is submitted by the individual who owes child support. The Petitioners contend that only half of the prize should be subject to the outstanding child support debt. The Respondents contend that the entire prize should be subject to the outstanding child support debt. Shortly after the filing of the request for hearing in this case, the Office of the Comptroller filed a Motion To Join Indispensable Parties, by means of which it sought to join the Department of the Lottery and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as parties to this case. Both of the last mentioned agencies agreed to being joined as parties and neither Petitioner objected to the joinder. Accordingly, the Department of the Lottery and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services were joined as parties respondent. At the hearing both Petitioners testified and also offered exhibits. The Respondents presented the testimony of several witnesses and also offered several exhibits. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were allowed ten days within which to submit proposed recommended orders. All parties filed post-hearing submissions containing proposed findings of fact. All proposed findings of fact are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.Child support arrearages owed by prize claimant will be deducted from lottery prize even if claimant is only part owner of winning ticket