STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JOHN REYNOLDS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 98-2595

)

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE and )

DEPARTMENT OF LOTTERY, )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On August 14, 1998, a formal administrative hearing was held in this case before J. Lawrence Johnston, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings. The hearing was to have been conducted by televideo, but the televideo connection failed, and the parties agreed to conduct the hearing by telephone conference rather than having to reschedule.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: John Reynolds, pro se

1707 Walnut Street

Tampa, Florida 33607

For Respondents: Chriss Walker, Esquire

Department of Revenue Child Support Enforcement Post Office Box 8030

Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8030

Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery

250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether the Department of Revenue should apply the Petitioner's $2,500 lottery prize to reduce an outstanding Public Assistance Obligation for child support.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On or about April 29, 1998, the Department of Revenue (DOR) notified the Petitioner, John Reynolds, that it had certified to the Department of Lottery (DOL) that Reynolds owed a child support obligation exceeding his $2,500 lottery prize and that the prize would be sent to DOR and "permanently withheld" from Reynolds. Reynolds asked for a hearing, and DOR referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on

June 8, 1998.

The case was set for final hearing by televideo on

August 14, 1998. However, the televideo connection failed, and the parties agreed to conduct the hearing by telephone conference rather than having to reschedule.

At final hearing, DOR called one witness and had DOR Exhibits 1 and 2 admitted in evidence. DOL had DOL Exhibit 1 admitted in evidence. The Petitioner testified in his own behalf. Neither party ordered a transcript, and the parties were given ten days to file proposed recommended orders.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. By a Final Order on Support entered by the Circuit Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough

   County, Florida, in Case No. 88-20006, on April 9, 1990, nunc pro tunc September 5, 1989, it was established that the Petitioner was the father of a child born out of wedlock on May 13, 1983, and that he owed the State a Public Assistance Obligation in the amount of $8,249 for AFDC paid to the mother for the support of the child prior to the Final Order of Support. The court ordered the Petitioner to pay $6.37 a week towards the Public Assistance Obligation and $48.96 a week for current child support. The Petitioner has met these court-imposed obligations.

2. Notwithstanding having met the court-imposed obligations, and the intercept of an IRS income tax refund that reduced the remaining balance, $3,761.57 remained to be paid on the Public Assistance Obligation as of August 14, 1998.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

3. Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes (1997), provides:

   
   

   It is the responsibility of the appropriate state agency and of the judicial branch to identify to the department, in the form and format prescribed by the department, persons owing an outstanding debt to any state agency or owing child support collected through a court. Prior to the payment of a prize of

   $600 or more to any claimant having such an outstanding obligation, the department shall transmit the amount of the debt to the agency claiming the debt and shall authorize payment of the balance to the prize winner after deduction of the debt.

4. Section 409.2557, Florida Statutes (1997), provides:

   
   

   1. The department [of Revenue] is designated as the state agency responsible for the administration of the child support enforcement program, Title IV-D of the Social

      Security Act, 42 U.S.C. ss. 651 et seq.

   2. The department in its capacity as the state Title IV-D agency shall have the authority to take actions necessary to carry out the public policy of ensuring that children are maintained from the resources of their parents to the extent possible. The department's authority shall include, but not be limited to, the establishment of paternity or support obligations, as well as the modification, enforcement, and collection of support obligations.

5. It is undisputed that DOR is authorized to collect the Public Assistance Obligation owed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner complains that he would not have owed the debt in the first place if the child's mother had taken prompt action to establish paternity instead of waiting approximately five years. (The Petitioner seems to overlook that, instead, he would have been paying current child support during those years.) The Petitioner also complains that the mother used the false claim that she did not know where the Petitioner was to excuse the delay in bringing a paternity suit. But none of those complaints are relevant to the issue in this case.

6. The only issue relevant in this case is whether DOR should collect the debt from the Petitioner's lottery prize when the Petitioner is current on the court-imposed obligation to repay the debt at the rate of $6.37 a week. The Petitioner's legal theory seems to be that if he is current, he does not "owe" anything.

7. Even though the Petitioner is current on the court- imposed obligation to pay $6.37 a week, he still owes the entire

   amount of the Public Assistance Obligation. The court allowed the Petitioner to repay the debt at the rate of $6.37 a week based on the Petitioner's financial ability to pay at the time.

8. The Petitioner does not think it is fair for him to forfeit his lottery prize since he has faithfully paid in accordance with the court order. (He laments, "Aren't I allowed to have a life.") But he actually would not be forfeiting his lottery prize; rather, it will be applied to reduce his Public Assistance Obligation. As a result, he will finish paying the Public Assistance Obligation off (and "have a life") sooner.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order certifying that the Department of Lottery should pay the Petitioner's $2,500 lottery prize to the Department of Revenue for application to the Petitioner's outstanding Public Assistance Obligation.

DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

John Reynolds

1707 Walnut Street

Tampa, Florida 33607

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1998.

Chriss Walker, Senior Attorney Department of Revenue

Post Office Box 8030 Tallahassee, Florida 32314

Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery

250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue

204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100

Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue

104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 98-002595

Orders for Case No: 98-002595