The Issue Is it appropriate for Respondent, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program, to garnish funds for past due child support reduced to judgment from a joint account pursuant to Section 409.25656, Florida Statutes (2001)?1
Findings Of Fact On December 20, 1985, an Order of Support was issued in Derrick v. Wright in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court; pursuant to this Order, Petitioner was ordered to pay $25.00 per week for the current support of his minor child, Mesheal Lee Wright, born on April 20, 1983, commencing December 16, 1985. On February 10, 1995, a Recommendation of Hearing Officer and a Findings of Fact and Order on Motion for Contempt in Derrick v. Wright were filed in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, which adjudicated Petitioner’s child support arrearage in the case to be $10,639.02 as of October 7, 1994. On May 11, 1995, a General Findings and Order of Arrest Instanter in Derrick v. Wright was filed in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, which adjudicated Petitioner’s child support arrearage in the case to be $9,463.02 as of December 31, 1994. On or about May 13, 2002, a Recommendation of Hearing Officer and a Findings and Establishing Arrears in Derrick v. Wright were filed in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, which adjudicated Petitioner’s child support arrearage in the case to be $16,121.06 as of April 9, 2002, and ordered Petitioner to pay $167.00 per month in liquidation of his arrearage, commencing May 1, 2002. All the arrearage was owed by Petitioner to the custodial parent of the minor child; none of the arrearage was owed to the state. On October 15, 2001, Respondent mailed a Notice of Freeze in an amount up to $16,121.06 to Suncoast by certified mail, return receipt requested, regarding any accounts of Petitioner with the credit union; Suncoast received the Notice of Freeze on October 18, 2001. Suncoast confirmed a freeze on Petitioner’s joint account in the amount of $5,573.95 as of October 18, 2001. The signature card, produced as an exhibit by the Respondent, stipulated that the account was owned as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship by Petitioner and a non- obligor joint account holder, Petitioner's sister. On October 22, 2001, Respondent mailed a Notice of Intent to Levy in an amount up to $16,121.06 to Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested; the Notice of Intent to Levy was received and signed for at the Florida State Hospital, Chattahoochee, Florida, on October 23, 2001. The Notice of Intent to Levy advised that a non- obligor joint owner, who claimed to have an equal right to all of the money levied upon in a joint account, had a right to contest Respondent’s action. The non-obligor joint account holder did not file a petition to contest the levy nor did she appear at the final hearing. On or about November 5, 2001, Petitioner filed a Petition-Disputed Issues of Material Fact with Respondent. Respondent sent a Notice of Extension of Freeze in an amount up to $16,121.06 to Suncoast on November 9, 2001. Pursuant to the official records of the Hillsborough County Circuit Court in Derrick v. Wright, Petitioner’s child support arrearage was $16,121.06 as of November 21, 2003. Petitioner and his sister, Sandra W. Russaw, opened a joint account with survivorship rights at Suncoast on November 21, 1997. The Suncoast account had balances of less than $100.00 for 12 of the first 25 months it was open including the five months immediately preceding January 20, 2000, when $3,900.00 was deposited in the account. On December 27, 1999, Petitioner had $3,655.00 deposited in a Resident Trust Account he maintained at the Florida State Hospital, Chattahoochee, Florida. These funds, which were deposited by the U.S. Treasury, were followed by a deposit of $749.00 from the same source. These funds were initial payments to Petitioner for Veteran's Administration benefits. On January 14, 2000, $4,200.00 was withdrawn in the form of a check from Petitioner's Resident Trust Account at the Florida State Hospital. On January 20, 2000, $3,900.00 was deposited in the Suncoast account. Over the next 23 months, from January 20, 2000, to November 31, 2001, $20,538.00 directly attributable to Petitioner was deposited in the Suncoast account. The money was from Veteran's Administration benefits paid to Petitioner by direct deposit. Not surprisingly, upon notification of the Notice of Freeze the monthly checks from the Veteran's Administration stopped being deposited in Petitioner's Suncoast account. On March 8, 2000, $5,000.00 was withdrawn from the Suncoast account, and on July 10 and 20, 2000, $4,990.00 was deposited in the same account. With the exception of the July 2000 deposits, only $1,490.00 in deposits to the Suncoast account are not directly attributable to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that: (1) levies upon the funds in Petitioner’s credit union account with Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union, Tampa, Florida, up to the amount of unpaid child support as of November 21, 2003, i.e., $16,121.06, or to the full amount frozen, whichever is less; (2) applies the funds levied to satisfy all or part of Petitioner’s past due child support obligation; and (3) credits Petitioner for the amount so applied. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2004.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner is delinquent in his child support payments; and if so, whether Respondent may levy the funds from Petitioner's bank account pursuant to Section 409.25656, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact It is undisputed that Petitioner's child support obligation is ongoing. He admits that his overall monthly obligation is $312.00. As of October 24, 2001, Petitioner's was in arrears on his child support obligation in excess of $53.03. Petitioner has not made any payments toward his child support obligation since September 2000. On March 20, 2001, Respondent issued a Notice of Freeze. This notice advised Tampa Bay Federal Credit Union that Petitioner had a past-due and/or overdue child support obligation and that any funds held by Tampa Bay Federal Credit Union in Petitioner's name were frozen pursuant to Section 409.25656, Florida Statutes. At that time, Petitioner had funds in the amount of $53.03 in an account at Tampa Bay Federal Credit Union. On March 27, 2001, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Levy. This notice advised Petitioner that Respondent intended to levy on the $53.03 in Petitioner's account with Tampa Bay Federal Credit Union. According to the notice, Respondent intended to take the funds due to Petitioner's non- payment of child support. During the hearing, Petitioner stated that he did not object to Respondent's action to levy on the funds held by Tampa Bay Federal Credit Union. Accordingly, there are no disputed issues of material fact.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED: That Respondent enter a final order directing that $53.03 currently held at Tampa Bay Federal Credit Union be applied towards meeting the Petitioner's unpaid child support obligation. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Chang, DC #T18277 Gulf Forestry Camp 699 Ike Steele Road Wewahitchka, Florida 32465 Scott Edmonds, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 8030 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Petitioner owes overdue child support arrears; and (2) whether Respondent is authorized to levy Petitioner’s bank account at the MacDill Federal Credit Union, Tampa, Florida, and apply the funds to reduce or satisfy Petitioner’s past due child support obligation.
Findings Of Fact On April 21, 1994, a circuit court judge in the Circuit Court, in and for Duval County, Florida (Circuit Court), issued Final Judgment determining paternity and establishing support in Case No. 94-929-FM, in the case of Loquita D. Taylor and the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services vs. Donald L. Baldwin. The Final Judgment established that Petitioner was the legal parent of Ashley Marie Taylor, born March 25, 1993, and that Petitioner owed to the State of Florida $1337.00 in public assistance. The Final Judgment ordered Petitioner to pay $35.00 per week child support through the court support depository. In October 1998, Petitioner made one lump sum payment of $3,983.85 towards his child support. At the hearing held December 2, 1998, in Case No. 94-929-FM, the court-appointed Hearing Officer held Petitioner “in willful indirect contempt of this Court for failure to pay child support as ordered while having the ability to pay.” Based on the child support payment records of the court depository, the court-appointed Hearing Officer found Petitioner was “in arrears in Court ordered child support in the amount of $5,858.15 through the payment due December 2, 1998.” On December 14, 1998, the Circuit Court adopted the Recommendations of its Hearing Officer as its order. In paragraph 12 of those Recommendations, which became order of the Circuit Court, the Circuit Court suspended enforcement of Petitioner’s ongoing child support, so long as the minor child received Social Security on behalf of Petitioner, but ordered Petitioner “to pay $140.00 per month towards the arrearages.” The Mandatory Addendum to the December 14, 1998, Circuit Court Order on Motion for Contempt instructed Petitioner to “immediately notify” the Clerk of the Court and the Department of Revenue, Office of Child Support Enforcement “in writing, of any change of residence or employment. Failure to receive notice of a future hearing because of a party’s failure to comply with this requirement will not be a defense. . . ." (emphasis in original) In 1999, according to the records of the Clerk of the Court, Petitioner made only two payments, for a combined total of $560.00, towards his December 2, 1998, arrears of $5,858.15. These two payments brought his outstanding arrears to $5,298.15. Petitioner made his last child support payment towards the arrears on May 7, 1999. To collect the unpaid arrearages, the Department sent a Notice to Freeze to the MacDill Federal Credit Union in Tampa, Florida, on August 3, 2000. In the notice, which was sent by certified mail, the Department advised the MacDill Federal Credit Union that Petitioner had a past due and/or overdue child-support obligation of $5,289.15 as of August 3, 2000. Moreover, the Department directed the bank not to transfer, dispose of, or return any credits, debts, or other personal property owned by or owed to Petitioner. On August 7, 2000, the MacDill Federal Credit Union verified that it had frozen the savings account identified as belonging to Petitioner. Petitioner had $2,814.41 in his savings account. On August 10, 2000, the Department sent a Notice of Intent to Levy by certified mail to Petitioner at his last known address. That notice provided in pertinent part the following: You are hereby notified that pursuant to Section 409.25656, Florida Statutes, the Department of Revenue intends to levy on credits, or personal property belonging to the obligor named above [Petitioner], or debts owed to the obligor. The property consists of liquid assets and is in the control of MACDILL FCU. This action is taken for nonpayment of child support by the obligor in the amount of $5,289.151 as of 08/03/2000. You are hereby notified that you may contest the agency’s action to levy on the above referenced property. You may do so by either filing an action in Circuit Court or by requesting an administrative hearing. If you wish to request an administrative hearing, you must file your petition for hearing, in writing, in accordance with the Notice of Rights attached to this Notice. If you elect to file an action in Circuit Court, your complaint must be filed with the Clerk of Court within twenty-one (21) days of your receipt of this notice. . . . You may NOT request both an administrative hearing and a hearing in circuit court. * * * NOTICE TO A NONOBLIGOR JOINT OWNER: If you claim you have an equal right to all of the money levied upon in a joint account, these hearing rights apply to you. (Emphasis in original.) Attached to the Notice of Intent to Levy were a Notice of Rights form that detailed the due process rights as provided for in Section 409.25656, Florida Statutes and a copy of Rules 28-106.201 and 28-106.301, Florida Administrative Code. On or about August 21, 2000, Petitioner timely filed an initial Petition for Formal Hearing (Petition), which requested a “formal hearing concerning the Notice of Intent to Levy.” On or about August 21, 2000, the Department issued and sent a Notice of Extension of Freeze to the MacDill Federal Credit Union. The notice advised the bank that Petitioner had “filed an action in the circuit court or under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to contest the Department of Revenue’s intention to levy upon assets as specified in the Notice of Freeze.” The Department further directed the MacDill Federal Credit Union not to transfer, dispose, or return any credits, debts or other personal property owned/controlled by Petitioner and in the bank’s possession and control. Finally, the Notice of Extension of Freeze stated that the Notice remained effective “until final resolution of the circuit court or Chapter 120 action, and the Department issued a Notice of Levy or a Notice of Full or Partial Release of Freeze.” The Department dismissed the initial Petition without prejudice because it was not in substantial compliance with either Rule 28-106.201 or, alternatively, Rule 28-106.301, Florida Administrative Code, and allowed Petitioner an opportunity to file an amended petition. Petitioner timely filed an amended Petition (Amended Petition), which was in substantial compliance with the Rules. On or about November 2, 2000, the Department referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the hearing. Petitioner submitted as a late-filed exhibit a Billing Statement, dated March 7, 2001, and a Pay Stub from the Social Security Administration concerning benefits of $1,664.00 paid in error to Petitioner and requesting repayment in full either “right away” or by “smaller amount monthly over a longer period of time.” The Payment Stub that accompanied the Billing Statement indicated that the overpayment could be repaid by check, by money order, or by MasterCard, Visa, or Discover. The statement from MacDill Federal Credit Union for October 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000, supplied by Petitioner indicates that he had a savings account balance of $2,862.22. Petitioner's uncontroverted testimony was that he is totally disabled, and his sole income is from Social Security. Petitioner asserted all the money in the account was from Social Security payments.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order that (1) levies such funds as available in Petitioner's savings account at the MacDill Federal Credit Union up to the amount of his arrears; (2) applies the funds to reduce Petitioner's past due child support obligation; and (3) credits Petitioner for said payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 2001.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Department of Revenue should retain and apply the Petitioner’s $800.00 lottery prize to reduce an outstanding arrearage for child support.
Findings Of Fact Department of Revenue and Department of Lottery are the agencies of the State of Florida charged with the duty to enforce statutes which provide for the seizure of lottery prize winnings to satisfy past-due child support debt. On or about April 30, 2001, Johnson made a claim to a lottery prize in the amount of $800.00. The DOR notified the DOL that Johnson was indebted to the state for court-ordered child support through the court depository, in the amount of $10,626.79. Pursuant to Subsection 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner’s entire lottery prize was transferred to DOR by DOL. Petitioner was given written notice on April 30, 2001, of the DOR’s intent to intercept his lottery prize and apply it to partially satisfy his unpaid child support debt. Pursuant to a Final Judgment of Paternity and Income Deduction dated September 13, 1989, Petitioner is subject to a lawful order requiring him to pay child support. Johnson has failed to discharge his child support obligations pursuant to that judgment, and as of December 8, 1995, Johnson's arrears were $10,626.79. DOR intends to apply the Petitioner’s lottery prize in the amount of $800.00 to partially satisfy his past-due child support debt.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order retaining Johnson's $800.00 lottery prize to be applied to reduce the accrued arrearage on Johnson's child support obligation. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: William Johnson 2815 Northwest 95th Street Miami, Florida 33147 Chriss Walker, Esquire Child Support Enforcement Department of Revenue Post Office Box 8030 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8030 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 David Griffin, Secretary Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ken Hart, General Counsel Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Amended School Board Policy 2262 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority under section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2013)1/.
Findings Of Fact The School Board has the constitutional duty to operate, control and supervise the public schools within Collier County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const. (2014); see also § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Sports Club is a private, non-profit Florida corporation, whose principal business activity is providing before and after school child care. Sports Club is located in Collier County, and offers its child care services at its own private facilities, as well as at certain District elementary schools. Parents Rock is a private, non-profit Florida corporation formed on June 24, 2013, for the purpose of representing parents’ interests in education, and advocating for legislation, regulations, and government programs that improve parents’ rights and choices in local education. Parents Rock’s membership consists of approximately 700 individuals, mostly parents of children attending schools in the District. A substantial number of these parents use the child care programs located at the District facilities. Moreover, a substantial number of Parents Rock’s members routinely attend School Board meetings and advocate for parental involvement in their children’s education and issues of importance, like the District’s child care program. Amended School Board Policy 2262, which is part of the School Board’s Bylaws and Policies, is titled: Before and After School Child Care. The challenged policy contains paragraphs lettered “A through L” which provides for the following issues: Parents and the community being given an opportunity to make recommendations concerning the operation and funding of child care programs prior to the approval by the School District; Child care programs and services being available to students both prior to and after the school day; Child care programs having an emphasis on providing educational opportunities and “variety of activities that promote the social, intellectual, and physical development of children in the program[;]” Adequate attention being given to the child care programs having an environment that meets the needs and well-being of the children, ensuring the children’s safety, security, that the children are clothed, fed, and “hav[ing] an opportunity for a variety of social, intellectual, and physical activities[;]” Vendors or other organization contracted to provide the child care programs having adequate liability insurance, and “maintaining appropriate adult-child ratios, provide quality child care, and in general, complying with the procedures established by the State and the District[;]” Notifying parents and families about the child care programs and procedures for enrollment; Continuing program assessments by staff, participating parents, and other stakeholders during the course of the child care program; Fees for the child care services being applied only to those schools involved in vendor run or school based programs; Recognizing that a parent may notify the child care providers of the parent’s preference that a child receiving either additional physical or academic activities, and “every reasonable effort shall be made to accommodate the request[;]” Parents, whose children participate in the child care programs, giving “feedback concerning the program” and requiring that the District’s manager of after school child care consider the information; A procedure for surveying and collecting information from parents evaluating the child care programs; and Providing that “[a]ny terms, conditions, or issues enumerated in the District’s RFQ 115-4113 [sic], whether express or implied, related to this policy, are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference in the policy during the duration of RFQ 115-4113 including any renewal period provided for in said RFQ.” Amended School Board Policy 2262 then states that to “implement this policy, the Superintendent will develop and/or revise administrative procedures consistent with the RFP/RFQ process relative to child care service.” The School Board wholly adopted School Age Child Care Services, RFQ #115-4/13 (RFQ), into its Policy. Consequently, a short explanation of the RFQ is required here. In the RFQ, the District sought to qualify child care providers to operate child care programs at the District’s elementary schools. The RFQ that was released by the District, on May 2, 2013, provided for: uniform fees for all program services;2/ no credit for fees paid, if a child was unable to use the child care program due to an absence;3/ a $10.00 surcharge on each registered student that a private vendor provided financial assistance to attend the after school program;4/ and standards and criteria for the child care programs that required the programs to be staffed by certified teachers.5/ Finally, and importantly, the RFQ allowed elementary school principals to decide whether or not to offer child care through private providers or for the school to operate its own “in-house” child care program.6/ Sports Club participated in the RFQ process, and was identified as a qualified provider. Based on its approval as a qualified provider, Sports Club was given an opportunity to present its services to the District’s elementary school principals in a webinar. Following the presentation, on May 29, 2013, five elementary school principals chose Sports Club as child care provider for their schools. However, Sports Club was not chosen as a provider for six other elementary schools that it had previously served under a contract with the District. In some instances, like Veterans Memorial Elementary School, the principal had decided to operate an “in-house” program, rather than selecting Sports Club. After the selection process, Sports Club informed parents about the impending changes, and asked the parents to contact the School Board if they wanted to keep Sports Club as a child care provider. The School Board was to ratify the elementary school principals’ decisions at a June 11, 2013, School Board meeting. Many parents, on learning about the RFQ’s terms and that Sports Club would no longer be providing child care at their child’s elementary school, became extremely upset. A particular concern was the District’s decision not to seek any parental involvement in the formulation of the RFQ and provisions setting the uniform fees, which increased the child care costs for the parents. On June 3, 2013, the RFQ became the subject of an unadopted rule challenge brought by a parent. Rather than proceeding to a final hearing, the School Board elected to initiate rulemaking concerning the unadopted rule challenge on September 13, 2013. In the initial Notice of rulemaking, the School Board specifically stated that although a proposed text of the rule was not available, the RFQ’s provisions regarding fees and program content would serve as a reference point. During the rulemaking workshops on October 16, 2013, and November 13, 2013, the District’s rule proposals amended certain provisions within the RFQ. Specifically, the proposals amended the RFQ’s terms concerning the amount of the uniform fees to be charged;7/ the granting of credits in the limited instance when a child has a medical excuse for not attending the after school child care;8/ setting out a parental survey for assessing the child care programs;9/ and reducing the fee paid by private providers for using the District’s facilities during the summer months.10/ The School Board at its December 10, 2013, meeting, enacted Amended School Board Policy 2262, which incorporated the RFQ completely into the policy in paragraph “L.” On its face, the School Board’s language in paragraph “L” is not clear as to which version of the RFQ was incorporated. However, the testimony and attachments to the Amended School Board Policy show that the School Board’s reference is referring to the RFQ, as the School Board had amended it during the rulemaking process. Amended School Board Policy 2262, with the RFQ’s terms setting out the uniform fees and program criteria, only applies to child care programs located at the District’s elementary schools. Amended School Board Policy 2262 has no application for child care services off-site. The facts here show that Sports Club owns its own facility, and provides transportation to the Sports Club’s private facility for students from some of the elementary schools that elected to provide “in-house” services. Parents sign a permission form, and Sports Club’s bus transports the child from the elementary school to Sports Club’s facility. At its private facility, Sports Club is free to offer child care programs at rates that it decides are appropriate, without any regard to the challenged rule. Sports Club’s claimed economic losses are the result of its decision to participate in the RFQ process, not the challenged rule. Sports Club was selected as a child care provider under the RFQ at the June 11, 2013, School Board meeting, and Sports Club subsequently entered into a contract with the District to provide child care services under the RFQ, on August 16, 2013. These events occurred months before the School Board adopted the challenged rule here at its December 10, 2013, meeting. Moreover, the undersigned found that Mr. Brettholtz credibly testified that the financial records provided by Sports Club did not follow accepted accounting practices, and could not be used to support Sports Club’s claimed economic losses.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: Petitioner, Enrique Rivera, was married to Emma Rivera on April 15, 1973, and of that marriage two children were born, Lisa and Tomas. A Final Judgement of Dissolution of Marriage was entered on September 8, 1980 in Dade County, Florida. On March 14, 1980, however, Petitioner's then spouse, Emma Rivera obtained an order of support in the 264th District Court of Bell County, Texas, (Texas) whereby she was awarded $75 every two weeks per child for child support for petitioner's two children. The child support payments were to commence on March 15, 1980. (Respondent's exhibit 1). The final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered by the circuit court of Dade County, Florida, on September 8, 1980, required petitioner to pay the sum of $75 every two weeks for child support based on the order of support issued in Texas. (Respondent's exhibit 2). During late 1987, petitioner, received a pre-offset notice from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) indicating that it would intercept and apply an IRS tax refund to fully or partially satisfy a past due child support obligation. (Respondent's exhibit 2). Petitioner signed a judgment agreement in Texas during 1980 wherein he agreed to pay child support in the amount of $75 per child every two weeks to Emma Rivera for the support of his minor children. (Respondent's exhibit 3). On January 9, 1980, Emma Rivera signed a uniform reciprocal enforcement of support petition seeking an order of support under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA). Respondent, through its URESA Division, obtained copies of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the support petition and the account master record display of the Clerk of the Court, Central Depository of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Dade County, Family Division. Based on information obtained from those copies, petitioner owed Emma Rivera child support arrearage in the amount of $14,436 as of July 15, 1988. (Respondent's composite exhibit 3). Petitioner disputes that he owes any child support arrearage and contends that the judgment agreement he signed in 1980 was altered after he signed it and that subsequent court orders relied upon that judgment to establish an incorrect amount for child support. Petitioner maintains that there was a typographical error in the Texas support order and that he was only obligated to pay $75 per month for each of the two children for a total of $150.00 per month. The agreement Petitioner signed in Texas however obligated him to pay child support in the amount of $75 per child every two weeks for his minor children. That support obligation shows that petitioner owes Emma Rivera a child support arrearage in the amount of $14,436 as of July 15, 1988. Petitioner sought an amendment to the Texas order of support and he has been unable to obtain any amendment to that order as of the date of this administrative hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, enter a final order recommending that the Internal Revenue Service forward the sum collected from its intercept to the respondent forthwith for payment toward satisfaction of the child support arrearage due and owing Emma Rivera. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 1st day of November, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Phillip J. Coniglio, Esquire 12595 North East 7th Avenue North Miami, Florida 33161 JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1988. Deborah Magid, Esquire Assistant State Attorney Child Support Enforcement Division 1490 North West 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33125 R. S. Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Fort Knox Executive Center 2727 Mahan Drive Suite 309 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact On September 16, 1981, the Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, In And For Duval County, Florida, upon a Petition For Modification of the Final Judgment of Paternity, entered a Consent Order For Support requiring the Petitioner in this cause to pay Fifteen and No/100 Dollars ($15.00) per week as and for child support and assigning said support payments to the Respondent in this cause until such time as the child involved in the paternity suit no longer received assistance from the State of Florida. At the time Respondent caused Petitioner's Federal Income Tax Refund to be intercepted, the Petitioner was in arrears in the sum of Two Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety and 17/100 Dollars ($2,790.17) on child support payments assigned to the Respondent under the order referred to in paragraph 1 above. Petitioner's Federal Income Tax Refund in the amount of Eight Hundred Twenty Eight and No/100 Dollars ($828.00) has been intercepted and is in the possession of the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, enter a Final Order providing for the Petitioner's income tax refund in the amount of Eight Hundred Twenty Eight and No/100 Dollars ($828.00) be applied against his debt to the State of Florida for past due child support. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory Alan Mitchell 439 Woodbine Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206 R. Craig Hemphill, P.A. 331 East Union Street, Suite 1 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick J. Simpson, Esquire Dept. of HRS Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact On September 13, 1985, respondent, Bernard Gross, was found in contempt of the Circuit Court in and for Dade County, Florida, for failing to comply with previous orders of the court to provide child support. According to the order rendered by the court, Gross was in arrears in the amount of $4,650 as of September 4, 1985. A copy of the order has been received into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 2. By letter dated October 24, 1985 petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), through its contractor, the Office of the State Attorney, advised Gross that it intended to intercept his federal income tax refund, if any, to satisfy the past-due child support. According to the letter, the past due amount was then $4,425. Gross was further advised he could request an administrative hearing to contest this action no later than November 25, 1985. However, the agency's letter was not postmarked until November 26, 1985, or after the point of entry had expired, and was not received by Gross until December 6, 1985. The letter further erroneously identified the amount due as an "AFDC" claim, which meant the person due the support payments was receiving assistance under the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. This was incorrect. Gross was given an informal meeting with HRS personnel on January 29, 1986, for an undisclosed purpose. However, later HRS correspondence implies it was for the purpose of allowing Gross to attempt to get HRS to reconsider its earlier decision to intercept his income tax refund. When this effort was apparently unsuccessful, HRS, through its contractor, issued a Notice of Right to Hearing in Non-AFDC Cases on March 3, 1986, offering Gross an opportunity for a formal hearing. The notice made reference to the earlier court order dated September 13, 1985, and stated the arrearage due was greater than $500, the support was owed to or on behalf of a minor child, and it was more than three months past due. Gross thereafter timely requested a formal hearing. The clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Dade County maintains a central depository which has an account history for each person paying child and spousal support. According to the computer printout on Gross' account, Gross owed $4,650 as of September 4, 1985, but it decreased to $4,255 as of December 25, 1985. The amount is subject to change each week since the printout indicates Gross must pay $85 per week in child support. The printout has been received into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 1. Gross did not challenge or contest the accuracy of the numbers contained in the document. At final hearing petitioner ore tenus amended its request to claim only $4,255. That amount is the last amount shown on Gross' payment record, and is the balance due as of December 25, 1985. This date was selected by petitioner's counsel since it represents the most current data on respondent's account. Gross' former wife confirmed that Gross owed her more than $4,000 as of the end of 1985, but could not state the precise amount owed. Federal regulations (45 CFR 303.72) govern the conditions under which a federal income tax refund may be intercepted in a non-AFDC case to offset past- due support owed by the taxpayer. As is pertinent here, they require that the taxpayer owe support to or on behalf of a minor child and that it be not less than $500. Regulations also require that the agency substantiate the delinquent amount with a copy of the "court order, or an order of an administrative process established under State law, for support and maintenance of a child, or of a child and the parent with whom the child is living," "a copy of the payment record," or if no payment record exists, "an affidavit signed by the custodial parent attesting to the amount of support owed." In this regard, petitioner tendered into evidence a copy of the September 13, 1985 court order, a certified copy of the clerk of the circuit court's payment record, and offered the testimony of Gross' former wife, the latter in an effort to establish the amount owed her as of the end of 1985. Through his own testimony, and the submission of respondent's composite exhibit 1, Gross contended that various errors occurred in the administrative process that culminated in the final hearing. First, he cited the agency's failure to send its October 24, 1985 letter until November 26, or after the original point of entry had expired. He also pointed out that this notice was dated only fifty days after the court order, and that a minimum of ninety days is required by law. He further contended he had no opportunity prior to hearing to question the amount of past-due support allegedly owed. Finally, he pointed out that the court order of September 13 refers to an arrearage of $4,650, the proposed agency action on March 3 relies upon an arrearage of $4,450, and at hearing petitioner claimed the past due amount was $4,255. He did not deny that he owed the above amounts, but contended the agency was bound to seek only the amount shown in the court order, and by later changing the amount allegedly due, HRS has invalidated its claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered certifying a claim to the Secretary of the Treasury in the amount of $4,255 against respondent's federal income tax refund, if any. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of October 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October 1986.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondents should use Petitioner's entire lottery prize of $2,008.00 to pay a delinquent child support obligation of $2,371.68, pursuant to Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes (1997). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has failed to comply with a previous court order compelling her to pay child support. On February 1, 1999, the Circuit Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, in Case No. 93-12473, denied a motion to hold Petitioner in contempt of court. The Court did not hold Petitioner in contempt due to a claimed disability. The Court could not find that she had the ability to pay the child support obligation. The Court gave Petitioner thirty days to provide verification of disability and an inability to work. However, the court did not waive or extinguish the arrearage for child support. The Court ordered that any and all other terms and provisions which were previously ordered and not specifically addressed in the Order Denying a Motion for Contempt remained in full force and effect until further order of the Court. The previous order establishing the arrearage for child support was not nullified by the court. Petitioner still owes an arrearage for child support of $2,371.68 as of June 9, 1998. Petitioner failed to show in this proceeding that she had satisfied the arrearage. At previous circuit court hearings on August 12, 1998, and January 20, 1999, Petitioner failed to persuade the court that she had satisfied her obligation for delinquent child support. The August 12, 1998, hearing resulted in an Order on August 27, 1998, requiring Petitioner to pay $150.00 per month toward delinquent child support totaling $2,371.68 as of June 9, 1998. The January 20, 1999, hearing resulted in the Court's withholding a citation of contempt but requiring Petitioner to provide verification of disability and verification of inability to work, within 30 days from the date of the Order. The undersigned allowed Petitioner additional time to submit a late-filed exhibit consisting of an Order of the Circuit Court extinquishing Petitioner's obligation for delinquent child support. Petitioner has failed to timely file the late-filed exhibit and has not requested an extension of time in which to file the late-filed exhibit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That DOR enter a final order withholding all of Petitioner's lottery prize. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Delores M. Terrell 4810 Clewis Avenue, Apartment B Tampa, Florida 33063 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 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 Sue M. Cobb, Interim Secretary Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ken Hart, General Counsel Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301
