Findings Of Fact The following are the facts to which the parties have stipulated: On September 27, 1977, the Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida entered an order dissolving the marriage of Petitioner and Debra LaRhea Reynolds and incorporated into that order a stipulation whereby Petitioner agreed to pay child support in the amount of $20.00 per week. On April 13, 1977, Debra LaRhea Reynolds assigned her rights to child support to the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On June 25, 1982, the Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida entered an order holding Petitioner in contempt for failure to pay accrued arrearages of child support in the amount of $4,280.00, to which Respondent was entitled by virtue of the assignment of rights referred to in paragraph 2. On June 8, 1982, the aforementioned court authorized a payroll deduction of $62.00 by weekly against Petitioner's paycheck. Under the terms of the contempt order, $40.00 of this amount was credited to the arrearage. As of June 23, 1987, the arrearage had been reduced to $1,960.00. On July 10, 1986, Respondent caused to be intercepted Petitioner's Federal Income Tax Refund of $1,080.03.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing stipulated 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 $1,080.03 to be intercepted and applied against his debt to the State of Florida for past due child support. Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, 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 8th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Marian Alves, Esquire Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. 400 North Madison St. Quincy, Florida 32351 John R. Perry, Esquire Dept. of HRS, District 2, 2639 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Dept. of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Dept. of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Everett Stapleton held a winning ticket from the December 9, 1989, Florida Lotto drawing, and claimed his prize of $4,312.50 on December 12, 1989. The Office of the Comptroller searched the records of state agencies to determine whether Mr. Stapleton was indebted to the state, or owed child support which was being collected through a court. It determined that Mr. Stapleton owed $5,896 in child support, and therefore withheld paying the prize. By an Amended Final Judgment Dissolving Marriage dated November 29, 1983, Mr. Stapleton had been required to make child support payments of $50 per week through the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Dade County. During the hearing, the parties had conflicting payment records from the Clerk of the Circuit Court. After a recess, during which Mr. Stapleton and representatives of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services consulted, they came to an agreement, which they announced when the hearing reconvened. The parties agreed that as of Friday, April 20, 1990, Mr. Stapleton owed $6,796 in back child support, under the Amended Final Judgment Dissolving Marriage dated November 29, 1983.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Office of the Comptroller requiring the payment of the $4,312.50 to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, to be applied to reduce Mr. Stapleton's current obligation for past due child support. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of the Lottery 205 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jo Ann Levin, Esquire Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Everett Stapleton 17600 Northwest 27 Court Miami, Florida 33056 Honorable Gerald Lewis, Comptroller Department of Banking & Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking & Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether part of Petitioner's lottery prize should be withheld and used to pay an allegedly outstanding debt for child support.
Findings Of Fact On April 15, 1990, Petitioner submitted a claim to the Department of the Lottery (Lottery) on a ticket he held for the Lotto drawing of April 14, 1990. The ticket reflected that Petitioner had correctly selected five of the six numbers drawn on April 14 and rendered him eligible for a prize of $4,334.50. On May 4, 1990, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) certified to the Lottery that Petitioner owed $3,625.00 in Title IV-D child support arrearage. By letter dated May 9, 1990, the Lottery notified Petitioner that DHRS had advised it of the outstanding debt and that, pursuant to Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, it had transmitted the prize amount to the Department of Banking and Finance (DBF). Petitioner was further advised that DBF would notify him shortly regarding the distribution of the funds. By letter dated May 15, 1990, DBF notified Petitioner that it was in receipt of his prize from the Lottery and that it intended to apply $3,625.00 of the award toward the unpaid claim for child support. Enclosed with that letter was State of Florida warrant number 2537015 in the amount of $709.50 payable to Petitioner. This warrant was a partial payment of the lottery prize and represented the difference between the amount of the prize and the amount of chld support that HRS had certified as being due. In a letter received by DBF on May 30, 1990, Petitioner disputed that any obligation was outstanding and requested a formal hearing. On July 18, 1990, DHRS notified DBF that Petitioner's child support arrearage had been reduced by $2,154.82 as a result of an IRS tax refund interception. That letter indicated that, as a result of the interception, DHRS had calculated the amount of the Petitioner's outstanding child support obligation to be $1,470.18. In the letter, DHRS specifically relinquished its claim to the additional $2,154.82 it had originally certified. By letter dated July 30, 1990, DBF transmitted to Petitioner State of Florida warrant number 0129960 in the amount of $2,154.82. This warrant was a partial payment of the lottery prize and reduced the amount of the prize being held by DBF to $1,470.18. On July 18, 1991, General Master Helen T. Erstling entered a Recommended Order On Determination Of Arrears which concluded that as of July 11, 1991, Petitioner owed $1,568.68 in child support arrearage. That Recommended Order provided that DBF was authorized to release to DHRS up to $1,568.68 of Petitioner's lottery proceeds. On August 13, 1991, Circuit Court Judge George E. Orr of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, entered an Order Upon Recommended Order On Disputed Arrears which ratified and adopted the Recommended Order of the General Master. The arrearage calculated by the General Master and adopted by the court was calculated as of June 11, 1991, and established that, as of that date, Petitioner owed $1,568.68 in Title IV-D child support arrearage. Petitioner, the party responsible to make such payments, offered no proof at the hearing in this case to establish that such sum has been paid and/or is no longer owing. This arrearage exceeds the remaining amount of the lottery prize being held by DBF.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's request for formal hearing, and that it pay to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services the $1,470.18 remainder of Petitioner's lottery prize in partial satisfaction of Petitioner's debt for child support. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of October 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Lawrence Fowler Apt. 202 9481 Evergreen Place Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324 Bridget L. Ryan Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Louisa Warren Department of the Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Petitioner, Lee Ann Flagg, is a 22-year-old resident of Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Since 1991, she has received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits for her 22-month-old son. Petitioner wants to learn a marketable skill, so she can obtain a job and stop receiving AFDC. Based on the information in Petitioner's AFDC case file, her total income was her AFDC grant of $241 per month. Petitioner is exempt from Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program due to the age of her child. On May 26, 1992, Petitioner volunteered for Project Independence (PI). On June 5, 1992, Petitioner attended PI orientation at which she stated her desire to attend school in the fall of 1992. At all times material hereto, Petitioner met PI target group criteria in that she is under the age of 24 and had not been employed for the past 12 months. On July 28, 1992, Petitioner requested child care assistance from Respondent. She advised her PI case manager that the lack of child care was a barrier to her being self-sufficient and that she needed child care to attend school in the fall of 1992. In July 1992, Petitioner's case manager informed Petitioner that, due to the child care freeze, Respondent could not provide her with child care and placed Petitioner in "limited contact." During the time in "limited contact," Petitioner provided monthly attendance verification to her PI worker until February 1993. In August 1992, Petitioner enrolled in business classes at Lively Area Vocational Technical School (Lively) in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Needing child care assistance, Petitioner's parents assisted her with child care temporarily. In February 1993, because Respondent could not provide Petitioner with child care, she requested disenrollment from the PI program. However, Petitioner can re-enroll in the PI program at any time. Petitioner continues to attend classes at Lively. But, due to her inability to obtain child care services from Respondent, she has been forced to reduce her classes. Additionally, Petitioner has taken a part-time clerical job at below poverty wages, for which she receives child care. Because of the child care freeze, Petitioner cannot receive child care assistance from Respondent for education and training activities. Background The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program is a joint federal-state assistance program authorized by Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 602. The AFDC program is administered by states under the supervision of the Federal Department of Health and Human Services. A "Job Opportunities and Basic Skills" (JOBS) program must be developed by each state participating in the AFDC program. The purpose of the JOBS program is to provide training, education and work opportunities for AFDC recipients, pursuant to the Family Support Act of 1988, that will help avoid long-term public assistance dependency. Supervision of the JOBS program and contracting for the provision of support services, such as child care, is the responsibility of the state agency administering the AFDC program (referred to as the IV-A agency). In Florida, Respondent is the IV-A agency, and the Department of Labor and Employment Security administers the JOBS program. Florida's JOBS program is called Project Independence (PI). The criteria governing PI is found in Section 409.029, Florida Statutes, the Florida Employment Opportunity Act. For PI purposes, all AFDC recipients are either exempt or nonexempt from participating in PI and are either target group or non-target group members. Exempt recipients are persons who have barriers to participating in PI, such as having young children or being disabled, based on federally defined exemption criteria. These recipients are not required to participate in PI, but may volunteer to participate. Nonexempt recipients are persons who do not meet the federal exemption criteria and are referred to as mandatory. These recipients may be referred to PI by their Respondent caseworker, and if referred, they are required to participate in PI as a condition of receiving AFDC, so long as resources are available. Conversely, if resources are not available, a nonexempt referred recipient is not required to participate in PI, but may volunteer to participate in PI. Furthermore, even if a nonexempt recipient is not referred to PI, such recipient may volunteer to participate in PI. Target group members are AFDC recipients who, based on certain characteristics such as work history or number of years already on AFDC, are likely to become long-term public assistance recipients. Non-target group members are AFDC recipients who do not meet target group criteria. Both target group members and non-target group members may be either exempt or nonexempt. Caseload Prioritization Rule Participation requirements for AFDC recipients in PI is set forth in Section 409.029, Florida Statutes, the Florida Employment Opportunity Act. In April 1992, Respondent promulgated Rule 10C-32.002 AFDC Employment and Training Program, Florida Administrative Code, implementing Section 409.029, Florida Statutes. Section (4) of Rule 10C-32.002, referred to as the caseload prioritization rule, sets forth Respondent's PI caseload prioritization procedures, implementing Subsection 409.029(9)(c), Florida Statutes. Subsection 409.029(9)(c) states: (9) PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS (c) All exempt and nonexempt AFDC recipients who do not meet target group criteria shall be permitted to volunteer. Nonexempt AFDC recipients who meet target group criteria shall be required to participate in the pro- gram. Exempt AFDC recipients who meet target group criteria shall be permitted to volun- teer. If the department lacks resources to provide the services necessary for participa- tion under this section, nonexempt AFDC recip- ients who do not meet the target group crit- eria shall be required to participate in in- itial job search if they are approved for ini- tial job search, but shall be deferred from further participation after completing up to 3 weeks of job search activities. If the department continues to lack resources to pro- vide the services necessary for participation under this section, nonexempt recipients who do not meet target group criteria and who are not approved for initial job search shall also be deferred from further participation after completing orientation. If deferring such recipients from mandatory participation does not alleviate budget constraints on ser- vices, the department shall defer nonexempt AFDC recipients who do not meet target group criteria from mandatory participation and may also defer participants who meet target group criteria from mandatory participation so long as the department is meeting federal particip- ation rates and target group expenditure re- quirements. If the department cannot, after making a good faith effort, meet federal part- icipation rates and target group expenditure requirements by deferring nonexempt target group AFDC recipients from participation, the department may limit service to AFDC recip- ients who meet target group criteria and may mandate the participation of those target group members who are non-target-group volun- teers only after the department has attempted to conserve its resources under the proce- dures established in this section. (Emphasis added.) Rule 10C-32.002(4) states: Effective October 1, 1991, the Florida Employment Opportunity Act, F.S. 409.029, was revised to allow the department to prioritize and disenroll participants based on target groups and assessment status where funds are insufficient to serve all partici- pants. Caseloads may be reduced to allow for sufficient case management when they exceed a staff/client ratio of 1:150. Staff/client ratios for the teen parent caseload should not exceed 1:100. Each district will init- iate case load disenrollment procedures as needed. Case managers must identify three cate- gories of participants in their caseloads: Priority One, exempt volunteers; Priority Two, mandatory target group participants; and Priority Three, mandatory non-target group participants. When caseloads exceed a staff/client ratio of 1:150, all Priority Three cases, mandatory non-target participants, will be offered an opportunity to continue partici- pation or disenroll. Priority Three participants who wish to continue in the program must be allowed to do so and will be placed in Priority One category. Priority Three participants who do not wish to continue in the program should be disenrolled after Orientation, and Job Search if the participant meets the criteria for Initial Job Search. To reach or main- tain the 1:150 staff/client ratio, new mand- atory non-target referrals may be disen- rolled after Orientation, and Job Search, if applicable, if they do not wish to continue to participate. If the staff/client ratio remains above 1:150 after disenrollment of Priority Three cases, then all Priority Two, mandatory tar- get groups may be allowed the opportunity to disenroll from the program after Orientation, and Job Search, if applicable. Information about disenrollment and re- entry into the program must be provided, verbally and in writing, to each participant being given these opportunities. This infor- mation must include: A participant who is given the opport- unity to disenroll will not be sanctioned, nor will disenrollment affect the AFDC grant amount. An individual who disenrolls may re- enroll in the program at a later date by con- tacting the local AFDC employment and train- ing office. An individual who disenrolls and becomes employed may be eligible for child care dur- ing the hours of employment and should con- tact the AFDC employment and training case manager. A participant who is given the opport- unity to disenroll and chooses to continue participating in the AFDC employment and training program can do so. A participant who does not meet an exemp- tion from program participation and who chooses to remain in the program although given the opportunity to disenroll can be sanctioned for failure to complete assigned activities. A participant who does not meet an exemp- tion from program participation and chooses to disenroll may be required to re-enter the program at a future date. Failure to do so without good cause will cause a sanction to be imposed. Support Services will be terminated for a participant who chooses to disenroll unless the individual is employed. If new referrals are not sufficient to maintain the staff/client ratio of 1:150, disenrolled cases should be identified for program re-entry. Program re-entry will be based on continuing eligibility for AFDC, priority group status, and length of time since disenrollment. The first individual disenrolled from the highest priority group will be re-enrolled first, etc. If the state fails to meet the feder- ally required expenditure rate for target groups, participation in the program may be limited to and required for target group members. (Emphasis added) The caseload prioritization rule only applies in situations in which PI staff/client ratio exceeds 1:150; staff meaning case manager. Respondent contends that Subsection 409.029(9)(c), Florida Statutes, was needed for the determination as to when PI's resources were sufficient to provide services to clients. In the caseload prioritization rule, Respondent interprets the statutory phrase "lacks resources" as the point at which the staff/client ratio exceeds 1:150. Respondent's districts meet this "limited resources" point when the staff/client ratio exceeds 1:150. The factors considered in the measuring stick used by Respondent to determine the limited resources were staff allocations and staff availability to provide services. Child care was not included, since it was, and is, a support service as interpreted by Respondent from Subsection 409.029(7), Florida Statutes. At the time Subsection 409.029(9)(c) was passed by the Florida Legislature, the staff/client ratio exceeded 1:400 and 1:500 in some of Respondent's districts. Respondent determined that a ratio exceeding 1:150 prevented a case manager from providing the services needed for clients, i.e., spending the amount of time needed, and that the lack of time, translating into the lack of services needed, could affect Respondent's PI federal funding. Respondent contends that the caseload prioritization rule was necessary for the administration of Subsection 409.029(9)(c). The rule in Respondent's view provided and clarified the procedures to be used for the disenrollment of clients to reduce caseloads. Respondent further contends that the caseload prioritization rule was necessary for the proper administration of Subsection 409.029(7), Florida Statutes, which Respondent interprets as applicable to the offering of child care services. According to Respondent, the rule gave Respondent the ability to identify specific reasons to defer individuals from participation in the PI program. On July 10, 1992, Respondent's caseload prioritization procedures were issued statewide and were generally applicable to all PI participants in Respondent's districts. Notwithstanding, because the staff/client ratio did not exceed 1:150 in Respondent's District 2, the procedure was not utilized in District 2. The caseload prioritization procedures were not invoked prior to instituting the child care freeze in Respondent's District 2. Child Care Freeze For the 1992-93 fiscal year, the Florida Legislature failed to appropriate sufficient funds to meet the needs of PI child care in Respondent's District 2. Subsequently, again, for the 1993-94 fiscal year, the Legislature did not appropriate sufficient funds. On July 10, 1992, Respondent issued a memorandum, effective that same date, freezing child care in Respondent's District 2 only for new enrollments of AFDC recipients who wished to participate (volunteers) in PI education and training activities and who needed child care in order to participate. The challenged child care freeze policy purports to be as follows: Due to the large over annualization we are projecting for FY 92-93 in Service I, Ser- vice II and Family Support Act child care services, I am directing you to immediately freeze new enrollments except for entitled groups (TCC and AFDC Employed) and the high- est at-risk group (Priority 1 in Service I). We will closely monitor utilization and let you know as soon as spending is within bud- get limits. This freeze applies to new enrollments only. Children currently in care should continue to receive services as appropriate. Respondent instituted the child care freeze because of projected annualized budget deficits; that is, Respondent annualized its current PI child care expenditures and projected a budgetary deficit if expenditures increased beyond what was currently spent. The child care freeze did not affect Transitional Child Care (TCC) recipients and AFDC recipients who work. Transitional Child Care is child care for former AFDC recipients who lost their AFDC eligibility due to earned income and who meet other federal requirements. TCC and AFDC employed individuals are guaranteed child care. Also, the child care freeze did not affect those individuals who Respondent requires to participate in PI. Respondent's District 2 is divided into two districts: Subdistrict 2A and Subdistrict 2B. Subdistrict 2A is comprised of Bay, Calhoun, Franklin, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson and Washington counties. Subdistrict 2B is comprised of Franklin, Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Taylor and Wakulla counties. Child care services are provided through contract with central agencies. Two child care provider agencies serve Respondent's District 2: Big Bend Child Care, serving Subdistrict 2B and Early Childhood Services, serving Subdistrict 2A. PI child care monies are split between the two provider agencies. Due to the child care freeze, from July 10, 1992, no AFDC recipient in Subdistricts 2A and 2B, who needed child care for education and training, received it. However, on January 19, 1993, child care slots became available in Subdistrict 2A with Early Childhood Services. On January 19, 1993, Early Childhood Services had 318 children of AFDC recipients on a waiting list. Only 35 slots became available. On March 15, 1993, Respondent allowed Early Childhood Services to provide child care services on a "one-in one-out" basis--equal number of child care slots filled as are vacated. As of January 1993, in Respondent's District 2, 542 children of AFDC recipients were waiting to receive child care services. Approximately 70 of the children, all residing in Subdistrict 2A, have been placed since January 19, 1993. For the offering of child care services, Respondent looks to both Subsection 409.029(7), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10C-32.002(10)(b)2, Florida Administrative Code, for guidance as to what action to take when child care resources are limited. Respondent contends that Subsection 409.029(7) is applicable to child care services. Subsection 409.027(7) includes child care services as a support service and provides that child care services "shall be provided according to federal law to the extent funds are available." Rule 10C- 32.002(10)(b)2 provides that a PI participant, meeting the requirements for a deferred status and not required to participate, "will be placed in limited contact status" due to the "temporary unavailability of support services." In August 1992, Respondent conferred with the regional office of the federal agency overseeing the AFDC program, regarding the subject of guaranteeing child care to AFDC recipients as it relates to availability of funds. Respondent and the federal agency agreed to certain principles on the subject, which included the following: "To the degree resources are available" is acceptable as a factor in limiting participa- tion in a program component when child care is a determining factor (other than AFDC-emp- loyed and TCC). The state may determine the criteria for those required and/or allowed to participate in the program as long as the state meets the federal participation rate and target group expenditure requirements. [W]hen a state finds itself without sufficient resources, including child care resources, it may place individuals on a waiting list. Before placing an individual on a waiting list, the individual will be given an opportunity to make provisions for her own child care, or other services, in order to remain in the program. [W]ith the exception of AFDC-employed and TCC, the guarantee of child care to both JOBS and non-JOBS participants is directly tied to the conditions under which the participant is required or allowed to participate. One clear and explicit condition is the extent to which state resources permit such partic pation. Respondent interprets Florida law, as it relates to budgeting, that the law requires Respondent not to exceed its budget. To stay within its budget, Respondent instituted the child care freeze instead of the other available options which would involve the disenrollment of children already in care, including the entitled groups. The child care freeze required Respondent to constantly be aware of the status of the child care budget (on a monthly basis) due to its constant fluctuation. Also, in administering the child care freeze, Respondent interprets the federal law and Subsection 409.029(9)(c), Florida Statutes, to state that it is not required to provide child care to volunteers of the PI program. But, even with this interpretation, volunteers for the PI program are not denied participation in the PI program during child care constraints. An individual who does not need child care, or even one who does need child care but can provide it through other means can volunteer for participation in the PI program. No child care will be provided, but the participants can receive other services associated with the PI program. The child care freeze was never promulgated pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are: What is the amount of child support arrearages and/or past-due support presently owed by Petitioner? Whether the Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program is authorized to employ the remedy of garnishment as set forth in Section 409.25656, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts On January 29, 1982, a Final Judgment was issued in the case of Linda Tillman v. Robert C. Tillman, Case No. 81-20402, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida (Broward County Circuit Court). Pursuant to this Final Judgment, Petitioner, Robert C. Tillman, was ordered to pay $103.00 per week in current child support commencing January 22, 1982, for three minor children. On June 12, 1985, the Broward County Circuit Court issued an Order to Transfer in Linda Tillman v. Robert C. Tillman, Case No. 81-20402, to Palm Beach County, Florida. On August 18, 1987, an Order Granting Respondent's Motion for a Decrease in Child Support was filed in the case of Linda Tillman and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Robert Tillman, (hereinafter Tillman v. Tillman) Case No. 85-5064, in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Palm Beach County Circuit Court), under which Petitioner's current child support obligation was reduced to $65.00 per week because one of the parties' children had come to live with Petitioner. Additionally, child support arrearages of $4,121.64 were established and Petitioner was ordered to pay an additional $10.00 per week in liquidation of the arrearages. On July 20, 1990, an Order Adjudicating Respondent in Contempt was filed in the Palm Beach Circuit Court in Tillman v. Tillman, under which Petitioner was found in civil contempt of court for willfully failing to satisfy his child support obligations. Petitioner's child support arrearages were determined to be $3,935.42 as of May 10, 1990, and he was ordered to continue to pay $65.00 per week in current child support and increased arrearages payments of $15.00 per week. On March 11, 1993, an Order Adjudicating Respondent in Contempt was filed in the Palm Beach Circuit Court in Tillman v. Tillman under which Petitioner again was found in civil contempt of court for willfully failing to satisfy his child support obligations. Petitioner's child support arrearages were determined to be $5,102.59 as of February 18, 1993, and he was ordered to continue to pay $65.00 per week in current child support, increased arrearages payments of $35.00 per week, and $500.00 as a partial lump-sum payment on arrearages to purge his contempt. On November 6, 1995, an Order Adjudicating Respondent in Contempt was filed in the Palm Beach Circuit Court in Tillman v. Tillman under which Petitioner again was found in civil contempt of court for willfully failing to satisfy his child support obligations. Petitioner's child support arrearages were determined to be $8,298.93 as of October 17, 1995. He was ordered to continue to pay $65.00 per week in current child support and $10.00 per week plus a $150.00 lump-sum payment on arrearages to purge his contempt. On March 19, 1996, an Order Adjudicating Respondent in Contempt was filed in the Palm Beach Circuit Court in Tillman v. Tillman under which Petitioner again was found in civil contempt of court for willfully failing to satisfy his child support obligations. Petitioner's child support arrearages were determined to be $8,829.74 as of May 25, 1995. He was ordered to continue to pay $65.00 per week in current child support and $20.00 per week plus a $500.00 partial lump-sum payment on arrearages to purge his contempt. On August 8, 2001, the Department mailed a Notice of Freeze (NOF) in an amount up to $2,254.96 to the South Atlantic Federal Credit Union in Boca Raton, Florida, by certified mail, return receipt requested, regarding any accounts of Petitioner. The credit union received the NOF on August 10, 2001. On August 15, 2001, the Department mailed a Notice of Intent to Levy (NOIL) in an amount up to $2,254.96 to Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested. Petitioner received the NOIL on August 18, 2001. The NOF and NOIL mailed by the Department satisfied the statutory notice requirements of Section 409.25656, Florida Statutes. Petitioner filed a Request for Administrative Hearing dated August 30, 2001, which was received by the Department on September 18, 2001. The Department sent a Notice of Extension of Freeze (NOEOF) in an amount of up to $2,254.96 to South Atlantic Federal Credit Union on September 12, 2001. The Department dismissed Petitioner's August 30, 2001, Request for Administrative Hearing as legally insufficient. Petitioner filed a timely and legally sufficient Revised Petition for Hearing dated January 7, 2002, which was received by the Department on January 16, 2002. On June 10, 2002, a Recommendation of Hearing Officer and an Order Granting Motion to Correct Ledger and to Determine Arrears were filed in the Palm Beach Circuit Court in Tillman v. Tillman, under which Petitioner's child support arrearages were determined to be $6,344.12, all of which was past due as of May 15, 2002. Petitioner was ordered to pay $50.00 per month in liquidation of his arrearages. The official payment records of the Palm Beach County Clerk of Court established that Petitioner owed child support arrearages/past-due child support in Tillman v. Tillman of $6,194.12 as of November 25, 2002. The Department faxed and mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, an Amended Notice of Freeze (Amended NOF) in an amount up to $6,094.12 to South Atlantic Federal Credit Union on October 16, 2002. The credit union received the Amended NOF on October 18, 2002. The Department faxed an Amended NOIL to Petitioner in an amount up to $6,094.12 on October 18, 2002, and mailed a copy to Petitioner on October 19, 2002.2/ The Department faxed and mailed an Amended Notice of Extension of Freeze (Amended NOEOF) in an amount up to $6,094.12 to South Atlantic Federal Credit Union on December 20, 2002. Facts Based Upon the Evidence of Record Petitioner made five timely monthly payments of $50.00 in Tillman v. Tillman between May 15, 2002, and November 25, 2002. Petitioner made two more timely monthly payments of $50.00 between November 25, 2002 and January 17, 2003, reducing the amount he owed in child support arrearages/past-due in Tillman v. Tillman to $6,094.12 as of January 17, 2003.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program enter a final order that levies upon the funds in the Petitioner's credit union account up to the amount of $6,094.12; applies the funds to reduce Petitioner's accrued child support arrearage; and credits Petitioner for the amount so applied. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 27th day of February, 2003.
Findings Of Fact On November 18, 1991, petitioner submitted a claim to the Department of Lottery (Lottery) on a ticket he held for the "Play 4" drawing of November 17, 1991. Such ticket reflected that petitioner had correctly selected the four numbers drawn on that date, and rendered him eligible for a prize of $5,000.00. On December 17, 1991, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) certified to the Lottery that petitioner owed $2,891.45 in Title IV-D child support arrearage. Thereafter, by letter of December 20, 1991, the Lottery advised petitioner that DHRS had advised it of such outstanding debt and that, pursuant to Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, it had transmitted the prize amount to the Office of the Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance (DBF). Petitioner was further advised that DBF would notify him shortly regarding the distribution of such funds. By letter of December 31, 1991, DBF notified petitioner that it was in receipt of his prize from the Lottery and that it intended to apply $2,891.45 toward the unpaid claim for child support. Such letter also enclosed state warrant number 1437325, dated December 27, 1991, in the amount of $2,108.55 in payment of the difference between the petitioner's prize and the unpaid claim for child support, and advised petitioner of his right to request a hearing to contest such action. By letter of January 15, 1992, petitioner acknowledged receipt of DBF's letter of December 31, 1991, disputed that any such obligation was outstanding, and requested a formal hearing. At hearing, the proof demonstrated that through a series of orders rendered in the matter of In Re: The Marriage of Mary B. Black, Petitioner/Wife v. Jessie Black, Respondent/Husband, Circuit Court, Dade County, Florida, Case No. 83-11702, petitioner was directed to pay child support for his minor children, with such payments to be made to the clerk of that court. As of December 17, 1991, the date DHRS certified the debt at issue in this case to the Lottery, petitioner owed $2,891.45 in Title IV-D child support arrearage. Such debt was, however, reduced by the sum of $5.28 by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Dade County, Florida, on January 24, 1992, to properly reflect the fees charged to administer such account. Accordingly, the proof demonstrates that DBF should apply the sum of $2,886.17 from petitioner's prize toward the unpaid claim for child support.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order which resolves the distribution of the balance of petitioner's lottery prize as follows: (1) that it pay to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services the sum of $2,886.17 towards satisfaction of petitioner's debt for child support, and (2) that it pay to petitioner the sum of $5.28 as the balance of his lottery prize. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of May 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Jessie Black, pro se 420 Southwest 31st Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Scott C. Wright, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Louisa Warren Department of the Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Should Petitioner have $8,812.78 deducted from his lottery prize of $19,091.96 to meet his child support obligation? See Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.).
Findings Of Fact In the case of Glenda Carey vs. James P. Carey, in the Circuit Court in and for Gadsden County, Florida, Case No. 91-24, related to the dissolution of their marriage, a final judgment was entered which obligated Petitioner to pay child support to his minor son. Over time Petitioner failed to faithfully meet the child support obligation. By April 23, 1997, the amount of arrearage for child support was $8,485.13. Petitioner had owed a similar amount on September 9, 1996. On September 9, 1996, Petitioner made a claim for a lottery prize with the Lottery in the amount of $19,091.96, which he had won through participation in a lottery game. Being mindful of the existence of the overdue child support payments that have been referred to, the Lottery transmitted $8,812.78 of that lottery prize of $19,091.96, to the DOR, Child Support Enforcement Section, and notified Petitioner of that decision by correspondence dated October 2, 1996. Petitioner contested that decision by requesting a formal hearing on October 18, 1996. The proper amount of child support for which Petitioner is obligated effective September 9, 1996, when he claimed his lottery prize and April 23, 1997, the concluding hearing date, was $8,485.13. Consequently, Petitioner is entitled to an additional $327.65 in prize money over and above the prize money already received.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which upholds payment of $8,485.13 in past due child support and remits to the Petitioner $327.65 in additional lottery prize winnings. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: James P. Carey 2528 Centerville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32308 James P. Carey 720 Thomas Street Key West, Florida 33040 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
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Petitioner is delinquent in child support payments; (2) if yes, what is the amount of the delinquent child support; and (3) whether Respondent is authorized to levy Petitioner’s two bank accounts at the Bank of America and apply the funds to reduce or satisfy Petitioner’s outstanding arrearage for child support.
Findings Of Fact On April 11, 1996, a judicial hearing officer in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Orange County, Florida (Orange County Circuit Court), issued a Report and Recommendation of Hearing Officer on Paternity and/or Other Issues (Report). The Report found that Petitioner, Gary Walther (Petitioner), was the natural father of two minor children and recommended that he pay $200.00 per month for each child. The Report also recommended that the child support payments commence on May 5, 1996, and that they be made through the Clerk of the Circuit Court. On April 11, 1996, the Orange County Circuit Court issued an Income Deduction Order (Order) in State of Florida, Department of Revenue, on behalf of Theresa Walther v. Gary Walther, Case No. 86-1675. The Order directed any employer or any other person providing or administering income to Petitioner to deduct from such income $400.00 per month for periodic child support and to pay this amount to the Clerk of the Court. According to the Order, the $400.00 "reflects on-going child support of $200.00 per month, per child, for two minor children." On May 15, 2000, a judicial hearing officer issued a Report and Recommendation in Department of Revenue v. Gary Walther, Case No. 86-1675, in the Orange County Circuit Court. The Report and Recommendation abated Petitioner’s on-going child support payments as of April 24, 2000; found Petitioner $10,468.76 in arrears in child support as of April 24, 2000; and recommended that Petitioner pay an additional payment of $200.00 per month as payment on the arrears. These payments were to be made to the State of Florida, State Disbursement Unit, in Tallahassee, Florida. On May 15, 2000, the Orange County Circuit Court approved, confirmed and adopted as a Final Order the Report and Recommendation described and referred to in paragraph 3 above. On October 13, 1999, the Department sent a Notice to Freeze to the Bank of America in Richmond, Virginia. In the notice, which was sent by certified mail, the Department advised the Bank of America that Petitioner had a past due and/or overdue child-support obligation of $10,717.29 as of October 13, 1999. 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 October 25, 1999, the Bank of America verified that it held two accounts identified as belonging to Petitioner. The funds in both accounts totaled $2,894.56. On October 15, 1999, the Department sent a Notice of Intent to Levy by certified mail to Petitioner. 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 BANK OF AMERICA. This action is taken for nonpayment of child support by the obligor in the amount of $10,717.29 as of October 13, 1999. 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, 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. Attached to the notice was a Notice of Rights form that detailed Petitioner's due process rights as provided for in Section 409.25656, Florida Statutes. The return receipt from the October 15, 1999, Notice of Intent addressed to Petitioner indicated that the Notice was delivered and received by someone at Petitioner’s address of record on or about October 20, 1999. On or about November 3, 1999, Petitioner filed a Petition for Formal Hearing (Petition), which requested a "formal hearing concerning the Notice of Intent to Levy" which he received October 19, 1999. The Petition listed Petitioner’s address as 234 Crabtree Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32835. On or about November 10, 1999, the Department issued and sent a Notice of Extension of Freeze to the Bank of America. 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 Bank of America 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." On November 30, 2000, the Clerk of the Orange County Circuit Court prepared and issued an Arrearage Affidavit in Case No. 86-1675. The affidavit stated that the May 15, 2000, a Final Order issued by the court established that Petitioner's child support arrearage was $10,468.76. However, because of payments made by Petitioner, the affidavit noted that Petitioner's remaining established arrearage, as of the date of the affidavit, was $6,924.01. As of the date of the final hearing, Petitioner's outstanding arrearage for child support was $6,924.01. Notwithstanding his filing a Petition for Formal Hearing, Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing and no evidence was presented on his behalf.
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 the $2,894.56 in the Petitioner's two bank accounts at the Bank of America; (2) applies the funds to reduce Petitioner's accrued child support arrearage of $6,924.01; and (3) credits Petitioner for said payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 6th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Thorburn, Esquire Florida Department of Revenue Post Office Box 8030 4070 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8030 Gary Walther 5965 Spring Street Austell, Georgia 30168-4041 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 5050 West Tennessee Street 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668
