The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has an outstanding arrearage for child support and, if so, whether the Department of Revenue is authorized to retain and apply the Petitioner’s $1,471.00 lottery prize to reduce an outstanding arrearage for child support.
Findings Of Fact On November 22, 1995, Petitioner, James Earl Pickett, was ordered to pay monthly ongoing child support of $175.00 per month, $5.25 clerk’s fee, $29.00 per month for retroactive support arrears of $7,395.00 and $5.25 clerk’s fee for a total monthly child support obligation of $179.00 per month. On or about February 8, 2002, Petitioner entered into a Stipulation for Increased Pay Back on Arrears (Stipulation) with the Department, acting on behalf of Delores Griffin-Pickett.1 The Stipulation provided in part the following: I, James E. Pickett, do swear that I am the Respondent in this cause, and recognize my obligation to provide support for the dependent(s) named. * * * I swear that I am the natural father of the above-child(ren) * * * I agree to payment of the following amounts: $145.00 per month as current support $50.00 toward arrears of $8357.25 as of 02/07/2002 * * * for a TOTAL PAYMENT OF $195.00 per month, commencing next charge date. All payments shall be made payable to the State of Florida Disbursement Unit . . . Tallahassee, Fl 32314-8500. * * * I agree that this Court shall reserve Jurisdiction over arrears due and owing, if any. I agree to entry of an Income Deduction Order effective immediately. I understand it is my obligation to pay child support when it is not being deducted from my pay check. . . . * * * I have executed this Stipulation FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY, and with full knowledge of its contents. By executing the Stipulation described and quoted in paragraph 3 above, Mr. Pickett agreed to the terms and conditions therein. The Stipulation was approved and adopted in an Order issued on March 11, 2002, by the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Hillsborough County, in State of Florida, in the case of Department of Revenue, on behalf of Delores Griffin-Pickett v. James E. Pickett, Civil Circuit Number 95-9901. In adopting the Stipulation, the Order provided that "Respondent shall pay $145.00 monthly as current support, plus $50.00 monthly towards arrears of $8,357.25 as of 2/7/02, for a total payment of $195.00 monthly, commencing the next charge date." On December 11, 2002, Mr. Pickett and the Department executed a Stipulation and Final Order Approving Stipulation on Suspension of Driver License and/or Motor Vehicle Registration (Stipulation on Suspension of Driver License). Pursuant to the Stipulation on Suspension of Driver License, Mr. Pickett: agreed that, as of December 11, 2002, there was a delinquency in the child support obligation of $1,255.00 and a total past due balance of $8,416.29; and (2) agreed to make lump sum payment of $300.00 toward the child support obligation on or before December 11, 2002. According to a notation next to this provision, Petitioner paid this $300.00 on December 11, 2002. The Stipulation on Suspension of Driver License also provides that Respondent agrees and understands that the periodic child support obligation is $145.00 per month, as on-going child support, plus $60.00 per month, toward the past due balance until paid in full, for a total periodic payment of $205.00 per month, with such payments to begin on January 1, 2003. In addition to the foregoing, Mr. Pickett agreed to pay administrative and court costs of $258.00 within 365 days.2 The Stipulation on Suspension of Driver License provides that "[t]he parties agree that this stipulation may be entered into evidence in a court of competent jurisdiction and shall be binding on the parties." Furthermore, pursuant to the terms of that stipulation, "[a]ll conditions and terms of the previous court orders not changed by this agreement remain in full effect." The Stipulation on Suspension of Driver License provides that Mr. Pickett "executes this Stipulation [on Suspension of Driver License] freely and voluntarily, and with full knowledge of its contents. At this proceeding, Mr. Pickett testified that he executed the Stipulation on Suspension of Driver License in order to retain his driver’s license.3 However, notwithstanding his reason for signing the Stipulation on Suspension of Driver License, Mr. Pickett never denied that he was obligated to pay child support, that he was delinquent in that child support obligation, and that there was a past due balance of the child support obligation. Moreover, at this proceeding, Mr. Pickett presented no evidence that he had paid the child support and the past due child support obligation as reflected in the Stipulation on Suspension of Driver License. By executing the Stipulation on Suspension of Driver License, Mr. Pickett agreed to the terms and conditions set forth therein. The Stipulation on Suspension of Driver License was approved and adopted in an Order Approving Stipulation [Order] entered on December 29, 2002. See State of Florida, Department of Revenue, on behalf of Delores Griffin-Pickett, vs. James E. Pickett, Circuit Civil Number 95-9901, in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida in and for Hillsborough County. The Order specifically found that Mr. Pickett freely and voluntarily entered into the Stipulation on Suspension of Driver License. Additionally, the Order adopted and incorporated the Stipulation on Suspension of Driver License. In connection with the Order entered December 29, 2002, the court also entered an Income Deduction Order directing present and subsequent employer/payers. One provision of the Income Deduction Order requires employers/payers "to deduct 100% of any income paid in the form of a bonus other similar one-time payment, up to the amount of arrearage reported in the income deduction notice or the remaining balance thereof and forward to the court depository." On October 23, 2006, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County prepared and issued an Arrearage Affidavit (Affidavit) in Case No. 95-9901. The Affidavit noted that as of the date of the Affidavit, Mr. Picket had remaining established arrears for child support of $7,416.54. As of the date of the final hearing, Petitioner's outstanding arrearage for child support was $7,416.54. Mr. Pickett appeared at this proceeding. However, he did not present any evidence to establish that he does not owe the outstanding arrearage, as alleged by the Department, or that he has paid the outstanding arrearage for child support. Instead, Mr. Pickett argued that he was unaware of the Order issued on March 11, 2002, and the Order issued on December 29, 2002, requiring him to make the payments discussed in the above findings. At the time of this proceeding, and at all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Pickett has resided at 2721 North 46th Street in Tampa, Florida.4 This is the address that is listed on the Stipulation, the Stipulation on the Suspension of Driver license, and the Orders related thereto, and discussed above. Moreover, both the Order issued March 11. 2002, and the Order Approving Stipulation entered December 29, 2002, show that copies of those orders were furnished to Mr. Pickett at 2721 North 46th Street in Tampa, Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order that authorizes it to retain Petitioner's lottery prize of $1,471.00 and apply that total amount to reduce Petitioner's accrued child support arrearage of $7,416.54 . DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of Januuary, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 2007.
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Petitioner is delinquent in child support payments; and (2) whether Respondent is authorized to levy Petitioner's two bank accounts and apply the funds to reduce Petitioner's past due child support obligation.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is the father of a child born in Connecticut in 1986. On May 2, 1990, a Connecticut court ordered Petitioner to pay child support of $72.00 per week for the support of his child. The court also found that Petitioner had a child support arrearage of $3,797.11 and ordered that he pay an additional $15.00 per week to reduce the arrearage. Petitioner moved to Florida in early 1994. On November 13, 2001, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Manatee County, Florida, received a request from the State of Connecticut to register and enforce a foreign support order against Petitioner. The adjudicated arrearage in child support was $25,179.87, as determined by the State of Connecticut. On December 11, 2001, Petitioner was sent a Notice of Registration of Foreign Support Order. The notice, sent by certified mail, was received at Petitioner's then current residence address. On January 23, 2002, an Order Confirming Registration of Foreign Support Order was entered; Petitioner was ordered to pay $90.48 per week beginning January 25, 2002. On July 12, 2007, the State of Connecticut certified that as of July 12, 2007, Petitioner had a $23,853.56 child support arrearage. Petitioner stipulated that the child support arrearage was at least $23,000.00. On September 8, 2006, the Department sent a Notice to Freeze to the Bank of America; on the same day a Notice of Freeze was sent to Regions Bank. In the notices, sent by certified mail, the Department advised the banks to hold up to $25,725.26 of Petitioner's funds until further notice. Bank of America responded indicating that Petitioner had $1,270.95 in his account; Regions Bank reported $591.42. On September 15, 2006, the Department sent two Notices of Intent to Levy by certified mail to Petitioner. The notices 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. This property consists of liquid assets and is in the control of [appropriate bank]. This action is taken for nonpayment of child support by the obligor in the amount of $25,725.26 as of [appropriate date]. 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 a petition in the existing Circuit Court case, . . . 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. Although Petitioner testified that he did not receive the notices, neither was returned by the postal service. On October 2, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing (Petition), in response to each Notice of Intent to Levy. In October 2006, the Department issued and sent Notices of Extension of Freeze to each bank indicating that Petitioner was challenging the Notices of Intent to Levy. The monies on deposit in each bank were the result of payments received by Petitioner for his labors as a lawn caretaker.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Revenue, enter a final order that: (1) levies an amount up to $23,853.56 in each of the Petitioner, Michael K. Dugdale's, two bank accounts at Bank of America, N.A. and Regions Bank; (2) applies the funds to reduce Petitioner's past due child support obligation; and (3) credits Petitioner for said payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2007, 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 18th day of October, 2007.
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.
Findings Of Fact The following are the facts to which the parties have stipulated: A Complaint to Determine Paternity was filed in Duval County, Florida, in May of 1984, alleging that Archie L. Atkins was the father of Jimmy Lemont Pickney. Jimmy Lemont Pickney was born on May 1, 1971, to Betty Ruth Pickney. The birth certificate of the child did not indicate the name of the father. In his Answer to Complaint, Archie L. Atkins denied any knowledge with regard to the paternity issue, and denied that he was, in fact, the father of the minor child who was thirteen years old at the time the petition was filed. A jury trial was held on the issue of paternity. At that time, Archie L. Atkins testified that although he had met Betty Ruth Pickney, he had not had sexual intercourse with her and was unaware that she had conceived a child which she claimed to be his. However, in March of 1985 the jury determined that Archie L. Atkins was, in fact, the father of Jimmy Lemont Pickney. A Final Judgment of Paternity was entered by The Honorable John S. Cox on March 21, 1985. (Copy attached) The Court reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of child support to be paid by Archie L. Atkins and to establish a public assistance child support obligation and to tax costs. In its Order of Modification, the Court determined that the sum of $8,611.50 was the public assistance child support obligation owed by the Defendant to the State of Florida for assistance paid on behalf of the minor from October 1974 to April 1, 1985. (Copy attached) The Defendant was ordered to pay $25 per week for the support of the minor child and $5 per week toward the public assistance child support obligation. Approximately one year after the commencement of child support, it was determined that Archie L. Atkins was then in contempt due to his failure to make the payments previously ordered on April 8, 1985. Specifically, he was $897.78 behind through March 21, 1986. Mr. Atkins was ordered to pay $897.78 instantly plus $250 to be applied toward the public assistance child support obligation. (Copies attached) Mr. Atkins paid both the $897.78 and the $250 as ordered by the Court. At the same time the Court entered its Contempt Order, the Court directed that future payments be deducted from Mr. Atkins' pay check by his employer, the United States Postal Service. Archie Atkins and his wife, Richardine Atkins, overpaid their 1985 Federal Income taxes in the amount of $1,605.21 and were entitled to a refund in that amount. However, the Office of Child Support Enforcement sought to intercept that tax refund and to apply it toward the public assistance child support obligation. Mr. Atkins was notified of the interception on June 2, 1986, and requested a hearing on June 19, 1986.
Recommendation For the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order in this case to the effect that the Department is not entitled to intercept Archie L. Atkins' federal tax refund unless and until Atkins is delinquent in the periodic court-ordered payment, and to the further effect that any federal tax refund which may already have been intercepted shall be returned to Atkins. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 4th day of November, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Craig Hemphill, Esquire Assistant Counsel Child Support Enforcement Program 105 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Daniel Richardson, Esquire 1004 First Union Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Revenue should intercept and apply Petitioner’s lottery prize to reduce an outstanding arrearage for child support.
Findings Of Fact On January 25, 2002, Molina signed a Florida Lottery Winner Claim Form and transmitted it to DOL to redeem a lottery prize in excess of $600. Thereafter, shouldering its legal responsibility, DOR notified DOL that Molina was in arrears on a child support obligation that DOR was enforcing. On or around January 30, 2002, DOR notified Molina of its intent to intercept his lottery prize and apply it to satisfy or reduce an unpaid child support debt. Molina’s child support obligation is payable to the Central Depository of the Clerk of the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court pursuant to an order issued by a judge of that circuit on March 28, 1996. Molina owes in excess of $20,000 in unpaid child support.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED (if this has not been done already) that the Department of the Lottery transmit Molina’s lottery prize to the Department of Revenue. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order directing that Molina’s lottery prize be applied to satisfy or reduce the accrued arrearage on his child support obligation and providing that the balance of the prize, if any, be paid to Molina. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 15th day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Pablo Y. Molina 10815 Northwest 50th Street Apartment 303 Miami, Florida 33178 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 J. 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 the Department of Revenue should retain and apply the Petitioner's lottery prize to reduce an outstanding arrearage for child support.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, the Department of Revenue and the Department of Lottery, are agencies of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of administering and securing lottery prize winnings to apply to child support arrearages. The Petitioner, Frank Agoglia, was one of a group who completed a claim to a lottery prize in the amount of $7,509.50. The claim was timely submitted to the Department of Lottery, and the Petitioner was eligible to receive his share of the lottery prize. Before taxes, the Petitioner's share of the winning prize was $600.00. The Department of Revenue, acting pursuant to law, notified the Department of Lottery that the Petitioner owes court ordered child support in an amount exceeding the claimed prize. As provided in Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, the Petitioner's entire share of the lottery prize was transmitted to the Department of Revenue. The Petitioner was timely notified of the transfer. It is the intention of the Department of Revenue to apply the Petitioner's share of the winning prize to the outstanding child support arrearage. By letter dated March 3, 2001, the Petitioner challenged the transfer of the winning share to be applied to the arrearage. The Petitioner has not disputed the paternity of the child nor the child support obligations imposed by a court of law. It is also undisputed that the amount of the arrearage exceeds the Petitioner's share of the lottery prize. The Petitioner presented no evidence to support his contention that the lottery prize winnings should not be applied to the child support arrearage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order retaining the Petitioner's lottery prize and to apply it to reduce the arrearage of child support owed by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH 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 23rd day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Agoglia 16460 Southwest 146th Court Miami, Florida 33177-1781 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 32301 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 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.
