STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ON BEHALF OF DEBRA L. EADY, APPELLANT,
v.
RICKY EADY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Department of Revenue appeals a trial court order modifying child support retroactively by granting the father a 21-month credit for the elder daughter's support, effectively finding emancipation 21 months before her 18th birthday. The court reverses because the trial court granted the modification without substantial competent evidence supporting an emancipation date, despite the hearing officer's express inability to determine when emancipation occurred.
The trial court's order granting the modification is reversed because it lacks substantial competent evidence supporting the emancipation finding. The case is remanded for the trial court to either amend its final order to identify the substantial competent evidence supporting emancipation or take further evidence to establish whether the daughter was emancipated before turning 18.
[1] A trial court cannot retroactively modify child support without substantial competent evidence to support the modification.
[2] A child support obligation terminates upon a daughter's emancipation, reaching eighteen years of age, becoming self-supporting, or death, whichever occurs first.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Thus, on the one hand, the hearing officer, as fact-finder, could not find sufficient facts to determine a date of emancipation; yet, on the other hand, a date of emancipation was set by the trial court without further evidence being received.”
Establishes the fundamental error: the trial court set an emancipation date despite the hearing officer's explicit inability to determine one without additional evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe father petitioned to modify child support, claiming the elder daughter was emancipated before age 18. A hearing officer conducted an evidentiary h…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Modification Of Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal from an order modifying child support retroactively, the Department of Revenue, on behalf of the custodial parent, the mother, challenges a final judgment which, on its face, appears fundamentally erroneous. We agree that it is so and reverse. See In re Guardianship of Read, 555 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
The father petitioned the trial court to modify his child support payments because the father believed the elder daughter was emancipated before eighteen years of age. A child support hearing officer held an evidentiary hearing and issued his report outlining the evidence taken at the hearing and concluded that he could not determine a date of emancipation.1 The trial court accepted the hearing officer’s report, including the inability to determine the date of emancipation, and granted the father’s petition to modify the support obligation allowing the father twenty-one months’ credit for support for the elder daughter. The effect of this order was a finding that the elder daughter had become emancipated twenty-one months before her eighteenth birthday. Thus, on the one hand, the hearing officer, as fact-finder, could not find sufficient facts to determine a date of emancipation; yet, on the other hand, a date of emancipation was set by the trial court without further evidence being received.
We reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings. The trial court may either amend its final order to show upon what substantial competent evidence its granting of the modification petition is based or take further evidence to support a finding that either the daughter was or was not emancipated before her eighteenth birthday. The father’s support obligation will terminate only upon an emancipation date based on substantial competent evidence, when the daughter turns eighteen, becomes self-supporting, or dies, whichever comes first.
Reversed and remanded.
PARKER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur. . The hearing officer’s findings were: J. (Ae daughter) turned 18 on September 12, 1994; J. testified she had run away approximately 10 to 12 times since 1992; J. has been at W.T. Edwards (juvenile home) approximately 6 times; J. was in a half-way house for approximately 6 to 8 monAs in 1992; J. testified she always returned to her moAer’s house; J. has not been a full-time student in high school since December 1991; J. was currently residing wiA her moAer; J. testified she has never been able to support herself; J. testified she has never held a full-time job; Ae court "is unable to determine the exact date when J. emancipated."
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Genoav Beagle o/b/o Katina Beagle, 777 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…rmation would not put an undue burden on DOR. We must also address one additional issue. A hearing officer’s recommendation, and the circuit court’s order, must be based on competent, substantial evidence. See Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Eady v. Eady, 670 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In this case, Williams’ financial affidavit stated that his income varied “by the job” and changed significantly from month to month. The hearing officer imputed income of $1,800 per month to Williams by adding the amount of his…
Authorities Cited
- In re Guardianship OF Georgina H. Read v. Kenefick, 555 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)