DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
DWAYNE FREEMAN, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Department of Revenue sought certiorari review of a trial court order directing disclosure of a mother's address in a child support enforcement matter. The court granted the petition, quashing the order because the DOR was not served with notice and had no opportunity to be heard, violating due process rights.
The trial court's order violated due process because the DOR was not served with the motion, no hearing was conducted, and the DOR was denied an opportunity to argue the applicability of Florida's confidentiality statute protecting such addresses.
[1] A court order directing a state agency to disclose confidential information without notice or an opportunity to be heard violates the agency's due process rights.
[2] Denial of notice and an opportunity to be heard constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering DOR to disclose Ms. Santoriello's address because DOR was never given notice with regard to Freeman's action and thus did not have an opportunity to be heard”
DOR's central argument that the disclosure order violated due process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMs. Santoriello and Mr. Freeman were litigants in a 1993 paternity action in Seminole County that resulted in a paternity judgment on January 20, 1995…
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 Confidentiality Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this postdissolution proceeding the Florida Department of Revenue (DOR), on behalf of Marian Santoriello, seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order directing the disclosure of her address. We grant DOR’s petition.
According to the petition, DOR, through its Marion County Child Support Enforcement office, presently has a child support enforcement case involving Ms. Santoriello in Marion County. Previously, Ms. Santo-riello and Mr. Freeman were litigants in a 1993 paternity action in Seminole County. DOR never participated in the Seminole County litigation, which ultimately resulted in an adjudication of paternity by judgment dated January 20, 1995.
The Seminole County case then lay dormant for over four years, until December 9, 1999, when Mr. Freeman filed his motion to direct Marion County Child Sup port Enforcement to provide the address. The motion alleged that he had been attempting to serve Ms. Santoriello but had been unable to do so. It further alleged that Marion County Child Support Enforcement had an address for her and that an employee there indicated to Freeman’s counsel that an address would be provided with a court order. However, the motion does not include a certificate of service and there was apparently no hearing on the motion. On January 20, 2000, the trial court entered an order directing Marion County Child Support Enforcement to provide the Seminole County circuit court with Ms. Santoriello’s address.
DOR in its petition argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering DOR to disclose Ms. Santoriello’s address because DOR was never given notice with regard to Freeman’s action and thus did not have an opportunity to be heard. DOR further contends that the order is inconsistent with the confidentiality provisions of section 409.2579, Florida Statutes (1999). We agree with DOR’s argument that the trial court’s order violates its due process rights. As indicated, DOR was not served with a copy of Freeman’s motion. Furthermore, no hearing was scheduled or conducted by the circuit judge that entered the order. Under these circumstances, it is evident that DOR was denied notice and an opportunity to be heard. Denial of due process constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. See Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1995). Certainly, DOR should be afforded an opportunity to argue the applicability of section 409.2579 before the trial court.
PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED; REMANDED.
W. SHARP, GRIFFIN, and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quincoces v. Quincoces, 10 So. 3d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…not receive adequate notice or opportunity to present his case. Because denial of due process constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law, Shuff v. City of Opa Locka, 907 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Dep’t of Revenue v. Freeman, 762 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), the trial court did not err by remanding the case to the magistrate to provide the father with a fair opportunity to present his case. We additionally find that based upon the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not…
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Marcovitch, 765 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…Civil Procedure. Here, strict compliance with Rule 1.440 was required and failure to give the 30 days notice, along with failure to serve the attorney (Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(b)), is reversible error. Department of Revenue v. Freeman, 762 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)(In post-dissolution proceeding, DOR was not given notice with regard to Freeman’s actions and did not have opportunity to be heard). See also Regalado v. Regalado, 743 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Bennett v. Ward, 667 So. 2d 37…
-
Presidio Networked Solutions, Inc. v. Taylor, 115 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…idio to take action that it may be unable to take without first giving Presidio notice and an opportunity to be heard. “Denial of due process [to Presidio] constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.” Dep’t of Revenue v. Freeman, 762 So. 2d 580, 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); see Quincoces v. Quincoces, 10 So. 3d 657, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (same).2 Accordingly, we grant the petition, quash the order on review, and remand the case for further proceedings. KHOUZAM and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur. .…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)