WALTER MANKOWSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE O/B/O SECILY A. EVANS, 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.
Walter Mankowski appealed a Final Administrative Support Order from the Department of Revenue regarding child support payments. The court reversed and remanded, finding that the DOR's informal discussion process created factual issues about whether Mankowski timely requested a hearing and whether the DOR received documentary evidence he submitted.
The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the time limit for requesting an administrative hearing is not jurisdictional and may be extended as equity requires, and that Mankowski's claims of initiating informal discussions and following DOR's oral instructions warranted remand to address factual issues.
[1] The time limit for requesting an administrative hearing is not a jurisdictional requirement and may be extended as equity requires.
[2] Pro se litigants are generally given substantial leeway in litigation, including a favorable construction of their pleadings.
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 time limit for requesting an administrative hearing is not a jurisdictional requirement and may be extended as equity requires”
Establishes that the hearing deadline is not jurisdictional and can be extended based on equitable considerations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 3, 2008, the DOR served Mankowski with a child support order allowing him to request an administrative hearing within 20 days or request …
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.
Walter Mankowski appeals a Final Administrative Support Order of the Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program, regarding the payment of child support. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
On September 3, 2008, the Department of Revenue (“DOR”) served appellant with an order advising him that he could file a written request for a hearing “no later than 20 days after the date” of service. The order also noted that appellant could, by telephone, “request informal discussions within 10 days from the date” of service. These informal discussions extended the “time to request a hearing ... until 20 days after” DOR notified appellant in writing that informal discussions were complete. Appellant claims that he contacted DOR by phone on September 17 and that the DOR representative said she would “take care” of his appeal. He also claims to have sent DOR additional documentary evidence of support payments, at the direction of DOR agent, six days later. On appeal, DOR claims it has no record of any informal discussions and that it did not receive the documentary evidence until after it rendered its final order.
We note that the time limit for requesting an administrative hearing is not a jurisdictional requirement and may be extended as equity requires. Brown v. State, Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 899 So.2d 1246, *7151247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Appellant claims that he initiated informal discussions and followed DOR’s oral instructions to secure a hearing.1 Because appellant is proceeding pro se, we can give him some latitude in his handling of this case. Stokes v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 948 So.2d 75, 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (noting that pro se litigants are given substantial leeway in litigation, including favorable construction of their pleadings).
We believe that these factual issues are, in part, the natural result of DOR’s own system of “informal discussions.” Equity leads us to err on the side of caution and reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and Remanded with Instructions.
WARNER, FARMER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 899 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Stokes v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 948 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)