ARI PALEWSKY, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ON BEHALF OF RACHEL MILLER, 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.
Ari Palewsky appealed a magistrate's order determining paternity and awarding child support, contending that the trial court erred in calculating child support without the mother's financial affidavit. The court reversed the support award and remanded for a new hearing, holding that the absence of a mandatory, non-waivable financial affidavit cannot be deemed harmless error.
The court held that the absence of a mandatory, non-waivable financial affidavit cannot be considered harmless error in child support calculations. The paternity determination was affirmed as law of the case, but the child support award was reversed and remanded for a new evidentiary hearing.
[1] A party's failure to file a financial affidavit in a proceeding for initial permanent financial relief, including child support, is a mandatory requirement that cannot be…
[2] The absence of a party's financial affidavit in a child support proceeding cannot be considered harmless error, as it prevents the court from accurately determining the a…
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“rule 12.285(e)(1), Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, requires the filing of a financial affidavit by both parties and provides that this requirement cannot be waived”
Establishes the mandatory and non-waivable nature of financial affidavit filing in child support proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Department of Revenue, on behalf of Rachel Miller, sought to establish paternity and child support against Ari Palewsky. A magistrate's re…
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 Child Support Award cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Ari Palewsky, in this appeal from an order approving a magistrate’s report determining paternity and awarding child support, submits that, because the mother had not filed a financial affidavit, the trial court erred in determining the child support award. The appellee, the Department of Revenue, concedes that, in accordance with rule 12.285, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, both parties’ financial affidavits must be a part of the record, but argues that the absence of the mother’s affidavit was harmless error. Concluding that this error may not be considered harmless in this case, we reverse the support award and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the amount of support to be awarded.
In any proceeding for an initial request for permanent financial relief, including a request for child support, rule 12.285(e)(1), Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, requires the filing of a financial affidavit by both parties and provides that this requirement cannot be waived. The Department of Revenue, citing Vaccaro v. Vaccaro, 677 So.2d 918, 923 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), contends that, due to the appellant’s failure to file a transcript of the hearing, the record does not reflect whether Palew-sky objected to the absence of the mother’s financial affidavit and Palewsky has also failed to demonstrate prejudice. This argument, however, is unavailing given that rule 12.285(e)(1) does not allow a party to waive the filing of a financial affidavit, and, consequently, the presence or absence of Palewsky’s objection is irrelevant. See Daniel v. Daniel, 922 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“The rule leaves no room for doubt that the filing of a financial affidavit is both mandatory and non-waiva-ble by the parties.”).
The Department of Revenue additionally argues that because minimum wage income was imputed to the mother, the absence of the financial affidavit is harmless error. While imputing minimum wage may be appropriate in some cases, without a financial affidavit, the trial court does not have a party’s formal, sworn financial position and cannot accurately determine whether imputing minimum wage income is appropriate in the case before the court. See Magann v. Magann, 848 So.2d 496, 497-98 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (concluding that without submitting the former wife’s financial affidavit into evidence the trial court could not determine the proper child support award).
As for the paternity determination, Pa-lewsky does not contest this issue on appeal, and, in addition, this Court has previously affirmed the lower court on this issue, Palewsky v. Department of Revenue, 61 So.3d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). This determination is law of the case and we therefore affirm. See Valsecchi v. Proprietors Ins. Co., 502 So.2d 1310, 1311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (recognizing that the law of case doctrine precludes consideration of points of law which were adjudicated in a prior appeal of same case).
The order on appeal is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amruta Patel v. Nilay R. Shah, 217 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…require the Husband to provide a mandatory disclosure as required by Rule 12.285. Affirmed in part as to paragraph 20 of Final Judgment; reversed in part as to the remainder of the Final Judgment and remanded. .See Palewsky v. Fla. Dep't of Rev., 81 So. 3d 584, 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (holding that trial court erred in failing to require mandatory affidavit even without demonstrated objection by or prejudice to the other party because the requirement is mandatory and not waivable by either party); see also…
Authorities Cited
- John and Janet Valsecchi v. Proprietors Ins. Co., 502 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Vaccaro v. Vaccaro, 677 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Ortiz, 922 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Magann v. Leonor Ann Compoamor Magann, 848 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Ari Palewsky v. Dep't OF Revenue o/b/o Rachel Miller, 61 So. 3d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)