MICHAEL DUGGAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM EX REL. KAYLIN HUFF, 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 court held that the Department erred in calculating retroactive child support using current income instead of historical income, but affirmed other aspects of the order.
[1] A party waives appellate arguments by failing to respond to administrative proceedings and ignoring opportunities to seek a hearing.
[2] A Department of Revenue's calculation of retroactive child support must be based on income information from the retroactive period, not current income.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Revenue issued a child support and income deduction order against Michael Duggan. Duggan failed to respond to the Department's reque…
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 Waiver Of Arguments On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael Duggan appeals a child support order and an income deduction order entered by the Department of Revenue, Child Enforcement Program (the Department), related to one of Mr. Duggan’s *632minor children. After the mother of the child sought child support, the Department gave notice of an administrative support proceeding to Mr. Duggan and requested financial information. Mr. Duggan failed to respond, or to provide the Department with the requested financial information. And though notified of the opportunity to seek a hearing, he didn’t request one. The Department then entered a final administrative support order along with an income deduction order. Mr. Duggan then appealed.
Mr. Duggan waived and failed to preserve most of his appellate arguments after ignoring the process offered below. See, e.g., Salters v. Dep’t of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program ex rel. Mobley, 32 So.3d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Macias v. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Garcia, 16 So.3d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). We affirm with respect to all of Mr. Duggan’s arguments except for the one dealing with Mr. Duggan’s retroactive child support obligation.
The Department concedes that it got Mr. Duggan’s retroactive child support obligation calculation wrong. It used evidence related to Mr. Duggan’s current income to calculate his retroactive support obligation, even though it possessed information about his monthly income during the retroactive child support period. See Salters, 32 So.3d at 778-79 (requiring the Department to establish the retroactive obligation using income information it possesses from the retroactive period); see also § 61.30(17)(a), Fla. Stat. We therefore reverse and remand for recalculation of Mr. Duggan’s retroactive ■ support obligation and, if necessary, for reissuance of the income deduction order, making whatever adjustments that are needed to Mr. Duggan’s monthly contribution towards the arrearage.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
WOLF, B.L. THOMAS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Herley Davis v. Dep't OF Revenue O/B/O Melissa Ann Bartell, 221 So. 3d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
Authorities Cited
- MacIas v. Dep't OF Revenue, 16 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Salters v. Dep't OF Revenue, 32 So. 3d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)