Addiel Chavez v. Department of Revenue, Child Support Program, and Mileidys Osoria Dumet

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: August 21, 2024
• Docket: 2024-0265
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 21, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0265 Lower Tribunal Nos. 2001861727, 13230015914FC ________________

Addiel Chavez, Appellant,

vs.

Department of Revenue, Child Support Program, and Mileidys Osoria Dumet, Appellees.

An Appeal from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Child Support Program.

Addiel Chavez Cera, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General and Sarah C. Prieto, Assistant Attorney General (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee Department of Revenue.

Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.

GORDO, J. Addiel Chavez (the “Father”) appeals a final administrative support

order entered by the Department of Revenue, Child Support Program (the

“Department”). We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(C),

9.110(a)(2). Finding no error in the Department’s determination of support,

we affirm.

We review an administrative child support order for competent

substantial evidence supporting the agency’s findings of fact. See City of

Lake Wales v. Pub. Emps. Rels. Comm’n, 402 So. 2d 1224, 1225 (Fla. 2d

DCA 1981); see also § 120.68(10), Fla. Stat.

The Father seeks judicial review of the final administrative support

order, arguing that support was incorrectly calculated. Although the Father

provided his financial information to the Department, he did not request an

administrative hearing and therefore failed to fully participate in the

proceedings below. By waiving his right to a hearing, the Father waived his

ability to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the

Department’s determination of his child support obligations. See Richards

v. Dep’t of Revenue Child Support Program, 306 So. 3d 220, 221 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2020) (“By waiving his right to a hearing, Appellant waived his ability to

challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Department's

determination of his child support obligations.”); Feliciano v. Dep’t of

2 Revenue, Child Support Enf’t, 305 So. 3d 801, 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)

(“[A]lthough Appellant provided his financial information, he did not request

an administrative hearing and therefore failed to fully participate in the

proceedings below . . . Appellant has failed to properly preserve his

arguments for appeal. We note that the lack of a hearing and the resulting

absence of a transcript provides this Court with little basis to conclude that

the Department's final order is not supported by the evidence. Appellant's

arguments on appeal are arguments that should have been presented and

analyzed at a hearing.”); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.

2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial

court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant

to demonstrate error . . . When there are issues of fact the appellant

necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence.

Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly

resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's

judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”).

Affirmed.