Croxdale v. State, Department of Revenue ex rel. California

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Croxdale v. State, Department of Revenue ex rel. California

707 So. 2d 1199, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3729, 1998 WL 161904

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 9, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2049

StatusPublished

This text of 707 So. 2d 1199 (Croxdale v. State, Department of Revenue ex rel. California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Croxdale v. State, Department of Revenue ex rel. California, 707 So. 2d 1199, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3729, 1998 WL 161904 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ON APPELLEE’S CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

John Croxdale, a state inmate, appeals a final paternity judgment in which the trial court established a continuing child support obligation. On appeal to this court, he does not dispute the paternity determination, but argues that the trial court erred in conducting a final hearing without securing his physical presence or participation by alternative means, and erred in entering an order directing him to pay child support in the absence of a finding of his present ability to pay. In lieu of an answer brief, appellee files an acknowledgment of error, conceding merit in appellant’s position. In accordance with ap-pellee’s confession, we affirm the portion of the trial court’s order adjudicating appellant to be the legal father of the minor child, but reverse the child support determinations and remand for a hearing on those issues.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

BARFIELD, C.J., and ALLEN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON APPELLEE’S CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

John Croxdale, a state inmate, appeals a final paternity judgment in which the trial court established a continuing child support obligation. On appeal to this court, he does not dispute the paternity determination, but argues that the trial court erred in conducting a final hearing without securing his physical presence or participation by alternative means, and erred in entering an order directing him to pay child support in the absence of a finding of his present ability to pay. In lieu of an answer brief, appellee files an acknowledgment of error, conceding merit in appellant’s position. In accordance with ap-pellee’s confession, we affirm the portion of the trial court’s order adjudicating appellant to be the legal father of the minor child, but reverse the child support determinations and remand for a hearing on those issues.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

BARFIELD, C.J., and ALLEN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

707 So. 2d 1199, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3729, 1998 WL 161904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/croxdale-v-state-department-of-revenue-ex-rel-california-fladistctapp-1998.