Davis v. Department of Revenue Ex Rel. Bartell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Davis v. Department of Revenue Ex Rel. Bartell

221 So. 3d 790, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 10108, 2017 WL 2988892

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 14, 2017

DocketCase 2D16-1658

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 So. 3d 790 (Davis v. Department of Revenue Ex Rel. Bartell) 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

Davis v. Department of Revenue Ex Rel. Bartell, 221 So. 3d 790, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 10108, 2017 WL 2988892 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Herley Davis appeals a final administrative paternity and support order entered by the Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program. We have jurisdiction. See § 120.68, Fla. Stat. (2016); Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(C), .110(a)(2). In *791 its answer brief, the Department concludes with a concession of error regarding its method of calculating Mr. Davis’s income for purposes of his child support obligation. It is unclear from our review of the limited record what that error would have been given the information, the Department had before it and Mr. Davis’s failure to participate at any point in the proceedings below. Thus, we decline to accept the Department’s concession. Cf. Hinckley v. Dep’t of Revenue, ex rel. K.A.C.H., 927 So.2d 73, 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (recognizing the Department’s concession of error but dismissing on other grounds); Gonzalez v. Dep’t of Health, 124 So.3d 449, 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“A confession of error... is not binding upon an appellate court, and it is the practice of Florida appellate courts not to accept erroneous concessions ....” (first alteration in original) (quoting Perry v. State, 808 So.2d 268, 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002))). As Mr. Davis never challenged the Department’s method of calculating his child support obligation, he failed to preserve that issue for our review. See Duggan v. Dep’t of Revenue, ex rel. Huff, 197 So.3d 631, 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding that, in appeal of final administrative support order, the appellant “waived and failed to preserve most of his appellate arguments after ignoring the process offered below”); Macias v. Dep’t of Revenue, ex rel. Garcia, 16 So.3d 985, 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding that a father could not “seek modification of a Final Administrative Support Order on appeal by presenting facts that were not initially presented to the administrative law judge”), Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

KELLY, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ.,' Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Herley Davis appeals a final administrative paternity and support order entered by the Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program. We have jurisdiction. See § 120.68, Fla. Stat. (2016); Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(C), .110(a)(2). In *791 its answer brief, the Department concludes with a concession of error regarding its method of calculating Mr. Davis’s income for purposes of his child support obligation. It is unclear from our review of the limited record what that error would have been given the information, the Department had before it and Mr. Davis’s failure to participate at any point in the proceedings below. Thus, we decline to accept the Department’s concession. Cf. Hinckley v. Dep’t of Revenue, ex rel. K.A.C.H., 927 So.2d 73, 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (recognizing the Department’s concession of error but dismissing on other grounds); Gonzalez v. Dep’t of Health, 124 So.3d 449, 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“A confession of error... is not binding upon an appellate court, and it is the practice of Florida appellate courts not to accept erroneous concessions ....” (first alteration in original) (quoting Perry v. State, 808 So.2d 268, 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002))). As Mr. Davis never challenged the Department’s method of calculating his child support obligation, he failed to preserve that issue for our review. See Duggan v. Dep’t of Revenue, ex rel. Huff, 197 So.3d 631, 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding that, in appeal of final administrative support order, the appellant “waived and failed to preserve most of his appellate arguments after ignoring the process offered below”); Macias v. Dep’t of Revenue, ex rel. Garcia, 16 So.3d 985, 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding that a father could not “seek modification of a Final Administrative Support Order on appeal by presenting facts that were not initially presented to the administrative law judge”), Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

KELLY, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ.,' Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 So. 3d 790, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 10108, 2017 WL 2988892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-department-of-revenue-ex-rel-bartell-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack