Department of Revenue ex rel. Ramirez v. Verrette

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Department of Revenue ex rel. Ramirez v. Verrette

133 So. 3d 540, 2014 WL 185229, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 447

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 2014

DocketNo. 2D12-4111

StatusPublished

This text of 133 So. 3d 540 (Department of Revenue ex rel. Ramirez v. Verrette) 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

Department of Revenue ex rel. Ramirez v. Verrette, 133 So. 3d 540, 2014 WL 185229, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 447 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Department of Revenue (“DOR”) seeks review of a final order of support that deviated from the standard child support guidelines. DOR argues that the circuit court judge erred when it deviated from the child support guidelines based upon a written, signed, and notarized visitation agreement that was not court-authorized. We agree with DOR and reverse for the circuit court to recalculate the support obligation. See Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Moore v. Williams, 129 So.3d 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); see also Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Sherman v. Daly, 74 So.3d 165, 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that “the Legislature has expressed its intent to authorize deviations from the child support guidelines only where there exists a written, court-authorized parenting-plan”). We note that if the circuit court approves the parties’ parenting plan on remand, it may be considered in recalculating the support obligation and may be used to support a deviation of more than five percent if appropriate.

NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Department of Revenue (“DOR”) seeks review of a final order of support that deviated from the standard child support guidelines. DOR argues that the circuit court judge erred when it deviated from the child support guidelines based upon a written, signed, and notarized visitation agreement that was not court-authorized. We agree with DOR and reverse for the circuit court to recalculate the support obligation. See Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Moore v. Williams, 129 So.3d 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); see also Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Sherman v. Daly, 74 So.3d 165, 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that “the Legislature has expressed its intent to authorize deviations from the child support guidelines only where there exists a written, court-authorized parenting-plan”). We note that if the circuit court approves the parties’ parenting plan on remand, it may be considered in recalculating the support obligation and may be used to support a deviation of more than five percent if appropriate.

NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 So. 3d 540, 2014 WL 185229, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-revenue-ex-rel-ramirez-v-verrette-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack