Department of Revenue v. Freeman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Department of Revenue v. Freeman

762 So. 2d 580, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8944, 2000 WL 987159

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 14, 2000

DocketNo. 5D00-515

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 762 So. 2d 580 (Department of Revenue v. Freeman) 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 v. Freeman, 762 So. 2d 580, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8944, 2000 WL 987159 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this postdissolution proceeding the Florida Department of Revenue (DOR), on behalf of Marian Santoriello, seeks certio-rari review of the trial court’s order directing the disclosure of her address. We grant DOR’s petition.

According to the petition, DOR, through its Marion County Child Support Enforcement office, presently has a child support enforcement case involving Ms. Santoriello in Marion County. Previously, Ms. Santo-riello and Mr. Freeman were litigants in a 1993 paternity action in Seminole County. DOR never participated in the Seminole County litigation, which ultimately resulted in an adjudication of paternity by judgment dated January 20, 1995.

The Seminole County case then lay dormant for over four years, until December 9, 1999, when Mr. Freeman filed his motion to direct Marion County Child Sup[581]*581port Enforcement to provide the address. The motion alleged that he had been attempting to serve Ms. Santoriello but had been unable to do so. It further alleged that Marion County Child Support Enforcement had an address for her and that an employee there indicated to Freeman’s counsel that an address would be provided with a court order. However, the motion does not include a certificate of service and there was apparently no hearing on the motion. On January 20, 2000, the trial court entered an order directing Marion County Child Support Enforcement to provide the Seminole County circuit court with Ms. Santoriello’s address.

DOR in its petition argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering DOR to disclose Ms. Santoriello’s address because DOR was never given notice with regard to Freeman’s action and thus did not have an opportunity to be heard. DOR further contends that the order is inconsistent with the confidentiality provisions of section 409.2579, Florida Statutes (1999). We agree with DOR’s argument that the trial court’s order violates its due process rights. As indicated, DOR was not served with a copy of Freeman’s motion. Furthermore, no hearing was scheduled or conducted by the circuit judge that entered the order. Under these circumstances, it is evident that DOR was denied notice and an opportunity to be heard. Denial of due process constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. See Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla.1995). Certainly, DOR should be afforded an opportunity to argue the applicability of section 409.2579 before the trial court.

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED; REMANDED.

W. SHARP, GRIFFIN, and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this postdissolution proceeding the Florida Department of Revenue (DOR), on behalf of Marian Santoriello, seeks certio-rari review of the trial court’s order directing the disclosure of her address. We grant DOR’s petition.

According to the petition, DOR, through its Marion County Child Support Enforcement office, presently has a child support enforcement case involving Ms. Santoriello in Marion County. Previously, Ms. Santo-riello and Mr. Freeman were litigants in a 1993 paternity action in Seminole County. DOR never participated in the Seminole County litigation, which ultimately resulted in an adjudication of paternity by judgment dated January 20, 1995.

The Seminole County case then lay dormant for over four years, until December 9, 1999, when Mr. Freeman filed his motion to direct Marion County Child Sup[581]*581port Enforcement to provide the address. The motion alleged that he had been attempting to serve Ms. Santoriello but had been unable to do so. It further alleged that Marion County Child Support Enforcement had an address for her and that an employee there indicated to Freeman’s counsel that an address would be provided with a court order. However, the motion does not include a certificate of service and there was apparently no hearing on the motion. On January 20, 2000, the trial court entered an order directing Marion County Child Support Enforcement to provide the Seminole County circuit court with Ms. Santoriello’s address.

DOR in its petition argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering DOR to disclose Ms. Santoriello’s address because DOR was never given notice with regard to Freeman’s action and thus did not have an opportunity to be heard. DOR further contends that the order is inconsistent with the confidentiality provisions of section 409.2579, Florida Statutes (1999). We agree with DOR’s argument that the trial court’s order violates its due process rights. As indicated, DOR was not served with a copy of Freeman’s motion. Furthermore, no hearing was scheduled or conducted by the circuit judge that entered the order. Under these circumstances, it is evident that DOR was denied notice and an opportunity to be heard. Denial of due process constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. See Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla.1995). Certainly, DOR should be afforded an opportunity to argue the applicability of section 409.2579 before the trial court.

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED; REMANDED.

W. SHARP, GRIFFIN, and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

762 So. 2d 580, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8944, 2000 WL 987159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-revenue-v-freeman-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack