State, Department of Revenue ex rel. Murillo v. Murillo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State, Department of Revenue ex rel. Murillo v. Murillo

216 So. 3d 785, 2017 WL 2126356, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6934

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 16, 2017·No. CASE NO. 1D16-4435·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, the Department of Revenue argues that the Administrative Law Judge erred by concluding that the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to establish Appellee’s child support obligation because a dissolution action addressing child support was pending between the parents in circuit court. The Department is correct. Because there was no court order of support in effect, and Appellee had not timely opted out of the administrative proceeding, DOAH had concurrent jurisdiction to establish Appellee’s child support obligation and a support order should have been entered. See § 409.2563(2)(a), (c), Fla. Stat. (2016); Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Van Edwards, 214 So.3d 800, 2017 WL 1372663 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 13, 2017); Dep’t of Revenue v. Graczyk, 206 So.3d 157, 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.

WOLF, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, the Department of Revenue argues that the Administrative Law Judge erred by concluding that the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to establish Appellee’s child support obligation because a dissolution action addressing child support was pending between the parents in circuit court. The Department is correct. Because there was no court order of support in effect, and Appellee had not timely opted out of the administrative proceeding, DOAH had concurrent jurisdiction to establish Appellee’s child support obligation and a support order should have been entered. See § 409.2563(2)(a), (c), Fla. Stat. (2016); Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Van Edwards, 214 So.3d 800, 2017 WL 1372663 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 13, 2017); Dep’t of Revenue v. Graczyk, 206 So.3d 157, 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.

WOLF, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.

State, Department of Revenue ex rel. Murillo v. Murillo, 216 So. 3d 785, 2017 WL 2126356, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6934 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

216 So. 3d 785 (State, Department of Revenue ex rel. Murillo v. Murillo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related