State, Department of Revenue v. Walton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State, Department of Revenue v. Walton

12 So. 3d 921, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9696, 2009 WL 2048954

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 16, 2009

Docket1D08-5625

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 So. 3d 921 (State, Department of Revenue v. Walton) 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

State, Department of Revenue v. Walton, 12 So. 3d 921, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9696, 2009 WL 2048954 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMAS, J.

Appellant, State of Florida, Department of Revenue (“DOR”), seeks review of the trial court’s child support order directing that it lift restrictions applied to Appellee’s passport for failure to pay child support. DOR argues that the trial court erred by ordering it to remove restrictions imposed on Appellee’s passport by federal law as a result of child support arrearages. We agree and adopt the reasoning set forth by the Fourth District in Department of Rev *922 enue ex rel. Jackson v. Nesbitt, 975 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), which addressed a factually similar situation and held that the trial court did not have authority to order DOR to remove the passport restrictions.

Accordingly, we reverse that part of the trial court’s child support order which directs DOR to lift Appellee’s passport restrictions and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HAWKES, C.J., and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

THOMAS, J.

Appellant, State of Florida, Department of Revenue (“DOR”), seeks review of the trial court’s child support order directing that it lift restrictions applied to Appellee’s passport for failure to pay child support. DOR argues that the trial court erred by ordering it to remove restrictions imposed on Appellee’s passport by federal law as a result of child support arrearages. We agree and adopt the reasoning set forth by the Fourth District in Department of Rev *922 enue ex rel. Jackson v. Nesbitt, 975 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), which addressed a factually similar situation and held that the trial court did not have authority to order DOR to remove the passport restrictions.

Accordingly, we reverse that part of the trial court’s child support order which directs DOR to lift Appellee’s passport restrictions and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HAWKES, C.J., and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 So. 3d 921, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9696, 2009 WL 2048954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-revenue-v-walton-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack