State of Florida, Dept. of Revenue etc. v. Saul Murillo

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 15, 2017
• Docket: 16-4435
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND on behalf of MARIA MURILLO, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

Appellant, CASE NO. 1D16-4435

v.

SAUL MURILLO,

Appellee.

_____________________________/

Opinion filed May 16, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

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, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D873a

(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.