Walker v. Department of Revenue

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Walker v. Department of Revenue

198 So. 3d 735, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2658, 2016 WL 716333

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 24, 2016

Docket2D14-5015

StatusPublished

This text of 198 So. 3d 735 (Walker v. Department of Revenue) 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

Walker v. Department of Revenue, 198 So. 3d 735, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2658, 2016 WL 716333 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The father, Donald J. Walker, Jr., appeals a Final Administrative Support Or *736 der rendered by the Department of Revenue. On appeal, Mr. Walker argues that he did not receive “proper” notice of the proceeding to establish the administrative support order. He claims that the person who signed the certified mail return receipt card was not him, but his brother; “Duntae Walker.”

Mr. Walker makes his claim about the asserted lack of “proper” notice for the first time on appeal, and there is no support for it in the record. Accordingly, we must affirm the order under review. “In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.” Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass’n v. Robbins, 914 So.2d 925, 928 (Fla.2005) (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985)); see also Aills v. Boemi, 29 So.3d 1105, 1108-09 (Fla.2010) (stating the requirements for proper preservation of error for appellate review).

Nevertheless, we give Mr. Walker the benefit of the doubt and assume that what he means to say and asserts for the first time here is that he did not receive notice at all, which implies a denial of due process. For this reason, our affirmance is without prejudice to Mr. Walker’s ability to file a motion in the lower tribunal to vacate the final order and to seek an evi-dentiary hearing on his claim that he did not receive notice. See German v. Dep’t of Revenue, 177 So.3d 318, 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, C.J., and WALLACE and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The father, Donald J. Walker, Jr., appeals a Final Administrative Support Or *736 der rendered by the Department of Revenue. On appeal, Mr. Walker argues that he did not receive “proper” notice of the proceeding to establish the administrative support order. He claims that the person who signed the certified mail return receipt card was not him, but his brother; “Duntae Walker.”

Mr. Walker makes his claim about the asserted lack of “proper” notice for the first time on appeal, and there is no support for it in the record. Accordingly, we must affirm the order under review. “In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.” Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass’n v. Robbins, 914 So.2d 925, 928 (Fla.2005) (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985)); see also Aills v. Boemi, 29 So.3d 1105, 1108-09 (Fla.2010) (stating the requirements for proper preservation of error for appellate review).

Nevertheless, we give Mr. Walker the benefit of the doubt and assume that what he means to say and asserts for the first time here is that he did not receive notice at all, which implies a denial of due process. For this reason, our affirmance is without prejudice to Mr. Walker’s ability to file a motion in the lower tribunal to vacate the final order and to seek an evi-dentiary hearing on his claim that he did not receive notice. See German v. Dep’t of Revenue, 177 So.3d 318, 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, C.J., and WALLACE and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 So. 3d 735, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2658, 2016 WL 716333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-department-of-revenue-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack