Department of Revenue and Mark Cole etc. v. Laura Beth Graczyk
206 So. 3d 157
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- DOR filed an administrative proceeding under §409.2563 to establish Appellee Laura Graczyk’s child support obligation; Graczyk contested and requested a hearing.
- At the DOAH hearing, Graczyk’s counsel stated a circuit court paternity/dependency action (filed in 2013) was pending and asked for consolidation or dismissal of the administrative action.
- No circuit court support order had been entered; DOR alleged Graczyk did not opt out of the administrative process within the statutory 20-day window.
- The ALJ concluded DOAH lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter a support order because the circuit court case predated the administrative notice, and therefore denied DOR’s request to establish support.
- DOR and Cruickshank appealed, arguing §409.2563 grants DOAH concurrent jurisdiction to establish child support where no court support order exists, regardless of a pending circuit court action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOAH has subject matter jurisdiction to establish child support when a circuit court action predates the administrative notice but no court support order exists | DOR: §409.2563 allows DOR/DOAH to establish support when there is no court support order; pending court action alone does not divest DOAH of jurisdiction | Graczyk: Circuit court action addressing support that predates the administrative proceeding should preclude DOAH jurisdiction | Court held DOAH has jurisdiction so long as no court support order exists; a pending circuit court case alone does not divest DOAH jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Faulk v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 157 So. 3d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (de novo review of jurisdictional questions and discussion of administrative support orders)
- W. Fla. Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. See, 79 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2012) (statutory construction—start with plain meaning)
- State v. Chubbuck, 141 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. 2014) (Legislature’s specific language determines statutory scope)
- German v. State Dep’t of Revenue, 177 So. 3d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (§409.2563 opt-out timing requirement)
- Atlantis at Perdido Ass’n, Inc. v. Warner, 932 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (courts may not rewrite unambiguous statutes)