Department of Revenue v. Reyes
181 So. 3d 1270
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Department of Revenue served James Reyes-Otero (father) with a Notice of Proceeding and blank financial affidavit to establish an administrative child support order for the child of Francis C. Reyes (mother).
- Department prepared a Proposed Final Administrative Support Order using available affidavits and state wage data, finding current support of $482.40/month and $9,156.87 in retroactive support.
- Father timely requested an administrative hearing; DOAH’s Notice of Hearing informed parties the final order could change amounts depending on hearing evidence.
- At the evidentiary hearing, father testified his wages had increased after completing training; wage data used in the proposed order understated his current income.
- The ALJ found, based on the hearing evidence and statutory guidelines, that the father’s support obligation should be nearly double the proposed amount, but nevertheless limited the final order to the amounts in the proposed order, concluding he lacked authority to increase support beyond the proposed amounts.
- The Department appealed, arguing the ALJ erred by capping the order and that the Final Administrative Support Order was not supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an ALJ may order child support in an amount greater than the Proposed Final Administrative Support Order when hearing evidence justifies a higher amount | Department: ALJ must consider all admissible evidence at the de novo hearing and may increase support consistent with guidelines | ALJ/Father: Final order is "capped" by amounts in the proposed order; absent a pleading seeking a larger amount, ALJ lacks authority to increase support | ALJ must determine support based on hearing evidence; not limited to proposed-order amounts; vacated and remanded |
| Whether the Final Administrative Support Order was supported by competent, substantial evidence | Department: Final order is unsupported because it ignored evidence of higher income developed at the hearing | ALJ/Father: Relied on proposed order amounts despite contrary hearing evidence | Final order lacked competent, substantial evidence because it failed to adopt findings based on the evidence presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Revenue v. Vanamburg, 174 So.3d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (standards of review for questions of law)
- Newberry v. Newberry, 831 So.2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (pleadings limit a court’s authority to change issues not raised)
- Alvarez v. Singh, 888 So.2d 159 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (court cannot increase arrearage when pleadings sought reduction)
- Cross v. Cross, 490 So.2d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (child’s best interest guides child support proceedings)
- Imami v. Imami, 584 So.2d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (child support is a right belonging to the child)
- Armour v. Allen, 377 So.2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (parental support is a dual obligation imposed by the state)