DEPT. OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFC., O/B/O SABRINA K. SAJET v. BILL OLSON JEAN, 16-3352

The Department of Revenue (DOR) filed motions for civil contempt in 28 consolidated child-support enforcement cases for alleged nonpayment of court-ordered support.
In each case DOR served the contempt motion and hearing notice by U.S. mail to the respondent’s last known address and included the statutorily required warning about possible arrest and up to 48-hour detention.
Respondents failed to appear at hearings before hearing officers, who recommended issuance of writs of bodily attachment with purge amounts.
The trial court entered a blanket order denying all DOR contempt motions, concluding service by mail was constitutionally insufficient despite statutory authorization.
On appeal the Fourth District analyzed Rule 12.615(b), Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516(b)(2), and statutory provisions requiring parties to keep addresses current, and considered due process standards for notice.
The Fourth District reversed, holding mailed service in these child-support civil-contempt proceedings satisfied due process under the circumstances and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether service of contempt motions and hearing notices by regular U.S. mail satisfies due process and Rule 12.615(b)	DOR: Service by mail is authorized by Rule 12.615(b) and Rule 2.516(b)(2); mailed notice to last known address is reasonably calculated to apprise respondents where they have a statutory duty to keep address current	Appellees: Mail service was constitutionally inadequate for contempt proceedings and insufficient notice of potential loss of liberty	Reversed: Mail service to last known address satisfies due process here; trial court erred in finding statutory mail-service unconstitutional
Whether statutory notice regimes (chapters 61 and 742) comport with due process when used for contempt in child support enforcement	DOR: Statutes deem notice met upon delivery to last residential/employer address on record; combined with registry duties, this is constitutionally adequate	Appellees: Implicitly argued statutory scheme insufficient when actual receipt is lacking for liberty-threatening proceedings	Held: Statutes are constitutionally valid when parties had prior personal service and a duty to update addresses; mail notice is sufficient

Pennington v. Pennington, 390 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (service by mail in civil contempt/support proceedings can be sufficient)
State ex rel. Pittman v. Stanjeski, 562 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1990) (certified mail notice for post-judgment child-support collection upheld where obligor previously personally served and required to provide mailing address)
Vosilla v. Rosado, 944 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (mail to last known address suffices where notifying agency has no reason to suspect address is wrong)
Woolf v. Woolf, 901 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (civil contemnor entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard; due process requires adequate notice)
Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties under the circumstances)
Florida Dep’t of Revenue v. American Bus. USA Corp., 191 So. 3d 906 (Fla. 2016) (statutory-constitutionality review is de novo)
Dawson v. Saada, 608 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1992) (legislature may define adequate notice for governmental proceedings)