Faulk v. State, Department of Revenue
157 So. 3d 534
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- DOR entered Final Administrative Support Order on Aug 31, 2011: $429.99 monthly support and $84.99 retroactive per month.
- Faulk, pro se, filed a Petition for Modification of Child Support and Request to Defer on Feb 10, 2014.
- Hearing officer adopted circuit court’s view: no jurisdiction to consider the petition; required pursuing administrative process first.
- Statutory framework allows circuit court to prospectively modify support superseding an admin order; retroactive modification remains limited.
- Cases hold circuit courts may prospectively modify admin-established support; they generally lack retroactive modification power.
- Court reverses in part: jurisdiction exists for prospective modification; retroactive modification lacks jurisdiction; remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to modify prospectively | Faulk sought prospective modification of support. | Department argued lack of circuit court jurisdiction without adopting admin order. | Jurisdiction existed for prospective modification. |
| Whether Faulk’s pleading invoked jurisdiction despite pro se filing | Pleading shows modification request and prospective intent. | Pleading insufficient or misdirected to grant relief. | Faulk properly invoked circuit court jurisdiction for prospective modification. |
| Whether the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to retroactively modify | N/A | Retroactive modification not permitted under admin order framework. | Lacked jurisdiction to retroactively modify |
| Effect of sections 409.2563(10)(c), (11) on modification | Court may supersede admin order for future changes. | Administration controls and precludes retroactive changes. | Supports prospective modification and superseding order |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Smith v. Selles, 47 So.3d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (subject matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
- Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Proveaue v. Williams, 74 So.3d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (prospective modification of admin order)
- Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Lienhart v. Secor, 146 So.3d 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (prospective modification jurisdiction)
- Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Chamberlain v. Manasala, 982 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (no retroactive modification of admin order)