KIM H. LAYNE, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL D. LAYNE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Trial court lacked authority to order termination of AFDC benefits and reimbursement to the state; reversal required due to absence of proper pleadings and judicial lack of power over executive agency.
A circuit court judge has no authority to order the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to terminate AFDC payments or to order reimbursement to the state without appropriate pleadings and notice.
[1] A circuit court lacks authority to order an executive branch agency to terminate AFDC benefits or to direct reimbursement to the state without proper pleadings and notice…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a circuit court judge has no authority to order the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), an agency of the executive branch of state government, to terminate AFDC payments made to a mother for her child's benefit”
Court explaining the separation of powers limitation on judicial authority over executive agencies
Kim Layne, separated from Michael Layne, petitioned for child support payments currently provided by AFDC. Although she testified she no longer wished…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Aid To Families With Dependent Children (Afdc) Program cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
Kim Layne filed a petition requesting that appellee, from whom she is separated, make child support payments which are currently provided by the State of Florida under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. At the hearing on the petition, appellant testified that she no longer wished to receive AFDC benefits. However, she did not withdraw her application for such benefits either before or after the hearing, and continues to receive payments. The trial court entered an order which cancelled appellant’s AFDC payments and directed appellee to pay $50 per month to reimburse HRS for those payments previously made to appellant. We reverse.
First, it was error for the trial court to determine the subject and order the husband to reimburse the state where there was an absence of appropriate pleadings and prior notice to the parties. See Barriero v. Barriero, 377 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Second, a circuit court judge has no authority to order the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), an agency of the executive branch of state government, to terminate AFDC payments made to a mother for her child’s benefit. Cf. In re Interest of J.S., 444 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (court may request HRS to assist a mother in the institution of a paternity suit against a putative father but may not order HRS to render such assistance).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ealey v. Holt, 523 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…usive benefit of the child for whom support is paid and that such application of this section was therefore contrary to the Due Process Clause and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. . We do not agree with our sister court in Layne v. Layne, 478 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985), which, apparently based upon separation of power grounds, held that "a circuit judge has no authority to order [HRS], an agency of the executive branch of state government, to terminate AFDC payments made to a mother for her chi…
-
Herman v. Herman, 565 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…e notice to all parties concerned. Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). See [*836] Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla.1957) (error to modify support decree unless issue of modification presented by pleadings); Layne v. Layne, 478 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (same). In this case, the wife filed no pleading. Her “Notice of Hearing [ — ] Special Setting” filed on February 26,1990, was not sufficient to inform the husband of her intent to seek modification. See Bell v. Department of Heal…
-
Jimeson v. Ira Neasman, 485 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…he trial court had erred by absolving a client of further liability to her attorney where the client was not provided the opportunity to defend the appeal). Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.1 . This case is not controlled by Layne v. Layne, 478 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) because the question of the propriety of our considering the appeal was not raised or addressed in that case.…
Authorities Cited
- Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- In re The Interest of J.S. v. Johneva Sims, 444 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)