JEAN DOMINIQUE MORANCY
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CIRCUIT 17, BROWARD UNIT DOR
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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the Department of Revenue's certifications for tax refund offset and passport revocation. The court found these certifications were based on a void judgment entered while prior appeals were pending, rendering the certifications invalid.
Yes, the Department of Revenue erred. The certifications were based on a void judgment, and the subsequent reissue of a similar judgment did not cure the error as the certifications were tied to the initial invalid judgment.
“The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the corrected final judgment.”
Establishes the core jurisdictional defect that rendered the judgment void.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Revenue (DOR) issued certifications for federal tax refund offset and passport revocation based on alleged child support arrearages.…
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 Confession Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the Department of Revenue's (“DOR”) certifications for federal tax refund offset and passport revocation/denial based on appellant's alleged child support arrearages. We accept the DOR's confession of error and reverse.
The trial court entered a final judgment and corrected final judgment requiring appellant to pay child support. The trial court entered these judgments while two nonfinal appeals were pending. Subsequently, the DOR issued certifications for federal tax refund offset and passport revocation/denial based on appellant's alleged arrearages. After the disposition of the nonfinal appeals, the trial court vacated and set aside the corrected final judgment and reissued a new final judgment with the same terms.
Appellant argues the DOR erred in certifying a federal tax refund offset and passport revocation/denial because the certifications were based on a void judgment. The DOR concedes error. The certification was based on the corrected final judgment that was entered while the two nonfinal appeals were pending. Thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the corrected final judgment. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(f) (“[T]he lower tribunal may not render a final order disposing of the cause pending such review absent leave of the court."); Esposito v. Horning, 416 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (finding that a final judgment entered while an appeal was pending was a nullity). Because there was no valid judgment at the time of the certifications, there was no basis upon which to find appellant had unpaid arrearages. The new final judgment did not cure the error because the certifications were based on the invalid corrected final judgment. Accordingly, we reverse the certifications.
Reversed.
KUNTZ, C.J., GROSS and LEVINE, JJ., concur.