STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, AND BARBARA ANN FRITZ (VORAC), APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM ROBERT VORAC, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a lower court order that denied HRS standing to pursue child support arrearages against a former obligor. The court held that HRS has statutory authority to collect arrearages even after children reach majority, and that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to establish a payment schedule.
HRS has statutory authority to pursue child support arrearages regardless of whether public assistance was received or whether children have reached majority. The trial court abused its discretion in refusing to establish a payment schedule for the arrearages.
[1] The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has standing to pursue a child support arrearage action even if the children have attained the age of majority and ha…
[2] Legislative intent supports the collection of child support arrearages after a child is no longer dependent.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the authorizing statutes do not impose such limitations on HRS' standing. See sections 88.121(1); 409.2564(1), Florida Statutes. Instead, the legislature has expressed an intent to insure the collection of child support arrear-ages even after the child is no longer dependent.”
Establishes that HRS has statutory authority to collect arrearages without regard to public assistance receipt or child's majority status
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHRS and Barbara Fritz sought to collect child support arrearages from William Robert Vorac. The lower court ruled that HRS lacked standing because nei…
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.
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and Barbara Fritz, challenge an order ruling that HRS lacks standing to pursue a child support arrearage action in this case. The court reached this conclusion after determining that neither Fritz nor the children have received any public assistance benefits from the State of Florida, and that the children have attained the age of majority. However, the authorizing statutes do not impose such limitations on HRS’ standing. See sections 88.121(1); 409.2564(1), Florida Statutes. Instead, the legislature has expressed an intent to insure the collection of child support arrear-ages even after the child is no longer dependent. See section 88.012, Florida Statutes. We therefore find that the court erred in ruling that HRS lacks standing in this case. See State, Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Savage, 570 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Blue, 564 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
The challenged order also reduced the child support arrearage to a money judgment, but declined the appellants’ request for a payment schedule. The appellants acknowledge that this request was addressed to the lower court’s discretion, but argue that the court abused its discretion. We agree that under the particular facts of this case it was an abuse of discretion not to establish a payment schedule. Without fully delineating these facts, we note that as the supreme court indicated in Gibson v. Bennett, 561 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1990), practical considerations may warrant the enforcement of a child support arrear-age, even after the child’s majority, by more efficient means than ordinary execution at law.
The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded.
BOOTH, JOANOS and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Holland, 602 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…ent of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 525 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). It is not clear, however, whether post-majority (after eighteen years of age) accruals were involved in State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Vorac, 582 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) and Bachtal. Since the age of majority in other states may be more than eighteen years,4 it is not unlikely such interstate suits can be and are being brought in Florida. Chapter 409, the intrastate child support enforcement sta…
-
Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. McLEMORE, 585 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ruled that the language of section 409.2561(1) is broad enough to incorporate a payment agreement into an order establishing the liability of the obli-gor for public assistance moneys paid. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Vorac, 582 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Therefore, at least when HRS and the obligor stipulate as to the method and amount by which such moneys will be repaid, it is an abuse of discretion to refuse to incorporate that stipulation into the final judgment. The final ju…
-
State v. Baker, 585 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…money judgment does not destroy the decree as an order to pay support nor is the obligation reduced to an ordinary judgment debt enforceable only at law.” 561 So. 2d at 569. See also Department of [*1077] Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Vorac, 582 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In the instant case, reimbursement was sought for support payments made by the state on behalf of a minor child. The total amount due was $666.00, which the father agreed to pay at the rate of $200.00 per month. The words of th…
Authorities Cited
- Gibson v. Bennett, 561 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1990)
- McINTYRE v. State, 564 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Blue, 564 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- State v. Savage, 570 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)