STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF DEBRA JOYCE HARVEY, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD MICHAEL HARVEY, 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 Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) appealed an order requiring it to pay the appellee's attorneys' fees in a child support enforcement action. The court reversed, holding that HRS is not a "party" subject to attorneys' fees provisions under Florida Statute § 61.16 when enforcing child support obligations on behalf of an aggrieved parent.
HRS is not a party within the contemplation of § 61.16 and is therefore not liable for attorneys' fees when fulfilling its statutory duties to enforce child support on behalf of an aggrieved party.
[1] A state agency statutorily mandated to bring child support enforcement actions is not subject to provisions requiring payment of attorneys' fees under statutes governing…
[2] A court may not order a state agency to pay attorneys' fees when the agency is fulfilling its statutory duties in a child support enforcement action.
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“We do not agree that HRS is a party as contemplated by section 61.16, nor do we find any provision in the statutes that would otherwise make HRS liable for payment of fees when it is fulfilling its duties under section 409.2564.”
States the court's holding that HRS is not a party subject to attorneys' fees liability under § 61.16.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHRS brought a child support enforcement action on behalf of Debra Joyce Harvey against Richard Michael Harvey to modify a final judgment of dissolutio…
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 Child Support Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
The appellant, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), appeals a final order in this child support enforcement action, requiring payment of the appellee’s attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1989). HRS contends it is not subject to the provisions of section 61.16 and is therefore not liable for attorneys’ fees in this instance. We agree and reverse.
HRS brought this child support enforcement action on behalf of Debra Joyce Harvey against the appellee, Richard Michael Harvey, seeking modification of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The final judgment adopted an agreement between the parties which failed to provide for child support. The child support hearing officer recommended that the appellee be required to pay child support. The trial court, however, entered an order disapproving the hearing officer’s recommendation, finding there had been no showing of a substantial change in circumstances to justify a modification of the final judgment. The appellee thereafter filed a motion to tax his reasonable attorneys' fees to HRS pursuant to section 61.16. The trial court entered an order granting the motion based upon the authority of Rogers v. Cooper, 575 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Section 409.2564(1), Florida Statutes (1989), authorizes HRS to bring child support enforcement actions pursuant to chapter 61 “in each case in which regular child support payments are not being made...." That provision goes on to state that “[w]henever applicable, the procedures established under the provisions of ... chapter 61, Dissolution of Marriage; Support; Custody ... may govern actions instituted under the provisions of this act....”
Section 61.16 provides for an award of attorneys' fees in actions brought pursuant to chapter 61. Section 61.16 specifically states:
The court may from time to time, after considering the financial resources of both parties, order a party to pay a reasonable amount for attorney’s fees, suit money, and the cost to the other party of maintaining or defending any proceeding under this chapter, including enforcement and modification proceedings. The court may order that the amount be paid directly to the attorney, who may enforce the order in his name.
In Rogers v. Cooper and Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Crossdale, 585 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the First and Fourth Districts, respectively, held that HRS is in effect a party to a child support enforcement action and is thus subject to the provisions of section 61.16. The First and Fourth Districts so held notwithstanding HRS is statutorily mandated to bring a child support enforcement action on behalf of an aggrieved party. Section 409.2564(1).
We do not agree that HRS is a party as contemplated by section 61.16, nor do we find any provision in the statutes that would otherwise make HRS liable for payment of fees when it is fulfilling its duties under section 409.2564.
We must therefore agree with Judge Miner’s well-reasoned dissent in Rogers and certify conflict with the majority in both Rogers and Crossdale.
Accordingly, the case is reversed with directions consistent with this opinion.
FRANK, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., 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)…easonable amount of attorney’s fees, suit money and the cost to the father of defending this action and appeal. Rogers v. Cooper, 575 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); H.R.S. v. Crossdale, 585 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). But see, H.R.S. v. Harvey, 593 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). AFFIRMED. GOSHORN, C.J., concurs. W. SHARP, J., dissents with opinion. . Some such cases, such as Newman v. Newman, 459 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 466 So. 2d 218 (Fla.1985), involve pre-majority arrearages.…1 / 2
-
Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Coyle, 624 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…. Cooper, 575 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services of State of Fla. v. Crossdale, 585 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). But see State, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services on Behalf of Harvey v. Harvey, 593 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The July 1, 1992 statutory amendment is not applicable to this appeal since all of the trial court proceedings occurred prior to that amendment. The prior case law allowing recovery does not fully determine the outcome of this e…
-
Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. (Uresa) v. Ledford, 621 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…ed error for appellate review, a timely and specific objection must be made). GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and LETTS and WARNER, JJ., concur. . We note conflict with the second district's opinion in State, Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Harvey, 593 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. OF the State OF Fla. v. Crossdale, 585 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Rogers v. Cooper, 575 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)