STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF ELIZABETH CRAFT, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD EUGENE CRAFT, JR., 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 State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) appealed a trial court order vacating a child support modification judgment on the ground that HRS lacked authority to represent a non-welfare-recipient custodial parent. The appellate court reversed, holding that HRS has statutory authority to represent custodial parents regardless of welfare status.
HRS has authority to represent custodial parents in child support matters regardless of whether they receive welfare benefits. The trial court's order vacating the child support judgment was reversed because it was based on an erroneous interpretation of HRS's statutory authority.
[1] The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has the authority to represent custodial parents in child support modification proceedings, even if those parents are…
[2] A trial court order vacating a prior final judgment may be reversed on appeal when subsequent controlling case law clarifies the agency's statutory authority.
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“HRS has the authority to represent custodial parents who are not receiving welfare.”
The Florida Supreme Court's holding in Thaysen v. Thaysen that directly supported HRS's authority regardless of welfare status.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElizabeth Craft, a former wife and non-welfare-recipient custodial parent, contracted with HRS under Florida Statutes section 409.2567 to represent he…
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 Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on behalf of Elizabeth Craft seeks review of the trial court’s order vacating a prior final judgment on the ground that HRS did not have the authority to represent Ms. Craft because she was not a welfare recipient. We reverse.
Ms. Craft, former wife, contracted with HRS pursuant to section 409.2567, Florida Statutes (1989), to represent her in child support modification proceedings. HRS, on behalf of Ms. Craft, filed a petition to modify the final judgment of dissolution of marriage to increase child support. Ms. Craft was not receiving welfare benefits from the state.
The matter was heard before a hearing officer, and the findings and recommendations of the hearing officer increasing child support became a final judgment when signed by the trial court on January 8, 1991. Mr. Craft then moved to vacate the order and on February 27, 1991, the trial court entered its order vacating the final judgment of support holding that HRS did not have the authority to represent Ms. Craft because she was not a welfare recipient.
HRS appealed the trial court’s order, raising the single issue of whether HRS has the authority to represent persons who are not receiving welfare benefits. After HRS’ initial brief was filed, but prior to the filing of Mr. Craft’s answer brief, the Supreme Court of Florida decided a case in which it held that HRS has the authority to represent custodial parents who are not receiving welfare. See Thaysen v. Thaysen, 583 So. 2d 663 (Fla.1991).
Mr. Craft, in his answer brief on appeal, concedes the issue raised in the initial brief and agrees that the trial court’s order must be reversed on that issue. However, in his answer brief, Mr. Craft also raises two additional issues not raised or addressed in the initial brief. No cross-appeal has been filed. The trial court has not had the opportunity to rule on the two issues raised by Mr. Craft. Accordingly, the two additional issues raised by Mr. Craft are hereby stricken. See Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla.1981). With regard to the issue raised on appeal, the case is reversed in accordance with Thaysen and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because Mr. Craft did not have the benefit of the Thay-sen decision in the court below, he will have the opportunity to present further argument to the trial court on remand.
Reversed and remanded.
HALL and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chirogianis v. Anderson, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1981)
- Thaysen v. Thaysen, 583 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1991)