DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
CARLOS MARCOVITCH, 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 Revenue appeals a child support modification order arguing that the trial court failed to properly serve the Department and failed to provide adequate notice of the hearing. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that strict compliance with notice and service requirements is mandatory in Title IV-D child support cases.
The court held that strict compliance with Rule 1.440 notice requirements (30 days minimum) and Rule 1.080(b) service requirements (serving the attorney of record) is mandatory in Title IV-D cases. The Department of Revenue's failure to receive service and proper notice constitutes reversible error.
[1] A supplemental petition for modification of child support must be served on the Department of Revenue in a Title IV-D case.
[2] Failure to provide the required 30 days' notice for a hearing constitutes reversible error.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Here, strict compliance with Rule 1.440 was required and failure to give the 30 days notice, along with failure to serve the attorney (Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(b)), is reversible error.”
Establishes that strict compliance with notice and service rules is mandatory and constitutes reversible error when violated
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe circuit court established a child support obligation against Carlos Marcovitch in July 1998. In April 1999, Marcovitch filed a supplemental petiti…
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 Petition For Modification Of Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, J.
The first issue raised by this appeal concerns the effect of a failure to serve a supplemental petition for modification of child support on the Department of Revenue. Additionally, there is a claim that the final hearing was improperly noticed.
By order entered on July 31, 1998, the circuit court for Seminole County adjudicated a child support obligation owed by Carlos Marcovitch. The court order was entered pursuant to a motion to establish child support filed by the appellant State of Florida, Department of Revenue on behalf of the mother, Elaqiqia Bonaldy-Sosa.
On April 1, 1999, Marcovitch filed a supplemental petition for modification of child support claiming he was currently unemployed due to medical reasons. The child support guidelines worksheet, which was filed at the same time as this supplemental petition, indicates that a copy was mailed to the mother on or about March 31, 1999. The only respondent named in the supplemental petition was the mother.- A final hearing was held on May 3, 1999. The court minutes indicate that the mother was not present. Marcovitch addressed the court on his own behalf and the court abated child support until such time as Marcovitch became employed. The written order was filed on September 27, 1999.
On October 5, 1999, the Department of Revenue, on behalf of the mother, filed a motion for rehearing. The Department argued that the “attorney of record” in this action was the Law Office of Hernán Castro, P.A.1 and it was not served by Marcovitch.
Additionally, the Department claimed that the mother, on her own behalf, wrote a letter to the court asking for a continuance on the grounds that she was in Puerto Rico. She maintained that she received the supplemental petition for modification on April 25, 1999 and could not arrange for travel with such short notice. A hearing took place on December 6, 1999 with the Department representing the mother and Marcovitch appearing pro se.
The lower court essentially precluded the Department’s attorney from any argument on the merits and denied the motion for rehearing.
On appeal, the Department notes that this was a Title IY-D case and, as such, the modification proceeding should have been directed to a hearing officer as required by Rule 12.491(d), Family Law Rules of Procedure.
Additionally, since the notice of hearing was mailed to the mother on April 21, 1999, indicating a May 3, 1999 hearing, this would have been less than the required 30 days.
Rule 1.440(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Here, strict compliance with Rule 1.440 was required and failure to give the 30 days notice, along with failure to serve the attorney (Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(b)), is reversible error. Department of Revenue v. Freeman, 762 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)(In post-dissolution proceeding, DOR was not given notice with regard to Freeman’s actions and did not have opportunity to be heard). See also Regalado v. Regalado, 743 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Bennett v. Ward, 667 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Lauxmont Farms, Inc. v. Flavin, 514 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motion for rehearing and the order abating child support and remand for further proceedings with proper notice.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
THOMPSON, C.'J. and PLEUS, J., concur. . Hernán Castro was a program attorney with the Department of Revenue Child Support Enforcement Division.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 170 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…ervicing L.P. v. Parrish, 146 So. 3d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Genuine Parts Co. v. Parsons, 917 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Precision Constructors, Inc. v. Valtec Constr. Corp., 825 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Dep’t of Revenue v. Marcovitch, 765 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Cardozo v. Cardozo, 705 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); S.W.T. v. C.A.P., 595 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Rivera v. Rivera, 562 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Lauxmont Farms, Inc. v. Flavin, 514 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1…
-
Bisel v. Bisel, 165 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…P.A. v. Galindo, 864 So. 2d 24, 28-29 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003))). Secondly, former wife did not receive timely notice of the hearing as it related to her supplemental petition.2 See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(c); [*834] see also Dep’t of Revenue v. Marcovitch, 765 So. 2d 944, 944-45 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (reversing order denying motion for rehearing as the evidence established the mother received notice of the final hearing on the father’s petition for modification of child support only twelve days before the hearing; the…
Authorities Cited
- Lauxmont Farms, Inc. v. Flavin, 514 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Garamone v. A.M. Chudnow, 514 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Reagan v. State, 667 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Virgel Bennett v. Ward, 667 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Dep't OF Revenue v. Freeman, 762 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Regalado v. Regalado, 743 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)