FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ON BEHALF OF SONIA L. TROUTMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
CRAIG K. TROUTMAN, 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 Department of Revenue appealed a divorce judgment that required the custodial mother to repay half of public assistance benefits received on behalf of her minor child and half of the department's attorney's fees and costs. The court reversed, holding that only the non-custodial parent (obligor) can be held liable for repayment of public assistance and assessment of department fees and costs.
A custodial parent cannot be held liable for repayment of public assistance benefits received on behalf of a minor child or for attorney's fees and court costs incurred by the Department of Revenue. Only an obligor (the non-custodial parent responsible for support payments) can be held liable for such repayment and fees. The fees and costs should be assessed against the husband based on his ability to pay.
[1] Payment of public assistance made for the benefit of a dependent child creates an obligation of repayment by the obligor.
[2] A custodial parent is excluded from liability for reimbursement of public assistance benefits received on behalf of a minor child.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Section 409.2561(4) expressly excludes the custodial parent from liability for reimbursement.”
Establishes the statutory basis for excluding custodial parents from repayment obligations for public assistance benefits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSonia L. Troutman and Craig K. Troutman were divorced. The wife was the custodial parent of their minor child. The wife received public assistance ben…
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.
GREEN, Acting Chief Judge.
The Department of Revenue challenges the portion of the trial court’s final judgment of dissolution of marriage between Sonia L. Troutman and Craig K. Troutman which required each party to repay one-half of the amount of public assistance benefits the wife received on behalf of the couple’s minor child and attorney’s fees and court costs incurred by the department. We agree and reverse.
The department’s argument as to repayment of public assistance benefits is supported by statute and case law. Section 409.2561(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), provides that payment of public assistance made for the benefit of a dependent child creates an obligation of repayment. If there is no prior support order, the court must establish the liability of the obligor for reimbursement. An obligor is defined as “a person who is responsible for making support payments pursuant to an alimony or child support order.” § 409.2554(6). Section 409.2561(4) expressly excludes the custodial parent from liability for reimbursement. See also Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. D ’Andrea, 542 So. 2d 1869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (holding that a custodial parent is not obligated to repay public benefits received on behalf of a minor child). The former wife in this case is the custodial parent. Thus, the trial court erred in ordering her to repay one-half of the public assistance benefits she received on behalf of the couple’s minor child. The husband, who does not have custody of the minor child, is the obligor and is therefore obligated to repay to the department the public assistance benefits received by the wife.
The department is also correct that fees and costs can only be assessed against an obligor but not against a custodial parent. Section 61.16, Florida Statutes, provides that “[i]n Title IV D cases, attorney’s fees ... and costs ... shall be assessed only against the nonprevailing obligor....” See also § 409.2567, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998) (“costs ... shall be assessed only against the nonprevailing obligor ...”). The former wife in the present case is not an obligor and, thus, cannot be held liable for any fees or costs. Therefore, we also reverse the provision in the final judgment requiring the wife to repay a portion of attorney’s fees and court costs incurred by the department. The fees and costs should be assessed against the husband based on his ability to pay.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Veront M. Satchell, 949 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…Security Act. Pursuant to section 61.16(1), Florida Statutes (2001), a prevailing obligor is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs from a nonprevailing obligee in a Title TV-D case. See Fla. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Troutman v. Troutman, 805 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In this case, the only issue was whether the Department was made a party to the proceedings on the former husband’s motion so as to [*1117] convert it into a Title IV-D action. The trial court concluded that the Department was no…