LISA EMMONS, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 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.
Lisa Emmons appealed a dismissal of her request for an administrative hearing regarding a child support overpayment determination. The Department of Revenue's hearing officer incorrectly applied a 90-day time limit rule meant for other programs rather than the correct 30-day rule governing child support overpayment disputes. The court reversed and remanded for the hearing officer to properly determine timeliness under the correct rule.
No. The hearing officer applied an incorrect 90-day time limit rule governing other Department of Children and Family Services programs. Instead, timeliness for child support overpayment disputes is governed by a 30-day deadline from the written reconsideration decision. The court reversed and remanded for the hearing officer to properly determine timeliness under the correct rule.
[1] A hearing officer may not apply rules governing the Department of Children and Family Services to determine the timeliness of a request for an administrative hearing rega…
[2] Requests for administrative hearings concerning child support overpayments are governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 12E-1.006(10).
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“This rule, which governs time limits for requesting hearings as to programs administered by the Department of Children and Family Services, has no application in determining the timeliness of requests for administrative hearings regarding child support overpayments by the Department of Revenue.”
Establishes that the 90-day rule does not apply to child support overpayment cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Revenue determined that Emmons had received an overpayment of child support. Emmons invoked the reconsideration process and then req…
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.
Appellant seeks review of a final order dismissing as untimely her request for an administrative hearing regarding a prior determination by the Department of Revenue that she had received an overpayment of child support. Because the hearing officer applied an incorrect rule in concluding that appellant’s hearing request was untimely, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
A hearing officer of the Department of Children and Family Services concluded that appellant’s request for an administrative hearing was untimely pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 65-2.046(1) which provides that “[t]he appellant or authorized representative must exercise the right to appeal within 90 calendar days in all programs.” This rule, which governs time limits for requesting hearings as to programs administered by the Department of Children and Family Services, has no application in determining the timeliness of requests for administrative hearings regarding child support overpayments by the Department of Revenue. Such matters are governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 12E-1.006(10).
See Fla. Admin. Code R. 12E-1.022(5)(a)5 (providing that, if a person determined to have received a child support overpayment “is not satisfied with the reconsideration decision, [he or she] may request an administrative hearing as provided by subsection 12E-1.006(10),” Florida Administrative Code).
Although rule 12E-1.006(10) authorizes the hearing offi cer to apply the rules of the Department of Children and Family Services in conducting the hearing, it does not authorize the hearing officer to apply those rules in determining the timeliness of the request for a hearing. Rather, the rule requires the hearing officer to determine whether “[a] request for a hearing [was] made within thirty (30) days of the date of the written reconsideration decision.”
The hearing officer’s order found that appellant had invoked the reconsideration process. Moreover, appellant’s request for an administrative hearing indicated that a reconsideration hearing had been held approximately 12 days before she filed the request. However, there is no written reconsideration decision in the record. Because we cannot determine from the record whether appellant filed a timely request within 30 days of the written reconsideration decision, we reverse the hearing officer’s order and remand with directions that the hearing officer determine whether appellant’s request for an administrative hearing was timely pursuant to rule 12E-1.006(10).
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
WEBSTER, VAN NORTWICK and LEWIS, JJ., concur.