FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ON BEHALF OF JANICE HEWETT, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD GRANT, 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 sought to establish child support arrearages against Richard Grant. The trial court denied the motion based on laches (equitable defense of unreasonable delay), but the appellate court reversed, holding that the record lacked competent evidence that Grant suffered injury or prejudice from the delay in pursuing collection, which is required to establish laches in child support cases.
The court reversed, holding that Florida law strongly disfavors application of laches to child support cases except under the rarest circumstances, and that a defendant must prove actual injury or undue prejudice from reliance on the plaintiff's failure to pursue collection sooner. Here, the findings regarding the defendant's age and income were insufficient as a matter of law to establish such prejudice.
[1] The equitable defense of laches requires proof of injury or undue prejudice resulting from a party's delay in pursuing a claim.
[2] In child support matters, the doctrine of laches is disfavored and applies only in the rarest of circumstances.
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“child support is a legal obligation of the parents to the children, [Florida] courts have long recognized that strong public policy proscribes application of laches to child support matters except under the rarest of circumstances.”
Establishes the strong public policy against applying laches to child support cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJanice Hewett was owed child support by Richard Grant. The Department of Revenue, on Hewett's behalf, moved to establish a child support arrearage and…
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.
WEBSTER, J.
The Florida Department of Revenue, on behalf of Janice Hewett, seeks review of a final order which adopted a hearing officer’s recommended order and denied a motion to establish a child support arrearage and set a repayment schedule based on the determination that the motion was barred by laches. We conclude that the record does not contain competent, substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s finding that appellee suffered injury or prejudice because of failure to pursue the child support arrear-age collection sooner. Accordingly, we reverse.
Because “child support is a legal obligation of the parents to the children, [Florida] courts have long recognized that strong public policy proscribes application of laches to child support matters except under the rarest of circumstances.” Ticktin v. Kearin, 807 So. 2d 659, 663-64 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (citations omitted).
One of the elements that must be proven to establish the equitable defense of laches in a case such as this is that the defendant suffered “injury or undue prejudice” as the result of reliance on the plaintiffs failure to pursue collection sooner. E.g., State Dep’t of Revenue v. Petro, 765 So. 2d 792, 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). “[I]n child support cases ... [,] a mere delay in filing suit is by itself insufficient to establish the prejudice necessary to relieve a parent from the obligation to support his or her child.” Id. (citations omitted).
Here, the only findings made by the hearing officer regarding . prejudice were that appellee was “57 years old,” and “a commercial painter” whose “income ha[d] been $22.00 per hour” but “[wa]s now $8.00 per hour.” Simply put, those findings are insufficient as a matter of law to support the conclusion that appellee suffered injury or undue prejudice as the result of reliance on the failure to pursue collection sooner.
Moreover, our review of the record reveals no competent,' substantial evidence from which a trier of fact might reasonably find that appellee had suffered any injury or prejudice as the result of reliance on the failure to pursue collection sooner. At most, the record establishes merely that there had been a significant delay in seeking to enforce appellee’s child support obligation. Because appellee failed as a matter of law to carry his burden on the affirmative defense of laches, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court grant the motion to establish a child support arrearage and set a repayment schedule.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
ALLEN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Holley, 86 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…425 So. 2d 204, 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (finding no abuse of discretion where the trial court found that no equitable principles, including laches, relieved the father of the duty to pay child support); Fla. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Hewett v. Grant, 913 So. 2d 108, 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (reversing where the evidence was insufficient to support the doctrine of lach-es); State, Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Dees v. Petro, 765 So. 2d 792, 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reviewing the application of equitable estoppel for…
-
Logan v. Logan, 920 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…Stat. (2002). He did not meet his burden. “Florida courts have long recognized that strong public policy proscribes application of laches to child support matters. except under the rarest of circumstances.” Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Hewett v. Grant, 913 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (citing Ticktin v. Kearin, 807 So. 2d 659, 663-64 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)) (internal quotations and brackets omitted). Thus, “laches is only applied in extraordinary circumstances where the facts clearly show extreme prejudice.” Gaine…
-
Tayte Holley v. Debra Erwin - Jenkins (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…e to a defense of laches barring enforcement of child support arrearages." Golden v. Lewis, 647 So. 2d 979, 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (quoting Armour v. Allen, 377 So. 2d 798, 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)); see also Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Hewett v. Grant, 913 So. 2d 108, 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) ("[Florida] courts have long recognized that strong public policy proscribes application of laches to child support matters except under the rarest of circumstances." (alteration in original) (quoting Ticktin, 807 So. 2d at…
Authorities Cited
- Ticktin v. Kearin, 807 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- State v. Petro, 765 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)