DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ON BEHALF OF VERONA SATCHELL, APPELLANT,
v.
VERONT M. SATCHELL, 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 was a party to child support proceedings without needing to file a motion to intervene, making the case a Title IV-D action where the obligee cannot be ordered to pay the obligor's attorney's fees.
A party named in a motion and participating throughout proceedings without objection is a party to the action without filing a motion to intervene, making Title IV-D protections applicable.
[1] A party named in a motion and participating in proceedings without objection becomes a party to the action without filing a motion to intervene, and such participation co…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband moved to determine child support arrearage and overpayment. The Department of Revenue was named as a party in the motion and partic…
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 Title Iv-D Of The Social Security Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Department of Revenue contends that the trial court erred in ordering the former wife (the nonprevailing obligee) to pay attorney’s fees and costs to the former husband (the prevailing obligor) after determining that the post-dissolution proceedings on the former husband’s motion to determine child support arrearage and overpayment did not constitute an action under Title IV-D of the Social 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 convert it into a Title IV-D action.
The trial court concluded that the Department was not a party because it never filed a motion to intervene.
However, the Department correctly argues that it was not required to file a motion to intervene because it was named as a party in the former husband’s motion and participated throughout the proceedings on the motion without objection until it opposed the former husband’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. Because the trial court erred in concluding that the Department had to file a motion to intervene before the proceedings could be considered a Title IV-D action, we reverse the trial court’s order directing the former wife (the nonprevail-ing obligee) to pay attorney’s fees and costs to the former husband.
REVERSED.
BROWNING, C.J., WEBSTER, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spano v. Bruce, 62 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…e sections 61.16 and 409.2564(5), Florida Statutes (2009), discuss Title IV-D cases, neither requires that the Depart [*7] ment of Revenue be a party to the case for it to be a Title IV-D case. Furthermore, the mother relied on Satchell v. Satchell, 949 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) where the court determined that the Department of Revenue was already a party to a case, therefore making it a Title IV-D proceeding. Id. While the Department of Revenue, as a party to a case, does convert the case into a Title I…
-
Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. James, 159 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…ings into a Title IV-D case. See Spano v. Bruce, 62 So. 3d 2, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“We find that all child support cases that are administered by the Department of Revenue are considered Title IV-D cases....”); Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. v. Satchell, 949 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding that a post-dissolution action to determine child support arrear-age and overpayment was a Title IV-D case, even though the Department did not intervene, where the Department was named as a party and participated i…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. Troutman, 805 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)