DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL MOSLEY AND TIFFANY NORRIS, APPELLEES
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 prevailed on appeal, with the court vacating a child support modification order that improperly limited the father's obligation to amounts in the Department's proposed order rather than basing it on evidence presented at the hearing.
An administrative law judge must establish a child support obligation based on evidence presented at the hearing, not limit it to amounts in a proposed order.
[1] An administrative law judge determining child support must base the obligation on evidence presented at the hearing rather than limiting it to amounts proposed by the Dep…
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 Department of Revenue appealed a Final Administrative Support Modification Order determining Paul Mosley's child support obligation, arguing the A…
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 Child Support Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
The Florida Department of Revenue raises two issues in this appeal of a Final Administrative Support Modification Order determining the child support obligation of Appellee Paul Mosley (the father). In the first issue, the Department argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by concluding that he lacked authority to enter a support order exceeding the amounts set forth in the Department’s Proposed Order to Modify Administrative Support Order based on new information developed at an evidentiary hearing that would increase the father’s child support obligation under the statutory child support guidelines. In the second issue, the Department argues that the Final Administrative Support Modification Order is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Consistent with our opinion in Department of Revenue v. Reyes, 181 So.3d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), we resolve both issues by concluding that the ALJ was required to establish the father’s child support obligation based on the evidence presented at the hearing. By limiting the father’s child support obligation to the amounts contained in the proposed order, notwithstanding the evidence presented, the Final Administrative Support Modification Order is contrary to Florida law and not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
RAY, BILBREY, and JAY, JJ., concur.