DESMOND D. DILLION, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, 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.
Desmond Dillion appeals a Department of Revenue child support order that calculated his obligation without considering his claimed time-sharing arrangement with the child. The court vacates and remands because the Department failed to hold an evidentiary hearing despite disputed facts regarding the time-sharing arrangement that directly affect the support calculation.
The court holds that the Department erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing where the financial affidavits presented disputed facts affecting the child support calculation. The validity of the Department's action depends on disputed facts about the time-sharing arrangement, requiring remand for further proceedings.
[1] A noncustodial parent's child support obligation is calculated based on financial affidavits and other available information.
[2] A reduction in a noncustodial parent's child support obligation is mandated when a child spends a substantial amount of time with that parent under a timesharing arrangem…
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“Where a child spends a substantial amount of time with the noncustodial parent under a timesharing arrangement, a reduction in that parent's child support obligation is mandated.”
Establishes the legal principle that time-sharing arrangements must be considered in calculating child support obligations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDillion submitted a financial affidavit claiming a time-sharing arrangement where the child spends nearly 40% of her time at his house. When Dillion f…
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 Disputed Facts cases and more on FLexlaw
. Desmond Dillion (the Father) appeals an order issued by the Department of Revenue which sets forth his child support obligation. We vacate the order and remand.
A noncustodial parent’s child support obligation is calculated based on the financial affidavits submitted by-the parties along with any other information available to the Department. § 409.2563(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2015). Here, the Father’s financial affidavit claimed the parents have a time-sharing arrangement and that, under the arrangement, their child spends néarly forty percent of hér time at his house. Where a child spends a substantial amount of time with the noncustodial parent under a timesharing arrangement, a reduction in that parent’s child support obligation is mandated. Rodriguez v. Medero, 17 So.3d 867, 871 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); see also § 61.30(11)(b), Fla. Stat. (2015).
When the Father failed to appear before the Administrative Law Judge for the evi-dentiary hearing, the judge closed the file and relinquished jurisdiction back to the Department without making any findings. The Father wrote a letter explaining why he missed the hearing and asking that it be rescheduled.1 The Department did not respond and issued the order on appeal, finding the Father waived his right to a hearing and calculating his support obligation without any mention of the parties’ time-sharing arrangement.
If an agency enters an order on undisputed evidence, the order must be upheld by this court if it is supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Miley v. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Barker, 23 So.3d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). However, if this court finds that the validity of the agency action depends on disputed facts, and there has been no hearing prior to agency action, this court “shall” remand for “further proceedings.” § 120.68(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016); Brown v. State, Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 899 So.2d 1246, 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (remanding for an administrative hearing because of the “need to first make credibility and factual determinations concerning appellant’s claims”).
We find the validity of the Department’s action depends on disputed facts— specifically the existence and terms of the parties’ time-sharing arrangement. It is the public policy of this state to encourage separated parents to engage in frequent and continuing time-sharing. § 61.13(2)(c)l., Fla. Stat. (2015). The Department erred when it failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing because the financial affidavits submitted by the parties pre*355sented disputed facts which affected the calculation of the Father’s support obligation.
Vacated and remanded.
GROSS and' FORST, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gagnon v. Dep't of Revenue, 348 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…rtment of Revenue's initial concession of error, and pursuant to section 120.68(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2021), the 'Final Administrative Support Order' is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings."); Dillion v. Dep't of Revenue, 189 So. 3d 353, 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ("[I]f this court finds that the validity of the agency action depends on disputed facts, and there has been no hearing prior to agency action, this court 'shall' remand for 'further proceedings.' " (quoting § 120.68(7)(a),…
-
Pellegrino v. Dep't of Revenue (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…Revenue's initial concession of error, and pursuant to section 120.68(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2021), the "Final Administrative Support Order" is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. See, e.g., Dillion v. Dep't of Revenue, 189 So. 3d 353, 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); McIntyre v. Seminole Cnty. Sch. Bd., 779 So. 2d 639, 641–43 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); see also § 409.2563(6), Fla. Stat. (2021) ("If the parent from whom support is being sought files a timely request for hearing or the departme…
-
Karvoill Williams v. Roosedele Bossicot (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 899 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Rodriguez v. Medero, 17 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Miley v. Dep't OF Revenue o/b/o Amanda Lyn Barker, 23 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Porush v. Porush, 23 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)