STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ON BEHALF OF MARIA MURILLO, APPELLANT,
v.
SAUL MURILLO, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2017-05-16
No. CASE NO. 1D16-4435
WOLF, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
216 So. 3d 785 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2017) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Topics
Dissolution Actions Child Support Obligation Concurrent Jurisdiction Administrative Proceedings

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dissolution Actions cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, the Department of Revenue argues that the Administrative Law Judge erred by concluding that the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to establish Appellee’s child support obligation because a dissolution action addressing child support was pending between the parents in circuit court. The Department is correct. Because there was no court order of support in effect, and Appellee had not timely opted out of the administrative proceeding, DOAH had concurrent jurisdiction to establish Appellee’s child support obligation and a support order should have been entered. See § 409.2563(2)(a), (c), Fla. Stat. (2016); Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Van Edwards, 214 So.3d 800, 2017 WL 1372663 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 13, 2017); Dep’t of Revenue v. Graczyk, 206 So.3d 157, 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.

WOLF, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Rodriguez v. State, 232 So. 3d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
    …judgment and sentence that were entered without further comment, but because the order of revocation does not specify the conditions Rodriguez admitted violating, we remand for the entry of an order specifying those conditions. See Huggins v. State, 216 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). Affirmed; remanded with directions. NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.…
  • Rekala Morrison v. State, 230 So. 3d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
    …21, 2017, nunc pro tunc to February 16, 2017, does not identify the conditions found to be violated. We remand solely for entry of a corrected revocation order specifying the conditions of probation that Ms. Morrison violated. See Huggins v. State, 216 So. 3d 785, 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Greene v. State, 919 So. 2d 684, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“A proper order of revocation will identify the specific conditions of probation violated by the defendant.” (citing Greer v. State, 831 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA…
  • Clifton v. State, 241 So. 3d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw