CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH GAUT, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, AND RACHELLE DAWN HANSEN, 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.
Christopher Gaut appeals a Department of Revenue final administrative order determining his child support obligations. The court affirmed the current support calculation but reversed the retroactive support calculation because the Department improperly used current income data to calculate past obligations when it had different state wage information available for the retroactive period.
The court affirmed the current child support calculation as proper under statute, finding the Department's use of available state wage information was statutorily permissible and Gaut failed to provide income information or participate. The court reversed the retroactive support calculation because the Department improperly applied the current income obligation to calculate retroactive support when it had different state wage information available for the retroactive time period.
[1] A child support agency may proceed with calculating support obligations based on available state wage information if that information is sufficiently reliable and detaile…
[2] An obligor who fails to provide income information or participate in child support proceedings cannot challenge on appeal the agency's use of statutorily permissible meth…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“[T]he department may proceed on the basis of information available from any source, if such information is sufficiently reliable and detailed to allow calculation of guideline schedule amounts”
Establishes the statutory authority permitting the Department to use available state wage information to calculate child support when obligor fails to provide income documentation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Revenue's Child Support Enforcement Program issued a Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order against Gaut. The Department r…
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 Retroactive Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
Christopher Joseph Gaut appeals the Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order rendered by the Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program (the Department). Gaut raises two points on appeal: (1) the Department erred in determining his current child support and (2) the Department erred in determining his retroactive child support. As explained below, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
We affirm on the first point inasmuch as the Department requested income information from Gaut and provided him with notice advising him of his right to participate and to request a hearing. Moreover, the Department correctly could and did utilize available state wage information to calculate Gaut’s current child support obligation. See § 409.2563(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“[T]he department may proceed on the basis of information available from any source, if such information is sufficiently reliable and detailed to allow calculation of guideline schedule amounts .... ”). Because Gaut failed to provide income information or to participate in the proceedings below, he cannot complain for the first time on appeal that the court utilized the statutorily permissible methodology to calculate his current child support obligation.
In contrast, on the second point the Department acknowledges that it incorrectly used Gaut’s current child support obligation calculation to also determine his retroactive obligation. Moreover, because the Department had state wage information for the time period in which retroactive child support was due, and because the income information for the two time-frames differed, “the Department ought not to [have] ignore[d] the information in its own files” when it calculated Gaut’s retroactive child support due. Salters v. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Mobley, 32 So.3d 777, 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); see also § 61.30(17)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016).
Therefore, we affirm as to Gaut’s current support obligation but reverse as to Gaut’s retroactive support obligation. We remand for the Department to recalculate his retroactive child support obligation us*554ing the income information it has from the state for that time period.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
CRENSHAW and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rouson, Sr. v. Dep't of Revenue (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…dule in effect at the time of the hearing subject to the obligor's demonstration of his or her actual income . . . during the retroactive period." § 61.30(17)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023); see also Gaut v. Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Program, 220 So. 3d 552, 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (stating that if available, the Department must use state wage information for the retroactive time period in calculating retroactive child support); Salters v. Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Program ex rel. Mobley…
-
Rouson, SR. v. Dep't of Revenue (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
-
Feliciano v. Dept. of Revenue (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Salters v. Dep't OF Revenue, 32 So. 3d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)