DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ON BEHALF OF ETC.
v.
MCMORRIS VINCENT MAGLOIRE
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 appealed a child support order, challenging calculations of health insurance costs and retroactive support. The court affirmed most of the order but reversed and remanded the retroactive child support calculation due to improper application of a deduction for support payments that were not actually made.
The court affirmed the trial court's calculation of the mother's insurance costs and rejected the Department's challenge regarding the father's insurance costs as unpreserved error that could not be raised on behalf of a non-appealing party. The court reversed the retroactive child support calculation because the father did not actually pay support for his other children during the relevant period, making him ineligible for the statutory deduction.
[1] An appellant cannot concede error on behalf of a non-appealing appellee when that error has not been raised by the appellee.
[2] A deduction for court-ordered support for other children under Florida Statutes § 61.30(3)(f) requires proof that such support payments were actually made during the rele…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 case involves a child support dispute where the Department of Revenue challenged the trial court's calculation of insurance costs for both the mot…
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
with the proper amount for her health and dental insurance; thus, this argument is without merit. Next, the Department argues that the ALJ used an incorrect amount for the insurance costs of the father, McMorris Magloire, and failed to credit him for the amount he pays for health insurance for himself, his current wife, and his son. But the Department does not explain how this alleged error adversely affects it or the mother. Instead, Magloire, the party affected by the alleged error, did not object to the trial court’s calculation of his insurance costs, did not appeal the support order, and did not file any brief in this Court. Thus, because the alleged error was not preserved for review, Magliore would not be entitled to relief even if he had appealed. See Alfred v. Dep’t of Revenue, 204 So. 3d 583, 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Moreover, the Department could not raise the unpreserved error on Magliore’s behalf. “An appellant cannot ‘concede error’ on behalf of the appellee when that error has never been raised by appellee.” Dep’t of Revenue v. Lopez, 43 Fla. Law Weekly D1753 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 1, 2018) (Winokur, J., concurring). Thus, we reject this concession of error. Finally, the Department argues that the ALJ erred in calculating Magloire’s retroactive child support. Section 61.30(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2017), provides that “[c]ourt-ordered support for other children which is actually paid” is an allowable deduction from gross income for purposes of calculating net income available for child support. Here, the ALJ applied the deduction to an eight-month period of time before the support order for Magloire’s other children went into effect. Further, there is no indication in the record that Magloire actually made these support payments for his other children, a prerequisite to receiving the deduction. See Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Walker v. Cody, 131 So. 3d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). For these reasons, we reverse the portion of the order awarding retroactive child support and remand for recalculation of the retroactive child support award. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. WETHERELL, ROWE, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant. No appearance for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Alfred v. Dep't OF Revenue, 204 So. 3d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Dep't of Revenue v. Calixto Manuel Lopez, 252 So. 3d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
- Dep't OF Revenue obo Shemata S. Walker v. Sedrick L. Cody, 131 So. 3d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)