STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM EX REL.
v.
JOSEPH MICHAEL SERWE, III AND ALISCIA MELISSA SERWE
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.
Although the trial court erred in striking the Department of Revenue's notice of redirection of child support payments, the Department's failure to file a motion to vacate the hearing officer's recommended order resulted in a failure to preserve the error for appellate review, requiring affirmance.
[1] Upon notice that the Department of Revenue is providing Title IV-D child support services in a case with an existing support order, the depository must redirect payments…
[2] A party's failure to file a motion to vacate a hearing officer's recommended order adopted by the trial court results in a failure to preserve the claimed error for appel…
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“Upon notice by the department that it is providing Title IV-D services in a case with an existing support order, the depository shall transmit case data through, and set up appropriate payment accounts in, regardless of whether there is a delinquency, the Clerk of the Court Child Support Enforcement Collection System as required under s. 61.181(2)(b)1.”
This statutory provision establishes that the Department's notice of redirection is mandatory and does not require additional pleading or modification procedures.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered on May 21, 2024, requiring the mother to pay child support directly to the father. On July 29,…
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 Writ Of Certiorari Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2025-0892 Lower Tribunal No. 2023-DR-003648
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM EX REL., Petitioner,
V.
JOSEPH MICHAEL SERWE, III, and ALISCIA MELISSA SERWE, Respondents,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Orange County. Elaine A. Barbour, Judge.
November 18, 2025
ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
Appellant's motion for clarification is granted. The prior opinion dated October 3, 2025, is withdrawn, and the attached opinion is issued in its place.
STARGEL, J.
The Department of Revenue (“DOR”) seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the portion of the March 27, 2025, "Report and Recommendation of the Hearing Officer and Order Granting Motion for Contempt and Striking Notice of Redirection" that struck DOR's notice of redirection of child support payments.¹ However, certiorari relief is not available since the order states that it is a “Final Order" and purports to end judicial labor as to the contempt proceeding and DOR's notice. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(A) (“The certiorari jurisdiction of district courts of appeal may be sought to review . . . nonfinal orders of lower tribunals other than as prescribed by rule 9.130. . . .") (emphasis added). Therefore, pursuant to rule 9.040(c) and DOR's request that we treat the certiorari petition as an appeal should we determine certiorari relief is unavailable, we treat the petition as a direct appeal from a final order.
A final judgment of dissolution of marriage was rendered on May 21, 2024, and contains a provision that the mother shall pay child support directly to the father for the benefit of the parties' minor child. On July 29, 2024, DOR filed its notice pursuant to sections 61.13(1)(d)3., 61.181(1)(a), and 61.1824(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2024), advising that the mother would be notified to send support payments to the State Disbursement Unit because Title IV-D services were being provided in this case. DOR also filed a motion for contempt based on the mother's default. After conducting a hearing on the motion, the trial court granted the motion for contempt
but, citing Boukzam v. Jugo, 293 So. 3d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), sua sponte struck DOR's notice, finding that a modification to the way child support payments are made must be pleaded and deemed to be in the best interest of the child. The trial court erred in entering the portion of the order striking DOR's notice. See § 61.13(1)(d)3., Fla. Stat. ("Upon notice by the department that it is providing Title IV-D services in a case with an existing support order, the depository shall transmit case data through, and set up appropriate payment accounts in, regardless of whether there is a delinquency, the Clerk of the Court Child Support Enforcement Collection System as required under s. 61.181(2)(b)1."); see also § 61.1824(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
Although striking DOR's notice and requiring the mother to continue to make child support payments directly to the father was error, the record before us does not demonstrate that DOR filed a motion to vacate the order under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.491(f). As set forth in Roblero v. Velasquez, 414 So. 3d 463, 463-64 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), and Fluhart v. Rasmussen, 383 So. 3d 889, 890 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), the failure to file a motion to vacate the recommended report adopted by the trial court results in a failure to preserve the claimed error for appellate review.² Accordingly, we are constrained to affirm.³ See Fluhart at 889- 90 (affirming rather than dismissing an appeal based on an appellant's failure to preserve an issue by moving to vacate the general magistrate's recommended final judgment adopted by the trial court). Our affirmance here is without prejudice to any right DOR may have to file a subsequent notice pursuant to sections 61.13(1)(d)3., 61.181(1)(a), and 61.1824(1)(a).
AFFIRMED.
WOZNIAK and MIZE, JJ., concur.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General, of the Office of Attorney General Child Support Enforcement, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
No Appearance for Respondents, Joseph Michael Serwe, III, and Aliscia Melissa Serwe.