ROUSON, SR.
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, JACSON
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.
Daniel Ervin Rouson appeals a child support order from the Department of Revenue, arguing the Department miscalculated retroactive child support and failed to attach a guidelines worksheet. The Department conceded error, and the court agrees that reversal in part is required for recalculation using actual income evidence and attachment of a guidelines worksheet.
The court reversed in part and remanded for recalculation of retroactive child support using Rouson's actual income during the retroactive period in accordance with section 61.30(1)(a). On remand, the Department must attach a child support guidelines worksheet to the amended final order. The court affirmed the order in all other respects.
[1] When calculating retroactive child support, the Department must use the obligor's actual income during the retroactive period if such income records are available, rather…
[2] A final child support order is reversible where the trial court or administrative agency fails to attach a child support guidelines worksheet, as such attachment is neces…
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 Department was provided with records reflecting Rouson's actual income during the retroactive period but failed to use this evidence in calculatin…
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 Child Support Guidelines Worksheet cases and more on FLexlaw
Daniel Ervin Rouson appeals from a final administrative support order entered by the Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program (the Department). He argues, and the Department concedes, that reversal in part is required based on the Department's miscalculation of retroactive child support and its failure to attach a child support guidelines worksheet to the final order. In determining retroactive child support, "[t]he court shall apply the guidelines schedule 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, 32 So. 3d 777, 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (same); Finch v. Dep't of Revenue ex rel. John-Jules, 65 So. 3d 1150, 1151-52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (reversing a retroactive child support award because the court used the obligor's current income to calculate retroactive support despite evidence of his income during the retroactive time period). Here, the final order reflects that the Department was provided with records reflecting Rouson's actual income during the retroactive time period but that the Department failed to use this evidence to calculate his support obligation. We therefore reverse and remand for recalculation of the retroactive support award in accordance with section 61.30(1)(a).
Finally, as the parties correctly point out, the Department failed to incorporate a child support guidelines worksheet in the final order. Without a guidelines worksheet, we cannot determine whether an award of retroactive child support is supported by the evidence. Thus, on remand, the Department is directed to attach a child support guidelines worksheet to the amended final order. See McGill v. McGill, 355 So. 3d 563, 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (reversing where trial court failed to make factual findings on the parties' incomes and failed to attach a child support guidelines worksheet to its judgment); Durham v. Dep't of Revenue ex rel.
Durham, 850 So. 2d 653, 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that it was error for the court to determine child support without a child support guidelines worksheet). In all other respects, we affirm.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. BLACK and LUCAS, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Salters v. Dep't OF Revenue, 32 So. 3d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Durham v. Dep't OF Revenue, 850 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Ashton J. Finch v. Dep't OF Revenue, 65 So. 3d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Nepola v. Nepola, 355 So. 3d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
- Gaut v. Dep't OF Revenue, 220 So. 3d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)