WILLIAMS
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ROSS
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.
Appellant challenges a paternity and child support order, arguing the administrative law judge incorrectly excluded retroactive child support payments when calculating deductions for support of his other children. The court reverses in part, holding that 'actually paid' child support under Florida law includes the retroactive portion of court-ordered obligations.
The court held that 'actually paid' includes the full amount of court-ordered child support payments, including the retroactive portion, when a party is complying with a child support order by paying that full amount monthly. The ALJ's limitation to only 'current' support was incorrect.
[1] A deduction from gross income for court-ordered support for other children, as permitted by statute, includes payments made for retroactive child support amounts when tho…
[2] The phrase "actually paid" in the context of child support deductions for other children encompasses the full amount of court-ordered payments, including portions designa…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the phrase 'actually paid' in section 61.30(3)(f), Florida Statutes, indicates whether a party 'pays the court-ordered child support for another child . . . .'”
Establishes the court's interpretation of the statutory language governing deductions for child support of other children.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant testified that he paid child support for three other children: $945.08 per month for two children combined and $560 per month for a third ch…
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 Deductions From Gross Income cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D2023-3086 _____________________________
RUSTY LEE WILLIAMS,
Appellant,
v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE and COTARA SHANAE ROSS,
Appellees.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Division of Administrative Hearings. Lawrence P. Stevenson, Administrative Law Judge.
February 12, 2025 B.L. THOMAS, J.
Appellant challenges the final administrative paternity and support order entered by the Division of Administrative Hearings. We reverse to correct the deductions from Appellant’s gross income concerning child support obligations for other children. We reject the other arguments raised by Appellant.
At the hearing below, Appellant testified that he paid child support for three children other than the minor child whose support was the subject of the proceedings. He testified that he paid $945.08 per month in child support for two of his other children, together, and $560 per month in child support for a third child. However, at the Department’s request, the Administrative
Law Judge only gave Appellant credit for the portion of those monthly payments that was for so-called “current” support and not the portion that was for retroactive amounts. Thus, Appellant was given credit for child support payments for his other children of $853.20 and $456 per month, respectively. On appeal, the Department argues that this decision is supported by section 61.30(3)(f), Florida Statutes, which allows for a deduction from a party’s gross income for “[c]ourt-ordered support for other children which is actually paid.” We disagree.
We agree with our prior interpretation that the phrase “actually paid” in section 61.30(3)(f), Florida Statutes, indicates whether a party “pays the court-ordered child support for another child . . . .” Dep’t of Rev. v. McMullen, 312 So. 3d 177, 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021). When a child support obligation is established, it is common for the court to establish an amount that is owed retroactively for months prior to the court’s order and for the party owing support to be ordered to pay a portion of the retroactive amount each month until the full amount is satisfied. When a party is complying with a child support order, including paying the retroactive amount each month, the full amount is child support that is “actually paid.” Therefore, the credit given to Appellant by the ALJ under section 61.30(3)(f), Florida Statutes, should have included the retroactive portion of the court-ordered child support payments Appellant makes each month for his other children.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. RAY and NORDBY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Doreen Inkeles, Shochet Law Group, Trenton, for Appellant.
Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee Department of Revenue. No appearance for Appellee Cotara Shanae Ross.