Michael Duggan v. State, Department of Revenue, etc. , 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12243 ( 2016 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
MICHAEL DUGGAN, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D16-306
STATE, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
EX REL. KAYLIN HUFF,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed August 4, 2016.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
Ann Coffin, Child Support Enforcement Program, Department of Revenue,
Director.
Michael Duggan, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General and Toni C. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney
General, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Michael Duggan appeals a child support order and an income deduction order
entered by the Department of Revenue, Child Enforcement Program (the
Department), related to one of Mr. Duggan’s minor children. After the mother of the
child sought child support, the Department gave notice of an administrative support
proceeding to Mr. Duggan and requested financial information. Mr. Duggan failed
to respond, or to provide the Department with the requested financial information.
And though notified of the opportunity to seek a hearing, he didn’t request one. The
Department then entered a final administrative support order along with an income
deduction order. Mr. Duggan then appealed.
Mr. Duggan waived and failed to preserve most of his appellate arguments
after ignoring the process offered below. See, e.g., Salters v. Dep’t of Revenue, Child
Support Enforcement Program ex rel. Mobley, 32 So. 3d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA
2010); Macias v. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Garcia, 16 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).
We affirm with respect to all of Mr. Duggan’s arguments except for the one dealing
with Mr. Duggan’s retroactive child support obligation.
The Department concedes that it got Mr. Duggan’s retroactive child support
obligation calculation wrong. It used evidence related to Mr. Duggan’s current
income to calculate his retroactive support obligation, even though it possessed
information about his monthly income during the retroactive child support
period. See Salters, 32 So. 3d at 778-79 (requiring the Department to establish the
retroactive obligation using income information it possesses from the retroactive
period); see also § 61.30(17)(a), Fla. Stat. We therefore reverse and remand for
2
recalculation of Mr. Duggan’s retroactive support obligation and, if necessary, for
reissuance of the income deduction order, making whatever adjustments that are
needed to Mr. Duggan’s monthly contribution towards the arrearage.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
WOLF, B.L. THOMAS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
3