Ozzie Gillislee v. Florida Department of Revenue etc. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                       IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
    OZZIE GILLISLEE,                      NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
    Appellant,                      DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
    v.                                    CASE NO. 1D14-0407
    FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
    REVENUE OBO LASHONDA
    MIRACLE HAMILTON,
    Appellee.
    _____________________________/
    Opinion filed November 20, 2014.
    An appeal from an order of the Department of Revenue.
    Ann Coffin, Director.
    Ozzie Gillislee, pro se, Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney
    General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
    PER CURIAM.
    In the proceeding below, the mother of the Appellant’s child petitioned for
    child support from the Appellant. The Appellant raises numerous issues on appeal.
    None of these issues were preserved and, as such, must be reviewed for
    fundamental error. See Saka v. Saka, 
    831 So. 2d 709
    , 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
    (“Fundamental error, which can be considered on appeal without objection in the
    lower court, is error which goes to the foundation of the case or goes to the merits
    of the cause of action.”). We affirm as to all the issues except the issue regarding
    retroactive support, which we reverse and remand to the Florida Department of
    Revenue (the Department) in accordance with the below.
    Based on evidence provided by the mother, the Department determined that
    the Appellant owed 31 months of retroactive child support.             However, in
    determining the amount of retroactive support owed, the Department failed to
    include any child support payments made by the Appellant during that 31-month
    time period. Failing to include this amount was error. See § 61.03(17)(b), Fla.
    Stat. (July 2012); Ditton v. Circelli, 
    888 So. 2d 161
    , 163 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
    (holding that the court erred when it failed to credit the father for four monthly
    child support payments made in its calculation of retroactive child support).
    Because this error goes to the foundation of this case, it is fundamental. This Court
    reverses the portion of the order determining retroactive child support and remands
    the order to allow the Department to include the prior child support payments.
    REVERSE AND REMAND.
    ROBERTS, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-0407

Filed Date: 11/23/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/26/2014