Gaut v. Depart. of Revenue

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH GAUT, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D16-1619
)
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, )
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT )
PROGRAM, and RACHELLE DAWN )
HANSEN, )
)
Appellee. )
)
Opinion filed June 9, 2017.
Appeal from the Department of Revenue.
Christopher Joseph Gaut, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and
Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Appellee
Department of Revenue.
No appearance for Rachelle Dawn Hansen.
VILLANTI, Chief Judge.
Christopher Joseph Gaut appeals the Final Administrative Paternity and
Support Order rendered by the Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement
Program (the Department). Gaut raises two points on appeal: (1) the Department erred
in determining his current child support and (2) the Department erred in determining his
retroactive child support. As explained below, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
We affirm on the first point inasmuch as the Department requested income
information from Gaut and provided him with notice advising him of his right to
participate and to request a hearing. Moreover, the Department correctly could and did
utilize available state wage information to calculate Gaut's current child support
obligation. See § 409.2563(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016) ("[T]he department may proceed on
the basis of information available from any source, if such information is sufficiently
reliable and detailed to allow calculation of guideline schedule amounts . . . .").
Because Gaut failed to provide income information or to participate in the proceedings
below, he cannot complain for the first time on appeal that the court utilized the
statutorily permissible methodology to calculate his current child support obligation.
In contrast, on the second point the Department acknowledges that it
incorrectly used Gaut's current child support obligation calculation to also determine his
retroactive obligation. Moreover, because the Department had state wage information
for the time period in which retroactive child support was due, and because the income
information for the two timeframes differed, "the Department ought not to [have]
ignore[d] the information in its own files" when it calculated Gaut's retroactive child
support due. Salters v. Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Mobley, 32 So. 3d 777, 778 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2010); see also § 61.30(17)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016).
Therefore, we affirm as to Gaut's current support obligation but reverse as
to Gaut's retroactive support obligation. We remand for the Department to recalculate
-2-
his retroactive child support obligation using the income information it has from the state
for that time period.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
CRENSHAW and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
-3-