Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Mash v. Ingram
Decision Date | 10 May 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 1D12–2331.,1D12–2331. |
Citation | 112 So.3d 169 |
Parties | DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE o/b/o Lashawndria E. MASH, Appellant, v. Miguel D. INGRAM, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General and Toni C. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
No appearance for Appellee.
The Department of Revenue (DOR) appeals the final agency action setting the child support obligations of the father in this administrative support proceeding under section 409.2563, Florida Statutes. This case was previously before this court in Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Mash v. Ingram, 81 So.3d 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). The administrative support order in that case was reversed based on the ruling in Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Sherman v. Daly, 74 So.3d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), where this court held that section 61.30(11), Florida Statutes, did not provide authority to deviate from the statutory child support guidelines for equitable reasons when no documented parental time-sharing plan was in place. The order now on appeal is the final administrative support order upon remand.
On remand, the administrative law judge established the father's current child support obligation in accordance with the child support guidelines in section 61.30, Florida Statutes and no error in this calculation has been shown by the Department. However, the Department correctly argues that the calculation of the father's retroactive child support obligation erroneously included credit for his “in-kind contribution” of child-rearing responsibilities, in an amount of $352.00.
Section 61.30(17), Florida Statutes, requires the court to consider “actual payments made by a parent to the other parent or the child or third parties for the benefit of the child throughout the proposed retroactive period” in determining a retroactive child support obligation. § 61.30(17)(b), Fla. Stat. (2011). It is possible that gifts purchased for the benefit of the child might qualify as “actual payments ... for the benefit of the child” as contemplated by section 61.30(17). Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Soto v. Soto, 28 So.3d 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). However, there is no provision in the statute allowing credit for “in-kind contribution of child-rearing responsibilities” to be applied to a retroactive child support obligation, as the administrative law judge ordered in this case. Because retroactive child support is a creature of statute, calculations, including credits, are governed solely by the provisions of the statute and the administrative tribunal has no inherent authority to fashion an equitable remedy not specifically provided for in the applicable legislative enactment. See Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Sherman v. Daly, 74 So.3d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) ( ); Kern v. Kern, 360 So.2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) ().
The concept of crediting one parent's retroactive child support obligation with a monetary value for days and nights spent with the child in a proportion indicating that the child “visited” that parent is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dep't of Revenue v. Wignal
...Tallahassee, for Appellant.Shaun Wignal, pro se, Appellee.PER CURIAM. REVERSED and REMANDED. See Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Mash v. Ingram, 112 So.3d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and MARSTILLER, JJ.,...