Gaut v. Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Prog., 220 So. 3d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). · Go Syfert
Search
Gaut v. Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Prog., 220 So. 3d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Rouson, Sr. v. Department of Revenue, Jacson (fladistctapp, 2025-01-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rouson, Sr. v. Department of Revenue, Jacson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
In determining retroactive child support, "[t]he court shall apply the guidelines schedule in effect at the time of the hearing subject to the obligor's demonstration of his or her actual income . . . during the retroactive period." § 61.30(17)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023); see also Gaut v. Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Program, 220 So. 3d 552, 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (stating that if available, the DOR must use state wage information for the retroactive time period in calculating retroactive child support); Salters v. Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Program ex rel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rouson, Sr. v. Department of Revenue, Jacson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence medium
In determining retroactive child support, "[t]he court shall apply the guidelines schedule in effect at the time of the hearing subject to the obligor's demonstration of his or her actual income . . . during the retroactive period." § 61.30(17)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023); see also Gaut v. Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Program, 220 So. 3d 552, 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (stating that if available, the Department must use state wage information for the retroactive time period in calculating retroactive child support); Salters v. Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Program ex rel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." RAYMOND FELICIANO v. DEPT. OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT and STEFFANIE DANIELLE CACCIATORE
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Gillislee v. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue, 150 So. 3d 294 , 294–95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (holding that the failure to properly calculate retroactive support payments constituted fundamental error); see also Gaut v. Dep’t of Revenue, Child Support Enf’t Program, 220 So. 3d 552, 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (reversing based on the improper calculation of retroactive child support despite the appellant’s failure to “participate in the proceedings”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Christopher Joseph GAUT, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, and Rachelle Dawn Hansen, Appellee
Case 2D16-1619.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Jun 9, 2017.
220 So. 3d 552
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, Crenshaw, Badalamenti.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
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 time-frames 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 his retroactive child support obligation us[*554] ing 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.