Can DOR Be Prohibited From Intercepting a Tax Refund to Pay Past Due Child Support?

Florida's First District Court of Appeals looked at this issue in the case of DOR v. Baker decided on December 31, 2009. In that case the Father owed over $26,000.00 in past due support. Nonetheless he had convinced the lower court to prohibit the Department of Revenue (DOR) from intercepting all but $1,000.00 of his federal income tax refund. He had also prevailed in his request to claim the dependency exemption over the Department's objection. The higher court reversed the lower court stating that the Father had not (1) properly presented his claim, (2) had not properly noticed the Department, (3) had not used up all potential administrative remedies and (4) that his request was premature. Moreover the appellate court found that in all events the Father was still not entitled to the relief given him because the trial court could not lawfully place any restrictions on the power delegated by federal law to DOR relating to interception and retention of tax refunds.

Can I Get Advance Permission from the Court to Relocate?

That sounds like a good idea for those "forward thinking" people who like to plan well in advance like me but the legal answer seems to be no. The Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling on January 14, 2010 in Arthur v. Arthur, SC08-1675 that runs contrary to this thought process.

In this case the trial court had awarded the mother primary custody of the parties' 16-month-old child. The mother had requested permission to move to Michigan with the child and the trial court agreed with the request, but only when the child turned three, finding that the child needed more time to bond with the Father. The Father appealed and the Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's order. The Father than appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.

The Florida Supreme Court found that the trial court was required to make findings as to what is in the child's best interests at the time of the trial not based on future possibilities. The Court further held that the lower court was incapable of predicting whether a future relocation, months or years in the future, would be in the child's best interests at that time. The Court instructed the trial court to remove the relocation provision. In their holding the Court indicated that the Mother is able to seek to relocate in the future by filing a modification action, but any modification action would be governed the two-part substantial change test. That test requires the movant must show both that (1) the circumstances have substantially, materially changed since the original custody determination and (2) that the child's best interests justify changing custody. Furthermore, the substantial change must be one that was not reasonably contemplated at the time of the original Court Order.

When might "Nominal Alimony" be awarded?

This question was answered by Florida's 1st District Court of Appeal in November of last year in the case of Welch v. Welch. This opinion was written to replace and clarify the Court's earlier ruling. The facts of this case are: The parties had a 23-year marriage with the Husband earning $140,000 per year in income and the Wife earning $85,000 per year in income. The Wife had requested permanent periodic alimony but the trial court awarded the Wife nominal alimony of $1.00 per year instead. The Wife appealed the case and argued, in part, that there was insufficient evidence to support the lower court's determination that she earned $85,000. The appellate court upheld the lower court's ruling stating that the lower court had not abused it's discretion. Abuse of discretion is the standard of review. The higher court looked to the statutory definition of income, the evidence before the trial court (including the Wife's 2007 income, a forensic accountant's testimony, evidence of a cost of living increase, etc...) and found that there was substantial evidence in support of the lower court's decision.