Davis v. Department of Revenue , 221 So. 3d 790 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
    MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
    IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    OF FLORIDA
    SECOND DISTRICT
    HERLEY DAVIS,                                 )
    )
    Appellant,                      )
    )
    v.                                            )         Case No. 2D16-1658
    )
    DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE                         )
    O/B/O MELISSA ANN BARTELL,                    )
    )
    Appellee.                       )
    )
    Opinion filed July 14, 2017.
    Appeal from the Department of Revenue.
    Herley Davis, pro se.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and
    Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant
    Attorney General, Tallahassee,
    for Appellee Department of Revenue
    No appearance for Appellee Melissa Ann
    Bartell.
    PER CURIAM.
    Herley Davis appeals a final administrative paternity and support order
    entered by the Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program. We have
    jurisdiction. See § 120.68, Fla. Stat. (2016); Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(C), .110(a)(2).
    In its answer brief, the Department concludes with a concession of error regarding its
    method of calculating Mr. Davis's income for purposes of his child support obligation. It
    is unclear from our review of the limited record what that error would have been given
    the information the Department had before it and Mr. Davis's failure to participate at any
    point in the proceedings below. Thus, we decline to accept the Department's
    concession. Cf. Hinckley v. Dep't of Revenue, ex rel. K.A.C.H., 
    927 So. 2d 73
    , 74 (Fla.
    2d DCA 2006) (recognizing the Department's concession of error but dismissing on
    other grounds); Gonzalez v. Dep't of Health, 
    124 So. 3d 449
    , 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
    ("A confession of error . . . is not binding upon an appellate court, and it is the practice
    of Florida appellate courts not to accept erroneous concessions . . . ." (first alteration in
    original) (quoting Perry v. State, 
    808 So. 2d 268
    , 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002))). As Mr.
    Davis never challenged the Department's method of calculating his child support
    obligation, he failed to preserve that issue for our review. See Duggan v. Dep't of
    Revenue, ex rel. Huff, 
    197 So. 3d 631
    , 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding that, in appeal
    of final administrative support order, the appellant "waived and failed to preserve most
    of his appellate arguments after ignoring the process offered below"); Macias v. Dep't of
    Revenue, ex rel. Garcia, 
    16 So. 3d 985
    , 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding that a father
    could not "seek modification of a Final Administrative Support Order on appeal by
    presenting facts that were not initially presented to the administrative law judge").
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    Affirmed.
    KELLY, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2D16-1658

Citation Numbers: 221 So. 3d 790

Filed Date: 7/14/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023