cash assistance, but not to exceed the total amount of temporary cash assistance provided to the family,” and “the excess will be mailed to the obligee.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 12E-1.014(5)(d)l. Accord 42 U.S.C. § 657(a)(l)-(2). Initially, the Department claims that the trial court erred in restricting its ability to intercept or retain appellee’s future IRS tax refund under TRIP because the interception of any future IRS tax refund was not properly pled or noticed for hearing. We agree that the lack of a proper pleading or notice to the Department precluded the trial court from restricting the Department’s ability to intercept or retain appellee’s future IRS tax refund under TRIP. See State Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. ex rel. Davis v. Canady, 473 So.2d 273, 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (<HOLDING>). See also Geiger v. Geiger, 632 So.2d 693, 696
holding that child support arrearages may not be included in a chapter 13 plan holding the amount imposed to reduce child support arrearages must be reasonable holding that the trial court erred in the absence of a proper pleading in cancelling child support arrearages and in ordering the department to amend its income tax refund interception certificate holding that the trial court had erred in imposing an obligation to pay child support when clear and convincing evidence established that the husband was not the father of the child holding that because the amount of the debtors obligation to the government exceeded the amount of their income tax refund the refund did not become property of the estate and could not be exempted