ALACHUA COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Alachua County challenged the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' summary dismissal of its petition for a refund of delinquent fees collected during an abolished motor vehicle inspection program. The court found the department's jurisdiction denial insufficiently supported and remanded for proper administrative proceedings.
The court held that the department's summary dismissal lacked sufficient factual foundation and legal explanation, and that disputed issues of material fact existed necessitating a hearing. The department must conduct a proper Section 120.57(1) administrative proceeding, create an adequate record, and enter a proper order.
[1] An administrative agency may not summarily dismiss a petition for relief based on a finding of lack of jurisdiction without a sufficient factual basis in the record and a…
[2] An agency's reliance on materials not included in the official record on appeal is improper and may lead to reversal.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The protections embodied in the administrative law system are thwarted when, as here, an agency abandons its jurisdictional responsibilities with findings based upon insufficient facts and unexplained legal conclusions.”
Establishes the core legal principle that agencies cannot summarily dismiss petitions without adequate factual support and clear legal reasoning
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlachua County collected 'delinquent fees' during a motor vehicle inspection program that was abolished by the Florida legislature in 1981. The county…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Disputed Issues Of Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Alachua County presents for our review two department orders, consolidated in this appeal, which summarily dismissed the county’s petitions for relief upon the department’s finding that it “lacks jurisdiction” to consider the petitions. Because of deficiencies in the record and in the orders, we remand.
The subject of this litigation is money collected by the county as “delinquent fees” during the motor vehicle inspection program that was abolished by the Florida legislature in 1981. These funds were apparently sent to the department as required by Section 325.24, Florida Statutes (1979). The county, invoking Section 120.57(1), petitioned the department for a refund. Essentially, the department responded that it did not have jurisdiction because it had already sent the money into the state’s general revenue fund and because there is no statutory authority for the department to make refunds. The orders have impliedly found that the county’s only remedy must lie in the Comptroller’s office pursuant to Chapter 215.
Without belaboring the point, we cannot determine that the department’s position has foundation in the record. The county has convincingly argued that disputed issues of material fact exist, necessitating a hearing. The inadequacy of the record has been demonstrated during this appeal; the department relies heavily on an “appendix” which accompanies its brief but which contains no material that was contained in the record on appeal. See Section 120.57(l)(b)5 and (2)(b); Fla.R.App.P. 9.220.
The protections embodied in the administrative law system are thwarted when, as here, an agency abandons its jurisdictional responsibilities with findings based upon insufficient facts and unexplained legal conclusions.
Accordingly, we remand so the department may have an opportunity to conduct a Section 120.57(1) proceeding, create a proper record, and enter a proper order. We recognize that the county has also sought its refund through the office of the Comptroller and a hearing on the matter is now scheduled in the Department of Administrative Hearings. For the sake of quasi-judicial economy, we suggest that the parties consolidate their dispute so the county may finally have a forum for an airing of the facts and law pertaining to this case.
The order of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is vacated and remanded.
SHIVERS and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Friends OF THE Hatchineha, Inc. v. State, 580 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…orms of relief may be available to an affected party, i.e., a section 120.57 hearing or a section 403.412 enforcement proceeding, does not foreclose appellant from using either avenue. Alachua County v. Florida Dep’t of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 417 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (case remanded on the issue of entitlement to section 120.57 hearing even though another potential remedy was available via the comptroller’s office). REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to grant appellant’s petition for a for…
-
Frederick Mann, D.D.S. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 585 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ate, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 391 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); and AGO 88-40. We find that the final order is ambiguous and remand to the board for further proceedings. See Alachua County v. Department of Highway Safety, 417 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The final order in this case may be read and interpreted in two distinct ways. The first interpretation would be that the board is totally devoid of jurisdiction to modify previously rendered disciplinary orders.2 The second in…1 / 2
-
Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. of Ind. v. Dep't OF Ins., 626 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…gulation, Board of Dentistry, 585 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Schiffman v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Pharmacy, 581 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Alachua County v. Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 417 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); General Development Corporation v. Division of State Planning, Department of Administration, 353 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In view of the facts accepted by the department in its August 10 letter (see note 2 supra), we bel…