DONALD L. LLOYD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, 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.
The court held that the Florida Real Estate Commission erred by failing to rule on exceptions filed by the licensee and explain its reasoning.
A real estate salesman's license was revoked based on a recommended order. The Commission adopted the order but did not explicitly rule on the license…
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 License Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lloyd appeals an order from the Florida Real Estate Commission which revoked his real estate salesman’s license. We believe only one of Lloyd’s contentions has merit, and on that point we reverse and remand.
A hearing officer from the Department of Administrative Hearings filed a recom mended order urging that Lloyd’s salesman’s license be revoked for violating section 475.25(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1979). The Florida Real Estate Commission adopted the recommended order in its entirety and ordered Lloyd’s license revoked. In so doing, however, the Commission failed to comply with Rule 28-5-405(3), Florida Administrative Code (1983) which requires it to rule on exceptions filed by a party and requires the commission to state with particularity its reasons for so ruling. See also, Pelham v. Superintendant of School Board, etc., 436 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Consequently, we remand this case and instruct the Commission to expressly rule on the exceptions submitted by Lloyd, and explain the grounds relied on in the event it rejects those exceptions. We have examined Lloyd’s other allegations of error and find they are without merit.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HURLEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Earl B. Britt, M.D. v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 492 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…der are filed the agency’s final order “shall include an explicit idling on each exception....” An agency’s failure to comply with this rule may necessitate reversal and remand of the agency order. See Lloyd v. Department of Professional Regulation, 473 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). In Iturralde v. Department of Professional Regulation, 484 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), this court determined that an agency’s statement that exceptions were rejected because “the evidence in the record supports the hearing…
-
Iturralde v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 484 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…necessary. It is clear from the record on appeal that the Board specifically decided against expressly ruling on Iturralde’s exceptions. Rule 28-5.405(3) does not allow the Board that luxury. See also Lloyd v. Department of Professional Regulation, 473 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Consequently, we remand the final order to the Board of Medical Examiners to expressly rule on the exceptions submitted by Iturralde. Because of this disposition, we do not reach Iturralde’s other allegations of error. Reverse…
-
Full Circle Serv., Inc. v. Berry Inv. Grp., 535 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…, Florida Administrative Code (1985), the department was required to include in its final order an explicit ruling on each exception as well as a brief statement of the grounds for denying an exception. See Lloyd v. Dep’t of Professional Regulation, 473 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Since the department’s final order does not comply with these requirements, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent herewith. Reversed and remanded with instructions. SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Lifschitz v. Filomena Troccoli and Emilio Troccoli, 436 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)