ROBERT M. BRAKE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS 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.
Robert Brake appealed a decision by the Unemployment Appeals Commission that rejected his request for rehearing as untimely. The court held that a properly addressed, stamped, and mailed letter is presumed to have been received, and that Brake's testimony about his office mailing practices was sufficient to trigger this presumption, requiring the Commission to consider the merits of his appeal.
A letter properly addressed, stamped, and mailed is presumed to have been received by the addressee. Brake's testimony regarding his customary office practice was sufficient to trigger this presumption, and absent evidence to overcome it, the Unemployment Appeals Commission should have entertained the appeal and reached the merits of the case.
[1] A letter properly addressed, stamped, and mailed is presumed to have been received by the addressee.
[2] Proof of mailing is generally satisfied by proof of general office practices.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a letter properly addressed, stamped and mailed is presumed to have been received by the addressee”
Establishes the central legal principle that the court applied to reverse the Commission's decision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrake submitted a request for rehearing to the Unemployment Appeals Commission, which the Commission rejected as untimely. Brake testified regarding h…
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 Proof Of Mailing cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
We reverse and remand upon a holding that a letter properly addressed, stamped and mailed is presumed to have been received by the addressee. Brown v. Griffen Industries, Inc., 281 So. 2d 897 (Fla.1973) (on rehearing); Home Insurance Co. v. C & G Sporting Goods, Inc., 453 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Berwick v. Prudential Property & Casualty Assurance Co., 436 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Proof of mailing is generally satisfied by proof of general office practices. Brown; Home Insurance; Berwick.
*
Brake’s testimony regarding his customary office practice was sufficient to trigger the presumption that his request for rehearing was timely received. Brown; Home Insurance; Berwick. The appeals referee heard no evidence to overcome this presumption. We therefore hold that the Unemployment Appeals Commission should have entertained the appeal and reached the merits of the case. Accordingly, we remand the cause for further proceedings to allow the Department of Labor and Employment Security to correct any apparent error in its records and to remove any inappropriate charges against Brake’s account.
Reversed and remanded.
*
But see Colonnades, Inc. v. Florida Department of Commerce, 357 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCa 1978) (evidence of office practice of Department of Commerce not sufficient to raise presumption of mailing of adverse determination precluding employer from entitlement to hearing); State v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 351 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (no presumption of mailing attached to adverse determination letter allegedly sent to claimant, and claimant not precluded from appealing decision).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Getelman v. Burton R. Levey, 481 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…d in the mail creates a presumption of receipt and that proof of general office practice satisfies the requirement of showing due mailing. Brown v. Giffen Industries, Inc., 281 So. 2d 897 (Fla.1973); Brake v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 473 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Berwick v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 436 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).3 Fourth, Mr. Getelman contends the trial court gave contradictory instructions in that two different standards were given for the meas…
-
Burt v. Hudson & Keyse, LLC, 138 So. 3d 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…d no proof that it mailed the letter, such as a return receipt, an affidavit swearing the letter was actually mailed to Burt, or proof of regular business practices. See id., 656 So. 2d at 274; Brake v. State of Florida, Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 473 So. 2d 774, 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Because Burt swore in her affidavit that she did not receive notice of the assignment, an issue of fact was created as to whether the notice was actually sent. See Camerota v. Kaufman, 666 So. 2d 1042, 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 199…
-
Reddick v. Globe Life & Accident Ins. Co., 575 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…concurs. ALLEN, J., dissents with written opinion. . The deposit acceptance rule provides that an acceptance of an offer is deemed effective as of [*211] the date of its deposit in the mail. See Brake v. State of Fla., Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 473 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. Giffen Indus., Inc., 281 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1973)
- Home Ins. Co. & N. River Ins. Co. as subrogees for Athlone Indus., Inc. v. C & G Sporting Goods, Inc., 453 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Berwick v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 436 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- State of Fla. ex rel. William M. Owra v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 351 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Colonnades, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Commerce, 357 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)