ELLIOT L. MILLER, D/B/A CAMELOT APARTMENTS, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, 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.
Miller challenged an administrative order denying him a formal hearing and imposing a $300 civil fine for apartment violations. The court affirmed the Division's decision, holding that Miller failed to identify disputed issues of material fact necessary to trigger his right to a formal hearing under Florida law.
Miller was not entitled to a formal hearing because he failed to establish the existence of disputed issues of material fact. A general denial of the agency's findings is insufficient; the appellant must specifically identify factual disputes to trigger the right to a formal hearing.
[1] A party is not entitled to a formal administrative hearing if they fail to demonstrate the existence of disputed issues of material fact.
[2] An administrative agency may assess a civil penalty when violations of its rules are not corrected after notice and an opportunity to show cause.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Appellant seeks review of an order of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants which denied him a formal hearing on certain violations of department rules and which assessed a civil fine of $300.”
Establishes the nature of Miller's appeal and the two components of the Division's order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller owned an apartment in Hialeah, Florida that had minor housing violations. After receiving notice, Miller did not correct the violations and rec…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an order of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants which denied him a formal hearing on certain violations of department rules and which assessed a civil fine of $300.
The appellant was notified by certified mail of certain minor violations existing in an apartment he owned in Hialeah, Florida. The violations were not corrected and a notice to show cause was issued. The matter was set for an informal hearing at which time the inspector’s report indicated the corrections had not been made. The representative of the Division insisted that a civil penalty be assessed. Thereafter, the appellant’s counsel wrote the Division requesting a formal hearing. In the letter it was stated that the violations had been corrected but the question of a civil penalty could not be resolved. The Division requested the appellant advise it of any disputed issues of material fact so as to determine whether he was entitled to a formal hearing. In response the appellant stated, “that the agency had decided that certain violations existed which justify some administrative action. The respondent denies such.” When the appellant filed nothing further to show the existence of disputed issues of fact the Division entered the order appealed. The appellant challenged the order appealed contending said order was entered without affording him a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1983) and his request therefor. The appellee contended that inasmuch as the appellant failed to show the existence of disputed issues of fact he was not enti- tied to a formal hearing, citing Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) and United States Service Industries-Florida v. State, 383 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
We agree with the Division of Hotels and Restaurants and the order under review is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. J. W. C. Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- United States Serv. Industries-Florida v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 383 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)