FULL CIRCLE SERVICE, INC., AND THE AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
BERRY INVESTMENT GROUP, D/B/A THE BERRY RANCH, 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.
Full Circle Service and Aetna appealed a final order from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services adopting a hearing officer's recommended order in favor of Berry Investment Group. The Florida appellate court found the department erred by failing to address appellants' exceptions to the recommended order as required by administrative rules, and reversed and remanded accordingly.
The department erred by failing to address the appellants' exceptions in the final order as required by rule 28-5.405(3), Florida Administrative Code, which mandates an explicit ruling on each exception and a brief statement of grounds for denying an exception.
[1] An administrative agency must explicitly rule on each exception filed by a party to a recommended order and provide a brief statement of the grounds for denying any excep…
[2] Failure of an administrative agency to address timely filed exceptions to a recommended order constitutes reversible error.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Under rule 28-5.405(3), 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.”
Establishes the mandatory procedural requirement that the department violated
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBerry Investment Group filed a complaint against Full Circle Service, Inc. and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company pursuant to section 604.21, Florida Sta…
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 Final Agency Order cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellants, Full Circle Service, Inc. and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, challenge a final order of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (the department). We find merit in one of the appellants’ contentions and, accordingly, reverse.
The appellee, Berry Investment Group, doing business as The Berry Ranch, filed a complaint against the appellants pursuant to section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1985). At the conclusion of an administrative hearing, a hearing officer entered a recommended order in favor of the appellee. The department subsequently entered a final order adopting the recommended order in its entirety. Although the appellants filed timely exceptions to the recommended order, the department’s order did not address these exceptions. This timely appeal followed. We find no merit in appellants’ contentions that the department’s order failed to include legally sufficient findings of fact or conclusions of law, that the department’s order is not supported by substantial competent evidence, and that the department improperly rejected their defense of set-off. We agree, however, that the department erred by failing to address the appellants’ exceptions in the final order. Under rule 28-5.405(3), 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Full Circle Serv. v. Dep't OF Agric. Bureau OF License & Bond & Berry Inv. Grp., 556 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…n a separate judicial proceeding. We previously remanded this case to the Department for the purpose of including in its final order a ruling on exceptions and the reasons for denying exceptions. Full Circle Service, Inc. v. Berry Investment Group, 535 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). At that time we ruled that the Department had not improperly rejected Full Circle’s claim of set-off. Since that issue was previously adjudicated, it is the law of the case. Greene v. Massey, 384 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1980). The Depart…
Authorities Cited
- Lloyd v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 473 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)