MARCOS D. HERNANDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING, 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.
Hernandez challenges the Department of State's denial of his request for a formal hearing on his application for an upgraded repossessor license. The court holds that when an applicant denies material allegations in the Department's denial decision, disputed issues of fact exist requiring an evidentiary hearing as a matter of due process.
An applicant is entitled to a formal administrative hearing when he denies material factual allegations underlying the Department's license denial decision. The applicant need not relitigate his prior conviction; denying the allegations supporting the Department's denial raises disputed issues of fact and law requiring an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A party seeking to upgrade a license is entitled to a formal hearing when they dispute the underlying allegations forming the basis of the licensing authority's denial.
[2] A licensing authority's summary denial of a hearing on matters of disputed fact violates fundamental due process.
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“By denying the Department's allegations, Hernandez has raised issues of law and fact which require an evidentiary hearing.”
Establishes that denial of factual allegations creates disputed material facts requiring a hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHernandez held a class 'EE' repossessor intern license and sought an upgrade. The Department denied the upgrade based on Hernandez's felony conviction…
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
GERSTEN, Judge.
Marcos D. Hernandez appeals from a final administrative order denying him a formal hearing after being refused a repos-sessor license. For the following reasons, we reverse.
Hernandez holds a class “EE” reposses-sor intern license. When Hernandez sought to upgrade his license, the Department of State, Division of Licensing (Department) denied him the upgraded license on the grounds that Hernandez had a felony conviction and had made a fraudulent or willful misrepresentation in his application for a license.
Hernandez then filed a request for a formal hearing which, inter alia, specifically refuted both the allegation of fraud or willful misrepresentation in his application for a license, and “any and all of the allegations” in the Department’s denial of his application. The Department denied Hernandez’ request for a hearing, stating that Hernandez had failed to “question the circumstances surrounding his conviction” and because “there were no disputed issues of material fact”.
The Department relies on McGraw v. Department of State, Division of Licensing, 491 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), for its contention that Hernandez is not entitled to a formal hearing. In McGraw, the appellant-applicant admitted to having been convicted, of a felony but sought to present exculpatory evidence. The First District Court of Appeal, construing section 493.-319(8), Florida Statutes (1987), found “[t]o the extent that appellant sought to reliti-gate the question of his guilt regarding the subject offense,” a hearing was improper. McGraw, 491 So. 2d at 1195.
We find McGraw to be inapplicable to the instant case because in this case the applicant has not sought to relitigate his prior conviction but, instead, has denied the underlying allegations that form the basis of the Department’s decision to deny him an upgraded license. By denying the Department’s allegations, Hernandez has raised issues of law and fact which require an evidentiary hearing. The Department’s denial of a license, and, its summary denial of a hearing on matters of disputed fact, is anathema to fundamental due process and the most basic of rights — a fair hearing. Where there are matters of disputed fact, a hearing is required. Village Saloon, Inc. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation, 463 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); City of Jacksonville Beach v. Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, 371 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
The final order denying a formal administrative hearing is reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Michael Spuza, M.D. v. Dep't OF Health & Bd. of Med., 838 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…r mental condition”). We conclude that Spuza raised questions of law and fact that required an evidentiary hearing. The Department erred in denying him the formal hearing he so adamantly requested. See Hernandez v. Dept, of State, Div. of Licensing, 546 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In addition, at the informal hearing before the Board, material disputes of fact arose concerning whether Spuza’s crimes warranted the penalty the Board imposed. Spuza’s counsel argued that Spuza’s crimes had not caused any harm…
-
Gopman v. Dep't of Educ., 908 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…facts in dispute between the parties. See Spuza v. Dep’t of Health, 838 So. 2d 676, 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Mixon v. Dep’t of [*1123] State, Div. of Licensing, 686 So. 2d 755, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Hernandez v. Dep’t of State, Div. of Licensing, 546 So. 2d 1174, 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). At a formal hearing, too, DOE could have articulated and elucidated the non-rule policy it deems determinative here. See Rice v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 386 So. 2d 844, 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (“The princip…
Authorities Cited
- Vill. Saloon, Inc. v. Division OF Alcoholic Beverages AND Tobacco, 463 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- McGRAW v. Dep't of State, 491 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- City OF Jacksonville Beach v. Fla. Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n & Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 371 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)