FIRST UNION CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER, 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.
First Union Corporation appealed a department letter regarding compliance with a prior declaratory statement, but the court dismissed the appeal because First Union was improperly attempting a collateral attack on the declaratory statement itself, for which the time to appeal had expired.
The court held that First Union may not appeal the department's letter because doing so would constitute an impermissible collateral attack on the declaratory statement, which constituted final agency action that was timely reviewable but for which First Union failed to seek review within the statutory period.
[1] A party may not collaterally attack a final agency declaratory statement by appealing a subsequent agency letter that merely references the prior statement.
[2] A party must appeal a final agency action within the statutory time limit and cannot unilaterally extend the review period through subsequent negotiations with the agency…
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“The declaratory statement constituted final agency action and was reviewable by petition to this court.”
Establishes that the declaratory statement was a final agency action subject to timely review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1988, First Union filed a petition for a declaratory statement with the Department of Insurance. The department issued a declaratory statement on A…
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 Declaratory Statement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellee, the department of insurance (the department), moves to dismiss this appeal arguing that appellant is seeking to improperly collaterally attack a declaratory statement issued by the department. We agree and grant the motion to dismiss.
In 1988, appellant filed with the department a petition for declaratory statement. The department filed the requested declaratory statement on August 5, 1988, and when appellant sought clarification, the department filed an amended declaratory statement on September 2, 1988. The department informed appellant of its right to appeal within 30 days, however, no appeal was taken. Appellant then sent the department a proposed marketing plan to determine whether it was in compliance with the declaratory statement. The department answered by letter dated September 27, 1989, stating that “all activities presented in your proposed marketing plan which are consistent with the amended declaratory statement are acceptable, and those proposed activities which are inconsistent with the declaratory statement are unacceptable.” Appellant then filed a notice of administrative appeal of the department’s letter. The department now moves to dismiss this appeal, arguing that the letter is not final agency action, but directs appellant to refer to the declaratory statement. The department states that appellant should not be able to resurrect the opportunity for judicial review of the declaratory statement where appellant failed to take an appeal from the final agency action.
Finally, the department argues that the declaratory statement should not now be subjected to collateral attack by way of appellant’s appeal of the department’s letter.
We agree. The declaratory statement constituted final agency action and was reviewable by petition to this court. State Dep’t. of Health and Rehab. Serv. v. Barr, 359 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Appellant may not unilaterally extend the time for review of a final declaratory statement by engaging in extended negotiations with the agency.
Appellant seeks to improperly collaterally review the declaratory statement when the time to petition for review has long passed. Law v. Florida Parole and Probation Comm’n., 411 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
The motion to dismiss is granted.
SHIVERS, C.J., and WENTWORTH and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Samuel Barr, M.D., 359 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Honeycutt v. State, 359 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Thearthur LAW v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 411 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)