NAOMI D. WINBUSH, APPELLANT,
v.
SCHOOL BOARD OF OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
Naomi Winbush, a school administrator, appealed the School Board's denial of her grievance regarding contract salary terms, specifically a disputed "grandfather" provision. The court reversed and remanded because the School Board failed to issue required findings of fact and conclusions of law, despite the contract being substantially ambiguous.
The School Board's final order must be reversed and remanded because it failed to include required findings of fact and conclusions of law as mandated by section 120.59, Florida Statutes. The School Board cannot claim the contract is unambiguous on its face; it is in fact extremely unclear, requiring the Board to make factual findings supported by the record to sustain its decision.
[1] An administrative agency's final order must contain findings of fact and conclusions of law to be legally sufficient.
[2] An agency's failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law is not harmless error when the underlying contract provisions are ambiguous.
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“Although our review of the record leads us to conclude there is competent substantial evidence in the record that would support the decision reached by the School Board, we are also bound to agree with appellant that the School Board failed to render a proper order and that this failure requires reversal.”
Establishes that procedural defects in issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law require reversal even when the underlying decision may be substantively supported.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNaomi Winbush was the Coordinator of Special Programs under a multiyear contract with the Osceola County School System. The dispute centered on a "gra…
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 Contract Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
[*466] GRIFFIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final order of the School Board of Osceola County (the “School Board”) denying a grievance filed by appellant, Naomi Winbush, the Coordinator of Special Programs for the Osceola County School System. The dispute between appellant and the School Board concerns the terms of her multiyear “Contract of Employment for Principals, Supervisors and Professional Administrative Assistants” (the “Contract”), specifically whether a “grandfather” provision in the Contract guaranteed her a director’s salary for the entire term of the Contract or only for the first year.
Appellant contends that the School Board incorrectly interpreted the Contract so that she was paid less than she was owed for the second and third years of employment under the Contract. She also contends the School Board erred in failing to issue any findings of fact and conclusions of law in denying her grievance after conducting an evidentiary hearing. Although our review of the record leads us to conclude there is competent substantial evidence in the record that would support the decision reached by the School Board, we are also bound to agree with appellant that the School Board failed to render a proper order and that this failure requires reversal.
The School Board concedes that the Final Order does not set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by section 120.59, Florida Statutes, but argues that the omission is harmless because the Contract provisions at issue are unambiguous. The School Board urges that no findings of fact would be appropriate since the Contract is clear on its face and the only legal conclusion essential to support denial of appellant’s grievance, i.e., which salary index to use, is self-evident. Unfortunately, we cannot agree with the School Board’s premise that the Contract is clear on its face; it is extremely unclear. The School Board is, therefore, bound to make the necessary factual findings, supported by the record, that will sustain the decision reached in its Final Order. Cf. Bass v. Gilchrist County School Board, 438 So. 2d 100, 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); see also Ford v. Bay County School Board, 246 So. 2d 119, 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).
Accordingly, we reverse the Final Order and remand to the School Board for entry of a Final Order consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gladyce Inez Ford v. BAY Cnty. Sch. Bd., 246 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Bass v. Gilchrist Cnty. Sch. Bd., 438 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)