RICHARD A. CASTILLO, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, 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.
Richard Castillo challenged the Department of Administration's dismissal of his petition for an administrative hearing as untimely filed. The court held that because the filing deadline is analogous to a statute of limitations subject to equitable considerations, and because disputed factual issues existed regarding whether Castillo complied with the deadline, the case should be remanded for a factfinding proceeding.
The court held that the filing deadline is not jurisdictional but analogous to a statute of limitations subject to equitable considerations, and because disputed facts existed regarding Castillo's compliance, the case must be remanded for a factfinding proceeding to allow the Agency to review the affidavits and consider his arguments.
[1] A filing deadline for an administrative hearing is not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable considerations.
[2] Equity requires a remand for a factfinding proceeding when the validity of agency action depends on disputed facts and the agency has not had an opportunity to consider r…
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“When there has been no hearing prior to agency action and the reviewing court finds that the validity of the action depends upon disputed facts, the court shall order the agency to conduct a prompt, factfinding proceeding under this act after having a reasonable opportunity to reconsider its determination on the record of the proceedings.”
Statutory basis for remand when disputed facts exist regarding validity of agency action
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCastillo sought benefits as a beneficiary of a deceased Florida Retirement System member. The Agency issued a final agency action letter denying his c…
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 Jurisdictional Nature Of Filing Deadlines cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant, Richard A. Castillo, Jr., challenges the Department of Administration’s (Agency) dismissal of his petition for an administrative hearing as untimely filed. We find that equity requires us to remand for a factfinding proceeding.
Appellant had sought benefits as a beneficiary of a recently deceased member of the Florida Retirement System. After discussions and correspondence with appellant concerning his claim, the Agency issued a “final agency action” letter denying appellant’s claim. The letter advised that appellant could request a hearing by filing a written petition for an administrative hearing within twenty-one days of his receipt of the final agency action letter. Appellant received the letter on December 11, 1990, and mailed his petition on December 31, 1990, twenty days later. Appellant attached an affidavit to his brief stating that he had called the Agency on December 31, and had been told by an employee of the Agency that posting within twenty-one days would satisfy the filing requirement. Appellant also attached the affidavit of his secretary, stating that she prepared the petition for mailing on December 31. However, these two affidavits were not before the Agency below when it dismissed appellant’s petition as untimely.
Under section 120.68(6), Florida Statutes (1989):
When there has been no hearing prior to agency action and the reviewing court finds that the validity of the action depends upon disputed facts, the court shall order the agency to conduct a prompt, factfinding proceeding under this act after having a reasonable opportunity to reconsider its determination on the record of the proceedings.
In view of the fact that the filing of such a notice is not jurisdictional (Machules v. Dep’t of Admin., 523 So. 2d 1132, n. 2 (Fla.1988)), but is analogous to statutes of limitation which are subject to equitable considerations, equity requires us to remand for a factfinding proceeding to allow the agency to review the affidavits and consider appellant’s arguments. See also Symons v. Dep’t of Banking, 490 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
HALL and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Marlyn Tracey v. Wells Fargo Bank, 264 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…s of fairness and due process, we reverse and remand to permit [Appellant] to appeal the order of repayment and to raise the merits of his eligibility for unemployment benefits as a defense to repayment."); Castillo v. Dep't of Admin., Div. of Ret., 593 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding that "equity requires us to remand for a factfinding proceeding to allow the agency to review the affidavits and consider appellant's arguments" concerning the dismissal of an administrative petition); Edelsburg v.…
-
McINTYRE v. Seminole Cnty. Sch. Bd., 779 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…there has been no hearing prior to agency action and the reviewing court finds that the validity of the action depends upon disputed facts.” Fla. Stat. § 120.68(7)(a) (emphasis added); see, e.g., Castillo v. Department of Admin., Div. of Retirement, 593 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). A teacher or contractual employee who can only be terminated for cause has a contractual property interest in his job. See Sublett v. District Sch. Bd. of Sumter County, 617 So. 2d 374, 377 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (citing McCr…
-
Vantage Healthcare Corp. v. Agency FOR Health Care Admin. & Manatee Springs Nursing Ctr., Inc., 687 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…al which was filed one day late. Phillip v. University of Florida, 680 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) was an appeal from the denial of a 120.57 hearing on the grounds that the petition had been untimely filed. In Castillo v. Dep’t of Administration, 593 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), the court reversed and remanded the denial of a petition for an administrative hearing. Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners v. Dep’t of Environmental Regulation, 587 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) also applied the doct…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- MacHules v. Dep't OF Admin., 523 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1988)
- Symons v. State, 490 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)