STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, PETITIONER,
v.
VINCENT ROBERT FUGETT, SR., RESPONDENT
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.
Florida's First District Court of Appeal quashed an ALJ's recommended order granting an insurance agent license application by operation of law under the default provision, holding that the ALJ violated due process by raising and deciding the default issue sua sponte without allowing the parties to present evidence or argument.
An ALJ violates due process when raising and deciding a default issue sua sponte after the final hearing without affording the parties an opportunity to present evidence and argument.
[1] An administrative law judge violates due process by raising and deciding a default issue sua sponte after the final hearing without providing the parties an opportunity t…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 ALJ, who sua sponte raised and decided the issue of default after the final hearing without giving the parties an opportunity to present evidence and/or argument, departed from the essential requirements of law by denying DFS due process”
Court's explanation of why the ALJ's conduct violated due process requirements
The Department of Financial Services opposed Respondent Fugett's application for an insurance agent license. An ALJ conducted a final hearing on the 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 Default Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Department of Financial Services (DFS) petitions this court for review of a non-final order entered by an administrative law judge (ALJ) of the Department of Administrative Hearings, recommending that DFS enter a final order determining that Respondent’s application to be licensed as an insurance agent “has been granted by operation of law” under the default provision of section 120.60(1), Florida Statutes. We have jurisdiction to review a non-final administrative order under section 120.68(1), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.190(b)(2) when review of the final agency action would not provide an adequate remedy. We have stated that, the scope of review in such a matter “is analogous to and no broader than the right of review by common law certiorari,” see Charlotte County v. Gen. Dev. Utilities, Inc., 658 So. 2d 1081, 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
We find that the ALJ, who sua sponte raised and decided the issue of default after the final hearing without giving the parties an opportunity to present evidence and/or argument, departed from the essential requirements of law by denying DFS due process, for which the remedy of appeal following the conclusion of the administrative proceedings will be inadequate. The challenged recommended order is therefore QUASHED, and the case is REMANDED to the ALJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ERVIN, BARFIELD, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
CNL Resort Hotel, L.P. v. City OF Doral, 991 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…remedy. See also [*420] Fla. Const. Art. V, § 4(b)(2); Fla. R.App. P. 9.100(a), (c). The scope of review in this type of matter is “analogous to, and no broader than the right of review by common law certiorari.” Fla. Dep’t of Fin. Servs. v. Fugett, 946 So. 2d 80, 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (citing Charlotte County v. Gen. Dev. Utils., Inc., 653 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)). On certiorari review, a petitioner must demonstrate that the lower court “departed from the essential requirements of the law, thereby…
-
State v. Alfred Ivan Murciano, M.D., 163 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…ncy action under section 120.68(1) “ ‘is analogous to, and no broader than the right of review by common law certiorari.’ ” CNL Resort Hotel, L.P. v. City of Doral, 991 So. 2d 417, 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (quoting Fla. Dep’t of Fin. Servs. v. Fugett, 946 So. 2d 80, 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)). “On certiorari review, a petitioner must demon [*665] strate that the lower court ‘departed from the essential requirements of the law, thereby causing irreparable injury which cannot be adequately remedied on appeal follow…
-
Fla. Power & Light Co. & FPL Emp. Intervenor v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 31 So. 3d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…9.100, 9.190; see also Fla. Soc’y of Newspaper Editors, 543 So. 2d at 1267. However, our scope of review on appeal over a non-final order is analogous to and no broader than review by common law certiorari. See State, Dep’t of Fin. Servs. v. Fugett, 946 So. 2d 80, 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Charlotte County v. Gen. Dev. Utils., Inc., 653 So. 2d 1081, 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Thus, Petitioners must demonstrate that the orders on review depart from the essential requirements of the law and cause material injury…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence