ARMANDO CESAR SANTANA, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, 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.
Armando Santana appealed the Florida Department of Financial Services' denial of his application for licensure as a resident title insurance agent based on his prior criminal record and imposition of a 24-year waiting period before reapplication. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of licensure but reversed and remanded the waiting period calculation because a subsequent First District decision changed the law regarding how such waiting periods should be computed.
The Department was within its discretion in denying the licensure application based on the prior criminal record. However, the 24-year waiting period must be recalculated because intervening First District case law changed the applicable rules for computing such waiting periods.
[1] A state agency has discretion to deny an application for licensure based on an applicant's prior criminal record.
[2] An applicant is entitled to the benefit of a change in the law that occurs during the pendency of their appeal.
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“An appellate court must apply the law that exists at the time of the appeal.”
Establishes the principle that Santana is entitled to benefit from the intervening legal change regarding waiting period calculations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSantana applied for licensure as a resident Florida title insurance agent. The Department of Financial Services denied his application based on his pr…
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 Pipeline Cases cases and more on FLexlaw
Armando Santana, pro se, appeals a final order of the Department of Financial Services denying his application for licen-sure as a resident Florida title insurance agent.1 The Department’s denial was based on Santana’s prior criminal record, and the order further imposed a 24-year waiting period2 for re-application. We summarily affirm the denial under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a), finding that the Department was well within its discretion in denying the application. *1263However, we summarily reverse and remand for recalculation of the waiting period.
During the pendency of this appeal, the First District Court of Appeal per curiam affirmed the Department’s appeal from the Amended Final Order in Santana v. Department of Financial Services, No. 09-0829RX (Dept. of Admin. Hearings Apr. 29, 2010), finding that the Department had improperly enacted and interpreted its Rules for the computation of waiting periods when it denied an application for licen-sure based on the applicant’s prior criminal history. Dept. of Financial Servs. v. Santana, 1D10-2744, 2011 WL 1289035 (Fla. 1st DCA April 5, 2011)(per curiam affirmed). As this is a pipeline case, i.e. still pending on appeal when there has been a change in the law as applied specifically to him, State v. Ruiz, 863 So.2d 1205, 1209 n. 6 (Fla.2003) (“Pipeline cases are those cases pending on direct appellate review or are otherwise not yet final at the time of a pertinent change in the law.”), Santana is entitled to the benefit of that result. “An appellate court must apply the law that exists at the time of the appeal.” St. John v. Coisman, 799 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing Lowe v. Price, 437 So.2d 142 (Fla.1983)). On this basis Santana is entitled to relief from the 24-year (net) waiting period imposed in his case as the rules applying to calculation of these waiting periods have been affected.
Summarily affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Odegaard v. State, 137 So. 3d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
Authorities Cited
- Lowe v. The Honorable Joseph E. Price, 437 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1983)
- ST. John v. Coisman, 799 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- State v. Ruiz, 863 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2003)