MATHEW C. ZUMMO AND MATHEW L. ZUMMO, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION, 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.
The court reversed the Office of Financial Regulation's final order imposing a $48,000 fine and remanded for consideration of whether equitable tolling applies to the appellants' late request for an administrative hearing.
A failure to request an administrative hearing within the statutory twenty-one day period is not a jurisdictional defect, and the agency must consider whether equitable tolling applies before issuing a final order without a hearing.
[1] Failure to request an administrative hearing within the statutory deadline is not a jurisdictional defect and does not preclude consideration of equitable tolling.
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 intelligenceThe Office of Financial Regulation issued a final order imposing a $48,000 fine for violations of chapter 517, Florida Statutes, without holding an ad…
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 Statutory Deadlines cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants Mathew C. Zummo and Mathew L. Zummo challenge a final order issued by Florida’s Office of Financial Regulation (“OFR”), imposing a $48,000 fine for violations of chapter 517, Florida Statutes. The final order was issued in the absence of a chapter 120 administrative hearing as OFR found the request for hearing was not filed until March 15, 2013 — the day after expiration of the governing twenty-one day period. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.111(4). Appellants invite this court to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling, asserting their request for hearing was mailed on March 5th and in OFR’s post office box on March 14th the day it was due. See Brown v. State, Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 899 So.2d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (recognizing failure to request hearing within twenty-one days is not a jurisdictional defect). As OFR has not yet had the opportunity to address these allegations, we reverse the final order and remand for a ruling on the limited issue of whether equitable tolling applies so as to entitle appellants to a hearing. We make no determination as to the merits of appellants’ equitable tolling claim, leaving that initial determination and any factual findings in that regard to OFR. If OFR determines that it is necessary to resolve disputed facts to decide appellants’ equitable tolling claim, OFR may hold a limited evidentiary hearing. Cf. Hurley v. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, 965 So.2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
*1079 Reversed and Remanded.
STEVENSON, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 899 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Hurley v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 965 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)