HADI BARAKAT D/B/A BARAKAT FOOD STORE
v.
FLORIDA OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION
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.
When an administrative agency serves notice of a complaint in facially valid ways but the respondent claims invalidity based on disputed facts, a limited remand is necessary to adjudge the matter.
[1] When an administrative agency serves notice of a complaint in facially valid ways but the respondent disputes the validity of service based on disputed facts, a limited r…
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 intelligenceBarakat, proprietor of a convenience store, was served with a complaint by the OFR regarding alleged check cashing law violations. Barakat claimed he …
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 Administrative Agency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D17-3637 _____________________________
HADI BARAKAT d/b/a BARAKAT FOOD STORE,
Appellant,
v.
FLORIDA OFFICE OF FINANCIAL
REGULATION,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from State of Florida, Office of Financial Regulation. Drew J. Breakspear, Commissioner.
February 11, 2019
PER CURIAM.
Hadi Barakat appeals the Office of Financial Regulations’s denial of his request to contest a final order entered against him as the proprietor of a convenience store that is alleged to have engaged in transactions violating Florida check cashing laws. He claims he was out of the country and that the OFR’s service of its complaint against him on a shopkeeper and at his parent’s home was ineffectual; the OFR counters that service was proper as to both (Barakat had listed his parent’s home as an official address) and that Barakat’s affidavit is not credible. Under these circumstances, where the OFR has served notice of the complaint in facially valid ways and Barakat claims that notice was invalid
2
based on disputed facts, a limited remand is necessary to adjudge the matter. See Avante, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 722 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Symons v. State, Dep’t of Banking and Fin., 490 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Brown v. State, Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 899 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). REVERSED and REMANDED. LEWIS, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Michael T. King, Neptune Beach, for Appellant.
Anthony Cammarata and Miriam
S.
Wilkinson A.G.C., Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Symons v. State, 490 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Brown v. State, 899 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Gilchrist v. State, 722 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- McKEEL v. Ms. Waters, 722 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)