LYNCH-DAVIDSON MOTORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN D. CALVIN, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
Lynch-Davidson Motors, Inc. challenges a licensing order issued by the Florida Director of Motor Vehicles granting Miller Joiner Ford, Inc. a franchise dealer license. The court held that the Director (not the Department) was the proper authority under the applicable statute, but remanded because the Director failed to make adequate findings of fact as required by due process and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Director (not the Department) was the proper entity to conduct the hearing and enter orders under Chapter 70-424, Laws of Florida. However, the order was deficient because it lacked specific findings of fact based on evidence adduced at the hearing, as required by due process and the Administrative Procedure Act.
[1] A director, as distinguished from a department, may be the proper entity to conduct hearings and enter orders regarding motor vehicle dealer license applications when spe…
[2] Due process and the Administrative Procedure Act require an agency's final action to be in writing and contain findings of fact based upon evidence adduced at a hearing.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Due process as well as the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act dictates that the agency's final action be reduced to writing, contain findings of fact based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, and specifically state the charges which the agency finds to have been sustained.”
Establishes the required standard for administrative orders to satisfy due process and the Administrative Procedure Act
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller Joiner Ford, Inc. applied for a license to operate as a Ford franchised motor vehicle dealer in Jacksonville. Two of three existing Ford dealer…
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 Petition For Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Judge.
By Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Petitioner Lynch-Davidson Motors, Inc. challenges an order entered by Respondent on June 25, 1973 pursuant to which order a license was issued to Miller Joiner Ford, Inc. pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 320 Florida Statutes permitting Miller Joiner Ford, Inc. to act as a Ford franchised dealer. The facts are remarkably similar to those in McCulley Ford, Inc. v. Calvin, Fla.App., 308 So. 2d 189, opinion filed this date.
Miller Joiner Ford, Inc. filed an application for a license to engage in business as a Ford franchised motor vehicle dealer in Jacksonville. Two of the three existing Ford dealers in Jacksonville, Duval Motor Company and Southside Motor Company, filed “no protest letters”. Lynch-Davidson Motors, Inc., Petitioner here, the then other existing Ford dealer, filed a written objection to the application. Respondent entered an order setting a hearing on the application following which hearing the here challenged order was entered.
Petitioner urges, as did the Petitioner in McCulley Ford, Inc. v. Calvin, supra, that the application should have been considered by the “department” rather than the “director” and that inasmuch as there has been no action by the “department” the challenged order is invalid. We hold, as we did in the McCulley case, that the applicable law was to be found in Chapter 70-424, Laws of Florida, enacted by the 1970 session of the Florida Legislature, and that accordingly the director, as distinguished from the department, was the proper party or entity to conduct the hearing and enter orders relative to the application. (See McCulley Ford, Inc. v. Calvin, supra)
Petitioner next raises due process considerations. Our examination of the record reveals that the Respondent in the case sub judice, as in McCulley, supra, failed to make any findings of fact but rather based his order of June 25, 1973, here challenged, on one single conclusion. As this Court said in Powell v. Board of Public Instruction of Levy Co., Fla.App. 1st 1969, 229 So. 2d 308:
“ * * * Due process as well as the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act dictates that the agency’s final action be reduced to writing, contain findings of fact based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, and specifically state the charges which the agency finds to have been sustained. * * * ” (Emphasis added; 229 So. 2d at page 311)
This point is thoroughly treated in our opinion in McCulley, supra, and the reasoning there is equally applicable here. Neither is this case necessarily controlled by our decision in Hess Marine, Inc. v. Calvin, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 296 So. 2d 114, in which the same form of order was employed by the director as that sub ju-dice. In the Hess Marine case the adequacy of the director’s findings was not made an issue for our review: They are in this case.
For the reasons above stated we do not now direct rescission as we did in Hess Marine, Inc. v. Calvin, supra, but we remand with directions that an appropriate final order be entered which shall contain specific findings of fact based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing before Respondent. Should such not be accomplished forthwith then this Court will, upon appropriate petition, reconsider its failure to here and now direct rescission of the challenged license.
It is so ordered.
RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Broward Cnty. v. G.B.V. Int'l, Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2001)…the conclusions have sufficient foundation in findings of fact. E.g., City of Apopka v. Orange County, 299 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); McCulley Ford, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 189 [ (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) ]; Lynch-Davidson Motors, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Bill Kelley Chevrolet, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Furthermore, requiring detailed findings of fact is mani-J|festly helpful in assuring that adminis-¡Strative decisions are not the result of ^■¡nproper c…
-
Dusseau v. Metro. Dade Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 794 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2001)…er the conclusions have sufficient foundation in findings of fact. E.g., City of Apopka v. Orange County, 299 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); McCulley Ford, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 189 [(Fla. 1st DCA 1974)]; Lynch-Davidson Motors, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Bill Kelley Chevrolet, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Furthermore, requiring detailed findings of fact is manifestly helpful in assuring that administrative decisions are not the result of improper considera…
-
Irvine v. Duval Cnty. Planning Comm'n & the City Of Jacksonville, 466 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…judicial review whether the conclusions have sufficient foundation in findings of fact. E.g., City of Apopka v. Orange County, 299 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); McCulley Ford, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 189; Lynch-Davidson Motors, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Bill Kelley Chevrolet, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Furthermore, requiring detailed findings of fact is manifestly helpful in assuring that administrative decisions are not the result of improper considera…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Powell v. The Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Levy Cnty., 229 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- McCULLEY Ford, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Hess Marine, Inc. v. Calvin, 296 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)