FIAT MOTORS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN D. CALVIN AS DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND THE DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND ALPINE MOTORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Fiat Motors challenged an order by Florida's Division of Motor Vehicles assuming jurisdiction over a dealership termination dispute. The court held that without a timely verified complaint filed by the dealer (Alpine Motors), the agency lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, despite the director accepting an unsworn letter as a substitute.
The Division lacked jurisdiction because Alpine failed to timely file the required verified complaint. Administrative agencies have only those powers conferred by statute and cannot dispense with statutory requirements such as the verified complaint filing requirement. The agency's assumption of jurisdiction was void.
[1] An administrative agency's jurisdiction is limited to the powers expressly conferred by statute.
[2] An administrative agency cannot dispense with statutory requirements for initiating proceedings.
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“Administrative agencies are creatures of statute and have only such powers as statutes confer.”
Establishes the fundamental principle limiting agency authority to statutory grants of power
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFiat notified Alpine Motors, a Fort Lauderdale dealership, that its franchise would be discontinued in 90 days. Alpine sent an unsworn letter to the D…
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 Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
By petition for writ of prohibition, which we treat as a petition for review of preliminary agency action, Section 120.68(1), Florida Statutes (1977), Fiat Motors of North America, Inc., seeks review of an order of the Division of Motor Vehicles of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles in which the Division assumed jurisdiction to determine if Fiat unfairly canceled the dealership franchise of Alpine Motors, Inc. Section 320.641(3), Florida Statutes (1977), provides: (3) Any motor vehicle dealer whose franchise agreement is discontinued, canceled, or not renewed may, within [90 days before the date of cancellation], file with the [Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles] a verified complaint in triplicate for a determination of unfair discontinuation or cancellation. Agreements and certificates of appointment shall continue in effect until final determination by the department of the issues raised in such complaint by the motor vehicle dealer, and no replacement motor vehicle dealer shall be named for this point or location to engage in business prior to the final adjudication by the department on the discontinuation, cancellation, or failure to renew.
When Fiat notified Alpine, a Fort Laud-erdale dealer, that its dealership would be discontinued in 90 days, Alpine sent an un-sworn letter to the Division asserting that the planned termination was “highly unfair” for stated reasons. Accepting Alpine’s letter in lieu of the verified complaint required by the statute, respondent Calvin, director of the Division, entered an order setting a hearing under Section 320.641(3).
Alpine’s failure to timely file the required verified complaint left the Division without jurisdiction and, upon expiration of the 90-day period for initiating proceedings, without power to acquire jurisdiction. Administrative agencies are creatures of statute and have only such powers as statutes confer. State ex rel. Greenburg v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 297 So. 2d 628, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. dismissed, 300 So. 2d 900 (Fla.1974). It follows that the Division could not dispense with the requirement that proceedings be initiated by a verified complaint.
This is an appropriate case for our intervention to review preliminary agency action. Section 320.641(3) provides that the dealer’s filing of a verified complaint, without more, stays the licensee’s cancellation of a dealer franchise and prevents the granting of another franchise at that location until the merits are determined. The agency’s preliminary action in taking unwarranted jurisdiction therefore has immediate and substantial adverse consequences for the licensee, Fiat, for which review after final agency action will not be an adequate remedy.
The petition for review is GRANTED and the agency proceedings are QUASHED.
MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
State v. DAY Cruise Ass'n, Inc., 794 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…e agency. Most “[ajdministrative agencies are creatures of statute and have only such powers as statutes confer. State ex rel. Greenb[e]rg v. Florida State Bd. of Dentistry, 297 So. 2d 628, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).” Fiat Motors of N. Am. v. Calvin, 356 So. 2d 908, 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The statutory provisions governing rule-making must be interpreted in light of the Legislature’s stated intent to clarify significant restrictions on agencies’ exercise of rulemaking authority,5 and to reject the [*701] “cl…
-
Andrews v. The Fla. Parole Comm'n & The Fla. Dep't of Corr., 768 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…by the courts. “Administrative agencies are creatures of statute and have only such powers as statutes confer. State ex rel. Greenb[e]rg v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 297 So. 2d 628, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).” Fiat Motors of N. Am. v. Calvin, 356 So. 2d 908, 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). See Art. I, § 18, Fla. Const. (“No administrative agency shall impose a sentence of imprisonment, nor shall it impose any other penalty except as provided by law.” (emphasis supplied)). Pearson v. Moore, 767 So. 2d 1235, 1…
-
Grove Isle, Ltd. v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Env't Reg., 454 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ically created in the constitution, are creatures of statute and derive only the power specified therein. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 8 FLW 116 (Fla., March 17, 1983); Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. v. Calvin, 356 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 360 So. 2d 1247 (Fla.1978); State ex rel. Greenberg v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 297 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA); cert. dismissed, 300 So. 2d 900 (Fla.1974). As such, administrative bodies have no inherent power t…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Barbara Greenberg v. The Fla. State Bd. OF Dentistry, 297 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- The Fla. State Bd. OF Dentistry v. State of Fla. ex rel. Barbara Greenberg, 300 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 1974)
- Fontainebleau Hotel v. Grao, 300 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 1974)