EDWIN TEMPLETON, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, 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 affirmed the Department's cancellation of Templeton's dealership license on the merits but declared that the improper December 1979 cancellation without a hearing was void, entitling Templeton to be considered licensed until the proper May 1980 cancellation.
A dealership license cancellation without the required Section 120.57 hearing is void, but a subsequent proper cancellation after a hearing may be affirmed on the merits.
[1] An administrative agency's cancellation of a license without providing the required statutory hearing is void, but a subsequent cancellation after a proper hearing may be…
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 intelligence“until May 22, 1980 he was entitled to licensure and should be considered as having held a license notwithstanding the purported revocation of December 20, 1979, and its sequelae”
Court's declaration regarding Templeton's license status during the period between the improper and proper cancellations
Templeton requested a Section 120.57 hearing after being notified of license cancellation, but the Department misplaced his letter and cancelled his l…
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 Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.
After being notified that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles would cancel his dealership license on December 20, 1979, for his failure to conduct his dealership at the registered location, appellant Templeton on December 18 sent the Department a letter requesting a Section 120.57 hearing, to which he was, of course, entitled. Capeletti Brothers, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation, 362 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The Department misplaced the letter and cancelled Templeton’s license without a hearing. Although the purported cancelation was of no legal effect, for reasons stated in Capeletti, it placed a cloud upon and apparently deterred the routine annual renewal of Tem-pleton’s license on January 1. Moreover, Templeton apparently was subjected to criminal charges for conducting a used car business without a license during the period that elapsed before he was afforded a hearing. Templeton was given a hearing in April 1980, after which the Department on May 22 entered an order properly cancelling Templeton’s license on substantial competent evidence supporting the charge. We affirm that order, but in doing so declare, for such collateral benefit as it may be to Templeton, that until May 22, 1980 he was entitled to licensure and should be considered as having held a license notwithstanding the purported revocation of December 20, 1979, and its sequelae.
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, J., and WOODIE A. LILES (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.