SOL B. CORPORATION, D/B/A HOLIDAY BEACH MOTEL, APPELLANT,
v.
DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, 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.
Sol B. Corporation challenges the revocation of its alcoholic beverage license, arguing that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco improperly increased the penalty by adding "with prejudice" language without reviewing the complete record as required by law. The court finds the addition of this language does increase the penalty and strikes it, affirming the revocation but without the prejudicial effect.
The court holds that the addition of "with prejudice as provided in Section 561.58, Florida Statutes" to the revocation order does constitute an increase in penalty that requires full record review. The language is stricken from the final order, and the simple revocation is affirmed without prejudicial effect.
[1] An administrative agency may not increase a penalty recommended by a hearing officer without reviewing the complete record.
[2] Revocation of an alcoholic beverage license 'with prejudice' under Section 561.58, Florida Statutes, imposes a more onerous penalty than simple revocation by potentially…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the agency has increased the penalty recommended by the hearing officer from simple revocation to "revocation with prejudice as provided in Section 561.-58, Florida Statutes" without reviewing the complete record, contrary to the provisions of section 120.57(l)(b)9, Florida Statutes”
Establishes appellant's argument that the agency exceeded its authority by enhancing the penalty without proper record review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSol B. Corporation owned an alcoholic beverage license for the Holiday Beach Motel. Charges were filed against the corporation for selling intoxicants…
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.
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant was the owner of an alcoholic beverage license. As a result of charges filed against it involving, among other things, the sale of intoxicants to minors and the improper surrendering of control of portions of licensed premises, the administrative hearing officer recommended that appellant’s license simply be revoked. Thereafter, without an opportunity to review the complete record, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco entered a final order which provided that “respondent’s [appellant] alcoholic beverage license No. 16-637S, Series 4-COP, be revoked with prejudice as provided in Section 561.58, Florida Statutes, for multiple violations of the Beverage Law.”
Appellant seeks reversal of the final order because the agency has increased the penalty recommended by the hearing officer from simple revocation to “revocation with prejudice as provided in Section 561.-58, Florida Statutes” without reviewing the complete record, contrary to the provisions of section 120.57(l)(b)9, Florida Statutes (1983).
If revocation of appellant’s license “with prejudice as provided in Section 561.58, Florida Statutes,” constitutes an increase in the penalty of revocation recommended by the hearing officer, then appellant’s point appears well taken. That the addition of such language does increase the penalty seems clear from the wording of section 561.58, Florida Statutes (1983), which provides:
When a license is revoked by the division-it may prohibit or permit a license to be issued for the location of the place of business formerly operated under such revoked license. The maximum period of time that any such license shall be prohibited by the division from any such place of business shall be 2 years from the succeeding license renewal date as fixed by the division following such revocation.
If the final order had followed the hearing officer’s recommendation and simply revoked appellant’s license, the property could be leased to new tenants who, upon being properly licensed, could engage in the sale of intoxicating beverages. As entered, the final order may well be construed to allow the agency to prohibit the use of the premises for the sale of intoxicating beverages for a period up to two years — a much more onerous penalty.
Accordingly, the language “with prejudice as provided in Section 561.58, Florida Statutes,” is stricken from the final order under review, and as so modified the final order is affirmed.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
HERSEY and DELL, JJ., concur.