DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, DIVISION OF FINANCING, APPELLANT,
v.
MARTIN YOUNG PRIVATE INVESTIGATING AGENCY, INC., APPELLEE, AND INTERSTATE ASSET LOCATORS, INC., INTERVENOR
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, DIVISION OF FINANCING, APPELLANT,
MARTIN YOUNG PRIVATE INVESTIGATING AGENCY, INC., APPELLEE, AND INTERSTATE ASSET LOCATORS, INC., INTERVENOR
638 So. 2d 518
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1994)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the hearing officer’s determination that the Department of Banking and Finance’s proposed rule is invalid. We affirm on the ground that there was no statutory authority for the rule.1
BOOTH, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. . The parties are in agreement that the hearing officer's discussion of the law of garnishment in this context is incorrect since that remedy is not available against the State absent specific legisla tive authority. G & J Investments v. Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 429 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin Young Private Investigative Agency, Inc. v. Dep't OF Banking & Fin., 659 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…reditors of the apparent owner. We reverse the Division’s order. The Division has no statutory authority to prioritize competing claims. See Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Financing v. Martin Young Private Investigating Agency, Inc,, 638 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (court found Division’s proposed rule to prioritize competing claims invalid “on the ground that there was no statutory authority for the rule.” Id.). Moreover, the creditors to whom the Division awarded the insurance proceeds…
Authorities Cited
- G & J Invs. Corp. v. Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 429 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)