SEA PRIDE INDUSTRIES, INC., AND JOHN DREW ERICSSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, DIVISION OF FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS, 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 findings of securities law violations but reversed and remanded the $50,000 penalty because the Department failed to state reasons with particularity and provide record citations as required by Florida Statutes section 120.57(1)(j).
When an administrative agency imposes a penalty that was not recommended by the ALJ, it must state with particularity the reasons for the penalty and provide record citations under section 120.57(1)(j), Florida Statutes.
[1] An administrative agency that imposes a penalty differing from an ALJ's recommendation must state with particularity the reasons for the penalty and provide record citati…
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 intelligenceSea Pride Industries and John Drew Ericsson were found by the Department of Banking and Finance to have violated Florida securities laws. The ALJ's re…
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 Penalties cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This ease is before us on appeal from an administrative order issued by the Department of Banking and Finance (the Department) ruling that Appellants violated various provisions of Florida law regarding the sale of securities, and imposing a $50,000 penalty against Appellants based on the violations. Appellants contest the Department’s order as to both the findings of violations and the imposition of the penalty. We affirm the order as to the violations, and write only to address the imposition of the penalty.
The Department imposed the penalty after an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) declined to impose such a penalty in the recommended order below. By imposing a penalty where none was recommended by the ALJ, the Department was required to state with particularity the reasons for the penalty, and to provide record citations in support thereof, under section 120.57(l)(j), Florida Statutes. Lacking both stated reasons and references to the record, the Department’s order is reversed, in part, and the case is remanded solely to give the Department an opportunity to reevaluate the imposition of the penalty in light of section 120.57(l)(j).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
BOOTH, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 975 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…artment concedes, this was error. We therefore reverse the sentence imposed and remand to the Commission to reevaluate the sentence in light of section 120.57(1)(l). See Sea Pride Indus., Inc. v. Dep’t of Banking & Fin., Div. of Fin. Investigations, 717 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). We reject appellant’s argument that there was a lack of substantial competent evidence to support the penalty imposed by the ALJ. WARNER, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.…