J.J. TAYLOR COMPANIES, INC., D/B/A J.J. TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING MIAMI, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, 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.
A liquor distributor appealed a Department of Business and Professional Regulation order imposing a $1,000 fine for selling to a delinquent vendor. The court reversed, holding that the agency improperly rejected the ALJ's factual findings by mislabeling them as conclusions of law, and that the ALJ's finding of no lack of due diligence was supported by competent, substantial evidence.
The court held that the true nature and substance of the ALJ's determinations control whether they constitute findings of fact, and erroneously labeling factual determinations as conclusions of law does not permit the agency to reject them. The ALJ's findings that Taylor lacked due diligence were supported by competent, substantial evidence and could not be rejected by the agency.
[1] An agency may not avoid its obligation to honor a hearing officer's findings of fact by erroneously categorizing a contrary finding as a conclusion of law.
[2] The true nature and substance of a determination by an administrative law judge controls an agency's ability to reject that determination.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Erroneously labeling what is essentially a factual determination a 'conclusion of law,' whether by the hearing officer or the agency does not make it so, and the obligation of the agency to honor the hearing officer's findings of fact may not be avoided by categorizing a contrary finding as a 'conclusion of law.'”
Establishes the core principle that substance trumps labels when determining whether a ruling is a finding of fact subject to agency deference
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.J. Taylor Companies, a liquor distributor, made sales to Miami Supermarket, which was on a no-sale list for delinquent vendors. Taylor's sales staff…
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 Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises from a final order of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Agency), penalizing a distributor of alcoholic beverages (Taylor) for violating section 561.42(5), Florida Statutes (1995).1 The administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that the Agency had failed to prove its case by clear and convincing' evidence.
The Agency entered an order rejecting certain of the ALJ’s findings of fact,2 findings that the ALJ had characterized as “conclusions of law.”3
The order on appeal rejects paragraph 15 and 16 of ALJ’s recommended order, paragraphs contained under the heading “Conclusions of Law.” The paragraphs in question provide:
15. The Division has not established by clear and convincing evidence that Taylor failed to exercise due diligence in supervising the salespersons who made the prohibited sales to Miami Supermarket. The salespersons processed the orders in accordance with the information which was on the computer. The salespersons were not responsible for inputting the vendor status information in to the computer. The salespersons observed that Miami Supermarket was selling other brands of alcoholic beverages during the time that Miami Supermarket was on the no sale list. The owner of Miami Supermarket did not advise Taylor’s salespersons that Miami Supermarket was on the no sale list. The evidence does not establish that the actions of the salespersons were flagrant.
16. The prohibited sales occurred as a result of an entry error by Taylor’s data entry employee. The error resulted in the failure of Taylor’s computer system to take into account the possible repetition of an error by one inaccurate data entry.
Appellant contends that the foregoing paragraphs, although characterized as conclusion of law, do in fact contain findings of fact and were, therefore, not subject to rejection by the Agency here. We agree.
This court has held that it is the trae nature and substance of the determination or ruling by the ALJ that controls the Agency’s ability to reject the ruling. Thus, in Goin v. Commission on Ethics, 658 So. 2d 1131, 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), this court stated the following rule:
“Erroneously labeling what is essentially a factual determination a ‘conclusion of law,’ whether by the hearing officer or the agency does not make it so, and the obligation of the agency to honor the hearing officer’s findings of fact may not be avoided by categorizing a contrary finding as a ‘conclusion of law.’ ” Kinney v. Department of State, Div. of Licensing, 501 So. 2d 129,132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
The ALJ’s finding, that Taylor’s improper sales resulted from circumstances that do not show a lack of due diligence on the part of Taylor, is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Heifetz, 475 So. 2d at 1281. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent herewith.
ERVIN, BOOTH, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR. . Section 561.42(5) prohibits liquor sales to delinquent vendors who fail to show good cause for nonpayment.
. The determination of negligence, lack of diligence, or whether certain facts constitute a statutory violation are ultimate factual findings within a hearing officer's discretion. Goin v. Commission on Ethics, 658 So. 2d 1131, 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (citing Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)); Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, 475 So. 2d 1277, 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
. The final order imposed a $1,000 fine on J.J. Taylor.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pillsbury v. State, 744 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejection of these findings without an indication that the findings were unsupported by competent, substantial evidence was improper. See J.J. Taylor Cos., v. Department of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, 724 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The other conclusion rejected by the Department, whether past violations could be considered, was also erroneously rejected. The Department’s finding that this evidence was not considered is not supported by the record. Althoug…
-
Beckett v. Dep't OF Fin. Servs., 982 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…he ALJ’s determinations that Appellant had engaged in sliding but had not violated the provisions of section 626.611 were factual findings. See J.J. Taylor Cos., Inc. v. Dep’t of Bus. & Professional Regulation, Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 724 So. 2d 192, 193 n. 2 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1999). However, it must be noted that a finding regarding whether a person has violated a statutory provision depends upon a proper interpretation of the provision. See Whitaker v. Dep’t of Ins. & Treasurer, 680 So. 2d 528,…1 / 2
-
Kanter Real Est., LLC v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 267 So. 3d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…l exploratory oil drilling in the Everglades, without statutory authority, as we note below. Every sentence in Paragraph 109 is a factual finding. See J.J. Taylor Cos., Inc. v. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof’l Reg., Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 724 So. 2d 192, 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (declaring that to assess whether a statement is a factual finding or conclusion of law in order to determine what level of review to apply, “it is the true nature and substance of the determination or ruling by the ALJ…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mel Heifetz v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 475 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Kinney v. Dep't of State, 501 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Goin v. Comm'n ON Ethics, 658 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)