CITY OF WINTER PARK AND CITY OF MAITLAND, FLORIDA, APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS,
v.
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION FOR THE ORLANDO URBAN AREA, APPELLEE/RESPONDENT, V. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLEE/INTERVENOR
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 City of Winter Park and City of Maitland appealed the dismissal of their petition challenging the Metropolitan Planning Organization's long range transportation plan as an invalid rule. The court reversed and remanded because the administrative law judge's dismissal order failed to comply with statutory requirements to provide specific findings and reasons, and improperly refused to allow amendment of the petition.
The court held that the dismissal order failed to comply with statutory requirements because it did not identify which grounds were well-taken or explain why any defects could not be cured by amendment. The court reversed and remanded, requiring the administrative law judge to either provide an opportunity to amend or specifically state why defects cannot be cured.
[1] An administrative law judge's order dismissing a petition must state with particularity the reasons for the dismissal.
[2] A petition dismissal must be without prejudice to the petitioner filing a timely amended petition curing the defect, unless the defect cannot be cured from the face of th…
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“The critical reason for requiring an administrative agency to state their conclusions and orders with specificity is to facilitate judicial review.”
Establishes the foundational principle that justifies the statutory requirement for specific findings and reasons in administrative orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Cities of Winter Park and Maitland filed a petition seeking an administrative determination that a long range transportation plan adopted by the M…
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.
The City of Winter Park and the City of Maitland appeal an. order of an administrative law judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings which dismissed with prejudice their petition seeking an administrative determination that the long range transportation plan adopted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Orlando Urban Area, appellee, constituted an invalid “rule” pursuant to section 120.52(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1997).
Among the issues raised on appeal, appellants argue that the order on appeal must be vacated and remanded because, contrary to section 120.569(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), the order does not provide specific findings, conclusions, and reasons for the dismissal, and because the administrative law judge refused to allow appellants to amend their petition.
We agree and reverse.
Section 120.569(2)(e), applicable to proceedings under section 120.56, requires that, in the event a petition is dismissed, the “[dismissal ... shall, at least once, be without prejudice to petitioner’s fifing a timely amended petition curing the defect, unless it conclusively appears from the face of the petition that the defect cannot be cured.” Further, section 120.569(2)(c) provides that the order “state with particularity its reasons if the petition is not granted.... ”
Below, appellees had argued numerous grounds for dismissal. In the order on appeal, the administrative law judge simply stated that the motions to dismiss were “well-taken,” granted the motions, and ordered the case file closed. The order failed to identify which grounds were considered well-taken or why any defects in the petition could not be cured by amendment.
Thus, the order obviously failed to comply with the requirements of section 120.569(2)(c).
As we have explained, “[t]he critical reason for requiring an administrative agency to state their conclusions and orders with specificity is to facilitate judicial review.” Florida Power & Light Co. v. State of Florida, Siting Board, 693 So. 2d 1025, 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(quoting Lewis v. Florida, Dep’t of Professional Regulation, 410 So. 2d 593, 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)).
On remand, the administrative law judge shall enter an amended order setting forth with specificity the reasons for the dismissal and either shall provide appellants with an opportunity to amend their petition or shall state with specificity why any defect in the petition cannot be cured by amendment. See § 120.569(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997).
We reverse the order and remand this case for such other proceedings as are necessary to produce a final order comporting with the requirements of chapter 120, Florida Statutes. We decline to reach any of the other issues raised in this appeal.
BOOTH AND MINER, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McINTYRE v. Seminole Cnty. Sch. Bd., 779 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…r a hearing is dismissed, the agency’s order must provide specific findings, conclusions, and reasons for the dismissal and allow the affected party to amend his petition. See City of Winter Park v. Metropolitan Planning Org. for Orlando Urban Area, 765 So. 2d 797, 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Furthermore, section 120.54(5)(b)4, Florida Statutes (1999), requires an agency to pass uniform rules of procedure for the filing of petitions for administrative hearings under either sections 120.569 or 120.57. Section 120…
-
Burnett Int'l Coll. v. State of Fla. Bd. of Nursing, 316 So. 3d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…rded the opportunity to amend its petition for formal hearing. An agency must “state with particularity its reasons if the petition is not granted.” § 120.569(2)(c), Fla. Stat.; see City of Winter Park v. Metro. Planning Org. for Orlando Urban Area, 765 So. 2d 797, 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversing order of dismissal because it failed to “provide specific findings, conclusions, and reasons” and failed to explain “why any defects in the petition could not be cured by amendment”). The Board informed Burnett t…
-
Dale And Lisa Sims v. Miami Shores Vill. (11th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2015)
Authorities Cited
- Lewis v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 410 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. State, 693 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)