RLI LIVE OAK, LLC, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, 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.
When a court is asked to impose civil fines for alleged violations, the moving party must prove the violations by clear and convincing evidence, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence.
[1] When a governmental agency brings a civil action in circuit court for regulatory violations and seeks to recover monetary penalties, the court must apply the clear and co…
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 intelligence“In Department of Banking & Finance, Division of Securities & Investor Protection v. Osborne Stem & Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1996), the Florida Supreme Court held that when a court is asked to impose civil fines against a party, it is necessary for the moving party to prove the alleged violations by clear and convincing evidence.”
The court's statement of the governing legal standard for civil penalties
RLI Live Oak, LLC, a land developer, filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that its Osceola County property contained no wetlands and was not subj…
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 Environmental Law cases and more on FLexlaw
RLI Live Oak, LLC (“RLI”), land developers who own property in Osceola County, filed suit in circuit court seeking a declaratory judgment for a determination that the property it owned did not contain any wetlands and, therefore, was not under the jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management District (“the District”). The District counterclaimed against RLI alleging that RLI participated in unauthorized dredging, construction activity, grading, diking, culvert installation, *561and filling of wetlands without first obtaining the District’s approval. After a non-jury trial, the court found for the District on all counts and awarded the District $81,900 in civil penalties.
The trial court based its findings on a preponderance of the evidence standard and not the clear and convincing evidence standard. This was error. In Department of Banking & Finance, Division of Securities & Investor Protection v. Osborne Stem & Co., 670 So.2d 932 (Fla.1996), the Florida Supreme Court held that when a court is asked to impose civil fines against a party, it is necessary for the moving party to prove the alleged violations by clear and convincing evidence. As a result of the court’s applying the improper evidentiary standard, we reverse the portion of the judgment imposing civil penalties and remand for further proceedings. On remand, before the trial court may impose civil fines on RLI, the District must prove RLI’s alleged violations by clear and convincing evidence.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PALMER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING, REHEARING EN BANC, OR CERTIFICATION
For the reasons argued by the South Florida Water Management District, we agree that this case presents an issue of great public importance that should be addressed by the Florida Supreme Court, and certify the following question in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v):
UNDER THE HOLDING OF DEPARTMENT OF BANKING & FINANCE V. OSBORNE STERN & CO., 670 So.2d 932 (Fla.1996), IS A STATE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY WHICH BRINGS A CIVIL ACTION IN CIRCUIT COURT REQUIRED TO PROVE THE ALLEGED REGULATORY VIOLATION BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT MAY ASSESS MONETARY PENALTIES?
MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION GRANTED; QUESTION CERTIFIED; MOTION FOR REHEARING, REHEARING EN BANC DENIED.
PALMER, LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
PER CURIAM.
For the reasons argued by the South Florida Water Management District, we agree that this case presents an issue of great public importance that should be addressed by the Florida Supreme Court, and certify the following question in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v):
UNDER THE HOLDING OF DEPARTMENT OF BANKING & FINANCE V. OSBORNE STERN & CO., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1996), IS A STATE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY WHICH BRINGS A CIVIL ACTION IN CIRCUIT COURT REQUIRED TO PROVE THE ALLEGED REGULATORY VIOLATION BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT MAY ASSESS MONETARY PENALTIES?
MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION GRANTED; QUESTION CERTIFIED; MOTION FOR REHEARING, REHEARING EN BANC DENIED.
PALMER, LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. RLI Live OAK, LLC, 139 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 2014)…LABARGA, J. This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in RLI Live Oak, LLC v. South Florida Water Management District, 99 So. 3d 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). The South Florida Water Management District subsequently filed a motion for certification, which the Fifth District granted, certifying the following question to be of great public importance: UNDER THE HOLDING OF DEPARTMENT OF…
-
RLI Live OAK, LLC v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 141 So. 3d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…PER CURIAM. We consider this case on remand from the Florida Supreme Court after it reversed our decision in RLI Live Oak, LLC v. South Florida Water Management District, 99 So. 3d 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. RLI Live Oak, LLC, 139 So. 3d 869 (Fla.2014) (holding that when “the Legislature statutorily authorizes a state governmental agency to recover a ‘civil penalty’ in a ‘court of com [*1277] petent juri…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996)