ANA ARELLANO
v.
MIAMI DADE COUNTY
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.
Ana Arellano appealed a hearing officer's decision upholding Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Department's water and sewer bills she challenged as excessively high. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that procedural due process was accorded, the law was properly applied, and competent substantial evidence supported the hearing officer's findings.
The appellate court affirmed the hearing officer's decision, finding no procedural due process violation, no departure from essential requirements of law, and that competent substantial evidence supported the administrative findings.
[1] A reviewing court examines whether an administrative agency accorded procedural due process, observed the essential requirements of law, and whether its findings and judg…
[2] Procedural due process requires an agency to provide reasonable notice and a fair opportunity to be heard.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“[g]enerally due process requires fair notice and a real opportunity to be heard and defend in an orderly procedure before judgment is rendered”
Establishes the standard for procedural due process in administrative hearings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Ana Arellano contested water and sewer bills from the Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Department for the period between August 2016 and January 20…
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.
Before: TRAWICK, WALSH and SANTOVENIA. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
Filing # 123185055 E-Filed 03/16/2021 02:06:30 Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995), citing City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982); Dusseau v. Metropolitan Dade County Bd. of C’ty Comm’rs, 794 So. 2d 1270, 1274 (Fla. 2001). Procedural due process requires that the agency provide reasonable notice and a fair opportunity to be heard. Housing Authority of the City of Tampa v. Robinson, 464 So. 2d 158, 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). A quasi-judicial hearing generally meets basic due process requirements if the parties are provided notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard. Jennings v. Dade County, 589 So. 2d 1337, 1340-41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). [*3] Page 3 of 4 Petitioner argues that the Decision should be quashed because the hearing officer did not offer to recuse herself despite an alleged issue regarding impartiality. However, Petitioner fails to show how the alleged issue requires disqualification and did not raise the issue at any time before the Petition was filed.
We find that there was no due process violation as Petitioner was properly noticed and afforded an opportunity to testify, present evidence, and cross-examine at the April 12, 2019 hearing. Richard v. Bank of America, N.A., 258 So. 3d 485, 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (citation omitted) (“[g]enerally due process requires fair notice and a real opportunity to be heard and defend in an orderly procedure before judgment is rendered”). We further find that there was no departure from the essential requirements of the law. Haines, supra., 658 So. 2d at 530 (“…Applied the correct law” is synonymous with “observing the essential requirements of law.”) The County aptly points out that while Petitioner now contests the high water bills for the period between August, 2016 and January 2018, those bills were paid voluntarily by Petitioner. In addition, there was competent, substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s decision. Bagarotti v. Reemp’t Assistance Appeals Comm’n, 208 So. 3d 1197, 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“an administrative hearing [*4] Page 4 of 4 officer’s findings of fact may not be disturbed by a reviewing court if those findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence”).
As procedural due process was accorded, the essential requirements of the law were observed, and the administrative findings and judgment are supported by competent substantial evidence, the Order is AFFIRMED. TRAWICK, WALSH, and SANTOVENIA, JJ., concur. COPIES FURNISHED TO COUNSEL
OF RECORD AND TO ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
[*5] Copies Furnished to: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982)
- Dusseau v. Metro. Dade Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 794 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2001)
- Henn v. Sandler, 589 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Merlande Richard and Elie Richard v. Bank of Am., 258 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
- Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Tampa v. Rubin R. Robinson, 464 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Bagarotti v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n, 208 So. 3d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)