Island Harbor Beach v. Dept. of Natural Res.

Citation: 476 So. 2d 1350Docket: BE-355, BE-352

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 10, 1985; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves appeals by Island Harbor Beach Club, Ltd. and Sunset Realty Corporation against the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regarding a proposed amendment to rule 16B-26.06, which would relocate the coastal construction control line in Charlotte County further inland. The appellants challenge the amendment's validity based on various grounds. The Division of Administrative Hearings upheld the amendment, but the appellants appeal on six issues, focusing on one: the hearing officer's failure to rule on each proposed finding of fact submitted by the appellants, as required by section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1983). The court agrees with the appellants, indicating the proposed findings, which pertain to the critical location of the beach-dune system, are relevant and should have been explicitly addressed. The final order's vague reference to the proposed findings was insufficient. DNR argues that section 120.59(2) does not apply to rule challenges, but the court disagrees, affirming that it is applicable in cases affecting substantial interests and that all proposed findings must be considered adequately. Consequently, the court temporarily remands the case to the hearing officer for proper evaluation of the proposed facts.

Subsection (4)(d) mandates that any challenge to a proposed rule must follow the procedures outlined in section 120.57, with the distinction that the hearing officer's order is deemed final agency action. The agency proposing the rule and the party requesting the hearing are considered adversary parties, confirming the adversarial nature of the proceeding. Given that the order impacts substantial interests and results from an adversarial process, it is subject to the provisions of section 120.59. The decision in Florida Canners Ass'n v. State, Dept. of Citrus is not construed as contradicting this interpretation; if it does, it will not be followed.

DNR's argument against the necessity of ruling on each proposed finding is addressed, clarifying that section 120.59(2) requires that findings of fact be supported by a concise statement of underlying facts. If a party submits proposed findings or requests according to agency rules, the order must include explicit rulings on these submissions along with reasons for any denials. The right to submit and receive rulings on pertinent factual issues has been upheld for nearly ten years. Despite the Department of Transportation's lack of a specific rule for submitting proposed findings, section 120.59(2) does not undermine a party's rights based on agency rules. 

The ruling in Forrester v. Career Service Commission affirms that while parties are entitled to rulings on pertinent findings, agencies are not obliged to address subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary findings in detail. Such findings can be dismissed with a straightforward statement regarding their irrelevance. Subsequent cases have reiterated that explicit rulings are unnecessary for findings deemed subordinate or irrelevant, suggesting that the deficiencies of such findings should be apparent without elaborate explanation.

The hearing officer's rulings on proposed findings of fact must include specific references to the proposed findings being addressed, rather than relying on broad terms like "subordinate" or "immaterial" without further explanation. Section 120.59(2) clearly mandates that orders must rule on each proposed finding explicitly. Many administrative orders lack detailed rulings, often summarizing all findings in a single sentence, leading to confusion during appellate review. This inefficiency necessitates extensive comparison of documents to ascertain which findings were rejected and the grounds for such rejections. It is standard procedure to number paragraphs in legal documents for ease of reference, including proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Thus, hearing officers should reference specific paragraph numbers when ruling on proposed findings to clarify their decisions for reviewing authorities. Although the court does not impose a strict rule for the use of numbered paragraphs in every case, it finds that vague rulings insufficiently comply with section 120.59(2). The court relinquishes jurisdiction for up to thirty days, remanding the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings to rule on the proposed findings as required by statute. Appellants are allowed fifteen days post-service of the revised order to file supplemental briefs, with appellees and appellants having respective deadlines for responses and replies. Judge Wentworth notes that explicit references may not be essential if the agency's intent regarding each proposed finding is clear from the order itself.