Federation of Mobile Home Owners of Florida, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, Div. of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes

• Decision Date: 04 December 1985
• Docket Number: No. 85-684,85-684
• Citation: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2697,479 So.2d 252
• Parties: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2697 FEDERATION OF MOBILE HOME OWNERS OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS AND MOBILE HOMES, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 252

479 So.2d 252

10 Fla. L. Weekly 2697

FEDERATION OF MOBILE HOME OWNERS OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS AND MOBILE HOMES, Appellee.

No. 85-684.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Second District.

Dec. 4, 1985.

John T. Allen, Jr. and Christopher P. Jayson of John T. Allen, Jr., P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Robin H. Conner and Karl M. Scheuerman, Staff Attys., Department of Business Regulation, Tallahassee, for appellee.

LEHAN, Judge.

The Federation of Mobile Home Owners of Florida, Inc. (the Federation) appeals the dismissal by the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (the Division) of the Federation's petition for a declaratory statement pursuant to section 120.565, Florida Statutes (1983). The Federation is alleged to represent tenants in mobile home parks throughout Florida. The petition sought a declaratory statement as to various questions involving the Division's interpretations of certain undefined terms in chapter 723, Florida Statutes (Supp.1984), the Florida Mobile Home Act. Those questions are alleged to relate to a set of circumstances outlined in the petition which involve at least three different mobile home parks containing members of the Federation. It is indicated that each park contains over 200 mobile home tenants. The questions by their nature would seem to have general application to mobile home owners. It is alleged that the Federation is "barraged" with questions from its members in that regard and that the Federation needs the declaratory statement in order to advise its members. The Division's order dismissing the petition did so on the grounds that the Federation "failed to demonstrate that [it] is affected...." We reverse.

The grounds relied upon by the Division were of the type specifically rejected by the Florida Supreme Court in Florida Home Builders Association v. Department of Labor & Employment Security, 412 So.2d 351 (Fla.1982), and by the First District Court of Appeal in Farmworker Rights Organization, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 417 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The Division argues that Florida Optometric Association v. Department of Professional Regulation, 399 So.2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), is the only case in point as to requirements for declaratory statements under section 120.565. Florida Optometric, which involved a request by certain associations to the Department of Professional Regulation for a declaratory statement as to the applicability to certain hypothetical circumstances of an agency rule, held that the associations in that case did not have standing to request such a statement because "they did not establish or allege that the rule had any potential impact upon the associations' interests as entities, or in any way applied to a particular set of circumstances involving the associations themselves." 399 So.2d at 6. However, Florida Optometric relied upon Department of Labor & Employment Security, Division of Labor, Florida Home Builders Association v. Florida Building Trades Council, 392 So.2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and Florida Department of Education v. Florida Education Association/United AFT-AFL-CIO, 378 So.2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), and both of those cases were specifically overruled in Florida Home Builders.

Florida Home Builders involved a challenge to an agency rule under section 120.56. In that case the Florida Supreme Court held that "a trade association does have standing under section 120.56(1) to challenge the validity of an agency rule on behalf of its members when that association fairly represents members who have been substantially affected by the rule." 412 So.2d at 352. The requirements for standing on the part of an association were spelled out as follows:

[W]e have concluded that a trade or professional association should be able to institute a rule challenge under section 120.56 even though it is acting solely as the representative of its members. To meet the requirements of section 120.56(1), an association must demonstrate that a substantial number of its members, although not necessarily a majority, are "substantially affected" by the challenged rule. Further, the subject matter of the rule must be within the association's general scope of interest and activity, and the relief requested must be of the type appropriate for a trade association to receive on behalf of its members.

412 So.2d at 353-54.

The Division argues that it should not be required to issue legal advice or to answer questions propounded out of curiosity. However, the Federation has made a showing of more than curiosity, and under the types of circumstances involved here the argument as to the giving of legal advice would more appropriately be addressed to the legislature. As the Florida Supreme Court said in Florida Home Builders, "Expansion of public access to the activities of governmental agencies was one of the major legislative purposes of the new Administrative Procedure Act." 412 So.2d at 352-53 (footnote omitted).

The Division also argues that neither Florida Home Builders nor Farmworker involved a petition for a declaratory statement under section 120.565. Florida Home Builders involved a suit under section 120.56(1), Florida Statutes (1979), to challenge the validity of an agency rule. Farmworker involved...