Financial Marketing Group, Inc. v. State Dept. of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities, 77-189
| Decision Date | 02 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-189,77-189 |
| Citation | 352 So.2d 524 |
| Parties | The FINANCIAL MARKETING GROUP, INC., Applicant for Registration as Dealer, and Marvin Leo Popkin, Applicant for Registration as Executive Officer, Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, DIVISION OF SECURITIES, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Noriega, Bartel, Chopp, Schatz, Levine & Shuford, Miami, for petitioners.
Eugene J. Cella and Ryland Terry Rigsby, Tallahassee, for respondent.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and BARKDULL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Petitioners seek review of an order of the respondent, denying the petitioners' application for a Florida securities dealer's license pursuant to Section 517.12, Florida Statutes. This will be treated as a certiorari per Yamaha International Corporation v. Ehrman, 318 So.2d 196 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1975).
On June 30, 1975, The Financial Marketing Group Inc. applied for a securities dealer's license and the petitioner, Marvin Leo Popkin, applied for the position of executive officer of Financial Marketing for securities. They were notified by the State agency of its intention to refuse registrations and administrative charges and complaint, contending Popkin falsified or concealed material facts on his application. It was alleged Popkin failed to disclose a material fact, to wit: that he had been a registered principal broker for Financial Resources Corp. Thereupon, petitioners sought administrative relief, alleging that Popkin was never employed nor served as a registered mortgage broker for Financial Resources Corp. At hearing, the petitioners presented their evidence and the respondent stood moot. Thereafter, the hearings officer found that Popkin had not falsified or concealed a material fact, and recommended the request for license be granted.
Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, required the respondent to render its final order within 90 days after issuance of the recommended order by the hearings examiner. The respondent did not comply therewith but, some 295 days after the recommended order was issued, it issued its own order overturning the hearings examiner and denied the application. This ruling was made without benefit of a transcript upon which the hearings examiner's order was predicated, as said transcript was not prepared until after the respondent entered its order. The petitioners then moved for rehearing. While that motion was pending, they filed the instant petition for writ of certiorari. 1
The petitioners contend, among other things, that the respondent erred by failing to timely render its final order within 90 days, in violation of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, and that it further erred in reversing the hearings examiner without having a transcript of testimony before it.
As to the first alleged error, we agree that the language of the statute is mandatory and the respondent should have rendered its final order within 90...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Railroad Com'n of Texas v. Lone Star Gas Co. A Div. of Enserch Corp.
...For example, although Florida's statute has been construed as mandatory, Financial Marketing Group, Inc. v. State Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities, 352 So.2d 524 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A.1977), its supreme court has held that the agency's failure to comply renders its order ......
-
Vann v. Dist. of Columbia, Etc.
...So.2d 985 (Fla.App.1980). 6. JBG Properties, Inc., supra at 1186, 1187. 7. See Financial Marketing Group, Inc. v. State Department of Banking and Finance Division of Securities, 352 So.2d 524 (Fla.App.1977). 8. Petitioner does not ask that his case be remanded to the Board for further proce......
-
Hyman v. State, Dept. of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering
...been expressed as to the consequences of an agency violation of its terms. In Financial Marketing Group, Inc. v. State, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities, 352 So.2d 524 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), this court indicated, in language which is admittedly dicta but which is also u......
-
G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Business Regulation, Division of Beverage
...an employer and a labor union? Our sister court of the Third District in Financial Marketing Group, Inc. v. State, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities, 352 So.2d 524 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977) addressed the problem but failed to resolve it, "As to the first alleged error, we ......