FLA. DEPT. OF BUS. REG. v. INVEST. CORP.
Decision Date | 04 November 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 93,952.,93,952. |
Citation | 747 So.2d 374 |
Parties | FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, Petitioner, v. INVESTMENT CORP. OF PALM BEACH, d/b/a Palm Beach Kennel Club and Palm Beach Jai Alai, et al., Respondents. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robin L. Suarez, Chief Assistant General Counsel, and Charles D. Peters, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner.
Harold F.X. Purnell of Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida; Wilbur E. Brewton and Kelly B. Plante of Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida; and David S. Romanik of Romanik, Huss, Paoli & Ivers, Hollywood, Florida, for Respondents.
Jonathan Sjostrom of Steel, Hector & Davis, LLP, Tallahassee, Florida, for Phycor, Inc., Amicus Curiae.
We have for review Investment Corp. of Palm Beach v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 714 So.2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), based on express and direct conflict with the decision in Chiles v. Department of State, 711 So.2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we quash the decision under review and remand this case to the Third District for consideration of the merits of the declaratory statement discussed herein. We approve the First District's decision in Chiles.
Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Division), rendered a declaratory statement in response to a petition from respondents Investment Corp. of Palm Beach (Investment Corp.), Calder Race Course, Inc. (Calder), Tropical Park, Inc. (Tropical), and Gulfstream Park Racing Association (Gulfstream). Investment Corp.,714 So.2d at 590. The respondents sought the Division's opinion regarding the applicability of several statutory provisions in determining the distribution of uncashed tickets and breaks1 generated from wagering on out-of-state thoroughbred races rebroadcast to Investment Corp. subsidiaries through Calder, Tropical, and Gulfstream. Id. The declaratory statement read, in pertinent part:
The Division is cognizant that a similar fact pattern may exist between other tracks in Florida and that the same dispute may reoccur between one of these Petitioners and a non-Petitioner. Therefore, the Division will initiate rulemaking to establish an agency statement of general applicability.
On appeal, a divided Third District panel agreed with respondents that "once the Division reached the conclusion that the questions asked of it in the petitions had general applicability to the pari-mutuel industry, thus requiring rulemaking, the Division overstepped administrative bounds when it issued the declaratory statement." Id. at 590-91. After quoting the text of the statute controlling an agency's use of declaratory statements,2 the majority opinion concluded:
The statute contemplates that declaratory statements are appropriate where they deal with a petitioner's particular factual situation, but are not appropriate where they would result in agency statements of general applicability interpreting law and policy. See Sutton v. Department of Envtl. Protection, 654 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
; Mental Health Dist. Bd., II-B v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 425 So.2d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Where a declaratory statement provides a response which is not limited to specific facts and specific petitioners, but in reality adopts a broad agency policy or provides statutory or rule interpretations that apply to an entire class of persons, it will be set aside on appeal. See Tampa Elec. Co. v. Florida Dep't. of Community Affairs, 654 So.2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Regal Kitchens, Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Revenue, 641 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Our review of the declaratory statement reveals that it construes various statutory provisions of general applicability to all pari-mutuel permitholders who conduct intertrack wagering on simulcast rebroadcasts of horse races. As we have already noted, the Division itself recognized the need for rulemaking and initiated it. Its instincts in this regard were excellent, except for those which led it to issue the declaratory statement in this situation wherein rulemaking is the proper procedure.
Investment Corp., 714 So.2d at 591. On that basis, the majority set aside the Division's declaratory statement. Id.
Judge Cope dissented on both procedural and substantive grounds. First, he objected to even considering the racetracks' argument that the agency should not have issued a declaratory statement because that specific argument was not preserved for appellate review. Id. at 591-92 (Cope, J., dissenting). Then, in addressing the merits of the issue, Judge Cope explained that the purpose of the declaratory statement provision of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is "to enable the public to secure definitive binding advice as to the applicability of agency-enforced law to a particular set of facts." Id. at 592 (quoting Patricia A. Dore, Access to Florida Administrative Proceedings, 13 Fla. St. U.L.Rev. 965, 1052 (1986)). From that starting point, Judge Cope continued:
. Notice is published so that "[a]ny substantially affected party can intervene in a declaratory statement proceeding before the agency...." Id. Equally clearly, the Legislature required publication of the resulting declaratory statement precisely because— assuming the agency is operating evenhandedly—the interpretation announced in the declaratory statement will be applied to others who are similarly situated.
. As explained in Chiles, 711 So.2d at 154.7
Note 7: The line of cases relied on by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wollschlaeger v. Governor of Fla.
...of circumstances, as it is allowed to do under Florida law. See Fla. Stat. § 120.565 ; Fla. Dep't of Business & Prof'l Regulation v. Investment Corp. of Palm Beach , 747 So.2d 374, 385 (Fla. 1999).In addition, and significantly, the July 18 letter—written after this action was filed—contrad......
-
LAWNWOOD Med. Ctr. INC. v. SADOW
...v. Goode, 830 So.2d 817, 824 (Fla. 2002). 17. See also Fla. Dept. of Bus. and Prof'l Regulation, Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering v. Inv. Corp. of Palm Beach, 747 So.2d 374, 382-83 (Fla. 1999) (same quote); Hill v. State, 688 So.2d 901, 908 (Fla. 1996) (same 18. For this reason, we disagree wit......
-
Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n v. Tampa Bay Downs
...of other parties who have not joined the declaratory statement proceeding. See Florida Dep't of Business and Professional Regulation v. Investment Corp. of Palm Beach, 747 So.2d 374, 384-85 (Fla.1999) (involving a declaratory statement covering the pari-mutuel 1. THE DECLARATORY STATEMENT I......
-
License Acquisitions, LLC v. Debary Real Estate Holdings, LLC
...construction. Legislative intent controls construction of statutes in Florida. Florida Dept. of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, Div. of Pari–Mutuel Wagering v. Inv. Corp. of Palm Beach, 747 So.2d 374, 382 (Fla.1999). To determine legislative intent, the courts look primarily to the language of th......
-
The Importance And Proper Use Of Administrative Declaratory Statements
...situations or questions are not allowed. However, in Florida Department of Business Regulation v. Investment Corp. of Palm Beach, 747 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1999), the Florida Supreme Court clarified that a declaratory statement may also affect others (in that case, all pari-mutuel facilities), b......
-
After the 1999 amendments to Florida's Administrative Procedure Act: one aspect of Consolidated-Tomoka still remains.
...Florida Supreme Court's recent decision in Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation v. Investment Corp. of Palm Beach, 747 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1999), suggests that Consolidated-Tomoka will survive the test of time, and that its true legacy may be as a reminder of the need for......