Grippe v. FLORIDA DEPT. OF BUSINESS

729 So. 2d 459, 1999 WL 141792
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 17, 1999
Docket98-2100
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 729 So. 2d 459 (Grippe v. FLORIDA DEPT. OF BUSINESS) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grippe v. FLORIDA DEPT. OF BUSINESS, 729 So. 2d 459, 1999 WL 141792 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

729 So.2d 459 (1999)

Daniel A. GRIPPE, Appellant,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, and MOBILE HOMES, Appellee.

No. 98-2100.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 17, 1999.
Rehearing Denied May 4, 1999.

Daniel A. Grippe, Pompano Beach, pro se.

Kathryn E. Price, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Daniel A. Grippe, a condominium owner in the Everett Arms No. 5 Condominium, appeals an order of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile homes (Division) in which the Division determined it could not provide Grippe the relief requested under its limited power to issue declaratory statements. § 120.565(1), Fla. Stat. (1997).[1] Grippe's petition did not request interpretation of a statute, rule, or order, but rather requested interpretation of certain language contained in the Everett Arms Condominium Association's Declaration. The Division correctly found it lacked authority to interpret ambiguous provisions of a condominium contract. Peck Plaza Condominium v. Division of Florida Land Sales & Condominiums, Dep't of Bus. Regulation, 371 So.2d 152, 153-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

Grippe's relief, if any, lies either in the courts, id. at 154, or perhaps in mandatory dispute resolution under the provisions of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes (1997) if he meets specific criteria. See Woodlake Redevelopment Corp. v. Woodlake Condominium Ass'n of Marco Shores, Inc., 671 So.2d 253, 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

AFFIRMED.

POLEN, and SHAHOOD, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

NOTES

[1] Section 120.565 provides in pertinent part:

120.565. Declaratory statement by agencies

(1) Any substantially affected person may seek a declaratory statement regarding an agency's opinion as to the applicability of a statutory provision, or of any rule or order of the agency, as it applies to the petitioner's particular set of circumstances.

(2) The petition seeking a declaratory statement shall state with particularity the petitioner's set of circumstances and shall specify the statutory provision, rule, or order that the petitioner believes may apply to the set of circumstances.

§ 120.565, Fla. Stat. (1997) (emphasis supplied).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
729 So. 2d 459, 1999 WL 141792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grippe-v-florida-dept-of-business-fladistctapp-1999.