Heart of Live Oak, Inc. v. State, Office of Financial Regulation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Heart of Live Oak, Inc. v. State, Office of Financial Regulation

196 So. 3d 1290, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12353, 2016 WL 4362402

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 16, 2016

DocketNo. 1D15-2947

StatusPublished

This text of 196 So. 3d 1290 (Heart of Live Oak, Inc. v. State, Office of Financial Regulation) 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

Heart of Live Oak, Inc. v. State, Office of Financial Regulation, 196 So. 3d 1290, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12353, 2016 WL 4362402 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the Final Order of the Office of Financial Regulation in all respects. We highlight Appellant’s Points I and II only, to hold that Appellant did not preserve those issues for appellate review. “It is well-established that for an issue to be preserved for appeal, it must be raised in the administrative proceeding of the alleged error.” Dep’t of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, Constr. Indus. Licensing Bd. v. Harden, 10 So.3d 647, 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Yachting Arcade, Inc. v. Riverwalk Condo. Assoc., Inc., 500 So.2d 202, 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)). “[A] party cannot argue on appeal matters which were [1291]*1291not properly excepted to or challenged in the administrative tribunal.” Pullen v. State, 818 So.2d 601, 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); see also Palm Constr. Co. of W. Fla. v. Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 153 So.3d 948, 949 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Here, as to Points I and II, we find that Appellant met Appellee’s arguments below “with silence” and therefore, failed to preserve these appellate issues for review. Goodwin v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 194 So.3d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

AFFIRMED.

RAY, BILBREY, and JAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the Final Order of the Office of Financial Regulation in all respects. We highlight Appellant’s Points I and II only, to hold that Appellant did not preserve those issues for appellate review. “It is well-established that for an issue to be preserved for appeal, it must be raised in the administrative proceeding of the alleged error.” Dep’t of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, Constr. Indus. Licensing Bd. v. Harden, 10 So.3d 647, 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Yachting Arcade, Inc. v. Riverwalk Condo. Assoc., Inc., 500 So.2d 202, 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)). “[A] party cannot argue on appeal matters which were [1291]*1291not properly excepted to or challenged in the administrative tribunal.” Pullen v. State, 818 So.2d 601, 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); see also Palm Constr. Co. of W. Fla. v. Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 153 So.3d 948, 949 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Here, as to Points I and II, we find that Appellant met Appellee’s arguments below “with silence” and therefore, failed to preserve these appellate issues for review. Goodwin v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 194 So.3d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

AFFIRMED.

RAY, BILBREY, and JAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 So. 3d 1290, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12353, 2016 WL 4362402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heart-of-live-oak-inc-v-state-office-of-financial-regulation-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack