Lucas v. Board of Real Estate

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lucas v. Board of Real Estate

401 So. 2d 912, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20669

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 29, 1981

DocketNo. 79-2334

StatusPublished

This text of 401 So. 2d 912 (Lucas v. Board of Real Estate) 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

Lucas v. Board of Real Estate, 401 So. 2d 912, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20669 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

MOORE, Judge.

The appellant attacks a final order of the appellee which publicly reprimanded him. Unfortunately, the appellee has neither appeared before this Court nor filed a brief in support of its final order.

We initially note that appellee’s final order was not rendered timely. However the consequences of such tardiness will not be visited upon the appellee unless the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action taken are impaired. G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State Department of Business Regulation, Division of Beverage, 362 So.2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), appeal dismissed, 372 So.2d 468 (Fla.1979). Under the circumstances of this case it can hardly be said that the twenty-two day delay in rendering the final order caused any impairment.

The determinative question, therefore, is whether the final order is supported by competent substantial evidence. Davis v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 263 So.2d 251 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972). After careful consideration of the record and appellant’s brief, we hold that the Commission’s final order is not supported by substantial competent evidence and the Commission erred in rejecting the hearing officer’s conclusions.

REVERSED.

GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

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

MOORE, Judge.

The appellant attacks a final order of the appellee which publicly reprimanded him. Unfortunately, the appellee has neither appeared before this Court nor filed a brief in support of its final order.

We initially note that appellee’s final order was not rendered timely. However the consequences of such tardiness will not be visited upon the appellee unless the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action taken are impaired. G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State Department of Business Regulation, Division of Beverage, 362 So.2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), appeal dismissed, 372 So.2d 468 (Fla.1979). Under the circumstances of this case it can hardly be said that the twenty-two day delay in rendering the final order caused any impairment.

The determinative question, therefore, is whether the final order is supported by competent substantial evidence. Davis v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 263 So.2d 251 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972). After careful consideration of the record and appellant’s brief, we hold that the Commission’s final order is not supported by substantial competent evidence and the Commission erred in rejecting the hearing officer’s conclusions.

REVERSED.

GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

401 So. 2d 912, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucas-v-board-of-real-estate-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack