McNulty v. Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McNulty v. Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation

814 So. 2d 527, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5206, 2002 WL 662782

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 24, 2002

DocketNo. 4D01-2111

StatusPublished

This text of 814 So. 2d 527 (McNulty v. Florida Department of Business & Professional 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

McNulty v. Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation, 814 So. 2d 527, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5206, 2002 WL 662782 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges an order of the Construction Licensing Board requiring him to satisfy a judgment against him pursuant to section 489.129(l)(r), Florida Statutes (1997). He claims that the judgment resulted from an arbitration proceeding of which he was not given notice and that he was not a qualifier for the company involved in the arbitration. Appellant sought to vacate the judgment, but his request was denied. Section 489.129(l)(r) only requires proof that appellant, as a licensee or a qualified licensee for a business organization, failed to satisfy a judgment, related to contracting, within a reasonable time. Thus, whether appellant was a qualifier for the company was irrelevant. The civil judgment was entered against McNulty personally, satisfying the statutory requirements. We must therefore affirm the Construction Licensing Board’s order.

WARNER, FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges an order of the Construction Licensing Board requiring him to satisfy a judgment against him pursuant to section 489.129(l)(r), Florida Statutes (1997). He claims that the judgment resulted from an arbitration proceeding of which he was not given notice and that he was not a qualifier for the company involved in the arbitration. Appellant sought to vacate the judgment, but his request was denied. Section 489.129(l)(r) only requires proof that appellant, as a licensee or a qualified licensee for a business organization, failed to satisfy a judgment, related to contracting, within a reasonable time. Thus, whether appellant was a qualifier for the company was irrelevant. The civil judgment was entered against McNulty personally, satisfying the statutory requirements. We must therefore affirm the Construction Licensing Board’s order.

WARNER, FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

814 So. 2d 527, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5206, 2002 WL 662782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnulty-v-florida-department-of-business-professional-regulation-fladistctapp-2002.