Santana v. Florida Department of Financial Services

61 So. 3d 1262, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7573, 2011 WL 2031430
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 25, 2011
DocketNo. 3D10-401
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 So. 3d 1262 (Santana v. Florida Department of Financial Services) 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
Santana v. Florida Department of Financial Services, 61 So. 3d 1262, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7573, 2011 WL 2031430 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Armando Santana, pro se, appeals a final order of the Department of Financial Services denying his application for licen-sure as a resident Florida title insurance agent.1 The Department’s denial was based on Santana’s prior criminal record, and the order further imposed a 24-year waiting period2 for re-application. We summarily affirm the denial under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a), finding that the Department was well within its discretion in denying the application. [1263]*1263However, we summarily reverse and remand for recalculation of the waiting period.

During the pendency of this appeal, the First District Court of Appeal per curiam affirmed the Department’s appeal from the Amended Final Order in Santana v. Department of Financial Services, No. 09-0829RX (Dept. of Admin. Hearings Apr. 29, 2010), finding that the Department had improperly enacted and interpreted its Rules for the computation of waiting periods when it denied an application for licen-sure based on the applicant’s prior criminal history. Dept. of Financial Servs. v. Santana, 1D10-2744, 2011 WL 1289035 (Fla. 1st DCA April 5, 2011)(per curiam affirmed). As this is a pipeline case, i.e. still pending on appeal when there has been a change in the law as applied specifically to him, State v. Ruiz, 863 So.2d 1205, 1209 n. 6 (Fla.2003) (“Pipeline cases are those cases pending on direct appellate review or are otherwise not yet final at the time of a pertinent change in the law.”), Santana is entitled to the benefit of that result. “An appellate court must apply the law that exists at the time of the appeal.” St. John v. Coisman, 799 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing Lowe v. Price, 437 So.2d 142 (Fla.1983)). On this basis Santana is entitled to relief from the 24-year (net) waiting period imposed in his case as the rules applying to calculation of these waiting periods have been affected.

Summarily affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

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

Related

Odegaard v. State
137 So. 3d 505 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 So. 3d 1262, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7573, 2011 WL 2031430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santana-v-florida-department-of-financial-services-fladistctapp-2011.