Post by Admin on Jun 26, 2016 18:01:57 GMT -5
There is misunderstanding about what is happening with the HUD hearing, among other things. The hearing is being equated to a lawsuit.
This is not true. Administrative hearings utilize many of the same processes and procedures used in traditional courtrooms but are not the same thing as a lawsuit.
Florida has a state Administrative Procedure Act set forth in Chapter 120 of Florida Statutes. It is modeled after the federal Administrative Procedure Act. Its provisions, with certain limited exceptions, apply to all state administrative agencies. The Administrative Law Division hears “facts” when an agency’s more controversial policies affect the substantial interests of citizens. Administrative law judges have authority, after an appropriate hearing, to enter a Final Order that an agency’s rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Following is a mini overview of the hearings present and future.
First, a few comments on how we get our laws!
There are two primary sources of laws and legal rules: legislatures and judges. When the law has been created by legislators, it is called statutory law. It is a body of made-up rules about process and conduct. It is often written by lobbyists who influence politicians to sponsor it as their own. When it has been created by judges, it is called common law.
Most of civil law has its origin in common law, as modified by various statutes. The rules of common law are not to be found in codes written by a single authority (legislative politicians), but instead in the case law -- that is, the body of decisions made in previous decisions by judges.
The guiding principle of common law is the notion of precedent. This means that judges are, in general, expected to make rulings that follow the pattern established in previous, similar cases. When a new case arises whose resolution is not clearly dictated by existing precedents, the judge's decision in the case becomes the precedent for future cases of a similar nature. In this way, the common law develops over time in response to the cases that appear before the courts.
F.S. Ch. 120 allows persons substantially affected by the preliminary decisions of administrative agencies to cH allenge those decisions. Administrative law judges determine whether proposed and existing agency rules are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority based on certain statutory grounds.
Enter the current Complaint by 66S. It was entered as an objection to a decision by a state agency: Florida’s HUD.
Enter the Complaint by Grnt. It was entered as an objection to a decision by a state agency: Florida’s DEO.
Neither of these complaints are lawsuits. Complainants are simply saying the state agency “got it wrong” when it reached its decisions. The Complainants are cH allenging the decisions reached by the agency based on “rulemaking” (statutes). Statutes are strict rules of process and conduct that can be cH allenged as unconstitutional or claimed as injurious to one’s vested rights.
Administrative cases are “inquisitional” versus “adversarial”. They consider policy, which is difficult to compromise (unlike private litigation). In adjudicatory cases, where there has been a decision which “affects substantial interests,” the administrative law judge normally has the role of making findings of fact and a recommendation.
The parties to the 66SS Complaint have already submitted affidavits and witness testimony into evidence along with their initial Motions. The DEO cH allenge petition is now being scheduled for a hearing by teleconference. The legal complaints are against Florida’s agencies.
Both sides now have the opportunity, within 45 days of June 23, 2016, to submit summaries of their positions and statements as to desired action by the judge. The judge then has 30 days to render a decision. The judge’s decision can be appealed.
I believe that the recent HUD hearing, at which thousands and thousands of owner dollars were spent for attorneys, was essentially a “dog ‘n pony” show. SLohA had big bucks to fly in witnesses, conduct depositions, gather affidavits and transport witnesses to the hearing venue. Reportedly, there was no new or substantive information offered by SLohA witnesses that supported or refuted HUD’s alleged administrative error. The law provides the option to conduct these hearings by teleconference.
I hope this answers some questions and relieves owners that it is not raining lawsuits!
This is not true. Administrative hearings utilize many of the same processes and procedures used in traditional courtrooms but are not the same thing as a lawsuit.
Florida has a state Administrative Procedure Act set forth in Chapter 120 of Florida Statutes. It is modeled after the federal Administrative Procedure Act. Its provisions, with certain limited exceptions, apply to all state administrative agencies. The Administrative Law Division hears “facts” when an agency’s more controversial policies affect the substantial interests of citizens. Administrative law judges have authority, after an appropriate hearing, to enter a Final Order that an agency’s rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Following is a mini overview of the hearings present and future.
First, a few comments on how we get our laws!
There are two primary sources of laws and legal rules: legislatures and judges. When the law has been created by legislators, it is called statutory law. It is a body of made-up rules about process and conduct. It is often written by lobbyists who influence politicians to sponsor it as their own. When it has been created by judges, it is called common law.
Most of civil law has its origin in common law, as modified by various statutes. The rules of common law are not to be found in codes written by a single authority (legislative politicians), but instead in the case law -- that is, the body of decisions made in previous decisions by judges.
The guiding principle of common law is the notion of precedent. This means that judges are, in general, expected to make rulings that follow the pattern established in previous, similar cases. When a new case arises whose resolution is not clearly dictated by existing precedents, the judge's decision in the case becomes the precedent for future cases of a similar nature. In this way, the common law develops over time in response to the cases that appear before the courts.
F.S. Ch. 120 allows persons substantially affected by the preliminary decisions of administrative agencies to cH allenge those decisions. Administrative law judges determine whether proposed and existing agency rules are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority based on certain statutory grounds.
Enter the current Complaint by 66S. It was entered as an objection to a decision by a state agency: Florida’s HUD.
Enter the Complaint by Grnt. It was entered as an objection to a decision by a state agency: Florida’s DEO.
Neither of these complaints are lawsuits. Complainants are simply saying the state agency “got it wrong” when it reached its decisions. The Complainants are cH allenging the decisions reached by the agency based on “rulemaking” (statutes). Statutes are strict rules of process and conduct that can be cH allenged as unconstitutional or claimed as injurious to one’s vested rights.
Administrative cases are “inquisitional” versus “adversarial”. They consider policy, which is difficult to compromise (unlike private litigation). In adjudicatory cases, where there has been a decision which “affects substantial interests,” the administrative law judge normally has the role of making findings of fact and a recommendation.
The parties to the 66SS Complaint have already submitted affidavits and witness testimony into evidence along with their initial Motions. The DEO cH allenge petition is now being scheduled for a hearing by teleconference. The legal complaints are against Florida’s agencies.
Both sides now have the opportunity, within 45 days of June 23, 2016, to submit summaries of their positions and statements as to desired action by the judge. The judge then has 30 days to render a decision. The judge’s decision can be appealed.
I believe that the recent HUD hearing, at which thousands and thousands of owner dollars were spent for attorneys, was essentially a “dog ‘n pony” show. SLohA had big bucks to fly in witnesses, conduct depositions, gather affidavits and transport witnesses to the hearing venue. Reportedly, there was no new or substantive information offered by SLohA witnesses that supported or refuted HUD’s alleged administrative error. The law provides the option to conduct these hearings by teleconference.
I hope this answers some questions and relieves owners that it is not raining lawsuits!
