05/26/2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In my opinion, Rule 12D-9.031 can be interpreted several ways. According to subsection (3) of that Rule, once you determine that a recommended decision meets the requirements of law, you shall adopt the recommended decision. The strict and mechanical interpretation could mean that the Board is required to adopt a recommended decision that complies with the three statutory provisions listed in subsection (1) of Rule 12D-9.031. As counsel for the Board, it is my job to ensure that a recommended decision complies with the three statutory provisions listed in subsection (1). Once a determination of legal sufficiency has been made, the Board's discretion would be limited. Alternatively, language found in other provisions of Rule 12D-9 FAC states that recommended decisions must also "meet the requirements of law." Based upon this other language, I am not convinced the restrictive and mechanical interpretation of Rule 12D-9.031(1) and (3) should always be applied, which would mean the Board's discretion is not so limited. For example, Rule 12D-9.030(1) FAC reads as follows: 1213-9.030 Recommended Decisions. (1) For each petition not withdrawn or settled, special magistrates shall produce a written recommended decision that contains findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reasons for upholding or overturning the property appraiser's determination. Conclusions of law must be based on findings of fact. For each of the statutory criteria for the issue under administrative review, findings of fact must identify the corresponding admitted evidence, or lack thereof. Each recommended decision shall contain sufficient factual and legal information and reasoning to enable the parties to understand the basis for the decision, and shall otherwise meet the requirements of law. The special magistrate and board clerk shall observe the petitioner's right to be sent a timely written recommended decision containing proposed findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law and reasons for upholding or overturning the determination of the property appraiser. After producing a recommended decision, the special magistrate shall provide it to the board clerk. And Rule 12D -9.032(1)(a) FAC reads as follows: 12D-9.032 Final Decisions. (1)(a) For each petition not withdrawn or settled, the board shall produce a written final decision that contains findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reasons for upholding or overturning the property appraiser's determination. Conclusions of law must be based on findings of fact. For each of the statutory criteria for the issue under administrative review, findings of fact must identify the corresponding admitted evidence, or lack thereof. Each final decision shall contain sufficient factual and legal information and reasoning to enable the parties to understand the basis for the decision, and shall otherwise meet the requirements of law. The board may fulfill the requirement to produce a written final decision by adopting a recommended decision of the special magistrate containing the required elements and providing notice that it has done so. The board may adopt the special magistrate's recommended decision as the decision of the board incorporating the recommended decision, using a postcard or similar notice. The board shall ensure regular and timely approval of recommended decisions. Additionally, Section 194.034(2) Florida Statutes only requires that a recommended decision contain findings of fact, conclusions of law, and include reasons for upholding or overturning the determination of the property appraiser. These Rules and Statute, when interpreted together or consistently, require the Board to adopt a recommended decision that meets the three specified statutory criteria (listed in subsection (1) of Rule 12D-9.031) and the requirements of law. Another issue that arose in regard to this petition was the requirement for 25 days' advance notice before a hearing can be held. Complying with this time period became an impossibility when a new hearing was trying to be rescheduled, especially in light of the June 1 deadline, special magistrate availability, and the petitioner's refusal to cooperate with setting a new hearing date. Pushing the hearing through under these circumstances could have become a due process issue. As counsel for the Board, I endeavor to provide the best possible advice to you based upon the current language of the Rules set forth in the FAC and the applicable statutory provisions. It is my opinion that the Board should adopt the special magistrate's recommend decision related to the above referenced petition. If you do that, the recommended decision will become a final Board decision and any further proceedings will have to take place in Circuit Court. The Circuit Court would hear this matter as if it were a new case and neither the petitioner nor the property appraiser would be limited by the evidence introduced during the special magistrate's hearing. 2