Accardi v. DEP
2002 WL 1972380, 824 So. 2d 992 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The time limit for filing a petition to challenge an agency action begins upon a party's actual receipt of the agency's notice, not on the date the agency claims to have mailed it. A petitioner's allegation of non-receipt creates a disputed issue of material fact that precludes dismissal and requires an evidentiary hearing to resolve.
Facts:
- The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued a coastal construction permit to the Hillsboro Shores Improvements Association, Inc. (HSIA) to build a deck and ramp on property in Pompano Beach, Florida.
- Edmund and Charlotte Accardi owned property immediately adjacent to the site of the proposed construction.
- DEP asserted that it mailed a notification letter to the Accardis on November 6, 2000, which stated that any challenge must be filed within twenty-one days of receipt.
- The Accardis alleged they never received the November 6th notification letter.
- The Accardis stated they first discovered that the permit had been issued on or about December 14, 2000, through a separate civil action involving HSIA.
Procedural Posture:
- Edmund and Charlotte Accardi filed a petition with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) seeking an administrative hearing to challenge a permit issued to Hillsboro Shores Improvements Association, Inc.
- DEP issued an Order Dismissing the Petition with Leave to Amend, finding the petition was untimely and procedurally deficient.
- The Accardis filed an amended petition.
- DEP issued a Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, denying the hearing on the same grounds and adding that the Accardis lacked standing.
- The Accardis, as Appellants, appealed the Final Order of Dismissal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a petitioner's sworn allegation that they never received a mailed notice from an administrative agency create a disputed issue of material fact regarding the timeliness of their petition, thus precluding dismissal without a hearing?
Opinions:
Majority - Stevenson, J.
Yes. A petitioner's claim of non-receipt creates a disputed issue of material fact as to when notice was received, which must be resolved through the administrative process. The plain language of the relevant Florida Administrative Code provisions states that the time to petition for a hearing runs from the 'receipt of written notice.' The code contains no provision creating an irrebuttable presumption of receipt upon mailing by the agency. Therefore, a fact-finder must determine whether the Accardis actually received the written notice allegedly mailed by DEP before the petition can be dismissed as untimely. The court also found that the Accardis had sufficiently alleged standing as adjacent property owners and had substantially complied with pleading requirements by describing the substance of the rules allegedly violated, even without citing specific rule numbers.
Analysis:
This decision protects a party's due process rights by clarifying that the timeline to challenge an administrative action in Florida hinges on actual, not constructive, notice. It prevents administrative agencies from summarily dismissing petitions as untimely based solely on a record of mailing when the petitioner disputes receipt. The ruling forces agencies to conduct evidentiary hearings to resolve factual disputes over notice, ensuring that parties are not deprived of their right to be heard due to circumstances like mail delivery failure. It also signals a preference for resolving disputes on their merits rather than on hyper-technical pleading deficiencies.
Unlock the full brief for Accardi v. DEP