The Florida Administrative Procedure Act allows people to ask for a declaratory statement from a state agency to get guidance on how a regulation applies to their specific situation. But there have been some changes that make it unclear who can ask for a declaratory statement and what it can cover. So right now, it’s kind of confusing for everyone involved. The Florida Administrative Procedure Act allows for declaratory statements to be issued since 1974. Appellate courts have looked to the declaratory judgment statute for guidance on the availability and scope of declaratory statements. In 1986, Professor Patricia Dore cautioned against treating declaratory statements as if they were declaratory judgment actions. However, in 1995, a court reiterated that individuals seeking a declaratory statement must show a genuine need for it and that it deals with a current controversy. Before 1998, a declaratory statement was only allowed if there was a current problem that needed to be solved. But in 1998, the courts changed the rules and said that a declaratory statement could be used to prevent future legal problems, not just solve current ones. This means that a declaratory statement can now be used to figure out the right thing to do before a problem even happens. This is different from a declaratory judgment, which only deals with current, clear facts. So now, declaratory statements can be used in situations where declaratory judgments can’t. For a long time, there was a debate about the difference between agency declaratory statements and agency rules. A rule is a statement that applies to everyone, while a declaratory statement only applies to a specific person’s circumstances. In 1996, the law changed, making it less clear whether a statement could apply to more people than just the petitioner. In 1999, a court case called Investment Corp. of Palm Beach v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering dealt with a dispute about horse racing in Florida. The court found that the agency’s decision to issue a broad policy instead of a specific response was not allowed. Another court case, Chiles, had a similar situation but the court decided that a broad policy was okay in that case. So, the issue of when an agency can make broad policies instead of specific responses was still not resolved. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a case in 1999 about whether a government agency can issue a statement that affects more than just the person asking for it. The court decided that the agency can make a statement and also make a rule if it thinks it’s necessary. This clears up any confusion about when the agency can make a statement and helps make sure everyone is treated the same way. There was another case involving utility lines that also led to confusion, but that’s a whole different story. The EPA fined FDOT for not treating sewage at rest stops. FDOT planned a utility corridor and St. Johns County agreed to help pay for it. Some residents and a group challenged the plan, but lost their case. They then filed more challenges, one in court and one with the FDCA, but got different results in each. The court dismissed the action because the petitioners did not have the legal standing to challenge the improvements made by the Florida Department of Transportation. The petitioners tried to appeal the dismissal to different courts at the same time, causing confusion. Eventually, the courts agreed that the petitioners did not have the right to challenge the improvements. The court said that Investment Corp. protected the rights of the FDOT and the county. The court agreed that the process of getting a declaratory statement was enough to protect other parties like the FDOT and the county. But, in a different case, another court said that the people challenging the utility lines didn’t have the right to do so. It’s confusing because the two courts made opposite decisions about the same issue. The 1000 Friends lawsuits ended with a case called St. Johns County v. Department of Community Affairs in 2003. The Fifth District Court talked about the history of the lawsuits, and how the First District Court said the case could continue, but didn’t decide if the people suing had the right to do so. The DCA issued a statement based only on the facts presented by 1000 Friends, without considering other facts from FDOT and the county. The Fifth District agreed with FDOT and the county that the DCA’s statement was not valid because of a previous decision that said petitioners had no standing to object to utility lines in rights-of-way. This means that other petitioners may try to use the law to cause problems for parties involved in court cases. This is unfair to the parties who can’t bring up important facts that have already been decided in court. One coauthor had a problem with a local government not having rules for a type of care facility. They asked the state for help, but the state agency refused to even look at their request. This shows that the law is unclear and needs to be fixed so that everyone follows the same rules. The Couch decision mentioned a previous case where a declaratory judgment was denied because it only involved a possible future dispute. It also mentioned other cases where agencies were asked to issue declaratory statements and the rules surrounding this process. In Parlato v. Secret Oaks Owners Association, the First District Court of Appeal made efforts to follow previous cases from the Fifth District regarding a dock dispute. The authors of this article represented the Parlatos in this litigation. The court noted that the Parlatos may have administrative rights to challenge the dock, but these rights are subordinate to the easement rights established by the Fifth District. The court could have waited for the Fifth District’s decision before making their own, but they chose not to. Instead, the Department of Community Affairs’ decision could have caused problems if it wasn’t successfully appealed. Secret Oaks Owners Association and 1000 Friends both tried to transfer their appeals to different districts, but were unsuccessful. This column is written by the Administrative Law Section of The Florida Bar. It’s all about serving the public and making the justice system better. It’s important to follow the rules and keep learning about the law.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-evolution-of-declaratory-statements/
Leave a Reply