The Florida Administrative Procedure Act allows people to request a declaratory statement from a state agency if they need guidance on how a regulation applies to their situation. But, there have been recent changes that are causing confusion for everyone involved. It’s unclear who can request a declaratory statement and what it can be used for. Overall, the whole process is currently unclear and messy. The Florida Administrative Procedure Act allows for declaratory statements to be issued. Declaratory statements are meant to provide a quicker and less expensive way for people to get legal advice on how to handle their affairs. However, there has been a debate about whether declaratory statements should be treated like declaratory judgment actions in court. In 1995, a court said that people seeking a declaratory statement must show that there is a real and current need for it and that it deals with a current controversy. In 1998, the rules for getting a declaratory statement were changed. Before, there had to be a current problem, but now you can get a declaratory statement to avoid future problems. A court case in 2002 said that you can’t ask for a declaratory statement if the thing you are asking about has already happened. Declaratory statements are for avoiding arguments in the future, while declaratory judgments are for solving problems based on what’s happening now. For 25 years, there was a debate about the difference between agency declaratory statements and agency rules. A declaratory statement is supposed to only apply to a specific situation, while a rule applies to a larger group of people. In 1996, the legislature changed the law, 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 addressed the issue of whether a government agency could issue a declaratory statement that applied to a broad group of people, rather than just the specific person who requested it. The court decided that if a declaratory statement makes a broad policy or interpretation that applies to a whole group of people, it can be overturned on appeal. However, a previous court case called Chiles had found that a declaratory statement could apply to more than one person without being considered a rule. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a case in 1999 and said that agencies can issue declaratory statements, even if it affects more than just the person asking for it. This means that if a policy affects other people too, the agency can make it into a rule. This clears up confusion about when agencies can issue declaratory statements and helps ensure that everyone is treated fairly. In a different case, there was confusion about who could challenge a decision about utility lines. This confusion led to conflicting decisions from different courts. The EPA fined FDOT for not maintaining the rest stop sewer systems. FDOT decided to build a utility corridor, but the county didn’t follow the proper procedures for construction. Some residents and a public group tried to stop the project, but the court said they didn’t have enough evidence. They then filed another lawsuit and a petition, getting different results in each. The circuit court and appellate courts dismissed the petition from 1000 Friends of Florida challenging the water and sewer lines at rest stops. They said the lines were exempt from development order challenges and the petitioners didn’t have standing to challenge them. The petitioners also appealed on procedural grounds, and the First District Court of Appeal said the recent law changes meant they didn’t have to be the only ones affected by the petition. The court said that Investment Corp. protected the rights of FDOT and the county. They also said that the process for getting a decision from the government protects the rights of all parties involved. It’s strange that the court didn’t decide on whether the county had the right to bring the case. Later, another court said the county didn’t have the right to bring the case. It’s unclear why the first court didn’t transfer the case to the second court or wait for the second court to make a decision. In the end, the two courts had completely different decisions about who can challenge the utility lines. The 1000 Friends lawsuits ended with a case called St. Johns County v. Department of Community Affairs. The Fifth District court talked about the history of the lawsuits, and that the First District said the case could continue, but didn’t say if the people suing had the right to sue under a specific law. The DCA issued a statement based only on the facts from 1000 Friends, refusing to consider other disputed facts. The agency operated with willful blindness and didn’t take into account previous court decisions that contradicted the petition. The Fifth District agreed and barred the declaratory statement because the petitioners had no standing to object to utility lines in rights-of-way. The First District’s opinion left the door open for others to use this process to tie parties in knots. This goes against what the legislature intended and is unfair to affected parties who can’t introduce contradictory facts. One coauthor had trouble getting a local government to create a zoning category for an assisted living facility. They asked a state agency to review the local zoning code, but the agency refused. This shows that there is confusion about how a certain law should be used. The government needs to make the law clearer to avoid different decisions on the same issue. This can cause chaos and lead to unfair outcomes. The Couch decision cited a case where a court denied a request for a ruling because the issue was only a possibility of a future dispute. The article discusses different cases where agencies were asked for declaratory statements and the requirements for making such requests. It also talks about the importance of standing, or having a direct interest in the issue, when requesting a declaratory statement from an agency. In the case Parlato v. Secret Oaks Owners Association, the First District Court did not transfer the case to the Fifth District, but made sure to consider related cases to make their decision. The authors of this article represented the Parlatos in this case. The court noted that the Parlatos may have administrative rights, 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, but instead made their own decision. The Secret Oaks Owners Association and 1000 Friends tried to transfer their appeals to different districts, but were unsuccessful. This column is from the Administrative Law Section, with Donna E. Blanton as the chair and Richard M. Ellis as the editor. It talks about the importance of lawyers serving the public and improving the justice system. The section aims to teach its members about their duties and serving the public, making the justice system better, and advancing the study of law.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-evolution-of-declaratory-statements-2/
Leave a Reply