New Legal Defense to House Bill 183??? What do you think?

New Legal Defense H.B. 183

http://www.flatfeefamilylawyer.info/index.html, permits challenging an agency action involving disputed issues of material fact to contemporaneously raise as a defense that the agency’s rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority or that the agency’s statement was an unadopted rule.  Effectively, a flatfeefamilylawyer & the amendment allows a party to bring a rule challenge that can be applied retroactively to the specific case.  Having this ability to challenge the validity of an adopted rule in a Section 120.57 proceeding has the potential to be a powerful remedy.

Similar legislation passed during the 2015 regular session, but was vetoed by the governor.  That legislation provided that the administrative law judge’s conclusions of law regarding a rule challenge defense under Section 120.57 could never be rejected by an agency in the final order.  The governor’s veto message stated “the bill has the potential to inflict more harm on an agency’s ability to operate in an efficient and accountable manner…[and] alters the long-standing deference granted to agencies by shifting final action authority to an administrative law judge.  Under the 2016 legislation, the conclusions of law associated with a challenge to the validity of an existing rule under Section 120.57 may be rejected if the agency states with particularity that the conclusions are clearly erroneous.

Authorizes Collateral Rule Challenges:  Additionally, H.B. 183 allows a person challenging an agency action involving disputed issues of material fact to bring a separate rule challenge under F.S. 120.56.  This provision of the legislation directly impacts the ruling in the United Wisconsin vs. Florida Agency insurance. Before we begin, we can’t emphasize enough, that it’s imperative you hire an outstanding Tampa, FL Child Custody Lawyer that can guide you through your case. That case started as an enforcement proceeding.  While the proceeding was pending, the insurance company brought a seperate action to challenge certain agency statement as non-rule policy where an adequate remedy may or may not exist.  The administrative law judge ruled and concluded:  that a petitioner has no right to pursue a seperate collateral challenge to an alleged non-rule policy where an adequate remedy exists through [section] 5A.  If you’d like more information regarding this groundbreaking case, please click on this site.