Madison Highlands v. Florida Housing
220 So. 3d 467
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- FHFC issued RFA 2015-107 for low-income housing tax credits in Hillsborough County; only one project would be funded. SP Gardens (Laburnum Gardens) was identified for the award after a tie-break. Madison Highlands, a competing applicant, timely protested and sought an administrative hearing.
- FHFC dismissed Madison Highlands’ initial amended petition for failing to comply with Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.201(2)(e)-(f) and gave leave to amend by March 4, 2016, warning that failure to amend would waive administrative challenge rights.
- Madison Highlands emailed a second amended petition at 5:36 p.m. on March 4, 2016. FHFC treated it as untimely under the Uniform Rules (documents received after 5:00 p.m. are filed the next business day) and dismissed the petition with prejudice as 36 minutes late.
- Madison Highlands argued FHFC’s own rule (Fla. Admin. Code r. 67-52.002(3))—which treats e-mailed petitions as filed on the date transmitted—misled it into believing the filing was timely; it sought equitable tolling. It also alleged facts showing it would have received the award if the higher-ranked applicants’ applications were properly scored.
- The appellate court held the petition was untimely under the Uniform Rules but concluded equitable tolling applied because FHFC’s publication of its electronic-filing rule without referencing the Uniform Rules misled Madison Highlands and opposing parties suffered no prejudice. The court also found Madison Highlands alleged sufficient facts to meet Agrico standing requirements and remanded for an administrative hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of second amended petition | Electronic transmission on March 4 counted as filed that day under FHFC rule 67-52.002(3); therefore timely | Uniform Rules (r. 28-106.104(3)) control and treat >5:00 p.m. filings as filed next business day; petition was 36 minutes late | Petition was untimely under Uniform Rules, but equitable tolling applied because FHFC’s rule and website misled petitioner and no prejudice shown |
| Availability of equitable tolling | FHFC’s publication of an electronic-filing rule misstated filing date and lulled petitioner into missing the 5:00 p.m. deadline | Section 120.569(2)(c) requires dismissal of untimely petitions; petitioner should have known Uniform Rules apply | Equitable tolling available; late filing excused where party was misled and opposing parties not prejudiced |
| Standing to seek administrative hearing (Agrico test) | Madison Highlands alleged defects in the four higher-ranked applications that, if proven, would make it the award recipient; therefore it has a substantial interest | FHFC contended allegations were insufficient to show petitioner would be elevated to first place and thus lacked standing | Allegations, accepted as true at pleading stage, satisfied both Agrico prongs (injury-in-fact and injury type protected by the proceedings); standing found |
| Appropriate remedy | N/A (Madison sought hearing) | FHFC dismissed petition with prejudice | Court reversed and remanded for administrative hearing under §120.57 |
Key Cases Cited
- Agrico Chem. Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Regulation, 406 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (two-prong test for substantial interest/standing in administrative challenges)
- Machules v. Dep’t of Admin., 523 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1988) (equitable tolling applied where party was misled or prevented from timely asserting rights)
- Preston Carroll Co. v. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth., 400 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (unsuccessful bidder’s standing depends on bid ranking; second-lowest establishes substantial interest)
- Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 72 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (equitable tolling for late administrative filings under similar circumstances)
- St. Francis Parkside Lodge of Tampa Bay v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 486 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (agency must accept petition’s factual allegations as true when considering dismissal)
- Ft. Myers Real Estate Holdings, LLC v. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof’l Reg., 53 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (question whether petitioner can prove allegations is for hearing, not pleading-stage dismissal)