Background

• RLI Live Oak, a land developer, sued for a declaration that its property contained no wetlands; the South Florida Water Management District (District) counterclaimed for unauthorized activities and sought civil penalties.
• After a non-jury trial, the circuit court found for the District and awarded $81,900 in civil penalties.
• The circuit court applied the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard; the Fifth District reversed, holding Osborne required clear-and-convincing proof before imposing monetary penalties.
• The Fifth District certified the question of whether Osborne mandates clear-and-convincing proof for state agencies seeking civil penalties in circuit court.
• The Florida Supreme Court rephrased the certified question to focus on statutory civil penalties in a court of competent jurisdiction when the statute is silent on burden of proof.
• The Court held Osborne’s clear-and-convincing rule applies to administrative fines (administrative proceedings), not to statutorily authorized civil penalties pursued in circuit court; therefore the preponderance standard governs absent legislative specification.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Dep’t of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996) (held clear-and-convincing standard required for administrative fines in administrative proceedings)
• Gross v. Lyons, 763 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2000) (defines preponderance standard and presumption that it governs civil cases)
• Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (explains when a heightened burden may be required due to important individual interests)