Case Name: ABC LIQUORS, INC. (STORE NO. 126), Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-02-11
Citations: 397 So. 2d 696
Docket Number: No. SS-372
Parties: ABC LIQUORS, INC. (STORE NO. 126), Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, Appellee.
Judges: SHAW, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 397
Pages: 696–699

Head Matter:
ABC LIQUORS, INC. (STORE NO. 126), Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, Appellee.
No. SS-372.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Feb. 11, 1981.
Rehearing Denied May 19, 1981.
James E. Foster of Fishback, Davis, Dominick & Bennett, Orlando, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Harold F. X. Purnell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.
At issue here is the meaning of the term "separate locations" as employed in a licensing statute which taxes alcoholic beverage vendors $1,000 extra for having "more than three permanent separate locations serving alcoholic beverages for consumption of the licensed premises." Section 565.02(l)(g), Florida Statutes (1979). On substantial competent evidence a DOAH hearing officer entered a recommended order, adopted by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, finding that appellant ABC's bar service facilities on its licensed premises were designed and built in four "separate locations" rather than in only one or two. That finding rests primarily on the agency's concept, satisfactorily advanced by evidence and accepted by the hearing officer, that bars standing separately, staffed separately, opened and closed separately, and operated separately are "separate locations" notwithstanding that they áre nearby each other in the same room. The agency's core position is stated thusly by the hearing officer's critical finding of ultimate fact:
Therefore, the design of the bar area within the room must be perceived as one primarily fashioned to suit the commercial needs of the Petitioner as opposed to the safety of the patrons.
When in Section 120.57 proceedings to construe and apply a nonpenal regulatory statute an independent hearing officer and the agency agree on a dispositive finding, there is little cause for a district court of appeal to debate whether the matter in issue is more nearly adjudicative fact or statutory policy and whether the hearing officer's or the agency's finding must prevail. See McDonald v. Dept. of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In such a case our task is only to assure that the affected party was protected by adherence to Chapter 120 processes, that the dispositive finding is supported by substantial competent evidence appropriate to the issue, and that the agency was not "clearly erroneous or unauthorized," Gay v. Canada Dry Bottling Co. of Florida, Inc., 59 So.2d 788, 790 (Fla.1952), in interpreting the statute given in its charge to enforce. APA processes thus lend added strength to the principle stated by the Supreme Court in King v. Seamon, 59 So.2d 859, 861 (Fla.1952):
The contemporaneous construction placed upon a statute by the officials charged with the duty of executing it should not be disregarded or overturned by this court except for the most cogent reasons, and unless clearly erroneous, (e. s.)
See also Robinson v. Fix, 113 Fla. 151, 151 So. 512 (Fla.1933); Miami Beach First National Bank v. Dunn, 85 So.2d 556 (Fla.1956); Green v. Stuckey's of Fanning Springs, Inc., 99 So.2d 867 (Fla.1957); United States Gypsum Co. v. Green, 110 So.2d 409 (Fla.1959); State ex rel. Volusia Jai-Alai, Inc. v. Ring, 122 So.2d 4 (Fla.1960); Miller v. Brewer Co. of Florida, Inc., 122 So.2d 565 (Fla.1960); Fidelity Constr. Co. v. Arthur J. Collins & Son, Inc., 130 So.2d 612 (Fla.1961); Henderson v. Sol Walker and Co., 138 So.2d 323 (Fla.1962); State v. Florida Dev. Comm., 211 So.2d 8 (Fla.1968); Daniel v. Florida St. Turnpike Auth., 213 So.2d 585 (Fla.1968); and State ex rel. Biscayne Kennel Club v. Board of Bus. Reg., 276 So.2d 823 (Fla.1973).
In this case, having a duty to explicate its nonrule interpretation of the governing statute by conventional proof methods as far as reasonably possible, the Division adduced evidence that ABC's design and operation of separate serving bars was dictated "simply by economics," as one witness expressed it, not by safety requirements or other considerations beyond ABC's effective control. Therefore the Division and the DOAH hearing officer cannot be considered "clearly erroneous or unauthorized" in attributing to the statute, debatable on its face, a similar economic purpose to collect an extra license fee for separate serving locations in a single room. Nor is it possible, on this record and in the face of the hearing officer's unimpeached findings, for this court to give "most cogent reasons" for setting aside the agency's decision. King, supra. To reverse would be to preempt agency responsibilities and reduce to the level of expensive but inconsequential preliminaries all the protective remedies which Chapter 120 affords in preference to court litigation. State ex rel. Dept. of General Serv. v. Willis, 344 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); School Board of Leon County v. Mitchell, 346 So.2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. den., 358 So.2d 132 (Fla.1978).
The agency order is AFFIRMED.
SHAW, J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., dissents, with opinion.