Heart of Live Oak, Inc. v. State, Office of Financial Regulation

PER CURIAM. We affirm the Final Order of the Office of Financial Regulation in all respects. We highlight Appellant’s Points I and II only, to hold that Appellant did not preserve those issues for appellate review. “It is well-established that for an issue to be preserved for appeal, it must be raised in the administrative proceeding of the alleged error.” Dep’t of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, Constr. Indus. Licensing Bd. v. Harden, 10 So.3d 647, 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Yachting Arcade, Inc. v. Riverwalk Condo. Assoc., Inc., 500 So.2d 202, 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)). “[A] party cannot argue on appeal matters which were [1291] not properly excepted to or challenged in the administrative tribunal.” Pullen v. State, 818 So.2d 601, 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); see also Palm Constr. Co. of W. Fla. v. Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 153 So.3d 948, 949 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Here, as to Points I and II, we find that Appellant met Appellee’s arguments below “with silence” and therefore, failed to preserve these appellate issues for review. Goodwin v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 194 So.3d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). AFFIRMED. RAY, BILBREY, and JAY, JJ., concur.