310 B.R. 226 (2004) In re NUMED HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., Debtor. No. 8-00-BK-16984-PMG. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. March 30, 2004. *228 David S. Jennis, Jennis & Bowen, Richard J. Mclntyre, Tampa, FL, for Debtor. ORDER ON (1) MOTION OF HELLER HEALTHCARE FINANCE, INC. FOR DISGORGEMENT AND FOR DISTRIBUTION TO HELLER FROM ESCROW; (2) MOTION OF HELLER HEALTHCARE FNANCE, INC. FOR THE ALLOANCE OF REASONABLE FEES, COSTS, AND CHARGES PURSANT TO SECTION 506(b) OF THE BANK..

329 B.R. 882 (2005) In re Mitchell Scott STONE, Lillian Haydee Stone, Debtors. No. 03-16984-8G7. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. July 22, 2005. Ronald R. Bidwell, Law Office of Ronald R. Bidwell PA, Tampa, FL, for Debtors. ORDER ON MOTION BY UNITED STATES TO OVERRULE CONTESTED MATTER PAUL M. GLENN, Chief Judge. THIS CASE came before the Court for hearing to consider the Motion to Overrule Contested Matter filed by the United States of America, Internal Revenue Servic..

Whether Petitioners, as named beneficiaries of William Wenz, deceased, are entitled to a refund of the Teachers Retirement System account balance of Mr. Wenz, or whether the widow, Joanne Metzler Wenz, is entitled to receive a monthly retirement.Petitioners, although named as designated beneficiaries, are not entitled to refund of accumulated contributions of deceased member of Teacher Retirement System, where deceased member has a surviving spouse.

The St. Johns River Water Management District (the "District") alleges in Case Number 97-4389 that Respondent, Modern, Inc. ("Modern"), excavated two ditches in wetlands without a permit, that the excavation was not exempt from a permit, and that Modern committed related acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The District proposes alternative plans for corrective action. Modern and its co-respondents ("Respondents") contend that the excavation was not required to have a permit because either it was not an activity covered by the permitting statutes or it was exempt. In addition, Respondents charge that the proposed agency action is based on an unadopted rule that does not satisfy the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1997). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.) In Case Numbers 97-4390, 97-4391, 97-4392, and 97-4393, Respondents challenge an Emergency Order issued by the District to stop the drainage of wetlands. Respondents contend that the Emergency Order is facially insufficient, that there was no emergency, and that the corrective action has worsened conditions. The issue in each of the rule challenge cases is whether an existing rule or an agency statement is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Sections 120.52(8) and 120.56(1). Case Numbers 98-0426RX and 98-1180RX challenge Rule 40C-4.041 pursuant to Section 120.56(3). Case Number 98-1182RX challenges Rule 40C-4.051 pursuant to Section 120.56(3). Case Numbers 98-0427RU and 98-1181RU challenge an agency statement pursuant to Section 120.56(1) and (4). (Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules published in the Florida Administrative Code as of the date of this Recommended Order.) The parties identify approximately 57 issues in their respective Proposed Recommended Orders and Proposed Final Orders ("PROs" and "PFOs", respectively). Those issues relevant to the proceeding conducted pursuant to Section 120.57(1), including Section 120.57(1)(e), are addressed in this Recommended Order. The remaining issues are addressed in the Final Order issued on the same date as the date of this Recommended Order.Respondents who excavated ditches without a permit did not qualify for maintenance exemptions. Respondents must restore ditches. Emergency Order authorized weirs should not be quashed. Portions of agency statement and rule are invalid.