welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Betty C Zachem
Betty C Zachem
Betty C Zachem
Visitors: 209
0
Bar #25821(FL)     License for 19 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Betty C Zachem? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

16-2960  D.C., Mother of A.M., A Minor Child v. Florida Department of Children and Families  (2016)
District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Sep. 13, 2016
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA D.C., MOTHER OF A.M., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO MINOR CHILD, FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant, v. CASE NO. 1D16-2960 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed September 14, 2016. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Suwannee County. William F. Williams, Judge. James Janousek, II, of the Law Office of James Janousek, Live Oak; Lucas J. Taylor of Sellers, Taylor &..
19-002328BID  THE VISTAS AT FOUNTAINHEAD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 02, 2019
The issues in this protest are whether Respondent's intended action——i.e., deeming Petitioner's application ineligible for funding on the grounds that the amount of capital the applicant's equity proposal states will be invested during construction is insufficient to cover development costs——is contrary to governing statutes, administrative rules, or the specifications of the solicitation; and, if so, whether this erroneous action is contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary or capricious.Respondent's intended action of deeming an application ineligible due to material ambiguity in the application regarding the amount of equity to be paid prior to construction completion should not be disturbed.
19-002275BID  HTG OAK VALLEY, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 30, 2019
The issues in this protest are whether either or both of Respondent's intended actions in dispute——namely, (i) deeming one application eligible for funding despite the existence of reasonable grounds for uncertainty as to whether the amount of capital the applicant's equity proposal states will be invested during construction is sufficient to cover development costs; and (ii) awarding another applicant a number of proximity points based on information in its application that was later discovered to be mistaken——are contrary to governing statutes, administrative rules, or the specifications of the solicitation; and, if so, whether the erroneous action or actions are contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary or capricious.Intended action deeming an application eligible despite material ambiguity therein regarding the amount of equity available for construction should be set aside; another applicant's proximity points should be reduced to conform to corrected distance data.
19-002276BID  FOUNTAINS AT KINGS POINTE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 30, 2019
The issues in this protest are whether either or both of Respondent's intended actions in dispute——namely, (i) deeming one application eligible for funding despite the existence of reasonable grounds for uncertainty as to whether the amount of capital the applicant's equity proposal states will be invested during construction is sufficient to cover development costs; and (ii) awarding another applicant a number of proximity points based on information in its application that was later discovered to be mistaken——are contrary to governing statutes, administrative rules, or the specifications of the solicitation; and, if so, whether the erroneous action or actions are contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary or capricious.Intended action deeming an application eligible despite material ambiguity therein regarding the amount of equity available for construction should be set aside; another applicant's proximity points should be reduced to conform to corrected distance data.
19-000165  MARIKA TOLZ vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 09, 2019
Whether Petitioner was properly denied mortgage assistance through Florida Housing Finance Corporation's ("Florida Housing") Hardest-Hit Fund Elderly Mortgage Assistance ("ELMORE") program based on a conviction for fraud allegedly in connection with a real estate transaction.Petitioner's wire fraud was "in connection with" a real estate transaction because she used the proceeds to mortgage, maintain, or improve her real property. Recommend denial of participation in ELMORE program for mortgage assistance.
19-001261BID  AMBAR RIVERVIEW, LTD. vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 11, 2019
Whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation's ("Florida Housing"), intended action to award housing tax credit funding to Intervenor, Las Brisas Trace, LP ("Las Brisas"), under Request for Applications 2018-111 Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Miami-Dade County (the "RFA"), is contrary to governing statutes, rules, the RFA specifications, and clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioner failed to prove that Florida Housing's determination of eligibility and its intended award of tax credits were contrary to statutes, rules, the RFA, clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
18-000479BID  HTG OSPREY POINTE, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 29, 2018
The issue to be determined in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2017- 108, entitled “SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments To Be Used In Conjunction With Tax-Exempt Bond Financing And Non-Competitive Housing Credits” was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioner failed to prove that Florida Housing's intended award of funding to Intervenor was erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious. Florida Housing was authorized to waive an error as a "Minor Irregularity."
18-000484BID  NORTHSIDE PROPERTY II, LTD vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 29, 2018
The issue to be determined in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2017- 108, entitled “SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments To Be Used In Conjunction With Tax-Exempt Bond Financing And Non-Competitive Housing Credits” was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioner failed to prove that Florida Housing's intended award of funding to Intervenor was erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious. Florida Housing was authorized to waive an error as a "Minor Irregularity."
18-000485BID  LIBERTY SQUARE PHASE TWO, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 29, 2018
The issue to be determined in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2017- 108, entitled “SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments To Be Used In Conjunction With Tax-Exempt Bond Financing And Non-Competitive Housing Credits” was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioner failed to prove that Florida Housing's intended award of funding to Intervenor was erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious. Florida Housing was authorized to waive an error as a "Minor Irregularity."
18-002130BID  HTG HERON ESTATES FAMILY, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 26, 2018
The issues presented for determination are whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s determination that the three applicant-parties were eligible for the allocation of low-income housing tax credits; and its intended decision to award such tax credits to Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC, are contrary to governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.1/Petitioners failed to prove that Florida Housing's determinations of eligibility and its intended award of tax credits were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer