Whether Respondent's license as a Limited Surety Agent should be revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, dated July 7, 1981. This case was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 10, 1981. In view of the fact that the Administrative Complaint included a charge dealing with the same incident recited in a previously filed case by the same Petitioner against Bonnie Louise Sponheim, DOAH Case No. 81-1711, the cases were consolidated for the purposes of hearing pursuant to Rule 28-5.106, Florida Administrative Code, by Order issued August 17, 1981, and Notice of Hearing was issued for October 8, 1981. The hearing was continued upon the request of Respondents to await the outcome of a pending judicial appeal of a criminal conviction of Respondent James L. Sponheim, in the County Court of Pasco County. Subsequently, Respondent Bonnie Louise Sponheim filed a motion to sever her case and proceed to hearing as soon as possible. The motion was granted, and her case was noticed for hearing on February 17, 1982. At the commencement of that hearing, Respondent filed a motion for continuance, based on substitution of counsel. The motion was granted, subject to reconsolidation of the two cases in order to prevent multiple hearings. Final hearing was then set in the consolidated cases for April 16, 1982. At the conclusion of Petitioner's case, Respondent James L. Sponheim moved to dismiss Paragraph 4 of Count I of the Complaint because no evidence had been presented that Respondent had refused to return a premium and/or collateral to Stephen W. Sissitka. The motion was granted. After all evidence had been presented, Petitioner dismissed Count II of the Administrative Complaint against Respondent James L. Sponheim, and also dismissed the following portions of counts which had alleged violation of departmental rules, but failed to specify the rule alleged to have been violated: Count III(d) and Count IV(e). The remaining viable counts of the Complaint can be summarized as follows: That Respondent directed or permitted an unlicensed person to surrender a person who had been bonded by Respondent in violation of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, and Rule 4-1.06, Florida Administrative Code. Counts III, V, VII, IX, XI, XIII, XV, XVII, XIX, and XXI. These counts involve allegations that Respondent James L. Sponheim solicited bail bond business of various students of St. Leo College in or about the Pasco County Detention Center, Dade City, Florida, in violation of subsection 648.44(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which thereby warranted disciplinary action under subsections 648.45(1)(b),(f), and (j), Florida Statutes. Counts IV, VI, VIII, X, XII, XIV, XVI, XVIII, XX, and XXII. These counts allege that Respondent James L. Sponheim suggested or advised the employment of an attorney to the various students alleged in the other counts in violation of subsections 648.44(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, which thereby warranted disciplinary action pursuant to subsections 648.45(1) and (j), Florida Statutes. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that Counts III through XXII will be determined upon the basis of the testimony of witnesses at a criminal trial of Respondent in the Pasco County Court, Case No. 800995MMAES, on February 13, 1981. No documentary evidence was received at that trial. The stipulation was accepted and thereafter the trial transcript was submitted to the Hearing Officer to be used in lieu of live testimony at the hearing. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the above-mentioned counts are based solely upon the said transcript. The parties agreed that the statutory period for rendition of a Recommended Order in the consolidated cases would be waived for a reasonable time in the discretion of the Hearing Officer. Post-hearing submissions by the parties have been fully considered and those portions thereof not adopted herein are deemed to be unnecessary, irrelevant, or unwarranted in fact or law.Recommend dismissal of complaint. Respondent did not violate statutes concerning surety. No evidence supported these allegations.

The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent's license and eligibility for licensure as an Ordinary Life, Disability and a General Lines agent should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined for reasons set forth hereinafter by the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner on September 24, 1982.Respondent falsified insurance application, converted exess premiums and misrepresented clients to insurer. Recommend suspension.

This case concerns the issue of whether Respondent's license as an ordinary-combination life, including disability agent and professional bail bondsman and limited surety agent should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for having been convicted of a felony. The administrative complaint filed on November 10, 1982, sought to suspend, revoke, or otherwise discipline the Respondent's license as an ordinary-combination life, including disability agent and professional bondsman. Inasmuch as the Respondent's license as an ordinary-combination life, including disability agent expired on March 30, 1981, the Petitioner, prior to the taking of evidence in the formal hearing, voluntarily dismissed allegations IIIA and IIIB of the administrative complaint. Although no express reference was made in the administrative complaint to Respondent's license as a limited surety agent, it was stipulated at the formal hearing that the administrative complaint be amended to include Respondent's license as a limited surety agent in the action. At the hearing, the Petitioner called no witnesses and offered and had admitted three exhibits. The Respondent testified on his own behalf and offered and had received into evidence two exhibits. Counsel for the Petitioner has filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the undersigned Hearing officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not adopted in this order, they were considered and determined to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.Realtor should not have license suspended for felony conviction unrelated to professional practice.

Petitioner, who was convicted ten years ago of robbery unconnected with insurance, is now rehabilitated and with a good reputation and can sit for license exam.

The issues presented in this case are as follows: Was there a misrepresentation by Petitioner on her application? Did the Petitioner enter a plea of guilty to a felony in this state involving moral turpitude? Does the Petitioner possess the fitness and trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance? The Department submitted post hearing findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.Due to good record and passage of time, Petitioner showed good character. License.

The primary issue for determination is whether Petitioner should be permitted to take the examination provided by Respondent to individuals seeking licensure as a certified residential contractor.Petitioner had no right to take exam where he held a higher level license and sought exam admission so he could later instruct others.

Whether Petitioner is qualified for licensure as a professional geologist pursuant to the grandfather provision of Section 492.105(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1987).Petitioner failed to prove courses he took satisfy education requirements for licensure

Whether the Petitioner, Bert S. McLaughlin, qualifies for licensure as an unlimited electrical contractor in the state of Florida by endorsement pursuant to Section 489.511, Florida Statutes. Whether the Resolution adopted by the Florida Electrical Contractrors' Board (Board) on July 19, 1985 and readopted in substance on March 30, 1987 and May 15, 1987 estops the Board from denying the Petitioner an unlimited electrical contractor's license by endorsement pursuant to Section 489.511, Florida Statutes.In obtaining licensure by endorsement applicant must show that exam taken to obtain out of state license was substantially equivalent to the Florida exam.

The issue in this case is whether the application of the Petitioner, Gregory W. Isphording, for licensure as a Florida professional geologist should be granted. Specifically, since the Petitioner seeks licensure without examination and must have been eligible for licensure on the basis of his qualifications at the time of his application, it is critical whether the Petitioner's work experience while pursuing his undergraduate degree in geology qualifies as work experience for purposes of licensure.Petitioner's work experience collecting and analyzing samples didn't qualify as professional geological work experience. Not enough qualifying experience. Application denied

The issue for determination is whether John Morse is entitled to licensure as a geologist under the provisions of section 492.105, Florida Statutes.Education in geology requires some basic principles-hydrology courses not broad enough to satisfy requirement. Licensure without exam denied