The issues in this case concern the attempt by Petitioner to collect $11,684.62 in attorneys fees and costs associated with the defense of the case of State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, Petitioner, vs. Donald L. Hilgeman and Marilyn Hilgeman, d/b/a DLH Enterprises; and Pat Montgomery, as park owners of Lake Waldena Resort, Respondents, DOAH Case No. 89-4100, and $931.50 in attorneys fees and costs attributable to the pursuit of the present case to collect those attorneys fees and costs attributable to the defense of the administrative prosecution. See Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.Fees and costs denied. Although disciplinary order did not impose a penalty there was a finding adverse to claimant, thus the denial.

The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's proposed rule 7D-31.002 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The Petitioners and the Intervenor MLH Property Managers, Inc., contend that the rule is invalid. The Respondent and the Intervenor Federation Of Mobile Home Owners Of Florida contend the proposed rule is valid.Proposed rule is invalid. Stare decisis applies in rule challenge cases. Constitutionality of proposed rules can still be challenged.

The issues in this case are: (1) whether, on three separate occasions, the Respondent raised the rent at Minerva Mobile Home Park without first delivering to the lessees an approved prospectus, as alleged in the Notice to Show Cause, Docket No. MH89446, issued on November 1, 1989; and (2), if so, what is the appropriate penalty.Mobile home park did not deliver prospectus before lot rent increases. Park ordered to refund illegal rent and pay $1500 fine

Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the amended notice to show cause, dated August 9, 1989?Statute does not specify manner of delivering prospectuses that don't advise mobile home tenants of rental increase.

A Notice to Show Cause issued on May 5, 1989, alleges that Respondent violated Sections 723.031(5) and (6), F.S. by increasing mobile home park lot rentals on January 1, 1987 and on October 1, 1987, and by collecting charges for water, sewer and waste disposal from at least one homeowner when such charges were not disclosed prior to tenancy. If it is determined that those violations occurred, it is necessary to recommend an appropriate penalty and corrective action.Mobile home park owner charged tenants for utilities already collected as part of the rent-cease and desist and repay the money

No arbitrary increases in mobile home rental fees occurred where tenants apprised of increases as result of property tax increase.

The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the violations as alleged and, if so, what civil penalty is appropriate.Respondent failed to deliver approved prospectus to mobile home park tenants prior to rental agreement-fined $1200

Pursuant to notice, this cause was heard by Linda M. Rigot, the assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on May 3-4, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner Florida Manufactured Housing Association, Inc., was represented by David D. Eastman, Esquire, Tallahassee, Florida; Respondent Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes was represented by Thomas Presnell, Jr., Esquire, and Debra Roberts, Esquire, Tallahassee, Florida; and Intervenor Federation of Mobile Home Owners of Florida, Inc., was represented by Lee Jay Colling, Esquire, Orlando, Florida. Petitioner Florida Manufactured Housing Association, Inc., timely filed a petition pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, seeking a determination that Respondent's proposed rule 7D-31.002 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Respondent's first motion to dismiss was granted, and Petitioner timely filed an amended petition. Petitioner and Respondent stipulated that the Intervenor had standing to intervene in this proceeding in support of the proposed rule. Accordingly, the issue for determination herein is whether Respondent's proposed rule 7D-31.002 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Petitioner presented the testimony of Frank Williams, Leonard Jeter, Jack Ziegler, James F. Gould, William Michael Hart II, Bob Custer, and Faye Mayberry. Respondent presented the testimony of Bill Williams. Additionally, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1-21 and Respondent's Exhibits numbered 1-3 were admitted in evidence.Classic example of proposed rules invalid under every criterion and obviously unconstitutional.

Permissible to require developers to pay assessments on condo units completed for which no certificate of occupancy was issued.

No violation by mobile home park for failure to deliver approved prospectus. Violations for failure to file advertising and for false, misleading ads.