The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, German H. Rodriguez, committed the violation alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Respondent submitted false renewal form because he had not completed education course.

The issues for determination are whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(s), Florida Statutes,1 by having a registration for a state license revoked and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.Respondent is guilty of having insurance license revoked but should not have real estate license revoked.

Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined based upon the allegations that Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined based upon the allegation that Respondent is guilty of failure to account and deliver funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined based upon the allegation that Respondent is guilty of failure to maintain trust funds in a real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.005(1)(k), Florida Statutes.Respondent accepted deposit to buy land and build house; defaulted; failure to account and deliver; deposit in escrow; dishonest dealing; prior offenses

The issue is whether Respondents are guilty of dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b); failing to maintain trust accounts in an escrow account until disbursement is authorized, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k); operating as a broker without holding a valid broker's license, in violation of Sections 475.42(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(e); failing to prepare the required written monthly escrow-statement reconciliations, as required by Rule 61J2-14.012(2) and (3), and thus Section 475.25(1)(e); failing to give written notice to a party to a transaction, before the party signs a contract, that the broker is a representative of another party, in violation of Rule 61J2-10.033 and Section 475.25(1)(q); failing to comply with Section 475.25(1)(q), and thus Section 475.25(1)(e); and, as to Respondent Dume, engaging for a second time in misconduct that warrants his suspension or engaging in conduct or practices that show he is so incompetent, negligent, dishonest, or untruthful that clients and their money cannot safely be entrusted to him, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(o). If either Respondent is guilty of any of these alleged violations, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.Failure to perform monthly escrow-account reconciliations and existence of $35,000 escrow-account shortage results in revocation.

The issue presented is whether Petitioner achieved a passing grade on the May 20, 1991, certified residential appraiser examination.Exam challenge unsuccessful but transfer of functions among departments due to reorganization would not preclude challenger from seeking relief.

Petitioner failed to establish any wrongdoing on the part of Respondent in issuing insufficient funds checks. Dismiss.

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted in the above case on December 21, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. The following appearances were entered: Frederick H. Wilsen, and Salvatore Carpino, Tallahassee, Florida, for the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation; and John J. Rimes, Tallahassee, Florida, for the Respondent, Board of Engineers. On November 16, 1979, the Petitioner filed a "Petition to Determine the Invalidity of a Proposed Rule" with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Petitioner is seeking a determination under Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, that the Respondent's proposed rules 21H-20.02 and 21H-21.04(3)(4) constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. On November 21, 1979, the Director of the Division entered an order assigning the matter to the undersigned Hearing Officer. The final hearing was scheduled by notice dated November 27, 1979. The Department of Professional Regulation, through its Secretary, has standing to challenge proposed rules of the Respondent Hoard. Section 455.211(1), Florida Statutes (1979). The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to this proceeding and over the subject matter by virtue of Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes (1979) Proposed Rule 21H-20.02 The Board of Engineers is responsible for regulating the practice of engineering in Florida. Chapter 471, Florida Statutes (1979). The Board is specifically responsible for certifying to the Department of Professional Regulation applicants who satisfy certain statutory criteria. Section 471.015(2), Florida Statutes (1979). Section 471.013 provides that before applicants can take the necessary examination to be licensed to practice in the field of engineering in Florida, he or she must meet certain criteria. The statute provides in pertinent part:Rule challenge fails as to 21H-20.02 but is sustained as to 21H-21.04(3) & (4) because respondent not capable of assigning extra points on exams.

Whether the licenses of Respondent, Bethune Realty, Inc., #0156033, and Respondent, Nelson H. Bethune, #0006461, should be suspended or whether Respondent should be otherwise disciplined.Respondent did not improperly retain money, commit a fraud or fail to place money in escrow. Dismiss case.

Respondent cashed business check for own use. Later he tried to make good on funds to avoid prosecution. Recommend public reprimand.

Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Respondent, Kenneth M. Olson, Jr., moved to quash or dismiss Counts 1, 11, 12, and 13. Said motion was denied; however, the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, dropped Count 14.Respondent is guilty of failing to maintain trust, account and deliver and pay commission where due. Pay judgments or be suspended thirty days.