welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  8. Maureen McCarthy Daughton
Maureen McCarthy Daughton
Maureen McCarthy Daughton
Visitors: 93
2
Bar #655805(FL)     License for 38 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Maureen McCarthy Daughton? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

USC: 42 U.S.C 1395w

CFR: 42 CFR 422, 42 CFR 422.350, 42 CFR 422.350, 42 CFR 422.350, 42 CFR 422.352, 42 CFR 422.354

Florida Laws: 1002.31, 1002.33, 1003.03, 120.52, 120.54, 120.56, 120.569, 120.57, 120.595, 120.60, 120.68, 163.3177, 163.3180, 163.3184, 163.3191, 163.3209, 20.121, 20.23, 26.012, 286.0113, 287.001, 287.012, 287.042, 287.057, 334.044, 338.2216, 35.22, 381.00315, 395.002, 397.301, 397.305, 397.321, 397.419, 397.427, 403.509, 403.52, 403.521, 403.522, 403.525, 403.526, 403.527, 403.5271, 403.529, 403.531, 403.5365, 403.537, 409.901, 409.912, 409.91211, 409.913, 409.962, 409.966, 409.974, 420.501, 420.504, 420.507, 420.5087, 420.509, 420.5099, 420.517, 456.053, 509.049, 509.261, 57.105, 624.307, 624.308, 624.509, 625.111, 627.7711, 627.777, 627.780, 627.782, 627.783, 627.7831, 627.784, 627.7841, 627.7843, 627.7845, 627.7865, 641.316, 697.04, 704.06, 760.01, 760.10, 760.11, 90.202, 90.203, 90.801, 90.804

Florida Administrative Code: 28-106.217, 28-110.004, 62-17.625, 67 -60.008, 67-48.002, 67-48.025, 67-49.001, 67-49.005, 67-60.008, 67-60.009, 69O-186.003, 69O-186.005, 9J-5.003

20-000140BID  BERKELEY LANDING, LTD., AND BERKELEY LANDING DEVELOPER, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 14, 2020
The issue is whether the actions of Florida Housing concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2019-102 (“RFA”), titled “Community Development Block Grant--Disaster Recovery (‘CDBG- DR’) to be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt MMRB and Non- Competitive Housing Credits in Counties Deemed Hurricane Recovery Priorities,” were contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.Resolution of five consolidated protests involving seven RFA applicants and various issues.
20-000143BID  HOMESTEAD 26115, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 14, 2020
The issue is whether the actions of Florida Housing concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2019-102 (“RFA”), titled “Community Development Block Grant--Disaster Recovery (‘CDBG- DR’) to be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt MMRB and Non- Competitive Housing Credits in Counties Deemed Hurricane Recovery Priorities,” were contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.Resolution of five consolidated protests involving seven RFA applicants and various issues.
20-000145BID  HTG BELLA VISTA, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 14, 2020
The issue is whether the actions of Florida Housing concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2019-102 (“RFA”), titled “Community Development Block Grant--Disaster Recovery (‘CDBG- DR’) to be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt MMRB and Non- Competitive Housing Credits in Counties Deemed Hurricane Recovery Priorities,” were contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.Resolution of five consolidated protests involving seven RFA applicants and various issues.
20-001141BID  PARC GROVE, LLC vs NARANJA LAKES HOUSING PARTNERS, LP, HARBOUR SPRINGS, LLC, AND FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 02, 2020
Whether the Petitions filed by Ambar Trail, Ltd.; Sierra Meadows Apartments, Ltd.; and Quail Roost Transit Village IV, Ltd., should be dismissed for lack of standing.Petitioner failed to demonstrate that they could receive funding under any scenario or that the process was otherwise fundamentally unfair; therefore, recommended dismissal for lack of standing.
00-004287  LAKESMART ASSOCIATES, LTD. vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 17, 2000
As the parties have stipulated, the issue in this case is whether Respondent Florida Housing Finance Corporation (the “Corporation”) properly interpreted Rule 67-48.032(2), Florida Administrative Code, and the corresponding provisions on the same subject found in paragraph 2, at page 2, of the Corporation’s 2000 Qualified Allocation Plan (collectively, the "Instructions"), when it applied the Instructions to determine the substantial interests of Petitioners and Intervenors.The issue was whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation properly interpreted its rules for achieving a mandatory Non-Profit Set-Aside requiring that 12% of all available credits be awarded to non-profit entities. Petitions dismissed.
00-004408  RPK ASSOCIATES, LTD. vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 26, 2000
As the parties have stipulated, the issue in this case is whether Respondent Florida Housing Finance Corporation (the “Corporation”) properly interpreted Rule 67-48.032(2), Florida Administrative Code, and the corresponding provisions on the same subject found in paragraph 2, at page 2, of the Corporation’s 2000 Qualified Allocation Plan (collectively, the "Instructions"), when it applied the Instructions to determine the substantial interests of Petitioners and Intervenors.The issue was whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation properly interpreted its rules for achieving a mandatory Non-Profit Set-Aside requiring that 12% of all available credits be awarded to non-profit entities. Petitions dismissed.
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.
17-006655RU  DACCO BEHAVORIAL HEALTH, INC.; OPERATION PAR, INC.; AND ASPIRE PARTNERS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 11, 2017
The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Emergency Rule 65DER17-2 (the “Emergency Rule”) constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes. (Unless specifically stated otherwise herein, all references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2017 version.) More specifically, on September 19, 2017, the Florida Department of Children and Families (the “Department”), published the Emergency Rule, which dealt with the need for and licensing of new methadone medication-assisted treatment centers for persons dealing with opioid addiction. Pursuant to the Emergency Rule, the Department decided which providers would receive approval notices to submit licensure applications in certain counties based on the order in which complete and responsive applications were received by the Department. A number of parties are challenging the validity of the Emergency Rule.The Emergency Rule constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
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."
18-002130BID  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