welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Michael Patrick Donaldson
Michael Patrick Donaldson
Michael Patrick Donaldson
Visitors: 144
0
Bar #802761(FL)     License for 36 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Michael Patrick Donaldson? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

17-000486BID  OASIS AT RENAISSANCE PRESERVE I, LP vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 20, 2017
The issues in this case are whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("Florida Housing" or "Respondent") made a decision to determine Oasis at Renaissance Preserve I, LP ("Oasis" or "Petitioner") ineligible for SAIL funding for Request for Applications 2016-109 SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments to be used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt Bond Financing and Non-competitive Housing Credits ("RFA"), that was contrary to a governing statute, rule, or solicitation specification, and, if so, whether that action was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.Petitioner proved its certification form was a minor irregularity, but failed to show Florida Housing's determination that Petitioner was ineligible was an action contrary to a governing statute, rule, or solicitation specification.
16-003099BID  NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION, INC. vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 06, 2016
The issues in this protest are, first, whether Respondent clearly erred in determining that Petitioner's application for funding, which had failed to include all of the required financial information concerning its "non-corporation" lender, was ineligible for consideration due to a material, nonwaivable deviation from the specifications of the solicitation; if Petitioner's application was not, in fact, materially nonresponsive, then it will be necessary to decide whether Respondent should exercise its discretion to waive the minor irregularity in Petitioner's application.Respondent clearly erred in determining that Petitioner's application was ineligible due to a material deviation; Respondent should waive the minor irregularity or, alternatively, state the grounds for not waiving the minor defect.
17-002499BID  JPM OUTLOOK ONE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 25, 2017
At issue in this proceeding is whether the actions of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2016-110, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Medium and Small Counties (the “RFA”), was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious. Specifically, the issue is whether Florida Housing acted contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications in finding that the applications of Petitioners JPM Outlook One Limited Partnership (“JPM Outlook”) and Grande Park Limited Partnership (“Grande Park”) were ineligible for funding.Petitioners failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing's decision to disqualify their applications was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to competition, or contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or the terms of the RFA.
17-002500BID  GRANDE PARK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 25, 2017
At issue in this proceeding is whether the actions of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2016-110, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Medium and Small Counties (the “RFA”), was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious. Specifically, the issue is whether Florida Housing acted contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications in finding that the applications of Petitioners JPM Outlook One Limited Partnership (“JPM Outlook”) and Grande Park Limited Partnership (“Grande Park”) were ineligible for funding.Petitioners failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing's decision to disqualify their applications was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to competition, or contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or the terms of the RFA.
16-001137BID  REDDING DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC, AND HTG HAMMOCK RIDGE, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 26, 2016
The issues are (1) whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation's (Florida Housing) intended decision to award low- income housing tax credits for an affordable housing development in medium-size counties to Grove Manor Phase I, LTD (Grove Manor), JIC Grand Palms, LLC (Grand Palms), Madison Palms, Ltd. (Madison Palms), and RST The Pines, LP (The Pines), was contrary to solicitation specifications, and if so, whether that determination was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition; and (2) whether Florida Housing's determination that Brownsville Manor, LP (Brownsville), achieved the maximum available score of 28 points was contrary to solicitation specifications, and if so, whether that determination was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.Because Intervenor's application contained a material non-waivable error, tax credits should be awarded to Petitioner.
16-001138BID  REDDING DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC vs BROWNSVILLE MANOR, LP, GROVE MANOR PHASE I, LTD.; JIC GRAND PALMS, LLC; MADISON PALMS, LTD.; RST THE PINES, LP; AND FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 26, 2016
The issues are (1) whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation's (Florida Housing) intended decision to award low- income housing tax credits for an affordable housing development in medium-size counties to Grove Manor Phase I, LTD (Grove Manor), JIC Grand Palms, LLC (Grand Palms), Madison Palms, Ltd. (Madison Palms), and RST The Pines, LP (The Pines), was contrary to solicitation specifications, and if so, whether that determination was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition; and (2) whether Florida Housing's determination that Brownsville Manor, LP (Brownsville), achieved the maximum available score of 28 points was contrary to solicitation specifications, and if so, whether that determination was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.Because Intervenor's application contained a material non-waivable error, tax credits should be awarded to Petitioner.
17-003270BID  MADISON POINT, LLC AND AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 07, 2017
The issue for determination in this bid protest proceeding is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”) intended award of tax credits for the preservation of existing affordable housing developments was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Intervenor's exclusion of existing, occupied units on the proposed development site constituted a material non-waivable error; tax credits should be awarded to Petitioners.
17-003273BID  BLUE BROADWAY, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 07, 2017
Whether the intended decision of Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Respondent/Florida Housing) to fund the application of West River Phase 2, LP (West River/Intervenor), based on the scoring of its application, is contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or solicitation specifications.Petitioner proved that Respondent's scoring decision regarding Intervenor's application was erroneous, and that Intervenor's application is ineligible for funding. Funding should be awarded to Petitioner.
17-001543BID  JOE MORETTI PHASE THREE, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 14, 2017
The issue for determination in this consolidated bid protest proceeding is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to competition by deeming the applications of Joe Moretti Phase Three, LLC. (“Moretti Phase Three”) and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three, LLC. (“Stirrup Plaza Phase Three”) ineligible for Request for Applications 2016-114, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Miami-Dade County (“RFA 2016-114”).Petitioners failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing's actions regarding their requests to amend Extended Use Agreements were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.
17-001544BID  STIRRUP PLAZA PHASE THREE, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 14, 2017
The issue for determination in this consolidated bid protest proceeding is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to competition by deeming the applications of Joe Moretti Phase Three, LLC. (“Moretti Phase Three”) and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three, LLC. (“Stirrup Plaza Phase Three”) ineligible for Request for Applications 2016-114, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Miami-Dade County (“RFA 2016-114”).Petitioners failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing's actions regarding their requests to amend Extended Use Agreements were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.

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