welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Nancy Pico Campiglia
Nancy Pico Campiglia
Nancy Pico Campiglia
Visitors: 72
0
Bar #164259(FL)     License for 26 years
Orlando FL

Are you Nancy Pico Campiglia? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

Florida Laws: 119.07, 120.52, 120.536, 120.54, 120.56, 120.569, 120.57, 120.595, 120.60, 120.68, 20.165, 386.203, 386.204, 386.2045, 386.2125, 393.067, 393.0673, 409.913, 455.217, 455.227, 455.2273, 455.228, 475.01, 475.011, 475.25, 475.42, 475.611, 475.612, 475.615, 475.616, 475.617, 475.622, 475.6221, 475.6222, 475.623, 475.624, 475.626, 475.628, 489.13, 561.20, 561.695, 564.06, 565.02, 7.31, 721.20, 810.12, 812.035, 95.11

Florida Administrative Code: 61A-7.003, 61A-7.007, 61A-7.008, 61A-7.009

11-003007PL  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs HUGH D. RHEA  (2011)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 16, 2011
The issues to be determined are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaints and if so, what penalty should be imposed?The Department proved that Respondent violated section 475.624(2) and (15). All other alleged volations not proven. Recommend revocation.
11-003008PL  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs HUGH D. RHEA  (2011)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 16, 2011
The issues to be determined are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaints and if so, what penalty should be imposed?The Department proved that Respondent violated section 475.624(2) and (15). All other alleged volations not proven. Recommend revocation.
11-003009PL  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs HUGH D. RHEA  (2011)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 16, 2011
The issues to be determined are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaints and if so, what penalty should be imposed?The Department proved that Respondent violated section 475.624(2) and (15). All other alleged volations not proven. Recommend revocation.
17-000476  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs RICHARD L. SOVICH  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 20, 2017
Whether Respondent acted as a real estate agent without being licensed in violation of section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Petitioner proved by clear & convincing evidence that Respondent rented out complainant's property in exchange for valuable consideration while he was not licensed as a real estate agent or broker. Recommended penalty of $500 & cost of the investigation.
14-002652  OUR HOUSE TOO vs AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 09, 2014
The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities (“APD” or the “Agency”), should have approved the application submitted by Petitioner, Our House Too (“Our House”), seeking licensure as a residential facility (specifically, a group home facility).Petitioner had a verified finding of inadequate supervision, giving Respondent legal justification for denying Petitioner's application for a residental facility.
13-001834PL  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION vs DENNIS MAURICIO MERAZ  (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 15, 2013
The issues are whether Respondent has violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.010(1) and section 475.25(1)(e) and (k), Florida Statutes, by failing to place immediately into escrow a security deposit of $5482; violated section 475.25(1)(u) by not being involved with the daily operations of Advantage International Realty, Inc. (AIR), by being hired to qualify AIR and receiving payment from AIR, and failing to direct, control or manage Jennifer Briceno, a sales associate employed by Respondent, while she provided real estate services to two individuals; and violated section 475.25(1)(d)1. by failing to refund $5308 upon demand by Mr. Mansour and Ms. Haddad on December 20, 2011. If so, an additional issue is the penalty that should be imposed.Respondent is liable for associate's not depositing money in escrow and for brokerage's not refunding money. Respondent is also liable for not supervising associate. His broker's license should be revoked for intent not to engage in brokerage business.
11-004242MPI  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs JUANA RODRIGUEZ, D/B/A ACCESS ROAD, INC.  (2011)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 19, 2011
The issues in this case are whether Respondent received Medicaid overpayments that Petitioner is entitled to recoup, and whether fines should be imposed against Respondent.Petitioner proved that Respondent received Medicaid overpayments that must be repaid and that fines should be imposed.
04-001148PL  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs ELSA G. CARTAYA  (2004)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 02, 2004
In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are, first, whether Respondent, a certified real estate appraiser, committed various disciplinable offenses in connection with three residential appraisals; and second, if Respondent is guilty of any charges, whether she should be punished therefor.Respondent, a certified real estate appraiser, committed various disciplinable offensed in connection with three residential appraisals, warranting sanctions.
04-001680PL  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs ELSA G. CARTAYA  (2004)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 02, 2004
In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are, first, whether Respondent, a certified real estate appraiser, committed various disciplinable offenses in connection with three residential appraisals; and second, if Respondent is guilty of any charges, whether she should be punished therefor.Respondent, a certified real estate appraiser, committed various disciplinable offenses in connection with three residential appraisals, warranting sanctions.
05-001258PL  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs FRANKY OTERO  (2005)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 08, 2005
The issue is whether Respondent had failed to maintain records for at least five years, committed culpable negligence in the preparation of an appraisal report, or failed to exercise reasonable diligence in the preparation of an appraisal report.Petitioner failed to introduce the last edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, so the pleadings fail for this reason and the lack of proof.

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