Whether either Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 475, Florida Statutes,1/ regulating real estate sales associates, as alleged in the administrative complaints, and if so, what sanctions are appropriate.Real estate sales associates violated chapter 475, Florida Statutes, including failure to return a deposit to a person entitled, as set forth in the administrative complaints, and should be assessed administrative fines and have their licenses revoked.
The issue in this case is whether Respondent's certificate of registration (Certificate) should be revoked for alleged failures to comply with requirements of chapter 212, Florida Statutes.Grounds proven to revoke Respondent's certificate of registration for failure to comply with ch. 212. Respondent's last minute attempt to add counsel with schedule conflict was a delay tactic; continuance two days before hearing not justified.
The issues are whether Petitioner became an employee of an FRS employer within a calendar month after completing his participation in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) in violation of Subsection 121.091(13)(c)5.d., Florida Statutes (2006)1; whether Respondent's interpretation of relevant statutes is an unadopted rule; and whether Respondent's interpretation of relevant statutes is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Petitioner is not liable to repay lump-sum and monthly benefits. Respondent must pay back benefits with interest.
Whether Petitioner was eligible for membership in the Florida Retirement System (FRS) during the effective dates of the Client Service Agreement (Agreement) between Petitioner and ADP TotalSource Services, Inc. (TotalSource).1 Whether Respondent is estopped to deny Petitioner’s request to purchase retirement credit for the subject employees during the seven-month period during which the Agreement was in effect.The employees of a special taxing district who are co-employees of a leasing company are entitled to participate in the Florida Retirement System.
The issue for determination is whether Petitioner satisfies the eligibility requirements in Subsection 121.081(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2005), to purchase past service credit in the Florida Retirement System (FRS).Petitioner is eligible under Section 121.081(1)(f), Florida Statutes, to purchase credit in the Florida Retirement System for past service in a private ambulance company before the County assumed the functions of the private ambulance company.
The issue for determination is whether Petitioner satisfies the eligibility requirements in Subsection 121.081(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2005), to purchase past service credit in the Florida Retirement System (FRS).Petitioner is eligible under Section 121.081(1)(f), Florida Statutes, to purchase credit in the Florida Retirement System for past service in a private ambulance company before the County assumed the functions of the private ambulance company.
The issue is whether payment of Petitioner's retirement benefits should have commenced after the filing of an application to retire with the Division of Retirement, with an effective date of April 1, 2004, or be retroactively changed to the date of his termination of employment, July 1, 2003.Petitioner is entitled to receive retirement benefits at the Elected Officers` Class rate of 3.0 percent per year of service, retroactive to July 1, 2003, the date of his termination of employment as Sheriff of Duval County.
The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is eligible to purchase out-of-state creditable service under the Florida Retirement System (FRS), for employment in September and October 1973, with the Maryland State Teachers Retirement System (MSTRS), in accordance with Section 121.1115, Florida Statutes.Petitioner failed to show he was "covered" by the Maryland retirement system for 2 months during his tenure with the Maryland school system. He could have paid for 2 months` credit, but did not do so and cannot be accorded 2 months of Florida retirement.
The issue for determination is whether five persons employed as School Crossing Guards and working within the geographical boundaries of the City of Lauderdale Lakes were employees of the Petitioner and whether the five persons should have been enrolled in the Florida Retirement System at the time of their employment retroactive to as early as July 1, 1979.Five school crossing guards were employees of Petitioner until 10/1/93 and Intervenor from 10/1/93 until 1/97. Both Petitioner and Intervenor required to pay employer contributions and interest to the Florida Retirement Trust Fund.
