STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

)

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Following the provision of notice, on February 22, 1990, in the City Hall Council Chambers, Ocala, Florida, a formal hearing was held. The authority for the conduct of the hearing is set forth in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Charles C. Adams was the Hearing Officer.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Susan C. Marvin

Pamela S. Leslie Assistants General Counsel

Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building

725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007

For Respondents: David D. Eastman, Esquire

Parker, Skelding, Labasky and Corry Post Office Box 669

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The is sues concern allegations set forth in a notice to show cause/administrative complaint by which Petitioner has accused Respondents of violation of Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 7D-32.004(1), Florida Administrative Code, in that they are said to have refused to meet with the designated homeowners' committee within 30 days of giving notice of a lot rental increase after having been requested to do so. The purpose of that meeting would have been to discuss the reasons for the increase in lot rental.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This recommended order is being entered following the review of a written stipulation of facts entered into by the parties, and in consideration of the admissions made by Respondents in reply to the request for admissions propounded by Petitioner, both items offered by Petitioner as its case-an-chief. The testimony presented by Respondents Donald Hilgeman and Pat Montgomery, who testified in their own behalf In their case-in- chief, as well as the testimony of Gordon Gibson, Lloyd Carter and Ralph Murray has also been considered as presented at hearing. The transcript of proceedings which was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 14, 1990, has been reviewed.

Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and Respondents' Exhibits 1 and 5-19 were admitted and have-been reviewed in preparing the recommended order.

Ordinarily the time for filing proposed recommended orders would have expired on March 26, 1990. However upon request of counsel, as confirmed through correspondence from counsel for Respondents dated March 23, 1990, the time for filing proposed recommended orders was extended to March 28, 1990.

That deadline was met by the parties. On April 2, 1990, Respondents' counsel amended its proposed recommended order through a correction of a scrivener's error. That correction is accepted as are the balance of the proposed recommended orders of the parties. The fact- finding suggested by the proposed recommended orders is commented on in an appendix to this recommended order.

Respondents have requested that official recognition be made of Chapter 86- 162, Laws of Florida, and certain amendments to Rules 7D-32.001 through 32.004, Florida Administrative Code, as reported in Volume 13, Number 16, April 17, 1990, Florida Administrative Weekly. Official recognition is made of that law and those rules.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Lake Waldena Resort is a mobile home park as defined by Section 723.003(6), Florida Statutes. It is located at Route 4, Box 300, Silver Springs, Florida 32688. The mobile home park is subject to regulation pursuant to Section 723.002(1), Florida Statutes. That law is administered by the Petitioner.

   
   

2. All Respondents are mobile home park owners as defined by Section 723.003(7), Florida Statutes. The Hilgemans are park owners and have been at all relevant times for this dispute. At the times relevant to the inquiry Pat Montgomery was the park operator, which equates to park owner under the terms of the statute.

   
   

3. Pat Montgomery concluded her affiliation with Lake Waldena Resort in May 1989.

   
   

4. Pat Montgomery, as the park operator, who had been employed by Donald

   L. Hilgeman, collected the rent from the mobile homeowners who had lots within the park. She attended any problems that the mobile homeowners confronted her with. She ordered supplies for the operation of the mobile home park. She sold mobile homes for use in the park and ordered them for sale. She was involved with the provision of carports and screen rooms associated with mobile homes in the park. She was responsible for the payroll and basically everything that transpired in the day-to- day operations in the mobile home park. The Hilgemans had limited affiliation with the park. Mr. Hilgeman was involved with doing physical labor at the park and was Montgomery's employer.

5. On July 26, 1988, a notice of lot rental increase was mailed to all tenants in the Lake Waldena Resort Mobile Home Park. This notice was provided in accordance with Rule 7D-32.002(1), Florida Administrative Code. The basis for this increase was associated with the economic pressures on the park owner brought about by increases in real estate taxes, insurance costs, sanitation fees, other fees payable to the Petitioner, and wage increases. An exemplar of the form notice which had been sent out to each mobile home owner may be seen in Respondents' Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence. All notices were dispatched by

   U.S. Mail. As contemplated by Rule 7D-32.002(4), Florida Administrative Code, official notice was considered to have been made within five days of July 26, 1988, which corresponded to July 31, 1988. A meeting within 30 days of the provision of notice as described in Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes, would equate to August 30, 1988. The proposed lot increase was from $78 to $88.

   
   

6. At the time of notification of the lot increase Lloyd Carter was the vice president of the homeowners' association at Lake Waldena Resort. He was residing in the mobile home park. Gordon Gibson was the president of the homeowner's association who, at the moment of the lot increase, was residing in Minden, Ontario, Canada.

   
   

7. Mr. Carter picked up a copy of the notice of lot rental increase from the office at the mobile home park shortly after the notice had been prepared on July 26, 1988. He then called Mr. Gibson in Canada and explained the particulars of that notice. At that time, Mr. Carter stated no concerns to Mr. Gibson about the notice of lot rental increase. He merely informed Mr. Gibson of the pendency of the lot rental increase.

   
   

8. Under ordinary circumstances the' expected time for delivery of mail dispatched from the United States to Canada was in the neighborhood of five to seven days; however, in August 1988, the Canadians were undergoing a postal strike which delayed matters. Nonetheless, Mr. Gibson received his copy of the notice and on August 4, 1988, he wrote Mr. Hilgeman. A copy of that correspondence may be seen as Respondents' Exhibit 6 admitted into evidence.

   Mr. Gibson informed Mr. Hilgeman in that correspondence that he wished to have a meeting to discuss the lot rental increase. The meeting would be attended by a committee of not more than four persons under the direction of Mr. Carter. He asked that the meeting be held at a convenient time prior to August 26, 1988.

   The basis for Mr. Gibson's action in which he requested a meeting with the park owner was through the process of discussion with his board of directors in independent conversations in which it was decided that a meeting was desired. A meeting to discuss the reasons for the lot rental increase was not held before August 26, 1988, or before August 30, 1988.

   
   

9. When Mr. Gibson sent his August 4, 1988 correspondence he was aware of the problems of the postal strike in Canada and the delay that this might promote in the receipt of his letter by the park owner. He had not instructed Mr. Carter to make any contact with the park owner prior to the park owner's receipt of the correspondence which outlined the fact of Mr. Carter's duties as chairman of the committee.

   
   

10. The return receipt correspondence from Gibson to Hilgeman dated August 4, 1988, was received by, Pat Montgomery in mid August 1988.

    
    

11. By correspondence of August 22, 1988, addressed from Mr. Hilgeman to Mr. Gibson, a copy of which may be seen as Respondents' Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence, Mr. Hilgeman demanded of Mr. Gibson that he confirm that a majority of

    the Lake Waldena residents had in fact selected Mr. Gibson to represent them. Reference is made in that letter to section 723.078(2)(b), Florida Statutes, having to do with the requirements for bylaws in homeowners' associations. This request of Mr. Gibson is not a prerogative of Mr. Hilgeman as park owner in dealing with the issue of the conduct of the meeting. Nor is it available to Mr. Hilgeman to remind Mr. Gibson that he had to comply Section 723.037(1), Florida Statutes or Section 723.076(1), Florida Statutes. To the extent that those provisions have any relevance to the homeowners' association, the former pertains to standing to challenge increases in such things as the lot rental amount through the homeowners' association, something that the park owner is not called upon to advise the homeowners' association about. This question of standing does not enter in to the matter of the ability to represent mobile home owners at a meeting pursuant to Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes, for purposes of discussing the lot rental increase. Likewise, the latter statutory reference that describes the idea of incorporation of a homeowners' association and the need to notify the park owner is not associated with the meeting to discuss the purposes of the lot rental increase. On the other hand, when Mr.

    Hilgeman referred to Rules 7D-32.003(1) and 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code, those are provisions which have some significance in considering the matter of a meeting to discuss a lot rental increase. Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Codes, states:

    
    

    If requested to do so by the park owner or subdivision developer, the committee shall certify that it has been selected as described Rule 7D-32.003, Florida Administrative Code.

    The certification shall include a certificate of all members of the committee attesting to its proper formation under the statute in these rules.

    
    

12. Significantly, that provision does not describe the relationship of such a request to the obligation of the park owner to meet within 30 days of notice of lot rental increase as contemplated by Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes. None of the principals, given the statutory scheme and rules that were designed to effectuate the purposes of the statute, could have reasonably understood on what terms the park owner was entitled to make this request taking into account the complications of corresponding back and forth between the United States and Canada in the midst of a mail strike, the consequence of which made it unlikely that the meeting would take place on or before August 30, 1988. In the conclusions of law a discussion is made of the effect of the request for certification and whether it tolls the time for conducting the informational session to discuss the reasons for the lot rental increase.

    
    

13. The envelope for the August 22, 1988 correspondence was stamped in the United States on August 23, 1988, in Bradenton, Florida. It also bears a date of August 29, 1988, which is seen as a part of the verification of receipt of that letter in Canada. Mr. Gibson received the Hilgeman correspondence of August 22, 1988 on August 29, 1988.

    
    

14. Mr. Carter also received a copy of the August 22, 1988 correspondence by Mr. Hilgeman and had a discussion with Mr. Hilgeman about that letter sometime around August 23 or August 24, 1988. That conversation took place in the mobile home park. This did not lead to the resolution of the certification request made by Mr. Hilgeman to the homeowners' association. It was left to Mr. Gibson to take care of the response to the request for certification. In the conversation being described, between Hilgeman and Carter, Carter made it known

    that he intended to complain to the Petitioner about the park owner not meeting with the homeowners' committee within 30 days of notice. A complaint was made as may be seen in a copy of that complaint which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. That complaint was sent out on August 26, 1988. The basis for the homeowners' association complaining to the Petitioner was related to their concern that they preserve their right to have the meeting even if it transpired beyond the 30 days contemplated in the statute.

    
    

15. Notwithstanding the complaint's existence, Mr. Gibson went forward with his attempts to try to satisfy Mr. Hilgeman concerning certification and did so with the assistance of Victor Davis a member of the board of directors of the homeowners' association. Mr. Gibson's attitude about this was to the effect that the request by Mr. Hilgeman was a legitimate request that should be complied with.

    
    

16. A discussion had also been held between Carter and Hilgeman on August 18, 1988, in which Mr. Hilgeman gave advance notice of the fact that he needed several questions answered and that there would be a delay in the meeting. The indication was made that a letter would be sent to Mr. Gibson to have those questions answered. That eventuated in the August 22, 1988 correspondence from Hilgeman to Gibson. Upon making these matters known to Mr. Carter on August 18, 1988, Mr. Carter's only remark was that this would be "fine."

    
    

17. On September 9, 1988, a letter was written from Ralph B. Murray, Jr., Specialist Enforcement Section, Bureau of Mobile Homes within the Petitioner's department which was sent to Mr. Hilgeman reminding him of the necessity to respond to allegations that had been made by the Lake Waldena Resort Homeowners' Association concerning the claim that Mr. Hilgeman had refused to meet with those mobile homeowners in the statutorily prescribed time as announced at Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 9, admitted into evidence. On September 13, 1988, by correspondence, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence, Mr. Hilgeman offered his reply. He tells Mr. Murray that he is not sure whether the homeowners' association is legitimate and that they had not responded to his August 22, 1988 correspondence to Mr. Gibson which he enclosed in his letter to Mr. Murray. He spoke of delays in the mailing time for mail coming from Canada. He makes mention of the fact of having informed Mr. Carter that the manager, who was Ms. Montgomery was on vacation and would not return until August 30, 1988. In fact, Ms. Montgomery was not available to meet with the homeowners' association in the period August

    18 through August 30, 1988. This would not have relieved Mr. Hilgeman of the necessity to meet with the homeowners' association on or before August 30, 1988, had they complied with his request for certification prior to that date. They did not.

    
    

18. Compliance with the certification process was achieved by correspondence of September 12, 1988 from Gibson to Hilgeman in which he sets out the explanation of certification of the credentials of the homeowners' association to form a committee and meet with the park owner. That was received by the park owner on September 19, 1988, in the person of Pat Montgomery. A copy of this correspondence and the certification of receipt may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence.

    
    

19. After receipt of the information concerning the certification of the homeowners' association committee, Mr. Hilgeman sent a letter to Mr. Carter on September 29, 1988, to establish a meeting. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 13 admitted into evidence. It outlines the

    fact that Mr. Hilgeman is sufficiently satisfied concerning the certification to have the meeting and offers a meeting prior to October 4, 1988 or after October 9, 1988, and invites Mr. Carter to consult with Pat Montgomery to establish a mutually convenient time for the meeting.

    
    

20. A meeting was held between Mr. Murray and Mr. Hilgeman in October, 1988, in which a discussion ensued concerning whether or not Mr. Hilgeman himself would meet with the homeowners' committee. Mr. Hilgeman held firm in his attitude that his manager Pat Montgomery would be available to meet with the homeowners' committee, but that Mr. Hilgeman would not be meeting with them.

    
    

21. As explained in the correspondence of October 14, 1988, addressed from Mr. Carter to Mr. Murray, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 14 admitted into evidence, contact was made between Carter and Montgomery and Carter was told on October 11, 1988 that a meeting would be held at 10:00

    a.m. on October 14, 1988, between Montgomery and the committee. She was told by Carter that this meeting would not be acceptable unless Mr. Hilgeman was in attendance. Based upon conversations with Mr. Murray, the homeowners' association had been persuaded that it was only appropriate to meet with Mr. Hilgeman. Consequently, by this logic it was not appropriate to meet with Ms. Montgomery.

    
    

22. A copy of this correspondence of August 14, 1988 was made available to Mr. Hilgeman.

    
    

23. On June 7, 1989, the Petitioner brought an action against the Respondent and he sought a formal hearing which was conducted on February 22, 1990. Prior to that hearing the homeowners did have their meeting with Mr. Hilgeman on November 14, 1989, in which they were made aware of the reasons for the lot rental increase. The homeowners accepted the explanation and the idea of the increase and do not desire to pursue the present complaint against the Respondents.

    
    

24. When Mr. Hilgeman sought certification of the credentials of the committee assigned by the homeowners association he was acting in good faith. In addition, he was entitled to look to Pat Montgomery as park operator and by consequence park owner under the definition of Section 723.003(7), Florida Statutes, to speak for him in the course of the meeting to discuss the lot rental increase. The misconception of the committee of mobile home owners concerning the necessity to meet with Mr. Hilgeman and not with his park operator, as fostered by the remarks of Mr. Murray, who lead those mobile homeowners to believe that they could only meet with Mr. Hilgeman, caused a

    delay in arranging the meeting. Mr. Hilgeman should not be hold accountable for that delay.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

25. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

26. As explained in Section 723.002(1), Florida Statutes, the overall chapter has application to the residential tenancy associated with the mobile homeowners in the mobile home park at Lake Waldena Resort. All three Respondents are mobile home park owners within the definition at Section 723.003(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner conceded as much in its factual stipulation with Respondents at paragraph 3 to that stipulation. The fact of the allegations placed against Pat Montgomery alleging that she as a park owner

    failed to meet with the committee is additional evidence and the most compelling evidence of the perception held by the Petitioner that she is in fact and in law a park owner. This is contrary to the impression of Pat Montgomery's role as held by Mr. Murray and his conviction that it would be inappropriate for Murray to meet with the committee designated by the homeowners' association for purposes of discussing the lot rental increase. This is an important observation in that Mr. Hilgeman could not be seen as acting inappropriately in his insistence that Ms. Montgomery act as the representative of the park owners for purposes of the meeting envisioned by Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes.

    
    

27. Petitioner seeks to impose a civil penalty against the Respondents under the authority of Section 723.006(5)(d)1., Florida Statutes. It has the burden to establish the proof necessary to promote that outcome. It has failed in that proof.

    
    

28. First, the nature of the allegation set forth in the notice to show cause/administrative complaint concerns the specific claim that the Respondents failed to meet with the homeowners' association's committee within the 30 days set out in Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes. While much of the emphasis in the presentation by the Petitioner and discussion in the proposed recommended order speaks to the Respondents' actions subsequent to the August 30, 1988 deadline, in particular concerning the matter of good faith on the part of Mr. Hilgeman and his responsibility to meet with the committee, any violation under the alleged offense is limited to the proposition that the meeting did not transpire on or before August 30, 1988. In any event, even if the discussion pertaining to the period beyond August 30, 1988, was considered part of the substantive allegations, Respondents and in particular Mr. Hilgeman, cannot be seen as acting inappropriately in what transpired. Mr. Hilgeman was within his rights to request certification of the committee and in using Ms. Montgomery to serve as the park owners' representative at a meeting to discuss the lot rental increase. The delays that occurred in conducting this meeting were principally caused by the misinterpretation by Mr. Murray of the requirement of who would be an acceptable representative for the park owners at the meeting. Mr. Hilgeman's insistence on using Ms. Montgomery, while seen by some to be evidence of his stubbornness, nonetheless coincides with what the park owners were allowed to do under law. The law allowed him to use Ms. Montgomery to make the explanation of the reasons for the lot rental increase. Factually she was as well informed on this issue as he was. The accommodation he made with the Petitioner shortly before hearing to participate in the meeting was not incumbent upon him. The explanation he made at that meeting was adequate, contrary to the Petitioner's attempt to create the inference that the short explanation made to the homeowner's was not acceptable. The homeowners did not take issue with the quality of the explanation nor the basic idea that the lot rental should be increased. The reaction by the homeowners in this connection is in keeping with the reality. Again, that reality is to the effect that the explanation of the reason for lot rental increase was sufficient.

    
    

29. Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes, states:

    
    

    A committee, not to exceed five in number, designated by a majority of the affected mobile home owners or by the board of directors of the homeowners' association, if applicable, and the park owner shall meet, at a mutually convenient time and place within 30 days after receipt by the homeowners of the notice of change, to

    discuss the reasons for the increase in lot rental amount, reduction in services or utilities, or change in rules and regulations.

    
    

    Nothing within that provision contemplates a delay in the meeting, although it could be said that it is available to the parties to extend the time for conducting the meeting by stipulation. On this occasion the meeting was not held within the 30 days because the Respondents availed themselves of the opportunities expressed in Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code, to request the committee to certify its credentials for participating in the meeting. For convenience the text from finding of fact no. 10, Rule 7D- 32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code, is restated as follows:

    
    

    If requested to do so by the park owner or subdivision developer, the committee shall certify that it has been selected as described in Rule 7D-32.003, Florida Administrative Code. The certification shall include a certificate of all members of the committee attesting to its proper formation under the statute and these rules.

    
    

30. As alluded to before, Petitioner has enacted the rule without an explanation of the effect of that rule on the holding of a meeting within 30 days of the notice of lot rental increase. In the absence of such explanation, the park owner is arguably able to make the request for certification at any time before the expiration of the 30 days and once the request is made must defer to the majority off homeowners or the homeowners' association to prepare the answer to the certification request. The time of response is established by the answering group. If that process extends the time for meeting beyond 30 days, park owners should not be held accountable and fined for failing to conduct the meeting within the 30 day period. On the facts in this case the request for certification was made within an acceptable time frame and based upon the choice of the president of the homeowners' association to respond in person, knowing the existence of the mail strike in Canada, the failure to meet within the 30 days is not the fault of the park owners. Nor can it be seen to be contrary to the scheme which the Petitioner has created by the enactment of Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code. The committee acquiesced in the delay in scheduling the meeting after making a complaint that the meeting was not being held within 30 days, being unsure about their ability to have a meeting beyond the 30 days without preserving that right through the process of a complaint made to the Petitioner. The homeowners' association in the person of its president seemed satisfied to hold the meeting beyond the 30 day period after providing the information in certification of the credentials of the committee members. The filing of the complaint as a means of ostensibly preserving the right to have the meeting is further evidence of the confusion created by the enactment of Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code, without further explanation of how that rule would be utilized in conjunction with the meeting provisions set forth in Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes. Since the Petitioner seeks to take action which is penal in nature, the statute and rule read in context should be strictly construed and any ambiguity favors the Respondents. See State v. Pattishall, 99 Fla. 296, 126 So. 147 (1930) and Davis v. Dept. of Prof. Regulation, 457 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 1DCA 1984). Moreover, it would not appear that the park owners could hake clarified the relationship

    of Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 7D- 32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code, through a declaratory statement petition filed with Petitioner through Rule. 7-3.001, Florida Administrative Code, there being insufficient. time to respond to the petition and hold a meeting before 30 days expired.

    
    

31. Finally, the existence of the rules challenge case, Donald L. Hilgeman dba DLH Enterprises, Petitioner vs. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, Respondent, DOAH Case No. 89-6598R in which he has challenged the validity of Section 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code, does not prohibit his utilization of that provision in defending the administrative prosecution. At the time that he looked to that provision within the Florida Administrative Code to gain more information concerning the committee's credentials, it was the law. He was entitled to take full advantage of it.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is,

RECOMMENDED:

That a Final Order be entered that dismisses these actions against the Respondents.

DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 1990.

APPENDIX

CASE NO. 89-4100

The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties.

Petitioner's Facts

Paragraphs 1-9 are subordinate to facts found.

Although Paragraph 10 is an accurate portrayal of the meeting of August 24, 1988 between Mr. Carter and Mr. Hilgeman, it should be stated that any meeting to discuss lot rental increase was contingent upon the response to the certification request made by Mr. Hilgeman and replied to by Mr. Gibson on a date beyond the 30 day period.

Paragraphs 11 and 12 are subordinate to facts found.

Concerning Paragraph 13, whatever Mr. Hilgeman perceptions would be about the role of Ms. Montgomery, whether she was considered to be the same as an attorney representing or in some other capacity, in law she was a park owner and entitled to act in behalf of the park owners at the meeting.

Concerning Paragraph 14, the effect of failing to respond to the request for certification within the 30 day period was tantamount to a waiver or agreement to meet at a time later.

Paragraph 15 is subordinate to facts found.

Concerning Paragraph 16, to the extent this paragraph suggests that the length of the meeting or breadth of detail in the explanation made by Mr.

Hilgeman was inadequate, that idea is rejected in that sufficient explanation was given to comply with the requirements of law.

The comments in Paragraph 17 are not relevant. The accommodation that was made between counsel was not a necessary arrangement to mitigate the circumstance in an instance where Respondent Donald L. Hilgeman had violated Chapter 723, Florida Statutes. This meeting was beneficial to the homeowners and park owners alike, but came at this late date based upon the failure of the homeowners to meet with Pat Montgomery over a year earlier.

Respondents' Facts

Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found

Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution to the dispute.

Paragraph 3 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of those two sentences that come before the last sentence in that paragraph.

Paragraphs 4 and 5 and all sentences save the last of Paragraph 6 are subordinate to facts found. That sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.

Paragraphs 7 through 11 with the exception of the second sentence in Paragraph 11 are subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.

Paragraph 12 is subordinate to facts found.

Paragraph 13 is misleading in that it intimates that Mr. Carter was derelict in his duties to make contact with Mr. Hilgeman to establish a meeting; however, the contacts that were made were in accordance with the expectations of Mr. Hilgeman and Mr. Gibson who were controlling the timing of that meeting.

Paragraphs 14 through 16 with the exception of the last sentence to Paragraph 16 are subordinate to facts found. The last sentence to Paragraph 16 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.

Paragraph 17 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the last sentence which is not necessary to the resolution of this dispute.

Paragraphs 18 and 19 are subordinate to facts found.

Paragraph 20 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the last sentence which is not necessary to the resolution of this dispute.

Paragraph 21 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute and is an inaccurate portrayal of the requirements of law as to gaining the approval of the majority of homeowners before representing them in the course of a meeting to discuss lot rental increases.

Paragraphs 22 through 25 are subordinate to facts found.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation

725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007

Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007

David D. Eastman, Esquire

Parker, Skelding, Labasky & Corry Post Office Box 669

Tallahassee, FL 32302

Susan C. Marvin Pamela Leslie

Assistants General Counsel Department of Business Regulation

725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL, 32399-1007

Docket for Case No: 89-004100

Orders for Case No: 89-004100