STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND )

FINANCE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-4708

) FRANK DONAHUE and PRIVATE MONEY ) MORTGAGE CORP., )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Claude B. Arrington, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on December 6, 1990, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Deborah Guller, Esquire

Office of the Comptroller

111 Georgia Avenue, Suite 211

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5293

For Respondent: Marie A. Mattox, Esquire

Douglass, Cooper, Coppins & Powell Post Office Box 1674

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1674 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Department of Banking and Finance (Department), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the administration of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, and the regulation of mortgage brokers in this state. Respondent Frank Donahue is a mortgage broker who does business as Private Money Mortgage Company (PMMC). Both Mr. Donahue and his company are regulated by the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes and the pertinent rules of the Department.

By "Administrative Complaint and Notice of Rights" filed against Mr.

Donahue and PMMC, the Department sets forth certain factual allegations relating to a transaction between the Respondents and Mr. and Mrs. A. Charles Cinelli.

The Administrative Complaint and Notice of Rights alleges that the Respondents committed the following violations:

1. Respondent (sic) has violated Section 494.055(1)(e), Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rule 3D-40.006(6)(a), by failing to place, immediately upon receipt, any money or check entrusted to him by a person dealing with him as a broker, in escrow.

   
   

2. Respondent (sic) has violated Section 494.055(1)(e), Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rule 3D-40.006(5), by failing to obtain a written agreement signed by the parties, setting forth the disposition

   of the deposit, whether the loan closed or not.

   
   

3. Respondent (sic) has violated Section 494.055(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by failing to deliver, upon demand, payment for an appraisal or to return the deposit to

Mr. Cinelli upon demand.

Respondents thereafter filed a timely Petition for Formal Hearing which denied certain of the factual allegations made in the Administrative Complaint and which raised certain affirmative defenses. Respondents stipulated that they received the sum of $2,500 from the Cinellis and that they had no signed written agreement with the Cinellis as to the disposition of those funds. Respondents contend that the $2,500 was a non-refundable deposit in the nature of a retainer to which they were entitled whether they did or did not secure financing for the Cinellis. Respondents further contend that they did not order the subject appraisal and that they are not required to pay for it. Further, Respondents contend that there was no written agreement with the Cinellis because of the unclean hands and fraudulent conduct of the Cinellis.

At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Charles Cinelli, Joan Cinelli, and Ronald Mims. Mrs. Cinelli is married to Charles Cinelli. Mr. Mims is one of Petitioner's investigators. Respondent presented the testimony of Franklin T. Smith, Frank Donahue and Brenda Donahue. Mr. Smith is the accountant for the Cinellis and for the Respondents. Ms. Donahue is the wife of Frank Donahue. Petitioner introduced four exhibits while Respondent introduced two exhibits. All exhibits offered by the parties were accepted into evidence. At the request of Petitioner, official recognition was taken of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes (1986), (Florida's Mortgage Brokerage Act) and of the pertinent regulations found in Chapter 3D-40, Florida Administrative Code, as amended effective September 1986.

At the beginning of the formal hearing, Petitioner moved to strike Respondent's affirmative defenses. The Respondent's affirmative defenses and Petitioner's motion to strike are discussed in the conclusions of law portion of this Recommended Order.

A transcript of the proceedings has been filed. Rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact may be found in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent, Private Money Mortgage Company (PMMC), was a mortgage brokerage business in the State of Florida holding License Number HB592732699 that had been issued by Petitioner. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Frank Donahue was a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida holding License Number HA267474770 that had been issued by Petitioner.

   
   

2. The Department of Banking and Finance, the Petitioner in these proceedings, is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.

   
   

3. In 1985, Mr. and Mrs. A. Charles Cinelli bought a house in Palm Beach County, Florida, and moved from upstate New York to Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent, Frank Donahue, assisted Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli in obtaining financing for the home the Cinellis purchased in Palm Beach, County. In connection with this 1985 transaction, Mr. Donahue forwarded to the Cinellis an "Exclusive Broker Agreement", which they executed and returned to him. Because this 1985 transaction involved a purchase, Mr. Donahue ordered an appraisal for this property and charged its cost as a part of the Cinelli's closing costs. Subsequent to that transaction, Mr. Donahue and his wife, Brenda, saw Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli at occasional social events.

   
   

4. Franklin T. Smith is a certified public accountant who performed professional services for Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli and for Mr. and Mrs. Donahue. Mr. Smith referred the Cinellis to Mr. Donahue in 1985 and advised the Cinellis during the transaction that is the subject of this proceeding.

   
   

5. Prior to December 2, 1988, Mr. Cinelli contacted several mortgage brokers in the Palm Beach County area to discuss the possibility of obtaining a mortgage on certain real property located in upstate New York. Mr. Cinelli contacted Mr. Donahue by telephone and discussed with him his desire to raise capital to begin a business in Florida. Mr. Cinelli estimated that he would require approximately $1,000,000 to start this business. Mr. Cinelli told Mr. Donahue that he and Mrs. Cinelli owned certain commercial real property in upstate New York and that State Farm Insurance Company held an option to purchase this property for the sum of $1,450,000. Mr. Cinelli did not want to wait to learn whether State Farm intended to exercise this option to purchase and he discussed with Mr. Donahue the possibility of obtaining the desired capital by securing a mortgage on this property. Mr. Donahue advised Mr. Cinelli that he could expect to secure a mortgage for approximately $700,000 (which was approximately 50% of the amount of the option contract) and that he would need a current appraisal. Mr. Donahue also informed Mr. Cinelli that he would require the sum of $2,500 as a non-refundable deposit to begin seeking such a commitment.

   
   

6. On or about December 2, 1988, Mr. Cinelli provided Mr. Donahue with a copy of the option agreement with State Farm and with a copy of the agreement dated September 21, 1988, which extended the time within which State Farm could exercise its option for an additional six months. Mr. Cinelli reiterated to Mr. Donahue that the option price was for $1,450,000 and that he wanted to mortgage

   the property for $1,000,000. Mr. Cinelli also provided Mr. Donahue with the name, address, and telephone number of Mr. Wayne Lupe, who was represented by Mr. Cinelli to be his MAI appraiser in Schenectady, New York.

   
   

7. On December 15, 1988, Mr. Donahue sent to Mr. Cinelli a letter which attached an "Exclusive Broker Agreement" that had been executed by Mr. Donahue on December 15, 1988. This was the same "Exclusive Broker Agreement" form that Mr. Donahue had used for the 1985 Cinelli transaction. The body of the letter provided as follows:

   
   

   Enclosed please find a copy of my exclusive brokers agreement detailing the probable terms of the loan which you are seeking. This agreement is the same agreement which you signed when you purchased your current resi- dence. The agreement calls for both you & Joan to sign and return along with a nonrefundable deposit in the amount of $2500.00 to Private Money Mortgage Corp. The above noted deposit shall be credited towards your closing costs at the time of closing, if a commitment is offered.

   
   

   I have spoken to several of my investors about your concerns and I am awaiting confirmation of their substantial interests prior to ordering the appraisal.

   
   

   I will contact you as soon as I have received the return of this agreement along with your deposit in order to fill you in on our efforts to secure you the most competitive loan on your desired terms.

   
   

8. The Exclusive Broker Agreement reflected that the amount of the mortgage would be $700,000 and disclosed that the total estimated costs that would be incurred in securing the mortgage was $78,346, which included a broker's fee of $35,000 and an estimated appraisal fee of $3,500. The Exclusive Broker Agreement, signed by Mr. Donahue on December 15, 1988, contained the following provision:

   
   

   DEPOSIT: In consideration of the sum of

   $2,500, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in compliance with Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, Broker accepts this application and agrees to exert his/her best effort to obtain a commitment for loan in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. This deposit shall be credited toward closing costs at the time of closing the permanent loan or commitment, less Broker's expenses.

9. Among the "Standards" which were incorporated as terms and conditions of the Exclusive Broker Agreement was the following:

   
   

   Deposit. Client simultaneously with execution of this agreement has deposited with broker the amounts stated in this agreement in order to secure the obligations owed by client to broker in the event of default of client as provided in the agreement and to reimburse broker of any and all expenses, including telephone charges, lodging, and administrative fees for credit checks and processing appraisals and the like, including upon any cancellation by client, reimbursement for broker's time expended incurred by broker, whether or not a loan commitment is obtained by broker.

   
   

10. Mr. Cinelli was concerned that he would be incurring substantial fees and costs if Mr. Donahue obtained a commitment and Mr. Cinelli decided not to accept it. Mr. Smith advised Mr. Cinelli that the estimated expenses were not abnormally high, but he suggested that his liability should be limited. In response to those concerns, Mr. Donahue prepared and delivered between December 15, 1988, and the end of the year an addendum to the Exclusive Broker Agreement that would have limited Mr. Cinelli's liability to the sum of $7,500. That addendum provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

    
    

    It is hereby understood and agreed by the parties that in the event a loan commitment is offered to the applicants & they decide to refuse this commitment, the applicants liability will be limited to the sum of Five

    Thousand Dollars plus the original deposit of

    $2,500.00 for a total amount of $7,500.00.

    It is further understood that said commitment must bear approximately the same terms and conditions as the attached agreement.

    
    

11. Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli gave Mr. Smith the sum of $2,500 in cash to deliver to Mr. Donahue, but there is conflicting testimony as to when this money was delivered to Mr. Smith for delivery to Mr. Donahue. Mr. Cinelli testified that the money was delivered before the Exclusive Broker Agreement dated December 15, 1988, was prepared. Mr. Donahue testified that the money was delivered after both the Exclusive Broker Agreement and the addendum thereto had been delivered to Mr. Cinelli. Mr. Donahue also testified that the statement contained in the Exclusive Broker Agreement that he signed on December 15, 1988, acknowledging his receipt of the $2,500 deposit was false. He did not explain why the addendum referred to the sum of $2,500 as "the original deposit". Mr. Smith did not recall when he delivered this money to Mr. Donahue, but he did recall having delivered the cash the same day he received it from the Cinellis. While his testimony is that he received the $2,500 during his initial meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli (which would be before Mr. Cinelli received the Exclusive Broker Agreement) this testimony lacks credibility because of Mr. Smith's lack of certainty as to dates. In addition, this testimony conflicts with the letter Mr. Smith wrote to Mr. Donahue at Mr. Donahue's request on August 28, 1989, which clearly indicates that the $2,500 was not paid until after the addendum to the Exclusive Broker Agreement had been prepared. This

    conflict is resolved by finding that the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the sum of $2,500 was delivered by Mr. Smith to Mr. Donahue after Mr. Cinelli had received both the Exclusive Broker Agreement and the addendum thereto.

    
    

12. Mr. Donahue did not provide the Cinellis with any type of written agreement, other than his letter of December 15, 1998, the Exclusive Broker Agreement, and the addendum when he received the cash from Mr. Smith. There was no written receipt for these funds, nor was there any written memorandum of understanding between Mr. Donahue and the Cinellis as to whether payment for the appraisal that Mr. Donahue and Mr. Cinelli had discussed would be made from the

    $2,500. Mr. Cinelli was of the belief that $2,000 of the $2,500 deposit would be earmarked for the payment of the appraisal. Mr. Donahue was of the belief that the $2,500 was a non-refundable retainer and he treated that sum as an earned fee.

    
    

13. There was no meeting of the minds between Mr. Cinelli and Mr. Donahue as to the nature of the $2,500 deposit, other than it was non-refundable. Specifically, there was no agreement as to what costs, if any, would be paid from that deposit. Mr. Donahue's normal business practice in transactions involving a refinance of property is different than his practice in transactions involving a purchase of property. In purchase transactions (such as the 1985 Cinelli transaction), Mr. Donahue arranges for the appraisals and treats the costs of the appraisal as an expense to be paid by the purchaser at closing. In refinance transactions (such as the 1988 Cinelli transaction), it is his practice to require his customer to deal directly with the appraiser in ordering and paying the costs of the appraisal. Respondents failed to establish that in the subject transaction, Mr. Donahue made it clear that Mr. Cinelli would be responsible for ordering and paying the cost of the appraisal. Mr. Cinelli believed that $2,000 of the $2,500 he later gave Mr. Donahue would be earmarked for the payment of the appraisal. Neither Mr. Donahue's letter of December 15, 1998, the Exclusive Broker Agreement, nor the addendum clearly resolved the dispute.

    
    

14. There was a dispute between Mr. Donahue and Mr. Cinelli as to who ordered the appraisal. Mr. Cinelli denied that he ordered the appraisal and that his calls to his appraiser, Mr. Lupe, was only to advise him of Mr. Donahue's forthcoming call. Mr. Donahue denied that he ordered the appraisal and that his contacts with Mr. Lupe were after Mr. Cinelli had ordered the appraisal. Mr. Donahue contends that his contacts with the appraiser were merely to give the appraiser instructions as to the information that should be reflected by the appraisal. This dispute is resolved by finding that Mr. Cinelli ordered the appraisal through Mr. Lupe and that Mr. Donahue advised Mr. Lupe as to the information that should be reflected by the appraisal.

    
    

15. It was determined from conversations between Mr. Donahue and Mr. Lupe that Mr. Lupe was not qualified to perform the appraisal and that Mr. Lupe would engage Albert L. Friedman, MAI and William J. McEvoy of Capitol Real Estate and Appraisal Company of Schenectady, New York, on Mr. Cinelli's behalf to perform the work. Messrs. Friedman and McEvoy prepared the appraisal and certified the same to Mr. Cinelli on March 13, 1989. The appraised value of the property was

    $2,100,000. As of the date of the formal hearing, the appraiser's bill of

    $2,000 had not been paid. Capitol Real Estate and Appraisal Company had billed both Mr. Donahue and Mr. Cinelli and an attorney representing Capitol Real Estate and Appraisal Company had written Mr. Cinelli a demand letter. It was the dispute over the payment of the appraiser's fee that prompted the complaint the Cinellis filed against Respondents.

16. The Cinellis did not execute the Exclusive Broker Agreement and the addendum because they wanted to wait on the appraisal to see if the appraised value would permit them to borrow more than $700,000 and because they were not satisfied with the amount of the projected costs of consummating the transaction. Mr. Cinelli misled Mr. Donahue as to his intentions to execute these agreements.

    
    

17. Mr. Donahue made several requests to the Cinellis that they execute the Exclusive Broker Agreement and addendum and return them to him. Despite the absence of an executed brokerage agreement, Mr. Donahue exerted considerable effort to seek a commitment consistent with the Exclusive Broker's Agreement and succeeded in securing such a commitment in April 1989.

    
    

18. No part of the $2,500 Mr. Donahue received from Mr. Smith on behalf of the Cinellis was placed in escrow by Mr. Donahue. Respondents have made no accounting of the $2,500 and have paid no part of the appraisal bill. Mr. Donahue claims the deposit as a non-refundable earned fee, despite the absence of a written agreement to that effect.

    
    

19. The Cinellis sold the subject property to State Farm in June 1989.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

20. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

21. Section 494.052, Florida Statutes (1986), provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

    
    

    When the department finds any person in violation of the grounds set forth in s. 494.055(1), it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties:

    1. Revocation of a license or registration.

    2. Suspension of a license or registration subject to reinstatement upon all reasonable conditions as the department may specify.

    3. Placement of the licensee, registrant, or applicant on probation for a period of time and subject to all reasonable conditions as the department may specify.

    4. Issuance of a reprimand.

    5. Imposition of a fine not to exceed $5,000 for each count or separate offense. ...

       
       

22. Section 494.055, Florida Statutes (1986) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

    
    

    1. The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary actions specified in s. 494.052 may be taken:

       
       

       * * *

       1. Failure to place, immediately upon receipt, any money, fund, deposit, check, or draft entrusted to him by a person dealing with him as a broker, in escrow with an escrow

          agent located and doing business in this state, pursuant to a written agreement, or to deposit said funds in a trust or escrow account maintained by him with a bank or savings and loan association located and doing business in this state, wherein said funds shall be kept until disbursement thereof is properly authorized;

          
          

       2. Failure to account or deliver to any person any personal property, such as any money, fund, deposit, check, draft, mortgage, or other document or thing of value, which has come into his hands and which is not his property or which he is not in law or equity entitled to retain, under the circumstances and at the time which has been agreed upon or is required by law or, in the absence of a

       fixed time, upon demand of the person entitled to such accounting and delivery;

       
       

       * * *

       
       

       (k) Failure to comply with any department order or rule made or issued under the provi- sions of this chapter ...

       
       

23. Rule 3D-40.006, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

    
    

    (5) In the event a registrant or licensee requires a deposit in connection with an application for a mortgage loan, there must be an agreement in writing, signed by the parties thereto, with each party retaining a copy, setting forth the disposition of the deposit, whether the loan is finally consum- mated or not, and the term for which the agreement is to remain in force before return of the deposit for non-performance can be required.

    
    

    (6)(a) If deposits are accepted, every licensee or registrant shall maintain and upon receipt immediately place all funds, money, check, draft, or other things of value entrusted to him with some bank or recognized depository. ...

    
    

24. Petitioner has established that Respondents violated the provisions of the provisions of Rule 3D-40.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, by accepting the $2,500 deposit from the Cinellis without a written agreement as to the disposition of those funds.

25. The record is clear that there was no meeting of the minds between Mr. Donahue and Mr. Cinelli as to the purpose of the deposit, specifically whether the cost of the appraisal would be paid from those funds. Mr. Donahue's contention that he is entitled to treat the $2,500 deposit as an earned fee, even in the absence of a written agreement, is rejected because, unless otherwise agreed, earned fees can only be based on the net proceeds of a closed loan. See, Section 494.08(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 3D-40.008(3), Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

26. Consequently, it is concluded that Mr. Donahue was required to escrow the subject funds in the absence of a written agreement with the Cinellis which reflected his unilateral understanding that the deposit was his to keep.

    Because he failed to do so, it is concluded that he failed to place a deposit in escrow in violation of the provisions of Section 494.055(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and Rule 3D-40.006(6)(a), Florida Administrative Code. It is also concluded that he has failed to account for the $2,500 deposit that he should have placed in escrow, such an accounting being required by Section 494.055(1)(f), Florida Statutes.

    
    

27. Mr. Donahue was aware of the State Farm option agreement from the inception of his 1988 dealings with Mr. Cinelli, and he was misled only as to Mr. Cinelli's intentions to sign the Exclusive Broker Agreement and the addendum thereto. Even had Mr. Cinelli signed those agreements, the dispute between them as to the payment of the appraisal would not have been resolved because the language of the agreements that had been tendered to the Cinellis addressed the disposition of the deposit in unclear and ambiguous terms.

    
    

28. The assertion by Respondents that the conduct of the Cinellis serve as affirmative defenses to the violations found herein is rejected. Consequently, Petitioner's motion to strike these affirmative defenses is granted. However, these factors, which are rejected as affirmative defenses, should be considered as mitigating factors in determining the penalties that should be imposed against Respondents.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered by Petitioner which finds: that Respondents violated the provisions of Rule 3D-40.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, by accepting the $2,500 deposit from the Cinellis without a written agreement as to the disposition of those funds; that Respondents violated the provisions of Section 494.055(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and Rule 3D-40.006(6)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to place said deposit in escrow; and that Respondents violated the provisions of by Section 494.055(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by failing to account for said deposit.

It is further recommended that an administrative fine be levied against Respondents in the total amount of $1,000.00 for said violations.

It is further recommended that the final order place the licenses of Respondents on probation for a period of one year with three special conditions of probation. The first special condition of probation would require Respondents to pay Capitol Real Estate and Appraisal Company the sum of $2,000 within sixty days of the Final Order. The second special condition of probation would terminate Respondents' probation upon timely compliance with the first special condition of probation. The third special condition of probation would

prohibit Respondents from conducting any business as mortgage brokers within the State of Florida for a period of six months should Respondents fail to timely comply with the first condition of probation.

RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of January, 1991.

CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON

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 9th day of January, 1991.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4708

The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner.

1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 3-10, and 13 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.

2. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 2 and 11 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being contrary to the findings made.

3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being argument.

The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent.

1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-3 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.

2. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 4-6, 14, and 17 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made.

3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The characterization of the Cinellis having a "long standing relationship" with Mr. Donahue is rejected as being ambiguous and unnecessary to the conclusions reached.

4. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached.

5. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 9-11 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent that they are subordinate to the findings made.

6. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12 and 13 are rejected as being recitation of testimony or as being subordinate to the findings made.

7. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or as being contrary to the findings made or to the conclusions reached.

8. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Deborah Guller, Esquire Office of the Comptroller

111 Georgia Avenue, Suite 211

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5293

Marie A. Mattox, Esquire

Douglass, Cooper, Coppins & Powell Post Office Box 1674

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1674

Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350

William G. Reeves General Counsel The Capitol

Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 90-004708

Orders for Case No: 90-004708