STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, )
DIVISION OF LICENSING, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 93-3890
) MORSE SECURITY GROUP, INC., ) d/b/a HARVEY E. MORSE, P.A., )
HARVEY E. MORSE, President. )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the above-styled matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Daniel M. Kilbride, on October 29, 1993, in Orlando, Florida. The following appearances were entered:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire
Department of State Division of Licensing
The Capitol, Mail Station-4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
For Respondent: William J. Sheaffer, Esquire
William J. Sheaffer, P.A. 609 East Central Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32801
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, II, IV and V of the Administrative Complaint by subcontracting with individuals named therein to provide private investigative services at a time when they were not licensed as a Class "A" investigative agency.
Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint, by allowing an improperly licensed person, John Polk, to direct the activities of licensees, or exercise operational control over the regulated activities of Morse Security Group, Incorporated.
Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(s), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count VI in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to report to the Department the termination of persons listed in that count.
Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(s), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by directing the activities of licensees, thereby acting as a manager, subsequent to the voluntary deactivation of his Class "C" private investigator's license and Class "M" private investigative/security agency manager's license.
Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by misrepresenting his agency by advertising in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory 1993, that his agency is "Florida's largest and oldest private investigative agency", when it is not.
Whether Respondent violated Section 493.6118(1)(r), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to certify the completion or termination of the internship of William J. Smithberger when he had the duty as a sponsor to do so.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On June 1, 1993, Petitioner filed a nine count Administrative Complaint charging Respondent with various violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Respondent filed his response to the complaint and an Election of Rights which requested a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, on July 9, 1993. This matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for hearing on July 13, 1993. Following discovery, the formal hearing was held.
At the hearing Petitioner called five witnesses and offered nine exhibits, which were admitted in evidence. Respondent called two witness and eleven exhibits were admitted without objection, which included the deposition testimony of five witnesses. The hearing was recorded, and the transcript was filed with the Clerk of the Division on November 30, 1993. The parties were originally scheduled to submit their Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within ten days of the filing of the transcript. However, following the filing of a joint motion to extend the filing of their proposals, Petitioner filed its proposals on December 21, 1993, in which it waived the filing of proposed findings of fact. Respondent filed its proposals on December 22, 1993.
Each of the parties proposals have been given careful consideration. My specific rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact are set forth in the Appendix attached hereto.
Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Morse Security Group holds a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License, Number AOO-00919, effective June 30, 1993, which was originally issued in 1976, and is currently active.
Harvey Morse, the principal of Respondent, holds a Class "C" private investigator license, number COO-008861, effective November 24, 1992, which was originally issued in 1975, and was placed on inactive status by the Department on January 21, 1993.
Harvey Morse also was issued a Class "DI" Security Officer Instructor License, No. DI89-00348, effective January 8, 1993, a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License, No. GOO-11067, effective December 6, 1991, which was placed on inactive status with the Department on January 21, 1993, and a Class "M" Private Investigative/Security Agency Manager license No. M85-00112, effective August 7, 1992, which was placed on inactive status with the Department on January 21, 1993.
Craig Hull became employed with Respondent in February of 1993, as a part-time investigator.
Hull worked under the direct supervision and control of Respondent, and held himself out to the public as an employee.
When Hull entered into his contractual employment agreement with Respondent, he was given a vacation/sick day policy document noting his status as a full-time employee of Respondent.
Hull executed an Employment Agreement which referred to him as the "employee" and also referred to him as an "independent subcontractor" for the purpose of withholdings.
At the time of Hull's employment with Respondent, he held a Class "C" private investigator license.
In all aspects of Hull's employment with Respondent, he conducted himself, and was treated as an employee. Hull did business for Respondent under the Respondent's corporate name; held himself out to the public as being Respondent's employee; signed contracts on behalf of Respondent; received letters and correspondence as an employee; was directed when and were to show up for work; how to answer to the telephone; when to answer the telephone; and in all other respects was under the direct control and supervision of Respondent.
During the course of employment with Morse Security Group, Hull possessed no occupational license, business cards, stationery, telephone listing, brochures or printed material that identified him as having any relationship with Respondent other than employee and filed no fictitious name with the Department of State.
In dealing with clients and the general public, Hull held himself out as an employee of Respondent and his business cards indicated that he was an employee of Respondent.
Of the five cases that Hull handled on behalf of Respondent, he at no time attempted to limit the Respondent's liability to any of those clients by asserting that he was an independent contractor, or had any other relationship with Respondent other than employee. Respondent never identified Hull to others an anything other than an employee.
At no time did Respondent attempt to limit its general liability to the public as to Hull's employment by the use of the term subcontractor. Respondent never attempted to perpetrate a fraud on the public by the use of the term subcontractor as to Hull's employment. Respondent's liability insurance in effect from 1991 through 1994, specifically covered Hull as an employee of Respondent.
John K. Polk was employed by Respondent from February 5, 1992 through March 27, 1993.
At the inception of Polk's employment, he entered into an employment contract with Respondent. The agreement for employment was entitled "Employment Agreement", and consisted of twelve paragraphs. Throughout the employment agreement Polk is referred to as employee and Respondent is referred to as employer except in paragraph 10. Paragraph 10 informed Polk that as employee he would be regarded as a subcontractor or independent contractor for the purposes of taxes, workers' compensation, licenses, permits, and insurance.
During the course of Polk's employment his relationship with Respondent was governed by the employment agreement.
In addition to the employment agreement signed by Polk, he received a separate document entitled, "Employee Vacation/Sick Leave Policy". The vacation/sick leave document further identified and regulated Polk as an employee.
During the course of Polk's employment with Respondent Polk did not maintain a separate general liability policy. At no time during the course of Polk's employment with Respondent did Respondent attempt to limit its liability to its clients by treating Polk as anything other than as an employee.
Polk never attempted to use the fact that the term "subcontractor" had been used in paragraph 10 of the employment agreement in order to limit Respondent's liabilities to clients. Polk's employee fidelity bond questionnaire for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Insurance was submitted by Respondent listing Polk as an employee, and Polk was covered under the policy for any acts of negligence of omissions. During the period of Polk's employment with Respondent he held no separate occupational license. Polk's business cards and stationery was provided by Respondent, and identified Polk as an employee of Respondent. The business telephone employed by Polk during his employment with Respondent was identified as Respondent. Polk worked under the direct supervision and control of Respondent.
At all times Polk held himself out as an employee to Respondent's clients.
During the course of his employment with Respondent, Polk was covered under Respondent's general liability policy for any acts of negligence or omission committed by Polk.
Randy Morgan was employed with Respondent as an investigator from January 1, 1991, to approximately December, 1992.
Morgan did not have a written contract for employment with the Respondent.
Morgan was compensated by the case on an hourly basis by Respondent.
Morgan was responsible for withholding his own Social Security and federal income taxes.
Morgan considered himself as an employee of Respondent, and was under the supervision and control of Respondent.
At all times during the course of his employment Morgan held himself out as an employee of Respondent, not as a subcontractor.
Robert O. Sutley was employed by Respondent from November of 1992, until approximately March, 1993.
During his employment with Respondent, Sutley held "DD", "B", and "G" licenses from the Department.
Sutley entered into an employment agreement with Respondent which consisted of twelve paragraphs entitled "Employment Agreement".
Within the employment agreement, the term "independent contractor" was a term used in relation to the workers' compensation and the withholding of taxes.
Respondent did not attempt to limit its liability to the general public in regard to Sutley. Throughout the course of his employment with Respondent, Sutley held himself out as an investigator employee of Respondent.
During his employment with Respondent, Sutley was under the supervision and control of Respondent.
Respondent was contacted on a cold call by Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory for the purposes of advertising.
After negotiations, Respondent caused to be issued an advertisement in the Martindale-Hubbell directory.
Respondent initially instructed Martindale-Hubbell to advertise that Respondent was "one of the oldest and largest investigative agencies in Florida".
The basis for the requested advertisement that Respondent was one of the oldest and largest was Respondent's purchase of a statewide detective agency, which had been in business in Florida since the 1950's, and that Respondent has an affiliate office in Europe and other parts of the United States.
Pinkerton's of Florida has been licensed in Florida as an investigative agency since 1968.
Pinkerton's has employed over 25 investigator employees on an annual basis over the last five years.
Prior to its publication in Martindale-Hubbell, Respondent was not aware of the contents of the advertisement.
The ad, as published, stated that the Respondent was the oldest and largest investigative agency in Florida.
Respondent became aware of the contents of the advertisement upon receipt of the complaint filed against him by the State. Respondent then sent a letter to Martindale-Hubbell, inquiring why the advertisement read "Florida's oldest and largest private investigative agency", as opposed to "one of Florida's largest and oldest private investigative agencies" as previously instructed by Respondent.
Martindale-Hubbell acknowledged that the final draft of the advertisement had been done without Respondent's approval and that an error had been made by Martindale-Hubbell in the advertisement, as it appeared in their publication.
Respondent instructed Martindale-Hubbell to cease further advertisement.
Respondent reported on his letterhead stationery to the Department the termination of the following persons: Colard, Crews, Fitzgerald, Martin, Morgan, Polk, and Stebbins within the statutory time limit.
When Respondent was advised by Mr. Matlack that the computer printout from the Department showed that the above named people were still on a list indicating that they were associated with Respondent, Respondent sent another letter dated April 27, 1993 to the Department advising them of the termination of those listed individuals.
As of October 15, 1993, the above named persons were still listed as in Respondent's employ.
During the period from January 1, 1993 to April 1993, Harvey E. Morse voluntarily deactivated Class "C" Private Investigator's License and Private Investigative Security Agency Manager's License.
Morse voluntarily deactivated licenses upon his graduation from the police academy and his association with the Florida Highway Patrol as a full time auxiliary trooper.
Upon voluntary deactivation of Morse's licenses, Morse notified each of the company's employees that Morse would not be involved in any more investigations, and that the employees were to receive their direction from either Dwayne Rutledge or Maria Morse.
Morse continued to engage in non-regulated functions such as marketing, sales, computer functions, bookkeeping, and payroll and teaching, training and instruction.
During the periods of voluntary deactivation of his license, Morse would run a driver's license record on the computer, receive a printout, and hand it to an employee. Morse refrained, however, from being involved in an investigation based upon that printout.
Morse has refrained from involvement in any regulated activities from the time that he voluntarily deactivated his license.
Once Morse voluntarily deactivated his license, the primary person responsible for investigations and management of employees was Dwayne Rutledge.
During the period from September 1992 to January 1993, Harvey E. Morse supervised and trained John Polk.
Morse was always available by way of pager or cellular phone, and in constant contact with John Polk during that time period. Further, Respondent installed a two-way radio system so that Morse could talk with and supervise John Polk on a constant basis.
Morse was never more than 60 miles from John Polk during his internship from September 1992 till January 1993, and Morse was in daily contact with John Polk in regard to pending investigations, new matters, old matters, and the general business of the Respondent's office.
On several occasions during the above stated time period, Polk would communicate with Morse while he was on patrol in a Florida Highway Patrol vehicle, and ask questions of Morse concerning how investigative matters should be handled.
Polk was afforded certain latitude by Morse to make administrative decisions on a day-to-day basis as his training progressed, and Morse placed more confidence in Polk's abilities in certain areas. However, Morse still oversaw those decisions.
At all times, Polk's supervision of Respondent's employees was under the direct supervision and control of Morse or other licensed managers in Respondent's employ.
The purpose of the Respondent's purchase of a two way radio system was twofold: One, to communicate with other investigators during the course of an investigation; and the other was to afford constant communication among Morse, the office managers, Dwayne Rutledge and Maria Morse, and the investigators, in case of a question would arise in the performance of their duties.
Rutledge, as well as Maria Morse, became employed as office manager(s) shortly after 1990, and both he and Mrs. Morse were continuously available to the employees and oversaw, in conjunction with the Morse, the performance of their regulated duties.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding, and the parties thereto, pursuant to subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Department of State has jurisdiction to take disciplinary action for violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Section 493.6121, Florida Statutes.
Section 493.6201(4), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part:
Class "C" or Class "CC" licensees shall own or be an employee of a Class "A" agency, a Class "A" and Class "B" agency, or a branch office.
Section 493.6110, Florida Statutes, requires each agency to carry
$300,000 in comprehensive general liability coverage for death, bodily injury, property damage, and personal injury including false arrest, detention or imprisonment, malice prosecution, liable, slander, defamation of character, and violation of the right of privacy. It also states that "(c)overage shall insure for the liability of all employees licensed by the department while acting in the course of their employment."
Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, prohibits the following:
Employing or contracting with any unlicensed or improperly licensed person or agency to conduct activities regulated under this chapter when such licensure status was known or could have been ascertained by reasonable inquiry.
The terms "employing" and "contracting" have different meanings in the context of Chapter 493. The term "employer/employee" is used in Section 493.6102(3) & (4) to exempt individuals from licensure who work in-house rather than hiring themselves out as independent contractors.
There is no absolute rule for determining whether one is an independent contractor or employee, and each case must be determined on its own facts. Magarian v. Southern Fruit Distributors, 1 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1941). However, generally, the test of what constitutes independent services lies in the control exercised, the decisive question being who has the right to direct what shall be done, and when and how it shall be done. Id.
The relationship of employer and employee requires control and direction by the employer over the conduct of the employee. This exercise of control over the person as well as the performance of the work to the extent of prescribing the manner in which the work shall be executed is the ultimate test of the nature of the relationship between employer and employee. An employee is one who for a consideration agrees to work subject to the orders and direction of another, usually for regular wages, but not necessarily so, and, further agrees to subject himself at all times during the period of service to the lawful orders and directions of others in respect to the work to be done. Customarily, the employer determines both the method and manner in which the work is to be done as well as the time and tenure of the service. City of Boca Raton v. Mattel, 91 So.2d 644, 647 (Fla. 1956); Peterson v. Highland Crate Co- Op, 23 So.2d 716 (Fla. 1945).
As to Counts I, II, IV, and V, Respondent executed an employment contract with Graig Hull, John Polk, Randy Morgan, and Robert O. Sutley. The evidence clearly demonstrated that they were employees subject to the supervision and control of Respondent at all times.
Paragraph 10 of the Employment Agreement improperly referred to the person named in the agreement as an independent subcontractor. Respondent filed a Form 1099 with the Internal Revenue Service which indicated that the named person was a non-employee. Nevertheless, each person was held out to the public as an employee, was subject to the supervision and control of Respondent, and worked under Respondent's general liability policy while acting in the course of their employment. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of violating Section 493.6118(1)(n).
Count III alleges that Respondent improperly allowed John Polk to direct the activities of licensees or exercise operational control over the regulated activities of Respondent's business in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes. That section holds that employing or contracting with any unlicensed or improperly licensed person or agency to conduct activity regulated under this chapter shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action.
Section 493.6101 (13), Florida Statutes defines "manager" as follows:
"Manager" means any licensee who directs the activities of licensees at any agency or branch office. The manager shall be assigned to and shall primarily operate from the agency or branch office for which he has been designated at manager.
The evidence fails to establish that John Polk engaged in the direction of the activities of the licensees or exercised operational control over the regulated activities of Respondent. In fact, the record establishes that, at all times, John Polk, as well as all other employees of Respondent, were under the direct supervision and control of Harvey E. Morse until such time as his license became inactive and Dwayne Rutledge, a properly licensed manager, and/or Maria Morse, also a properly licensed manager, took control.
Count VII alleges that Morse continued to direct the activities of licensees, thereby acting as a manager subsequent to the voluntary deactivation of his "C" private investigator's license in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(s) and 493.6201(e)(a)(5), Florida Statutes.
Section 493.6118(1)(s), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part that violation of any provision of 493 shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action.
Section 493.6201(3)(a), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part that a person who performs the services of a manager for a Class "A" private investigative agency or class "AA" branch office shall have a Class "A" license.
Section 493.6201(3)(5), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part that any individual who performs the service of a private investigator shall have a Class "C" license.
Petitioner has failed to prove clearly and convincingly that Respondent violated those statutes as set forth above. In fact, the record shows that, after the voluntary deactivation of Morse's license, Dwayne Rutledge and Maria Morse acted as managers of Respondent's business.
Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Morse conducted investigative activities as defined in Section 493.6101(16), Florida Statutes, while his license was on inactive status. It has been shown that Morse performed nonregulated ministerial duties not controlled by Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Further, Chapter 493 fails to provide a clear definition of related and non-related activities. However, taking the definition of the terms "investigator" and "manager" in their broadest sense most favorable to the Department, Petitioner has still failed to provide by clear and convincing evidence a violation by Respondent.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is WHEREFORE, it is
RECOMMENDED: Petitioner having failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated those sections as alleged in Counts I through IX of the Administrative Complaint, it is hereby recommended that said Counts be DISMISSED.
DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DANIEL M. KILBRIDE
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 31st day of January, 1994.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3890
The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties.
Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner waived the filing of proposed findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent.
Accepted in substance: Count I, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; Count II, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22; Count IV, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2,
3, 4, 6, 7, 8; Count V, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; Count VIII, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9; Count VI, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2 (in part), 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; Count
VII, unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; Count III,
unnumbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12.
Rejected as argument or conclusory: Count I, unnumbered paragraphs 2, 21; Count IV, paragraphs 9; Count V, paragraph 2(in part); Count VII, paragraphs 4; Count III paragraphs 4, 9.
Rejected as redundant or surplusage, or irrelevant and immaterial: Count II, unnumbered paragraphs 13, 18, 19; Count IV, paragraph 5; Count VI, paragraph
4.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing
The Capitol Mail Station-4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
William J. Sheaffer, Esquire William J. Sheaffer, PA.
609 East Central Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32801
Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Phyllis Slater, Esquire General Counsel
The Capitol, PL-02
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to the 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 consult with the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning their 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.
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, )
DIVISION OF LICENSING, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO.: 93-3890
) A00-00919
MORSE SECURITY GROUP, INC., ) D/B/A HARVEY E. MORSE, P.A., ) HARVEY E. MORSE, PRESIDENT, )
)
Respondent. )
)
FINAL ORDER
This case came before the Department of State, Division of Licensing, for consideration and final agency action. A formal administrative hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, on October 29, 1993, in Orlando, Florida, before Daniel M. Kilbride, the duly assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Recommended Order was submitted by the Hearing Officer on February 2, 1994, a copy of which is attached. Neither party filed objections or exceptions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Department of State hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order with the exception of paragraphs 51-
53. The Hearing Officer's finding that accessing public records through a computer in furtherance of a private investigation is not regulated under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, is an erroneous conclusion of law.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Department of State hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order with the exception of paragraphs 78 and 81. Paragraph 78 should state that each Class "A" Private Investigative agency or Class "AA" branch office shall have a Class "M" licensee.
The Hearing Officer's conclusion in paragraph 81 that Respondent Harvey E. Morse did not conduct investigative activities while his license was on inactive status must also be corrected. By accessing public records through his agency's computer to assist his employees investigations, Mr. Morse was in fact performing regulated activities. In Department of State v. People Locator, Inc., DOAH Case No. 90-8024, 14 FALR 1113, affirmed 611 So.2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), it was held that the definition of "private investigation" under Section 493.6101(17), Florida Statutes, includes one who, for a fee, uses only public
record sources to locate missing persons. This would also apply to other types of private investigation and is not restricted to locating missing persons.
Thus, if one seeks compensation for any of the services enumerated under the definition of "private investigation," regardless of the method used, licensure is required unless otherwise exempt pursuant to Section 493.6102, Florida Statutes.
However, this finding has no bearing on Count VII in the administrative complaint since generating a computer printout does not constitute managing or directing licensees, and Mr. Morse has not been charged with performing investigations.
WHEREFORE, based upon the Foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Administrative Complaint of June 1, 1993, be and is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
NOTICE OF RIGHTS
This Order constitutes final agency action. Any party who is adversely affected by this Order may seek judicial review under Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Such proceedings are commenced by filing a Notice of Appeal, pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the Deputy Clerk of the Division of Licensing, Department of State, The Capitol, Mail Station #4, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250; and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal, accompanied by the applicable filing fees, with the First District Court of Appeal, or with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of the day this Order is filed with the Clerk of the Department.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida this 23rd day of February, 1994.
John M. Russi, Director Division of Licensing
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Final Order has been sent by
U.S. Mail this 23rd day of February, 1994, to William J. Sheaffer, Esquire, 609 East Central Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32801.
Richard R. Whidden, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing
The Capitol, MS #4
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
(904) 488-3492
Copies Furnished to: Filed With Agency Clerk
License File Division of Administrative Hearings Orlando Regional Office
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jun. 27, 1994 | (Final) Order filed. |
| Feb. 25, 1994 | Final Order filed. |
| Jan. 31, 1994 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held October 29, 1993. |
| Dec. 22, 1993 | Petitioner`s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed. |
| Dec. 21, 1993 | Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Dec. 17, 1993 | Order sent out. (Motion for Extension of Time granted; Proposed Recommended Order due 12-20-93) |
| Dec. 14, 1993 | (Respondent) Request for Extension of Time in Which to File Proposed Order filed. |
| Nov. 30, 1993 | Transcript (Volumes 1&2) filed. |
| Oct. 29, 1993 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Oct. 25, 1993 | (2) Subpoena Duces Tecum w/Affidavit of Service; Subpoena Ad Testificandum w/Affidavit of Service (3) filed. (From William J. Sheaffer) |
| Oct. 07, 1993 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Depositions filed. |
| Aug. 19, 1993 | (ltr form) Request for Subpoenas filed. (From William J. Sheaffer) |
| Aug. 19, 1993 | Respondent`s Request to Produce filed. |
| Aug. 12, 1993 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 10/29/93; 9:00am; Orlando) |
| Jul. 26, 1993 | Ltr. to DMK from Henri C. Cawthon re: Reply to Initial Order filed. |
| Jul. 19, 1993 | Initial Order issued. |
| Jul. 14, 1993 | Agency referral letter; Response to Administrative Complaint; Administrative Complaint; Election of Rights filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Feb. 23, 1994 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jan. 31, 1994 | Recommended Order | Named persons were employees of respondent; improperly licensed person did- not act as manager; principal did not ocnduct investigations while inactive. |
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING vs MICHAEL R. HEILAND, 93-003890 (1993)
MARTIN BROYLES vs. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING, 93-003890 (1993)
FENEL ANTOINE vs DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING, 93-003890 (1993)
PATRICIA T. UYAAN vs. DIVISION OF LICENSING, 93-003890 (1993)
