STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 93-3953
)
RICHARD A. VITI, )
)
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 28, 1993, in Orlando, Florida. The following appearances were entered:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: James H. Gillis, Esquire
Senior Attorney
Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Division of Real Estate
400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772
For Respondent: Richard A. Viti (pro se)
6065 Roswell Road, #3116
Atlanta, Georgia 30328 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether the Respondent's real estate license in Florida should be disciplined because the Respondent committed fraud, misrepresentation, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Whether the Respondent's real estate license should be disciplined because the Respondent has been found guilty of a crime which directly relates to the activities of a licensed real estate broker or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By a two-count Amended Administrative Complaint filed on July 15, 1993, the Petitioner alleges that the Respondent has violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b) and (f), Florida Statutes. The Respondent disputed the charges and requested a hearing. Following denial of the Respondent's motions to dismiss or for an indefinite continuance and Petitioner's motion to relinquish jurisdiction, a formal hearing was held on October 28, 1993, in Orlando, Florida.
Petitioner offered in evidence five exhibits: Respondent's licensure file with the Department; Respondent's superseding federal Criminal Indictment, filed May 19, 1991; the federal jury verdict, as to Respondent, dated January 25, 1993; Respondent's notice to FREC, dated February 19, 1993; Judgment of the USDC, dated April 8, 1993; and Respondent's response to Petitioner's First Request for Admissions, dated October 5, 1993. Respondent offered into evidence thirty-two exhibits, including, inter alia, affidavits from twenty-two people as to Respondent's good character and the deposition testimony of six witnesses.
The transcript of the formal hearing was filed on December 6, 1993. Petitioner filed its proposed recommended order on December 13, 1993 and Respondent filed his proposals on December 22, 1993. Respondent also filed exceptions to Petitioner's proposals on the same date. The proposals submitted by the parties have been given careful consideration and adopted when supported by the evidence. My specific rulings are contained in the Appendix attached hereto.
Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner, Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto.
Respondent, Richard A. Viti, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number #0091774 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes.
The Respondent, on or about May 6, 1991, was charged by the Grand Jury, United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, in a three-count Superseding Criminal Indictment, No. 1:91-CR-072, with the violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 and 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7201.
The Respondent was charged in Counts Two and Three of the indictment with the violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7201, in that the Respondent "did willfully attempt to evade and defeat . . . income tax due and owing by him to the United States of America for the years 1985 and 1986 by failing to make an income tax return . . . as required by law, to any proper officer of the Internal Revenue Service, by failing to pay the Internal Revenue Service said income tax, and by concealing and attempting to conceal from all proper officers of the United States of America his true and correct income."
Respondent was found guilty of Count Two, failure to make an income tax return and to pay federal income tax for the year 1985 in the appropriate amount of $22,000, and of Count Three, failure to make a return and to pay federal income tax for the year 1986 in the approximate amount of $19,000.
On April 2, 1993 he was sentenced to a term in prison of three years in the custody of the Attorney General on Count Two and five years on Count Three. The sentence was suspended and Respondent was placed on indefinite probation.
He was also ordered to pay a special assessment of $100.00.
Said convictions are presently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeal, Eleventh Circuit.
Respondent timely notified the Florida Real Estate Commission of the convictions in a letter dated February 23, 1993.
The Respondent has demonstrated that his reputation in the professional community is one that demonstrates a propensity for the qualities of honesty, trustworthiness, and competency to transact the business of a real estate broker, in such a manner so as to safeguard the interest of the public.
The Respondent has demonstrated that he openly and candidly made his beliefs regarding his obligation to report and pay the income tax known to his co-workers, students, and the general public and that he believed that his conduct was not unlawful.
Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker for more than 23 years in the State of Florida. Other than the federal convictions, the Respondent has not been disciplined for misconduct in a business transaction in the State of Florida or any other state.
On October 15, 1993, the Internal Revenue Service and the Georgia Department of Revenue acknowledged receipt of Respondent's Individual Income Tax Returns for the tax years, 1983 through 1992.
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 Petitioner is responsible for the disciplining of licenses of real estate brokers. Section 475.25, Florida Statutes (1993).
Subsection 475.25, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the Florida Real Estate Commission may suspend a license for a period of not exceeding ten
(10) years; revoke a real estate license; may impose an administrative fine not to exceed $1000 for each count or separate offense; and may impose a reprimand or, any or all of the foregoing, if it finds that a licensee has violated any of the provisions of Subsection 475.25(1), Florida Statutes.
In the Amended Administrative Complaint, dated July 15, 1993, Respondent is charged with violations of Subsections 475.(1)(b) and (f), Florida Statutes.
Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), proscribes fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in any business transaction in this state or any other state, nation, or territory; or violation of a duty imposed upon a license by law or by the terms of a listing contract, written, oral, express, or implied, in a real estate transaction .
Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1993), authorizes the Commission to discipline a licensee if he has been convicted or found guilty, regardless of adjudication, of a crime in any jurisdiction which directly relates to the activities of a licensed broker, or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing. The record of a conviction certified or authenticated in such form as to be admissible in evidence under the laws of the state shall be admissible as prima facie evidence of such guilt.
The burden of proof is on the Petitioner as to each count of the Administrative Complaint. Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Revocation of license proceedings are penal in nature, State ex rel. Vining v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 281 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1973), and Petitioner has to prove by clear and convincing evidence the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ferris
v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).
The Fourth District Court of Appeal has provided a workable definition of the clear and convincing evidence standard, as follows:
[C]lear and convincing evidence requires
that the evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the evidence must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.
Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So.2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
In presenting its case, any relevant evidence is admissible if it is the sort of evidence on which reasonable prudent persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of their affairs. However, hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions. Section 120.58, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q-2.026(3), Florida Administrative Code.
As a real estate licensee in Florida, the Respondent occupies a status under law with recognized privileges and responsibilities. Zichlin v. Dill, 25 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1946); United Homes, Inc. v. Moss, 154 So.2d 351 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1963).
Inasmuch as a real estate licensee in Florida belongs to a privileged class, the state has prescribed a high standard of qualifications. Zichlin, supra. "The law specifically requires that a person, in order to hold a real estate license, must make it appear that he is honest, truthful, trustworthy, of good character and that he bears a good reputation for fair dealing." McKnight
v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 202 So.2d 199 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1967). Anyone who deals with a licensee may assume he is dealing with an honest and ethical person. Shelton v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 120 So.2d 191 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1960).
At the hearing, no proof was offered that Respondent engaged in a course of conduct to willfully conceal income from the Internal Revenue Service as alleged in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint. A judgment of conviction, in and of itself, is not conclusive proof of the facts upon which it is based. Cf. Kelly v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 610 So.2d 1375 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In this matter, Respondent was acquitted at trial of the facts alleged in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint and no additional evidence was offered to prove those facts at the hearing. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of Count I of the complaint.
The Petitioner did prove that Respondent was found guilty, following a trial by jury, on Counts Two and Three of the Indictment. The jury found that Respondent willfully attempted to evade and defeat income tax due and owing by him to the federal government for the years 1985 and 1986, by failing to make an income tax return, by failing to pay said income tax and by concealing his true and correct income. The Petitioner's proof is clear and convincing in this case, sufficient to justify the imposition of a penalty within the range of those provided for by the Legislature. Although the conviction does not relate directly to the activities of a licensed real estate broker, it does involve a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude has been defined as anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle or good morals. It involves the idea of inherent baseness or depravity in the private social relations or duties owned by man to man, or by man to society. Tullidge v. Hollingsworth, 146 So. 660 (Fla. 1933). Federal income tax evasion is a serious felony offense. It shows a lack of social responsibility to his fellow citizens. Respondent's failure to accept this social duty has caused serious harm to the public and to the government's revenue collecting agencies. Therefore, Respondent should be found guilty of violating count two of the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Rule 61J-24.001, Florida Administrative Code, known as "Disciplinary Guidelines" adopted by the Florida Real Estate Commission, provide that Respondent may be fined up to $1,000 per count and may have his broker's license penalized as follows:
(c) 475.25(1)(b) - up to 5 years supspension or revocation;
(g) 475.25(1)(f) - up to 7 years suspension or revocation.
The Guidelines also provide:
(4)(a) When either the Petitioner or Respondent is able to demonstrate aggravating or mitigating circumstances to the Commission by clear and convincing evidence, the Commission shall be entitled to deviate from the above guidelines
in imposing discipline upon a licensee. ...
(b) Aggravating or mitigating circumstances may include, but are not limited to, the following:
The severity of the offense.
The degree of harm to the ... public.
The number of counts in the Administrative Complaint
The number of times the offenses previously have been committed by the licensee.
The disciplinary history of the licensee.
The status of the licensee at the time the offense was committed.
The degree of financial hardship incurred by a licensee as a result of the imposition of a fine or suspension of the license.
Violation of the provision of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, wherein a letter of guidance as provided in Section 455.225(3), Florida Statutes, previously has been issued to the licensee.
Considering the Commission's guidelines as to mitigation and aggravation, Respondent has demonstrated mitigating circumstances that:
There was no evidence of any disciplinary action or history in the State of Florida concerning the Respondent.
The Respondent possessed an active Florida real estate license for more than 23 years at the time of the hearing.
There was no evidence presented that Respondent's conduct involved a client or was connected to a business transaction.
The testimony of Respondent and the depositions submitted by Respondent in evidence as mitigation demonstrated that Respondent is of good moral character, honest and trustworthy and would not be a threat to the interests of the public.
In that Respondent has shown a receipt for the recent filing of some ten (10) years of both his Federal Income Tax Returns of some ten
(10) years of both his Federal Income Tax Returns and his Georgia State Income Tax return to those agencies, he has presented some mitigation that should be taken into consideration as to his character.
Respondent has taken great efforts to show that he really believed in what he did (or failed to do). He submits that he is a "tax protestor", not a tax evader.
The Florida Real Estate Commission should deviate from the above guidelines in imposing discipline upon Respondent. Revocation of license under the facts and circumstances of these cases is too severe a penalty for the one offense proven.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Commission, as follows:
The Respondent be found NOT GUILTY as to Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint and GUILTY as to Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Commission should deviate from the Disciplinary Guidelines and place Respondent on probation for a period of five years.
Said period of suspension should be subject to such reasonable conditions as the Commission may deem appropriate, including payment of an administrative fine of $1,000.
DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 25th day of February, 1994.
APPENDIX
The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties.
Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact
Accepted in substance with paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6 (in part), 7 (in part), 8,
9, 10, 11, 12.
Rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence: paragraphs 4, 5, 6, (in part), 7 (in part).
Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact
Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 (in part), 8 (in part),
10 (in part), 12.
Rejected as subsumed or irrelevant and immaterial and hearsay: paragraphs 3, 7 (in part), 8 (in part), 9 10 (in part), 11.
COPIES FURNISHED:
James H. Gillis, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Business Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate
400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772
Richard A. Viti (pro se) 6065 Roswell Road, #3116
Atlanta, Georgia 30328
Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate
400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801
Jack McRay General Counsel Northwood Centre
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit to the Public Service Commission written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should consult with the Public Service Commission concerning its rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order.
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 93-81017
DOAH NO. 93-3953
RICHARD A. VITI,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
On May 17, 1994, pursuant to s. 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, the Florida Real Estate Commission heard this case to issue a Final Order. Hearing Officer Daniel M. Kilbride of the Division of Administrative Hearings presided over a formal hearing on October 28, 1993. On February 25, 1994, he issued a Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached here to as Exhibit A and made a part hereof.
The Petitioner filed Exceptions to the Recommended Order. A copy of these Exceptions is attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof.
The Respondent filed a request for an additional amount of time to make his presentation to the Commission; a request that the Commission receive additional documentary support for Respondent's argument; a Motion for Exculpatory Information; and Respondent's Objections to Petitioner's Exceptions to the Recommended Order. Copies of the Respondent's requests, Motion and Objections to Petitioner's Exceptions to the Recommended Order are attached hereto as Exhibits C, D, E and F and made a part hereof.
The Commission received each request by the Respondent and, after a complete review and being otherwise fully advised, the Commission denied the Respondent's request that the Commission receive additional documentary support and also Respondent's Motion for Exculpatory Information.
The Commission granted the Respondent's request for an additional amount of time to make his presentation, and the Commission received into the record the Respondent's Objections to Petitioner's Exceptions to the Recommended Order.
After completely reviewing the record and being otherwise fully advised, the Commission adopted the Petitioner's Exception No. 1 and rejected the Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact No. 12. The Commission determined that the documentary evidence was hearsay and unsupported by direct evidence.
The Commission adopted the Petitioner's Exception No. 2 and rejected the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law No. 17, insofar as the statutory language is misquoted by the Hearing Officer.
The Commission rejected the Petitioner's Exception No. 3 concerning the Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact No. 9. This exception is rejected only insofar as it addresses the reputation of the Respondent, because the matter of credibility is for the Hearing Officer to determine.
The Commission rejected the Petitioner's Exception No. 4 and adopted the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law No. 24.
Therefore, except as noted in the rulings on the Petitioner's Exceptions, the Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law are adopted.
After reviewing the record, and based upon the adopt ion of the Petitioner's Exceptions Nos. 1 and 2 and on the rejection of the Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact No. 12 and Conclusion of Law No. 17, and also based upon the rationale offered by the Petitioner in Exception No. 2, the Commission modifies the Hearing Officer's Recommended Penalty to include a period of license suspension.
The Florida Real Estate Commission therefore ORDERS that the Respondent pay a $1,000 administrative fine.
The Commission further ORDERS that the license of Richard Viti be suspended for a period of three (3) months.
At the conclusion of the period of suspension, the Respondent is directed to contact the Records Section of the Division of Real Estate at Post Office Box 1900, Orlando, Florida 32802, or (407)423-6060, to secure the proper forms for reinstatement of the suspended license.
Upon reinstatement, the Respondent shall be placed on probation for a period of five (5) years, subject to the following terms and conditions:
The licensee shall notify the Division of Real Estate of any changes in address or employment.
The licensee shall not violate any provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, or Rules adopted by the Commission.
The licensee shall not be convicted or found guilty of a crime in any jurisdiction.
The licensee shall enroll in and satisfactorily complete a 60-hour post-licensure course for brokers within five (5) years of the filing date of this Order. These course hours are in addition to any other education required to maintain a valid and current license.
This Order shall be effective 30 days from date of filing with the Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. However, any party affected by this Order has the right to seek judicial review, pursuant to s.
120.68, Florida Statutes, and to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Within 30 days of the filing date of this Order, review proceedings may be instituted by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation at 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 309, Orlando, Florida 32801. At the same time, a copy of the Notice of Appeal, with applicable filing fees, must be filed with the appropriate District Court of Appeal.
DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of May 1994 in Orlando, Florida.
Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by U.S. Certified Mail to Richard A. Viti, 6065 Roswell Road, #3116, Atlanta, GA 30328; by U.S. Mail to Hearing Officer Daniel Kilbride, Division of Administrative Hearings, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550; and by Hand Delivery to Steven Johnson, Esq., DBPR, Post Office Box 1900, Orlando, FL
32801, this 8th day of June 1994.
MD:JM:pep Brandon L. Moore Deputy Agency Clerk
=================================================================
SECOND AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE
Petitioner
vs. . CASE NO. 93-81017
DOAH NO. 93-3953
RICHARD A. VITI 5th DCA NO. 94-1578
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
On September 18, 1995, the Florida Real Estate Commission heard this case to issue a Final Order as the result of a Mandate from the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
The District Court issued the opinion that "FREC failed to state in its order any valid reasons for increasing the penalty. . ." As a result, the District Court reversed and remanded the penalty provisions of the Final Order issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission on May 17, 1994.
After completely reviewing the record and being otherwise fully advised, the Commission ORDERS that the Final Order issued on May 17, 1994 be rescinded and that the Hearing Officer's Recommended Penalty be implemented.
Therefore, the Commission ORDERS that the Respondent pay a $1,000 administrative fine.
The Commission further ORDERS that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of five (5) years, subject to the following terms and conditions:
The licensee shall notify the Division of Real Estate of any changes in address or employment.
The licensee shall not violate any provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, or Rules adopted by the Commission.
The licensee shall not be convicted or found guilty of a crime in any jurisdiction.
This Order shall be effective 30 days from date of filing with the Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. However, any party affected by this Order has the right to seek judicial review, pursuant to s.120.68, Florida Statutes, and to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Within 30 days of the filing date of this Order, review proceedings may be instituted by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation at 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 309, Orlando, Florida 32801. At the same time, a copy of the Notice of Appeal, with applicable filing fees, must be filed with the appropriate District Court of Appeal.
DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of September 1995 in Orlando, Florida.
Henry M. Solares, Director Division of Real Estate
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by U.S. Certified Mail to Richard A. Viti, 6065 Roswell Road #3116, Atlanta, GA 30328; by regular U.S. Mail to the Division of Administrative Hearings, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550; and a copy provided to Janine Myrick, Esquire, DBPR, Post Office Box 1900, Orlando, Florida 32801, this 3rd day of October 1995.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Oct. 13, 1995 | Final Order filed. |
| Oct. 13, 1995 | Final Order filed. |
| Sep. 06, 1994 | Initial brief of the Appellant filed. |
| Sep. 02, 1994 | Initial Brief of the Appellant(agency appeal) filed. |
| Jul. 12, 1994 | AGENCY APPEAL, ONCE THE RETENTION SCHEDULE OF -KEEP ONE YEAR AFTER CLOSURE- IS MET, CASE FILE IS RETURNED TO AGENCY GENERAL COUNSEL. -ac |
| Jun. 08, 1994 | Final Order filed. |
| Mar. 08, 1994 | Order sent out. (Re: Correction to recommended Order) |
| Feb. 25, 1994 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 10/28/93. |
| Dec. 22, 1993 | Respondent`s Exceptions to Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order; Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Dec. 13, 1993 | Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Dec. 06, 1993 | Transcript filed. |
| Oct. 28, 1993 | Respondent`s Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed. |
| Oct. 28, 1993 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Oct. 26, 1993 | Order sent out (Re: Respondent`s Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction Denied) |
| Oct. 26, 1993 | Respondent`s Second Motion for An Indefinite Continuance Pending the Completion of Respondent`s Appeal of His Conviction w/cover ltr & attachments filed. |
| Oct. 19, 1993 | (Petitioner) Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction and Close File filed. |
| Oct. 14, 1993 | Respondent`s Submission to Neutralize Prejudicial Remarks of Petitioner filed. |
| Oct. 13, 1993 | (Petitioner) Objections to Respondent`s Second Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Oct. 07, 1993 | Respondent`s Motion to Compel Discovery filed. |
| Sep. 30, 1993 | (Petitioner) Objections to Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories and Supplement to Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories; Respondent`s Second Request for Admissions filed. |
| Sep. 14, 1993 | Notice of Service of Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions Combined With Interrogatories; Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions Combined With Interrogatories and Respondent`s Admissions filed. |
| Sep. 13, 1993 | Respondent`s First Request for Admissions and Respondent`s Admissions filed. |
| Aug. 23, 1993 | Order sent out. (Re: Motion to Dismiss Denied; Motion for Indefinite Continuance Denied) |
| Aug. 23, 1993 | Initial Prehearing Order sent out. |
| Aug. 12, 1993 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 10/28/93; 9:00am; Orlando) |
| Aug. 10, 1993 | Respondent`s Motion to Dismiss (or Quash) The Amended Complaint; Respondent`s Request for A Bill of Particulars; Motion for An Indefinite Continuance Pending the Completion of Respondent`s Appeal of His Conviction filed. |
| Aug. 10, 1993 | Respondent`s Request for a Motions Hearing filed. |
| Aug. 06, 1993 | (Petitioner) Compliance With Order filed. |
| Jul. 29, 1993 | Respondent`s Response to the Initial Order filed. |
| Jul. 22, 1993 | Initial Order issued. |
| Jul. 19, 1993 | Agency referral letter; Amended Administrative Complaint; Election of Rights; Attachment to Election of Rights filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 08, 1994 | Agency Final Order | |
| Feb. 25, 1994 | Recommended Order | Respondent's conviction of federal income tax evasion is crime of moral turpitude; mitigation demonistrated; probation. |
