STATE OF FLORIDA el EE od 7 DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES f l bes E by DOAH CASE NOS.: 05-3680 and 05-3987 700b APA 13 Adk 13 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., HEARINGS FINAL ORDER #: HSMV-06-379-FOF-DMV Petitioner, vs. LOVE NISSAN, INC.; ROBERT L. HALLEEN; AND CHAD A. HALLEEN. Respondents. LOVE NISSAN, INC.; ROBERT L. HALLEEN; AND CHAD A, HALLEEN, Petitioner, vs. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Respondent. — . : / FINAL ORDER This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of a Recommended Order by Harry L. Hooper, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order!. The Department hereby adopts the Recommended Order as its Final Order in this matter, WHEREFORE, it is Ordered that pursuant to Nissan’s verified Petition for Determination of Invalid Proposed Transfer Pursuant to Section 320.643, Florida Statutes, and Notice of Rejection of Proposed Transfer, no transfer under Section 320.643, Florida Statutes, is proposed and Nissan’s ! Respondent, Love Nissan, Inc. and Petitioner, Nissan North America, filed exceptions to the Recommended Order. These exceptions are ruled on in the Appendix to this Order. rejection of it was proper. Furthermore, Robert Halleen and Chad Halleen’s Petition for Determination of Wrongful Turndown is dismissed, DONE AND ORDERED this fa 4, of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. A. FORD, Directo, Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division rae Vehicles this 7,224. day of April, 2006. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, or in any other district court of appeal of one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with he Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure, Copies furnished: S. Keith Hutto, Esq. Steven A. McKelvey; Jr. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P. Keenan Building, Third Floor 1320 Main Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Dean Bunch, Esq, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, L.L.P. 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 w John W. Forehand, Esq. : Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. 125 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alex Kurkin, Esq. Pathman Lewis, LLP One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2400 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Rm. A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Harry L. Hooper, Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The-DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Ronald D. Reynolds Dealer License Administrator Florida Administrative Law Report Post Office Box 385 ; Gainesville, Florida 32602 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES DOAH CASE NOS: 05-3680 and 05-3987 FINAL ORDER #: HSMV-06-379-FOF-DMV NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Petitioner, vs. LOVE NISSAN, INC.; ROBERT L. HALLEEN; AND CHAD A, HALLEEN. Respondents. LOVE NISSAN, INC.; ROBERT L. HALLEEN; AND CHAD A. HALLEEN, Petitioner, ys. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Respondent. / APPENDIX TO FINAL ORDER RULING ON PETITIONER'S EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 0 ee ER “Exception 1, Rejected — The Administrative Law Judge found it necessary to determine whether there was a change in management because the Administrative Law Judge found that the proposed transfer of equity was illusory. Ruling on Exceptions to Findings of Fact 18. Rejected. The finding is based on competent substantial evidence. 20. Rejected. The finding is based on competent substantial evidence. 22. Rejected. The finding is based on competent substantial evidence. 23. Rejected. The finding is based on competent substantial evidence. 24. ‘Rejected. The finding is based on competent substantial evidence, 25. Rejected. The finding is based on competent substantial evidence, Ruling on Exceptions to Legal Conclusions A. Legal Principles The conclusions of law are correct interpretations of the law and correctly apply the law to the established facts. B. Specific Exceptions Exception to conclusions of law 34, 36 and 38. The conclusions are correct statements of the law. Exceptions to conclusions of law 39 and 40. The conclusions are correct statements of the law. ‘GALegaiMIKEWZO06\DMV\Dealer License\Nissan North America (05-3680 05-3987)\exeyptions doe

Docket for Case No: 05-003680

Orders for Case No: 05-003680