STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE,

Petitioner,

vs.

FADEL F. ELBADRAMANY,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

) Case No. 05-4538PL

)

)

)

)

)

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Notice was provided and on October 27, 2006, a formal hearing was held in this case. The hearing commenced at 10:00

1. C.T. at the Washington Correctional Institution, I.N.S. Courtroom, 4555 Sam Mitchell Drive, Chipley, Florida. Authority for conducting the hearing is set forth in Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2006). The hearing was held before Charles C. Adams, Administrative Law Judge.

   APPEARANCES

   
   

   For Petitioner: S. N. Persaud, Esquire

   Department of Business and Professional Regulation

   Division of Real Estate Hurston Building, North Tower

   400 West Robinson Street, Suite N 801 Orlando, Florida 32801

   
   

   For Respondent: Fadel F. Elbadramany V21541, pro se

   Washington Correctional Institution 4555 Sam Mitchell Drive

   Chipley, Florida 32428

   STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

   
   

   Should Petitioner impose discipline against the licenses held by Respondent as a real estate broker, licenses numbers 3000807, 3000808, and 300092222, and as a real estate instructor, license number 32195, for alleged violations of Section 475.25(1)(f), (n) and (p), Florida Statutes (2004)?

   PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

   
   

   On October 17, 2005, the acting division director, of the Division of Real Estate signed an Amended Administrative Complaint, in which Petitioner accused Respondent in three separate counts of violating the statutory provisions referred to before.

   The allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint were that:

   * * *

   
   

   1. On or about February 14, 2005, Respondent was found guilty of the crime of Grand Theft Over Twenty Thousand Dollars. A copy of the court document is attached hereto, incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 1.

      
      

   2. On or about February 14, 2005, Respondent was committed to the Department of Corrections and sent to a state prison for a term of 15 years.

      
      

   3. Respondent failed to timely notify Petitioner of the conviction.

COUNT I

Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of having been convicted or found guilty of, or entered a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime which directly relates to the activities of a licensed real estate sales associate or that involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing in volition of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes.

COUNT II

Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of being confined in a state or federal prison thereby being in violation of Section 475.25(1)(n), Florida Statutes.

COUNT III

Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of not having informed the Florida Real Estate Commission in writing within thirty (30) days of having pled guilty or having been convicted of a felony and, therefore, is in violation of Section 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes.

Respondent through his counsel Steven W. Johnson, Esquire, filed Respondent's Answer to Amended Administrative Complaint and Request for Formal Hearing. By the answer Respondent contested as disputed issues of material fact the allegations set forth in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 to the Amended Administrative Complaint, as well as the legal conclusions reached in relation to Counts I through III. The basis for the disputed issues of fact and law was "because the alleged conviction and sentence are on appeal." Respondent in writing denied "that a conviction not yet final

subjects him to discipline. The appeal is being filed as of November 21, 2005." Finally, Respondent denied in writing that "the plea on appeal is final, and denies he is obligated to notify the FREC and demands strict proof thereof." The request for hearing referred to Subsection 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, nevertheless referring to that provision as a request for formal hearing before an administrative law judge. Under those circumstances the Petitioner forwarded the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for conduct of a formal proceeding in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. That request was received by DOAH on December 14, 2005, and the case was assigned as DOAH Case No.

05-4538PL, before the present administrative law judge. Attorney Johnson moved to withdraw as counsel for

Respondent. On January 26, 2006, an order was entered allowing the withdrawal. The February 20, 2006 hearing date that had been scheduled remained in effect.

On January 30, 2006, Respondent's motion for continuance was filed. On February 13, 2006, the motion was granted. The case was reset to be heard on April 6, 2006.

On March 27, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for summary final order and/or motion to relinquish jurisdiction.

On March 29, 2006, Respondent moved for a continuance of the April 6, 2006 hearing. At the time he was relocated from Washington Correctional Institution to the Volusia County Jail.

The hearing was not held on April 6, 2006. A telephone conference was held on that date to discuss Petitioner's motion for summary final order and/or motion to relinquish jurisdiction. Respondent was granted additional time to file a written response to those motions.

On April 7, 2006, the motion for summary final order and/or motion to relinquish jurisdiction were renewed.

On April 7, 2006, an order was entered confirming the cancellation of the April 6, 2006 hearing date, affording Respondent the opportunity to file a written response to Petitioner's pending motions and reminding the parties that the case would be relinquished or a new hearing date established on or before May 5, 2006.

On April 28, 2006, Respondent filed his response to the motion for summary final order and/or motion to relinquish jurisdiction.

On May 3, 2006, an order was entered denying the motion for summary final order and/or motion to relinquish jurisdiction.

The hearing was reset to be heard on August 22, 2006.

On August 3, 2006, Petitioner moved to continue the hearing scheduled for August 22, 2006.

On August 17, 2006, an order was entered granting a continuance and rescheduling the case to be heard on October 27, 2006.

Consistent with the expectations of the January 4, 2006, order of prehearing instructions, on October 19, 2006, Petitioner provided a one-party proposed pre-hearing statement "no later than five days before the final hearing." On that date Petitioner noticed the filing of proposed hearing Exhibits numbered 1 through 5. The unilateral response to the prehearing order referred to Petitioner's proposed hearing Exhibit numbered 6, which was noticed for filing on October 23, 2006. The unilateral response to the prehearing order noted that Petitioner did not intend to call witnesses at the final hearing, with the exception of the possibility that the Respondent might be called to testify. This unilateral submission was served on Respondent at his address within the Washington Correctional Institution.

On October 24, 2006, Petitioner filed a notice of official recognition, a request that the administrative law judge take official notice of the Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1 through 6.

Based upon logistical issues within the Washington Correctional Institution, Respondent did not receive Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1 through 6 prior to the final hearing,

notwithstanding the effort by Petitioner to provide those materials.

On October 25, 2006, Respondent filed a "Motion to Dismiss (or) to Continue . . . After Compliance." The motion referred to FBPR Case Nos. 2001531392, 20022001947, 2002001154, and

2001532739 that are associated with the Amended Administrative Complaint. Those same FBPR case numbers had been associated with the Administrative Complaint in a prior case before DOAH. That case was DOAH Case No. 03-2037PL. By the motion to dismiss Respondent suggested that the aforementioned FBPR case numbers had been closed by disposition in DOAH Case No. 03-2037PL.

The motion asked for information concerning statutes and rules. The motion referred to a lack of access on the part of Respondent to the statutes and rules or a list of witnesses associated with the case. The motion argued that the Petitioner had not complied with the prehearing instructions entered January 4, 2006. Respondent in his motion referred to a

condition in his spine and nerve injury to his back that crippled him and caused paralysis in his function and mobility and the pendency of a doctor's appointment to address his condition on October 23, 2006.

In anticipation of oral argument on the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (or) to Continue . . . After Compliance, certain documents were obtained from the docket in DOAH Case No.

03-2037PL and brought to the hearing to be used by the administrative law judge and the parties. Among those documents was the Administrative Complaint that had the same FBPR Case numbers as the present Amended Administrative Complaint.

However, the original Administrative Complaint had different allegations set forth, as evidenced in ALJ Exhibit numbered 2. The earlier Administrative Complaint alleged in pertinent part:

* * *

1. The last licenses issued were as a broker at AAA Realty of Florida Comm. Real Estate Properties/Investments, Inc., 132 S. Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 and at AAA Realty of Florida Coastal Properties, Inc., 132 S. Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118.

   
   

2. Respondent used his corporation to purchase a motel.

   
   

3. Respondent began converting the motel to condominium units.

   
   

4. Respondent marketed the units.

   
   

5. Respondent facilitated a sales and purchase contract with Arthur Peloso, Sr., (Buyer 1)

   
   

6. Buyer 1 delivered a $10,000 deposit to Respondent.

   
   

7. The contract provided that deposits would be placed in escrow with Attorney Ronald N. Johnson.

   
   

8. Respondent did not place the deposit in escrow with Attorney Ronald N. Johnson.

9. Respondent orchestrated a fake closing of the transaction.

   
   

10. At the fake closing, Buyer paid Respondent $58,334.74.

    
    

11. There was no transfer of ownership of the property at the closing.

The Administrative Complaint referred in Counts I, III, V, VII, and IX to alleged violations of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and in Counts II, IV, VI, VIII and X, it referred to alleged violations of Sections 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes. Other allegations of material fact were set forth in describing various alleged buyers or purchasers in the several transactions. The Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, allegations states:

Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.

The Section 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes, allegations states:

Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is guilty of failure to account or deliver funds in violation of Section 475.(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes.

What is important is that the original Administrative Complaint is distinct, and unrelated to allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Its disposition has no bearing on the outcome of the present case. DOAH Case No. 03-2037PL was

eventually closed before DOAH by an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction, in response to Petitioner's motion. That motion referred to the Petitioner's lack of sufficient evidence to proceed against Respondent and the unavailability of essential witnesses. The motion to relinquish is ALJ Exhibit numbered 6. The Order Closing File is ALJ Exhibit numbered 8.

In relation to the reference in the motion to dismiss (or) to continue made by Respondent in the present case and the significance of the closure in DOAH Case No. 03-2037PL, ALJ Exhibits numbered 1 through 8 were admitted with the parties retaining copies of those exhibits. The ALJ Exhibits admitted in consideration of the motion to dismiss or to continue, concerning DOAH Case No. 03-2037PL were ALJ Exhibit numbered 1, the May 29, 2003 letter referring the case from the Petitioner to DOAH; ALJ Exhibit numbered 2, the original Administrative Complaint, as described in this discussion; ALJ Exhibit numbered 3, an amendment to a motion to hold the case in abeyance; ALJ Exhibit numbered 4, an order granting continuance and placing the case in abeyance; ALJ Exhibit numbered 5, Petitioner's motion to abate; ALJ Exhibit numbered 6, Petitioner's motion to relinquish jurisdiction; ALJ Exhibit numbered 7, Respondent's motion to continue; and ALJ Exhibit numbered 8, the order closing the file in DOAH Case No. 03-2037PL.

Other argument was entertained on Respondent's motion. The case was not dismissed and no continuance was granted as reflected in the hearing transcript. In denying the motion to dismiss particular attention was paid to the dissimilarity between the allegations set forth in the original Administrative Complaint signed November 20, 2002, and the Amended Administrative Complaint, which forms the basis in DOAH Case No. 05-4538PL. The case proceeded to a hearing on the merits, it appearing that the Respondent was physically able and capable of proceeding.

Petitioner relied on its previously-filed Exhibits numbered

1 through 6 as the basis for its case. Those exhibits were provided to Respondent at the hearing for his review. They were in turn: Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, certification of the licensing history by the Petitioner in relation to Respondent; Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2, court information in the case State of Florida v. Fadel Fawzi Elbadramany, in the Circuit Court Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Volusia County, Florida, Division 41, Case No. 2001-36519CFAES, as certified, that had been attached as an exhibit to the Amended Administrative Complaint served on Respondent, in which he had filed an answer through his counsel; Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 3, a copy of the statutory information at Sections 475.25 and 812.014, Florida Statutes (2005); Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4, case law from

appellate court decisions and recommended orders from DOAH; Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5, Fadel Elbadramany, Appellant vs.

State of Florida, Appellee, in the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fifth District, July Term 2006, Case No. 5D05754, Decision filed August 8, 2006, and a further decision in that case before the appellate court on September 7, 2006; and Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 6, certification of records by the Florida Department of Corrections in relation to Respondent, DOC No. V21541. Respondent objected to the admission of Petitioner's exhibits, emphasizing that the exhibits had been provided to him at the time the hearing commenced. Recognizing the nature of Exhibits numbered 1, 2, 5, and 6, they were admitted over objection. They referred to his license history with the Petitioner, the court case referred to in the Amended Administrative Complaint, for which he was tried and found guilty by jury and sentenced and is incarcerated at the Washington Correctional Institution, and from which he appealed, and information concerning his incarceration. Notwithstanding the provision of this information at the time of the hearing and not before, it is information not considered to be prejudicial to Respondent, recognizing the nature of those exhibits, matters about which he had some knowledge. By contrast, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 3 and 4 were not admitted. However, the parties were reminded that information reflected in Petitioner's

Exhibits numbered 3 and 4 could be used. The statutes referred to in the Amended Administrative Complaint would be examined in preparing a Recommended Order, with the prospect that some of the cases that had been set out in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4 might also be under considered. The parties were provided copies of the Petitioner's exhibits, to include those exhibits not admitted.

Respondent had two exhibits marked for identification that he withdrew.

On November 3, 2006, a hearing transcript was filed. A proposed recommended order was filed by Petitioner. Respondent filed proposed findings of act and conclusions of law. The submissions have been considered in preparing the Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Facts Alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint Uncontested by the Answer:

1. Petitioner 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 and Chapters 120,

   455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto.

2. Respondent is and was at all times material hereto a licensed Florida real estate broker, issued license numbers 3000807, 3000808, and 3092222, in accordance with Chapter 475 of the Florida Statutes.

3. The last licenses issued were as a broker at AAA Realty of Florida Comm. Real Estate Properties/Investments, Inc., 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118, and at AAA Realty of Florida International Inc., 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118.

4. Respondent is a licensed real estate instructor issued license number 32195 with AAA College of Real Estate. Additional Facts:

5. More specifically concerning licenses issued to Respondent as a real estate broker, from January 1, 2005 through March 13, 2006, Respondent was a broker doing business as AAA Realty of Florida License No. BK3000807, a brokerage sole proprietorship located at 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118.

6. From January 1, 2005 to March 13, 2006, Respondent was a broker, License No. BK3092222, affiliated with AAA Realty of Florida International, Inc., License No. CQ0000000, a brokerage corporation located at 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118.

7. License No. BK3000808 expired March 31, 2004.

8. In State of Florida vs. Fadel Fawzi Elbadramany, in the Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Volusia County, Division 41, Case No. 2001-36519CFAES, the defendant, Respondent here, was tried and found guilty by a jury of grand theft of over $20,000, an offense recognized in Subsections 812.014(1) and (2) (b), Florida Statutes. On February 11, 2005, an order of judgment was entered by Circuit Judge R. Michael Hutcheson adjudicating the defendant in that cause, Respondent, in the present case, guilty of grand theft. On that same date an order of sentence was entered against the defendant/Respondent, by which he was committed to the Department of Corrections to be imprisoned for a term of 15 years, with credit for 105 days of time served while incarcerated before the imposition of this sentence. By separate order the defendant/Respondent was required to pay certain charges, costs and fees. That order was entered on February 11, 2005.

9. In Fadel Elbadramany, Appellant, vs. State of Florida, Appellee, in the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fifth District, July term 2006, Case No. 5D05-754 decision filed August 8, 2006, the court entered a per curium affirmance. On September 27, 2006, that court ordered "that appellant's motion for rehearing, rehearing En Banc and request to issue a written opinion filed August 22, 2006 and Appellant's

   Supplemental to Request to Issue a Written Opinion, filed September 18, 2006 are denied."

10. Respondent is presently confined in Washington Correctional Institution where the final hearing was held. He is inmate number V21541. His tentative release date from his imprisonment is October 26, 2019. His confinement is in relation to the grand theft offense.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

11. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding in accordance with Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 455.225(5), Florida Statutes (2006).

12. Respondent is licensed as a Florida Real Estate Broker under license numbers BK3000807 and BK3092222. He also holds a license as a Florida real estate instructor under license number 32195.

13. Petitioner intends to impose discipline against Respondent's licenses based upon the allegations set forth in FBPR Case Nos. 2001531392, 20022001947, 2002001154, and 2001532739, for reasons set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint, signed October 17, 2005.

14. The factual allegations at issue in the Amended Administrative Complaint are:

    * * *

    
    

    1. On or about February 14, 2005, Respondent was found guilty of the crime of Grand Theft Over Twenty Thousand Dollars. A copy of the court document is attached hereto, incorporated herein and made a part hereof

       by reference as Administrative Complaint Exhibit 1.

       
       

    2. On or about February 14, 2005, Respondent was committed to the Department of Corrections and sent to a state prison for a term of 15 years.

       
       

    3. Respondent failed to timely notify Petitioner of the conviction.

       
       

       As a result, Respondent is accused of violating several provisions within Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2004).

15. Count I to the Amended Administrative Complaint refers to Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2004), which states:

    (1) The commission . . . may place a licensee, . . . on probation; may suspend a license, . . . for a period not exceeding 10 years; may revoke a license, . . . may impose an administrative fine not to exceed $1,000 for each count or separate offense and may issue a reprimand, and any or all of the foregoing, if it finds the licensee . . . .

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    (f) Has been convicted or found guilty of, or entered a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction which directly relates to the activities of a licensed broker or sales associate, 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.

    
    

16. Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint refers to Section 475.25(1)(n), Florida Statutes (2004), which in pertinent part allows discipline when a licensee:

    * * *

    
    

    (n) Is confined in any county jail; postadjudication; is confined in any state . . . prison . . .

    
    

17. Count III of the Amended Administrative Complaint refers to Section 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes (2004), which in pertinent part describes possible discipline when a licensee:

    (p) Has failed to inform the commission in writing within 30 days after pleading guilty or nolo contendere to, or being convicted or found guilty of, any felony.

    
    

18. The Amended Administrative Complaint refers to the court determination in the criminal court case involving grand theft. In particular it alludes to Section 812.014(1) and (2)(b), Florida Statutes (2004), which states:

    1. A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:

       
       

       1. Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.

          
          

       2. Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property.

    * * *

    (2)(b) 1. If the property stolen is valued at $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000;

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    the offender commits grand theft in the second degree, punishable as a felony of the second degree, as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083 or s. 775.084.

    
    

    * * *

    
    

19. Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this disciplinary case. Proof sufficient to sustain the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint must be by clear and convincing evidence. See Department of Banking and Finance

    Division of Securities and Investor Protection v. Osborne Stern and Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996) and Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987). The term clear and convincing evidence is explained in the case In re: Davey, 645 So. 2d 398 (Fla.

    1994), quoting with approval from Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

20. The Amended Administrative Complaint must provide reasonable notice to Respondent of the conduct that would warrant the imposition of discipline. See Cottrill v. Department of Insurance, 685 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

21. The Amended Administrative Complaint did provide reasonable notice to Respondent of the conduct that would warrant the imposition of discipline.

22. Concerning Count I, it has been proven that Respondent was tried and found guilty1/ by a jury of violating Section 812.014(1) and (2)(b), Florida Statutes (2004), for which he was adjudicated guilty. The theft directly relates to the activities of Respondent in his position as a licensed broker. That theft also involves moral turpitude and affects all his licenses.

23. In arriving at these conclusions, the penal nature of this case is recognized and Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2004), has been strictly construed in determining whether a violation occurred. See State v. Pattishall, 99 Fla.

    296 and 126 So. 147 (Fla. 1930), and Lester v. Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, State Board of Medical Examiners, 348 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

24. To decide whether the finding of guilt by the jury and adjudication of guilt by the court for grand theft is related to the practice of or the ability to practice real estate, that inquiry has not been limited to the technical ability of Respondent in his business setting. If the crime relates to or presents a danger to public welfare, as it did, that in itself would be grounds to impose administrative discipline. See Greenwald v. Department of Professional Regulation, 501 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 998, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 986 (1987); Ashe v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 467 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) and

    Rush v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Podiatry, 448 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

25. Grand theft involves moral turpitude by its nature.

    
    

    See State ex rel v. Hollingsworth, 108 Fla. 607, 146 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1933); Hamilton v. State, 447 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Bruner v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of

    Real Estate, 399 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) and Zemour, Inc. v. Division of Beverage, 347 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

26. The same grand theft that subjected Respondent's licenses to the aforementioned administrative discipline led to his confinement in state prison, thereby violating Section 475.25(1)(n), Florida Statutes (2004). This is the violation alleged in Count II.

27. No proof was offered to show that Respondent failed to inform the real estate commission, in writing, that he had been convicted and adjudicated guilty of grand theft, a felony. It has not been shown that Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes (2004), as alleged in Count III.

RECOMMENDATION

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

RECOMMENDED:

That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 475.25(1)(f) and (n), Florida Statutes

(2004), that Respondent did not violate Section 475.25(1)(p) Florida Statutes (2004), and revoking the real estate broker licenses and real estate instructor license held by Respondent.

DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

CHARLES C. ADAMS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2006.

ENDNOTE

1/ At hearing Respondent commented that he would pursue other appeals of his conviction. To this point in time it has not been shown that the finding of guilt by the jury, adjudication of guilt by the court and sentence have been overturned concerning the grand theft, making it appropriate to proceed with the administrative hearing leading to ultimate disposition in the matter.

COPIES FURNISHED:

S. N. Persaud, Esquire Department of Business and

Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Hurston Building, North Tower

400 West Robinson Street, Suite N 801 Orlando, Florida 32801

F. Elbadramany V21541, pro se Washington Correctional Institution 4555 Sam Mitchell Drive

Chipley, Florida 32428

Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Michael E. Murphy, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and

Professional Regulation Hurston Building, North Tower

400 West Robinson Street, Suite N 802 Orlando, Florida 32801

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of 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: 05-004538PL

Orders for Case No: 05-004538PL