STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ) ESTATE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-5966

) KAREN A. MASON T/A MASON & ) MORTGAGE CO., )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this case on January 31, 1991, in West Palm Beach, Florida, before J. Stephen Menton, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: James H. Gillis, Esquire

Senior Attorney

Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real

Estate- Legal Section Hurston Building - North Tower Suite N-308

400 West Robinson Street

P. O. Box 1900

Orlando, Florida 32802-1900

For Respondent: Karen Mason, pro se

4538 Gardnette

West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether the real estate license issued to the Respondent, Karen A. Mason, should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On August 24, 1990, the Petitioner, Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (the "Department" or the "Petitioner") filed an Administrative Complaint charging Respondent, Karen A. Mason, a licensed real estate broker, with violating certain portions of Section 475.25, Florida Statutes. The Administrative Complaint contains four counts: Count I alleges that Respondent was guilty of misrepresentation, culpable negligence or breach

of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b); Count II alleges that Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(k), by failing to maintain trust funds in a real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized; Count III alleges that Respondent deposited or intermingled personal funds with funds being held in escrow or trust in violation of Rule 22V-14.008(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code and, therefore, Petitioner alleges Respondent has violated Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes; and Count IV alleges that Respondent failed to preserve and make available to the Petitioner all books, records and supporting documents and failed to keep an accurate account of all trust fund transactions together with such additional data as good accounting practice requires in violation of Rule 21V-14.012(1), Florida Administrative Code and, therefore, Petitioner alleges Respondent has violated Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.

The Respondent denied the allegations of the Administrative Complaint and timely requested a hearing on the charges. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings which noticed and conducted a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

The case was originally assigned to Hearing Officer Daniel Manry. Prior to the scheduled hearing, Respondent filed a written request dated October 12, 1990 to "squash" [sic] the Administrative Complaint. Essentially, Respondent argued that Petitioner should be precluded from proceeding with this action because of the lapse of time between the events alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the filing of the Complaint. On December 5, 1990, Hearing Officer Manry entered an Order Denying Motion To Quash. On December 13, 1990, the Respondent filed a Request To Appeal Order Denying Motion To Quash or to Provide an Extension to Have Case Heard in District Court. That request asked that the case be placed in abeyance so that Respondent could pursue an appeal of the Order Denying Motion To Quash. On January 24, 1991, Hearing Officer Manry entered an Order Denying Motion To Hold in Abeyance. The case was subsequently transferred to the undersigned Hearing Officer who conducted the formal hearing on January 31, 1991. At the commencement of the hearing, Respondent was advised that, at the conclusion of the hearing and after presentation of all the evidence, she could renew her legal arguments as to why the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. In her proposed recommended order, Respondent renewed those arguements and they are addressed in the Conclusions of Law below.

At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Sharon Thayer, an investigator with the Department, and Gary Treakle, who was formerly employed as an investigator with the Department. Petitioner offered eleven exhibits into evidence, all of which were accepted. At Petitioner's request, official recognition has been taken of Section 20.30, Florida Statutes and Chapters 120,

455 and 475, Florida Statutes.

Respondent testified on her own behalf and offered fifteen exhibits into evidence, all of which were accepted. At the hearing, Respondent did not have copies of Exhibit 15, her transactional log. Those records were identified at the hearing and Respondent submitted a copy by letter dated February 3, 1991 and received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 6, 1991.

A transcript of the proceedings has been filed. In accordance with the agreement reached between the parties at the conclusion of the hearing, proposed recommended orders were due by April 11, 1991. The Petitioner timely filed a proposed recommended order. In a letter dated April 8, 1991 and filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 11, 1991, the Respondent requested

an additional ten days to file her proposed recommended order. Respondent's request indicates that she had conferred with counsel for the Petitioner who did not oppose the requested extension. Respondent filed her proposed recommended order on April 18, 1991. That proposed recommended order has been reveiwed and considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. A ruling on each of the parties' proposed findings of facts is included in the Appendix attached to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made.

1. At all pertinent times, Respondent, Karen A. Mason, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license no. 0432242 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The license issued to Respondent was as a broker t/a Mason Realty and Mortgage Company, 4538 Gardenette, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406.

   
   

2. Respondent's real estate office was a small operation that handled strictly rental properties. Respondent established her real estate office to handle rentals as a sideline to a property maintenance business that she owned.

   
   

3. In 1987, there were two other people who worked in Respondent's real estate office. One of the employees, Linda Bennett, received a $2,200 deposit with respect to a lease agreement for certain property owned by Chris Jimenez on Scottdale Road in West Palm Beach, Florida. That lease agreement was evidenced by a Receipt for Deposit and Contract to Lease (the "Contract") that was signed Mr. Jimenez and by Frank Kontis on behalf of the lessee, Angelo Geragonis. The

   $2,200 deposit was paid by check from Mary Kontis, the wife of Frank Kontis who was related to the lessee, Mr. Geragonis, and was acting as his agent. Mr.

   Geragonis did not sign the Contract.

   
   

4. The $2,200 deposit was placed in an escrow account maintained by Respondent at Barnett Bank on January 13, 1987. The Contract called for the lease term to run from February 1, 1987, to February 1, 1988, at a monthly rental of $850.00 per month. By checks dated January 14, 1987, part of the deposit ($850.00) was distributed to Respondent and Linda Bennett. On January 30, 1987, another $550.00 of the deposit was distributed to Chris Jimenez. The basis for these disbursements is not clear. The evidence did not establish that the distributions were unauthorized. In any event, as of January 30, 1987, only

   $800 of the deposit remained in escrow.

   
   

5. Shortly after the contract was executed, Mr. Kontis died. Mr. Geragonis traveled to Florida and decided not to rent the Scottdale Road property and requested a return of the deposit. Mr. Jimenez, the owner of the property, had already moved out of the house and rented a new residence in reliance upon the Contract. He claimed that he was entitled to all or a portion of the deposit.

   
   

6. By letter dated January 23, 1987, the Respondent requested instructions from the Florida Real Estate Commission (the "Commission") regarding how to handle the dispute and the conflicting claims to the deposit. Respondent also discussed the matter by phone with employees of the Commission. By letter dated February 10, 1987, Jack King, Chief Investigator for the Florida Real Estate Commission, advised Respondent of her options. In his February 10, 1987 letter,

   Mr. King advised Respondent that she had to either (1) arrange for arbitration,

   (2) place the matter before a civil court or (3) request an Escrow Disbursement Order from the Florida Real Estate Commission.

   
   

7. By letter dated February 17, 1987, the Respondent requested an Escrow Disbursement Order from the Florida Real Estate Commission.

   
   

8. By letter dated June 17, 1987, Manuel Oliver, an attorney for the Florida Real Estate Commission, wrote to Respondent and advised her that, because of the existence of factual disputes between the parties, the Florida Real Estate Commission would not issue an Escrow Disbursement Order. Respondent was advised to use one of the other alternatives described in Mr. King's February 10, 1987 letter.

   
   

9. Respondent denies ever receiving the June 17, 1987 letter. No further action was taken on the matter until the fall of 1988.

   
   

10. On September 2, 1988, an attorney for Mr. Geragonis contacted the Respondent and inquired as to the status of the money being held in escrow.

    
    

11. By letter dated September 16, 1988, Respondent inquired of Mr. King as to the status of her request for an Escrow Disbursement Order.

    
    

12. By letter dated October 27, 1988, Manuel Oliver advised Respondent of the June 17, 1987 letter and also advised her that, because of her failure to promptly implement one of the other alternatives outlined in Mr. King's letter of February 10, 1987, he was going to refer the matter to the Complaint Section of the Florida Real Estate Commission for investigation of a possible violation of the licensure law.

    
    

13. In December of 1988, Respondent resolved the dispute by paying

    $1100.00 to Mr. Geragonis and $550.00 to Chris Jimenez. The money to settle the dispute was paid from a new escrow account opened by Respondent at Carney Bank in October of 1987. The evidence did not establish when the Barnett Bank escrow account was closed and/or how much money was transferred from that account to the new escrow account at Carney Bank.

    
    

14. In the meantime, in February of 1987, Respondent was involved in a business dispute with her employee, Linda Bennett. Ms. Bennett ended up leaving the company. In the process, she took some of the office equipment, files and other paperwork including ledgers. She also caused two unauthorized checks to be written on the Barnett Bank escrow account. The unauthorized disbursements from the escrow account totaled at least $1100.

    
    

15. In January of 1989, an investigator from the Department attempted to conduct an audit of Respondent's business pursuant to the referral from Mr. Oliver as set forth in Findings of Fact 12 above.

    
    

16. Respondent objected to the tactics and approach of the investigator and complained to the Department. The audit of Respondent's records was halted pending a review of the Respondent's complaints.

    
    

17. In October of 1989, another investigator from the Department met with Respondent to review her records. By the time this audit was conducted in October of 1989, Respondent's real estate office had essentially closed. The only business activity being conducted by the office was the management of certain properties owned by the Respondent.

18. The Department's investigator requested to see all of the Respondent's records regarding her escrow accounts. Respondent produced her records regarding the escrow account at Carney Bank. However, because that account was not opened until October of 1987, there were no records regarding the Geragonis Contract. The Department's investigator specifically inquired as to the records regarding the escrow deposit on that Contract. Respondent investigated her records in an attempt to determine how that deposit had been handled. Because the office had essentially been shut down, all of the records were in storage and were not readily accessible. Initially, Respondent informed the Department's investigator that the money had been deposited into a Merrill Lynch money market account that she used for a variety of personal and business purposes. Respondent provided the investigator with some of the statements related to that money market account. However, upon further review and investigation, the Respondent determined that the deposit had actually been deposited in the escrow account at Barnett Bank. The records regarding that deposit at Barnett Bank were introduced at the hearing in this case, but had not previously been provided to the Department's investigator.

    
    

19. Because the records of the Barnett Bank account were not previously provided to the Department's Investigator, no audit of those records has been conducted. At the hearing, the bank statements for the Barnett Bank escrow account were provided from December of 1986 through April of 1987.

    
    

20. As noted above, there were certain unauthorized disbursements made from the Barnett Bank escrow account by one of Respondent's employees. Thus, it is difficult to draw any conclusions regarding the balance in the Barnett Bank Escrow Account during the period ending April, 1987. A review of those bank statements indicates, that, except for March 4, 1987 when a $1350.00 check was returned unpaid and again on March 23 when the balance of the account dipped to

    $685.00 following the return of an unpaid check in the amount of $275.00 on March 13, there was always at least $800 in the account.

    
    

21. Respondent has not provided any records regarding the Barnett Bank account subsequent to April of 1987. The Carney Bank escrow account was not opened until October of 1987. It is not clear where or if the remainder of the Geragonis deposit was held in escrow during the period from April of 1987 through October of 1987. Moreover, Respondent has not produced any records demonstrating that the remaining deposit was being held in escrow at Carney Bank subsequent to October of 1987. While Respondent apparently believes that the remainder of the Geragonis deposit was stolen by her former employee, Respondent did not provide any documentation regarding the money that remained in the escrow account and failed to produce any evidence that she attempted to reconcile that account with the various claims on those funds. Respondent argues that, given the lapse of time between the events in question and the filing of the Administrative Complaint, she can not realistically be expected to have records on these matters. However, it is clear that the dispute over the Geragonis Contact was not resolved until December of 1988. When the Department's investigators conducted their audit in October of 1989, Respondent should have had available any and all records related to that Contract including documentation regarding the remaining escrow funds.

    
    

22. While Respondent contends that some of her business records and ledgers were stolen by her former employee, the evidence indicates that the employee in question left around February of 1987. The absence of records subsequent to April of 1987 can not be attributed to theft by this former employee.

23. The Department's investigators testified that the records of the Carney Bank escrow account indicated that on a couple of occasions that escrow account was overdrawn. The circumstances and specific facts surrounding those instances were not established in this proceeding.

    
    

24. The records of Respondent's escrow account at Carney Bank reflect a number of disbursements made from the escrow account to her or her company. Respondent contends that those disbursements were for commissions and other monies owed to her. Insufficient records were provided to document these transactions.

    
    

25. There is no indication that any client or other member of the public lost any money and/or that Respondent was unable to timely disburse money from her escrow account as required in connection with a particular transaction.

    
    

26. There is no indication that Respondent ever used the escrow account for improper purposes or withdrew money from the escrow account for her own personal or business use. No persuasive evidence was presented that Respondent's own funds were commingled with escrow funds in either of her escrow accounts. While one of the Department's investigators claimed that Respondent told him that she was depositing money from another business that she owned into one of her accounts, any such reference would appear to have been to the money market account and not the escrow accounts. No persuasive evidence was presented to establish that the Respondent commingled personal funds with the money in the Barnett Bank or Carney Bank escrow accounts.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

27. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

28. The Petitioner has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence all essential allegations made against Respondent. See, Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

    
    

29. Section 475.25, Florida Statutes, (1987) empowers the Florida Real Estate Commission to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the real estate license of a licensee found guilty of any of the acts enumerated in Section

    475.25. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(b), (e), and (k). Those sections provide in pertinent part as follows:

    
    

    475.25 Discipline --

    (1) The Commission may suspend a license for a period not exceeding ten years; may revoke a license... may impose an administrative fine not to exceed $1000 for each count or separate offense; and may issue a reprimand, or any or

    all of the foregoing, if it finds the licensee...

    * * *

    (b) Has been guilty of fraud, misrepresen- tation, 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 ...; has violated a duty imposed upon him by law or by the terms of a listing con- tract, written, oral, express or implied in a real estate transaction... It is immaterial to the guilt of the licensee that the victim or intended victim of the misconduct has sustained no damage or loss; that the damage or loss has been settled and paid after dis- covery of the misconduct; or such victim or intended victim was a customer or a person in confidential relation with the licensee or was an identified member of the general public.

    * * *

    (e) Has violated any of the provisions of this chapter or any lawful order or rule made or issued under the provisions of this chapter or chapter 455.

    * * *

    (k) Has failed, if a broker, to immediately place, upon receipt any money, fund, deposit check or draft entrusted to him by any person dealing with him as a broker in escrow with a ... banking institution... or to deposit such funds in a trust or an escrow account maintained by him with some bank... wherein the funds shall be kept until disbursement

    thereof is properly authorized... The Commis- sion shall establish rules to provide for records to be maintained by the broker for records to be maintained by the broker and

    the manner in which such deposits shall be made.

    
    

30. Petitioner has charged Respondent with violating Subsections 475.25(1)(b) and (k) as a result of the handling of the deposit in the Geragonis transaction. The evidence in this case was sufficient to establish a violation of Subsection (b), but Petitioner did not prove a violation of Subsection (k) by clear and convincing evidence.

    
    

31. The Geragonis deposit was timely placed in an escrow account at Barnett Bank. Petitioner has not established that Respondent's initial disbursements of a portion of the deposit were unauthorized or contrary to her statutory or contractual obligations. While the evidence and the records were not clear as to what happened to the money after April of 1987, there was no direct evidence that the money was disbursed without authorization. Therefore, the evidence did not clearly establish a violation of Section 475.25(1)(k).

    
    

32. When a dispute arose as to who was entitled to the funds, Respondent promptly notified the Florida Real Estate Commission. However, Respondent did not act promptly or diligently in following up with that request and left the matter in limbo for more than eighteen months. While Respondent denies ever receiving a response from the Florida Real Estate Commission until she renewed her request in October of 1988, the failure to receive a response is no excuse for Respondent's failure to insure that some appropriate steps were promptly taken to resolve the dispute The inaction on Respondent's part constitutes culpable negligence in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b).

33. In its proposed recommended order, Petitioner cites to the 1991 version of the rules adopted by the Florida Real Estate Commission regarding escrow accounts. Those rules include several requirements that were not applicable in 1987 when the events in this case took place. However, even the 1987 rules provided as follows:

    
    

    21V-14.012- Broker's Records. A broker who receives a deposit such as defined herein shall preserve and make available to the Department, or its authorized representative, all deposit slips and statements of account rendered by the bank or trust company, credit union, or title company with trust powers, in which said deposit is placed, together with all agreements between the parties respecting the transaction, particularly the deposit, and all contracts, agreements, instructions and directions to or with the said depository, and shall keep an accurate account in his books of

    each deposit transaction, as well as an account in his books of each separate bank account wherein such trust funds have been deposited, together with a record of all withdrawals therefrom, and shall support such accounts by such additional data as good accounting practice requires. All such books and accounts shall be subject to inspection by the Depart- ment or its authorized representatives at all reasonable times during regular business hours.

    
    

34. Petitioner has established that Respondent did not maintain or produce to the Department's investigators adequate records of the funds held in escrow by her. Respondent's records were inadequate not only with respect to the Geragonis transaction, but also in regards to the disbursements to her from the Carney Bank escrow account. As a result, Respondent has violated Rule 21V- 14.012, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.

    
    

35. No persuasive evidence was presented to establish that Respondent commingled her personal funds with the funds being held in escrow as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint. At the time the Administrative Complaint was filed, Respondent had not provided the Department with any information regarding her escrow account at Barnett Bank. Based upon the information provided by Respondent, the Administrative Complaint is premised on the assumption that the deposit was placed in Respondent's Merrill Lynch money market account. This money market account was used for a variety of personal and unrelated business transactions. However, after further investigation, the Respondent was able to locate records demonstrating that the deposit was actually deposited into an escrow account at Barnett Bank. No persuasive evidence was offered to establish that personal funds were commingled in that account or the escrow account at Carney Bank. Therefore, Count III of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.

36. Rule 21V-24.001, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the minimum and maximum penalties to be applied in a disciplinary case such as this and provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

    
    

    (3) The minimum penalty for all below listed sections is a reprimand and/or a fine up to

    $1,000.00 per count. ... The maximum penalties are as listed:

    * * *

    (h) 475.25(1)(b) -- Up to 5 years suspension or revocation.

    * * *

    (k) 475.25(1)(e)-- Up to 8 years suspension or revocation.

    
    

37. Rule 21V-24.001(4) permits Petitioner to deviate from the foregoing guidelines if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are demonstrated. Rule 21V-24.001(4)(b), sets forth aggravating or mitigating circumstances to be considered in disciplining a licensee. Applying these factors, there is no evidence of any harm to the consumer or the public, nor is there any evidence of prior discipline of the Respondent, or any other aggravating circumstances. The lack of any aggravating factors militates in favor of a less severe penalty.

    
    

38. In her Proposed Recommended Order, the Respondent renewed her argument that the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed because of the lapse time between the events at issue and the filing of the Administrative Complaint. In support of her argument, Respondent cites to Section 455.225(3). However, the time frames referred to in that statute deal with decisions by the Probable Cause Panel. Respondent has failed to demonstrate that the provisions of that statute are at all relevant to this proceeding. Furthermore, it is clear that the dispute over the Geragonis deposit was not resolved until December of 1988. The Petitioner attempted to begin its investigation of the matter in January of 1989. The investigation was temporarily halted after Respondent complained about the tactics of the investigator. There is simply no basis for the allegation that the Petitioner did not diligently persue its investigation.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in Counts II and III of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondent guilty of Counts I and IV, and reprimanding her, suspending her license for a period of three months and imposing a fine of

$500.00.

RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of May, 1991.

J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 16th day of May, 1991.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5966

Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties.

The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact

Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted

or Reason for Rejection.

1. Rejected as unnecessary.

   
   

2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1.

   
   

3. Rejected as unnecessary.

4.(a) Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3.

1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact

   13. However, the evidence established that there was a prior escrow account at Barnett Bank.

   
   

2. Rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. The subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 18.

   
   

3. Rejected as irrelevant. See Findings of Fact 18.

   
   

4. Rejected as irrelevant. See Findings of Fact 18.

5. Rejected as irrelevant. See Findings of Fact 18.

   
   

6. Rejected as irrelevant. See Findings of Fact 4 and 18.

   
   

7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 24.

The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact

Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted

or Reason for Rejection.

1. Rejected as a mischaracterazation of the evidence. The audit conducted by the Department's investigator was not limited to the Escrow Disbursement Order Request.

   
   

2. Rejected as constituting legal argument rather than a finding of fact.

1. Rejected as constituting legal argument and as irrelevant.

   
   

2. Rejected as irrelevant. This subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact

   8 and 9.

   
   

3. Rejected as irrelevant. This subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 14.

   
   

4. Rejected as constituting legal argument rather than a finding of fact.

   
   

5. Rejected as irrelevant.

   
   

6. Rejected as irrelevant. This subject matter is addressed in Conclusions of Law 12.

   
   

7. Rejected as constituting legal argument rather than a finding of fact.

   
   

8. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 22.

   
   

9. Rejected as constituting legal argument.

   
   

10. Rejected as irrelevant.

COPIES FURNISHED:

James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional

Regulation

Division of Real Estate Legal Section

400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802

Karen Mason 4538 Gardnette

West Palm Beach, Florida 33406

Darlene F. Keller Division Director

400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802

Jack McRay General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:

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

Docket for Case No: 90-005966

Orders for Case No: 90-005966