STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ARDITH H. STEELE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-6763

)

DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND )

FINANCE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This matter was heard by William R. Dorsey, Jr., the Hearing Officer designated by the Division of Administrative Hearings, on January 11, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: No Appearance

For Respondent: Karen M. Camechis, Esquire

H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Suite 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether the Application for Registration as an Associated Person filed by Petitioner should be granted.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Department of Banking and Finance (Department) advised Ms. Steele by letter dated June 23, 1992, that her application for registration as an associated person for Noble Investment Company of Palm Beach was denied under Section 517.161(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes (1989 and 1992 Supp.), because the Department believed her to be unworthy to transact the business of an associated person, and because she had been the subject of disciplinary action by the Department of Licensing, Securities Division, of the State of Washington. Ms. Steele had been affiliated with other securities broker dealers since 1986, most recently with Carlisle-Asher Management Co., although she had last been registered as an associated person with U.S. Advisors, Inc., in March through May of 1989.

On July 15, 1992, Ms. Steele filed a timely request for an administrative hearing. On August 7, 1992, the Department entered an Order Denying Petition for Hearing and Granting Leave to Amend. This Order, addressed to Ardith H. Steele at 1639 S. University Drive, Plantation, Florida 33324, via U.S.

Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, was delivered on August 11, 1992. It instructed her to file an amended petition which complied with the requirements of Rule 3-7.002, Florida Administrative Code, within 15 days of the date of the Order. The Order also stated that the matter would be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal proceeding if an amended petition was not received in a timely manner. No amended petition was received, and the matter was referred by the Department to the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 18, 1992.

After the Department filed its Unilateral Response to the Initial Order, this case was scheduled for hearing on January 11, 1993, at 10:00 a.m., and was heard as scheduled.

At hearing, official recognition was taken of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes (1989 and 1992 Supp.), the Department presented the testimony of Tamara K. Cain, Assistant Director of the Division of Securities and Investor Protection, and introduced Exhibits 1-5. Department's exhibits were:

1. U.S. Certified Mail Return Receipt acknowledging delivery of the Order Denying Petition for Hearing and Granting Leave to Amend at 1639 South University Drive, Plantation, Florida, on August 11, 1992;

2. Certified copy of the Letter of Denial issued by the Department to Ardith H. Steele on June 23, 1992;

3. Certified copy of the Temporary Order to Cease and Desist and Opportunity for Hearing issued by the State of Washington to Graystone Nash, Inc., and Ardith H. Steele on January 30, 1989;

4. Certified copy of the Consent Order Vacating SDO-019-89 as to Ardith Steele issued by the State of Washington on June 23, 1989; and

5. Certified copy of the Notice of Federal Tax Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws (26

U.S.C. Sections 6321-6323) issued against Ardith H. Steele and filed in the Official Records of Palm Beach County on September 20, 1989.

A transcript of the hearing was not ordered. The Department submitted its proposed recommended order within five days from the date of the hearing. The findings of fact proposed have been adopted in substance in the Findings which are set out below.

FINDING OF FACTS

1. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the address the Department used in sending, by certified mail, the Order Denying Petition for Hearing and Granting Leave to Amend. The return receipt shows that the letter was delivered as addressed. The record shows that Ms. Steele received appropriate notice of the hearing, although she did not appear at the time set for hearing.

2. The Department is the state agency which administers and enforces the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, and its implementing rules. Section 517.03, Florida Statutes (1991).

   
   

3. On or about January 30, 1989, the State of Washington, Department of Licensing, Securities Division, issued a Temporary Order to Cease and Desist and Opportunity for Hearing, #SDO-19-89, to Graystone Nash, Inc., and Ardith H. Steele.

   
   

4. On or about June 30, 1989, the State of Washington, Department of Licensing, Securities Division, issued a Consent Order and Order Vacating SDO- 19-89 as to Ardith H. Steele. The order was signed by Ms. Steele and officials of the State of Washington. Ms. Steele neither admitted nor denied the allegations that she had made repeated offers to sell and sold securities to a resident of Washington while not registered as a securities salesperson in the State of Washington. She agreed, however, to desist from offering or selling securities in any manner in Washington for a period of two years and waived her right to a hearing on the charges against her.

   
   

5. On or about September 20, 1989, a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws was filed against Ardith H. Steele at the Palm Beach County Courthouse in the amount of $11,219.37.

   
   

6. On or about February 19, 1992, Ardith H. Steele filed an application (Form U-4) with the Department seeking registration as an associated person of Noble Investment Company of Palm Beach.

   
   

7. On June 23, 1992, the Department denied Ms. Steele's application for registration as an associated person based upon its determination that she was unworthy to transact the business of an associated person and because she had been the subject of an administrative discipline proceeding by the State of Washington.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

8. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this action pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1991).

   
   

9. Ms. Steele has the burden of proof to show entitlement to licensure. Rule 3E-301.002(4), Florida Administrative Code; State, Department of Banking and Finance v. Evans, (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (reaffiliation with a new broker/dealer requires new registration by an associated person).

   
   

10. Section 517.161(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes, provides in part:

    
    

    1. Registration under s. 517.12 may be denied or any registration granted may be revoked, restricted, or suspended by the department if the department determines that such application or registrant:

       * * *

       (h) Has demonstrated his unworthiness to transact the business of dealer, investment advisor, or associated person;

       * * *

       (m) Has been the subject of any decision, finding, injunction, suspension, prohibition, revocation, denial, judgment, or administrative order by any court of competent jurisdiction, administrative law judge, or by any state or federal agency, national securities, commodities, or option exchange, or national securities, commodities or option association, involving a violation of any federal or state securities or commodities law or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, or any injunction or adverse administrative order by a state or federal agency regulating banking, insurance,

       finance, or small loan companies, real estate, mortgage brokers, or other related or similar industries. For purposes of this subsection, the department may not deny registration to any applicant who has been continuously registered with the department for 5 years from the entry of such decision, finding, injunction, suspension, prohibition, revocation, denial, judgment, or administrative order provided such decision, finding, injunction, suspension, prohibition, revocation, denial, judgment, or administrative order has been timely reported to the department pursuant to the department's rules and regulations.

       
       

11. Petitioner was the subject of a Temporary Order to Cease and Desist and Opportunity for Hearing and a Consent Order Vacating SDO-019-89 as to Ardith Steele, both issued by the State of Washington, Department of Licensing, Securities Division. She waived her opportunity for a hearing on those allegations in Washington. She failed to explain the circumstances surrounding those orders, which prohibited her from selling or offering to sell securities in Washington for two years. Therefore, Department is authorized to deny Ms. Steele's application for registration as an associated person pursuant to Section 516.161(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.); and Castleman v. Office of the Comptroller, 538 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). She has been the subject of an administrative order of a state agency regarding violations of state securities laws. No evidence in mitigation has been offered by Ms. Steele.

    
    

12. When reviewing final orders of agencies, appellate courts afford wide discretion to agencies in the interpretation of statutes they administer, and their interpretations will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. Samara Development Corp. v. Marlow, 556 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 1990); Maclen Rehabilitation Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitation Services, 588 So.2d 12 (1st DCA 1991); Dyer v. Department of Insurance and Treasurer, 585 So.2d 1009 (1st DCA 1991) (nonetheless rejecting agency interpretation of appropriate penalty). This is not true in proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings, when agencies attempt to prove their non-rule policies. Those policies are statutorily subject to de novo review in Section 120.57 proceedings. See, Section 120.57(1)(b)(15), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.) Appellate deference applies to agency final orders, not to intended agency action.

13. The Department argues that the Notice of Federal Tax Lien under Internal Revenue Laws filed on September 20, 1989, for taxes owed for the tax period ended December 31, 1987, in the amount of $11,219.37, is evidence of Ms. Steele's unworthiness to transact the business of an associated person under Section 517.161(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1991). The testimony of Tamara K. Cain, Assistant Director of the Division of Securities, established that a fiduciary relationship exists between associated persons and clients who entrust personal funds to them for investment. Inherent in the position of associated persons is the expectation of a high level of integrity. The Department reasons that imposition of a federal tax lien and failure to satisfy such a lien is evidence of an applicant's inability to maintain a high level of financial responsibility in the conduct of the applicant's personal financial affairs. This position is not logical, for it fails to consider at all the question of how the dispute with the government arose. If the applicant willfully failed to file a return, or filed a false or fraudulent return, the Department's assumption might be true. On the other hand, the lien may be the result of a bona fide dispute over whether the tax was due.

    
    

14. The Department does have a rule describing acts which are prima facie evidence of unworthiness, which does not include this policy on tax liens. Rule 3E-600.011, which also incorporates Rule 3E-600.013, Florida Administrative Code. Because this policy is found in no rule, applicants have no notice of it, contrary to the legislature policy expressed in Section 120.535(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.) The Department's assumption of unworthiness is based on nothing more than the filing the federal tax lien and the applicant's failure to satisfy it. The Department's attempt to equate a tax lien with unworthiness, or perhaps more specifically, untrustworthiness, is overbroad or overinclusive. There is no evidence in the record that applicants with tax liens filed against them engage in defalcations at a higher rate than those with no liens. The act of filing a lien does not prohibit the taxpayer from challenging the correctness of the government's assertion of the tax due. "In an action brought by the government to enforce a tax lien, the merits of the tax assessment may be attacked, on the theory that if the government comes into court to enforce a tax lien, it must be prepared to show the validity of the tax." 35 Am Jur. 2d, Federal Tax Enforcement, Section 51 at 78 (1967). Based on this record, the departmental assumption impermissibly enlarges on the statute it is meant to enforce, Section 517.161(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1991), by amending it to prohibit licensure of anyone who has not satisfied a federal tax lien filed against them.

    
    

15. Ms. Steel has, however, failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish her entitlement to registration as an associated person because of the regulatory action taken against her by the State of Washington.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's

application for registration as an associated person of Noble Investment Company

of Palm Beach.

DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of February 1993.

WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR.

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 17th day of February 1993.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Karen M. Camechis

H. Richard Bisbee Assistant General Counsels Department of Banking and

Finance

Suite 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Ardith H. Steele

1639 South University Drive Plantation, Florida 33324

The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350

William G. Reeves General Counsel

The Capitol Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350

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.

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE

DIVISION OF SECURITIES AND INVESTOR PROTECTION

ARDITH H. STEELE,

Petitioner, Administrative Proceeding No. 1703-S-5/92

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE,

Respondent.

/

DOAH Case No. 92-6763

FINAL ORDER

This matter has come before the undersigned as head of the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection ("Department") for the entry of a Final Order in the above styled proceeding. On February 17, 1993, a Hearing Officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings submitted his Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. On March 4, 1993, the Department submitted its Exceptions to the Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Petitioner has not filed any exceptions nor has she filed any response to the Department's exceptions.

BACKGROUND

This matter arose when Petitioner submitted her application (Form U-4) to the Department seeking registration as an associated person of Noble Investment Company of Palm Beach. On June 23, 1992, the Department denied Petitioner's application based upon its determination that she was unworthy to transact the business of an associated person since she had been the subject of an administrative disciplinary proceeding by the State of Washington and since she was the subject of an outstanding lien as a result of approximately $11,000.00 in taxes owed to the Internal Revenue Service for the tax period ending December 31, 1987. On July 15, 1992, Petitioner timely requested an administrative hearing. On August 7, 1992, the Department issued an Order Denying Petition for Hearing and Granting Leave to Amend which required the Petitioner to file an amended Petition that complied with the requirements of Rule 3-7.002, Florida Administrative Code, and that if no amended petition was received in a timely manner, the matter would be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. On September 18, 1992, this matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearing for the assignment of a Hearing Officer. The issue which was noticed for hearing stated "[w]hether the application for registration should be granted." A formal hearing was held on this matter on January 11, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner made no appearance at the formal hearing. The Hearing Officer's Recommended Order recommends that the Department

issue a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for registration as an associated person of Noble Investment Company of Palm Beach based upon the administrative action taken by the State of Washington.

RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT

First Exception: The Department's first exception is to the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law in Paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order in which the Hearing Officer rejected the well settled rule that the Department's interpretation of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, a statute it is charged with the responsibility of enforcing, should be given great weight. The Hearing Officer concluded that this well recognized rule is not applicable to proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings when agencies attempt to prove their non-rule policies.

The Department's exception is granted and the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law in Paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order is hereby rejected on the following grounds. First, the Hearing Officer cited no authority for his novel proposition. Second, Florida appellate courts, as well as the Division of Administrative Hearings, have consistently held that an agency's interpretation of a statute it administers is accorded great deference due to the agency's expertise and experience in the application of the statute. In the Matter of Gary L. Waldron, 540 So.2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Little Munyon Island, Inc.

v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 492 So.2d 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The Supreme Court of Florida has further held that while deference to an agency's interpretation of a statute it is charged with administering may not be absolute, the agency's interpretation cannot be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 478 v. Borroughs, 541 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 1989).

Lastly, while it may be true that an applicant can challenge an agency's non-rule policy pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)15., Florida Statutes, no such issue or challenge was raised by the Petitioner in this proceeding.

Administrative proceedings conducted for the purpose of adjudicating any party's legal rights, duties, privileges or immunities must be conducted in a quasi- judicial manner in which basic requirements of due process are accorded and preserved. Deel Motors, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, 252 So.2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Ward, 509 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Such a proceeding contemplates that the order to be entered will be based on evidence adduced by the parties consisting of sworn testimony of witnesses and properly authenticated documents bearing the required indicia of credibility. Id. The Hearing Officer's conclusion in Paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order was not raised by the Petitioner, nor is the conclusion based on evidence consisting of sworn testimony and properly authenticated documents presented by the Petitioner. Furthermore, the Department was not provided with notice to address by competent proof or rebut the assertions unilaterally raised by the Hearing Officer prior to the hearing in violation of due process principles and Section 120.57(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes. Margulies

v. Margulies, 528 So.2d 957 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988); Hardee County Commissioners v. Florida Department of Commerce, 343 So.2d 842 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976).

Second Exception: The Department's second exception is to the Hearing Officer's Conclusion in Paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order in which the Hearing Officer disputes the Department's position that the imposition of a federal tax lien is indicative of an applicant's inability to maintain a high level of financial responsibility. The Hearing Officer concluded:

The Department reasons that imposition of a federal tax lien and failure to satisfy such a lien is evidence of an applicant's inability to maintain a high level of financial responsibility in the conduct of the applicant's personal financial affairs. This position is not logical, for it fails to consider at all the question of how the dispute with the government arose. If the

applicant willfully failed to file a return, or filed a false or fraudulent return, the Department's assumption might be true. On the other hand, the lien may be the result of a bona fide dispute over whether the tax was due.

Upon review of the complete record of this proceeding, there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law in Paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. Accordingly, the Department's second exception is hereby granted and the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law in Paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order is hereby rejected. As stated earlier, while it may be true that an applicant can challenge an agency's non-rule policy pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)15., Florida Statutes, no such issue or challenge was raised by the Petitioner in this proceeding. Administrative proceedings conducted for the purpose of adjudicating any party's legal rights, duties, privileges or immunities must be conducted in a quasi-judicial manner in which basic requirements of due process are accorded and preserved. Deel Motors, supra. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Ward, supra. Such a proceeding contemplates that the order to be entered will be based on evidence adduced by the parties consisting of sworn testimony of witnesses and properly authenticated documents bearing the required indicia of credibility.

Id. The Hearing Officer's conclusion in Paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order was not raised by the Petitioner. There was no testimony or other evidence presented by the Petitioner which refuted the testimony presented by the Department that the imposition of a federal tax lien and the failure to satisfy such a lien is considered by the Department to be evidence of an applicant's inability to maintain a high level of financial responsibility, and therefore, evidence of an applicant's unworthiness to transact the business of an associated person. Furthermore, the Department was not provided with notice to address by competent proof or rebut the assertions unilaterally raised by the Hearing Officer prior to the hearing in violation of due process principles and Section 120.57(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes. Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So.2d 957 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988); Hardee County Commissioners v. Florida Department of Commerce, 343 So.2d 842 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976)

Third Exception: The Department's third exception is to the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law in Paragraph 14 of the Recommended Order in which he concluded that:

The Department's assumption of unworthiness is based on nothing more than the filing the federal tax lien and the applicant's failure to satisfy it. The Department's attempt to equate a tax lien with unworthiness, or perhaps more specifically, untrust-

worthiness, is overbroad or overinclusive.

There is no evidence in the record that applicants with tax liens filed against them engage in defalcations at a higher rate than those with no liens. The act of filing a lien does not prohibit the taxpayer from challenging the correctness of the government's assertion of the tax due. `In an action brought by the government to enforce a tax lien, the merits of the tax assessment may be

attacked, on the theory that if the govern- ment comes into court to enforce a tax lien, it must be prepared to show the

validity of the tax.' 35 Am Jur. 2d, Federal Tax Enforcement, Section 51 at 78 (1967).

Based on this record, the departmental assumption impermissibly enlarges on the statute it is meant to enforce, Section 517.161(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1991), by amending it to prohibit licensure of anyone who has not satisfied a federal tax lien filed against them.

The Hearing Officer's conclusions in Paragraph 14 are incorrect in that: [i]n a civil action by the government to

recover an income tax deficiency, the tax computation made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is presumed correct, and the taxpayer has the burden of rebutting this presumption by showing that the Commissioner's method does not accurately reflect the taxpayer's income. The

United States need only put the assessment in evidence at the outset, and it is then up to the taxpayer to make a showing countering the assessment. In an action to enforce a tax lien, where the question in issue is the validity of the lien, the taxpayer must show that the assessment was

invalid or that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue erred.

35 Am Jur. 2d, Federal Tax Enforcement, Section 57. The Department was justified in presuming the tax lien was correct until the Petitioner proved otherwise.

Upon review of the complete record of this proceeding, there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law in Paragraph 14 of the Recommended Order. Accordingly, the Department's third exception is hereby granted and the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law in Paragraph 14 of the Recommended Order is hereby rejected. The Petitioner in this proceeding did not raise any issue regarding the grounds for denial of her application. The Petitioner also did not file a petition for administrative determination pursuant to Section 120.535, Florida Statutes, regarding any alleged Section 120.535 policy. There was no testimony or other evidence presented by the Petitioner which refuted the testimony presented by the

Department that the imposition of a federal tax lien and the failure to satisfy such a lien is considered by the Department to be evidence of an applicant's inability to maintain a high level of financial responsibility, and therefore, evidence of an applicant's unworthiness to transact the business of an associated person. Furthermore, the Department was not provided with notice to address by competent proof or rebut the assertions unilaterally raised by the Hearing Officer prior to the hearing in violation of due process principles and Section 120.57(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes. Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So.2d 957 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988); Hardee County Commissioners v. Florida Department of Commerce, 343 So.2d 842 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976)

CONCLUSION

Having ruled on all of the exceptions filed by the Department to the Recommended Order, and having reviewed the complete record of this proceeding, it is accordingly ORDERED:

1. The Hearing Officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law are hereby adopted and incorporated herein except as modified or rejected in this Final Order.

   
   

2. Petitioner, Ardith H. Steele's application for registration as an associated person of Noble Investment Company of Palm Beach is hereby DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

Gerald & Lewis, as Comptroller and Head of the Department of Banking and Finance

COPIES FURNISHED:

Don B. Saxon, Director Division of Securities

Karen M. Camechis Assistant General Counsel

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing Final Order was sent by regular U. S. Mail to Ms. Ardith H. Steele, 1639 South University Drive, Plantation, Florida 33324, and to Clerk, Division of Administrative Hearings, The DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550, this 29th day of March, 1993.

William G. Reeves General Counsel

Department of Banking and Finance Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350

(904) 488-9896

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, SUITE 1302, THE CAPITOL, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0350, AND A SECOND COPY, ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, 300 MARTIN L. KING, JR., BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1850, OR IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE PARTY RESIDES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE FINAL ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.

Docket for Case No: 92-006763

Orders for Case No: 92-006763