STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ANTHONY G. DICARLO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-1220

)

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND ) PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION ) OF LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS AND ) MOBILE HOMES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Claude B. Arrington, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on May 3, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Ilissa S. Gordon, Esquire

John M. Cruz, Esquire Cruz & Gordon, P.A.

1120 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

For Respondent: Jeanne L. Player, Esquire

Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Petitioner is of good moral character and entitled to sit for the community association manager licensure examination.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner's application to sit for the licensure examination as a community association manager was denied by Respondent based on its determination that Petitioner lacks good moral character as evidenced by his criminal record. Petitioner timely challenged the denial, and this proceeding followed.

At the formal hearing, Petitioner testified on his own behalf and called Beverly Baran, Michael Cipolla, Rabbi Milton J. Gross, and Sharon Guthrie as his additional witnesses. Ms. Baran, Mr. Cipolla, and Rabbi Gross appeared as character witnesses for Petitioner. Ms. Guthrie is an employee of Respondent.

Petitioner also presented ten exhibits, each of which was accepted into evidence. Among Petitioner's exhibits were depositions of Carol L. Disher, a certified addictions professional, and Dr. Christopher Fichera, a clinical psychologist. Respondent presented the testimony of Faye Mayberry and Robert A. White. Ms. Mayberry is the Bureau Chief of Respondent's Bureau of Condominiums. Mr. White is a licensed community association manager and a member of a state advisory council on issues pertaining to the licensing of community association managers. Respondent presented three exhibits, each of which was accepted into evidence. Official recognition was taken of the pertinent statutes and rules.

A transcript of the proceedings has been filed. At the request of the parties, the time for filing post-hearing submissions was set for more than ten days following the filing of the transcript. Consequently, the parties waived the requirement that a recommended order be rendered within thirty days after the transcript is filed. Rule 60Q-2.031, Florida Administrative Code. Rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact may be found in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is the state agency responsible for the licensure of community association managers. Petitioner, Anthony G. DiCarlo, submitted to Respondent an Application for Licensure as a Community Association Manager dated August 25, 1992. Respondent issued a Notice and Order of Rejection of the application on February 2, 1993.

   
   

2. Licensure as a community association manager is required for a person performing in the State of Florida community association management services to one or more associations containing 50 units or having an annual budget or budgets in excess of $100,000. The purpose of the community association manager licensing and regulation statute is to protect the public in general, and community association members in particular. The statute is a consumer protection measure designed to provide some assurance to associations that a licensed manager will be trustworthy and have a certain level of competence.

   
   

3. A community association manager performs duties which require specialized knowledge, judgment, and managerial skill. The community association manager typically manages the financial affairs of a community association, including the accounts receivable and the accounts payable. The manager usually writes checks, disburses association funds, invests the reserve funds, prepares the budget, and monitors the budget. Depending on the size of the association, a community association manager may have access to substantial sums of money in the form of cash, credit cards, and checking accounts. Some community association managers manage associations with a large number of absentee owners. Because of lessened oversight, those managers often have increased authority and responsibility.

   
   

4. Pursuant to Section 468.433(4), Florida Statutes, an applicant must possess good moral character and pass an examination to be entitled to licensure as a community association manager.

5. Rule 7D-55.004(3), Florida Administrative Code, has been duly adopted by Respondent and provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(3) Good Moral Character.

(a) When the application has been determined to be in acceptable form, the division shall evaluate the application and make approp- riate inquiry to determine the applicant's moral character. For the purpose of this rule the division shall consider the follow- ing factors as bearing upon good moral character:

1. The affirmation of at least three char- acter references furnished by the applicant for 3 years or longer . . .

2. The completion of a criminal history check by the Florida Department of Law En- forcement that reveals no convictions of a felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. . . .

* * *

1. Other relevant information generated in the course of the application process which bears upon the applicant's moral character.

   
   

   * * *

   
   

   (5) If upon completion of its evaluation of the moral character of an applicant, the division concludes that the applicant does not posses good moral character, the division shall proceed as provided in rule 7D-55.001 (1), Florida Administrative Code.

   
   

2. Rule 7D-55.0011(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows:

   
   

   1. The division, prior to taking final agency action which may adversely affect the substantial interests of a person, including but not limited to the denial of a license application, shall notify that person of the intended agency action and of his right to a formal hearing or an informal proceeding as provided by section 120.57, Florida Statutes, and chapter 7-4, Florida Admini- strative Code.

      
      

3. Faye Mayberry, bureau chief of Respondent's Bureau of Condominiums, testified as to Respondent's policies. It is Respondent's policy to determine that an applicant has good moral character before permitting the applicant to sit for the licensure examination. Respondent has consistently denied licensure to applicants who have committed a theft-related felony or who have shown a pattern of disregard for the law. Respondent does not consider such facts to be a permanent bar to application, but it has adopted no policy as to the evidence of rehabilitation an applicant must establish following the conviction(s) before Respondent will determine that an applicant has been rehabilitated. Instead,

   Respondent makes a determination as to whether an applicant has established that he has good moral character on a case by case basis. Respondent considers all information that has been made available to it in making its determination.

   
   

4. Item 14 on the form application for licensure requires the applicant to answer the following: "Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendre (no contest) even if adjudication was withheld?" Petitioner answered that question in the affirmative. Thereafter the form instructs an applicant who has answered the question in the affirmative to ". . . attach your complete signed statement of the charges and facts, together with the dates, name and location of the court in which the proceedings were held or are pending." In response to those instructions, Petitioner submitted the following:

   
   

   1. U.S. Federal Court - Newark, New Jersey 8/11/81 Transporting securities taken by fraud across state lines. Sentenced to five

      (5) years probation. Awarded early term- ination.

      
      

   2. County Court - Broward County, Florida 1/8/84 Grand Theft. Sentenced to eighteen

      (18) months probation. Awarded early term- ination.

      
      

   3. County Court - Broward County, Florida 3/23/89 Grand Theft. Sentenced to seven (7) years probation. Awarded early termination.

   
   

5. On September 24, 1992, Sharon L. Guthrie, Supervisor of Education for Respondent's Bureau of Condominiums, wrote Petitioner about his application and stated, in part, as follows:

   
   

   As part of the application process, the Division is required to make appropriate inquiries to determine the applicant's moral character. Rule 7D-55.004(4), Florida Admini- strative Code, requires the Division to com- plete the moral character evaluation within

   30 days after receiving the criminal history check. After reviewing the information on record with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, it appears that your application was not complete with regard to your criminal history. Based on this information, we are unable to approve your application for licen- sure; however, if you notify us, in writing, that you would like to waive the requirement that the Division complete its evaluation within 30 days, we will continue our evalua- tion of your moral character. In addition, you must provide a complete, signed state- ment of the charges and facts, together with the dates, name and location of the court in which the proceedings were held, and copies of any pertinent court records.

6. In response to the letter of September 24, 1992, Petitioner waived the

   30 day requirement and enclosed a copy of the information he had submitted along with his application. He provided no additional information about his criminal history.

   
   

7. Ms. Mayberry made the recommendation to Henry M. Solares, Director of the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominium and Mobile Homes, that Petitioner's application be denied. Ms. Mayberry considered all the information Petitioner submitted in support of his application. There were three reasons for Ms. Mayberry's initial recommendation to deny the application. First, Petitioner had committed three felonies involving theft. Respondent considers theft to directly reflect on the ability of a community association manager to honestly fulfill his or her duties since the manager has the responsibility of managing the association's finances and has access to bank accounts and credit cards. Second, Ms. Mayberry considered that the last crime was committed relatively recently. Third, Ms. Mayberry considered that the multiple convictions indicated a pattern of disregard for the law by Petitioner.

   
   

8. Mr. Solares accepted Ms. Mayberry's recommendation and entered on behalf of Respondent on February 2, 1993, a Notice and Order of Rejection, which notified Respondent that Respondent intended to reject his application and provided him with notices as to his rights to contest the intended action. The order found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate his eligibility for licensure as a community association manager. The order provided, in part, as follows:

   
   

   . . . Specifically, in violation of Rule 7D-55.004(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, relevant information has been generated in the course of the application process which indicates that you have failed to demonstrate good moral character for the following reason: Your criminal history reveals that you have been convicted of a felony directly related to the ability to perform the duties of a community association manager, and you have failed to provide, or been unable to provide, sufficient information to establish your good moral character notwithstanding your conviction.

   
   

9. Thereafter, Petitioner timely challenged the intended agency action and this proceeding followed. At the formal hearing, evidence was presented that was not available to Respondent when the initial decision was made to deny the application. This evidence elaborated on Petitioner's criminal history and pertained to efforts by Petitioner to rehabilitate himself.

   
   

10. Between 1975 and 1980, Petitioner was employed in a position of trust as an administrator at a New Jersey rehabilitation hospital. During that period of employment, Petitioner embezzled money from his employer by falsifying the hospital's accounts to reflect overpayments and deposited the overpayment in his personal bank account in New Jersey. He then transported the embezzled funds across state lines to his personal bank account in New York. On August 11, 1981, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty in federal court in Newark, New Jersey, of the felony offense of the interstate transportation of securities taken by fraud. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, but the sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for a period of five years, which he successfully completed. Petitioner contends that his abuse of alcohol during these years contributed to his theft from his employer. The total sum he stole over this extended period of time was not established.

11. On March 9, 1984, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty in Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, to a felony charge of grand theft based on a shoplifting incident. He was adjudged guilty and placed on probation for a period of 18 months. Among the terms of probation was the requirement that he attend AA meetings three times per week. Petitioner successfully completed his probation which included the requirement that he attended AA meetings at Broward Alcoholic Rehabilitative Counseling. Petitioner thereafter resumed his prior abuse of alcohol and cocaine.

    
    

12. On March 23, 1989, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty in Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, to two felony counts of grand theft. These thefts occurred over a two year period while Petitioner was employed by Anesthesiology Associates between 1986 and 1988. Using tactics similar to those he used in New Jersey, Petitioner embezzled over $100,000 from his employer. Petitioner was sentenced to seven years probation. The terms of probation included a requirement for community service, payment of restitution, and treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Petitioner made full restitution over a 21 month period to Anesthesiology Associates, performed 350 hours of community service, and successfully completed the court ordered treatment for alcohol and drug addiction. On January 8, 1991, Petitioner's probation was terminated.

    
    

13. On September 19, 1991, the Florida Office of Executive Clemency restored Petitioner's civil rights, except for the right to possess or own a firearm, which were lost by the felony convictions.

    
    

14. Petitioner asserts that his criminal activities were the product, in part, to his addiction to alcohol and to cocaine. These addictions resulted, according to Petitioner, because of stress associated with a congenital heart condition. Petitioner underwent open heart surgery in March 1987 to correct this defect. He nevertheless continued to abuse alcohol and cocaine after his surgery. His surgery occurred while he was employed by Anesthesiology Associates, and he continued to embezzle funds from his employer until he was caught. While Petitioner's addictions may have been a contributing factor to his criminal activity, the record in this proceeding fails to establish that his addictions caused his criminal activities.

    
    

15. Petitioner was a long time abuser of alcohol and began abusing cocaine when he moved to Florida in 1981. Petitioner has received treatment for his addictions on at least two occasions. The first occasion was as a condition to his probation following the 1984 conviction of grand theft. The second was following the discovery of his thefts from Anesthesiology Associates.

    Petitioner began extensive alcohol and substance abuse counseling and treatment on an outpatient basis from Clinical Provider Organization, Inc., a private outpatient psychiatric/ psychological clinic in Broward County. He was admitted on November 11, 1988, and discharged on March 20, 1989. Dr. Christopher J. Fichera was the clinical director who supervised Petitioner's involvement in the program, supervised the staff counsellors dealing with him, and treated him on an individual basis. Carol L. Disher, a certified addictions specialist, was the staff person who led Petitioner's group therapy sessions at Clinical Provider Organization. Both Dr. Fichera and Ms. Disher were of the opinion that Petitioner had successfully completed their program. Petitioner was discharged because he had completed the program and because of the condition of probation following the 1989 conviction required that Petitioner participate in an inpatient program. Mr. Cipolla and Rabbi Gross continue to provide support for Petitioner. Although both of these witnesses see Petitioner on a periodic basis, neither has observed any indication that Petitioner has resumed abusing alcohol or cocaine. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that

    Petitioner is successfully recovering from his addiction to alcohol and cocaine and that he has been alcohol and cocaine free for approximately five and a half years.

    
    

16. Petitioner asserts that the testimony of Dr. Fichera and Ms. Disher link the Petitioner's criminal conviction to his alcohol and/or substance abuse. While their testimony may be construed in generalities to support that contention, it is clear that Dr. Fichera was unaware of Petitioner's conviction in New Jersey or his 1984 conviction in Florida. Dr. Fichera learned of the first two convictions when his deposition was taken in connection with this proceeding. Dr. Fichera was of the opinion that the information was significant and may reflect underlying character problems in addition to the addictions.

    
    

17. An applicant is required to submit with his or her application three character references on forms supplied by Respondent. Attached to Petitioner's application were completed character reference forms from Beverly Baran, Michael Cipolla, and Rabbi Milton J. Gross. Each of Petitioner's character references testified at the formal hearing and each was of the opinion that Petitioner was presently of good moral character.

    
    

18. Beverly Baran and her husband, who is an anesthesiologist, were shareholders in Anesthesiology Associates and met Petitioner when he became employed as the business manager for that business. Ms. Baran and her husband became very friendly with Petitioner and his wife. Ms. Baran was aware of Petitioner's embezzlement from Anesthesiology Associates, but she was unaware of the first two felony convictions. She was told for the first time at the formal hearing of the two prior felony convictions. Ms. Baran testified that she considers Petitioner to presently be of good moral character, and based that opinion on his rehabilitation from alcohol and cocaine.

    
    

19. Michael Cipolla was Petitioner's sponsor at AA. He had known Petitioner for approximately eight years as of the formal hearing, and was of the opinion that Petitioner had been alcohol and cocaine free for approximately five and a half years. Mr. Cipolla was of the opinion that Petitioner was presently of good moral character. Mr. Cipolla sees Petitioner on an irregular basis. He testified that he sees him sometimes once a month, sometimes three or four times a month, and sometimes every other month.

    
    

20. Rabbi Milton Gross had known Petitioner for approximately 10 years at the time of the formal hearing. Rabbi Gross has provided spiritual counseling to Petitioner at different times. Rabbi Gross was aware of Petitioner's alcohol and cocaine addiction and his past criminal behavior. Rabbi Gross knew of Petitioner's rehabilitation efforts and considered Petitioner to presently be of good moral character. Rabbi Gross sees Petitioner approximately once every three weeks.

    
    

21. There was minimal evidence as to Petitioner's employment since his discharge from Anesthesiology Associates.1 Petitioner's generalized testimony as to his employment does not establish the extent of his responsibilities or the extent to which he had access to his employer's financial records, bank accounts, and credit cards. Consequently, the testimony that there have been no allegations of embezzlement since 1988 is insufficient to establish that there has been a change in Petitioner's character.

22. The character witnesses who testified on Petitioner's behalf established that Petitioner has made commendable efforts to rehabilitate himself from alcohol and cocaine addiction. While the sincerity of these witnesses cannot be doubted, their opinion testimony assumed that all of Petitioner's criminal activity was caused by his addiction to alcohol and/or his addiction to cocaine. There was no competent, persuasive evidence to support that assumption, and this testimony does not establish that Petitioner has the moral character to honestly perform the duties and responsibilities of a community association manager.

    
    

23. Ms. Mayberry, who attended the formal hearing on behalf of Respondent, was still of the opinion that the application should be denied following the presentation of Petitioner's evidence at the formal hearing. Her initial reasons for rejecting the application had not changed. Ms. Mayberry gave as an additional reason for rejecting the application what she considered evidence of Petitioner's lack of candor during his application process.

    
    

24. Respondent asserts that Petitioner was not candid about his cocaine addiction in response to questions posed by Respondent's counsel at his deposition, and that he did not submit evidence of his rehabilitation with his application because it would reveal his prior addiction to cocaine. While he was not as forthcoming as one might expect, Petitioner did not lie in response to questions about his addiction and rehabilitation. He indicated in several responses that there was an alcohol and substance abuse problem, but he was not directly asked during the deposition about the nature and extent of his addiction. The argument that Petitioner attempted to hide his cocaine addiction is weakened when one considers that the deposition of Dr. Fichera, during which Petitioner's addiction to cocaine was fully discussed, was taken at the instance of the Petitioner. While Petitioner's application made no reference to his addictions or to his rehabilitation therefrom the application form did not solicit that information. It is concluded that Petitioner did not demonstrate a lack of candor by his application or during his deposition that establishes a lack of good moral character.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

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

    
    

26. Petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to the relief he seeks. Rule 28-6.08(3), Florida Administrative Code. See also, Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

    
    

27. Part VIII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, consisting of Sections

    468.431 - 468.437, regulate community association management in the State of Florida. To be entitled to licensure as a community association manager, an applicant must possess good moral character and pass a licensure examination. Section 468.433(4), Florida Statutes. Respondent's policy is to determine an applicant's moral character before the applicant is permitted to sit for the licensure examination. Here, Respondent determined that Petitioner's criminal history established that he lacked good moral character and that Petitioner otherwise failed to establish that, notwithstanding that criminal history, he possesses good moral character.

28. In Zemour, Inc. v. Division of Beverage, 347 So.2d 1102, 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) the court discussed the meaning of moral character as follows:

    
    

    Moral character . . . means not only the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, but the character to observe the diff- erence; the observance of the rules of

    right conduct, and conduct which indicates and establishes the qualities generally acceptable to the populace for positions of trust and confidence.

    
    

29. In Florida Board of Bar Examiners v. G.W.L., 364 So.2d 454, 458 (Fla. 1987), the court discussed the meaning of good moral character as follows:

    
    

    In our view, a finding of a lack of "good moral character" should not be restricted to those acts that reflect moral turpitude. A more appropriate definition of the phrase requires an inclusion of acts and conduct which would cause a reasonable man to have substantial doubts about an individual's

    honesty, fairness, and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the state and nation.

    
    

30. Respondent established that Petitioner lacked good moral character by proving that Petitioner committed three thefts and abused cocaine, a controlled substance. Respondent correctly considered that the first and the third thefts involved deception over a period of years during which Petitioner abused his positions of trust to embezzle sizeable amounts from his employers. These acts, involving elaborate deception over long periods of time, directly relate to the duties of a community association manager. A position as a community association manager would place Petitioner in a similar position of trust involving access to financial accounts, bank accounts, and credit cards. Respondent also appropriately considered that the pattern of criminal activity casts substantial doubts on Petitioner's honesty and his basic respect for the law.

    
    

31. The evidence establishes that Petitioner engaged in criminal activity involving theft and deception over a period that began in 1975 and ended in 1988, that he began his abuse of alcohol as an adolescent, and that he began his abuse of cocaine in 1981. The evidence of his rehabilitation from alcohol and cocaine is encouraging, but on at least one instance, in 1984, his efforts at rehabilitation failed. Petitioner's long history of criminal activity and addiction has been followed by a relatively brief period of lawful behavior and abstinence from alcohol and cocaine. Further, even if it is considered that Petitioner is completely rehabilitated from his addiction to both alcohol and cocaine, there was insufficient evidence to establish that those addictions caused his criminal behavior. Respondent appropriately considered that there was insufficient evidence that Petitioner had rehabilitated himself.

    
    

32. Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida charged with making a determination as to whether an applicant has good moral character as required by statute. In the absence of guidelines adopted as rules, a determination as to moral character should be made based on specific findings of fact with an articulation of the policy considerations supporting the determination. See,

Katz v. Florida State Board of Medical Examiners, 405 So.2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), Griffith v. Board of Medical Examiners, 454 So.2d 683 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and Schiffman v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Pharmacy, 581 So.2d 1375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The evidence presented by Petitioner in an effort to establish that he is presently of good moral character has been considered and has been found to be lacking. It is concluded, based on the specific facts of this case and the policy considerations articulated by Respondent, that Petitioner's licensure should be denied.

RECOMMENDATION

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

application as a community association manager.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 1993.

ENDNOTES

1/ The following, found at page 62, lines 1 - 17, is testimony by Petitioner as to his employment since Anesthesiology Associates in response to questions from his attorney:

Q. Let me ask you about your employment history since the incident with Anesthesiology Associates in 1988, Have you in fact been employed?

A. I have been on-and-off employed since 1988.

Q. Have any of the employments that you have had during that period of time to the present involved access to other people's money.

A. Yes.

Q. What jobs would those be?

A. I would say all of them. I had at least five, possibly six relationships with either salaried employment and/or consulting type situations where I would be paid a fee for services rendered.

Q. Have there been any further charges or allegations of embezzlement made by any of your employers 1988 through present?

A. None whatsoever.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1220

The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner.

1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.

2. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order since findings are made as to his periods of addiction and to his periods of criminal activity. Any inference that Petitioner's criminal activity was caused by his addictions is rejected as being contrary to the findings made and to the conclusions reached.

3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are rejected. Ms. Disher's opinions are unnecessary because it was not established that she has the expertise to express such opinions. Dr. Fichera first learned of the first two felony convictions at his deposition and was of the opinion that such information was significant and may indicate an underlying character problem. Further, the term "link", as used in the proposed findings, is ambiguous.

4. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 17 are rejected as being contrary to the findings made and to the conclusions reached.

The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent.

1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.

2. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 3 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made.

3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 4 and 10 are subordinate to the findings made.

4. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 11 and 13 are rejected as being contrary to the findings made and to the conclusions reached.

5. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 14 and 15 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached.

6. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 20 and 21 are subordinate to the findings made or are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Jeanne M.L. Player, Esquire Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007

Ilissa S. Gordon, Esquire Cruz & Gordon

1120 Southeast 3rd Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

Henry M. Solares, Director

Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Land Sales,

Condominiums and Mobile Homes 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1035

Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

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 ten 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: 93-001220

Orders for Case No: 93-001220