STATE OF FLORIDA

FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION

BERKELEY LANDING, LTD. AND

BERKELEY LANDING DEVELOPER, LLC

DOAH Case No. 20-0140BID FHFC Case No. 2019-102BP

Petitioner,

vs.

FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION,

Respondent,

and

SOLARIS APARTMENTS, LTD., METRO GRANDE III ASSOCIATES,

LTD., NORTHSIDE PROPERTY III, LTD., HTG BELLA VISTA, LLC, and BRISAS DEL ESTE APARTMENTS LLC,

Intervenors.

I

BRISAS DEL ESTE APARTMENTS, LLC

Petitioner,

DOAH Case No. 20-0141BID FHFC Case No. 2019-104BP

vs.

FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION,

Respondent,

FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE FLORIDA . ' .. i

Page 1 of20 HOUSING FIN/\l'JCE CORPORATION .,. ,: .

dID'n mam /,nATL

Filed April 22, 2020 11:19 AM Division of Administrative Hearings

., ,:·::-_ ··. 1

/U:'/UUl

and

SOLARIS APARTMENTS, LTD., METRO GRANDE III ASSOCIATES, LTD., and SIERRA BAY PARTNERS, LTD.,

Intervenors.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I

NORTHSIDE PROPERTY III, LTD.,

Petitioner,

DOAH Case No. 20-0142BID FHFC Case No. 2019-106BP

vs.

FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION,

Respondent,

and

SIERRA BAY PARTNERS, LTD., and SOLARIS APARTMENTS, LTD.,

Intervenors.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

HOMESTEAD 26115, LLC,

Petitioner,

I

DOAH Case No. 20-0143BID FHFC Case No. 2019-107BP

vs.

FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE

CORPORATION,

Respondent,

and

SIERRA BAY PARTNERS, LTD.,

Intervenor.

I

HTG BELLA VISTA, LLC,

Petitioner,

DOAH Case No. 20-0145BID FHFC Case No. 2019-109BP

vs.

FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION,

Respondent.

and

SIERRA BAY PARTNERS, LTD., SOLARIS APARTMENTS, LTD., and MHP BEMBRIDGE, LLC.,

Intervenors.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I

FINAL ORDER

This cause came before the Board of Directors of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("Board") for consideration and final agency action on April 17, 2020. Petitioners Berkeley Landing, Ltd ("Berkeley"), Brisas del Este Apartments, LLC

("Brisas"), Northside Property III, Ltd ("Northside"), Homestead 26115, LLC ("Beacon Place"), and HTG Bella Vista, LLC ("Bella Vista") and Intervenors Solaris Apartments, Ltd ("Solaris"), Metro Grande III Associates, Ltd ("Metro Grande"), Sierra Bay Partners, Ltd ("Sierra Bay"), MHP Bembridge, LLC ("Bembridge"), and East Pointe Phase II, LLC ("East Pointe") were Applicants under Request for Applications 2019-102, "Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery ("CDBG-DR") to be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt MMRB and Non-Competitive Housing Credits in Counties Deemed Hurricane Recovery Priorities" ("the RFA"). The matter for consideration before this Board is a Recommended Order issued pursuant to §§120.57(1) and (3), Fla. Stat. and the Exceptions to the Recommended Order.

On December 13, 2019, Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("Florida Housing") posted notice of its intended decision to award funding to several applicants, including Sierra Bay, Solaris, Metro Grande III, East Pointe, and Bembridge. The Board found that Brisas, Northside, Beacon Place and Bella Vista satisfied all mandatory and eligibility requirements but were not awarded funding based upon the ranking criteria in the RFA. The Board found that Berkeley was ineligible for funding for failure to include its Authorized Principal Representative in its Principal Disclosure Form and because two certification forms were not signed by its Authorized Principal Representative. Petitioners timely filed their notices of

intent to protest followed by formal written protests. Intervenors each filed a Notice of Appearance. The protests were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH"). All formal written protests filed by Petitioners were consolidated.

Berkeley Landing

The RFA reqmres that the applicant identify an Authorized Principal Representative who must also be listed on the Principal Disclosure form. Berkeley identified Jennie Lagmay as the Authorized Principal Representative but did not list her as a Principal of the Applicant. The RFA also requires that the Application Certification and Acknowledgement form and the Site Control Certification form be signed by the Authorized Principal Representative. These forms were signed by Jonathan Wolf, who was not identified as the Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley agreed that these were errors but contended that they should have been waived as minor irregularities. Florida Housing took the position that Berkeley should remain ineligible.

Sierra Bay

The RFA requires that if an eligible contract is included to demonstrate site control, that contract must include a statement that the buyer's remedy for default on the part of the seller includes specific performance. Sierra Bay concedes that its

site control documentation did not meet this requirement and that it should be considered ineligible. Florida Housing agreed with this position.

Solaris

The RFA requires that under certain conditions which are applicable to Solaris, the applicant must demonstrate that a Community Land Trust (CLT) is the land owner, and must provide documentation to show that the CLT has existed since June 28, 2018, that its articles of incorporation or bylaws must demonstrate that a purpose of the CLT is to provide or preserve affordable housing, and that the CLT must demonstrate ownership of certain property. Solaris provided the required documentation in its application, but Petitioner challenged whether the named CLT, Residential Options of Florida, was actually a CLT as defined in the RFA as of June 28, 2018. If Residential Options did not meet the definition of a CLT, Solaris would have been ineligible for funding. Florida Housing took the position that Solaris met the RFA requirements and should remain eligible.

Metro Grande III

The RFA requires that as part of its demonstration of site control an applicant must include a "deed or certificate of title" showing who the landowner was. Metro Grande did not include a deed or certificate of title with its application. The parties stipulated that the landowner was Miami-Dade County, and that the County had acquired the land through eminent domain and thus no deed or certificate of title

existed. The application also included a lease and a landowner certification form that demonstrated that Miami-Dade County was the landowner, and Metro Grande argued that the failure to include a deed or certificate of title should be waived as a minor irregularity. Florida Housing agreed and took the position that Metro Grande should remain eligible.

Beacon Place

The RFA requires that applicants in large counties receive at least two points for Transit Services. Beacon Place, an applicant from a large county, listed a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as its Transit Service. The RFA defines a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as a stop that includes, among other things, one route that has scheduled stops "at least every 20 minutes" between the hours of 7 am and 9 am. It was stipulated that the stop listed by Beacon Place had no scheduled stops between 7:01 am and 7:36 am. Beacon Place argued that if the phrase "every 20 minutes" were interpreted to mean one stop between 7:00 and 7:20, one stop between 7:20 and 7:40, and one stop between 7:40 and 8:00 its listed stop would meet that requirement. Florida Housing did not interpret the RFA that way and changed its initial position to agree that Beacon Place should have been found ineligible.

East Pointe

The RFA allows an applicant to receive a Proximity Funding Preference if it receives a certain number of proximity points. East Pointe claimed points for several

community services, including proximity to a medical facility. Petitioners alleged that the listed medical facility did not meet the definition in the RFA because it did not provide medical services by appointment to persons under 19 years old. East Pointe argued that the definition required only that the facility provide services "by walk-in or by appointment" and that the listed facility did provide such services to any physically sick or injured person. Florida Housing agreed with East Pointe and took the position that it should remain eligible.

Bembridge

The RFA allows applicants to claim Proximity Points for grocery stores, pharmacies, public schools, and medical facilities, but also states that they will receive Proximity Points for "up to 3 services." Bembridge claimed Proximity Points for four services. During its application scoring, Florida Housing awarded Proximity Points for the three services nearest the Development and ignored the fourth service. Petitioners argued that Bembridge should have been awarded no Proximity Points and thus been found ineligible. Petitioners also argued that the Public Bus Stops listed by Bembridge did nqt meet the RFA definition but offered no evidence to support this contention. Florida Housing's position was that its initial scoring decision was correct and that Bembridge should remain eligible.

Recommended Order

A hearing was conducted on February 12, 2020, before Administrative Law Judge Lawrence P. Stevenson. All parties filed Proposed Recommended Orders. After consideration of the Proposed Recommended Orders, the oral and documentary evidence presented at hearing, and the entire record in the proceeding, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Order on April 6, 2020. The Recommended Order made the following recommendations:

1. The Berkeley Application is ineligible for funding;

   
   

2. The Sierra Bay Application is ineligible for funding;

   
   

3. The Solaris Application is ineligible for funding;

   
   

4. The Metro Grande III Application is eligible for funding;

   
   

5. The Beacon Place Application is ineligible for funding;

   
   

6. The East Pointe Application is eligible for funding and entitled to the Proximity Funding Preference; and

7. The Bembridge Application is eligible for funding.

A copy of the Recommended Order is attached as Exhibit A. On April 9, Solaris and Florida Housing filed Exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's recommendations regarding the Solaris Application. On April 13, Northside filed a Response to these Exceptions. Copies of the Exceptions and Response to Exceptions are attached as Exhibits B, C and D respectively.

RULING ON EXCEPTIONS

Florida Housing's Exception Number One

1. Florida Housing filed exceptions to Findings ofFact 76, 79, and 81 and Conclusions of Law 169 and 171 in the Recommended Order.

2. After a review of the record, the Board finds Findings of Fact 76, 79 and 80 and Conclusions of Law 169 and 171 are not supported by competent substantial evidence and that the modifications below are as or more reasonable than the Conclusions of Law 169 and 171 in the Recommended Order.

3. The Board modifies Finding of Fact 76 as follows:

76. However, the undersigned is less persuaded by the implications as to the intentions of Residential Options than by the contradictions between Florida Housing's statements of intent and its reading of the RFA in relation to the Solaris A.pplication. The decision to find the Sola:ris Application eligible for funding founders on the first issue stated above: whether the RFA requires only that the Community Land Trust have been in existence in some form as of June 28, 2018, or whether it had to exist as a Community Land Trust as of that date.

4. The Board modifies Finding of Fact 79 as follows:

79. Ms. Button's statement of intent is accepted as consistent with the plain language of the RFA: the date of June 28, 2018, excludes Community Land Trusts created subsequently. It is inconsistent for Florida Housing to also read the R..PA language to say that the qualifying entity need not have existed as a Community Land Trust prior to June 28, 2018. It v;ould be arbitrary for Florida Housing to set a date fur the creation of Community Land Trusts then turn around and find that the date does not apply to this particular Community Land Trust.

5. The Board modifies Finding of Fact 81 as follows:

81. It was contrary to the provisions of the li'A. for Florida Housing to find that Residential Option-s's mere existence as a legal entity prior to June 28, 2018, satisfied the requirement that the Community Land Trust must demonstrate that it existed prior to June 28, 2018. Ms. Button's own testimony demonstrated that Florida Housing intended to exclude Community Land Trusts created after June 28, 2018. ROOF Housing Trust existed as a Community Land Trust in 2017, but ROOF Housing Trust 1t11as not the Community Land Trust named in the Solaris i\pplication. Ms. Soukup's explanation of the circumstances showed that Residential Options was well intentioned in its actions , but her explanation was not a part of the Solaris Application that 'Nas before Florida Housing's Review Committee. While the Articles of Incorporation submitted with the Solaris Application were not sufficient to demonstrate that Residential Options was a Community Land Trust as of June 28, 2018, this was not a specific requirement of the RFA. Both Ms. Soukup and Ms.

Button offered credible testimony that Residential Options did meet the definition of a Community Land Trust in the RFA as of June 28, 2018. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing's determination that the Solaris application should be found eligible for funding was contrary to Florida Housing's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.

6. The Board modifies Conclusion of Law 169 as follows:

169. Florida Housing and Solaris both contended that the ti'A requirement could be satisfied by a demonstration that Residential Options existed in some form as of June 28, 2018. This reading contorts the plain language of the RFl\ quoted above and contradicts the testimony of Florida Housing's ovm witness Marisa Button. Ms. Button testified that the purpose of the date restriction was intended to confine participation in this RFA to Community Land Trusts that were in existence on June 28, 2018. Residential Options met did not meet this requirement, or at least there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that it did not.

7. The Board modifies Conclusion of Law 171 as follows:

171. Florida Housing acted contrary to the provisions of the RFA in finding that Residential Options's mere existence as a legal entity

prior to June 28, 2018, satisfied the requirement that the Community Land Trust must demonstrate that it existed prior to June 28, 2018. Deviating from the plain language of the RFl:\. to find an application eligible for funding is contrary to competition. Other applicants presumably complied with the Community Land Trust provision and potential applicants may not have submitted applications because they could not know that Florida Housing did not intend to apply the Community Land Trust definition as 1t¥r itte n. Florida Housing's interpretation of the language of the RFA was clearly articulated to require an Applicant listing a Community Land Trust to include with the application evidence that the entity was in existence as of June 28, 2018; that its Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws demonstrate that its purpose is currently to provide or preserve affordable housing; and that it currently owns at least two parcels of land. Florida Housing also interprets the RFA to mean that the entity that was in existence as of June 28. 2018 had to be a Community Land Trust as of that date, but that there is no specific requirement in the RFA that the Applicant submit evidence in the application to prove this. While certainly not the only possible way to interpret the RFA, this is at least a reasonable interpretation, and as such it is inappropriate for an ALJ to overturn it or substitute his or her own interpretation. The evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that Residential Options met the definition of a Community Land Trust as of June 28, 2018. and no credible contrary evidence was received. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing's initial determination of eligibility is contrary to statute, rule, policy, or the specifications of the RFA. Petitioners have also failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing's proposed action is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.

1. Accordingly, the Board accepts Florida Housing's exception number

   
   

   one.

   
   

   Florida Housing's Exception Number Two

   
   

2. Florida Housing filed exceptions to Findings of Fact 80 and Conclusions of Law 170 in the Recommended Order.

3. After a review of the record, the Board finds Findings of Fact 80 and Conclusions of Law 170 are not supported by competent substantial evidence and that the modifications below are as or more reasonable than the Conclusions of Law 170 in the Recommended Order.

4. The Board modifies Finding of Fact 80 as follows:

80. Ms. Soukup's testimony was that Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust were effectively a single entity and that Residential Options was in fact operating as a community land trust prior to the September 10, 2019, merger. Hm,vever, Ms. 8oukup's explanation was not before the Review Committee, vlhich was limited to one means of ascertaining whether an entity 1-11as a Community Land Trust prior to June 28, 2018: the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws . Residential Options's Original Articles included no language demonstrating that it was a Community Land Trust prior to the September 10, 2019, merger with ROOF Housing Trust and the filing of the 26 Amended Articles on September 20, 2019.3 As set forth in the discussion of the Berkley Application above, Florida Housing is required to limit its inquiry to the four corners of an application.

1. Accordingly, the Board accepts Florida Housing's exception number

   
   

   two.

   
   

   Florida Housing's Exception Number Three

   
   

2. Florida Housing filed exceptions to Findings of Fact 60, 75, 78, 80 and 81 in the Recommended Order.

3. After a review of the record, the Board finds Findings of Fact 60, 75, 78, 80 and 81 are not supported by competent substantial evidence.

4. The Board modifies Finding of Fact 60 as follows:

60. The second issue is whether the June 28, 2018, date applies only to the existence of the Community Land Trust or whether the RFA requires that the Community Land Trust have been in existence and have had a stated purpose to provide or preserve affordable housing and have met the ownership experience criteria as of June 28, 2018. It-is questionable whether Solaris v1ould be eligible for funding if the R_.G,r\ required the latter, because Residential Options did not have a stated purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing prior to its merger \Nith ROOF Housing Trust, at least no such purpose as could be gleaned from the four comers of the Solaris Application.

16. The Board modifies Finding of Fact 75 as follows:

75. The problem is that 4s. Soukup's explanation was not before the Re:vievt' Committee when it evaluated the Solaris Application. The only information about Residential Options that the Review Committee possessed was A.ttachment 2 of the Solaris Application. The dates of the merger documents and Amended Articles certainly give some credence to the suspicions voiced by Northside.

1. The Board modifies Finding of Fact 78 as follows:

   
   

   The RFA states: "The Community Land Trust must provide its Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws demonstrating that it has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier... " The Solaris Application shows that Residential Options existed prior to June 28, 2018, although the Articles attached to the Application did not demonstrate that it was not but not as a Community Land Trust as of that date. The Articles did not demonstrate that Residential Options was did not become a Community Land Trust until it completed its merger with ROOF Housing Trust and filed the Amended Articles on September 20, 2019.

   
   

2. The Board modifies Findings of Fact 80 and 81 as stated herein.

   
   

3. Accordingly, the Board accepts Florida Housing's exception number

   
   

   three.

   
   

   Florida Housing's Exception Number Four

4. Florida Housing filed exceptions to Findings of Fact 59 and 78 and Conclusions of Law 168 in the Recommended Order.

5. After a review of the record, the Board finds Findings of Fact 60, 75, 78, 80 and 81 are not supported by competent substantial evidence and that the modifications below are as or more reasonable than the Conclusions of Law 168 in the Recommended Order.

6. The Board modifies Finding of Fact 59 as follows:

59. The petitioners contesting the Solaris Application raise several issues. The first issue is whether the RFA requires only that the entity named as the Community Land Trust have been in existence in some form as of June 28, 2018, or whether the entity had to exist as a Community Land Trust as of that date. The Community Land Trust named in the Solaris Application, Residential Options, existed prior to June 28, 2018, but not as a Community Land Trust.

1. The Board modifies Findings of Fact 78 as stated herein.

   
   

2. The Board modifies Conclusion of Law 168 as follows:

168. Solaris identified Residential Options as the Community Land Trust owner in its Priority I application. The facts adduced at hearing demonstrated that Residential Options did Bet meet the requirement that it existed as a Community Land Trust as of June 28, 2018.

1. Accordingly, the Board accepts Florida Housing's exception number

   
   

   four.

   
   

   Solaris' Exception Number One

   
   

2. Solaris filed exceptions to Findings of Fact 76, 79, and 81 and Conclusions of Law 168 through 171 in the Recommended Order.

3. After a review of the record, the Board finds Findings of Fact 76, 79, and 81 and Conclusions of Law 168 through 171 are not supported by competent substantial evidence and that the modifications are as or more reasonable than the Conclusions of Law 168 through 171 in the Recommended Order.

4. The Board modifies Findings of Fact 76, 79, and 81 and Conclusions of Law 168 through 171 as stated herein.

5. Accordingly, the Board accepts Solaris' exception number one.

   
   

   Solaris' Exception Number Two

   
   

6. Solaris filed exceptions to Findings of Fact 75 and 80 and Conclusions of Law 170 and 171 in the Recommended Order.

7. After a review of the record, the Board finds Findings of Fact 75 and 80 and Conclusions of Law 170 and 171 are not supported by competent substantial evidence and that the modifications are as or more reasonable than the Conclusions ofLaw 170 and 171 in the Recommended Order.

8. The Board modifies Findings of Fact 75 and 80 and Conclusions of Law 170 and 171 as stated herein.

9. Accordingly, the Board accepts Solaris' exception number two.

   
   

   Ruling on the Recommended Order

10. The Findings of Fact set forth in the Recommended Order are supported by competent substantial evidence with the exception of Findings of Fact 59, 60, 75, 78, 79, 80, and 81, which are modified as stated herein.

11. The Conclusions of Law set out in the Recommended Order are reasonable and supported by competent substantial evidence with the exception of Conclusions ofLaw 168, 169, 170, and 171, which are modified as stated herein.

12. The Recommendation of the Recommended Order is reasonable and supported by competent substantial evidence with the exception to the recommendation regarding Solaris. The Recommendation is modified as follows:

    Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order as to RFA 2019-102 finding that:

    
    

    l. The Berkeley Application is ineligible for funding;

    1. The Sierra Bay Application is ineligible for funding;

    2. The Solaris Application is ineligible for funding;

    3. The Metro Grande Application is eligible for funding;

    4. The Beacon Place Application is ineligible for funding;

    5. The East Pointe Application is eligible for funding and entitled to the Proximity Funding Preference; and

    6. The Bembridge AppJication is eligible for funding.

ORDER

In accordance with the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. The Findings of Fact of the Recommended Order are adopted as Florida Housing's Findings of Fact and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth

   in this Order with the exception of Findings of Fact 59, 60, 75, 78, 79, 80, and 81, which are modified as stated herein.

2. The Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order are adopted as Florida Housing's Conclusions ofLaw and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth in this Order with the exception of Conclusions of Law 168, 169, 170, and 171 which are modified as stated herein.

3. The Recommendation of the Recommended Order as modified herein is adopted as Florida Housing's Recommendation.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a) The Berkeley and Sierra Bay Applications are ineligible for funding; b) The Solaris, Metro Grande, Beacon Place, East Pointe, and Bembridge Applications are eligible for funding; and

c) East Point is entitled to the Proximity Funding Preference.

DONE and ORDERED this l 7ili day of April, 2020.

FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION

Copies to:

Hugh R. Brown Chris McGuire

Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000

Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329

By: Chair

Craig D. Varn

Amy Wells Brennan, Esq.

Manson Bolves Donaldson & Varn, P.A 106 East College Avenue

Tallahassee, FL 32301 cvam@mansonbolves.com abrennan@mansonbolves.com

Michael P. Donaldson, Esq. Carlton, Fields, Jorden, Burt, P.A. 215 S. Monroe St., Suite 500

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 mdonaldson@carltonfields.com

Anthony L. Bajoczky, Jr., Esq. Michael Glazer, Esq.

Ausley & McMullen, P.A. Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 mglazer@ausley.com tbajoczky@ausley.com

Donna E. Blanton, Esq. Radey Law Firm

301 South Bronough, Suite 200

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 dblanton@radeylaw.com

M. Christopher Bryant, Esq.

Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A.

P.O. Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 cbryant @ohfc.com

Maureen M. Daughton, Esq. Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC

1400 Village Square Blvd, Suite 3-231

Tallahassee, Florida 32312 mdaughton@mmd-lawfirm.com

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 FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, 227 NORTH BRONOUGH STREET, SUITE 5000, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301-1329, AND A SECOND COPY, ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BYLAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, 2000 DRAYTON DRIVE, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0950, 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 ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.

Docket for Case No: 20-000141BID

Orders for Case No: 20-000141BID