The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Sections 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Beard Equipment Company, Inc., sells and maintains heavy equipment in Panama City, Florida. The Petitioner, Robert G. Harrison began employment with the Respondent in Panama City, Florida, in September, 1988. The Petitioner was employed as a janitor. Petitioner's duties included running numerous and varied errands which required driving of a motor vehicle. In April of 1989, Petitioner was hospitalized in order to adjust his medication for what he indicated was a bipolar disorder. However, at the hearing, Petitioner produced no expert testimony to establish that he was mentally handicapped or had bipolar disorder. At that time, Respondent became aware that Petitioner had a medical problem. Later, Petitioner was hospitalized in order to adjust his medication on two more occasions in 1989, and twice in 1992. On each occasion the Respondent accommodated Petitioner by making arrangements to hire temporary employees or readjust other employees' duties so that they could perform Petitioner's duties while he was hospitalized. In early 1992, the Respondent's liability insurance company conducted a random audit of employee driving records. The Respondent was notified by its insurance company that no coverage would be provided for any accident where the employee/driver had a DUI conviction. This random audit prompted Respondent to conduct a complete company- wide internal audit of driving records of all employees. The driving record audit resulted in some transfers for those employees for whom driving was an essential part of their job duties, but whose driving records would prohibit them from being covered under Respondent's liability policy. Employees who could not fulfill the duties of a non-driving position were terminated. Respondent could not afford to allow employees to drive who could not be insured by Respondent's liability carrier. The in-house driving record audit revealed that Petitioner had a DUI conviction on his record. Respondent had no other non-driving positions for which the Petitioner was qualified. Respondent was therefore forced to discharge the Petitioner since he could no longer fulfill the duties of his employment. Petitioner was discharged in November of 1992. When Petitioner was terminated, Petitioner was advised by Mark Veal, his supervisor, that the driving record audit had revealed that Petitioner had a DUI conviction, and because he would not be covered under the company insurance policy, they had no alternative but to discharge him. Within a day or so, Petitioner's wife called and requested his discharge letter in writing. Veal prepared the letter, indicating that due to Petitioner's medical history, his operating a motor vehicle would be too much of a liability. Although the real reason for Petitioner's discharge and the reason given him at the time was the DUI conviction, Veal tried to write the discharge letter in such a way as to minimize any embarrassment for the Petitioner due to his DUI conviction. Therefore, the termination letter does not support the conclusion that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on a mental handicap. In fact, there was no substantial evidence that Respondent terminated Petitioner based on a mental handicap. The evidence clearly showed Respondent was terminated for his driving record and his lack of qualifications to fill any other non-driving position. Moreover, Petitioner failed to establish that his position was filled by a person not in a protected class or that Respondent is an employer employing more than 15 employees. Given these facts, Petitioner has not established a prima facie case that Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was discriminated against because of his alleged handicap in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act and that the petition be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 22nd day of December, 1994.
The Issue The issues presented for decision herein are whether or not Respondents are guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment and/or breach of trust in a business transaction as is more fully alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein dated February 27, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent, Perry F. Keen, is now, and was at all times material herein, a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0048813. Respondent, Perry F. Koon Agency, Inc., is a corporation licensed as a real estate broker and has been issued license number 0124199 with a business address of 212 East Noble Avenue, Williston, Florida. At all times material herein, Respondent, Perry F. Koon, was licensed and operated as a real estate broker and sole qualifying broker and officer of Respondent, Perry F. Koon Agency, Inc. In September of 1981, Respondents obtained a written open listing agreement from Gracie Williams to sell certain real estate property owned by Williams listed at Southeast Ninth Street, Williston, Florida at an asking price of $8,000 with a 10 percent brokerage commission. (Respondent's Exhibit E) The listing agreement was effective by its terms through June 30, 1982. Respondents were unable to sell the Williams property during the terms of the written listing agreement. However, Respondents continued to market Ms. Williams' property based on an oral agreement. Prior thereto, and specifically during mid-March, 1980, Ms. Gracie Williams borrowed approximately $4,779.60 from Tom and Wilma C. Bailey. Ms. Williams later became injured and was unable to make regular installment payments on the loan from the Baileys. As security for the loan from the Baileys, Ms. Williams gave a mortgage to the Baileys which encumbered the properties here in question (lot 12, block 13 in Williston, Levy County, Florida) as well as other properties owned by Ms. Williams. (Respondent's Exhibit B) The Baileys contacted Ms. Williams, by letter, regarding her past due loan payments and urged her to bring her accounts current as "We cannot continue to carry this account past due." (Respondent's Composite Exhibit H) Being unable to repay the Baileys as agreed, Ms. Williams turned to Respondent 1/ far assistance. Respondent, however, was not interested in an outright purchase of Ms. Williams' property although he agreed to purchase Ms. Williams' property by assuming her loans from the Baileys. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5) On October 26, 1982, Ms. Williams executed a quit claim deed in favor of Respondent's wife, Jettie R. Keen. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Thereafter, Respondent renegotiated the loan that he assumed from Ms. Williams in favor of the Baileys whereby the Baileys agreed to accept annual payments of $1,000 each year. During that time, Rachael Breuton as renting the subject property from Ms. Williams paying $70 per month. Respondents were able to sell the property (Williams) to Rachael Breuton for approximately $6,500 by accepting payments of $100 per month. (Respondent's Exhibit D) Respondent thereafter brought the delinquent Williams loan, in favor of the Baileys, current. Once the subject charges were brought by Ms. Williams, she contacted an attorney and filed other charges which have been settled by Respondent. Respondent, as stated earlier, was not interested in purchasing the Williams property from the outset. He merely attempted to assist Ms. Williams by taking this property and assuming the loan in favor of the Baileys to free up other properties, as well the subject property, for Ms. Williams. Respondents have deeded the subject properties back to Ms. Williams as part of this settlement agreement entered into by and between Respondents and Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams denies that she executed a deed to Respondent or, for that matter, anyone until she was paid for her property. Based on all of the documentary evidence received herein, including Respondents' testimony during the hearing, Respondents' version of the events concerning the allegations herein are credited to the extent that Respondents' version conflicts with the version adduced herein by Ms. Williams.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 23rd day of January, 1985.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's application for licensure as a yacht and ship salesman should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating yacht and ship brokers and salespersons in Florida. Section 326.003, Florida Statutes (1997). On July 28, 1998, the Division received an application for a yacht and ship salesperson's license from Richard Badolato. Question 13 on the application solicits information of the applicant's criminal history as follows: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, either pled or been found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? NOTE: This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state, or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. Your answer to this question will be checked against local and state records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. After Question 15 of the application, the following statement appears in bold type: "If your answer to question 13, 14, or 15 is Yes, 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." Mr. Badolato answered Question 13 in the affirmative, and he signed the application, thereby certifying that "the foregoing information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief." Mr. Badolato did not provide the statement of particulars which must be submitted by those answering Question 13 in the affirmative. In a letter dated July 28, 1998, the Division notified Mr. Badolato that his application was incomplete and that he should, among other things, provide a complete written explanation of his criminal history. In response to this letter, Mr. Badolato provided a signed statement in which he stated: "I was arrested and charged with possession of marj. in 1981." Mr. Badolato also provided a telephone number on the statement, indicating that he could be contacted at that number if the Division had any questions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 326.004(15), the Division issued a 90-day temporary license to Mr. Badolato, pending completion of the criminal history analysis that is done on all applicants by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The Division subsequently received a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation which revealed that Mr. Badolato had three drug-related felony convictions, as well as an arrest on June 22, 1977, which resulted in a charge of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. On August 24, 1981, Mr. Badolato was convicted in federal district court in Brunswick, Georgia, of conspiracy to smuggle marijuana; he was sentenced to ten years in prison and ordered to pay a $30,000 fine. On October 23, 1981, Mr. Badolato was convicted in federal district court in Miami, Florida, of conspiracy to distribute cocaine; he was sentenced to thirty months in prison, to run consecutively with the ten-year sentence in the Georgia case. On January 31, 1989, Mr. Badolato was convicted in federal district court in Maryland of conspiracy to distribute marijuana; he was sentenced to thirty-six months in prison, to run concurrently with any sentence imposed for a violation of parole. Mr. Badolato was released from prison in 1991 and successfully completed parole in December 1996 with respect to the 1989 conviction. In late 1997, Mr. Badolato received a letter advising him that he might be eligible for clemency. An attorney acting on behalf of Mr. Badolato filed an application for clemency with the Florida Parole Commission. Although Mr. Badolato has never seen this application, he assumes that the file developed during review of the application contains complete information regarding his criminal history.2 When the Division received the Federal Bureau of Investigation report, Peter Butler, head of the Division's general enforcement section, contacted Mr. Badolato by telephone, read to him the statement in the application quoted in paragraph 4 above, and asked him if he wanted to amend his application. Because he could not remember the exact dates of his three felony convictions, Mr. Badolato responded by referring Mr. Butler to the Clemency Board if Mr. Butler wanted to obtain further information about Mr. Badolato's criminal history. Mr. Badolato acknowledged in his testimony that he should have been more thorough in completing his application for licensure, that he was lazy and stupid for not being more forthcoming in the application, and that he did not intend to mislead the Division. He believed that, by answering "Yes" to Question 13 and admitting that he was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana in 1981, he had provided enough information to alert the Division that he had a criminal history. He also assumed that it would be very easy for the Division to obtain complete information about his background merely by running a computer check and by reviewing the information in his clemency application file. From 1991, when he was released from prison, until December 1998, Mr. Badolato was involved in the restaurant business in a managerial capacity, and, as part of his duties, he handled large sums of money. No money in his care was ever found missing, and no adverse employment actions were taken against him during this time. In addition, during the time he was on parole, Mr. Badolato periodically submitted to random drug-testing and never failed a test. The evidence presented by Mr. Badolato is not sufficient to establish that he is of good moral character. He admitted in his answer to Question 13 on the application that he had been convicted of a felony, yet he included in the statement which he filed as part of the application a vague, incomplete, misleading, and inaccurate reference to an arrest and charge of possession of marijuana in 1981.3 Furthermore, Mr. Badolato certified by his signature on the application form that the information he provided was "true and correct to the best of [his] knowledge and belief," when he was certainly fully aware that he had three separate felony convictions. Mr. Badolato presented evidence of his good employment history subsequent to his release from prison in 1991, his successful termination of probation, and his faithful payments on the $30,000 fine imposed in 1981, all of which tend to show rehabilitation and good moral character. However, Mr. Badolato's failure to include in his application complete and accurate information regarding his criminal history tends to show lack of rehabilitation and lack of good moral character. On balance, Mr. Badolato's failure to disclose in his application his complete criminal history outweighs the evidence he presented to show rehabilitation and good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, enter a final order denying Richard Badolato's application for licensure as a yacht and ship salesperson. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1999.
The Issue By Administrative Complaint dated February 20, 1991 and filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 23, 1991, the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, alleged that Respondent had obtained a real estate license by means of fraud in that Respondent had a prior criminal charge and 1976 conviction in New Jersey and had not disclosed same in his July 30, 1990 application for licensure as a real estate salesman, contrary to and in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(m) F.S.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints against real estate licensees pursuant to the laws of the state of Florida, in particular Section 20.30 F.S. and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in the state of Florida, having been issued license number 0566757 in accordance with Chapter 475, F.S. The last license issued was as a nonactive salesman, in care of 380 Mercers Fernery Road, DeLand, Florida 32720. On his July 30, 1990 application, Respondent made a sworn application for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Petitioner. Question No. 7 of the July 30 application read, in pertinent part, as follows: 7. Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? Under oath, Respondent answered "no" to the foregoing Question No. 7. Thereafter, Petitioner based this instant prosecution on a series of loose pages which purported to be a report from the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Petitioner's Exhibit B). This item is not a business record of the Petitioner, and Petitioner has shown no reason this printed hearsay should be admitted and considered. Consequently, it has not been admitted or considered. Respondent was interviewed by Petitioner's investigator. The investigator, Mr. Miller, testified concerning his interview of Respondent, but nothing in their conversation constituted an "admission of a party opponent." Nor was anything said in that conversation sufficient to supplement or explain any other testimony or exhibit. See, Section 120.58(1) F.S. Likewise, the conversation did not even support the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Respondent's testimony at formal hearing was disjointed and inconclusive but to the general effect that at some time he had been arrested in New Jersey in connection with a burglary of his dwelling and a subsequent police search thereof which produced a cache of marijuana. He denied telling a deliberate lie on his real estate application and stated he simply could not recall anything further about the New Jersey incident which he described.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the agency enter a Final Order dismissing with prejudice the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 27th day of June, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The respondent Juan A. Vergel is the holder of Florida real estate salesman's license No. 0359274. This license was received pursuant to respondent's application for licensure dated December 8, 1980, and approved on January 28, 1981. In response to question number 6 on his application for licensure as a real estate salesman, respondent answered "No." This question read as follows: "Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking speeding, inspection or traffic signal viola tions), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled?" On or about February 5, 1975, respondent was arrested by the Public Safety Department of the Dade County Sheriff's Office on the felony charge of buying, receiving and concealing stolen property; to wit: an automobile inspection sticker. On February 24, 1975, respondent pled guilty to a reduced misdemeanor charge of buying, receiving and concealing stolen property, was adjudicated guilty and was ordered to pay a fine of $50.00 by the County Court of Dade County, Florida. At the time of this adjudication, respondent was of the impression, from discussions with his attorney, that if he maintained a record without any charges of criminal activity for a period of nine months, the arrest and conviction on the misdemeanor offense of buying, receiving and concealing stolen property would be expunged from his record. Having had no criminal charges against him after this incident, respondent assumed at the time he completed his application for a real estate license that his record had been cleared. Other than the offense described in paragraph 3 above, respondent has never had criminal charges against him. He has been employed as a computer operator with the Dade County School Board for eleven years and has had no problems in such employment.
Recommendation For the reasons stated above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the respondent Juan A. Vergel be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 23rd of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Colodny, Esquire Colodny and Fass, P.A. 626 N.E. 124 Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Samuel Sheradsky, Esquire 606 Coconut Grove Bank Building 2701 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Board of Real Estate 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Juan A. Vergel 12510 Southwest 33rd Street Post Office Box 650971 Miami, Florida 33165 Carlos V. Stafford, Executive Director Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32789
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found. Respondent Villanueva was registered as a real estate salesman on July 12, 1974. For the registration year October 1, 1976, through September 30, 1977, his status changed to a nonactive salesman. Upon respondent's plea of guilty to the offense of possession of marijuana in Case No. 74-725C, the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County entered an order on June 7, 1974, withholding adjudication of guilt and placing respondent on probation for a period of one year. By an administrative complaint filed on October 7, 1976, the Florida Real Estate Commission charged respondent with being guilty of a crime of moral turpitude, fraudulent or dishonest dealing in violation of Florida Statutes s475.25(1)(e). The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a hearing, and the undersigned was duly designated as the Hearing Officer. On March 31, 1977, the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County entered an order on respondent's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty previously entered in Case No. 74-725C. By this Order, it was adjudged that the plea of guilty previously entered "be and the same is hereby stricken from the records and shall be of no force and effect and in lieu thereof a plea of nolo contendere is accepted in this cause." The Court reconsidered, and reaffirmed its action taken with regard to sentence.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the administrative complaint filed by petitioner on October 7, 1976, be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 12th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William F. Garcia, Esquire 512 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= August 4, 1977 TO: Renata M. Hendrick, Supervisor FM: Manuel E. Oliver, Staff Attorney, Legal Section RE: PD 3024 Richard R. Villanueva Registration Certificate No. 0136894 Attached please find registration certificate in the name of Richard R. Villanueva, No. 0136894. The effective date of the Final Order is August 11, 1977, however, this certificate was received by us on Monday, August 1, 1977, and therefore his suspension period will begin on that date, and end on September 1, 1977 at which time he may re-apply for registration with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Also attached for your reference and record is a copy of the Final Order filed by the Commission on July 12, 1977.* * NOTE: The Attachment is not on file with this Division and therefore not a part of this ACCESS document. The July 12, 1977 date has been used as the Agency Final Order Issue date in the ACCESS index.
Findings Of Fact Mitchell is a highway construction contractor with its principal place of business located in Tallahassee, Florida. FDOT is the agency of the state of Florida which is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the roads designated as part of the State Highway System. On July 15, 1994, the parties entered into Contract No. 18,784 (contract) which required Mitchell to resurface the existing roadway, construct four (4) foot wide paved shoulders and perform other related work for $626,347.44 in State Project No. 59100-3512 (project) in Wakulla County, Florida. The contract incorporated by reference special provisions attached thereto and FDOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (1991) (Standard Specifications). The contract required Mitchell to complete the project within 84 calendar days. Construction began on August 31, 1994, which was contract day one (1). In order to construct and pave the shoulders, Mitchell had to remove the top soil and stabilize the subgrade. After removing the top soil, Mitchell hauled borrow material to the project site. Mitchell spread the borrow along the roadside and mixed it with the existing sub-soil. Mitchell then attempted to attain a certain required density by compacting the shoulders. Mitchell hauled borrow to the project site from October 5, 1994, through October 8, 1994, and on October 13, 1994. Mitchell rolled the surface of the shoulders on October 18, and 20-22, 1994. The contractor was unable compact the subgrade to the required density. On or about October 22, 1994, FDOT refused to pay Mitchell for additional material to reestablish grade on the shoulders. From approximately October 24, 1994, through November 11, 1994, Mitchell remixed and compressed the subgrade soil in an unsuccessful attempt to stabilize the shoulders. From October 25, 1994, through November 7, 1994, Mitchell wrote at least four (4) letters to FDOT discussing the problems at the project site in achieving required density and stabilization of the subgrade on the shoulders. These letters are not a part of the record in this case. However, the hearing transcript from February 15, 1995, clearly shows Mitchell's position: (1) Plastic materials beneath the subgrade (unexpected conditions not contemplated under the contract) were causing a delay on the project and preventing Mitchell from achieving the required density and stabilization of the subgrade; (2) Mitchell would have to excavate the plastic material and haul in additional borrow to reestablish the grade of the shoulders before stabilization could be obtained; (3) Mitchell needed an extension of time in which to complete the project; and (4) Mitchell wanted FDOT to pay for the expenses (not covered under the contract) that Mitchell would incur in curing the problem. On or about November 11, 1994, Mitchell informed FDOT in writing that Mitchell was suspending work on the project. Mitchell suspended work without obtaining FDOT's approval as required by the contract. By letter dated November 14, 1994, FDOT responded to Mitchell's four (4) letters. FDOT's letter did not specifically deny each of Mitchell's requests but made it clear that Mitchell's claims were unsubstantiated. FDOT took the position that Mitchell created the problems with compaction by failing to follow FDOT procedures: (1) Prior to hauling in stabilizing material, Mitchell did not submit a sample of the existing on-site material so that a lime rock bearing ratio (LBR) could be established to determine how much, if any, stabilizing material would be needed to obtain the required LBR; (2) Mitchell did not submit samples or get FDOT's approval of the material used for stabilization before spreading and mixing it on the project site; (3) Mitchell did not sufficiently mix the material used for stabilization so that density could be obtained; (4) Soil samples of the material beneath the area being stabilized, to a depth of approximately three and one half feet, indicated that it was suitable for compaction; (5) The sources of borrow material used in attempting to stabilize the subgrade were not approved as required by the contract; (6) Mitchell added unapproved material, in excess of what was required, to the borrow material hauled to the project site. FDOT wrote this November 14, 1994, letter after investigating the problem and performing certain field and laboratory soil tests. On December 12, 1994, Stephen Benak, District Construction Engineer for FDOT, made a visit to the project site to conduct further investigation. Later that day the parties had a meeting. Mitchell again explained to FDOT that unexpected conditions at the job site were causing problems and preventing the contractor from obtaining density requirements on the subgrade. FDOT again informed Mitchell: (1) The unapproved borrow material that Mitchell previously hauled to the project site was unsuitable and causing the problem; and (2) Mitchell's proposal to under-cut (excavate and haul more borrow material) was a drastic cure and not compensable under the contract. Mitchell did not immediately return to work on the project. With credit for twenty-four (24) rain days, the contract performance time increased to 108 calendar days. Taking the rain days and intervening holidays into consideration, FDOT determined that the contract term expired on December 20, 1994. Mitchell did not return to work at the project site until December 23, 1994. By letter dated December 29, 1994, FDOT gave Mitchell notice of the agency's intent to declare Mitchell delinquent on the project and to suspend its Certificate of Qualification and that of all its subsidiaries. This letter states that Mitchell was making unsatisfactory progress on the contract because the contract time had expired and the work was not complete. The letter refers to section 8-8.2 of FDOT's Standard Specifications and Rule 14- 23, Florida Administrative Code. On January 12, 1995, Mitchell filed a Request for Formal Hearing without making an additional request for extension of contract time. This petition states: Mitchell Brothers has filed timely requests for extension of contract time due to the delays resulting from the lack of constructability and differing site conditions of the project. Therefore, the Department's issuance of the notice of delinquency is invalid. After receiving Mitchell's request for hearing, FDOT designated Tom Kinsella, Esquire, as counsel for the agency. By letter dated January 23, 1995, Mr. Kinsella referred Mitchell's request for a hearing to DOAH. The Hearing Officer issued a Notice of Hearing on January 27, 1995, setting this matter for hearing in DOAH Case No. 95-289 on February 8, 1995. In order to allow the parties sufficient time for discovery, the Hearing Officer subsequently rescheduled the case for hearing on February 15 and 16, 1995. The parties took depositions every day from February 2, 1995, to February 13, 1995. Bill Carpenter, FDOT's Project Engineer on the project at issue here, was the first deponent. Prior to Mr. Carpenter's deposition, Mr. Kinsella inquired as to whether there were any outstanding time requests. Mr. Carpenter assured Mr. Kinsella that FDOT had addressed and denied all outstanding time requests in FDOT's letter dated November 14, 1995. At the formal hearing in DOAH Case No. 95-289 on February 15, 1995, Mr. Benak testified on FDOT's behalf. On direct examination, Mr. Benak testified that Mitchell made no "proper" requests for contract time extensions. During cross-examination, Mitchell questioned Mr. Benak concerning Mitchell's letters written between October 25, 1994, and November 7, 1994. Initially, Mr. Benak testified that Mitchell's letters were not "formal" requests for extension of contract time. The Hearing Officer ruled that two of these letters contained preliminary requests for extension of contract time. Mr. Benak subsequently questioned whether Mitchell's letters were timely pursuant to section 8-7.3.2, Standard Specifications. Without resolving the issue of timeliness, Mr. Benak conceded that the delay was on-going and that the agency had never written to Mitchell requesting more specific information about the delay, i.e. all documentation of the delay and a request for the exact number of days justified to be added to the contract time. Therefore Mitchell was never required to submit a more formal request for contract time extensions. However, Mr. Benak never conceded that Mitchell's preliminary requests were pending at the time the agency issued its notice of intent to declare Mitchell delinquent or that the agency failed to follow its own procedures before issuing that notice. Mr. Benak maintained that the contract did not provide for extensions of contract time for delays due to the fault or negligence of the contractor. He testified that FDOT's letter dated November 14, 1994, effectively denied Mitchell's pending preliminary requests for time extensions and informed Mitchell that the delay was due to the contractor's fault or negligence. Accordingly, FDOT was not required to solicit further information from Mitchell before issuing the December 29, 1994, delinquency letter. As the hearing on February 15, 1995, progressed, it became apparent that the parties disputed a variety issues involving mixed question of fact and law. In ruling on an objection which is not at issue here, the Hearing Officer stated: * * It seems to me the more pertinent, you know, a much more pertinent area -- and we haven't addressed this in terms of the Department's procedures, that would start a request for extension of time, and it appears that the Department has never acted on that. And you've raised a very interesting matter, and that is under the rules, apparently if that process has been initiated, you can't go to delinquency, which means that this activity, this that they've tried to initiate, lacks the appropriate legal predicate. That's a good point. After the hearing in DOAH Case No. 95-289 recessed on February 15, 1995, Mr. Kinsella advised Mitchell's counsel that FDOT would withdraw the delinquency. Mr. Kinsella wanted to alert Mitchell that it was unnecessary for witnesses to attend the hearing the next day. When the hearing resumed on February 16, 1995, FDOT filed its Notice of Withdrawal of Notice of Delinquency and Motion for Relinquishment and Remand of Jurisdiction. The motion states, "The Department is now withdrawing it (sic) notice of intent to declare delinquincy without prejudice, it appearing that all of Mitchell Brothers, Inc., requests for additional time may not have been addressed by the Department." However, competent persuasive record evidence indicates that FDOT made this determination based on the Hearing Officer's prior rulings and statements during the hearing on February 15, 1995. Mr. Kinsella stated on the record: * * After the conclusion of the hearing yesterday on the basis of the matters that came up in terms of whether the preliminary requests for time extensions have been properly met by the Department and evaluated and addressed in the correspondence as pointed out by the Court, we went back and evaluated, and determined that we don't believe those have been fairly met and addressed by the Department, and that this delinquency was premature for that reason. Counsel for Mitchell did not object to the motion to relinquish jurisdiction but requested an opportunity to submit a proposed order. The Hearing Officer stated that Mitchell could file a motion to submit a proposed order and that FDOT would have an opportunity to respond to that motion. The Hearing Officer did not set a date certain for the filing of the posthearing motion but Mitchell's counsel stated that the motion would be filed in a very brief time, within a day or two. February 16, 1995, was a Thursday. The following Monday, February 20, 1995, Mitchell filed a Motion to Permit Submittal of Proposed Findings and for Entry of a Recommended Order, a proposed recommended order for the Hearing Officer's signature, and a Motion for Attorney's Fees. DOAH's Clerk docketed Mitchell's motion to submit proposed findings and the proposed recommended order in DOAH Case No. 95-289. The Clerk docketed Mitchell's motion for attorney's fees under DOAH Case No. 95-1096F. That same day, the Hearing Officer entered an Order Closing File which did not retain jurisdiction over any issue in DOAH Case No. 95-289. Subsequent relevant pleadings and procedures arising in the instant case between February 20, 1995, and June 14, 1995, are set forth above in the Preliminary Statement and incorporated herein. The record indicates that the parties were at an impasse when Mitchell suspended work on the project on or about November 11, 1994. After FDOT's November 14, 1994, letter and the meeting on December 12, 1994, the parties certainly were aware of each other's positions, and were deadlocked as to the reason for the delay in stabilizing the subgrade. The dispute between them involved multiple questions of fact and law which are not at issue here. FDOT's December 29, 1994, delinquency letter gave Mitchell what it was entitled to, i.e., a point-of-entry to challenge, in an administrative proceeding, FDOT's position that Mitchell created the conditions causing the delay in stabilizing the subgrade. FDOT had a reasonably clear legal justification for issuing that letter based on sections 8-7.3.2 and 8-8.2 of FDOT's Standard Specifications and Rule 14-23, Florida Administrative Code. The delinquency letter was not issued and subsequently filed with DOAH for an improper or frivolous purpose. As of February 15, 1995, the 165th calendar day of the project, Mitchell continued to work on the project which was only 36 percent complete and which FDOT had not conditionally accepted. Mitchell has incurred $44,408.50 in attorney's fees and $18,071.13 in cost in litigating DOAH Case No. 95-289 and DOAH Case No. 95-1096F. Mitchell is also obligated to pay $1,045.00 to Carolyn Raepple, Esquire, who testified concerning the reasonableness of the fees and costs that Mitchell incurred in DOAH Case Nos. 95-289 and 95-1096F. FDOT has presented no evidence to rebut the reasonableness of these fees and costs.
