Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: In order for Petitioner to obtain a license as a general contractor in Florida, he is required to successfully complete a certification examination. The exam is administered by the Department of Professional Regulation. The questions on the exam are prepared from specific reference materials disclosed to the applicants, generally accepted industry procedures and standard field knowledge. In June of 1989, Petitioner took the exam and received a passing grade on all parts of the exam except Part II for which he received a grade of 67. A score of 69.1 was necessary for Petitioner to receive a passing grade on Part II. Each of the challenged questions are worth 2.5 points. Therefore, if Petitioner is given credit for either of the questions, he will achieve a passing score. The first question challenged by Petitioner, question 13, required the exam taker to determine the labor cost for erecting concrete forms given certain assumptions. The diagram provided in connection with the question indicated there was an elevator shaft which included two elevators and, therefore, two elevator door openings. In calculating the correct answer, an applicant was required to deduct the surface area corresponding to both door openings. In calculating his answer, the Petitioner only deducted for the area corresponding to one elevator door. Petitioner contends that the question is ambigious because it does not specifically direct the exam taker to deduct for both elevator doors. However, the question specifically states to "deduct for door openings". There is no ambiguity in the question and the Petitioner's answer was incorrect. The only right answer to the question was the answer deemed correct by the Respondent in grading the exam. While Petitioner also challenged question 32, the only testimony presented at the hearing indicated that the answer used by Respondent in grading the exam was correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner's request that his June, 1989 examination for a general contractor's license be regraded be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-6139 The Respondent submitted a Proposed Recommended Order including proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Petitioner submitted a letter which contains a number of paragraphs of mixed findings of fact and conclusions of law which have not been numbered thoughout. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact can be isolated, they are addressed below. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Prosposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order were Accepted or Reason for Rejection. The Petitioner's letter sets forth his arguement as to why the question was ambigious and not properly structured. Petitioner's arguements are rejected and subordinate to Findings of Fact 4 and 5. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Prosposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order were Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Included in the preliminary statement. Included in the preliminary statement. Included in the preliminary statement. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Included in the preliminary statement and adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Harper Field, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Eli Buzaglo 6569 Racquet Club Drive Lauderhill, Florida 33319 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Callahan Apartments, owned by Eugene T. Callahan, are located at 41 East Fourth Street in Jacksonville, Florida. These apartments are licensed by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants under license number 26-01943H. Eugene T. Callahan was licensed on September 15, 1980, the date of the Division's initial inspection, and was 50 licensed through March 16, 1981, the date of the hearing in this case. On September 15, 1980, the Division's inspector made the initial inspection of the premises located at 41 and 51 East Fourth Street, and found the following violations of Sections 7C-1.03 and 7C-1.04, Florida Administrative Code: Failure to provide fire extinguishers for Building 41 and 51 (Rule 7C-1.04) Failure to provide adequate number of electrical outlets in each of the rental rooms (Rule 7C- 1.04); Failure to provide or install proper exit lights (Rule 7C-1.04); Failure to maintain walls and ceilings through- out Buildings 41 and 51 (Rule 7C-1.03); Failure to repair bathroom floor of Apartment 3 in Building 51 (Rule 7C-1.03); Failure to repair bathroom wall of Apartment 2 of Building 51 (Rule 7C-1.03); Failure to repair or replace stoves in Apartments 1 and 4 of Building 51 (Rule 7C-1.03); Failure to repair or replace refrigerator in Apartment 4 of Building 41 (Rule 7C-1.03); Failure to close all holes leading to outside to keep out vermin (Rule 7C-1.03). A call-back inspection of Buildings 41 and 51 was made on October 23, 1980, to check on the progress of the Respondent in correcting the above violations. On this date all violations still existed, and Mr. Callahan was given until November 14, 1980, to make the necessary corrections. Subsequent inspections were conducted on November 18 and December 10, 1980, on which dates the corrections had not been made and the violations continued to exist. In the morning of the date of the hearing, March 16, 1981, a final inspection was conducted; the only violation corrected by Mr. Callahan was the placing of approved fire extinguishers in both Building 41 and Building 51. Photographs were taken by the inspector showing the conditions charged as violations in the show cause notice on the date of the initial inspection and at the time of the last inspection just prior to the hearing. Mr. Callahan asserts that he has corrected all of the violations that existed on September 15, 1980, except the electrical outlets (listed above as violation b) . Nevertheless, the photographs which had been taken by the inspector and were received in evidence, demonstrate the continued existence of the violations on the hearing date. Thus, the Respondent's testimony has been discounted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Eugene T. Callahan, pay a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000. The Respondent may elect to expend the amount of this penalty to correct the above-cited violations rather than pay the amount directly to the Division. If the Respondent should elect the second method, he shall submit to the Division valid receipts and work orders showing the measures taken to correct the above-cited violations, totaling an amount of at least $1,000.00. Regardless of the method chosen by the Respondent to pay the civil penalty Recommended, he shall have 60 days from the date of the Final Order in which to correct all of the above-cited violations.. If this is not done within 60 days, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license be suspended until such time as the violations are corrected. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 16th day of April, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 16th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eugene T. Callahan 7528 Arlington Expressway Apartment No. 1318 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Whether Petitioner received notice of the March 29, 2006, Notice of Hearing that complied with the legal requirements for being provided notice.
Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing which scheduled the hearing for March 29, 2006, was issued on February 14, 2006. There is nothing on the docket that indicates that the Notice of Hearing mailed to Petitioner was returned as undeliverable.1/ Michelle Girard-Smith is employed as a receptionist at McLin & Burnsed, P.A., located at 1000 West Main Street, Leesburg, Florida. This is the address on the Notice of Hearing which set the hearing for March 29, 2006. According to Ms. Girard-Smith, Petitioner came to the hearing location on Wednesday, March 22, 2006, one week earlier than the scheduled date for the hearing. Petitioner had the Notice of Hearing in his hand and showed it to Ms. Girard-Smith. She pulled out the conference room calendar and noted that the calendar showed the conference room was scheduled for the hearing on Wednesday, March 29. She pointed out to Petitioner that he was there a week early. While Petitioner acknowledges that he arrived at the hearing location on a date earlier than the scheduled day, he asserts that he arrived on Friday, March 24, 2006. He also asserts that he went back to the hearing location one week later on Friday, March 31, 2006. The undersigned finds the testimony of Ms. Girard-Smith to be more persuasive. She was certain that Petitioner had the Notice of Hearing in his hand when he arrived on March 22, 2006, and that she showed him that he was one week early. Petitioner received actual notice of the March 29, 2006, hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Public Accommodation Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 18th day of September, 2006.
The Issue The administrative complaint alleges that J. E. Patterson is licensed as a registered plumbing contractor and as a registered air conditioning contractor, and that he committed these violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes: that he did business in a name not included on his license, that he failed to properly update his address with the Board, and that he failed to properly supervise the activity of the firm which undertook construction work under his name. The issue for disposition is whether the violations occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The records of the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) reveal that J. E. Patterson has three active licenses, issued pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, governing contractors: an electrical contractor's license (ER 0010700), a plumbing contractor's license (RF 005243), and an air conditioning contractor's license (RA 0052424). None of these licenses has ever qualified a firm named "Pro-Mech". The addresses on the licenses are Merritt Island and Titusville, Florida, in Brevard County. Bobby J. Hunter, Sr. is an Investigator Specialist II for DPR who has investigated construction industry license complaints for approximately fourteen years. After receiving a complaint from a building official, Mr. Hunter conducted an investigation of Mr. Patterson and a firm called "Pro-Mech". The investigation included a telephone interview and a personal contact with J. E. Patterson. Patterson admitted to Mr. Hunter that he had done contracting business as "Pro- Mech", and that he did not send change of status forms or apply to have the firm qualified because the firm had become insolvent. Patterson did not admit the other violations. No prior disciplinary actions against this licensee were alleged or proven.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: that J.E. Patterson be found guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(g) and 489.119, Florida Statutes and that a letter of guidance be issued. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 15th day of November, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant, Esquire 1107 E. Jackson, Suite 104 Tampa, Florida 33602 J. E. Patterson Post Office Box 2505 Umatilla, Florida 32784 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lawrence A. Gonzalez Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact. On or about April 28, 1988, Florida State University mailed its Invitation To Bid (ITB) No. K-1193-6, to prospective bidders. According to the elevator maintenance specifications attached to ITB No. K-1193-6, the stated purpose of the ITB was was to secure bids for the continuous maintenance of all elevators and dumbwaiters as per the attached list in accordance with the conditions, specifications, and terms listed herein." Responses to the ITB were submitted by Miami Elevator Company in the amount of $289,861.00, by Montgomery Elevator Company in the amount of $192,356.00, and by Mowery Elevator Company in the amount of $137,967.00. Section VI of the ITB requires each bidder to submit the following documentation with its bid. A statement indicating the address of the service center from which the bidder proposes to serve the University. To be acceptable the service center must be located within a ten (10) mile radius of the University campus to minimize travel time in securing parts and supplies. A statement certifying that the local service center from which he will service this contract will contain and maintain an inventory of a least $45,000.00 in parts and materials specifically intended for the elevators to be repaired and maintained under this contract. This inventory is to be available in the Tallahassee service center for inspection upon the request of authorized University officials. A list by name of the type and number of employees who will be assigned to the University under this contract detailing their education, training and experience record. To be acceptable the employees assigned must meet the following requirements in terms of quantity and qualifications. A minimum of two (2) full time, fully qualified and certified master elevator mechanics MUST be assigned to service this contract. Both must possess a "certificate of competency" from the Dept of Business Regulation, Division of Elevator Inspection. Copies of these certificates are to accompany the the (sic) vendors bid. At least one (1) of these two mechanics MUST BE ASSIGNED EXCLUSIVELY to servicing this contract at all times. The contractor may designate one of the two mechanics to be the primary mechanic to service this contract and he will devote his time exclusively to this contract. In the event this mechanic is ill or for other reasons cannot service the contract, the second mechanic designated under this paragraph will assume the duties of EXCLUSIVE service to this contract. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT. An additional, fully qualified mechanic holding the above required "certificate of competency" and at least one (1) helper will also be listed and be available to render immediate support to the two primary mechanics to maintain and repair the elevators and dumbwaiters covered by this contract. * * * The ITB specified that bids would be opened at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 17, 1988. On or about May 26, 1988, Florida State University posted its Bid Tabulation rejecting all bids for failure to meet various specifications. The reason for the rejection of each bidder was listed on the Bid Tabulation as follows: As to Mowery the rejection was based on Mowery's failure to provide a certificate for additional mechanic; no proof of experience on other than Mowery Elevators; and no mention of traction elevators. As to Montgomery the bid was rejected for failure to provide certificates for mechanics; As to Miami the bid was rejected for failure to meet inventory requirements. Paragraph 9, entitled "Awards," of the ITB reserves the right of the University to reject any and all bids as the best interest of the University may require. The Miami Elevator Company bid included a letter of certification. Pertinent portions of that certification are as follows: Address of service center from which we propose to serve the University: 850 Blountstown Highway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 576-0161 We hereby certify that the Miami Elevator Company local service center has an inventory equal or greater than 10 percent of the total bid amount and have parts inventory greater than $45,000.00 in our nearest supply warehouse. In 1985, Florida State University issued bid specifications for elevator maintenance services. The 1985 bid specifications contained a certification requirement which included the following language: A statement certifying that the local service center has an inventory equal to at least ten percent (10 percent) of the total bid amount and is supported by a parts inventory of parts required to service the elevators and dumbwaiters covered by this contract, of at least $45,000.00 in the bidder's nearest supply warehouse. The local inventory, shall be available in the bidder's Tallahassee service center for inspection by authorized University personnel before the bid award. The successful bidder is to provide the University, by 7/31/85, with the parts list of the $45,000.00 inventory he is required to maintain. Experience has shown that inventories in the above amounts are necessary to provide support for an installation with the number of elevators and dumbwaiters located at the University. In 1988, prior to the preparation of the bid specifications at issue here, representatives of Miami Elevator Company met with representatives of Florida State University and suggested that the latter make certain changes to the above- quoted language from the 1985 bid specifications when they prepared the 1988 bid specifications. The University representatives followed the suggestions and when the 1988 specifications were issued, the certification requirements regarding inventory read as set forth above in paragraph 2 of these findings of fact. When Miami Elevator Company prepared its bid response to the 1988 ITB, the company representative preparing the bid used the company's 1985 bid response as a model. When he came to the portion of the certification that addressed inventory, he forgot that he and one of his company colleagues had prevailed upon the University to change that requirement. Because of his failure to remember the change, the Miami Elevator Company representative simply copied the inventory certification statement that appeared in the company's 1985 bid response. That statement was responsive to the 1985 bid specifications regarding inventory certification, but was not responsive to the 1988 bid specifications regarding inventory certification. The representative of Miami Elevator Company intended to submit an inventory certification that complied with the requirements of the 1988 bid specifications, but simply made a mistake and copied the language from the company's 1985 bid response. The inventory certification requirement is in a mandatory portion of the bid specifications. It is a material requirement because the availability of a sufficient parts inventory is critical to the timely and efficient maintenance and repair of the elevators and dumbwaiters. The pricing portion of the Miami Elevator Company bid appears to have been prepared with a lack of much attention to detail. The total contract price of $289,861.00 was calculated by one of the company's regional managers. The individual who calculated that total price had not inspected any of the elevators at the university, had no current personal knowledge of any specific elevator, and did not possess a certificate of competency from the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Elevator Inspection. Further, he appears to have misconstrued the significance of a report regarding the condition of some of the elevators and also appears to have made some unwarranted assumptions about the scope of the work required under the bid specifications. Another representative of Miami Elevator Company inspected some of the elevators, but he did not participate in the calculation of the bid amount. As a result of what appears to have been a rather broad-brush approach to the bid calculation process, the Miami Elevator Company bid was more than $100,000.00 over what the university expected the bids to be and was almost $100,000.00 over the second highest bid. The base price of the prior contract awarded in 1985 was $105,344.00. The Miami Elevator Company bid of $289,861.00 represents an increase of approximately 175 per cent of the 1985 price. The university expected that there would be a significant price increase due to such matters as the inflation rate over the past three years, inflation projection for the next three years, and some of the differences between the 1985 and the 1988 bid specifications, but it did not expect an increase of 175 per cent. The university has estimated that a reasonable bid would represent approximately a 75per cent increase in the 1985 price. The factors on which the university estimate are based appear to be reasonable and logical. The Miami Elevator Company facility located at 850 Blountstown Highway includes a separate warehouse on the property which contains inventory valued at approximately $70,000.00. That inventory would be available to service the university elevators. The subject ITB specifically required that each bidder certify that it agreed "to abide by all conditions of this bid." Miami Elevator Company made such a certification when its representative signed the first page of the ITB.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Florida State University issue a final order in this case rejecting all bids. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 26th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2960BID The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner, Miami Elevator Company Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Accepted, with some additional details for clarity. Paragraph 6: Rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraphs 7 and 8: Accepted, with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 9: First sentence rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence and as, in any event, irrelevant. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 10 and 11: Accepted. Paragraph 12: Rejected as constituting argument regarding legal conclusions rather than proposed findings of fact. Further, the legal conclusion asserted is not warranted by the evidence. Paragraph 13: Rejected as statement of another party's position rather than proposed finding of fact. Paragraphs 14 and 15: These two paragraphs have for the most part been rejected as constituting unnecessary details. Further, a number of the details proposed are not supported by persuasive testimony, because I am not persuaded that Mr. Herbst did a very careful job of informing himself about the requirements of the bid specifications or about the condition of the subject elevators. Paragraph 16: All but last sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Last sentence rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 17: Rejected in part as subordinate and unnecessary details, in part as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence, and in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 18: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 19: Most of this paragraph is rejected as constituting a statement of another party's position and as argument about that position. Findings are made that there are differences between the subject invitation to bid and the immediately preceding invitation to bid. Paragraphs 20 and 21: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 22 and 23: Rejected in part as argument rather than proposed findings, in part as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence, and in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 24: First two sentences rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The remainder of this paragraph (dealing with Mowery) is rejected as irrelevant. First Paragraph 25: Accepted in substance. Second Paragraph 25: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 26: Rejected as for the most part constituting argument rather than proposed findings; to the extent findings are proposed, they are rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence or as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent, Florida State University Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting discussion of legal conclusions rather than findings of fact. (The conclusions are essentially correct, but they do not belong in the findings of fact.) Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6: Accepted in substance, but with numerous unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 7: First two sentences rejected as cumulative and repetitious. Last sentence accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details dealing more with legal conclusions than with facts. Paragraph 10: First two sentences rejected as cumulative and repetitious. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 12: Rejected as constituting legal argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 13: Rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraph 14: Rejected as constituting argument about legal conclusions rather than proposed findings of fact. (Again, the conclusions are essentially correct, but they do not belong in the findings of fact.) Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: Rejected as irrelevant because these proposed findings all relate to issues that were not raised in prehearing pleadings and were not raised in the prehearing statement. Paragraph 20: Rejected as procedural details that do not need to be included in the findings of fact. Paragraph 21: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 22: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary generalities. Paragraphs 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 29, 30, 31: Accepted in substance, with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 32, 33, 34, and 35: The essence of the findings proposed in these paragraphs has been found, but most of the details proposed have been omitted as subordinate and unnecessary. Findings proposed by Intervenor, Montgomery Elevator Company Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substantial part, but with irrelevant portions of the specifications omitted. Paragraphs 3 and 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Accepted in large part, but some irrelevant information has been omitted. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: First sentence rejected as constituting discussion of legal conclusions rather than proposed findings of fact. Second sentence accepted in substance by quotation of Miami Elevator Company's certification. Paragraph 8: Accepted. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13: Rejected as irrelevant because these proposed findings all related to issues that were not raised in prehearing pleadings and were not raised in the prehearing statement. Paragraph 14: Bid amount is accepted; remainder is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 15: The essence of this paragraph has been included in the findings, but most details have been omitted as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Associate General Counsel Office of the General Counsel The Florida State University 311 Hecht House Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P.A. 2700 Blairstone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 S. Grier Wells, Esquire Brant, Moore, Sapp, MacDonald & Wells 121 West Forsyth Street, Suite 900 Post Office Box 4548 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact On September 4, 1979, the Department of State levied a $200 civil fine against Weaver and Automobile Recovery by its letter of that date. As of that date, the Petitioner was not licensed by the Department of State under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. The $200 fine was paid, and a formal hearing was requested.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the fine be set aside and the $200 be repaid to the Petitioners. This recommended in no way constitutes a ruling or finding on the underlying grounds upon which the fine was assessed. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February 1980 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. John M. Weaver Automobile Recovery Bureau of Florida, Inc. Post Office Box 18452 Tampa, Florida 33679 W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
