The Issue The issues are: (1) whether Petitioner is qualified for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license; and (2) whether Petitioner is entitled to waiver of his felony conviction in accordance with Chapter 550, Florida Statutes (2006).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner submitted an application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license as a racehorse owner on or about March 30, 2005. On his application, Petitioner accurately reported that he had been convicted on one count of Conspiracy to Transport Stolen Property and Evade Taxes, a felony. Due to Petitioner’s felony conviction, his application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license was subject to denial. Consequently, Petitioner also requested that a waiver be granted so that he could obtain the license. Petitioner's application and his request for waiver failed to include any information which would establish his rehabilitation or demonstrate that he is of good moral character. In the regular course of the Division's review of Petitioner's application and request for waiver, on or about April 11, 2005, Petitioner was interviewed by Dennis Badillo, an investigator for the Division. During the interview, Mr. Badillo completed a waiver interview form based upon the answers provided by Petitioner. Petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to present information to establish his rehabilitation and to demonstrate his present good moral character, but Petitioner did not provide such information. In light of the information regarding Petitioner’s felony conviction, which is undisputed and admitted by Petitioner on his application form and at the final hearing, Petitioner does not meet the eligibility requirements for the license he seeks. At hearing, Petitioner attempted to minimize his role in the crime of which he was convicted, and expressed the view that he "doesn't have much time" to fulfill his desire to "participate in the racing industry" in Florida, inasmuch as he has passed his 70th birthday. Petitioner failed to present any testimony from friends, relatives, associates, employers, probation officers, or other individuals to establish good conduct and reputation subsequent to the date of his felony conviction. Absent such evidence, the Division has no basis upon which to conclude that Petitioner is rehabilitated or that Petitioner is of present good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order denying Petitioner’s application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license and his request for waiver. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 31st day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Thomas Peavey Hoffer Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Joseph L. Nacca 268 West Walk West Haven, Connecticut 06516 David J. Roberts, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Some time before May 15, 1992, the Petitioner, Executive I & II, Inc., applied for licensure to operate as an adult congregate living facility (ACLF). (It had been, and is still, operating as a licensed boarding home.) The exact date of the application, or how long before May 15, 1992, the application was made, is not clear from the evidence. The facility operated by the Petitioner is the same facility that was the subject of Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Case Nos. 90-3356 and 90-3791. Before and during the pendency of those proceedings, the facility was owned and operated by Kriscour, Inc., d/b/a Executive I & II. Kriscour, Inc., is a separate legal entity from the Petitioner. The sole owner and operator of the Petitioner was the sole owner and operator of Kriscour, Inc., until October 10, 1989, when he became a 49% owner of Kriscour and ceased all involvement in the operation of the facility. Throughout, however, he owned the real property operated by Kriscour and by the Petitioner. In DOAH Case No. 90-3356, HRS sought to revoke Kriscour's conditional ACLF license. While it was pending, Kriscour applied for renewal of the license, and HRS denied renewal. Kriscour initiated formal administrative proceedings, which became DOAH Case No. 90-3791. The two cases were consolidated at DOAH. Ultimately, they resulted in an HRS Final Order denying the renewal application and "cancelling" the conditional license. Kriscour appealed the Final Order to the District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, where it was given Case No. 91-00751. Kriscour obtained a stay of the Final Order and continued to operate the facility as an ACLF during the appellate proceedings. Meanwhile, on or about November 26, 1991, the Petitioner, Executive I & II, Inc., was formed and became licensed to operate the facility as a boarding home. The Petitioner made extensive renovations and improvements to the physical plant. At the same time, Kriscour continued to operate the facility as an ACLF. Ultimately, the appellate court upheld the Final Order. The court's Mandate, which operated to dissolve the stay, was entered on January 2, 1992. On or about that date, Kriscour ceased to operate the facility as an ACLF and began operating the facility as a boarding home. To date, the Petitioner has operated the facility exclusively as a boarding home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying the application of the Petitioner, Executive I & II, Inc., for licensure to operate as an ACLF. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 October, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Pat McComb is the operator of a group home in Broward County, Florida. The home operated under a license issued to Happy People, Inc. Through some unspecified channel, a report of possible abuse was received and Gloria Taylor, a Human Services Counselor II with DHRS, investigated on May 18, 1984. The investigation consisted of interviews with both former and current clients of the group home. A summary of these interviews is found in Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, 5, 8 and 9. The former clients and clients are all mentally retarded with secondary disabilities. The interviews were conducted in a group setting with Taylor addressing leading type questions to the group and the group responding in the negative or affirmative. Two clients were interviewed separately, with one being interviewed away from the group home. At least two of the clients changed their statements regarding whether any abuse had ever occurred. No client stated when or where or how often or how severe the alleged abuse was. Taylor saw no bruises or other physical signs of abuse at the time she interviewed the clients. There had never been any other reports or any medical treatment required for these clients. Taylor's testimony was based solely on what she was told by the clients and former clients. Based upon the written reports prepared by Taylor, Rhonda Miklic prepared and signed a letter revoking the licenses of Pat McComb and Happy People, Inc. The clients were moved from the home. The acts of Miklic in revoking the license are not discretionary. Instead, Miklic is required to revoke the license if a finding of abuse is made by the investigator. Pat McComb denied any knowledge that any client was ever hit with a belt at the facility. Instead, discipline consisted of such things as loss of privileges or having a client stand in the corner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the charges against Respondent be DISMISSED and that the license of Respondent be reinstated. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 11th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Braynon, Attorney 201 West Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mark Perlman, Attorney 1820 E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard Hallandale, Florida 33009 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents discriminated against Petitioners based on race regarding the renting of a house.
Findings Of Fact LM Rentals owns 80 houses, which it rents. Mr. Peeples manages LM Rentals. LM Rentals contracts with Vantage to provide management of the rental properties, and Ms. Mossow is employed by Vantage. LM Rentals rented a house to the Odoms for approximately eight years, beginning in 2003. Mrs. Odom is a Native American. Mr. Odom is White and is not a Native American. No evidence was presented to establish that either anyone from LM Rentals or Ms. Mossow was aware that Mrs. Odom is a Native American. Mrs. Odom's physical appearance, her speech, and her surname could reasonably lead one to think that she is not a Native American. Her appearance would lead one to believe that she is White. The application which the Odoms filled out to rent the house did not require the Odoms to state their race. Mrs. Odom never informed employees of LM Rentals or Ms. Mossow that she is a Native American. Mrs. Odom claims that her children have darker skin than she, and, therefore, Ms. Mossow and employees of LM Rentals should have known that she is a Native American by looking at her children. However, no testimony was presented that Ms. Mossow or anyone from LM Rentals ever met Mrs. Odom's children prior to the filing of the discrimination complaint. Ms. Mossow did not meet any of Mrs. Odom's children until a short time before the final hearing when she delivered copies of exhibits to the Odoms' home. Mr. Peeples, the representative of LM Rentals, did not meet the Odoms' children and never met the Odoms until a few days before the final hearing. The house which the Odoms rented from LM Rentals developed a mold problem. Instead of bringing the mold problem to the attention of Ms. Mossow or anyone at LM Rentals, the Odoms contacted the Polk County Health Department (Health Department), which sent an environmental specialist to investigate the mold situation in January 2010. LM Rentals received a letter from the Health Department concerning the mold. LM Rentals hired a third-party testing company to test the house for mold. The coils on the air conditioner were replaced. The Odoms were not satisfied and requested that Ms. Mossow find them another rental house in the same school district in which they currently resided. LM Rentals has an average vacancy rate of five percent, which equates to about four houses at any given time. At the time that the Odoms requested to be relocated, there was only one house vacant in the school district which the Odoms wanted. The Odoms did not like the house and refused to relocate. Mrs. Odom claims that there were other houses available, but could not point to any specific house. Her claim is based on sheer speculation. The Odoms requested that the carpet be replaced, but, based on the tests of the third-party testing company, LM Rentals refused to do so. About the time they were having the mold problems, the Odoms' daughter was suspended from school. Mrs. Odom attributes the suspension to discrimination by Respondents. Mrs. Odom called, as a witness, the teacher who made the referral which resulted in Mrs. Odom's daughter being suspended. The teacher did not know Ms. Mossow and did not know Mr. Peeples. The teacher, who is also an attorney, was not sure if she had ever represented LM Rentals in the past as an attorney. The suspension was totally unrelated to any mold problems and any alleged discrimination. Mrs. Odom also claims that her son was arrested for disorderly conduct about the time of the mold problem, and she lays the arrest at the door of Respondents. Her rationale for her claim is that the arrest happened at the time they were dealing with the mold issues and that LM Rentals knew people. There is not a scintilla of evidence to connect the arrest of the Odoms' son to any actions by Respondents. In April 2010, during the period in which the mold was an issue, a code enforcement inspector saw a small grill on the Odoms' driveway, which was apparently a code violation. The inspector told the Odoms that the grill needed to be removed. LM Rentals received a letter from the code enforcement department stating that LM Rentals would be fined if the violation was not corrected. Ms. Mossow contacted the Odoms in an attempt to get the grill removed in order to avoid being fined. Mrs. Odom claims that Ms. Mossow and LM Rentals caused the code enforcement inspector to come to the Odoms' home and ask that the grill be removed. Mrs. Odom's claim is without merit. It is unlikely that Ms. Mossow or LM Rentals would request a code enforcement inspector to find a code violation which would result in LM Rentals, as owner of the property, being fined. No evidence was presented to show that Respondents treated non-minorities any differently than the Odoms were treated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Lawrence and Candace Odom's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN BELYEU KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2011.
Findings Of Fact From on or about December 13, 1976, up to and including the date of the hearing, Robert C. Duff was the holder of license no. 13-87, series 1-COP, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. This license was held for purposes of trading as Bob's Bait and Tackle and the business was located at 2211 Hwy. 231, N/O Panama City, Bay County, Florida. Mr. Duff wanted to transfer the license and the Division of Beverage was in the process of investigating this request for license transfer in December, 1976. In the course of this investigation it was revealed that Robert C. Duff did not own the premises upon which his business was located. Mr. Duff did not try to conceal the fact that he did not own the licensed premises. Moreover, Mr. Duff and a Mr. Charles Hoskins, President of Better Brands, Inc., told of a discussion between them and the investigating agent of the Division of Beverage at the time Duff received his license, in which the agent was told that Duff did not actually own the property. This licensing was in 1968. In fact, Hoskins has been leasing the licensed premises to Duff since 1968 for a lease rental amount ranging from $200.00 to $250.00. That lease agreement was still in effect at the time of the hearing. One final comment on the statement of ownership pertains to Petitioner's Exhibit #2 admitted into evidence at the hearing. This is an affidavit signed by Robert Duff showing him to be the owner of the licensed premises. This affidavit was executed at the time of the license application in November, 1968. Duff claims he was unaware that he signed such an affidavit and points to the fact that the reviewing agent, with the knowledge of his lack of ownership in 1968, recommended the approval of the license application and the license was issued. Charles Hoskins owns the premises upon which the license is operated, in his personal name, and there was no showing that any other principals were involved in the ownership of the property, either directly or indirectly. Charles Hoskins was from 1968, through and including the date of the hearing, the President of Better Brands, Inc., which holds license no. 13-233, J-DBW with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. This license is a license for a distributor. In addition, Hoskins from the beginning date and up to and including the date of the hearing has held between 10 percent and 20 percent of the stock owned by Better Brands, Inc. Both Robert C. Duff and Better Brands, Inc., have been charged with violations of 561.42(1), F.S. which states in pertinent part: "No licensed manufacturer or distributor of any of the beverages herein referred to shall have any financial interest, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or business of any vendor licensed under the Beverage Law." The facts of this case do not reveal that Better Brands, Inc., as a licensed distributor has any financial interest, directly or indirectly in the establishment or business of Robert C. Duff, a vendor licensed under the Beverage Law. Robert C. Duff and Better Brands, Inc., have also been charged with a violation of Rule 7A-4.18, F.A.C., which states: "Rental between vendor and distributor prohibited. It shall be considered a violation of Section 561.42, Florida Statutes, for any distributor to rent any property to a licensed vendor or from a licensed vendor if said property is used, in whole or part as a part of the licensed premises of said vendor or if said property is used in any manner with said vendor's place of business." The facts in this matter do not show that Better Brands, Inc., rented any property to Robert C. Duff, the licensed vendor.
Recommendation It is recommended that the charge against Robert C. Duff, Respondent, be dismissed this 15th day of July, 1977. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Collett, Esquire Division of Beverage 725 South Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Franklin R. Harrison, Esquire 406 Magnolia Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401
The Issue The issue in this case is whether discipline should be imposed against Respondent for operating on an expired public lodging establishment license, an offense which is deemed by rule to constitute operation without a license.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Lakeside is an apartment building with 19 units located at 1048 Northeast 18 Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304- 2408. The Division issued Lakeside a license, numbered 16- 10553-H, to operate as a public lodging establishment. According to information in the Division's official database, as reproduced in Petitioner's Exhibit 1, 1/ the "current license expiration date [for Lakeside's license] is December 1, 2000." On July 20, 2000, Division employee Robert Shaw conducted a routine inspection of Lakeside and found the apartment complex to be open and operating. On a Lodging Inspection Report that he prepared on that date, 2/ Mr. Shaw noted two minor violations, neither of which is at issue here. On the same form, Mr. Shaw inscribed the date that Lakeside's license would expire, as shown below, in the blank spaces provided for that purpose in a line that read: REMINDER: Your license expires 12 /01 /00 Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Mr. Shaw testified, however, that at the time of this inspection, he did not know whether or not Lakeside was licensed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Lakeside Apartments. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 24th day of January, 2001.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent violated Subsections 475.42(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2009),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Real Estate is the state agency responsible for the regulation of the real estate sales profession in Florida, including licensure of real estate sales associates and enforcement of the statutory provisions within its charge. Ms. Friels is a real estate sales associate who first obtained her license in 2005. Ms. Friels has never had any prior disciplinary action taken against her. Ms. Friels received a renewal notice from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (the Department), notifying her that her sales associate license was due to expire on March 31, 2009. The notice touted in bold print that the "Department Provides Instant Online Renewal," while also offering a Renewal Notice card to detach and mail in to the Department. The Renewal card option required nothing to be filled in by the licensee unless an address update were necessary (in which case a box could be checked and the address updated on the back of the card), or unless the licensee wanted to opt for inactive status, which could be done by checking a different box. Otherwise, the card could simply be sent in with payment of the $85.00 renewal fee. The card included the following statement in small print: IMPORTANT: SUBMITTING YOUR RENEWAL REQUEST TO THE DEPARTMENT AFFIRMS COMPLIANCE WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWAL. Ms. Friels had been undergoing a period of great personal challenges and stress in the two-year period leading up to the licensure expiration date and nearly missed the renewal deadline. On the day before her license was to expire, she utilized the "Instant Online Renewal" option after contacting a Department customer representative to make sure that her online renewal payment would be credited immediately so that it would be timely before the March 31, 2009, expiration date. As alleged in the Administrative Complaint, "[o]n . . . March 30, 2009 Respondent paid the renewal fee of $85.00 to renew her real estate license." The Department receipt showed the online payment of the $85.00 fee on March 30, 2009, for the renewal of real estate sales associate License No. SL3141119 held by Marsha Evans Friels. At the time Ms. Friels processed her online license renewal, she had not completed the 14 hours of continuing education she was required to complete during the two-year licensure period ending on March 30, 2009, but Ms. Friels did not realize at that time that she had not complied with the continuing education requirements. Ms. Friels explained that although she was generally aware of the continuing education requirement for licensure renewal, the reason she did not realize that she had not taken the required coursework during this particular two-year period was because she was coping with a series of tragic, personal challenges. The circumstances were compelling, as she explained: In May 2007, Ms. Friels' older sister died of breast cancer; then, in October 2007, Ms. Friels' father died, and Ms. Friels assumed the responsibilities for arranging for his funeral and then probating his estate; and finally, Ms. Friels' youngest sister, who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and had lived with her father, was left without care, and the responsibilities for caring for her sister and making decisions about her placement fell on Ms. Friels' shoulders. While these circumstances do not excuse a failure to comply with the continuing education requirements during the two-year period, the totality of the circumstances make the oversight understandable and mitigate against Ms. Friels' culpability. Ms. Friels was under the impression that having accessed the Department's "Instant Online Renewal" and successfully remitted payment of the renewal fee in time, she had done all that was needed to renew her license. She received no notice to the contrary. Apparently, however, at some point after Ms. Friels thought she had successfully renewed her license via the Department's Instant Online Renewal service, the Department's records re-characterized the status of Ms. Friels' license as involuntarily inactive, effective on March 31, 2009, "due to non[-]renewal of her real estate sales associate license." Neither Ms. Friels, nor the licensed broker with whom Ms. Friels was associated, received notice that her real estate sales associate license had been changed to inactive status, that Ms. Friels had not satisfied the continuing education requirements at license renewal, or that her "Instant Online Renewal" and payment were ineffective to renew her license. Ms. Friels presented evidence of the Department's practice to issue a Notice of Deficiency or a Continuing Education Deficiency letter, when a real estate sales associate renews a license without having completed the required continuing education hours. No evidence was offered to explain why this practice would not have applied in this case or why no such notice was given to Ms. Friels. Operating under the impression that she had successfully renewed her license and receiving no notice to the contrary, on one occasion, on approximately June 1, 2009, Ms. Friels participated as a real estate sales associate working on a real estate sales contract under the supervision of Ms. Williams, the licensed broker with whom Ms. Friels was associated, who remained actively involved in the transaction. Mr. Brissenden is a real estate appraiser who was asked to perform an appraisal on the property that was the subject of the same contract, which is how he came to learn that Ms. Friels was operating as a sales associate. Mr. Brissenden testified that he happened to be online on the Department's licensing portal checking on some other things when he looked up Ms. Friels' license out of curiosity. He saw that her license was shown to be inactive, and, so, he filed a complaint. Ms. Friels first learned that she had not completed the required continuing education hours in the two-year period before renewal when she received a letter advising her that she was being investigated for operating as a sales associate without an active license. Immediately upon learning that she had a continuing education deficiency, Ms. Friels took the 14-hour continuing education course and successfully completed the required hours. This course included the "Real Estate Core Law" component required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-3.009(2)(a). The course material, which according to rule, must be submitted to the Florida Real Estate Commission for review and approval, included the following: In the event a license is renewed without the required continuing education course having been completed, the licensee will be sent a deficiency letter. This letter will inform the licensee that the required continuing education was not completed prior to renewal. Ms. Friels' license was reinstated to "active" status on October 16, 2009, following her completion of the 14-hour course credited to her prior renewal cycle. Ms. Friels cooperated with the investigation and submitted a letter with supporting documentation explaining that she did not realize she had not completed the continuing education course during the prior two years and detailing her personal circumstances that led to her oversight. At the completion of the investigation, the investigator contacted Ms. Friels to deliver a Uniform Disciplinary Citation, on December 11, 2009. By this document, the investigator sets forth her determination that there was probable cause to believe Ms. Friels had violated Subsection 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and that the Department had set the penalty at a $500.00 fine (plus no additional amount for costs). Ms. Friels had the choice of accepting the citation, in which case it would become a final order, or disputing the citation, in which case the charges would be prosecuted as a disciplinary action pursuant to Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. Ms. Friels testified that while she accepted responsibility for not completing the required continuing education and was willing to resolve this matter by paying the $500 fine in December 2009, she was unwilling to accept the citation's charge of violating Subsection 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes. That subsection establishes the following as a violation: A person licensed as a sales associate may not operate as a broker or operate as a sales associate for any person not registered as her or his employer. Ms. Friels perceived this charge as more serious, in effect, charging her with operating outside the scope of her sales associate license by operating in a broker capacity. Throughout this proceeding, Ms. Friels remained sensitive to the suggestion that she had operated as more than a real estate sales associate and went to great pains to establish that she did not exceed the bounds of a licensed real estate sales associate and that she was acting under the supervision of the licensed broker with whom she was associated. The subsequently-issued Administrative Complaint charged Ms. Friels with a violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, not Subsection 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Uniform Disciplinary Citation. By this time, however, when Ms. Friels attempted to resolve the dispute, the Division of Real Estate would not agree to the penalty originally proposed in the Citation (with the incorrect statutory charge), but instead proposed additional terms, including payment of $521.40 in investigation costs on top of the $500 fine, plus attendance at two meetings of the Florida Real Estate Commission. Ms. Friels objected to the increased financial consequences since in her view, the reason why the dispute was not resolved by the citation was because the wrong statutory violation was charged. Before the evidentiary hearing, counsel for the Division of Real Estate acknowledged that this case involves, at most, a "minor violation of licensing law." After the evidentiary portion of the hearing, counsel reiterated the Division's position that "this is a minor licensing violation and we're looking for a very minor penalty." Inexplicably, the Proposed Recommended Order submitted by the Petitioner proposed a significantly elevated recommended penalty. The Petitioner proposed an increased fine of $1,000, plus a 30-day suspension, plus costs of investigation, plus "fees pursuant to Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes,"3 despite assurances at the close of the hearing that the Petitioner was only looking for a "very minor penalty" consistent with what had been previously offered. The appropriate penalty for a violation of licensing law cannot be determined without first reviewing the record evidence on mitigating and aggravating circumstances in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-24.001(4). Here, no aggravating circumstances were established or even argued while there are multiple mitigating circumstances. There was no evidence of any harm to the consumers or public as a result of Ms. Friels' oversight in not completing her continuing education by her license renewal date or as a result of her participating as a real estate sales associate in a transaction in June 2009. The fact that there was only one count in the Administrative Complaint is a mitigating circumstance to be considered. Likewise, the fact that Ms. Friels has no disciplinary history is another mitigating circumstance weighing in favor of leniency below the normal penalty ranges established in rule. Consideration of the financial hardship to the Respondent as a result of imposition of a fine or suspension of a license, adds to the weight of mitigating circumstances. Ms. Friels testified to the hardship she has endured as a result of personal circumstances beyond her control. Ms. Friels was forthright and sincere in accepting responsibility for her oversight and acted immediately to rectify the continuing education deficiency as soon as she received notice of it. Under the circumstances, imposition of a fine or suspension of her license would result in unnecessary financial hardship. Finally, under the catch-all language in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-24.001(4)(b) ("mitigating circumstances may include, but are not limited to . . ."), consideration must be given to the Respondent's compelling personal circumstances that make her oversight understandable and mitigate further against imposing a penalty in the normal range. The circumstances here were far from normal, and imposing a penalty as if they were normal would be unduly harsh.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, finding that the Respondent, Marsha Evans Friels, violated Subsection 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes (and, thereby, Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes); issuing a reprimand as the sole penalty; and waiving the permissive assessment of costs allowed by Subsection 455.227(3)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2010.
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations that the Respondent has violated Section 550.105(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 61D-1.006(3)(a)2, Florida Administrative Code, by having unpaid financial obligations that directly relate to racing being conducted at a pari-mutual facility within this state.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, David Monaci, an individual, held three pari-mutuel wagering occupational licenses, to-wit: Thoroughbred Trainer, DPMW license number 1079030-3050; Authorized Agent, DPMW license number 1079030- 1047; and an Unrestricted "U1" Professional license, DPMW license number 1079030-1081. David Monaci has some form of interest in, or relationship with, a corporation that is named either David Monaci Stable Inc., or D. Monaci Stable, Inc. The nature and extent of David Monaci's interest in, or relationship with, that corporation is not revealed by the evidence in this case. 3/ At some time during 1993, David Monaci, acting on behalf of the corporation named David Monaci Stable, Inc., or D. Monaci Stable, Inc., entered into an agreement with the Country Western Store in Davie, Florida, pursuant to which the Country Western Store would supply food and other necessities for the race horses being handled by David Monaci at the Gulfstream Park horse race track. The food and other necessities supplied by the Country Western Store were invoiced to "David Monaci Stable, Inc.", at an address in New Jersey. After the invoices went unpaid for a number of months, the Country Western Store quit providing anything for the race horses being handled by David Monaci. Shortly thereafter, the Country Western Store filed a lawsuit in Circuit Court in Broward County, Florida, against David Monaci Stable, Inc., seeking to recover the amount owed for the food and necessities it had furnished for race horses handled by David Monaci. On September 8, 1994, a Final Judgement was entered in favor of the Country Western Store and against David Monaci Stable, Inc. The Final Judgement provides, in pertinent part: 2. Plaintiff does have and recover from the Defendant, DAVID MONACI STABLE ,INC., the sum of $20,013.46 for damages, $224.76 for costs, $605.00 for attorneys fees, and $915.19 for interest, for all of which let execution issue. As of the date of the formal hearing in this case, nothing has been paid towards the satisfaction of the Final Judgement described immediately above. The Country Western Store did not sue David Monaci individually. The Country Western Store does not have a Final Judgement against David Monaci individually. The extent, if any, to which David Monaci in his individual capacity may or may not be responsible for the debts of David Monaci Stable, Inc., is not revealed by the evidence in this case.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is Recommended that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing all charges in the Administrative Complaint on the grounds that the evidence is insufficient to prove that the license holder, David Monaci, is responsible for any of the debts or obligations. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 14th day of August, 1996.
