Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES vs. THE POINTE CONDOMINIUM, 83-000183 (1983)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 83-000183 Latest Update: Jul. 27, 1983

Findings Of Fact The Pointe Condominium is a 20-unit project located in Indian Shores, Florida. The declaration of condominium was recorded in Pinellas County on October 2, 1979. A turnover meeting was held on May 8, 1980, at which time Respondent transferred control of the condominium to the condominium association. No documents or accounts were turned over at this meeting or any time within the next 60 days. Subsequent demands by the condominium association resulted in the turnover of the following documents over 60 days after transfer: declaration of condominium articles of incorporation minutes book house rules resignations of developer's board members partial financial records, without audit or certification association accounts building plans and specification (incomplete - did not include architect's certificate or plumbing and electrical drawings) insurance policy certificate of occupancy manufacturer's warranties roster of unit owners service contracts (incomplete - did not include street maintenance contract later discovered by unit owners through contact with the city) Respondent concedes it has never obtained a review of condominium financial records by an independent certified public accountant, and acknowledges that the records furnished to the condominium association are incomplete. Respondent admits to negligence in failing to maintain the required records and has subsequently offered to assist the condominium association in reconstructing those records which are still missing.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order assessing a civil fine in the amount of $4,000, as authorized by Subsection 718.501(1)(d) 4, F.S.; provided, however, that $3,000 of said fine be waived if Respondent secures the required independent records review discussed herein within 60 days of the Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 27th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Helen C. Ellis, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John C. Hucks, Esquire One Plaza Place, N.E. Suite 700 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 E. James Kearney, Director Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Florida Laws (2) 718.301718.501
# 2
ROBERT POWERS WHEELER vs. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE, 82-000766 (1982)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 82-000766 Latest Update: Aug. 29, 1983

Findings Of Fact Petitioner Robert Powers Wheeler is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in the State of Florida consists of two parts, one of which is a written examination given in December of each year, and the other of which is a Site Planning and Design Test given in June of each year. Petitioner meets all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Petitioner took the Site Planning and Design Test portion of the National Architectural Examination in June, 1981. This portion of the examination consists of a 12-hour sketch problem involving design and site considerations. The examination is administered by the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as to all of the jurisdictions of the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination itself involves the design of a structure by an applicant including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans. Information supplied to the applicant includes a preexamination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which the applicant is expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. At the time of the examination itself, other information is supplied to the applicant to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. In general, the purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a design and site plan solution in response to a program submitted to him by NCARB. This portion of the examination allows the national testing service grading the examination and, through them, the Florida Board of Architecture to determine if an applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements which are tested in written form in the other portion of the examination given in December of each year. The grading of the Site Planning and Design Test is accomplished by the review of the applicant's product by at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of some 20 states, who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each architect-grader is then asked to review various solutions submitted by applicants on a blind grading basis, that is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose solution he is grading. Further, the grader does not know the grade assigned to any applicant's solution by any other grader. Graders are instructed to make notations for areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and are required to determine, based upon an overall conception of the applicant's solution, whether a passing grade of "3" or "4" should be assigned to each applicant's solution. In order for an applicant to pass, he must receive at least two passing grades from the three architects who independently grade the applicant's solution. Petitioner received a grade of "2," which is a failing grade, from each of the three graders who graded his examination. Although the Executive Director of the Florida Board of Architecture, who is also an architect, testified that Petitioner made a valiant effort to pass the examination, he identified several material areas wherein Petitioner failed to achieve minimal competency in his presentation or wherein Petitioner failed to observe program requirements. Petitioner failed to meet the owner's goals in that he approached the minimum square footage requirement while failing to provide amenities, which was a prime directive in the examination program. Petitioner had difficulty with regard to the pedestrian traffic flow on his third-floor plan. Petitioner had difficulty with his parking solution as well as with fulfilling the requirement of keeping the building architecturally compatible with surrounding structures. The Board's Executive Director, who has many years' experience in grading Site Planning and Design Tests, would have also given to Petitioner an overall grade of "2." The graders of Petitioner's examination were not uniform in identifying areas of concern regarding Petitioner's weaknesses in his solution. However, the procedure to be utilized by graders is set forth in the Grader's Manual and specifies that under the holistic grading system each grader is to determine his overall impression of a candidate's submission in order to assign a passing or a failing grade. After making his determination based upon the overall project, the grader then returns to his areas of special concern. Although the different graders may have identified different areas of concern, all graders found Petitioner's submission to be below minimal competency requirements. Although Petitioner disagrees with his grade, he presented no evidence to show that his examination was graded in an arbitrary or capricious way or in a manner different than that utilized in grading the examination of every candidate taking the same examination throughout the United States.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner has failed to achieve a passing score on the June, 1981, architecture examination and upholding the grade awarded to Petitioner on that examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Robert Powers Wheeler 5501 South West 147th Terrace Miami, Florida 33158 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert Coons, Jr., Executive Director Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Florida Laws (1) 120.57
# 8
# 9

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer