Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the Final Hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On March 3, 1994 Petitioner submitted to the Department an application for licensure as a Limited Surety Agent (Bail Bondsman). In a Denial Letter dated July 20, 1994, the Department notified Petitioner that his application for licensure was denied. The basis for the Department's denial of Petitioner's application was Petitioner's past felony convictions. The evidence established that on or about December 4, 1980, Petitioner was charged in the Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Case Number 80-105 (the "First State Case"), with trafficking in illegal drugs and the use of a firearm during the commission of a felony in violation of Sections 893.135 and 790.07, Florida Statutes. On June 5, 1981, Petitioner pled no contest in the First State Case to trafficking in excess of two thousand (2,000) pounds, but less than ten thousand (10,000) pounds of cannabis. Petitioner was fined and placed on probation for ten (10) years. On or about June 14, 1981, Petitioner was charged in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case Numbers 83-6033-CR-EPS and 83-6038-CR-NCR (the "Federal Cases"), with five felony counts of possession with intent to distribute illegal drugs and conspiracy to import illegal drugs into the United States of America, in violation of Title 21, Sections 841(a)(1), 846, 952(a), 960(a), 963, and 843(b), United States Code. On or about November 5, 1981, Petitioner was charged in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Case Number 81-1191 CFG (the "Second State Case") with violation of the Florida Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"), Section 943.462, Florida Statutes. Although the exact timing is not clear, at some point after his arrest, Petitioner began cooperating with authorities which led to plea bargains and a sentence which did not include any jail time. On April 4, 1984, Petitioner pled guilty to one count in each of the Federal Cases to attempt and conspiracy to import marijuana and methaqualaudes into the United States of America. As a result of his plea in the Federal Cases, Petitioner was fined and placed on 5 years probation. On April 6, 1984, Petitioner pled guilty in the Second State Case, was fined $7,500.00 and placed on probation for fifteen (15) years. This plea was negotiated as part of the plea in the Federal Cases. Petitioner's probation from the First State Case was terminated May 20, 1988. Petitioner's probation from the Federal Cases was terminated on April 21, 1989 and September 11, 1989. Petitioner's civil rights were restored pursuant to Executive Orders of the Office of Executive Clemency dated May 19, 1989 and May 23, 1990. It is not clear from the record if the Executive Orders constitute a "full pardon" as suggested by counsel for Petitioner at the hearing in this matter. Petitioner down plays his role in the elaborate criminal scheme that led to his arrests and convictions. He suggests that all of the charges were related to the same scheme. Insufficient evidence was presented to reach any conclusions regarding the underlying criminal activity and/or Petitioner's exact involvement. Petitioner has been very active in community affairs since his convictions. He has apparently been a good family man and claims to have rehabilitated himself. Subsequent to his conviction, Petitioner and three other investors started a bail bond business. Petitioner claims he did not play an active role in the business. However, when the Department learned of his involvement, it required Petitioner to terminate any affiliation with the company. Petitioner's wife currently owns a bail bond company. Petitioner operates a "court services" business out of the same building where his wife's bail bond business operates. No evidence was presented of any improper involvement by Petitioner in his wife's business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a Limited Surety Agent. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 2nd day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4893 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Subordinate to findings of fact 4 through 10. Subordinate to findings of fact 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 1. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 2. Adopted in the Preliminary Statement. Rejected as vague and unnecessary. Subordinate to findings of fact 14 and 15. Subordinate to findings of fact 14 and 15. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Adopted in substance in findings of fact 1. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 2. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 2 through 10. Subordinate to findings of fact 14. Rejected as argumentative and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Dan Sumner Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Julio Gutierrez, Esq. 2225 Coral Way Miami, FL 33145 Allen R. Moayad, Esq. Florida Department of Insurance and Treasurer 612 Larson Building 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-15.008, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it enlarges, modifies, or contravenes Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and because it exceeds Respondent’s rulemaking authority; and Whether an interpretation of Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, constitutes an unpromulgated “rule.”
Findings Of Fact The first 12 findings of fact are facts contained in the Stipulation: Prior to June 2005, Petitioner, Juan Cuellar, Luis Garcia, and Gerardo Quintero, received what appeared to be a valid Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency. Upon receipt, Petitioners applied to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”), to obtain a registered contractor’s license using the Certificates of Competency. Based on the Certificates of Competency, the Department issued each Petitioner a registered contractor’s license bearing license numbers RG291103667 (Mr. Cuellar), RF11067267 (Mr. Garcia), and RF11067268 (Mr. Quintero). Petitioners each applied for a certificate of authority for their respective businesses, Cuellar Construction and Drywall (Mr. Cuellar), A.P.A. Plumbing Corp. (Mr. Garcia), and Q Plumbing Services Corp. (Mr. Quintero). Based on the fact the Certificates of Competency and the registered contractor’s licenses had been granted, the Department issued a certificate of authority to Cuellar Construction and Drywall, QB 41342; APA Plumbing Corp., QB 42763; and Q Plumbing Services Corp., QB 42825. At the time the Department issued Petitioners their registered contractor’s licenses and subsequent certificates of authority, it did so based solely on the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificates of Competency presented by Petitioners and the only information submitted to it. The parties stipulate that Petitioners were not entitled to their registered contractor’s licenses and certificates of authority because the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificates of Competency were not valid certificates. At the time of their applications to the Department, Petitioners were not qualified by any local jurisdiction or any other method necessary to receive a registered contractor’s license from the Department. The Department filed Administrative Complaints against Petitioners for the suspension or revocation of their licenses based on violations of Sections 489.129(1)(a), 489.129(1)(d), 489.129(1)(m), and 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Administrative Complaints”). (All references to Sections of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, as they relate to the Administrative Complaint are to the 2005 version. All other references to Florida Statutes are to the 2007 version). Each Petitioner challenged the Administrative Complaint filed against him in DOAH Case No. 07-2823PL (Mr. Cuellar), DOAH Case No. 07-2824PL (Mr. Garcia), and DOAH Case No. 07-2825PL (Mr. Quintero). On December 13, 2007, the undersigned, as the Administrative Law Judge to whom the cases had been assigned, issued a Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 07-2823PL (Mr. Cuellar), DOAH Case No. 07-2824PL (Mr. Garcia), and DOAH Case No. 07-2825PL (Mr. Quintero), determining that Petitioners violated Sections 489.129(1)(a), 489.129(1)(m), and 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred collectively as the “Recommended Orders”). The “Recommendation” in each of the Recommended Orders was, except for the name of the Respondent, the same as the following: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department finding that Luis Garcia violated the provisions of Sections 489.129(1)(a) and (m), and 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, III, and IV of the Administrative Complaint; dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint; requiring that Respondent pay the costs incurred by the Department in investigating and prosecuting this matter; giving Respondent 30 days to voluntarily relinquish his license; and revoking Respondent’s license if he fails to voluntarily relinquish it within 30 days of the final order. Based upon the foregoing, and the fact that no final decision has been entered by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”), Petitioners are facing the possible revocation or voluntary relinquishment of their licenses (an adverse impact whether they are “entitled” to the licenses or not), continued defense against the Administrative Complaints, and the payment of the cost incurred by the Department in prosecuting the Administrative Complaints. Should the Board revoke Petitioners’ licenses, they will also be precluded from re-applying for licensure for a period of five years pursuant to Section 489.129(9), Florida Statutes. Petitioners face the same consequence even if they voluntarily relinquish their license pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-12.017(3)(a). The adverse consequences of the possible final action on the Administrative Complaints which they face stem in part from a finding that they have violated Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides the following: The board may take any of the following actions against any certificateholder or registrant: place on probation or reprimand the licensee, revoke, suspend, or deny the issuance or renewal of the certificate, registration, or certificate of authority, require financial restitution to a consumer for financial harm directly related to a violation of a provision of this part, impose an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000 per violation, require continuing education, or assess costs associated with investigation and prosecution, if the contractor, financially responsible officer, or business organization for which the contractor is a primary qualifying agent, a financially responsible officer, or a secondary qualifying agent responsible under 489.1195 is found guilty of any of the following acts: Obtaining a certificate, registration, or certificate of authority by fraud or misrepresentation. . . . . Petitioners were found in the Recommended Orders to have violated Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, based upon an interpretation of that statutory provision adopted by the Board in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-15.008, an existing rule which Petitioners have challenged in this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as the “Challenged Existing Rule”), which provides: Material false statements or information submitted by an applicant for certification or registration, or submitted for renewal of certification or registration, or submitted for any reissuance of certification or registration, shall constitute a violation of Section 489.129(1)(a), F.S., and shall result in suspension or revocation of the certificate or registration. Essentially the same conclusions of law were reached in the Recommended Orders concerning the application of the Challenged Existing Rule (in paragraphs numbered “23” through “25” or “25” through 27” of the Recommended Orders): While Respondent has not been specifically charged with a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4- 15.008, the Department cited the Rule, which contains the following interpretation of what constitutes "[o]btaining a certificate, registration, or certificate of authority by . . . misrepresentation" in violation of Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in support of Count I of the Administrative Complaint: . . . . It is the Department’s position, that despite the fact that Respondent did not commit “fraud” in obtaining his license and a certificate of authority for [the business] and, in fact, did not knowingly submit false information to the Department in obtaining his license and the certificate of competency, “[m]aterial false statements or information” were nonetheless submitted by Respondent in support thereof. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4- 15.008, in defining what constitutes the act of "[o]btaining a certificate, registration, or certificate of authority by . . . misrepresentation” eliminates the need for the Department to prove any knowledge on the part of Respondent that he has made a material misrepresentation or any intent on the part of Respondent to rely upon a material misrepresentation. All that is required is proof that a material representation was made and that the representation was false. Petitioners have challenged the validity of the Challenged Existing Rule as being an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in Section 120.52(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes. Petitioners were also found in the Recommended Orders to have violated Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, based upon an interpretation of that statutory provision advanced by the Department during the prosecution of the Administrative Complaints. Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, provides that the following act constitutes grounds for which disciplinary action may be taken: (h) Attempting to obtain, obtaining, or renewing a license to practice a profession by bribery, by fraudulent misrepresentation, or through an error of the department or the board. (Emphasis added). The Department’s argument concerning the appropriate interpretation and application of Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, advanced in the prosecution of the Administrative Complaints, was advanced in paragraphs 24 through 26 of the Department’s Proposed Recommended Order: Obtaining a certificate or registration in error as a result of a misrepresentation made during the application process is conduct proscribed by Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Respondent was issued a registration by error of the Department. To be issued a registration by the Department, an applicant must submit along with an application for registration, a copy of the applicant’s validly issued competency card from a local government licensing board . . . . Respondent submitted a fake competency card that appeared to be validly issued by the Miami Compliance Office. . . . If the Department had known Respondent’s Competency Card was fake and Respondents’ answer to the attest statement was false, the Department would not have issued Respondent a registration. Thus, since the Department did not have truthful and accurate information, the registration issued to Respondent was in error. The Department’s interpretation was described and accepted in the Recommended Orders (in paragraphs numbered “29” through “31” or “31” through 33”, in the Recommended Orders), as follows: In support of this alleged violation, the Department has argued that Respondent obtained his license “through an error of the department . . . .” That “error” was the Department’s reliance upon an improperly issued Miami-Dade building business Certificate of Competency. The evidence proved clearly and convincingly that the Department issued the Respondent’s license in “error.” While it is true that Respondent did not intentionally cause or even know of the error, the Department reasonably takes the position that Respondent obtained his license nonetheless as a result of this error and that is all that Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The Department has proved clearly and convincingly that Respondent violated Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes [requires]. Although not specifically quoted in their Petition in this case, Petitioners have quoted what they believe is the unpromulgated rule of the Board which they are challenging in this case in paragraph 60 of Petitioner’s Proposed Final Order (hereinafter referred to as the “Challenged Language”): . . . . Essentially, the Board applies the following unadopted rule when applying Section 455.227(1)(h): Disciplinary action may be taken pursuant to Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, where an individual attempts to obtain a license through an error of the department even if the individual did not have knowledge of the error. As of the date of the final hearing of this matter, the Board had taken no action on the Recommended Orders.
Findings Of Fact The policy being challenged provides that: The hearing may be cancelled if a petitioner or intervenor fails to timely file its prehearing statement. This provision is routinely and customarily embodied in the notices issued by Respondent to parties before it in matters arising under Florida Statutes 447.307 and 447.503. The Respondent acknowledges that it did not adopt and promulgate the policy pursuant to Florida Statutes 120.54 or any other relevant provision of Chapter 120. On 12 July 1979 Petitioner filed a petition with Respondent in which Petitioner sought to represent certain employees employed by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. This petition was accepted by Respondent and on 30 July 1979 Respondent issued a Notice of Representation Hearing and a Prehearing Order. This Prehearing Order directed the parties to that proceeding to file with Respondent at least seven (7) days prior to the date of the hearing, and serve upon each other, a prehearing statement, identifying: Those fact disputes to be presented for resolution. Any and all legal questions to be presented for resolution. The legal authority to be relied upon by each party in presenting its arguments. Those witnesses to be called at the hearing, except rebuttal witnesses. The approximate time necessary to present the party's case. Any outstanding motions or procedural questions to be resolved. This Pre-Hearing Order then provided: The hearing may be cancelled if a petitioner or intervenor fails to timely file its prehearing statement. Petitioner did not file its prehearing statement within the prescribed 7-day period and on 21 August 1979 Petitioner was notified that the hearing scheduled to commence 23 August had been cancelled. On 22 August Petitioner was advised that a written order cancelling the 23 August hearing had been entered by the Commission. Thereafter Petitioner filed the petition here under consideration contending that the policy of Respondent to enter the cancellation-of-hearing notice in prehearing orders is a rule and invalid by reason of not being promulgated pursuant to Chapter 120. Respondent takes the position that the provision in the prehearing order is not a rule, but even if it could otherwise be considered to be a statement of general applicability, it is exempt from being so found by 447.207(6), Florida Statutes.
The Issue Whether Respondent's insurance license should be suspended or revoked because Respondent failed to disclose his criminal history on his insurance license application.
Findings Of Fact The Department has authority over licensing insurance agents pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. At times pertinent Mr. Arleo was a resident of Pensacola, Florida. He holds a 220 General Lines (Property and Casualty) Agent license issued on February 27, 2001. The license he received was based on a license application he filed with the Florida Department of Insurance on January 30, 2001. Question three of the licensure and screening questions portion of the January 30, 2001, application inquired, "Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a felony under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory, or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered?" Respondent answered this question in the negative. Question four of the licensure and screening questions portion of the application inquired, "Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a crime punishable by imprisonment of one (1) year or more under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory, or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered?" Respondent answered this question also in the negative. Following the aforementioned answers, Mr. Arleo signed his name beneath a statement that reads as follows: "Under penalty of perjury, I declare that all answers to the forgoing questions are true. I understand that misrepresentation of any fact required to be disclosed through this application is a violation of the Florida Insurance and Administrative Codes and may result in the denial of my application and or the revocation of my insurance license(s)." Notwithstanding his responses on the application, the evidence indicated that Mr. Arleo, on September 30, 1986, pleaded nolo contendere to, and was adjudicated guilty of, one count of theft of property worth $100 or more, but less than $20,000, and one count of burglary of a structure or conveyance, in the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Case No. 86-2796. Both of the listed offenses are felonies in the State of Florida. Mr. Arleo was adjudicated guilty of the offenses. However, on January 6, 1987, pursuant to an Order of Modification, adjudication was withheld.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department revoke Mr. Arleo's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 21st day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Arleo 704 North 80th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32506 Dana M. Wiehle, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), should pay Petitioners' attorney's fees and costs under section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2013),1/ the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, for initiating DOAH Case No. 12-2074.
Findings Of Fact On August 15, 2011, John and Kimberly Whitt (Whitts) filed a complaint of housing discrimination with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development alleging disability discrimination. FCHR conducted an investigation of the complaint. During the investigation, the investigator obtained statements and documents from both parties. The investigator's final investigative report (Determination, found within Respondent's Exhibit 1) detailed the investigation. The Determination dated December 21, 2011, concluded that "there [was] reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice occurred in violation of 804(f)(3)(A) of the Fair Housing Act, as amended." On March 2, 2012, FCHR issued a Legal Concurrence: Cause. The Legal Concurrence, drafted by FCHR's senior attorney, concluded that "there [was] reasonable cause to believe that Respondents [Association] discriminated against Complainants [the Whitts] in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(b) and (f)(2)(A) and section 760.23(2) and (8)(a), Florida Statutes." On March 5, 2012, FCHR's executive director executed the Notice of Determination (Cause), charging that there was reasonable cause to believe that the Association had engaged in a discriminatory housing practice. The Whitts elected to have FCHR represent them to seek relief in an administrative proceeding against the Association. On June 14, 2012, FCHR filed a Petition for Relief (Relief Petition) with DOAH seeking an order prohibiting the Association from engaging in any unlawful housing practices, and granting damages. The final hearing in the underlying case was held before the undersigned on December 12, 2012. The undersigned entered a Recommended Order on February 15, 2013, recommending the dismissal of the Relief Petition filed on behalf of the Whitts. On May 2, 2013, FCHR entered a Final Order dismissing the petition for relief filed on behalf of the Whitts. The Association was the prevailing party in the underlying case. The Association is a not-for-profit corporation that does not have any employees. The Association relies solely on volunteers to run its operations. It has never had a net worth of two million dollars or more. The Association was represented by counsel and co- counsel in both proceedings. In the Fees Petition, the Association alleged it had incurred $75,657.00 in legal fees. At hearing, the Association provided a document which reflected that $5,945.00 in fees should not have been attributed to the instant case, thus setting the amount the Association was seeking at $69,712.00. However, the Association acknowledged that section 57.111(4)(d) 2., Florida Statutes, limited the recovery of attorney's fees and costs to $50,000. FCHR is a "state agency" for the purposes of this proceeding. See §§ 120.57(1) and 57.111(3)(f), Fla. Stat.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether there is a disputed issue of material fact to be resolved by an administrative hearing.
Findings Of Fact On October 30, 1991, the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, issued an administrative complaint against Marilyn Mirus, the Petitioner herein. [Administrative complaint attached to motion to relinquish jurisdiction as Exhibit A, not disputed by Petitioner] The administrative complaint alleged three violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes: having been convicted or found guilty, regardless of adjudication, of a crime in violation of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes; having been found guilty of a course of conduct which shows dishonesty in violation of Section 475.25(1)(o), Florida Statutes; and having failed to inform the FREC of having pled nolo contendere or having been convicted of a felony within thirty days of such conduct in violation of Section 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes. [Exhibit A to the motion, not disputed by Petitioner] The allegations arose as a result of a criminal case in Broward County, Florida (Case no. 91-4894CF) wherein the Petitioner was charged with 31 counts of grand theft. In connection with those charges, the Petitioner pled nolo contendere and received a five year probation. Additionally, the court withheld adjudication of guilt for all counts. [Exhibit A to the motion, not disputed by Petitioner] As an additional condition of the sentence, Petitioner was required to make restitution in the amount of $69,834.50 to the alleged victim. [Exhibit A to the motion, not disputed by Petitioner] To resolve the charges of the administrative complaint, Petitioner entered into a stipulation attached to the motion to relinquish jurisdiction as Exhibit B. [Not disputed by Petitioner] The stipulation provided, in pertinent part: Respondent [Petitioner herein] neither admits nor denies all the allegations of essential fact contained in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent admits that the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint, if true, support a finding of a violation of the Real Estate Practice Act. There is currently pending in the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal an appeal (hereafter, "the Appeal") of the Order dated March 2, 1992 (hereafter, "the Order"), denying the Respondent's Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Plea in Case No. 91-4894, Division FM, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. STIPULATED DISPOSITION * * * 8. The Respondent's license shall be suspended beginning on the filing date of the Final Order approving this Stipulation. Thereafter, the suspension shall remain in effect during the pendency of the Appeal. Immediately upon the conclusion of the Appeal, the Respondent's license shall be automatically and permanently revoked unless the Order is reversed as the direct and immediate result of the Appeal. In the event of such reversal, the suspension shall be lifted. * * * 13. The Respondent expressly waives all notice requirements and right to seek judicial review of or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity and enforcement of this Stipulation and resulting Final Order of the Commission adopting and incorporating this Stipulation. [Emphasis added.] A final order accepting the stipulation entered into by the parties was adopted on May 19, 1992. [Attached to the motion to relinquish jurisdiction as Exhibit C, not disputed by Petitioner] The District Court of Appeal rendered a decision on April 21, 1993, which denied Petitioner's request to set aside the nolo contendere plea. Her requests for a rehearing on that decision were also denied. [Attached to the motion to relinquish jurisdiction as Exhibits D and E, not disputed by Petitioner] Petitioner maintains [Response to order issued by Hearing Officer on November 29, 1995] she should be able to challenge the denial of licensure because of the following disputed matters: Did Petitioner commit the crimes of which she was accused, and to which she plead nolo contendere? The Courts have held that when there is a plea of nolo contendere filed, it raises the presumption that a crime had been [sic] convicted. However, the Courts have held that the Licensee has the opportunity to rebut this presumption and assert his or her innocence of the underlying criminal charges together with what the reasons and circumstances were to show why the plea of nolo contendere was raised. See Ayala v. Department of Professional Regulations, 478 So.2d 116 (1st DCA Fla. 1985) and Son v. Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, 608 So.2d 75 (3rd DCA Fla. 1992). Was the Petitioner advised as to what the effect of her plea of nolo contendere would have as the same relates to the revocation of her license by the Department of Business and Professional Regulations? What was the effect of revocation of one's Real Estate License on April 7, 1992, at the time the stipulation was entered into by Petitioner? Has the effect of a revocation on a license changed from April 7, 1992 [to] today, if so, was her (sic) advise proper to enter into the Stipulation had she known what the law was today as it relates to the law of 1992? (It wasn't until October 1, 1992 that revocation became permanent. Prior to that date the laws of Florida were silent as to the term of a revocation. Section 455.227(4) F.S. 1992.) Was the adjudication withheld and was the file sealed as it relates to the criminal charges which were the subject of the original complaint against Marilyn Mirus? Is the Petitioner now held accountable for a crime that under the Florida law for all intents and purposes she did not commit nor was she even charged with such a crime? Petitioner has not challenged the authenticity or accuracy of the documents attached to the motion to relinquish jurisdiction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the request for hearing filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. 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 8th day of January, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver Assistant Attorney General Suite 107 South Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 William J. Haley, Esquire BRANNON, BROWN, HALEY, ROBINSON & BULLOCK, P.A. 10 North Columbia Street Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 Henry Solares Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner's Petition Seeking an Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of an Existing Rule (Petition) should be dismissed on the ground that the "challenged rule in this proceeding has been effectively repealed by the Florida Legislature by Section 626.854(11), Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 2008," as requested by Respondent.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner, by means of a three count Administrative Complaint, seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of subsections (2), (14), and of Section 475.624, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Beverly J. Merchant is currently a Florida state certified general appraiser, having been issued license number 000141 in accordance with Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a state certified general appraiser with a home address of 548 San Esteban Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33146. On January 14, 1994, Graimark/MIG Joint Venture and/or Crown Revenue, Inc., ordered Respondent to perform an appraisal of Sunrise Gardens, an adult congregate living facility (ACLF), in Miami, Florida. On March 31, 1994, the Respondent completed the appraisal of the property. The Respondent's appraisal report made several references to zoning "variances." The use of the term "variances" was reasonable under the circumstances of the subject appraisal. The Respondent's appraisal report stated that the highest and best use of the property was not as an adult congregate living facility (ACLF), but as some other institutional use. Under the circumstances of the subject appraisal, the Respondent provided adequate support to indicate that under the applicable zoning provisions "another institutional use" was probably permissible by variance. The Respondent's appraisal report included a cost approach that utilized a cost factor for "convalescent hospital space," even though the highest and best use was a use other than an ACLF. The use of that cost factor was reasonable under the circumstances of the subject appraisal.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1996, at 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 5th day of September, 1996.
The Issue Whether the agency's definition of the term "dry and measurable" as used in HRS bid documents is an unpromulgated rule which cannot be used as a basis for the agency's decision to reject the Petitioner's response to a bid proposal in Lease Number 590:1975. Whether the agency's requirement that a building be "dry and measurable" before a bid is accepted is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact In 1988, the Respondent HRS made the determination that it would not exercise its option on leased space owned by the Petitioner, Mr. Dyess, in Clewiston, Florida. Bid documents were prepared by the agency for its current office space needs. Bid proposals were solicited through newspaper advertisements and personal contact with owners, developers, and realtors within the Clewiston area. HRS included Mr. Dyess in its solicitations. He was sent a bid package which contained all of the bid documents for the bid referred to as Lease Number 590:1975. Page five of the document in the bid package known as HRS Facilities Services Form RO3-87, requires prospective bidders in Lease Number 590:1975 to contact Michael J. Sedgwick if they have any questions about the interpretation of the bid specifications. The document is silent on the questions of whether the written or oral representations made by Mr. Sedgwick are binding upon the agency, or whether the prospective bidder may contest the interpretation. A bidders' conference was held on April 26, 1988. During the conference, Mr. Sedgwick was questioned about the agency's interpretation of the term "dry and capable of being physically measured." Mr. Sedgwick contacted Mr. George Smith, who administers the leasing program for HRS in Tallahassee, and obtained the following definition: "Dry and measurable consists of four things: a slab, four corners, a roof, and a valid building permit if construction is in progress. The definition given by Mr. Smith was verbally communicated to the prospective bidders who attended the conference. This definition was verbally communicated to the Petitioner by Mr. Sedgwick on April 27, 1988. This clarification or interpretation of the bid specification was not reduced to writing and sent to all prospective bidders, as required by HRS Facilities Form RO3-87. The Petitioner timely submitted a bid in Lease Number 590:1975. This bid was rejected by HRS because the building was not "dry and measurable", as defined by the agency, on the date of the bid opening. The definition of the term "dry and measurable," as set forth above, has been developed by HRS for use within the agency. It is an unwritten policy which is universally applied by the agency in all of its reviews of bid proposals submitted by bidders for building leases. This unwritten policy has been in effect for seven and one half years. A definition of the term "dry and measurable" is not set forth in the bid documents. A prospective bidder is encouraged by the bid documents to seek interpretations of definitions within the documents from the project contact person. In this case, the contact person was Mr. Sedgwick. No other basis was given to Mr. Dyess for the agency's rejection of his bid in Lease Number 590:1975.
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 15A-9.006(2) (the Rule) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, pursuant to section 120.52(8)(b), (c), and (d), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact An IID is: A breath alcohol analyzer connected to a motor vehicle's ignition. In order to start the motor vehicle engine, a convicted person must blow a deep lung breath sample into the analyzer, which measures the breath alcohol concentration. If the breath alcohol concentration exceeds the fail point on the [IID], the motor vehicle engine will not start. Fla. Admin. Code R. 15A-9.003(13). Rule 15A-9.005, which is entitled, "Specifications," provides in part: All [IIDs] will be required to meet or exceed the standards set forth in the model specifications published in the Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 67, pages 11772- 11787 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Technical specifications for the operation and installation of the [IID] shall be described in the contract between [Respondent] and the manufacturer(s). The [IIDs] alcohol fail point shall be the level specified by Section 316.1937, Florida Statutes. Rule 15A-9.005(4), (5), and (6) establishes performance specifications for failed-point tests on initial startup and rolling retests and for an emergency bypass. Rule 15A-9.007, which is entitled, "Certification," provides: Each manufacturer under contract with [Respondent] will submit certification from an independent laboratory certifying that their [IID] has been tested in accordance with the model specifications published in the Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 67, pages 11772-11787 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the [IID] meets or exceeds those specifications, as well as criteria set forth in the contract with [Respondent]. The manufacturer shall be responsible for the continuing certification of [IID] service providers for use of an approved [IID]. Rule 15A-9.003(6) defines "certification" as the "testing and approval process required by [Respondent]." Rule 15A-9.003(16) defines "manufacturer" as the "actual producer of the [IID] who assembles the product and who may provide distribution and services." Rule 15A-9.003(21) defines "service provider" as the "retail supplier of the approved [IID]." Rule 15A-9.008 addresses the installation and removal of IIDs. Rule 15A-9.008(1) requires the "manufacturer or his [sic] representative" to install the IID in accordance with the guidelines of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Rule 15A-19.008(2) requires the "service provider" to develop and deliver an IID orientation to the convicted person. Rule 15A-9.009 addresses the servicing of IIDs. Rule 15A-9.009(2) requires the "service provider" to service the IID at the intervals stated in the contract with Respondent, calibrate the IID, retrieve data from the IID and timely submit the data to Respondent, and check for signs of tampering with the IID. Rule 15A-9.009(5) requires an IID to record the time and date of each breath test, the breath alcohol level of each test, and the time and date of any attempt to tamper with the IID. Rule 15A-9.009(6) requires the "manufacturer or service provider" to maintain a toll-free 24-hour emergency telephone support service and fix or replace any nonoperational IID within 48 hours of any call. Rule 15A-9.006, which is entitled, "Procedure for [IID] Approval," provides: All ignition interlock devices used pursuant to Sections 316.193 and 316.1937, Florida Statutes, must be approved by the department. The department shall contract with a manufacturer or manufacturers of ignition interlock devices for the services and commodities required for implementation of Sections 316.193, 316.1937, and 316.1938, Florida Statutes. The department shall maintain a list of approved ignition interlock devices. For the specific authority and laws implemented, Rule 15A-9.006 cites the same authority: sections 316.193, 316.1937, and 316.1938, Florida Statutes, and Federal Register Volume 57, Number 67, pages 11772-11787. Section 316.193 imposes penalties for DUI offenses. For second and third DUIs, convicted persons must have installed "an [IID] approved by [Respondent] in accordance with s. 316.1938." Section 316.1937 authorizes a court to order the installation of an IID under circumstances other than those described in section 316.193. Section 316.1937 provides that the court may prohibit the convicted person from operating a motor vehicle unless it is equipped with a "functioning [IID] certified by [Respondent] as provided in s. 316.1938 " The most relevant statute to this case is section 316.1938, which provides: [Respondent] shall certify or cause to be certified the accuracy and precision of the breath-testing component of the [IIDs] as required by s. 316.1937, and shall publish a list of approved devices, together with rules governing the accuracy and precision of the breath-testing component of such devices as adopted by rule in compliance with s. 316.1937. The cost of certification shall be borne by the manufacturers of [IIDs]. No model of [IID] shall be certified unless it meets the accuracy requirements specified by rule of [Respondent]. [Respondent] shall design and adopt by rule a warning label which shall be affixed to each [IID] upon installation. The label shall contain a warning that any person tampering, circumventing, or otherwise misusing the device is guilty of a violation of law and may be subject to civil liability. The document at Federal Register, Volume 57, Number 67, pages 11772, et seq., is a notice of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of technical specifications for IIDs (Model Specifications). Model Specifications applies to the manufacture, testing, calibration, data-reporting, and tamper-monitoring of IIDs. IIDs are manufactured by 16 corporations in the United States. Most, if not all, states operate IID programs for DUI offenders. Petitioner is a manufacturer and service provider of IIDs. Its sole manufacturing facility is in Cocoa, Florida, where Petitioner employs 30-35 persons. About 35,000 of Petitioner's IIDs are in use in 25 states, but not Florida. Intervenors, which are affiliated corporations, are manufacturers and service providers of IIDs. (References to Intervenors will include either Intervenor, as appropriate.) Pursuant to the contract described below, Intervenors have provided IID services to over 6000 convicted persons in Florida. Intervenor is a manufacturer and service provider of IIDs and presently operates in 46 states. Respondent has tentatively selected Intervenor as the sole vendor for the state of Florida in the 2013-14 procurement described below. In 2003, Respondent issued an invitation to negotiate for IIDs and IID services. Following a tentative award to Intervenors, a vendor challenged the award, arguing, at least in part, that Respondent lacked the authority to limit the number of IID service providers. In a settlement, Respondent awarded the south region of Florida to Intervenors and the north region of Florida to the bid protestor, which was #1 A Lifesafer, Inc. (Lifesafer). In 2004, Respondent entered into contracts for IIDs and IID services with these vendors. As extended, the 2004 contracts are set to expire on March 31, 2014. Respondent issued a Request for Proposals on July 3, 2013 (RFP). Providing for the replacement of the 2004 contracts described in the preceding paragraph, the RFP is to enable Respondent to select up to two vendors to "implement and operate an [IID] Program" in Florida. RFP Attachment C-19 provides that the term of the new contract(s) shall be five years with an "anticipated" renewal term of another five years.2/ The RFP calls for responses detailing, among other things, the IID hardware by name and model, which must comply with Model Specifications requirements; software to provide Respondent with online access to data downloads from IIDs; installation; service, inspection and monitoring; contractor staffing; training of staff; security and fraud prevention; and transition services for IID convicted persons being serviced by a party to the current IID contract. No one filed a specifications challenge to the RFP. Respondent received four responses; they were from Petitioner, Intervenors, Intervenor, and Lifesafer. Petitioner, Intervenors, and Lifesafer have challenged the tentative award to Intervenor, and these bid protests are pending at DOAH as DOAH Case Nos. 13-3924BID, 13-3925BID, and 13-4037BID. Respondent acknowledges that the procurement of IIDs and IID services by contract provides it more flexibility than if it specified requirements and performance standards by rule. Respondent concedes that other states allow IID service providers to operate IID programs with open competition. Respondent contends that procuring these IID services by statewide or regional contract ensures the delivery of services to rural areas that otherwise might be underserved, the delivery of uniform services throughout the state, the transmission from the IID service provider of compliance data that would be jeopardized if numerous IID service providers operated in the state, the existence of a process for the removal of an IID service provider that did not discharge its responsibilities in a timely and competent fashion, and the familiarity among Respondent's limited staff with the limited makes of IIDs in use in Florida.
