The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should pay Petitioner's attorney's fees and costs, and, if so, the amount.
Findings Of Fact Mayor Osborne was the Mayor of Beverly Beach, Florida, during 1999 through 2001. Dr. Milanick was a dentist who owned property immediately north of Beverly Beach, Florida. Dr. Milanick desired that the property be annexed into the town and initiated annexation proceedings before the City of Beverly Beach. Mayor Osborne did not facilitate the requested annexation during the time he served as Mayor of Beverly Beach. Dr. Milanick alleged to the Commission that Mayor Osborne opposed the annexation for personal, financial gain. In order to defend himself against these false allegations, Mayor Osborne retained Robert J. Riggio, Esquire, of the Riggio and Mitchell firm of Daytona Beach. The Original Award of Attorney's Fees An award of attorney's fees and costs in favor of Mayor Osborne was recommended in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 04-4110E. The Recommended Order stated that the amount of attorney's fees and costs for Mayor Osborne to defend against Dr. Milanick's allegations was $4,976.00. The Commission did not address the amount of attorney's fees and costs in its Final Order, but instead held that Mayor Osborne was not entitled to any award. Subsequently, the Fifth District Court of Appeal found the Commission's Final Order to be erroneous and remanded the matter ". . . for entry of an order making the awards recommended by the ALJ." A Mandate with regard to the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued April 11, 2007. The award recommended by the ALJ was, as stated above, $4,976.00, and that amount should be awarded by the Commission in a Final Order. Appellate Attorney's Fees Mayor Osborne filed a Motion for Petitioner's Appellate Attorneys' Fees and Costs before the Commission on May 10, 2007, noting the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in its Order dated February 16, 2007, stated that, "Appellant's Motion For Attorney's Fees, filed May 16, 2006, is granted and the above- styled cause is hereby remanded to the Commission . . . to determine and assess reasonable attorney's fees for this appeal." The Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed only attorney's fees. However, because Mayor Osborne's Motion sought both attorney's fees and costs, and because the Commission sent that Motion without special directions to the Division of Administrative Hearings for resolution, it is found that the Administrative Law Judge has jurisdiction to recommend awards of both attorney's fees and costs expended in prosecuting the appeal. David C. Robinson, an attorney in Daytona Beach, Florida, testified as an expert on attorney's fees in Volusia County, Florida. He has practiced law in Daytona Beach for 26 years and has testified in other attorney's fees cases. He is familiar with the fees charged by attorneys in the Daytona Beach and Volusia County area. He knows Attorney Robert Riggio, of Daytona Beach, Volusia County, and Attorney Martin Pedata, of Deland, a town that is also located in Volusia County. Mr. Robinson is found to be an expert on the subject of reasonable attorney's fees and costs in Volusia County. Mr. Robinson reviewed the bills and records relating to the fees charged to Mayor Osborne as to the appellate filings made by Mr. Riggio. In doing so he considered the Lodestar approach as described in Florida Patients Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Mr. Robinson opined that the services performed by Mr. Riggio in the appellate proceeding were provided in a manner that an attorney would be reasonably expected to provide. He reviewed the hourly rate charged by Mr. Riggio and stated that the reasonable rate should be $250.00 per hour, but that Mr. Riggio only charged $150.00 per hour. Mr. Riggio's law firm, Riggio and Mitchell, billed Mayor Osborne for 95 hours. A small portion of the work was accomplished by his partner Jerome D. Mitchell. Other work in the amount of 9.4 hours was billed for paralegal work at $40.00 per hour. The 95 hours of attorney work was billed at $150.00 per hour for a total of $14,250.00, and the paralegal work totaled $376.00. Costs amounted to $859.70. This resulted in a total of $14,626.00 for fees and $859.70 in costs. Mayor Osborne paid these charges in full. Mr. Robinson opined that the rate charged and hours expended by Mr. Riggio in the appellate proceeding were appropriate, as were the costs incurred. His testimony is found to be credible. As a result of Mr. Riggio's efforts, Mayor Osborne prevailed in the appeal. It is found that Dr. Milanick caused Mayor Osborne to pay attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $15,485.70. Proving Entitlement to Fees and Costs Subsequent to Dr. Milanick's allegations of misconduct before the Commission, and after an investigation, the Commission, in a Public Report dated September 8, 2004, dismissed the complaint on a finding of no probable cause in the case of Mayor Osborne. Pursuant to Subsection 112.317(8), Florida Statutes, Mayor Osborne was entitled to be reimbursed for the attorney's fees and costs associated with defending himself against Dr. Milanick's allegations. Because Dr. Milanick did not voluntarily remit the fees and costs expended, a hearing was required. A hearing was held in this matter in Daytona Beach, Florida, on May 11, 2005. The hearing in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 04-4110FE, lasted an entire day. Prior to the hearing, Mayor Osborne engaged the services of Attorney Martin Pedata in addition to those provided by Mr. Riggio. The agreement for representation by Mr. Pedata was reduced to writing on April 6, 2005. The agreement provided that Mayor Osborne would pay Mr. Pedata $250.00 per hour for his services and $75.00 per hour for paralegal services. Mr. Robinson reviewed the bills and records relating to the fees charged to Mayor Osborne for the preparation for and the conduct of the hearing of May 11, 2005. Mr. Robinson stated that the hourly rate of $250.00 was a reasonable one for the type of services provided by Mr. Pedata. He stated that the number of hours expended by Mr. Riggio and Mr. Pedata in connection with this hearing was reasonable. In analyzing this claim he used the Lodestar approach set forth in Rowe. Mr. Riggio and his partner Mr. Mitchell, expended 160.6 hours proving entitlement to fees and costs. Mr. Pedata, as lead attorney in the entitlement case, expended 107 hours. In addition, 54.2 paralegal hours were expended in proving the entitlement case. These hours include the time up to the filing of the appeal with the Fifth District Court of Appeal. These hours also include the time spent before the Commission. As a result of the efforts of Mr. Riggio and Mr. Pedata, Mayor Osborne prevailed in the entitlement hearing, which resulted in a Recommended Order in his favor. Mayor Osborne paid Mr. Riggio and Mr. Pedata a total of $50,840.00 for their services in proving entitlement to attorney's fees. He also paid $2,168.00 for paralegal services. Total costs amounted to $3,764.73, which Mayor Osborne paid. The total fees and costs to Mayor Osborne was $56,772.73. Mr. Robinson opined that the rate charged and hours expended by Mr. Riggio in the appellate proceeding were appropriate, as were the costs incurred. His testimony is found to be credible. It is found that Dr. Milanick was responsible for Mayor Osborne having to pay attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $56,772.73. Additional fees and costs Mr. Riggio presented Mayor Osborne with an invoice in the amount of $2,370.00 for the cost of the current proceeding. However, the Administrative Law Judge is without jurisdiction to address this claim in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics award attorney's fees and costs as follows: The original award of attorney's fees in the amount of $4,976.00. Attorney's fees and costs for appellate attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $15,485.70. Attorney's fees and costs for proving entitlement to fees and costs in the amount of $56,772.73. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2007, 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 14th day of November, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Kaye Starling Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Dr. Alexander J. Milanick 7250 A1A South St. Augustine Shores, Florida 32080 Phillip C. Claypool, Executive Director and General Counsel Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 James Peterson, Esquire Linzie Bogan, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B- 211.042(17)(b)1. constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant to Section 120.52(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2010), for the reasons stated in the Corrected and Amended Petition for Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of Administrative Rule.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing public adjusters. See §§ 626.022(1); 626.112(1)(a) and (3); 626.171(a), Fla. Stat. Mr. Jaramillo is currently employed as an estimator by FRI Public Adjusters, d/b/a Epic Group Public Adjusters, where he has worked off and on since 1995. He earns approximately $42,000.00 per year. A public adjuster apprentice working for this firm earns $150,000.00 to $200,000.00 per year, and a public adjuster could earn up to $500,000.00. Mr. Jaramillo pled guilty to, and was convicted in the federal District Court of the Southern District of Florida of, the felony of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. The conviction was entered on June 2, 1999, and Mr. Jaramillo was sentenced to 87 months in federal prison. Mr. Jaramillo's supervised release was terminated on November 25, 2009. On January 7, 2009, Mr. Jaramillo submitted to the Department an application for a new public adjuster apprentice license. He disclosed his criminal conviction in the application. On February 4, 2009, the Department sent Mr. Jaramillo a letter in which it advised him that it could not process his application because of certain deficiencies. Such a letter is known in the Department as a "deficiency letter." In the February 4, 2009, deficiency letter, the Department stated that, in order for his application to be considered complete, Mr. Jaramillo needed to provide the Department certified documents relating to his arrest and conviction, including a document showing that his civil rights had been restored, and with a copy of a $50,000.00 surety bond. In a letter to the Department dated April 8, 2009, Mr. Jaramillo enclosed, among other things, a copy of his Restoration of Civil Rights Application, dated March 31, 2009, and a copy of his application for a $50,000.00 surety bond. On or about June 17, 2009, Mr. Jaramillo provided the Department with a copy of a Public Adjuster’s Surety Bond in the amount of $50,000.00. In a second deficiency letter, dated June 24, 2009, the Department again requested that Mr. Jaramillo "provide evidence that [his civil rights] have been restored with a certified copy of [an] applicable law enforcement agency form attesting that civil rights have been restored." In a third and final deficiency letter, dated September 3, 2009, the Department again requested evidence that Mr. Jaramillo's civil rights had been restored. Mr. Jaramillo did not, and could not, provide such evidence because his civil rights had not yet been restored. Because Mr. Jaramillo did not provide documentation that his civil rights had been restored, the Department considered his application incomplete, and the application was closed on April 10, 2010, due to inactivity. The Department has not, as of the date of the final hearing, denied Mr. Jaramillo's application, although it prepared a draft denial letter dated January 14, 2010. The Department does not deny licensure applications that are incomplete because having a denial of such an application on an applicant's record could have an adverse impact on his or her chances of having a future application granted.
The Issue Whether the Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice was timely filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if the Petition was not timely filed.
Findings Of Fact On December 15, 1994, the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice, together with all other "pleadings and jurisdictional papers heretofore filed in this proceeding." The pleadings and papers transmitted by FCHR show that Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with FCHR on November 2, 1993, charging an unlawful employment practice by Respondent in connection with her lay off on October 29, 1992. On October 21, 1994, the FCHR concluded its investigation into the matter and issued its determination of No Cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred. Notice of that determination was mailed to Petitioner and Respondent on October 21, 1994 by regular mail. The Notice of Determination of No Cause served on Petitioner included the following statement: Complainant may request an administrative hearing by filing a PETITION FOR RELIEF within 35 days of the date of this NOTICE OF DETERMINATION: NO CAUSE. A Petition for Relief form is enclosed with Complainant's notice. It may be beneficial to seek legal counsel prior to filing the petition. If the Complainant fails to request an admini- strative hearing within 35 days of the date of this notice, the administrative claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, will be dismissed pursuant to Section 760.11, Florida Statutes (1992). Counsel for Petitioner, George T. Paulk II, received the Notice of Determination on behalf of Petitioner and prepared the petition to be "filed" with the FCHR. On November 25, 1994, 35 days after the Notice was mailed, Counsel for Petitioner transmitted to the FCHR her Petition for Relief, requesting an administrative hearing. The petition was submitted on the form provided by the FCHR. The petition was sent by regular U.S. Mail. The Petition for Relief was filed with the FCHR on November 29, 1994, 39 days after the Notice of Determination was issued. The FCHR transmitted the pleadings to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings. At the same time of the transmittal to Division of Administrative Hearings, FCHR issued a notice of the petition to Respondent advising it of the requirement to file an answer to the Petition for Relief. Respondent timely filed its answer with affirmative defenses, including the first affirmative defense that "Petitioner failed to file her petition within the time allowed by law." Respondent also filed a separate Notice to Dismiss raising the same issue. The Petition for Relief was deposited in the mail on Friday, November 25, 1994, the day after Thanksgiving which is an official state holiday. The next business day was Monday, November 28, 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Relief in Division of Administrative Hearings' Case No. 94-6976 and FCHR Case No. 94-7490, for failure to timely file the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 29th day of March, 1995.
The Issue Whether Rule 27G-1.06(2) and Rule 27G-1.08(4), Florida Administrative Code, or either of them, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated that Fairfield Communities, Inc. (Fairfield) has the requisite standing to challenge the rule provisions at issue and that Friends of Fort George, Inc., (Friends), Florida Wildlife Federation (FWF) and Florida Audubon Society (Audubon) have standing to participate as intervenors in support of these rule provisions. The Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) is the state agency that promulgated the challenged rules. The Fort George DRI case, No. 86-4127, began on August 1, 1986, when the Department of Community Affairs took an appeal of the development order entered by the City of Jacksonville on June 12, 1986 on grounds The MLUP does not accurately show or locate the DER jurisdictional line on the western side of the island from which buffer areas required by the ADO are to be measured . . . The MLUP does not properly or accurately depict or locate buffer areas surrounding the sloughs on the western side of Fort George Island. Exhibit B to the Prehearing Stipulation. Together with others, the Intervenors in the present case filed, in the Fort George DRI case, No. 86-4127, a motion to intervene as of right and request for consideration of additional issues on August 7, 1986. The intervenors in No. 86-4127 sought consideration of a wide range of issues in the Fort George DRI case, including questions concerning Blue Pond, the perimeter buffer zone, the interior habitat, weirs, berms, dikes and hydraulic connections, the adequacy of the water supply, the effect of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission's disapproval, the placement of various boundaries, and whether "Fairfield has failed to provide adequate protection of the microclimate and ecology of the Rollins Bird and Plant Sanctuary as mandated by the ADO . . ." Exhibit C to the Prehearing Stipulation. In filing their motion to intervene as of right and request for consideration of additional issues in No. 86-4127, Friends, Audubon and FWF expressly relied on Rule 27G-1.06, Florida Administrative Code. The portion under challenge here provides: (2) Motions to intervene filed with the Commission within 30 days of the filing of a notice of appeal may request the Commission to consider issues raised in the record below but not raised by the parties to the appeal. Rule 27G-1.06, Florida Administrative Code. In the order of transmittal, entered in No. 86-4127 on October 15, 1986, FLWAC denied consideration of every issue raised by the intervenors, except for the issue concerning the Rollins Bird and Plant Sanctuary, and added a related issue, also concerning the Rollins Bird and Plant Sanctuary, citing Rule 27G- 1.08, Florida Administrative Code. The portion of that rule under challenge here provides: Within 60 days of receipt of a notice of appeal, the Commission shall meet to review the issues raised by the parties. If the Commission determines that an issue of statewide or regional importance was not raised by the parties but is necessary to its disposition of the appeal, the Commission shall specify said issue and shall specify whether the issue shall be the subject of review based on the record made below, additional evidence or a combination thereof. New issues shall not be raised by the parties or other persons after this Commission meeting. At this meeting, the Commission may also dispose of procedural motions, including motions to intervene, which have been filed within 30 days of the filing of the notice of appeal. Rule 27G-1.08, Florida Administrative Code. Fairfield, as the applicant for the development order in No. 86- 4127, questions FLWAC's authority to promulgate rules that allow FLWAC to consider issues not raised by the party who took the DRI appeal, whether sua sponte or on motion of an intervenor.
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.
