The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to an exemption from being disqualified to work in a position of trust or responsibility?
Findings Of Fact From December 17, 1993 through mid 1995, Petitioner was married to Johnny Coleman. The Colemans had one daughter by that marriage. At the time of the hearing in this cause the child was four years old. Following the dissolution of the marriage Mr. Coleman gained principal custody of the child. At present Petitioner is allowed to see their daughter one night during the week and every other weekend. At present Petitioner is married to Steve Cox and has been since November 8, 1996. On April 17, 1995, Petitioner and Johnny Coleman, who were still married, were returning from an outing at Chehaw Park in Albany, Georgia, to their home in Calvary, Georgia. They had been arguing on the return trip. During the course of the argument, Mr. Coleman threw a can of baby formula, striking their child. This upset Petitioner. When the Coleman's arrived home, Mr. Coleman hit Petitioner with his hand somewhere on her body other than her face. Petitioner responded in kind by striking Mr. Coleman on the back with her hand. In the altercation Petitioner attacked Mr. Coleman with a pocket knife. She admitted this attack to Deputy Kent Harvey, employed by the Grady County Sheriff's Office. Upon Deputy Harvey's request Petitioner produced the pocket knife to be taken as evidence by the investigating deputy. The extent of injuries which Mr. Coleman suffered by virtue of the assault with the knife were scrapes and cuts on his left arm, as observed by Deputy Harvey. But Petitioner denied the assault upon her former husband with a knife when testifying at hearing. Petitioner was arrested for aggravated assault in association with what was described in the offense report by the Grady County Sheriff's Department as involving "family violence." When Deputy Harvey placed Petitioner under arrest he advised Petitioner that he intended to contact the agency in the State of Georgia, comparable to the Florida Department of Children and Family Services. When this statement was made by the Deputy to Petitioner, she replied, "Oh well, if they take her, they take her." This refers to custody of her daughter. In his report Deputy Harvey went on to state that Petitioner "seems to have some kind of mental problems and does not worry about the safety of her child." At the time of the incident Petitioner had been having difficulty with her husband and Petitioner's child had been living with Petitioner's mother, Mrs. Elaine Dutton. Mrs. Elaine Dutton explained at the hearing that Petitioner had been distraught about the death of Petitioner's father sometime before the incident of April 17, 1995. As a consequence of her assault on Mr. Coleman with a knife, Petitioner appeared in the State Court of Grady County, Georgia in the case of the State v. Stacy Coleman, Criminal Action 95-SR-059. On October 9, 1995, Petitioner knowingly pled guilty to the offense of simple assault and was sentenced to a period of twelve months but was allowed to serve that sentence on probation which Petitioner successfully completed. Petitioner's testimony that she pled guilty to the offense of "slapping" her former husband, Mr. Coleman, is not credited. At the time of the hearing Petitioner had been working as a cashier at a Hardee's Restaurant in a full-time position for a period of three to four months. When not working Petitioner stays at home and spends time with her mother, in addition to the time spent with her daughter that has been described. At hearing Petitioner explained her encounter on April 14, 1995, with her former husband, as she perceived it, as an incident that she now realizes "how stupid it was." Petitioner testified that she was relieved that she does not have to be around her former husband anymore, even to the extent of going to pick her daughter up for visitations. Given a further confrontation between Petitioner and her former husband that took place beyond the dissolution of their marriage, the court has ordered that Petitioner's mother be responsible for coordinating the transportation of Petitioner's daughter from the former husband to Petitioner during visits between the daughter and Petitioner. Mrs. Elaine Dutton describes Petitioner's present demeanor as one of maturity compared to the Petitioner's past demeanor. The mother describes Petitioner as being more responsible and more interested in having a "good life." The conduct of a "good life," as Petitioner's mother perceives it, is in the interest of, "so she gets her baby back." Petitioner's mother sees the Petitioner every day. Petitioner's mother described an arrangement in which Petitioner sees a psychologist once a week to help Petitioner. The circumstances involving the April 17, 1995, assault by Petitioner on her former husband were discovered through the conduct of Level 2 screening in accordance with Section 435.04, Florida Statutes. In particular, the decision to disqualify the Petitioner that has been described in the preliminary statement was brought about by screening which determined that Petitioner had been disqualified by virtue of an act constituting domestic violence. See Section 435.04(3)(b), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which denies Petitioner's request to be exempt from disqualification to work in a position of trust or responsibility. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 6th day of April, 1999.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds law enforcement certificate number 4519, issued February 3, 1972. On March 5, 1981, in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, the Respondent plead nolo contendere to the charge of aggravated assault. Pursuant to Section 784.021(2), Florida Statutes, aggravated assault is a felony.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that law enforcement certificate number 4519 held by the Respondent, Nathaniel Frederick, Jr., be revoked. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 18th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Tully, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 1601 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lacy Mahon, Jr., Esquire 350 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 G. Patrick Gallagher, Director Criminal Justice Standards Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert Dempsey, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Douglas Clayton Brown (Brown), applied to Respondent, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department) , for examination as a general lines agent. By letter of September 9, 1986, the Department advised Brown that his application was denied because he had pled guilty to certain felonies which involved moral turpitude, and that he had failed to divulge on his application for examination that he had been charged with such felonies. Brown filed a timely request for formal hearing to contest the Department's decision. On March 21, 1983, an Information was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, charging Brown with one count of burglary, Section 810.02(2) Florida Statutes; and two counts of aggravated assault, Section 784.021, Florida Statutes. Brown entered a plea of guilty to the charges. On December 12, 1983, the court entered a judgment wherein it adjudged Brown guilty of having committed one count of burglary with a deadly weapon and two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The court withheld the imposition of sentence, and placed Brown on 10 years probation. 1/ On August 20, 1984, Brown filed a motion in the criminal proceeding to terminate his probation and vacate the adjudication of guilt. By order of March 4, 1985, the court granted Brown's motion to vacate the adjudication of guilt, but continued his probation on the same terms and conditions as previously set. Subsequently, on March 13, 1985, the court entered a formal order that withheld adjudication of guilt and the imposition of sentence on the charges, and reimposed the term of probation previously established. By application dated March 4, 1985, filed with the Department on March 13, 1985, Brown sought examination for licensure as a general lines agent. Pertinent to this case the application requested and Brown responded: 12(a) Have you ever been charged with a felony? No Brown's application contained a material misrepresentation since he failed to disclose that he had been charged with a felony which involved moral turpitude. Brown's attempt to rationalize his nondisclosure was unpersuasive. According to Brown, he inquired of his attorney before completing his application and was advised that he could respond in the negative to the question set forth in paragraph 6, supra. Brown's assertion is not, however, supported by the proof and is inherently improbable and unworthy of belief. (See: Petitioner's exhibit 2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Petitioner, Douglas Clayton Brown, for examination as a general lines agent be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1987.
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated Chapter 475, F.S., by: Being convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. (Subsection 475.25 (1)(f), F.S.) Being confined in a federal prison; (Subsection 475.25(1)(n), F.S.) and Failing to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission in writing within 30 days of his conviction. (Subsection 475.25(1)(p), F.S.)
Findings Of Fact Daniel Reagan Lee is licensed as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida under License No. 0145478. He renewed his non-active salesman license on October 1, 1982, and two years later the license expired. It has not been renewed. (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) On July 1, 1985, in a trial by jury, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Mr. Lee was found guilty of three counts of a Grand Jury criminal indictment. He was found not guilty of one count of the same indictment. (Case No. 84-95-Cr-T-15)(Petitioner's Exhibit #3) The convictions were for importation of marijuana in violation of Title 21, U.S.C., Section 952 and Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2; conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of Title 21, U.S.C., Section 846; and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of Title 21, U.S.C., Section 841(a)(1) and (2). (corrected version of Petitioner's Exhibit #3, filed by leave of the Hearing Officer on October 23, 1986.) On July 26, 1985, Mr. Lee was sentenced by U.S. District Judge William J. Castagna to three years of imprisonment and two years of special parole. (Petitioner's Exhibit #3.) On March 25, 1986, the Florida Real Estate Commission received a letter from Daniel Lee's mother, advising them of her son's conviction and incarceration. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5a, transcript, p. 11.) Daniel Lee is now and has been since August 1986, serving his sentences at the Federal Correctional Institution in Lexington, Kentucky. (Respondent's Answer dated July 5, 1986, Petitioner's Exhibit #5a.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Daniel Lee guilty of violations of Subsections 475.25(1)(f), (n) and (p), F.S., and revoking his non- current inactive real estate salesman's license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 17th day of November, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Hartmann, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Daniel R. Lee, 04314-018 Antaeus Unit Post Office Box 2000 Lexington, Kentucky 40512 Daniel R. Lee c/o Elizabeth C. Lee 1025 Hillsboro Avenue Ft. Myers, Florida 33905 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on December 16, 1977 and issued Certificate Number 02-18913. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was employed as a deputy with the Broward County Sheriff's Office. In early December of 1983 the Respondent resided in a home with his ex- wife, Charlene Dukes, and his 14 year old stepdaughter, L.D. The Respondent and Ms. Dukes were divorced in July of 1983. The Respondent was required to transfer his interests in the marital home to Ms. Dukes as part of the divorce decree. A quit-claim deed was prepared shortly after the divorce, but the Respondent did not sign the deed because he continued to live in the marital home. One evening during early December of 1983 the Respondent entered L.D.'s room shortly after she had gone to bed. The Respondent climbed into L.D.'s bed, removed her underclothing, fondled her breasts and had sexual intercourse with her. The Respondent withdrew from his stepdaughter after only about a minute because he "couldn't go through with it." After telling L.D. that he was sorry about what happened, Respondent went into the Florida room, sat down at a desk and cried. L.D. said nothing during the entire incident. On approximately January 15, 1984, L.D. developed a vaginal infection and was taken to a gynecologist by Ms. Dukes. Ms. Dukes apparently discovered what had occurred during the visit to the doctor, because shortly thereafter she accused the Respondent of giving L.D. an infection. The Respondent did not admit his involvement to Ms. Dukes at that time but told her that he was sorry about the "whole ordeal." On January 26, 1984, the Respondent moved out of the home occupied by Ms. Dukes and L.D. When Respondent returned to the home and spoke with Ms. Dukes later that day, she demanded that he sign a quit-claim deed to the marital home. Ms. Dukes told Respondent that if he did not sign the papers that she was going to "have his job" and really "f " him up. The Respondent left without signing the papers. On January 27, 1984, L.D. and her mother reported the incident which occurred between L.D. and Respondent to the Sheriff's Office. On the same day, Detective Scarbough of the Broward County Sheriff's Office took a statement from L.D. reciting her version of the incident. L.D. stated that when the Respondent entered her bedroom, she was already asleep and awoke to find him on top of her. Later that evening, the Respondent gave a statement to Detective Scarbough wherein he admitted having sexual intercourse with L.D. but maintained that the act was consensual. The Respondent stated that he entered L.D.'s bedroom, spoke with her briefly and then had sexual intercourse with her. The Respondent said that he believed the act was Consensual because although L.D. didn't say yes: "... she didn't say no. There was no physical force involved." On January 30, 1984, the Respondent executed a quit-claim deed to Charlene Dukes with regard to the marital home. On January 31, 1984, Detective Scarbough served an arrest warrant on Respondent for the offense of sexual battery. Later on the same day Detective Scarbough spoke to Ms. Dukes. She complained that the details of Respondent's arrest had been broadcast on the local television news and expressed concern that the incident could cause embarrassment to her daughter. On February 1, 1984, Ms. Dukes told Detective Scarbough that she did not wish to pursue further prosecution of Respondent because of possible embarrassment to her daughter. On February 2, 1984, Detective Scarbough viewed a video tape of the news broadcast concerning the incident and called Ms. Dukes to assure her that her daughter's name had not been mentioned. Ms. Dukes then told Detective Scarbough that her daughter had recanted the accusation of sexual battery against Respondent. On February 7, 1984, L.D. gave a sworn statement to Detective Scarbough recanting her earlier allegations of sexual battery committed on her by the Respondent. L.D. stated that her earlier statement was "a lie." L.D. went on to explain that she had fabricated the allegation of a rape by her stepfather to prevent herself and her boyfriend from getting into trouble for dating against her mother's wishes. L.D. stated that she had contracted a venereal infection from her boyfriend whom her mother had strictly forbidden her to see. L.D. explained that she made up the story about Respondent to conceal the fact that she had been with her boyfriend. At the formal hearing, Respondent recanted his earlier admission given to Detective Scarbough. The Respondent explained that he falsely admitted to having sexual intercourse with his stepdaughter in order to protect L.D. from getting into trouble with Ms. Dukes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of November, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 7th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-2971 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Matters not contained therein are rejected as a recitation of testimony. Partially adopted Finding of Fact 5. Matters not contained herein are rejected as a recitation of testimony. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Finding of Facts 4 and 7. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Procedural Background Section. Covered in Procedural Background Section. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate and/or argument. Rejected as subordinate and/or argument. Rejected as subordinate and/or argument. Rejected as subordinate and/or argument. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire 1311 Southeast Second Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Rod Caswell Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Janet E. Ferris, Esquire General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certificate as an educator in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Commissioner of Education, was the state official in Florida responsible for the certification of educators and the regulation of the teaching profession in Florida. Respondent was certified as an educator in this state by the Petitioner, and held Florida Educator's Certificate 554449, valid through June 30, 1995, and covering the area of elementary education. Crystal S. Bush, Respondent's wife, met the Respondent when he was her cross-country coach while she was a sixth grade student at Suncoast Middle School. He became her teacher for English and social studies the following year when she was a seventh grade student at that school. She married him in February 1993, when she turned sixteen years old, while she was in the ninth grade. Respondent and his wife had one child, a boy, in February 1994, and separated in the Spring of 1995 because, she claimed, he became very controlling and verbally abusive. Because she did not have any money, and needed funds on which to live, Mrs. Bush withdrew $400.00 from their joint bank account. With their child, she moved back with her parents, occupying the garage apartment on their property about three and a half miles from where she had lived with Respondent. Mrs. Bush insists that Respondent knew she was leaving, but she did not know if he knew where she was going. She believes he did, however, because he knew she had no place else to go. A day or two after the separation, Respondent came to the apartment where Mrs. Bush and the baby were staying. They were taking a nap at the time. He claims he went to the parents’ house first and was told his wife was in the garage apartment and he should "go on in,” which he did. Respondent entered the apartment and went into the bedroom where Mrs. Bush and the baby were sleeping. According to Mrs. Bush, she was awakened by Respondent's yelling that he wanted his mail-box key and the money she had taken from their joint account. Mrs. Bush contends that though she had her own checking account before this, he opened up the joint account with her as a gift, and it was into this joint account that their sizable tax refund check had been deposited. She claims that they had agreed she was to get half of the refund, but Respondent later reneged on that agreement. Mrs. Bush gave him the mail-box key, but asked him to let her keep a part of the refund. She had stopped working as a club dancer and had no money. Respondent refused. Because of his attitude, she declined to return any of the money she had withdrawn. Because Respondent's yelling was scaring the baby, and Mrs. Bush tried to terminate the conversation, but Respondent would neither be quiet nor let her leave. She tried to ignore him, but, she contends, he picked up an incense box and threatened to kill her with it. Respondent also demanded that she give him the baby. He claims he had had care of the child 5-to-6 nights a week while his wife was working, but when she left, she refused to let him have the child any more. Mrs. Bush contends that when she refused to give up the child, Respondent pushed her to the floor, pulled her hair and hit her on the lip, splitting it. She cannot say whether he hit her with his open hand or his fist, but there is no doubt her lip was split. The injury was observed by Mr. Gregory, a domestic violence investigator with the county, when he interviewed her a few days later. Mrs. Bush also claims that during the course of the fight over the baby, Respondent threatened to break the baby's arm if he had to in order to get the child. Respondent denies this, and there is no evidence that any such injury was inflicted on the child. However, that Mrs. Bush finally gave up the child and the Respondent left the premises. Immediately after Respondent's departure, Mrs. Bush called the police who responded within fifteen minutes. When they arrived, she told them that Respondent had hit her and the child, and she repeated that allegation to the court when she subsequently sought an injunction against him. She also advised an investigator for the Department of Education that Respondent had hit her and had returned the child to her scratched and bruised. This report was also made to child protection investigators with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services some weeks later. No evidence was introduced to confirm her allegations of injury to the child, however. Later the day of the incident, Respondent was arrested on a charge of domestic violence, and the child was returned to Mrs. Bush. While the police were at her house, they suggested she sign a document seeking a restraining order against Respondent, which she did. Respondent and his wife talked by telephone several times after his arrest. As a result of these discussions, she put up the funds required to get him released from jail on bond the following morning. Several days after the incident, because she was experiencing pain in the neck, Mrs. Bush saw her doctor. At that visit, no medical attention was required for the injury to her lip. She did not feel it necessary to take the child to the doctor because though, she claims, he had been struck by the Respondent, he did not seem to be injured. In the interim between Respondent's arrest and his subsequent court appearance at which his plea of nolo contendere was entered, Mrs. Bush obtained an order granting a temporary injunction against the Respondent to prevent him from committing any violence against her. This was followed by an amended order which made the injunction permanent. Mr. Gregory, the court's domestic violence and family law investigator, received the same story from Mrs. Bush that she had told to the police, and conducted his own investigation. Gregory claims to have spoken with Respondent during several mediation meetings. On each interview, save one, Respondent had an attorney present. Mr. Gregory contends that Respondent admitted there had been a physical altercation between him and his wife, but that the hitting of Mrs. Bush was an accident which occurred while he was trying to take the child from her arms. Gregory also states that Respondent admitted striking Mrs. Bush in the mouth, pushing her to the floor, pulling her hair, and threatening to take the child away from her. At hearing, Respondent again claimed he was acting in self-defense to his wife’s striking out at him and grabbing him by the genitals. In light of the fact that this defense was not raised to anyone prior to hearing, however, it is rejected. Based on his investigation into the incident, Mr. Gregory recommended that the State Attorney proceed with prosecution of the criminal charges which had been filed against the Respondent. Thereafter, on February 27, 1996, Respondent pleaded nolo contendere in circuit court to a charge of domestic violence. The court withheld adjudication but sentenced the Respondent to one-year probation, a fine of $150.00, required him to attend counseling, and directed him to refrain from contact with Mrs. Bush. In the expert opinion of Marilyn L. Strong, the Director of Personnel Services for the Lee County Schools and an educator with almost a quarter century of administrative and supervisory background, the misconduct attributed to Respondent constitutes both gross immorality and moral turpitude as they are defined in the Florida Statutes and the rules of the Department of Education. However, Ms. Strong’s opinion is not supported by the facts in this case, and it is found that Respondent’s single striking of his wife does not here constitute either gross immorality or moral turpitude.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commissioner of Education enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 14 South Ninth Street DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Lawrence Bush, pro se 4840 East Riverside Drive Fort Myers, Florida 33905 Kathleen M. Richards Executive Director Education Practices Committee 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Program Director Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Pl-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a community association manager by examination should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Fred Storch (Storch), filed an application with Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Community Association Managers (Department) on April 14, 1998, for licensure as a community association manager by examination. The application contained the following question: Have you now or have you ever been licensed or certified in any profession such as real estate, insurance, securities, etc., in Florida or in any other state, province, district, territory, possession or nation? If the applicant answered "yes" to the question, the application required the applicant to list the name of the profession, the license number, the date the license was first obtained, and the current status of the license. Storch answered "yes" to the question and indicated that he currently had a real estate salesperson's license in Florida and a real estate broker's license in New York. At the final hearing, Storch testified that he had a current mortgage broker's license and a real estate salesperson's license from New York and that he was currently licensed in Florida as a real estate salesperson and had been licensed in Florida as a mortgage broker. The application contained the following question: Has any license, certification, registration, or permit to practice any regulated profession been revoked, annulled or suspended in this or any other state, province, district, territory, possession or nation or is any proceeding now pending? This includes any disciplinary action taken against you such as a reprimand, probation, etc. Storch answered "no" to the question. The following question was also on the application: Have you ever relinquished or withdrawn from any license, certification, registration or permit to practice any regulated profession in this or any other state, province, district, territory, possession or nation or is any proceeding now pending? Storch answered "yes" to the question and provided the following explanation. I relinquished my license as a Mortgage Broker because I was unable to submit to an audit on a timely basis due to my son's poor health. My son is afflicted with epilepsy, which cannot be controlled with medication. He is having surgery on April 21, 1998 at George Washington University Hospital, Washington, D.C., to eliminate the cause of his seizures. I have enclosed the documentation from the Comptroller's Office and my son's doctor. In 1994, Storch and the Florida Department of Banking and Finance (DBF) entered into a Stipulation and Consent Order which was incorporated in a Final Order, dated January 13, 1995. Storch and DBF agreed that Storch's mortgage broker's license was suspended until a location and occupational license was obtained. Storch agreed to pay an administrative fine of $500 and agreed to cease and desist all violations of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. On February 12, 1997, DBF entered a Default Final Order and Notice of Rights, finding that Storch had acted as a mortgage broker without a current active license and that Storch had failed to provide his books and records for inspection as requested by DBF. Storch was ordered to cease and desist from violating Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, and all registrations and licenses previously issued to Storch, which included his mortgage broker's license, were revoked. By letter dated February 13, 1997, Storch advised DBF that he would be willing to turn in his license if DBF would not pursue any action against him then or in the future. On September 18, 1997, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, filed an Administrative Complaint against Storch alleging that Storch had violated Section 475.25(1)(s), Florida Statutes, because his residential mortgage broker's license had been revoked. On December 17, 1997, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, entered a Final Order, disciplining Storch's real estate salesperson's license. The Final Order stated that Storch was guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(s), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint and required Storch to pay an administrative fine of $100.00 and investigative costs of $313.60.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Fred Storch's application for licensure as a community association manager. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 22nd day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward Broyles, Executive Director Regulatory Council of Community Association of Managers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Thomas G. Thomas, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Storch 7782 Edinburough Lane Delray Beach, Florida 33446
Findings Of Fact Respondent took the examination for real estate salesman and was licensed December 16, 1982. His license was last renewed in December 1984 (exhibit 1 and Price testimony). At all times relevant hereto he was licensed by Respondent as a real estate salesman. By judgment dated-May 10, 1985, Buford D. Price was convicted of murder in the third degree, possession of cocaine, and possession of narcotic paraphernalia. Respondent was sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment on the murder charge, imposition of sentence was withheld on the narcotic charges and he was placed on probation for five (5) years to run consecutively to the imprisonment. Respondent expects to be released from prison by June 1988 although his current release date is June 8, 1989. For the past three months he has been working outside prison on the highways and in communities. Prior to his arrest and incarceration Respondent worked principally for property management companies and Pulte Homes. As owners of the property leased or sold their salesmen do not need a real estate license to sell or lease such property only.
