The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Jerry Green, acted as a yacht and ship broker as defined in Section 326.022(1), Florida Statutes, without being licensed by Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, as alleged in a Notice to Show Cause entered September 3, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (hereinafter referred to as the “Division”), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Division is charged with the responsibility for carrying out the provisions of Chapter 326, Florida Statutes, the Florida Yacht and Ship Brokers’ Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Respondent is Jerry Green. Mr. Green is not licensed by the Division pursuant to the Act as a yacht and ship broker. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Green was employed at Rick’s on the River (hereinafter referred to as “Rick’s”), in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Green was compensated for his employment at Rick’s by being provided room and board. During 1996 the Division received an anonymous complaint including a copy of an advertisement from a October 13, 1995 edition of a publication known as the “West Florida Boat Trader”. The advertisement indicated it was from Rick’s and included several photographs of boats purportedly for sale at Rick’s. Among other boats listed on the advertisement was the following: 1975 42’POST Full Tuna Tower, Twin Turbo Charge Detroit 671 Out of Town Owner DESPARATE to Sell, $84,500 A similar advertisement was placed in the November 3, 1995 edition of the “West Florida Boat Trader”. Although Mr. Green denied at hearing that he had placed the advertisement, he admitted in his Response to Notice to Show Cause that “between October of 1995 and May of 1996 he advertised a 1975 42’ Post named the ‘Dunn Deal’ . . . .” He also admitted in the Response “that he advertised the 42’ Post at the request of the owner, Richard Dame, who is a personal friend, for the purpose of testing whether there was a market for such a boat and to determine the approximate value of the boat.” It is, therefore, concluded that Mr. Green was responsible for the advertisement. On May 31, 1996, James Courchaine, an investigator for the Division, went to Rick’s. After arriving at Rick’s, Mr. Courchaine met Mr. Green. Mr. Green identified himself as the “dockmaster”. Mr. Courchaine asked about the 42-foot Post and Mr. Green told him that he knew all about the Post and could talk to Mr. Courchaine about it. Mr. Green told Mr. Courchaine the Post belonged to a friend and that he, Mr. Green, could sell it. Mr. Green also indicated the Post was in Key West and that he wasn’t sure if the owner would be bringing it back. Mr. Green also told Mr. Courchaine that the owner was originally asking $84,500.00 for the Post but, that since it had been on the market so long without any interest, he might take between $79,000.00 and $81,000.00 for it. Mr. Courchaine asked Mr. Green whether the amount Mr. Green quoted included Mr. Green’s commission. Mr. Green told Mr. Courchaine that “he would be taken care of.” Mr. Green wasn’t employed as the dock master at Rick’s. Mr. Green lived on the premises and looked after the property, including boats located there. In return, he received room and meals. At the time of the formal hearing Mr. Green testified that he was not employed and that his only source of funds is Social Security. He also testified, however, that he still lives at Rick’s. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Green has any source of funds other than Social Security. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Green offered to sell any vessel regulated under the Act except as described in this Recommended Order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes ordering Jerry Green to cease and desists from acting as an unlicensed broker in violation of the Act and that he pay a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 within thirty days of the date this matter becomes final.DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Suzanne V. Estrella Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Paul T. Marks, Esquire Post Office Box 4048 Tampa, Florida 33677 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business & Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert H. Elizey, Jr., Director Department of Business & Professional Regulation Florida Land Sales, Condominium & Mobil Homes 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact In June 1986, Petitioner purchased a 55 Ft. Ocean Yacht Super Sport from South Jersey Yacht Sales for $577,055 and took delivery in New Jersey. Although Petitioner is not a dealer, a dealer's license was used to purchase this vessel and Petitioner paid no sales tax to New Jersey on this sale. The boat was named "SEABURY", entered Florida waters in November 1986 and remained for 105 days, proceeded to Bahama Islands February 22, 1987 and returned to Florida April 7, 1987, and remained in Florida for 31 additional days before returning north. From bridge logs maintained by bridge tenders over the Intracoastal Waterway and docking receipts at Bahia Mar and other berthing spaces it was concluded the vessel was used in Florida. Respondent established a prima facie case that the M/V SEABURY entered Florida waters within 6 months of its purchase in New Jersey and was used in this state. No evidence to rebut this prima facie case was presented by Petitioner.
The Issue The issue presented is whether HMY New Yacht Sales, Inc., is liable for the payment of use tax, together with penalty and interest, on a yacht which it purchased for resale and for use as a demonstrator.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner HMY New Yacht Sales, Inc., is a Florida cor-poration located in Dania, Florida. It is a franchise and an authorized dealer for several lines of new boats. Petitioner is registered as a dealer for Florida sales tax purposes and has a dealer decal. Petitioner became an authorized dealer for Davis Yachts, a manufacturer located in North Carolina, in 1985. In January 1990 Petitioner purchased a boat from Davis Yachts to be used for demonstration and promotional activities and for resale. The boat was a 47-foot fiberglass sports fisherman named "The Bandit." When the boat was delivered, Petitioner outfitted The Bandit with extensive electronics and fishing equipment, including a tuna tower, outriggers, a fighting chair, rocket launchers, and live wells. It took approximately two months (until the second week in March 1990) to outfit the boat to have it ready for its intended sports fishing purpose. The type of equipping done by Petitioner is typical of that done on every such boat when it is sold since such a boat cannot be used for its intended purpose without the electronics and other equipment. Petitioner, however, wanted the boat to be "ready to go," when Petitioner sold it rather than having the purchaser wait for the outfitting to be done before the purchaser could use the boat. Petitioner paid the factory approximately $520,000 for the boat. Petitioner's payments to local vendors for services and materials used in outfitting the boat brought Petitioner's cost to approximately $590,000. The Bandit was never documented or registered in the state of Florida. It was only operated under Petitioner's dealer registration and decal, as provided in Section 327.13, Florida Statutes. The boat was purchased with the intent to sell it, and it was always for sale from the first moment it was outfitted and ready to be shown. It was never Petitioner's intent to keep the boat. As soon as it was outfitted, the boat had on board, at all times, a file containing a complete inventory of the boat's equipment, including custom and standard options, and a color brochure with pictures of the boat to be given to potential customers. While Petitioner was attempting to sell the boat, it was also used by Petitioner as a sales promotional tool. Petitioner took the boat to various fishing tournaments and exhibited it at boat shows and open houses. Davis Yachts bore some of the expense of those activities since promoting the boat inured to the benefit of Davis as well as of Petitioner. When the boat was being used for promotional or sales activities, it would always have on board employees or salespersons of Petitioner or of Davis Yachts and customers. On occasion, family members accompanied Petitioner's salespersons on board the boat. The manner in which The Bandit was marketed--taking it to fishing tournaments and boat shows and having open house at various events--is typically the way new sport fisherman yachts are sold throughout the industry. The boat was shown to prospective customers at least once a month. Approximately 50 customers were taken on sea trials. The boat was never loaned or rented to anyone. It was used only under the direction of Petitioner or Davis Yachts. The only compensation received by Petitioner relating to the boat resulted from the occasions when Davis Yachts split some of the expenses for the promotional or sales activities. The boat did not sell as quickly as Petitioner hoped. In October 1990 Petitioner placed the boat on the Buck System, a multiple listing service which distributes information to other yacht brokers concerning boats which are for sale. Generally, boat dealers would not put new inventory in the multiple listing system. Petitioner did so in this instance, however, in order to quickly sell the boat because the government had announced a luxury tax proposal which Petitioner feared would result in a downturn in the boat market. Even with all the effort put into attempting to sell the boat, it did not sell until November 1991. In July 1992 the Department began a routine sales tax audit of Petitioner. The audit was completed in September 1992 and covered the period of time from March 1987 through February 1992. The Department auditor determined that Petitioner owed use tax on The Bandit because in November 1990, on the advice of its accountant, Petitioner took the boat out of its inventory account and placed it in its fixed assets account in order to take depreciation for federal income tax purposes. Based solely on Petitioner's treatment of the vessel on its corporate books, the auditor determined that Petitioner converted The Bandit to its own use and was, therefore, responsible for payment of the statutory use tax rate of 6 percent of the value of the boat as reflected on Petitioner's records. Based upon the audit, the Department issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment, assessing Petitioner $33,921.94 in tax, $8,480.50 in penalty, and $7,085.52 in interest through September 16, 1992. Interest continues to accrue at $11.15 per day.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining that Petitioner is not liable for payment of use tax, penalty, or interest on The Bandit, and withdrawing the assessment which is the subject of this proceeding. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-12, 15, and 19 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 13, 14, and 18 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 16, 17, and 20 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 5, and 10 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 7 has been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Pennington & Haben, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Mark T. Aliff, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Tax Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact 5. The Division hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 14 as set forth in the Recommended Order.
Conclusions The Director of the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes (Division) enters this Final Order in the above referenced matter.
Appeal For This Case Ye ee eee THIS FINAL ORDER CONSTITUTES FINAL AGENCY ACTION AND MAY BE THIS FINAL ORDER UCONN YI ES TINA eee e———EESeaeeweorose APPEALED BY_ANY PARTY SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER APPEALED BY_ANY FARK] Y olUpolANyA.T oaoes--- Oo ——o PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND RULE 9.1 10, FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 9.110(d), FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, BOTH WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT _OF APPEAL, ACCOMPANIED BY THE APPROPRIATE FILING FEE, AND WITH THE AGENCY CLERK, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS _ AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, AT 1940 NORTH MONROE STREET, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE RENDITION OF THIS ORDER. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Page 3 of 4 Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes v. Fernando Fernandez DOAH Case No. 04-0771; BPR 2003089755 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Certified Mail to Fernando Fernandez, 15397 Southwest 168" Terrace, Miami, Florida 33187, this day of , 2004. Robin McDaniel, Docket Clerk Copies furnished to: Division of Administrative Hearings Janis Sue Richardson, Office of the General Counsel Robert Badger, Section Head, Yacht & Ship Regulation Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Page 4 of 4 Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes v. Fernando Fernandez DOAH Case No. 04-0771; BPR 2003089755
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether petitioners are entitled to either an agricultural classification of their land under F.S. 193.461 or a reduced assessment of their land under F.S. 193.011 for purposes of ad valorem taxation. More specifically, the issue is whether the change made by the Palm Beach County Board of Tax Adjustment in the property appraiser's assessment of petitioners' property lacked legal sufficiency or whether the evidence presented was insufficient to overcome the appraiser's presumption of correctness. In accordance with F.S. 193.122(1) and the case of Hollywood Jaycees v. State Department of Revenue, 306 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1975), the evidence and argument adduced at the hearing was limited to the scope of the record established before the Palm Beach County Board of Tax Adjustment (BTA).
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence introduced at the hearing and the oral argument presented by the parties, the following pertinent facts are found: Petitioners are the owners of approximately 300 acres of real property located in Palm Beach County. As of January 1, 1974, the subject property was used for agricultural purposes and had been so used by petitioners or their predecessor for some fifty years prior to 1974. Prior to 1974, the subject land had been assessed at $600.00 per acre and had not been reassessed in approximately six years. Prior to and including 1974, petitioners did not file an application for agricultural classification of their land. For the year 1974, the property appraiser assessed the subject property at $3,000.00 per acre under the provisions of F.S. 193.011. Petitioners appealed to the Palm Beach County BTA which found that the appraiser's presumption of correctness had been overcome and that petitioners should be allowed to retain the prior years' assessment on the property ($600.00 per acre). In support of this decision, the BTA found that it had the authority to extend the time for filing an application for agricultural classification and that it had the authority "in light of AGO 71-81 dated April 28, 1971, to grant the continuance of a prior years assessment where the facts and circumstances surrounding the subject property have not changed and are not expected to change." The BTA notified the respondent of the change in assessment pursuant to F.S. 193.122. The respondent's staff recommended that the BTA's action in this case be invalidated on the ground that the evidence presented to the BTA was insufficient to overcome the property appraiser's presumption of correctness. The petitioners requested a hearing to review the staff recommendation, the respondent's Executive Director requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the hearing and the undersigned was assigned as the Hearing Officer. Due to the fact that there was no court reporter present at the hearing, the parties stipulated that their respective positions would be reduced to writing by the submission of written memoranda. To date, no such memorandum has been received from petitioners.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the action of the Palm Beach County Board of Tax Adjustment in granting an agricultural classification and in reducing the assessment of petitioners' property for the tax year 1974 be invalidated. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1976.
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether petitioner is entitled to either an agricultural classification of its land under F.S. 193.461 or a reduced assessment of its land under F.S. 193.011 for purposes of ad valorem taxation. More specifically, the issue is whether the change made by the Palm Beach County Board of Tax Adjustment in the property appraiser's assessment of petitioner's property lacked legal sufficiency or whether the evidence presented was insufficient to overcome the appraiser's presumption of correctness. In accordance with F.S. 193.122(1) and the case of Hollywood Jaycees v. State Department of Revenue, 306 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1975), the evidence and argument adduced at the hearing was limited to the scope of the record established before the Palm Beach County Board of Tax Adjustment (BTA).
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence introduced at the hearing and the oral argument presented by the parties, the following pertinent facts are found: Petitioner is the owner of approximately 310 acres of real property located in Palm Beach County. As of January 1, 1974, the subject property was used for agricultural purposes and had been so used by petitioner or its predecessor for some nineteen years prior to 1974. Prior to 1974, the subject land had been assessed at $600.00 per acre and had not been reassessed in approximately six years. Prior to and including 1974, petitioner did not file an application for agricultural classification of its land. For the year 1974, the property appraiser assessed the subject property at $4,000.00 per acre under the provisions of F.S. 193.011. Petitioner appealed to the Palm Beach County BTA which found that the appraiser's presumption of correctness had been overcome and that petitioner should be allowed to retain the prior years' assessment on its property ($600.00 per acre). In support of this decision, the BTA found that it had the authority to extend the time for filing an application for agricultural classification and that it had the authority "in light of AGO 71-81 dated April 28, 1971, to grant the continuance of a prior years assessment where the facts and circumstances surrounding the subject property have not changed and are not expected to change. The BTA notified the respondent of the change in assessment pursuant to F.S. 193.122. The respondent's staff recommended that the BTA's action in this case be invalidated on the ground that the evidence presented to the BTA was insufficient to overcome the property appraiser's presumption of correctness. The petitioner requested a hearing to review the staff recommendation, the respondent's Executive Director requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the hearing and the undersigned was assigned as the Hearing Officer. Due to the fact that there was no court reporter present at the hearing, the parties stipulated that their respective positions would be reduced to writing by the submission of written memoranda. To date, no such memorandum has been received from petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the action of the Palm Beach County Board of Tax Adjustment in granting an agricultural classification and in reducing the assessment of petitioner's property for the tax year 1974 be invalidated. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 3230 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1976.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a licensed real estate broker, holding Florida license numbers 3077530 and 3248280. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was the registered broker and director of 1010 Apartments, Inc. The Respondent's address of record is 4100 Corporate Square Office Center, Suite 133, Naples, Florida 34104. At all times material to this case, Leonard and Brenda Brown, part-time Florida residents, owned two residential rental properties in Naples, Florida. The Respondent provided property management services to the Browns. There was no written agreement governing the services to be provided by the Respondent to the Browns. The Respondent first provided property management services to the Browns' rental property located at 1225 Reserve Way, Unit 203 (hereinafter "Reserve Way"). During the time that the Respondent managed the Reserve Way rental for the Browns, the Respondent provided all relevant documentation to the Browns, including the tenant's identification and the lease, various telephone contact numbers, and the rent being paid. The Browns were satisfied with the Respondent's management of the Reserve Way property. The Browns' second rental property was located at 193 Santa Clara Drive, Unit 12 (hereinafter "Santa Clara"). Because Mrs. Brown was satisfied with the Respondent's management of the Reserve Way property, she asked the Respondent to manage the Santa Clara property. Mrs. Brown testified that she expected that the Santa Clara property would be managed in the same way as the Reserve Way property had been. When the Respondent began to manage the Santa Clara property, it was rented to tenants who had defaulted in making their rent payments. In September 2010, the tenants were evicted from the property. After the tenants were evicted, the Santa Clara property required various repairs. On September 2, 2010, the Respondent provided a written estimate of $3,500 to the Browns for the costs of repairing the Santa Clara property and preparing it to be rented again. On September 7, 2010, the Browns gave the Respondent a check for $3,500 made payable to the Respondent's company, 1010 Apartments, Inc., to pay for the repairs. In October 2010, the Respondent asked the Browns if they would agree to a short-term lease of the Santa Clara property, and they consented. Communication between the Respondent and the Browns thereafter became erratic. Between October 2010 and January 2011, the Browns repeatedly contacted the Respondent to inquire into the status of the Santa Clara property and were dissatisfied with the information they were provided. The Respondent testified that she verbally advised the Browns that the property had been rented and that the Browns agreed to receive $600 each month as their share of rent. The Respondent testified that she advised the Browns she would retain the balance of the rental payment to reimburse for expenses allegedly incurred in preparing the property for the short-term lease. Mr. and Mrs. Brown recollect the Santa Clara transaction differently. There is confusion as to whether both of the Browns were aware that the property had been leased. In any event, it is clear that there was no written agreement between the Respondent and the Browns documenting any agreement as to the management of the property or the disposition of rental proceeds. The Respondent provided no documentation to the Browns related to any tenant in the Santa Clara property and provided no accounting for any rental proceeds the Respondent received related to the property. In January 2011, the Browns, in Florida for the winter, made contact with the Respondent, who agreed to meet with them at the Santa Clara property on January 21, 2011. On January 21, as the Browns drove to the Santa Clara property to meet with the Respondent, the Respondent called them and stated that she was unable to keep the appointment, but advised them that they could proceed to the property and meet the tenant. Prior to the Respondent's telephone call on January 21, 2011, Mr. Brown was apparently unaware that the Santa Clara property had been rented to a tenant. The Browns drove to the Santa Clara property and met the tenant. At the hearing, the tenant was identified as a nurse, working in Naples on a temporary basis, whose rent was paid by her employer. After meeting the tenant, the Browns called the Respondent but were unsuccessful in contacting her by telephone. On January 23, 2011, the Browns faxed a letter to the Respondent, requesting documentation related to the Santa Clara rental and information about the rental proceeds that had been paid by the tenant's employer. The Respondent did not respond to the Browns' letter. After receiving no response from the Respondent, Mrs. Brown contacted the tenant's employer and received copies of the lease agreement as well as copies of four rent checks that had been paid to the Respondent by the employer. Mrs. Brown thereafter took responsibility for management of the Santa Clara property. The employer paid monthly rent directly to the Browns until April 2011, when the tenant vacated the property. At the hearing, the Respondent testified that she was owed funds for furnishing, managing, and maintaining the Santa Clara property and that she retained the Browns' share of the rent as reimbursement of her expenses. The Respondent offered no credible evidence in support of the testimony and no credible accounting of the funds she received for the Santa Clara property on behalf of the Browns. At the hearing, the Respondent offered an invoice from "1010 Condo Cleaning" for $2,134.50, dated September 8, 2010, which had a payment due date of September 8, 2010. "1010 Condo Cleaning" is an entity operated by the Respondent's sister. A printed statement on the invoice declared that it had been paid by the Respondent's company, 1010 Apartments, Inc., clearly indicating that the invoice had already been paid prior to the time the invoice was actually printed. However, notwithstanding the due and paid dates on the invoice, six of the 12 charges on the invoice were for charges allegedly incurred after the date of the invoice, one as late as October 31, 2010. Additionally, the invoice reflected charges for repairs that had been listed on the September 2, 2010, estimate, which the Browns had already paid. The Respondent's testimony as to funds she allegedly spent to acquire furnishings or household items for the Santa Clara property lacked credibility, was otherwise unsupported by evidence, and has been rejected. The Respondent failed to account for the funds she received from the Santa Clara tenant's employer prior to January 21, 2011.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order finding Theresa Marie Helton in violation of sections 475.25(1)(b) and 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes (2010), and revoking the licenses identified herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Christina Ann Arzillo, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Daniel Villazon, P.A. Suite 200 1420 Celebration Boulevard Celebration, Florida 34747 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Juana Watkins, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether a consumptive use permit for the quantities of water requested in the application should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 7500160 requests water to be withdrawn from seven existing wells for the use of a housing development. The use applied for is an average daily withdrawal of 1,105,000 gallons as an existing use for public water supply in Citrus County, Florida. The maximum daily withdrawal sought is 2.752 million gallons per day. Notice of the intended use was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to wit: The Citrus County Chronicle, Inverness, Florida, on November 13 and 20, 1975, pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1). No letters of objection were received by the District concerning the requested use. Jeffrey A. Pohle, Hydrologist of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, testified that he had reviewed the application in the light of Chapter 16J-2.11 which sets forth conditions for a consumptive use permit, and that the application meets the criteria stated therein for the issuance of a permit. He therefore recommended that the permit be granted on the condition that all wells be metered and that records be kept on a monthly basis and submitted quarterly to the District. Correspondence between Mr. Pohle and Mr. Hilger was admitted into evidence as Composite Exhibit 2, whereby the applicant agrees to the proposed condition.
Recommendation It is recommended that Application No. 7500160 submitted by Rolling Oaks Corporation, P. O. Box 1, Beverly Hills, Florida 32661 for a consumptive water use permit be granted in the amount set forth in the application, with the condition that ground water withdrawals be metered, and that monthly records be kept and submitted quarterly to the Data Section of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District P. O. Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Rolling Oaks Corporation P. O. Box 1 Beverly Hills, Florida Warren H. Hilger, Esquire Hilger and Ray Engineering Associates, Inc. 137 South Highway 19 Crystal River, Florida 32629 =================================================================
