Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters contained herein, Respondent was licensed as a professional land surveyor in Florida and held license No. LS 0002934. On October 9, 1984, the Petitioner, Board of Professional Land Surveyors, after an informal hearing at which Respondent was present, entered a Final Order finding that he had, in several instances in the practice of professional land surveying, failed to perform in accordance with the minimum technical standards for land surveying and ordered his license to be suspended for 6 months; that he pay a $500.00 fine within 30 days of the Order; and that he submit a series of surveys and field notes for the review of the Board over a period of time subsequent to the reinstatement of his license. Respondent contends he agreed to an informal hearing because of recommendations from a representative of the Department of Professional Regulation's, (DPR), local investigative office. However, he was present at the hearing, was afforded an opportunity to present matters in his behalf, and through counsel, filed an appeal to the 4th District Court of Appeals of the Final Order in question which appeal, he subsequently dismissed. Respondent failed to pay the $500.00 fine on time as required. He contends this was because he had appealed the Final Order and was only one month late. Respondent also failed to file the required sets of surveys after the reinstatement of his license. The first was 6 months late and he cannot give a reason for that other than he was in mild shock as he felt he was a victim of "judicial error." His attorney was appealing the Final Order and he didn't pay attention to the dates. The 4th set of surveys was due in February, 1987 and has not been submitted as of this date. He contends it was not his intention to drag his feet in these submissions. After receiving the reviewer's criticisms of his earlier submissions, he felt they were not in keeping with the minimum standards and he requested clarification. He claims this is the reason for the delay but this excuse is not persuasive. His comment that he failed to pay attention to the dates for compliance with the requirements of the Final Order seems to be somewhat indicative of his attitude toward the practice of land surveying as will be seen from the evidence as discussed below. Consistent with the Board's Order, however, Respondent submitted several surveys which were considered to be of poor quality. The first set was returned with numerous negative comments and the third set was returned for further preparation and correction to prevent "further disciplinary action." The second set was considered to be "in substantial compliance with the terms of the [Board's] Final Order." Specifically identified for comment were surveys done by the Respondent for Mark and Betty Sivik, Carolyn Riddle, Eugenio Gonzalez, Teresa and Dane Curry, and Silvia Garcia. As to the individual surveys, the following discrepancies were noted: Sivik field notes showed no measurements made by Respondent. field notes showed no angles turned by Respondent. field notes showed no relationship to fractional corners. Riddle field notes show no E-W measurement by Respondent. field notes show no angles turned by Respondent. no plat was submitted with the survey. Gonzalez field notes do not show complete measurements by Respondent. field notes do not show angles turned by Respondent. field notes do not show relationship to fractional corners. field notes show a fence on three sides but the survey does not. Curry field notes do not show angles turned by Respondent. there is a .9 foot discrepancy as to one line between field notes and the survey with no explanation. as a result of this it cannot be determined if the survey is accurate. Garcia measurements to corners shown in field notes are not shown on survey. Respondent did not submit a plat without which it cannot be determined if the survey is complete or accurate. (Without the appropriate field notes, there is no way to tell if the survey is accurate, complete, or in accord with the legal description of the property.) In respect to all of the above surveys, none states on its face the type of survey it is. Respondent contends, in this regard, that his use of the letters "P.L.S.", (Professional Land Surveyor) after his signature indicates all are land surveys. This is not sufficient identification since professional land surveyors do various different types of surveys including land surveys, topographical surveys, reestablishment surveys, and the like. Respondent takes exception to the Board reviewer's comments about and approach to his surveys. As to the issue of angles, he contends that the minimum standards applied by the Board require only that the minimum angles shall be listed and do not require that all angles be turned in the field. He contends that the angles in question were a matter of record in his office. Mr. Cole, the Boards expert, agrees, stating it is not necessary to turn every angle but enough should be turned to insure an accurate description of the property and to verify the actual angles. There are other ways of verifying angles than turning them, but in Respondent's field notes, there was insufficient evidence to show any type of verification of the angles done by others previously. As to the discrepancies between field measurements and the legal descriptions in some cases, Respondent nonetheless contends they are all within standards. Respondent's approach here is somewhat cavalier. Any discrepancies which exist must be shown. The purpose of a survey is to show the current status of the property and it is improper and ineffective to rely solely on the previous record. To list discrepancies does not clutter up the survey nor is it likely to confuse. A failure to show them could well create major problems for a future user of the survey. The .9 foot discrepancy, described by the Respondent as well within the 1:5,000 error standard, is incorrectly described. It is more like an error of 1:200 and is, therefore, not insignificant. It should have been commented on. The survey done for the Currys can readily be classified as a topographical survey as it describes elevation in at least two places. Therefore, it should have been identified as a topographical survey on the face of it, but this is a minor discrepancy. The fence running across the back of the Gonzalez property should have been identified as such by the use of appropriate x's on the survey. It was not. Respondent has been in the private practice of surveying since he passed the state examination in February, 1976. He feels that the Board's case is based on the use of a hypothetical survey to establish standards against which his work was compared. The minimum standards set out in the statute are what, he feels, should control as they speak for themselves. He has always tried, throughout his years in practice, to protect his clients, and to his knowledge, his work has never cause anyone to lose money. He defines precision as the way that a line or angle is measured and accuracy as the manner in which the finished drawing portrays that there are or are not problems in the subject of the survey. With regard to the attack on his field notes, Respondent contends that the minimum standards merely call for field notes. Their sufficiency is determined by the standards of the practice in the community. He believes his notes contain measurements, calculations and ancillary information sufficient to show the required identifying information. The laws that govern surveyors' performance require many factors to be considered such as encroachment, senior rights, acquiescence and adverse possession, and the Respondent urges that in the interest of simplicity for the benefit of the users of the survey, it is necessary to reduce the quantity of evidence on the survey to the minimum necessary to allow it to be used effectively, not for the convenience of the state examining board. If there are no problems, then there is nothing else to show and his backup office records are adequate. Though Respondent feels the Board's criticisms of his notes are irrelevant, the better weight of the evidence is that they are not. Though Respondent contends his work in all cases exceeds the requirement for error, (1:5,000; 1:7,500; and 1:10,000 as appropriate), the error in the Curry survey shows his possible lack of understanding of the rules. He considers himself to be a mixture of the textbook and practical surveyor applying his extensive practical field experience to the textbook requirements. The evidence indicates, however, he does not always do so with the required degree of accuracy and skill. Respondent agrees with the 20 minimum standards set out in Rule 21HH- 6.003. They relate to all surveys and, he believes, should be followed. They constitute the community standard and a failure to follow them would be a failure to follow the community standards. His quarrel is not with the rule but with the agency's interpretation and alleged expansion of its own rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a registered land surveyor be suspended for one year and that upon reinstatement his license be placed on probation for five years under such terms and conditions as imposed by the Board as will insure current and continuing review of his activities within the profession. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of August, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 24th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the proposals of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact (FOF). 1. Accepted in FOF 1. 2. Accepted in FOF 2. 3 - 7. Accepted in FOFs 2 and 4. 8. Accepted. 9 - 11. Incorporated in FOF 4. 12, 13. Accepted. 14, 15. Incorporated in FOF 4. 16. Incorporated in FOF 5. 17, 18. Accepted. 19, 20. Incorporated in FOF 5. 21 - 30. Incorporated in FOF 6. 31 - 33. Accepted. 34. Incorporated in FOF 7. 35 - 37. Incorporated in FOFs 8 and 9. 38, 39. Incorporated in FOF 16. 40. Redundant to Proposed FOF 2. COPIES FURNISHED: ALLEN R. SMITH, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF LAND SURVEYORS 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 DAVID R. TERRY, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 KENNETH O. HART 3198 RIDDLE ROAD WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33406 VAN POOLE, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 JOSEPH A. SOLE, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 ================================================================= AMENDED AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, DOAH CASE NO. 87-2158 vs. DPR CASE NO. 0078982 KENNETH O. HART, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Petitioner failed to comply with coverage requirements of the workers' compensation law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for enforcing provisions of Florida law which require that employers secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. At all times material to this case, Petitioners owned and operated a business which provides marine-based services, including general diving and bridge demolition services. On or about February 28, 2003, Petitioners, in the course and scope of operating their marine service business, employed welders to perform welding and related services on a public construction project, specifically, the Jensen Beach Causeway Bridge in Jensen Beach, Florida. Petitioners were legally obligated to provide workers' compensation insurance for these welders in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 440. By way of defense, Petitioners argued that Chapter 440 is unconstitutional as applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. More specifically, Petitioners contend that this forum and the Respondent lack the authority to enforce Chapter 440 against Petitioners because of federal preemption under the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LAHCA). The tribunal has carefully considered this argument and finds it contrary to controlling case law. The parties have stipulated that if the Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order is valid, the correct amount of the penalty to be imposed by law is $150,968.00, based upon appropriate supporting tax and payroll records.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order confirming the Amended Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order in the amount of $150,968.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 10th day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard W. Glenn, Esquire 4 Harvard Circle, Suite 600 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations involved in this administrative hearing, the Respondent, Dennis Heasley, was a licensed land surveyor having been issued license number LS 3466 by the State of Florida. In January 1981 Respondent was an employee of James Bushouse and Associates, a land surveying firm. On January 31, 1981, MidSouth Engineering (MidSouth), a licensed land surveying company, entered into a contract with Figg and Muller Engineers, Inc., and the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, to provide engineering and land surveying services for the new Sunshine Skyway Bridge project. On June 10, 1981, MidSouth entered into a contract with Bushouse for Respondent, Heasley, and other Bushouse employees to perform some of the land survey services called for in the contract MidSouth had with the Department of Transportation. Thereafter, MidSouth entered into an agreement with Respondent Heasley and one Jorge R. Saniz providing that, for a fee of $200,000.00 Heasley and Sainz would provide land surveying and consulting services to MidSouth for its work under its state contract. On or about June 26, 1981, Heasley and Sainz began their work under the agreement with MidSouth, and the work called for by the agreement was satisfactorily completed by July 31, 1981. Thereafter, Heasley billed MidSouth for the unpaid remainder of the contract price and was paid. The contract between MidSouth and the State of Florida provided for payment by the State based on crew day rates wherein the State would pay so much money per crew day expended. The work in issue here was to take no more than 85 crew days with an upper limit on payment to be approximately $300,000.00. Respondent actually completed the work in 34 days. His speedy completion of the job resulted in MidSouth receiving less under its contract than anticipated. Shortly after completion, he became an employee of MidSouth. In the course of his continuing employment, he worked on some other aspects of the bridge project that were awarded to MidSouth. Respondent's lump-sum contract with MidSouth called for payment to him of $200,000.00. Out of that sum he was supposed to pay all his and Sainz' job expenses which included the salary, housing, and feeding of the employees he hired to perform the actual surveying work. His understanding with MidSouth called for him to utilize approximately 12 to 16 crew members. During the time the work was being performed, Respondent and Mr. Sainz rented a house near the work-site in which crew members were provided a place to live. Food paid for by Respondent Sainz was provided as were laundry facilities. The sums paid for these items as well as the transportation of the workers and the worker's salaries were to come from the $200,000.00 fee paid by MidSouth. Payments were made on the basis of periodic draws. Either Heasley or Sainz would contact MidSouth and state that some money was required for expenses and a sum was furnished. As this sum was expended Respondent would ask for more. He indicates that the relationship was like a game in that he asked for as much as he thought he could get and MidSouth would pay as little as it thought it could get away with. In any event, no actual per diem monies were paid by Respondent to the employees who were working on the survey crew. Respondent admits that during the 34 days this arrangement was in effect, he kept very few records and receipts. He relied on MidSouth to keep all the expense records and whatever receipts he received for money spent, he sent in to MidSouth which made up the payroll for Heasley and Sainz' crew members from the times he called in. Several months after the subcontract between Heasley, Sainz, and MidSouth was completed, Heasley was called by Tom Heinly, Executive Vice- President of MidSouth and his immediate supervisor, with a request that he, Heasley, prepare, sign and submit a list of per diem expenses for the crew which worked on the contract referenced above. In the course of the conversation, Heinly asked that it be prepared a certain way. In response, Respondent told Heinly that he could not do that because he had not paid the money as per diem payments but had provided payment in kind in the form of food, lodging, and laundry. Heinly advised Respondent to think about it and later called back again asking that Heasley prepare and sign a statement indicating per diem money paid. Heinly argued that MidSouth was entitled to the money and asked that Heasley do this as a favor. Again, Heasley refused. The third time Heinly called Heasley, he indicated that the list would be strictly a memorandum between Heasley and MidSouth to account for some of the money advanced by MidSouth and that the list had nothing to do with the State. Heinly assured Heasley that the improper, inaccurate list would not go to the State since this was one of Heasley's concerns. Heinly indicated that he had talked with representatives of the State and had been assured that it was legitimate to file an invoice such as this. Heasley was led to believe that the State would not reimburse MidSouth for advances made for in-kind payments but would reimburse for actual per diem expenses. Ultimately, since Heasley was convinced by Heinly that MidSouth was entitled to be reimbursed for these monies and since, to the best of his recollection, he, Heasley, had paid out in in-kind expense a sum similar to that claimed on the per diem list, it would be all right to so certify. Therefore, he agreed to sign the list after the third request. The list which Heasley signed was prepared by MidSouth personnel, not Heasley, and was brought to Heasley by Mr. Duffer, MidSouth's chief accountant. Respondent does not recall going over the list at the time he signed it and verified neither the names nor the amounts set out thereon. When he checked it over much later, he found that some of the names on the list should not have been there. Respondent admits signing the document and admits that the document as signed was false. When investigators from the State Attorney's Office initially talked with Mr. Heasley about this incident he was less than forthright. Though they had advised him they were investigating the relationship between MidSouth and the Department of Transportation, the tenor of their questions indicated to him that they were investigating him and his answers were evasive and, in fact, erroneous. However, when he subsequently found out the nature of the investigation, he attempted to get word to the investigators that he would like to continue the discussion. He was unable to do so, however, and was not interviewed by these officials again. He was, however, subsequently interviewed by Mr. Cartwright who, in mid to late 1981, was conducting an investigation into the MidSouth, Heasley and Sainz relationship with the Skyway Bridge project. An engineer with the State had expressed some concern regarding invoices submitted by MidSouth and the preliminary inquiry showed some cause for concern. As a result, a full investigation was begun which revealed that MidSouth had little if any documentation to cover invoices submitted to the State. It also showed that the company's accounting procedures and internal control were almost nonexistent. As a part of the investigation Cartwright interviewed Heasley who admitted that he had signed the documents referred to above regarding per diem payments. Heasley also admitted that in some cases the payees did not receive the money claimed but in his opinion, the bottom line balanced out and MidSouth was entitled to the total sum.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Dennis Heasley's license as a land surveyor in the State of Florida, be placed on probation for a period of two years, under such terms and conditions as shall be established by the Board of Land Surveyors, and that he be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 16th day of January 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 E. C. Deeno Kitchen, Esquire Melissa Fletcher Allaman Post Office Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Conclusions On March 10, 2010, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the Division of Administrative Hearings entered an Order Closing File in the above captioned case.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL - CALDWELL BUILDING, 107 EAST MADISON STREET, MSC 110, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-4128, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS 2 Final Order No. DEO11-0006 FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Economic Opportunity, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this fopllriay of October 2011. : Miriam Snipes, Agency Clerk DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By U.S. Mail: Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300E West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 R. Max Lohman, Esquire Corbett and White, P.A; 1111 Hypoluxo Road, Suite 207 Lantana, Florida 33462 Brian Joslyn, Esquire Gregory S. Kino, Esquire Boose, Casey, Cikin, Lubitz, Martens, McBane & O*Connell Northbridge Center, 19th Floor 515 North Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4626 By Hand Delivery: David L. Jordan, Assistant General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By Filing with DOAH: The Honorable D. R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Final Order No. DEO11-0006
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been licensed to practice land surveying in Florida at all times relevant to this proceeding. However, between January 31, 1983 and August 27, 1983, his license was inactive due to his failure to renew. His license was reinstated automatically upon payment of the $80 biannual renewal fee in August, 1983, along with payment of a $20 late fee levied by Petitioner. On May 12, 1983, while his license was inactive, Respondent signed a boundary survey in his capacity as a registered land surveyor which included the following certification: "I hereby certify that the plat shown hereon is a true and correct representation of a survey of the property described in the caption thereof, made under my direction, and is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief, and there are no encroachments unless shown." The property at issue was surveyed by Mr. Teddy O. Potter, who has a surveying business in West Palm Beach, but is not licensed as a land surveyor. Respondent is a former business associate of Potter's and certified the drawing as a favor to Potter. Respondent had not visited the property or participated in the boundary survey in any way. His certification was based on his inspection of the drawing and faith in Potter whom he had earlier trained. The property is owned by Mr. Thomas Burdsall who originally retained Potter to survey the property for mortgage purposes in 1979. The survey at issue here was required for the construction of a warehouse. Burdsall again contacted Potter who updated his 1979 drawing without resurveying the property. It should be noted that Respondent was not involved in the earlier survey, which was certified by another Potter associate. Utilizing Potter's boundary markers and the drawing certified by Respondent, Burdsall's contractor laid out the building and began construction. Potter then did a third (tie- in) survey revising the May 12, 1983 survey to show actual building placement. This tie-in survey revealed no encroachment. Subsequent to the tie-in survey, City inspectors observed what they believed was encroachment by the partially completed structure. A meeting was held and Potter agreed to call in a registered land surveyor to conduct a resurvey. Potter retained Mr. Robert Turso, a registered land surveyor, who conducted the resurvey and confirmed the suspected encroachment. As a result, it was necessary to remove and rebuild portions of the newly constructed building at considerable expense to the owner, Thomas Burdsall. The testimony of Petitioner's expert witness established that the survey certified by Respondent failed to meet certain minimum technical standards recognized in the land surveyors' profession which are set forth in Rule 21HH-6.03, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C). Specifically, the following deficiencies were identified: 21HH-6.03(4), F.A.C., requires that reference to all bearings be shown and clearly stated. In the subject survey drawing, no bearings were shown. 21HH-6.03(6), F.A.C., requires the survey to comply with the real property description and all discrepancies with the boundary corners from the boundary lines shown by the survey are to be indicated. Here, the corners were not shown nor were the discrepancies between those corners and plat dimensions shown. 21HH-6.03(7), F.A.C., requires all angles to be shown directly on the drawing or by bearings or azimuths. In this survey, no angles were shown. 21HH-6.03(8), F.A.C., requires that the intersection and the distance to the nearest intersection be shown. These requirements were not met. 21HH-6.02(10), F.A.C., requires adjoining lots and blocks be shown in surveys of lots in recorded subdivisions. This requirement was not met. 21HH-6.03(18), F.A.C., requires monuments to be found or set. This was not accomplished, and no corners were shown on the drawing to be found or set. 21HH-6.03(19), F.A.C., requires boundary monuments be appropriately constructed, identified and set. This was not accomplished here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's license as a land surveyor for a period of four months. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Shields, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen R. Smith, Esquire Executive Director Board of Land Surveyors 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ralph G. Purvis Post Office Box 16084 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph W. Lawrence, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, at all times material to the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding, was a land surveyor licensed by the State of Florida, having been issued license number 1305. The Respondent is also a licensed professional engineer and a licensed architect. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged under Chapter 472, Florida Statutes, and appurtenant rules with the licensure and regulation of licensure status of land surveyors in Florida and the regulation and enforcement of their practice methods and standards. The Board of Land Surveyors published "Minimum Standards for Land Surveyors (Rule 21HH-6) effective September 1, 1951. The Respondent was unaware of the promulgation of those minimum standards. The Respondent had not attended meetings of the "Manasota" Chapter of the Florida Society of Professional Land Surveyors at which those standards were discussed and a checklist for the standards was distributed. On August 24, 1982, the Respondent prepared a land survey of a part of Lot 306, Overbrook Gardens, in Sarasota County. The survey was submitted to the Sarasota County Building Department in connection with an application for a building permit pertaining to that real property, filed on August 26, 1982. The offenses charged are alleged violations of the minimum standards with respect to that survey. The Respondent's client had delivered to him a survey prepared by Lemonde Surveying, Inc., of Port Charlotte, Florida, which was prepared on February 28, 1980. That survey contained a metes and bounds land description. The client engaged the Respondent to survey the same parcel of land with that description and provide a survey drawing to be used in conjunction with an application for the subject building permit. The survey gas not certified by the Respondent in accordance with minimum standards. The Respondent admitted this and it was undisputed that the signature and seal of fixed on the survey complied with the legal requirements enforced before the adoption of the abovementoned minimum standards, of which the Respondent was unaware. The Respondent admitted to failure to refer to all sources of information upon which the survey was predicated. The Respondent used a legal description from a previous survey provided him by Darrell Newell, the contractor who was agent for the owner of the property. The survey the Respondent submitted to the building department only showed the name of the owner. The older survey submitted by the Respondent's client was his only source of information in this regard. The parties stipulated that the allegation regarding failure to show measured distances to the nearest intersection was incorrect and that indeed the Respondent had shown the distance to the nearest intersection. The Respondent failed to show the location of a telephone company underground terminal pedestal and an abandoned wire fence of unstated dimensions which is outside the surveyed property near the north and east boundaries. The fence does not encroach on the surveyed property at all. The telephone terminal pedestal is approximately one foot or less in height, located just inside the northerly boundary of the property, approximately midway between the two northerly corners. The telephone terminal was not visible at the time of the survey due to high grass, weeds, and undergrowth covering the property when the fieldwork was conducted by the Respondent's survey party chief. The triangular parcel of property involved was located with reference to an established, identifiable real property corner. All three corners were monumented prior to the survey by the Respondent, so that the location of boundaries near the abandoned, partial, non-encroaching fence could be established with reasonable certainty. On September 15, 1932, personnel of the county building department charged with the responsibility of issuing the building permit for the property requested advice with regard to the efficacy of Respondent's survey from Mr. Emerson, the County Surveyor, who testified for the Petitioner. Mr. Emerson spoke with the Respondent by phone and mailed him copies of the "minimum standards" and the "Surveyor's Checklist" of the Manasota Chapter of the Florida Society of Professional Land Surveyors, which relates to those minimum standards in the rule cited below. The Respondent then promptly and voluntarily prepared a new survey which fully complied with those minimum standards which he had at that point first become aware of, and the building permit was duly issued to the Respondent's client. The Respondent's client's interests were not shown to be prejudiced and the complaint to the Board of Land Surveyors did not emanate from the Respondent's client, but rather from Mr. Emerson of-the county building department, who did not bother to consult the Respondent or obtain his explanation prior to lodging the complaint with the Board. The survey originally submitted to the Sarasota Count Building Department would have been adequate support for the issuance of the building permit before adoption of the minimum standards. The survey was shown to be totally adequate in terms of its substance and reflection of technical surveying competence, as opposed to the particular format prescribed by the minimum standards. This is the first disciplinary action ever taken against the. Respondent as a land surveyor licensee, and the Respondent's practice of his profession has always been characterized by a high degree of technical competence and professional integrity.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, William J. Lindh, be accorded the penalty of a private, written reprimand for violation of Rule 21HH-6.03(1) and (6),,Florida Administrative Code, and Section 472.033(1)(g) , Florida Statutes (1951) , and that the Administrative Complaint, in all other respects, be dismissed. DONE ADD ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles J Cheves, Esquire Cheves & Rapkin 341 West Venice Avenue Venice, Florida 33595 Allen R. Smith, Jr., Executive Director Board of Land Surveyors Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF LAND SURVEYORS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, CASE NO.: 83-512 vs. LICENSE NO: 1308 WILLIAM J. LINDH, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner violated Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not having workers' compensation insurance coverage, and if so, whether the Agency's calculation was proper and accurate based on the methods used to establish the payroll for Petitioner and the resulting penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Division is a component of the Department of Financial Services. It is responsible for enforcing the workers' compensation coverage requirements pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes. All Florida is a corporation operating as a land clearing and tree trimming or tree debris removal business in Florida. Alan McPherson is the sole owner and president of All Florida. On August 30, 2007, as a result of an anonymous tip, Denise McNeal, a workers' compensation investigator for the Division went to a land clearing site at 4441 Club Estates Drive in Naples, Florida, where an All Florida crew of workers was clearing the land using heavy equipment, to determine whether the workers had workers' compensation coverage. She interviewed approximately 11 employees who were working at the site. Ms. McNeal made inquiry into the employment relationships of these workers and attempted to determine whether the workers on the site were covered by appropriate workers' compensation insurance. After Ms. McNeal had been at the site for approximately an hour, Mr. McPherson arrived. Mr. McPherson indicated that All Florida had workers' compensation insurance through AMS Leasing. Ms. McNeal conducted a search in the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), a database that reliably reveals whether or not there is coverage by a workers' compensation policy of insurance. The search revealed that All Florida did not have its own workers' compensation insurance and AMS was not covering the workers either. All Florida had failed to fax the employee information to AMS to start the coverage for the employees. Based on the information Ms. McNeal had at the time, and after consulting with her supervisor, Ms. McNeal issued SWO number 07-269-D7 to All Florida and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("Request for Business Records"). The Division's request asked All Florida to produce business records for the period of August 30, 2004, through August 30, 2007, including payroll records, tax returns, proof of insurance, and certificates of exemption. The Request for Business Records listed specific records that All Florida should provide the Division so that the Division could determine the workers paid by All Florida during the preceding three years. The Request for Business Records notes that the requested records must be produced within five business days of receipt. All Florida did not respond to the Division's Request for Business Records on time. On or about September 25, 2007, All Florida produced its first set of documents. At that time, Ms. McNeal did not calculate the penalty amount and deemed the records insufficient to calculate penalty. On October 1, 2007, All Florida produced a second set of business records. Ms. McNeal reviewed the records produced by All Florida and calculated a penalty of $466,262.62 for failure to obtain workers' compensation coverage. The next day, Mr. McPherson provided additional business records and Ms. McNeal recalculated the penalty again. The new penalty amount was $324,080.01 and Ms. McNeal personally served All Florida with the penalty assessment. On October 2, 2007, All Florida entered into an agreement with the Division, which consisted of putting ten percent of the penalty amount down, demonstrating proof of coverage, and agreeing upon a conditional payment plan. After reaching the agreement, All Florida was conditionally released from the SWO and permitted to resume operations because it had cured all its violations. Subsequently, All Florida provided the Division additional business records. The Division calculated a third amended penalty assessment on October 17, 2007, in the amount of $300,450.24. On November 28, 2007, Ms. McNeal had to recalculate the third amended penalty amount because she discovered an error in her use of class code 5606. She recalculated the penalty amount with the proper class code 6217, changed Alan McPherson's earnings to "payroll/premium cap" and added remuneration for Dana McPherson. The other proper class codes Ms. McNeil used in her calculations were 8742 and 8810. In Ms. McNeal's calculations, she used the business records submitted by All Florida and figured the gross payroll for the period she found to be the period of noncompliance, in the case of each assumed employee, and divided that amount by She multiplied that figure by the approved manual rate (risk of injury) for each claimed employee. This figure was multiplied by 1.5 in order to obtain the penalty for failure to obtain workers' compensation coverage for each employee. The figures for each employee used in the calculation were added and resulted in the total penalty assessment of $281.903.32, which was the ultimate sum reported in the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment at issue in this case. Ms. McNeal used the correct calculation methods to determine the assessed penalty. Ms. McNeal's calculations for the 4th Amended Penalty amount were accomplished in accordance with the requirements of Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.035. All Florida submitted Account QuickReport business records detailing the checks cut from the business to individuals, the amounts, dates, and a brief description. Ms. McNeal used the records to calculate payroll for the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. She correctly excluded the check if the memo description listed the payment was for something other than payroll, if the check was written to a company name, or if the check was written to a subcontractor that had an exemption. Ms. McNeal included the payment by All Florida to each individual whose name was highlighted in blue as set forth in Petitioner's exhibit 8 (hereinafter referred to as "highlighted subcontractors") as payroll in her calculation of penalty.2 Dana McPherson’s $540,000.00 was also included in the gross payroll calculations. Mr. McPherson conducted All Florida business by contracting with municipalities to get jobs. Then, All Florida would give the work from the contract to individuals and companies with their own equipment and employees to perform and complete the job for the contract. All Florida hired the highlighted subcontractors by oral contracts and did not have time to check the highlighted subcontractors' statuses because the company was inundated with contract work, on a tight schedule, and wanted to get the jobs started as soon as possible. There was a great demand for debris clearing due to the consecutive hurricanes and their devastation, which provided All Florida numerous land clearing contract opportunities. Prior to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.035 becoming effective, the Division determined payroll by reviewing the actual business records that were provided by the employer. If the actual cost of the payroll and materials or equipment rental were separated, the Division would only utilize the amount identified as payroll for payroll. If the payroll was not separated out, the whole amount was used as payroll in the calculation of penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation enter a final order: Finding that All Florida violated Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for its employees; Finding that a penalty be imposed for the violation; and Calculating the penalty amount using the law that was in effect at the time the violation took place. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 16th day of June, 2008.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Walter L. Moyer, violated Section 472.033(1)(g) and (h) F.S. and Rule 21 HH-2.01(3) by performing a land survey in a negligent or incompetent manner, without due care and without due regard for acceptable professional standards, and violated Section 472.033(1)(e), (g) and (h) F.S., and Rule 21HH- 2.01(3) and (5) FAC, by providing a false or deliberately inaccurate survey sketch to a client on two separate occasions.
Findings Of Fact Walter L. Moyer has been licensed by the State of Florida as a registered surveyor from approximately August 1977 until present, and holds license number LS 0002828. His address for license purposes is Palm Bay, Florida, in Brevard County. His practice as a surveyor has been primarily in construction-related surveys and lot surveys, with very few parcel surveys. THE CHILCOTT SURVEY (COUNT I) In June 1984, Charles and Robin Chilcott purchased property on Grant Road, in Brevard County, consisting of approximately 1.44 acres of undeveloped land. The Chilcotts acquired the parcel with the intent to construct a home and keep their horses. Shortly after purchase, the Chilcotts retained Moyer to prepare a boundary survey of the parcel. The cost of the survey was $315.00 including $7.50 extra cost for two concrete monuments, rather than iron rods, at the front corners, as requested by the Chilcotts. The survey was performed on July 27, 1984, and Moyer was paid. He furnished the Chilcotts several sketches of survey which he had signed and sealed. In 1985, the Chilcotts hired a contractor, Casey Jones, and commenced building their house. At the request of Casey Jones, Moyer prepared both the foundation and final surveys. These two surveys were added to the boundary survey on September 26, 1985, and November 23, 1985, respectively. At the time that the field work on the foundation and final survey was done, Moyer detected no problems with the monumentation he had initially set in the boundary survey. He did not see any evidence that the monuments had been disturbed. The final survey shows the house to be 17.35 feet inside the east lot line. The Chilcotts wanted at least that distance because the area is zoned agricultural and they did not want the neighbor's livestock close to the house. They also understood that the county required a minimum 10-foot set-back. In connection with the construction of their home, and in reliance upon Moyer's survey identifying their property's boundary, the Chilcotts installed a well and a fence and had approximately 800 feet of sod planted along the east boundary. The Chilcotts have since learned that those improvements are not on their property and that their house is, in fact, only 7.25 feet from the lot line. In May, 1986, David Rothery, a Florida licensed land surveyor, performed a boundary survey of the Donald Waterbury parcel adjacent to and just east of Chilcott's land on Grant Road. Rothery checked and double-checked his field measurements and still found a ten foot discrepancy in the placement of the monuments on the eastern corners of the Chilcott parcel. Those monuments were ten feet too far to the east and were, therefore, placed ten feet within the Waterbury boundaries. He did not observe any indication that the monuments had been moved, and when he placed his corners for the proper boundaries, he found no evidence that monuments had ever been there before. As required, the monuments placed by Moyer had his identification on them. Rothery put a dotted line on his survey with the notation, "Apparent survey error on adjoining property by Walter Moyer Land Surveying". Rothery also called Moyer and told him about the discrepancy. On the morning of May 10, 1986, Moyer went back out to the Chilcott property and discovered that his monuments were ten feet too far to the east. He was in the process of moving them when he was confronted by Charles Chilcott. He told Chilcott that an error was made, that he "dropped ten feet". There was some discussion about possible remedies such as paying for the well and fence to be moved or buying the ten feet from Waterbury. Chilcott did not let Moyer finish moving the monuments. That night, Chilcott, who had never met Moyer before, but had only communicated by phone or in writing, called Moyer's house and confirmed that it was the same person he had seen moving the monuments. That was the last time Chilcott spoke with Moyer. Chilcott called Moyer's house several times over the following months, but always reached Mrs. Moyer and his phone calls were not returned. Moyer did contact Waterbury about purchasing the ten foot strip. Waterbury was concerned about how this would affect his eventual ability to build on his lot and refused to sell. Waterbury is not pressing the Chilcotts about their encroachments; he simply expects to have the matter resolved sometime in the future. By a letter dated 8/18/86, the Chilcotts requested damages of $2,500.00 from Moyer, including an estimate of costs to move the well, fence and a power pole and to replace sod. On September 13, 1986, another letter from Chilcott to Moyer listed the same plus additional damages, for a total demand of $4,025.00. In a letter to Chilcott dated August 27, 1987, Moyer offered to pay the application fee to seek a variance from the setback requirement and offered to provide a final survey and half the cost of moving the well. The letter denied that the problem was Moyer's fault and said that Moyer believes that the markers were moved between the date the survey was completed and the date of the foundation. The Chilcotts rejected that offer. No evidence in this proceeding supports Moyer's contention that the Chilcotts or someone else moved the monuments he originally set in 1984. The evidence does establish a strong circumstantial basis for finding that the monuments were not moved, but were incorrectly placed by Moyer at the time that the boundary survey was completed. Setting the monuments properly is an essential component of conducting a boundary survey. Moreover, when a subsequent final survey is done, it is the duty of the surveyor to assure that the original monuments have not been disturbed during construction and site work by a contractor. Assuming that Moyer is correct in his contention that the monuments were moved after they were set by him, but before the foundation was placed, it was his duty to discover that fact. He did not, since his final survey shows that the house is 17.35 feet from the boundary, whereas the house is, in fact, approximately seven feet from the adjoining property. Except when witness monuments are used, as when a tree or other obstruction sits on a boundary corner, it is a violation of standard surveying practice to place a monument other than where it is shown on the survey drawing. In this instance, the drawing is accurate; as described in the Chilcott deed, the northeast corner of their property is 600 feet from the section corner. There was no need for witness monuments here; yet the east boundary monuments are ten feet off and are 590 feet from the section corner. There is no overlap in the legal descriptions of the Waterbury and Chilcott properties to account for the overlap in monuments discovered by David Rothery, the Waterbury surveyor. Surveying is a system of checking measurements. Both human and equipment errors in the profession are neither rare nor entirely common. Even the most up-to-date electronic equipment is subject to discrepancies. Checking and rechecking field measurements helps alleviate errors. The minimum technical standards developed by and for the profession are intended to reduce errors, although it is not clear that slavish adherence to those principles will absolutely prevent any possibility of error. When errors do occur, the standard of the profession is to work with the client to resolve the problem. In some cases, this may mean the purchase of the client's property or adjoining property if the party is willing to sell. Moyer's limited offers do not meet the established standards of the profession. THE BURGOON-BERGER SURVEYS COUNTS II AND III On August 21, 1986, Moyer signed and sealed a survey sketch of Lot 22, Block 2245, Port Malabar, Unit 44, in Brevard County Florida for Burgoon-Berger Construction Co. The survey of Lot 22 showed the drawing of an improvement within the boundaries of the lot with a notation, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV 25.86." Next to the date on the survey is the abbreviation, "FND". The survey was submitted to the Palm Bay Building Department on August 26, 1986, the day before the pre-slab inspection. A pre-slab inspection is done before the slab is poured; therefore, at the time the survey was signed and sealed, the concrete slab had not yet been poured. On October 20, 1986, Moyer prepared a sketch of survey of Lot 7, Block 1054, Port Malabar Unit 20, in Brevard County, Florida for Burgoon-Berger Construction Co. The survey sketch indicated an improvement within the boundaries of the lot, with the notation, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV 26.87". Next to the date on the survey is the notation "FND". The survey was submitted to the City of Palm Bay on October 28, 1986. The pre-slab inspection was done by the City on October 22, 1986. Again, the survey was signed and sealed before the slab was actually poured. The notation, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV", is commonly understood to mean "foundation, finished floor elevation". "FND" is commonly understood to mean "foundation". Moyer, himself, has used both notations to signify those common usages. Foundation is generally accepted in the land surveying profession to mean something permanent and constructed, like a concrete slab, not bust the ground or wooden form boards used to guide the pouring of the slab. A survey which depicts an improvement with the note, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV", when the floor has not been finished misrepresents the status of the construction of that project. Reviewing personnel at the Palm Bay Building Department rejected the surveys and alerted the City's Flood Plain Administrator. That individual, Maria Parkhurst, reported the incidents to the Department of Professional Regulation. Lots 22 and 7 are both in the flood plain and slab elevation is significant, as the City must assure that federal maximum elevation requirements are met. The City requires the submission of surveys containing slab elevation data. Banks also rely on foundation surveys submitted by contractors in order to determine the state of construction before the release of a foundation draw. That is, before the contractor is entitled to partial payment for his work, the bank needs to know if the work has been done. Both Moyer and his client, Bergoon-Berger, intended the notation in these cases to mean "finished form", not "finished floor". Burgoon-Berger had Moyer perform a survey after the wooden form boards were constructed, but before the concrete slab was poured, in order to assure that the house was placed properly on the lot. The survey was somehow submitted prematurely to the city, whereas because Moyer and his client intended that the poured slab be re-surveyed before the sketch was submitted. When the survey for Lot 7 was resubmitted to the City on October 31, 1986, the slab had been poured and, while the elevation remained the same, the size of the fireplace foundation was slightly smaller. The notation, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV" remained the same, with nothing on the face of the survey sketch to indicate that this later version was the finished floor, rather than the finished form. Moyer no longer uses these abbreviations. A survey is not valid until it is signed and sealed, but once it is signed and sealed, it signifies to the client and to the public at large that the information provided therein is true and accurate. The standard of professional land survey practice dictates that abbreviations which are not commonly accepted should be explained on the face of the drawing. The professional standards also dictate that even if a client asks for certain information on a survey, in anticipation that other third parties might rely on the survey the professional should either refuse to indicate improvements that do not exist yet or indicate unambiguously that the improvements are intended, but still under construction. Notwithstanding Bergoon-Berger's and Moyer's intentions with regard to the two surveys at issue, Moyer failed to meet professional standards when he signed and sealed those surveys and released them to his client.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final Order be issued finding Respondent guilty of Counts I, II and III of the Amended Administrative Complaint and placing him on probation for a period of two years, under such conditions as the Board may deem appropriate, including, but not limited to the participation in continuing professional education courses and the pursuit of a reasonable resolution to the Chilcott's boundary problems arising from the Respondent's negligence in performing their survey. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of December, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 3rd day of December, 1987. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact. Petitioner (Count I) Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 2. 3-4. Adopted in Paragraph 3. Incorporated in Part in Paragraph 1., as to the limitation of experience, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in Paragraph 3. Adopted in part in Paragraph 3, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 9-10. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 4. 14-18. Adopted in Paragraph 3 and 4. Adopted in Paragraph 11. Adopted in Paragraph 4. Adopted in Paragraph 5. Adopted in Paragraph 11. 23-28. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Adopted in part in Paragraph 8, however the accurate date is May 10, 1986, and the evidence is inconclusive as to whether Moyer spoke to either of the Chilcotts before coming back. This fact is not material. 32-33. Adopted in Paragraph 8. 34. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 35-37. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 8. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 9. Adopted in part in Paragraph 9, otherwise rejected as unsubstantiated by competent evidence and immaterial. Adopted in Paragraph 6. 42-43. Rejected as cumulative. 44. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 10. 45-47. Rejected as cumulative. 48-49. Adopted in Paragraph 12. 50-51. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 13. Rejected as cumulative. 54-55. Adopted in Paragraph 14. (Counts II and III) Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 15. Adopted in Paragraph 16. 4-6. Adopted in Paragraph 17. Adopted in Paragraph 20. Adopted in Paragraph 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 18. Adopted in Paragraph 25. Adopted in Paragraph 18. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 23. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 25. Respondent Adopted in Paragraph 1. 2-5. Addressed in Background. Adopted in Paragraph 2. Adopted in Paragraph 3. 8-11. Rejected as immaterial. 12-13. Adopted in Paragraph 4. Adopted in Paragraph 5. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Adopted in part in Paragraph 7. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, except for the fact that the Chilcott house is 7 feet from the boundary. That fact is adopted in Paragraph 6. 19-20. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 8. Adopted in Paragraphs 9, 10, and 14. Adopted in Paragraph 10. Rejected, except as adopted in Paragraph 10. 24-25. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 11. Adopted in part in Paragraph 14, otherwise rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 13. Rejected as immaterial. While the boundary depiction is accurate, the placement of the house is in error on the final and foundation surveys and, of course, the markers are erroneously set. 30-33. Addressed in Background. 34. Adopted in Paragraphs 15 and 17. 35-36. Adopted in part in Paragraph 22, otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 37-38. Rejected as immaterial. 39. Adopted in Paragraphs 19 and 22. 40-44. Rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: DAVID R. TERRY, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 JAMES P. BEADLE, ESQUIRE 5205 BABCOCK STREET N. E. PALM BAY, FLORIDA 32905 ALLEN R. SMITH, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 TOM GALLAGHER, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 WILLIAM O'NEIL, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750
