The Issue The issue in this case is whether discipline should be imposed against Respondent for operating on an expired public lodging establishment license, an offense which is deemed by rule to constitute operation without a license.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Blackwood is an apartment building with five units located at 4115 Riverside Drive, Coral Springs, Florida 33065- 5929. The Division issued Blackwood a license, numbered 16-16900-H, to operate as a public lodging establishment. According to information in the Division's official database, as reproduced in Petitioner's Exhibit 1, 1/ the "current license expiration date [for Blackwood's license] is December 1, 2000." On June 5, 2000, and again on October 6, 2000, Division employee Cynthia Pieri conducted routine inspections of Blackwood. Each time, she found the apartments to be open and operating. Additionally, on both occasions Ms. Pieri took note that Blackwood's 1999-2000 license was not on display or available at the premises. On a Lodging Inspection Report that she prepared on June 5, 2000, 2/ Ms. Pieri checked box number 38 indicating a violation in connection with the following item: "Current license, displayed, available upon request." In the comments section of the form she wrote: "#38 1999-2000 DBPR license is not posted." Ms. Pieri left blank the spaces provided for informing the establishment of the date when its license would expire in a line that read: "REMINDER: Your license expires / / ." Petitioner's Exhibit 2. 3/ Kenneth Charles Buck, a Division employee, explained that ordinarily licensees such as Blackwood are sent a renewal notice. Regardless whether a licensee receives a notice, however, it is responsible for paying the required fee, which may be remitted either to the local office or to the Division's headquarters in Tallahassee. Transcript of Final Hearing ("T-") Sometimes, a licensee will pay the field inspector; field inspectors are authorized to accept license fees and issue receipts. T-14. Mr. Buck testified that the documents he could access on his computer indicated that Blackwood had failed to pay a license fee for the 1999-2000 period. T-13. Mr. Buck stated further that he had spoken with Blackwood's owner "on occasion" and had informed her that the license fee was due. T-14.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Blackwood Rentals. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 24th day of January, 2001.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent violated Subsections 475.42(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2009),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Real Estate is the state agency responsible for the regulation of the real estate sales profession in Florida, including licensure of real estate sales associates and enforcement of the statutory provisions within its charge. Ms. Friels is a real estate sales associate who first obtained her license in 2005. Ms. Friels has never had any prior disciplinary action taken against her. Ms. Friels received a renewal notice from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (the Department), notifying her that her sales associate license was due to expire on March 31, 2009. The notice touted in bold print that the "Department Provides Instant Online Renewal," while also offering a Renewal Notice card to detach and mail in to the Department. The Renewal card option required nothing to be filled in by the licensee unless an address update were necessary (in which case a box could be checked and the address updated on the back of the card), or unless the licensee wanted to opt for inactive status, which could be done by checking a different box. Otherwise, the card could simply be sent in with payment of the $85.00 renewal fee. The card included the following statement in small print: IMPORTANT: SUBMITTING YOUR RENEWAL REQUEST TO THE DEPARTMENT AFFIRMS COMPLIANCE WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWAL. Ms. Friels had been undergoing a period of great personal challenges and stress in the two-year period leading up to the licensure expiration date and nearly missed the renewal deadline. On the day before her license was to expire, she utilized the "Instant Online Renewal" option after contacting a Department customer representative to make sure that her online renewal payment would be credited immediately so that it would be timely before the March 31, 2009, expiration date. As alleged in the Administrative Complaint, "[o]n . . . March 30, 2009 Respondent paid the renewal fee of $85.00 to renew her real estate license." The Department receipt showed the online payment of the $85.00 fee on March 30, 2009, for the renewal of real estate sales associate License No. SL3141119 held by Marsha Evans Friels. At the time Ms. Friels processed her online license renewal, she had not completed the 14 hours of continuing education she was required to complete during the two-year licensure period ending on March 30, 2009, but Ms. Friels did not realize at that time that she had not complied with the continuing education requirements. Ms. Friels explained that although she was generally aware of the continuing education requirement for licensure renewal, the reason she did not realize that she had not taken the required coursework during this particular two-year period was because she was coping with a series of tragic, personal challenges. The circumstances were compelling, as she explained: In May 2007, Ms. Friels' older sister died of breast cancer; then, in October 2007, Ms. Friels' father died, and Ms. Friels assumed the responsibilities for arranging for his funeral and then probating his estate; and finally, Ms. Friels' youngest sister, who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and had lived with her father, was left without care, and the responsibilities for caring for her sister and making decisions about her placement fell on Ms. Friels' shoulders. While these circumstances do not excuse a failure to comply with the continuing education requirements during the two-year period, the totality of the circumstances make the oversight understandable and mitigate against Ms. Friels' culpability. Ms. Friels was under the impression that having accessed the Department's "Instant Online Renewal" and successfully remitted payment of the renewal fee in time, she had done all that was needed to renew her license. She received no notice to the contrary. Apparently, however, at some point after Ms. Friels thought she had successfully renewed her license via the Department's Instant Online Renewal service, the Department's records re-characterized the status of Ms. Friels' license as involuntarily inactive, effective on March 31, 2009, "due to non[-]renewal of her real estate sales associate license." Neither Ms. Friels, nor the licensed broker with whom Ms. Friels was associated, received notice that her real estate sales associate license had been changed to inactive status, that Ms. Friels had not satisfied the continuing education requirements at license renewal, or that her "Instant Online Renewal" and payment were ineffective to renew her license. Ms. Friels presented evidence of the Department's practice to issue a Notice of Deficiency or a Continuing Education Deficiency letter, when a real estate sales associate renews a license without having completed the required continuing education hours. No evidence was offered to explain why this practice would not have applied in this case or why no such notice was given to Ms. Friels. Operating under the impression that she had successfully renewed her license and receiving no notice to the contrary, on one occasion, on approximately June 1, 2009, Ms. Friels participated as a real estate sales associate working on a real estate sales contract under the supervision of Ms. Williams, the licensed broker with whom Ms. Friels was associated, who remained actively involved in the transaction. Mr. Brissenden is a real estate appraiser who was asked to perform an appraisal on the property that was the subject of the same contract, which is how he came to learn that Ms. Friels was operating as a sales associate. Mr. Brissenden testified that he happened to be online on the Department's licensing portal checking on some other things when he looked up Ms. Friels' license out of curiosity. He saw that her license was shown to be inactive, and, so, he filed a complaint. Ms. Friels first learned that she had not completed the required continuing education hours in the two-year period before renewal when she received a letter advising her that she was being investigated for operating as a sales associate without an active license. Immediately upon learning that she had a continuing education deficiency, Ms. Friels took the 14-hour continuing education course and successfully completed the required hours. This course included the "Real Estate Core Law" component required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-3.009(2)(a). The course material, which according to rule, must be submitted to the Florida Real Estate Commission for review and approval, included the following: In the event a license is renewed without the required continuing education course having been completed, the licensee will be sent a deficiency letter. This letter will inform the licensee that the required continuing education was not completed prior to renewal. Ms. Friels' license was reinstated to "active" status on October 16, 2009, following her completion of the 14-hour course credited to her prior renewal cycle. Ms. Friels cooperated with the investigation and submitted a letter with supporting documentation explaining that she did not realize she had not completed the continuing education course during the prior two years and detailing her personal circumstances that led to her oversight. At the completion of the investigation, the investigator contacted Ms. Friels to deliver a Uniform Disciplinary Citation, on December 11, 2009. By this document, the investigator sets forth her determination that there was probable cause to believe Ms. Friels had violated Subsection 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and that the Department had set the penalty at a $500.00 fine (plus no additional amount for costs). Ms. Friels had the choice of accepting the citation, in which case it would become a final order, or disputing the citation, in which case the charges would be prosecuted as a disciplinary action pursuant to Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. Ms. Friels testified that while she accepted responsibility for not completing the required continuing education and was willing to resolve this matter by paying the $500 fine in December 2009, she was unwilling to accept the citation's charge of violating Subsection 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes. That subsection establishes the following as a violation: A person licensed as a sales associate may not operate as a broker or operate as a sales associate for any person not registered as her or his employer. Ms. Friels perceived this charge as more serious, in effect, charging her with operating outside the scope of her sales associate license by operating in a broker capacity. Throughout this proceeding, Ms. Friels remained sensitive to the suggestion that she had operated as more than a real estate sales associate and went to great pains to establish that she did not exceed the bounds of a licensed real estate sales associate and that she was acting under the supervision of the licensed broker with whom she was associated. The subsequently-issued Administrative Complaint charged Ms. Friels with a violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, not Subsection 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Uniform Disciplinary Citation. By this time, however, when Ms. Friels attempted to resolve the dispute, the Division of Real Estate would not agree to the penalty originally proposed in the Citation (with the incorrect statutory charge), but instead proposed additional terms, including payment of $521.40 in investigation costs on top of the $500 fine, plus attendance at two meetings of the Florida Real Estate Commission. Ms. Friels objected to the increased financial consequences since in her view, the reason why the dispute was not resolved by the citation was because the wrong statutory violation was charged. Before the evidentiary hearing, counsel for the Division of Real Estate acknowledged that this case involves, at most, a "minor violation of licensing law." After the evidentiary portion of the hearing, counsel reiterated the Division's position that "this is a minor licensing violation and we're looking for a very minor penalty." Inexplicably, the Proposed Recommended Order submitted by the Petitioner proposed a significantly elevated recommended penalty. The Petitioner proposed an increased fine of $1,000, plus a 30-day suspension, plus costs of investigation, plus "fees pursuant to Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes,"3 despite assurances at the close of the hearing that the Petitioner was only looking for a "very minor penalty" consistent with what had been previously offered. The appropriate penalty for a violation of licensing law cannot be determined without first reviewing the record evidence on mitigating and aggravating circumstances in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-24.001(4). Here, no aggravating circumstances were established or even argued while there are multiple mitigating circumstances. There was no evidence of any harm to the consumers or public as a result of Ms. Friels' oversight in not completing her continuing education by her license renewal date or as a result of her participating as a real estate sales associate in a transaction in June 2009. The fact that there was only one count in the Administrative Complaint is a mitigating circumstance to be considered. Likewise, the fact that Ms. Friels has no disciplinary history is another mitigating circumstance weighing in favor of leniency below the normal penalty ranges established in rule. Consideration of the financial hardship to the Respondent as a result of imposition of a fine or suspension of a license, adds to the weight of mitigating circumstances. Ms. Friels testified to the hardship she has endured as a result of personal circumstances beyond her control. Ms. Friels was forthright and sincere in accepting responsibility for her oversight and acted immediately to rectify the continuing education deficiency as soon as she received notice of it. Under the circumstances, imposition of a fine or suspension of her license would result in unnecessary financial hardship. Finally, under the catch-all language in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-24.001(4)(b) ("mitigating circumstances may include, but are not limited to . . ."), consideration must be given to the Respondent's compelling personal circumstances that make her oversight understandable and mitigate further against imposing a penalty in the normal range. The circumstances here were far from normal, and imposing a penalty as if they were normal would be unduly harsh.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, finding that the Respondent, Marsha Evans Friels, violated Subsection 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes (and, thereby, Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes); issuing a reprimand as the sole penalty; and waiving the permissive assessment of costs allowed by Subsection 455.227(3)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 24th day of September, 2010.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an ACLF which is owned by Vivian Zaleta, its sole stockholder. Prior to May, 1980, and continuing through the present, the Petitioner corporation operated the ACLF from its location at 700 S. E. 20th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mrs. Zaleta purchased the property and improvements at 700 S. E. 20th Street for $150,000 and from the period May, 1980, through the date of the final hearing, November 16, 1982, invested an additional $80,000 to $100,000 on repairs and improvements to the property. Petitioner was granted a license by the Department to operate as an ACLF and began operations on May 2, 1981. The Petitioner's initial license expiration date was August 5, 1981. Applications for renewal of the license must be submitted to the Department on required renewal forms which were furnished to Petitioner by the Respondent for completion and submission. Petitioner's renewal license application was completed May 9, 1981, and received by the Department on May 11, 1981. By letter dated June 2, 1981, the Department requested the Petitioner to complete certain financial reports which were enclosed in said letter and required: ...in order to comply with the Florida Statute 400, Chapter II and the changes in Section 10A-5 of the Florida Administrative Code which became effective May 14, 1981.." (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Petitioner completed the additional financial report requested by the Department. This financial report was received by the Department on August 7, 1981. On September 14, 1981, the Department requested additional information from the Petitioner. The Petitioner's application was denied by the Department by letter to Mrs. Zaleta dated November 24, 1981, due to a failure of Petitioner to comply with Chapter 10A-5.14, Florida Administrative Code, and requests for specified information. Moreover, in its letter of denial, the following was noted: Florida Statute 120, "Administrative Procedure Act stipulates that every application for license shall be approved or denied within ninety days after receipt of the application. Since your application was received on May 11, 1981, the expiration of the ninety-day time limit was August 11, 1981. There is no statutory provision (sic) to extend this mandated time limit on applications, there fore, it is necessary that your application for a license for an Adult Congregate Living Facility be denied because the fol lowing licensure requirements have not been met... (Petitioner's Exhibit 1a) By letter dated November 27, 1981, and received by the Department on November 30, 1981, Mrs. Zaleta, as administrator of Yesterday's, filed a timely request for an administrative hearing to review the denial of the requested license renewal. During the pendency of these proceedings, counsel for the parties attempted to resolve their dispute. On behalf of Petitioner, Rosen and Santini, P.A., Certified Public Accountants, prepared a financial report and revised financial report concerning the financial status of the corporation on forms furnished by the Department and submitted the same to Aging and Adult Services. The Department apparently considered the documents submitted pursuant to settlement discussions between counsel as part of a new and separate license renewal application and by letter dated June 29, 1982, again denied the requested license renewal for the failure of the Petitioner to provide a Statement of Operation or Renewal Questionnaire. At the final hearing, the Department conceded that the letter of June 29, 1982, was incorrect, and that Petitioner had submitted and the Department had received and reviewed a Statement of Operations or Renewal Questionnaire which was submitted by the Petitioner's accounting firm. Since August, 1981, the Department has deleted the Petitioner from its list of Adult Congregate Living Facilities to which health care providers may refer potential residents, thereby, causing Petitioner to lose both referrals and income.
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 Health and Rehabilitative Services granting the requested license to the Petitioner Yesterday's Retirement Manor, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1983.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for reinstatement of his license as a general contractor should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioner was previously issued Certified General Contractor's License number CGC42026. His license was active in the 2004 renewal cycle, became delinquent-active in the 2006 renewal cycle, and null and void at the start of the 2008 renewal cycle. Due to an executive order of the Governor relating to tropical storms, Petitioner's license became null and void on October 2, 2008. Petitioner was required to pay a renewal fee and report continuing education credit hours in order to renew his license prior to the start of the 2008 renewal cycle to avoid the license becoming null and void. Petitioner timely paid the renewal fee ($518) to renew his license. Petitioner completed and reported two continuing education hours for the reporting period ending August 31, 2008. Petitioner completed and reported 44 continuing education hours through July 5, 2011, and is currently up to date with all of his required continuing education credit hours. While Petitioner completed and reported a portion of his required continuing education hours, he did not complete and report all of his required continuing education hours to renew his license during the 2008 renewal period. This was due to financial difficulty and an inability to pay for continuing education credit hours. At present, the total hours Petitioner completed and reported would fulfill his 2006, 2008, and 2010 continuing education requirements. A license becomes null and void if it is not renewed within two years of the renewal date. Petitioner filed his application pursuant to section 455.271(6), Florida Statutes, to reinstate his Certified General Contractor's License number CGC42026. The Department entered its Notice of Intent to Deny the application. Following the Board's issuance of a Corrected Notice of Intent to Deny, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings. The Corrected Notice stated that Petitioner's license expired due to non receipt of continuing education credits for renewal and, following the delinquency period, became null and void. The reasons for the denial set forth in the corrected notice were as follows: Applicant failed to present evidence of a good faith effort to comply with the license renewal statutes and rules and failed to present evidence that rises to the level of illness or unusual hardship that would justify the failure to renew the license. The Board approved the application of Alberto Munoz to reinstate his Certified Pool/Spa Contractor's License pursuant to section 455.271(6) at the July 14, 2011, meeting of the Board. The application filed by Mr. Munoz stated that his license had gone null and void because he failed to pay the required license renewal fee due to undue due to undue financial hardship. The Board approved the application of Edwin W. Steffen to reinstate his Certified Plumbing Contractor's License pursuant to section 455.271(6) at the August 11, 2011, meeting of the Board. The application filed by Mr. Steffen stated that his license had gone null and void because his "two cycle inactive status expired in August 2010." Further, Mr. Steffen cited financial difficulties following the "2009 market crash that hurt [him] significantly," leading him to "go back into the workforce." Neither the Department nor the Board has adopted any rules pertaining to applications to reinstate licensees pursuant to section 455.271(6) other than a Department approved application form. Facts based upon evidence of record Petitioner's Certified General Contractor's (CGC) license was active during the 2004 renewal cycle, and became delinquent-active in the 2006 renewal cycle. Petitioner was required to pay a renewal fee and report continuing education credit hours in order to renew his CGC license prior to the start of the 2008 renewal cycle to avoid the license becoming null and void. During the 2006 and 2008 renewal cycles, Petitioner worked as a construction foreman in remote encampments in Puerto Rico and in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Although these jobs were full-time, he earned very little money on these projects. During this time, Petitioner's wife and three children remained at home in Puerto Rico. He earned only enough during this time for his family to subsist. Although working in remote locations in Puerto Rico and in the U.S. Virgin Islands during this time, Petitioner insists that he always intended to return to Florida and was actively seeking work here. He did not finish working in the remote encampments until 2009. While working in the remote locations, he had no access to the Internet and relied on phone calls to friends in an attempt to find appropriate yet affordable continuing education courses. The courses he learned of were expensive at a time when he was earning little money and trying to support his family. Petitioner's testimony in this regard is deemed credible and is accepted as fact. When Petitioner submitted his application for reinstatement of his license, he included a money order for $100 as required. During this period of time, Petitioner paid his renewal fee and completed two continuing education credit hours, but was unable to afford the required number of authorized continuing education credits, and was not in a place from which he could travel to attend live courses. Petitioner made a good-faith effort to comply with the license renewal statutes and rules. He paid the renewal fee and has since completed the necessary continuing education requirements.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for reinstatement of his license as a general contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 13th day of January, 2012.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to have his general contractor’s license re-instated.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner received a license as a general contractor in 1984. At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was required to renew his license every two years. For the Petitioner, the renewal was due on or before August 31 of even numbered years. For example, the Petitioner’s license due for renewal in 2000 was due August 31, 2000. There are two types of licenses pertinent to this case: active and inactive. The renewal fees associated with these licenses are different. An inactive licensee pays a smaller renewal fee. The Respondent is responsible for maintaining records, collecting the appropriate fees, and processing license renewals for licensees. If a contractor fails to pay the requisite renewal fees when they are due the license automatically goes into a “delinquent status.” This status continues until the licensee makes good on the past due renewal fees and submits a complete renewal application. If the licensee does not remit the appropriate fees and completed application before the next licensing renewal period expires (the next two year cycle), the license becomes “null.” In this case, the Petitioner held an inactive license during the 1998-2000 two year-period. On or before August 31, 2000, the Petitioner should have submitted a complete application and paid the renewal fees to keep his license in good status. The Petitioner did not submit a complete application and did not remit the appropriate fees for renewal on or before August 31, 2000. Consequently, on September 1, 2000, the Petitioner’s license went into the delinquent status noted above. To clear this status the Petitioner was required to renew his license by submitting a complete renewal application with the appropriate fees on or before August 31, 2002. The Petitioner did not do so. Therefore, on September 1, 2002, the Petitioner’s license became “null” as a matter of law. The “null” status cannot be changed by paying unpaid fees. Instead, a licensee may either apply for and seek a new license or seek to re-instate the license. To that end, the Petitioner filed a request for reinstatement on or about June 9, 2006. When the Respondent denied the Petitioner’s request for reinstatement, the instant case ensued. Prior to August 31, 2002, the Petitioner did not contact the Respondent to relate personal tragedies, did not cure the delinquent renewal status, and did not pay the fees necessary to renew his inactive license. The Petitioner’s request for a refund (dated May 18, 2005) of the untimely fees paid in September 2002 was not approved. The Respondent provided no explanation for why the untimely fees were not refunded to the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for reinstatement of his license. The Respondent should, however, refund the Petitioner’s untimely paid fees. S DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 28th day of March, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney Williams 513 Northwest 22nd Avenue Apartment 4 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311-7773 Deborah Bartholow Loucks, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Michael Martinez, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a certified water and wastewater treatment operator whose certification renewal fees were increased by amended Rule 17-16.14. A notice of proposed rulemaking, a notice of a workshop on the proposed rule, and a notice of a public hearing on the proposed rule were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 9, No. 20, May 20, 1983. Petitioner attended and made comments at both the public workshop on June 1, 1983, and at the public hearing on June 21, 1983. Although the June 21, 1983, public hearing on the amendment to Rule 17- 16.14 was held open for 14 days in order for the petitioner to provide additional information to the Respondent, Respondent indicated at the public hearing that it intended to adopt the rule after 14 days without further notice unless it received additional information. The proposed amendment to Rule 17-16.14 was adopted by Respondent on July 14, 1983, and filed with the Secretary of State on July 15, 1983. The Economic Impact Statement includes the statement, "Essentially, the burden of supporting the operator certification program will be shifted from all of the taxpayers of the state to the operators themselves." The Economic Impact Statement makes no mention of the fact that many public utilities may pass the increased certification cost on to the consumers of their services. Respondent currently charges a $15 fee for processing applications, a $25 biennial certification renewal fee, and no fee for certification itself. Prior to the amendment to Rule 17-16.14, Respondent charged a $20 biennial certification renewal fee. The increase in certification renewal fees provides a continuous, efficient, and increasing source of revenue for the certification program. The costs and administrative difficulties with collecting two fees or with increasing application processing fees make raising the certification renewal fee reasonable. Robert Hall, Respondent's Certification Officer, made several references at the June 21, 1983, public hearing to a report by the Auditor General which stated that Respondent should not charge two separate fees for processing and issuing certificates and further stated that renewal fees should be raised rather than processing fees. Following the hearing, it was discovered that Mr. Hall was in error in his references to the Auditor General report and that such a report from the Auditor General did not, in fact, exist.
The Issue Whether Respondent is entitled to a refund of license fees and late penalties.
Findings Of Fact On September 6, 1988, a lien on License No. 68-01319, Series 4-COP, was recorded with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Respondent). The named lienholder was Francis D. Sawyer (Petitioner). Framay, Inc., d/b/a Thirsty Parrot was the holder of License No. 68-01319. On May 21, 1990, an administrative action was filed by the Respondent against Framay, Inc., d/b/a Thirsty Parrot. The administrative action, alleged that Framay failed to maintain the license in an active status. Framay never requested a hearing and a Final Order was entered on September 25, 1990, revoking License No. 68-01319. On November 8, 1990, the Respondent filed a Notice to Show Cause alleging failure to comply with the terms of the September 25, 1990 Final Order. On May 6, 1991, a second Final Order was entered revoking License No. 68-01319. In February 1992, the Respondent was contacted by attorney Stanley Chapman as counsel to Petitioner, Sawyer. Petitioner claimed that the Respondent had failed to provide him a point of entry as lienholder to foreclose his lien, and sought to have the license "reinstated in escrow" in order to allow him to proceed in foreclosure. After some discussion, the Respondent agreed to cooperate with Petitioner's efforts to foreclose by not opposing a summary judgement motion filed by Petitioner. Normally, foreclosure of a lien on a revoked license is permitted only when the lienholder brings an action within 12 days of an order or revocation. Even though the time had expired, the Division nonetheless permitted Sawyer to foreclose on the license because Sawyer had a legitimate claim and the Division's interests would not be adversely affected by ignoring the 12 day time frame. In August 1992, Petitioner, through his attorney Stanley Chapman, filed a complaint to foreclose his lienholder's interest in the license. Framay, Inc., d/b/a Thirsty Parrot, Wayne F. Sawyer and the Division were named as defendants. The Petitioner foreclosed on License No. 68-01319 and a Final Judgment of Foreclosure and Transfer of Beverage License was entered on January 27, 1993. Upon the entry of foreclosure, Petitioner, as required by the Respondent, filed an application for the delinquent renewal of License No. 68- 01319. The delinquent renewal of the license required that past due license fees totalling $5,512.50 for the years 1990-1991, 1991-1992, and 1992-1993 be paid to activate the license. Petitioner requested that the Respondent waive the payment of delinquent annual license fees and penalties which the Respondent was seeking prior to issuing the license to any transferee. The Respondent denied the request to waive applicable fees and required payment of delinquent renewal fees in the amount of $5,512.50. Petitioner paid the fee under protest, claiming that the fee was not applicable to this transaction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly,
