The Issue May Respondent's contracting license be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined? EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE Petitioner presented the testimony of the following witnesses: Randall F. Patterson; Bob R. Pope; Roberta Ballenger; Joel A. Dean; and Victor F. Boucher. Petitioner's exhibits number one through fourteen were admitted into evidence. Respondent was not present, put on no evidence, and submitted no after- filed proposals. Petitioner filed the transcript of proceedings on October 17, 1985, and filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law styled "Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order" on November 8, 1985. Although additional time for filing proposals was neither applied-for nor granted, these proposals have been considered, and are ruled on within the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and at all times material to the Administrative Complaint, was a registered residential contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RR 0032683. On August 7, 1982 Respondent d/b/a Future Homes of America Construction Company, Inc. contracted with Victor Boucher for the construction of a single family residence at 822 Fairview Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida. Section 14.5 of the Fixed Price Construction Agreement provided: The owner will, as agreed to by the contractor, request the contractor to obtain payment and performance bonds, issued by a surety and in amounts acceptable to owner, guaranteeing the full performance of contractor's payment and performance obligations hereunder. (Pet. Exh. 1, Pet. Exh. 9). Article 14.5 of the construction contract required Respondent to obtain a payment and performance bond. Respondent failed to obtain a payment and performance bond. During the construction of the home, Boucher asked Respondent whether a payment and performance bond had been obtained. Boucher wanted to see the bond because he was concerned about Respondent actually finishing the project. In response to Boucher's request, Respondent indicated a bond had not been obtained; however, Respondent assured Boucher that a payment and performance bond would be obtained. On April 7, 1953 Respondent and Boucher obtained a construction loan in the amount of $54,400.00 from the American Savings and Loan Association of Florida, Winter Park, Florida. The construction loan was secured by a mortgage on the property located at 522 Fairview Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida. The proceeds of the construction loan were paid out in draws. American Savings and Loan Association of Florida paid the contract draws directly to Respondent. On August 29, 1953 Respondent executed an affidavit in support of final construction draw. American Savings and Loan Association of Florida required the affidavit as a precondition to making final disbursement to Respondent of the $4,338.50 remaining on the construction loan. The affidavit provided in pertinent part: 4. The undersigned swears that construction of the improvements to the PROPERTY has been fully completed in accordance with the plans and specifications therefore,...that all persons furnishing labor or materials, engaged as subcontractors or contracting directly with the owner of the PROPERTY in connection with said improvements, except the following, identified by name, address and amount due: [none known] have been paid in full and no person, firm or corporation has or holds any claim or lien against the PROPERTY for labor or material in connection with said improvements. Boucher was also required to sign the affidavit referred-to in Paragraph 5, above, in support of the final construction draw. Boucher's signature was required in support of the affidavit for final construction draw because Boucher had previously contacted the savings and loan association with regard to freezing the disbursement of construction funds. His request to freeze disbursements was made because Boucher was under the impression Respondent had moved to Miami and Boucher's attempts to contact Respondent had proven unsuccessful. Prior to executing the affidavit, Respondent told Boucher that certain subcontractors had not been paid. Nonetheless, Boucher, contrary to advice of legal counsel signed the affidavit knowing that certain subcontractors had not been paid and therefore knowing he was making a false affidavit. Respondent convinced Boucher that the final draw would be utilized to satisfy the remaining subcontractors and materialmen. Respondent's Answer pleads accord and satisfaction as an affirmative defense that Boucher agreed to pay off all bills of Overhead Door Co., Future Plumbing, Quality Fiberglass, and Patterson Well Drilling but Boucher's testimony that he, Boucher, insisted Respondent meet him to pay off all subcontractors out of the final draw and Respondent did not do so, overcomes any burden of proof problems raised by this affirmative defense. (See "Conclusions of Law.") On November 29, 1983 Patterson Well Drilling Company filed a claim of lien against Boucher's property. The claim of lien represented materials and labor furnished to Respondent in connection with the construction of the Boucher residence. The claim of lien was in the amount of $1,510.00. Although the claim of lien under oath of President Randall F. Patterson states that the services were provided between September 9 and September 12, 1983, Boucher testified that Patterson's services were actually provided prior to the August 29, 1983 execution of the affidavit in support of final construction draw. Randall F. Patterson's testimony tends to support this timeframe set out by Boucher, and although the difference in dates between Mr. Patterson's affidavit within the claim of lien and his oral testimony at formal hearing might otherwise present a credibility issue, his explanation at hearing coupled with Boucher's explanation of how he relates the dates persuade the undersigned that Patterson Well Drilling Company installed the well prior to August 29, 1983. Respondent failed to pay Patterson prior to executing the bank affidavit. Respondent also failed to pay Patterson from the funds received in the final construction draw. Boucher paid Patterson Well Drilling Company for the services represented by the claim of lien. A check substantiates that Boucher actually paid Patterson the amount of $1,562.40. Respondent contracted with Quality Fiberglass Industries to provide materials and services in connection with the construction of the Boucher residence. Respondent failed to fully reimburse Quality Fiberglass for the services and materials provided. On August 19, 1953 Quality Fiberglass Industries filed a claim of lien against the Boucher property for $219.00. Mr. Pope, Quality's representative, testified he was actually owed $325.00 and he has never been paid. Boucher testified he was required to pay the Quality Fiberglass lien prior to the closing on the home. There is no documentary evidence to reconcile this issue and in the absence of clear evidence that Boucher paid the fee, payment of the lien or the difference in amount is not proved. Overhead Door Company provided services to Respondent d/b/a Future Homes of America, Inc. in connection with the construction of the Boucher residence. On July 11, 1983 Overhead Door Company installed a garage door. Although contacted on several occasions, Respondent failed to pay Overhead Door Company $356.00 for the services provided. Overhead Door Company has not otherwise been reimbursed for the services provided. The construction plans for the Boucher home indicated a tar and gravel roof would be constructed over the patio. However, with the acquiescence of Mr. Boucher, Respondent placed rolled roofing rather than tar and gravel roofing on the patio. The construction plans were submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. According to Joel A. Dean, the county building department currently relies upon the construction plans in issuing the building permit. A contractor currently is required to notify the building department of any change or deviation from the submitted plans. This requirement enables the building department to control the type of building construction, the occupancy and use of the building, and ensures the buildings are constructed safe and watertight. Respondent did not notify the building department concerning the agreed roofing change as would be required by current requirements and requirements at the pertinent times under Section 114 of the Standard Building Code.
Recommendation That the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order suspending Respondent's contracting license for a period of two (2) years and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00, provided, however, if Respondent submits to the Board competent and substantial evidence of payment to Overhead Doors Co. of $356.00 and payment to Quality Fiberglass of $219.00, the period of suspension shall be reduced to one (1) year. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 December, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-3835 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact According To the Paragraph Number assigned by Petitioner. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the credible competent substantial evidence in the record as a whole as set out more fully in Finding of Fact Paragraph 9. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Department of Professional Regulation Regulation 130 North Monroe Street 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Anguelo James Linnan 1415 West 28th Street Executive Director Apartment 4 Construction Industry Hialeah, Florida 33010 Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should be sanctioned for failure to renew his registration as a motor vehicle repair shop for the current year.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act, Sections 559.901 through 559.9221, Florida Statutes, the Department regulates the repair of motor vehicles in this state. Mr. Flowers held a motor vehicle repair shop license issued by the Department which was valid through February 8, 2000. On January 9, 2000, Mr. Flowers was provided with notice that his license was required to be renewed by February 8, 2000. In order to have his license renewed, Mr. Flowers was required to pay a renewal fee of $50.00. He did not pay the renewal fee by the due date. During the period January 9, 2000, through September 21, 2000, in a continuing effort to persuade Mr. Flowers to renew his license, the department sent Mr. Flowers four letters, made three visits to the premises, and contacted the business at least nine times telephonically. Subsequent to his failure to renew his license, Mr. Flowers has continued to operate his vehicle repair facility and has, on at least three occasions, operated his motor vehicle repair shop by working on motor vehicles for compensation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of operating a motor vehicle repair shop without a license on three occasions, imposing a fine of $3,000, and ordering the Respondent to cease and desist engaging in the repair of motor vehicles. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard Flowers Tallahassee Truck Service 3321 Garber Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold McLean, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street Mayo Building, Room 515 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether Respondent violated Section 484.014(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in the manner alleged in an administrative complaint and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and at all times material has been, a licensed optician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DO 2390 on November 29, 1984. At all times material, Respondent has operated, or has assisted in the operation of, a business named Fast Eyes Optical, located at 8246 Jog Road, Boynton Beach, Florida 33437. On or about January 3, 2002, customer R.S., accompanied by a friend (L.E.), visited Fast Eyes Optical, where they were attended by Respondent. Both R.S. and L.E. decided they would each buy a pair of Oakley sunglasses. Respondent quoted an initial price of $634.00 per pair for the Oakley sunglasses with prescription lenses. Ultimately, Respondent agreed to sell the Oakley sunglasses for $500.00 per pair. At the time in question, the Oakley sunglasses came from the manufacturer with non-prescription lenses made from a material known as polycarbonate. Polycarbonate lenses are noted for being impact resistant. Polycarbonate lenses are more impact resistant than lenses made of a plastic material known as CR-39. Polycarbonate lenses are particularly desirable for people who frequently engage in sports or otherwise lead a very active lifestyle in which they are at greater risk of some form of impact to their eyewear. Plastic lenses made from CR-39 have better optical characteristics than polycarbonate lenses, and, from a visual acuity point of view, are a better choice material than polycarbonate. R.S. wanted to have prescription lenses in his new Oakley sunglasses. Respondent told R.S. that Respondent could put prescription lenses in the new Oakley sunglasses that would duplicate the prescription in the glasses R.S. was wearing when he came into the store, but that he would have to send off for the prescription lenses for the Oakley sunglasses. It was ultimately agree that Respondent would obtain prescription lenses for the new Oakley sunglasses and that when the new sunglasses were ready, Respondent would mail them to R.S. at R.S.'s home in Ohio.1 Using a device called a lensometer, Respondent examined the glasses R.S. was wearing when he came into the shop and determined the prescriptions that were in the lenses in those glasses. Respondent ordered lenses for the Oakley sunglasses that matched the prescriptions in the glasses R.S. was wearing that day. While R.S. was still in the shop, Respondent explained to him that Oakley did not (at that time) make prescription lenses for the frame model R.S. was buying, that the prescription lenses for the sunglasses would not be Oakley lenses, and that the lenses would be made from a plastic material called CR-39 because Respondent thought CR-39 was a better choice lens material in view of the purposes for which R.S. was buying the sunglasses.2 In due course Respondent mailed a pair of Oakley sunglasses to R.S. in Ohio. Shortly after receiving the sunglasses, R.S. went on a trip to Mexico. While in Mexico, and while wearing the sunglasses he had received from Respondent, R.S. fell down at least three different times at the same place on the same set of stairs in the same Mexican restaurant. His last fall on those stairs caused R.S. to have a bruised chin, a bruised wrist, and a broken big toe on his left foot.3 Shortly after returning from his trip to Mexico, R.S. went to an optician in Ohio and asked the Ohio optician to examine the Oakley sunglasses he had purchased from Respondent. Upon examining the sunglasses made by Respondent, the Ohio optician communicated the following conclusions to R.S.: The right lens in those sunglasses did not match R.S.'s prescription, the lenses were made from CR-39 plastic material, and the lenses were chipped.4 On March 14, 2002, the Ohio optician sold R.S. a pair of prescription polycarbonate lenses in his correct prescription for his Oakley frame, and replaced the plastic lenses that Respondent had originally placed in the Oakley frame. The Ohio optician charged $321.00 for the new lenses. The polycarbonate lenses sold by the Ohio optician were not Oakley lenses. Not long after his visit with the Ohio optician, R.S. communicated with Respondent and complained about the things the Ohio optician had told him were wrong with the lenses furnished by Respondent. Respondent told R.S. that R.S. should mail the sunglasses to Respondent and Respondent would correct any problems with the sunglasses. R.S. refused to send the sunglasses back to Respondent because he no longer had any confidence in Respondent. Instead, R.S. asked Respondent to send him a refund of approximately $300.00 to cover the cost of the lenses R.S. bought from the optician in Ohio. Respondent refused to send a refund to R.S., but repeated his offer to make any necessary corrections to the sunglasses. Respondent has a policy of not giving refunds to customers, but Respondent also has a policy of doing whatever is necessary to correct any problems with any of the products he sells.5
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Opticianry enter a Final Order concluding that the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed because the evidence is insufficient to prove the violations alleged by clear and convincing evidence. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. 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 1st day of April, 2004.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File by William F. Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Said Order Closing File was predicated upon Respondent's notice of withdrawal. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Petitioner, Jealse Scooters, Inc., be granted a license for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Co. Ltd. (ZHEJ) at 572 East Osceola Parkway, Kissimmee, (Osceola County), Florida 34744, upon compliance with all applicable requirements of Section 320.27, Florida Statutes, and all applicable Department rules. Filed January 7, 2010 10:39 AM Division of Administrative Hearings. DONE AND ORDERED this ;(/day of January, 2010 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. or Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Divis)On of Motor Vehicles this Jtf!1._ day of January, 2010. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. CAF:vlg Copies furnished: Fabio Jealse Jealse Scooters, Inc. 572 East Osceola Parkway Kissimmee, Florida 34774 Beverly Fox Red Streak Scooters, LLC 427 Doughty Boulevard Inwood, New York 11096 Jeff Lampe Kissimmee Motorsports, Inc. 2881 North John Young Parkway Kissimmee, Florida 34741 William F. Quattlebaum Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Rm. A-432-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Section
The Issue Whether Gamm Contracting Company (Gamm), Respondent, is in default on Contract 89095-3424 and its certification to bid on Department of Transportation (DOT) contracts subject to revocation. The critical issue presented in this case is whether Respondent's refusal to repair, without first being issued a supplemental agreement, damage to the project (89 095- 3424) caused by a third party prior to acceptance by DOT with no contributory negligence by Respondent, is grounds for revocation.
Findings Of Fact Gamm, Respondent, was awarded the contract as prime contractor to construct rest areas on 1-95 at the Martin County rest area southwest of Stuart, Florida. The job number of this contract is 89095-3424 (Exhibit 1). The project proceeded satisfactorily and was approximately 95% complete on December 7, 1988 when, around 8:45 a.m., a motorist southbound on 1-95 suffered an epileptic seizure, his car proceeded through the off-ramp barricade at the rest area under construction and collided with the west end of the south bound rest area building. The collision caused extensive damage to the wall of this building with estimated repair costs of approximately $46,000. On January 4, 1989, Gamm was notified by DOT that, pursuant to Section 7-14 of the Standard Specifications (Exhibit 2), DOT was holding Gamm responsible for the repairs to the building damaged by the automobile collision on December 7, 1988 (Exhibit 8). By letter dated January 12, 1989 (Exhibit 8), Gamm denied the contract placed the risk of damage to the building by a third party, without fault on the part of Gamm, on Gamm Contracting as contended by DOT. Considerable correspondence followed between Gamm and DOT in which DOT pursued its position that Gamm was responsible for the damage, and Gamm refused to make the repairs absent a supplemental agreement to cover the costs of repair. By letters dated March 3, 1989 (Exhibit 13) and May 19, 1989 (Exhibit 17), Gamm notified DOT of "presumptive completion" of the project and all work required under the contract is complete. DOT responded to these letters by letters dated March 6, 1989 and May 23, 1989, by pointing out incomplete items on the contract. As of the date of the hearing, Gamm had not obtained the required permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation for the well to provide water to the project. Accordingly, the building was not ready for use. At no time has DOT accepted this project as being completed by the contractor. By letter to Gamm dated June 23, 1989 (Exhibit 4), DOT declared the contract to be in default because repairs to the building caused by the automobile accident had not been repaired, and Gamm had stated it would not repair damage to this building. DOT Standard Specifications for Road and Construction (Exhibit 2) are an integral part of the contract entered into between Gamm and DOT to construct this rest area. Following the accident, the resident engineer at the project site directed Gamm to make the necessary repairs. Gamm refused without first receiving a supplemental agreement covering the cost of repair. The motorist's insurance carrier has offered the insurance coverage which is approximately $30,000 toward repair of this damage. DOT, pursuant to the terms of the contract, has withheld some $48,000 of the amount owed Gamm upon completion of the contract pending final acceptance. Gamm bases its position that it is not responsible to repair this damage on Section 7-14 of the Standard Specifications (Exhibit 2) which provides in pertinent part: Until acceptance of the work by the Department it shall be under the charge and custody of the Contractor and he shall take every necessary precaution against injury or damage to the work by the action of the elements or from any other cause whatsoever, arising either from the execution or from the nonexecu- tion of the work. The Contractor shall rebuild, repair, restore and make good, without additional compensation, all injury or damage to any portion of the work occasioned by any of the above causes before its completion and acceptance except that in the case of extensive or catastrophic damage the Department may, at its discretion, reimburse the contractor for the repair of such damage due to unforeseen causes beyond the control of and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor, including but not restricted to Acts of God, of the public enemy or of govern- mental authorities. Section 5-5 of Exhibit 2 provides for the work on the contract to be performed under the supervision of the engineer designated to supervise the construction and that he shall decide all questions, difficulties and disputes, of whatever nature, arising relative to interpretation of the plans, construction, prosecution and fulfillment of the contract and as to the character, quality, amount and value of any work done, and materials furnished, under or by reason of the contract. This contract provision is generally considered by the road and bridge construction industry to require the contractor to perform any work directed to be performed by the engineer on the project. If the contractor believes he should be paid for such work, his recourse is to file a claim. Section 5-12 of Exhibit 2 provides that where the Contractor deems that extra compensation is due him for work or materials not clearly covered in the contract or not ordered by the engineer as extra work, the contractor shall notify the engineer in writing of his intention to make a claim for extra compensation before he begins the work on which he bases his claim. Section 5-10 of Exhibit 2 provides the contractor shall maintain all work in first-class condition until it has been accepted as a whole and has been given final acceptance by the engineer. This provision is generally interpreted by the construction industry to mean the contractor is responsible to maintain the property and to repair any damage occasioned thereto prior to final acceptance by DOT. In addition to refusing to repair the damage to the building caused by the errant automobile, Respondent has not obtained the final permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation for the well. This permit is required before water can be supplied to the project and the rest station be placed into operation. Accordingly, apart from the damaged building, the project is not complete and ready for acceptance. However, Respondent does not contest the requirement that he obtain the permit needed before water can be made available to the facility. This leaves in dispute only the responsibility for repairs to the damaged building.
Recommendation It is recommended that Gamm Construction Company's qualification to bid on DOT contracts be suspended for one year. ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. K.N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 198. COPIES FURNISHED: Jason O. Barber, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Charles F. Ketchey, Jr., Esquire M. Eric Edginton, Esquire Barnett Plaza, Suite 2400 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 32602-5701 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified building contractor holding license number CB C032007. In May, 1985, he contracted to build a residence for Daniel Drigger for a price of $98,400. This is the first residence constructed by the Respondent under his license. The Driggers moved into the house in February, 1986. As a part of the contract to build the residence, the Respondent was responsible for the construction of a "greenhouse" window along the wall of the kitchen. The window is depicted in P. Ex. 3 on the left side of the house. The top portion of the window that slants on a 45 degree angle from the wall of the house began to leak in heavy rain storms shortly after the Driggers moved in. Water would pour in from the top seams of the window, damaging the drywall and wallpaper, and resulting in large pools of water on the floor. Mark Nasrallah was qualified as an expert in proper methods of construction and responsibilities of a contractor in Florida. Based upon the opinion of Mr. Nasrallah, it is concluded that the window had been improperly constructed by Mr. Allison. Mr. Allison's method, reliance upon caulking to seal the top glass, was defective because the glass would change size in heat and cold, thus loosening the seal, causing leaks. The proper method to prevent leaks was to rabbet the frame, laying the glass on a bead of caulk within the rabbet, and to construct a system of double flashing as indicated in the sketch which is Petitioner's Ex. 7. Mr. Allison agreed in his testimony that the method he chose to construct the window was not correct. He relied upon the carpenters he had hired to properly construct the window. The carpenters he hired had told him that they had constructed windows of this type many times before. Mr. Allison relied upon their representations, but did not know himself how the window should properly be constructed. At the hearing, Mr. Allison accepted full responsibility for the incorrect window, and was willing to spend the money needed to repair the window to the standards set forth by Mr. Nasrallah. The cost of correction of the window will be approximately $300. When Mr. Driggers first discovered that the window leaked, he called Mr. Allison and asked him to fix it. Mr. Allison told Mr. Driggers that he had lost a lot of money under the contract, and that he (Mr. Allison) believed that Mr. Driggers still owed him money. Mr. Allison told Mr. Driggers that he would fix the window if Mr. Driggers paid him the money that was owed, but that otherwise Mr. Driggers would have to have the window repaired using the money Mr. Driggers owed Mr. Allison. Since Mr. Driggers refused to pay the money claimed by Mr. Allison, Mr. Allison refused to correct the window. Mr. Driggers tried several methods to correct the leaky window, including caulk and after-the-fact flashing (without reconstruction), to no avail. The window still leaked. At the end of the job, there were still a number of corrections to be made. In order to release liens and to allow the bank to release funds, the parties agreed to allow the retention of $1500 by the Driggers, to be paid to Mr. Allison upon completion of the corrections on the "punch" list. P. Exs. 5A and 5B are the letters exchanged between the parties that established the agreement regarding the punch list and the retained $1500. The Driggers agreed that if all the items on the punch list were not completed by February 16, 1986, then the Driggers would have the option to hire someone to take care of the uncompleted items. Implicitly, payment was to be made from the retained $1500. R. Ex. 5B. Mr. Driggers testified that the following items on the punch list were not completed by Mr. Allison: rehang door to guest bathroom to open to outside; remove stain from living room ceiling; replace cabinet drawers upstairs; remove smudge on wallpaper in upstairs bathroom; center cabinet doors, master bathroom; and deliver all guarantees and warranties. This testimony is not credible, and is rejected. On May 6, Mrs. Driggers wrote to Mr. Allison. P. Ex. 6. The letter is clearly intended to itemize all remaining deficiencies under the contract. It states that $1,273.30 of the retained $1,500 is enclosed as "final payment," and itemizes $226.70 in matters claimed as offsets by the Driggers. None of the items listed are matters that Mr. Driggers at the formal hearing testified were uncompleted items on the punch list. The letter concluded that "this concludes our contract." Based on the letter of May 6, 1987, Mr. Allison reasonably and justifiable thought that the retained amount of $226.70 was used by the Driggers to satisfy all remaining claims by the Driggers under the contract. At the conclusion of the contract, Mr. Allison had a claim against the Driggers for the following, which Mr. Allison asserts was never paid to him: $75 for the utility deposit; $362 for landscaping; and $101.07 for appliances in excess of contract allowance. None of these amounts were denied by Mr. Driggers. The effect of this claim, however, cannot be determined on this record due to the findings of fact which follow. Mr. Allison originally presented Mr. and Mrs. Driggers with an estimate of $112,000 to construct the house. The bank would loan only $98,400. Thus, the parties agreed that the contract would be for the lower amount, but that Mr. Driggers would bring the cost down by supplying labor and materials for certain jobs. This agreement was not reduced to writing, and there is insufficient evidence in the record to conclude that either Mr. Allison or Mr. and Mrs. Driggers breached any of these oral agreements, resulting in money owed to either party. This is Particularly true in light of the letter of May 6, 1987, P. Ex. 6. As a consequence, it is impossible on this record to conclude that after consideration of all claims and counter claims, that the Driggers owed Mr. Allison anything further, or that Mr. Allison breached any duty to the Driggers other than in the construction of the leaky window. On June 25, 1986, the Driggers sent a letter to Mr. Allison. The letter lists a number of grievances. It ends by saying that formal complaints were being filed against Mr. Allison. On the last page, the Driggers state that "we, personally, have taken the appropriate steps to have the leaks fixed." After receipt of the June 25, 1986, letter, Mr. Allison did not offer to fix the leaky window because he believed it had already been fixed based upon the Driggers' letter. He was not contacted again by the Driggers. The window had not been fixed as of the date of the formal hearing. Mr. Allison offered to fix the window, as discussed above.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter its final order dismissing the administrative complaint against Frank D. Allison. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 18th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 18th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2959 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact which have either been rejected or which have been adopted by reference. The numbers used are the numbers used by the parties. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: The proposed finding that the "punch list items were not complete" has been ejected for the reasons set forth in finding of fact 15. The second sentence is true and adopted by reference, but is subordinate. This proposed finding is true and adopted by reference, but is subordinate. This proposed finding is true and adopted by reference, but is subordinate. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: The last sentence of the first paragraph is rejected for the reasons stated in findings of fact 18 and 19. The second paragraph is rejected. Although the proof was inadequate during the formal hearing that Mr. Allison failed to complete punch list items, this does not, in itself, prove that Mr. Driggers "deceived the contractor" about the punch list items. Mrs. Driggers explicitly listed the items for which money was withheld in the May 6, 1986, letter. Mr. Allison thus knew exactly why the money was withheld. Whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Driggers were correct in the withholding of the money has not been determined on this record. The last sentence of paragraph 3 is true and adopted by reference. It is not sufficient, however, the change the conclusion that the construction of the window was improper. Mr. Allison agreed during the hearing that the Nasrallah method was the proper method. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Frank D. Allison 1004 East South Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Willian O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs against Respondent and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact In July 1995, Petitioner, Richard Glass, resigned as the Right-of-Way Administrator for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), District VI, in Miami, Florida. He immediately opened his own consulting firm called, Glass Land Acquisition Service Specialists, Inc. (Glass Acquisition, Inc.) and employed his mother, Josephine Glass, as a principal in the company. In February or March 1996, FDOT awarded Glass Acquisition, Inc., a professional services contract (Contract), under which Petitioner's company would provide services related to the acquisition of property for FDOT. The Contract was executed in June 1996. Pursuant to the terms of the Contract, Glass Acquisition, Inc., would be assigned projects as they became available and at the discretion of FDOT, and up to a value of $500,000.00 without the necessity of any further bidding. Among the unsuccessful competitors for this contract were Kaiser Real Estate Services and Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc. Bids or proposals submitted by competing consultants for the Contract were first reviewed by FDOT's technical review committee. Richard Lineberger was a member of that committee which reviewed the bids or proposals submitted by Glass Acquisition, Inc., Kaiser Real Estate Services, and Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc. At the time that Lineberger served on the technical review committee, he was living with Martha Budney, but they were not married. At the time the aforementioned bids or proposals were being reviewed and considered by FDOT, Martha Budney was a real estate appraiser who shared office space with Glass Acquisition, Inc. Ms. Budney was not associated with Glass Acquisition, Inc. However, Ms. Budney owned her own company and Richard Glass was a vice-president of Ms. Budney's company. When the final decision at FDOT on the Contract award was made, Gus Pego was employed by FDOT as Director of Operations. When the FDOT was reviewing bids or proposals relevant to the Contract, Gus Pego's brother was married to Richard Glass' sister. During the first half of 1996, Richard Glass was hired by the Turnberry Group to represent them in negotiations with FDOT for the acquisition of certain properties. These negotiations required the services of an appraiser. Martha Budney was the appraiser selected or hired to represent the property owners. For providing these appraisal services, Ms. Budney was paid by FDOT. During these negotiations, Ms. Budney and Petitioner shared office space. Richard Lineberger represented FDOT in the negotiations between the Turnberry Group and FDOT. While these negotiations were taking place, Ms. Budney and Mr. Lineberger were living together. In light of Petitioner's recent employment with the FDOT, the professional relationship of Petitioner and Ms. Budney, the personal relationship of Ms. Budney and Mr. Lineberger, and the "in-law" relationship between Gus Pego and Petitioner, some former and current FDOT employees were concerned that the Contract award to Glass Acquisition, Inc., was improper. They believed that these various relationships created a conflict of interest. In July 1996, after the Contract was awarded to Glass Acquisition, Inc., Jackie Yanks Gonzalez, a former FDOT employee and an employee of Kaiser Real Estate Services, contacted Maria Lopez, an acquisitions agent for FDOT who was working on the Turnberry Group Project. Ms. Gonzalez told Ms. Lopez that her employer was concerned because of the appearance of nepotism in the award of the $500,000.00 Contract to Glass Acquisition, Inc. Moreover, after the Contract was awarded, an anonymous telephone call was made to FDOT to complain about the Contract award. An inquiry into the matter by the FDOT in Tallahassee, Florida concluded that there was no impropriety in the awarding of the Contract to Glass Acquisition, Inc. Notwithstanding the finding of the FDOT that there was no impropriety in the awarding of the Contract to Glass Acquisition, Inc., several individuals, both former and current FDOT employees (the Group) remained concerned that the award of the Contract was improper. Although some of these individuals, particularly current FDOT employees, believed or suspected that there was some impropriety in the Contract award, they declined to press forward with the matter for fear of retaliation. One member of the Group, Maria Lopez, eventually became acquainted with Respondent, Eileen Moran. At that time and at all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as an investigator with the Real Estate Section of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR). Prior to Respondent's employment with DBPR, she had been employed by the FDOT. Respondent's employment with the FDOT terminated in March 1992, after she was fired. Subsequently, Respondent filed a civil action in federal court against FDOT. Respondent prevailed in that matter. Ms. Lopez and other members of the Group approached Respondent for assistance in filing complaints with the Ethics Commission against several former and current FDOT employees. Ms. Lopez provided Respondent with information Lopez thought was relevant to the Group's belief that the Contract award to Glass Acquisition, Inc., was improper. At the time Ms. Lopez provided this information to Respondent, Ms. Lopez believed it was true, either based on her personal knowledge of its truth or on her belief that she obtained the information from reliable sources. That information included: That Richard Lineberger was living with Martha Budney. That Martha Budney was sharing office space with Richard Glass. That Petitioner was an officer in Martha Budney's corporation. That Petitioner had hired Martha Budney to do appraisal work with the Turnberry Group. That Richard Lineberger was representing FDOT in the Turnberry Group negotiation process. That Gus Pego was an "in-law" of Richard Glass. That Gus Pego's "in-law" relationship with Petitioner made Petitioner's mother, Josephine Glass, Gus Pego's mother-in-law. (Respondent interpreted the "in-law" relationship between Gus Pego and Petitioner as meaning Gus Pego was married to Glass' sister.) That Petitioner was asked by Jose Abreu to resign from FDOT because of his actions in spreading a rumor about an alleged affair between Mr. Abreu and Ms. Lopez. Relying upon the above information provided by Maria Lopez and others, Respondent drafted and sent a letter to Bonnie Williams, the Executive Director of the Ethics Commission, requesting an investigation into these alleged conflicts of interest and nepotism. In the process, she repeated the above representations of fact made by Maria Lopez and others in the Group. In the letter dated July 31, 1996, to Ms. Williams, Respondent specifically requested that the Ethics Commission investigate the Contract award by FDOT to Glass Acquisition, Inc. Respondent noted that Richard Glass was formerly employed by FDOT as District Right-of-Way Administrator, but had been asked to resign from that position in July 1995. Respondent's letter stated that she was a former FDOT employee, having left FDOT in March 1992. According to Respondent's letter, "It is my understanding from individuals who were also employed by FDOT at the time that Petitioner was asked to resign due to malfeasance." Moreover, in the letter, Respondent stated that she believed the Contract was wrongfully awarded to Richard Glass and such award was in violation of Sections 112.3135, 112.3185(6), Florida Statutes. Section 112.3135, Florida Statutes, addresses the employment of relatives by public agencies; Section 112.3185(6), Florida Statutes, prohibits agency employees from procuring contractual services for his agency from any business entity of which a relative is an officer, partner, director or proprietor or in which such officer or employee or his or her spouse or child, or any combination of them, has a material interest. Respondent's letter to the Ethics Commission stated that her allegation that the Contract had been wrongfully awarded to Glass was based on the following facts: The principals of Glass Land Acquisition Service Specialist, Inc., include Richard Glass and his mother Josephine Glass. They employ Martha Budney, who was also formerly employed by FDOT at District VI in Miami. Richard Lineberger, who was employed by FDOT as Deputy Right-of-Way Administrator, sat on the Selection Committee which evaluated on which submitted bids on this contract. Mr. Lineberger has been romantically involved with Martha Budney for quite some time. Gustavo Pego, who is currently employed by FDOT as Director of Operations, awarded this contract to Glass Land Acquisition Service Specialist, Inc. Mr. Pego is married to Richard Glass' sister. Richard Glass is his brother-in-law and Josephine Glass is his mother-in-law. Respondent sent copies of the original Complaint regarding Richard Glass to Kaiser Real Estate Services; Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.; and, Sandra Gonzalez Levy, an Ethics Commissioner. The reason Eileen Moran provided copies to the aforementioned firms was that she considered them "interested parties." At the time Respondent sent the letters to Kaiser Real Estate Services and Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., she was unaware that the Complaint was confidential. After receiving Respondent's letter, the Ethics Commission propounded seven written questions to Eileen Moran requesting more details about the various allegations involving Petitioner. Respondent answered each question as best she knew and based on information provided to her by Maria Lopez and others in the Group. Three of the seven questions propounded to Respondent by the Ethics Commission involved the issue of nepotism. These questions asked whether any of Richard Glass' relatives had been appointed, hired, promoted, and advanced at FDOT during the time Petitioner worked there; if such appointments, hires, promotions or advancements occurred, whether Petitioner had the authority to make such hires or promotions and whether Glass actually appointed, hired, promoted or advanced his relatives; and, if Glass had no such authority, did he have the authority to recommend such appointment, hiring, promotion, or advancement of his relatives and, if so, did he exercise the "recommending authority" in regard to his relatives. In a letter to the Ethics Commission dated October 21, 1996, Respondent answered the questions described in paragraph 20 above. In her response, Respondent indicated that both Linda Glass, Richard's sister, and Jean Polacek, Richard's mother-in- law, were promoted during his tenure at FDOT and that Richard Glass did not have the direct authority to promote these relatives, but was in a position to recommend that these relatives be promoted. Respondent wrote that, "The individual providing this information believes that [Petitioner] recommended these promotions, but did not observe him making said recommendation." Wayne Maxwell was authorized to investigate the allegations in the Complaint on behalf of the Ethics Commission. Mr. Maxwell considered the issue relating to the conditions of Richard Glass' termination from FDOT to be irrelevant to his inquiry and made no inquiries on this issue. During the course of the Ethics Commission investigation, Wayne Maxwell determined that it was Gus Pego's brother, not Gus Pego, who was married to Richard Glass' sister. Wayne Maxwell was told by FDOT management that the $500,000.00 Contract had not been in existence at the time that Richard Glass was the Right-of-Way Administrator at FDOT, District VI. Moreover, it was found that Mr. Glass had not been involved in the development of the Contract during his employment with FDOT. Wayne Maxwell found no conflict of interest or violations of the anti-nepotism law because none of the relationships between Gus Pego, Richard Glass, Richard Lineberger, and Martha Budney qualified as "relatives" under Section 112.3135, Florida Statutes. Wayne Maxwell incorporated his factual findings in a report, which was forwarded to the Advocate. Based on these findings, the Commission's Advocate recommended that there was no probable cause to support any of the allegations brought by Respondent. This recommendation was accepted by the Ethics Commission. The Ethics Commission did not find conflicts of interest between Richard Glass, Gus Pego, Richard Lineberger, and Martha Budney in the award of the $500,000.00 Contract or the negotiations with the Turnberry Group. Mr. Glass contends that Respondent's Complaint contained the following four false statements: (1) Mr. Glass had been asked to resign for malfeasance; (2) Mr. Glass promoted or aided in the promotion of his sister, Susan Glass; (3) Mr. Glass' sister was married to Gus Pego, an FDOT employee; and, (4) Josephine Glass, Richard Glass' mother, was the mother-in-law of Gus Pego. Petitioner does not challenge the Respondent's statement that Gus Pego awarded this Contract to Glass Acquisition, Inc. All of the statements in paragraph (28) above, alleged to be false, were, in fact, found to be incorrect. With regard to the circumstances of Petitioner's leaving his employment with FDOT, there is no evidence that Petitioner was forced to resign for malfeasance. Rather, Petitioner's official personnel file reflects a positive employment record and excellent ratings during his twelve-year tenure with FDOT. Neither Ms. Lopez nor Respondent ever reviewed Mr. Glass' personnel file. However, based on Ms. Lopez's personal conversations with FDOT, Mr. Abreu and others, and a confidential memo written to Ms. Lopez, she believed that Petitioner had been forced to resign because of malfeasance. Ms. Lopez conveyed this belief to Respondent, who in turn, included this information in her letter to the Ethics Commission. However, in reporting this information in her Complaint, Respondent stated that she was not employed at FDOT when Petitioner resigned and that she obtained this information from other individuals. Next, although it was established that Mr. Glass' sister was employed by FDOT, it was determined that her name was Linda Glass, not Susan Glass as Respondent had stated in her Complaint. More significantly, the investigation revealed that while Linda Glass had been promoted while at FDOT, Richard Glass had not advocated her for such promotions. The other statements in Respondent's Complaint, alleged to be false relate to the in-law relationship between Petitioner and Gus Pego. In the Complaint, it was alleged that Josephine Glass was Gus Pego's mother-in-law by virtue of his being married to Richard Glass' sister. The Ethics Commission's investigation revealed that this was not the case. Instead it was Gus Pego's brother who was married to Richard Glass' sister. Thus, Josephine Glass was not Gus Pego's mother-in-law. Nonetheless, there was, in fact, a remote "in-law" relationship between the individuals. Respondent believed that the existence of any familial relationship created a potential conflict of interest in the awarding of the Contract. On the contrary, the investigator for the Ethics Commission viewed these relationships as too remote to consider them relatives under the applicable law. While each of the statements in paragraph 28 above and contained in Respondent's Complaint were determined to be incorrect, the statements were not known to be incorrect or false when made by Respondent. Rather, the statements were made in reliance on information conveyed to Respondent by Ms. Lopez and others whom Respondent deemed to be reliable. Petitioner consulted with Charles Rowe, an attorney, at his office shortly after receiving the Complaint and the amendments thereto. During this consultation, Mr. Rowe recommended that Respondent represent himself. Petitioner took Mr. Rowe's advice and during all proceedings before the Ethics Commission, Petitioner appeared pro se. No attorney filed an appearance to defend Petitioner nor did any attorney contact Wayne Maxwell or any other member of the staff of the Ethics Commission involved in the investigation in order to discuss testimony, evidence, witnesses or legal issues raised during the investigation. However, Petitioner and Mr. Rowe collaborated on a letter that Petitioner planned to send to Kaiser Real Estate Services and Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., regarding Respondent's July 31, 1996, letter to the Ethics Commission. Petitioner later decided not to send the letter. Moreover, although Petitioner was representing himself in this matter, he consulted with Mr. Rowe before each meeting with Wayne Maxwell and in regard to the hearing in Tallahassee, Florida, before the Ethics Commission. Sometime after the determination by the Ethics Commission that no probable cause existed based upon its investigation of Eileen Moran's complaints, Mr. Rowe presented Petitioner with a bill for $700.00 for legal services rendered. Richard Glass has never paid this bill. Richard Glass attended the January 22, 1998, Ethics Commission meeting in Tallahassee, Florida, which considered the Advocate's recommendation of no probable cause. Although he had been invited to attend prior to going to the meeting, Petitioner knew that a no probable cause recommendation would be made before the Ethics Commission. Nonetheless, Petitioner attended the meeting and in doing so, incurred the following costs: $240.00 for an airline ticket to Tallahassee; $12.50 for parking; $38.68 for a rental car; and, $10.49 for lunch. Mr. Glass testified that he had expended sixty-five hours of his own time to defend this matter and stated that he is entitled to be paid $83.07 per hour, his current hourly rate.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent, Eileen Moran, is not liable for attorney's fees and costs and dismissing the Petition for Attorney's Fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 4th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles R. Rowe, Esquire 1310 North Krome Avenue Homestead, Florida 33030 Charles G. White, Esquire 2250 Southwest Third Avenue Suite 150 Miami, Florida 33129 Eric Scott, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Commission on Ethics 2822 Remington Green Circle Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Kerrie Stillman, Complaint Coordinator Commission on Ethics 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Box 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by Stuart M. Lerner, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner's Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. Filed December 3, 2010 4:44 PM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this ,,,11L day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. r Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Divist Motor Vehicles .,,,, -- u -'" this day of December, 2010. N . DNlerl5cenMAdmlnlstralor NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district comt of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. CAF/vlg Copies furnished: Dean Bunch, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 A. Edward Quinton III, Esquire Adams, Quinton & Paretti, P. A. Brickell Bayview Center 80 Southwest 8th Street, Suite 2150 Miami, Florida 33130 Stuart M. Lerner Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
