The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, Robert Dugger, committed the violations alleged in an Amended Administrative Complaint, DPBR Case Number 2002-007094, filed by the Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation on April 11, 2006, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of community association management pursuant to Chapters 455 and 468, Florida Statutes. (Stipulated Fact). Robert Dugger, is and was at the times material to this proceeding a licensed Florida Community Association Manager (hereinafter referred to as a “CAM”), having been issued license number CAM 1148. (Stipulated Fact). At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Dugger’s address of record was 7401 Beach View Drive, North Bay Village, Florida 33141. Miramar Gardens. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Dugger was employed by Timberlake Group, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Timberlake”). In his capacity with Timberlake, Mr. Dugger served as the CAM for 30 homeowners’ associations. In particular, Mr. Dugger served as the CAM for Miramar Gardens Townhouse Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Association”). (Stipulated Fact). The Association is made up of approximately 350 homeowner members. The Association was initially created by the Miramar Gardens Townhouse Homeowners Association, Inc., Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions adopted on or about December 16, 1975. By-Laws for the Association were also adopted on December 16, 1975. Article X of the By-Laws provides the following homeowners’ rights concerning the books and records of the Association: The books, records and papers of the Association shall at all times, during reasonable business hours, be subject to inspection by any Member. The Declaration, the Articles and these By-Laws shall be available for inspection by any Member at the principal office of the Association, where copies may be purchased at reasonable cost. Prior to 2001, the Association, along with Vista Verde Townhome Homeowners Association (hereinafter referred to as “Vista Verde”), an adjacent community association, had been placed in receivership and was managed by a civilian board. These events came about due to the dismal state the two communities were in. Crime was rampant, there were no street signs or lights, common areas and alleys were unkempt, there were abandoned vehicles, and the associations for both areas were essentially non-existent. Miami-Dade County had taken over ownership of many homes in the community by foreclosure. Mr. Dugger became involved early with the reorganization and revitalization of the Association and Vista Verde. In 1997, Mr. Dugger was appointed by the receiver as the CAM for the Association and Vista Verde. At the end of 2000, the Association was ready to govern itself. Toward that end, on or about December 21, 2000, the Association and Timberlake, entered into a Management Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “Management Agreement”). Pursuant to the Management Agreement, Timberlake was designated as the “Exclusive Managing Agent” for the Association commencing January 1, 2001. Among the duties assumed by Timberlake, are the following: 2) MAINTENANCE OF ASSOCIATION FILES: The Manager will collect, organize and maintain in the office of the Manager, all Association information, including but not limited to the Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, Declaration of, [sic] Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, site plans, owner lists, correspondence, rules and regulations, blue prints, specifications, corporate minutes, all maintenance and service contracts in effect and the necessary administrative financial information related to the Association. 8) ASSISTANCE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS: The Manager will provide administrative support services to the Board of Directors, to include notifying Directors of Board meetings, circulating minutes of the preceding meeting, as prepared by the Secretary . . . . Timberlake has continued to provide the services of Mr. Dugger as CAM since 2001. During his tenure, street signs and lights have been installed, the common areas have been cleared, and the community has greatly improved. Proposed findings of fact 14 through 19 of Mr. Dugger’s Proposed Recommended Order generally describe Mr. Dugger’s efforts as CAM, the improvement of the community, and Mr. Dugger’s reputation as CAM. Count I: Criminal Violations. During 2003, Mr. Dugger served as a city commissioner for the City of North Bay Village, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “Village”). On or about December 12, 2003, Mr. Dugger was charged with eight criminal violations in an Information issued in case number F03-33076, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. The alleged violations arose out of Mr. Dugger’s activities as a city commissioner for the Village. Two of the criminal charges, Counts 2 and 8, are of pertinence to this matter: (a) Count 2 alleges a violation of Section 2-11.1(d), Miami-Dade County Code, and Section 125.69, Florida Statutes; and (b) Count 8 alleges a violation of Section 2-11.1(i), Miami-Dade County Code, and Section 125.69, Florida Statutes. As to Count 2 of the Information, it was more specifically alleged, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . ROBERT A. DUGGER SR., on or about April 08, 2003, in the County and State aforesaid, being a member of THE NORTH BAY VILLAGE COMMISSION, in Miami-Dade County, did vote on a matter presented to said COMMISSION, to wit: ITEM 7A, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 152.029 OF THE NORTH BAY VILLAGE CODE OF ORDINANCES (FIRST READING), when said defendant would or might, directly or indirectly, profit or be enhanced by this action of said COMMISSION on said matter, in violation of Miami-Dade County Code s.2.11.1(d) and s. 125.69, Fla. Stat. . . . As to Count 8 of the Information, it was more specifically alleged, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . ROBERT A. DUGGER SR., on or about July 01, 2003, in the County and State aforesaid, being a MUNICIAL OFFICAL to wit: MEMBER OF THE NORTH BAY VILLAGE COMMISSION, in Miami-Dade County, did fail to comply with the financial disclosure requirements of Chapter 112 (Part III) of the Florida Statutes by failing to DISCLOSE ALL LIABILITIES IN PART E. OF FORM 1 STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FOR 2002, filed with the City Clerk of THE CITY OF NORTH BAY VILLAGE, in violation of Miami-Dade County Code s. 2-11.1(i) and s. 125.69, Fla. Stat. . . . Counts 2 and 8 were based upon the following allegations of the Complaint/Arrest Affidavit: Robert A. Dugger was elected Village Commissioner for the City of North Bay Village on November 19, 2002. On September 21, 2002, Mr. Robert Dugger filed his Statement of Financial Interest for the calendar year 2001, as required by Miami- Dade County ordinance. In Part E of the Statement of Financial Interest (this section is designated for Liabilities – major debts-and asks for the name and address of creditor), Mr. Dugger marked N/A in this section. Commissioner Robert Dugger has substantial indebtedness to Al Coletta that was incurred when Al Coletta assumed the mortgage on one of Dugger’s properties and paid off the mortgage on another. Rachael Dugger admitted these debts under oath during her sworn statement. Commissioner Dugger failed to report these debts on his Statement of Financial Interest. Additionally, on March 15, 2001, a Summary Final Judgement of Foreclosure was ordered and adjudged on behalf International Financial Bank, against Tomin Incorporated, and Robert Dugger and Rachael Dugger personally, in the amount of $1,154,427.50. Following the Judgement on March 15, 2001, title of the property in question was acquire by International Finance Bank on Mary [sic] 2, 2001 and sold to a third party on June 1, 2001. The sale amount of the property was $750,000. A short fall of $404,427.50 remained after the sale and is still unpaid. Commissioner Dugger also failed to report this debt on his Statement of Financial Interest for the year 2001. . . . . Based on Commissioner Robert Dugger’s indebtedness to Al Coletta, he had a Conflict of Interest by voting on matters involving Al Coletta, that came before the North Bay Village Commission, each vote is a separate violation of the Miami-Dade Code, Section 2-11.1(d), a second [degree] misdemeanor. Commissioner Dugger violated the aforementioned Section 2-11.1(d), of the Miami-Dade Code on the following occasions: April 8, 2002, Item 7A, Page 7 of the Regular City Commission Meeting Minutes: A zoning amendment concerning property owned by Al Coletta. Page 14 of the Regular City Commission Meeting Minutes, Commissioner Dugger voted – yes, for approval of the ordinance. . . . . . . . . This action is in violation of Miami-Dade Code, Section 2-11.1(d), a second-degree misdemeanor . . . . Additionally, Commissioner Dugger is in violation of Section 2-11.1(i)(3), Miami- Dade County Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics Ordinance. This Section required that candidates for County and municipal office must comply with the filing requirements, under Chapter 112, Florida State Statutes. This is a second-degree misdemeanor. . . . Section 2-11.1(d) of the Miami-Dade County Code, prohibits, in pertinent part, the following: Additionally, no person included in the term defined in subsection (b)(1) shall vote on or participate in any way in any matter presented to the Board of County Commissioners if said person has any of the following relationships with any of the persons or entities which would be or might be directly or indirectly affected by any action of the Board of County Commissioners: (i) officer, director, partner, of counsel, consultant, employee, fiduciary or beneficiary; or (ii) stockholder, bondholder, debtor, or creditor, if in any instance the transaction or matter would affect the person defined in subsection (b)(a) in a manner distinct from the manner in which it would affect the public generally. . . . Section 2-11.1(i)(3), of the Miami-Dade County Code, requires that candidates for County and municipal elective office meet the filing requirements of Chapter 112, Part III, Florida Statutes, “at the same time that candidate files qualifying papers.” Section 125.69, Florida Statutes, which provides procedures for the prosecution of county ordinances, states that they are to be prosecuted “in the same manner as misdemeanors are prosecuted.” On July 29, 2005, Mr. Dugger entered a plea of nolo contendere to Counts 2 and 8 of the Information, in case number F03-33076, both second-degree misdemeanor violations of Section 2-11.1 of the Miami-Dade County Code, and Section 125.69, Florida Statutes. (Stipulation of Fact). Mr. Dugger was adjudicated guilty of the violations alleged in Counts 2 and 8, and was ordered to pay $468.00 in fines and costs. Mr. Dugger was, therefore, adjudicated guilty of having voted on a matter in which he had a conflict of interest because the matter involved an individual to whom he was indebted; and of having failed to fully disclose liabilities on financial disclosure forms he was required to file pursuant to Florida law at the time he qualified to run for public office. Neither of the convictions directly involved Mr. Dugger’s practice as a CAM. Nor has the Department made such an argument. Instead, the Department presented expert testimony in support of its position that at least one of the convictions relates to Mr. Dugger’s ability to practice as a CAM. That testimony was convincing. All CAMs are involved in a fiduciary relationship with the associations they manage. It takes little expert testimony to support a finding that such a fiduciary relationship requires trust and integrity. CAMs must be trusted to handle association money, maintain the records of the association, and to deal on behalf of the association with potential and existing vendors. The association must be able to assume that a CAM will fully disclose any possible conflict the CAM may have with the association’s vendors. Mr. Dugger is responsible for billing, writing checks, paying insurance premiums, and maintaining a payment book for the Association. Paragraph 10 of the Management Agreement specifically provides that Timberlake “shall provide financial management services to the Association . . . .” Paragraph D(11)(a) authorizes Timberlake to “solicit and analyze bids for necessary insurance coverage.” Mr. Dugger has similar responsibilities with Vista Verde. Clearly, the Association must be able to trust that Mr. Dugger will carry out all these duties without having any conflict of interest. The Association must be able to assume that Mr. Dugger is acting in its best interest and not his own. In his defense as to the voting of interest conflict charge, Mr. Dugger, prior to the pertinent vote, made disclosure of his relationship with Mr. Coletta, the owner of the property which was the subject of the vote, to the attorney for the City of the Village. The Department failed to prove that Mr. Dugger did not make full disclosure. Mr. Dugger was advised that no conflict existed. Mr. Dugger cast his vote after receiving this advice. Subsequent to the vote, Mr. Dugger sought an opinion from the Miami-Dade County Commission on Ethics & Public Trust (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”). The Commission, like the city attorney, opined in writing that no conflict of interest existed. Mr. Dugger entered his plea on the two charges in order to avoid the cost of litigation. The evidence, however, failed to prove why prosecutors agreed to accept a plea on only two of the eight counts. Count IV: Alleged Denial of Access to the Records of the Association. During 2003, Miryam Ruiz lived in Miramar Gardens Township and was a member of the Association. While she had been in arrears for 2001 and 2002, presumably in her association dues, she became current when she paid all outstanding dues in March 2003. On March 14, 2003, during normal business hours, Ms. Ruiz went to the office of Timberlake and requested that she be allowed to inspect certain records of the Association. She made her request verbally and in writing, leaving Petitioner’s Exhibit 13 with a Timberlake employee, apparently the receptionist, which listed the documents she wanted to inspect. She was told by the receptionist that she could not see the documents until she had made an appointment to do so. By letter dated Thursday, March 27, 2003, Ms. Ruiz was informed by Mr. Dugger’s wife, Rachel, that Ms. Ruiz could review the documents. She was also told that, “[i]f you would like, call us to make an appointment at your convenience.” On the morning of Monday, March 31, 2003, not having received Ms. Dugger’s March 27th letter, Ms. Ruiz sent a letter by facsimile to Timberlake stating that she would be at the office at 11:00 a.m. that morning to “pick up” the documents. When Ms. Ruiz arrived at the Timberlake office at 11:00 a.m. she was again told that she could not review the documents because she had no appointment. Ms. Ruiz left the office. Later that day, Ms. Ruiz sent a second facsimile letter addressed to Ms. Dugger. Ms. Ruiz ended the letter by informing Ms. Dugger that she would be at the office the next day, April 1, 2003, “for the inspection and copying of records at 9:30 a.m.” On April 1, 2003, Ms. Ruiz returned to the Timberlake office and was again told that the records were not available because no appointment had been made. Ms. Ruiz told the receptionist that she would return on Friday, April 4, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. to inspect the documents. In a letter to Ms. Dugger dated April 1, 2003, she stated that she was confirming the date and time. The evidence failed to prove whether the letter was received prior to April 4, 2003. When Ms. Ruiz arrived at the Timberlake office on April 4, 2003, she was again denied access to the documents and was told by Ms. Dugger that she had no appointment because the date and time suggested by Ms. Ruiz had not been confirmed by Timberlake. Ms. Ruiz left the office. The following day, April 5, 2003, Ms. Ruiz sent a letter by certified mail addressed to Mr. Dugger describing the events leading up to that moment and asking what it would take for her to be allowed to inspect the records. Mr. Dugger did not respond to this letter. In response to Ms. Ruiz’ April 5th letter, a letter dated April 22, 2003, was sent by Ms. Dugger. That letter indicated that the records would be available for inspection at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 6, 2003. The letter, which was postmarked May 2, 2003, ten days after the date of the letter, was not received by Ms. Ruiz prior to May 6th. Sometime during the month of May 2003, approximately two months after first attempting to review the records of the Association, Ms. Ruiz was finally allowed to inspect the records. Ms. Ruiz, without doubt, had the right to review the records of the Association she had requested. Pursuant to the Management Agreement, Mr. Dugger was required to collect, organize and maintain the records of the Association. The Management Agreement also required that Mr. Dugger was to assist the Board of Directors in their enforcement of the provisions of the “Association documents and rules and regulations ” Pursuant to Article X of the By-Laws of the Association, also quoted, supra, gives Association members the right to inspect and copy all Association documents The right to inspect association documents is not an unfettered one. In light of the duty and responsibility of a CAM to “maintain” records, it is not unreasonable for a CAM to set reasonable safeguards for a member’s review of those records. The Department did not produce evidence to refute the evidence presented by Mr. Dugger concerning the reasonableness of a CAM insisting on being present during the inspection of documents. The evidence also failed to prove that, given the fact that Mr. Dugger is the CAM for as many as 30 associations, he is not always available at his office to supervise a review of documents. The procedure followed with regard to reviews of the Association’s had been announced at an Association meeting. Members were told that anyone who wished to review records could contact the Timberlake office and make an appointment so Mr. Dugger could be present during an inspection, or that a copy of a document could be obtained upon payment for the document. It is clear that not all of the requests to Timberlake made by Ms. Ruiz were totally reasonable: (a) her first request on April 14, 2003, was without any notice; (b) her notice of March 31, 2003, gave only three hours notice; (c) her request for review on April 1, 2003, gave only one day notice; and (d) her request for review on April 4, 2003, gave only 3 days notice. While Ms. Ruiz eventually was allowed to review the documents, it took approximately two months after her initial request had been made. It is also clear that, although she did not always give reasonable notice for appointments she announced, Mr. Dugger (and his employees) could and should have done more to remedy the situation. Mr. Dugger first became aware of the request on March 14, 2003. It took 13 days to respond to that request. When Ms. Ruiz mailed a certified letter to Mr. Dugger dated April 5, 2003, it was not until May 2, almost a month later that a letter in response to that letter was post-marked. Based upon the foregoing, while neither Ms. Ruiz nor Mr. Dugger did much to ameliorate the situation, for at least part of the two months it took Ms. Ruiz to obtain access to the records of the Association, Mr. Dugger “denied” Ms. Ruiz access to the records of the Association. Count VI: Alleged Failure to Maintain Association Records. Pursuant to the Management Agreement entered into by Mr. Dugger with Miramar Gardens, at paragraph D(2), quoted, supra, Mr. Dugger agreed to collect, organize, and maintain all Association documents in the offices of Timberlake. Beginning in 2001, the minutes of meetings of the Association (held jointly with the meeting of Vista Verde) were usually taken by Claudette Brinson, president of the Association. On occasions, they were taken by others. Minutes taken by Ms. Brinson were written by hand and, after the meeting, were taken home with her. On some occasions, Ms. Brinson would ensure that her hand-written minutes were typed at various locations, including Mr. Dugger’s office. When typed at Mr. Dugger’s office, a copy was retained by Mr. Dugger and maintained with the records of the Association. Ms. Brinson’s testimony at hearing as to whether Mr. Dugger was given a copy of all minutes was in conflict. She initially testified that she had provided him with a copy of all minutes. When recalled by Mr. Dugger, she testified that on some occasions, when she did not have the minutes typed at Mr. Dugger’s office, while maintaining a copy at her home, she did not always provide him with a copy. While the latter testimony was more convincing and has been credited, the bottom line is that Mr. Dugger did not maintain a copy of the minutes from all meetings of the Association. At hearing, Mr. Dugger admitted that when he was served an Investigative Subpoena Duces Tecum issued by the Department on or about August 30, 2004, he realized that he did not have all the records the subpoena sought. In particular, Mr. Dugger did not have all of the documents requested in item number 5 of the subpoena: “[t]he minutes of all meetings of the board of directors and of the members of Miramar Gardens Townhouse Homeowners Association, Inc.” Mr. Dugger, therefore, contacted Ms. Brinson and asked her if she could provide a copy of the minutes of Association meetings that he did not have. She was not able to do so within the time Mr. Dugger had to respond to the subpoena. In a letter to the Department dated September 17, 2004, Mr. Dugger indicted the following with regard to the minutes requested in item number 5 of the subpoena: “The Minutes in our possession. Original minute meetings are in the hands of the Receiver, which were retained for his records. Some additional minutes are in the hands of Board members, which we will attempt to locate.” During calendar year 2002, minutes had been kept for meetings held during February, March, April, May, June, July, October, and December. During calendar year 2003, minutes had been kept for meetings held during January, February, March, May, June, July, August, September, October, and November. Finally, during calendar year 2004, minutes were kept for meetings held in January, February, March, April, July, August and September. Mr. Dugger at the time of responding to the Department’s subpoena did not have minutes for all of these meetings. For example, for 2002 he only had minutes for the meetings held in February, March, and June, and for 2003, he only had minutes for the meetings held in January and December. While Ms. Brinson adequately explained why she was not always able to provide a copy of meeting minutes to Mr. Dugger, Mr. Dugger did not provide an adequate explanation as to why he had not made sure that he obtained a copy of all minutes so that he could fulfill his obligation under the Management Agreement. No evidence was presented to suggest that Mr. Dugger’s failure to maintain all minutes was the result of bad faith or any intent on the part of Mr. Dugger to circumvent the rules of the Department or the requirements of the Management Agreement. Prior Discipline Against Mr. Dugger’s CAM License. Mr. Dugger’s CAM license was disciplined in DBPR Case Number 00-02226, pursuant to a Stipulation entered into by the Department and Mr. Dugger which was accepted by Final Order entered on April 9, 2001. The Stipulation provides that Mr. Dugger “neither admits or denies the . . . facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint ”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding that Mr. Dugger committed the violations described in this Recommended Order and imposing the following penalties: A stayed suspension of his license for six months, with the stay being lifted should Mr. Dugger be found to have committed any additional violation with regard to his CAM license within two years of the issuance of the final order in this case; An administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00; Attendance at continuing education classes in records maintenance in an amount to be determined by the Department; and Payment of the costs of this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Philip F. Monte, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 E. Gary Early, Esquire Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A. 2618 Centennial Place Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Regulatory Council of Community Association of Managers Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Conclusions The Director, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (the Division), after consideration of the complete record of this case on file with the Division, enters this Final Order. 1. on May 20, 2013, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit win, 2. On October 1, 2013, a hearing in this cause was held before the Honorable Suzanne Van Wyk, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings. 3. On December 11, 2013, the Honorable Suzanne Van Wyk issued a Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "2". The Statement of the Issues, Preliminary Statement, Filed January 6, 2014 1:49 PM Division of Administrative Hearings Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation contained in the Recommended Order are hereby adopted in toto and incorporated herein by reference. Based upon the foregoing, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises it is, hereby ORDERED that: for Respondent's violations of Section 509, Florida Statutes, and/or the rules promulgated thereto the following penalty is imposed: 1. Respondent shall pay a fine in the amount of $1,200.00, due and payable to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this Order is filed with the Agency Clerk. 2. This Final Order shall become effective on the date of filing with the Agency Clerk. DONE AND ORDERED this BF aay of Pece hi , 2075. Rie Oi fon Disnew 5. Werpglle Diann S. Wo¥zalla, Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Hotels and Restaurants 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1015
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by Rules 9.110 and 9.190, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Attn: Ronda L. Bryan, Agency Clerk, 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 92, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 and a second copy, accompanied by the filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Florida Appellate District where the party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via Certified U.S. Mail to Holland Apartments, c/o Cindy Holland, 162 Rainbow Drive, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548; by regular U.S. Mail to the Honorable Suzanne Van _ Wyk, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060; and by hand delivery to Marc Drexler, Chief Attorney, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business and Professional Regulations, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202, this CG day of Sanuary , 20\4_ Prtccln MN Nihbe For Putreln~M, Division of Hotels and Restaurants : “Certified: Article: Number, ; ; 7446 008 S111 5516 1783
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB) as a certified contractor and has held license CGC 13316. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Coastal Structures, LCC (Coastal Structures) has possessed a certificate of authority as a contractor qualified to do business in the State of Florida and has held license QB39088. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been the primary qualifying agent for Coastal Structures. At times relevant to this proceeding, Ruth Schumacher was the owner of a residence located in Martin County at 2880 Southwest Brighton Way, Palm City, Florida (the subject property). Ms. Schumacher passed away on June 17, 2008. Prior to her mother’s death, Ms. Macey assisted Ms. Schumacher with her affairs. After her death, all of Ms. Schumacher’s estate, including the subject property, was placed in a trust with Ms. Macey as the trustee. In late October 2005, a screened porch on the subject property was damaged by Hurricane Wilma. In November 2005, Ms. Macey, on behalf of her mother, contacted Coastal Structures about making repairs to the damaged porch. In November 2005, David and Donna Williams, on behalf of Coastal Structures, visited the subject property, made temporary repairs to the damaged porch, and discussed with Ms. Macey and Ms. Schumacher the replacement of the porch. On November 28, 2005, Coastal Structures entered into a written contract with Ms. Schumacher to remove the damaged porch and to replace it with a new screened porch over the existing concrete slab. The written contract failed to contain a written statement explaining to Ms. Schumacher her rights under the Florida Homeowners’ Construction Recovery Fund as required by Section 489.1425(1), Florida Statutes. When Ms. Schumacher contracted with Coastal Structures on November 25, 2005, her insurance company had accepted her claim, but had not completed the damage assessment. The scope of the work was to be based on the allowances provided in the insurance adjuster’s statement of loss once the damage assessment was completed. The insurance company’s damage assessment for the damaged porch was completed December 3, 2005. The total replacement cost was valued at $21,190.10, with a deductible of $2,960.00, for a net claim value of $18,230.10. On March 8, 2006, Respondent submitted to the Martin County Building Department an application for a permit for a screen enclosure over an existing slab. The Martin County Building Department approved the permit application and issued permit number BSCE-2006030334 (the subject permit) to Respondent on March 8, 2006. The subject permit required one inspection, which was to be a final inspection after the completion of the work. Respondent failed to request the required inspection and the subject permit expired. After the execution of the contract with Coastal Structures and the completion of the damage assessment by the insurance company, Ms. Schumacher and Coastal Structures agreed to change the scope of the work from a screened enclosure to a glass enclosure with windows. Ms. Schumacher and Coastal Structures did not execute a written change order or any other written amendment to the written contract. Coastal Structures completed its work on the porch in May 2006. Pursuant to its verbal agreement with Ms. Schumacher, Coastal Structures replaced the damaged screen porch with a glass enclosure with windows. On May 17, 2006, Ms. Schumacher paid Coastal Structures the sum of $25,363.00 in full payment for the work it had done. After payment had been made, Ms. Macey observed several problems with the project including leaks from the ceiling panels and tile work that was not flush with the bottom of the exterior doorway, which allowed water to seep into the structure. In response to complaints from Ms. Macey, Mr. Williams returned to the subject property in May 2006 and applied caulking to the ceiling and along the floor of the structure. That work did not resolve the problems with the project. Ms. Macey made further complaints to Mr. Williams, but he did not respond to those complaints. Ms. Macey and Ms. Schumacher asked Palm City Screening, LLC (Palm City Screening) to determine the problems with the project and to provide an estimate to repair those problems. On February 13, 2007, Palm City Screening provided Ms. Schumacher with an estimate of $19,785.00 to replace the existing porch. In May 2007, Respondent visited the subject property in response to complaints from Ms. Macey. Ms. Macey pointed out to Respondent problems with the porch and Respondent inspected the structure. Respondent told Ms. Macey that he would send someone named George to the subject property to make repairs. Respondent left the subject property and Ms. Macey heard nothing further from him. No one returned to the property on behalf of Respondent. At no time did Ms. Schumacher or Ms. Macey terminate the contract with Coastal Structures or prevent Coastal Structures from correcting the problems with the porch. On July 2, 2008, Palm City Screening provided a second estimate to Ms. Macey in the amount of $23,230.00 to replace the structure. Palm City Screening’s representative told Ms. Macey that the structure could not be repaired as built, but would have to be replaced. The scope of work and estimated costs excluded electrical work for the structure. On July 11, 2008, Jimmy Rowell Electric Service provided Ms. Macey with a written estimate in the amount of $1,520.00 for the electrical work that would be required if the structure were to be replaced. No one on behalf of Palm City Screening or Jimmy Rowell Electric Service testified at the formal hearing. The total investigative costs of this case to Petitioner, excluding costs associated with attorney’s time, was $176.39. On October 8, 1995, Petitioner filed an Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent in DBPR Case 91- 00022. The Amended Administrative set forth certain factual allegations pertaining to Respondent’s dealings with a person named Donald H. Shaffer. Based on those allegations, Petitioner charged Respondent with abandonment of a project (Count I); committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that caused financial harm to a customer by allowing liens to be placed against the project (Count II); failure to supervise (Count III); mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that caused financial harm to a customer by abandoning the project (Count IV); and by having committed fraud, deceit, gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting (Count V). DBPR Case 91-00022 was resolved by stipulation. As part of the stipulation, Respondent agreed to pay a fine and make restitution to the customer. The stipulation contained the following provision: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations of fact contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. The CILB entered a Final Order Approving Settlement Stipulation on August 2, 1966, which “. . . approved and adopted in toto . . .” the settlement stipulation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order impose against Respondent administrative fines as follows: $500.00 for Count I; $5,000.00 for Count II; $5,000.00 for Count III; and $5,000.00 for Count IV, for the aggregate amount of $15,500.00. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s licensure be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 20th day of August, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: During the development stage of a condominium project, known as Lake Villas Condominium, in Altamonte Springs, Florida, First Federal Savings and Loan of Orlando foreclosed on some forty (40) units of the project. At that time, approximately in November of 1975, thirty-one (31) units already had fee- simple owners or were under a lease/purchase option and they were not involved in the foreclosure proceedings. Mr. David McComb, a vice-president and mortgage loan officer with First Federal Savings and Loan of Orlando, was given the responsibility of assuring the completion of the remaining units, selling the units and setting up a homeowners' association for the Lake Villas Condominium. The petitioner Lake Villas Condominium Association's five-position board of directors was originally comprised of three members who were personnel of First Federal Savings and Loan of Orlando, so that First Federal would have majority control at a time when it held the ownership to the majority of the units. In June of 1976, thirty-seven of the seventy-one units had been sold to individuals. Thereafter, the composition of the petitioner's board of directors changed and the individual-unit owners held the majority of the five positions. Mr. McComb, as a representative of First Federal Savings and Loan of Orlando, remained on the board of directors and continued First Federal's attempts to sell the remaining unsold units. First Federal retained a sales representative who lived in one of the condominium units, operated her sales office from one of the vacant units owned by First Federal and was paid a real estate commission when she sold a unit. The sales contract on the last of the units owned by First Federal was closed on December 12, 1977. Prior to mid-1976, the Florida Power Corporation account for seven or eight common element meters was in the name of First Federal Savings and Loan of Orlando, doing business as Lake Villas Condominium Association, and the billing statements were mailed to the Orlando office of First Federal Savings and Loan. In June or July of 1976, after the majority of units had been purchased by individual owners and majority control of the board of directors was obtained by the individual owners, Mr. McComb of First Federal placed a telephone call to the respondent's Winter Park office. The purpose of this call was to inform respondent that First Federal wanted the account name and address for the seven or eight meters changed and to inform respondent that the Lake Villas Condominium Association had taken over responsibility for the accounts. Mr. McComb spoke on the telephone to a female who handled commercial accounts for the respondent's Winter Park office and informed her that he wanted the name of First Federal Savings and Loan taken off the account and the bills to be mailed to the Lake Villas Condominium Association at a post office box in Altamonte Springs. The female to whom Mr. McComb spoke took down the information regarding the account numbers and change of billing names and addresses, and told him she would take care of it. Mr. McComb did not inquire about a rate adjustment, and no discussion was had concerning rates for the seven or eight meters. Following the June or July, 1976, discussion between Mr. McComb and a female at the respondent's Winter Park office concerning a change in billing name and address, the billing statements were sent and received at the post office address of the Lake Villas Condominium Association, Inc. in Altamonte Springs. Approximately one year later, in mid-1977, Mr. McComb was forwarded some delinquent notices on the seven or eight meters. They had originally been sent to the petitioner's post office box in Altamonte Springs, but were thereafter forwarded to Mr. McComb's attention at First Federal. Mr. McComb noticed that, although the post office address had been changed, the accounts were still in the name of First Federal Savings and Loan of Orlando. He then placed another telephone call to the respondent's Winter Park office, spoke with a female in the commercial department and requested that the name of First Federal Savings and Loan of Orlando be removed from the account and that the Lake Villas Condominium Association, Inc. be inserted as the new-named customer. The female informed Mr. McComb that this request would be taken care of and that nothing further need be done. No inquiry by Mr. McComb or discussion was had concerning a rate adjustment for these seven or eight meters. Electricity for the individual living units of the Lake Villas Condominiums are separately metered. In addition, there are seven or eight separately billed meters which service the common areas of the condominium, such as the two swimming pools, the internal street and sidewalk lighting, the clubhouse and small post lamps for an open green area. From at least April of 1979 through October of 1980, no commercial activity occurred in any of the condominium units. In April of 1979, Mr. O. K. Armstrong became the manager of the Lake Villas Condominiums and was responsible for the association's financial transactions. He noticed in May of 1979 that the bills for the seven or eight subject meters contained the name of First Federal Savings and Loan of Orlando, though they did list the condominium's post office box number for the address. After speaking with Mr. McComb about the matter, Mr. Armstrong telephoned a Mr. Harbour at the respondent's Winter Park office. It was during this discussion that petitioner, through Mr. Armstrong, learned that the seven or eight common element meters might qualify for a residential, as opposed to the higher commercial, rate. Thereafter, the rates for the seven or eight meters were changed by Florida Power Corporation from commercial to residential. The request of Mr. Armstrong for a retroactive application of those residential rates to January 1, 1976, which would amount to a refund of all amounts paid in excess of the residential rates from that date, was denied by Mr. Harbour, respondent's office manager in Winter Park. During the hearing, the petitioner verbally amended the request for retroactive application of the residential rate from January 1, 1976, to July of 1976.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition filed by the Lake Villas Condominium Association, Inc. be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Mapp Hunter, Pattillo, Marchman, Mapp and Davis Post Office Box 340 Winter Park, Florida 32790 Blair W. Clack Assistant Counsel Post Office Box 14042 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Arthur Shell Public Service Commission Legal Department 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Tribble, Clerk Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact A transcript of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge was not filed with the Commission. We adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s findings of fact. FCHR Order No. 05-093 Page 2 Conclusions of Law We find the Administrative Law Judge’s application of the law to the facts to result in a correct disposition of the matter. We note that the Administrative Law Judge concluded, “Mr. Dill, on a single occasion, behaved in a prejudiced, rude and verbally abusive manner to Petitioner. Although he was named in the Petition for Relief, no valid address was provided for him. He has had no notice of this proceeding, and therefore, jurisdiction over him by the Division has not been acquired. To rule with regard to his rights at this time would be a denial of due process...the undersigned is not satisfied that, as a mere employee of the other Respondents, Mr. Dill could bear any liability to Petitioner under the facts of this case...” Recommended Order, {| 29. We note that the Commission has concluded that individuals can bear liability under the Fair Housing Act. See, Thorhill v. Admiral Farragut Condominium Association, et al., FCHR Order No. 01-018 (March 15, 2001); see, also, Sections 760.22(8) and 760.34(1), Florida Statutes (2005). Further, we note that in a case involving findings of the utterance of racially repugnant remarks, a Commission panel has stated, “We note the Hearing Officer’s finding that, ‘The racially repugnant comments of the Respondent, in the absence of any acts infringing on the tenants’ free use of the leasehold, are not a violation of Section 760.23, Florida Statutes.’... We hereby clarify that this finding does not mean that racially-repugnant comments can never amount to a violation of the Fair Housing Act.” Fletcher v. Hatfield, 18 F.A.L.R. 1590, at 1591 (FCHR 1995). Nevertheless, given the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that Mr. Dill had no notice of the proceeding, and the finding that “[bly firing Mr. Dill, Oak Pointe and Flournoy took steps to prevent further bad acts or bad words by him against Petitioner and others (Recommended Order, § 28),” and in the absence of a transcript of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge, we adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law, with these clarifying comments. Exceptions Neither party filed exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Order. Dismissal The Petition for Relief and Housing Discrimination Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice. The parties have the right to seek judicial review of this Order. The Commission and the appropriate District Court of Appeal must receive notice of appeal within 30 days of the date this Order is filed with the Clerk of the Commission. Explanation of the right FCHR Order No. 05-093 Page 3 to appeal is found in Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110. DONE AND ORDERED this _9"__ day of September , 2005. FOR THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS: Commissioner Mario M. Valle, Panel Chairperson; Commissioner Dominique B. Saliba, M.D.; and Commissioner Billy Whitefox Stall Filed this_ 9" day of September 2005, in Tallahassee, Florida. Vit braferd Violet Crawford, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, FL 32301 (850) 488-7082 Copies furnished to: Karla Maxwell Post Office Box 438 Monticello, FL 32345 Oakpointe Apartments and Flournoy Properties c/o Jack R. Lee Vice President, Flournoy Properties 2673 Mountain Brook Road Canton, GA 30114 Ella Jane P. Davis, Administrative Law Judge, DOAH James Mallue, Legal Advisor for Commission Panel 1 21S wom ernest FCHR Order No. 05-093 Page 4 THEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the above listed addressees this gt day of September , 2005. By: Vite Cumefrsl Clerk of the Commission Florida Commission on Human Relations
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates an ACLF in Tampa, Florida, and has been continuously licensed by the Respondent as an ACLF since at least 1984. The Administrator, President and major stockholder of Petitioner is Ruby Byrd. On or about October 9, 1987, Petitioner applied for license renewal, and the Respondent requested additional information by letter dated October 15, 1987. According to Respondent's witness, John C. Morton, the Petitioner's license expired on December 25, 1987. However, the Department sent letters purporting to deny Petitioner's renewal on March 28 and May 12, 1988, which both state that Petitioner's license expired on March 25, 1988. This discrepancy between the testimony offered by Respondent and the Respondent's letters of denial is unexplained, and no finding can therefore be made as to when the Petitioner's most recent license did, in fact, expire. ACLF licenses are issued for a period of one year, and must be renewed annually. The sole specific reason for renewal denial set forth in the Respondent's March 28, 1988, letter is the Petitioner's "failure to provide proof of business liability insurance and proof of surety bond coverage." The Respondent's May 12, 1988, letter specifically deleted this reason as a basis for renewal denial, and superseded the previous letter by setting forth three reasons for denial. First, it is alleged that Ruby Byrd was arrested for grand theft from a former resident of the ACLF and was awaiting trial. Second, it is alleged that the facility lacks the financial ability to operate. Third, it is alleged that the facility has committed multiple and repeated violations as evidence by surveys and follow-up visits from 1985 through 1987. The only witness called as a representative of Respondent testified that he did not make a recommendation regarding Petitioner's license renewal application. The parties have stipulated that Ruby Byrd was found not guilty of the charge of grand theft. Competent substantial evidence was not presented to support the charge that Petitioner lacked the financial ability to operate. This ACLF has been in operation since at least 1984, and the evidence did not show the facility's failure to meet any of its financial obligations. Evidence produced by the Respondent was unclear in its distinction between Ruby Byrd, individually, and the corporate Petitioner in this case. The parties stipulated that representatives of the Respondent found what they believed to be violations which are enumerated in survey deficiency reports prepared in 1985 through 1987. The evidence establishes that all deficiencies noted in reports prepared in 1987 had been either corrected, administratively deleted, or the time for corrective action had not arrived by the time of hearing. Survey reports prepared prior to 1987 predominately indicate corrective action taken prior to 1987. In any event, these reports which precede the license year for which renewal is at issue in this case, are irrelevant, as is a report of a survey conducted subsequent to the Respondent's May 12, 1988 letter. The Petitioner operated under a conditional license issued by Respondent from March 26, 1988 until September 25, 1988. There is no evidence that Respondent issued any conditional license or otherwise responded to Petitioner's renewal application for the period between December 25, 1987 and March 26, 1988, assuming testimony at hearing is correct and this license expired on December 25, 1987. Similarly, there is no evidence that the Respondent has issued a conditional license, or otherwise responded to the Petitioner's renewal request for the period of September 25, 1988 until the date of hearing, which period of time would be relevant regardless whether the Petitioner's license expired in December, 1987, or March, 1988. According to the Respondent's witness, Petitioner's facility does not present any danger to the public health, safety and welfare. The Respondent does proceed against licensed ACLFs, and seek to administratively suspend or revoke their licenses during a period of licensure.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent issue a Final Order approving the Petitioner's application for renewal of its ACLF license at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of November, 1988. DONALD D. CONN 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 30th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3036 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2 Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 2 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 6, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as a conclusion of law and not a finding of fact. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected in Finding of Fact 2 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 2. 4-5 Rejected as irrelevant since the Respondent has the burden of proof in this case as discussed in the conclusions of law. 6-9 Rejected in Finding of Fact 6, and otherwise as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant and as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: William Park, Esquire 8001 North Dale Mabry Building 601, Suite B Tampa, Florida 33614 Edward Haman, Esquire Office of Licensure and Certification 7827 North Dale Mabry Tampa, Florida 33614 Sam Power, Clerk 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioners in this proceeding challenge the validity of proposed Rule 21E-15.05(2) , Florida Administrative Code. The rule, as noted in the October 2, 1981, issue of the "Florida Administrative Weekly," provides as follows: An applicant shall also be required to submit proof that he can be bonded in the amount of $5000 by a surety corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida and that said bond shall be currently in force and effect and executed subject to the following conditions: The terms of the bend shall be In a form acceptable to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and shall remain in full force and effect if the applicant obtains a license as a certified contractor under the Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and shall be furnished to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board before issuance of a license. The bend shall be subject to claim by any consumer sustaining monetary damages caused by or arising out of acts of the contractor found by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board to be violations of subsections (d), (h) or (k) of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, provided that: The consumer is the owner or lessee of real property who has contracted with the certified contractor for the construction, improvement or alteration of a structure or structures on such real property, and the consumer has incurred monetary damages as a result of this contractual relationship. Suit for such claim must be commenced within one year from the date of the finding of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board of a violation of subsections (d), or (k) of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, on which such suit is based. Suit for such claim must be based on acts of the contractor performed in his capacity as a certified contractor and not for any acts which he may have performed in the capacity of a registered contractor. The amount of the claim paid by the bending company shall be based on a final judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction or an out of court settlement. Subsequently, the proposed rule was amended to limit the period during which the required bond is to be in effect to two years from the date of issuance of a license. The proposed rule, as amended, was noticed in the November 25, 1981, issue of the "Florida Administrative Weekly." The Board is the state agency charged by statute with determining the qualifications for licensure of persons seeking statewide certification to engage in the construction and home improvement industries in the State of Florida. Section 489.115(1), Florida Statutes. In making this determination, the Board is also authorized by statute to adopt rules defining "financial responsibility" in order to determine whether an applicant should be issued a certificate or registration. Section 489.115(4) , Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Florida Home Builders Association, is a nonprofit trade association consisting of over twelve thousand members, including builders, developers, manufacturers, subcontractors and suppliers. Petitioner, Bruce Johnson, has been licensed in Leon County as a residential contractor for aPPRDximately fourteen months. In order to obtain his residential contractor's license, he was required to pass a licensing examination. While so licensed, Mr. Johnson has completed one speculative residential home, which was subsequently sold. Mr. Johnson currently has no projects under construction. At final hearing, Mr. Johnson indicated that he would "potentially" like to take the state licensing examination, perhaps within the next two years. Petitioner Johnson has never applied to the Board for state certification in any category, but has been advised by a Tallahassee insurance agency representing several national bonding companies, that he would be ineligible for the type of bond required under the Board's proposed rule because his financial assets are currently insufficient to induce a bonding company to issue the required bond. Prior to the final hearing in this cause, the Board filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, asserting that Petitioners each lacked "standing" to challenge the proposed rule. Because the issues raised in that motion involve a mixed question of law and fact, ruling was reserved until after the taking of testimony. In light of the fact that the Hearing Officer has determined that on the basis of the facts of record the Board's Motion to Dismiss is well taken, no findings are made concerning Petitioners' allegations that the Board lacks authority to adopt the rule, that the economic impact statement is invalid and that the rule is not based upon competent substantial evidence.
