The Issue In relation to DOAH Case No. 05-0515, does the case involve the sale of securities as described in Chapter 517, Florida Statutes (2002), that would confer jurisdiction upon OFR to proceed to a hearing on the merits of the Administrative Complaint that forms the basis for DOAH Case No. 05-0515, and to what extent, if any, the named Respondents have been involved with the sale of securities sufficient to declare jurisdiction over their activities? Preliminary to that determination is the related issue concerning the possible pre-emption of OFR's regulatory authority by virtue of the regulatory action previously taken by the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (DBPR) under authority set forth in Chapter 721, Florida Statutes (2002)? Argument has also been set forth concerning the significance of court cases as they might influence OFR's ability to declare their regulatory authority in this instance.
Findings Of Fact * * * 2. RESPONDENT is the 'creating developer' of the Universal Luxury Lease Plan, a personal property 'timeshare plan' as those terms are defined in sections 721.05(9)(a) and 721.05(37), Florida Statutes, located in the city of Sanford, Florida. * * * On or about July 10, 2003, DIVISION was made aware of a newspaper advertisement for Universal Luxury Lease Plan. This advertisement, promoted the purchase of a timeshare interest in the Universal Luxury Lease Plan as an investment that offered purchasers a 10 percent per year return on their investment. On July 25, 2003, DIVISION'S investigators were given an application package containing the Universal Luxury Lease Plan Enrollment Forms, CD-ROM, Public Offering Statement, Contracts and Motor Coach Brochures. The application package stated that it was advertising material being used for the purposes of soliciting timeshare interests. It described a component of the timeshare plan called the 'Affinity Rental Program' and stated that the program will typically produce a monthly income of 10 percent of the lease-hold ownership interest.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That an order be entered by OFR finding jurisdiction to proceed with the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 05- 0515 on its merits. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 6th day of January, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 5th day of April, 1982.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated during the course of the formal hearing in this cause that the adjustments made by Respondent to Petitioner's Medicaid cost report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1981, were the same as the adjustments made by Respondent to Petitioner's Medicaid cost report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1980. They therefore presented evidence and arguments on the adjustments made for 1980 with the stipulation that if Petitioner prevailed regarding any item which was adjusted for 1980, then that item would automatically be so adjusted for 1981. The parties further stipulated that the cost item "return on equity" is merely a function of the other proposed adjustments and, therefore, if the Petitioner prevailed on other disputed adjustments herein, then "return on equity" would be automatically revised to reflect an increase. Respondent proposed an adjustment to Petitioner's Medicaid cost report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1980, in the amount of $15,223 for short- term liabilities. At the commencement of the formal hearing, Respondent withdrew its adjustment to that item and stipulated that Petitioner was correct in its position. Accordingly, that portion of the dispute has been withdrawn from consideration herein. Petitioner claimed $5,191 as the advertising cost for Hollywood Hills Nursing Home in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1980, which amount represents the cost of a large, yellow pages advertisement in the Southern Bell Telephone Directory. Respondent disallowed all Southern Bell advertising cost except for the sum of $178.20, which represents the cost of a simple alphabetical listing in the yellow pages. The advertisement in question is excessive in size and primarily consists of the name of the facility, a reproduction of the facility's logo, a picture of the facility, and a picture of a very happy couple. The ad is not primarily informational but rather is clearly promotional and intended to increase patient utilization. Accordingly, Respondent properly, disallowed this cost item and properly allowed the cost of a simple alphabetical listing, the norm in the nursing home industry at the time. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1980, Petitioner included in its cost report the sum of $37,147.18 representing the "Herlee consulting fee," and Petitioner further claimed a similar amount as a cost item in its 1981 report. Respondent disallowed this reported home office cost. This cost includes salaries for Herbert and Leonore Kallen and other allocated expenses of the "home office" such as rent, automobiles, utilities, insurance, depreciation and amortization thereof, legal fees, and outside consulting fees. Respondent disallowed all Herlee expenses. The Kallens own three health care providers which are located in two facilities, to wit: Hollywood Hills Nursing Home and Hollywood Pavilion Psychiatric Hospital located in the same facility in Hollywood, Florida; and Norwichtown Convalescent Home located in Norwichtown, Connecticut. Contracts were entered into on behalf of these providers whereby they would be managed by Herlee Management Company, another of the Kallens' corporations. Although Herlee, Inc., was formed to manage the Kallens' two physical facilities under the "chain organization" provisions of the health insurance manual, none of the Herlee or home office costs are proper. No documents reflect the proportion of the Kallens' time which is spent in managing Hollywood Hills Nursing Home. Petitioner's evidence ranges from the Kallens spending an approximate 12.5 percent of their time to them spending an approximate 75 percent of their time related to Petitioner. The evidence is simply not credible. No time sheets exist; likewise, no records exist regarding any duties performed at any particular time. Rather, both the administrator and the "executive manager" of Hollywood Hills Nursing Home are full-time employees of Herlee Management Corporation, both of whom were capable of performing and did perform all of the duties alleged to have been performed by the Kallens at unknown times. The Herlee home office cost/Herlee consulting fee is not documented, is not reasonable, is duplicitous rather than necessary, and is not related to any patient care. Any time spent by the Kallens in the management of Hollywood Hills Nursing Home, if any, was spent merely as a protection of their financial investment. In further support of the lack of documentation to substantiate this cost item, it is noteworthy that Petitioner's witnesses did not even agree on the location of the Kallens' home office. Respondent properly disallowed the Herlee cost items as to the Kallens and properly allowed only that portion of the cost which related to the salary and benefits paid to the full-time employee of Herlee who also served as the nursing home administrator. The Kallens acquired Hollywood Hills Nursing Home through a purchase of stock rather than through a purchase of assets. Petitioner, therefore, took its vendor's basis for depreciation purposes directly from the books of its predecessor. When the audit of 1980 and again of 1981 revealed that Petitioner had no documentation on which to substantiate the basis used for depreciation, Respondent could have disallowed all property costs. Rather than doing so and possibly forcing Petitioner out of the Medicaid program or out of business, Respondent utilized the next best source of information, a 1969 appraisal indicating a verified construction cost, although utilizing that appraisal was admittedly a departure from normal audit procedures. The deviation from normal auditing principles is proper in this situation where Petitioner could provide no documentation to substantiate its basis for depreciation, and the appraisal provided estimates of cost at the time the facility was constructed. The adjustments made by Respondent for both 1980 and 1981 were therefore proper. Petitioner claimed $7,844 as an amortization expense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1980, and $6,747 as the amortization expense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1981. Amortization expense is the cost of acquiring the original mortgage on the facility and is a legitimate and recognized expense which is reimbursable under Medicaid regulations. Respondent totally disallowed Petitioner's claimed amortization expense since Petitioner possesses no data showing the actual cost of financing. Petitioner also failed to present any evidence as to when the Kallens purchased the facility, as to when the mortgage was placed on the facility, and as to whether the Kallens assumed a prior mortgage or obtained their own financing. Accordingly, Respondent properly disallowed the amortization expense in both Petitioner's 1980 and 1981 cost reports. Respondent had made a total adjustment for non-legend drugs in the amount of $15,244 for 1980 and 1981 combined. At the formal hearing, counsel requested an opportunity to attempt to work out an independent solution to this adjustment in order to remove that adjustment from consideration herein. The parties have agreed posthearing that $11,185 out of the Respondent's $15,244 adjustment should be disallowed and overpayment deductions by Respondent have been erroneous. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of $11,185 representing this non-legend drugs item.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered upholding Respondent's adjustments to Petitioner's Medicaid cost reports for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1980, and June 30, 1981, as to advertising, the Herlee consulting fee/home office costs, depreciation, and amortization; making any adjustment necessary as to Petitioner's return on equity; withdrawing Respondent's adjustment for short- term liabilitites for 1980; and memorializing the terms of the parties' stipulation as to non-legend drugs. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 4th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard Todd Jaffe, Esquire 1915 Harrison Street Hollywood, Florida 33020-5098 Jay Adams, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all relevant times, respondent, Passport Internationale, Inc. (Passport or respondent), was a seller of travel registered with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). As such, it was required to post a performance bond with the Department conditioned on the performance of contracted services. In this case, petitioner, Robert F. Boles, has filed a claim against the bond for more than $1,000.00 alleging that Passport failed to perform on certain contracted services. On an undisclosed date in 1990, petitioner purchased a travel certificate from Passport entitling the holder to four nights lodging at the Lucayan Beach Resort and Casino in Freeport, Bahamas, which Passport described as "the nicest property on the beach." Petitioner used his certificate to travel with his wife and two children to Freeport on April 1, 1991. The room to which petitioner was assigned did not have hot water. Petitioner was offered a different room with a less desirable view, but the hot water was not working in that room, and the room had not been cleaned since the prior guest had departed. Since the hotel was otherwise fully booked, petitioner decided to keep his original room, but says he had no hot water during his entire four-night stay. Besides a lack of hot water, the cable television connector was not repaired until the second day, the room air- conditioner was "noisy," and the bed sheets were not changed during the entire stay. As to the latter deficiency, petitioner says this was particularly galling since one of his children had chicken pox while on the trip. He acknowledged that he never requested the house cleaning department to change the sheets but says he had no responsibility to do so. Finally, the burned-out light bulb in the room lamp was never replaced. Whether petitioner asked that it be changed is not of record. When he checked out of the hotel, petitioner expected an adjustment on his bill but received none. Because of the foregoing problems, petitioner asks that he be refunded in excess of $1,000.00, which he says represents his costs incurred on the trip. According to the evidence, petitioner paid a $90.00 deposit to Passport in October 1990, plus $692.90 for upgrades to better accommodations, additional services and taxes in February 1991. The record does not show what portion of the $692.90 pertains to the upgraded accommodations. The derivation of the remaining part of petitioner's claim is unknown. The hotel's version of what occurred is found in a letter dated July 5, 1991, but it is hearsay in nature. It does corroborate other evidence that the hotel offered petitioner an apology, gave his family a free meal one evening, and attempted (albeit unsuccessfully) to resolve the problems.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the claim of petitioner against the bond of respondent be approved, and he be repaid $346.45 from the bond. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of December, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. Boles 1522 Ohio Avenue Palm Harbor, FL 34683 Michael J. Panaggio 2441 Bellevue Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Robert G. Worley, Esquire 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
The Issue Whether Respondent, a “seller of travel,” owes Petitioners a refund for misrepresentation of travel services offered pursuant to an agreement between the parties.
Findings Of Fact Axis is a “seller of travel” and at all times material to this matter, was located in St. Augustine, Florida. On or about October 8, 2017, Petitioners attended a presentation that was conducted by Axis. Petitioners were enthusiastic about the travel service and were impressed by the presentation. Petitioners frequently traveled to trade shows and believed the services would help reduce travel costs. They were particularly interested in vacation packages because they intended to travel to Cancun, Mexico. During the presentation, they were told of the bonus week fee of $97.00. Ms. Page asked specific questions about the costs for a vacation package for Cancun and whether there would be any hidden or additional fees. The presenter assured Petitioners there would be no hidden or additional fees. After the presentation, Petitioners jointly executed a Reservation Services Agreement (Agreement) for a non-exclusive license to access the travel network for a fee of $4,394.00. The fee was paid in two installments of $2,000.00 and one installment of $394.00. The agreement provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Customer desires to enter into this Agreement reservation services applicable to vacation packages, nightly stays, bonus weeks, fantasy getaways, activities and excursions, cruises, car rentals, golf discounts, dining discounts, hotels and luxury condominium and villa rentals (“Network Benefits”). The Customer acknowledges that the Network Benefits may be changed from time to time. * * * 8. Discount Variation All benefits and discounts conferred through this Agreement vary greatly based on the characteristics of the vacation unit or type, the time of year, space availability, and/or the rates charged by those parties listing the accommodations for rent through the Network. Customer acknowledges that he/she has been advised that while some discounts may be significant, these same accommodations may not enjoy deep discounts at other times and that deep discounts are not available for some vacation units or types at any time. Customer acknowledges that the value in this License is expected to be realized over time contingent on the frequency of the use and that the Purchase Price is not guaranteed to be recovered on a single vacation, the first year, if Customer does not take vacations, or if the vacation choices are not tailored offerings. * * * 17. Member Best Price Guarantee Customer shall receive the Best Price Guarantee if Customer finds lower prices on Equal Arrangements through a competing vendor. To access the guarantee, Customer must secure a confirmed reservation through the Network that displays the Member Price Guarantee checkmark, pay for the reservation in full and receive a valid confirmation number. The sections on the website included in the Best Price Guarantee are vacations (i.e. Accommodations, Cruises, Vacation Packages, and Worldwide Tours) and vacation add-ons (i.e. Car Rentals, Activities and Golf). Airfare not included. Eligible claims must be submitted within 24 hours from the time the original fully paid reservation is made and meet all the Terms and conditions listed in full on the Website, must be in US dollars, must be an identical comparison to what was purchased and must be publicly viewable via the internet (i.e. the general public must be able to view the rate on a website, as it does not apply to consolidator fares, fares that have been acquired through auction or bid, or any Internet fares that cannot be independently verified as to the price and exact itinerary) and available and bookable (i.e. the rate is currently available and can be reserved online). Equal Travel Arrangements shall be defined as the exact same arrival and departure dates, the exact same property, the exact same room or cabin classification, the exact same room or cabin size, the exact same cruise line, and the exact same itinerary. Reservations excluded from the Best Price Guarantee include Non- Refundable reservations, Airfare and reservations made or purchased with Reward Credits in full or in part. If the claim is found to be valid, Customer will be credited with 110% of the difference to (sic) in the form of Reward Credits. * * * 25. Entire Agreement This instrument contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, written or oral, with respect to such subject matter. It may not be changed orally but only by an agreement in writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of any waiver, change, modification, extension or discharge is sought. * * * By signing below, the parties to hereby execute this Agreement on the Execution Date of this Agreement as identified herein. The Licensee acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement is subject to all terms and conditions set forth herein. The Licensee further acknowledges having read the entire Agreement and agreed to each of its provisions prior to signing below. * * * YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THIS CONTRACT AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO MIDNIGHT OF THE THIRD (3) CALENDAR DAY AFTER THE DATE OF THIS CONTRACT. UPON CANCELLATION, YOU WILL RECEIVE A FULL REFUND, WITHOUT ANY CHARGES OR PENALTY, WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS UNLES SOONER REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW. THIS RIGHT IS NONWAIVABLE. TO EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO CANCEL, YOU MUST SEND A WRITTEN NOTICE STATING THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THIS CONTRACT. THE NOTICE MAY BE SENT BY EMAIL, FACSIMILE: 713-535-9239, OR BY DEPOSIT FIRST-CLASS POSTAGE PREPAID, INTO THE UNITED STATES MAIL: 13416 SOUTHSHORE DR. CONROE, TX 77304. In November 2017, Petitioners used the network software for the first time. Petitioners searched for accommodations in Cancun, Mexico at an all-inclusive resort. The resort had a price of $129.00 instead of $97.00 and a mandatory resort fee in the amount of $135.00 to $185 per person per day. Petitioners found accommodations at three different all-inclusive resorts, which also required an additional mandatory resort fee. While rooms were available for the price offered by using the software, Petitioners were dissatisfied because the resorts required a resort fee. At an unknown time after using the software, Petitioners called Respondent but did not receive a return call. On December 14, 2017, Petitioners sent text messages to Jonicar Cruz seeking a refund because the service was not what was represented to them at the presentation. Ms. Cruz offered to assist Petitioners with the software program. Ms. Cruz also directed Petitioners to contact another staff member, as she was no longer an employee of the company at that time. Petitioners’ calls and emails to the other Axis staff member were left unanswered. On February 7, 2018, Petitioners filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, and on February 13, 2018, Petitioners filed a complaint with the Office of Citizen Services, Florida Attorney General’s Office, and the Better Business Bureau. In April 2018, Petitioners filed a complaint with the Department. Petitioners admitted that they did not submit a written letter of cancellation of the agreement during the three-day cancellation period. Ms. Cruz testified that she did not receive any written request to cancel the agreement during the cancellation period. Ms. Cruz also testified that while she could not affirm certain representations made by the presenter, she explained to Petitioners the process for the price match guarantee, and that a resort fee may be associated with all-inclusive resorts.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioners, John Elkins and Mary Page’s, claim against Axis and the surety bond be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Alan Parkinson, Bureau Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Rhodes Building, R-3 2005 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6500 (eServed) John E. Elkins Mary Page Apartment 1605 7507 Beach Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32216-3053 (eServed) Michael Borish Axis Getaways Systems, LLC 965 North Griffin Shores Drive St. Augustine, Florida 32080-7726 Axis Getaways Systems, LLC Suite B 108 Seagrove Main Street St. Augustine, Florida 32080 Travelers Casualty Surety Company of America One Tower Square Hartford, Connecticut 06183 Bryan Greiner Axis Getaway Systems, LLC 912 Ocean Palm Way St. Augustine, Florida 32020 Tom A. Steckler, Director Division of Consumer Services Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Stephen Donelan, Agency Clerk Division of Administration Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Room 509 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was licensed as a real estate sales associate, holding Florida license number 3035990. In late spring of 2005, the Respondent was contacted by Arnold Macabugao, a California resident who was interested in acquiring a home in Orlando, Florida, for himself and his wife. The Respondent was aware of a house for sale at 14213 Sports Club Way, Orlando, Florida 32837, which she apparently thought would be suitable for the Macabugaos' purchase. The owner of the house was Jack Girton. Mr. Girton did not reside in the property at any time material to this dispute. The Girton house was inhabited by a woman identified as Kim Capiello. Ms. Capiello was an acquaintance of Mr. Girton's. Ms. Capiello had no ownership interest in the property. All documents related to the purchase of the property by the Macabugaos identified Mr. Girton as the owner. During negotiations on the property, the Respondent provided all documents to Ms. Capiello. It is reasonable to conclude that Ms. Capiello transmitted the documents to Mr. Girton. There is no evidence that the Respondent dealt directly with Mr. Girton at any time during the sales process. The weight of the evidence establishes that the Respondent negotiated the Macabugaos' purchase of the Girton property through Ms. Capiello. At some point in the negotiations, the Respondent received a document titled "SIDE AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE CONTRACT" from Ms. Capiello. The document, which required payment of $10,000 directly to Ms. Capiello by the Macabugaos, in relevant part, provided as follows: This side agreement is between Buyers named above and Kim Capiello wherein the buyers agree to give $10,000 to Kim Capiello for services rendered in the search and purchase of the above named property. This agreement is contingent upon the buyers securing a loan, its lender determining a firm closing date and last but not the least, actual closing and funding of the above named property. The amount will be paid as follows: $5,000 to be paid at the time the Purchase contract is signed by all parties for the above property and contingent upon the buyers securing a loan and its lender determining a firm closing date. $5,000 to be paid the day after the closing under the condition being that the above property has been vacated and in move in condition. Kim Capiello further agrees that this side agreement is between her and the buyers only and has nothing to do with the actual purchase agreement entered into by the buyers and Jack Girton. (Emphasis in original) The Respondent facilitated the payment of the $10,000 by the Macabugaos to Ms. Capiello pursuant to the side agreement. The Respondent transmitted the document to the Macabugaos, who signed it. A signature purportedly of Ms. Capiello is also on the document. The Respondent instructed the Macabugaos on how to make the payments. She collected the funds from them. The Respondent used her personal checking account as a transfer mechanism for one of the $5,000 payments. The side agreement does not identify the date of execution, but Mr. Macabugao testified that he signed the side agreement after the sales contract had been signed. The executed sales contract between the Macabugaos and Mr. Girton was dated June 7, 2005. Mr. Macabugao testified that he had no communication with Ms. Capiello. The evidence fails to establish the Macabugaos' rationale for agreeing to make the payments to Ms. Capiello, other than the fact that the Respondent transmitted the document to the Macabugaos and instructed them on how to make the payments. None of the sales documents suggested that Ms. Capiello held licensure in Florida as a real estate professional. Based upon a review of the Petitioner's licensure files, the Petitioner's investigator testified that Ms. Capiello was not licensed in Florida as a real estate professional in any capacity. There was no credible evidence to the contrary, and the investigator's testimony has been credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order finding Eleanor Borling Dioneda guilty of violating Subsection 455.227(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2005); imposing a two-year license suspension followed by a two-year probationary period; imposing a fine of $5,000; and requiring completion of a remedial professional education course to be determined by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Jason W. Holtz, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Eric W. Ludwig, Esquire 250 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1250 Orlando, Florida 32801 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802N Orlando, Florida 32801
