The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Jessalyn Rodriguez, committed the violations alleged in a seven-count Administrative Complaint, filed with the Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation on June 10, 2008, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her Florida real estate appraiser certification.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (hereinafter referred to as the “Division”), is an agency of the State of Florida created by Section 20.165, Florida Statutes. The Division is charged with the responsibility for the regulation of the real estate industry in Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Jessalyn Rodriguez, is, and was at the times material to this matter, a Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser having been issued license number 4120. The last license issued to Ms. Rodriguez is now an inactive Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser license at 12071 Southwest 131st Avenue, Miami Florida 33166. Appraisal of 6496 Southwest 24th Street. On or about June 1, 2007, Ms. Rodriguez developed, signed and communicated an appraisal report (hereinafter referred to as the “Appraisal”), for property located at 64967 Southwest 24th Street, Miami, Florida 33155 (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property”). At the time the Appraisal was made, Ms. Rodriguez was a Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser. The Subject Property, however, was zoned BU-1, a commercial district. The Administrative Complaint entered against Ms. Rodriguez, however, does not allege that Ms. Rodriguez committed any violation by performing an appraisal on commercially zoned property. Errors and Omissions in the Appraisal. Ms. Rodriguez on her sketch of the Subject Property contained in the Appraisal indicates that the total square footage of the Subject Property is 2,105 square feet. On the sketch, she breaks down the property into a 34.0 x 55.6 area of 1890.4 square feet, and a 5.0 x 43.0 area of 215 square feet. In her documentation for the Appraisal, Ms. Rodriguez notes that the adjusted square footage of the Subject Property is 1,890 square feet and that the property appraiser reported the square footage at 1,709 square feet. Ms. Rodriguez failed to verify that the reported 2,105 square feet contained in the Appraisal was accurate. Ms. Rodriguez admitted in her Answer and Response to Administrative Complaint, Respondent’s Exhibit 1, that she failed to verify that a rear addition to the Subject Property, most likely the 5.0 x. 43.0 additional area she measured, had not been permitted through Miami-Dade County. This unpermitted addition would account for the discrepancy in the square footage of the Subject Property noted in Ms. Rodriguez’s notes. Had she investigated the discrepancy in square footage, it is possible she would have discovered the unpermitted addition and reported it in the Appraisal. Ms. Rodriguez indicates in the Appraisal that the Subject Property has a “porch.” The “porch” she was referring to is a rather small area in the front of the Subject Property which has an overhang. The evidence failed to prove that this area, which is depicted in photos accepted in evidence, does not constitute a “porch.” Ms. Rodriguez incorrectly indicated in the Appraisal that the Subject Property had a “patio.” Her suggestion that a “grass area” constituted a patio is rejected as unreasonable. While the Subject Property has a small “yard,” it does not have a patio. Ms. Rodriguez failed to indicate in the Appraisal that the Subject Property did not have any “appliances.” The fact that appliances were to be installed after closing fails to excuse this omission. Ms. Rodriguez did not make any adjustment for, or any explanation of, the 13-year age difference between the Subject Property and comparable sale 3. The Supplemental Addendum section of the Appraisal incorrectly reports that the Subject Property had wood floors and that it had a new pool deck. Ms. Rodriguez has admitted these errors, indicating that they are “[t]ypographical error[s] but did not effect value since no monetary adjustment was made.” Failure to Document. Ms. Rodriguez’s documentation for the Appraisal lacked a number of items, all of which Ms. Rodriguez admits were not maintained. The missing documentation included the following items which were not contained in her work file: Support for a $40 per square foot adjustment for comparable sale 1 and comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for a site size adjustment made to comparable sale 1 and comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for a $1,500.00 “bathroom” adjustment to comparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for a $5,000.00 “good” location adjustment made to comparable sale 1 and comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $4,000.00 garage adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $15,000.00 pool adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $350,000.00 Opinion of Site Value in the Cost Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $10,000.00 adjustment for the “As Is” Value of Site Improvements in the Cost Approach section of the Appraisal; Support for the $20,000.00 adjustment for Appliances/Porches/Patios/Etc. in the Cost Approach section of the Appraisal; and Marshall and Swift pages for the time frame that the Appraisal was completed to justify the dwelling square footage price in the Cost Approach section lf the Appraisal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Commission: Finding that Ms. Rodriguez is guilty of the violations alleged in Counts One through Seven of the Administrative Complaint as found in this Recommended Order; Placing Ms. Rodriguez’s appraiser license on probation for a period of two years, conditioned on her successful completion of the 15-hour USPAP course; Requiring that she pay an administrative fine of $2,000.00; and Requiring that she pay the investigative costs incurred in this matter by the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd of February, 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 23rd day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Ainslee R. Ferdie, Esquire Ferdie & Lones, Chartered 717 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 223 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Jessalyn Rodriguez 9972 Southwest 125th Terrace Miami, Florida 33176 Robert Minarcin, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Thomas W. O’Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-North Tower, Suite N802 Orlando, Florida 32801 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues are essentially whether Respondent failed to use reasonable diligence on four appraisals of residential condominiums in Orlando done in 2007, and whether he failed to register his appraisal business with Petitioner; and, if so, how he should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified Florida real estate appraiser, holding DBPR license 5422. In 2007, Respondent was appraising through Rush Realty Appraisal Services, LLC (Rush Realty), which he owned and operated. Rush Realty was registered with the Florida Department of State as a limited liability company, but it was not registered with DBPR. The Appraisals In 2007, Rush Realty, through Respondent and a trainee he supervised, appraised four condominium units in a residential complex in Orlando called the Residences at Millenia (Millenia). Three of the appraisals were done in January and the other in June. In January, Rush Realty appraised two of the condos at $279,500 and appraised the third at $258,500; in June, it appraised the fourth condo at $279,500. Respondent is responsible for these appraisals. One January appraisal was based on five comparables, three of which were sales of Millenia condos; one of those three was a pending sale. The other two January appraisals were based on four comparables, two of which were sales of Millenia condos, both of which were pending sales. One of the pending Millenia sales used for the January appraisals was for $290,000 ($282 per square foot, abbreviated psf). The other Millenia pending sale used for the January appraisals was for $279,500 ($272 psf). The closed sales used in the January appraisals included one at Millenia for $209,800 ($204 psf), another at Millenia for $207,400 ($202 psf), two at nearby Sunset Lake Condos for $275,900 ($265 psf), one at Sunset Lake for $259,900 ($251 psf), and one at Sunset Lake for $254,900 ($256 psf). According to the January appraisal reports, the sources of the comparables used by Respondent were the public records and the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) for the closed sales and the Millenia sales office for the pending sales. The June appraisal was based on two Millenia condo sales. These were the two sales that were pending at the time of the January appraisals. According to the June appraisal, those sales closed in March 2007, one at $280,000 and the other at $279,900. The June appraisal listed only the Millenia sales office as the source of the data on the two Millenia closed sales used as comparables for that appraisal. The June appraisal listed only the Millenia sales office as the source of the data on the two Millenia closed sales used as comparables for that appraisal. Respondent's January appraisal reports stated that the price range of properties similar to the subject property sold within the year prior to the appraisal report was from $100,000 to $400,000. In fact, according to MLS, the range was $25,000 to $313,000. Only seven of the 186 comparable sales were over $250,000. Respondent's June appraisal report also stated that the price range of properties similar to the subject property sold within the year prior to the appraisal report was from $100,000 to $400,000. In fact, according to MLS, the range was $102,000 to $313,900. Only four of the 88 comparable sales were over $250,000. Whether Respondent Used Reasonable Diligence The information provided by the Millenia sales office for the pending sales used as comparables for the January appraisals was unverifiable at the time. It was inappropriate for Respondent to use the Millenia sales office as the source of comparables for the January appraisals (or to use it to verify other sources) because Millenia was interested in the transaction for which the appraisals were done. Respondent testified that he and his trainee used a research tool called Microbase to obtain public records information on comparable sales for the appraisals. He testified that the information from the public records used for the January appraisals, and from the Millenia sales office for the June appraisal, was verified by the MLS, HUD-1 closing statements, and contracts. The use of MLS for verification for the closed sales in the January appraisals is indicated by the inclusion of MLS in the part of those appraisal report forms used to indicate data source(s). Although the data and verification sources other than the Millenia sales office and MLS were not indicated on the report forms for the January appraisals, and no source other than the Millenia sales office was indicated on the report form for the June appraisal, Respondent testified that his work files document the use of all of these sources for the closed sales used as comparables in the four appraisals. DBPR questions the veracity of Respondent's testimony regarding his work files and the use of these data and verification sources based on his failure to replicate his work files when asked to do by Petitioner's investigator. DBPR points to no requirement for Respondent to replicate his work files upon request. It appears from the evidence that Respondent understood he was being asked to produce the files, not to replicate (i.e., recreate) them. His response was in the negative based on his explanation that the files had been confiscated by and remained in the possession of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI has not returned Respondent's work files. Neither party attempted to subpoena the work files in this case, and the work files were not placed in evidence. DBPR also questions the veracity of Respondent's testimony regarding his work files and the use of these data and verification sources based on his failure to use any of the numerous other comparable sales that were available from those sources, most of which were sold for considerably less money than the comparables used by Respondent. For example, for the January appraisals, there were 37 comparable sales in the preceding six months available through MLS that ranged from $39,000 to $235,000; and, for the June appraisal, there were 16 comparable sales in the preceding six months available through MLS that ranged from $134,900 to $190,000. DBPR's expert utilized these comparables in MLS and reached value conclusions that were approximately $90,000 lower than Respondent's. According to MLS, other closed sales at Millenia between July 27, 2006, and January 27, 2007, ranged from $180,000 ($184.82 psf) to $205,000 ($207.49 psf), with an average of $198,472 ($196.96 psf) and a median of $205,000 ($199.42 psf). Comparable sales of condos within a mile from Millenia that closed between July 27, 2006, and January 27, 2007, ranged from $39,000 ($38.24 psf) to $306,000 ($275.93 psf), with an average of $187,279 ($183.82 psf) and a median of $188,500 ($189.95 psf). Comparable sales of condos within a mile from Millenia that closed between January 27, 2006, and January 27, 2007, ranged from $25,000 ($30.56 psf) to $317,900 ($256.28 psf), with an average of $168,468 ($152.69 psf) and a median of $169,650 ($159.49 psf). Respondent testified that he rejected the comparables he did not use based on the properties' relative poor condition, effective age, and lack of amenities. He also testified that, in some cases, the sellers appeared to be in financial distress and extremely motivated to sell, even at lower than market value; or, in other cases, the sellers did not raise their prices as the market rose. Taking all the evidence into account, DBPR did not prove that Respondent did not use any data and verification sources other than the Millenia sales office for the closed sales used as comparables in the four appraisals; however, Respondent inappropriately used pending sales instead of the available comparables and did not diligently review the available comparables before choosing the comparables he used. Instead, he quickly focused on sales at Millennia and Sunset Lakes that were significantly higher than the predominant prices of other comparable sales available to him through MLS and other sources. Respondent failed to exercise reasonable diligence in developing the appraisals and preparing the appraisal reports. If pending sales had not been used as comparables in the January appraisals, or if other available comparables had been used, the appraised values would have been significantly lower. The June appraisal would have been lower if other available comparables had been used. Other Errors in Appraisal Reports For two of the closed sales, in the part of the appraisal report form for describing sales and financing concessions, Respondent mistakenly entered MLS, with an official public records book and page number. This labeling error could have been confusing, but there was no evidence that anyone was misled by the error. The report forms used by Respondent included an addendum indicating that closed sales were used for comparables. This language was inconsistent with the indications elsewhere in the January appraisal reports that pending sales were used for that purpose. While potentially confusing, there was no evidence that anyone actually was misled by the addendum language. The addendum language also stated that all comparables were given equal consideration. Actually, in one of the January appraisals, the higher comparables were given greater weight. In that report, the property appraised for approximately $30,000 more than it would have if all comparables had been given equal consideration. This language was misleading in that computations would have been required to determine that it was in error. USPAP Rule 1-1(a) of the 2006 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) requires a real property appraiser to be aware of, understand, and correctly employ those recognized methods and techniques that are necessary to produce a credible appraisal. Respondent violated this rule. Rule 1-1(b) prohibits substantial errors of omission or commission that significantly affect an appraisal. Respondent violated this rule. Rule 1-1(c) of USPAP prohibits rendering appraisal services in a careless or negligent manner, including making a series of errors that, although individually might not significantly affect the results of an appraisal, in the aggregate affects the credibility of the results. Respondent violated this rule. Rule 1-4(a) of USPAP requires that, when a comparable sales approach is necessary for a credible result, an appraiser must analyze such comparable sales data as are available. Respondent violated this rule. Rule 2-1(a) of USPAP requires that written and oral appraisal reports be set forth in a manner that is clear and accurate and not misleading. Respondent violated this rule. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances Respondent had not been disciplined and had not received a letter of guidance prior to the four appraisal reports at issue in this case. His license was in good standing at the time. When an appraiser does not exercise reasonable diligence in doing an appraisal and preparing the appraisal report and the result is an unreasonably high value conclusion, as happened in the four appraisal reports at issue in this case, and a lender relies and acts on the appraisal report, the lender is harmed ipso facto, and the borrower and public may also be harmed, notwithstanding that many residential loans defaulted after 2007 besides the loans made based on these four appraisals. There was no evidence as to the specific extent of the actual harm to this lender. Although DBPR filed a separate administrative complaint for each of the four appraisals, the conduct complained of in each administrative complaint was similar. Each administrative complaint has three counts: one for not using reasonable diligence in doing the appraisal and preparing the appraisal report; another for not registering Rush Realty; and a third for violating USPAP provisions. Respondent testified without contradiction that revocation or suspension of his appraisal license, and even a substantial fine, would be a devastating financial hardship to him and his family.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DBPR enter a final order finding Respondent subject to discipline under sections 475.624(4) (through violations of section 475.623, USPAP, and rule 61J-9.001) and 475.624(15); suspending his license for three months, subject to probation upon reinstatement for such a period of time and subject to such conditions as the Board may specify; fining him $2,000; and assessing costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the cases in accordance with section 455.227(3)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 26th day of October, 2012.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 3, 2004, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is the state agency responsible for investigating complaints filed against registered, licensed, or certified real estate appraisers and for prosecuting disciplinary actions against such persons. § 455.225, Fla. Stat. (2005). The Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board ("Board") is the state agency charged with regulating, licensing, and disciplining real estate appraisers registered, licensed, or certified in Florida. § 475.613(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Rutan was a certified residential real estate appraiser in Florida, having been issued a license numbered RD 2791. Mr. Rutan had been a certified residential real estate appraiser in Florida for approximately 10 years. At the time of the events giving rise to this action, Mr. Rutan was employed by Excel Appraisal. Mr. Rutan interviewed and hired Frank Delgado, Juan Carlos Suarez, and Ricardo Tundador to work at Excel Appraisal as state-registered assistant real estate appraisers. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Rutan was Mr. Suarez’s supervisor and was responsible for Mr. Suarez’s appraisals. On or about June 16, 1999, Mr. Suarez prepared an appraisal for property located at 9690 Northwest 35th Street, Coral Springs, Florida, in which he valued the property at $325,000. The property is a multi-family, four-plex property. Mr. Rutan signed Mr. Suarez's appraisal as the supervisory appraiser and certified on the appraisal that he had inspected the property by placing an “X” in the "Inspect Property" box. The appraisal form signed by Mr. Rutan contains a "Supervisory Appraiser's Certification" that provides: If a supervisory appraiser signed the appraisal report, her or she certifies and agrees that: I directly supervise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report, have reviewed the appraisal report, agree with the statements and conclusions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the appraiser's certifications numbered 4 through 7 above, and am taking full responsibility for the appraisal and the appraisal report. It is the custom in the industry that a supervisory appraiser who certifies that he or she has inspected the property in question must inspect the property inside as well as outside before he or she can sign the appraisal. Mr. Rutan inspected the property the day after he signed the appraisal and only inspected the property from the outside. The appraisal report on the property at issue herein listed a prior sale of the property from Rodney Way to Doyle Aaron for $325,000 on April 28, 1999. The appraisal failed to list the sale of the property on the same day from Julius Ohren to Rodney Way for $230,000. Mr. Rutan did not investigate the relevant sales history of the property and was unaware, therefore, that the property had been “flipped” and was considerably overvalued in the appraisal report.2 Mr. Rutan admitted that he did not investigate prior sales and that the property was substantially overvalued. Mr. Suarez listed in the appraisal report three "comparable sales," that is, sales of properties similar in type and location to the property being appraised, to support the valuation of $350,000. The first comparable property used in the appraisal was property located at 4102 Riverside Drive, Coral Springs, which was listed in the appraisal report as being previously sold for $315,000. Earlier on the day that the Riverside Drive property was sold for $315,000, however, it had been sold for $185,000. Mr. Rutan failed to research and review the sales of the comparable properties that were included in Mr. Suarez's appraisal report, and the "comparable sale" of property on Riverside Drive was not properly used to value the property that was the subject of the appraisal report at issue herein. Mr. Suarez failed to make the proper adjustments in value on the Riverside Drive property based on the features of that property that were superior to the features of the subject property. The Riverside Drive property was located on a canal and should have had a negative adjustment with respect to the subject property, which was not on a canal. Mr. Suarez included a positive adjustment in the comparable sales data for the Riverside Drive property. Mr. Rutan failed to review the comparable property adjustments submitted by Juan Carlos Suarez for the appraisal of the subject property. Mr. Suarez overstated the rental income of the subject property in his appraisal report. Mr. Rutan failed to research and review the rental figures Mr. Suarez submitted. When Mr. Rutan was notified by Brokers Funding, a company that purchased the loans on the subject property, that there were problems with the appraisal done by Mr. Suarez, Mr. Rutan checked additional comparable sales and interviewed the tenants in the building. He also hired another appraiser to conduct an appraisal of the subject property. Based on his investigation and Mr. Salimino’s appraisal, Mr. Rutan discovered the problems in Mr. Suarez's appraisal and report of the subject property. Mr. Salimino’s appraisal for the subject property was $290,000, but Mr. Rutan estimated that his appraisal would have been approximately $250,000. Mr. Rutan fired Mr. Suarez, as well as Frank Delgado, and Ricardo Tundador, all three of whom were subsequently indicted on federal charges relating to real-estate-appraisal scams. In a Final Order entered on April 22, 2002, Mr. Rutan was found guilty by the Board of violating Sections 475.624(14) and 475.624(15), Florida Statutes, and was ordered to pay an administrative fine of $1,000. Mr. Rutan trusted Mr. Suarez to do an honest and competent appraisal and was rushed by Mr. Suarez to approve the appraisal on the subject property. The evidence presented by the Division is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Rutan failed to carry out his responsibilities as Mr. Suarez's supervisory appraiser, failed to review Juan Carlos Suarez’s appraisal for accuracy, and failed to inspect the inside of the subject property, which caused or contributed to the substantially over-stated valuation of the subject property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board enter a final order finding that William Rutan is guilty of violating Section 475.624(10), (14), and (15), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I through IV of the Administrative Complaint and revoking Mr. Rutan's Florida certification as a real estate appraiser. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 31st day of August, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the post-hearing memorandum and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found: By letter dated February 18, 1983, the Florida Real Estate Commission (sometimes herein referred to as the respondent or the Commission) advised the petitioner that his application for licensure as a real estate salesman was denied based upon petitioner's answer to question 6 of the licensing application and his criminal record. On September 1, 1982, petitioner held a Mutuel Clerk's Occupational License (NOP-00455) issued by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Department of Business Regulation, State of Florida. While acting in the capacity of a mutuel clerk at Calder Race Course in Dade County, Florida, Petitioner, on September 1, 1982, cashed a winning one dollar ($1.00) trifecta ticket for the eighth race on August 28, 1982, valued at six hundred thirty-six dollars and eighty cents ($636.80) for Metro-Dade Organized Crime Bureau Detective, Jonas Sears, for a cash fee payable to Petitioner. Petitioner did not require Detective Sears to complete the necessary internal revenue service form W-2G which is required of any patron winning six hundred dollars ($600.00) or more. On October 22, 1982, petitioner entered into a consent order with the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering wherein petitioner agreed to certain findings. Based on those findings, petitioner agreed to a suspension of his pari-mutuel license for a period of seventy-five (75) days. A clerk who engages in such conduct violates Section 550.16(7), Florida Statutes and Rule Section 7E- 6.07(3)(6), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner also admitted to deducting sixty dollars and eighty cents ($60.80) as a cash fee payable to him for not requiring Detective Sears to complete the necessary Internal Revenue Service form W-2G.
Recommendation That the respondent enter a Final Order denying petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of September, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 14th day of September, 1983.
