The Issue Whether Respondents committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and Title 61J2, Florida Administrative Code. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Gerry Sullivan & Associates Realty, Inc., was a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0215569 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued for that corporation was at the address of 7169 West Broward Boulevard, Plantation, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Geraldine R. Sullivan, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0086238 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Geraldine R. Sullivan, was the qualifying broker and office manager of the corporate Respondent. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Jim Sullivan and Pamela Sullivan were real estate salespersons in the State of Florida and employed by the corporate Respondent. Jim Sullivan is the son of Geraldine R. Sullivan and the husband of Pamela Sullivan. On June 16, 1997, Elaine P. Martin entered into a listing agreement with the corporate Respondent to sell her condominium for the price of $32,900. The listing agreement provided for the seller (Ms. Martin) to pay a brokerage commission of 6% that would be reduced to 5% if Jim Sullivan or Pamela Sullivan found the buyer without the involvement of another broker. The listing agreement also provided that Ms. Martin would pay a processing fee in the amount of $150.1 The listing agreement did not refer to a transaction fee.2 Ms. Martin did not agree to pay any fees other than the commission and the processing fee. In 1996, the corporate Respondent began a practice of charging sellers in certain transactions a fee, referred to as a transaction fee, that was in addition to the processing fee and the commission. The transaction fee was used by the salesperson to pay the salesperson's "facilitator," a person employed by the salesperson to run errands to facilitate the closing of the transaction. Examples of the type errands performed by the facilitator included meeting persons at the property to perform inspections and delivering documents. The practice of charging a transaction fee was not uncommon in Broward County, but it was not standard practice. Whether a particular seller would be charged a transaction fee depended, in part, on the listing salesperson. Typically, if a salesperson employed by the corporate Respondent did not us a facilitator, no transaction fee would be charged. The minutes of the Florida Real Estate Commission for July 16-17, 1996, contain the following entry: It was decided that as long as there is disclosure to all parties involved, the transaction fees indicated on closing statements is not a violation of F.S. 475. The customary practice of the corporate Respondent in June of 1997 was for its salesperson to complete a "net sheet" at the time the listing agreement is executed. The "net sheet" is a good faith estimate of the seller's expenses and reflects the estimated amount the seller will net from the transaction. The evidence established that Respondent, Geraldine R. Sullivan, and Pamela Sullivan could not locate in the Martin file a net sheet was prepared on or about the time Ms. Martin executed the listing agreement on June 16, 1997. From that evidence, and from the testimony of Ms. Martin, it is found that Jim Sullivan did not complete a net sheet when he and Ms. Martin executed the listing agreement. The listing agreement created a principal/agent relationship between Ms. Martin, as the seller, and the corporate Respondent, as the agent. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the corporate Respondent and Geraldine R. Sullivan, as the qualifying broker of the corporate Respondent, were the agents of Ms. Martin and owed her the fiduciary duties of an agent. In connection with the subject listing agreement, Ms. Martin executed an Agency Disclosure Statement which set forth the fiduciary duties owed by the agent to the principal, in pertinent part, as being the ". . . fiduciary duties of loyalty, confidentiality, obedience, full disclosure, accounting and the duty to use skill, care and diligence." In addition, the statement set forth that the agent owed the duty of honesty and fair dealing.3 A buyer working through another real estate broker made an offer to purchase the Martin property for the sum of $30,000. The offer, dated June 22, 1997, was presented to Ms. Martin by Pamela Sullivan. Because another real estate broker was involved, the real estate commission was based on 6% of the sales price. On June 22, 1997, Pamela Sullivan discussed the offer with Ms. Martin by telephone and informed her, for the first time, of the transaction fee. Later that day, Pamela Sullivan and Ms. Martin met and Pamela Sullivan prepared a "net sheet" that reflected the seller's estimated closing costs. The transaction fee in the amount of $3004 was reflected on the net sheet as an expense of the seller. As of June 22, 1997, Pamela Sullivan knew or should have known that the file on the Martin transaction maintained by her office did not contain a net sheet that was executed at the same time the listing agreement was executed. Prior to signing the contract or the net sheet on June 22, 1997, Ms. Martin placed a question mark next to the line on which the transaction fee was disclosed. Ms. Martin questioned the charge because she did not understand what was being done to earn that fee. Ms. Martin did not accept the explanations Pamela Sullivan gave for the transaction fee. Ms. Martin thereafter had Pamela Sullivan insert the following as a special condition of the contract: The seller reserves the right to have her attorney review the contract at his earliest opportunity. After the special condition was signed, Ms. Martin signed the contract and the net sheet. The net sheet was intended to be informational. By signing the net sheet, Ms. Martin did not intend to agree to pay the $300 transaction fee. Ms. Martin did not agree in writing or verbally to pay the transaction fee. Between June 22 and June 25, 1997, Pamela Sullivan, on behalf of the corporate Respondent, reduced the amount of the claimed transaction fee from $300 to $200. Following the execution of the Sales Contract, Ms. Martin had her attorney review the contract and the net sheet. Ms. Martin informed her attorney by memo dated June 25, 1997, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . We disputed the Transaction Fee of $300.00 and Century 21 lowered it to $200. We asked Pam Sullivan for a break down (sic) on the $200.00 cost. She refused to provide any; stated it was the cost of doing business. Since the housing prices in Broward County have not increased, they charge this extra fee along with their normal commission. . . . Ms. Martin sent a copy of her memo to Pamela Sullivan. Ms. Martin's attorney accepted the sales contract without any changes and informed her that he would address the issue of the transaction fee at the time of the closing. On the day of the closing, Ms. Martin's attorney telephoned Respondent, Geraldine R. Sullivan, to discuss the transaction fee. Geraldine R. Sullivan would not agree to waive the transaction fee after she learned that there was a signed net sheet. She did not realize that there was no net sheet prepared when the listing agreement was first executed. This was the only direct dealing Respondent, Geraldine R. Sullivan, had with this transaction. Between June 25, 1997, the date of Ms. Martin's memo, and July 7, 1997, the date of the closing, neither Ms. Martin nor her attorney voiced additional objection to the transaction fee.5 The transaction closed on July 7, 1997. The sum of $200, representing the amount of the disputed transaction fee, was placed in escrow by the closing agent, where it remained at the time of the formal hearing. All other fees and costs were paid at closing, including a brokerage commission of $1,800 (which was split with the realtor representing the buyer) and a processing fee of $150 (which was retained by the corporate Respondent).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered that finds the corporate Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and finds Geraldine R. Sullivan not guilty of that charge. It is further RECOMMENDED that the corporate Respondent be reprimanded and fined in the amount of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1998
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was represented by in this case by Michael Linsky, Esquire, beginning in April 1988. Two complaints of discrimination had been brought against the Department of Corrections by Petitioner. Linsky is an experienced trial lawyer having been admitted to the Florida Bar in 1970. However, he had no experience with discrimination cases prior to these proceedings. The Florida Commission on Human Relations found the Department had committed an unlawful employment practice when it assigned Petitioner to perimeter post duty and transferred him to Polk Correctional Institution in retaliation for having filed a discrimination complaint. Linsky originally took Petitioner's case on a contingency fee basis, but later it was decided between Linsky and Petitioner that the fee would be whatever was awarded by the Commission. Petitioner was only to be responsible for costs. Linsky submitted into evidence as Exhibit 1 a list of dates and hours expended on this case. However, this exhibit was prepared by Linsky's secretary some months after the events depicted and appear grossly exaggerated in some instances. Linsky claims a total of 159.35 hours expended. Linsky testified that his billing rate from April 1988 to December 1988 was $175 per hour, and thereafter it was raised to $190 per hour. Petitioner's expert witnesses contend the average billing rate in the Tampa area for this type of case ranges from $125 to $175 per hour. Respondent's expert witnesses contend the fees awarded run from $100 to $150 per hour. I find the appropriate fee in this case to be $135 per hour. Although Linsky claims to have spent 159.35 hour on this case, including the attorney's fees portion, 1 find that only 100 hours are reasonable. Costs of $423.60 is not disputed.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Department of Corrections be directed to pay Sefsick's attorney $13,500 attorney's fees and $423.60 costs in these proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings are accepted, except: 3. This proposed finding is accepted as a recital of the testimony presented, but rejected insofar as inconsistent with H.O. #8. 5. Rejected insofar as inconsistent with H.O. #7. 6 and 7. Accepted as legal argument, but rejected as a finding of fact. Respondent's proposed findings are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Linsky, Esquire 600 North Florida Avenue Suite 1610 Tampa, FL 33602 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas General Counsel Department of Corrections 1313 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Richard L. Dugger Secretary Department of Corrections 1313 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is the amount of appellate attorney's fees to be awarded and paid to Respondent by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are made: The dispute taken on appeal to the Third DCA in Case No. 3D17-0149 concerned the undersigned's Final Order on Petitioner's Motion for Attorney's Fees dated December 20, 2016.1/ In that Final Order, the crux of the ruling denying the request for fees was that in the administrative case, there had been no prevailing party; that the wording of section 255.0516, Florida Statutes, contemplates that costs and attorney's fees may be recovered only after a final administrative hearing is held (no final hearing had been held); and that the separate agreement between the parties did not provide a basis for an award of fees. The Final Order denying the award of attorney's fees to Nader was appealed and upheld by the Third DCA in a per curiam affirmed Opinion dated March 21, 2018. Respondent was also awarded its appellate fees in a separate Opinion issued the same day. That matter was referred to the undersigned for a determination. Respondent is requesting that this tribunal award it payment of $120,539.70 as appellate attorney's fees resulting from approximately 303.75 hours of time. In doing so, it relies upon several invoices submitted by its counsel regarding the legal work performed on the appeal. See Resp. Exs. 3-17 and Ex. A of Resp. Ex. 20. Those invoices reflect that the following attorneys and paralegals worked on the appeal for Respondent at the listed rate(s): Albert E. Dotson, Jr. ($740 to 750.00/hour) Eileen Ball Mehta ($685 to 695.00/hour) Jose M. Ferrer ($595.00/hour) Melissa Pallett-Vasquez ($565.00/hour) Eric Singer ($480 to 510.00/hour) Leah Aaronson ($315.00/hour) Elise Holtzman ($290 to 295.00/hour) Maria Ossorio ($295.00/hour) Jessica Kramer ($290.00/hour) Maria Tucci ($275.00/hour) In deciding the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded, a court must consider not only the reasonableness of the fees charged, but also the appropriateness of the number of hours counsel engaged in performing their services. Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985); and Mercy Hosp. Inc., v. Johnson, 431 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Respondent has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount of attorney's fees it has requested is reasonable. Rowe, 472 So. 2d at 1145; see also § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (2015). In Rowe, it was determined that the criteria listed in Rule 4-1.5 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar should be used to calculate the amount of reasonable attorney's fees. Rowe, 472 So. 2d at 1151. The undersigned has considered all the relevant factors outlined in Rule 4-1.5 and Rowe. Several of the factors and related findings are highlighted below. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)(A) In determining whether a requested fee award is reasonable, one factor to be considered is "the time and labor required, the novelty, complexity, and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly." The issue on appeal to the Third DCA was limited primarily to an analysis and determination of a "prevailing party" fee award. Notably, this issue was addressed, briefed, and argued by these parties before the undersigned in the underlying administrative proceeding. Many of the arguments set forth by Respondent in the appellate proceedings, which is the subject of this remand Order, were duplicative and, as mentioned, had been briefed, argued, and utilized in prior filings in the underlying administrative proceedings. Respondent contends that "new theories of liability" were introduced in Petitioner's Initial Brief. However, this argument is not persuasive. The evidence presented at the hearing also does not support Respondent's claim that all the labor and services of the aforementioned attorneys was required. A good deal of their work was duplicative in nature, redundant, and not necessary in order to perform the legal services properly. In short, some of the time billed was excessive. Petitioner's expert, Attorney Robert Klein, testified that he reviewed the Bilzin Sumberg firm's invoices for legal services, reviewed a considerable number of pleadings from the administrative proceedings, and reviewed nearly the entire collection of pleadings in the appellate case.2/ Klein testified convincingly, and the undersigned credits, that based on his global review of the Bilzin Sumberg invoices: (1) the fees charged "were far beyond what they should have been"; (2) he discovered a "tremendous duplication of effort"; and (3) "the overwhelming majority of the arguments" raised on appeal had already been raised in the administrative proceedings. In describing the firm's preparation time for oral arguments, he opined that the time billed was "really high." In short, Klein's expert testimony, while stated in general or more abstract terms, properly supplemented by the undersigned's own review of the invoices and the Exhibit A summary of Respondent's Exhibit 20, supports a considerable reduction in the fees charged. As a legal back drop to the distinctive issues in this case, an analysis regarding the reasonableness of an attorney's posted time is helpful. In Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 676 So. 2d 41, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), the court held that a party has the right to hire as many attorneys as it desires, but the opposing party is not required to compensate for overlapping efforts, should they result. In Brevard County v. Canaveral Properties, Inc., 696 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), the Fifth District Court of Appeal panel held that: The polestar of an appellate attorney fee award pursuant to section 73.131 and the case law generally, is that it must be reasonable. One that is bloated because of excessive time spent, or unnecessary services rendered, or duplicate tasks performed by multiple attorneys, does not meet that criterion of reasonableness. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reminded the parties, "[i]n making an attorney fee award, the court must consider the possibility of duplicate effort arising from multiple attorneys, in determining a proper fee award. Fees should be adjusted and hours reduced or eliminated to reflect duplications of services." Id. In determining the hours, the undersigned must also look at the amount of time that would ordinarily be spent to resolve the particular type of issues, which is not necessarily the time actually spent by counsel in the case. It is settled that a court is not required to simply accept the hours stated by counsel. In re Estate of Platt, 586 So. 2d 328, 333-34 (Fla. 1991). Finally, in Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners' Association at the Vineyards, Inc., 928 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), the court outlined that as a general rule, duplicative time charged by multiple attorneys working on the case is usually not compensable. In this case, a considerable portion of Respondent's appellate arguments, case law, drafting time, and associated research was similar, if not identical to, the arguments, case law, and documents filed with this tribunal prior to the initiation of the appeal.3/ Moreover, Respondent's expert witness, Dagmar Llaudy, acknowledged that a fair amount of duplication occurred. She testified, for instance, that "the answer brief and everything else they [Miami–Dade College] did, it used the same case law and it used the same arguments. So it was very difficult to separate work done for a 57.105 and then work done for the remainder of the case because they all touched on the same issues." Tr. p. 134, Line 22-25, and p. 135, Line 1-2. This statement by Respondent's expert witness is telling, and explains a good deal of the legal work for which fees are being sought. The undersigned concludes that when legal work done for one aspect of a case closely resembles, or is similar to, legal work performed for another phase of the case and is used again, the party is normally not entitled to recover all of its fees for this repetitious work. Perhaps the most compelling support for reducing the requested award in this case can be found in the reasoning outlined by the magistrate judge in Alvarez Perez v. Sanford- Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71823 (M.D. Fla. 2009). In that case, the applicant was awarded and sought a determination of fees incurred on appeal. The defendants objected to almost half of the requested award complaining that much of the time requested was for the same issues that had been fully briefed at the trial court level. The magistrate judge agreed with the defendants and reduced the requested fee by more than one-half, from $68,510.00 to $33,080.00. In doing so, she pointed out and aptly concluded: Because most of the work had already been done prior to the appeal, the total number of hours expended by Pantas during the appeal was excessive and unreasonable. See, e.g., Hoover v. Bank of Amer., Corp., No. 8:02-CV- 478-T-23TBM, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59825, 2006 WL 2465398 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2006) [*12](concluding that the total number of hours sought by counsel for the appeal was excessive "in light of the prior work done on these same issues," and reducing the total hours billed by one-third); Wilson v. Dep't of Children and Families, No. 3:02-cv-357-J- 32TEM, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26739, 2007 WL 1100469 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2007) (concluding that the total number of hours sought by counsel for the appeal was excessive "in light of the prior work done on these same issues," and reducing the hours billed by one-third); Action Sec. Serv., Inc., v. Amer. Online, Inc., No. 6:03-cv-1170-Orl-22DAB, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4668, 2007 WL 191308 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2007) (concluding that the hours claimed by counsel for the appeal were excessive, and reducing the amount of fees by more than half, from $37,889.50 to $18,000.00). The undersigned likewise finds and concludes that there was a significant amount of billing for identical and similar research, drafting, and appeal preparation, which had already been performed at the administrative proceeding level. Consequently, the undersigned will make the appropriate reduction to the amount(s) allowed. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)(B) In determining whether a requested fee is reasonable, one factor to be considered is "the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer." There was no compelling evidence provided by Respondent regarding this factor. Respondent's counsel did not provide any tangible examples of particular employment which was rejected or passed upon due to the ongoing representation of Respondent. As a result, the undersigned finds that there was no persuasive evidence presented regarding this criterion which supports the fees requested. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)(C) In determining whether a requested fee is reasonable, another factor to be considered is "the fee, or rate of fee, customarily charged in the locality for legal services of similar nature." In support of their fee claim, Respondent presented Llaudy as their expert witness with regard to this criterion. Llaudy provided a brief, but sufficient, opinion that the rates charged by Respondent's law firm were reasonable and reflected the hourly rate customarily charged in the Miami area at the relevant time. Tr. p. 168, Line 6-12. Petitioner's expert, Klein, did not persuasively or seriously dispute the reasonableness of the rates charged. The undersigned finds that the hourly rates were reasonable and within the range for prevailing rates in the Miami-Dade County legal community. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)(D) In determining whether a requested fee is reasonable, a fourth factor to be considered is "the significance of, or amount involved in, the subject matter of the representation, the responsibility involved in the representation, and the results obtained." The case on appeal was fairly straightforward. It concerned whether "prevailing party" attorney's fees should have been awarded. The question for the Third DCA was: Did the administrative law judge err when he refused to award the Petitioner prevailing party fees after dismissing the underlying administrative bid protest case? The record demonstrates that the issue on appeal was not overwhelmingly complicated or intricate. When evaluating this factor, the undersigned also considered that Respondent achieved a good result and considered whether Respondent's reasonable attorney's fees should include work and services its counsel conducted in connection with an appellate motion filed pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes. Petitioner argues that the time spent on the motion for sanctions should be entirely discounted because Respondent was "unsuccessful" on this claim, citing Baratta, 928 So. 2d at 495 ("Attorneys' fees should not usually be awarded for claims on which the moving party was unsuccessful."). Although the undersigned does not agree with this argument by Petitioner, the undersigned finds that the time spent on the motion for sanctions by Respondent's counsel was excessive. As a result, time was adjusted accordingly. More specifically, the motion sought sanctions and was voluntarily withdrawn after it was filed, but before the merits of the motion was addressed by the Third DCA. For several reasons, the undersigned finds that it is proper to award fees for work performed on a motion despite the fact that it was voluntarily withdrawn before it was adjudicated on its merit. First, under these circumstances, it was not proven that Respondent was "unsuccessful" on this claim.4/ Although the motion for sanctions was never heard on the merits, it did result, indisputably, in Petitioner's prior counsel withdrawing from the appellate proceedings. As such, the undersigned cannot conclude that Respondent was "unsuccessful" on this claim. Rather, it simply withdrew a motion after gaining some success and some of the relief it sought. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)(E) In determining whether a requested fee is reasonable, another factor to be considered is "the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances and, as between attorney and client, any additional time demands or requests of the attorney by the client." There was no persuasive evidence presented by Respondent regarding this factor, and it does not materially bear upon the award of reasonable attorney's fees in this case. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)(F) In determining whether a requested fee is reasonable, one factor to be considered is "the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client." There was some evidence presented by Respondent regarding the nature of the professional relationship between the attorneys and Respondent. This included a 10-percent professional discount provided to Respondent, which was taken into account and already credited in the total $120,539.70 requested. There was no compelling evidence regarding the length of the relationship. Therefore, while this criterion was considered when determining a reasonable fee, it did not have a significant bearing on the fee being awarded. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)(G) In determining whether a requested fee is reasonable, one factor to be considered is the "experience, reputation, diligence, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the service and the skill, expertise, or efficiency of the effort reflected in the actual providing of such service." Llaudy and Klein both expressed some general knowledge of the attorneys involved, and their reputation and levels of expertise. There was also some limited testimony from Albert E. Dotson, Jr., on this topic. All of this was taken into account both with respect to the rates charged and the hours spent on the case. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)(H) In determining whether a requested fee is reasonable, a final factor to be considered is "whether the fee is fixed or contingent, and, if fixed as to amount or rate, whether the client's ability to pay rested to any significant degree on the outcome of the representation." In this matter, the hourly rates were fixed and the amount of the fee did not rest on the outcome of the appeal. Ultimate Findings and Conclusions The undersigned finds that the rates charged by the Bilzin Sumberg firm for the attorneys involved in the case were reasonable. However, the undersigned finds that the number of hours expended by the Bilzin Sumberg firm on this matter exceeded the number reasonably necessary to provide the services. Based on the evidence presented and exercising the discretion the undersigned is afforded in a hearing of this nature, the undersigned finds that the reasonable hourly rates and reasonable number of hours expended are as follows: Attorney Reasonable Hourly Rate Reasonable Hours Expended Lodestar amount Albert E. Dotson, Jr. $745.00 18.05 $13,447.25 Eileen Ball Mehta $690.00 28.50 $19,665.00 Jose M. Ferrer $595.00 2.3 $1,368.50 Melissa Pallett-Vasquez $565.00 0.80 $452.00 Eric Singer $495.00 38.9 $19,255.50 Leah Aaronsen $315.00 6.1 $1,921.50 Elise Hotlzman $292.50 72.5 $21,206.25 Maria Ossorio $295.00 7.9 $2,330.50 Jessica Kramer $290.00 6.8 $1,972.00 Maria Tucci $275.00 0.4 $110.00 TOTAL AWARDED $81,728.50 The undersigned has also considered the appropriateness of any reduction or enhancement factors, including the withdrawal of the section 57.105 motion for sanctions. DISPOSITION AND AWARD Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ORDERED that Respondent's reasonable attorney's fees are determined to be $81,728.50, with recoverable costs in the amount of $461.35 for the total sum of $82,189.85 DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 20th day of November, 2018.
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Petitioner, a not-for- profit organization is entitled to a refund of taxes collected and paid to Respondent pursuant to the exemption provision of Subsection 212.04(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the Petitioner's witness, the arguments of counsel and Respondent's brief submitted on June 5, 1979, the following relevant facts are found. The Petitioner, Miami Civic Music Association, is seeking a refund of taxes collected and paid prior to October 1, 1978, on the sale of membership fees. The Petitioner obtained a certificate qualifying it as a not-for-profit organization from the United States Internal Revenue Service since approximately 1945. This status has been submitted to Respondent. Prior to October 1, 1978, Petitioner submitted to Respondent approximately $1,602.33 based on the sale of membership dues received for musical performances which were to he held subsequent to October 1, 1978, i.e., October 25, 1978 through April, 1979. Petitioner bases its refund claim on the fact that the actual concert series which gave rise to the ticket sales occurred after October 1, 1978. Respondent's position is that the Petitioner is not entitled to a refund, first, on the ground that the tax collections for which the refund is being sought were collected prior to October 1, 1978, and therefore not properly refundable under the exemption provision of Subsection 212.04(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes. Secondly, Respondent contends that Petitioner is without standing to seek a refund since the sales tax applicable to admission charges purportedly collected must first be refunded to the respective subscribers which the Petitioner has not done in this case. Subsection 212.04(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes, provides: No tax shall be levied on dues, membership fees, and admission charges imposed by not- for-profit sponsoring organizations or community or recreational facilities. To receive this exemption, the sponsoring organization or facility must qualify as a not-for-profit entity under the provisions of s. 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Cede of 1954, as amended. This exemption became effective October, 1978. The membership fees here in question were sold by Petitioner prior to October 1, 1978, and taxes were collected and remitted to the Department of Revenue. An examination of the legislative intent embodied in Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, reveals that each and every admission is taxed unless specifically exempted. (Subsection 212.21(3), Florida Statutes.) Inasmuch as there was no statutory exemption for Petitioner's organization prior to October 1, 1975, and based on the fundamental rule of statutory construction to the effect that a statute operates prospectively unless the intent is clearly expressed that it operates retrospectively. State, Department of Revenue v. Zuckerman-Vernon Corporation (Florida 1977) 354 So.2d 353. Subsection 212.04(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes, reveals no legislative intent that this amendment was to be applied retrospectively. Finally, since an admissions tax like sales taxes, are collected on behalf of the State by the operator, it is in effect a form of excise tax upon the customer for exercising his privilege of purchasing the admission, the Petitioner herein lacks standing inasmuch as it did not pay the taxes, but merely remitted to the Department of Revenue the tax which was paid by subscribers of the memberships from the organization. See, for example, Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 101 So.2d 775 (Florida 1958) and State ex rel Szabo Food Services, Inc. of N.C. v. Dickinson, 250 So.2d 529 (Florida 1973). In this case, in the absence of the Petitioner showing that it was the party entitled to a refund of the taxes herein based on a claim of either an overpayment, a payment where no tax was due or a payment erroneously made, Petitioner failed to advance a basis upon which its claim can be granted. Section 215.26, Florida Statutes. For these reasons, I shall recommend that the Petitioner's claim for a refund herein be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's claim for a refund herein be DENIED. ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Wakefield, Esquire Hedges, Gossett, McDonald & wakefield 3325 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 305 Hollywood, Florida 33021 Linda C. Procta, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Pursuant to the order of the First District Court of Appeal dated October 18, 2005, the issue before the Division of Administrative Hearings is a determination of the amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded for the administrative proceeding in Department of Health v. Anthony Glenn Rogers, M.D., DOAH Case No. 02-0080PL, and for the appellate proceeding styled Anthony Glenn Rogers, M.D. v. Department of Health, Case No. 1D04-1153 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 18, 2005).
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 Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine, and the Board of Medicine ("Board") within the Department is the entity responsible for entering final orders imposing disciplinary action for violations of the laws regulating the practice of medicine. See §§ 455.225 and 458.331(2), Fla. Stat. On January 4, 2002, the Department of Health filed an Administrative Complaint charging Dr. Rogers with violations of Section 458.331(1)(m), (q), and (t), Florida Statutes (1998).3 The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, which assigned the matter DOAH Case No. 02-0080PL. The case was heard on May 7, 2002, by Administrative Law Judge Michael J. Parrish. Judge Parrish entered his Recommended Order on February 21, 2003, in which he found that the Department had failed to prove violations of Section 458.331(1)(q) and (t), Florida Statutes (1998), and recommended dismissal of those charges. Judge Parrish found that the Department had proven a violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1998), failing to keep medical records as required by rule, and he recommended that Dr. Rogers be required to pay a $1,000.00 administrative fine and attend a Florida Medical Association record-keeping course as the penalty for the violation. The Board entered its Final Order on February 17, 2004, in which it adopted its own findings of fact and conclusions of law; found Dr. Rogers guilty of all three charges in the Administrative Complaint; and imposed a penalty on Dr. Rogers consisting of a $10,000 administrative fine, completing of a drug course sponsored by the University of South Florida, completion of a Florida Medical Association record-keeping course, and two years' probation, during which he was not permitted to practice medicine unless his practice was monitored quarterly by a physician approved by the Board. Dr. Rogers appealed the Board's Final Order to the First District Court of Appeal, challenging the Board's determination that Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(q) and (t), Florida Statutes (1998). Dr. Rogers filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs based on Section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes. In addition, Dr. Rogers filed a Motion for Stay of Final Order, which the Board opposed. The district court denied the motion for stay in an order entered April 2, 2004, and Dr. Rogers proceeded to comply with the terms of the two-year probationary period imposed by the Board, as well as fulfilling the other requirements set forth in the Board's Final Order of February 17, 2004. In an opinion issued on October 18, 2005, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the Board's Final Order with respect to its determination that Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(q) and (t), Florida Statutes (1998), and remanded the matter to the Board for entry of a Final Order consistent with its opinion. The district court held in its opinion that the Board had erroneously re-weighed the evidence and had rejected findings of fact in the administrative law judge's Recommended Order that were supported by competent substantial evidence. The district court also entered on October 18, 2005, the order granting Dr. Rogers's motion for attorneys' fees and costs that is the subject of this proceeding. The district court's mandate issued on February 23, 2006, and, on April 21, 2006, the Board entered a Final Order on Remand adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law in Judge Parrish's Recommended Order, finding that Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1998), and imposing a $1,000.00 administrative fine on Dr. Rogers and requiring him to attend a medical record-keeping course. Based on the Amended Affidavit of C. William Berger filed August 24, 2006, the total number of hours Mr. Berger spent in representing Dr. Rogers in the administrative proceeding in DOAH Case No. 02-0080PL is 79.75, a total that the Department does not challenge. Mr. Berger's billing rate was $300.00 per hour, a rate that the Department accepts as reasonable. The total amount of attorney's fees paid to Mr. Berger for his representation of Dr. Rogers through the administrative proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings was, therefore, $23,925.00. Dr. Rogers was ultimately found to have violated one count of the three-count Administrative Complaint filed against him by the Department, the count in which the Department alleged that Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1998), by failing to keep adequate medical records related to the patient that was the subject of the charges against him. Mr. Berger did not record in his billing statements the amount of time he spent researching this charge, preparing for hearing on this charge, or addressing this charge in the Proposed Recommended Order he filed in 02-0080PL. It is reasonable that Mr. Berger spent 10 percent of the hours included in his billing statements preparing Dr. Rogers's defense to the charge that he failed to keep adequate medical records.4 Accordingly, Mr. Berger's attorney's fees will be reduced by 10 percent, or by $2,392.50, for a total of $21,532.50. In reaching the percentage by which Mr. Berger's fees should be reduced, consideration has been given to the amount of the fees in relationship to the failure to prevail on the medical-records violation, to the seriousness of the alleged violations on which Dr. Rogers prevailed before both the administrative law judge and on appeal,5 and the penalty ranges that the Board could impose for the violations with which Dr. Rogers was charged.6 Based on the Supplemental Affidavit of Lisa Shearer Nelson Regarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed September 5, 2006, Ms. Nelson claimed that she spent a total of 187.1 hours "from the issuance of the final order of the Board of Medicine through the appeal and remand and initial preparation of the petition for attorney's fees and costs." Ms. Nelson's billing statements reflect that she represented Dr. Rogers during the appellate proceedings before the First District Court of Appeal in Case No. 1D04-1153 and before the Board on remand from the district court. Ms. Nelson's billing rate was $250.00 per hour, a rate that the Department accepts as reasonable. The total amount of attorney's fees paid by Dr. Rogers to Ms. Nelson for her representation was, therefore, $46,775.00. A review of the billing statements attached to Ms. Nelson's supplemental affidavit reveals that the final billing statement, dated June 9, 2006, was for "preparation of petition for fees and costs; preparation of affidavit re same." Dr. Rogers was billed for 1.9 hours in this billing statement, for a total of $475.00. Because the work done by Ms. Nelson reflected in this billing statement did not involve the appellate proceeding arising out of the Board's Final Order of February 17, 2004, the hours claimed by Ms. Nelson are reduced by 1.9 hours, for a total of 185.2 hours. Accordingly, Ms. Nelson's attorney's fees for her representation of Dr. Rogers on appeal total $46,300.00. The total costs identified in Mr. Berger's Amended Affidavit and in the billing statements attached to the Amended Affidavit is $4,462.55. This amount is reduced by $1,000.00 attributable to a retainer paid to a Dr. Spanos, who was initially retained as an expert witness but who ultimately did not testify on Dr. Rogers's behalf. The total allowable costs for the administrative proceeding, therefore, are $3,462.55. The total costs identified by Ms. Nelson in her Supplemental Affidavit and in the billing statements attached to the Supplemental Affidavit is $1,005.01. The total costs for both the administrative and the appellate proceedings are, therefore, $4,467.56. Dr. Rogers submitted an affidavit in which he claimed that he expended total costs of $154,807.23 in fulfilling the terms of the penalty assessed against him in the Board's Final Order of February 17, 2004, which was reversed by the district court.
Conclusions For Petitioner: C. William Berger, Esquire One Boca Place, Suite 337W 2255 Glades Road Boca Raton, Florida 33486 For Respondent: John E. Terrel, Esquire Michael D. Milnes, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265
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 the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original Notice of Appeal with the agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1985, Petitioner, Nicholas Cozzo, entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement for the sale of sixty (60) shares of the issued and outstanding capital stock of C & S Deli Sandwich and Fish, Inc., a Florida corporation, (the Company) to Robert A. Krueger and Joe Ellen Krueger (collectively, the Kruegers). As a result of the sale, Petitioner retained ownership of no further stock of the Company. (Exhibit A) On October 14, 1985, the Kruegers executed two (2) promissory notes in the amounts of $53,000.00 and $5,000.00, respectively, to Petitioner and a Security Agreement securing payment of the notes. (Composite Exhibit B and Exhibit C) On October 14, 1985, Petitioner tendered his resignation as Director, President and Treasurer of the Company. (Exhibit D) Petitioner's security interest to the furniture, furnishings, fixtures, equipment and inventory of the Company (the "collateral") was duly perfected by the filing of a Uniform Commercial Code Financing Statement with the Uniform Commercial Code Bureau, Florida Department of State, on October 21, 1985. (Exhibit E) A Uniform Commercial Code Financing Statement was recorded by the Petitioner in the Public Records of Pasco County, State of Florida, on October 15, 1985, in Official Records Book 1451, page 0493. (Exhibit F) In early 1987, the Kruegers defaulted under the terms of the promissory notes. Prior to April 24, 1987, Petitioner repossessed the furniture, furnishings, fixtures, equipment and inventory of the Company. No consideration was paid by Petitioner to the Company or the Kruegers upon his repossession of the foregoing described collateral. At no time did ownership of any of the capital stock of the Company revert back to Petitioner. On May 5, 1987, Petitioner by private sale disposed of the collateral to Vincent Lopez and Glen Delavega. (Exhibits G, H, and I) No surplus funds resulted from the sale of the repossessed collateral by Petitioner to Vincent Lopez and Glen Delavega. At no time material hereto did the Florida Department of Revenue issue a tax warrant against the Company respecting any unpaid sales tax. On or about May 6, 1987, Petitioner paid under protest to the Respondent Department of Revenue the delinquent unpaid sales tax of the Company in the amount of $1392.53. The Department is still attempting to verify that amount at this date. The Petitioner maintains he paid the amount in order for the Department to issue a sales tax certificate and number to Vincent Lopez and Glen Delavega. The Department maintains its procedure at the time was to issue a sales tax number to the new owners and then proceed against them under Section 212.10, Florida Statutes. It is the position of the Respondent that the Petitioner's repossession of the collateral constituted a sale within the purview of Section 212.10(1), Florida Statutes (1985), and Rule 12A-1.055, Florida Administrative Code, which places tax liability on the successor of a business whose previous owner has not satisfied outstanding sales tax obligations. Respondent further notes that the case Petitioner relies on, General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Tom Norton Motor Corp., 366 So.2d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) was issued on January 10, 1979, while Section 679.105(5), Florida Statutes, which upholds tax laws when in conflict with security agreements, took effect January 1, 1980. Petitioner on the other hand claims that a lawful repossession of collateral under Florida's Uniform Commercial Code, Section 679.504, Florida Statutes (1985), does not constitute a "sale" of a business making him liable for the Company's unpaid sales tax. Petitioner continues to rely on GMAC, supra, and notes that it was cited by American Bank v. Con's Cycle Center, 466 So.2d 255 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). A refund application was submitted by Petitioner to the Department of Revenue on June 10, 1987. This application was denied by the Department of Revenue by letter dated January 28, 1988. (Exhibit J)
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the two-count Administrative Complaint, dated April 17, 2007, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (the "Department"), is the state agency charged with enforcing the statutory provisions pertaining to persons holding real estate broker and sales associate's licenses in Florida, pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, except where specifically noted, Respondent Mathew Johnson was a licensed Florida real estate sales associate, having been issued license number SL3149081. Respondent first obtained his real estate associate's license in 2003 and worked under the license of broker Jacqueline Sanderson in Orlando. When he married and his wife became pregnant, Respondent believed that he needed a more steady income than his commission-based employment with Ms. Sanderson provided. Respondent left Ms. Sanderson's employ on good terms and commenced work as the marketing manager for the downtown YMCA in Orlando. While working at the downtown YMCA, Respondent met a member of the YMCA named Tab L. Bish ("Mr. Bish"), a broker who owns First Source, Inc., an Orlando real estate sales company (sometimes referred to as "FSI Realty"). Respondent became friendly with Mr. Bish, and expressed an interest in getting back into the real estate business. Mr. Bish offered Respondent a job at First Source. Respondent had allowed his sales associate's license to lapse while he was working at the YMCA. Respondent informed Mr. Bish of that fact, and told Mr. Bish that he required a salaried position in order to support his young family. Respondent testified that Mr. Bish was happy to hire him as an office manager, because Mr. Bish wanted Respondent to perform a marketing role for First Source similar to that he had performed for the YMCA. Respondent started working at First Source in May 2005, as a salaried office manager. Mr. Bish agreed that he initially hired Respondent as an office manager, but only on the understanding that Respondent would take the necessary steps to reactivate his sales associate's license and commence selling property as soon as possible. Respondent took the licensing course again. Mr. Bish believed that Respondent was taking too long to obtain his license, and cast about for something Respondent could do during the interim. In order to make profitable use of Respondent's time, Mr. Bish began to deal in referral fees from apartment complexes. Certain complexes in the Orlando area would pay a fee to brokers who referred potential renters to the apartments, provided these potential renters actually signed leases. Among the apartment complexes offering referral fees was the Jefferson at Maitland, which in 2005 offered a referral fee of half the first month's rent. Mr. Bish placed Respondent in charge of connecting potential renters with apartment complexes, showing the apartments, following up to determine whether the potential renters signed leases, and submitting invoices for the referral fees. Mr. Bish did not authorize Respondent to collect the payments. Respondent initiated contact with the Jefferson at Maitland and began sending potential renters there. Respondent would submit invoices to the Jefferson at Maitland, payable to First Source, for each referral that resulted in a lease agreement. Respondent estimated that he submitted between 12 and 15 invoices for referral fees to the Jefferson at Maitland during his employment with First Source. Respondent obtained his license and became an active sales associate under Mr. Bish's broker's license on November 16, 2005. Mr. Bish began a process of weaning Respondent away from his salaried position and into working on a full commission basis. Respondent stopped showing apartments under the referral arrangement and began showing properties for sale. The last lease for which First Source was due a referral fee from the Jefferson at Maitland was dated December 5, 2005. In early February 2006, it occurred to Respondent that he had failed to follow up with the Jefferson at Maitland regarding the last group of potential renters to whom he had shown apartments during October and November 2005. Respondent claimed that he "hadn't had the opportunity" to follow up because of the press of his new duties as a sales associate and the intervening holiday season. However, nothing cited by Respondent explained his failure to make a simple phone call to the Jefferson at Maitland to learn whether First Source was owed any referral fees. Respondent finally made the call to the Jefferson at Maitland on February 9, 2006. He spoke to a woman he identified as Jenny Marrero, an employee whom he knew from prior dealings. Ms. Marrero reviewed Respondent's list and found three persons who had signed leases after Respondent showed them apartments: Mike Tebbutt, who signed a one-year lease on October 26, 2005, for which First Source was owed a referral fee of $532.50; Terry Ford, who signed an eight-month lease on November 14, 2005, for which First Source was owed a referral fee of $492.50; and Juan Sepulveda, who signed an eight-month lease on December 2, 2005, for which First Source was owed a referral fee of $415.00. However, there was a problem caused by Respondent's failure to submit invoices for these referral fees in a timely manner. Respondent testified that Ms. Marrero told him that the Jefferson at Maitland had reduced its referral fee from 50 percent to 20 percent of the first month's rent, effective January 2006.2 Ms. Marrero could not promise that these late invoices would be paid according to the 2005 fee structure. According to Respondent, Ms. Marrero suggested that the Jefferson at Maitland's corporate office would be more likely to pay the full amount owed if Respondent did something to "break up" the invoices, making it appear that they were being submitted by different entities. She also suggested that no invoice for a single payee exceed $1,000, because the corporate office would know that amount exceeded any possible fee under the 2006 fee structure. Ms. Marrero made no assurances that her suggestions would yield the entire amount owed for the 2005 invoices, but Respondent figured the worst that could happen would be a reduction in the billings from 50 percent to 20 percent of the first month's rent. On February 9, 2006, Respondent sent a package to the Jefferson at Maitland, via facsimile transmission. Included in the package were three separate invoices for the referral fees owed on behalf of Messrs. Tebbutt, Ford, and Sepulveda. The invoices for Messrs. Tebbutt and Sepulveda stated that they were from "Matt Johnson, FSI Realty," to the Jefferson at Maitland, and set forth the name of the lessee, the lease term, the amount of the "referral placement fee," and stated that the checks should be made payable to "FSI Realty, 1600 North Orange Avenue, Suite 6, Orlando, Florida 32804." The invoice for Mr. Ford stated that it was from "Matt Johnson" to the Jefferson at Maitland. It, too, set forth the name of the lessee, the lease term, and the amount of the referral fee. However, this invoice stated that the check should be made payable to "Matt Johnson, 5421 Halifax Drive, Orlando, Florida 32812." The Halifax Drive location is Respondent's home address. The package sent by Respondent also included an Internal Revenue Service Form W-9, Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification, for Mr. Bish and for Respondent, a copy of Respondent's real estate sales associate license, a copy of Mr. Bish's real estate broker's license, and a copy of First Source, Inc.'s real estate corporation registration. Approximately one month later, in early March 2006, Mr. Bish answered the phone at his office. The caller identifying herself as "Amber" from the Jefferson at Maitland and asked for Respondent, who was on vacation. Mr. Bish asked if he could help. Amber told Mr. Bish that the W-9 form submitted for Respondent had been incorrectly filled out, and that she could not send Respondent a check without the proper information. Mr. Bish told Amber that under no circumstances should she send a check payable to Respondent. He instructed her to make the payment to First Source. Amber said nothing to Mr. Bish about a need to break up the payments or to make sure that a single remittance did not exceed $1,000. Mr. Bish asked Amber to send him copies of the documents that Respondent had submitted to the Jefferson at Maitland. Before those documents arrived, Mr. Bish received a phone call from Respondent, who explained that he submitted the invoice in his own name to ensure that Mr. Bish received the full amount owed by the Jefferson at Maitland. On March 10, 2006, after reviewing the documents he received from the Jefferson at Maitland, Mr. Bish fired Respondent. On March 29, 2006, Mr. Bish filed the complaint that commenced the Department's investigation of this matter.3 At the hearing, Mr. Bish explained that, even if Respondent's story about the need to "break up" the invoices and keep the total below $1,000 were true, the problem could have been easily resolved. Had Mr. Bish known of the situation, he would have instructed the Jefferson at Maitland to make one check payable to him personally as the broker, and a second check payable to First Source, Inc. In any event, there was in fact no problem. By a single check, dated March 15, 2008, First Source received payment from the Jefferson at Maitland in the amount of $1,440, the full sum of the three outstanding invoices from 2005. Respondent testified that he never intended to keep the money from the invoice, and that he would never have submitted it in his own name if not for the conversation with Ms. Marrero. Respondent asserted that if he had received a check, he would have signed it over to Mr. Bish. Respondent and his wife each testified that the family had no great need of $492.50 at the time the invoices were submitted. Respondent's wife is an attorney and was working full time in February 2006, and Respondent was still receiving a salary from First Source. In his capacity as office manager, Respondent had access to the company credit card to purchase supplies. Mr. Bish conducted an internal audit that revealed no suspicious charges. Respondent failed to explain why he did not immediately tell Mr. Bish about the potential fee collection problem as soon as he learned about it from Ms. Marrero, why he instructed the Jefferson at Maitland to send the check to his home address rather than his work address, or why he allowed a month to pass before telling Mr. Bish about the invoices. He denied knowing that Mr. Bish had already learned about the situation from the Jefferson at Maitland's employee. The Department failed to demonstrate that Respondent intended to keep the $492.50 from the invoice made payable to Respondent personally. The facts of the case could lead to the ultimate finding that Respondent was engaged in a scheme to defraud First Source of its referral fee. However, the same facts also may be explained by Respondent's fear that Mr. Bish would learn of his neglect in sending the invoices, and that this neglect could result in a severe reduction of First Source's referral fees. Respondent may have decided to keep quiet about the matter in the hope that the Jefferson at Maitland would ultimately pay the invoices in full, at which time Respondent would explain himself to Mr. Bish with an "all's well that ends well" sigh of relief. Given the testimony at the hearing concerning Respondent's character and reputation for honesty, given that Respondent contemporaneously told the same story to his wife and to Ms. Sanderson that he told to this tribunal, and given that this incident appears anomalous in Respondent's professional dealings, the latter explanation is at least as plausible as the former. Respondent conceded that, as a sales associate, he was not authorized by law to direct the Jefferson at Maitland to make the referral fee check payable to him without the express written authorization of his broker, Mr. Bish. Respondent also conceded that Mr. Bish did not give him written authorization to accept the referral fee payment in his own name. Respondent has not been subject to prior discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order: Dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint against Respondent; and Suspending Respondent's sales associate's license for a period of one year for the violation established in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 21st day of September, 2007.
Findings Of Fact On April 23, 2013, the undersigned entered an Order on Remand requiring Petitioner to submit any documentation, including supporting affidavits, within 20 days of said Order setting forth the amount of attorney’s fees Petitioner seeks in DCA Case No. 1D12-3557. Petitioner filed two Motions for Extension of Time in which to comply with the Order on Remand. The Motions were granted and on June 12, 2013, Petitioner filed Petitioner’s Request for Appellate Attorney’s Fees and Costs with the Division. The Order on Remand required Respondent to file its response to Petitioner’s Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs within 20 days of Petitioner’s filing. To date, Respondent has not filed any response and has not requested an extension of time in which to file a response. The parties were further ordered to state whether or not either party believed that an evidentiary hearing was necessary. Petitioner requested an evidentiary hearing only in the event that the undersigned was inclined to reduce or deny Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees or costs. Accordingly, no evidentiary hearing is necessary. Attorney's Fees and Costs Petitioner/Appellee requests attorney’s fees in the total amount of $47,170. This total includes attorney’s fees in the amount of $42,760 attributable to Proctor Appellate Law, PA, and attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,410 attributable to Avera & Smith, LLP. The hourly rate for Sharon H. Proctor of Proctor Appellate Law, PA, is $400 per hour; the hourly rate for Jennifer C. Biewend of Avera & Smith, LLP, is $350 per hour. Detailed billing records are attached to the attorneys’ affidavits as exhibits to the Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. Ms. Proctor, who was retained to represent Petitioner/Appellee in the appeal of this case, served as primary counsel in all matters pertaining to the appeal and incurred 106.9 attorney hours. Ms. Biewend served as counsel of record in the underlying merits case and as co-counsel of record before the First District Court of Appeal and incurred 12.6 attorney hours on the appeal. Petitioner submitted the affidavit of attorney Paul Donnelly, Esquire, as an expert in support of Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. The undersigned has read Mr. Donnelly’s affidavit and finds that it supports the number of hours expended and hourly rates charged. The undersigned reviewed the affidavits of the attorneys of record and the billing records, and finds Petitioner/Appellee's requests for attorney's fees to be reasonable. Petitioner requests appellate costs in the amount of $764.36. The undersigned reviewed the cost ledger submitted by Petitioner’s counsel. The appellate costs reflect travel expenses of counsel to attend the oral argument. The amount of costs is reasonable.
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 the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original Notice of Appeal with the agency Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
