Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the pleadings and supporting documents, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Dr. Frank A. Brown, is a licensed psychologist having been issued license number PY-0002079. Respondent, Board of Psychological Examiners (Board), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of psychology pursuant to Chapter 490, Florida Statutes. The parties agree that Dr. Brown is a small business party as defined in Subsection 57.111(3)(d)1.a., Florida Statutes. On August 24, 1989, the Board issued an amended administrative complaint against Dr. Brown alleging that he had violated chapter 490 in three respects while treating patient R. B. during the period from 1978 until 1987. In general terms, the complaint alleged that: Petitioner had violated sections 490.0111 and 490.009(2)(k) by committing any act upon a patient or client, other than the spouse of the doctor, which would constitute sexual misconduct. (Count I) Petitioner had violated section 490.009(2) (s) by failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. (Count II) Petitioner had violated section 490.009(2)(p) by being unable to practice the profession for which he is licensed under chapter 490 with reasonable skill or competence as a result of a mental or physical condition or by reason of illness, drunkeness, chemicals or any other substance. (Count III) The complaint was later referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and was assigned Case No. 89-0599. An evidentiary hearing on the complaint was held on September 12 and 13, 1989. At the formal hearing the agency prosecutor voluntarily dismissed Count I, and the case was tried on the remaining two counts. On May 14, 1990, a Recommended Order was issued by Hearing Officer Diane Cleavinger recommending that all remaining charges be dismissed. Of significance to this proceeding is the allegation in Count II which charged Dr. Brown with failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Bearing on Hearing Officer Cleavinger's decision to dismiss that count was her determination that the psychologist-patient relationship ended prior to the beginning of any love affair between Dr. Brown and his former patient. Among others, the hearing officer made the following findings: 5. Respondent's psychologist/client relationship was with R. B. and did not include her husband. The interest demonstrated by R. B.'s husband in her therapy was that of a concerned husband. Dr. Brown saw him collateral to the therapy he was conducting with R. B. He met with R. B.'s husband in order to make R. B.'s termination of therapy more successful. The evidence did not show that Respondent had ever agreed to formulate a psychologist/ client relationship with R. B.'s husband and, although the husband paid R. B.'s therapy bills, he was never charged separately for the discussions he had with Respondent during R. B.'s therapy. The other contacts, referenced by R. B.'s husband's testimony as supporting a professional relationship between him and Respondent, occurred well after R. B.'s therapy had terminated. The contacts variously involved obtaining advice from Dr. Brown on the impending death of a relative during an otherwise social gathering at the B.'s home, asking Dr. Brown, during a lunch meeting, for help with sexual problems for which Dr. Brown referred him to another psychologist, and testing of the B's children for scholastic purposes. All such contacts appear to have been given in friendship and not in a professional capacity. (Emphasis added) The underscored portion of the findings was intended to make a determination that any contact between Dr. Brown and R. B.'s children was not made in a professional capacity and as to those contacts the psychological/client relationship did not exist. The recommended order was considered by the Board at a meeting held on June 7, 1990, and was adopted in toto without change. A final order was issued on July 2, 1990, dismissing all charges against Dr. Brown. During the meeting held on June 7, 1990, and while discussing an exception to the recommended order raised by the agency prosecutor, the following statement was made by Board counsel: I will express now what other concern I've had with reading this case. It does seem clear that a dual relationship was formed during that period of time when there was regulation, in that Dr. Brown gave psychological services to the children of his lover, and of her unsuspecting husband. I have - you know, I'm just going to be very honest with you. When I was reading through the transcripts, some of the thoughts that occurred to me were out of his own mouth. . . (emphasis added) This statement was made in the belief, albeit incorrect, that Hearing Officer Cleavinger's findings in paragraph 5 of her recommended order regarding a dual relationship pertained only to the husband and not to the children. Counsel's statement suggested that Dr. Brown's relationship with the children was done in a professional capacity and thus was unethical, given his romantic relationship with R. B. Accordingly, prior to the issuance of a final order in Case No. 89- 0599, on June 11, 1990, the Board's counsel authored the following memorandum to counsel for the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR): By Dr. Brown's own admission, he performed psychological services for the children of R. B. The facts surrounding the dual relationship were not included in the administrative complaint filed in Case No. 89-0599. They do, however, constitute a separate cause of action and should be brought to the attention of the probable cause panel. Responding to this memorandum, DPR counsel recommended on June 18, 1990, that DPR open a new investigation against Dr. Brown concerning the issue of a possible dual relationship, that is, the testing of R. B.'s children while Dr. Brown was engaged in a love affair with R. B. The DPR uniform complaint form described the alleged misconduct in the following manner: Subject stated during testimony in previous DPR case (89-0599 DOAH) that he had engaged in a love affair with a client whose children he was counseling. Possible violation of Section 490.009(2)(s), F. S. The matter was assigned DPR Case No. 9007566. By letter dated August 11, 1990, petitioner's counsel was advised that a complaint had been filed against his client. The letter gave the following pertinent reasons for initiating the matter: This complaint is based upon information obtained in formal proceedings in Department of Professional Regulation case number 0081809. It is alleged by the Department that during the time Dr. Brown was providing psychological services to the children of R. B., he was concurrently engaged in a love affair with her. This dual relationship is a possible violation of Section 490.009(2) (s), Florida Statutes, which prohibits a licensee from failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Dr. Brown, through counsel, put DPR on notice by letter dated September 5, 1990, that: It would be a violation of due process of law to charge Dr. Brown with a violation based upon the same set of facts previously adjudicated. The doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel and bar and merger are applicable. By a second letter dated September 25, 1990, petitioner's counsel again advised DPR "that the Department does not have a basis in law or fact for any allegations." On October 18, 1990, petitioner's counsel authored another letter to DPR stating in part as follows: I reiterate that it would be a violation of due process of law to charge Dr. Brown with a violation based upon the same set of facts previously adjudicated. The doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel and bar and merger are applicable. I respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the investigative file to be considered by the Probable Cause Panel. DPR counsel advised petitioner's counsel on September 28, 1990, that all factual and legal matters, including the objections raised in his letter, would be presented to the probable cause panel. Thereafter, DPR counsel submitted a suggested closing order to the panel proposing that a letter of guidance be issued based upon a belief of a violation of Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, as outlined in the August 17, 1990 letter sent to petitioner's counsel. By letter dated January 11, 1991, petitioner's counsel again placed the Board on notice that the subject matter of the new investigation was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The letter stated as follows: Dr. Brown was served with the notice of investigation in August, 1990. I have advised the department of Dr. Brown's position by letters dated August 13, August 20, September 5, September 25, October 1 and October 18, 1990. This investigation stems from matters resolved in favor of Dr. Brown in DPR Case number 0081809, DOAH Case Number 89-0599 in which Dr. Brown was charged with failure to meet the minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance in violation of Section 490.009 (2)(s), Florida Statutes (1981-86). Included in consideration of that charge was the scholastic testing of the children of (D. and R. B.) which is the subject of this pending investigation. The adopted finding of fact number 5 in the above case refers to the collateral relationships between Dr. Brown and (D. B.) and the children including "testing of the B's children for scholastic purposes." Finding of fact number 5 finds that: ALL SUCH CONTACTS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN FRIENDSHIP AND NOT IN A PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY. I reiterate that it would be a violation of due process of law to charge Dr. Brown with a violation based upon the same set of facts previously adjudicated. The doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel and bar and merger are applicable. The panel met on February 14, 1991, and considered DPR's recommendation to prosecute, the investigative report and all supplemental materials including a report from its expert consultant. The panel was also given a copy of the letter sent by Dr. Brown's counsel on January 11, 1991, which raised the collateral estoppel issue. After considering all of these materials, including the estoppel matter, the panel made a determination that respondent violated chapter 490 by providing therapy to the children while romantically involved with their mother and failing to disclose this relationship to the children's school and father. While the panel found probable cause to exist, it was advised by its counsel that the case was "weak," the chances of a successful prosecution were "minimal," and the best it could hope for was a reprimand. Accordingly, it followed the suggestion of counsel and recommended to DPR that the case be closed with a letter of guidance to the subject, which was then the most lenient form of discipline for a licensee. By the admission of counsel and panel members at that meeting, however, it was clear they knew the letter would become a part of Dr. Brown's disciplinary file, it was accessible by any member of the public examining his file, and the Board could use the letter against Dr. Brown in the event of future proceedings. In disposing of the contention by Dr. Brown that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied, DPR and Board counsel gave the following advice: Ms. Gaffney: There's a great big legal issue in this case. That is whether or not this has been litigated. If we pursue an administrative complaint, we're going to be considering whether or not he treated the children and whether or not that's below the standards. That's easily proved testimony. But we have a pending litigation for attorney's fees on that prior case and this one is a case in which Mr. Lambert, in the materials there, there's correspondence indicating respondent's attorney, Mr. Lambert, will make legal attempts to squash the case by argument and motions to dismiss, such as this has already been litigated and so forth. Possibly double jeopardy, all that. Res judicata and double jeopardy, I think, are the two issues he's raised. I don't know whether he would prevail on that or not. I have a point of view, which is that the actual issue here was not charged in the administrative complaint when it was at the final hearing before the Board. The Board took notice of and supplements, and he said well, that's not charged. You can't do anything about that. So I don't know but that would be already double jeopardy or res judicata. Ms. Daire: I would agree with you on that, that it was not charged in the initial administrative complaint. It only came out in the testimony of Dr. Brown, when he talked about having treated the children, as well, and we could not do anything about that issue that was raised during the proceedings except to issue a new administrative complaint on his own admission. Although the panel members themselves did not discuss the issue, by finding probable cause, they implicitly accepted their counsel's advice and rejected the contention that they were precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from issuing a second complaint on the stated ground. On March 27, 1991, DPR counsel, acting on behalf of the Board and in response to the panel's decision, sent a letter of guidance to respondent which read as follows: This letter is sent to inform you of the action taken in regard to the above-referenced complaint. This complaint concerned allegations that you failed to meet minimum standards of performance in professional activities in violation of Section 490.009 (2)(s), Florida Statutes. It has been determined that probable cause exists to believe that you have violated the provisions governing the practice of psychology. In light of the circumstances presented, however, this case is closed with issuance of this Letter of Guidance in lieu of further administrative action. It has been noted that your professional care for the patient's children while involved with the patient on a personal basis, without disclosure to the father and school falls below minimum standards. The Panel recommends that you review current literature regarding dual relationship issues. I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the statutes and rules governing the practice of psychology and to abide by these provisions in the future. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. On March 19, 1991, or before the letter was issued, petitioner filed a motion to set aside the probable cause determination as improvidently found. After the letter was issued, he requested a formal hearing on four separate occasions. All requests were denied and a final order was issued by DPR on April 24, 1991, denying the petition in all respects. Thereafter, petitioner appealed the letter of guidance to the First District Court of Appeal. The court reversed the Board's action and remanded the matter with instructions to dismiss the complaint. Brown v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Psychological Examiners, 602 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In dealing with the estoppel issue raised by Dr. Brown, the court noted that Hearing Officer Cleavinger had made the following findings in her recommended order: . . . and testing of the B's children for scholastic purposes. All such contacts appear to have been given in friendship and not in a professional capacity. The court went on to say The above-quoted findings of fact establishes that the sole allegation of misconduct in the 1990 complaint was actually litigated in the 1989 case. The record in that case contains evidence that the results of testing the children were submitted to the school. The Department, the Board, and the Probable Cause Panel became bound by the determination of fact that Dr. Brown did not violate section 490.009(2)(s) because a nexus between Dr. Brown's conduct and his practice of psychology did not exist. The Department, Board, and Panel are thus collaterally estopped from reasserting any charge of professional misconduct predicated on these acts. Id. at 1341. The court also noted that a letter of guidance affected Dr. Brown's substantial interests within the meaning of section 120.57, and that Dr. Brown was thus entitled to a section 120.57 hearing as requested. The court added, however, that because the agency was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issues raised in the second complaint, it was remanding the case with directions to dismiss the complaint. The parties are in agreement that the amount of attorney's fees and costs requested by petitioner is reasonable. Such fees and costs total $12,537.00.
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition to Determine the Invalidity of Agency Statements should be dismissed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensed insurance agent, and was the subject of the Administrative Complaint filed by the Department that became DOAH Case No. 07-1218PL. The Administrative Complaint alleged that Petitioner violated Section 626.611(16), Florida Statutes, by selling unregistered viatical settlement contracts to four elderly individuals in 2003. Most pertinent to this case, the Administrative Complaint alleged: Viatical settlement contracts are investment contracts within the meaning of section 517.021(21)(q), Florida Statutes, and are therefore securities requiring registration pursuant to section 517.07, Florida Statutes. As to each of the transactions described below, the viatical settlement contracts sold by [Petitioner] . . . were unregistered securities.[3] The Administrative Complaint also alleged that Petitioner violated a number of other statutes (e.g., Sections 626.611(5), (7), and (9), and 626.621(9), Florida Statutes) based upon misrepresentations made by Petitioner in connection with the sales of the viatical settlement contracts. On October 9, 2007, Judge Canter issued a Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 07-1218PL finding that Petitioner violated Sections 626.611(5), (7), (9), and (16) and 626.621(9), Florida Statutes, and recommending that the Department revoke Petitioner’s license.4 The Recommended Order included the following findings and conclusions pertinent to the issue framed by the petition: [Petitioner] misrepresented the risk character of viaticals in his discussions with the investors involved in this case. He had a motive to downplay the true risk character of the viaticals, because if he received a commission for every sale of a viatical. If [Petitioner] had informed the investors of the true risk character of viaticals, the investors might not have purchased the viaticals. The definition of "security" in Section 517.021, Florida Statutes, was amended in 2006 to specifically identify "viatical settlement investment" as a type of security. [Petitioner] does not dispute that a viatical is a security. There is no dispute that the viaticals sold by [Petitioner], which are the subject of this case, were not registered securities when [Petitioner] sold them in 2003. * * * [Petitioner] objects to being charged with selling unregistered securities, because viaticals were not specifically defined as securities until 2006. [The Department] claims that, although viaticals were not specifically defined as securities in Section 517.021, Florida Statutes, in 2003, the prior definition, which included "investment contracts," was sufficient to include viaticals. [The Department] further asserts that viaticals have all the elements of a security as established by the case law. [The Department] is correct that a viatical met the definition of a security under the law that existed in 2003. However, the Administrative Law Judge does not agree with [the Department]'s argument that this interpretation of the law was clear and settled in 2003. The regulation of viaticals under the insurance code was a cause of confusion. Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-231.080, the penalty for each violation of Subsections 626.611(5) and (7), Florida Statutes, is a six-month suspension; the penalty for each violation of Subsection 626.611(9), Florida Statutes, is a nine month suspension; and the penalty for each violation of Subsection 626.611(16), Florida Statutes, is a 12-month suspension. * * * 56. [U]nder Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-231.040(1)(a), the “penalty per count” cannot exceed the highest penalty for any violation under the count, which in this case is the 12-month suspension for sale of an unregistered security. Therefore, based on the four counts of the Administrative Complaint, the “total penalty” would be four years. * * * 58. A mitigating factor is the unsettled state of the law in 2003 regarding the legal status of viaticals as securities. However, even if the penalty for the sale of unlicensed securities were eliminated altogether and the penalty per count were reduced to a nine-month suspension, the total penalty would be suspension for 36 months. Subsection 626.641(1), Florida Statutes, does not permit Petitioner to suspend a license for more than two years. Therefore, the required penalty in this case is revocation of [Petitioner]’s license. Petitioner has filed exceptions to the Recommended Order, and the Department has not yet entered a Final Order.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Intervenors are entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2003).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an insurer and carrier within the meaning of Subsections 440.02(4) and 440.02(38), Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(1)(w).2 Petitioner is licensed in the state as a workers' compensation insurance carrier (carrier).3 Respondent is a state agency within the meaning of Subsection 440.02(3), Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(1)(b). In relevant part, Respondent is responsible for resolving reimbursement disputes between a carrier and a health care provider. Intervenors are health care providers within the meaning of Subsection 440.13(1)(h), Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(1)(u). Each Intervenor is a health care facility within the meaning of Subsection 440.13(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2005). Intervenors seek an award of attorney fees and costs against Petitioner pursuant to Sections 57.105 and 120.595, Florida Statutes (2003). The proceeding involving Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2003), is the subject of a separate Final Order entered on the same date as this Recommended Order. The scope of this Recommended Order is limited to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2003). Intervenors allege that Petitioner is the "non- prevailing adverse party" in an underlying proceeding and participated in the underlying proceeding for an "improper purpose" as the quoted terms are defined, respectively, in Subsections 120.595(1)(e)3. and 120.595(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2003). The underlying proceeding involves eight consolidated Petitions for Administrative Hearing. Petitioner filed each Petition for Administrative Hearing after Respondent determined Petitioner had improperly discounted the amount of reimbursement Petitioner paid for hospital services that Intervenors provided to eight patients from March 13, 2004, through February 11, 2005. From April 13 through May 23, 2005, Respondent issued separate orders directing Petitioner to pay the disputed amounts pursuant to Subsection 440.13(7), Florida Statutes (2005). From June 1 through June 21, 2005, Petitioner filed eight separate Petitions for Administrative Hearing. The eight petitions were subsequently consolidated into one underlying proceeding. Petitioner is the non-prevailing adverse party in the underlying proceeding. On December 8, 2005, Petitioner filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in the underlying proceeding. On December 9, 2005, Intervenors filed their motion for attorney fees based on Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2003). The formal hearing in the underlying proceeding was set for January 18, 2006. The ALJ amended the issue for the formal hearing to exclude the original reimbursement dispute and to limit the scope of the formal hearing to the fee dispute. The ALJ did so to avoid delay in the resolution of the proceeding. The fee dispute at issue in this proceeding includes only six of the original eight reimbursement disputes because Intervenors were not the medical providers in two of the original eight disputes.4 In the six reimbursement disputes involving Intervenors, Respondent ordered Petitioner to pay additional reimbursements in the aggregate amount of $54,178.52. Approximately $51,489.27 of the $54,178.52 in additional reimbursement involved inpatient hospital services provided to one patient.5 The remaining $2,689.25 in additional reimbursement involved outpatient hospital services in the emergency room.6 Subsection 440.13(12), Florida Statutes (2005), mandates that a three-member panel must determine statewide schedules for reimbursement allowances for inpatient hospital care. The statute requires hospital outpatient care to be reimbursed at 75 percent of "usual and customary" charges with certain exceptions not relevant to this proceeding. Notwithstanding the statutory mandate to schedule reimbursement rates for hospital inpatient services, the inpatient services at issue in the underlying proceeding were apparently unscheduled inpatient services. By letter dated April 13, 2005, Respondent ordered Petitioner to pay Intervenor, Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc. (Holmes), an additional reimbursement in the amount of $51,489.27. The total reimbursement to Holmes was 75 percent of the charges that Holmes submitted to Petitioner for reimbursement.7 Respondent interprets Subsection 440.13(12), Florida Statutes (2005), to authorize reimbursement of both unscheduled inpatient hospital services and outpatient hospital services at the same rate. There is no dispute that Respondent reimburses unscheduled inpatient hospital services and outpatient hospital services at 75 percent of the "usual and customary" charges. The dispute in the underlying proceeding was over the meaning of the phrase "usual and customary" charges. Petitioner challenged the interpretation asserted by Respondent and Intervenors. Respondent and Intervenors contended that the quoted statutory phrase means Intervenors' usual and customary charges evidenced in a proprietary document identified in the record as the "charge master." Each Intervenor maintains its own charge master, and the information in each charge master is proprietary and confidential to each Intervenor. Petitioner asserted that the statutory phrase "usual and customary" charges means the usual and customary charges imposed by other hospitals in the community in which Intervenors are located. Petitioner maintains a data base that contains information sufficient to determine the usual and customary charges in each community. Petitioner did not participate in the underlying proceeding for an improper purpose within the meaning of Subsection 120.595(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2003). Rather, Petitioner presented a good faith claim or defense to modify or reverse the then-existing interpretation of Subsection 440.13(12), Florida Statutes (2005). Petitioner had a reasonable expectation of success. The statutory phrase "usual and customary" charges is not defined by statute. Nor has the phrase been judicially defined. Respondent bases its interpretation of the disputed phrase on two agency final orders and relevant language in the Florida Workers' Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals (2004 Second Edition) (the Manual). The Manual is developed by the Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS).8 The Manual interprets the quoted statutory phrase to mean the "hospital's charges." However, after the effective date of the Manual in 2004, DFS developed a proposed change to the Manual that, in relevant part, interprets "usual and customary" charges to mean the lesser of the charges billed by the hospital or the median charge of hospitals located within the same Medicare geographic locality.9 The trier of fact does not consider the new interpretation of the disputed statutory phrase as evidence relevant to a disputed issue of fact. As Respondent determined in an Order to Show Cause issued on February 16, 2006, and attached to Intervenors' PRO, "what constitutes 'usual and customary' charges is a question of law, not fact." The ALJ considers the new interpretation proposed by DFS for the purpose of determining the reasonableness of the interpretation asserted by Petitioner in the underlying proceeding. The ALJ also considers the new DFS interpretation to determine whether the interpretation asserted by Petitioner presented a justiciable issue of law. Intervenors assert that Petitioner's improper purpose in the underlying proceeding is evidenced, in relevant part, by Petitioner's failure to initially explain its reduced reimbursement to Intervenors with one of the codes authorized in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(5)(n) as an explanation of bill review (EOBR). None of the EOBR codes, however, contemplates a new interpretation of the statutory phrase "usual and customary" charges. Intervenors further assert that Petitioner's improper purpose in the underlying proceeding is evidenced, in relevant part, by Petitioner's failure to respond to discovery. However, responses to discovery would not have further elucidated Petitioner's rule-challenge. Petitioner stated eight times in each Petition for Administrative Hearing that Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501, the DFS rule incorporating the Manual by reference: [S]hould be read to allow recovery of 75% of the usual and customary fee prevailing in the community, and not 75% of whatever fee an individual provider elects to charge. Respondent and Intervenors were fully aware of the absence of statutory and judicial authority to resolve the issue. Petitioner did raise at least one factual issue in each Petition for Administrative Hearing. Petitioner alleged that Respondent's decision letters ordering Petitioner to pay additional reimbursement amounts had no legal effect because Respondent acted before each provider requested and received the carrier's reconsidered reimbursement decision. The absence of a formal hearing in the underlying proceeding foreclosed an evidential basis for a determination of whether each provider in fact requested and received a reconsidered reimbursement decision before the date Respondent ordered Petitioner to pay additional reimbursements. In this fee dispute, Petitioner presented some evidence to support the factual allegation and thereby established the presence of a justiciable issue of fact. It is not necessary for Petitioner to present enough evidence to show that Petitioner would have prevailed on that factual issue in the underlying proceeding. If the letters of determination issued by Respondent were without legal effect, Petitioner would not have waived its objections to further reimbursement within the meaning of Subsection 440.13(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2005). A determination that Petitioner did, or did not, submit the required information is unnecessary in this proceeding. During the formal hearing in this proceeding, Petitioner called an expert employed by a company identified in the record as Qmedtrix. The testimony showed a factual basis for the initial reimbursement paid by Petitioner. It is not necessary for Petitioner to show that this evidence was sufficient to prevail on the merits in the underlying case. The evidence is sufficient to establish justiciable issues of fact in the underlying case. In this proceeding, Petitioner submitted some evidence of justiciable issues of fact in the underlying proceeding. Petitioner need not submit enough evidence in this fee dispute to show Petitioner would have prevailed on these factual issues in the underlying proceeding. Intervenors are not entitled to a presumption that Petitioner participated in this proceeding for an improper purpose in accordance with Subsection 120.595(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). Although Petitioner was the non-prevailing party in two previous administrative hearings involving the same legal issue, the two proceedings were not against the same prevailing hospital provider and did not involve the same "project" as required in the relevant statute. Intervenors seek attorney fees in the amount of $36,960 and costs in the amount of $2,335.37 through the date that Petitioner voluntarily dismissed the underlying proceeding. Absent a finding that Petitioner participated in the underlying proceeding for an improper purpose, it is unnecessary to address the amount and reasonableness of the attorney fees and costs sought by Intervenors. If it were determined that Petitioner participated in the underlying proceeding for an improper purpose, the trier of fact cannot make a finding that the proposed attorney fees and costs are reasonable. Such a finding is not supported by competent and substantial evidence. The total attorney fees and costs billed in the underlying proceeding were charged by six or seven attorneys or paralegals employed by the billing law firm. However, the fees and costs at issue in this proceeding exclude any time and costs charged by paralegals and include only a portion of the total fees and costs charged by the attorneys. The total amount of time billed and costs incurred in the underlying proceeding is evidenced in business records identified in the record as Intervenors' Exhibits 20-23. However, those exhibits do not evidence the reasonableness of the fees and costs billed by the attorneys.10 Either the testimony of the billing attorneys or the actual time slips may have been sufficient to support a finding that the attorney fees and costs are reasonable. However, Intervenors pretermitted both means of proof. Intervenors asserted that the time slips contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. However, Intervenors neither submitted redacted time slips nor offered the actual time slips for in-camera review. Nor did Intervenors allow the attorneys to testify concerning unprivileged matters. The absence of both the testimony of the attorneys and the time slips is fatal. The fact-finder has insufficient evidence to assess the reasonableness of the fees and costs, based on the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved. Intervenors' expert opined that the attorney fees and costs are reasonable. The expert based her opinion, in relevant part, on her review of the actual time slips maintained by each attorney. However, Petitioner was unable to review the time slips before cross-examining the expert. In lieu of the actual time slips, Intervenors submitted a summary of the nature of the time spent by each attorney. The summary is identified in the record as Intervenors' Exhibit 2. Petitioner objected to Intervenors' Exhibit 2, in relevant part, on the ground that it is hearsay. The ALJ reserved ruling on the objection and invited each side to brief the issue in its respective PRO. The paucity of relevant citations in the PROs demonstrates that neither side vigorously embraced the ALJ's invitation. Intervenors' Exhibit 2 is hearsay within the meaning of Subsection 90.801(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2005).11 The author of Intervenors' Exhibit 2 summarized the unsworn statements of attorneys from their time slips and submitted those statements to prove the truth of the assertion that the time billed was reasonable. Intervenors made neither the attorneys nor their time slips available for cross examination.12 Even if the summary were admissible, the summary and the testimony of its author are insufficient to show the attorney fees and costs were reasonable. The insufficiency of the summary emerged during cross-examination of its author. The author is the lone attorney from the billing law firm who testified at the hearing. Q. What other information did you look at to decide what time to actually bill . . .? A. The information I used was the information from the actual bill. Q. If we look at the first entry . . . were you the person that conducted that telephone conference? A. No, I wasn't. Transcript (TR) at 510-511. Q. In other words, [the entries] go with the date as opposed to the event [such as a motion to relinquish]? A. That's correct. Q. So if I wanted to know how much time it took you to actually work on the motion to relinquish, I would have to look at each entry and add up all the hours to find out how long it took you to do one motion. Is that how I would do that? A. It would be difficult to isolate that information from this record, we bill and explain in the narrative what work is performed each day, and unless that was the single thing worked on for several days, there would be no way to isolate the time, because we don't bill sort of by motion or topic. . . . Q. Well, if I'm trying to decide whether the time billed is reasonable, wouldn't I need to know how much time was spent on each task? A. I'm not sure how you would want to approach that. . . . Looking at this document, it does not give you that detail. It doesn't provide that breakout of information. Q. Is there a way for us to know who you spoke with on those entries? A. The entry . . . doesn't specify who participated in the conference. I don't recall what the conference entailed . . . . And many of these entries are from months ago, and I can't specifically recall on that date if I was involved in a conference and who else might have been there. . . . And so my guess is where the conference is listed on a day when lots of activity was performed on behalf of the client, most of it in this case was research. TR at 516-521.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying the motion for attorney fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 27th day of April, 2006.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner Robert R. Hambley is entitled to an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This case arises in the wake of Robert R. Hambley v. Department of Professional Regulation, DOAH Case No. 88-4788, for formal administrative proceeding stemming from a complaint filed against Petitioner on September 28, 1987. On July 5, 1989, the undersigned Hearing Officer entered a Recommended Order imposing an administrative fine against the Petitioner in the amount of $1,000.00 and placing the Petitioner's license on probation for a period of one (1) year. Petitioner did not file exceptions to the subject recommended order. On August 22, 1989, the Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, rejected the proposed order and revoked the Respondent's license. Thereafter, Petitioner retained the services of the law firm of LARSON, CONKLIN, STANLEY, PROBST & BOBENHAUSEN, P.A. to represent him, which attorney's filed an appeal in the Second District Court of Appeal contesting the Division of Real Estate's Final Order, specifically the aggravation of the penalty, to wit, revocation of Petitioner's license. In connection with Petitioner's legal representation, he incurred reasonable costs and fees in the amount of $504.49 and $3,393.00, respectively. On October 5, 1990, the Second District Court of Appeal entered its order affirming the findings as found by Recommended Order, but reversed and remanded for implementation of the recommended penalty of $1000.00 and rejecting the recommended penalty of probation, since that was not an authorized penalty at the time of the hearing. The basis of the Court's decision is that Respondent failed to adequately comply with Section 120.57(1)(b)(10), Florida Statutes, in order to properly increase the severity of the recommended penalty. See Bernal v. Department of Professional Regulation, 517 So.2d 113, (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), affirmed 531 So.2d 967 (Fla. 1988). Thereafter, on October 10, 1990, the Respondent filed a motion for rehearing which motion was denied on November 1, 1990. On November 11, 1990, a Mandate issued from the Second District Court of Appeal and Petitioner's license was reinstated on November 21, 1990, with Respondent issuing a Final Order rescinding its prior order of August 15, 1989, and by issuing a supplemental Final Order on December 4, 1990. That December 4, 1990, order implemented the recommended penalty with the exception of probation which was not statutorily authorized. The Administrative Complaint which was filed jointly against Petitioner was a six count administrative complaint and the entity through which he dealt, Real Pro Associates, Inc. Petitioner was found guilty of participating in five transactions which conduct amounted to proscribed conduct within the purview of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by paying real estate commissions totaling over $28,500.00 to Paul George, an unlicensed person. Petitioner was also found guilty of culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, for having failed to inform or otherwise disclose to Stewart Fidelity Title Company, the company which handled the closing for the transactions, that the stated escrow deposits were never placed in an escrow account as represented in the contracts for sale and purchase which would alert the lender that the purported purchaser had a "no equity" position in the purchases. Petitioner was, via Recommended Order, required to pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 within thirty (30) days of the entry of the Final Order. Petitioner was found guilty of all violations for which he was cited in the Administrative Complaint filed by Respondent and a monetary penalty was imposed. Respondent was substantially justified in asserting that the Petitioner was in violation of the real estate licensing law when it issued the subject complaint. That proceeding was premised on a reasonable basis in law and fact when it was initiated. See Miller v. Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, DOAH Case No. 89-5042F, 12 FALR 2312, 2314 filed 5/16/90. The Florida Real Estate Commission enhanced the penalty to recommendations which were within the parameters set forth in the disciplinary guidelines of the Florida Real Estate Commission as provided for by Rule Sections 21V-24.001(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code. The rule sections provided that the Petitioner Hambley could have been fined, for such violations, up to $1,000.00 per count and may have had all his licenses, registrations, certifications and permits penalized as follows: (h) 475.25(1)(b) - Up to 5 years suspension or revocation. [Emphasis supplied] (n) 475.25(1)(h) - Up to 2 years suspension. Petitioner has not demonstrated that it was a prevailing small business party under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Moreover, the actions of the Florida Division of Real Estate were substantially justified as defined by Subsection 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes. This is borne out by the findings as found by the undersigned Hearing Officer, which provides both a reasonable basis in law and fact as well as substantial justification of the administrative action when it was initiated. Particularly, the complaint against Petitioner was reviewed by a probable cause panel on September 15, 1987. That material which was reviewed by the panel included an investigative report and documentary evidence, all of which was presented to the panel and ultimately to the undersigned Hearing Officer. Appended to the investigative report was some 30 pages of exhibits which provided an adequate basis to support the charges of culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction.
Findings Of Fact The Findings of Fact set forth in the Final Order entered in DOAH Case Nos. 15-7010 through 15-7016 and 15-7022 are hereby adopted in this Final Order. The PFO is hereby adopted and incorporated in this Final Order as though set forth in full. During the course of the rulemaking proceedings regarding “designated player” card games, Petitioners submitted a good-faith proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative (LCRA) indicating that the proposed rules would have a significant monetary impact on Petitioners, which required Respondent to prepare a statement of estimated regulatory costs (SERC) pursuant to sections 120.54(3)(b) and 120.541, Florida Statutes. Respondent did not prepare a SERC. That failure was determined to be a material failure to follow applicable rulemaking procedures and became a basis for the invalidation of the proposed rules.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount of reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc. ("CMT") in Robert A. Schweickert, Jr. v. Department of Community Affairs and Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc., Case. No. 1D10-3882 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
Findings Of Fact Appellate Attorney's Fees Sarah Lahlou-Amine of the law firm of Fowler White Boggs, P.A. ("Fowler") was the attorney with primary responsibility for research and drafting documents for the appeal on behalf of CMT. She prepared and filed a notice of appearance, a motion to dismiss, a motion for attorney's fees, an amended motion for attorney's fees, the answer brief, a notice of supplemental authority, a second motion for attorney's fees, and a motion for clarification. Ms. Lahlou-Amine was assisted and supervised by more senior lawyers at Fowler. The total number of hours charged by Fowler was 134.8. The total attorney's fees charged by Fowler was $39,010. Lawyers from two other law firms were employed by CMT and charged attorney's fees and costs for the appeal. The Law Office of Clark Stillwell, P.A., charged 18 hours for a total attorney's fees of $6,030. Edward de la Parte and other lawyers of the law firm of de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A., charged 24.9 hours for total attorney's fees of $5,382.50. The grand total of all the attorney hours expended for the appeal is 177.7 hours and the grand total of all fees charged to CMT for the appeal is $50,422.50. It was the opinion of CMT's expert witness, Daniel Stengle, that all of these hours and fees are reasonable. Schweickert's expert witness, Howard Heims, believes that 25 or 30 hours was all the effort that was reasonable for this appeal. The hourly rates of $225.00 to $435.00 an hour that were used by CMT's attorneys are not contested by Schweickert. The evidence established that the rates are reasonable. The dispute focused on the number of hours expended for the appeal. Heims contends that it was unreasonable for CMT to file a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, because appellate courts rarely grant such a motion and the standing issue could have been saved for CMT's answer brief. The court did not summarily deny CMT's motion to dismiss but, instead, ordered Schweickert to show cause why the motion should not be granted. The issuance of the order to show cause indicates that it is not the court's practice to deny all motions to dismiss that are filed before the briefs. Following Schweickert's response, the court still did not deny the motion to dismiss, but deferred ruling to the panel of judges that would determine the merits of the appeal. It was not unreasonable to file a motion to dismiss in this case because Schweickert's lack of standing was unusually clear. The controlling factual issue was simple--whether Schweickert made timely comments to Citrus County about the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. Furthermore, the argument made in the motion eventually prevailed. Heims also believes that it was unreasonable for CMT to file three motions for attorney's fees and costs. The motions were not identical, but filing three such motions is unusual and was not shown to be necessary or important. It was not persuasively shown that 177.7 attorney hours was reasonable for this appeal. The evidence does not establish that the attorney's fees charged by the law firms of Clark Stillwell and de la Parte & Gilbert should be included as part of the reasonable fees for the appeal. These fees were not shown to be necessary or to contribute materially to the appeal. Rule 4-1.5 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, Code of Professional Conduct, sets forth factors to be considered in determining a reasonable attorney's fee. The factors listed in rule 4-1.5(b)(1) are addressed below, in sequence: 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 time and labor expended on the appeal was not shown to be reasonable. The questions involved were not difficult. The case was not complex. No unusual skills and expertise were required to perform the legal services. the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment would preclude other employment by the lawyer; CMT did not contend that this factor was applicable. the fee, or rate of fee, customarily charged in the locality for legal services of a comparable or similar nature; Reasonable hourly rates were charged, but persuasive evidence was not presented to show that the total amount of the fees charged to CMT are customary for the services that were performed. the significance of, or amount involved in, the subject matter of the representation, the responsibility involved in the representation, and the results obtained; Although a reversal of the Department's Final Order would have had adverse consequences for CMT, it was not shown that the situation was of an unusual nature. Furthermore, a reversal on the merits (to find the comprehensive plan amendment not in compliance) was almost impossible because no factual findings were made that supported Schweickert's claims. CMT points to the unusual result--attorney's fees awarded against a pro se litigant--as justifying the attorney's fee, but this unusual result is due to Schweickert's unusually weak case. The issues and the law applied were not unusual. the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances and, as between attorney and client, any additional or special time demands or requests of the attorney by the client; CMT's argument that time limitations of an usual nature existed in this matter was not persuasive. the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; The applicability of this factor was not argued by CMT and was not demonstrated by the evidence. the experience, reputation, diligence, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the service and the skill, expertise, or efficiency of effort reflected in the actual providing of such services; and The lawyers involved have good reputations and experience, but those attributes were not likely to have materially affected the outcome. Performing the legal services did not require unusual skills. The services were not efficiently provided. whether the fee is fixed or contingent, and if fixed as to amount and rate, then whether the client's ability to pay rested to any significant degree on the outcome of the representation. This factor was not shown to be a basis to support a larger fee. It was Heims' opinion that 25 to 30 hours was a reasonable number of attorney hours to prepare the answer brief and one motion for attorney's fees. Thirty hours was a sufficient number of hours for the research and drafting work done by Ms. Lahlou-Anime. However, because it has been determined that the filing of the motion to dismiss was reasonable, some additional time should be added. CMT Exhibit 1 indicates that Ms. Lahlou-Anime charged about 23 hours for her work on the motion to dismiss. However, in determining a reasonable number of hours for the work on the motion to dismiss, consideration must be given to the fact that the standing arguments made in the motion were repeated in CMT's answer brief, which has already been accounted for in the 30 hours. The parties did not address this specific issue. However, the evidence supports the addition of 10 hours for Ms. Lahlou-Anime, for a total of 40 hours. Forty hours for Ms. Lahlou-Anime at her rate of $260 per hour equals $10,400. Heims also failed to fairly account for the reasonableness of the attorney hours expended by Karen Brodeen, a senior attorney at Fowler who represented CMT in the lower administrative proceedings and who assisted Ms. Lahlou-Anime in the preparation of the motion to dismiss and answer brief. CMT Exhibit 1 shows that Ms. Brodeen charged 0.9 hours at $375 per hour and 16.9 hours at $385 per hour, for a total fee of $6,844. The grand total of reasonable attorney time is 57.8 hours and the total reasonable attorney's fee is $17,244. Appellate Costs CMT is seeking $3,250.95 in costs for the appellate proceeding, comprised of $3,156.41 in costs charged by Fowler and $94.54 charged by de la Parte & Gilbert. However, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the costs which CMT seeks to recover --routine office expenses--are not recoverable legal costs under the applicable statutes. Prejudgment Interest CMT seeks daily prejudgment interest at the rate of 0.01644 percent. Requested Sanctions in the DOAH Remand Proceeding CMT also seeks to recover its attorney's fees and costs incurred following the remand from the Court of Appeal to DOAH to determine the amount of appellate attorney's fees and costs, as a sanction for alleged misconduct by Schweickert. CMT seeks a sanction against Schweickert for his failure to appear at a scheduled deposition for which Schweickert had been subpoenaed. Schweickert was not represented by an attorney at the time. Schweickert told CMT's attorneys that he was not going to appear at the deposition, but CMT's attorneys went forward as planned. Schweickert did not appear for his deposition. CMT seeks to recover its attorney's fees charged by de la Parte & Gilbert that are related to Schweickert's failure to appear for his deposition, which are $17,975.00, and costs of $818.63. CMT also sought a sanction against Schweickert for having to respond to Schweickert's Motion for Cause of Contempt for Citrus Mining and Timber’s Violation of Court Order, which demanded sanctions against CMT for CMT's scheduling of Schweickert's deposition without attempting to contact him to arrange a mutually agreeable date and time. The motion was denied. Schweickert was not represented by an attorney at the time. CMT seeks to recover its attorney's fees charged by de la Parte & Gilbert to respond to the motion, which are $2,357.50, and costs of $21.52. The day before the final hearing, CMT filed a motion for sanctions for Schweickert's failure to provide complete answers to some of CMT's discovery requests. At the time of the final hearing on September 7, 2011, CMT showed a total of $35,570 in attorney's fees associated with the DOAH remand proceeding, and costs of $1,693.73. CMT seeks recovery of those fees and costs as well as subsequent fees and costs through issuance of the Final Order in this remand proceeding, which are estimated to be $22,000 and $10,870, respectively. In summary, CMT seeks to recover $70,133.73 in fees and costs that it was charged by its attorneys for their effort to show that CMT's appellate fees and costs of $53,673.45 were reasonable.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner, by means of a three count Administrative Complaint, seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of subsections (2), (14), and of Section 475.624, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a state government 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 Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Beverly J. Merchant is currently a Florida state certified general appraiser, having been issued license number 000141 in accordance with Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a state certified general appraiser with a home address of 548 San Esteban Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33146. On January 14, 1994, Graimark/MIG Joint Venture and/or Crown Revenue, Inc., ordered Respondent to perform an appraisal of Sunrise Gardens, an adult congregate living facility (ACLF), in Miami, Florida. On March 31, 1994, the Respondent completed the appraisal of the property. The Respondent's appraisal report made several references to zoning "variances." The use of the term "variances" was reasonable under the circumstances of the subject appraisal. The Respondent's appraisal report stated that the highest and best use of the property was not as an adult congregate living facility (ACLF), but as some other institutional use. Under the circumstances of the subject appraisal, the Respondent provided adequate support to indicate that under the applicable zoning provisions "another institutional use" was probably permissible by variance. The Respondent's appraisal report included a cost approach that utilized a cost factor for "convalescent hospital space," even though the highest and best use was a use other than an ACLF. The use of that cost factor was reasonable under the circumstances of the subject appraisal.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a small business party within the meaning of Subsection 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1987). Petitioner was required to relocate its business in 1986 as the result of a public taking of the property where the business was situated. Petitioner sought relocation benefits from Respondent's relocation assistance program. The program is operated by Respondent in accordance with authority contained in Sections 339.09(4) and 421.55(3), Florida Statutes. Various requests by Petitioner for payment of relocation benefits in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act were denied by Respondent. In DOAH Case No. 88-0778T, Petitioner sought a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes concerning Respondent's denial of the requested reimbursements. At the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T, evidence was presented regarding Respondent's denial of benefit payments of $1,324 for advertisement expense in a telephone directory; $1,370 for installation of an exhaust fan at the new facility; $2,405 for fees for consultative services from an attorney; $1,200 for the alleged loss of employee time spent in conferences with Respondent personnel regarding relocation; $1,500 for expense of a second search for a suitable relocation site; and $1,035 for consultation fees associated with design of a product display area in the new facility. With the exception of Respondent's denial of the claim for $1,035 for consultant fees, Respondent's denials were found to be appropriate in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T. Such a finding of appropriateness also equates to a finding of substantial justification for denial for purposes of this proceeding. A recommended order was issued in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T, finding denials of all requested reimbursements to be appropriate with the exception of Respondent's denial of the request for $1,035 for consultation fees associated with design of a product display area. Payment of this latter amount was recommended as constituting an authorized reimbursement under legal provisions governing the relocation program. On December 26, 1988, Respondent entered a final order awarding Petitioner $1,035 for this consultation fee expense. Other claims for reimbursement by Petitioner in the amount of $10,414.17 were paid by Respondent, prior to the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T, in the course of proceedings in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida. That court adopted a settlement stipulation of the parties regarding those claims which expressly reserved attorney fees in regard to those issues for later determination by that court. Petitioner presented no evidence with regard to those claims at the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T. At the final hearing in the present proceeding, Respondent offered testimony that confusion concerning payment of those claims resulted from the death of the attorney handling the case for Respondent. Respondent initially denied the claims in the absence of the deceased attorney's records in the mistaken belief that the matter had been resolved earlier in the circuit court condemnation proceeding. Upon learning such was not the case, payment of the claim and effectuation of settlement of the issue was made in the circuit court case and occurred shortly after Petitioner's request for hearing in DOAH Case No. 88- 0778T. The circumstances surrounding the initial denial of payment of this benefit by Respondent substantially justify Respondent's denial and constitute a sufficient basis to deny Petitioner's recovery of fees or costs related to this payment recovery in this administrative proceeding. The proof submitted at the final hearing in this cause establishes that Petitioner's counsel expended between 55 and 70 hours of time in his representation of Petitioner's attempts to recover all denied benefits in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T. Counsel's average hourly rate was $125. However, the fee arrangement between client and counsel was a "modified or combined contingency fee" permitting any recoverable attorney fees to serve as the primary source of payment of counsel's fees. Petitioner was not bound by the agreement to pay counsel's fees beyond amounts determined to be appropriate by the hearing officer in the administrative case or the judge in the circuit court matter. To that extent, attorney fees in this cause that have been incurred by Petitioner may be considered "contingent." Documentation submitted by Petitioner includes an affidavit from its president which simply recites the status of Petitioner as a small business party, but sets forth no specifics of a fee arrangement with counsel. The affidavit of Petitioner's counsel establishes a minimum number of hours (55) and dates of work performed by counsel, and states that his hourly rate is $125. Calculating the number of hours by the hourly rate, one reaches a total fee amount of $6,875. Counsel's affidavit does not address which of the various benefits sought to be recovered was the subject of any particular expenditure of time. Although the relocation benefits sought to be recovered were separable subjects, allocation of time expended with regard to a particular benefit recovery effort is not established by the evidence. Testimony of William Robert Leonard was also offered by Petitioner to support the reasonableness of a legal fee amount of $10,000 for Petitioner's counsel. While Mr. Leonard opined that he normally would not support a $10,000 attorney fee as reasonable for a $1,000 recovery, the circumstances of this case were different because "[y]ou are arguing with the state." Petitioner attempted to establish through further testimony of Leonard that the enormity of the resources of the government of the State of Florida justify such a fee because cost considerations prevent private litigants from engaging in costly and protracted proceedings in matters of limited recovery. Leonard did not address allocation of the requested attorney fee among the various benefits for which recovery was sought, choosing instead to premise his opinion regarding reasonableness of a $10,000 attorney fee upon "the amount of time counsel was required to respond to a state agency." Leonard's testimony is not credited with regard to reasonableness of a $10,000 fee for recovery of the $1,035 relocation benefit due to his professed lack of knowledge of certain administrative law procedures; the failure of his testimony to address the nature or difficulty of tasks performed by counsel for Petitioner; and his concurrence with the assertion that his opinion of such a fee was based in part upon a "gut reaction." No evidence was submitted to support the reasonableness of the cost amount of $250 requested as a witness fee for Mr. Leonard's participation in the proceeding. Petitioner seeks recovery of $448.50 in costs associated with the transcript of final hearing had in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T and a $480 expert witness fee in conjunction with testimony of E. Scott Golden, an attorney, at that final hearing. The testimony of Mr. Golden in that proceeding related to his provision of relocation site advice to Petitioner and drafting of legal documents for Petitioner. Petitioner did not prevail with regard to recovery of relocation benefits related to the expense of Mr. Golden's services.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate broker, having been issued license number 0521991. Respondent's last license issued was as a broker c/o Stellings Realty, Inc., 2368 Saratoga Bay Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida. Beginning on or about March 1, 1998, until August 31, 1998, Respondent had an Exclusive Right of Sale Listing Agreement (Agreement) with Judy Cominse (Seller) for real property, owned by the Seller, located at 4397-B Woodstock Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent represented the Seller as a transaction broker and owed her certain duties pursuant thereto. A Brokerage Relationship Disclosure statement was provided to the Seller by Respondent. Another broker, Robert Berman, was the referring agent and was personally known by the Seller. Respondent was of the opinion that Berman was to receive a referral fee of 25 per cent in the event of a sale. The listing was problematic for Respondent. Respondent encountered problems due to restrictions placed on the showing of the property by the Seller and her tenants, who were the Seller's son and daughter-in-law. Respondent contemplated not continuing with the listing. He even mentioned discontinuing the listing with the Seller, but he did not discontinue it. A contract for sale of the Seller's property was entered into by the Seller and Evelyn Swinton (Buyer Swinton). Buyer Swinton signed the contract on June 1, 1998, and the Seller signed it on June 3, 1998. The contract provided, among other things, for an escrow deposit of $1,500 to be held by Sun Title, located in Lake Worth, Florida. The $1,500 was paid and held in escrow by Sun Title. The transaction for the sale of Seller's property failed to close. By a Release and Cancellation of Contract for Sale and Purchase form (Release and Cancellation) dated July 28, 1998,1 both the Seller and Buyer Swinton agreed, among other things, that the $1,500 escrow deposit would be disbursed to the Seller. On July 30, 1998, Sun Title prepared an escrow check in the amount of $1,500, made payable solely to the Seller. The check was forwarded to Respondent sometime after July 30, 1998; the evidence presented was insufficient to show when Sun Title forwarded the check to Respondent.2 On August 6, 1998, Respondent prepared an addendum (Respondent's Addendum) to the Agreement that he had with the Seller. Respondent's Addendum was dated and signed by Respondent on this same date. Respondent's Addendum provided, among other things, the following: This contract [Agreement] will be extended from August 31, 1998 until March 1, 1999; if necessary.3 * * * Stellings Realty, Inc. will receive 7% of the total purchase price. In addition 25% commission of the listing side will be given to Berman Realty as a referral fee. If the Seller should cancel this listing the cancelation fee would be $1000.00. Judy Cominse [Seller] will receive $1500.00 by mail upon acceptance. Paragraph numbered 5 of Respondent's Addendum indicates that, upon the Seller accepting Respondent's Addendum, the Seller will receive $1,500, which was the escrow deposit, by mail. The Seller did not accept Respondent's Addendum although the Seller was of the opinion that the only way for her to obtain the $1,500 was to agree to an addendum to the contract that she had with Respondent. With the assistance of her sister, who was a licensee, licensed by Petitioner,4 the Seller negotiated a change of terms to Respondent's Addendum. The seller prepared and executed an addendum (Seller's Addendum) on August 6, 1998, and forwarded it to Respondent. The Seller's Addendum provided, among other things, the following: This listing agreement [Agreement] will be extended six months (i.e., from August 31, 1998 until February 28, 1999). * * * Stellings Realty, Inc. will receive 7% of the total selling price (if sold at full listing price), otherwise negotiable; however, no lower than 6%. Additionally, $533.75 to the listing agency (Stellings Realty), which amount will not be subject to the referral fee due and payable to Robert A. Berman Real Estate, the referring broker to the listing agency. If the seller should cancel this listing, the cancellation fee would be $788.75 ($250.00 cancellation fee, plus $533.75). Judy Cominse [Seller] will receive $1,500.00 (100% of the escrow deposit relinquished by the buyer [Buyer Swinton]) by mail upon acceptance. Paragraph 5 of Seller's Addendum indicates that, upon Respondent's accepting the Seller's Addendum, the Seller will receive $1,500, which was the escrow deposit, by mail. Respondent executed the Seller's Addendum on August 11, 1998, and faxed it to her on this same date. Respondent accepted the Seller's Addendum on August 11, 1998. Prior to August 11, 1998, Berman had contacted Respondent on behalf of the Seller. Berman was requested by the Seller to make an attempt to obtain the escrow deposit of $1,500 for her. Berman contacted Respondent who indicated to Berman that, as soon as the escrow check was received, he would contact Berman. Sometime after July 30, 1998, Berman contacted Sun Title and was informed that the escrow check had been prepared and forwarded to Respondent. On or about August 11, 1998, Respondent contacted the Seller and informed her that the escrow check had been received by him. On or about August 11, 1998, Respondent also contacted Berman regarding the receipt of the escrow check. At the request of the Seller, Berman went to Respondent's office, obtained the escrow check, and forwarded it to the Seller via express delivery. Based upon the required proof, the evidence fails to demonstrate that Respondent refused to relinquish the $1,500 escrow deposit to the Seller in order to force or pressure the Seller to agree to an addendum to their Agreement. Respondent continued to represent the Seller. The Seller's property was sold on November 3, 1998. Subsequently, Respondent sued the Seller in the County Court of West Palm Beach, Florida for $533.75, based on the Seller's Addendum. The Seller had refused to pay Respondent the $533.75, pursuant to the Seller's Addendum, and Respondent sued the Seller to recoup the monies. On or about January 4, 1999, the court suit was settled. Before the end of 1998, Respondent paid Berman the referral fee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate enter a final order and therein dismiss the Administrative Complaint filed against Leon Stellings. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 July, 2000.
