Findings Of Fact On or about September 30, 1980, petitioner mailed its application to respondent for registration of the trademark "Cachet". Accompanying the application were a check for fifteen dollars ($15.00) and shoe insoles stamped "Cachet", each bearing an escutcheon and the legend "MADE IN SPAIN". On October 14, 1980, respondent returned petitioner's application, declining to register "Cachet" as a trademark in the absence of consent by Cachet, Inc., an unrelated active Florida corporation for profit with a Miami address, duly registered with respondent. Cachet, Inc. has not registered any trademark with respondent, and does not sell shoes. Ms. Nettie Sims, chief of respondent's bureau of corporate records and an employee of respondent for 27 years, testified that this action was in keeping with respondent's policy going back as far as she could remember.
The Issue Whether DOT should grant petitioners' permit applications, or any of them, in light of the spacing requirements and other provisions laid down by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes (1987) and Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact As a segment of State Road 89, Stewart Street in Milton is a federal aid primary highway which is open to traffic." (T. 54) On June 8, 1977, Salter's agent certified an application for an outdoor advertising sign permit for a sign facing north on the east side of Stewart Street at a point 0.8 miles north of U.S. Highway 90. DOT approved the application, and mailed the permit, No. 6038-2, on October 5, 1977. Salter's Exhibit No. 1. The permitted structure had been built in January of 1964, Salter's Exhibit No. 1, on land Etta Hicks leased to Salter. Salter's Exhibit No. 2. The lease was never recorded. On April 15, 1982, Salter's agent certified an application for outdoor advertising sign permits for signs facing north and south on the east side of Stewart Street at a point 0.8 miles north of U.S. Highway 90, perhaps pertaining to a replacement for a structure for which application (for a single sign) had been made some five years earlier. DOT approved the application as to both sign faces on May 11, 1982, assigning a single permit number: AH 031-2. Salter's Exhibit No. 1. Continuously until May 15, 1987, since permit No. AH 031-2 issued, Salter had renewed it by making timely, annual payments of renewal fees for two, not three sign faces. Stipulation (T.20) Efforts DOT has undertaken since 1984 to eliminate duplicate permits have not met with complete success. (T. 97) As late as October of 1987, DOT's billing records reflected that the north facing sign had permit No. AH 31-2, while the sign facing south had permit No. 6038-2. Salter's Exhibit No. 6. On May 15, 1987, after David Andrew Sandifer had asked Salter two or three times to do so, Salter removed the structure from where it had stood five or ten years. Stipulation. (T. 31) Only one sign face was attached when the structure came down. Mr. Sandifer had acquired the property from Haward Hanna, a kinsman of Etta Hicks, in October of 1986, after Mrs. Hicks' demise. Slightly more than 1,000 feet south of the sign Salter removed stands another outdoor advertising sign owned by Salter. Also on the east side of Stewart Street, it is 0.51 miles north of U.S. Highway 90, and has DOT Permit No. AT 852-25. Designs Custom's Applications On May 5, 1987, DOT's district office in Chipley received Designs Custom's applications for outdoor advertising permits for signs facing north and south at a location on Mr. Sandifer's property about 15 feet east of Stewart Street, 0.7 miles north of U.S. Highway 90. Designs Custom's Exhibit No. 1. Phillip Mitch Brown, an outdoor advertising inspector in DOT's employ, consulted a computer compilation, which indicated that Salter still had a permit for north and south facing signs at a location in close proximity and on the same side of the road as the site Designs Custom's applications proposed for new signs. In fact, what Salter's original applications designated as 0.8 miles north of U.S. Highway 90 was essentially the same place Design Custom's applications denominated 0.7 miles north. DOT returned Designs Custom's applications and application fee along with a memorandum dated May 22, 1987, in which it indicated "SIGN SITE DOES NOT MEET SPACING REQUIREMENTS." DOT'S Exhibit No. 4. On May 28, 1987, DOT received a letter from Mr. Sandifer, dated April 21, 1987, and addressed "To Whom This May Concern." (T. 81) The letter stated that Mr. Sandifer "[d]id not [have] or intend to have a lease," Designs Custom's Exhibit No. 4, with Salter and asked that "necessary procedures to have this sign removed," id., be employed. As a result, on May 29, 1987, Jack F. Culpepper, wrote Salter on behalf of DOT, as follows: Re: Loss of Land Owner Permission Dear Mr. Salter: This office has received information to the effect that you no longer have permission from the land owner to erect or maintain signs at the following listed locations. If, in fact, this information is true and correct, the permits issued for these sites are invalid pursuant to Section 479.07(7), F.S. Permit Number AHO 2, located on the East side of SR 87, 0.8 miles North of US 90, Santa Rosa County, Sign facing North. You are hereby notified that the Department's determination of invalidity will become conclusive and the subject permit(s) revoked unless you elect to challenge this action by requesting an Administrative Hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, within thirty (30) days from receipt of this letter. The request should be addressed to: Clerk of Agency Proceedings, Department of Transportation, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 In the interim, if you can furnish documentary evidence of current permission from the present property owner to refute this information, it may be possible to resolve this matter without a hearing. Salter's Exhibit No. 3. This letter made no reference to permit No. 6038-2, or to a sign facing south at the same location. Salter never requested an administrative hearing in response to DOT's letter of May 29, 1987. DOT's Exhibit No. 1. Salter's Competing Applications Salter entered into a lease agreement with Nathan T. Butcher on June 8, 1987, authorizing Salter to erect signs east of Stewart Street, and south of Dixon Avenue on property Mr. Butcher owned only a few feet south of the site Mr. Sandifer had agreed to lease to Designs Custom. Salter's Exhibit No. 4. On June 16, 1987, Salter completed applications for outdoor advertising sign permits for signs facing north and south on the site leased (subject to DOT's approving Salter's permit applications) from Mr. Butcher, 0.69 miles north of U.S. Highway 90. Salter's Exhibit No. 5; DOT's Exhibit No. 3. As part of its application, Salter executed an affidavit directing DOT to cancel sign permits Nos. 6038-2, AH 031-2 and AT 852-25, this last for the sign on Stewart Street 0.51 miles north of U.S. Highway 90. Salter made cancellation contingent on approval of its applications for permits to erect signs on the Butcher property. After DOT communicated its intention to deny Salter's application on account of pending administrative proceedings on Designs Custom's applications, DOT's Exhibit No. 5, Salter requested an administrative hearing on the proposed denial of its own applications, reiterating, "We hold permits AT 852-25, 6038-2, AH031-2 that we request to cancel and relocate to .69 n. of U.S. 90 on S.R. 87." Designs Custom's Exhibit No. 5. Another Approach About one week before the final hearing, Salter obtained Mr. Hanna's permission to place signs on property Mr. Hanna retained when he sold the parcel to Mr. Sandifer. The bite Mr. Hanna has agreed to let Salter use for signs lies due east of where the sign Salter removed from the Sandifer property stood.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the following acts on the five contracting jobs set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint: Gross negligence, incompetence, and/or misconduct. Financial mismanagement or misconduct. Failure to properly supervise contracting activities he was responsible for as qualifying agent. Job abandonment on all five construction projects. Aiding and abetting an unlicensed contractor to engage in the contracting business. Engaging in a contracting business under a name not on his license and not qualified with the state.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent, Raymond Robert Suarez, was licensed as a certified general contractor in Florida, and held license number CG C0011988. The Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Suarez Brothers Construction Company. He was not registered with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board as the qualifying agent for Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc. There were two shareholders in Suarez Brothers Construction Company: Frank B. Suarez and Raleigh Suarez. Corporate responsibilities were as follows: Frank B. Suarez, President Abdelia Arguelies, Vice President Raleigh Suarez, Secretary/Treasurer Raymond R. Suarez, Responsible Managing Employee and Qualifying Contractor The corporation was based in Hillsborough County, Florida. On or before February 24, 1987, a corporation was created known as Suarez Brothers of Pineilas, Inc. Craig O. Tennant became president and Joseph Scott Suarez became vice president. The corporation engaged in the construction business and built single-family residences in Pinellas County, Florida. The business was in the county adjoining Hillsborough County, where Suarez Brothers Construction had built homes for ten years and had gained a good reputation throughout the Tampa Bay area, including Pinellas County. The name of the new corporation with its base of operations in Pinellas County, was deceptively similar to that of Suarez Brothers Construction Company. The close resemblance of the name was intentionally misleading, as Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc. attempted to benefit from the reputation for quality construction gained by Suarez Brothers Construction in which the father of Joseph Scott Suarez, Frank B. Suarez, was president and his brother, Raymond R. Suarez, was qualifying contractor. This is evidenced by the construction contract used by Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc., written representations to building departments of a legal connection between the two companies, and the use of the name of the same qualifying contractor on applications for building permits. In the construction contract used by Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc., it was represented that the company had been a Florida builder since 1949. The people actually engaged in building since 1949 were the father Frank B. Suarez, and the uncle, Raleigh Suarez. These two people were not members of the new company. On four of the five projects for which Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc. had written contracts, the name Suarez Brothers Construction was given to the building departments as the contractor of record instead of the actual corporate name. Raymond R. Suarez was named as the contractor, and his contractor's license number was used on the applications for building permits for the five Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc. contracts which are the subject of the complaint in this proceeding. There was no evidence presented at hearing to demonstrate that Raymond R. Suarez knowingly permitted his name and contractor's license number to be used by either the president or vice-president of Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc. to obtain the building permits for the construction of the residence for Robert D. and Norma L. Ganoe (Case #0110319) or the construction of the residence for Reinhold and Monty Brooks (Case #0106921). On or about June 25, 1987, Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc. contracted with James B. Hughes, Jr. to build a home for $190,000.00 at the following location: 9985 Lake Seminole Drive West, Largo, Florida. The building permit issued for the construction on September 29, 1987, was signed by Raymond Suarez, and his contractor's license number was given as the qualifying contractor for Suarez Brothers Construction of Pinellas on the Hughes project. On February 4, 1988, the contractor on the project was changed to Robert R. O'Andrea. Between September 29, 1987 and February 4, 1988, various subcontractors and materialmen hired by Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc. to provide services or supplies on this job were not paid. Joseph Scott Suarez had been given the funds to timely pay the subcontractors and materialmen by James B. Hughes, Jr. and Wonzel M. Hughes, his wife. Joseph Scott Suarez misappropriated the funds entrusted to him as an officer of Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc. by Mr. and Mrs. Hughes for his own use. As a result, $24,763.63 worth of subcontractors and materialmen's perfected liens were placed against the real property for services and supplies obtained during the time period Raymond R. Suarez was the qualifying contractor of record. Raymond R. Suarez did not have the liens removed from the property within thirty days after the date of such liens, nor has he attempted to have the liens removed at a later date. The Respondent, as qualifying contractor, knew or should have known that the liens were in existence and had been perfected. On or about August 10, 1987, Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc. contracted with Richard and Linda Vozne to construct a home for $121,041.00 at the following location: 316 Seventh Avenue North, Tierra Verde, Florida. The permit for construction was issued by the Pinellas County Department of Building Inspection on December 12, 1987. Raymond Suarez signed the permit as contractor, and his contractor's license number was given as the qualifying contractor for Suarez Brothers Construction. On July 15, 1988, the contractor for the project was changed to Linda J. Vozne, one of the owners of the property. Between December 12, 1987 and July 14, 1988, claims of lien were filed and perfected against the Vozne project in the amount of $16,047.18 for supplies and services ordered while Raymond Suarez was contractor of record. Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc. had received $10,000.00 front money to begin construction when the construction loan entered into by Richard and Linda Vozne with Barnett Bank of Pinellas County closed on November 13, 1987. One hundred three thousand dollars ($103,000.00) of the loan disbursements were made to the construction company by the bank before the owners removed it from the project. The funds disbursed to Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc. were not used to pay the subcontractors who had performed work and provided supplies on the project, as required by the construction contract. They were misappropriated to another use not related to the Vozne construction project. Raymond R. Suarez did not have the liens removed from the property by payment within thirty days after the date of such liens, nor has he attempted to have them removed at a later date. The Respondent, as qualifying contractor, knew or should have known that the liens were in existence and had been perfected. On or about October 28, 1987, Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc. contracted with Keith A. Phillips to build a home for $134,621.00 at the following location: 5944 Bayview Circle South, Gulfport, Florida. The application for a building permit from the City of Gulfport was dated December 22, 1987, and was signed by Raymond R. Suarez. The contractor was designated as "Suarez Brothers" and the Respondent's license number was given as the qualifying contractor on the Phillips project. In September 1988, Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc. was terminated as the project contractor by Keith Phillips and Cynthia S. Phillips, his wife, although no changes were made in the public records of Gulfport. Between October 28, 1987 and September 1988, the company did not complete construction in a timely manner. Pursuant to contract, the project was to be completed within 182 days. No additional periods of time were granted by the owners to the contractor and none were requested. During the period of time Raymond R. Suarez was the qualifying contractor on the Phillips project, eleven thousand one hundred fifty-three dollars and twelve cents ($11,153.12) worth of subcontractor and materialmen liens were perfected as they were not paid by the construction company. The funds to pay for the materials and labor which resulted in the claims of lien had been paid to Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc. by the bank making regular disbursements under the construction loan procured by Mr. and Mrs. Phillips for that purpose. Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc. did not use these funds for their intended purpose and misappropriated them to another use not related to the Phillips construction project. The supplies or services for which the liens were perfected had been ordered by Suarez Brothers of Pinel1as, Inc. for this customer's job. Raymond R. Suarez did not have the liens removed from the property by payment within thirty days after the date of such liens, nor has he attempted to have the liens removed at a later date. The Respondent, as qualifying contractor, knew or should have known that the liens were in existence and had been perfected. Since the alleged incidents of misconduct by Raymond R. Suarez, he has not renewed his contractor's license which remained valid until June 1989. The Hearing Officer was not made aware of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint at final hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Raymond R. Suarez be found not guilty of the alleged violations set forth in paragraphs four, six and seven of the Amended Administrative Complaint. That Raymond R. Suarez be found guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, based upon the misconduct alleged in paragraph five of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and be ordered to pay a $1,500 fine as the assessed penalty under Rule 21E-17.001(10), Florida Administrative Code. That Raymond R. Suarez be found guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes, based upon the misconduct alleged in paragraph eight of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and be ordered to pay a $1,500 fine as the assessed penalty under Rule 21E-17.001(13), Florida Administrative Code. That Raymond R. Suarez be found guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes, based upon the misconduct alleged in paragraph nine of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and that a letter of guidance be issued for his misconduct, pursuant to Rule 21E-17.001(1), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 14th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-4260 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #1. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #9. Accepted, except for the liens against the property for services and supplies placed upon the project after Suarez Brothers of Pinellas, Inc. was taken off the project. See HO #25 - #33. Accepted, except monetary amount of liens on project for servicesand supplies placed after the company was terminated, if any, were not considered. See HO #17 - #24. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #9. Accepted, except for liens against the property for services and supplies p1aced on the property after the contractor was changed, if any. See HO #10 - #16. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Jurand, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Raymond R. Suarez 904 Terra Mar Drive Tampa, Florida 33613 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 111 East Coastline Drive, Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. and Mrs. Reinhold Brooks 6117 - 94th Avenue North Pinellas Park, Florida Mr. and Mrs. Keith Phillips 5944 Bayview Circle Gulfport, Florida Mr. and Mrs. Richard Vozne 316-7th Avenue North Tierra Verde, Florida Mr. and Mrs. Robert Ganoe 10503 - 100th Street North Largo, Florida Mrs. and Mrs. James B. Hughes, Jr. 9985 Lake Seminole Drive West Largo, Florida
Recommendation It is recommended that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board dismiss the Respondent from further responsibility to answer to the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 John W. Tanner, Esquire Suite One. 434 N. Halifax Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent violated Subsections 475.42(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2009),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Real Estate is the state agency responsible for the regulation of the real estate sales profession in Florida, including licensure of real estate sales associates and enforcement of the statutory provisions within its charge. Ms. Friels is a real estate sales associate who first obtained her license in 2005. Ms. Friels has never had any prior disciplinary action taken against her. Ms. Friels received a renewal notice from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (the Department), notifying her that her sales associate license was due to expire on March 31, 2009. The notice touted in bold print that the "Department Provides Instant Online Renewal," while also offering a Renewal Notice card to detach and mail in to the Department. The Renewal card option required nothing to be filled in by the licensee unless an address update were necessary (in which case a box could be checked and the address updated on the back of the card), or unless the licensee wanted to opt for inactive status, which could be done by checking a different box. Otherwise, the card could simply be sent in with payment of the $85.00 renewal fee. The card included the following statement in small print: IMPORTANT: SUBMITTING YOUR RENEWAL REQUEST TO THE DEPARTMENT AFFIRMS COMPLIANCE WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWAL. Ms. Friels had been undergoing a period of great personal challenges and stress in the two-year period leading up to the licensure expiration date and nearly missed the renewal deadline. On the day before her license was to expire, she utilized the "Instant Online Renewal" option after contacting a Department customer representative to make sure that her online renewal payment would be credited immediately so that it would be timely before the March 31, 2009, expiration date. As alleged in the Administrative Complaint, "[o]n . . . March 30, 2009 Respondent paid the renewal fee of $85.00 to renew her real estate license." The Department receipt showed the online payment of the $85.00 fee on March 30, 2009, for the renewal of real estate sales associate License No. SL3141119 held by Marsha Evans Friels. At the time Ms. Friels processed her online license renewal, she had not completed the 14 hours of continuing education she was required to complete during the two-year licensure period ending on March 30, 2009, but Ms. Friels did not realize at that time that she had not complied with the continuing education requirements. Ms. Friels explained that although she was generally aware of the continuing education requirement for licensure renewal, the reason she did not realize that she had not taken the required coursework during this particular two-year period was because she was coping with a series of tragic, personal challenges. The circumstances were compelling, as she explained: In May 2007, Ms. Friels' older sister died of breast cancer; then, in October 2007, Ms. Friels' father died, and Ms. Friels assumed the responsibilities for arranging for his funeral and then probating his estate; and finally, Ms. Friels' youngest sister, who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and had lived with her father, was left without care, and the responsibilities for caring for her sister and making decisions about her placement fell on Ms. Friels' shoulders. While these circumstances do not excuse a failure to comply with the continuing education requirements during the two-year period, the totality of the circumstances make the oversight understandable and mitigate against Ms. Friels' culpability. Ms. Friels was under the impression that having accessed the Department's "Instant Online Renewal" and successfully remitted payment of the renewal fee in time, she had done all that was needed to renew her license. She received no notice to the contrary. Apparently, however, at some point after Ms. Friels thought she had successfully renewed her license via the Department's Instant Online Renewal service, the Department's records re-characterized the status of Ms. Friels' license as involuntarily inactive, effective on March 31, 2009, "due to non[-]renewal of her real estate sales associate license." Neither Ms. Friels, nor the licensed broker with whom Ms. Friels was associated, received notice that her real estate sales associate license had been changed to inactive status, that Ms. Friels had not satisfied the continuing education requirements at license renewal, or that her "Instant Online Renewal" and payment were ineffective to renew her license. Ms. Friels presented evidence of the Department's practice to issue a Notice of Deficiency or a Continuing Education Deficiency letter, when a real estate sales associate renews a license without having completed the required continuing education hours. No evidence was offered to explain why this practice would not have applied in this case or why no such notice was given to Ms. Friels. Operating under the impression that she had successfully renewed her license and receiving no notice to the contrary, on one occasion, on approximately June 1, 2009, Ms. Friels participated as a real estate sales associate working on a real estate sales contract under the supervision of Ms. Williams, the licensed broker with whom Ms. Friels was associated, who remained actively involved in the transaction. Mr. Brissenden is a real estate appraiser who was asked to perform an appraisal on the property that was the subject of the same contract, which is how he came to learn that Ms. Friels was operating as a sales associate. Mr. Brissenden testified that he happened to be online on the Department's licensing portal checking on some other things when he looked up Ms. Friels' license out of curiosity. He saw that her license was shown to be inactive, and, so, he filed a complaint. Ms. Friels first learned that she had not completed the required continuing education hours in the two-year period before renewal when she received a letter advising her that she was being investigated for operating as a sales associate without an active license. Immediately upon learning that she had a continuing education deficiency, Ms. Friels took the 14-hour continuing education course and successfully completed the required hours. This course included the "Real Estate Core Law" component required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-3.009(2)(a). The course material, which according to rule, must be submitted to the Florida Real Estate Commission for review and approval, included the following: In the event a license is renewed without the required continuing education course having been completed, the licensee will be sent a deficiency letter. This letter will inform the licensee that the required continuing education was not completed prior to renewal. Ms. Friels' license was reinstated to "active" status on October 16, 2009, following her completion of the 14-hour course credited to her prior renewal cycle. Ms. Friels cooperated with the investigation and submitted a letter with supporting documentation explaining that she did not realize she had not completed the continuing education course during the prior two years and detailing her personal circumstances that led to her oversight. At the completion of the investigation, the investigator contacted Ms. Friels to deliver a Uniform Disciplinary Citation, on December 11, 2009. By this document, the investigator sets forth her determination that there was probable cause to believe Ms. Friels had violated Subsection 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and that the Department had set the penalty at a $500.00 fine (plus no additional amount for costs). Ms. Friels had the choice of accepting the citation, in which case it would become a final order, or disputing the citation, in which case the charges would be prosecuted as a disciplinary action pursuant to Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. Ms. Friels testified that while she accepted responsibility for not completing the required continuing education and was willing to resolve this matter by paying the $500 fine in December 2009, she was unwilling to accept the citation's charge of violating Subsection 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes. That subsection establishes the following as a violation: A person licensed as a sales associate may not operate as a broker or operate as a sales associate for any person not registered as her or his employer. Ms. Friels perceived this charge as more serious, in effect, charging her with operating outside the scope of her sales associate license by operating in a broker capacity. Throughout this proceeding, Ms. Friels remained sensitive to the suggestion that she had operated as more than a real estate sales associate and went to great pains to establish that she did not exceed the bounds of a licensed real estate sales associate and that she was acting under the supervision of the licensed broker with whom she was associated. The subsequently-issued Administrative Complaint charged Ms. Friels with a violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, not Subsection 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Uniform Disciplinary Citation. By this time, however, when Ms. Friels attempted to resolve the dispute, the Division of Real Estate would not agree to the penalty originally proposed in the Citation (with the incorrect statutory charge), but instead proposed additional terms, including payment of $521.40 in investigation costs on top of the $500 fine, plus attendance at two meetings of the Florida Real Estate Commission. Ms. Friels objected to the increased financial consequences since in her view, the reason why the dispute was not resolved by the citation was because the wrong statutory violation was charged. Before the evidentiary hearing, counsel for the Division of Real Estate acknowledged that this case involves, at most, a "minor violation of licensing law." After the evidentiary portion of the hearing, counsel reiterated the Division's position that "this is a minor licensing violation and we're looking for a very minor penalty." Inexplicably, the Proposed Recommended Order submitted by the Petitioner proposed a significantly elevated recommended penalty. The Petitioner proposed an increased fine of $1,000, plus a 30-day suspension, plus costs of investigation, plus "fees pursuant to Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes,"3 despite assurances at the close of the hearing that the Petitioner was only looking for a "very minor penalty" consistent with what had been previously offered. The appropriate penalty for a violation of licensing law cannot be determined without first reviewing the record evidence on mitigating and aggravating circumstances in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-24.001(4). Here, no aggravating circumstances were established or even argued while there are multiple mitigating circumstances. There was no evidence of any harm to the consumers or public as a result of Ms. Friels' oversight in not completing her continuing education by her license renewal date or as a result of her participating as a real estate sales associate in a transaction in June 2009. The fact that there was only one count in the Administrative Complaint is a mitigating circumstance to be considered. Likewise, the fact that Ms. Friels has no disciplinary history is another mitigating circumstance weighing in favor of leniency below the normal penalty ranges established in rule. Consideration of the financial hardship to the Respondent as a result of imposition of a fine or suspension of a license, adds to the weight of mitigating circumstances. Ms. Friels testified to the hardship she has endured as a result of personal circumstances beyond her control. Ms. Friels was forthright and sincere in accepting responsibility for her oversight and acted immediately to rectify the continuing education deficiency as soon as she received notice of it. Under the circumstances, imposition of a fine or suspension of her license would result in unnecessary financial hardship. Finally, under the catch-all language in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-24.001(4)(b) ("mitigating circumstances may include, but are not limited to . . ."), consideration must be given to the Respondent's compelling personal circumstances that make her oversight understandable and mitigate further against imposing a penalty in the normal range. The circumstances here were far from normal, and imposing a penalty as if they were normal would be unduly harsh.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, finding that the Respondent, Marsha Evans Friels, violated Subsection 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes (and, thereby, Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes); issuing a reprimand as the sole penalty; and waiving the permissive assessment of costs allowed by Subsection 455.227(3)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 24th day of September, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent acted as a broker or sales associate without being the holder of a valid and current broker or sales associate license, in violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004),1 and, therefore, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes; and Whether Respondent published or caused to be published an advertisement for the sale of real properties, advertising himself to be a broker, at the time Respondent's license was in inactive status for failure to renew, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-10.025.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Commission. Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission's jurisdiction. From April 18, 2002, through September 30, 2003, Respondent was an active sales associate in association with Caldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc., a brokerage corporation located at 5981 Catheridge Avenue, Sarasota, Florida 34232. Respondent's Florida real estate sales associate license, number 95480, was involuntarily placed on inactive status due to non-renewal during the period October 1, 2003, through August 15, 2004. On or about February 22, 2004, Respondent published or caused to be published an advertisement for the sale of real properties with the South Florida Sun Sentinel, and in that advertisement, Respondent held himself out to be a realtor in the State of Florida, associated with Caldwell Banker. From August 16, 2004, through the present, upon the late renewal of his license, Respondent is listed as an inactive sales associate.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 475.42(1)(a), 475.25(1)(a), and 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-10.025 and, therefore, Subsection 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint; suspending Respondent's license for a period of one year; fining Respondent the sum of $1,000; and requiring that Respondent pay fees pursuant to Subsection 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, for investigative costs, in the amount of $841.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 4th of December, 2006.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Richard M. Woodley has two inactive contracting licenses numbered CB CA 17970 and CB CO 17970, and was so licensed in 1986. The Respondent's license CB CA 17970 qualified "Woodley Builders, Inc." with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At the time of the hearing, the Respondent was no longer in the construction contracting business as a licensed contractor. With respect to case number 87-2809, on December 15, 1985, the Respondent, on behalf of Woodley Builders, Inc., entered into a contract with Catherine M. Richardson and Jonathan P. Richardson to build a residence in or near Orlando, Florida. The contract price was $90,000, with $20,000 attributable to the land. The contract specified that payments would be made to Woodley Builders, Inc. "in accordance with the disbursement schedule set forth by the construction lender." P. Ex. 1, paragraph 7. Woodley Builders, Inc. also agreed in the contract to furnish to the Richardsons lien waivers as required by the construction lender for disbursements. The construction lender disbursed the following amounts on the indicated dates: $10,200 March 17, 1986 $10,200 March 19, 1986 $17,000 March 27, 1986 $17,000 April 24, 1986 To induce these disbursements, a total of $54,400, the Respondent signed lien waivers stating that all bills for labor and materials used had been paid in full. P. Ex. 5. At the time of signing, the Respondent told the construction lender that he had paid all bills due to that time, but had not paid bills not yet presented. T. 89. Thus, the lien waivers were intended to be a certification of the partial completion and payment for the work billed to the date of the waiver, and a promise to pay other bills for work already completed as such bills were presented. Six claims of liens were filed by subcontractors. The Richardsons hired a lawyer, and the lawyer was able to defend against two of the liens for failure to properly comply with procedures for mechanic's liens. Four liens for the following amounts and for work beginning on the dates indicated ultimately had to be satisfied by the Richardsons: $ 2,851.45 March 19, 1986 $13,462.34 March 7, 1986 $ 1,944.57 April 8, 1986 $ 785.01 April 9, 1986 These liens were for work commenced before the last lien waiver was signed on April 24, 1986. Thus, the Respondent failed to comply with the oral representations he made at the time of signing the lien waivers. The Richardsons were forced to execute a second mortgage in excess of $17,000 to pay off the unpaid liens. The Richardsons terminated the contract with Woodley Builders, Inc. when subcontractors quit working for lack of payment by Woodley Builders, Inc. Some money was obtained from family loans. It cost the Richardsons about $30,000 to have the house finished, which has added about $325 per month to their mortgage obligations. The Respondent and Woodley Builders, Inc. have not paid anything on these liens. Woodley Builders, Inc. filed bankruptcy. The Richardsons sued the Respondent as trustee for Woodley Builders, Inc. and obtained a default judgment for $149,839, which was a judgment of $32,380 in compensatory damages, trebled, plus costs, interest, and attorney's fees. With respect to case number 87-2810, on June 11, 1986, Woodley Builders, Inc. entered into a contract with Tom Jamieson to construct an addition to his residence in Orlando, Florida. The price of the work was $18,500. The contract specified that the price was a cash price, and that draws were to be made according to a schedule stated in the contract. Mr. Jamieson paid to Woodley Builders, Inc. about $11,700 of the contract price. At some time before completion of the addition, the owner, Mr. Jamieson, evidently became dissatisfied with the Respondent's work. Mr. Jamieson was given the Respondent's copy of the contract and refused to return it to the Respondent. Mr. Jamieson then owed the Respondent a draw of $3500, but refused to give it to him, and refused to have it put in escrow for the payment of subcontractors. The date that this occurred is not in evidence. T. 35-36, 39. Since Mr. Jamieson had taken back the contract, the Respondent thought that he (the Respondent) no longer had any legal proof of the contract (either scope of work or amount due), and thus had no contract to complete the work. He also did not receive the draw that was due. The Respondent thus ceased work on the addition for fear that he would not be paid without a copy of his contract. T. 36-37. The Respondent offered to complete the work. T. 51. The drywall contractor, Rick's Drywall, Inc., filed a lien for $465 for work done from August 12, 1986 and August 20, 1986. The Respondent would have paid this lien had Mr. Jamieson not terminated the contract and refused to give the Respondent a draw still due of $3500. T. 49-50. There may be a claim for unpaid electrical work in July, 1986, see P. Ex. 15, but it is impossible to tell if this occurred before or after Mr. Jamieson terminated the contract, or whether the Respondent had received draw money that should have paid this claim. The only evidence is that the Respondent had an agreement with the electrical subcontractor to pay that subcontractor at the time of the final draw, a draw never received as discussed above. T. 53. P. Ex. 11 is insufficient evidence that there were unpaid claims for roof trusses. Moreover, it cannot be determined whether the Respondent received a draw before contract termination which should have been used to pay for roof trusses. The Respondent had been a contractor for eight years before he began to have financial difficulties resulting in the problems with the Richardson's residence. There is no evidence of any prior discipline.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter its final order finding in case number 87-2809 that the Respondent, Richard M. Woodley, violated sections 489.129(1)(m), 489.129(1)(j), and 489.119, Fla. Stat. (1986), misconduct in contracting by diversion of funds, and failure to supervise as a qualifying agent, and in case number 87-2810, dismissing the administrative complaint for failure of proof by clear and convincing evidence. It is further recommended for the violation set forth above that the license of the Respondent be suspended for one year. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1988. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard M. Woodley 2521 Tuscaloosa Trail Maitland, Florida 32751 David Bryant, Esquire 1107 East Jackson, Suite 104 Tampa, Florida 33602 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Nonroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner filed an application or request for reactivation of his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 458.313(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Carlos Warter, M.D., 4/ was first issued a license to practice medicine in the State of Florida on August 2, 1977. It was a license by endorsement. For several years following 1977, the Petitioner practiced medicine in Chile. By letter dated July 2, 1980, the Florida Board of Medical Examiners wrote to the Petitioner about the status of his Florida license. The letter included the following: Pursuant to Section 458.051(3), Florida Statutes, a license obtained by endorsement in this State shall become void and of no force and effect unless the recipient utilizes the same by actively engaging in the practice of medicine in the State of Florida within three (3) years after the issuance of the license and continues such practice in this State for a minimum period of one (1) year. This practice requirement may be postponed only if and while the holder of an endorsement license is in the active military service of the United States or in an AMA approved training program. The Petitioner never actively engaged in the practice of medicine in Florida. Accordingly, by operation of Section 458.051(3), Florida Statutes, his Florida license, obtained by endorsement, became void and of no force and effect. After practicing for many years in other jurisdictions, the Petitioner decided he wanted to live in Florida and practice medicine in Florida. To that end, he contacted the staff of the Board of Medicine to inquire as to what would be required of him to obtain a license to practice medicine in Florida. As a result of his conversations with Board staff, the Petitioner believed that he could not reactivate his prior Florida license, which had become void by his failure to ever practice medicine in Florida. 5/ Based on that belief, the Petitioner did not file an application seeking to reactivate his void license. Rather, he filed an application seeking a new license by endorsement pursuant to Section 458.313(1), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner filed an application for licensure by endorsement on or about April 19, 1998. Question 9 on the application form reads: "Are you or have you ever held any professional/medical license in any State in the U.S., to include Canada, Guam, Puerto Rico or U.S. Virgin Islands? (If yes, list profession(s), state(s), license numbers(s), and date(s) of issuance.)" The Petitioner's answer was: "California 1980 to date/A35572." The Petitioner did not list his prior Colorado or New Mexico licenses to practice medicine. More importantly, he did not list his prior, now void, license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. Further, the Petitioner's prior license to practice medicine in the State of Florida is not mentioned anywhere else in the Petitioner's application for license by endorsement filed on May 19, 1998. 6/ Following several requests for additional information, the Petitioner's 1998 application was scheduled for consideration at a meeting of the Credentials Committee of the Board of Medicine on November 14, 1998. The Petitioner was present at the November 14, 1998, meeting, at which time he was not represented by legal counsel. At the conclusion of that meeting, the Credentials Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement be denied. During the meeting on November 14, 1998, there was no mention by either the Petitioner or any member of the Credentials Committee of the subject of reactivating the Petitioner's prior void license. The Petitioner was, of course, disappointed with the vote of the Credentials Committee. He was also of the view that the members of the Credentials Committee had treated him in a shabby, rude, and disrespectful manner, and that they had failed to properly perform their duties. Following his first appearance before the Credentials Committee of the Board of Medicine, the Petitioner obtained legal counsel. On January 20, 1999, the Petitioner wrote a letter to Governor Jeb Bush, which included the following comments: I first called the Board of Medicine and asked to have my license reactivated, but was informed that was not possible, and that I would have to reapply for licensure. * * * I then hired an attorney to assist with my application. She notified me that I was eligible to receive a license under a provision that allowed for reactivation of my license in certain circumstances. Therafter, the Petitioner's legal counsel made numerous efforts to persuade the Credentials Committee and the full Board of Medicine to treat the Petitioner's application of May 19, 1998, as an application for reactivation under Section 458.313(8), Florida Statutes. Those efforts were unsuccessful and the Board of Medicine, on March 5, 1999, issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Application for Licensure by Endorsement. The stated grounds in the notice were failures to meet several requirements of Section 458.313(1), Florida Statutes. The notice did not mention Section 458.313(8), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case concluding that the Petitioner, Carlos Warter, M.D., is not eligible for licensure under Section 458.313(1), Florida Statutes, because he admittedly fails to meet all of the requirements for issuance of a license under Section 458.313(1), Florida Statutes, and that he is not eligible for licensure under Section 458.313(8), Florida Statutes, because he has never filed an application for reactivation of his prior voided license pursuant to Section 458.313(8), Florida Statutes, and the statutory deadline for filing such applications has expired. 7/ DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 28th day of September, 1999.
