08-000226PL Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board vs. Raymond Spencer
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, April 18, 2008.


View Dockets  
Summary: Respondent abandoned the project and failed to pull permits.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

13PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

16CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING )

20BOARD, )

22)

23Petitioner, )

25)

26vs. ) Case No. 08-0226PL

31)

32RAYMOND SPENCER, )

35)

36Respondent. )

38)

39RECOMMENDED ORDER

41Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case

52on March 4, 2008, in Cocoa Beach, Florida, before Susan B.

63Harrell, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division

72of Administrative Hearings.

75APPEARANCES

76For Petitioner: Collin W. L. Mcleod, Esquire

83Robert A. Crabill, Esquire

87Wright, Fulford, Moorhead

90& Brown, P.A. 145 North Magnolia Avenue

97Orlando, Florida 32803

100For Respondent: Raymond Scott Spencer, pro se

107319 Kent Drive

110Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931

114STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

118The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated

127Statutes (2004), 1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.

138PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

140On March 28, 2007, the Department of Business and

149Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board

155(Department), filed a five-count Administrative Complaint

161against Respondent, Raymond Spencer (Mr. Spencer), alleging that

169Mr. Spencer violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2., (g)3., (j),

176(o), and (m), Florida Statutes. Mr. Spencer requested an

185administrative hearing, and the case was forwarded to the

194Division of Administrative Hearings on January 11, 2008, for

203assignment to an Administrative Law Judge to conduct the final

213hearing.

214At the final hearing, the Department called the following

223witnesses: Jesse J. Ross, Sr.; Dawn Lynn Ross; Frank Wisniski;

233Robert T. Shindo; and Michael McCaughin. Petitioner's

240Exhibits 1 through 14 were admitted in evidence. Mr. Spencer

250testified in his own behalf and offered no exhibits.

259The Transcript of the final hearing was filed on

268March 24, 2008. The parties agreed to file their proposed

278recommended orders within ten days of the filing of the

288Transcript. The Department filed its Proposed Recommended Order

296on April 3, 2008. To date, Respondent has not filed any post-

308hearing submittal. The Department's Proposed Recommended Order

315has been given consideration in the preparation of this

324Recommended Order.

326FINDINGS OF FACT

3291. Mr. Spencer holds a current, active Florida State

338Certified Building Contractor License, having been issued

345license number CBC 1252039. He is certified with the Department

355as doing business as KCLS Spencer, Inc. (KCLS), and is the

366primary qualifying agent thereof.

3702. Mr. Spencer submitted a Proposal, bearing the

378letterhead of KCLS and dated September, 14, 2004, to Jesse J.

389Ross, Sr. (Mr. Ross), which pertained to the exterior remodeling

399of Mr. Ross' jewelry store located at 6290 North Atlantic

409Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920. Initially, the Proposal

417put the cost for the remodeling at $48,762.86. After some

428negotiating, the Proposal that ultimately formed the basis of

437their contract set the cost at $45,000.00 and relieved

447Mr. Spencer of the obligation of constructing walkways.

4553. The Proposal's explicit terms provide:

461As per specifications and blueprints pricing

467is as follows; labor and material to

474renovate existing exterior building. Prices

479to include all demolition of all exist [sic]

487structures, installation of siding, columns,

492dormers, cupolas, two (2) French doors,

498windows, front gutters and down spouts,

504electrical, and final painting.

508Notes:

5091. Signs by owner.

5132. Paint colors by owner.

5183. Power and water supplied by owner.

5254. Color of pre-painted metal roof

531determined by owner.

5345. Material storage space to be provided by

542owner.

5436. Quotes good for 10 days (after 10 days,

552please reconfirm material pricing).

5567. 20% deposit $9752.57 due to start

563project, invoicing to [sic] made weekly per

570actual costs.

572Essentially, much of the exterior remodeling to be performed is

582simply stated as being based on the specifications and

591blueprints, which Mr. Ross provided to Mr. Spencer. These

600specifications and blueprints have not been received in

608evidence, but there appears to be no dispute among the parties

619regarding the scope of the work.

6254. The terms of payment were for an initial 20 percent

636deposit of $9,752.57, with weekly invoices to follow based on

647actual, ongoing costs. On October 25, 2004, Mr. Ross' lender,

657Coastal Bank, drafted a loan check for $9,752.57 made payable to

669KCLS. Sometime shortly thereafter, KCLS began the work of

678remodeling the exterior of Mr. Ross' store.

6855. As work progressed, Mr. Spencer provided Mr. Ross with

695an invoice, dated November 11, 2004, requesting payment for

704costs incurred. Despite listing on the invoice an "off set

714balance" of $2,515.32 that applied costs to date against the

725initial deposit, the total amount due was nevertheless listed as

735$12,268.04. On November 23, 2004, Mr. Ross wrote a check for

747$12,268.04 made payable to Mr. Spencer personally.

7556. Later, Mr. Spencer provided Mr. Ross with another

764invoice, dated December 23, 2004, requesting payment for further

773costs incurred. The total amount due was $8,475.24. By check

784dated that same day, Mr. Ross wrote a check for $8,475.24 made

797payable to Mr. Spencer personally. At this time, Mr. Ross

807received assurance from Mr. Spencer that no further money would

817be due, until the work was entirely completed.

8257. Sometime between Christmas 2004 and New Year's 2005,

834Mr. Spencer returned again to Mr. Ross' store and requested from

845him an additional $3,000.00. At this point, Mr. Ross refused,

856because of Mr. Spencer's earlier assurance that no further

865ongoing payments would be demanded and because of the lack of

876any work performed since the last payment. Mr. Spencer insisted

886that he had all of the necessary materials in his warehouse and

898that he would be back on the Monday following the New Year's

910holiday to work on the store. He never returned and could not

922be contacted by Mr. Ross.

9278. As the storefront remained in disrepair, Mr. Ross was

937compelled to contract with other parties to complete the work.

947Sunland General Contractors, Inc. (Sunland); Baker Roofing

954(Baker); and D.A.B. Painting, Inc. (DAB), completed the work

963that Mr. Spencer had previously been contracted with to perform.

973According to the testimony of Mr. Ross, they based their work

984upon the same specifications and blueprints that Mr. Ross had

994previously provided to Mr. Spencer. Sunland, except for the

1003roofing and painting, performed what work that remained.

10119. Based on a payment history dated December 16, 2005, the

1022total cost of Sunland's work for Mr. Ross was $23,770.00.

1033However, this cost includes $3,990.00 for walkway decking, which

1043Mr. Ross and Mr. Spencer, in their previous negotiations, had

1053agreed would not be part of their final agreement. As such, the

1065relevant cost in the instant case for Sunland's work is

1075$19,780.00. According to a Baker invoice, dated November 10,

10852005, the cost to Mr. Ross for the new roof was $14,935.00.

1098According to a letter from DAB, dated April 23, 2005, Mr. Ross

1110paid $6,500.00 for the painting of his store. In sum, the

1122relevant costs to Mr. Ross for this subsequent work total

1132$41,215.00.

113410. Sometime in October of 2005, Mr. Ross provided

1143Mr. Frank A. Wisniski (Mr. Wisniski), a general contractor and

1153owner of Sunland, with a set of blueprints and asked him to

1165takeover the job that Mr. Spencer had not completed.

1174Mr. Wisniski further testified on the condition of the building,

1184as Mr. Spencer had left it. According to his testimony, some of

1196the siding was not nailed properly, and the columns in the front

1208of the store were not well secured, a potentially hazardous

1218situation. Overall, in his opinion, he felt that Mr. Spencer

1228had completed approximately 25 percent of the total scope of the

1239job.

124011. Mr. Robert T. Shindo (Mr. Shindo) is an investigator

1250for the Department. He responded to Mr. Ross' complaint to the

1261Department regarding Mr. Spencer's work on the store. He found,

"1271basically, a building that was not in repair." Some siding

1281work had been done on the north face of the building, as well as

1295some column work. However, the columns appeared damaged or

1304incomplete, and the siding appeared incomplete as well.

131212. Besides the siding and columns, Mr. Shindo testified

1321that "[t]here did not appear to be any other work." Overall,

1332Mr. Shindo had familiarized himself with the Proposal and

1341estimated that between ten and 15 percent of the job appeared to

1353be complete.

135513. Mr. Michael McCaughin (Mr. McCaughin) is employed at

1364the Building Code Division of Brevard County and is the chief

1375building official for the county. Mr. McCaughin concluded that

1384based on the work specified in the Proposal of Mr. Spencer, the

1396only item which would not have required permitting is the

1406gutters. Mr. McCaughin personally searched the county permit

1414database, and no permits were ever pulled by Mr. Spencer for the

1426remodeling of Mr. Ross' store. Petitioner's Exhibit 14, a

1435printout of the permits that have been pulled for Mr. Ross'

1446store, confirms Mr. McCaughin's testimony. Moreover,

1452Mr. McCaughin "performed a search of Mr. Spencer under his name,

1463under his state license number, and also under the company name,

1474KCLS and, could not find any record of any permits being pulled,

1486nor was he registered with Brevard County contractor licensing."

149514. Mr. Spencer, in testifying in his own behalf, mainly

1505confirmed the testimony of the other witnesses and the other

1515facts in evidence. Among other things, he confirmed that he and

1526Mr. Ross had an agreement for KCLS to remodel the exterior of

1538the store and that the agreement was based on the Proposal he

1550had submitted to Mr. Ross. He agreed that he received the

1561payments that Mr. Ross testified to having paid and testified

1571that he never pulled the permits for the job, because he "[j]ust

1583didn't take the time to do it."

159015. Mr. Spencer's recollection of his final conversation

1598with Mr. Ross was substantially the same as Mr. Ross' testimony,

1609with Mr. Spencer testifying that he had told Mr. Ross he would

1621be back to work on the job and that there was an understanding

1634that final payment would be made at the end of the project. He

1647goes on to testify that he did actually go back after this final

1660conversation to finish up the siding on the south side of the

1672store and that the siding was completed. This last testimony is

1683not credible.

168516. In Mr. Spencer's defense, some of the work was farmed

1696out to subcontractors, and they were paid in full. He then

1707testified that he was planning on continuing the work but that

1718he was waiting on a roofer. While he was waiting for the

1730roofer, he testified that there was some dispute between himself

1740and Mr. Ross regarding a ring he had received from Mr. Ross. He

1753testified that the ring fell apart and that the dispute ended

1764their working relationship.

176717. But for "$8200 - Ring" being handwritten on the

1777Proposal alongside the other payments made by Mr. Ross, no

1787mention of this ring was made by the Petitioner. Presumably,

1797this ring was given as in-kind payment to Mr. Spencer, but

1808without anything more to go on, the insufficiency of the

1818relevant evidence precludes any recognition of the ring as

1827payment.

182818. Therefore, the three previously described checks,

1835furnished by Mr. Ross and made payable to Mr. Spencer or KCLS,

1847are found to represent the entirety of the consideration

1856furnished. To refresh, these checks are dated October 25, 2004;

1866November 23, 2004; and December 23, 2004, and amount to

1876$9,752.57; $12,268.04; and $8,475.24, respectively. In sum,

1886they total $30,495.85.

189019. Mr. Spencer also testified about the installation of

1899French doors at Mr. Ross' store. Mr. Ross earlier testified

1909that he had refused delivery of two French doors, when a

1920subcontractor arrived to install them, because they were not the

1930style, size or number he desired. He further testified that

1940Mr. Spencer was aware that he desired six doors with plastic

1951slats (not two as listed in the Proposal), because he had

1962directed Mr. Spencer to examine the doors of a nearby

1972storefront, whose style he wished to replicate.

197920. Mr. Spencer was questioned about these doors by

1988opposing counsel. Opposing counsel asked, "Were the French

1996doors ever installed into the building?" Mr. Spencer responded,

"2005Not that I know of, by Bill, no." Several questions later,

2016opposing counsel asked, "Okay. My point is, the doors were

2026never installed in the project; is that your understanding?"

2035Mr. Spencer responded, "My understanding from Bill was that,

2044yes, they were installed." On this issue, Mr. Spencer could

2054only speculate, because he never returned to the job site to

2065check whether the doors had been installed. Mr. Spencer's

2074testimony on this topic is not credible.

208121. Despite never being installed, Mr. Ross paid a

2090$4,700.00 deposit for the French doors that was never refunded.

2101When asked why this money was never refunded to Mr. Ross, Mr.

2113Spencer goes on to testify that he trusted the subcontractor

2123delivering the doors, that he assumed they were delivered, and

2133that that's why he never attempted to receive a refund of the

2145doors' cost from the subcontractor.

2150CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

215322. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

2160jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

2171proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57, Fla. Stat. (2007).

217923. The Department has the burden to establish the

2188allegations in the Administrative Complaint by clear and

2196convincing evidence. Department of Banking and Finance v.

2204Osborne Stern and Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996). The

2215Department has alleged that Mr. Spencer violated Subsections

2223which provides that the following acts constitute grounds for

2232disciplinary action by the Department:

2237(g) Committing mismanagement or misconduct

2242in the practice of contracting that causes

2249financial harm to a customer. Financial

2255mismanagement or misconduct occurs when:

2260* * *

22632. The contractor has abandoned a

2269customer's job and the percentage of

2275completion is less than the percentage of

2282the total contract price paid to the

2289contractor as of the time of abandonment,

2296unless the contractor is entitled to retain

2303such funds under the terms of the contract

2311or refunds the excess funds within 30 days

2319after the date the job is abandoned; or

2327* * *

23303. The contractor's job has been completed,

2337and it is shown that the customer has had to

2347pay more for the contracted job than the

2355original contract price, as adjusted for

2361subsequent change orders, unless such

2366increase in cost was the result of

2373circumstances beyond the control of the

2379contractor, was the result of circumstances

2385caused by the customer, or was otherwise

2392permitted by the terms of the contract

2399between the contractor and the customer.

2405* * *

2408(j) Abandoning a construction project in

2414which the contractor is engaged or under

2421contract as a contractor. A project may be

2429presumed abandoned after 90 days if the

2436contractor terminates the project without

2441just cause or without proper notification to

2448the owner, including the reason for

2454termination, or fails to perform work

2460without just cause for 90 consecutive days.

2467* * *

2470(m) Committing incompetency or misconduct

2475in the practice of contracting.

2480* * *

2483(o) Proceeding on any job without obtaining

2490applicable local building department permits

2495and inspections.

249724. Mr. Brown is and was the primary qualifying agent for

2508KCLS during all the times material to this proceeding.

2517Subsection 489.1195(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides:

2522(1) A qualifying agent is a primary

2529qualifying agent unless he or she is the

2537secondary qualifying agent under this

2542section.

2543(a) All primary qualifying agents for a

2550business organization are jointly and

2555equally responsible for supervision of all

2561operations of the business organization; for

2567all field work at all sites; and for

2575financial matters, both for the organization

2581in general and for each specific job.

2588Thus, irrespective of whether or not the work was subcontracted

2598to others, Mr. Spencer, as primary qualifying agent for KCLS,

2608was responsible for all of the work that was performed under the

2620aegis of KCLS at Mr. Ross' jewelry store.

262825. The Department established by clear and convincing

2636evidence that KCLS abandoned the project in violation of

2645Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes. The project was not

2653completed, KCLS left the job and never returned, and KCLS gave

2664no reason to Mr. Ross for not returning to the job to complete

2677the work. As primary qualifying agent for KCLS, Mr. Spencer was

2688responsible for completing the work.

269326. The Department established by clear and convincing

2701evidence that the percentage of completion of the job was less

2712than the percentage of the total contract price paid to KCLS as

2724of the time of abandonment in violation of Subsection

2733489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. Mr. Wisniski testified that

2740he estimated the job, as he originally found it, to be

2751approximately 25 percent complete, and Mr. Shindo estimated it

2760to be approximately 10 to 15 percent complete. Their

2769testimonies are given additional illumination by the fact that

2778Mr. Ross was compelled to expend an additional $41,215.00 to

2789complete the job. The evidence establishes that Mr. Ross paid

2799Mr. Spencer a total of $30,495.85, which is 68 percent of the

2812total contract price.

281527. The Department has failed to establish by clear and

2825convincing evidence that Mr. Spencer violated Subsection

2832489.129(1)(g)3., Florida Statutes. The strict construction of

2839Subsection 489.129(1)(g)3., Florida Statutes - required due to

2847the statute's penal nature 2 --leads to the determination that the

2858subsection is only applicable when the contractor charged with

2867violating Subsection 489.129(1)(g)3., Florida Statutes,

2872completes the job. The record affirmatively establishes that

2880Mr. Spencer never completed the job but rather abandoned it.

289028. The Department established by clear and convincing

2898evidence that Mr. Spencer never pulled the necessary permits in

2908violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes. Ample

2915evidence was presented by the Department that no permits were

2925ever pulled, and, by Mr. Spencer's own admission, he never

2935pulled the permits.

293829. The Department established by clear and convincing

2946evidence that Mr. Spencer committed incompetency or misconduct

2954in the practice of contracting in violation of Subsection

2963489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes. Mr. Spencer, in failing to

2971ensure the columns were properly secured, created a potential

2980hazard to the public-at-large that remained lurking at the

2989entrance to Mr. Ross' store for almost a year. Moreover, on

3000more than this one occasion, Mr. Spencer's lack of supervision

3010of his subcontractors led to unacceptable or shoddy work; the

3020example above is simply the most egregious.

302730. Florida Administrative Code Rule G1G4-17.001(1) (2004) 3

3035lists the "normal penalty ranges" that, in the absence of

3045aggravating or mitigating circumstances, must be applied, by

3053both the undersigned and the Department, when determining

3061appropriate penalties for violations of Chapter 489, Part I,

3070Florida Statutes. See Williams v. Department of Transportation ,

3078531 So. 2d 994, 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); § 455.2273(5), Fla.

3090Stat. The rule provides for separate first and repeat offender

3100penalty ranges, and, since Mr. Spencer is a first offender, the

3111former penalty ranges are applicable.

311631. Florida Administrative Code Rule G1G4-17.001(1) (2004)

3123provides the following relevant penalty ranges:

3129(g) Section 489.129(1)(g), F.S.:

3133Mismanagement or misconduct causing

3137financial harm to the customer. First

3143violation, $ 750 to $ 1,500 fine and/or

3152probation; repeat violation, $ 1,500 to $

31605,000 fine and suspension or revocation.

3167* * *

3170(j) Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S.:

3174Abandonment. First violation, $ 500 to $

31812,000 fine; repeat violation, revocation and

3188$ 5,000 fine.

3192* * *

31954. The following guidelines shall apply to

3202cases involving misconduct or incompetency

3207in the practice of contracting, absent

3213aggravating or mitigating circumstances:

3217* * *

3220c. Any other form of misconduct or

3227incompetency. First violation, $ 250 to $

32341,000 fine and/or probation; repeat

3240violations $ 1,000 to $ 5,000 fine and

3250suspension or revocation.

3253* * *

3256(o) Section 489.129(1)(o), F.S.: Proceeding

3261on any job without obtaining applicable

3267local building department permits and/or

3272inspections.

3273* * *

32763. Job finished without a permit having

3283been pulled, or no permit until caught after

3291job, or late permit during the job resulting

3299in missed inspection or inspections. First

3305violation, $ 500 to $ 1,500 fine; repeat

3314violation, $ 1,000 to $ 2,500 fine and

3324suspension or revocation.

332732. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.001(5)

3333requires the Department to order the contractor to make

3342restitution in the amount of financial loss suffered by the

3352consumer. Evidence was presented that the total cost to

3361Mr. Ross for the three other contractors to complete the work

3372that Mr. Spencer had abandoned was $41,215.00. Mr. Ross is

3383recognized as having paid Mr. Spencer a total of $30,495.85.

3394Mr. Ross ultimately paid $71,710.85 to complete a job that was

3406originally contracted to cost only $45,000, and thus, absent any

3417evidence to the contrary, Mr. Ross' amount of financial loss

3427suffered is the difference between these two amounts,

3435$26,710.85.

343733. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.001(4)

3443provides that the Construction Industry Licensing Board may

3451assess the costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding

3459costs relating to attorney time. No evidence was presented as

3469to the amount of these costs.

3475RECOMMENDATION

3476Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

3486Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding

3497that Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2.,

3502489.129(1)(j), 489.129(1)(m), and 489.129(1)(o), Florida

3507Statutes; finding that Respondent did not violate Subsection

3515489.129(1)(g)3., Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative

3521fine of $1,500.00 for the violation of Subsection

3530489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative

3536fine of $2,000.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(j),

3546Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00

3555for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes;

3563imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00 for the violation

3573of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; requiring

3579Respondent to make restitution to Mr. Ross in the amount of

3590$26,710.85; placing Respondent on probation for a period of

3600three years; and requiring Mr. Spencer to attend a minimum of

3611seven additional hours of continuing education classes.

3618DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2008, in

3628Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3632S

3633SUSAN B. HARRELL

3636Administrative Law Judge

3639Division of Administrative Hearings

3643The DeSoto Building

36461230 Apalachee Parkway

3649Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

3652(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

3656Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

3660www.doah.state.fl.us

3661Filed with the Clerk of the

3667Division of Administrative Hearings

3671this 18th day of April, 2008.

3677ENDNOTES

36781/ Unless otherwise noted, all subsequent statutory references

3686are to the 2004 Florida Statutes.

36922/ See State v. Pattishall , 126 So. 147 (Fla. 1930); Lester v.

3704Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, State

3711Board of Medical Examiners , 348 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

37233/ As it would be a violation of the ex post facto clause to

3737apply the higher penalties provided for in the current rule, the

3748applicable "Normal Penalty Ranges" are those that were in effect

3758in 2004, when the acts subject to discipline occurred. See

3768Arias v. Dep't of Business and Professional Regulation , 710 So.

37782d 655, 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

3785COPIES FURNISHED :

3788Raymond Scott Spencer

3791319 Kent Drive

3794Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931

3798Collin W. L. Mcleod, Esquire

3803Robert A. Crabill, Esquire

3807Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A.

3813145 North Magnolia Avenue

3817Orlando, Florida 32803

3820Ned Luczynski, General Counsel

3824Department of Business and

3828Professional Regulation

3830Northwood Centre

38321940 North Monroe Street

3836Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

3839G. W. Harrell, Executive Director

3844Construction Industry Licensing Board

3848Department of Business and

3852Professional Regulation

3854Northwood Centre

38561940 North Monroe Street

3860Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

3863NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3869All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

387915 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

3890to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

3901will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 04/18/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 04/18/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held March 4, 2008). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 04/18/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 03/24/2008
Proceedings: Transcript filed.
Date: 03/04/2008
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 02/26/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Disclosure of Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2008
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for March 4, 2008; 9:00 a.m.; Cocoa, FL).
PDF:
Date: 01/28/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/22/2008
Proceedings: Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/14/2008
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 01/14/2008
Proceedings: Election of Rights filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/14/2008
Proceedings: Administrative Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/14/2008
Proceedings: Referral Letter filed.

Case Information

Judge:
SUSAN BELYEU KIRKLAND
Date Filed:
01/14/2008
Date Assignment:
01/14/2008
Last Docket Entry:
04/18/2008
Location:
Cocoa, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Suffix:
PL
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (6):

Related Florida Rule(s) (1):