11-002793PL Department Of Financial Services vs. Dominick Paul Belinchak Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, January 30, 2012.

Summary: Petitioner proved the violations alleged; Respondent aided or assisted a public adjuster apprentice in soliciting business without Respondent's direct supervision or guidance. A period of suspension is recommended.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DE PARTMENT OF FINANCIAL )

SERVICES, )

)

Petitioner , )

)

vs. )

) Case No. 11 - 2793PL

DOMINICK PAUL BELINCHAK , )

)

Respondent . )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A final hearing was conducted in this case before

Lynne A . Quimby - Pennock, a designated Administrative Law Judge

of the Division of Administrative Hearings (Division). The

hearing was conducted on September 19, 2011, by video

teleconference at sites in Orlando and Tallahassee, Florida, and

concluded on September 27, 2011, by video teleconference at

sites in Melbourne and Tallahassee, Florida .

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: David J. Busch, Esquire

Department of Financial Services

Division of Legal Services

612 Larson Building

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

For Respondent: Dominick Paul Belinchak, pro se

2772 Rodeo Drive, Northeast

Palm Bay, Florida 32905 - 5424

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated

sections 626.8651(11), 626.611(13), or 626.621(12), Florida

Statutes (2010), 1/ and F lorida Administrative Code Rule

69B - 220.051(3)(a), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint,

and , if so, what penalty should be imposed?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On April 28, 2011, Petitioner, Department of Financial

Services (Petitioner) , filed an Administrative Complaint against

Respondent, Dominick Paul Belinchak (Respondent) , alleging

violations of sections 626.8651(11), 626.611(13) , and

626.621(12) and rule 69B - 220.051(3)(a). On May 26, 2011,

Respondent filed an Election of Proceeding form , requesting an

administrative hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes. On June 2, 2011, the case was referred to the

Div ision for the assignment of an A dministrative L aw J udge.

A Notice of Hearing was issued on June 14, 2011, schedul ing

the case for hearing by video teleconference on July 29, 2011.

Following one uncontested motion for continuance, the hearing

was rescheduled to September 19, 2011, and, following a full day

of testimony , was continued to September 27, 2011, for

comple tion.

Seven days prior to the hearing , a number of motions or

documents were filed. Each motion or document was addressed at

the beginning of the hearing. On September 13, 2011, a

potential witness for Respondent, Kevin P. Cote (Mr. Cote) ,

filed a docume nt with the Division regarding a S ubpoena D uces

T ecum (subpoena) that had been served at his home in Pensacola,

Florida , on September 12, 2011. At the time of service ,

Mr. Cote was temporarily living and working in South Carolina. 2/

The materials sought were voluminous, and Mr. Cote represented

that he would need at least three months to retrieve the

materials. Mr. Cote ' s document served as a motion to quash to

the subpoena. Following argument by the parties and Mr. Cote,

the motion was granted in full.

On September 15, 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion for

Protective Order, setting forth that , on September 9, 2011,

Respondent had served a subpoena on Barry Lanier (Mr. Lanier) ,

Petitioner ' s bureau chief for the Bureau of Investigation, and

Respondent had s erved a subpoena on Kimberly Brown (Ms. Brown) ,

Petitioner ' s assistant bureau chief for the Bureau of Licensing.

Each subpoena sought their respective appearance at the hearing

and directed Mr. Lanier to bring documents specified in

12 distinct categories, while Ms. Brown was directed to bring

documents specified in seven distinct categories. After hearing

arguments from both parties, the Motion for Protective Order was

granted as to the documentation requested of both witnesses .

On S eptember 16, 2011, another potential witness for

Respondent, " Tony [sic ] [ Tonja] Grey c/o Tower Hill " and/or

Tower Hill Select Insurance Company (Tower Hill) filed a " Motion

to Quash Respondent ' s Subpoena Duces Tecum and Motion for Entry

of Protective Orde r regarding Deposition of Tonja Grey. " This

subpoena was also served on Friday, September 9, 2011, and

requested Tonja Grey (Ms. Grey) to produce documents that are

the property of Tower Hill and are protected by the work - product

or attorney - client privil eges regarding insurance company claims

files. At the service time, Ms. Grey was located in

Gainesville, Florida, 3/ at the Tower Hill office. After hearing

the arguments of Ms. Grey ' s representative (Ms. Grey is not an

authorized representative of Tower Hill, but an insurance

adjuster employed by Tower Hill who could not speak for or on

behalf of Tower Hill) and the parties, the motion to quash was

granted in full.

On the eve of hearing, Respondent filed a " Motion for

Additional Documentation Based on New ly Discovered

Information. " 4/ Petitioner ' s counsel briefly reviewed the

contents of the motion prior to the hearing. Although

Respondent had just found this " newly discovered information, "

it was information that was and had been in the public domain

for some time. Over objection, this information was admitted ;

however , both parties were advised that the material would be

given its due weight when the facts of this case were

considered.

At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of three

witnesses: Jill Frost (Ms. Frost) , Deborah Kaye Siebern

(Ms. Siebern), and Virginia Wright. Petitioner ' s Exhibits 1

through 4, 7 through 9, 11 through 15, and 17 through 19 were

admitted into evidence. Respondent testified on his own behalf,

and presented the testimony of Ms. Siebern, Ms. Brown, and

Mr. Lanier. Respondent ' s pre - marked Exhibits B, C (only pages 1

through 3), H, I, J, O, P, R (only pages 6 through 60, 70

through 74, and 80), S (only pages 61 and 62), T, and Y were

admitted into evidence.

The Transcript from the first hearing date (September 19,

2011) was filed on December 16, 2011. The Tran script from the

continuation date (September 27, 2011) was filed on October 18,

2011. Petitioner requested, and Respondent agreed , to file

their proposed recommended orders (PROs) within 30 days of the

filing of the last T ranscript, making them due on Jan uary 16,

2012. Petitioner timely filed its PRO on January 17, 2012, 5/ and

it has been considered in the preparation of this Recommended

Order. To date R espondent has not filed a PRO.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the

li censing and regulation of insurance agents in the State of

Florida and is responsible for administrating the disciplinary

provisions of chapter 626, pursuant to section 20 .121(2)(g) and

(h), Florida Statutes.

2. At all times material to this case, Respond ent was

licensed as an a ll l ines p ublic a djuster. Respondent also owned

and was the primary public adjuster for Public Adjuster Hotline,

Inc. (PAH).

3. Ms. Siebern is currently a self - employed public

adjuster (Florida license issued in August 2010), who, since

January 2007, has owned and operated Avalon Home Inspection, a

company that performs wind mitigation inspections, home

inspections, and now includes public adjusting work. Between

February 2010 and August 2010, Ms. Siebern was employed by

Responden t (and PAH) as a licensed public adjuster apprentice

(apprentice). Prior to her employment by Respondent and PAH,

Ms. Siebern had worked as an apprentice for another entity and

had additional insurance experience.

4. Ms. Siebern met Respondent during the fall 2009 through

an advertisement wherein Respondent was seeking apprentices for

PAH. In February 2010, Ms. Siebern was appointed as a licensed

apprentice under Respondent ' s license. 6/ Although Ms. Siebern

understood that Respondent was to direct her as an apprentice

until she could get her own public adjuster ' s license,

Respondent typically assented to whatever Ms. Siebern suggested

for the claims she worked, as opposed to providing her with

direct supervision and guidance. Ms. Siebern took direction

from Respondent with respect to how he wanted documentation

filed for PAH, but his supervision of her work as an apprentice

was minimal at best. Respondent provided Ms. Siebern with PAH

business cards, brochures, and a magnetic car sign with the PAH

logo on it. In its advertising , PAH also used a MagicJack

telephone number and service that could direct calls to specific

PAH representatives, including Ms. Siebern. Respondent also

provided training and direction to Ms. Siebern that included how

to complet e a PAH contract and how to use a computer estimating

program. When she was not working a specific claim, Ms. Siebern

was directed to market PAH services to roofers, water extraction

companies, plumbers, and other trades people. Ms. Siebern

worked on a c ommission basis for the PAH claims she managed.

Ms. Siebern was physically located in Orlando, Florida, while

Respondent and PAH were physically located in Palm Bay, Florida,

approximately an hour apart. Ms. Siebern ' s testimony is

credible.

5. In March 2010, an Orlando home owner, Ms. Frost ,

s earched for a public adjuster firm to help her with one

recurring house issue, a re - activated sinkhole problem (sinkhole

issue) and a relatively new issue, a damaged roof from a

hail/wind event (roof issue) in 2009. Ms. Frost specifically

searched the internet for a female public adjuster. Ms. Frost

located the PAH website, reviewed Ms. Siebern ' s biography, liked

it , and called the PAH (MagicJack) telephone number provided.

Ms. Frost and Ms. Siebern connected via a mutual telephone

conversation on March 30, 2010, and an in - person meeting that

same day at Ms. Frost ' s residence (Frost residence) in Orlando.

Respondent and Ms. Siebern spoke on the telephone for

approximately 20 to 30 minutes before Ms. Siebern met wi th

Ms. Frost. However , Respondent was not present at this first

face - to - face meeting at the Frost residence.

6. During the course of this first meeting between

Ms. Frost and Ms. Siebern, various solicitous statements were

made by Ms. Siebern regarding he r years of insurance experience

and what PAH could do for Ms. Frost ' s two issues. The purpose

for Ms. Siebern to go to the Frost residence was to " photograph

the loss, to interview the potential client, to go with the

contract, and have Jill Frost sign th e contract and to get

started on the claim. " At some point in that first meeting,

once Ms. Frost and Ms. Siebern completed their contract

negotiations, Ms. Siebern filled in specific blanks on two PAH

contracts and provided both contracts to Ms. Frost for her

review and signature. One PAH contract was for the recurring

sinkhole issue, and the other was for the roof damage issue .

Ms. Frost executed both PAH contracts. Ms. Frost clearly

thought that based on her actions and statements that

Ms. Siebern was her public adjuster from PAH. Ms. Frost had no

knowledge of Respondent ' s involvement in her claim at the time

she signed the two contracts.

7. Respondent takes the position that Ms. Frost solicited

PAH or Ms. Siebern when Ms. Frost used the PAH MagicJac k

telephone number on March 30 , 2010, to contact Ms. Siebern.

While this is true initially, once Ms. Siebern began her PAH

sales pitch, she, on behalf of PAH , was attempting to sell the

services of PAH and what PAH could do for Ms. Frost and her

claims. Ms. Siebern was in fact soliciting Ms. Frost and did in

fact solicit Ms. Frost ' s business without Respondent ' s direct

supervision or guidance. Respondent ' s telephone call with

Ms. Siebern prior to her arrival at the Frost residence cannot

be considered direct supervision or guidance , as he was not

present when the details of the contracts were completed.

8. It is uncontroverted that Respondent pre - signed the PAH

contracts that Ms. Frost executed on March 30, 2010. These

contracts were signed by Respondent and provided to Ms. Siebern

as a means for her to solicit business. Ms. Frost executed

those two contracts only after discussing and agreeing to

contract terms which were written on the contracts by PAH ' s

representative, Ms. Sieb ern.

9. Ms. Frost first learned that Ms. Siebern was an

apprentice on July 29, 2010, when Respondent arrived at the

Frost residence and spoke with an engineer who was inspecting

it. Only after Respondent left the Frost residence did

Ms. Siebern explained to Ms. Frost that she (Ms. Siebern) was an

apprentice and that Respondent was actually supervising

Ms. Siebern ' s work. Ms. Frost was terribly unhappy or upset

with this news, as Respondent did not appear to know anything

about her claims when he arrived at her residence.

10. At some time in early August 2010, Ms. Siebern ' s

period of apprenticeship ended , and she left PAH ' s employ. In

August and thereafter, the working relationship between

Ms. Frost and Respondent/PAH deteriorated. Ms. Frost was unable

to get the assistance she felt she needed from Respondent.

Although they did communicate on occasion, when Ms. Frost

complained to Respondent of alleged wrong - doing with respect to

her claims, Respondent blamed Ms. Siebern ' s lack of experience

for the pro blems. 7/

11. Respondent did not feel it necessary to tell Ms. Frost

(or anyone else) that Ms. Siebern was an apprentice. 8/ Ms. Brown

confirmed that an apprentice does not have to disclose that he

or she is an apprentice to a client.

12. Respondent becam e a licensed public adjuster in

May 2009, after having studied and taken the examination for

that licensure. As part of his studies, Respondent became

familiar with Petitioner ' s rules regarding public adjusting.

However, Respondent ' s position that rule 6 9B - 220.051(3)(a) " may

not be applicable to public adjuster apprentices . . . " is most

troubling. When asked directly if the rule (69B - 220.051(3)(a))

would be applicable to him, Respondent replied in a conflicting

statement:

Sure, but I am a public adjusto r, so it

doesn ' t apply. Do you understand? This is

for a roofer. This is for people that are

pretending to be an adjustor. This is for

plumbers that are trying to represent a

homeowner with their insurance claim. This

is not for public adjustors or pu blic

adjustor apprentices.

Respondent ' s credibility is greatly diminished with this

response.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

13. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

proceeding. §§ 120.569 & 120.57, Fla. Stat. (2011).

14. This is a disciplinary action by Petitioner in which

Petitioner seeks to suspend or revoke Respondent ' s license as a

pubic adjuster. Petitioner bears the burden of proof to

substantiate the allegations in the A dministrative C omplaint by

clear and convincing evidence. Dep ' t of Banking & Fin. v.

Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v.

Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

15. As stated by the Florida Supreme Court:

Clear and convincing ev idence requires that

the evidence must be found to be credible;

the facts to which the witnesses testify

must be distinctly remembered; the testimony

must be precise and lacking in confusion as

to the facts in issue. The evidence must be

of such a weight that it produces in the

mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or

conviction, without hesitancy, as to the

truth of the allegations sought to be

established.

In re Henson , 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005) ( quoting Slomowitz

v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ) .

16. The Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with

violating section 626.8651(11). Section 626.8651(11) provides

in pertinent part:

A public adjuster apprentice has the same

authority as the licensed public adjuster

. . . exc ept that an apprentice may not

execute contracts for the services of a

public adjuster or public adjusting firm and

may not solicit contracts for the services

except under the direct supervision and

guidance of the supervisory public adjuster.

An individu al may not be, act as, or hold

. . . herself out to be a public adjuster

apprentice unless the individual is licensed

and holds a current appointment by a

licensed public all - lines adjuster or a

public adjusting firm that employs a

licensed all - lines publi c adjuster.

17. The Administrative Complaint also charges Respondent

with violating rule 69B - 220.051(3)(a), which provides:

(3) Communications Concerning Public

Adjuster Services.

(a) Solicitation. The solicitation of

public adjusting business for co mpensation

is deemed to be a material part of the

business of public adjusting and, therefore,

requires licensure as a public adjuster

under the laws of Florida and the rules of

the department, and shall be engaged in only

by persons licensed by the depart ment as

public adjusters. Unlicensed persons shall

not engage in such activity even under the

supervision of a licensed public adjuster.

The phrase " solicitation of public adjusting

business " and similar phrases as used in

this rule means, for compensati on,

initiating contact with any person, whether

in person, by mail, by telephone, or

otherwise, and therein seeking, causing,

urging, advising, or attempting:

1. To have any person enter into any

agreement engaging the services of a public

adjuster in an y capacity; or

2. To have any person subsequently speak or

meet with a licensed public adjuster for the

purpose of engaging the services of a public

adjuster in any capacity or for the purpose

of being advised by a public adjuster in any

regard.

18. Respondent was not present and did not provide direct

supervision and guidance when Ms. Siebern, his apprentice ,

completed the solicitation of Ms. Frost , which resulted in the

execution (by Ms. Frost) of two contracts with Respondent ' s

company. The fact t hat Respondent pre - signed the contracts is

not determinative of his failure to directly supervise and guide

the solicitation act by Ms. Siebern.

19. Further, Respondent ' s position, that rule 69B - 220.051

is not applicable to him , reflects a serious misunderstanding as

to his responsibilities and duties as a public adjuster.

20. The Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with

violating section 626.621(12). Section 626.621 (12) provides in

pertinent part:

The department may , in its discretion, deny

an application for, suspend, revoke, or

refuse to renew or continue the license or

appointment of any . . . adjuster, . . . and

it may suspend or revoke the eligibility to

hold a license or appointment of any such

person, if it fi nds that as to the . . .

licensee, or appointee any one or more of

the following applicable grounds exist under

circumstances for which such denial,

suspension, revocation, or refusal is not

mandatory under s. 626.611 :

* * *

(12) Knowingly aiding, assisting,

procuring, advising, or abetting any person

in the violation of or to violate a

provision of the ins urance code or any order

or rule of the department, commission, or

office.

21. The Administrative Complaint also charges Respondent

with violating section 626.611(13), which provides in pertinent

part:

The department shall deny an application

for, suspen d, revoke, or refuse to renew or

continue the license or appointment of any

. . . adjuster, . . . and it shall suspend

or revoke the eligibility to hold a license

or appointment of any such person, if it

finds that as to the . . . licensee, . . .

any one o r more of the following applicable

grounds exist:

* * *

(13) Willful failure to comply with, or

willful violation of, any proper order or

rule of the department or willful violation

of any provision of this code.

22. Respondent provided Ms. Si ebern with business cards,

brochures, a MagicJack telephone number , and pre - signed

contracts for her use in soliciting business for PAH. Thus, he

aided or assisted a person to violate a provision of the

insurance code or a rule of Petitioner. These actio ns amount to

a willful violation.

23. Petitioner proved through clear and convincing

evidence that Respondent was, at all times pertinent , licensed

as an a ll l ines p ublic a djuster, owned P AH, and was to supervise

Ms. Siebern.

24. Petitioner proved through credible testimony that

Respondent did not accompany, nor provide direct supervision and

guidance when Ms. Siebern met with and solicited a client.

Respondent knowingly provided pre - signed contracts to

Ms. Siebern in order to facilitate her solici tous actions to

secure business for his company. This is in direct

contravention to section 626.8651(11) and rule 69B -

220.051(3)(a). The issue now becomes w hat penalty should be

imposed.

25. The Administrative Complaint put Respondent on notice

of the penalties that could be assessed against him via

sections 626.11, 626.621, 626.681, 626.691, 626.692 , and

626.9521, 9/ as well as Petitioner ' s intention " to seek

aggravation of all such penalties in accordance with the

provisions of rule 69B - 231.160. "

26. Section 626.611 provides the mandatory language

of " shall " suspend the license if a violation is found.

Section 626.621 provides that Petitioner " may " suspend the

li cense if a violation is found.

27. Petitioner notified Respondent that it intended to

seek an aggravation of any penalty through rule 69B - 231.160.

That rule provides in pertinent part:

The Department shall consider the following

aggravating and mitigating factors and apply

them to the total penalty in reaching the

final penalty assessed agains t a licensee

under this rule chapter. After

consideration and application of these

factors, the Department shall, if warranted

by the Department ' s consideration of the

factors, either decrease or increase the

penalty to any penalty authorized by law.

(1) For penalties other than those assessed

under Rule 69B - 231.150, F.A.C.:

(a) Willfulness of licensee ' s conduct;

(b) Degree of actual injury to victim;

(c) Degree of potential injury to victim;

(d) Age or capacity of victim;

(e) Restitution to vic tims;

(f) Motivation of licensee;

(g) Financial gain or loss to licensee;

(h) Financial loss to victim;

(i) Vicarious or personal responsibility;

(j) Related criminal charge; disposition;

(k) Existence of secondary violations in

counts;

(l) Previous disciplinary orders or prior

warning by the Department; and

(m) Violation of any part of Sections

626.9541 and 627.4554. F.S., in relation to

the sale of a life insurance policy or

annuity to a senior citizen; and

(n) Other relevant factors.

28. Although Petitioner suggested in its PRO the following

aggravating factors: " Respondent ' s conduct was willful;

resulted in a lawsuit over fees due the licensee, was motivated

by financial gain; and . . . Respondent was personally

responsible for t he transgression , " the undersigned finds only

one aggravating factor: Respondent ' s conduct was willful. The

lawsuit ended in a draw, and there was no credible testimony as

to any financial gain made by Respondent.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon consideration of th e facts found and the conclusions

of law reached, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services

enter a f inal o rder finding Respondent guilty of violating

sections 626.611(13), 626.621(12), and 626.8651 and rule 69B -

220.051(3)(a) and suspendi ng his license for seven (7) months.

DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January , 2012 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LYNNE A. QUIMBY - PENNOCK

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 30th day of January , 2012 .

ENDNOTES

1/ The Administrative Complaint does not specify which

codification of the Florida Statutes is being charged. In this

instance, the conduct is alleged to have occurred, in large

part, between March 2010 through August 2010, making the

relevant statutes Flo rida Statutes (2009) and for a very short

period Florida Statutes (2010). However, a review of the

language of the 2009 and 2010 statutes indicates that the

relevant subsections, specifically sections 626.611,

626.621(12), 626.681, 626.691, 626.8641, and 626.692, have not

been changed in any material way. Accordingly, all references

are to the 2010 statutory version unless otherwise indicated.

2/ The distance between Pensacola, Florida, and the closest

hearing location was greater than 100 miles. It is also noted

that South Carolina is more than 100 miles from Tallahassee.

3/ The distance between Gainesville, Florida, and either hearing

location (Orlando or Tallahassee) was greater than 100 miles.

4/ Respondent submitted three documents including: a Florida

attorney general advisory opinion, AGO 93 - 64, with a subject

title: Arrest powers of auxiliary law enforcement officers; a

Professional Ethics Opinion of the Florida Bar, Opinion 07 - 2;

and a copy of the Supreme Court opinion in Jones v . Chiles , 638

So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1994).

5/ January 16, 2012 , was a legal holiday ; thus, the PROs were

due no later than the close of business on Tuesday, January 17,

2012.

6/ A public adjuster apprentice must be licensed by the

Department of Financial Services. The apprentice must work with

a licensed and appointed public adjuster for 12 months and must

be in full compliance with chapter 626. An apprentice has the

same auth ority as a licensed public adjuster except they cannot

execute contracts for the services of a public adjuster or

public adjusting firm , and they cannot solicit contracts for the

services except under the direct supervision and guidance of the

supervisory public adjuster. By operation of law, once an

apprentice reaches the requisite hours of supervision and so

notifies the Department, the apprentice status is removed, and

the individual is a public adjuster.

7/ The deterioration of the professional relat ionship led to a

small claims case filed by Respondent against Ms. Frost,

alleging her liability under one of the executed contracts.

However, the Final Judgment entered in that case " ordered and

adjudged that neither party shall recover from the other by this

action. " Further, it is noted that the Administrative Complaint

did not allege this small claims action.

8/ Respondent ' s Exhibit H, apparently printed out on May 15,

2011, contains a Department of Financial Services (copyright

2010) " Frequently Asked Questions " section dealing with the

Division of Agent and Agency Services. There are two questions

and answers that are relevant: " 9. Does the 31 - 20 Public

Adjuster Apprentice have to disclose that he is an apprentice to

the client? " and " 10. Doe s the supervising Public Adjuster ' s

name need to be on the Apprentice ' s Business Card? " The printed

answer to both is " No. "

9/ Although the Administrative Complaint notified Respondent

that Petitioner could look to sections 626.681 (administrative

fine in lieu of or in addition to suspension), 626.691

(probation), 626.692 (restitution) , and 626.9521 (penalties for

unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or

practices) for discipline (penalties) if a violation was found,

these sections a re not being considered and will not be

discussed.

COPIES FURNISHED :

David J. Busch, Esquire

Department of Financial Services

Division of Legal Services

612 Larson Building

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Dominick Belinchak

2772 Rode o Drive , Northeast

Palm Bay, Florida 32905 - 5424

Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk

Department of Financial Services

Division of Legal Services

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0390

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

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

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.