06-001929 Department Of Business And Professional Regulation vs. Benjamin Krick, D/B/A Bk And H Corporation Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, October 9, 2006.

Summary: Respondent is guilty of unlicensed contracting and unlicensed electrical contracting. Recommend $1,000 fine for each count, and $604.44 in investigative costs.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case Nos. 06 - 1929

) 06 - 1934

BENJAMIN KRICK, d/b/a BK AND H )

CORPORATION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A duly - noticed final hearing was held in th ese c ase s by

Administrative Law Judge T. Kent Wetherell, II, on July 27,

200 6 , in Naples , Florida , and by telephone on August 18, 2006.

APPEARANCES

For Peti tioner: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2202

For Respondent : Benjamin Krick, pro se

6025 English Oaks Lane

Naples, Florida 34119

ST ATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged

in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty is

appropriate.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Department of Business and Professional Regulation

(Department) alleged in separate Administrative Complaints dated

December 12, 2005, that Respondent performed unlicensed

contracting and unlicensed electrical contracting. Respondent

disputed the allegations i n the Administrative Complaints and

requested a hearing pursuant to Se ction 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes .

On May 26, 2006, t he Department referred th ese cases to the

Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the assignment of

an A dministrative L aw J udge to conduct the hearing requested by

Respondent . The referral was r e ceived by DOAH on May 30, 2006,

and the cases were consolidated by Order dated June 6, 2006.

The final h earing was schedul ed for July 27, 2006 , in

Naples . Respondent requested a continuance of the hearing i n a

letter dated June 27, 2006 . The request was opposed by the

Department and was denied by Order dated July 5, 2006.

Respondent renewed his request for a continuance at the

outset of the final hearing . The request was denied .

The final hearing commenced as scheduled on July 27, 2006,

but it was not concluded on that date. Consistent with the

procedure upheld in Malave v. Department of Health , 881 So. 2d

682 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), the record was left open to allow

Respondent to testify after the criminal case pending against

him based upon the conduct g iving rise to the Admi nistrative

Complaints was resolved . The final hearing reconvened by

telephone on August 18 , 2006, and was concluded on that date.

At the final hearing, the Department presented the

testimony of Robert Brown and Michael Ossorio . The Department 's

Exhibits 1 through 11 were received into evidence. Respondent

testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of

Kimberly Frye . Respondent's Exhibits R - 1, R - 2, and R - 3 were

received into evidence.

The one - volume Transcript of the fi nal hearing was filed on

September 15, 2006 . The parties were given 10 da ys from that

date to file pr oposed recommended orders (PROs) . The Department

filed a PRO on September 22 , 2006. Respondent did not file a

PRO. The Department’s PRO has been given due consideration.

A ll statutory references in this Recommended Order are to

the 2004 version of the Florida Statutes that was in effect at

the time of the conduct g iving rise t o the Administrative

Complaints, unless otherwise indicated.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent provides “handyman” services through BK and

H Corporation.

2. Respondent is not licensed by the Department as a

contractor or an electrical contractor, and his corporation is

not licensed by or registered with the Department in those

fields .

3. Respondent’s corporation has an occupational license

from Collier County. The classification listed on the license

is “handyman repair service (no contracting).”

4. The occupational license includes the notation “ H IGHLY

RESTRICTED” in bold type . The license also states that it “is

not a certification that the licensee is qualified” and that it

“does not permit the licensee to violate any existing regulatory

zoning laws of the state, county or cities nor does it exempt

the licensee from any other l icense or permits that may be

required by law. ”

5. On or about April 1 1, 2005, Respondent pr esented a

written “ E stimate” to Robert Brown for a variety of work that

Mr. Brown wanted done to his home. The E stimate was on the

letterhead of Respondent ’s cor poration .

6. Respondent testified that the E stimat e was not a

proposal for work to be performed, but rather was an itemized

list of the work that he and others hired by Mr. Brown had

already performed and that Mr. Brown had already paid for .

Respondent’ s testimony regarding the purpose of the E stimate was

not credible .

7. First, if, as Respondent claims, the E stimate was

intended to be an itemization of work that had already been

performed and that Mr. Brown had already paid for, there would

have been n o reason for Mr. Brown to pay additional mon ey to

Respondent after April 11, 2005, as he did ( see Finding s of Fact

12 and 13 ), and there would also have been no reason for

Mr. Brown to execute a power of attorney after that date to give

Respondent authorit y to “pull” building permits on Mr. Brown’s

behalf ( see Finding s of Fact 15 and 16 ).

8. Second, Respondent’s characterization of the E stimate

is inconsistent with that of his fiancé e , Kimberly Frye, who

credibly testified that she prepared the document “b ased on some

handwritten notes after Mr. Brown and [Respondent] first

initiated [sic] at the home, and they made a list of items that

Mr. Brown solicited from [Respondent] to do services.” 1

9. The more persuasive evidence clearly and convincingly

establis hes that the E stimate was a proposal by Respondent to

perform the work listed on the E stimate at Mr. Brown’s home for

compensation .

10. The work listed on the E stimate included electrical

work ( e.g. , installation of a 200 Amp service outlet box and two

li ghts in the front yard ) ; structural work ( e.g. , repairs to

Mr. Brown’s roof and the removal and replacement of a pool

deck ) ; and other miscellaneous remodeling work inside and around

Mr. Brown’s home.

11. The price listed on the E stimate was $8,500 . That

amount did not include the cost of materials, which according to

the E stimate, were to be paid for by Mr. Brown.

12. On April 25, 2005, Mr. Brown paid Respondent $2,000 in

cash “toward labor” and $500 in cash “toward materials.”

Mr. Brown paid Responde nt an additional $2,000 in cash on

May 15, 2005, and another $2,000 by check on June 16, 2005 .

13. Respondent acknowledged receiving $6,000 from

Mr. Brown related to the work lis ted on the E stimate. 2

14. Respondent claimed that he was only ser ving as a

conduit for the money and that he paid the money to other people

that Mr. Brown had hired to perform work on his home at the same

time Respondent was working there. Respondent did not present

any evidence to corrobor ate this self - serving testimony, and i t

i s not found credible.

15. On April 25, 2005, Mr. Brown executed a document

titled “Specific Powe r of Attorney for Collier Count y and City

of Naples.” The document purports to give Respondent “power of

[Mr. Brown’s] signature for any and all necessary permits,

inspections and permit pick up” related to the work on

Mr. Brown’s home.

16. According to Respondent, the document was prepared and

given to him by Mr. Brown so that he could “pull” owner - builder

permits from the Collier County and/or the City of Naples on

Mr. Brown’s behalf.

17. An owner - builder permit allows the work to be

performed by or under the direct onsite supervision of the owner

of the building. It does not allow the work to be delegated by

the owner (through a power of attorney or o therwise) to an

unlicensed contractor, such as Respondent.

18. Mr. Brown tes tified that he asked Respondent whether

he was a licensed general contractor and Respondent told h im

that he was. Respondent testified that he told Mr. Brown on

several occasion s that he was not a licensed contractor.

Respondent’s testimony was corroborated by Ms. Frye.

19. Mr. Brown’s testimony on this issue was not credible,

and it is more likely than not based upon the totality of the

circumstances -- cash payments, preparat ion of the power of

attorney, Mr. Brown’s overall demeanor while testifying, etc. --

that Mr. Brown knew , or had reason to believe , that Respondent

was not a licensed contractor.

20. Respondent testified that the only work that he

personally performed at Mr. Brown’s house was the installation

of flooring, drywall, and closet doors. He claimed tha t the

other work listed on the E stimate , including the electrical

work, was performed by other persons hired by Mr. Brown .

21. Respondent denied that he was resp onsible for

supervising the other persons that he contends were working on

Mr. Brown’s home, although he testified that Mr. Brown gave him

money to pay those workers. Respondent did not identify any of

the other workers who, according to him, performed wo rk on

Mr. Brown’s home and that he allegedly paid on Mr. Brown’s

behalf.

22. Mr. Brown was at work while Respondent was working on

his home. He did not provide direct on - site supervision of

Respondent .

23. Mr. Brown did not observe other persons working with

Respondent on his home, except for one occasion that Respondent

had a “helper” with him. The identity of that person, and the

work that he or she performed , is unknown.

24. Mr. Brown did not personally see Respondent performing

all of the work list ed on the E stimate. He did, however, see

Respondent working on the water heater , an electr ical switch in

the laundry room, and the ceiling fans.

25. Respondent’s testimony regarding the limited scope of

the work that he performed on Mr. Brown’s home was not credible

or persuasive, and the totality of the evidence clearly and

convincingly establ ishes that Respondent offered to perform and

did perform contracting and electrical contracting work at

Mr. Brown’s home.

26. At some point after Respondent stopp ed working at

Mr. Brown’s home , Mr. Brown was advised by an electrical

contractor that some of the electrical work needed to be redone

because it posed a fire risk. Mr. Brown had the work redone by

a n electrical contractor, which cost him $2,400. He was also

require d to pay $400 to Florida Power and Light for some reason.

27. Thereafter, Mr. Brown filed complaints against

Respondent with the Department and with Collier County.

28. After investigating the complaints, Collier County

issued two citations t o Respondent and imposed fines totaling

$900. The fine s were not based upon the performance of

unlicensed contracting or elect rical contracting, but rather

were based upon Respondent advertising his a bility to provide

those services through the Estimate .

29. Respondent did not contest the fines imposed by

Collier County. He paid the fines in full.

30. The Department provided its investigative file related

to this incident to the State Attorney’s Office (SAO) in Collier

County , as it was required to do by Section 455.2277, Florida

Statutes.

31. The SAO makes the decision whether to file criminal

charges against an individual for unlicensed contracting . The

Department is not involved in that decision.

32. The SAO brought criminal charges against Respon dent

for the unlicensed contracting that he performe d at Mr. Brown’s

ho me , but t he case was “nol prossed” by the SAO.

33. Respondent is in the process of applying for a general

contractor’s license from the Construction Industry Licensing

Board. He testi fied that he took and passed the licensing exam

on August 16, 2006.

34. The Department incurred investigative costs of $296.99

related to Complaint No. 2005 - 042280, which is DOAH Case No.

06 - 1929.

35. The Department incurred investigative costs of $307. 45

related to Complaint No. 2005 - 042281, which is DOAH Case No.

06 - 1934.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Jurisdiction and Burden of Proof

36. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject

matter of this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569 and

1 20.57(1 ), F lorida Statutes (200 6 ) .

37. The Department has the burden to prove the allegations

in the Administrative Complaint s against Respondent by clear and

convincing evide nce. See Dept. of Banking & Finance v. Osborne,

Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996 ).

38. The clear and convincing evidence standard requires

t hat the evidence “ must be of such 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 establis hed.” In re Davey , 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994).

39. The Department is not barred from prosecuting the

Administrative Complaints against Respondent as a result of the

fines imposed by Collier County or the criminal charges that

were “nol prossed” by the SAO. See , e.g. , § 489.13(7), Fla.

Stat. (explaining that the remedies set forth in Section 489.13,

Florida Statutes, are not exclusive and may be imposed in

addition to other penalties authorized by law).

B. Unlicensed Contracting (DOAH Case No. 06 - 1 929)

(1) Violation

40. Contracting is regulated under Part I of Chapter 489,

Florida Statutes. See §§ 489.101 - .146, Fla. Stat.

41. “Contractor” is defined as:

the person who . . . for compensation,

undertakes to, submits a bid to, or does

himself or he rself or by others construct,

repair, alter, remodel, add to, demolish,

subtract from, or improve any building or

structure, including related improvements to

real estate, for others or for resale to

others . . . .

§ 489.105(3), Fla. Stat.

42. “Contract ing” is defined to mean:

engaging in business as a contractor and

includes, but is not limited to, performance

of any of the acts as set forth in

subsection (3) which define types of

contractors. The attempted sale of

contracting services and the negotiat ion or

bid for a contract on these services also

constitutes contracting. . . . .

§ 489.105 (6), Fla. Stat.

43 . Section 489.103, Florida Statutes, exempts certain

contracting activities from regulation. None of those

exemptions apply to Respondent ’s wor k at Mr. Brown’s home .

44 . The exemption referenced by R espondent in his

testimony 3 is not applicable because each item of work on the

Estimate was part of a contract that exceede d $1,000 , and

because the work involved was not “of a casual, minor, or

inco nsequential nature” because it involved structural work

( e. g. , roofing) and life - safety matters ( e . g . , electrical work).

See § 489.103(9)(a), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 61G4 -

12.0 1 1(2).

45 . Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, provides that

no pe rson shall:

[e] ngage in the business or act in the

capacity of a contractor or advertise

himself or herself or a business

organization as available to engage in the

business or act in the capacity of a

contractor without being duly registered or

certified or having a certificate of

authority[.]

46. Additionally, Section 489.13 (1) , Florida Statutes ,

provides that:

[a] ny person performing an activity

requiring licensure under this part as a

construction contractor is guilty of

unlicensed contracting if he o r she does not

hold a valid active certificate or

registration authorizing him or her to

perform such activity, regardless of whether

he or she holds a local construction

contractor license or local certificate of

competency. . . . .

47 . T he evidence cl early and convincingly establishes that

Respondent is not licensed as a contractor; that the work he

proposed to do and that he did at Mr. Brown’s home meets the

definition of “contracting”; that he was compensated for his

work on Mr. Brown’s home; and tha t the contracting work he

performed i s not exempt from regulation under Part I of Chapter

489, Florida Statutes.

48 . Therefore, the Department met its burden to prove that

Respondent is guilty of unlicensed cont racting in violation of

Sections 489.127(1)( f) and 489.13, Florida Statutes.

(2) Amount of Fine

49 . T he Department is generally authorized to impose an

administrative fine “not to exceed $5,000 per incident” for

unlicensed activity. See § 455.228(1), Fla. Stat.

50 . However, with respect to unlic ensed contracting under

Part I of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes , the Department is

authorized to impose an administrative fine of “up to $10,000.”

See § 489.13(3), Fla. Stat.

51 . The Department is seeking a fine of $10,000 in this

case for Respondent’s unlicensed contracting. See Department’s

PRO, at 7.

52 . The Department has not adopted guidelines to be used

in determining the appropriate fine within the range established

by Section 489.13, Florida Statutes, nor has it enumerated the

aggravating and m itigating circumstances that are to be

considered in determining the appropriate fine. See § 455.2273,

Fla. Stat. (requiring the Department to adopt disciplinary

guidelines which establish penalty ranges and designate

aggravating and mitigating circumstan ces and requiring the

Administrative Law Judge to follow the guidelines in the penalty

recommendation included in the Recommended Order).

53 . In a recent case, a $1,000 penalty was recommended for

unlicensed contracting where it was the Respondent’s first

offense and no aggravating circumstances were present. See

Dep t . of Business & Professional Reg . v. Antoney Manning d/b/a

Manning Builders , Case No. 06 - 0601 , 2006 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear.

LEXIS 286 (DOAH June 28, 2006). 4

54 . A fine of $ 1,0 00 for Respondent’ s unlicensed

contracting work is reasonable under the circumstances of this

case. First, there is no evidence that the contracting work

done by Respondent was defective, as was the case with the

electri cal contracting work. Second, a $900 fine has alread y

been imposed on Respondent as a result of this incident. Third,

since the incident, Respondent has made a diligent effort to

become a licensed contractor.

55 . The Department is authorized to “waive up to one - half

of any fine imposed if the unlicensed c ontractor complies with

certification or registration within 1 year after imposition of

the fine under this subsection.” § 489.13(3), Fla. Stat. It

should do so in this case.

(3) Investigative Costs

56 . Section 489.13(3), Florida Statutes, authorizes t he

Department to “assess reasonable investigative and legal costs

for prosecution of the violation against the unlicensed

contractor” in a ddition to any fine imposed. See also §

455.228(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (authorizing the Department to

“recover costs of in vestigation” in addition to any fine

imposed).

57 . The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that

the Department incurred $296.99 in investigative costs related

to DOAH Case No. 06 - 1929. No prosecution costs were sought.

C. Unlicensed Electrical Contracting

(DOAH Case No. 06 - 1934)

(1) Violation

58 . Electrical contracting is regulated under Part II of

Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. See §§ 489.501 - .538, Fla. Stat.

59 . Section 489.505, Florida Statutes, defines

“ contracting,” “contractor,” and “electrical contractor” as

follows:

(9) "Contracting" means, except where

exempted in this part, engaging in business

as a contractor or performing electrical . .

. work for compensation . . . . The

attempted sale of contracting services and

the negot iation or bid for a contract on

these services also constitutes contracting.

. . . .

(10) "Contractor" means a person who is

qualified to engage in the business of

electrical . . . contracting pursuant to a

certificate or registration issued by the

de partment.

* * *

(12) “Electrical contractor” . . . means

a person who conducts business in the

electrical trade field and who has the

experience, knowledge, and skill to install,

repair, alter, add to, or design, in

compliance with law, electrical wiring,

fixtures, appliances, apparatus, raceways,

conduit, or any part thereof, which

generates, transmits, transforms, or

utilizes electrical energy in any form,

including the electrical installations and

systems within plants and substations, all

in co mpliance with applicable plans,

specifications, codes, laws, and

regulations. The term means any person,

firm, or corporation that engages in the

business of electrical contracting under an

express or implied contract; or that

undertakes, offers to undert ake, purports to

have the capacity to undertake, or submits a

bid to engage in the business of electrical

contracting; or that does itself or by or

through others engage in the business of

electrical contracting.

§ 489.505(9), (10), (12), Fla. Stat.

60 . Section 489.503, Florida Statutes, exempts certain

electrical contracting activities from regulation. None of

those exemptions apply to Respondent ’s work at Mr. Brown’s home .

61 . Section 489.531, Florida Statutes, provides in

pertinent part:

(1) A p erson may not:

(a) Practice contracting unless the

person is certified or registered;

(b) . . . advertise himself or herself or

a business organization as available to

practice electrical . . . contracting, when

the person is not then the holder o f a valid

certification or registration issued

pursuant to this part;

* * *

§ 489.531(1)(a), (b), Fla. Stat.

62 . A person who violates these prohibition s is subject to

criminal penalties. See § 489.531(3), Fla. Stat.

63 . Part II of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, does not

provide specific administrative penalties for unlicensed

electrical contracting. Compare § 489.13, Florida Statutes

(providing a specific administrative fine for unlicensed

contracting under Part I of Chapter 489, Florida Statut es).

64 . Th us, th e authority for imposition of an

administrative fine for unlicensed electrical contracting is

Section 455.228, Florida Statutes. Subsection (1) of that

statute provides in pertinent part:

When the department has probable cause to

believe that any person not licensed by the

department . . . has violated . . . any

statute that relates to the practice of a

profession regulated by the department, or

any rule adopted pursuant thereto, the

department may . . . impose an

administrative penalty n ot to exceed $5,000

per incident pursuant to the provisions of

chapter 120 . . . .

§ 455.228(1), Fla. Stat.

65 . T he evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that

Respondent is not licensed as an electrica l contractor; that the

work he proposed to d o and that he did at Mr. Brown’s home

i ncluded electrical contracting, as defined by statute ; that

Respondent was compensated for his work on Mr. Brown’s home; and

that the electrical c ontracting work performed by Respondent is

not exempt from regulation u nder Part II of Chapter 489, Florida

Statutes.

66 . Therefore, the Department met its burden to prove that

Respondent is guilty of unlicensed contracting in violation of

Section s 455.228 and 489.531, Florida Statutes.

(2) Amount of Fine

67 . S ection 455. 228(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes the

Department to impose an administrative fine “not to exceed

$5,000.”

68 . The Department is seeking a fine of $ 5,000 in this

case for Respondent’s unlicensed electrical contracting . See

Department’s PRO, at 7.

69 . The Department has not adopted guidelines to be used

in determining the appropriate fine within the range established

by Section 4 55.228 , Florida Statutes, nor has it enumerated the

a ggravating and mitigating circumstances that are to be

considered in de termining the appropriate fine. See § 455.2273,

Fla. Stat. (requiring the Department to adopt disciplinary

guidelines which establish penalty ranges and designate

aggravating and mitigating circumstances and requiring the

Administrative Law Judge to follo w the guidelines in the penalty

recommendation included in the Recommended Order).

70 . In a recent case, a $1,000 fine was imposed for

unlicensed electrical contracting where it was the Respondent’s

first offense and no aggravating circumstances were pres ent.

See Dept. of Business & Professional Reg. v. Thomas Joseph

Pyche, Sr., d/b/a Sundance Home Remodeling, Inc . , Case No.

06 - 1145 (DOAH July 27, 2006 ; DBPR Sep. 27, 2006 ).

71 . A $1, 0 00 fine for Respondent’s unlicensed electrical

contracting work is r easonable under the circumstances of this

case, taking into account the aggravating circumstance s ( e.g. ,

the electrical work performed by Respondent was defective and

cost Mr. Brown $2, 8 00 to remedy ) and the mitigating

circumstances ( e.g. , this was Respond ent’s first offense and he

has already been fined $900 by Collier County for this incident)

established by the evidence .

(3) Investigative Costs

72 . Section 455.228(3)(c) , Florida Statutes, authorizes

the Department to “recover costs of investigation” in addition

to any fine imposed.

73 . The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that

the Department incurred $307.45 in investigative costs related

to DOAH Case No. 06 - 1934.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing F indings of F act and C onclusions

of L aw, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and

Professional Regu lation issue a final order that :

1 . finds Respondent guilty of unlicensed contracting in

violation of Section s 489.127(1)(f) and 489.13, Florida

Statutes , and imposes an administ rative fine of $ 1,0 0 0, with

$ 500 payable upon entry of t he final order and the other $ 500

payable one year from that date unless Respondent provides

satisfactory evidence to the Department that he obtained a state

contractor’s license within that period;

2. finds Respondent guilty of unlicensed electrical

contracting in violation of Sections 455.228 and 455.531,

Florida Statutes , and imposes an administrative fine of $ 1,0 00 ;

and

3. requir es Respondent to pay the Department’s

investigative costs of $604.4 4.

DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October , 200 6 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tal lahassee, 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 9th day of October , 2006 .

ENDNOTES

1 / Transcript, at 60.

2 / Transcript, at 91.

3 / Transcript, at 80 (referring to Section 489.103(9), Florida

Statutes).

4 / Compare Dept. of Business & Professional Reg. v. Domenick

Spallina d/b/a New Look Contracting, Inc. , Case No. 06 - 1949,

2006 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 440 (DOAH Sep. 13, 2006)

(recommending a $10,000 fine); Dept. of Business & Professional

Reg. v. Douglas Claiborne d/b/a Claiborne Home Improvement and

Maintnance Service , Case No. 06 - 1427, 2006 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear.

LEXIS 389 (DOAH A ug. 11, 2006) (recommending a $5,000 fine).

COPIES FURNISHED :

Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer

Office of the General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0792

Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0792

Brian A. Higgins, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallah assee, Florida 32399 - 2202

Benjamin Krick

BK & H Corporation

6025 English Oaks Lane

Naples, Florida 34119

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Ord er. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.