06-004543PL Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Division Of Real Estate vs. Francis Anthony Severino, Sr., P.A. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, March 30, 2007.

Summary: Respondent dealt dishonestly when he sought payment for services claimed.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 0 6 - 4543 PL

)

F RANCIS ANTHONY SEVERINO, SR., )

P.A. , )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Notice was provided and on February 8, 200 7 , a formal

hearing was held in this case . The authority for conducting the

hearing is set forth in Section s 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes (2006 ). The hearing commenced at 10: 15 a.m. , in the

Volusia County Courthouse, Hearing Room 3, Room 314, 101 North

Al a bama Avenue, Deland , Florida. Charles C. Adams,

Administrative Law Judge, conducted the hearing.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: S hiv N . Persaud , Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Hurston Building, North Tower

400 West Robinson Street, Suite N 801

Orla ndo , Florida 32 801

For Respondent: Timothy M. Goan, Esquire

Timothy M. Goan, P.A.

1 Hargrove Grade, Suite 2

Palm Coast , Florida 32 137

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Should discipline be imposed against Respondent's Florida

real estate sales associate license?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On October 17, 200 6, FDBPR Case No. 20050012304, Petitioner

brought an Amended A dministrative C omplaint against Respondent.

The Amended Admini strative Complaint was based upon these

allegations:

4. In and around September 2004, Respondent

was the sales associate for Joaquin Torres

and Marina [sic] Hopson (Torres) in the

closing on the purchase and sale of real

property located at 98 Ulysses T rail, Palm

Coast, Florida, receiving a co mmission for

this transaction. . . .

5. On or about August 6, 2004, Joaquin

Torres and Marina [sic] Hopson (Torres)

entered into a purchase and sale agreement

for the real property located at 9 Rockwell

Lane, P alm Coast, Florida. A copy of this

agreement and accompanying documents is [sic]

attached hereto and incorporated as

Administrative Complaint Exhibit 2.

6. Respondent was the sales associate on the

above transaction.

7. The closing did not occu r on the above

transaction.

8. Respondent therea fter demanded a

$6,000.00 from Joaquin Torres and Marina

[sic] Hopson (Torres).

9. On or about October 12, 2004, Respondent

received a payment for the services of real

estate in the amount of $6,000.0 0, payable by

Joaquin Torres and Marina [sic] Hopson

(Torres), check number 483, and drawn on

Cypress Bank. . . .

COUNT I

Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is

guilty of having co llected any money in

connection with any real estate brokerage

transac tion except in the name of the

employer and with the express consent of the

employer and is guilty of commencing or

maintaining any action for a commission or

compensation against any person except his

registered employer in violation of Section

475.42(1)( d), Florida Statutes and,

therefore, in violation of Section

475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.

COUNT II

Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is

guilty of dishonest dealing by trick, scheme

or device, culpable negligence, or breach of

trust in any busi ness tr ansaction in

violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida

Statutes.

COUNT III

Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is

guilty of exercising influence on the client

for the purpose of financial gain of the

licensee or a third party in violation of

S ection 455.227(1)(n), Florida Statutes.

In response to the Amended Administrative Complaint by

executing an election of rights form, Respondent disputed

paragraphs 4, 8, and 9, of the factual allegations, thereby

requesting a hearing pur suant to Section 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes (2006). The election of rights form was executed on

November 3, 2006.

Petitioner forwarded the case to the Division of

Administrative Hearings (DOAH), in the person of Robert Cohen,

Director and Chief Judge, for a formal proceeding pursuant to

Sections 120.59 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2006). The case

was filed on November 13, 2006 , and assigned as DOAH Case No. 06 -

4543PL. A Notice of Hearing was provided and the case heard on

the aforementioned date.

Petitioner presented James Pierce, Marine Torres, and Galina

Tru tina - Demchuk as its witnesses. Petitioner's E xhibits numbered

1 through 11 were admitted . Respondent presented Marine Torres

as his witness and testified in his own defense. Respondent's

Exhibits numbered 1 through 10 were admitted. Consistent with a

response to an order of prehearing instructions , the parties

entered into a stipulation of facts acknowledging those facts set

out in Paragraphs 1 through 3 and 5 through 7 to the Amended

Adm inistrative Complaint. The stipulated facts are found in the

findings of fact to this Recommended Order.

On February 21, 2007, a hearing transcript was filed. On

February 26, 2007, Respondent filed a proposed recommended order.

On February 27, 2007, P etitioner filed a proposed recommended

order. The proposed recommended orders have been considered in

preparing the Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Stipulated Facts :

1. Petitioner is a state government licensing and

regulatory agency charged wit h the responsibility and duty to

prosecute A dministrative C omplaints pursuant to the laws of the

State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165 and C hapters 120,

455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant

thereto.

2. Respondent is and was at all times material hereto a

licensed Florida real estate sales associate, issued license

numb er 30 15177 , in accordance with Chapter 475 of the Florida

Statutes.

3. The last license issued w as as a sales associate with

Diane Lynne Severino, P . O. Box 354491, Palm Coast , Florida

321 35 - 4991.

4. On or about August 6, 2004, Joaquin Torres and Marine

Hopson (Torres) entered into a p urchase and sale agreement for

t he real property located at 9 Rockwell Lane, Palm Coast,

Flori da.

5. Respon dent was the sales associate on the abo ve

transaction.

6. The closing did not occur on the above transaction.

Additional Facts :

7 . According to Petitioner's records , the following

constitutes the history of Respondent's sales associate license:

Fr ancis Anthony Severino, Sr., Sales

Associate, License #SL - 3015177

From January 1, 2004 to October 4, 2004, he

was a sales associate affiliated with Team

Real Estate, Inc. doing business as Realty

Executives Fun Coast Team license number CQ

1008966, a brok erage corporation located at

185 Cypress Point Parkway, suite 4, Palm

Coast, Florida 32164;

From October 4, 2004 to March 31, 2005 said

licensee was invalid due to no employing

broker or no filing of a request to remain a

sales associate under another bro ker.

From March 31, 2005 to the Present he is a

sales associate affiliated with Diane Lynne

Severino license number BK 666867, a

brokerage sole proprietorship doing business

as Severino Realty located at 170 North Beach

Street, Daytona Beach, Florida 32 114.

Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1.

8 . In his testimony Respondent indicated that his

affiliation with Team Real Estate, Inc. ended on September 13,

2004, when he became inactive with that firm. Respondent's

Exhibit numbered 2 is a copy of a DB PR RE - 20 50 - 1 R eq uest for

C hange of S tatus form intended to establish the separation from

that business. Mark Vost the real estate broker for Team Real

Estate , Inc. filled out , signed , and sent it in. It has a fax

stamp of September 13, 2004. The request by Mark Vost to

inactivate Respondent as a sales associate with Team Real Estate,

Inc. , through the form DBPR RE - 2050 , was dated September 13,

2004, and officially received by the Department of Business and

Professional Regulation on October 4, 2004.

9. More significantly , Respondent testified that he filled

out a DBPR RE - 2050 - 1 a R equest for C hange of S tatus to be

affiliated with Severino Realty whose broker was Diane L.

Severino. At that time , Ms. Severino was Respondent's wife. A

copy of the R equest for C hange of S tatus is found as Respondent's

Exhibit numbered 3. It is dated September 13, 2004 . Unlike

Respondent 's Exhibit numbered 2, Respondent 's Exhibit numbered 3

does not have a fax stamp showing the date of transmission.

Respondent indicated th at he personally went to the fax machine

in the office of Severino Realty and transferred his license to

Petitioner by fax machine. On September 13, 2004, the date

reflected on the form, Petitioner did not confirm the fax receipt

by Petitioner . Responden t's explanation is that the fax machine

upon which the transfer to Severino Realty of his sales associate

license "did not have a receipt that prints out." Respondent in

his testimony stated " . . . When I dialed the phone I got the

dial tone, it rang, it answered, it made that beeping noise, and

it never came and said anything that it did not go through and

that it was an error. So I just assumed that it was accepted,

because normally when a fax machine answers you, that beeping

sound and it means that i t is acknowledged and if it does not

answer it’s a busy signal and you try dialing again." According

to Respondent , f rom that point forward h e assumed that his sales

associate license had been transferred from Team Real Estate,

Inc. to Severino Realty. I t had not. Petitioner had evidence of

the change of status of Respondent's license to inactive with

T eam Real Estate , Inc. It did not have evidence of the

activation of Respondent's sales associates license with Severino

Realty, even should one accept Re spondent's testimony that he

tried to fax the DBPR RE - 2050 - 1 form designating a change in his

broker to Diane L. Severino of Severino Realty on September 13,

2004.

10 . U ltimately the portrayal of Respondent's license

history established in Petitioner 's Exhibit numbered 1 is

accepted where Respondent is recognized as being affiliated with

Severino Realty commencing March 31, 2005.

1 1. Respondent was involved with the Torres in a number of

real estate transactions. One involved a purchase of a reside nce

at 98 Ulysses Tr a il in Palm Coast, Florida, through a contract

between Joaquine Torres and Holiday Builders, Inc. On July 21,

2004, the parties signed the contract. The total purchase price

was $180,190.00. Respondent was named in the S ales/ F orms FH A - V A -

S td . in th e p or tion of the forms des cribed as " R ealtor Referral"

and Realty E xecutive is written next to his name . T his is

understood to refer to Team Real Estate, Inc. where Respondent

was employed as a sales associate. The real estate commission

i nvolved with the purchase was 6 percent. Petitioner's Exhibit

numbered 2. The real estate commission due R ealty E xecutives

(Team Real Estate , Inc.) was $8,129.00 in Respondent's name.

Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2. On September 24, 2004, when the

pur chase was settled at clos ing, the $8,1029.00 was paid, i n

relation to the property at 98 Ulysses Trail. Petitioner's

Exhibit n umbered 3 .

1 2 . On September 2 4, 2004, the Torres as seller , with

Severino Realty being reflected as the broker sig ned an Exclus ive

R ight of S ale L isting A greement for the 98 Ulysses Trail

property. The price reflected was $229,800.00 with a broker's

commission of 5.5 percent. The listing agreement bore one

signature, that of the seller. The form did not name the

authorized list ing associate or broker. It referred to the

brokerage firm name as Severino Realty. Petitioner's Exhibit

numbered 4.

1 3 . Earlier, Mr. Torres entered into a " S howcase H ome

P urchase C ompleted F ield M odel A greement " with Holiday Builders,

Inc. for a resi dence at 9 Rockwell Lane, Palm Coast, Florida. On

August 6, 2004, the parties signed the agreement. Petitioner 's

Exhibit numbered 5.

14 . On September 24, 2004 , an E xclusive Rights of S ale

L isting A greement form was pr e par ed b etween the Torres and

Sev erino Realty on 9 Rockwell Lane , listing the sales price as

$164,900.00. At the time , t he Torres did not own the home. The

brokerage commission wa s 5.5 percent. A seller ' s signature wa s

attached. No other signature wa s provided. No one was listed as

a ssociate or broker. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 6.

1 5 . The Torres' contract on 9 Rockwell Lane never close d

due to the inability of the Torres to provide sufficient funds to

conclude the purchase.

1 6 . On October 7, 2004, the Torres executed a P romissory

No te to pay Respondent $5,000.00 upon the first sale of homes at

98 Ulysses Trail, 9 Rockwell Lane and 14 Ethel Lane. The amount

was to be paid in 180 days from the date of the note payable at

PO Box 354491, Palm Coast, Florida 32135 or "at su ch other place

as payee or holder may specify in writing or in person."

Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 7.

1 7 . On October 7, 2004, Mark Vost, broker/manager for

Realty Executives F un Coast Team Real Estate, Inc. , wrote the

title company that would be han dling the closing on the

9 Rockwell Lane Property to advise that $5,000.00 of commission

should be credited to the buyer with the balance of $879.00 being

paid to Realty Executives the Fun Coast Team. Respondent's

Exhibit numbered 8. This coincide s with the settlement charges

in the settlement statement for the 9 Rockwell Lane property that

did not close on the anticipated date. October 12, 2004 , was the

scheduled closing date. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 9.

18 . After the Torres purchase of 9 Rockw ell Lane did not

close, Respondent telephoned Ms. Torres and said that she would

have to pay him $6,000 because of the percentage (commission) he

was losing. He made more than one call. Respondent told

Ms. Torres that the failure to close on the 9 Rockwe ll Lane

property was not his problem. Respondent told Ms. Torres that

she had to pay because she did not buy the property at 9 Rockwell

Lane, that he lost his time and lost his commission and that it

was her fault. Respondent told Ms. Torres to give him a check.

Eventually , Respondent came to the Torres home to get money from

the Torres that he said was due. Based upon the demand for

money , Ms. Torres wrote a check payable to Frank Severino in the

amount of $6,000.00 . T he face of the check stated the p urpose

for the check as " 9 Rockwell Lane. " The check was written on

October 12, 2004 , the date Respondent went to the Torres' home.

The payment was not intended as any form of gift or gratuity to

Respondent. Respondent deposited and cashed the check. A

replica of the check and its execution is found as Petitioner 's

Exhibit numbered 10.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1 9 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

proceeding in accordance with Section s 120.569, 120.57(1), and

45 5 . 225(5) , Florida Statutes (200 6 ).

20 . The Department of Business and Professional Regulation

licensed Respondent as a sales associate, l icense number 30 15177.

§ 475.181(1) Fla. Stat. (2006). Petitioner intends to impose

dis cipline upon that license for alleged violations set forth in

the Amended Administrative Complaint.

21 . In a disciplinary case Petitioner bears the burden of

proof to establish to allegations in the Amended Administrative

Complaint. That proof must b e by clear and convincing evidence.

See Department of Banking and Finance Division of Securities and

Investor Protection v. Osborne Stern and Co. , 670 So. 2d 932

(Fla. 1996) and Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

The term clear and convinc ing evidence is explained in the case

In re: Davey , 645 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1994), quoting with approval

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

22 . Recognizing the penal nature of this case , the

underlying statutes cited in the Amend ed Administrative Complaint

have been strictly construed. See State v. Pattishall , 99 Fla.

296 and 126 So. 147 (Fla. 1930), and Lester v. Department of

Professional and Occupational Regulation, State Board of Medical

Examiners , 348 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DC A 1977).

23 . To decide the outcome in this case certain definitions

in effect when the events described took place are necessary .

Section 475.01, Florida Statutes (2004) , state s :

(1) As used in this part:

(a) 'Broker' means a person who, for

an other, and for a compensation or valuable

consideration directly or indirectly paid or

promised, expressly or impliedly, or with an

intent to collect or receive a compensation

or valuable consideration therefor,

appraises, auctions, sells, exchanges, buys,

rents, or offers, attempts or agrees to

appraise, auction, or negotiate the sale,

exchange, purchase, or rental of business

enterprises or business opportunities or any

real property or any interest in or

concerning the same, including mineral rights

or l eases, or who advertises or holds out to

the public by any oral or printed

solicitation or representation that she or he

is engaged in the business of appraising,

auctioning, buying, selling, exchanging,

leasing, or renting business enterprises or

business opportunities or real property of

others or interests therein, including

mineral rights, or who takes any part in the

procuring of sellers, purchasers, lessors, or

lessees of business enterprises or business

opportunities or the real property of

another, or leases, or interest therein,

including mineral rights, or who directs or

assists in the procuring of prospects or in

the negotiation or closing of any transaction

which does, or is calculated to, result in a

sale, exchange, or leasing thereof, and who

r eceives, expects, or is promised any

compensation or valuable consideration,

directly or indirectly therefor; and all

persons who advertise rental property

information or lists. A broker renders a

professional service and is a professional

within the mean ing of s. 95.11 (4)(a). Where

the term "appraise" or "appraising" appears

in the definition of the term "br oker," it

specifical ly excludes those appraisal

services which must be performed only by a

state - licensed or state - certified appraiser,

and those appraisal services which may be

performed by a registered trainee appraiser

as defined in part II. The term "broker"

also include s any person who is a general

partner, officer, or director of a

partnership or corporation which acts as a

broker. The term "broker" also includes any

person or entity who undertakes to list or

sell one or more timeshare periods per year

in one or more t imeshare plans on behalf of

any number of persons, exc ept as provided in

ss. 475.011 and 721.20.

* * *

( c) ' Commission ' means the Florida Real

Estate Commission.

(d) ' Customer ' means a member of the public

who is or may be a buyer or seller of real

property and may or may not be represented by

a real estate licensee in an authorized

brokerage relationship.

(e) ' Department ' means the Department of

Business and Professional Regulation.

* * *

(i) ' Real property' or 'real estate' means

any interest or estate in land and any

interest in business enterprises or business

opportunities, including any assignment,

leasehold, subleasehold, or mineral right;

however, the term does not include any

cemetery lo t or right of burial in any

cemetery; nor does the term include the

renting of a mobile home lot or recreational

vehicle lot in a mobile home park or travel

park.

(j) ' Sales associate ' means a person who

performs any act specified in the definition

of ' broker, ' but who performs such act under

the direction, control, or management of

another person. A sales associate renders a

professional service and is a professional

within the meaning of s. 95.11 ( 4)(a).

* * *

(m) 'Voluntarily inactive status' means the

licensure status that results when a licensee

has applied to the department to be placed on

ina ctive status and has paid the fee

prescribed by rule.

(2) The terms 'employ,' 'employment,'

'employer,' and 'employee,' when used in this

chapter and in rules adopted pursuant thereto

to describe the relationship between a broker

and a sales associate, include an independent

contractor relationship when such

relationship is intended by and established

between a broker and a sales associate. The

existence of such relationship shall not

relieve either the broker or the sales

associate of her or his duties, obligations,

or responsibilities under this chapter.

24 . Count I to the Amended Administrative Complaint accuses

Respondent of violating S ection 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes

(2004), where it states in pertinent part:

(1) VIOLATIONS. --

* * *

(d) A sales associate may not collect any

money in connection with any real estate

brokerage transaction, whether as a

commission, deposit, payment, rental, or

otherwise, except in the name of the employer

and with the express consent o f the employer;

and no real estate sales associate, whether

the holder of a valid and current license or

not, shall commence or maintain any action

for a commission or compensation in

connection with a real estate brokerage

transaction against any person e xcept a

person registered as her or his employer at

the time the sales associate performed the

act or rendered the service for which the

commission or compensation is due.

25 . As a consequence of any violation related to Section

475.42(1)(d), Florida S tatutes (2004), Respondent is accused of

violating Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes , (2004) which

states:

(1) The commission may deny an application

for licensure, registration, or permit, or

renewal thereof; may place a licensee,

registrant, or permittee on probation; may

suspend a license, registration, or permit

for a period not exceeding 10 years; may

revoke a license, registration, or permit;

may impose an administrative fine not to

exceed $1,000 for each count or separate

offense; and may i ssue a reprimand, and any

or all of the foregoing, if it finds that the

licensee, registrant, permittee, or

applicant:

* * *

(e) Has violated any of the provisions of

this chapter or any lawful order or rule made

or issued under the provisions of this

chapter or chapter 455.

26 . Clear and convincing evidence has been presented to

show that Respondent 's collecting the $6,000.00 from Ms. Torres

was in connection with a real estate brokerage transaction for 9

Rockwell Lane in the interest of the Torres, constituting a

payment other than in the name of an employer and without the

express consent of an employer, action in connection with a real

estate brokerage transaction directed to someone other than the

employer.

2 7 . By virtue of the violation in relation to Section

475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2004), Respondent has also

violated Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2004).

28 . Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint

accuses Respondent of a violation of Section 475.25(1)(b),

Florida Statutes (2004), that would subject Respondent to

discipline if he:

(b) Has been guilty of fraud,

misrepresentation, concealment, false

promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing

by trick, scheme, or device, culpable

negligence, or breach of trust in any

business transaction in this state . . . .

29 . Clear and convincing evidence has been provided that

Respondent was engaged in dishonest dealings by a scheme or

device or breach of trust in association with the matters at

9 Rockw ell Lane and his demand, receipt , and cashing of the check

from Ms. Torres for the time and effort put forth in the

9 Rockwell Lane situation that did not go to closing. This was

dishonest dealing and a breach of trust i n a business transaction

in his dem and and collection of monies that he was not entitled

to receive.

30 . Count III of the Amended Administrative Complaint

accuses Respondent of a violation of Section 455.227(1)(n),

Florida Statutes (2004), which states:

(1) T he f ollowing acts shall co nstitute

grounds for which the disciplinary actions

specified in subsection (2) may be taken:

* * *

(n) Exercising influence on the . . .

client for the purpose of financial gain of

the licensee . . . .

3 1 . Clear and convin cing evidence has been provided to

prove that Respondent exercised influence on Ms. Torres for

financial gain in collecting the $6,000.00 from her in relation

to the 9 Rockwell Lane matter when he was not entitled to collect

money.

32 . In addition to th e disciplinary opportunities that have

been set out under Section 475.25(1), Florida Statutes (2004),

for violations of that chapter, discipline may be imposed for the

violations in association with Chapter 455 , Florida Statutes,

where at Section 455.22 7(2 ), Florida Statutes (2004). I t states:

(2) When the board, or the department when

there is no board, finds any person guilty of

the grounds set forth in subsection (1) or of

any grounds set forth in the applicable

practice act, including conduct consti tuting

a substantial violation of subsection (1) or

a violation of the applicable practice act

which occurred prior to obtaining a license,

it may enter an order imposing one or more of

the following penalties:

(a) Refusal to certify, or to certify wi th

restrictions, an application for a license.

(b) Suspension or permanent revocation of a

license.

(c) Restriction of practice.

(d) Imposition of an administrative fine not

to exceed $5,000 for each count or separate

offense.

(e) Issuance of a reprimand.

(f) Placement of the licensee on probation

for a period of time and subject to such

conditions as the board, or the department

when there is no board, may specify. Those

conditions may include, but are not limited

to, requiring the license e to undergo

treatment, attend continuing education

courses, submit to be reexamined, work under

the supervision of another licensee, or

satisfy any terms which are reasonably

tailored to the violations found.

(g) Corrective action.

3 3 . Florida Admini strative Code Rule 61J2 - 24.001 sets for th

guidelines for imposition of penalties associated with violations

that have been found. The punishment includes the possibility of

an administrative fine , as well as a range of punishment from

l icense suspension t o license revocation. A violation of Section

475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes , carries a recommended punishment

of revocation.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the

conclusion s of law reached , it is

RECOMMENDED:

Th at a final order be entered finding Respondent in

violation of Section s 455.227(1)(n) and 4 75.25(1)( b ) , (d) and

( e ), Florida Statutes ( 2004 ), and revoking Respondent 's sales

associate license. 1/

DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2 00 7 , in

Tallahass ee, Leon County, Florida.

S

CHARLES C. ADAMS

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 30 th day of March , 200 7

ENDNOTE

1 / Petitioner requested that Respondent be required to pay costs

associated with the pros ecution of this case. § 455.227(3), Fla.

Stat. (2004) No proof was offered concerning the cost amount. In

addition, Petitioner would not be entitled to collect the assessed

cost absent a final order finding against Respondent.

COPIES FURNISHED:

S. N. Persaud, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Hurston Building, North Tower

400 West Robinson Street, Suite N 801

Orlando, Florida 32801

Timothy M. Goan, Esquire

Timothy M. Goan, P.A.

1 Hargrove Grade, Suit e 2

Palm Coast, Florida 32137

Michael Martinez, Acting General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0792

Michael E. Murphy, Director

Division of Real Estate

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Hurston Building, North Tower

400 West Robinson Street, Suite N 802

Orlando, Florida 32801

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the righ t 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.