08-002394PL Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board vs. Danny Henley
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, August 20, 2008.

View Dockets  
Summary: License of Respondent, who abandoned project and failed to obtain final inspection, should be revoked.






20BOARD, )


23Petitioner, )


26vs. ) Case No. 08-2394PL





37Respondent, )



42Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case

53on July 23, 2008, in Stuart, Florida, before Administrative Law

63Judge Claude B. Arrington of the Division of Administrative

72Hearings (DOAH).


75For Petitioner: Brian P. Coats, Esquire

81Department of Business and

85Professional Regulation

87Northwood Centre

891940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42

95Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2022

98For Respondent: Danny Henley, p ro se

1051524 Bob Loftin Road

109Panama City, Florida 32405


117Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the

125Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should

134be imposed.


138On March 24, 2008, Petitioner filed an Administrative

146Complaint against Respondent, which alleged certain facts

153pertaining to Respondent’s dealings with a consumer named Ruth

162Schumacher and, based on those factual allegations, charged

170Respondent in four Counts with the violations that are at issue

181in this proceeding.

184Count I alleged that Respondent violated Section

191489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, 1 by having failed to provide

200written notice of the consumer’s rights under Florida

208Homeowners’ Construction Recovery Fund as required by Section

216489.1425(1), Florida Statutes.

219Count II alleged that Respondent violated Section

226489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by abandoning a construction

233project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as

244the contractor.

246Count III alleged that Respondent violated Section

253489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, by failing to obtain the

261appropriate permits and resulting inspections necessary to

268initiate and complete the subject project.

274Count IV alleged that Respondent violated Section

281489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by committing incompetence or

288mismanagement in the practice of contracting.

294Respondent timely requested a formal administrative

300hearing, the matter was duly referred to DOAH, and this

310proceeding followed.

312At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony

320of Andrew Bruhn (an employee of the Martin County, Florida,

330Building Department), and Jacqueline Macey (Ms. Schumacher’s

337daughter). Petitioner offered 13 sequentially-numbered

342Exhibits, each of which was admitted into evidence. Respondent

351appeared at the final hearing and cross-examined Petitioner’s

359witnesses. Respondent did not offer any exhibits and he

368presented no testimony.

371A Transcript of the proceeding was filed July 31, 2008.

381The deadline for the filing of post-hearing submittals was set

391for ten days following the filing of the transcript. Petitioner

401timely filed a Proposed Recommended Order (PRO), which has been

411duly-considered by the undersigned in the preparation of this

420Recommended Order. Respondent has not filed a PRO as of the

431entry of this Recommended Order.


4391. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent

448has been licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board

457(CILB) as a certified contractor and has held license CGC 13316.

4682. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Coastal

477Structures, LCC (Coastal Structures) has possessed a certificate

485of authority as a contractor qualified to do business in the

496State of Florida and has held license QB39088. At all times

507relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been the primary

516qualifying agent for Coastal Structures.

5213. At times relevant to this proceeding, Ruth Schumacher

530was the owner of a residence located in Martin County at

5412880 Southwest Brighton Way, Palm City, Florida (the subject

550property). Ms. Schumacher passed away on June 17, 2008. Prior

560to her mother’s death, Ms. Macey assisted Ms. Schumacher with

570her affairs. After her death, all of Ms. Schumacher’s estate,

580including the subject property, was placed in a trust with

590Ms. Macey as the trustee.

5954. In late October 2005, a screened porch on the subject

606property was damaged by Hurricane Wilma. In November 2005,

615Ms. Macey, on behalf of her mother, contacted Coastal Structures

625about making repairs to the damaged porch. In November 2005,

635David and Donna Williams, on behalf of Coastal Structures,

644visited the subject property, made temporary repairs to the

653damaged porch, and discussed with Ms. Macey and Ms. Schumacher

663the replacement of the porch.

6685. On November 28, 2005, Coastal Structures entered into a

678written contract with Ms. Schumacher to remove the damaged porch

688and to replace it with a new screened porch over the existing

700concrete slab.

7026. The written contract failed to contain a written

711statement explaining to Ms. Schumacher her rights under the

720Florida Homeowners’ Construction Recovery Fund as required by

728Section 489.1425(1), Florida Statutes.

7327. When Ms. Schumacher contracted with Coastal Structures

740on November 25, 2005, her insurance company had accepted her

750claim, but had not completed the damage assessment. The scope

760of the work was to be based on the allowances provided in the

773insurance adjuster’s statement of loss once the damage

781assessment was completed.

7848. The insurance company’s damage assessment for the

792damaged porch was completed December 3, 2005. The total

801replacement cost was valued at $21,190.10, with a deductible of

812$2,960.00, for a net claim value of $18,230.10.

8229. On March 8, 2006, Respondent submitted to the Martin

832County Building Department an application for a permit for a

842screen enclosure over an existing slab.

84810. The Martin County Building Department approved the

856permit application and issued permit number BSCE-2006030334 (the

864subject permit) to Respondent on March 8, 2006.

87211. The subject permit required one inspection, which was

881to be a final inspection after the completion of the work.

892Respondent failed to request the required inspection and the

901subject permit expired.

90412. After the execution of the contract with Coastal

913Structures and the completion of the damage assessment by the

923insurance company, Ms. Schumacher and Coastal Structures agreed

931to change the scope of the work from a screened enclosure to a

944glass enclosure with windows. Ms. Schumacher and Coastal

952Structures did not execute a written change order or any other

963written amendment to the written contract.

96913. Coastal Structures completed its work on the porch in

979May 2006. Pursuant to its verbal agreement with Ms. Schumacher,

989Coastal Structures replaced the damaged screen porch with a

998glass enclosure with windows. On May 17, 2006, Ms. Schumacher

1008paid Coastal Structures the sum of $25,363.00 in full payment

1019for the work it had done.

102514. After payment had been made, Ms. Macey observed

1034several problems with the project including leaks from the

1043ceiling panels and tile work that was not flush with the bottom

1055of the exterior doorway, which allowed water to seep into the


106715. In response to complaints from Ms. Macey, Mr. Williams

1077returned to the subject property in May 2006 and applied

1087caulking to the ceiling and along the floor of the structure.

1098That work did not resolve the problems with the project.

110816. Ms. Macey made further complaints to Mr. Williams, but

1118he did not respond to those complaints.

112517. Ms. Macey and Ms. Schumacher asked Palm City

1134Screening, LLC (Palm City Screening) to determine the problems

1143with the project and to provide an estimate to repair those

1154problems. On February 13, 2007, Palm City Screening provided

1163Ms. Schumacher with an estimate of $19,785.00 to replace the

1174existing porch.

117618. In May 2007, Respondent visited the subject property

1185in response to complaints from Ms. Macey. Ms. Macey pointed out

1196to Respondent problems with the porch and Respondent inspected

1205the structure. Respondent told Ms. Macey that he would send

1215someone named George to the subject property to make repairs.

1225Respondent left the subject property and Ms. Macey heard nothing

1235further from him. No one returned to the property on behalf of


124819. At no time did Ms. Schumacher or Ms. Macey terminate

1259the contract with Coastal Structures or prevent Coastal

1267Structures from correcting the problems with the porch.

127520. On July 2, 2008, Palm City Screening provided a second

1286estimate to Ms. Macey in the amount of $23,230.00 to replace the

1299structure. Palm City Screening’s representative told Ms. Macey

1307that the structure could not be repaired as built, but would

1318have to be replaced. The scope of work and estimated costs

1329excluded electrical work for the structure.

133521. On July 11, 2008, Jimmy Rowell Electric Service

1344provided Ms. Macey with a written estimate in the amount of

1355$1,520.00 for the electrical work that would be required if the

1367structure were to be replaced.

137222. No one on behalf of Palm City Screening or Jimmy

1383Rowell Electric Service testified at the formal hearing.

139123. The total investigative costs of this case to

1400Petitioner, excluding costs associated with attorney’s time, was


140924. On October 8, 1995, Petitioner filed an Amended

1418Administrative Complaint against Respondent in DBPR Case 91-

142600022. The Amended Administrative set forth certain factual

1434allegations pertaining to Respondent’s dealings with a person

1442named Donald H. Shaffer. Based on those allegations, Petitioner

1451charged Respondent with abandonment of a project (Count I);

1460committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of

1468contracting that caused financial harm to a customer by allowing

1478liens to be placed against the project (Count II); failure to

1489supervise (Count III); mismanagement or misconduct in the

1497practice of contracting that caused financial harm to a customer

1507by abandoning the project (Count IV); and by having committed

1517fraud, deceit, gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in

1525the practice of contracting (Count V).

153125. DBPR Case 91-00022 was resolved by stipulation. As

1540part of the stipulation, Respondent agreed to pay a fine and

1551make restitution to the customer. The stipulation contained the

1560following provision:

1562Respondent neither admits nor denies the

1568allegations of fact contained in the Amended

1575Administrative Complaint attached hereto as

1580Exhibit “A”.

158226. The CILB entered a Final Order Approving Settlement

1591Stipulation on August 2, 1966, which “. . . approved and adopted

1603in toto . . .” the settlement stipulation.


161427. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

1621jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto

1630pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

163828. Petitioner has the burden of proving by clear and

1648convincing evidence the allegations against Respondent. See

1655§ 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.; Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292

1666(Fla. 1987); Evans Packing Co. v. Department of Agriculture and

1676Consumer Services , 550 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Inquiry

1687Concerning a Judge , 645 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1994); and Department

1698of Banking and Finance v. Osborne Stern and Co. , 670 So. 2d 932

1711(Fla. 1996).

171329. Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida

1723charged with regulating the practice of construction contracting

1731in the State of Florida pursuant to the provisions of

1741Section 20.165, Chapter 455, and part I of Chapter 489, Florida


175330. Respondent, in his capacity as a licensed contractor,

1762is subject to the provisions of Chapters 455 and 489, Florida

1773Statutes. Petitioner has the authority to regulate Respondent’s

1781activities as a contractor.

178531. Respondent, as its primary qualifying agent, is

1793responsible for the actions of Coastal Structures pursuant to

1802the provisions of Section 489.1195(1)(a), Florida Statutes,

1809which provides as follows:

1813(a) All primary qualifying agents for a

1820business organization are jointly and

1825equally responsible for supervision of all

1831operations of the business organization, for

1837all field work at all sites, and for

1845financial matters, both for the organization

1851in general and for each specific job.

185832. Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, gives the CILB

1866the authority to discipline the license of any general

1875contractor, if he or she commits certain acts specified in the



188933. Count I alleged that Respondent violated Section

1897489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, by having violated Section

1904489.1425(1), Florida Statutes.

190734. Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, provides that

1914disciplinary action may be taken by the CILB if a general

1925contractor is guilty of:

1929(i) Failing in any material respect to

1936comply with the provisions of this part or

1944violating a rule or lawful order of the


195335. Section 489.1425(1), Florida Statutes, provides as


1961(1) Any agreement or contract for repair,

1968restoration, improvement, or construction to

1973residential real property must contain a

1979written statement explaining the consumer's

1984rights under the recovery fund, except where

1991the value of all labor and materials does

1999not exceed $2,500. The written statement

2006must be substantially in the following form:













2077The statement shall be immediately followed

2083by the board's address and telephone number

2090as established by board rule.

209536. Petitioner established by clear and convincing

2102evidence that Respondent failed to include in the contract

2111between Ms. Schumacher and Coastal Structures the statement

2119required by Section 489.1425(1), Florida Statutes. As alleged

2127by Count I of the Administrative Complaint, that failure

2136constituted a violation of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida



214637. Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides that

2153disciplinary action may be taken by the CILB if a general

2164contractor is guilty of:

2168(j) Abandoning a construction project in

2174which the contractor is engaged or under

2181contract as a contractor. A project may be

2189presumed abandoned after 90 days if the

2196contractor terminates the project without

2201just cause or without proper notification to

2208the owner, including the reason for

2214termination, or fails to perform work

2220without just cause for 90 consecutive days.

222738. Petitioner established by clear and convincing

2234evidence that Respondent abandoned the subject construction

2241project in violation of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes,

2249by failing to call for the final inspection of the project, by

2261permitting the building permit to expire, and by failing to

2271correct the defects in the project.


227939. Section 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, provides that

2286disciplinary action may be taken by the CILB if a general

2297contractor is guilty of:

2301(o) Proceeding on any job without

2307obtaining applicable local building

2311department permits and inspections.

231540. The record is undisputed that Respondent obtained a

2324building permit for a screened porch prior to beginning work on

2335the subject project, but that he never called for the final

2346inspection of the project. That failure established the

2354violation alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint.


236541. Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, provides that

2372disciplinary action may be taken by the CILB if a general

2383contractor is guilty of:

2387(m) Committing incompetency or misconduct

2392in the practice of contracting.

239742. Petitioner established by clear and convincing

2404evidence that Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida

2411Statutes, with regard to the subject project. Respondent

2419entered into the subject contract without a written statement

2428explaining the consumer’s rights under the Florida Homeowner’s

2436Construction Recovery Fund. Respondent thereafter abandoned the

2443project, causing substantial damages to the customer.

2450Respondent’s conduct constitutes incompetency or misconduct as

2457alleged in Count IV of the Administrative Complaint.


246643. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.001(5)

2472provides as follows:

2475(5) For any violation occurring after

2481October 1, 1988, the board shall order the

2489contractor to make restitution in the amount

2496of financial loss suffered by the consumer.

2503Such restitution shall be ordered in

2509addition to the penalties provided by these

2516guidelines upon demonstration of aggravating

2521factors set forth in subsection 61G4-

252717.002(1), F.A.C., and to the extent that

2534such order does not contravene federal

2540bankruptcy law.

254244. Respondent has failed to make any restitution or take

2552any effective action to correct the defective construction on

2561the subject property.

256445. The written estimates from Palm City Screening and

2573Jimmy Rowell Electric Service are hearsay evidence. The only

2582evidence that the structure would have to be replaced and could

2593not be repaired came from a statement made to Ms. Macey by a

2606representative of Palm City Screening. That statement is

2614hearsay. Section 90.801(1)(c), Florida Statutes, defines the

2621term “hearsay” as follows:

2625(c) ”Hearsay” is a statement, other than

2632one made by the declarant while testifying

2639as the trial or hearing, offered in evidence

2647to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

265546. Section 120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides as


2663(c) Hearsay evidence may be used for the

2671purpose of supplementing or explaining other

2677evidence, but it shall not be sufficient

2684itself to support a finding unless it would

2692be admissible over objection in civil


269947. The hearsay evidence offered by Petitioner to prove

2708the amount of restitution did not supplement or explain other

2718evidence and cannot be the basis of a finding as to the amount

2731of restitution. Unfortunately, without competent proof of the

2739amount of restitution, the undersigned cannot recommend that

2747Petitioner order Respondent to pay restitution to the owner of

2757the subject property.


276248. Respondent’s licensure has been previously

2768disciplined, but that discipline was based on a stipulation. As

2778part of the stipulation, Respondent neither admitted nor denied

2787the alleged violations of the Amended Administrative Complaint

2795in DBPR Case 91-00022. While it can be concluded that

2805Respondent’s licensure has been previously disciplined, it

2812cannot be concluded that Respondent is a repeat offender of any

2823particular statutory violations alleged in the Administrative

2830Complaint that underpins this proceeding. Nevertheless, the

2837disciplinary guidelines set forth above should be applied to

2846Respondent as a repeat offender because of the following

2855definition of the term “Repeat Violations” set forth in Florida

2865Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.003:

2869(1) As used in this rule, a repeat

2877violation is any violation on which

2883disciplinary action is being taken where the

2890same licensee had previously had

2895disciplinary action taken against him or

2901received a letter of guidance in a prior

2909case; and said definition is to apply

2916regardless of whether the violations in the

2923present and prior disciplinary actions are

2929of the same or different subsections of the

2937disciplinary statutes.

2939(2) The penalty given in the above list

2947for repeat violations is intended to apply

2954only to situations where the repeat

2960violation is of a different subsection of

2967Chapter 489, F.S., than the first violation.

2974Where, on the other hand, the repeat

2981violation is the very same type of violation

2989as the first violation, the penalty set out

2997above will generally be increased over what

3004is otherwise shown for repeat violations in

3011the above list.


301749. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.001(4)

3023provides as follows:

3026(4) For any violation occurring after

3032October 1, 1989, the board may assess the

3040costs of investigation and prosecution. The

3046assessment of such costs may be made in

3054addition to the penalties provided by these

3061guidelines without demonstration of

3065aggravating factors set forth in Rule 61G4-

307217.002, F.A.C.


307750. Sections 489.1425(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes,

3084pertains to violations of Section 489.1425(1), Florida Statutes,

3092and provides as follows:

3096(a) Upon finding a first violation of

3103subsection (1), the board may fine the

3110contractor up to $500, and the moneys must

3118be deposited into the recovery fund.

3124(b) Upon finding a second or subsequent

3131violation of subsection (1), the board shall

3138fine the contractor $1,000 per violation,

3145and the moneys must be deposited into the

3153recovery fund.

315551. Petitioner is authorized, upon finding a violation of

3164Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, to impose discipline upon

3172a general contractor's license. In particular, the CILB is

3181authorized to take any of the following actions:

3189. . . place on probation or reprimand the

3198licensee, revoke, suspend, or deny the

3204issuance or renewal of the certificate,

3210registration, or certificate of authority,

3215require financial restitution to a consumer

3221for financial harm directly related to a

3228violation of a provision of this part,

3235impose an administrative fine not to exceed

3242$10,000 per violation, require continuing

3248education, or assess costs associated with

3254investigation and prosecution, if the

3259contractor, financially responsible officer,

3263or business organization for which the

3269contractor is a primary qualifying agent, a

3276financially responsible officer, or a

3281secondary qualifying agent responsible under

3286s. 489.1195 . . . .

329252. Section 455.2273(5), Florida Statutes, requires that

3299the penalty guidelines of the CILB must be followed in

3309determining what disciplinary action to take under Section

3317489.129(1), Florida Statutes. Those guidelines are set out in

3326Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61G4-17.

333153. In relevant part, Florida Administrative Code Rule

333961G4-17.001 (1) provides the following:

3344(1) The following guidelines shall be

3350used in disciplinary cases, absent

3355aggravating or mitigating circumstances and

3360subject to other provisions of this chapter.

336754. For the Count I violation, the recommended guideline

3376for a first offense is for the imposition of an administrative

3387fine from $250.00 to $500.00. For a repeat violation, the

3397recommendation is for the imposition of an administrative fine

3406in the amount of $1,000.00.

341255. For the Count II violation, the recommended guideline

3421for a first offense is for the imposition of an administrative

3432fine from $2,500.00 to $7,500.00 and the imposition of probation

3444or suspension. For a repeat violation, the recommendation is

3453for the imposition of an administration fine from $5,000.00 to

3464$10,000.00 and the revocation of licensure.

347156. For the Count III violation, the recommended guideline

3480for a first violation is for the imposition of an administrative

3491fine from $250.00 to $1,000.00 and/or the probation or

3501suspension of licensure. For a repeat violation, the

3509recommendation is for the imposition of an administration fine

3518from $1,000.00 to $5,000.00 and the imposition of suspension or

3530revocation of licensure.

353357. For the Count IV violation, the recommended guideline

3542for a first violation is for the imposition of an administrative

3553fine from $1,000.00 to $2,500.00 and/or the imposition of

3564probation or suspension of licensure. For a repeat violation,

3573the recommendation is for the imposition of an administration

3582fine from $2,500.00 to $10,000.00 and the imposition of

3593suspension or revocation of licensure.

359858. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.002 provides

3605the following aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be

3613considered in determining the penalty or penalties to impose on

3623a licensee:

3625Circumstance which may be considered for

3631the purpose of mitigation or aggravation of

3638penalty shall include, but are not limited

3645to the following:

3648(1) Monetary or other damage to the

3655licensee's customer, in any way associated

3661with the violation, which damage the

3667licensee has not relieved, as of the time

3675the penalty is to be assessed. . . .

368459. Petitioner proved that the homeowner suffered

3691significant financial damage as a result of acts for which

3701Respondent is responsible.


3705Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

3714of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final

3725order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the

3735Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that the

3743final order impose against Respondent administrative fines as

3751follows: $500.00 for Count I; $5,000.00 for Count II; $5,000.00

3763for Count III; and $5,000.00 for Count IV, for the aggregate

3775amount of $15,500.00. It is further RECOMMENDED that

3784Respondent’s licensure be revoked.

3788DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2008, in

3798Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.


3805Administrative Law Judge

3808Division of Administrative Hearings

3812The DeSoto Building

38151230 Apalachee Parkway

3818Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

3821(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

3825Fax Filing (850) 921-6847


3830Filed with the Clerk of the

3836Division of Administrative Hearings

3840this 20th day of August, 2008.


38471/ All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2008). The

3857provisions of Chapter 489 cited herein have not changed since



3871Danny Henley

38731524 Bob Loftin Road

3877Panama City, Florida 32405

3881Brian P. Coats, Esquire

3885Department of Business and

3889Professional Regulation

3891Northwood Centre

38931940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42

3899Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2022

3902G. W. Harrell, Executive Director

3907Department of Business and

3911Professional Regulation

3913Northwood Centre

39151940 North Monroe Street

3919Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

3922Ned Luczynski, General Counsel

3926Department of Business and

3930Professional Regulation

3932Northwood Centre

39341940 North Monroe Street

3938Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792


3947All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15

3958days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

3969this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

3980issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
Date: 08/20/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order
Date: 08/20/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
Date: 08/20/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held July 23, 2008). CASE CLOSED.
Date: 08/07/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 07/31/2008
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings filed.
Date: 07/23/2008
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 07/15/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Pre-hearing Statement filed.
Date: 06/05/2008
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
Date: 06/05/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for July 23, 2008; 9:00 a.m.; Stuart, FL).
Date: 05/21/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Initial Order filed.
Date: 05/19/2008
Proceedings: Initial Order.
Date: 05/19/2008
Proceedings: Election of Rights filed.
Date: 05/19/2008
Proceedings: Administrative Complaint filed.
Date: 05/19/2008
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Date Filed:
Date Assignment:
Last Docket Entry:
Stuart, Florida
Department of Business and Professional Regulation


Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (9):

Related Florida Rule(s) (2):