09-002541 Department Of Business And Professional Regulation vs. Brenda Carpenter, D/B/A B And P Enterprises Of Central Florida, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, February 23, 2010.

Summary: Both Respondents violated Sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes. Recommend a total administrative fine of $11,000 against each Respondent in addition to costs.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case Nos. 09-2541

) 09-2545

BRENDA CARPENTER and PHILLIP HENLEY, d/b/a B AND P )

ENTERPRISES OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, )

INC., )

)

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A final hearing was conducted in this case on January 22,

2010, in Tallahassee, Florida, before Suzanne F. Hood,

Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Administrative

Hearing.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Maura M. Bolivar, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202

For Respondents: Brenda F. Carpenter, pro se

Phillip J. Henley, pro se

5209 Southwest U.S. 221

Greenville, Florida 32331

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondents each engaged in the unlicensed practice of contracting as defined in

Sections 489.105(3) and 489.105(6), Florida Statutes (2006), in

violation of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2006);

(b) whether Respondents each engaged in the unlicensed practice

of electrical contracting as defined by Sections 489.505(9) and

489.505(12), Florida Statutes (2006), in violation of Section

489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2006); and (c) if so, what penalty

should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On or about March 3, 2009, Petitioner Department of

Business and Professional Regulation (Petitioner) issued an

Administrative Complaint against Respondent Brenda Carpenter,

d/b/a B & P Enterprises of Central Florida, Inc. (Carpenter).

The two-count complaint alleged that Carpenter had violated

On or about March 3, 2009, Petitioner issued an

Administrative Complaint against Respondent Phillip Henley,

d/b/a/ B & P Enterprises of Central Florida, Inc. (Henley). The

two-count complaint alleged that Henley had violated Sections

489.127(1)(f) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2006).

On or about March 9, 2009, Carpenter and Henley filed

separate requests for administrative hearings to contest the

complaints referenced above. Petitioner referred the requests

to the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 14, 2009.

The Division of Administrative Hearings assigned DOAH Case

No. 09-2541 to the case against Carpenter. DOAH Case No. 09-

2544 was assigned to the case against Henley.

The undersigned issued Initial Orders on May 14, 2009, in

both cases. The parties filed unilateral responses, indicating

that the cases against Carpenter and Henley were related. After

reviewing the files, the undersigned issued an Order of

Consolidation dated May 27, 2009. Herein after, Carpenter and

Henley shall be referred to collectively as Respondents.

A Notice of Hearing dated May 27, 2009, scheduled the

hearing for August 7, 2009.

On July 6, 2009, Petitioner filed an Agreed Motion for

Continuance. On July 13, 2009, the undersigned issued an Order

Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing for September 18,

2009.

On August 25, 2009, Petitioner's counsel filed a Motion for

Continuance based on a family medical necessity. On

September 1, 2009, Respondents filed a response in opposition to

the motion. On September 2, 2009, the undersigned issued an

Order Granting Continuance that required the parties to file a

joint status report no later than October 1, 2009.

On October 1, 2009, Petitioner filed a Unilateral Status

Report. The status report requested that the hearing be

rescheduled for November 13, 2009.

On October 6, 2009, the undersigned issued a Notice of

Telephonic Pre-hearing Conference. The notice scheduled the

conference for October 13, 2009.

After the telephone conference, the undersigned issued an

Order Rescheduling Hearing. The Order scheduled the hearing for

November 20, 2009.

On November 3, 2009, Respondents filed an unopposed Motion

for Continuance. On November 4, 2009, the undersigned issued an

Order Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing for

January 11, 2010.

On November 13, 2009, Petitioner filed an Agreed Motion for

Continuance. On November 16, 2009, the undersigned issued an

Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing for

January 22, 2009.

On December 11, 2009, Petitioner filed an Amended Motion to

Compel. Respondents did not file a response in opposition to

the motion. On December 18, 2009, the undersigned issued an

Order Granting Motion to Compel.

During the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of

three witnesses. Petitioner offered eight exhibits that were

admitted into evidence.

Henley testified on behalf of Respondents. Respondents did

not present any other witnesses or offer any exhibits for

admission into the record as evidence.

The Transcript was filed on February 3, 2010. Petitioner

filed its Proposed Recommended Order on February 15, 2009. As

of the date that this Recommended Order was issued, Respondents

had not filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Except where otherwise indicated, all references

hereinafter are to Florida Statutes (2006).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times material here, Respondents were married

and doing business together as "B and P Enterprises of Central

Florida, Inc." The "B and P" stands for Brenda and Phillip.

Respondents are not and never have been licensed to engage in

contracting or electrical contracting in Florida.

2. In March 2006, Carla Adams had recently purchased her

first home and sought to refinance it. The lender required an

inspection of the home. The lender also required that any work

on the home be performed by a licensed person or entity.

3. In March 2006, an inspector employed by Pillar to Post,

Inc., conducted an inspection of Ms. Adams' home. The

inspection report, dated March 10, 2006, listed a number of

areas that needed work and made recommendations for correction

of those problems.

4. In July 2006, Ms. Adams saw an advertisement in a

newspaper for the sale of a used car. Ms. Adams and Revacey

Davis went to Respondents' property with the objective of

purchasing a used vehicle.

5. While on the property, Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis entered

the Respondents' home. Because both women admired the home,

Respondents gave them a tour. During the tour, Respondents

stated that Henley had performed the work himself.

6. While in Respondents' home, Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis

told Respondents that Ms. Adams needed work done on her home.

Ms. Adams also told Respondents that her lender required that

the work be done by a licensee.

7. Henley, both upon his own volition and after being

asked, told Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis that he was a licensed

contractor. Henley removed a picture-ID card from his wallet

and stated this was his license to practice contracting.

Respondent Carpenter condoned this statement.

8. Ms. Adams showed Respondents the March 10, 2006,

inspection report. Henley assured Ms. Adams that he could do

everything on the report that needed to be done.

9. Henley further stated that his license was issued by

Carpenter affirmatively agreed with this statement.

10. Henley warned Ms. Adams that she should never have

work done by anyone that was not licensed or certified and that

she could check licensure status with DBPR. Respondent

Carpenter affirmed this warning.

11. Before speaking with Respondents, Ms. Adams and

Rev. Davis had never heard of DBPR. It was only due to Henley’s

reference to DBPR that Ms. Adams knew she could contact

Petitioner regarding the issues in this case.

12. Respondents advised Ms. Adams that they were willing

to go to Ms. Adams’ home and give her an estimate of what they

would charge to perform the needed work. Ms. Adams and

Rev. Davis left Respondents' property expecting to see

Respondents in the near future.

13. In August 2006, Respondents went to Ms. Adams’ home in

Tallahassee, Florida. Ms. Adams told Respondents she needed

electrical, structural and plumbing work done as set forth in

the Pillar-to-Post report. Respondents then inspected the home,

took measurements, and made a verbal offer to perform the needed

contracting work.

14. Respondents returned to Ms. Adams’ home later in

August 2006. At that time, Respondents presented Ms. Adams with

a written estimate of what they would charge to do certain

contracting work on her home. The proposal included, but was

not limited to, structural, plumbing and electrical work.

15. Respondents' proposal stated as follows in relevant

part:

REMOVE ALL OLD FLOOR COVERING

Carpet

Padding

Lineoleum (sic)

Square Stick tile

Tack strip

All of the above, but not limited to

just above

1,470 Sq. Ft. @ $1.10 Sq. Ft.

INSTALL NEW FLOOR COVERING

1,470 Sq. Ft. of tile on floor

@ $1.75 Sq. Ft.

and install Durarock (sic) or hardi

(sic) backing board, if needed

KITCHEN

Remove wall and old 1/2 bathroom and

put back to finished product

Not including finishing drywall and

painting drywall

Remove all old plumbing and re-route

Electrical wires

HALL BATHROOM

Remove bathtub, and tub walls

Install durarock (sic) and new plumbing

fixtures [a]s provided by homeowner

Install 100 Sq. Ft. of wall tile around

old tub area @ $1.75 Sq. Ft. [m]aking

a new shower in the room

Build a curbing, and drypack and

install shower floor tile

Install drain and rubber pan

REMOVE OLD RAILING FROM FRONT PORCH

16. The total price listed for the above referenced work

was $5,234.50. Ms. Adams had received other estimates for the

work. Therefore, Ms. Adams was pleased with the price and

sought assurance that it would not increase.

17. Respondents promised Ms. Adams that the cost would not

increase. To further assure her, they both signed the contract

in her presence. During the hearing, Henley admitted that he

contracted with Ms. Adams to perform the labor as listed on this

contract.

18. In an attempt to ascertain Henley’s skill as a

contractor, Ms. Adams decided to begin with the renovation of

the bathroom located in the entrance way to the master bedroom.

Ms. Adams agreed to buy the construction, plumbing, or

electrical materials that Henley needed to do the work.

19. Ms. Adams works two jobs and was not always home when

Respondents performed the contracted work. As a result,

Rev. Davis, who lived nearby, was present at the home to let

Respondents in and observe the work.

20. In order to enlarge the bathroom adjoining the master

bedroom, Henley demolished a wall between the old bathroom and a

walk-in closet. Henley also removed the door into the old

bathroom and constructed a single wall with the entrance to the

enlarged room through the door to the old closet.

21. In the course of this alteration and expansion, Henley

damaged the adjoining wall to the living room. He subsequently

repaired the damage.

22. In the enlarged bathroom, Henley removed a sink from

the old bathroom area and installed it in the area that had been

a closet. The area of the old closet had no plumbing. The

removal and installation of the sink required Henley to remove

old piping and replace it with larger pipes to increase the

water flow. During the hearing, Henley admitted removing the

sink and disconnecting the plumbing.

23. Henley installed the custom-built shower as described

in the contract in Ms. Adams’ bathroom. During the hearing,

Henley admitted cutting a hole in the floor of Ms. Adams’

bathroom and installing a shower drain pan.

24. Henley removed and replaced the toilet in Ms. Adams’

bathroom. Additionally, Henley, with Carpenter's help, removed

the old bathtub. Henley admitted removing the bathtub and

disconnecting the plumbing.

25. Henley then installed a replacement Jacuzzi bathtub at

the location of the previously-removed bathtub in Ms. Adams’

bathroom. Henley had to remove the old piping and replace it

with larger pipes to increase the water flow for the replacement

Jacuzzi.

26. The toilet, sink, and bathtub removal and the shower-

installation required plumbing work that made it necessary to

turn off the water to the home.

27. During the course of installing the Jacuzzi bathtub,

Henley discovered that his work resulted in drainage problems he

could not correct. For the first time, he told Ms. Adams that

his license did not allow him to perform plumbing work. Henley

then told Ms. Adams that, as the contractor on the job, he could

subcontract the needed plumbing work.

28. In early September 2006, Henley called Roto-Rooter as

a plumbing subcontractor. Roto-Rooter performed the following

plumbing work at Ms. Adams' home:

Hooked up all the basic [drain] lines and

the toilet in new bathroom to the m/l [main

line]. Also ran water lines for the new

sink, but found problem with shower valve.

It was put in wrong and will not work until

it's moved. Note: Everything else is

working at this time. Price includes parts

and labor. ( * * * out the tile and fix

shower valve, not everything is working.)

The Roto-Rooter invoice indicates a total cost in the amount of

$1,432.78 for the work performed in Ms. Adams' home.

29. Ms. Adams and Respondents had a financial dispute

about which party had to pay Roto-Rooter. The dispute

ultimately led to a falling out regarding the completion of the

contracted work .

30. Ms. Adams’ bathroom currently is inoperable because

the toilet and Jacuzzi bathtub do not work. There is raw sewage

underneath her home. In order to repair her bathroom, Ms. Adams

received an estimate of approximately $5,000.00.

31. Ms. Adams’ decision to begin with the renovation of

her bathroom also involved ascertaining Henley’s skills as an

electrical contractor. Based on his assurances that he could do

the work, Ms. Adams allowed Henley to remove and relocate

electrical light fixtures and switches in the bathroom, closet,

and hallway. During the course of this work, Henley left hot

wires exposed.

32. On or about September 14, 2006, Carpenter came to

Ms. Adams’ home and presented an invoice for $1,200.00 for the

contracted work that had been performed pursuant to the initial

contract. The invoice was on the letter head of “Brenda &

Phillip, Phillip Henley, Inc." It stated as follows in relevant

part:

Remodel Master Bathroom

Take out all fixtures-sink, cabinet, cast

iron tub, toilet and replace with new

Jacucci (sic) tub, new sink and cabinet, new

shower and put back old toilet. Take out

old tile on walls and drywall, take out two

closets to enlarge bathroom. Re-wire and

re-plumb all fixtures and installed durarock

(sic) on floor, walls and wet areas and

installed blueboard on balance of walls.

Built a custom shower and installed custom

tile design on walls and floor.

Cost: $1,900.00

Less cash

advances: 8/9 $100

8/16 $300

8/22 $300

$700 - 700.00

$1,200.00

Plus:

Materials

& receipts: 8/11 $ 81.19

8/17 23.67

8/19 26.84

8/24 108.51

$240.21 $240.21

Balance Due: $1,440.00

Other labor -240.00

$1,200.00

The invoice was signed by Henley and Carpenter and included the

following statement: "Thank you for doing business with Brenda

& Phillip!" The invoice stated that the check should be payable

to Carpenter.

33. Excluding costs associated with an attorney's time,

Petitioner has expended $554 in total cost relative to the

investigation and prosecution of DOAH Case No. 09-2541 against

Carpenter and $1,005.67 in total cost relative to the

investigation and prosecution of DOAH Case No. 09-2545 against

Henley.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

34. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes (2009).

35. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating

the practice of unlicensed construction contracting and

electrical contracting pursuant to Chapters 455 and 489, Florida

Statutes.

36. Petitioner has the burden of proving by clear and

convincing evidence that Respondents violated Sections

489.127(1)(f) and 489.531(1)(a), Florida Statutes. See Dept. of

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

(Fla. 1996).

Count One

37. The first issue is whether Respondents engaged in the

unlicensed practice of contracting. Section 489.105 Florida

Statutes, defines the terms contractor and contracting as

follows in pertinent part:

(3) "Contractor" means the person who

is qualified for, and shall only be

responsible for, the project contracted for

and means, except as exempted in this part,

the person who, for compensation, undertakes

to, submits a bid to, or does himself or

herself or by others construct, repair,

alter, remodel, add to, demolish, subtract

from, or improve any building structure,

including related improvements to real

estate, for others or for resale to others

. . . .

* * *

(6) "Contracting" means, except as

exempted in this part, 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 negotiation or

bid for a contract on these services also

constitutes contracting. If the services

offered require licensure or agent

qualification, the offering, negotiation for

a bid, or attempted sale of these services

requires the corresponding licensure. . . .

38. Under Section 489.113(2), Florida Statutes, "[n]o

person who is not certified or registered shall engage in the

business of contracting in this state."

39. Section 489.127(f), Florida Statutes, as follows:

(1) No person shall:

* * *

(f) Engage 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;

40. Section 489.13, Florida Statutes, states as follows in

pertinent part:

(1) Any person performing an activity

requiring licensure under this part as a

construction contractor is guilty of

unlicensed contracting if he or 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. Persons working outside the

geographical scope of their registration are

guilty of unlicensed activity for purposes

of this part.

* * *

(3) Notwithstanding s. 455.228, the

department may impose an administrative fine

of up to $10,000 on any unlicensed person

guilty of unlicensed contracting. In

addition, the department may assess

reasonable investigative and legal costs for

prosecution of the violation against the

unlicensed contractor.

41. In this case, clear and convincing evidence

establishes that Respondents are not licensed as contractors and

that they attempted to sell their services as contractors.

Respondents eventually negotiated and/or made a bid for their

contracting services for compensation. They performed work on

Ms. Adams' home requiring licensure, thus "contracting" and

acting as "contractors." Both Carpenter and Henley are guilty

of violating Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes.

Count Two

42. The second issue is whether Respondents engaged in the

unlicensed practice of electrical contracting, which is

regulated under Part II of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes.

Section 489.505, Florida Statutes, defines contracting,

contractor, and electrical contractor as follows in relevant

part:

(9) "Contracting" means, except where

exempted in this part, engaging in business

as a contractor or performing electrical . .

. work for compensation and includes, but is

not limited to, performance of any of the

acts found in subsections (2) and (12),

which define the services which a contractor

is allowed to perform. The attempted sale

of contracting services and the negotiation

or bid for a contract on these services also

constitutes contracting. If the services

offered require licensure or agent

qualification, the offering, negotiation for

a bid, or attempted sale of these services

requires the corresponding licensure.

(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

department.

* * *

(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 compliance 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 undertake, 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.

43. Section 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, states as

follows:

(1) A person may not:

(a) Practice contracting unless the

person is certified or registered;

(b) Use the name or title "electrical

contractor" . . . or advertise himself or

herself or a business organization as

available to practice electrical . . .

contracting, when the person is not then the

holder of a valid certification or

registration issued pursuant to this part;

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

provide specific administrative penalties for unlicensed

electrical contracting. See § 489.13, Fla. Stats. Thus, the

authority for imposition of administrative penalties for

unlicensed electrical contracting is Section 455.228, Florida

Statutes, which states as follows in relevant part:

(1) When the department has probable

cause to believe that any person not

licensed by the department, or the

appropriate regulatory board within the

department, has violated any provision of

this chapter or 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 not to exceed $5,000

per incident pursuant to the provisions of

chapter 120 . . . .

45. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondents

are not licensed as electrical contractors. However, they

engaged in the business of electrical "contracting" and acted as

electrical "contractors" under an express or implied contract

with Ms. Adams. Both Respondents are guilty of violating

Sections 455.228 and 489.531, Florida Statutes, by undertaking,

offering to undertake, purporting to have the capacity to

undertake, and/or submitting a bid to engage in the business of

electrical contracting by themselves or through others.

Penalties

46. Petitioner is generally authorized to impose an

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

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

with respect to unlicensed contracting under Part I of Chapter

489, Florida Statutes, Petitioner is authorized to impose an

administrative fine of "up to $10,000." See § 489.13(3), Fla.

Stat.

47. At the time of the violations at issue here,

Petitioner had no guidelines to determine the appropriate fines

as required by Section 455.2273, Florida Statutes. However, as

of January 26, 2010, Petitioner adopted Florida Administrative

Code Rule 61-5.007, Disciplinary Guidelines for Unlicensed

Activity.

48. The penalties set forth in the new rule cannot be

applied retroactively to Respondents' unlicensed activity that

occurred in 2006. Even so, the rule is instructive regarding

the circumstances that may be considered as mitigating or

aggravating factors.

49. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61-5.007 states as

following in pertinent part:

(8) Circumstances which may be

considered for the purposes of mitigation or

aggravation of the foregoing penalties shall

include the following:

(a) Monetary or other damage to the

unlicensed person's customer and/or other

persons, in any way associated with the

violation, which damage the unlicensed

person has not relieved as of the time the

penalty is to be assessed.

(b) The severity of the offense.

(c) The danger to the public.

(d) The number of repetitions of

offenses.

(e) The number of complaints filed

against the unlicensed person.

(f) The length of time the unlicensed

person has been engaging in unlicensed

activity.

(g) The actual damage, physical or

otherwise, to the unlicensed person's

customer.

(h) The deterrent effect of the

penalty imposed.

(i) The effect of the penalty upon the

unlicensed person's livelihood.

(j) Any efforts at rehabilitation.

(k) The unlicensed person's use of an

altered license or impersonation of a

licensee.

50. In mitigation, the facts here show that there was only

one complaint filed against Respondents. Additionally,

Respondents engaged in unlicensed activity for a very short

period of time, from the initial meeting with Ms. Adams in July

2006 until the financial dispute in September 2006.

51. The aggravating factors include the following:

(a) Both Respondents are guilty of violating two statutes;

(b) Ms. Adams suffered financial harm as a result of

Respondents' defective work; (c) Respondents have never

acknowledged responsibility for their actions and have not made

any effort at rehabilitation or restitution; and (d) Respondents

used a card of some kind to impersonate a license.

52. Petitioner should impose a fine in the amount of

$5,500 on each Respondent for violating Section 489.127(1)(f),

Florida Statutes, and a fine in the amount of $5,500 on each

Respondent for violating Section 489.531, Florida Statutes.

53. In addition to the administrative fines referred to

above, Respondents are responsible for Petitioner's costs in

investigating their unlicensed activity pursuant to Section

455.228(3)(c), Florida Statutes, which states as follows:

(c) The department shall be entitled

to recover the costs of investigation, in

addition to any penalty provided according

to department rule as part of the penalty

levied pursuant to the citation.

54. It is undisputed that Petitioner incurred a total of

$554 in investigative costs in the case against Carpenter, DOAH

Case No. 09-2541, and a total of $1,005.67 in investigative cost

in the case against Henley, DOAH Case No. 09-2545.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED:

That Petitioner enter a final order finding that each

Respondent violated Sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.531(1),

Florida Statutes, imposing a total administrative fine in the

amount of $11,000 against each Respondent, and assessing costs

in the amount of $554 against Carpenter and $1,005.67 against

Henley.

DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2010, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

SUZANNE F. HOOD

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone]

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 23rd day of February, 2010.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Maura M. Bolivar, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Brenda Carpenter

Phillip Henley

5209 Southwest U.S. 221

Greenville, Florida 32331

Amy Toman, Hearing Officer

Office of the General Counsel

Department of Business

and Professional Regulation

Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Reginald Dixon, General Counsel

Department of Business

and Professional Regulation

Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

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.