09-002837
Colorcars Experienced Automobiles, Inc. vs.
Department Of Revenue
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, April 29, 2010.
Recommended Order on Thursday, April 29, 2010.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8COLORCARS EXPERIENCED ) )
12AUTOMOBILES, INC., )
15)
16Petitioner, )
18vs. ) Case No. 09-2837
23)
24DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, )
28)
29Respondent. )
31)
32RECOMMENDED ORDER
34Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Daniel Manry conducted the
42final hearing of this case for the Division of Administrative
52Hearings (DOAH) on March 22, 2010. The ALJ conducted the
62hearing by video teleconference in Tallahassee and Sarasota,
70Florida.
71APPEARANCES
72For Petitioner: John T. Early, III
78Qualified Representative
80Colorcars Experienced Automobiles, Inc.
842311 Tamiami Trail
87Nokomis, Florida 34275
90For Respondent: Jeffrey M. Dikman, Esquire
96Office of the Attorney General
101The Capitol, Plaza 01
105Tallahassee, Florida 32399
108STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
112The issue is whether a Notice of Intent to Levy that
123Respondent issued pursuant to Section 213.67, Florida Statutes
131(2008), 1 is improper because either the $62,482.96 in
141Petitioner's four bank accounts belongs to third parties or the
151doctrine of equitable estoppel prevents collection.
157PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
159This proceeding is the second of two cases involving the
169same parties. The two cases are more fully described in the
180Findings of Fact.
183In this proceeding, Respondent has issued a Notice of
192Intent to Levy (the Notice) and has effectively frozen four of
203Petitioner's bank accounts pursuant to Section 213.67.
210Petitioner concedes that one of the four accounts, containing a
220balance of $4,050.19 at the time of the Notice, was properly
232subject to the Notice. 2
237The remaining three accounts are the disputed accounts in
246this proceeding. Petitioner makes two allegations in an attempt
255to defeat the Notice. First, Petitioner alleges that the three
265accounts contain funds belonging solely to third parties.
273Second, Petitioner raises an estoppel argument. The argument
281alleges that an employee of Respondent gave Petitioner
289assurances that no collection activity would take place while
298alleged settlement negotiations were ongoing.
303At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of
312five witnesses and submitted 26 exhibits for admission into
321evidence. Respondent called one witness, submitted 13 exhibits,
329and requested official recognition of another exhibit.
336The identity of the witnesses and exhibits and the rulings
346regarding each are reported in the official record of the
356hearing and a partial Transcript of the hearing that Respondent
366filed with DOAH on April 5, 2010. Respondent timely filed its
377Proposed Recommended Order on April 15, 2010. Petitioner did
386not file a PRO.
390FINDINGS OF FACT
3931. Petitioner is engaged in the used car business in
403Florida. Petitioner's principal place of business is in
411Sarasota, Florida.
4132. Petitioners principal and qualified representative is
420Mr. John T. Early, III. Mr. Early is a licensed attorney in the
433State of Connecticut, but Mr. Early engages in the used car
444business rather than the practice of law.
4513. Respondent is the state agency responsible for
459administering the sales and use tax in Florida. The instant
469proceeding is the second of two cases between Petitioner and
479Respondent.
4804. The first case between the parties is identified in the
491record as Colorcars Experienced Automobiles, Inc. vs. Department
499of Revenue , DOAH Case No. 08-005442 (Colorcars 1). On June 15,
5102005, Respondent issued a tax assessment against Petitioner for
519$245,057.07. The assessment was for tax, penalty, and accrued
529interest as of the date of the assessment.
5375. Colorcars 1 began when Petitioner requested an
545administrative hearing to contest the tax assessment, and
553Respondent referred the request to DOAH to conduct the hearing.
563Colorcars 1 became final and non-reviewable on February 13,
5722009, when Petitioner voluntarily dismissed its challenge, with
580prejudice. 3
5826. After Colorcars 1 became final agency action,
590Respondent recorded a tax warrant for $319,512.05, including
599penalties and additional accrued interest. 4 Petitioner admits it
608owes taxes, penalties, and interest in an amount that exceeds
618the funds in the bank accounts evidenced in this proceeding.
6287. The procedure Respondent utilized to freeze the bank
637accounts of Petitioner was appropriate, including the decision
645not to provide Petitioner with prior notice of the collection
655process. On April 21, 2009, Respondent sent a letter to Liberty
666Savings Bank, in accordance with Subsection 213.67(1), directing
674the bank to freeze any accounts belonging to Petitioner.
6838. On April, 28, 2009, Liberty Savings Bank responded that
693four accounts were frozen with an aggregate balance of
702$62,482.96. The four frozen account balances are identified
711below by account number and by the account title as they appear
723on the bank account statements:
728(a) CKG Acct. #2844006582
732(Named Colorcars Experienced Automobiles
736Acquisition Account) $53,114.37
740(b) CKG Acct. #2844006604
744(Named Colorcars Experienced Automobiles
748Management Account) $4,050.19
752(c) CKG Acct. #2844006671
756(Named Colorcars Experienced Automobiles
760Client Funds) $5,243.03
764(d) CKG Account #2844006817
768(Named Colorcars Experienced Automobiles
772Merchant Account) $75.37
7759. On April 29, 2009, Respondent served Petitioner with
784the Notice pursuant to Section 213.67. Respondent did not
793notify Petitioner in advance of the account freeze because
802Respondent had a reasonable basis to believe prior notice would
812jeopardize Respondent's ability to collect the unpaid funds.
820The assessment had not been paid even though the assessment had
831already become final and non-reviewable. Respondent was
838legitimately concerned that the money could be withdrawn if
847advance notice were given. Apart from the particular facts and
857circumstances in this case, prior notice is inconsistent with
866Respondent's administrative policy.
86910. Mr. Early made attempts to remove the freeze from the
880accounts. Mr. Early informed Mr. Michael David, Respondents
888collections agent: (a) that three of the frozen accounts in
898controversy were trust accounts; and (b) that the three
907accounts contained money that did not belong to Petitioner.
91611. Mr. David consulted with his supervisor, Mr. Kenneth
925Sexton. The two agents did not consider Petitioners
933allegations to be sufficiently documented. Respondent kept the
941collection freeze in effect.
94512. The parties have since stipulated on the record that
955none of the four frozen accounts are trust accounts. The
965account registration statements show that the accounts were
973opened as For-Profit Business/Corporation accounts rather than
980as trust or fiduciary accounts. 5
98613. Prior to commencement of the collection action,
994Mr. Early had discussed payment of the tax assessment in
1004Colorcars 1. Mr. Early alleges that Mr. David promised not to
1015proceed with collection action while settlement discussions were
1023ongoing in Colorcars 1. Mr. David denies having made that
1033statement. Mr. Sexton is without knowledge of any such
1042statement or agreement.
104514. The fact-finder finds the testimony of Mr. David and
1055Mr. Sexton to be credible and persuasive. The testimony is
1065supported by the notes of the meetings. Petitioner made no
1075payments toward the obligation due in Colorcars 1, and the tax
1086due was in jeopardy when Respondent began collection.
1094Collection without prior notice to Petitioner was reasonably
1102justified under the circumstances and is consistent with
1110Respondent's administrative policy.
111315. Petitioner stipulates in its signed response to the
1122Second Requests for Admissions that the funds in the disputed
1132accounts are commingled and that the commingling is
1140extensive. Petitioner failed to provide a sufficient
1147accounting. A preponderance of the evidence does not provide
1156sufficient source records to enable Respondent's expert or the
1165trier of fact to make a determination that discrete and
1175identifiable client funds might remain within the extensively
1183commingled accounts that are in dispute.
118916. Petitioner has had ample time and discovery to satisfy
1199its factual burden of proof in this case. In the February 5,
12112010, Order granting Respondents motion to compel, as evidenced
1220in the motion hearing Transcript, the ALJ ordered Petitioner to
1230produce legible documents during a defined six-month period that
1239included portions of two tax years (the six-month period). The
1249Order granting the motion to compel was cobbled together in a
1260lengthy hearing with the parties, as was the six-month period,
1270and was intended to enable the trier of fact to identify
1281discrete client funds in the three disputed accounts and to
1291promote an amicable settlement of this case between the parties
1301so as to avoid the need for a hearing. Petitioner has failed to
1314provide legible documents or factually complete documents that
1322promote either intended purpose of the motion hearing. 6
133117. Petitioner provided some evidence that client funds,
1339from five of Petitioners customers, were deposited at various
1348times into extensively commingled accounts. However, a
1355preponderance of the evidence does not show that identifiable
1364funds belonging to those clients remain in the extensively
1373commingled accounts.
137518. The fact-finder finds the testimony of the
1383Respondent's expert to be credible and persuasive. The funds
1392have been so completely and extensively commingled, and the
1401account records produced by Petitioner were so lacking, that no
1411discrete funds can be identified.
141619. Only a small percentage of the deposits shown on the
1427bank statements for the six-month period are from sources that
1437can be identified . For example, the Acquisition Account,
1447which contains most of the frozen funds in dispute, lists 152
1458deposits. However, only three deposits can be identified by
1467source. The three identified deposits total $46,725. By
1476contrast, the unidentified deposits total $1,625,634.06.
148420. Petitioners pattern of only identifying the source of
1493a small percentage of the deposits is consistent for each
1503account. Of the $37,711.56 deposited into the Merchant
1512Account during the six-month period, not one of the deposits
1522was from an identifiable source. Of the $166,294.27 deposited
1532into the Client Funds Account during the six-month period,
1541only $38,146 was from identifiable sources. None of the funds
1552contained in the frozen bank accounts can be separately
1561identified by a preponderance of the evidence as belonging to
1571any party other than Petitioner.
1576CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
157921. Petitioner argues that Respondent is equitably
1586estopped from any collection action against Petitioner. Equity
1594is the exclusive province of the courts in Florida. Art. V,
1605Fla. Const. Neither DOAH nor its ALJs constitute a court with
1616equitable jurisdiction. See Florida Department of Revenue v.
1624WHI Limited Partnership, d/b/a Wyndham Harbor Island Hotel , 754
1633So. 2d 205, 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Florida State University v.
1645Hatton , 672 So. 2d 576, 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
165522. The jurisdiction of DOAH with respect to Petitioner's
1664equitable estoppel issue is limited to relevant findings of
1673stated in the Findings of Fact, a preponderance of the evidence
1684does not show that Respondent represented it would refrain from
1694collection activity under the facts and circumstances evidenced
1702in the record.
170523. DOAH has jurisdiction over the remaining subject
1713matter in this proceeding, as well as the parties to this
1724provided the parties with adequate notice of the final hearing.
173424. Once the assessment of taxes against Petitioner became
1743final, Respondent had authority under Section 213.67 to issue
1752the Notice. The Notice operated as a freeze of the bank
1763accounts at issue in this proceeding during the statutory 60-day
1773period prescribed in Subsection 213.67(1), as extended by the
1782pendency of this administrative proceeding.
178725. Petitioner does not contest that Respondent has the
1796legal authority to issue the Notice and concedes that one of the
1808four accounts is uncontested. Rather, Petitioner maintains that
1816three of the four bank accounts contain funds belonging solely
1826to third parties.
182926. The burden of proof is on Petitioner. Petitioner must
1839show by a preponderance of the evidence that a deposit into a
1851general account was made for a specific purpose or subject to
1862special terms and conditions. Carl v. Republic Security Bank ,
1871282 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (S.D. Fla. 2003); Southeast First National
1882Bank of Miami v. Scutieri , 396 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981);
1895Coyle v. Pan American Bank Of Miami , 377 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3rd
1908DCA 1979).
191027. Under Florida law, an accounting is a factual
1919determination for the fact-finder. William R. Smith v. American
1928Motor Inns of Florida , 538 F.2d 1090 (5th Cir. 1976). When
1939funds are commingled, the burden is on Petitioner, acting as the
1950functional equivalent of a fiduciary for alleged third-party
1958beneficiaries, to adequately account for funds belonging to the
1967beneficiaries. Cf. Rasmussen v. Central Florida Council Boy
1975Scouts of America, Inc. , 2009 Lexis 14272 (M.D. Fla. April 15,
19862009)(involving fiduciary accounting); Technical Acoustics v.
1992Enterprise National Bank , 672 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA
20021996)(involving contract accounting).
200528. The records evidenced in the final hearing were
2014insufficient to make an independent determination that a
2022discrete portion of the funds belonged to a third party.
2032Rather, a preponderance of the evidence showed that the funds
2042were so extensively commingled, and Petitioners record-keeping
2049so poor, that any individual identity of the funds has been
2060lost.
206129. Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of proof. A
2072preponderance of the evidence does not show that any portion of
2083commingled funds remain identifiable in the account as belonging
2092to a third party.
209630. The authority of DOAH is limited to a recommendation
2106that Respondent enter a final order finding that all of the
2117funds in the three disputed accounts, as well as the funds in
2129the fourth undisputed account, belong to Petitioner and that
2138none of the funds belong to third parties. Therefore, the funds
2149in all four accounts are properly subject to the Notice dated
2160April 29, 2009.
216331. DOAH cannot issue a writ of garnishment that would
2173enable Respondent to garnish the funds on deposit in the four
2184bank accounts. The Florida Constitution reserves to the courts
2193the power to issue writs. Art. V, Fla. Const. DOAH is not a
2206court. Wyndham Harbor , 754 So. 2d at 206; Hatton , 672 So. 2d at
2219579. DOAH is part of the executive branch of government rather
2230than the judicial branch of government. If a member of the
2241executive branch of the government were to exercise power
2250reserved to the judicial branch, the result would violate the
2260separation of powers act. Art. II, § 3, Fla. Const.
2270RECOMMENDED ORDER
2272Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
2281of Law, it is
2285Recommended that Respondent enter a final order finding
2293that all of the funds in the four bank accounts in evidence in
2306this proceeding belong to Petitioner and are subject to the
2316Notice of Intent to Levy that Respondent issued on April 29,
23272009, in accordance with Section 213.67.
2333DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2010, in
2343Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
2347S
2348DANIEL MANRY
2350Administrative Law Judge
2353Division of Administrative Hearings
2357The DeSoto Building
23601230 Apalachee Parkway
2363Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
2366(850) 488-9675
2368Fax Filing (850) 921-6847
2372www.doah.state.fl.us
2373Filed with the Clerk of the
2379Division of Administrative Hearings
2383this 29th day of April, 2010.
2389ENDNOTES
23901/ References to subsections, sections, and chapters are to
2399Florida Statutes (2008), unless otherwise stated.
24052/ The undisputed account is bank account number . It is
2416labeled on all account statements as Management Account. See
2425Respondents Exhibit 9.
24283/ Section 72.011 provides a 60-day jurisdictional time limit
2437for challenging a tax assessment.
24424/ A separate tax warrant was also recorded in the amount of
2454$12,869.28 for other unpaid taxes that are unrelated to the
2465Assessment Challenge.
24675/ During the collection action, Mr. Early and Mr. David
2477discussed settlement of the freeze without settling the
2485underlying tax liabilities or warrants. Those settlement
2492discussions came to an impasse, and the bank account freeze
2502continued.
25036/ Petitioner produced deposit slips for approximately 13 of 335
2513deposits made during the six months covered in the Order
2523compelling discovery. Petitioner produced approximately 716
2529canceled checks for the six-month period, but the copies of the
2540checks were miniaturized, illegible copies.
2545COPIES FURNISHED :
2548John T. Early, III, Esquire
2553Colorcars Experienced Automobiles, Inc.
25572311 Tamiami Trail
2560Nokomis, Florida 34275
2563Jeffrey M. Dikman, Esquire
2567Office of the Attorney General
2572The Capitol, Plaza 01
2576Tallahassee, Florida 32399
2579Marshall Stranburg, General Counsel
2583Department of Revenue
2586The Carlton Building, Room 204
2591501 South Calhoun Street
2595Post Office Box 6668
2599Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668
2602Lisa Echeverri, Executive Director
2606Department of Revenue
2609The Carlton Building, Room 104
2614501 South Calhoun Street
2618Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
2621NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
2627All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
263715 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions
2648to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that
2659will issue the Final Order in this case.
![](/images/view_pdf.png)
- Date
- Proceedings
-
PDF:
- Date: 06/08/2010
- Proceedings: Order Denying Extension of Time to File Exceptions (correct exhibits) filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 05/03/2010
- Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding the one-volume Transcript of Telephonic Proceedings to the agency.
-
PDF:
- Date: 04/29/2010
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- Date: 04/05/2010
- Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings filed.
- Date: 03/30/2010
- Proceedings: Transcript of Telephonic Proceedings filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 03/24/2010
- Proceedings: Department's Notice of Filing Exhibit R14 (Resume of George Kovac, CPA and Expert Witness) (exhibits not available for viewing) .
- Date: 03/22/2010
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- Date: 03/19/2010
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Exhibits (Exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
- Date: 03/19/2010
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
-
PDF:
- Date: 03/17/2010
- Proceedings: Department's List of Petitioner's Numbered Exhibits to Which There is No Objection; Amended Exhibit List filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 03/16/2010
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Manry from J. Dikman regarding Judge's Instructions (documents not available for viewing) filed.
- Date: 03/16/2010
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
- Date: 03/16/2010
- Proceedings: Respondent's copies Produce by Petitioner's Bank (not available for viewing) filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 03/15/2010
- Proceedings: Department's Motion to Amend Pretrial Stipulation Exhibit List so as to Include Data Summaries Attached to the Affidavit og George Kovac filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 03/15/2010
- Proceedings: Department's Notice of Filing Affidavit of George Kovac, CPA and Notice of Intent to Reply Upon Spreadsheet data Summaries Attached Thereto; Notice Pursuant to Section 90.956, F.S. filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 03/15/2010
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Request for Admissions with Interlocking Discovery filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 02/26/2010
- Proceedings: Order Granting Motion to Amend Pretrial Stipulation Exhibit List so as to Include Bank Account Registration Records and Corporate Authorization Resolutions.
-
PDF:
- Date: 02/25/2010
- Proceedings: Notice that Department's Motion to Amend Pretrial Statement Exhibit List so as to Include Bank Account Registration Records and Corporate Authorization Recod is Unopposed filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 02/25/2010
- Proceedings: Department's Motion to Amend Pretrial Stipulation Exhibit List so as to Include Bank Account Registration Records and Corporate Authorization Resolutions filed.
- Date: 02/19/2010
- Proceedings: Transcript of Telephonic Motion Hearing filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 02/19/2010
- Proceedings: Order Granting Motion to Treat George Kovac, CPA, as a Listed Witness.
-
PDF:
- Date: 02/16/2010
- Proceedings: Notice that Department's Motion to Treat George Kovac, CPA as a Listed Witness is Unopposed filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 02/15/2010
- Proceedings: Department's Motion to Treat George Kovac, CPA as a Listed Witness filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 02/09/2010
- Proceedings: Respondent's Second Request for Admissions with Interlocking Discovery filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 02/08/2010
- Proceedings: Department's Notice of Receiving Incomplete Copied of Petitioner's Trial Exhibits (exhibits not attached) filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 02/05/2010
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for March 22, 2010; 9:30 a.m.; Sarasota and Tallahassee, FL).
- Date: 02/04/2010
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
-
PDF:
- Date: 02/04/2010
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Objections to Motion to Compel and Motion in Limine filed.
- Date: 02/01/2010
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
-
PDF:
- Date: 02/01/2010
- Proceedings: Department's Notice of Filing Deposition Transcript of Colorcars in Support of Department's Motion to Compel and Motion in Limine (Unsigned Copy with signed Copy to Follow) .
-
PDF:
- Date: 02/01/2010
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Objection to Motion to Continue Final Hearing and Objection to Motion to Extend Deadline for Serving a Prehearing Stipulation or Unilateral Pretrial Statement filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 02/01/2010
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Withdrawal of its Request to Produce and Withdrawal of Request for Order to Reduce Time to Produce filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 01/27/2010
- Proceedings: Department's Unopposed Motion to Accept Notice of Supplemental Witness and Exhibits as Amendment to Pretrail Stipulation filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 01/26/2010
- Proceedings: Department's: (1) Withdrawal of its Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction; (2) Amended Motion to Continue Final Hearing (3) Department's Renewed Opposition to Petitioner's Motion to "Reduce Time to Produce" filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 01/26/2010
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Objection to Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 01/25/2010
- Proceedings: Department's: (1) Response in Opposition to "Petitioner's Request for Order to Reduce Time to Produce"; (2) Motion to Extend the Deadline for Serving a Prehearing Stipulation or Unilateral Pretrial Statement: and (3) Motion to Continue Final Hearing filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 01/20/2010
- Proceedings: Notice of filing Exhibits to Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 01/13/2010
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for February 8, 2010; 1:00 p.m.; Sarasota and Tallahassee, FL).
-
PDF:
- Date: 01/08/2010
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Compliance and Inventory of Exhibits filed.
- Date: 01/05/2010
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
-
PDF:
- Date: 01/04/2010
- Proceedings: Department's Response and Objection to Petitioner's Most Recent Request to Reschedule Final Hearing filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 01/04/2010
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Second Request to Reschedule Date of Final Hearing filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 12/21/2009
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Department's Response and Objection to Petitioner's Request to Reschedule Date of Final Hearing filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 12/18/2009
- Proceedings: Department's Response and Objection to Petitioner's Request to Reschedule Date of Final Hearing filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 12/15/2009
- Proceedings: Department's Notice of Filing Stipulated Pretrial Statement filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 10/07/2009
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for January 6, 2010; 9:00 a.m.; Sarasota and Tallahassee, FL).
-
PDF:
- Date: 09/04/2009
- Proceedings: Department's Notice of Propounding First Interrogatories to Colorcars filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 08/18/2009
- Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Taking Corporate Deposition Duces Tecum filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 06/30/2009
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Placing Case in Abeyance (parties to advise status by September 30, 2009).
-
PDF:
- Date: 06/24/2009
- Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Taking Corporate Deposition Duces Tecum filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 06/19/2009
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for July 30, 2009; 9:30 a.m.; Sarasota, FL; amended as to hearing location).
Case Information
- Judge:
- DANIEL MANRY
- Date Filed:
- 05/21/2009
- Date Assignment:
- 12/30/2009
- Last Docket Entry:
- 06/08/2010
- Location:
- Sarasota, Florida
- District:
- Middle
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN TOTO
Counsels
-
Jeffrey M. Dikman, Esquire
Address of Record -
John T. Early, III, Esquire
Address of Record