10-001139RX Luis B. Jaramillo, Jr. vs. Department Of Financial Services Status: Closed DOAH Final Order on Wednesday, September 1, 2010.

Summary: The Petitioner failed to prove existing FAC Rule 69B-211.042(17)(b)1. constituted an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority; did not exceed rulemaking authority and did not enlarge, modify, or contravene law implemented. Petition dismissed.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

LUIS B. JARAMILLO, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 10-1139RX

)

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL )

SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

_________________________________)

FINAL ORDER

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

on June 7, 2010, by video teleconference, with the parties

appearing in Miami, Florida, before Patricia M. Hart, a duly-

designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings, who presided in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Howard J. Hochman, Esquire

Law Offices of Howard J. Hochman

7695 Southwest 104th Street, Suite 210

Miami, Florida 33156

For Respondent: Robyn Blank Jackson, Esquire

Department of Financial Services

Division of Legal Services

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-

211.042(17)(b)1. constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated

legislative authority pursuant to Section 120.52(8)(b) and (c),

Florida Statutes (2010), for the reasons stated in the Corrected

and Amended Petition for Administrative Determination of the

Invalidity of Administrative Rule.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On March 8, 2010, Luis B. Jaramillo, Jr., filed a Petition

for Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of

Administrative Rule, in which he challenged the validity of a

rule of the Department of Financial Services ("Department").

Specifically, Mr. Jaramillo challenged the validity of Florida

Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(17)(b)1. as an invalid

exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant to

120.52(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2010). 1 On May 28, 2010,

Mr. Jaramillo filed a Motion for Leave to File Corrected and

Amended Petition for Administrative Determination of the

Invalidity of Administrative Rule, to which he attached the

proposed corrected and amended petition. In an Order entered

June 3, 2010, the motion was granted, and the Corrected and

Amended Petition for Administrative Determination of the

Invalidity of Administrative Rule was substituted for the

original petition. 2

Pursuant to notice, the final hearing was conducted on

June 7, 2010. Mr. Jaramillo testified in his own behalf and

presented the testimony of Martha Franco; Mr. Jaramillo did not

offer any exhibits into evidence. The Department presented the

testimony of Amelia Spears, and the Department's Exhibits 2

through 5 and 8 through 9 were offered and received into

evidence. Joint Exhibits 1 and 6 were offered and received into

evidence. In their Prehearing Stipulation, the parties

identified the following statutes as the relevant statutes

implemented by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-

211.042(17)(b)1.: Sections 112.011, 624.308, 626.171, 626.201,

626.207, 626.211, 626.611, and 626.621, Florida Statutes. At

the final hearing, the Petitioner made an ore tenus motion for

official recognition of the statutes listed above, which was

granted.

The one-volume transcript of the proceedings was filed with

the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 21, 2010. After

an extension of time was granted, the parties timely filed their

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which have

been considered in the preparation of the Final Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the

final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the

following findings of fact are made:

1. The Department is the state agency responsible for

licensing public adjusters. See §§ 626.022(1); 626.112(1)(a)

and (3); 626.171(a), Fla. Stat.

2. Mr. Jaramillo is currently employed as an estimator by

FRI Public Adjusters, d/b/a Epic Group Public Adjusters, where

he has worked off and on since 1995. He earns approximately

$42,000.00 per year. A public adjuster apprentice working for

this firm earns $150,000.00 to $200,000.00 per year, and a

public adjuster could earn up to $500,000.00.

3. Mr. Jaramillo pled guilty to, and was convicted in the

federal District Court of the Southern District of Florida of,

the felony of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

cocaine.

4. The conviction was entered on June 2, 1999, and

Mr. Jaramillo was sentenced to 87 months in federal prison.

Mr. Jaramillo's supervised release was terminated on

November 25, 2009.

5. On January 7, 2009, Mr. Jaramillo submitted to the

Department an application for a new public adjuster apprentice

license. He disclosed his criminal conviction in the

application.

6. On February 4, 2009, the Department sent Mr. Jaramillo

a letter in which it advised him that it could not process his

application because of certain deficiencies. Such a letter is

known in the Department as a "deficiency letter."

7. In the February 4, 2009, deficiency letter, the

Department stated that, in order for his application to be

considered complete, Mr. Jaramillo needed to provide the

Department certified documents relating to his arrest and

conviction, including a document showing that his civil rights

had been restored, and with a copy of a $50,000.00 surety bond.

8. In a letter to the Department dated April 8, 2009,

Mr. Jaramillo enclosed, among other things, a copy of his

Restoration of Civil Rights Application, dated March 31, 2009,

and a copy of his application for a $50,000.00 surety bond. On

or about June 17, 2009, Mr. Jaramillo provided the Department

with a copy of a Public Adjuster’s Surety Bond in the amount of

$50,000.00.

9. In a second deficiency letter, dated June 24, 2009, the

Department again requested that Mr. Jaramillo "provide evidence

that [his civil rights] have been restored with a certified copy

of [an] applicable law enforcement agency form attesting that

civil rights have been restored."

10. In a third and final deficiency letter, dated

September 3, 2009, the Department again requested evidence that

Mr. Jaramillo's civil rights had been restored. Mr. Jaramillo

did not, and could not, provide such evidence because his civil

rights had not yet been restored.

11. Because Mr. Jaramillo did not provide documentation

that his civil rights had been restored, the Department

considered his application incomplete, and the application was

closed on April 10, 2010, due to inactivity.

12. The Department has not, as of the date of the final

hearing, denied Mr. Jaramillo's application, although it

prepared a draft denial letter dated January 14, 2010. The

Department does not deny licensure applications that are

incomplete because having a denial of such an application on an

applicant's record could have an adverse impact on his or her

chances of having a future application granted.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

13. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and of

the parties thereto pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.56(1), and

120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

14. Section 120.56(1), Florida Statutes, provides: "Any

person substantially affected by a rule or a proposed rule may

seek and administrative determination of the invalidity of the

rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of

Statutes, provides that any "substantially affected person may

seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of an

existing rule at any time during the existence of the rule."

15. The findings of fact herein are sufficient to

establish that Mr. Jaramillo has been substantially affected by

Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(17)(b)1., in that

his application for licensure as a public adjuster apprentice

has been deemed incomplete and closed by the Department. Even

though Mr. Jaramillo’s application has not been denied, the

Department's failure to consider the application substantially

affects his ability to obtain employment as a public adjuster

apprentice. Mr. Jaramillo, therefore, has standing to challenge

Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(17)(b)1.

16. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(17)(b)1.

provides:

(17) Effect of Loss or Restoration of Civil

Rights.

* * *

(b)1. A person who has been convicted of a

felony shall not be eligible for licensure

until such person has received a restoration

of civil rights.

17. Pursuant to Section 120.54(3)(a), Florida Statutes,

Mr. Jaramillo has the "burden of proving by a preponderance of

the evidence that the existing rule is an invalid exercise of

delegated legislative authority as to the objections raised."

18. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires

proof by "the greater weight of the evidence," Black's Law

Dictionary 1201 (7th ed. 1999), or evidence that "more likely

than not" tends to prove a certain proposition. See Gross v.

Lyons , 763 So. 2d 276, 280 n.1 (Fla. 2000)(relying on American

Tobacco Co. v. State , 697 So. 2d 1249, 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)

quoting Bourjaily v. United States , 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987)).

19. Mr. Jaramillo has challenged the validity of Florida

Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(17)(b)1., on the grounds

that it constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative

authority pursuant to Section 120.52(8)(b) and (c), Florida

Statutes, which provides:

8) "Invalid exercise of delegated

legislative authority" means action which

goes beyond the powers, functions, and

duties delegated by the Legislature. A

proposed or existing rule is an invalid

exercise of delegated legislative authority

if any one of the following applies:

* * *

(b) The agency has exceeded its grant of

rulemaking authority, citation to which is

required by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.;

(c) The rule enlarges, modifies, or

contravenes the specific provisions of law

implemented, citation to which is required

by s. 120.54(3)(a)1[.]

* * *

A grant of rulemaking authority is necessary

but not sufficient to allow an agency to

adopt a rule; a specific law to be

implemented is also required. An agency may

adopt only rules that implement or interpret

the specific powers and duties granted by

the enabling statute. No agency shall have

authority to adopt a rule only because it is

reasonably related to the purpose of the

enabling legislation and is not arbitrary

and capricious or is within the agency’s

class of powers and duties, nor shall an

agency have the authority to implement

statutory provisions setting forth general

legislative intent or policy. Statutory

language granting rulemaking authority or

generally describing the powers and

functions of an agency shall be construed to

extend no further than implementing or

interpreting the specific powers and duties

conferred by the enabling statute.

See also § 120.536(1), Florida Statutes

20. The Legislature has explicated the limitations on the

extent of an agency's authority to adopt rules in the "flush

left" paragraph in Section 120.52(8) and in Section 120.536(1),

Florida Statutes, which require not only that an agency adopting

a rule have a grant of rulemaking authority but also that the

rulemaking authority granted by statute extend no further than

the implementation or interpretation of "the specific powers and

duties granted by the enabling statute."

21. In interpreting the provisions of the "flush left"

paragraph in Section 120.52(8) and in Section 120.536(1),

Florida Statutes, the First District Court of Appeal observed in

Southwest Florida Water Management District v. Save the Manatee

Club, Inc., et al. , 773 So. 2d 594, 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000),

that

[t]he new law gives the agencies authority

to "implement or interpret" specific powers

and duties contained in the enabling

statute. A rule that is used to implement

or carry out a directive will necessarily

contain language more detailed than that

used in the directive itself. Likewise, the

use of the term "interpret" suggests that a

rule will be more detailed than the

applicable enabling statute. There would be

no need for interpretation if all details

were contained in the statute itself.

It follows that the authority for an

administrative rule is not a matter of

degree. The question is whether the statute

contains a specific grant of legislative

authority for the rule, not whether the

grant of authority is specific enough.

Either the enabling statute authorizes the

rule at issue or it does not.

22. The court in Board of Trustees of the Internal

Improvement Trust Fund v. Day Cruise Ass'n , 794 So. 2d 696, 701

(Fla. 1st DCA 2001), observed that the question of an agency's

exceeding its grant of rulemaking authority and the question of

a rule enlarging or modifying the specific provisions of law

implemented are interrelated but present two different issues

for consideration in determining whether a rule is an invalid

exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant to

In this case, however, the two questions are inextricably

intertwined and can better be addressed together.

23. Section 120.52(17), Florida Statutes, defines

"rulemaking authority" as "statutory language that explicitly

authorizes or requires an agency to adopt, develop, establish,

or otherwise create any statement coming within the definition

of the term 'rule.'" Section 120.52(9), Florida Statutes,

defines "law implemented" as "the language of the enabling

statute being carried out or interpreted by an agency through

rulemaking."

24. The Department has cited Section 624.308, Florida

Statutes, as the specific rulemaking authority for Florida

Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042. That statute provides in

pertinent part: "(1) The department [of Financial Services] and

the [Financial Services] commission may each adopt rules

pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.24 to implement provisions of

law conferring duties upon the department or the commission,

respectively." § 624.308(1), Fla. Stat.

25. The parties have stipulated that the laws implemented

by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(17)(b)1. are the

following:

a. Section 112.011(1), Florida Statutes, which provides in

pertinent part:

(b) Except as provided in s. 775.166, a

person whose civil rights have been restored

shall not be disqualified to practice,

pursue, or engage in any occupation, trade,

vocation, profession, or business for which

a license, permit, or certificate is

required to be issued by the state, any of

its agencies or political subdivisions, or

any municipality solely because of a prior

conviction for a crime. However, a person

whose civil rights have been restored may be

denied a license, permit, or certification

to pursue, practice, or engage in an

occupation, trade, vocation, profession, or

business by reason of the prior conviction

for a crime if the crime was a felony or

first degree misdemeanor and directly

related to the specific occupation, trade,

vocation, profession, or business for which

the license, permit, or certificate is

sought.

b. Section 626.171, Florida Statutes, which provides in

pertinent part:

(1) The department shall not issue a

license as agent, customer representative,

adjuster, service representative, managing

general agent, or reinsurance intermediary

to any person except upon written

application therefor filed with it,

qualification therefor, and payment in

advance of all applicable fees. Any such

application shall be made under the oath of

the applicant and be signed by the

applicant. . . .

c. Section 626.201, Florida Statutes, which provides:

(1) The department or office may propound

any reasonable interrogatories in addition

to those contained in the application, to

any applicant for license or appointment, or

on any renewal, reinstatement, or

continuation thereof, relating to the

applicant's qualifications, residence,

prospective place of business, and any other

matter which, in the opinion of the

department or office, is deemed necessary or

advisable for the protection of the public

and to ascertain the applicant's

qualifications.

(2) The department or office may, upon

completion of the application, make such

further investigation as it may deem

advisable of the applicant's character,

experience, background, and fitness for the

license or appointment. Such an inquiry or

investigation shall be in addition to any

examination required to be taken by the

applicant as hereinafter in this chapter

provided.

(3) An inquiry or investigation of the

applicant's qualifications, character,

experience, background, and fitness must

include submission of the applicant's

fingerprints to the Department of Law

Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of

Investigation and consideration of any state

criminal records, federal criminal records,

or local criminal records obtained from

these agencies or from local law enforcement

agencies.

d. Section 626.207, Florida Statutes, which provides in

pertinent part:

(1) The department shall adopt rules

establishing specific waiting periods for

applicants to become eligible for licensure

following denial, suspension, or revocation

pursuant to s. 626.611, s. 626.621,

s. 626.8437, s. 626.844, s. 626.935,

s. 634.181, s. 634.191, s. 634.320,

s. 634.321, s. 634.422, s.634.423,

s. 642.041, or s. 642.043. The purpose of

the waiting periods is to provide sufficient

time to demonstrate reformation of character

and rehabilitation. The waiting periods

shall vary based on the type of conduct and

the length of time since the conduct

occurred and shall also be based on the

probability that the propensity to commit

illegal conduct has been overcome. The

waiting periods may be adjusted based on

aggravating and mitigating factors

established by rule and consistent with this

purpose.

e. Section 626.211, Florida Statutes, which provides in

pertinent part:

(4) If upon the basis of the completed

application and such further inquiry or

investigation the department deems the

applicant to be lacking in any one or more

of the required qualifications for the

license applied for, the department shall

disapprove the application and notify the

applicant, stating the grounds of

disapproval.

f. Section 626.611, Florida Statutes, which provides in

pertinent part:

Grounds for compulsory refusal, suspension,

or revocation of agent's, title agency's,

adjuster's, customer representative's,

service representative's, or managing

general agent's license or appointment. --The

department shall deny an application for,

suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew or

continue the license or appointment of any

applicant, agent, title agency, adjuster,

customer representative, service

representative, or managing general agent,

and it shall suspend or revoke the

eligibility to hold a license or appointment

of any such person, if it finds that as to

the applicant, licensee, or appointee any

one or more of the following applicable

grounds exist:

* * *

(7) Demonstrated lack of fitness or

trustworthiness to engage in the business of

insurance.

* * *

(14) Having been found guilty of or having

pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to a

felony or a crime punishable by imprisonment

of 1 year or more under the law of the

United States of America or of any state

thereof or under the law of any other

country which involves moral turpitude,

without regard to whether a judgment of

conviction has been entered by the court

having jurisdiction of such cases.

g. Section 626.621, Florida Statutes, which provides in

pertinent part:

Grounds for discretionary refusal,

suspension, or revocation of agent's,

adjuster's, customer representative's,

service representative's, or managing

general agent's license or appointment. --The

department may, in its discretion, deny an

application for, suspend, revoke, or refuse

to renew or continue the license or

appointment of any applicant, agent,

adjuster, customer representative, service

representative, or managing general agent,

and it may suspend or revoke the eligibility

to hold a license or appointment of any such

person, if it finds that as to the

applicant, licensee, or appointee any one or

more of the following applicable grounds

exist under circumstances for which such

denial, suspension, revocation, or refusal

is not mandatory under s. 626,611:

* * *

(8) Having been found guilty of or having

pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to a

felony or a crime punishable by imprisonment

of 1 year or more under the law of the

United States of America or of any state

thereof or under the law of any other

country, without regard to whether a

judgment of conviction has been entered by

the court having jurisdiction of such cases.

26. Even though the grant of rulemaking authority in

Section 624.308(1), Florida Statutes, might seem, on first

reading, to be a general grant of authority, it is a specific

grant of rulemaking authority, as required by Section 120.52(8),

Florida Statutes, when considered in the context of the laws

implemented by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042.

The rule, in its entirety, deals with the effect of law

enforcement records on applications for licensure for any of the

professions governed by Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, including

public adjusters. The specific laws implemented by the rule

deal explicitly with the Department's authority to determine

whether applicants have the qualifications for licensure and set

out in detail those qualifications with respect to applicants

who have criminal records.

27. Section 626.171(2)(j), Florida Statutes, allows the

Department to request any information, in addition to that

required by the statute, that the Department "deems proper to

enable it to determine the . . . qualifications" for licensure

under Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, and Section 626.201(3),

Florida Statutes, specifically allows the Department to consider

an applicant's criminal records.

28. Sections 626.611(14) and 626.621(8), Florida Statutes,

govern the Department's consideration of an applicant's criminal

history. Specifically, the Department is required to deny an

application for licensure to any applicant who has been

convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude. See

§ 626.611(14), Fla. Stat. Additionally, the Department is given

the discretion to deny an application for licensure to any

applicant who has been convicted of a felony. See § 626.621(8),

Fla. Stat.

29. The Department has classified felonies into three

categories in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(21).

The felony for which Mr. Jaramillo was convicted, conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute cocaine, is classified by the

Department as a Class A felony that is considered by the

Department to be a crime of moral turpitude. See Fla. Admin.

Code R. 69B-211.042(21)(vv) and (fff). 3

30. Because Mr. Jaramillo's felony conviction is

considered by the Department to involve a crime of moral

turpitude, the Department is required to evaluate

Mr. Jaramillo's application pursuant to the mandatory provisions

in Section 626.611(14), Florida Statutes, rather than pursuant

to the discretionary provisions of Section 626.621(8), Florida

Statutes. Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to

consider only whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-

211.042(17)(b)1. constitutes an invalid delegation of

legislative authority with respect to Section 626.611(14),

Florida Statutes.

31. The requirement that the Department deny an

application for licensure to a person convicted of a felony

involving moral turpitude is limited by Section 112.011(1)(b),

Florida Statutes, which prohibits an agency from disqualifying a

person who has been convicted of a crime from licensure if that

person's civil rights have been restored. This means that,

notwithstanding the provisions of Section 626.611(14), Florida

Statutes, the Department could not deny his application solely

on the basis of his conviction if his civil rights were

restored. Cf . Sandlin v. Criminal Justice Standards Comm'n , 531

So. 2d 1344, 1346-47 (Fla. 1988)(In order to reach a

constitutional result, a statute purporting to bar all felons

from practicing profession must be limited to barring only

felons who have not been pardoned.); Padgett v. Estate of

Gilbert , 676 So. 2d 440 (Florida 1st DCA 1996)(extends rationale

and holding of Sandlin to cases in which felon's civil rights

have been restored). The Department recognizes this limitation

in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(17)(c), which

provides that "[a]n applicant will not be disqualified for

licensure solely because of a prior conviction it the applicant

has received a restoration of civil rights."

32. Conversely, a person whose civil rights have not been

restored is not protected by Section 112.011(1)(b), Florida

Statutes. Because Mr. Jaramillo has not had his civil rights

restored, he is not protected by Section 112.011(1)(b), Florida

Statutes, and the Department is not barred from denying

Mr. Jaramillo's application for licensure pursuant to

Section 626.611(14), Florida Statutes, solely because he was

convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude. 4 It follows,

therefore, that the Department has the authority to adopt a rule

declaring that a person who has been convicted of a felony

involving moral turpitude is ineligible for licensure until his

or her civil rights have been restored.

33. For the reasons stated, the Department did not exceed

the rulemaking authority granted by Section 624.308, nor did it

“enlarge[], modif[y] or contravene[] the specific provisions of

Section 626.611(14), Florida Statutes, in adopting Florida

Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(17)(b)1. Florida

Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(17)(b)1. is not, therefore,

an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant

to Section 120.52(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes, with respect

to Section 626.611(14), Florida Statutes. No conclusion is

reached, however, regarding the validity of Florida

Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(17)(b)1. with respect to

the discretionary authority granted to the Department to deny an

application for licensure pursuant to Section 626.621(8),

Florida Statutes, because of a felony conviction.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is ORDERED that the Corrected and Amended Petition for

Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of Administrative

Rule filed by Luis B. Jaramillo, Jr., is dismissed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of September, 2010, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

PATRICIA M. HART

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 1st day of September, 2010.

ENDNOTE

1 / All references to the Florida Statutes are to the 2010

edition unless otherwise indicated.

2 / The constitutional issues raised in the Corrected and Amended

Petition for Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of

Administrative Rule have not been addressed herein because an

administrative law judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearings does not have jurisdiction to decide the

constitutionality of existing rules. See Department of

Environmental Regulation v. Leon County , 344 So. 2d 297 (Fla.

1st DCA 1977).

3 / No challenge to the validity of Florida Administrative Code

Rule 69B-211.042(21) has been raised in this proceeding.

4 / It is noted that Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-

211.042(17)(b)1. does not require the denial of an application

for licensure because civil rights have not been restored; it

only declares that an applicant whose civil rights have not been

restored is ineligible for licensure until these rights have

been restored. In this respect, Mr. Jaramillo is benefited by

Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(17)(b)1. because,

pursuant to Section 626.611(14), Florida Statutes, the

Department could deny his application, in which event

Mr. Jaramillo would incur the disabilities attendant on the

denial of an application for licensure should he reapply in the

future.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Howard J. Hochman, Esquire

Law Offices of Howard J. Hochman

7695 Southwest 104th Street, Suite 210

Miami, Florida 33156

Robyn Blank Jackson, Esquire

Department of Financial Services

612 Larson Building

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

F. Scott Boyd, Executive Director

Joint Administrative Procedure Committee

120 Holland Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is

entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida

Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules

of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by

filing one copy of a Notice of Administrative Appeal with the

agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a

second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with

the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the

District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the

party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within

30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.