12-001537PL
Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Division Of Real Estate vs.
Richard Patrick Truhan
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, October 26, 2012.
Recommended Order on Friday, October 26, 2012.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )
13PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )
16DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE , )
21)
22Petitioner , )
24)
25vs. ) Ca se Nos. 12 - 1537PL
33) 12 - 1538PL
37RICHARD PATRICK TRUHAN , ) 12 - 1539PL
44) 12 - 1541PL
48Respondent . )
51)
52RECOMMENDED ORDER
54On July 25, 2012, a final administrative hearing was held in
65these cases by video teleconference in Tallahassee and Orlando,
74Florida, before J. Lawrence Johnston, Administrative Law Judge,
82Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH).
87APPEARANCES
88For Petitioner: Christina Ann Arzillo, Esquire
94Department of Business and
98Professional Regulation
1001940 North Monroe Street
104Tallahassee, Florida 32399
107For Respondent: Thomas D. Sommerville, Esquire
113Law Offices of Muller and
118Sommerville, P.A.
120Suite 2
1221150 Louisiana Avenue
125Winter Park, Florida 32789
129STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S
134The issues are essentially whether Respondent failed to use
143reasonable diligence on four appraisals of residential
150condominiums in Orlando done i n 2007, and whether he failed to
162register his appraisal business with Petitioner; and, if so, how
172he should be disciplined.
176PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
178In 2009, Petitioner, the Department of Business and
186Professional Regulation , Division of Real Estate (DBPR), f iled an
196Administrative Complaint as to each of the four appraisals at
206issue. Amended administrative complaints were filed in 2012, and
215Respondent requested administrative hearings to dispute the
222alleged facts. The requests were referred to DOAH, where th ey
233were given case numbers, consolidated into one proceeding, and
242scheduled for hearing. Leave was granted to file a second
252amended complaint in each case. A Joint Pre - hearing Stipulation
263was filed.
265At the final hearing, DBPR called two witnesses (Diana
274Woods, a DBPR investigator; and Dennis Cooper, an appraiser) and
284had its Exhibits 1 through 18 admitted in to evidence. Respondent
295testified and had his Exhibits 2 and 3 admitted in to evidence.
307A Transcript of the final hearing was filed, and the parties
318f iled proposed recommended orders, which have been considered.
327FINDING S OF FACT
3311. Respondent is a certified Florida real estate appraiser,
340holding DBPR license 5422. In 2007, Respondent was appraising
349through Rush Realty Appraisal Services, LLC (Rush Re alty), which
359he owned and operated. Rush Realty was registered with the
369Florida Department of State as a limited liability company, but
379it was not registered with DBPR.
385The Appraisals
3872. In 2007, Rush Realty, through Respondent and a trainee
397he supervise d, appraised four condominium units in a residential
407complex in Orlando called the Residences at Millenia (Millenia).
416Three of the appraisals were done in January and the other in
428June. In January, Rush Realty appraised two of the condos at
439$279,500 and appraised the third at $258,500; in June, it
451appraised the fourth condo at $279,500. Respondent is
460responsible for these appraisals.
4643. One January appraisal was based on five comparables,
473three of which were sales of Millenia condos; one of those three
485was a pending sale. The other two January appraisals were based
496on four comparables, two of which were sales of Millenia condos,
507both of which were pending sales.
5134. One of the pending Millenia sales used for the January
524appraisals was for $290,000 ($282 per square foot, abbreviated
534psf). The other Millenia pending sale used for the January
544appraisals was for $279,500 ($272 psf). The closed sales used in
556the January appraisals included one at Millenia for $209,800
566($204 psf), another at Millenia for $20 7,400 ($202 psf), two at
579nearby Sunset Lake Condos for $275,900 ($265 psf), one at Sunset
591Lake for $259,900 ($251 psf), and one at Sunset Lake for $254,900
605($256 psf).
6075. According to the January appraisal reports, the sources
616of the comparables used by R espondent were the public records and
628the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) for the closed sales and the
639Millenia sales office for the pending sales.
6466. The June appraisal was based on two Millenia condo
656sales. These were the two sales that were pending at the time of
669the January appraisals. According to the June appraisal, those
678sales closed in March 2007, one at $280,000 and the other at
691$279,900.
6937. The June appraisal listed only the Millenia sales office
703as the source of the data on the two Millenia c losed sales used
717as comparables for that appraisal.
7228. The June appraisal listed only the Millenia sales office
732as the source of the data on the two Millenia closed sales used
745as comparables for that appraisal.
7509. Respondent's January appraisal reports s tated that the
759price range of properties similar to the subject property sold
769within the year prior to the appraisal report was from $100,000
781to $400,000. In fact, according to MLS, the range was $25,000 to
795$313,000. Only seven of the 186 comparable sale s were over
807$250,000.
80910. Respondent's June appraisal report also stated that the
818price range of properties similar to the subject property sold
828within the year prior to the appraisal report was from $100,000
840to $400,000. In fact, according to MLS, the r ange was $102,000
854to $313,900. Only four of the 88 comparable sales were over
866$250,000.
868Whether Respondent Used Reasonable Diligence
87311. The information provided by the Millenia sales office
882for the pending sales used as comparables for the January
892appra isals was unverifiable at the time.
89912. It was inappropriate for Respondent to use the Millenia
909sales office as the source of comparables for the January
919appraisals (or to use it to verify other sources) because
929Millenia was interested in the transaction for which the
938appraisals were done.
94113. Respondent testified that he and his trainee used a
951research tool called Microbase to obtain public records
959information on comparable sales for the appraisals. He testified
968that the information from the public reco rds used for the January
980appraisals, and from the Millenia sales office for the June
990appraisal, was verified by the MLS, HUD - 1 closing statements, and
1002contracts. The use of MLS for verification for the closed sales
1013in the January appraisals is indicated b y the inclusion of MLS in
1026the part of those appraisal report forms used to indicate data
1037source(s). Although the data and verification sources other than
1046the Millenia sales office and MLS were not indicated on the
1057report forms for the January appraisals, and no source other than
1068the Millenia sales office was indicated on the report form for
1079the June appraisal, Respondent testified that his work files
1088document the use of all of these sources for the closed sales
1100used as comparables in the four appraisals.
11071 4. DBPR questions the veracity of Respondent's testimony
1116regarding his work files and the use of these data and
1127verification sources based on his failure to replicate his work
1137files when asked to do by Petitioner's investigator. DBPR points
1147to no require ment for Respondent to replicate his work files upon
1159request. It appears from the evidence that Respondent understood
1168he was being asked to produce the files, not to replicate (i.e.,
1180recreate) them. His response was in the negative based on his
1191explanati on that the files had been confiscated by and remained
1202in the possession of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
121115. The FBI has not returned Respondent's work files.
1220Neither party attempted to subpoena the work files in this case,
1231and the work files wer e not placed in evidence.
124116. DBPR also questions the veracity of Respondent's
1249testimony regarding his work files and the use of these data and
1261verification sources based on his failure to use any of the
1272numerous other comparable sales that were available from those
1281sources, most of which were sold for considerably less money than
1292the comparables used by Respondent. For example, for the January
1302appraisals, there were 37 comparable sales in the preceding six
1312months available through MLS that ranged from $3 9,000 to
1323$235,000; and, for the June appraisal, there were 16 comparable
1334sales in the preceding six months available through MLS that
1344ranged from $134,900 to $190,000. DBPR's expert utilized these
1355comparables in MLS and reached value conclusions that were
1364approximately $90,000 lower than Respondent's.
137017. According to MLS, other closed sales at Millenia
1379between July 27, 2006, and January 27, 2007, ranged from $180,000
1391($184.82 psf) to $205,000 ($207.49 psf), with an average of
1402$198,472 ($196.96 psf) and a median of $205,000 ($199.42 psf).
1414Comparable sales of condos within a mile from Millenia that
1424closed between July 27, 2006, and January 27, 2007, ranged from
1435$39,000 ($38.24 psf) to $306,000 ($275.93 psf), with an average
1447of $187,279 ($183.82 psf) and a median of $188,500 ($189.95 psf).
1460Comparable sales of condos within a mile from Millenia that
1470closed between January 27, 2006, and January 27, 2007, ranged
1480from $25,000 ($30.56 psf) to $317,900 ($256.28 psf), with an
1492average of $168,468 ($152.69 psf) and a median of $169,650
1504($159.49 psf).
150618. Respondent testified that he rejected the comparables
1514he did not use based on the properties' relative poor condition,
1525effective age, and lack of amenities. He also testified that, in
1536some cases, the sellers appear ed to be in financial distress and
1548extremely motivated to sell, even at lower than market value; or,
1559in other cases, the sellers did not raise their prices as the
1571market rose.
157319. Taking all the evidence into account, DBPR did not
1583prove that Respondent di d not use any data and verification
1594sources other than the Millenia sales office for the closed sales
1605used as comparables in the four appraisals; however, Respondent
1614inappropriately used pending sales instead of the available
1622comparables and did not dilige ntly review the available
1631comparables before choosing the comparables he used. Instead, he
1640quickly focused on sales at Millennia and Sunset Lakes that were
1651significantly higher than the predominant prices of other
1659comparable sales available to him through MLS and other sources.
1669Respondent failed to exercise reasonable diligence in developing
1677the appraisals and preparing the appraisal reports .
168520. If pending sales had not been used as comparables in
1696the January appraisals, or if other available comparable s had
1706been used, the appraised values would have been significantly
1715lower. The June appraisal would have been lower if other
1725avail able comparables had been used.
1731Other Errors in Appraisal Reports
173621. For two of the closed sales, in the part of the
1748apprai sal report form for describing sales and financing
1757concessions, Respondent mistakenly entered MLS, with an official
1765public records book and page number. This labeling error could
1775have been confusing, but there was no evidence that a nyone was
1787misled by the error.
179122. The report forms used by Respondent included an
1800addendum indicating that closed sales were used for comparables.
1809This language was inconsistent with the indications elsewhere in
1818the January appraisal reports that pending sales were used for
1828t hat purpose. While potentially confusing, there was no evidence
1838that anyone actually was mi sled by the addendum language.
184823. The addendum language also stated that all comparables
1857were given equal consideration. Actually, in one of the January
1867appraisa ls, the higher comparables were given greater weight. In
1877that report, the property appraised for approximately $30,000
1886more than it would have if all comparables had been given equal
1898consideration. This language was misleading in that computations
1906would have been required to d etermine that it was in error.
1918USPAP
191924. Rule 1 - 1(a) of the 2006 Uniform Standards of
1930Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) requires a real property
1938appraiser to be aware of, understand, and correctly employ those
1948recognized meth ods and techniques that are necessary to produce a
1959credible appraisal. Respondent violated this rule.
196525. Rule 1 - 1(b) prohibits substantial errors of omission or
1976commission that significantly affect an appraisal. Respondent
1983violated this rule.
198626. Rule 1 - 1(c) of USPAP prohibits rendering appraisal
1996services in a careless or negligent manner, including making a
2006series of errors that, although individually might not
2014significantly affect the results of an appraisal, in the
2023aggregate affects the credibility of the results. Respondent
2031violated this rule.
203427. Rule 1 - 4(a) of USPAP requires that, when a comparable
2046sales approach is necessary for a credible result, an appraiser
2056must analyze such comparable sales data as are available.
2065Respondent violated this r ul e.
207128. Rule 2 - 1(a) of USPAP requires that writte n and oral
2084appraisal reports be set forth in a manner that is clear and
2096accurate and not misleading. Respondent violated this rule.
2104Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
210829. Respondent had not been disciplined and had not
2117received a letter of guidance prior to the four appraisal reports
2128at issue in this case. His license was in good standing at the
2141time.
214230. When an appraiser does not exercise reasonable
2150diligence in doing an appraisal and prepari ng the appraisal
2160report and the result is an unreasonably high value conclusion,
2170as happened in the four appraisal reports at issue in this case,
2182and a lender relies and acts on the appraisal report, the lender
2194is harmed ipso facto , and the borrower and pu blic may also be
2207harmed, notwithstanding that many residential loans defaulted
2214after 2007 besides the loans made based on these four appraisals.
2225There was no evidence as to the specific extent of t he actual
2238harm to this lender.
224231. Although DBPR filed a separate administrative complaint
2250for each of the four appraisals, the conduct complained of in
2261each administrative complaint was similar. E ach administrative
2269complaint has three counts: one for not using reasonable
2278diligence in doing the appraisal and p reparing the appraisal
2288report; another for not registering Rush Realty ; and a third for
2299violating USPAP provisions .
230332. Respondent testified without contradiction that
2309revocation or suspension of his appraisal license, and even a
2319substantial fine, would b e a devastating financial hard ship to
2330him and his family.
2334CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
23373 3. Section 475.624(4), Florida Statutes (2006), 1/ subjects
2346a licensed real estate appraiser to discipline for violating
2355chapter 475 or any lawful order or rule made or issued un der
2368chapter 455 or 475.
237234. Section 475.624(15) subjects a licensed real estate
2380appraiser to discipline for failing or refusing to exercise
2389reasonable diligence in developing an appraisal or preparing an
2398appraisal report.
240035. Section 475.623 requires lic ensed real estate
2408appraisers to furnish DBPR, in writing, each firm or business
2418name and address operated by the licensee to perform appraisal
2428services.
242936. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J 1 - 9.001 2/ requires
2440licensed real estate appraisers to comply w ith USPAP.
244937. Because it seeks to impose license discipline, DBPR has
2459the burden to prove its allegations by clear and convincing
2469evidence. See Dep't of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co.,
2481Inc. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington , 510 S o.
24942d 292 (Fla. 1987). This "entails both a qualitative and
2504quantitative standard. The evidence must be credible; the
2512memories of the witnesses must be clear and without confusion;
2522and the sum total of the evidence must be of sufficient weight to
2535convinc e the trier of fact without hesitancy." In re Davey , 645
2547So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994). See also Slomowitz v. Walker , 429
2559So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). "Although this standard of
2571proof may be met where the evidence is in conflict, . . . it
2585seems to preclude evidence that is ambiguous." Westinghouse
2593Electric Corp., Inc. v. Shuler Bros., Inc. , 590 So. 2d 986, 988
2605(Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
260938. DBPR proved by clear and convincing evidence that
2618Respondent is subject to discipline under sections 475.624(4)
2626( through violations of USPAP and rule 61J 1 - 9.001), 475.624(15),
2638and 475.623. Each appraisal report constituted separate
2645violations.
264639. Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J1 - 8.002, 3/
2656the range of discipline for the first violation of
2665section 475.624 (15) is from a five - year suspension to
2676revocation and a $1,000 fine; and the range of discipline for
2688the first violation of section 475.624(4), which applies to the
2698violations of section 475.623 and rule 61J 1 - 9.001, is up to
2711revocation 4/ and a fine of up t o $5,000.
272240. Rule 61J1 - 8.002(4) 5/ authorizes a deviation from the
2733disciplinary guidelines under certain circumstances. Aggravating
2739or mitigating circumstances may include, but are not limited to:
2749the degree of harm to the consumer or public; the number of
2761counts in the administrative complaint; the disciplinary history
2769of the licensee; the status of the licensee at the time the
2781offense was committed; the degree of financial hardship incurred
2790by the licensee as a result of the imposition of a fine or
2803sus pension of the licensee; and violation of a provision of a
2815previous letter of guidance.
281941. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a
2829downward deviation from the discipline guidelines is warranted.
2837It is appropriate, in sum, to fine Respondent $2 ,000 and suspend
2849his appraisal license for three months, subject to probation upon
2859reinstatement for such a period of time and subject to such
2870conditions as the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board (Board) may
2880specify. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61J1 - 8.002(2) .
289042. Section 455.227(3)(a) provides that, in addition to the
2899disciplinary penalty against Respondent, DBPR may assess costs
2907related to the investigation and prosecution of the case
2916excluding costs associated with an attorney's time. DBPR
2924requests that R espondent be required to pay its costs in the
2936amount of $1,996. However, there was no evidence as to DBPR 's
2949costs.
2950RECOMMENDATION
2951Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
2961Law, it is
2964RECOMMENDED that DBPR enter a final order finding Respo ndent
2974subject to discipline under sections 475.624(4) (through
2981violations of section 475.623, USPAP , and rule 61J - 9.001) and
2992475.624(15) ; suspending his license for three months, subject
3000to probation upon reinstatement for such a period of time and
3011subject to such conditions as the Board may specify; fining
3021him $2,000 ; and assessing costs related to the investigation
3031and prosecution of the case s in accordance with
3040section 455.227(3)(a) .
3043DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October , 2012 , in
3053Tallahassee, Leon C ounty, Florida.
3058S
3059J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON
3062Administrative Law Judge
3065Division of Administrative Hearings
3069The DeSoto Building
30721230 Apalachee Parkway
3075Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
3080(850) 488 - 9675
3084Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847
3090www. doah.state.fl.us
3092Filed with the Clerk of the
3098Division of Administrative Hearings
3102this 26th day of October , 2012 .
3109ENDNOTE S
31111/ All statutory references are t o the Florida Statutes (2006).
31222/ This is the version of the rule that was in effect since
3135Au g ust 29, 2006.
31403/ The version of this rule that was in effect in 2006 was cited
3154in DBPR ' s Proposed Recommended Order but was not presented in
3166evidence at the final hearing. In the current version,
3175subsections (3)(g) and (r) are the applicable citations.
31834/ Rule 61J1 - 8.002(3)(g) actually states that the recommended
3193penalty is revocation, but clearly up to revocation was intended,
3203as reflected in DBPR ' s Proposed Recommended Order.
32125/ See Endnote 3, supra .
3218COPIES FURNISHED:
3220Christina Ann Arzillo, Esqu ire
3225Department of Business and
3229Professional Regulation
32311940 North Monroe Street
3235Tallahassee, Florida 32399
3238Thomas D. Sommerville, Esquire
3242Law Offices of Muller and
3247Sommerville, P.A.
3249Suite 2
32511150 Louisiana Avenue
3254Winter Park, Florida 32789
3258J. Layne Smith , General Counsel
3263Department of Business and
3267Professional Regulation
3269Northwood Centre
32711940 North Monroe Street
3275Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0792
3280Evalyn Oreto, Chair
3283Real Estate Appraisal Board
3287Department of Business and
3291Professional Regulation
3293400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801
3299Orlando, Florida 32801
3302NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
3308All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
331815 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions
3329to this Recommended Order sho uld be filed with the agency that
3341will issue the Final Order in this case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 11/13/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Second Amended Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/26/2012
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/19/2012
- Proceedings: Unopposed Motion for a Seven (7) Day Extension for Both Parties to Submit Proposed Recommended Orders filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/19/2012
- Proceedings: Motion to Extend Page Limit for Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- Date: 09/11/2012
- Proceedings: Transcript (Volumes I and II; not available for viewing) filed.
- Date: 07/25/2012
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- Date: 07/24/2012
- Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing)
- Date: 07/19/2012
- Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing)
- Date: 07/18/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Filing Petitioner's Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing)
- PDF:
- Date: 07/18/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Filing Petitioner's (Proposed) Exhibits filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/12/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Third Response to Respondent's First Interlocking Discovery Request (filed in Case No. 12-001541PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/12/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Third Response to Respondent's First Interlocking Discovery Request (filed in Case No. 12-001539PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/12/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Third Response to Respondent's First Interlocking Discovery Request (filed in Case No. 12-001538PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/12/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Third Response to Respondent's First Interlocking Discovery Request filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/10/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Second Response to Respondent's First Interlocking Discovery Request (filed in Case No. 12-001541PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/10/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Second Response to Respondent's First Interlocking Discovery Request (filed in Case No. 12-001539PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/10/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Second Response to Respondent's First Interlocking Discovery Request (filed in Case No. 12-001538PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/10/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Second Response to Respondent's First Interlocking Discovery Request filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/28/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Cancellation of Deposition Duces Tecum (of W. Hanson; filed in Case No. 12-001541PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/28/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Cancellation of Deposition Duces Tecum (of W. Hanson; filed in Case No. 12-001539PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/28/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Cancellation of Deposition Duces Tecum (of W. Hanson; filed in Case No. 12-001538PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/28/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Cancellation of Deposition Duces Tecum (of W. Hanson) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/22/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Amended Notice for Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of W. Hanson; filed in Case No. 12-001541PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/22/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Amended Notice for Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of W. Hanson; filed in Case No. 12-001539PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/22/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Amended Notice for Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of W. Hanson; filed in Case No. 12-001538PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/22/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Amended Notice for Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of W. Hanson) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/20/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of W. Hanson; filed in Case No. 12-001541PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/20/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of W. Hanson; filed in Case No. 12-001539PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/20/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of W. Hanson; filed in Case No. 12-001538PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/20/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of W. Hanson) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/20/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Respondent's First Interlocking Discovery Request (filed in Case No. 12-001541PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/20/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Respondent's First Interlocking Discovery Request (filed in Case No. 12-001539PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/20/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Respondent's First Interlocking Discovery Request (filed in Case No. 12-001538PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/20/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Respondent's First Interlocking Discovery Request filed.
- Date: 06/06/2012
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/06/2012
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for July 25, 2012; 9:00 a.m.; Orlando, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/05/2012
- Proceedings: Motion to Continue Final Hearing (filed in Case No. 12-001541PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/05/2012
- Proceedings: Motion to Continue Final Hearing (filed in Case No. 12-001539PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/05/2012
- Proceedings: Motion to Continue Final Hearing (filed in Case No. 12-001538PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 05/10/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's First Interlocking Discovery Request (filed in Case No. 12-001541PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 05/10/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's First Interlocking Discovery Request (filed in Case No. 12-001539PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 05/10/2012
- Proceedings: Petitioner's First Interlocking Discovery Request (filed in Case No. 12-001538PL).
- PDF:
- Date: 05/02/2012
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for June 21, 2012; 9:00 a.m.; Orlando and Tallahassee, FL).
Case Information
- Judge:
- J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON
- Date Filed:
- 04/25/2012
- Date Assignment:
- 04/25/2012
- Last Docket Entry:
- 01/10/2013
- Location:
- Orlando, Florida
- District:
- Middle
- Agency:
- ADOPTED EXCEPT FOR PENALTY
- Suffix:
- PL
Counsels
-
Chandler R. Muller, Esquire
Address of Record -
Christina Arzillo Shideler, Esquire
Address of Record -
Thomas D. Sommerville, Esquire
Address of Record