12-001539PL Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Division Of Real Estate vs. Richard Patrick Truhan
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, October 26, 2012.


View Dockets  
Summary: Real estate appraiser used inappropriate comparables, did not use reasonable diligence, and arrived at unreasonably high value conclusions.

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.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 01/10/2013
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 01/10/2013
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/13/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's Second Amended Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/07/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's Amended Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/26/2012
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 10/26/2012
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held July 25, 2012). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 10/26/2012
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 09/28/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/28/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/19/2012
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 09/19/2012
Proceedings: Order Extending Page Limit of Proposed Recommended Orders.
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: Notice of Appearance (Thomas Sommerville) 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)
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's First (Proposed) Supplemental Exhibit List filed.
Date: 07/19/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing)
PDF:
Date: 07/18/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/18/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's (Proposed) Exhibit List filed.
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 Amended (Proposed) Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/18/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Filing Petitioner's (Proposed) Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/13/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Motion to Take Judicial Notice filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/13/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's (Proposed) Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/13/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/13/2012
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation 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: 06/05/2012
Proceedings: Motion to Continue Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/22/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's First Interlocking Discovery Request filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/11/2012
Proceedings: Order Granting Leave to Amend.
PDF:
Date: 05/10/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's First Interlocking Discovery Request filed.
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: 05/10/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's First Interlocking Discovery Request filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2012
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
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).
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2012
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 12-1537PL, 12-1538PL, 12-1539PL, and 12-1541PL).
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion to Amend Administrative Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion to Consolidate filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2012
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2012
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's Answer to Administrative Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2012
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2012
Proceedings: Election of Rights filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2012
Proceedings: Amended Administrative Complaint filed.

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:
Other
Suffix:
PL
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (3):