17-000476 Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Division Of Real Estate vs. Richard L. Sovich Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, May 5, 2017.

Summary: Petitioner proved by clear & convincing evidence that Respondent rented out complainant's property in exchange for valuable consideration while he was not licensed as a real estate agent or broker. Recommended penalty of $500 & cost of the investigation.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,

DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 17 - 0476

RICHARD L. SOVICH,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RE COMMENDED ORDER

On March 16, 2017, an administrative hearing was held in

this case in Orlando, Florida, before Lynne A. Quimby - Pennock,

Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings

(Division).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Neal James Lawso n, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

2601 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Allison Carmine McDonald, Esquire

Depar tment of Business & Professional

Regulation/OGC/DRE

400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801

Orlando, Florida 32801 - 1757

For Respondent: Nancy Pico Campiglia, Esquire

Your Towne Law, P.A.

Suite 302

1720 South Orange Avenue

Orlando, Florida 32806

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

Whether Respondent acted as a real estate agent without

being licensed in violation of section 475.42(1)(a), Florida

Sta tutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On August 13, 2015, Petitioner, Department of Business and

Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, filed an

Administrative Complaint (complaint) against Respondent,

Richard L. Sovich (Respondent or Mr. Sovich). The complaint

alleges Respondent violated section 475.42(1)(a):

a. By renting out ComplainantÓs property in

exchange for receiving valuable consideration.

[and]

b. By not having a valid and current brokerÓs

or sal es agentÓs license at the time.

On August 31, 2015, Respondent disputed the allegations via

an ÐAnswer to Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights, and

Affirmative Defenses.Ñ 1/ Respondent requested a hearing pursuant

to sections 120.569(2)(a) and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On

January 20, 2017, 2/ the case was referred to the Division for the

assignment of an administrative law judge. Following the timely

receipt of a joint response to the Initial Order, an Amended

Notice of Hearing was issued sc heduling the matter for hearing to

be conducted on March 16, 2017.

On March 2, 2017, Petitioner filed a Motion to Relinquish

Jurisdiction. Respondent opposed the motion. Also, on March 2,

Respondent filed a ÐUnilateral Pre - Hearing Stipulation,Ñ and on

Ma rch 3, Petitioner filed a ÐUnilateral Pre - Hearing

Stipulation.Ñ 3/ On March 10, 2017, the undersigned issued an

Order Denying the Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction.

On March 10, 2017, Petitioner filed a Supplemental Response

to the Unilateral Pre - hearing S tipulation Regarding Proposed

Exhibits (supplemental response) and a Motion for Court to Take

Judicial Notice (judicial motion) of s ection 455.228. The

supplemental response was offered to clarify Ðthe exhibits from

the Investigative Report that it intend (ed) to introduce and use

at the hearing.Ñ Section 455.228 pr ovides the parameters for the

Ð[u] nlicensed practice of a profession, cease and desist notice,

civil penalty, enforcement, citations, [and] allocation of moneys

collected.Ñ Within this judicial motion, Petitioner averred that

Respondent did not object to it, and the judicial motion was

granted on March 13, 2017.

On March 15, 2017, Respondent filed a Motion in Limine

seeking to Ðpreclude the admissibility of PetitionerÓs Exhibit,

whether as a sin gle document as set forth in the Pre - hearing

Stipulation, or in strategic parts as Petitioner proposes in its

Supplemental Response.Ñ PetitionerÓs Response to the Motion in

Limine was filed later that same day. Based on the late filing of

the Motion in L imine (the day before the hearing), the parties

were afforded the opportunity to present further argument at the

hearing. Following the opportunity for further argument, the

Motion in Limine was denied.

Petitioner presented the testimony of PetitionerÓs U nlicensed

Activity Investigative Supervisor Brian McAvoy, and the

Complainant Elijah Manning. 4/ PetitionerÓs Exhibits 1 through 3,

10, and 11 were admitted in evidence.

Respondent testified on his own behalf, and presented the

testimony of Jacqueline Wolt mann. Respondent's Exhibits A and E

were admitted in evidence.

The Transcript of the proceedings was filed with the Division

on April 12, 2017. A Notice of Filing Transcript was issued on

April 12, 2017, confirming the date for the submissions of any

pro posed recommended orders (PROs). Both parties timely filed a

PRO, and each has been considered in the preparation of this

Recommended Order.

Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to

Florida Statutes (2016), which reflects the statutes in ef fect

during the relevant conduct of Respondent. Section 475.42 has not

had any statutory changes since 2012. All references to r ules are

to the Florida Administrative Code.

FINDING S OF FACT

Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the

admi nistrative hearing, the following findings of facts are made:

COMPLAINT

1. This complaint was instituted when Mr. Manning became

aware of a $250.00 payment to a Keller Williams real estate agent

(KW agent). Upon inquiring, Mr. Manning was told the fee w as to

pay the KW agent for securing the third tenant of his rental

property located at 12522 Belcroft Drive, Riverview, Florida

(property) . Mr. Manning was not informed that this process would

be engaged, and he was caught off guard when the payment came to

light. Mr. Manning was also concerned that he was not receiving

consistent payments for the rental of his property.

PARTIES

2. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the

responsibility of regulating the real estate industry pursuant to

chapters 4 55 and 475. Petitioner is authorized to prosecute cases

against persons who operate as real estate agents or sales

associates without a real estate license.

3. At all times material, Respondent was not a licensed

real estate broker, sales associate or ag ent. Respondent is a

co - owner of J & D Associates, a property management company that

he owns with his wife, Ms. Woltmann. Additionally, J & D

Associates was not licensed as a real estate br oker, sales

associate or agent.

PARTICULARS

4. In 2012, Mr. Ma nning was serving in the U.S. Air Force,

and was stationed in the Tampa Bay area of Florida. At some

point, Mr. Manning received military orders to report to Texas for

additional cross - training.

5. Mr. Manning wanted to sell his property, and he was

refe rred to Ms. Woltmann, a Florida licensed real estate agent.

Mr. Manning and Ms. Woltmann met and discussed the possibility of

selling Mr. ManningÓs property.

6. Ms. Woltmann performed a market analysis and determined

that Mr. Manning would have to Ðbring moneyÑ to a closing in order

to sell his property. Mr. Manning made the decision that he would

rent his property. Thereafter, Ms. Woltmann introduced

Mr. Manning to Respondent.

7. Mr. Manning assumed that Respondent was a licensed real

estate agent. If he had known that Respondent was not a licensed

real estate agent, Mr. Manning would not have hired Respondent.

8. On or about April 26, 2012, Respondent executed a

ÐManagement AgreementÑ 5/ (Agreement) with Mr. Manning, regarding

his property. The Agr eement provided in pertinent part the

following:

EMPLOYMENT & AUTHORITY OF AGENT

1. The OWNER [ Mr. Manning ] hereby appoints

J & D Associates as its sole and exclusive

AGENT to rent , manage and operate the PREMISES

[ 12522 Bel croft Drive, Riverview, Flori da] .

2. The AGENT is empowered to institute legal

action or other proceedings on the OWNERÓS

behalf to collect the rents and other sums

due, and to dispossess tenants and other

persons from the PREMISES for cause.

* * *

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE A GENT:

In addition to the forgoing authorizations,

the AGENT will perform the following functions

on the OWNERÓS behalf.

1. Collect all rents due form [ sic ] the

tenants. Deduct from said rent all funds

needed for proper disbursements of expenses

against the PROPERTY and payable by the OWNER,

including the AGENTÓS compensation.

2. Collect a security deposit received from a

tenant of the PROPERTY and place it into an

escrow account as required by the laws of the

State of Florida.

COMPENSATION OF THE AGE NT:

In consideration of the services rendered by

the AGENT, the OWNER agrees to pay the AGENT a

fee equal to FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF THE FIRST

MONTHÓS RENT AND ten percent (10%) per month

of the monthly rent thereafter during the term

of the tenancy as man agement fees for the

PROPERTY. In the case of holding over the

lease beyond the terms of the lease by the

same tenant, the Fifty (50%) up front [sic]

fee shall also be waived and only the TEN

PERCENT (10%) per month fee shall apply.

The Fifty (50%) fee s hall apply to new tenants

only. In the case of a tenant moving out

within the first three months of the tenancy,

then the fee for obtaining a new tenant and

new lease shall be only FIFTEEN PERCENT (15%)

of the first monthÓs rent from the new tenant

and TE N PERCENT (10%) of the monthly rent

thereafter. (Emphasis added via underline . )

9. At various times, Respondent provided Mr. Manning a list

of eligible tenants. Also, Respondent would provide his opinion

as to who would be the best candidate to rent the property.

Mr. Manning would, Ðnine times out of ten,Ñ go with RespondentÓs

recommendation for the rental tenant.

10. In June 2012, ÐRichard L. Sovich J & D Associates, Agent

For Elijah Manning,Ñ executed a ÐResidential Lease for Single

Family Home and DuplexÑ with a tenant. On the signatory page, the

following printed form language is found on the upper half of the

page:

This Lease has been executed by the parties on

the date indicated below:

RespondentÓs signature is over the ÐLandlordÓs Signature li ne,

ÐAsÑ ÐAgent.Ñ

11. On the lower half of the signatory page, the following

printed form language is found; the handwritten information is

found in italics:

This form was completed with the assistance of

Name Richard Sovich

Address 1925 Inverness Greens Drive

Sun City Center, Fl 33573 - 7219

Telephone No. 813/784 - 8159

12. Ms. Woltmann testified that she had a listing

agreement for each time she listed Mr. ManningÓs property for

rent. With each listing agreement, Ms. Woltmann was able to list

the property in the multiple - listing system (MLS) 6/ while she was

associated with the Century 21, Shaw Realty Group. The three

listings, as found in RespondentÓs composite Exhibit E, included

(along with other information) the li st date, a picture of the

property taken by Ms. Woltmann, and the dates the property would

be available: May 5, 2012, for the rental beginning on June 1,

2012, at $1,550.00 per month; November 1, 2012, for the rental

beginning on December 1, 2012, at $1,5 50.00 per month; and

March 14, 2014, for rental beginning on May 1, 2014, at $1,600.00

per month.

13. Each time the property was rented, Ms. Woltmann changed

the MLS listing to reflect the actual lease dates: June 16, 2012;

December 13, 2012; and May 19 , 2014, and each was rented at the

monthly rental price listed.

14. Ms. Woltmann claimed that the rental price had to be

lowered for the second rental. However, the documentation that

she confirmed she inputted into the MLS at the time the property

was r ented, reflects the rental price was not lowered during the

second rental period. 7/ The rental price was actually raised for

the third rental period.

15. Ms. Woltmann also claimed she procured the first two

tenants for Mr. ManningÓs property and waived ( with the consent of

her broker agent) her lease fee each time.

16. Three years ago (2014) during the Manning lease periods,

Ms. Woltmann Ðleft abruptlyÑ the real estate company she was

working for and that company Ðis now closed.Ñ Yet, she testified

that those listing agreements Ðshould be thereÑ if she went back

to her broker and asked for them. Based on inconsistencies in her

testimony, Ms. WoltmannÓs testimony is not credible.

17. Mr. Manning received payments from Respondent for

approximately three years totaling Ðabout $45,000.Ñ Mr. Manning

paid Respondent Ðmaybe four or five thousand dollars. Maybe a

little bit lessÑ for his service.

18. Respondent admitted he received compensation from the

rental of Mr. ManningÓs property for approximately thre e years,

but denied that he procured any tenants for the property.

19. It is determined that the testimony of Respondent and

his wife Ms. Woltmann, is not credible and persuasive. Neither

can be considered Ðdisinterested.Ñ The testimony of Mr. Manning

i s more credible.

20. As the investigator supervisor, Mr. McAvoy is

knowledgeable about the purpose of conducting unlicensed activity

investigations. Its purpose is Ðto investigate matters

surrounding unlicensed activity within the real estate profession

. . . so to protect the public from possible harm surrounding

those transactions.Ñ Each investigator is required to record the

amount of time spent in an investigation. An investigation was

undertaken regarding Mr. ManningÓs complaint. Petitioner incurr ed

$49.50 in investigative costs during this case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

21. The Division has jurisdiction over the parties and

subject matter and parties to this action, pursuant to section

120.57(1).

22. Petitioner is the state agency, created by section

20.165, Florida Statutes, that is charged with regulating the real

estate industry pursuant to chapters 455 and 475. Pursuant to

section 455.228, Petitioner is authorized to prosecute cases

against persons who operate as real estate agents or sales

assoc iates without a real estate license.

23. Petitioner has the burden of proving, by clear and

convincing evidence , that Respondent operated as an unlicensed

real estate agent/sales associate. DepÓt of Banking & Fin. v.

Osborn Stern and Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v.

Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

24. The Supreme Court has stated:

Clear and convincing evidence requires that

the evidence must be found to be credible; the

facts to which the witnesses testify must be

distinctly remembered; the testimony must be

precise and lacking in confusion as to the

facts in issue. The evidence must be of such

a weight that it produces in the mind of the

trier of fact a firm belief or conviction,

without hesitancy, as to the truth of the

allegations so ught to be established.

In re Henson , 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005)(quoting Slomowitz v.

Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)).

25. The complaint alleges that Respondent violated section

475.42(1)(a) in the following ways:

a. By renting out ComplainantÓs property in

exchange for receiving valuable consideration.

b. By not having a valid and current brokerÓs

or sales agentÓs license at the time.

26. Sectio n 475.42(1)(a) provides the following:

A person may not operate as a broker or sales

associate without being the holder of a valid

and current active license therefor.

This statute warns that a violation of this law is a felony.

27. Section 475.01 provides in pertinent part the following:

As used in this part:

(a) ÐBrokerÑ means a per son who, for another,

and for a compensation or valuable

consideration directly or indirectly paid or

promised, expressly or impliedly, or with an

intent to collect or receive a compensation or

valuable consideration therefor, appraises,

auctions, sells, e xchanges, buys, rents, or

offers, attempts or agrees to appraise,

auction, or negotiate the sale, exchange,

purchase, or rental of business enterprises or

business opportunities or any real property or

any interest in or concerning the same,

including mine ral rights or leases, or who

advertises or holds out to the public by any

oral or printed solicitation or representation

that she or he is engaged in the business of

appraising, auctioning, buying, selling,

exchanging, leasing, or renting business

enterpri ses or business opportunities or real

property of others or interests therein,

including mineral rights, or who takes any

part in the procuring of sellers, purchasers,

lessors, or lessees of business enterprises or

business opportunities or the real proper ty of

another, or leases, or interest therein,

including mineral rights, or who directs or

assists in the procuring of prospects or in

the negotiation or closing of any transaction

which does, or is calculated to, result in a

sale, exchange, or leasing the reof, and who

receives, expects, or is promised any

compensation or valuable consideration,

directly or indirectly therefor; and all

persons who advertise rental property

information or lists. A broker renders a

professional service and is a professional

within the meaning of s. 95.11(4)(a). Where

the term ÐappraiseÑ or ÐappraisingÑ appears in

the definition of the term Ðbroker,Ñ it

specifically excludes those appraisal services

which must be performed only by a state -

licensed or state - certified appraiser , and

those appraisal services which may be

performed by a registered trainee appraiser as

defined in part II. The term ÐbrokerÑ also

includes any person who is a general partner,

officer, or director of a partnership or

corporation which acts as a broker . The term

ÐbrokerÑ also includes any person or entity

who undertakes to list or sell one or more

timeshare periods per year in one or more

timeshare plans on behalf of any number of

persons, except as provided in ss. 475.011 and

721.20.

* * *

( j) ÐSales associateÑ means a person who

performs any act specified in the definition

of Ðbroker,Ñ but who performs such act under

the direction, control, or management of

another person. A sales associate renders a

professional service and is a professio nal

within the meaning of s. 95.11(4)(a).

28. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence

that Respondent rented out Mr. ManningÓs property on at least one

occasion, and did so while Respondent did not have a valid and

current brokerÓs or sal es agentÓs license. Specifically, for the

third rental period, the evidence supports that a real estate

agent secured the third tenant.

PENALTY

29. Finally, the undersigned must determine the appropriate

penalty to impose against Respondent.

30. In the complaint, Petitioner put Respondent on notice

that it was seeking a f inal o rder that imposed Ðone or more of the

following penalties: imposition of an administrative fine not to

exceed $5,000 per incident; assessment of costs associated with

the investig ation and prosecution (excluding costs associate with

an attorneyÓs time); and/or any other relief the Department is

au thorized to impose pursuant to c hapters 455 and 475, Florida

Statutes, and/or the rules promulgated thereunder.Ñ

31. PetitionerÓs Propos ed Recommended Order requested that

Respondent be found guilty of violating section 475.42(1)(a), a

penalty of $3,000 (the fine authorized by section 455.228) and

$49.50 for the recovery of its investigative expenses within

30 days from the effective date of the final order.

32. Section 455.2273(5) provides the following:

(5) The administrative law judge, in

recommending penalties in any recommended

order, must follow the penalty guidelines

established by the board or department and

must state in writing the mitigating or

aggravating circumstances upon which the

recommended penalty is based.

33. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61 - 5.007 sets forth the

recommended range of penalties for unlicensed activity. In

pertinent part , rule 61 - 5.007 provides the following:

(1) In imposing disciplinary penalties upon

unlicensed persons, the Department of Business

and Professional Regulation (hereinafter

ÐDepartmentÑ) shall act in accordance with the

following disciplinary guidelines and shall

impose a penalty cons istent herewith absent

the application of aggravating or mitigating

circumstances and subject to the provisions of

Sections 455.227 & 489.13, F.S.

* * *

(3) All penalties established herein are for

each count or separate violation found.

* * *

(6) For practicing a profession without

holding the requisite license to do so, the

following penalties s hall apply:

(a) First violation Î $3000 administrative

fine;

(b) Second violation Î $4000 administrative

fine; and,

(c) Third and subse quent violations Î $5000

administrative fine.

* * *

(8) Circumstances which may be considered for

the purposes of mitigation or aggravation of

the foregoing penalties shall include the

following:

(a) Monetary or other damage to the

unlicensed personÓs customer and/or other

persons, in any way associated with the

violation, which damage the unlicensed person

has not relieved as of the time the penalty is

to be assessed.

(b) The severity of the offense.

(c) The danger to the public.

(d) The number of repetitions of offenses.

(e) The number of complaints filed against

the unlicensed person.

(f) The length of time the unlicensed person

has been engaging in unlicensed activity.

(g) The actual damage, physical or otherwise,

to the unlicens ed personÓs customer.

(h) The deterrent effect of the penalty

imposed.

(i) The effect of the penalty upon the

unlicensed personÓs livelihood.

(j) Any efforts at rehabilitation.

(k) The unlicensed personÓs use of an altered

license or impersonation of a licensee.

34. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances may be

considered in arriving at an appropriate penalty, including

deviation from the guidelines in imposing or recommending

discipline. The undersigned declines to recommend the maximum

fine as significant time has elapsed, over 500 days since the

violation, which is directly attributable to PetitionerÓs decision

to wait to forward RespondentÓs request for hearing to the

Division. Under the circumstances, a fine of $500 and imposition

of the co sts ($49.50) is a fair and appropriate penalty.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be

entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding Richard

Sovich in vio lation of section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as

charged in the Administrative Complaint ; and imposing an

administrative fine of $500, and $49.50 as reasonable costs.

DONE AND ENTERED this 5 th day of May , 2017 , in Tallahassee,

Leon County, Florida.

S

LYNNE A. QUIMBY - PENNOCK

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 5 th day of May, 2017 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ Respondent asserted that PetitionerÓs notice to cease and

desist (notice), issued on November 13, 2014, Ðresolved the matter

between the parties an d bars further administrative action as to

the same transaction and occurrence except as agreed to therein.Ñ

The notice did not.

The notice was issued on November 13, 2014, and cited

Ð Chapter 475 , Florida Statutes,Ñ and provided that:

Probable cause is based on the following

facts:

On, June 16, 2014 at 1925 Inverness Greens

Dr. in the City of Sun City Center,

Hillsborough County, Florida , you:

Renting or Leasing or attempts to rent or

lease real property of another for

compensation. (Emphasis supplie d; grammatic al

errors have not been revised . ).

Section 455.228, Florida Statutes, provides the standards by

which Petitioner may issue a cease and desist notice. In

pertinent part, section 455.228 provides the following:

(1) When the department has pro bable cause to

believe that any person not licensed by the

department, or the appropriate regulatory

board within the department, has violated any

provision of this chapter or any statute that

relates to the practice of a profession

regulated by the depart ment, or any rule

adopted pursuant thereto, the department may

issue and deliver to such person a notice to

cease and desist from such violation. . . .

In addition to the foregoing remedies, the

department may impose an administrative

penalty not to excee d $5,000 per incident

pursuant to the provisions of chapter 120 or

may issue a citation pursuant to the

provisions of subsection (3).

Respondent was charged with a specific violation of section

475.42(1)(a).

2/ Over 500 days elapsed between the time Res pondent requested a

hearing and when the matter was transferred to the Division. No

explanation was provided for the lengthy delay.

3/ Each side filed a unilateral statement as to their respective

position.

4/ Prior to the hearing, Petitioner filed a motion seeking to

allow Mr. Manning to appear via telephone. Respondent did not

object, and the motion was granted. The Notary Public who

administered the oath to Mr. Manning completed and filed the

Statement of Person Administering Oath with the Divisio n.

5/ The Agreement was executed on or about April 26, 2012,

however , in the initial paragraph, the Agreement reflects that

the Agreement was Ðmade this 23rd day of February 2012.Ñ The

discrepancy in the dates was never addressed.

6/ The MLS allows ot her realtors to view the multiple listings of

various properties. The realtors then share that information wi th

potential buyers or renters.

7/ When answering a question about what was depicted in

RespondentÓs Exhibit E (a composite exhibit which contai ned the

three MLS listings), Ms. Woltmann testified:

These depict -- depict the listings as put them

in each time for lease and I had explained to

you earlier, it depends on the market what

youÓre going to agree to lease it at and we

did have the second tim e where we had lowered

it . . . we were -- went down $50 to try to

secure a quick tenant, which we did.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Nancy Pico Campiglia, Esquire

Your Towne Law, P.A.

Suite 302

1720 South Orange Avenue

Orlando, Florida 32806

(eServed)

Neal James L awson, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

2601 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Daniel Allen David, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

2601 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32 399

(eServed)

Allison Carmine McDonald, Esquire

Department of Business & Professional

Regulation/OGC/DRE

400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801

Orlando, Florida 32801 - 1757

(eServed)

Juana Watkins, Director

Division of Real Estate

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801

Orlando, Florida 32801 - 1757

(eServed)

Paige Shoemaker, Deputy General Counsel

Office of the General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

2601 Blair Stone Road

Tal lahassee, Florida 32399 - 2202

(eServed)

Jason Maine, General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Capital Commerce Center

2601 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2202

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.