17-006469 Robert M. Day vs. Department Of Management Services, Division Of Retirement Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, May 14, 2018.

Summary: Petitioner is entitled to contest the forfeiture of his retirement benefits because the evidence did not show that Petitioner received a point of entry to assert that challenge.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ROBERT M. DAY,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 17 - 6469

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT

SERVICES, DIVISION OF

RETIREMENT ,

Respondent.

_____________________________ /

RECOMMENDED ORDER

An administrative hearing was conducted in this case on

February 13, 2018 , in Tallahassee, Florida, before James H.

Peterson, III, Administrative Law Judge with the Division of

Administrative Hearings (DOAH).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Loren E. Levy , Esquire

The Levy Law Firm

1828 Riggins Lane

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

For Respondent: Mitchell J. Herring , Esquire

Leah R. Wiederspahn , Esquire

Office of the General Counsel

4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondent is entitled to contest the forfeiture of

his retirement benefits.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner , Robert M. Day (Petitioner) , filed a Petition

for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) pursuant to section

120.569, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code

Rule 28 - 106.201, on November 2, 2017. The Petition alleges that

Petitioner Ós substantial interests were affected by the

Department of Management Services, Division of RetirementÓs

(Department , Division , or Respondent ) refusal to re issue its

Notice of Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits (Notice of

Forfeiture) dated December 28, 2006. Petitioner alleges that

the Notice of Forfeiture was not received . The ultimate remedy

sought by Petitioner is the opportunity to challenge the

forfeiture of his retirement benefits.

On November 29, 2017, t he Department referred the P etition

to DOAH to conduct an administrative hearing . At the hearing,

Petitioner testified and presented the deposition testimony of

Mary Katherine Gould, bureau c hief with the Division. The

following exhibits were offered as joint exhibits for both

parties and admitted in to evidence without objection: Exhibit 1

( Letter dated January 22, 2007, from Robert Harper to the

Division ); Exhibit 2 ( Composite retirement file for Petitioner );

Exhibit 3 ( Letter dated October 12, 2017, from the Division to

Petitioner ); and Exhibit 4 ( Deposition of Mary Katherine Gould

dated January 25, 2018 ) .

The proceedings were recorded and a transcript of the

hearing was ordered . By agreement, the parties were given 30

days from the date of the filing of the transcript within which

to file their pr oposed recommended orders. The one - volume

Transcript of the proceedings was filed on March 2, 2018. The

parties later agree d to a one - day extension of their filing

deadline to April 3, 2018. Both parties timely submit ted their

respective Proposed Recommended O rders, which have been

considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On December 28, 2006, Respondent sent a Notice of

Forfeiture to Petitioner at 2848 Carriage Court, Kissimmee,

Florida 34772 , via certified mail. PetitionerÓs actual

residence was not in Kissimmee, but rather located at 2848

Carriage Court, Saint Cloud, Florida 34772.

2. The certified mail receipt for the Notice of Forfeiture

was returned unsigned. A printout of the United States Postal

Service Ós website scanned in as part of Petitioner's file with

the Division indicates that the Notice of Forfeiture was

delivered on January 6, 2007 , in Saint Cloud, Florida 34772. A

handwritten notation on the copy of the printout indicates that :

Ðmust file petition on or before Jan 29, 2007.Ñ

3. On January 22, 2007, Robert Augustus Harper, who

represented himself as counsel for Petitioner, sent a letter to

Respondent requesting Ðall records and documents on Mr. Day.Ñ

This letter was stamp ed as received on January 25, 2007 , in

RespondentÓs records. RespondentÓs records do not indicate

whether a response wa s ever sent to Mr. Harper or Petitioner.

4. On April 8, 2009, Petitioner sent a letter to

Respondent regarding the appeal of his criminal case, which was

stamped as received on April 10, 2009 , by Respondent. The

letter advised that it was Ðto update your office of my

retirement account with the State.Ñ The letter further stated :

At this time I have gone through one appeal

process of criminal offences [sic] filed

against me, out of the original 15 charges

filed 13 has [sic] been reversed or found

not guilty by either the Circuit Court or

Appeals Court [sic] We are in the process of

further appealing the remaining two counts.

Enclos ed is a letter from my attorney which

was sent to you prior to our first appeal.

After over 30 years of retirement payments

made and a few years paid by myself in the

1970Ós I hope this results in a favorable

ending to myself.

No response was sent to this letter by Respondent.

5. On July 26, 2017, Peti tioner met with employees of

Respondent and received a copy of the Notice of Forfeiture. At

that meeting, an employee of the Division , identified as

Mr. Dame, submitted the following electronic inquiry: ÐMember

never received reply to his letter dated April 8, 2009. He

would like a reply ASAP. He also would like to know the

disposition of his contributions.Ñ

6. On August 9, 2017, Kathy Gould, bureau c hief of Benefit

Calculations for Responden t, sent Petitioner a letter in

response to his inquiry of July 26, 2017. The August 9, 2017,

letter from Ms. Gould to Petitioner stated in pertinent part :

The Division has reviewed the legal

circumstances surrounding the forfeiture of

your Florida Retirem ent System Benefits.

On December 28, 2006, a Notice of Forfeiture

of Retirement Benefits was sent by certified

mail to you. This notice also included a

statement of your rights to appeal the

forfeiture decision by administrative

hearing within 21 days, i f you believed your

rights under Chapter 121, F.S. were

improperly or wrongfully determined.

We have no evidence that you filed an appeal

with the Division within 21 days.

You have $315.89 in employee contributions

on deposit. I am enclosing a Request For

Refund of Employee Contributions (form FRS -

M81) for your completion.

Please contact our office if you have any

questions or need additional information.

7. On September 18, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent a

letter addressed to Ms. Gould stating in pertinent part :

T hank you for your letter dated August

9, 2017. Although your letter indicates

that a Notice of Retirement Benefits was

sent by certified mail on December 28, 2006,

I did not receive the notice. In fact, when

I visited with staff of the Division of

Retirement on July 26, 2017, I was advised

of the existence of the forfeiture notice

and provided a copy of the Certified Mail

Receipt from my file. Importantly, the

receipt is unsigned and the mailing address

was incorrect.

The file al so includes a request from my

attorney for a copy of all records and

documents related to myself. The letter is

dated January 22, 2007. No documents,

records, or other response, however, was

provided.

The timing of the forfeiture letter is very

curious to me. At the time the letter was

mailed, my convictions were under appeal. A

decision was not issued until February 22,

2008. Day v. State, 977 So. 2d 664

(Fla. 5th DCA 2008). That decision reversed

all of the convictions for the misdemeanor

offenses. The two felony convictions were

upheld but, as of the date of the forfeiture

letter, they were on appeal and not yet

final.

My file also includes a letter dated

April 8, 2009, from myself to the Division

of Retirement advising that the process of

further appealing the remaining two felony

counts was continuing. The letter attached

the previous letter from my attorney

requesting a copy of my file. Again, no

response from the Di vision was received.

I believe that I have a meritorious argument

regarding whether the retirement benefits

for my 30 - years of service were lawfully

forfeited. Under the circumstances, it

would be greatly appreciated if you would

review my file and advis e whether the

Division will re - issue the forfeiture letter

so as to allow me appropriate notice and an

opportunity to contest the determination.

8. The letter was stamped as received by Respondent on

September 21, 2017.

9. On October 12, 2017, Respondent, throug h its Assistant

General Counsel Mitchell Herring sent a letter to Petitioner

denying his request to reissue the forfeiture letter. The

pertinent part of the letter state s :

I am responding to your letter dated

September 18, 2017 addressed to Kathy Gould.

Based on a review of the original legal file

related to the forfeiture of your retirement

benefits, a Notice of Forfeiture of

Retirement Benefits was mailed to

2848 Carriage C ourt, Kissimmee, FL on

December 28, 2006 and delivered to that

address on January 6, 2007. This was the

address that you provided to the Florida

Retirement System as your home address, and

therefore constituted your address of

record. Accordingly, this Notice was

effective pursuant to section 120.569,

Florida Statutes (2006), and your

opportunity to file a petition expired on

January 27, 2007.

There is no record indicating that a

petition was filed. More importantly, our

records indicate that the Department was not

provided with any notice that an appeal of

your criminal conviction was occurring until

more than two years after the Notice had

originally been sent. Regardless of this,

had the appeal overturned all convictions

which could have served as the basis for the

forfeiture of y our retirement benefits, the

forfeiture would have been reversed.

However, this did not occur, as either of

the two convictions for grand theft which

still stand are independently sufficient

bases for the forfeiture of retirement

benefits pursuant to sect ion 112.3173,

Florida Statutes (2001 - 2017), and were

included as justification for the forfeiture

in the Notice of Forfeiture of Retirement

Benefits.

Because it has been more than ten years

since the Department notified you of its

forfeiture of your rights and benefits under

the Florida Retirement System, a sufficient

basis for the forfeiture still exists, and

the Department provided effective notice of

its intended action pursuant to law, the

Notice of Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits

will not be re - issued.

10. At the hearing, Petitioner persuasively testified and

offered evidence that he neither received the Notice of

Forfeiture in January 2007 , nor was aware that such a notice had

been issued until his meeting with an employee of the Division

near the end of July 2017.

11. When Petitioner obtained a copy of the Notice of

Forfeiture during his July 2017 meeting, he noticed that it had

an incorrect address, i.e., it was mailed to Kissimmee instead

of St. Cloud. Kissimmee and St. Cloud are distinct cities and

the only two incorporated cities in Osceola County.

12. Petitioner further explained that his home in

St. Cl oud was located about a quarter - mile down a private dirt

road from a county - maintained road. His home was situated on

five acres, with a fence surrounding the property and a locked

gate at the driveway. He purchased the property in 2001 and

resided there until 2011.

13. Petit ioner testified that all of the mailboxes for

homes on the private dirt road were clustered together and

located at the end of the road where it intersected w ith the

county - maintained road. Anyone from the post office would have

been unable to access Petitioner's home becaus e of the fence and

locked gate. Petitioner also had a Ðcur dogÑ that would not let

anybody on the property.

14. The other individuals residing in Petitioner's home in

January 2007 were his wife and daughter. Petitioner's wife

wo rked during the week and his daughter went to school and

worked part - time. Petitioner testified that there would have

been no one around during the week to receive any certified mail

delivered at his home from the post office.

15. There were occasions w here the post office would leave

certified mail slips in Petitioner Ós mailbox at the end of the

road. On such occasions, Petitioner would go into town to t he

post office to pick them up. Petitioner did not recall,

however, the delivery of, or anyone show ing up at his home with ,

a certified mail letter from the Division.

16. The fact that Petitioner was aware that his criminal

convictions could impact his ability to obtain retirement

benefits does not demonstrate that he received the Notice of

Forfeiture in January 2007. Petitioner acknowledged that he

never asked for his deferred retirement option program ( D ROP )

proceeds to be distributed. However, w hen asked why he sent his

letter in April 2009 , advising the Division of the status of his

appeals and post - conviction efforts , if he was unaware of the

forfeiture letter, Petitioner explained that he was still able

to work, he was not 62 at the time , and that he wanted to let

the Division kn ow that he was still out there. Petitioner

further explained that he informed the Division about the status

of his appeals because he thought that he could receive his

retirement benefits if he won in the appeal process.

17. Petitioner's testimony that he did not receive the

Notice of Forfeiture until his meeting with a Division employee

in July 2017 was credible. The location and physical

description of Petitioner Ós home was uncontested and it appears

unlikely that the postal service would have been able to deliver

the certified mail to Petitioner .

18. Other than the printout of the United States Postal

Service website indicating that the Notice of Forfeiture was

delivered on January 6, 2007, in St. Cloud, Florida, the

Division produced no evidence that Petitioner , in fact , received

it. The absence of a signed receipt, when considered with the

postal serviceÓs Track and Confirm printout indicating delivery,

could, at best , suggest that Petitioner deliberately failed to

pick up the certified mail letter. I f delivered to St. Cloud,

it is plausible that the certified mail slip was placed in the

wrong mailbox. The evidence is insufficient , however, to show

that Petitioner refused to accept the certified mail letter.

The DivisionÓs records do not include any notation that the

certified mail was undeliverable or refused .

19. Considering the evidence in light of all of the

surrounding facts and circumstances, it is found , as a matter of

fact, that the evidence is insufficient to show that Petitioner

received the Notice of Forfeiture in January 2007.

20. The Department presented n o testimony regarding the

practices and policies of the Divi sion when the Notice of

Forfeiture was issued. Division employees who were historically

involved with PetitionerÓs retirement forfeiture issues have

either retired or obtained employment elsewhere.

21. The deposition testimony of Mary Katherine Gould, the

present b ureau c hief of the DivisionÓs Benefit Calculations,

discussed the DivisionÓs current practice regarding unsigned

certified mail receipt s for notice s of f orfeiture . Ms. Gould

testified that , currently, additional efforts are undertaken to

locate the member and additional certified mailings are

attempted to obtain the memberÓs signature on the return

receipt . She also indicated that current practice would include

further review of a memberÓs file to discover any other

addresses.

22. Petitioner Ós retirement file with the Division shows

that the general counsel for the Department at the time was

aware that the certified mail return receipt was neith er signed

nor dated. And, t here is nothing in the file indicating that

Petitioner was av oiding delivery of the certified mail.

23. Based on her review of Petitioner Ós file, Ms. Gould

could not determine whether any additional efforts had been made

to search for a different address to attempt another certified

mail delivery.

24. Had the Division reviewed its own files, it could have

easily discovered PetitionerÓs correct mailing address . There

are letters, applications, and other retirement form submittals

within Petitioner Ós file reflecting that his correct mailing

address at the time was 2848 Carriage Court, St. Cloud, Florida

34772. For example, there are several documents from Petitioner

related to his DROP application and submittals that contain his

correct mailing address. His file also contain s several letters

and d ocuments mailed from the Division to Petitioner at his

correct address.

25. The DivisionÓs file for Petitioner further reveals

that it received the public records request by Petitioner Ós

attorney, Robert Harper, on January 25, 2007. At the hearing,

Petitioner explained that he had retained Mr. Harper to

represent him in the appeal s of his conviction s , which were

ongoing at the tim e of the public records request. Petitioner

also asked Mr. Harper to help him Ðkeep track of . . . the

retirement part.Ñ

26. There is no evidence that the Department ever

responded to Mr. Harper Ós request .

27. According to practice, t he Division calendars the

21 - day time period for the challenge of a forfeiture as

commencing on the date the no tice is received by the member.

Although there is no certified mail return receipt, the

purported delivery date of the Notice of Forfeiture indicated by

the postal service was January 6, 2007. Therefore, had

Petitioner actually received the Notice of For feiture, there was

still time for Petitioner to contest the forfeiture , when the

Division received the public records request by Mr. Harper on

January 25, 2007 .

28. O n January 30, 2007, five days after Mr. HarperÓs

public records request , the Division sent a memo randum to the

General CounselÓs office . The subject of the memo randum is

ÐRequest for OGC Assistance with Public Records Request ." The

memo specifically advised that the public records request was

for a copy of Petitioner Ós retirement file and that there was a

Ðlegal block of Mr. DayÓs retirement account because of possible

forfeiture. There should be a file in the Legal Office.Ñ

29. An interoffice memorandum regarding the matter from

Sarabeth Snuggs, d irector of the Division, to Geoffrey

Christian, Office of General Counsel, dated February 1, 2007,

states, in part:

The return receipt was neither signed nor

dated. However, according to the postal

serviceÓs track and confirm website, the

letter was delivered on Janua ry 6, 2007.

The member has failed to protest the

forfeiture action within the 21 - day time

limit. The benefits are now forfeited and

the legal file is closed.

30. In other words, e ven though the certified mail receipt

was returned unsigned, and despite the fact that the Division

and its general counsel were aware of the pending unanswered

public recordÓs request from PetitionerÓs counsel, the Division

closed PetitionerÓs file on the grounds that Petitioner failed

to timely challenge the forfeiture.

31. R egarding Petitioner Ós meeting with Division employee,

Mr. Dame, on July 26, 2017 , Petitioner provided undisputed and

persuasive testimony that Mr. Dame provided him with a copy of

th e Notice of Forfeiture, the certified mail return receipt, and

the Postal Service Track and Confirm printout. During the

meeting, Mr. Dame pointed out the fact that the return receipt

was unsigned . At the time, Mr. Dame also advised Petitioner

that he was going to send an inquiry regarding the issue and

that Petitioner should Ðsit tight, weÓll see what happens.Ñ

Mr. Dame never advised Petitioner that his 21 - day time period to

challenge the forfeiture letter would re - commence based upon the

fac t that Petitioner received a copy of the Notice of Forfeiture

during that July 2017 meeting.

32. Petitioner filed the P etition in this case in response

to the letter from the Departm entÓs Assistant General Counsel

Mitchell Herring, dated October 12, 2017, because it had a case

number on it. The letter referenced Petitioner Ós September 18,

2017 , letter and ÐOGC Case No. 17 - 36457.Ñ Prior to that time,

Petitioner's understanding was that the Division was

investigatin g the circumstances surrounding his forfeiture

letter.

33. Based upon these facts, it is found that the

Department never provided Petitioner with a clear point of entry

within which to contest the forfeiture of his retirement

benefits.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

34. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

proceeding. See §§ 120.569, 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. 1/

35. Se ction 120.569 requires an agency to provide notice

to parties that are substantially affected by an agency

decision. In particular, s ection 120.569(1) instructs:

Parties shall be notified of any order,

including a final order. Unless waived, a

copy of the order shall be delivered or

mailed to each party or the partyÓs attorney

of record at the address of record. Each

notice shall inform the recipient of any

administrative hearing or judicial review

that is available under this section,

s. 120.57, or s. 120.68; shall indicate the

procedure which must be followed to obtain

the hearing or judicial review; and shall

state the time limits which apply.

36. Florida Administrative Code Rule 28 - 106.111, entitled

"Point of Entry into Proceedings and Mediation," requires

notic es of agency decisions to "contain the information required

by Section 120.569(1), F.S." Rule 28 - 106.111(4) states:

Any person who receives written notice of an

agency decision and who fails to file a

written request for a hea r ing within 21 days

waives the right to request a hearing on

such matters. This provision does not

eliminate the availability of equitable

tolling as a defense.

37. With regard to the issue of whether Petitioner

received the Notice of Forfeiture in January 2007, or any date

prior to July 2017, the Division has conceded that it has the

burden of proof. See , e.g., Accardi v. DepÓt of Envtl. Prot. ,

824 So. 2d 992 , 995 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) ("The Florida

Administrative Code contains no provision requiring that receipt

of the notice be irrefutably presumed following an allegation of

mailing by [the agency]. Here, a fact - finder must determine

whether the [party] received the written notice allegedly mailed

by [the agency ] . ").

38. With regard to the issue of equitable tolling,

Petitioner has conceded that he has the burden of proof. See,

e.g. , Balino v. DepÓt of HRS , 348 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA

1977)(party asserting the affirmative has the burden of proof).

See also generally , Machules v. DepÓt of Admin. , 523 So. 2d 1132

(Fla. 1988) (discussion of equitable tolling) .

39. T he standard of proof for each of the parties on these

respective issues is a preponderance of the evidence.

See § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

40. While proof of mailing normally raises a rebuttable

presumption that the mailed item was received, no such

presumption arises when there is no evidence that the mailed

item was sent to the correct address. Ciolli v. City of Palm

Bay , 59 So. 3d 295, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Thorne v. DepÓt of

Corr. , 36 So. 3d 805, 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (presumption that

mail was received is inapplicable where no proof that the

envelope was properly addressed ). The evidence demonstrated

that the Notice of For feiture was mailed to an erroneous

address .

41. Considering the facts, circumstances , and applicable

law in this case, it is concluded that t he Division failed to

establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Petitioner

received the Notice of Forfeitur e prior to his meeting with

Mr. Dame on July 26, 2017.

42. In the instant case, the Division could have simply

searched its own records and it would have discovered the error

in the mailing address and re - sent the Notice of Forfeiture.

However, it did not. Further, the Division failed to produce

evidence of reasonable efforts to notify Petitioner . Absent

receipt of the Notice of Forfeiture, Petitioner's 21 - day time

period to challenge the forfeiture never commenced.

43 . Despite lack of evidence demonstrating that Petitioner

received the Notice of Forfeiture in January 2007, t he

Department argues that the 21 - day time period commenced when

Petitioner received a copy of the Notice of Forfeiture at the

meeting with Mr. Dame on July 26, 2017. However, considering

the facts regarding that meeting, the doctrine o f equitable

tolling would apply. See Machules , 523 So. 2d at 1134 (under

equitable tolling, a late - filed petition should be accepted when

a party "has been misled or lulled into inacti on" provided that

the opposing party will suffer no prejudice). There is no

evidence that Petitioner was ever informed that delivery of that

copy of the Notice of Forfeiture during that meeting commenced

Petitioner's 21 - day time period to challenge the forfeiture.

Rather, the uncontroverted evidence shows that , at that meeting,

Mr. Dame advised Petitioner to Ð sit tight Ñ while a review of his

file was ongoing . It was reasonable for Petitioner to rely on

that advice.

44 . Further, Petitioner Ós explanation that he decided to

file a formal petition once he received a letter from the

DepartmentÓs counsel dated October 12, 2017, with a case number

on the letter , is reasonable and prudent under the

circumstances. The Department does not claim prejudice from the

passage of time between July 26 , 2017, and the filing of the

P etition initiating this case on Nov ember 2 , 2018 .

45. Even without considering the doctrine of equitable

tolling, it is found that the evidence does not support a

finding that Petitioner's 21 - day time period somehow re commence d

when Petitioner received the Notice of For feiture from Mr. Dame

in July 2017. There was no agency decision that determined

Petitioner Ós substantial interests on that date. Rather, the

agency decision occurred many years prior in December 2006.

46. Finally, it is concluded that the DepartmentÓs

decision to refuse Petitioner's request to reissue the Notice of

Forfeiture or give Petitioner a 21 - day time period to challenge

the forfeiture of his retirement benefits is contrary to due

process afforded under the Florida Administrative Code. Based

upo n the testimony and exhibits introduced into evidence,

Petitioner did not receive the Notice of Forfeiture prior to his

meeting with Mr. Dame in July 2017 at which time he was

instructed by the DepartmentÓs representatives to Ðsit tight.Ñ

Thereafter, Petitioner timely filed a P etition contesting the

DepartmentÓs October 12, 2017, decision to not reissue its

Notice of Forfeiture . In order t o ensure due process and the

fair treatment contemplated under the Administrative Procedures

Act, Pet itioner must be provided an opportunity to challenge the

forfeiture of his retirement benefits. Whether Petitioner

ultimately may be successful in that challenge is not an issue

in this case and must be resolved in a separate proceeding , if

initiated.

REC OMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Management

Services, either reissue the Notice of Forfeiture of Retirement

Benefits to P etitioner or otherwise allow him a point of entry

with a 21 - day time period with in which to contest the forfeiture

of retirement benefits.

DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May , 201 8 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

JAMES H. PETERSON, III

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 14th day of May , 2015.

ENDNOTE

1/ Unless otherwise noted, all citations to the Florida Statutes

and Florida Administrative Code are to current versions.

COPIES FURISHED:

Loren E. Levy, Esquire

The Levy Law Firm

1828 Riggins Lane

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

(eS erved)

Mitchell J. Herring, Esquire

Leah R. Wiederspahn, Esquire

Office of the General Counsel

4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160

Talla hassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

(eS erved)

Elizabeth Stevens, Director

Division of Retirement

Department of Management Services

Post Office Box 9000

Tallahassee, Florida 32315 - 9000

(eServed)

Brittany Griffith, Interim General Counsel

Office of the General Counsel

Department of Management Services

4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

(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.