18-000559 John Hasko vs. City Of Dania Beach Police And Firefighters' Retirement System Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, September 21, 2018.

Summary: Petitioner did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was erroneously classified as being enrolled in the Life Annuity and that he should be reclassified as being enrolled in the Last Survivor Annuity.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JOHN HASKO ,

Petitioner,

vs.

CITY OF DANIA BEACH POLICE AND Case No. 1 8 - 0559

FIREFIGHTERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM ,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was conducted in this case before Cathy M.

Sellers, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") of the Division of

Administrative Hearings ("DOAH" ), on April 16 , 2018, in Dania

Beach, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Paul E. Parrish , Esquire

GrayRobinson , P.A.

1795 West N asa Boulevard

Melbourne , Florida 32901

For Respondent: Gregg Rossman, Esquire

Rossman Legal

6840 Griffin Road

Davie , Florida 33314

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Petitioner, John Hasko ("Petitioner") , is entitled ,

pursuant to the City of Dania Beach Code of Ordinances ("Code")

section 18 - 49(4) , to be paid retirement pension benefits under

the City of Dania Beach Police and Firefighters Retirement

System's ( "Respondent" or "System") " 100 Percent Joint and Last

Survivor Annuity " (" Last Survivor Annuity ") or the "Modified Cash

Refund Annuity " (" Life Annuity") .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On January 11, 2016, Respondent, through its Board of

Trustees, took action to deny Petitioner 's request to change the

retirement plan option in which he is enrolled, the Life Annuity,

to the Last Survivor Annuity , which is the retirement plan he

claims he elected when he retired in 2001 . This action was

memorialized in a letter from Respondent to Petitioner, dated

February 8, 2016, advis ing Petitioner of his right to appeal

Respondent's action .

On February 25, 2016, Petitioner appealed Respondent's

action. On or about January 28, 2018, the matter wa s referred to

DOAH to conduct an evidentiary hearing and render a

recommendation to Respondent regarding this matter.

The final hearing was held on April 1 6 , 2018. Petitioner

testified on his own behalf and tendered Petitioner's Exhibits 1

through 43, which were admitted into evidence without objection.

Respondent did not present any witnesses in its case in chief.

Respondent tendered Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 6 , which were

admitted into evidence without objection.

The two - volume Transcript was filed at DOAH on June 21,

2018. Pursuant to agreement, the deadline for the parties to

fil e proposed recommended orders was set for August 13, 201 8.

Both parties timely filed their proposed recommended o rders,

which have been duly considered in preparing this Recommended

Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. The Parties

1. Petitioner is a retired police officer who was employed

by the City of Dania Beach Police Department ("Police

Department") and who has qualified for , and is receiving,

retirement pension ben efits under the System.

2. Pursuant to chapter 18, article IV of the Code,

Respondent is the retirement pension system provided for the

benefit of firefighters and police officers, including

Petitio ner, who are or previously were employed by the City of

Dania Beach.

II. Evidence Adduced at Final Hearing

Background

3. Petitioner was hired by the Police De partment on

December 18, 1980, and , upon being employed, began accruing

credit toward a pension under the System.

4 . Petitioner was employed by the Police Department for

20 years.

5 . O n October 1, 1988, the City of Dania Beach Police

Department merged with the Broward County Sheriff's Office

("BCSO"). At that time, Petitioner was given the option whether

to remain in the System or to retrieve his contributions and

become enrolled in the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"), which

was and is the retirement program in which BSCO employees are

eligible to enr oll. At that time, Petitioner elected to remain

enrolled in the System rather than enrolling in the FRS.

6 . On August 28, 2000, Petitioner executed a retirement

benefits election form to select the type of pension under which

he would receive pension benefits from the System starting on

January 1, 2001 .

7 . Petitioner retired from the Police Depart ment effective

December 31, 2000.

8 . In April 2001, Petitioner began receiving monthly

pension payments under the System , and also received back

pay ments for January through March 2001.

9 . Immediately upon retiring from the Police Department,

Petitioner began working with the BCSO.

1 0 . At that time , he enrolled in the FRS and began accruing

credit under a life annuity plan provided through the FRS.

1 1 . Petitioner was employed by the BCSO for slightly over

14 years . As the result of a series of work - related injuries ,

attendant surgeries, and permanent restrictions on his

activities, Petitioner re tired from the BCSO on April 14, 2014 .

1 2 . In the 2006 - to - 2007 timeframe, Petitioner was diagnosed

with a cardiac condition that ultimately necessitated placement

of a stent in 2012. Petitioner remains under the regular care of

a cardiologist and is on medication to treat his cardiac

condition . He credibly testified that since 2012, his condition

has remained stable.

1 3 . In June 2014, Petitioner applied for pension benefits

under the FRS . Petitioner testified, credibly, that he had f our

options from which to choose, 1/ and that he selected the Ten Year

Certain o ption. Under this plan, Petitioner receives monthly

payments for the rest of his life . I f Petitioner were to

predecease his beneficiary ÏÏ in this case, his wife ÏÏ before the

120 - month period ends, she wo uld continue to receive payments

through the end of the 120 - month period ; however, if Petitioner

were to predecease his wife after the end of the 120 - month

period, she would not receive any further payments. Petitio ner

testified that , based on his belie f that he had enrolled in the

Last Survivor Annuity under the System, he selected the FRS Ten -

Year Certain Option so that if he predeceased his wife, she would

receive benefits payments from two sources for the remainder of

her life ÏÏ the Last Survivor Annuity and Social Security .

Petitioner receives benefit payments through the FRS to date.

1 4 . Petitioner has received monthly retirement benefit

payments through the System since April 2001, including back

payme nts for January through March 2001. He continues to receive

monthly retirement benefit payments from the System to date.

Evidence Regarding Petitioner's Election of Benefits U nder the

System

1 5 . The City of Dania Beach Police and Firefighters

Retirement System Summary Plan Description ("SPD") summarizes the

System's available pension plan options. The section titled

"Forms of Benefits Payment ," on page 16 of the SPD, states under

the "Normal Form of Benefit Payment" subsection: " [u] nless you

elect otherwise before your retirement, your pension is payable

as a Single Life Annuity with a guaranteed refund of your

contributions. This is a series of monthly payments for your

life." This provision effectively makes the " Normal Form " the

"default" form of benefits payments if the employee does not

elect another form of benefit payments before retiring.

1 6 . The "Election of Optional Forms of Benefit Payments"

subsection of the SPD states: "You have the right at any time

before your retirement date to elect not to have your retirement

benefit paid in the Normal Form. " This subsection identifies

other forms of benefit payments available that the employee may

choose as an alternative to the Normal Form. These forms are the

Joint and Last Survivo r Annuity, the Ten Year Certain and Life

Thereafter Annuity, and another optional form actuarially

equivalent to the Normal Form.

1 7 . Petitioner decided to retire from City of Dania Beach

Police Department at the end of 2000 . O n August 28, 2000, h e met

with Sonia Brown , then the plan a dministrator for the System , to

fill out an application for retirement benefits. He completed a

form titled "City of Dania Beach Police and Firefighters'

Retirement System Application for Benefits " ("Application Form") .

Se ction 1 of the Application Form, titled "For Retirement or DROP

Benefits," contained a section to identify the beneficiary for

the Joint and Survivor and Ten Year Certain options. Petitioner

com pleted this portion of the form, naming his wife as his

beneficiary and providing pertinent information about her . He

also completed section 4 of the form , designating his wife as his

beneficiary for all purposes under the System. He signed and

dated the Application Form.

1 8 . Petitioner testified th at he met with Brown again in

early December 2000 , to finalize his election of his benefits

that he would be paid under the System. According to Petitioner,

at that time , he told Brown that he chose th e Last Survivor

Annuity option. He testified that Brown gave him paperwork to

fill out, that he completed the paperwork , and that she told him

that he would receive benefit payments of between $2,400 and

$2,500 per month based on his chosen option.

19 . Petitioner testified that Brown did not give him the

" City of Dania Beach Police and Firefighters Retirement System

Notification of Benefits Payable as a Result of Retirement" form

("Notification of Benefits F orm " ) to complete at the

December 2000 meeting .

2 0 . Petitioner testified that he did not specifically

remember what documents he completed that day , and that h e did

not receive a copy of th ose documents .

2 1 . Respondent's file regarding Petitioner's benefits

election does not contain either the original or a copy of the

documents that Petitioner claim s he signed in December 2000 . In

short , there is no physical evidence substantiating the existence

of these documents.

2 2 . Petitioner testified that based on the

December 2000 meeting with Brow n , he believed he had selected the

Last Survivor Annuity and that the payments under that option

would start in January 2001.

2 3 . After Petitioner retired from the Police Department, he

did not receive his benefit payments under the System for

January, February, and March 2001 . He testified that he assumed

that this delay was due to the time involved in processing the

paperwork he claims to have completed in December 2000 .

2 4 . On January 23, 2001, Brown sent correspondence to the

System's actuarial services firm requesting that Petitioner's

early retirement benefit be calculated according to the various

benefits options available to police plan participants who are

eligible for early retirement with 20 years of service .

Petitioner is shown as ha ving been copied on this letter, and he

acknowledges having received the letter.

2 5 . By letter dated February 19, 2001, Respondent sent

Petitioner "several forms to be completed by you and returned to

this office for further processing of your early retirement

benefit." The letter identified these forms as the Notification

of Benefits Form, a W - 4P form for specifying the amount to be

withheld from the benefit payments for federal income tax, and a

form to authorize direct deposit of the benefit payments into

Petitioner's bank account. Petitioner claims that he did not

receive this letter .

2 6 . Petitioner testified that in March 2001, Brown

contacted him to complet e a "verification of beneficiary form . "

On March 8, 2001, Petitioner went to Brown's office, where she

presented him with what he characterized as a "verification of

beneficiary form . " According to Petitioner, Brown " asked him to

make sure my beneficiary information was correct " and to sign and

date the form where she had placed check marks.

27. The "verification of benefic iary form" Petitioner

signed actually consists of th e second page of the Notification

of Benefits F orm.

28. Th e second page o f the Notification of Benefits Form

that Petitioner executed contain s a table that identifie s

Petitioner's wife (whose name is redacted) as his beneficiary.

P ortions of the table consist of spaces in which to state

information regarding the amount of the nontaxable portion of

monthly benefits for the various annuity options , which are

identified by number and listed on the first page of the form .

T here are no amounts listed in th ose spaces on the form that

Petitioner signed; those spaces have been left bl ank.

29. A paragraph below the table states: "[t]he Survivor

Annuity benefit amounts shown above are based on the beneficiary

named above and are payable only to this beneficiary. Should you

wish to change your beneficiary before your payments begin, new

amounts have to be calculated." 2/ Near the bottom of the form is

the sentence "I accept the ter ms above, including my choice of

annuity form, and confirm the information shown above to be

correct ." 3 /

30 . I mmediately below the above - referenced sentence is a

"Participant's Signature" line . Petitioner signed the form on

th is line and dated it "3/0 8 /01 . "

31. Petitioner testified that at the time he signed th is

form, the spaces for the signature by the Board of Trustees

representative and the date of signature were blank. Th e form

subsequently was executed by the Board of Trustees, through

Eugene H. Jewell, on March 13, 2001.

32 . Petitioner testified that in November 2015 , he became

aware, through checking his various beneficiary designations as

the result of a bank error, 4 / that the System was paying his

retirement benefits pursuant to the Life Annuity rather than the

Last Survivor Annuity.

33. Petitioner testified that on November 6, 2015, he went

to the System office to verify that his wife was correctly

designated as his re tirement pension benefic iary. He met with

Cathy David, 5 / the current s ystem p lan a dministrator, to review

the documents in his retirement pension file.

3 4 . Petitioner testified that , he saw , for the first time,

the first page of the Notification of Benefits F orm contained in

his file. Th is page had a check mark next to the "Modified Cash

Refund" ÏÏ i.e., the Life Annuity ÏÏ option. He testified that he

did not make the check mark next to the "Modified Cash Refund"

option on the form .

3 5 . Petitioner obtained documents contained in the Salem

Trust ("Salem") 6 / file regarding his retirement pension . Among

the se documents was a letter dated March 13, 2001, from Bro wn to

Livia N ixon , with Petitioner shown as copied , transmitt ing the

completed forms to enable Salem to process Petitioner's

retirement pension , and request ing that Salem expeditiously issue

retroactive checks to Petitioner for January through

March 2001.

3 6 . Petitioner testified that he had not previously

receive d a copy of the March 13, 2001 , letter or the attached

forms , and that he did not see them until he obtained the

documents in the Salem file .

3 7 . Petitioner also testified that he did not receive a

December 6, 2001, letter from Respondent notifying him that the

System's auditors, S. Davis & Associates, P.A. ("SDA"), were

conducting an annual audit of Respondent's financial statements . 7/

This letter contained information regarding Petitioner's pension

ÏÏ including information expressly identif ying the type of benefit

Petitioner was receiving as the "Life Annuity . " The letter

requested that Petitioner review the information contained in the

letter and corre ct any errors by providing the correct

information to SDA . Petitioner testified that he first saw t his

letter during his November 6, 2015 , review of the documents in

the System's file, so he did not respond to SDA in 2001.

38 . In sum, Petitioner claims that at a December 2000

meeting with Brown , he selected the Last Survivor Annuity as the

form in which he would be paid retirement pens ion benefits under

the System. He claims that he did not select the Life Annuity,

and that he did not make the check mark by the "Modified Cash

Re fund" option on the first page of the N otification of Benefits

form that was contained in the System file.

3 9 . In sum, Petitioner also claims that he did not receive

or otherwise was not provided the following documents: (1) t he

unidentified "paperwork" that he claims he completed at a meeting

with Brown in December 2000 , at which he s elect ed the Last

Survivor Annuity; (2) the letter dated February 19, 2001, from

Brown to Petitioner, transmitting forms ÏÏ including the entire

Notification of Benefits F orm ÏÏ that Petitioner needed to complete

to enable processing o f his early retirement benefit; (3) the

first page of the Notification of Benefits F orm on March 8, 2001,

when he completed the second page of that form confirming his

wife as his beneficiary; (4) the March 13, 2001 , letter from

Brown to Livia Nixon of Salem , transmitting Petitioner's

retirement pension forms completed on March 8, 2001, to Salem for

processing ; and (5) the December 6, 2001, letter to Petitioner

from Respondent's outside auditor , SDA, requesting him to verify

the accuracy of the information regarding his pension and to

correct any errors in that information.

40. Petitioner acknowledges that he did receive a letter

from Cathy David dated July 1, 2012, regarding a change in

Florida law that could affe ct retirees. That letter expressly

stated "[y]ou chose the life annu ity when you retired on

January 1, 2001." Petitioner claim s that he did not read this

letter in its entirety, so he did not see the statement in the

letter regarding having chosen the li fe annuity.

I II. Findings of Ultimate Fact

41 . Upon careful consideration of the evidence in the

record, it is determined that Petitioner did not show, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that he selected the Last Survivor

Annuity, rather than the Life Annuity , so that, pursuant to

section 18 - 49(4) of the Code, he should be reclassified as being

enrolled in the Last Survivor Annuity .

42 . First, t he undersigned finds implausible Petitioner 's

testimony that he signed unspecified "paperwork" selecti ng the

Last Survivor Annuity ÏÏ clearly, a very important decision on his

part ÏÏ but that he does not "remember specifi cally" what that

paperwork was and that he did not re ceive a copy of that

paperwork. Compounding that implausibility is that neither the

or iginal nor any copies of that " paperwork " were found in

Respondent's file or in Salem's file. Simply stated, there is no

physical evidence establishing the existence of this "paperwork"

ÏÏ which Petitioner claims is the instrument through which he

elected the Last Survivor Annuity. 8 /

43 . Second , the first page of the Notification of Benefits

F orm that was contained in Respondent's file on Petitioner's

retirement pension shows the "Modified Cash Annuity" option ÏÏ

i.e., the Life Option ÏÏ as having been selected by the placement

of a check mark next to that option . It is undisputed that

Petitioner executed the second page of the form . This complete

Notification of Benefits Form contained in Respondent's file

constitutes the complete, most c redible evidence in the record

that Petitioner select ed the Life Annuity when he executed the

form on March 8, 2001. To this point, Petitioner offered no

credible evidence to support his assertion that someone ÏÏ unknown

to him and having unknown moti ve s ÏÏ must have placed the first

page of the Notification of Benefits Form , having the check mark

next to the "Modified Cash Refund" option , in Respondent's file

without his knowledge.

44 . The undersigned does not find credible or persuasive

Petitioner's testimony that he was not given the first page of

the Notification of Benefits F orm on March 8, 2001, 9/ and that

based on the language in the paragraph below the table , quoted in

paragraph 29 above , he reasonably believed that the second page

of that form constituted a "verification of beneficiary" that

simply confirmed his beneficiary for his previous selection of

the " survivor annuity ." However, in order for the clause "the

Survivor Annuity benefit amounts s hown above " in that paragraph

to make sense, it must be read in c onjunction with the table

above the paragraph.

45. A s discussed above, in the table on page 2 of the

Notification of Benefits Form that was executed by Petitioner, no

amounts of nontaxable portion of monthly benefit for any of the

survivor annuity options have been filled in , even though the

paragraph below the table expressly refers to the "Survivor

Annuity benefit amounts shown above ." The absence in the table

of any "Survivor Annuity benefit amo unts shown above" is

inconsistent with Petitioner having chosen a survivor annuity

option.

46. Thus, the paragraph below the table can only be

reasonably read to mean that to the extent the employee has

selected one of the different survivor annuity options on the

first page of the form , the survivor annuity benefits amounts

shown in the table apply to the particular beneficiary identified

in the table. Accordingly , if no survivor annuity benefit

amounts are "shown above" ÏÏ i.e., set forth in the table

ÏÏ that would indicate, and only be consistent with, the selection

of a retirement option other than a survivor annuity.

4 7 . The undersigned also does not find plausible

Petitioner's testimony that he did not receive or otherwise was

not given copies of five crucial retirement - related documents ÏÏ

four of which clearly inform ed him that he was enrolled in the

life annuity ÏÏ so that he was not timely informed of the n eed to

correct a mistake in his retirement pension enrollment .

That these documents were transmitted by different senders ÏÏ

Respondent , Salem, and SDA ÏÏ compounds that implausibility. 10/

4 8 . For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner has

not sustained his burden in this proceeding to show, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that he has been erroneously

classified as being enrolled in the Life Annuity, and that,

pursuant to section 18 - 49(4) of the Code, he should be

reclassified as being enrolled in the Last Survivor Annuity .

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

4 9 . DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the

subject matter of, this proceeding . § 1 20.6 5(5), Fla. Stat.

50 . This proceeding arises under Code section 18 - 49(4),

titled "Pension Validity . " This provision states in pertinent

part:

PENSION VALIDITY. The board of trustees

shall have the power to examine into the

facts upon which any pension shall heretofore

have been granted under any prior or existing

law, or shall hereafter be granted or

obtained erroneously , fraudulently, or

illeg ally for any reason. Said board is

empowered to purge the pension rolls of any

person heretofore granted a pension under

prior or existing law or hereafter granted

under this article if the same is found to be

erroneous, fraudulent or illegal for any

reaso n; and to r eclassify any pensioner who

has heretofore under any prior or existing

law or who shall hereafter under this article

be erroneously , improperly or illegally

classified .

51 . Pursuant to this provision, Respondent is authorized to

reclassif y Pe titioner from the Life Annuity to the Last Survivor

Annuity upon a showing , by the preponderance of the evidence,

that Petitioner was erroneously classified as enrolled in the

Life Annuity rather than the Last Survivor Annuity.

5 2 . As discussed above, Petitioner failed to sustain this

burden to show that he was erroneously enrolled in the Life

Annuity . Accordingly, it is concluded that Respondent is not

required to reclassify Petitioner into the Last Survivor Annuity

pursuant to Code section 18 - 49(4).

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED t hat Respondent enter a final order

denying Petitioner's request for reclassification of pension

enrollment from Life Annuity to Last Survivor Annuity.

DONE AND ENTERED this 2 1st day of September , 2018, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

CATHY M. SELLERS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahass ee, 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 2 1st day of September , 2018.

ENDNOTES

1/ These included a single life option, a 100 - percent joint and

last survivor option, a 50 - percent joint and last survivor

option, and a ten year certain option.

2/ Petitioner's Exhibit No s . 21 and 29 .

3/ Id.

4/ Petitioner testified that when his bank dete rmined that an

error had been made regarding designating one of his children as

a beneficiary, the banker noted that mistakes can be made and

suggested that he check all of his outside accounts to ensure

that the beneficiary information was correct.

5/ Brown retired in 2005.

6/ Salem is an independent financial services institution that

pays the monthly benefit payments to persons receiving retirement

benefits under the System.

7/ The evidence indicates that this letter was sent by SDA.

8 / The other examples of Notification of Benefits forms for other

employees that Petitioner presented as support for his argument

that the first and second pages of the form in his file "did not

go together " indicate that the means for electing a retirement

pension option under the System was to complete a Notification of

Benefits F orm . Thus, t he se forms tend to undercut the

credibility of Petitioner's testimony that he selected the Last

Survivor Annuity option in December 2001 by completing some

unspecified and unidentified " paperwork " for which there is no

physical evidence of existence .

9 / The undersigned does not find credible Petitioner's claim that

he did not make the check mark on the first page of the

Notification of Benefits Form in Respondent's file. Further, to

the extent Petitioner seeks to rely on the difference in

thickness between the check mark on the first page of the form

and his signature on the second page of the form to support an

argument that they were made by differen t pens and, therefore,

different people, that reliance is misplaced. Florida case law

holds that the trier of fact ÏÏ in this case, the administrative

law judge ÏÏ is not competent to make a handwriting comparison

without the aid of expert testimony. Huff v. State , 437 So. 2d

1087 (Fla. 1983); Clark v. State , 114 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1959)(the comparison of handwriting is an art which can be

judicially practiced only by expert or skilled witnesses). Here,

expert testimony was not provided to substantiat e Petitioner's

claim that someone other than him made the check mark on the

first page of the form. Moreover, under any circumstances, it is

questionable whether testimony regarding the difference between a

check mark and a written signature could constit ute reliable

evidence that the marks were made by different people using

different pens. See Fassi v. State , 591 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 5th

DCA 1991)(comparison of spray - painted graffiti on a wall to

handwriting in a letter is too speculative to be probative

re garding the identities of the scriveners).

1 0 / It is further noted that Petitioner received ÏÏ and admits he

received ÏÏ a letter from Cathy David dated July 1, 2012, that

expressly informed him that he was enro lled in the Life A nnuity

plan. See paragraph 40, above. This letter was admitted into

evidence without objection , as Respondent's Exhibit 6 , during

Respondent's cross - examination of Petitioner . Petitioner's

continued insistence, in the face of this evidence, that he did

not know until November 2015, that he was enrolled in the Life

Annuity rather than the Last Survivor Annuity, further calls hi s

credibility into question . The undersigned notes that a copy of

this letter was not included in the exhibits that were

transmitted to DOAH af ter the final hearing ; however , the letter

was admitted into evidence at the final hearing and the salient

parts were read into the record during cross - examination.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Paul E. Parrish, Esquire

GrayRobinson, P.A.

1795 West Nasa Boulevard

Melbourne, Florida 32901

(eServed)

Gregg Rossman, Esquire

Rossman Legal

6840 Griffin Road

Davie, Florida 33314

(eServed)

Robert A. Sugarman, Esquire

Sugarman & Susskind, P.A.

100 Miracle Mile, Suite 300

Coral Gables, Florida 3313

(eServed)

D. Marcus Braswell, Esquire

Sugarman & Susskind, P.A.

100 Miracle Mile , Suite 300

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

(eServed)

Cathy David, Administrator

City of Dania Beach Police and

Firefighters' Retirement System

111 Southwest 1 Street

Dania Beach, Florida 33004

(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.