Case Name: Robert R. HAMBLEY, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-10-05
Citations: 568 So. 2d 970
Docket Number: No. 89-02558
Parties: Robert R. HAMBLEY, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Appellee.
Judges: DANAHY, A.C.J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 568
Pages: 970–973

Head Matter:
Robert R. HAMBLEY, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Appellee.
No. 89-02558.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct. 5, 1990.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 1, 1990.
Keith M. Schenck of Larson, Conklin, Stanley & Probst, P.A., Clearwater, for appellant.
James H. Gillis, Senior Atty., Florida Dept, of Professional Regulation, Div. of Real Estate, Orlando, for appellee.

Opinion:
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant, Robert Hambley, respondent in the administrative proceeding below, asks us to reverse the final order of appel-lee which considered the hearing officer's recommended penalty of a fine and probation, but instead ordered the more severe penalty of the revocation of appellant's real estate broker's license. We agree that ap-pellee has failed to adequately comply with section 120.57(l)(b)(10), Florida Statutes (1987), in order to properly increase the severity of the hearing officer's recommended penalty and we, therefore, reverse and remand the penalty provision in the final order. We reject appellant's other points on appeal.
It is not necessary to recite the facts underlying these proceedings. Appellee, in its final order, adopted the hearing officer's Recommended Order as to all findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellee, however, rejected the hearing officer's recommended penalty stating as its reasons:
The penalty recommended, of an administrative fine of $1000, is too lenient, considering that the Hearing Officer found (and so stated in his Recommended Order) that the Respondent repeatedly, i.e., at least five times, committed the same violations, to wit: paid commissions to one not duly licensed either as a real estate broker, broker-salesman or salesman. Also, the Hearing Officer found that the Respondent failed to collect and deposit into escrow funds which the Respondent represented as having received in the transactions described in the Recommended Order.
The Commission finds that these facts, as supported by the evidence and the Hearing Officer's findings, constitute aggravating circumstances which support and justify imposition of a more severe penalty.
Section 120.57(l)(b)(10) provides, in pertinent part, that an agency may not reduce or increase the recommended penalty in a recommended order of a hearing officer "without a review of the complete record and without stating with particularity its reasons therefor in the order, by citing to the record in justifying the action." Various decisions have addressed the sufficiency of the reasons and support therefor that agencies have used in an attempt to increase the severity of a hearing officer's recommended penalty. The decisions of O'Connor v. Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, 566 So.2d 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Pluto v. Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, 538 So.2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Pages v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, 542 So.2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Bernal v. Department of Professional Regulation, 517 So.2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), affirmed, 531 So.2d 967 (Fla.1988); Van Ore v. Board of Medical Examiners, 489 So.2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); and Hutson v. Casey, 484 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), all considered action by agencies attempting to increase the severity of a recommended penalty in which the agencies set forth reasons strikingly similar to the reasons set forth by appellee below. We find appellee's attempted compliance with section 120.-57(l)(b)(10) not sufficiently dissimilar and, therefore, no more adequate than the efforts by the agencies in O'Connor, Pluto, Pages, Bernal, Van Ore and Hutson. Accordingly, we affirm the findings and conclusion of guilt, but we reverse and remand for implementation of the recommendation of the hearing officer as to the administrative fine of $1,000.00. The recommended penalty of probation is not an authorized penalty and should be disregarded on remand.
DANAHY, A.C.J., concurs.
ALTENBERND, J., dissents with opinion.