Recommended Order — 26-003210

STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
KIMBERLY FRANK,
Petitioner,
vs.
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION COMMISSION,
Respondent.
/
Case No. 26-3210
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A final hearing was conducted in this case on September 11, 2026, via
Zoom Conference, before Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock, Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH).
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: 	No Appearance
For Respondent: 	Christopher A. Jurich, Esquire
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
620 South Meridian Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether Kimberly Frank (Petitioner) is legally responsible for a vessel left
in derelict condition upon the waters of the State of Florida.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By letter dated May 30, 2026, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (Respondent or Commission) provided Petitioner:
NOTICE TO THE OWNER AND ALL PERSONS
INTERESTED IN THE VESSEL DESCRIBED

2
HEREIN. This vessel, to wit: FL7209SS, HIN:
MSZ00523H919 	a 	43 	Foot 	Massachusetts
Homemade 	Sailing 	Vessel: 	has 	been
determined to be derelict and is unlawfully
upon waters of this State known as the Gulf of
America and must be removed within 21 days;
otherwise, it will be removed and disposed of
pursuant to chapter 705, Florida Statutes. The
owner and other interested parties have the
right 	to 	a 	hearing 	to 	challenge 	the
determination 	that 	this 	vessel 	is 	derelict.
Please 	contact 	the 	Fish 	and 	Wildlife
Conservation 	Commission 	Office 	of 	the
General Counsel for more information at (850)
487-1764. The owner or the party determined
to be legally responsible for the vessel being
upon the waters of this State in a derelict
condition 	will 	be 	liable 	for 	the 	costs 	of
removal, 	destruction, 	and 	disposal 	if 	this
vessel is not removed by the owner.
This notice (Notice) to Petitioner provided that the Commission’s sworn
law enforcement officer had determined that a vessel owned by Petitioner
was derelict upon the waters of the State in violation of section 823.11,
Florida Statutes, and therefore, subject to the provisions of sections 705.103
and 823.11, Florida Statutes. More specifically, the Notice advised that the
Commission intended to remove and destroy the vessel if Petitioner did not
bring it into compliance or remove it from the waters of the State.
Petitioner timely challenged the Notice by filing a Petition for
Administrative Hearing (Petition) with the Commission dated June 2, 2026.
On June 25, 2026, the Commission forwarded the Petition to DOAH for the
assignment of an ALJ to conduct an administrative hearing.

3
Upon assignment, the undersigned scheduled the administrative hearing
for August 21, 2026.1 Petitioner did not appear for the August 21, 2026,
hearing. However, at the beginning of the August hearing, the Commission
requested a continuance due to a medical emergency, which was granted. The
hearing was rescheduled and held on September 11, 2026.2 At the hearing,
the Commission presented the testimony of one witness, Commission Officer
Jordan Adkins. The Commission offered three Exhibits, 1 through 3, which
were received into evidence. Petitioner was not present.
The proceedings were recorded and a Transcript was filed with DOAH on
September 28, 2026. The parties were issued a Notice of Filing Proposed
Recommended Orders (PROs) at their address of record, which provided the
ten days allowed by rule from the filing of the Transcript within which to file
their PROs. The Commission timely filed its PRO on September 29, 2026, and
it has been carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended
Order. To date, Petitioner has not filed a PRO.
All references to Florida Statutes are to the current versions, unless
otherwise indicated.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Officer Adkins is a sworn law enforcement officer with the Commission.
At the time of the hearing, he had been employed with the Commission in
that capacity for roughly five years. As part of his assignment, he is “charged
1 Following the receipt of the Commission’s unilateral response to the Initial Order, the
undersigned waited to allow time for Petitioner to file her response. No response was
received and the undersigned issued the Notice of Hearing by Zoom Conference and an Order
of Pre-Hearing Instructions. Both documents were issued to each party at their address of
record. DOAH did not receive any return mail as undeliverable or refused by Petitioner.
2 The Order Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing by Zoom Conference (Order)
was issued on August 21, 2026. This Order was issued to all parties at their address of
record. DOAH did not receive any return mail as undeliverable or refused by Petitioner.

4
with protecting the waters of the State in regards to boating and navigation
laws, as well as protecting the State’s fish and wildlife resources.”
2. Officer Adkins’s duties also involve the investigation and identification
of derelict vessels for which he has received training. He has been
investigating between 25 to 30 derelict vessels a year since his employment
with the Commission.
3. On or about May 2026, Officer Adkins received a call for service from
the Commission’s dispatch center. He proceeded to Bunche Beach Preserve
(Preserve), located on Summerlin Road and off John Morris Road in Iona,
Florida, and found a vessel aground. He knocked on the side of the vessel,
found Petitioner on the vessel and she identified herself as the vessel’s owner.
4. Although the vessel was found on the Preserve land, it is on the Gulf of
Mexico (now known as the Gulf of America), and considered to be the waters
of the state. These areas are publicly accessible and navigable waters.
5. Officer Adkins confirmed Petitioner as the vessel’s owner through the
Drivers and Vehicle Information Database (DAVID) system. Officer Adkins
used the vessel’s Florida identification number and found its registration
history which identified Petitioner as the vessel’s current owner.
6. Officer Adkins found the condition of the vessel to be “aground without
the ability to extricate itself, absent mechanical assistance, and that’s the
textbook definition that qualifies it as a derelict vessel.” Additionally, if a
vessel cannot move itself either with an engine or under its own power, i.e., a
sailboat in sail, the vessel is considered derelict.
7. Officer Adkins identified the 43-foot Massachusetts Homemade Sailing
Vessel (Sailboat) bearing registration number FL7209SS as derelict. The
Sailboat was beached on the Preserve land at low tide. It cannot extricate
itself without mechanical assistance, the rudder is broken and stuck in the
sand. Respondent’s Exhibit 3 shows the Sailboat aground during low tide
with the bright red “NOTICE” sticker affixed to the side.

5
8. Officer Adkins credibly testified the Sailboat “is still below the what we
call the mean high-water line. So, anything below the mean high-water line is
still considered waters of the state. To put in common knowledge, when the
tide comes in, that vessel is fully floating.” Yet, there is no steering available
with the broken rudder buried in sand or muck, when the sand is wet. There
is a broken window on the Sailboat which can allow water to enter when it is
partially floating on its side.
9. On or about May 30, 2026, Officer Adkins spoke with Petitioner and
gave her the notification that the Sailboat was derelict as it was unable to
extricate itself from its grounded position without mechanical assistance and
it was taking on water during the high tide. Petitioner was given the
statutory 21 days in which to move the Sailboat.
10. Officer Adkins visited the Sailboat on September 10, 2026, the day
before the Zoom hearing. The Sailboat is in the same conditions as reflected
in the photographs found in Respondent’s Exhibit 3, and has not been moved.
11. In sum, a preponderance of the evidence proved that Petitioner is the
owner of record of the vessel, that the vessel is in a derelict condition and
that it is on the waters of the State.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
12. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of these
proceedings. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.
13. Section 823.11 designates the Commission as the State agency
empowered to remove, or cause to be removed, any abandoned or derelict
vessels from the public waters of the State.
14. Petitioner’s 43-foot Sailboat bearing registration number FL7209SS,
HIN: MSZ00523H919 is a vessel within the meaning of section 327.02(47),
Florida Statutes, which defines “vessel” as “synonymous with boat as
referenced in s. 1(b), Art. VII of the State Constitution and includes every
description of watercraft, barge, and airboat, other than a seaplane on the

6
water, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.”
Petitioner’s vessel meets the definition of “vessel” provided in subsection
327.02(47).
15. Section 823.11(1)(b) provides that “derelict vessel[s]” include “a vessel,
as defined in s. 327.02, that is left, stored, or abandoned [i]n a wrecked,
junked, or substantially dismantled condition upon any public waters of this
state.” The statute does not provide a definition for “left,” however, in the
absence of such statutory guidance, the undersigned must look to the
ordinary, plain meaning of the terms. Knowles v. Beverly Enters. Fla., Inc.,
898 So. 2d 1, 5 (Fla. 2004). Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “left” as
follows: (past tense of leave): to cause or allow to be or remain in a specified
condition (https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/leave, last viewed
October 12, 2026).
16. The photos of the vessel (Respondent’s Exhibit 3) showing that it is
aground, without a working rudder (and therefore lacking any means of
steering or propulsion), establish that it is a vessel in a derelict state.
17. Navigable “waters of the State” include “the shores between ordinary
high and low water marks.” See, e.g., State v. Gerbing, 56 Fla. 603 (1908);
Brickell v. Trammel, 77 Fla. 544 (1919). “Public” means “of, relating to, or
affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state.” Merriam-
Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/public (last
viewed October 12, 2026). The evidence in this case showed that Petitioner’s
vessel was, and is currently located on, the public waters of the State.
18. The Commission proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the
vessel was left in a substantially dismantled condition upon the waters of the
State because the Sailboat, this vessel, was aground and lacked a means of
operating steerage. The vessel, therefore, meets the definition of a “derelict
vessel” provided in section 823.11(1)(b).

7
19. Section 823.11(1)(b) provides:
“Derelict vessel” means a vessel, as defined in s. 327.02,
that is:
1. 	In a wrecked, junked, or substantially dismantled
condition upon any waters of this state.
a. A vessel is wrecked if it is sunken or sinking; aground
without the ability to extricate itself absent mechanical
assistance; 	or 	remaining 	after 	a 	marine 	casualty,
including, 	but 	not 	limited 	to, 	a 	boating 	accident,
extreme weather, or a fire.
b. A vessel is junked if it has been substantially stripped
of 	vessel 	components, 	if 	vessel 	components 	have
substantially degraded or been destroyed, or if the
vessel has been discarded by the owner or operator.
Attaching 	an 	outboard 	motor 	to 	a 	vessel 	that 	is
otherwise junked will not cause the vessel to no longer
be junked if such motor is not an effective means of
propulsion 	as 	required 	by 	s. 	327.4107(2)(e) 	and
associated rules.
c. A vessel is substantially dismantled if at least two of
the three following vessel systems or components are
missing, 	compromised, 	incomplete, 	inoperable, 	or
broken:
(I) The steering system;
(II) The propulsion system; or
(III) The exterior hull integrity.
This section does not require that the leaving of a derelict vessel upon the
waters of the State be an intentional or willful act by the vessel owner.
20. Section 705.101(1) defines “abandoned property” as “all tangible
personal property that does not have an identifiable owner and that has been
disposed of on public property in a wrecked, inoperative, or partially
dismantled condition or has no apparent intrinsic value to the rightful owner.

8
The term includes derelict vessels as defined in s. 823.11.”
21. Because the vessel meets the definition of “derelict vessel” provided in
section 823.11, the vessel is also, for purposes of chapter 705 (Florida’s lost
and abandoned property law), “abandoned property.”
22. Section 705.103(2)(a)2. provides that for a derelict vessel, a law
enforcement agency may remove the vessel from the waters of the state and
destroy and dispose of it as abandoned property following a hearing by an
ALJ determining the vessel to be derelict, and when a final order has been
entered or the case is otherwise closed.
23. Section 705.103(4) provides that the owner of a derelict vessel who
does not remove the property from the waters of the State shall be liable to
the law enforcement agency or its designee for all costs of removal, storage,
and destruction of such property, less any salvage value obtained by disposal
of the vessel.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission enter a final order finding the Commission proved its case by a
preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner is the owner and responsible
party of the subject vessel that is derelict pursuant to section 823.11, and is
abandoned property under chapter 705; that Respondent may remove the
derelict vessel from the waters of the State and destroy and dispose of the
derelict vessel; and that Petitioner is responsible for all costs incurred by the
Commission or its designee in the removal, destruction, and disposal of the
derelict vessel.

9
Case No. 26-3210
DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2026, in Tallahassee,
Leon County, Florida.
S
LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK
Administrative Law Judge
DOAH Tallahassee Office
Division of Administrative Hearings
2001 Drayton Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32311
(850) 488-9675
www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the
Division of Administrative Hearings
this 15th day of October, 2026.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Christopher Claude Torres, Esquire
(eServed)
Christopher A. Jurich, Esquire
(eServed)
Rhonda E. Parnell, Acting General Counsel
(eServed)
Roger Young, Executive Director
(eServed)
Kimberly Frank
(Address of Record)
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.