Investing in Irrigation & Drainage

Investing in Irrigation & Drainage
Water is an important factor for any landscape
The way that a property uses and manages water has a huge bearing on its overall health. By prioritizing your irrigation and drainage systems, you maximize the health of your landscaping and ensure that your property is safe and accessible for all who use it.
Our U.S. Lawns crews of trained professionals perform routine irrigation inspections and make any adjustments or repairs to keep irrigation systems working effectively and efficiently. Proper irrigation practices increase root depth, as well as tolerance to drought and other stresses.
Efficient Irrigation is Key
We take into account the water needs based on types of plants & turf, season, soil type, shade in the landscape, etc., as well as water required during establishment of new plantings.
Multiple zones are programmed to water specific areas according to their specific needs, adjusting in response to changes in rainfall and other factors.
Smart irrigation systems with rain and soil sensors allow you to save money by efficiently watering your grounds with total control.
Rainwater Runoff
While properties need irrigation, some may also need to deal with excess rainwater runoff through a well-designed and functioning drainage system.
Excess water can erode soil, and cause harm to plants and turf areas.
Standing water can also compromise hardscaping. In addition to becoming a structural liability, the mud and puddles brought about by poor drainage is inconvenient and messy for everyone.
Drainage Needs
Drainage needs vary greatly, depending on the inclines and layout of your property.
Settling ground, maturing landscapes, and new construction can all alter the flow of runoff and require an update to your drainage system.
Water is an important factor for any landscape. It’s an essential need to maintain trees, shrubs, flowers and turf. It can also cause considerable difficulty and damage if not properly managed.
An investment in quality irrigation, and drainage where needed, pays dividends in the long run by preventing costly repairs.
Investing in Irrigation & Drainage

Condominium’s authority to pass special assessments found in governing documents

Dear Poliakoffs,

I live in a condominium building that is currently controlled by the developer, although they do appear to be doing what is best for owners.

Several unit owners would like to make changes to the building, ranging from painting the walls a different color to hiring a more expensive cleaning service. They propose that these changes will result in a “small” special assessment for all unit owners.

A lot of “small” changes will obviously result in larger maintenance fees. What is the Florida law regarding the imposition of a number of small special assessments without a unit owner vote?

Signed, R.J.

Dear R.J.,

The Condominium Act does not provide any guidance with respect to the board’s authority to pass a special assessment, other than to specify that notice of any meeting at which non-emergency special assessments will be considered must be mailed and posted at least 14 days in advance; and the notice must state that assessments will be considered and state the estimated cost and purposes of the assessment. You need to look at the governing documents to determine whether the board has the authority to pass special assessments, and whether there are any restrictions on such authority. Most frequently, I see governing documents that give condominium boards broad authority to pass special assessments as needed when the regular assessments are insufficient to cover the association’s expenses. Sometimes, there are dollar limits on such assessments without membership approval; or other times there may be limitations on the purpose of the assessment without approval (for example, assessments for repairs and maintenance are allowed, but assessments for capital improvements require a membership vote). There’s just no way to know without reading your declaration and bylaws.

There is a provision in Section 718.112, Fla. Stat., stating that “if the developer controls the board, assessments shall not exceed 115 percent of assessments for the prior fiscal year unless approved by a majority of all voting interests.” This provision seems to refer to general budgeted assessments, but it’s conceivable that it might be interpreted to relate to additional special assessments, as well—and so this is something for the board to discuss with the association’s attorney.

Dear Poliakoffs,

Our manager in my condominium requires all contractors working in the building to provide a “certificate of liability insurance naming the association as additional insured and referencing the unit owner and unit number in the description” – no matter how small the project. Insurance companies charge the contractor from $150 to $300 for providing this service and the cost is passed on to the unit owner. It is my position that this is an unnecessary, punitive and arbitrary requirement for small projects. It places an unnecessary financial burden on the homeowner. It discriminates against the independent service providers. In addition, contractors who work frequently in the building for small repairs (i.e. plumbers, etc.), are allowed to provide this additional certificate one time to cover all of their contracts in the building.

Contractors carry their own liability insurance and unit owners carry homeowners’ policies. Of what value is a third liability coverage?

Is this an appropriate policy for a condominium? It is not specified in our documents or our rules and regulations – but it’s merely a policy instituted by management, and as far as I know without board approval.

Signed, N.K.

Dear N.K.,

First, what you’ve described is effectively a rule, and so I do think it should be formalized by a board vote.  And, because it’s arguably a rule regarding unit use, my recommendation would be to pass the rule at a meeting noticed by mail 14 days in advance (as is required by the Condominium Act.)

It’s important to understand what being named as an “additional insured” means to an association, because I think most people misunderstand the impact of having such a certificate. The Association does not need to be an additional insured on a contractor’s insurance policy if it wants to file a claim against the contractor’s insurance because the contractor damages the building. It has that right simply because the contractor carries the liability insurance in the first place. Instead, from my discussions with insurance professionals, the two primary benefits are that being named as an additional insured may allow the association to invoke the contractor’s defense coverage in the event that the association is sued due to the contractor’s actions (which, frankly, happens all the time); and it ensures that the association will be notified if the contractor cancels its insurance coverage. Those are legitimate benefits, and they may very well be important to the association. Your point about small projects is certainly well taken, but keep in mind that even small projects can cause big damages to the building (a plumber screwing up a $300 repair can easily cause tens of thousands in damage to a property.)

I do think a rule requiring that all contractors working in the building to name the association as an additional insured on their liability policies would be valid and reasonable; but also, it would need to be properly promulgated if the association wants it to survive a court challenge.

Ryan Poliakoff, a partner at Backer Aboud Poliakoff & Foelster, LLP, is a Board Certified Specialist in condominium and planned development law. This column is dedicated to the memory of Gary Poliakoff, pioneer of the community association legal industry, tireless advocate, and author of treatises, books and hundreds of articles. Ryan Poliakoff and Gary Poliakoff are co-authors of New Neighborhoods—The Consumer’s Guide to Condominium, Co-Op and HOA Living. Email your questions to Please be sure to include your location.

Full Article

Hurricane Preparedness Presented by Lee County Emergency Services

Hurricane Preparedness Presented by Lee County Emergency Services
Thursday, June 17, 2021 from 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM EDT
3 Fisherman Seafood Restaurant
13021 North Cleveland Ave
Fort Myers, FL 33903
I can’t make it

Law Offices of Heist_ Weisse _ Wolk P.A.


Cape Homes Maintenance_ LLC
Cape Homes Maintenance, LLC

Deep Blue Air_ Inc.
Deep Blue Air, Inc.

OnSight Pros
OnSight Pros

Titan Restoration and Construction
Titan Restoration and Construction

Water Heaters Direct
Water Heaters Direct

Lee County Emergency Management will host a Hurricane Preparedness luncheon to prepare the local Property Managers for the 2021 hurricane season.
Presented by Caitlyn Eck
Mrs. Eck is the Operations Section Chief/Manager for Lee County Emergency Management, managing a team of emergency managements as they respond to hazards in our county and throughout the State of Florida and the nation.
Caitlyn Eck
We will also be having a FREE Raffle.  
Don’t miss it!
Thursday, June 17, 2021

11:30am – 1:00pm
13021 North Cleveland Ave
Fort Myers, FL  33903
(Masks are optional per whatever the guests are comfortable with)
NARPM Members $20
Non-Members/Guests $30
Affiliates FREE
Lunch will be served
Genelle Bennett
I can’t make it
Like us on Facebook

Hurricane Season is Right Around the Corner

After record-breaking and disastrous 2020 hurricane season, many homeowners found themselves with severe wind and flood damage. Unfortunately, many did not have adequate insurance protection to cover the cost to repair or rebuild their homes.
The 2021 hurricane season is predicted to be overly active yet again with a prediction of 18 named storms, including eight hurricanes. If this prediction comes to pass this will be the SIXTH overactive season in a row.
The 2021 Hurricane Season is LESS THAN 30 DAYS AWAY and we want to make sure you are properly prepared and protected.
ALL 50 states have experienced flooding in the last 5 years.
It could take up to 30 days to bind flood protection.
Floods are not covered under most homeowners and
renters policies.
Once there is a named storm, carriers place binding restrictions on new policies and changing limits on existing policies.
25% of flood insurance claims are filed by people who are not living in high-risk areas.
Don’t miss this opportunity to stock up on your hurricane supplies during the 2021 Hurricane Sales Tax Holiday.
Click here to view a list of tax free items May 28th – June 3rd.
Acentria Insurance is a Foundation Risk Partners Company.

Legislation making it easier to remove problematic HOAs stalls in Tallahassee

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — 9 Investigates why legislation that would make it easier for homeowners to remove problematic HOA board members has once again stalled in Tallahassee.

Over the last year and a half, Channel 9 investigative reporter Karla Ray has covered the turmoil inside Kissimmee’s Turnberry Reserve, where after a legal fight, a group of homeowners was able to successfully remove its board. Many thought their efforts would finally bring change at the state level, but we learned this push fails year after year.

READ: Turnberry Reserve whistleblower reflects on year of turmoil, changes

Lawmakers who brought forward this year’s bill aimed at easing the process do not expect it to reach a vote. That’s frustrating to homeowners who have been through the long, drawn-out process of removing an HOA board.

The feeling inside Turnberry Reserve is a lot different than a year ago.

“We’ve been working on the grounds, new vendors. It’s been a full-time job for all of us; there is a lot of work going into restoring the community to where it should be,” Turnberry homeowner and current board vice president Maria Napolitano said.

READ: Former Turnberry Reserve property manager arrested on fraud-related charges

Napolitano is part of a group that led the effort to overhaul the community’s Board of Directors, who had employed Management 35 Firm. That property management company, run by Sherry Raposo and her longtime boyfriend, ex-cop-turned-felon Joseph Conover, was removed last year. The two are facing charges related to Conover’s role as an unlicensed security officer, and Raposo is facing separate charges for alleged fraud involving HOA records.

“We have been able to at least get through most of the homeowner accounts and get those cleared up, and homeowners are happy to know that they have accurate balances on their accounts,” Napolitano said.

READ: Body camera video provides new evidence in case against ex-cop-turned security guard at Kissimmee community

Getting to this point was a struggle. Florida’s process for homeowners to recall a board has long been criticized, with homeowners often bounced around from local courts to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation to force recalls to be recognized.

Still, efforts to change it fail year after year in Tallahassee. In fact, legislation put forward this year by State Rep. Kristen Arrington and State Sen. Victor Torres, both of whom represent parts of Osceola County, is not making any progress. Even if it did, it would only change a small portion of state statute.

READ: Kissimmee property management company owner arrested, charged with fraud, impersonating officer

“It’s frustrating. I can tell you since we started this, we’ve gotten so many phone calls from communities across the state that are in similar situations, and they’re going through the same thing, coming out of pocket, fighting, going in the circle of court to the state, court to the state, with nobody to say, ‘This is our wheelhouse,’” Napolitano said.

First Appellate Court Ruling on CDC Eviction Moratorium Goes Against the Government

A unanimous Sixth Circuit decision upheld a lower court ruling holding that the moratorium is illegal.


Today was a big day for the Centers for Disease Control eviction moratorium! First, the CDC extended the moratorium until June 30 (I wrote about that development here). Then, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued the first appellate court ruling in the litigation over the moratorium’s legality. In Tiger Lilly, LLC v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, upheld a trial court decision holding that the moratorium is illegal. The Sixth Circuit’s reasoning is similar to that of the trial court in this same case, and that of one of the two previous district court decisions against the moratorium. Here is the key part of the opinion:

To slow disease transmission, the HHS Secretary, and the CDC by extension, can impose specific restrictions on both property interests, see 42 U.S.C. § 264(a), and liberty interests, see id. § 264(d). As to the former, the Secretary “may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.” Id. § 264(a). The government asserts that a nationwide eviction moratorium is among the “other measures” for disease control that Congress envisioned when drafting the statute.

We disagree. This kind of catchall provision at the end of a list of specific items warrants application of the ejusdem generiscanon, which says that “where general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 11415 (2001) (citation omitted). The residual phrase in § 264(a) is “controlled and defined by reference to the enumerated categories...before it,” id. at 115, such that the “other measures” envisioned in the statute are measures like “inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination” and so on, 42 U.S.C. § 264(a). Plainly, government intrusion on property to sanitize and dispose of infected matter is different in nature from a moratorium on evictions. See Terkel v. CDC, No. 6:20cv00564, 2021 WL 742877, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2021) (holding that the Halt Order exceeded the scope of the CDC’s authority and observing that “eviction is fundamentally the vindication of the property owner’s possessory interest”). The Halt Order thus falls outside the scope of the statute.

Like the two district court rulings, the Sixth Circuit emphasizes that the government’s interpretation of the statute would raise serious constitutional problems, because it would violate constraints on Congress’ ability to delegate power to the executive branch:

As the district court noted, the broad construction of § 264 the government proposes raises…. concerns about the delegation of legislative power to the executive branch. The government would have us construe the phrase “and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary,” 42 U.S.C. § 264, as a “broad grant of authority” to impose any number of regulatory actions, provided the Secretary believes those actions will help prevent the spread of disease, regardless of whether they are in any way tethered to the “specific intrusions on private property described in the second sentence” of § 264. “In the absence of a clear mandate in the Act, it is unreasonable to assume that Congress intended to give the Secretary the unprecedented power” of that kind. Indus. Union Dep’t, AFLCIO v. API448 U.S. 607, 645 (1980) (plurality opinion). We will not make such an unreasonable assumption.

I have been beating the drum on this nondelegation issue since my very first commentary on the eviction moratorium, back when it was first issued by the Trump administration in September 2020. Many federal judges seem to have the same reservations.

The Sixth Circuit also concludes that the government’s interpretation of the law violates the rule that courts should not interpret federal law to usurp traditional areas of state government authority, unless Congress has clearly indicated its intent to do so:

[E]ven if we were inclined to construe the phrase “other measures” as expansively as the government suggests, we cannot read the Public Health Service Act to grant the CDC the power to insert itself into the landlordtenant relationship without some clear, unequivocal textual evidence of Congress’s intent to do so. Regulation of the landlordtenant relationship is historically the province of the states…. It is an “ordinary rule of statutory construction that if Congress intends to alter the usual constitutional balance between the States and the Federal Government, it must make its intention to do so unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.” Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) (quotation marks and citation omitted)… There is no “unmistakably clear” language in the Public Health Service Act indicating Congress’s intent to invade the traditionally Stateoperated arena of landlordtenant relationship.

Technically, today’s ruling is not a final decision on the merits of the case. All it does is reject the federal government’s motion to stay the district court ruling until such time as the appeal process is completed. However, one of the criteria for granting a stay is the appellate court’s assessment of the moving party’s likelihood of prevailing on the merits. For reasons discussed above, the Sixth Circuit panel concluded that the government has little or no chance of prevailing, and that is the reason why it rejected the motion for a stay. Thus, today’s ruling is almost certainly a preview of what the panel will conclude when it does decide on the merits (possibly sometime in the next few weeks).

Like the trial court, the Sixth Circuit decision assesses the legality of Biden’s initial revival of the moratorium first issued by Trump. It does not consider today’s additional extension of the moratorium or the additional justifications offered by the CDC in its extension order. It is possible that the Sixth Circuit will reach a different conclusion when it issues its final decision on the merits, and has a chance to consider the latest version of the order. But for reasons I explained in my post about the extension earlier today, I think it is unlikely that courts will view legal rationale for new extension as any stronger than the old. We may soon see whether I am right about that or not.

In sum, we now have four rulings against the eviction moratorium (including the first appellate court ruling), and two in its favor. I analyzed the the previous decisions herehere, and here.

It is, perhaps worth noting that all three of the judges on the Sixth Circuit panel are Republican appointees, as were all three lower court judges who ruled against the moratorium. One GOP appointee and one Democratic one ruled in favor of the government. Thus, it is still possible that we will ultimately see an ideological split over this issue, despite the fact that the eviction order was first adopted by the Trump administration. For reasons I outlined here and here, liberal Democrats have good reason to be skeptical of the legality of this order, as much as do conservative Republicans. But liberal judges may not see it that way.

Be that as it may, it is at least clear that the case against the moratorium has legs. Multiple federal courts have now ruled against it. And the judges who issued those decisions are not easily dismissed as incompetents or wacky extremists. One of the judges on today’s Sixth Circuit panel is Amul Thapar, a George W. Bush nominee who is a major figure in conservative legal circles, and often considered a potential Supreme Court appointee. The fact that he thinks the moratorium is illegal doesn’t automatically prove that it actually is. But it does show that the arguments against it cannot be easily dismissed.

NOTE: The plaintiffs in some of the lawsuits against the eviction moratorium are represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, where my wife works. I myself have played a minor (unpaid) role in advising PLF on this litigation.

UPDATE: I have changed the phrase where I said that the Sixth Circuit will “probably” issue a final decision in the next few weeks to “possibly.” The latter better reflects the degree of uncertainty surrounding the timing.

Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University, and author of Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom and Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter.

Class Webinar: HOA/Condo Board Member Certification | Apr 14

HOA/Condo Board Member Certification

Where: Zoom

When: April 14, 2021 | 10AM – 12PM EST


If you are planning to serve on your homeowner association board, you probably know that you will need to comply with Florida’s certification requirements within 90 days of being elected.
Our HOA/Condo Board Certification class is designed to satisfy the statutory requirement so that you are eligible to serve. More importantly, it will provide the tools and information you need to perform your job well and to avoid any potential liability associated with your new role.

Topics Covered:

  • Defining your fiduciary duty
  • Analyzing association operations
  • How to properly maintain the association’s books and records
  • The pros and cons of alternative dispute resolution
  • Avoiding common election pitfalls
  • Preparing budgets and funding reserves
  • Understanding financial reporting requirements
  • Assessing insurance needs for common areas
  • Defusing conflict within the community


2 ELE Credits


Provider: #0000811

Course #9630016


PLEASE NOTE: Instructions to receive CEU credits will be emailed 1-2 days after the class has concluded.


Becker - Jane L. Cornett
Jane L. Cornett


CenterState Bank

Governor DeSantis Signs COVID-19 Liability Bill

Becker - CALL - Community Association Leadership Lobby

Governor DeSantis Signs COVID-19 Liability Bill

Yesterday Governor DeSantis signed SB 72 which gives civil immunity to not-for-profit corporations, hospitals, nursing homes, government entities, schools and churches for COVID-19 related claims as long as the alleged negligence doesn’t involve gross negligence or intentional misconduct. “COVID-19 related claim” means a civil liability claim against a person, including a natural person, a business entity, an educational institution, a governmental entity, or a religious institution, which arises from or is related to COVID-19. The term includes any such claim for damages, injury, or death.

What does this mean for community associations who have taken significant steps to safeguard their residents throughout this pandemic?

Florida condominiums, cooperatives and homeowners’ associations are classified as business entities protected by this bill which is welcome news!

Boards who took steps to comply with local, state and federal guidelines should be able to rely upon this new law for protection.

The new law imposes significant legal hurdles for individuals who want to sue over coronavirus-related injuries or deaths. Plaintiffs who file suit will need to provide a physician’s affidavit to establish the basis for the injury claim. They will also need to prove in court that a defendant did not make a good faith effort to comply with public health standards and to prove that a defendant committed gross negligence under a “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard.

The law establishes a one-year statute of limitations to sue from the later of the date of death, hospitalization or the COVID-19 diagnosis that forms the basis of the claim. This newfound statutory protection applies to claims that accrued before the enactment of the law and within one year following the Governor’s signing of it, but it does not apply to lawsuits that have already been filed.

While we applaud the passage of this new law, it is important for boards to remember that the State of Florida is still under a statewide state of emergency until April 26. Less than a quarter of Florida’s population has been fully vaccinated at this point and federal and local health officials continue to warn of possible surges due to variants. Many county ordinances requiring facial coverings in association common areas remain in effect. It is not only reasonable but prudent for boards to continue to exercise due caution when operating and opening common amenities and enforcing COVID-19 safety protocols.

Please continue to utilize our Bill Tracker which is updated on a weekly basis. This tool allows you to review all of the bills CALL is tracking and see where they’re headed.

Limiting Liability for COVID-19; Criminalizing Inspections & Elections; Permitting Single Petition Property Tax Appeals

Becker - CALL - Community Association Leadership Lobby

Limiting Liability for COVID-19; Criminalizing Inspections & Elections; Permitting Single Petition Property Tax Appeals

This week, we’re going to discuss a few bills that will impact all types of Florida community associations.

CS/HB 7 / SB 72 (Brandes) are bills which would protect “business entities” against COVID-19 related claims for damages, injury or death. These bills do include condominiums, cooperatives, and HOAs within the definition of a business entity. Given that most association policies have coverage exclusions for communicable diseases, these bills could help insulate associations from frivolous COVID-19 claims in the coming months or years.

In order to be eligible for this protection from civil liability, a defendant would have to show that it made a good faith effort to substantially comply with authoritative or government-issued health standards or guidance at the time the cause of action accrued. Most community association boards have wisely followed the advice of medical professionals such as the CDC, DOH, and local government health officials when crafting and enforcing COVID-19 safety protocols.

SB 1998 (Pizzo) would create a new Section 718.1285, F.S. outlining fraudulent voting activities which would subject violators to a potential felony charge in the third degree.

  • This bill would require boards to provide an itemized list to the individual requesting a document inspection, and require a sworn affidavit from the person handling the document inspection request regarding the veracity of the itemized list. Any director or manager who knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly violates these requirements would commit a misdemeanor of the second degree.
  • This bill would also require associations operating twenty-five (25) or more units to maintain a website on which their official records must be posted. Currently, associations operating 150 or more units must maintain an association website for this purpose so, if passed, this bill will require thousands more Florida communities to set up websites.
  • SB 1998 would permit a condominium association to file a single joint petition for a tax appeal and makes the use of a debit card a theft even if done so by mistake.

Conducting elections and overseeing document inspection requests are two areas where deadlines can easily be missed and mistakes made. Even without the penalties imposed by a bill like SB 1998, it is important that boards and managers have comprehensive election and inspection protocols and policies in place. Reaching out for guidance from your legal team is also advisable.

Lastly, HB 649 (Fernandez & Barquin) / SB 996 (Garcia) would also allow condominium and cooperative associations to file a single joint petition on behalf of their unit owners with the value adjustment board to appeal property taxes. Unit owners could opt out but they would have to do so within fourteen (14) days from receipt of the association’s notice or they will be included in the association’s petition.


Please continue to utilize our Bill Tracker which is updated weekly thanks to Becker attorney Maritrini Soto Garcia. This tool allows you to review all of the bills CALL is tracking and see where they’re headed.

Please also use our Legislator Connect tool to contact your representatives as well as the Committee Members hearing these bills. Please do not underestimate your ability to make a difference in terms of which bills pass and which are defeated.

Class Webinar: Take a Bite Out of Fraudulent Assistance Animal Requests | March 31


Take A Bite Out of Fraudulent Assistance Animal Requests

1 ELE Credit
3.31.2021 | 3PM – 4PM EST

Take A Bite Out of Fraudulent Assistance Animal Requests

Where: Zoom

When: March 31, 2021 | 3PM – 4PM EST


Participants will learn about the Fair Housing laws on the state, federal and local level that impact community operations and actions with respect to requests to maintain emotional support animals on the property despite pet or animal restrictions.

Some topics to be discussed:

  • Fair Housing Act and Disability Accommodations
  • New Legislation Regarding Emotional Support Animals
  • Establishing a Handicap
  • Competing Definition of Service Animal Under ADAAA and FHAA
  • Fraudulent Requests for Service and Support Animals
  • What to do When the Disability is Not Obvious
  • What a Disabled Person Needs to Provide in Order to Own a Service Animal
  • Innate Qualities of Service Animal
  • Failing to Make Reasonable Accommodations and Modifications
  • What to do when “Skeptical” Information is Provided
  • Damages and Penalties for Discrimination


1 ELE Credit


Provider: #0000811

Course #9630287


PLEASE NOTE: Instructions to receive CEU credits will be emailed 1-2 days after the class has concluded.


Becker - Steven H. Mezer
Steven H. Mezer

Becker - David G. Muller
David G. Muller

Becker - JoAnn Nesta Burnett
JoAnn Nesta Burnett

Becker - Kevin L. Edwards
Kevin L. Edwards