Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Josephine Anne Schultz
Josephine Anne Schultz
Visitors: 27
0
Bar #722650(FL)     License for 37 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Josephine Anne Schultz? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

17-004919  GLOBAL DISCOVERIES LTD., LLC, ON BEHALF OF THE HEIRS OF LARRY BUNDA; AND BY OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, INC., FOR UNCLAIMED PROPERTY REPORTED IN THE NAMES LARRY BUNDA AND HOMEQ SERVICING vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, BUREAU OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 30, 2017
Whether either of the Petitioners is entitled to the funds in Unclaimed Property Account Number 117786622.Neither Petitioner established its entitlement to the unclaimed property at issue, the proceeds of a California homeowner's insurance policy.
16-003242  DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES vs MICHELANGO MORTELLARO, GINA SINADINOS AND MORTELLARO AND SINADINOS, PLLC  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 13, 2016
Whether Respondents assisted their client in receiving unclaimed property to which the client was not entitled, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed against Respondents’ locator registration with the Florida Department of Financial Services. Whether Respondents received and refused to return unclaimed property to which they were not entitled, and ,if so, what discipline should be imposed against Respondents’ locator registration with the Florida Department of Financial Services.The Dept. proved Respondents received unclaimed property to which they were not entitled. The Dept. did not prove violation was willfully with reckless disregard, or deliberate ignorance of the truth and therefore a one-month suspension is appropriate.
14-000895  CHOICE PLUS, LLC, ON ITS OWN BEHALF AS A PURCHASER OF THE UNCLAIMED PROPERTY ACCOUNT HELD IN THE NAME OF DONALD C. ROGERS, SR. vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, BUREAU OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 24, 2014
Whether Choice Plus, LLC is entitled to Unclaimed Property Account Number 103851316.Petitioner is in conformity with the requirments of the Florida Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act and met its burden and established entitlement to the unclaimed property Account 103851316.
13-004953  AMERICAN RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATIONS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES  (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 20, 2013
Whether either Petitioner is entitled to Unclaimed Property Account Number 108502717.Petitioners did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence,their entitlement to the unclaimed property at issue.
13-004954  CHOICE PLUS LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES  (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 20, 2013
Whether either Petitioner is entitled to Unclaimed Property Account Number 108502717.Petitioners did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence,their entitlement to the unclaimed property at issue.
00-004920RU  FRED GOODMAN, D/B/A EYES AND EARS INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES vs DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE  (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 06, 2000
There are two issues presented in this case. The first issue is whether a statement by the Department of Banking and Finance (the "Department"), denying joinder of multiple unrelated abandoned property claims, in a Final Order directed to Petitioner is an unpromulgated rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The second issue is whether the Department has a policy of delaying decisions on unclaimed property claims past the statutory 90th day, such that the policy constitutes an unpromulgated rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.Petitioner challenged as an unpromulgated rule a statement by the Department denying consolidation of unrelated claims; also challenged Department`s action of exceeding 90-day determination period. Failed to prove each issue.
96-000396  NURRUDIN ALOMGIR vs DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, AND DEPARTMENT OF LOTTERY  (1996)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 23, 1996
How should the remainder of Petitioner's lottery prize winnings, which are currently held by the Department of Banking and Finance, be distributed in light of the provisions of Section 24.115, Florida Statutes?Comptroller should deduct $808.72 owed by lottery winner in child support from his prize & transfer it to Department of Revenue.
96-001786  VIRGINIA ANN DASSAW vs DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, AND DEPARTMENT OF LOTTERY  (1996)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 12, 1996
The central issue in this case is whether the sum of $1,318.00 should be permanently withheld from Petitioner's lottery winning.Petitioner not entitled to remainder of lottery prize since owed same to DHRS for overpayment of Aid for Families with Dependent Children benefits.
96-004216  GUSSIE MAE DEMPSON vs DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, AND DEPARTMENT OF LOTTERY  (1996)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 06, 1996
The issue for determination is whether Petitioner should receive her lottery prize winnings of $2,500.Petitioner's lottery prize winnings to be paid to Department of Children and Family Services for debt owed by Petitioner to the agency.
96-001862  DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, DIVISION OF SECURITIES AND INVESTOR PROTECTION vs ZUMA ENGINEERING, COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND MICHAEL J. GRUTTADAURIA  (1996)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 17, 1996
Whether Respondents, Zuma Engineering Company, Inc., ("Zuma") and Michael J. Gruttadauria, sold securities in Florida in violation of Sections 517.07 and 517.12, Florida Statutes? Whether Respondents, in connection with the offer and sale to Florida investors of Zuma promissory notes, (whether the notes constituted securities or not) violated the anti-fraud provisions of Section 517.301(1)(a), Florida Statutes? Whether Mr. Gruttadauria, as President of Zuma, may be held responsible for Zuma's corporate acts even if Mr. Gruttadauria did not have direct knowledge of them?Corporation president responsible for failure to register securities and fraud in connection with sale of notes to fund crumb rubber business.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer