STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF BANKING AND FINANCE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-4404

) INTERAMERICAN FINANCIAL CORP., )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This matter was heard by William R. Dorsey, Jr., the Hearing Officer designated by the Division of Administrative Hearings, on October 1, 1992, in Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Steven R. Walker, Esquire

Office of Comptroller Suite 708-N

401 N.W. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128

For Respondent: Ted Bartlestone, Esquire

Suite 1550, 1 Biscayne Tower

2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue is whether Interamerican Financial Corporation is guilty of six types of violations of the Florida Retail Installment Sales Act alleged in the Department's Administrative Complaint of June 23, 1992, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The violations alleged are failure to keep proper records and to remit to an insurance company monies collected from borrowers for credit life insurance policies contrary to Section 520.995(1)(a),(b,)(c),(e) and (f) and Section 520.997(1),(3), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.); charging excessive premiums for credit life insurance polices contrary to Section 520.07(4), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.); failure to follow proper procedures for affixing documentary stamps to notes executed by borrowers contrary to Section 520.07(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.) and Rule 3D-50.001(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code; failing to notify borrowers of charging finance charges in excess of the legal maximums in violation of Rule 3D-5.002, Florida Administrative Code; and failure to maintain credit insurance acknowledgment forms, contrary to Sections

520.07(4) and 627.679(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). (Administrative Complaint, Paragraphs 11 through 15). At the opening of the hearing, the Respondent admitted that all allegations found in paragraphs 1 through 8 and 10 of the Administrative Complaint were correct. A transcript was filed on October 19, 1992, which was supplemented with an errata sheet on October 22, 1992.

Proposed Recommended Orders were filed by October 29, 1992. Rulings on proposed findings of fact are made in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Interamerican Financial Corporation (Interamerican) is a Florida corporation with its sole place of business at 2600 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Suite 730, Miami, Florida. Interamerican is registered with the Department as a Retail Installment Seller, under license number HI-0004299/SF-592236293 000. The Department is authorized by the Florida Retail Installment Sales Act (Chapter 520, Florida Statutes) to examine licensees engaged in the retail installment financing business.

   
   

2. Interamerican is in the business of financing automobile loans. Most of its loans are ones banks will not make because of the age of the automobile or because of the borrower's lack of a credit history. Borrowers are often first time retail installment purchasers. The purchase price of the vehicles financed ranges from about $2,000.00 to $5,000.00.

   
   

3. Interamerican is owned by Raul Lopez and his wife. Mr. Lopez is President of the corporation. Its affairs are conducted on a day to day basis by Ms. Iris Hernandorena, who has been an employee of Interamerican since its inception twelve years ago in December 1980. There are 3 employees other than Ms. Hernandorena, two of whom are full time employees.

   
   

4. Interamerican has flexible criteria for reviewing applications when deciding whether to make loans. Interamerican weighs the length of the applicant's employment, the length of residence at the applicant's present address, personal references, and the applicant's salary. Applicants often speak little or no English. They depend on Ms. Hernandorena to explain each element of the transaction to them. They are highly dependent on the good faith of Ms. Hernandorena, and their limited fluency in English leaves most of them ill-equipped to protect their own interests in the financing transaction.

   
   

5. The Department conducted an examination of Interamerican on February

   10 and February 27, 1992. This examination covered the period from November 1, 1990, through January 31, 1992. The examining officer examined 7.6 percent of Interamerican's 314 financing contracts for the examination period.

   
   

6. Ms. Iris Hernandorena is a single mother with three children, is a naturalized American citizen and a native of Argentina. As a practical matter, Ms. Hernandorena runs the affairs of Interamerican for Mr. Lopez with little supervision. Ms. Hernandorena reviews and approves applications for credit using the criteria set out in Finding 4, pays the automobile dealers when an application has been approved, and handles face-to-face dealings with the borrowers.

   
   

7. Before the time period covered by the examination, Interamerican was an authorized agent for Bankers Insurance Group to issue credit life insurance certificates to Interamerican borrowers who elected to purchase credit life insurance. It was Interamerican's practice to include credit life insurance on the retail installment contracts at the time they were initially presented for a

   borrower's consideration. Credit life insurance was always explained to the customer by Ms. Hernandorena. Whenever a borrower requested it, the credit life insurance and the premiums were deleted from the retail installment contract.

   Fewer than 4% of Interamerican's borrowers declined credit life insurance. When the loan documents were signed, the borrowers signed Franchise Creditor Insurance Certificate applications which disclosed credit life insurance premiums. These premiums were also disclosed on the face of the retail installment contracts.

   
   

8. If a borrower elected credit life insurance, a certificate of insurance was issued and Interamerican forwarded one half of the premium disclosed on the financing contract to Bankers Insurance Group. Because the premium was included in the total amount financed by borrowers, this payment to Bankers was an additional cash outlay by Interamerican. Over the life of the loan, the borrower repaid the full amount financed and Interamerican recovered pro rata in each payment its cash outlay to Bankers (the first 1/2 of the insurance premium financed), and its commission (the second 1/2 of the premium financed).

   
   

9. During its examination, the Department made its random sampling of 314 Interamerican customer files. It found four which contain the following information concerning charges for credit life insurance:

   
   

   				Bankers
   				Credit
   				Life
   			Amount of Credit	Insur.
   Account	Buyer's	Date of	Life Insurance	Certif.
   Number	Name	Contract	Premium Charged	Number
   TA 388	Maria E. Arias	12-24-91	$60.22	FLO 44341
   VE 165	Juan A. DelVilla	11-25-91	$74.38	FLO 43482
   BEN 603	Julio C. Figueroa	05-06-91	$32.52	FLO 43378
   HON 178	Darryl D. Pride	02-27-91	$70.38	FLO 43018

   
   

   (Administrative Complaint, Paragraph 6)

   
   

10. The monies received from these customers for credit life insurance policies were never remitted to Bankers Insurance Group. Bankers Insurance Group had no record of franchise creditor insurance certificates issued on behalf of these borrowers, or of any payments from Interamerican to Bankers for the period January 1, 1991, to February 26, 1992. Franchise credit life insurance certificates on the borrowers were not submitted to Bankers Insurance Group, nor do any of the certificate numbers match any series of numbers issued by Bankers during the past five years.

    
    

11. The standard credit life insurance policies which had been issued through Bankers Insurance Group before the credit period had provided that Interamerican was named as beneficiary in the event of the borrower's death. The amount of the insurance coverage automatically reduced during the life of the loan so that the benefits due under the policy in the event of the death of the borrower equaled the amount of the loan balance at all times.

    
    

12. Before the period covered by the Department's examination, Interamerican had two occasions when a borrower died and Interamerican had to make application to Bankers Insurance Group for payment of the proceeds due on the credit life insurance the borrower had purchased. In both instances,

    Interamerican had a difficult time collecting the remaining portion of the loan from Bankers Insurance Group.

    
    

13. As a result of these experiences, before the audit period at issue here, Ms. Hernandorena decided on her own that Interamerican should become "self-insured," rather than send Bankers Insurance Group fifty percent of the credit life insurance premium financed by the borrower at the signing of the retail installment contract. After Interamerican ceased sending credit life insurance premiums to Bankers Insurance Group, it was the intention of Ms. Hernandorena to use the funds collected for credit life insurance premiums as a sort of reserve for bad debts out of which to pay the uncollected loan balances of borrowers who died, after having paid for credit life on their retail installment contracts. No specific escrow or reserve account was established

    with the funds, however. Because so few borrowers decline credit life insurance (see Finding 7), for about 96% of the 314 financing contracts entered into during the credit period, borrowers were charged for credit life insurance which was never put in force.

    
    

14. Ms. Hernandorena reasoned that borrowers were not harmed by this arrangement. Borrowers never would have received any payment from Bankers Insurance Group if the credit life insurance became payable--Interamerican was the only beneficiary of the insurance, which would pay only the outstanding loan balance. They received a substitute of equal value in her eyes, the waiver by Interamerican of any claim for the remaining balance due on the loan if the borrower died after having paid for what appeared to be "credit life" insurance issued through Bankers Insurance Group.

    
    

15. The Department examined the following four Interamerican customers' files which disclosed that these customers were charged premiums for credit life insurance on their retail installment contracts apparently placed with Bankers Insurance Group after August 31, 1991 in excess of the uniform rate permitted by the Department of Insurance for credit life insurance contracts:

    
    

    Credit Life Uniform

    Account Buyer's Date of Insurance Rate Amount of Number Name Contract Premm Chrgd Permitted Ovrchrge

    
    

    VE 163	Early H. Wims 11-21-91	$57.66	$48.05	$ 9.61
    TA 395	Reyna I. Boyd 01-27-92	$64.60	$53.84	$10.76
    HON 236	A. Sarrantos 01-08-92	$58.93	$49.10	$ 9.83
    TA 388	Maria E. Arias 12-24-92	$60.22	$50.19	$10.03
    & Mario	F. Carrion

    
    

    (Administrative Complaint, Paragraph 7)

    
    

    How these overcharges came about were not explained at the hearing. The Department submitted no evidence that these overcharges were part of a scheme to intentionally overcharge customers. There was no evidence that these four instances of overcharge in the sample of contracts audited equate to any specific likely percentage of overcharges in contracts not selected for audit.

    Contrast Finding 13, above.

16. Interamerican failed to journal payment for and to affix documentary stamps to the following three customer contracts:

    
    

    Interamerican Account Buyer's Number Name		Date of Charge	Amount of Documentary Stamps Charged on Contract
    TA 395	Reyna I. Boyd	01-27-92	$6.15
    TA 388	Maria E. Arias	12-24-91	$5.70
    VE 159	Maria A. Reyes	10-25-91	$8.40

    
    

    (Administrative Complaint, Paragraph 8)

    
    

    Interamerican did purchase the requisite amount of documentary stamps from the Florida Department of Revenue. The explanation given for the error in not affixing the stamps was that stamps of small denomination were not always on hand. Since the examination was in February 1992, this reason is not persuasive. Two of the contracts involved were ones from October and December of 1991. There had been adequate time to exchange larger stamps for smaller ones or to purchase more small denomination stamps. The amount involved, however, is trivial ($20.25).

    
    

17. Interamerican negligently failed to maintain credit insurance acknowledgment forms, since it was not actually placing credit life insurance in force. See Findings 13 through 14, above.

    
    

18. Contrary to the allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Administrative Complaint, Interamerican did not charge finance charges in excess of the legal maximum permitted by law. The contracts for the borrowers set forth below contained an "amount charged" on the face of the contract which is slightly in excess of the legal maximum charge. This came about because the machine used to calculate the amount placed on the contact had a limited number of decimal places. Each of these borrowers was later furnished with a payment coupon book by Interamerican which contained an amount charged within the maximum rate. These payment books were prepared with computer programs using more decimal places, and the payment books are what borrowers used in repaying their loans. No additional notification was given to the borrowers calling attention to the small differences, indicating that the payment books, rather than the contracts, stated the correct amount due. The payment books served as a notice of correction to the borrowers. No Interamerican customer has paid any finance charges in excess of the legal maximum (Tr. 23). The customer contracts examined contained the following information:

    
    

    Account Number	Buyer's Name	Total Amount Charged Per Contract	Legal Maximum	Differences
    VE 178	Sonia E. Vanturyl	$2,152.86	$2,147.84	$5.02
    VE 173	Monique D. Jordan	$1,715.13	$1,711.16	$3.97
    VE 165	Juan A. Delvilla	$1,481.37	$1,477.99	$3.38
    VE 152	Edward Mantilla	$1,712,56	$1,708.56	$4.40
    	Jannette S. Williams	$1,347.97	$1,344.84	$3.13

    
    

19. The Department conducts an examination of Interamerican and other retail installment sellers on a periodic basis. The prior examinations by the Department revealed no violations by Interamerican before the examination that

    is the subject of this proceeding. Throughout this examination by the Department, Interamerican furnished the Department with all the information and documents requested, made no attempt to conceal anything from the examiner, and was cooperative throughout the examination. This is consistent with Ms.

    Hernandorena's belief that on the credit life insurance charges, Interamerican had done nothing wrong.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

20. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The parties were duly noticed for the formal hearing.

    
    

21. The burden of proof is on the Department in this proceeding to show by clear and convincing evidence that Interamerican is guilty of the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Ferris v. Turlington, 520 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

    
    

    1. Failure to keep proper records and to remit premiums to Bankers Insurance Group.

22. Sections 520.995(1)(a), (b), (c) and (f) and (2), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), state:

    
    

    Grounds for Disciplinary Action

    
    

    1. The following acts are violations of this chapter and constitute grounds for the dis- ciplinary actions specified in subsection (2):

       1. Failure to comply with any provision of this chapter, any rule or order adopted pursuant to this chapter, or any written agreement entered into with the department;

       2. Fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, or gross negligence in any...retail installment transaction, regardless of reliance by or damages to the buyer or owner;

       3. Fraudulent misrepresentation, circumvention, or concealment of any matter required to be stated or furnished to a retail buyer or owner pursuant to this chapter, regardless of reliance by or damages to the buyer or owner;

          * * *

          (f) Failure to maintain, preserve, and keep avail- able for examination all books, accounts, or other documents required by this chapter or order adopted pursuant to this chapter, or by any agreement entered into with the department;

    2. Upon a finding by the department that any person has committed any of the acts set forth in subsection (1), the department may enter an order taking one or more of the following actions:

       1. Denying an application for a license pursuant to this chapter;

       2. Revoking or suspending a license previously granted pursuant to this chapter;

       3. Placing a licensee or applicant for licensure on probation for a period of time subject to such conditions as the department may specify;

       4. Placing permanent restrictions or conditions upon issuance or maintenance of a license pursuant to this chapter;

       5. Issuing a reprimand; or

       6. Imposing an administrative fine not to exceed

          $1,000 for each such act.

          
          

23. Sections 520.997(1) and (3), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), state the following:

    
    

    Books, Accounts and Records.

    1. Every licensee shall maintain, at the principal place of business, such books, accounts, and records of the business conducted under the license issued for such place of business as will enable the department to determine whether the business of the

       licensee contemplated by this Chapter is being operated in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

       The licensee shall make all such books, accounts, and records of business conducted under the license available at a convenient location in this state upon request to the department.

       * * *

       1. All books, accounts, and records of licensees, including any cards used in a card system, shall be preserved and available for examination by the Department for at least two years after making the final entry therein.

          
          

24. Respondent Interamerican violated Sections 520.995(1)(a), (b), and (c), as charged in Paragraph 11 of the Administrative Complaint, in the following ways:

    
    

    1. Section 520.995(1)(a): By admitting at the opening of the hearing (Tr.

       4) to the violations of Chapter 520, Florida Statutes, and Department rules promulgated thereunder, alleged in Paragraphs 1 through 8 of the Administrative Complaint.

       
       

    2. Section 520.995(1)(b): For misrepresentation to its customers who chose to purchase credit life insurance, by accepting premiums for credit life insurance policies with no present intention of putting those policies of insurance in force. This misrepresentation was made not only in the cases of the four borrowers listed in Finding 9 above, but to 96% of the 314 customers who borrowed from Interamerican from November 1990 to February 26, 1992, see Findings 9 and 13. While there was no willful intent to deceive or misrepresent, because Ms. Hernandorena believed borrowers received a valuable waiver of Interamerican's right to seek repayment of loans from deceased customers who paid for credit life, the contracts do contain inaccurate information which can only be fairly characterized as misrepresentations. The documents did not characterize the payments for insurance as payments for a waiver of Interamerican's right to seek payment of outstanding loan balances from deceased borrowers.

    3. Section 520.995(1)(c): By concealment of a matter required to be stated to borrowers. The financing contracts presented to borrowers were accompanied by authorization to place credit life insurance when Interamerican had no intention of putting those credit life insurance policies in force. Borrowers were not informed that the insurance would not be placed.

    
    

25. Interamerican did not violate Section 520.995(1)(f), by failure to maintain, preserve, and keep available for examination all books, accounts, or other documents because it was unable to provide proof of credit life insurance and verification of proper handling of documentary stamps. The statute is designed to require clear recordkeeping to assist the Department in its auditing functions. The Department has confused the licensee's duty to keep records for use in Departmental examinations with the separate duties placed on licensees to conduct their affairs in conformity with applicable statutes and rules. Interamerican's records have been kept, and show that substantive violations set out above. When a licensee's records contain proof of conduct violating statutes or rules, the licensee is not also guilty of failure to maintain appropriate records because the records show an imperfect or improper transaction. Interamerican's records were adequate to permit the Department to find the violation proven. While the proposed recommended order of Interamerican appears to acknowledge a violation of Section 520.997(1) and (3), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), none occurred.

    
    

    1. Excess Premium charges for credit life insurance.

       
       

26. Section 520.07(4), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), states:

    
    

    Requirements and Prohibitions as to retail installment contracts:

    * * *

    1. The amount, if any, included for insurance which may be purchased by the holder of the retail installment contract may not exceed the applicable premiums chargeable in accordance with rates filed with the Department of Insurance. . . .

    
    

27. Respondent Interamerican has violated Section 520.07(4), Florida Statutes, in four instances by charging premiums for credit life insurance in excess of the maximum changes permitted, notwithstanding that its representatives never intended to forward the premiums to the proper insurance company. See Finding 15, above. The total overcharge for all four cases was small, less than $40. This amount should be refunded to the borrowers.

    
    

    1. Failure to Follow Proper Procedures for Documentary Stamps.

       
       

28. Section 520.07(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), states:

    
    

    (3) The seller shall provide a separate written itemization of the amount financed, which itemization shall disclose the following:

    * * *

    (e) Any taxes and official fees not included in the cash price.

    
    

29. The Department argues that Interamerican violated Section 520.07(3)(e), Florida Statutes, by failing to follow proper procedures for attaching documentary stamps to financing contracts. This is not so. The

    statute under which Interamerican is charged does not require physical attachment of the stamps to the contracts. There is no proof or allegation admitted by Interamerican that charges disclosed for documentary stamps due on the note financed by borrowers was omitted from the disclosures to borrowers. While the failure to affix documentary stamps to notes may be a violation of some law, it is no violation of Section 520.07(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). Documentary stamps were due, their cost was properly chargeable to borrowers and they had been purchased.

    
    

30. Rule 3D-50.001(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, states the following:

    
    

    Miscellaneous charges

    1. Other than items and charges properly included as part of the cash price as defined in Section 520.02(1), Florida Statutes, the following are the only charges permitted to be made by the retail installment seller.

       * * *

       1. Charges for official fees as defined in Section 520.02(8), Florida Statutes, and charges for licenses and other fees prescribed by law. In order to support license charges, the month of birth of the retail buyer must be shown on the face of the contract and the

          trade-in must be clearly described.

          
          

31. As with the discussion in the previous paragraph, there is no proof any violation of the text of this rule by failing to follow proper procedures for affixing documentary stamps to financing contracts. The Rule deals only with disclosures, and proper disclosures were made. Interamerican must cancel and attach to the contracts appropriate documentary stamps, however.

    
    

    1. Excessive Finance Charges and Failure to Notify Borrowers of Excessive Changes.

32. Rule 3D-50.002, Florida Administrative Code, states the following: Excessive charges, correction

    If the sales finance company discovers that,

    as a result of an inadvertent clerical error or

    some other unintentional mistake, the finance charge to the buyer is in excess of the amount permitted, or that any other charges in the contract are excessive, it shall immediately notify the buyer

    in writing of such overcharge. The overcharge, plus any finance charge that may have been assessed

    thereon, may be deducted from the next monthly payment, or if satisfactory to buyer, it may be credited to the final payment. Contracts paid in full containing excessive charges which were not previously given credit should be corrected by making a refund to the buyer.

    
    

33. Respondent Interamerican did not violate Rule 3D-50.002, Florida Administrative Code, by failing to notify their borrower in writing that the amount financed was in excess of the legal maximums permitted. It is undisputed that borrowers received payment books in which the small errors on the contracts

    caused by the limited number of decimal places available on the calculator used to calculate the total amount to be repaid was corrected. The text of the Rule does not require a letter specifically calling the attention of borrowers to such errors, identifying them as an overcharge. There is no proof that any borrower even paid any amount in excess of the maximum amount permitted. (This is different than charges for credit life insurance which was not placed because the borrowers had been making pro rata payment for the insurance with every loan payment.) Interamerican did receive premium payments to which it was not entitled, but not excess finance charges.

    
    

34. Section 627.679(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1989), states as follows:

Amount of insurance; disclosure

1. Before any credit life insurance may be sold, the creditor agent or agent shall obtain a written acknowledgment with respect to each of the following:

1. That the borrower understands that he has the option of assigning any other policy or any other policies the borrower owns or may procure for the purpose of covering such loans and that the policy need not be purchased from the creditor agent in order to obtain the loan.

2. That the borrower understand that the credit life coverage may be deferred if, at the time of application, the borrower is unable to engage in employment or unable to perform normal activities of a person of like age and sex, if the proposed

   credit life insurance policy contains this restriction.

3. That the borrower understands that the benefits under the policy will terminate when the borrower reaches a certain age and that the borrower's age

is accurately represented on the application or policy.

No violation of this statute occurred. Written acknowledgments of the type required by Section 627.679(1)(c)1, Florida Statutes are found in Paragraph 4A(iii) of the retail installment contracts. The real violation was Interamerican's failure to procure the credit life insurance, which is a violation of Section 520.995(1), Florida Statutes. See Paragraph 24, above.

Interamerican is guilty of that violation. The failure to place insurance does not, however, constitute a violation of the text of Section 627.679(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.).

RECOMMENDATION

A final order should be entered finding Interamerican guilty of violations of Sections 520.995(1)(a), (b) and (c) and 520.07(4), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.) as alleged in Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Administrative Complaint, and dismissing the charges made in Paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the Administrative Complaint.

The Department has suggested that the appropriate penalty in this case is to find Interamerican guilty of all allegations made in the Administrative Complaint and impose a cease and desist order enjoining Interamerican from future violations of the Retail Installment Sales Act, and to impose an administrative fine of $1,000 for each violation. It is difficult to determine whether the Department suggest a fine of $6,000.00, one for each paragraph in

the Conclusions of Law in its Administrative Complaint (Paragraphs 11-15), or whether a separate fine of $1,000.00 is meant to be imposed for each violation alleged in each contract containing a violation, which would be a fine of approximately $16,000.00. Based on the belief that Interamerican was guilty of all the violations alleged, the Department also recommended that the retail installment sellers license of Interamerican be revoked.

It seems pointless to enter an order that Interamerican desist from future violations of the act, and at the same time revoke its authority to engage in business under the act.

The penalty of revocation is too draconian. Revocation is certainly a penalty available under the statute, but revocation is appropriate where there is a pattern of misconduct which indicates that the licensee will not conform to applicable rules and statutes in the future, or that the misconduct is so egregious that, without consideration of the likelihood of future misconduct, severe discipline is warranted.

This is not such a case. Moving from the less serious to more serious charges, the three instances of failure to attach documentary stamps to contracts is only proof of lack of attention to detail, since a sufficient supply of stamps had been purchased from the Department of Revenue. There was no violation of the disclosure requirements of Section 520.07(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). With respect to charging, in four instances, credit life insurance premiums in excess of those permitted by the uniform rates filed with the Department of Insurance, in those four cases the amount of each overcharge was approximately $10.00. Interamerican should be required to refund the excess amounts due to the borrowers, with interest at the legal rate from the date of the contract. Due to the small amounts involved, for each instance Interamerican also should be assessed a fine of $250.00, for a total fine of

$1,000.00 for that class of violations. No penalty can be imposed on the allegation that Interamerican charged excess finance charges, because it did not do so. Neither can a penalty be imposed for failure to maintain credit insurance acknowledgment forms, since no insurance was placed to be acknowledged by an insurer. Although it is true that those forms were not maintained, the real violation, which is the most serious violation, is the failure to have purchased the insurance at all. The Administrative Complaint alleges in Paragraph 7 four instances where charges were made for credit life insurance where no insurance was actually purchased. Ms. Hernandorena had mistakenly decided that by charging the amount permitted for credit life insurance, without purchasing it, and waiving the right of Interamerican to obtain payment from any borrower who died after paying for credit life insurance, the borrowers were receiving what they paid for. In a rough sense, this was true, but the transaction documents simply were not structured that way. Had the evidence been convincing that borrowers were being charged for credit life insurance as a ruse to obtain additional money from them, when they were receiving nothing in return, I would not hesitate to recommend that the Department revoke the license of Interamerican, especially when the evidence demonstrates that the overcharge occurred not only in the four cases alleged, but in 96% of all contracts Interamerican entered into. On the other hand, Interamerican's evidence was persuasive that the borrowers were receiving something of value for the credit life insurance premiums, even though the insurance was never purchased. The testimony of Ms. Hernandorena was sincere, and I simply do not believe that her explanation of what was done was an after-the-fact justification concocted in an attempt to excuse Interamerican's misconduct. Ms. Hernandorena made a serious error in doing what she did, but she did not engage in a scheme to defraud borrowers. On this charge, Interamerican should be required to repay the amount

of credit life insurance premiums plus interest at the legal rate to the four borrowers listed in Paragraph 6 of the Administrative Complaint, and to review its records and make similar refunds to all borrowers who paid for credit life insurance, plus interest at the legal rate from the date of each contract. An administrative fine in the amount of $4,000.00 should also be imposed, the maximum fine for the four instances of overcharge alleged and proven. Had the Department undertaken to allege and prove additional instances of overcharges, the fine would be larger, but that is not how the complaint was drafted.

Although the conduct proven does not rise to the level of an intentional scheme to defraud, the misconduct is sufficiently serious that a significant penalty, less severe than revocation, ought to be imposed. That Interamerican has otherwise conducted its affairs over the years in conformity with the law weighs in its favor. The appropriate penalty here is to suspend the licensure of Interamerican for 30 days, to place its licensure on probation for the following 11 months, and to restrict its licensure to prohibit the "waiver of liability" plan created by Ms. Hernandorena and to require submission of all credit life insurance premiums to an appropriate insurer.

DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of December, 1992.

WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR.

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1992.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN DOAH CASE NO. 92-4404

The following are my rulings on findings proposed by the parties: Findings proposed by the Department:

1.-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact (FOF)1.

5. Adopted in FOF 5.

6.-7. Rejected as unnecessary. 8.-9. Adopted in FOF 5.

10.-11. Rejected as recitations of testimony, not findings of fact.

1. Adopted in FOF 6.

2. Implicit in FOF 6.

3. Adopted in FOF 3.

4. Adopted in FOF 6.

5. Rejected as unnecessary.

6. Adopted in FOF 4.

7. Adopted in FOF 8.

8. Adopted in FOF 13 and 14.

9. Adopted in FOF 7.

10. Adopted in FOF 4.

11. Adopted in FOF 13.

12. Rejected as unnecessary-Interamerican never contended it was an insurance company.

Findings proposed by Respondent:

1. Adopted in FOF 1.

2. Adopted in FOF 2 and 4.

3. Adopted in FOF 5.

4. Adopted in FOF 3, 4 and 6.

5. Adopted in FOF 7.

6. Adopted in FOF 9.

7. Adopted in FOF 10.

8. Adopted in FOF 12.

9. Adopted in FOF 13 and 14. The Borrower was the insured, Interamerican was the beneficiary.

10. Adopted in FOF 11.

11. Adopted in FOF 13.

12. Adopted in FOF 15.

13. Adopted in FOF 16.

14. Adopted in FOF 17.

15. Adopted in FOF 18.

16. Adopted in FOF 19.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Steven R. Walker, Esquire Office of Comptroller Suite 708-N

401 N.W. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128

Ted Bartlestone, Esquire Suite 1550, 1 Biscayne Tower

2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131

The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350

William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

ALL PARTIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER. ALL AGENCIES ALLOW EACH PARTY AT LEAST 10 DAYS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS. SOME AGENCIES ALLOW A LARGER PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO SUBMIT

WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS. YOU SHOULD CONTACT THE AGENCY THAT WILL ISSUE THE FINAL ORDER IN THIS CASE CONCERNING AGENCY RULES ON THE DEADLINE FOR FILING EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER. ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER SHOULD BE FILED WITH THE AGENCY THAT WILL ISSUE THE FINAL ORDER IN THIS CASE.

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE

DIVISION OF FINANCE

DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE,

Petitioner, Administrative Proceeding No. 2443-F-4/92

vs. DOAH CASE NO. 92-4404

INTERAMERICAN FINANCIAL CORP.,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

This matter has come before the undersigned as head of the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance ("Department"), for the entry of a final order in the above referenced proceeding. On December 21, 1992, a Hearing Officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings submitted his Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. On December 31, 1992, Respondent, Interamerican Financial Corp. ("Interamerican" or "Respondent"), timely filed its exceptions to the Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. On January 4, 1993, Petitioner requested until January 25, 1993 in which to submit its exceptions to the Recommended Order.

The request was granted and Petitioner timely filed its Exceptions to the Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

BACKGROUND

This matter arose when the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Interamerican Financial Corp. ("Interamerican") on June 23, 1992.

Respondent timely requested a formal administrative hearing and this matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer. A formal hearing was held on this matter on October 1, 1992, in Miami, Florida. The Recommended Order recommends that the Department suspend the license of Interamerican for thirty (30) days, place its license on probation for the following eleven (11) months, impose a Five Thousand Dollar ($5,000.00) fine, and restrict its license to prohibit the "waiver of liability" plan and require submission of all credit life insurance premiums to an appropriate insurer. Both Petitioner and Respondent have filed exceptions to the Recommended Order.

RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS FILED BY RESPONDENT

Interamerican has filed an exception to the Hearing Officer's recommendation that it "refund the excess amounts due to the borrowers, with interest at the legal rate from the date of the contract." Interamerican contends that the foregoing recommendation is duplicative of the Hearing Officer's recommendation that it "be required to repay the amount of credit life insurance premiums plus interest at the legal rate to the four borrowers ... and make similar refunds to all borrowers who paid for credit life insurance, plus interest at the legal rate from the date of each contract."

Based upon the Hearing Officer's findings that Interamerican violated Sections 520.992(1)(a), (b), and (c), and Section 520.07(4), Florida Statutes, the Respondent's exception is rejected. The Department concurs in the Hearing Officer's recommended penalty that such refunds be made by Interamerican to its customers.

RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT

Exception No. 1: The Department's first exception is to Paragraph 9 of the Findings of Fact wherein the hearing officer listed four customer files in which Interamerican charged its customers for credit life insurance but the premiums were never remitted to the insurance company. The Department contends that the four customer files were listed in the administrative complaint only as examples and that the hearing officer erroneously limited the Department to the examples cited in the administrative complaint.

Having reviewed the transcript of hearing, the exhibits and pleadings in this matter, the Department's exception is rejected as no evidence relating to contracts other than the four listed in the administrative complaint and Recommended Order was presented at hearing. There is competent, substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's finding and the undersigned cannot reject this finding. Accordingly, the Department's first exception is rejected.

Exception No. 2: The Department's second exception is to Finding of Fact No. 10 wherein the Hearing Officer found that "[t]he monies received from these customers for credit life insurance policies were never remitted to Bankers Insurance Group". The Department contends that the Hearing Officer has erroneously limited the Department to the four customer files listed in the Recommended Order.

Having reviewed the transcript of hearing, the exhibits and pleadings in this matter, the Department's exception is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the ruling on the Department's first exception inasmuch as no evidence relating to contracts other than the four listed in the administrative complaint and the Recommended Order was presented at hearing. Accordingly, the Department's second exception is rejected.

Exception No. 3: The Department's third exception is to Finding of Fact No. 12 wherein the Hearing Officer found that Interamerican had on two occasions when a borrower died and Interamerican had to make application to Bankers Insurance Group for payment on the credit life insurance. The Department contends that there was no competent, substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's finding.

In Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the district court of appeal explained the respective roles of hearing officers and state agencies in deciding factual issues as follows:

Factual issues susceptible of ordinary methods of proof that are not infused with policy considerations are the prerogative of the hearing officer as the finder of fact. McDonald v.

Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). It is the hearing officer's function to consider all the evidence presented, resolve

conflicts, judge credibility of witnesses, draw permissible inferences from the evidence, and reach ultimate findings

of fact based on competent, substantial evidence. State Beverage Department v. Ernal, Inc., 115 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). If, as is often the case, the evidence presented supports two inconsistent findings, it is the hearing officer's role to decide the issue one way or the other.

The agency may not reject the hearing officer's finding unless there is no competent, substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred. The agency is not authorized to weigh the evidence presented, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to fit its desired ultimate conclusion.... Id. at 1281.

Having reviewed the transcript of hearing, the exhibits and pleadings in this matter, it cannot be determined that there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's finding. Since there is some competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's finding, this finding cannot be rejected by the undersigned, and the Department's third exception is rejected. Heifetz, supra.

Exception No. 4: The Department's fourth exception is to Finding of Fact No. 13 wherein the Hearing Officer found that Interamerican (through Ms.

Hernandorena) "used the funds collected for credit life insurance premiums as a sort of reserve for bad debts out of which to pay the uncollected loan balances of borrowers who died...." The Department contends that there was no competent, substantial evidence presented to support this finding.

Having reviewed the transcript of hearing, the exhibits and pleadings in this matter, it cannot be determined that there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's finding. Since there is some competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's finding, this finding cannot be rejected by the undersigned, and the Department's fourth exception is rejected. Heifetz, supra.

Exception No. 5: The Department's fifth exception is to Finding of Fact No. 14 wherein the Hearing Officer adopted Ms. Hernandorena's reasoning that Interamerican's customers "received a substitute of equal value ... the waiver

by Interamerican of any claim for the remaining balance due on the loan if the borrower died after having paid for what appeared to be `credit life' insurance issued through Bankers Insurance Group." The Department contends that there was no competent, substantial evidence to support this finding.

Having reviewed the transcript of hearing, the exhibits and pleadings in this matter, it cannot be determined that there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's finding. Since there is some competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's finding, this finding cannot be rejected by the undersigned, and the Department's fifth exception is rejected. Heifetz, supra.

Exception No. 6: The Department's sixth exception is to Finding of Fact No. 15 wherein the Hearing Officer found that "[t]here was no evidence that these four instances of overcharge in the sample of contracts audited equate to any specific likely percentage of overcharges in contracts not selected for audit." The Department contends that the Hearing Officer erroneously limited the Department to those examples cited in the administrative complaint.

Having reviewed the transcript of hearing, the exhibits and pleadings in this matter, the Department's exception is rejected as no evidence regarding any other contracts other than those listed in the administrative complaint and the Recommended Order was presented at hearing.

Exception No. 7: The Department's seventh exception is to Finding of Fact No. 16 wherein the Hearing Officer found that "Interamerican failed to journal payment for and to affix documentary stamps" to three customer contracts. The Department contends that the Hearing Officer has erroneously limited the Department to those three contracts which were only identified as examples in the administrative complaint.

Having reviewed the transcript of hearing, the exhibits and pleadings in this matter, the Department's exception is rejected as no evidence relating to contracts other than the three listed in the administrative complaint and the Recommended Order was presented at hearing.

Exception No. 8: The Department's eighth exception is to Finding of Fact No. 18 wherein the Hearing Officer found that "[t]he payment books served as a notice of correction to the borrowers." The Department contends that this finding is an incorrect application of Rule 3D-50.002, Florida Administrative Code, which requires immediate notification in writing of any overcharge.

Having reviewed the transcript of hearing, the exhibits and pleadings in this matter, it cannot be determined that there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's finding. The Hearing Officer had the opportunity to weigh the evidence presented by the Department and judge the credibility of witnesses' testimony on these issues and determined that it was not persuasive. Since there is some competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's finding, this finding cannot be rejected by the undersigned, and the Department's eighth exception is rejected. Heifetz, supra.

Exception No. 9: The Department's ninth exception is to Paragraph 24b. of the Recommended Order wherein the Hearing Officer found that there was no willful intent to deceive or misrepresent on the part of Ms. Hernandorena. The Department contends that since 96% of the retail installment contracts contained

a charge for credit life insurance, Interamerican's activities can be deemed nothing short of fraud.

Having reviewed the transcript of hearing, the exhibits and pleadings in this matter, it cannot be determined that there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's finding. The Hearing Officer had the opportunity to weigh the evidence presented by the Department and judge the credibility of witnesses' testimony on these issues and determined that it was not persuasive. Since there is some competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's finding, this finding cannot be rejected by the undersigned, and the Department's ninth exception is rejected. Heifetz, supra.

Exception No. 10: The Department's tenth exception is to Paragraph 25 of the Recommended Order. The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that Interamerican did not violate Section 520.995(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by failing to maintain and keep available for examination all books and records.

Having reviewed the transcript of hearing, the exhibits and pleadings in this matter, it cannot be determined that there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's finding. The Hearing Officer had the opportunity to weigh the evidence presented by the Department and judge the credibility of witnesses' testimony on these issues and determined that it was not persuasive. Since there is some competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's finding, this finding cannot be rejected by the undersigned, and the Department's tenth exception is rejected. Heifetz, supra.

Exception No. 11: The Department's eleventh exception is to Paragraph 27 of the Recommended Order. The Department contends that the Hearing Officer erroneously has limited his conclusion to four violations of Section 520.07(4), Florida Statutes.

Having reviewed the transcript of hearing, the exhibits and pleadings in this matter, the Department's exception is rejected as no evidence relating to contracts other than the four named in the administrative complaint and the Recommended Order was presented at hearing.

Exception No. 12: The Department takes exception with the Hearing Officer's conclusion in Paragraph 29 of the Recommended Order that Interamerican did not violate Section 520.07(3)(e), Florida Statutes.

Having reviewed the transcript of hearing, the exhibits and pleadings in this matter, it cannot be determined that there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's finding. The Hearing Officer had the opportunity to weigh the evidence presented by the Department and judge the credibility of witnesses' testimony on these issues and determined that it was not persuasive. Since there is some competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's finding, this finding cannot be rejected by the undersigned, and the Department's twelfth exception is rejected.

Heifetz, supra.

Exception No. 13: The Department takes exception with the Hearing Officer's conclusion in Paragraph 33 of the Recommended Order that Rule 3D- 50.002, Florida Administrative Code, does not require "a letter specifically calling the attention of borrowers to such errors. "

Rule 3D-50.002, Florida Administrative Code, provides:

Excessive Charges, Correction. If the sales finance company discovers that, as a result of an inadvertent clerical error or some other unintentional mistake, the finance charge to a buyer is in excess of the amount permitted, or that any other charges in the contract are excessive, it shall immediately notify the buyer in

writing of such overcharge. The overcharge, plus any finance charge that may have been assessed thereon, may be deducted from

the next monthly payment, or if satisfactory to buyer, it may be credited to the final payment. Contracts paid in fully containing excessive charges which were not previously given credit should be corrected by making a refund to the buyer.

Although the rule requires written notification, the Hearing Officer has found, based upon the evidence presented at hearing, that the coupon books provided the required notice. The Hearing Officer had the opportunity to weigh the evidence presented by the Department and judge the credibility of witnesses' testimony on these issues and determined that it was not persuasive. Since there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support this finding, the Department's exception is rejected.

Exception No. 14: The Department takes exception with the Hearing Officer's recommended penalties. The Department contends that the proper penalty in this matter would be revocation of Interamerican's license along with an appropriate fine. The Department sought revocation of Interamerican's license as well as the imposition of a cease and desist order and administrative fines in its proposed recommended order. The Hearing Officer concluded that revocation would be too "draconian" but that "the misconduct is sufficiently serious that a significant penalty, less severe than revocation, ought to be imposed" in this matter. The Hearing Officer has recommended a $5,000.00 administrative fine in addition to suspending Interamerican's license for thirty

1. days and imposing various conditions on their license.

   
   

   In light of the serious and repeated nature of the violations of Sections 520.995(1)(a), (b), and (c), and Section 520.07(4), Florida Statutes, the Department's exception is accepted for purposes of increasing the penalty to be imposed against Interamerican. Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission v. Bradley, 17 F.L.W. 193 (Fla. 1992). In addition to the penalties recommended by the Hearing Officer, Interamerican will be ordered to cease and desist from any violations of Chapter 520, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder, as provided in Section 520.994(3), Florida Statutes, for the reasons set forth in the "Penalty" section of this final order, infra.

   
   

   Exception No. 15: The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's recommendation that the charges alleged in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the administrative Complaint be dismissed.

   
   

   Having reviewed the transcript of hearing, the exhibits and pleadings in this matter, it cannot be determined that there is no competent, substantial

   evidence to support the Hearing Officer's conclusion. The Hearing Officer had the opportunity to weigh the evidence presented by the Department and judge the credibility of witnesses' testimony on these issues and determined that it was not persuasive. Since there is some competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's finding, this finding cannot be rejected by the undersigned, and the Department's fifteenth exception is rejected.

   Heifetz, supra.

   
   

   PENALTY

   
   

   Pursuant to the standards set forth in Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission v. Bradley, 17 F.L.W. 193 (Fla. 1992), the Department is inclined to increase the penalties recommended by the Hearing Officer to include a cease and desist order for the following reasons:

   
   

   1. A cease and desist order is within the guidelines of penalties as set forth in Section 520.994(3), Florida Statutes.

      
      

   2. The Hearing Officer found that Interamerican had repeatedly violated Sections 520.992(1)(a), (b), and (c) and Section 520.07(4), Florida Statutes.

      
      

   3. The Department regards Interamerican's acceptance of credit life insurance premiums from its customers with no intention of placing those insurance policies in effect to constitute serious and egregious violations of Section 520.995(1), Florida Statutes. Interamerican misrepresented this fact not only to the four customers listed in Finding of Fact No. 9 of the Recommended Order but to 96% of 314 customers.

      
      

      CONCLUSION

      
      

      Having ruled on all of the exceptions filed by the parties in this proceeding, and having reviewed the complete record of this proceeding, it is accordingly ORDERED:

      
      

      1. The Hearing Officers's findings of fact and conclusions of law are hereby adopted except as rejected or modified herein;

         
         

      2. Interamerican has violated the provisions of Sections 520.995(1)(a), (b), and (c), and Section 520.07(4), Florida Statutes;

         
         

      3. Respondent, Interamerican Financial Corp., is hereby ordered to CEASE and DESIST from violating the provisions of Chapter 520, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder;

         
         

      4. Respondent, Interamerican Financial Corp.'s license is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this Final Order. Following the thirty (30) day suspension, Interamerican's license will be on PROBATION for the next eleven (11) months conditioned upon compliance with the provisions of Chapter 520, Florida Statutes, and this Final Order;

         
         

      5. Respondent, Interamerican Financial Corp. is PROHIBITED from offering or selling the "waiver of liability" plan created by Ms. Hernandorena.

         
         

      6. Respondent, Interamerican Financial Corp. is required to submit all credit life insurance premiums to a licensed insurer.

      7. Respondent, Interamerican Financial Corp. shall refund any excess amounts paid for credit life insurance by the four persons listed in Paragraph

1. of the Administrative Complaint, together with interest at the legal rate from the date of each contract. This refund shall be completed within thirty

   (30) days after entry of this Final Order.

   
   

2. Respondent, Interamerican Financial Corp. is hereby ordered to refund the credit life insurance premiums plus interest at the legal rate to the four customers identified in Paragraph 6 of the Administrative Complaint, and to review its records and make similar refunds to all borrowers who paid for, but did not receive, credit life insurance, plus interest at the legal rate from the date of each contract within sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this Final Order; and

   
   

3. Respondent, Interamerican Financial Corp. is ordered to pay an administrative fine in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), payable to the Regulatory Trust Fund of the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, within thirty (30) days after entry of this Final Order, for its violation of Sections 520.995(1)(a), (b), and (c), and Section 520.07(4), Florida Statutes.

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

Gerald Lewis, as Comptroller and Head of the Department of Banking and Finance

COPIES FURNISHED:

Randall Holland, Director Division of Finance

Steven R. Walker Assistant General Counsel

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by regular U.S. Mail to Ted Bartlestone, Esquire, Suite 1550, One Biscayne Tower, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33131; and to Agency Clerk, Division of Administrative Hearings, The DeSoto Building, 2230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550, this 18th day of February, 1993.

H. Richard Bisbee Deputy General Counsel

Department of Banking and Finance Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350

(904) 488-9896

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, SUITE 1302, THE CAPITOL, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0350, AND A SECOND COPY, ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, 300 MARTIN L. KING, JR., BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1850, OR IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE PARTY RESIDES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.

Docket for Case No: 92-004404

Orders for Case No: 92-004404