Findings Of Fact Russell Bruce Moncrief is licensed with Respondent as a general lines agent (2-20) and at all times here relevant was so licensed. Shortly after Respondent opened his bail bond office, he was approached by Sams who represented himself as a bounty hunter who could pick up "skips" and others the bail bondsman wanted for surrender under their bonds. Sams represented that he was a member of the Florida Assurity Association, that he so worked for several bail bondsmen and was qualified to pick up skips for bail bondsmen. Sams produced an impressive badge, business cards and arrest forms for the bondsman to sign which would authorize Sams to pick up the individuals who had skipped out on their bonds. At this time Respondent had no skips to pick up and suggested Sams contact him later; and, during the period between June and September, 1978, Sams picked up some five (5) to eight (8) individuals on whom Respondent had written a bond and returned these people to Respondent. For these services, Respondent paid Sams a percentage of the bond. This relationship with Sams terminated when the latter gave Respondent a worthless check. Subsequently, Sams learned that his "bounty hunting" was unauthorized and applied for licensure as a bail bond runner. During Petitioner's investigation of Sams' application, his association with Respondent became known and Respondent told Petitioner's agents of his relationship with Sams. This led to an investigation of Respondent and to the charges here preferred. On March 9, 14, 15 and 20, 1979, agents of Petitioner visited the office of Respondent during the morning hours and found the office closed. These times the office was visited were generally between 9:00 A.M. and 12:00 Noon. On March 9, 1979, Nelson Messimore waited at Respondent's office from 6:00 A.M. until 2:00 P.M. before the office was opened. This individual tried numerous times to call the phone number shown on a sign inside Respondent's office but received no answer. He obtained the bond desired when the office was opened. From the time he opened his bail bond office in early 1978, until he learned of the charges being investigated, Respondent had his office opened around noon by his secretary who stayed at the office until 6:00 P.M. Respondent usually arrived between 2:00 and 4:00 P.M. and kept the office open until nearly midnight. During this period he had an answering service to answer his calls 24 hours per day when the office was not open and a paging service to "beep" him when someone was trying to contact him. After learning that Petitioner's agents deemed his office hours to be in violation of Petitioner's regulations, Respondent engaged the services of another bail bondsman and had the office opened at 8:00 A.M. and it remained open during the normal working day. Respondent continued to keep the evening hours he previously used. On or about February 28, 1978, Respondent was given the jail card of Willie Frank Boone by the booking officer to use in preparing a bailbond. Boone had previously been bonded by Respondent and he was somewhat familiar with Boone's record. While the card was in his custody, Respondent thought one entry on the card was an error and interlined that item. Further perusal of the card led Respondent to realize the card had not been in error. When he returned the card to the booking officer, he told the booking officer of the changes he had made to the card. This caused considerable consternation in the booking officer and led to procedural changes to not allow custody of the jail cards to be given to bail bondsmen. The change to the jail card made by Respondent could not benefit Respondent financially or otherwise. However, the change could have affected the sentencing of the accused.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a bail bondsman, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a limited surety and as a professional bail bondsman. Prior to November 23, 1992, Gredys Tarazona entered into an agreement for Respondent to post a bond for James Johansen. In connection with that transaction, Ms. Tarazona delivered to Respondent the sum of $200 that was to serve as collateral security for the bond. They agreed that the sum of $200 would be returned to Ms. Tarazona once the conditions of the bond had been satisfied. On November 23, 1992, the conditions of this bond were satisfied and the liability on the underlying bond was terminated. Respondent failed to return the sum of $200 to Ms. Tarazona despite demands for her to do so. Prior to August 23, 1992, Julian Maldonado purchased a bail from Respondent. In connection with that transaction, Mr. Maldonado delivered to Respondent the sum of $200 that was to serve as collateral security for the bond. They agreed that the sum of $200 would be returned to Mr. Maldonado once the conditions of the bond had been satisfied. On August 23, 1992, the conditions of this bond were satisfied and the liability on the underlying bond was terminated. Respondent failed to return the sum of $200 to Mr. Maldonado despite demands for her to do so. Prior to April 1, 1993, Faye Finley entered into an agreement for Respondent to post a bond for Michael Finley. In connection with that transaction, Ms. Finley delivered to Respondent the sum of $200 that was to serve as collateral security for the bond. They agreed that the sum of $200 would be returned to Ms. Finley once the conditions of the bond had been satisfied. On April 1, 1993, the conditions of this bond were satisfied and the liability on the underlying bond was terminated. Respondent failed to return the sum of $200 to Ms. Finley despite demands for her to do so. Prior to November 8, 1992, Robert Post purchased a bail from Respondent. In connection with that transaction, Mr. Post delivered to Respondent the sum of $150 that was to serve as collateral security for the bond. They agreed that the sum of $150 would be returned to Mr. Post once the conditions of the bond had been satisfied. On November 8, 1992, the conditions of this bond were satisfied and the liability on the underlying bond was terminated. Respondent failed to return the sum of $150 to Mr. Post despite demands for her to do so. Prior to December 10, 1992, Jo Anne Adams entered into an agreement for Respondent to post a bond for Wilfred Byam. In connection with that transaction, Ms. Adams delivered to Respondent the sum of $200 that was to serve as collateral security for the bond. They agreed that the sum of $200 would be returned to Ms. Adams once the conditions of the bond had been satisfied. On December 10, 1992, the conditions of this bond were satisfied and the liability on the underlying bond was terminated. Respondent failed to return the sum of $200 to Ms. Adams despite demands for her to do so. Prior to December 22, 1992, Shannon Davidson purchased a bail bond from Respondent. In connection with that transaction, Mr. Davidson delivered to Respondent the sum of $250 that was to serve as collateral security for the bond. They agreed that the sum of $250 would be returned to Mr. Davidson once the conditions of the bond had been satisfied. On December 22, 1992, the conditions of this bond were satisfied and the liability on the underlying bond was terminated. Respondent failed to return the sum of $250 to Mr. Davidson despite demands for her to do so. Prior to July 23, 1993, Albert Perone entered into an agreement for Respondent to post a bond for Richard Falaro. In connection with that transaction, Mr. Perone delivered to Respondent the sum of $250 that was to serve as collateral security for the bond. They agreed that the sum of $250 would be returned to Mr. Perone once the conditions of the bond had been satisfied. On July 23, 1993, the conditions of this bond were satisfied and the liability on the underlying bond was terminated. Respondent failed to return the sum of $250 to Mr. Perone despite demands for her to do so. Respondent permitted her husband, Ken Jenkins, to participate in the transaction involving the bail bond purchased by Mr. Perone for Mr. Falaro. At the time she permitted him to engage in the conduct of her bail bondsman business as part of the Perone transaction, Respondent knew or should have known that her husband's license as a bail bondsman had been revoked and that he had entered a plea of guilty to a felony charge in a criminal proceeding. On or about April 27, 1993, Respondent received payments totaling $650 for placement of a bond from Angelene G. Goulos. No bond was posted by the Respondent. Respondent failed to return any part of the sum she had received from Ms. Goulos despite demands for her to do so. Prior to November 18, 1992, Ross Rankin purchased a bail bond from Respondent. In connection with that transaction, Mr. Rankin delivered to Respondent the sum of $250 that was to serve as collateral security for the bond. They agreed that the sum of $250 would be returned to Mr. Rankin once the conditions of the bond had been satisfied. On November 18, 1992, the conditions of this bond were satisfied and the liability on the underlying bond was terminated. Respondent failed to return the sum of $250 to Mr. Rankin despite demands for her to do so. Prior to May 18, 1993, Mary Pilcher entered into an agreement for Respondent to post a bond for Hassan Niksirat. In connection with that transaction, Ms. Pilcher delivered to Respondent the sum of $200 that was to serve as collateral security for the bond. They agreed that the sum of $200 would be returned to Ms. Pilcher once the conditions of the bond had been satisfied. On May 18, 1993, the conditions of this bond were satisfied and the liability on the underlying bond was terminated. Respondent failed to return the sum of $200 to Ms. Pilcher despite demands for her to do so. Prior to March 31, 1993, Tania Rodriguez, a/k/a, Tania Cuevas entered into an agreement for Respondent to post a bond for Edwin Cuevas. In connection with that transaction, Ms. Rodriguez delivered to Respondent the sum of $400 that was to serve as collateral security for the bond. They agreed that the sum of $400 would be returned to Ms. Rodriguez once the conditions of the bond had been satisfied. On March 31, 1993, the conditions of this bond were satisfied and the liability on the underlying bond was terminated. Respondent failed to return the sum of $400 to Ms. Rodriguez despite demands for her to do so. On May 4, 1993, and May 6, 1993, Respondent permitted her husband, Ken Jenkins, to conduct bail bond business in transactions with Mary Gandy, another bail bondsman. At the time she permitted him to engage in the conduct of her bail bondsman business in transactions with Ms. Gandy, Respondent knew or should have known that her husband's license as a bail bondsman had been revoked and that he had entered a plea of guilty to a felony charge in a criminal proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that Petitioner revoke Respondent's existing licensure and her eligibility for licensure under the Florida Insurance Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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 7th day of June, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Tharpe, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Dickson E. Kesler, Esquire Division of Agent and Agency Services 8070 N.W. 53rd Street, Suite 103 Miami, Florida 33166 Loudelle Davis Jenkins 1372 Northampton Terrace West Palm Beach, Florida 33414 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the Respondent, a licensed limited surety (bail bond) agent, should be disciplined on charges stated in an Amended Administrative Complaint, DFS case 214761-17-AG; and, if so, the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida limited surety (bail bond) agent license P166880. She has held the license since 2009 and has not been disciplined for any violations before this case. The Respondent entered into a contract with Braswell Surety Services, Inc. (Braswell Surety), the Florida managing general agent for Lexington on March 9, 2011, and wrote bail bonds for Lexington through mid-November 2016. The Respondent was the owner and primary bail bond agent for 1st Premier Bail Bonds (1st Premier), and conducted her business with Braswell Surety and Lexington through 1st Premier. Under the Respondent’s contract with Braswell Surety and Lexington, premiums for the Lexington bail bonds written by the Respondent were to be turned over to Lexington promptly. The Respondent also was obligated to submit a monthly execution report to Braswell Surety. The execution reports were supposed to detail all bonds executed by the Respondent’s company since the last report and include a remittance equal to 20 percent of the total amount of premium written since the last report. The Respondent also was obligated to submit a monthly discharge report to Braswell Surety. The discharge reports were supposed to list all bonds executed by the Respondent’s company that had been discharged by the court since the previous discharge report, along with appropriate documentation evidencing the discharges. The Respondent also was obligated to remit to Braswell Surety, monthly, 10 percent of the total amount of premiums written since the last execution report. This amount was to be held or invested and maintained by Braswell Surety as the Respondent’s “build-up funds” (BUF) account. The purpose of the BUF account was to hold Lexington and Braswell Surety harmless from any loss, cost or expenses or for the payment of losses resulting from bail bonds written by the Respondent’s company. Braswell Surety and Lexington could use money from the BUF account for those purposes at their discretion and could require money used for that purpose to be replaced by the Respondent’s company if Braswell Surety and Lexington deemed the account to be inadequate to provide full protection to them. In November 2016, it came to Braswell Surety’s attention that the Respondent’s company cashed a $9,690 check made out to 1st Premier by the court clerk in reimbursement for a forfeiture that had been remitted. The Respondent testified that the check was cashed before it was noticed that it should not have been made out to the Respondent’s company. Braswell Surety demanded that the Respondent’s company give Braswell Surety or Lexington a check in that amount, which was done. In November 2016, it also came to Braswell Surety’s attention that the Respondent’s company had several other forfeitures paid by Lexington. Braswell Surety sent the Respondent a list of them. The Respondent investigated and determined that many had been set aside and others were expected to be set aside. One still outstanding was in the amount of $35,000. In a letter dated November 9, 2016, the Respondent promised to resolve all issues involving forfeitures by the end of 2017. In her letter, the Respondent complained: “Cutting me off isn’t helping anyone. I’m trying to have you and Lexington all caught up by the end of 2017. I’m working hard to make this right. It’s all about money. I can’t pay if I can’t make money. Please reply and let me know how we can resolve our differences without taking this to a level that can’t resolve anything for anybody.” In November 2016, it also came to Braswell Surety’s attention that the Respondent was not reporting on its inventory of Lexington powers of attorney (powers) sent to the Respondent’s company at the end of 2014 for use in 2015 and at the end of 2015 for use in 2016. (Powers are essentially blank bond forms that can be used for one year.) Only one 2015 power was reported by the Respondent’s company as having been used. None of the other powers for 2015 and 2016 were reported by the Respondent’s company. Braswell Surety and Lexington had information from other sources about a few powers that were used in 2015 and 2016, but it was unknown in late 2016 whether any of the numerous other unreported powers were used or not, or if premiums were owed. By the end of November, Braswell Surety and Lexington decided not to provide the Respondent with powers for 2017. Braswell Surety also reported to the Petitioner that the Respondent owed premiums and forfeitures, and the Petitioner initiated an investigation. On January 9, 2017, Braswell Surety sent the Respondent a letter with an inventory report on the information Braswell Surety and Lexington had about the Respondent’s 2015 and 2016 powers. The letter acknowledged that the Respondent had no 2017 Lexington powers and was not authorized to write any more Lexington bonds. However, the letter stated, the Respondent’s appointment was not terminated, and the Respondent was expected to report all bonds in her inventory and pay all premiums owed to Lexington. During January 2017, the Respondent and Braswell Surety determined that the Respondent owed $14,906 in premiums. There was no evidence as to when any of the premiums owed became due and payable. The evidence was clear and convincing that all or almost all of the $14,906 was due and payable between June and November 2016, even if they might have first become due and payable before June 2016. However, the Petitioner declined to argue that this evidence proved the charges in Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint. To the contrary, the Petitioner conceded in its PRO that those charges were not proven. An attorney for Lexington wrote the Respondent a letter on January 18, 2017, claiming that the Respondent still owed Lexington for forfeitures. The evidence did not prove whether forfeitures were still owed at that time. At some point in time, the Respondent agreed to work for Shamrock Bail Bonds (Shamrock). Shamrock was owned by a bail bondsman named Brendan O’Neal, who was its main agent. The Respondent agreed to act as a sub-agent for Shamrock. Under this arrangement, between the Respondent and Mr. O’Neal, Mr. O’Neal was primarily responsible for any bail bonds written by the Respondent for Shamrock. In order to write bail bonds for Shamrock as a sub- agent, the Respondent had to be appointed as a limited surety agent. On January 20, 2017, the Respondent filled out Form DFS- H2-1544 to be appointed by Palmetto Surety Corporation. The form is mandated and controlled by the Petitioner and is adopted by rule. See § 648.382(1), (2), Fla. Stat. (2016)1/; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69B-221.155(3) (2016).2/ In signing the form, the Respondent swore under oath that she owed no premiums to any insurer. This was untrue, as she did not pay Lexington the $14,906 she owed in premiums until February 20, 2017. The signed form was filed with the Petitioner, as required by statute. See § 648.382(1), (2), Fla. Stat. The Respondent claims not to have known that she was swearing falsely when she signed the Form DFS-H2-1544 because she did not read the form carefully and did not think a sub-agent would be required to swear to owing no premium to any insurer. She claims she would have waited to sign the form until after paying the premium she owed to Lexington if she knew what the form said. However, the evidence was clear that Braswell Surety attempted to motivate the Respondent to pay the premiums owed to Lexington by warning that she could not write bonds for any other insurer until the debt to Lexington was paid. The Respondent also admitted that she knew this from the time she learned it in “bond school” prior to licensure as a bail bondsman and knew it from experience ever since. Her testimony that her status as a sub-agent of Mr. O’Neal confused her is not credible. The evidence, taken as a whole, was clear and convincing that the Respondent intended to misrepresent when she signed the form. Her misrepresentation was relied on by Palmetto Surety and Shamrock.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order dismissing Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint, finding the Respondent guilty under Count II, and suspending her licenses and appointments for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 2018.
The Issue Did Respondent plead nolo contendere to aggravated stalking, a felony, in violation of Section 784.048(4), Florida Statutes, so as to be subject to discipline by the Department of Insurance pursuant to Sections 648.45(1); 648.45(2)(a), (e), (j), (k); 648.45(3)(a), (c), and/or (e), and if so, what penalties may be imposed, pursuant to Sections 648.45, 648.46, 648.49, 648.50, , and/or 648.53, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was licensed in the State of Florida by Petitioner Agency as a limited surety agent, License No. 265986204. At the time of formal hearing, Respondent's license was suspended, pursuant to a Second Amended Emergency Order of Suspension entered by the Agency on March 11, 1997. Certified Court documents reveal that on February 10, 1997, Lesley Charles Corbin entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to the charge of "aggravated stalking," in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, in Case No. 96-9760-CF. The particulars of the charge pled to allege that Respondent "did knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follow or harass . . . [name] . . . after an injunction for protection against repeat violence pursuant to Section 784.046, to-wit: 92-1772-DV, contrary to the provisions of Section 784.048(4), Florida Statutes." The Court documents also reveal repetitive previous similar or related criminal charges against Respondent. Section 784.048(4), Florida Statutes, constitutes a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in Sections 775.082, 775.083, or 775.084, Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1996). Under the plea bargain, Count I, alleging aggravated assault pursuant to Section 784.021, Florida Statutes, was dropped, and adjudication was withheld on Respondent's nolo contendere plea to Count II. Respondent was required to enter into nine months of community control followed by one year probation with special conditions to protect the person he had stalked. Section 775.082(3)(d), Florida Statutes, provides that third degree felonies may be punished by up to 5 years' imprisonment. Section 775.083(1)(c) provides for third degree felonies to be punished by up to a $5,000 fine. Section 775.084(1)(c)1.b. applies to habitual felony offenders/stalkers and is not relevant here. The foregoing establishes prima facie facts in evidence, which facts Respondent did not overcome. Ms. Sarah Burt is the Bail Bond Coordinator for Petitioner Department of Insurance. In that capacity, she is responsible for administrative coordination of all bail bond related matters for the Agency. She is knowledgeable of the practices and procedures of the Agency regarding bail bondsmen and limited surety agency licensure and discipline, pursuant to Chapter 648, Florida Statutes. Based on her education, training, experience, and actual knowledge, Ms. Burt related that a plea of nolo contendere to a felony charge has always resulted in the Agency denying a licensure application or revoking of an existing license. To the best of Ms. Burt's knowledge and belief, this has been the Agency's consistent procedure in all similar circumstances. She did not know of any licensee who had retained his or her licenses after the Agency became aware the licensee had pled nolo contendere to a felony.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 648.45(2)(a) and (k), and 648.45(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and revoking his license. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of December, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, Esquire Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dick E. Kesler, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 R. Cash Barlow, Esquire Post Office Box 492 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Respondent has been charged by Administrative Complaint with violations of several provisions of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes. All of the violations charged relate to allegations that the Respondent failed to return certain personal property received by the Respondent as collateral security on a surety bond.
Findings Of Fact Facts admitted by all parties The Respondent, Sergio Roque, Jr., is currently licensed in this state as a limited surety agent. At all times relevant to the dates and occurrences referred to in the Administrative Complaint in this matter, the Respondent was licensed in this state as a limited surety agency. On or about July 19, 1990, Respondent, while acting in his capacity as a limited surety agent, did, as agent for Amwest Surety Insurance Company, post a $100,000 general surety appearance bond, power number X00-0-00000331, to obtain the release of defendant Domingo Arrechea from the Dade County Jail. In conjunction with the posting of the aforementioned surety bond, Respondent did on or about July 19, 1990, receive $10,000, which represented the premium payment for said surety bond. Respondent did in conjunction with the posting of said bond receive from indemnitor Lorraine DeVico a diamond engagement ring, a Rolex watch, and the title to a 1979 Mercedes automobile (ID#11602412149348) as partial collateral security for the aforementioned surety bond. On or about April 3, 1991, Respondent did cause to be surrendered back into custody the defendant Domingo Arrechea, thus terminating all liability for said surety bond. Respondent has failed to return to indemnitor Lorraine DeVico the collateral security described above; namely, the diamond engagement ring, the Rolex watch, and the title to the 1979 Mercedes automobile. Additional facts proved at hearing In addition to the collateral described above, the Respondent also received as collateral from the defendant Arrechea, and from the defendant's wife, a conditional mortgage on a condominium. In addition to the collateral described above, the Respondent also received as collateral from "Mike Farina" a conditional mortgage on real estate owned by Mike Farina. Mike Farina was a friend of the defendant Arrechea. "Mike Farina" later turned out to be a fictitious name. Lorraine DeVico was a very close friend of the defendant Arrechea. The Rolex watch Ms. DeVico put up as part of the collateral for Arrechea's bond was a watch that had been given to her by her father. Shortly after Ms. DeVico put the watch up for collateral, her father began to inquire as to the whereabouts of the watch. Because she felt that her father would disapprove of what she had done, and because her father was the source of most of her wealth, Ms. DeVico told several lies to her father about the whereabouts of the watch. As a result of continuing inquiries by her father, Ms. DeVico wanted her watch back and no longer wanted to be responsible under the indemnity agreement she had signed. Towards the beginning of February 1991, Ms. DeVico began to call the Respondent to advise that she was frightened that the defendant Arrechea was considering jumping bond. The Respondent received numerous calls from Ms. DeVico requesting return of her collateral and requesting to be off the indemnity agreement. Consequently, the Respondent hired MV Investigations on February 16, 1991, to locate the defendant Arrechea. On March 27, 1991, Ms. DeVico advised the Respondent that the defendant Arrechea was not answering his digital pager and that his telephone had been disconnected. She advised the Respondent that she sent her employee to look for Arrechea but could not find him. She asked the Respondent to pick up the defendant Arrechea and get her off the bond, agreeing to pay all the expenses. On April 1, 1991, Ms. DeVico again asked the Respondent to pick up the defendant Arrechea and again agreed that she would pay the costs associated with the pick-up. On April 3, 1991, the investigators hired by the Respondent located and picked up defendant Arrechea and surrendered him back to the Dade County Jail. The Respondent returned the collateral deposited by Mr. Farina and by the defendant Arrechea and his wife. After having the defendant Arrechea picked up and surrendered, the Respondent called Ms. DeVico to give her the information and advise her of the pick-up costs. Ms. DeVico verbally refused to pay any pick-up costs. On April 14, 1991, the Respondent sent by certified mail to Ms. DeVico a notice under Section 648.442, Florida Statutes, notifying her that he would be selling her collateral in ten days against his pick-up expenses. The Respondent sold the Rolex watch and diamond ring pledged as collateral by Ms. DeVico after expiration of the ten days. The indemnity agreement signed by Ms. DeVico in conjunction with applying for bail for the defendant Arrechea included the following language: 2. The indemnitor(s) will at all times indemnify and keep indemnified the Company and save harmless the Company from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, costs, charges, legal fees, disbursements and expenses of every kind and nature, which the Company shall at any time sustain or incur, and as well from all orders, decrees, judgments and adjudications against the Company by reason or in consequence of having executed such bond or undertaking in behalf of and/or at the instance of the indemnitor(s) (or any of them) and will pay over, reimburse and make good to the Company, its successors and assigns, all sums and amounts of money required to meet every claim, demand, liability, costs, expense, suit, order, decree, payment and/or adjudication against the Company by reason of the execution of such bond or undertaking and any other bonds or undertakings executed in behalf of and/or at the instance of the Indemnitor(s) and before the Company shall be required to pay thereunder. The liability for legal fees and disbursements includes all legal fees and disbursements that the Company may pay or incur in any legal proceedings, including proceedings in which the Company may assert or defend its right to collect or to charge for any legal fees and/or disbursements incurred in earlier proceedings. * * * 7. The Indemnitor(s) agree(s) that the Company may at any time take such steps as it may deem necessary to obtain its release from any and all liability under any of said bonds or undertakings, and it shall not be necessary for the Company to give the Indemnitor(s) notice of any fact or information coming to the Company's notice or knowledge concerning or affecting its rights or liability under any such bond or undertaking, notice of all such being hereby expressly waived; and that the Company may secure and further indemnify itself against loss, damages and/or expenses in connection with any such bond or undertaking in any manner it may think proper including surrender of the defendant (either before or after forfeiture and/or payment) if the Company shall deem the same advisable; and all expenses which the Company may sustain or incur or be put to in obtaining such release or in further securing itself against loss, shall be borne and paid by the Indemnitor(s). In conjunction with applying for bail for the defendant Arrechea, Ms. DeVico also signed a Bail Bond Information Sheet which advised her in bold print that: When all agreements have been fulfilled and bond is discharged, in writing or by the court, and without loss expense on the bond, your full collateral will be returned to you.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint, and Imposing an administrative penalty consisting of an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 and a suspension of the Respondent's license for a period of 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 12th day of May 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4378 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all of the parties. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 6: Accepted. Paragraph 7: Rejected for two reasons; first, the proposed finding is irrelevant because it is not alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, second, the proposed finding was not proved by clear and convincing evidence. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 through 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: First sentence accepted. Remainder of this paragraph rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 6 through 13: Accepted in substance with some details clarified. Paragraph 14: First sentence accepted. Remainder rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting procedural details or conclusions of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 16: Rejected as constituting statement of position or legal argument, rather than proposed finding of fact. Paragraph 17: First sentence accepted. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as constituting conclusions of law or legal argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 18: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Paragraphs 19 and 20: Accepted COPIES FURNISHED: David D. Hershel, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Martin L. Roth, Esquire Haber & Roth 1370 Northwest 16th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neill, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue At issue is whether respondent committed the offense alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact The Department excepts to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact number 15, asserting that the hearing officer mischaracterized the persuasive weight of the evidence regarding Mr. Rubino's ownership of the bail funds. At hearing, Mr. Rubino testified that the money he supplied was half of the bond amount necessary to obtain the release of his client's codefendant, Mr. Sergio Gonzalez (Transcript pages 36, 42- 44). He further testified that the source of the bond funds originated from his office account (Transcript page 47) and were not drawn from a check (Transcript page 49). Mr. Rubino's only proof that he owned the bail funds was the following statement: possessed it as "I possessed the money in my pocket" (Transcript page 45). The hearing officer's findings that it was incredulous for Mr. Rubino to advance his own money for a codefendant's bail; that the money advanced by Rubino was street money; and that Mr. Rubino was equivocal in his responses were supported by competent substantial evidence. It is for the hearing officer 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 upon competent substantial evidence. Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 475 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Therefore, the Department's Exception to Finding of Fact number 15 is REJECTED. The Department excepts to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact number 16, asserting that the hearing officer ignored the Respondent's implicit admission that he mistakenly released the bail money to Ms. Maria Diaz. At hearing, Respondent presented a letter (Respondent's Exhibit 6) in which he advised Mr. Fernandez of his intent to file a complaint with the Miami Police Department against Ms. Maria Diaz for theft of the bail funds. The Respondent also presented a police report receipt from the Miami Police Department (Respondent's Exhibit 4) demonstrating that he filed a police report against Ms. Diaz (Case Incident Number 346-1561T) in connection with the alleged theft of the above-referenced money. Both exhibits were received into evidence and demonstrated that the Respondent concluded that Ms. Diaz was not entitled to the bail money after the fact. Notwithstanding this evidence, the hearing officer's Finding of Fact number 16 addressed Mr. Rubino's ownership interest in the bail funds, not whether Respondent wrongfully returned the bail funds. The Department's arguments regarding this exception are misplaced because the Department fails to demonstrate how the hearing officer's finding of fact that Mr. Rubino did not have any lawful entitlement to the bail funds was not supported by competent substantial evidence. See Heifetz, supra. Therefore, the Department's Exception to Finding of Fact number 16 is REJECTED. The Department excepts to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact number 17, alleging that Mr. Joaquin Fernandez's testimony regarding his disavowment of the bail money was taken out of context. However, Mr. Fernandez's testimony on transcript page 177 is consistent with his testimony contained on transcript pages 163 and 165. Thus, the Department has failed to prove that the hearing officer's finding of fact was not supported by competent substantial evidence. As a result, the Department's Exception to Finding of Fact number 17 is REJECTED. The Department excepts to Finding of Fact number 20, alleging that said finding is inconsistent with the hearing officer's Finding of Fact number 16. The Department confuses the hearing officer's observations regarding Mr. Fernandez's credibility concerning the Respondent's good character with the elements necessary to prove the violations cited in the administrative complaint. Mr. Fernandez testified at hearing that he continued to do business with the Respondent following his written request for the return of the bail money; that he was a very good friend of the Respondent; and that the Respondent was deceived by Ms. Diaz to release the bail money to her (Transcript pages 173- 174,182). The Department has failed to prove that the hearing officer's finding of fact regarding Mr. Fernandez's credibility was not supported by competent substantial evidence. Consequently, the Department's Exception to Finding of Fact number 20 is REJECTED. The Department excepts to Finding of Fact number 21, asserting that the hearing officer drew improper inferences from the evidence presented regarding Respondent's deposit of $10,000 into his attorney's trust account. It appears that the Department has interpreted the hearing officer's finding of fact as dispositive of Respondent's guilt. However, the hearing officer's findings are supported by competent substantial evidence through the testimony of Mr. Rubino, Petitioner's Exhibits 5D, 5E, and 5F and Respondent's Exhibit 10. Moreover, the hearing officer is permitted to draw permissible inferences based upon the evidence presented. Heifetz, supra. Therefore, the Department's Exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact number 21 is REJECTED. RULINGS ON THE DEPARTMENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARING OFFICER'S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The hearing officer was entirely correct in finding that Respondent was justified in his belief that Mr. Rubino was not entitled to the return of the bond premium payment. However, the hearing officer erred as a matter of law by concluding that Ms. Diaz was entitled to the return of the bail money. Respondent did not receive the funds from Ms. Diaz, as evidenced by the pre- numbered receipt given to Mr. Fernandez. Respondent had not received any purported written or oral permission from Mr. Fernandez authorizing the release of the funds to Ms. Diaz. There is no evidence noted in the recommended order or the exceptions, that Mr. Fernandez ever indicated to the Respondent that Ms. Diaz was the source of the funds, or had any right to the funds. Respondent had no basis, other than Ms. Diaz's bald oral assertions, that she had any right to receive the refund of the premium deposits. It is uncontested that Respondent received the bail bond premium deposit from Mr. Fernandez's office, and gave Mr. Fernandez a written receipt. In the usual course of business, bail bondsmen return bail moneys to the receipted person or persons upon termination of the bond liability. This receipting system is fundamental to bail bondsmen accounting procedures. See Rule 4-221.115, Florida Administrative Code. Certainly, under normal circumstances, Respondent could have and should have returned the funds to Mr. Fernandez, which would have shielded him from any liability, if he had done so. And in normal circumstances, Respondent would be guilty of violating 648.295(1), Florida Statutes and would be subject to discipline by the Department. However, these are not normal circumstance, due to Mr. Fernandez's testimony that he did not know where the bond premium deposit money came from, where it went, and "could care less." In these highly unusual circumstances, in which the apparently wronged and victimized person, Mr. Fernandez, is indifferent to the events that transpired, it would be incongruous and inequitable to find that the Respondent violated section 648.295(1), Florida Statutes, for failing to return the bond funds to a person, who by his own testimony, "could care less" what happened to the funds. Therefore, while rejecting the hearing officer's conclusion that the Respondent was justified in returning the funds to Ms. Diaz, the hearing officer's ultimate recommendation that the case be dismissed is accepted. Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, as discussed in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 above, the Department has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent is subject to discipline by the Department pursuant to section 648.45(2), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Department's Exception to Conclusion of Law number 27 is REJECTED. Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, as discussed in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 above, the Department has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent is subject to discipline by the Department pursuant to section 648.43(3), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Department's Exception to Conclusion of Law number 28 is REJECTED. Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, as discussed in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 above, the Department failed to prove that Respondent utilized the bail money to his own use or benefit. As a result, the Department failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated section 648.295(3), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Department's Exception to Conclusion of Law number 30 is REJECTED. Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, as discussed in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 above, the Department failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated section 648.295(1), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Department's Exception to Conclusion of Law number 32 is REJECTED RULINGS ON THE DEPARTMENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARING OFFICER'S ENDNOTES The Department was correct in bring the instant action based upon the allegations, as alleged in the administrative complaint. However, the Department's Exception to Endnote number 1 is REJECTED, to the extent that the allegations were proved by clear and convincing evidence. The Department's Exception to Endnote number 2 is ACCEPTED. The Department's Exception to End note number 3 is REJECTED because the hearing officer clearly stated in this endnote that Finding of Fact number 15 was based upon the record evidence. The Department's Exception to Endnote number 4 is REJECTED. Rule 4- 231.160(e), Florida Administrative Code, permits the Department to consider the timeliness of restitution as a mitigating or aggravating factor. The Department does not have any legal authority, aside from situations involving Consent Orders, thorough its penalty rule or statutory provisions of the Florida Insurance Code, to order restitution or to condition its penalty on the making of restitution. Upon careful consideration of the Record, the submissions of the parties and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is ORDERED: The Findings of Fact of the hearing officer, as modified in this Order, are adopted as the Department's Finding of Fact. The Conclusions of Law of the hearing officer, as modified in this Order, are adopted as the Department's Conclusion of Law. The End notes of the hearing officer, as modified in this Order, are adopted as the Department's End notes. The hearing officer's Recommendation that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed is ACCEPTED as being the appropriate disposition for this particular case. Any party to these proceedings adversely affected by this Order is entitled to seek review of this Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Review proceedings must be instituted by filing a Notice of Appeal with the General Counsel, acting as the agency clerk, at 412 Larson Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300, an a copy of the same and the filing fee with the appropriate District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of rendition of this Order. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of July, 1996. BILL NELSON Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the administrative complaint. 4/ DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, 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 12th day of April 1996.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license as a limited surety agent should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Background At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Harris was licensed as a limited surety agent and continues to be eligible for licensure and appointment in Florida. On June 2, 1988, Respondent executed a bail bond agreement with Indiana Lumbermen's Mutual Insurance Company (Indiana Lumbermen's) as the insurer of the surety bonds, Underwriters Surety, Inc. (Underwriters) as its agent, and Jim Fowler, Jr. d/b/a Fowler Enterprises (Fowler) as its representative indemnitor and supervising representative. Under the terms of the agreement, Indiana Lumbermen's agreed to act as surety on bail bonds solicited and signed in its name by Respondent Harris. In turn, he agreed to charge, collect and remit all bond premiums through Fowler, who has a separate agreement with Indiana Lumbermen's and Underwriters regarding those duties. Additionally, Respondent agreed to hold Indiana Lumbermen's, Underwriters, and Fowler harmless for all bond forfeitures and court costs expended by any of them for bail bonds issued in Indiana Lumbermen's name by him. Because Fowler was also required to indemnify Indiana Lumbermen's and Underwriters against bond forfeitures and court costs resulting from bonds issued by Respondent Harris, a $10,000 mortgage was placed against Respondent's home as collateral for such losses by Fowler. Indiana Lumbermen's and Underwriters also required Respondent Harris to place two per cent of the face amount of each bond in an indemnity fund. The agreement states that after each indemnification is finally determined and satisfied, the remaining portion of the indemnity fund will be delivered to the Respondent or to Fowler. Fowler and the Respondent agreed that when the indemnity fund built up to $25,000.00 in reserved funds, Fowler would release the mortgage. Respondent could also request that the amount of money he was required to place into the indemnity fund for subsequent bond executions be reduced to one per cent of the face of the bonds. After the bail bond agreement was executed by all parties and the Respondent's wife in June of 1988, the bail bonds service office was opened in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Bond Forfeitures On December 12, 1988, two final judgments were entered in Hillsborough County which required the forfeiture of Surety Bond Power No. BB1-168638 and No. BB1-168639 due to the failure of Charles Douglas, Jr., to appear to answer criminal charges for which the bonds had been issued. Each bond was in the principal amount of $1,000.00 and was issued by Respondent Harris as Attorney- In-Fact for Indiana Lumbermen's. The sum of the two judgments was $2,000.00 and $169.00 and court costs. Warren H. Dawson, attorney for the Defendant, motioned the court to vacate the judgments on January 24, 1989. Instead vacating the judgments, the court stayed the enforcement of the judgments until April 26, 1989. At the chose of the time period, Charles Douglas, Jr., was not located, ad the bond funds were forfeited to the State of Florida for the use and benefit of Hillsborough County. These funds, totalling 2,000.00, were paid to the Clerk of Court by Harry Hamner Enterprises on May 18, 1989, as agent for Fowler. Court costs of $84.50 were paid by Respondent Harris, and $84.50 in court costs remain outstanding. The funds paid to the Clerk of Court on behalf of Fowler were issued to a low Fowler to comply with the bail bond agreement as super representative. Respondent Harris is still obligated to indemnify Fowler for the payment. On December 3, 1990, a remittance of $1,000.00 was given to Fowler because Defendant had been located. As this hearing took place only three days later, it is unknown if a check for the other S1,000.00 was forthcoming to Fowler. If the failure to remit the owner $1,000.00 was an oversight, it could be easily corrected by the Clerk of Court as the location of the Defendant would allow we return of these funds as well. On June 4, 1989, a final judgment was entered in Hillsborough County which required the forfeiture of Surety Bond Power No. BB1-200214 due to the failure of Ivan R. Jacob to appear in court to answer the criminal charges for which the bond had been issued. The bond was in the principal amount of $1,000.00 and was issued by Respondent Harris as Attorney-In-Fact for Indiana Lumbermen's. The judgment was for $1,000.00 and $84.50 in court costs. Warren H. Dawson, attorney for the Defendant, motioned the court to vacate and set aside the judgment and costs on July 12, 1989. The motion was granted on August 24, 1989, except that the payment of $84.50 in court costs was still required. The outstanding court costs of $84.50 were paid by Rubin C. Bazarte, Bail Bonds, on behalf of Indiana Lumbermen's on August 28, 1989. Respondent Harris has not indemnified Indiana Lumbermen's for those funds expended to pay the court costs as required by the bail bond agreement. He is still obligated to do so. On June 14, 1989, a final judgment was entered in Hillsborough County which required the forfeiture of Surety Bond Power No. BB1-197205 due to the failure of William A. Evans to appear to answer criminal charges for which the bond had been issued. The principal amount of the bond was $500.00. It was issued by Respondent Harris as Attorney-In-Fact for Indiana Lumbermen's. The sum of the judgment was $500.00 with court costs of $84.50. The judgment and court costs were satisfied by Rubin C. Bazarte, Bail Bonds, on behalf of Indiana Lumbermen's on August 28, 1939. Respondent Harris has not indemnified Indiana Lumbermen's for the funds expended, as required by the bail bond agreement. On June 21, 1989, a final judgment was entered in Hillsborough County which required the forfeiture of Surety Bond Power No. BB1-197204 due to the failure of Williams A. Evans, Jr., to answer criminal charges for which the bond had been issued. The principal amount of the bond was $500.00, and it was issued by Respondent Harris as Attorney-In-Fact for Indiana Lumbermen's. The sum of the judgment was $500.00 plus court costs of $84.50. On August 28, 1989, the judgment and court costs were satisfied by Rubin C. Bazarte, Bail Bonds, on behalf of Indiana Lumbermen's. Respondent Harris has not indemnified Indiana Lumbermen's for the funds expended, as required by the bail bond agreement. Respondent has not received funds to pay for the bond forfeitures from any source. Bond Net Premiums As part of his duties regarding the issuance of bonds for Indiana Lumbermen's, Respondent was required to regularly report the execution of bail bonds to Fowler and Underwriters. The net premiums were to be paid to either of these agents for Indiana Lumbermen's. According to the business records maintained by Fowler, the Respondent failed to remit the required net premiums owed with reports numbered 35, 36, 37 and 38. The amount of money owed for these premiums is $2,370.00. For April 7, 1989, Rosettia Jacobs paid Respondent $1,000.00 to obtain two bonds for the pretrial release of her son, Andre Hudson. Two bonds, with a face value of $5,000.00 each were executed by Respondent that day. The net premiums for two bonds with a face value of $10,000.00 were listed on bail bond execution report number 36, but the net premium was never paid to Fowler or Underwriters from the cash received from Rosettia Jacobs for that purpose. In July 1989, Melvin Rolfe met with Respondent's son, who represented he could accept funds on behalf of his father for the bail bond business. Melvin Rolfe gave Respondent's son $250.00 for a bail bond in order to obtain the pretrial release of his brother, Joseph Rolfe. Of these funds, $100.00 was for payment of the gross premium and $150.00 was collateral. The bond for $1,000.00 was executed by Respondent on August 1, 1989. The collateral given to Respondent's son was not noted on bail bond execution report number 35. The net premium for the $1,000.00 bond for Joseph Rolfe was not sent to Fowler or Underwriters from the cash delivered by Melvin Rolfe for that purpose. On August 1, 1989, Melvin Hamilton gave the Respondent $250.00 for two bonds in order to obtain the pretrial release of his brother, Mark Hamilton. One bond premium was $100.00 and the other bond premium was $50.00. The additional $100.00 was collateral. Bonds with the total face value of $1,250.00 were executed by Respondent on August 1, 1989. The collateral was not noted on the bail bond execution report number 35, and the net premiums were not sent to Fowler or Underwriters from the funds delivered by Melvin Hamilton for that purpose. On August 4, 1989, Charles Rodriguez paid $350.00 for bond premiums to Respondent in order to obtain the pretrial release of his wife, Tina Dunn. The total gross premium amount was $450.00. Respondent extended credit to Charles Rodriguez and issued three bonds with the total face value of $4,500.00 on August 4, 1989. Although the bonds were issued and noted on bail bond execution report 35, the net premiums were not sent to Fowler or Underwriters from the funds delivered by Charles Rodriguez for that purpose. On September 13, 1989, Fowler, as supervising representative for Indiana Lumbermen's and Underwriters, sent a formal demand to Respondent for the $2,370.00 due for premiums not included with reports numbered 35-38. Respondent has failed to pay any of the funds actually received for those premiums to Fowler, Underwriters, or Lumbermen's. Mitigation Respondent has made some attempts to locate defendants whose bonds have been forfeited to the state. Respondent extended credit to some people seeking bail bonds so he never collected some of the money owed to Indiana Lumbermen's for premiums.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, which demonstrates that Respondent misappropriated net bond premiums owed the insurer on four occasions between April and early August 1989, it is RECOMMENDED: The limited surety license of Rudolph Harris, Respondent, be suspended for one year, pursuant to Section 648.49(1), Florida Statutes [1987]. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of February 1991. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 22nd day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-4689 Petitioner's proposed finding of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #1. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See #18-#23. Also, irrelevant as to charging document which claimed Respondent misappropriated bond forfeiture funds. Rejected. Irrelevant as to charging document which claim Respondent misappropriated forfeiture funds. See HO $14-#17. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #8-#13. Accepted. See HO #35. COPIES FURNISHED: Gordon T. Nicol, Esquire Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Rudolph Harris 812 E. Henderson Avenue Tampa, FL 33602 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact The facts relevant to the charges here preferred are largely undisputed. In May 1978 Respondent's business address as reported by him to Petitioner was 2812 North 34th Street, Tampa, Florida. This address was visited by Petitioner's investigators on 23, 24, 25, and 30 May 1978. The building located at that address is owned and used by Scaglione Construction Company as its main office. There is no sign on the exterior of this building indicating a bail bondsman's office is located inside. While visiting the address, the investigators were advised that Respondent had no office there but Frank Puig did have a bail bond office in the building. Although there was some dispute regarding whether the investigators were shown Puig's office, or even allowed to go to the door of that office, whether they did or not is immaterial because Respondent readily admitted he had no files at this location and conducted no business therefrom. Again witnesses differed on whether there was a sign on the door of the office occupied by Puig. Whether there was a sign on that door reading "Frank Puig - Bail- bondsman" is irrelevant to the charge that Respondent had no sign designating his office. During the period in question, in fact, during most, if not all, of 1978, Respondent testified he was without power [of attorney] to write bonds. Exhibit 1 shows that three companies, Midland Insurance Company, Allied Fidelity Insurance Company, and Cotton Belt Insurance Company, Inc. all renewed Respondent's limited surety agency in October 1977 and all cancelled his limited surety agency 12-14-78. Respondent's testimony indicated that he was an agent only for Cotton Belt and that his power to write bonds had been withdrawn. According to Respondent's own testimony, he had no permanent office in which to keep his files and records and that these records were carried in his car and stored at his residence when not in his car. He was using Puig's telephone number as a place at which messages could be left for him. Respondent also testified that during 1978 he wrote no bonds and was only servicing existing accounts which preceded 1978.
