The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a limited surety agent should be revoked or the licensee otherwise disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 4-1, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated October 16, 1979. In this proceeding, Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent for various alleged violations of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 4-1, Florida Administrative Code, arising out of alleged irregularities in connection with a bonding transaction in 1978. Two witnesses testified for the Petitioner and the parties stipulated to the admission of seven documentary exhibits. The Respondent testified in his own behalf at the hearing.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Timothy Michael Paletti is currently licensed as a limited surety agent to represent Cotton Belt Insurance Company, Inc., at Orange Lake, Florida, and was so licensed during the periods alleged in the Administrative Complaint. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Stipulation) On November 23, 1978, Respondent executed an appearance bond in the Gilchrist County Circuit Court in the sum of $10,000 as agent of the surety, Cotton Belt Insurance Company, in behalf of Rodney D. Lovett, who was charged with robbery. Respondent did not attach either an affidavit or statement, as prescribed in Rule 4-1.14, Florida Administrative Code, to the bail bond at the time it was filed in the office of the Circuit Court clerk. It was not until January 31, 1979, that Respondent filed a statement concerning collateral security for the bond under Rule 4-1.141 in lieu of the affidavit required by Rule 4-1.14, F.A.C. Lovett's wife paid a $1,000 premium for the bond and his sister-in-law, Deborah Johnson, executed a demand note for $10,000, together with a mortgage deed on a dwelling which she owned in Deland, Florida, on November 23, 1978, as collateral security for the bond. During the transaction, Respondent provided Johnson with a business card bearing his Orange Lake telephone number. (Testimony of Johnson, Petitioner's Exhibits 2-4) On January 8, 1979, a Notice of Sentencing was issued by the Gilchrist County Circuit Court Clerk in Lovett's case for January 22, 1979 at Trenton, Florida. On January 13, Respondent contacted Lovett and Johnson by telephone at their respective homes and advised them of the date of the required court appearance. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 5) During January 1979, Lovett and his wife talked to Johnson about the possibility of "leaving and not going to court." Johnson became concerned about these disclosures and attempted to reach Respondent at his Orange Lake telephone number. Numerous calls to that number on January 15th were unanswered. After unsuccessful attempts to reach Respondent through the Cotton Belt Insurance Company and at another telephone number provided by Petitioner, Respondent finally called Johnson's house on January 20, at which time Johnson and a friend, Barry S. Beatty, told Respondent about Lovett's statements concerning his intentions and requested that Respondent pick up Lovett and surrender him to court so the collateral security could be released. Respondent told Johnson that he would look into the matter. He then telephoned Lovett's attorney and the Lovett home, and was assured that everything was all right. (Testimony of Johnson, Beatty, Respondent) On January 22, 1979, Lovett failed to appear at court for sentencing and the bond was therefore declared to be forfeited. Respondent and law enforcement authorities there after made efforts to locate Lovett and he was eventually apprehended and sentenced to confinement. On July 2, 1979, the Gilchrist County Circuit Court ordered that the bond previously estreated be remitted less the cost expended by the State in apprehending the defendant in the amount of $500. The collateral security posted by Johnson is still outstanding due to a dispute over costs sought by Respondent. (Testimony of Johnson, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 6-7) Respondent testified at the hearing that he felt he had made reasonable efforts to assure that Lovett would appear in court. Although Respondent moved his office in late January 1979, his office phone was in operation and his office was open during the week of January 15-22. (Testimony of Respondent)
Recommendation That the charges against Respondent Timothy Michael Paletti be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Strom Maxwell, Esquire Department of Insurance 428-A Larson Building Legal Division Tallahassee Florida 32301 Robert J. Costello, Esquire Bates and DeCarlis - Suite B 726 Northwest Eighth Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601
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 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 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
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.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent's bail bond agent's License issued by the State of Florida should be subjected to sanctions for alleged violation of certain provisions of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, and related rules, as described in the First Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged by statute and rule with regulating the entry to licensure, and regulating the practice, of bail bond agents such as the Respondent. The Respondent Donald Frank Shirey was, at times pertinent hereto, a licensed bail bond agent regulated by the Department. The Respondent was a corporate officer and director of Donald Shirey and Associates, Inc., located, at times pertinent hereto, at 112 East Adams Street, Jacksonville, Florida ("Associates"). It was an entity engaged in the bail bond business. The Respondent employed Robert Meyers, James Kinard and Michael Suttles as licensed bail bond agents. Count I On September 25, 1998, Darryl Gerald Irving was incarcerated in the Duval County Jail. The amount of his bond was set at $5003.00, with a premium of $500.00. On that date, the Respondent posted a bail bond for Darryl Gerald Irving. After bonding Mr. Irving out of jail, the Respondent took him to Mr. Irving's former employer, Target, to obtain a check (number 8215734), in the amount of $172.23. The check was signed over to the Respondent as partial payment for the bail bond premium. The Respondent and Mr. Irving then went to the Respondent's office were they called Mr. Irving's girlfriend, Sandra Jennings, who paid the remainder of the bond premium. Mr. Irving then completed Petitioner's Exhibit 3, at the Respondent's office. On this document he listed his address as 3273 University Boulevard, Apartment 244. The address listed on his driver's license is 3273 University Boulevard, Apartment 255. The address listed on his Target check stub is 1706 Art Museum Drive, Apartment G-11. Mr. Irving explained that he would be living at 3273 University Boulevard, Apartment 244, and that the addresses on his driver's license and check stub were prior addresses. The Respondent, however, alleged that Mr. Irving put an incorrect or non-existent address on the document (Petitioner's Exhibit 3), but he never verified that. The Respondent surrendered Mr. Irving back to the Duval County Jail, terminating his liability on the bond, on the theory that Mr. Irving had entered an incorrect address on the document, Petitioner's Exhibit 3; the address he where he would be living, instead of his driver's license address or the address appearing on the check stub from his employer. On this basis, the Respondent returned him to the Duval County Jail for incarceration and retained the $500.00 bond premium paid by Mr. Irving. From the time the Respondent bonded Mr. Irving out of jail until the time he surrendered him back to jail, Mr. Irving remained in the Respondent's custody. Mr. Irving was in handcuffs except for the time when he was completing the written bond documents. At no time was Mr. Irving free to leave the Respondent's custody. Count II On January 8, 1998, the Respondent posted a bail bond for Patrick Andrade in the amount of $3,656.00. The bond premium thereon was $365.60, which was paid by Mr. Andrade. The documents marked as Petitioner's Exhibit 6, were completed and signed by Mr. Andrade. After being bonded out of jail, the Respondent took Mr. Andrade to the Respondent's home. While there he engaged in sexual relations with Mr. Andrade. When Mr. Andrade was no longer willing to engage in sexual relations with the Respondent, the Respondent surrendered him back to jail for re-incarceration and retained the bond premium. Count III On February 14, 1998, the Respondent posted a bail bond for Patrick Andrade in the amount of $50,003.00. The bond premium was $5,003.00. Mr. Andrade paid $2,500.00, as a down payment and paid an additional $1,200.00, of the bond premium for a total of $3,700.00, before being surrendered back to jail by the Respondent. The documents marked as Petitioner's Exhibit 7 in evidence, were completed and signed by Mr. Andrade. After being bonded out of jail, Mr. Andrade was taken by the Respondent to the Respondent's home where he spent several days and engaged in sexual relations with the Respondent. On February 25, 1998, when Mr. Andrade was no longer willing to engage in sexual relations with the Respondent and wished to go home to his wife, the Respondent surrendered Mr. Andrade to the Clay County Jail for re-incarceration and again retained the bond premium. Count IV On September 24, 1998, the Respondent again posted a bond for Mr. Andrade in the amount of $1,502.00. The bond premium of $150.20 was paid by Mr. Andrade and he signed the documents in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 8. After being bonded out of jail, Mr. Andrade was again taken to the Respondent's home where he stayed for several days and engaged in sexual relations with the Respondent. Thereafter, when Mr. Andrade wished to go home to his wife the Respondent instead surrendered him to the Clay County Jail and retained the bond premium already paid. Count V Ms. Jeanette Alzola met with the Respondent at his office on April 7, 1999, and entered into an agreement with the Respondent to provide for the bond of Pabel Romero Martinez from incarceration in the Lee County Jail in Fort Myers, Florida. Mr. Martinez's bond was $150,000.00. Ms. Alzola paid a premium of $15,000.00, and a transfer fee of $100.00. She posted the Deed for her house and the title to her car as collateral for the bond. When Ms. Alzola met with the Respondent she explained that Mr. Martinez would be living with her at her residence. She also told the Respondent that Mr. Martinez had difficulties comprehending English and would need assistance completing the required documents. She requested that Mr. Shirey contact her when Mr. Martinez was brought to the Respondent's office so that she could function as a translator and assist him in completing the documents. On April 9, 1999, the Respondent went to the Lee County Jail and posted a bond for Mr. Martinez to remove him from the jail. He brought him back to Jacksonville, Florida. He was in handcuffs the entire time except for a short period of time when he was completing the relevant bond documents. Mr. Martinez explained to the Respondent that he would be living with Ms. Alzola. The Respondent held up Mr. Martinez's driver's license and told him to "copy this address onto there." Mr. Martinez listed an address on the application that was not Ms. Alzola' s address or the address that appears on his driver's license, but it was the address of his previous residence. The Respondent then said that he was going to surrender Mr. Martinez back to the jail "now that we have good cause that I can go by and check this address because the address is a lie." The Respondent then surrendered Mr. Martinez back to the Lee County Jail without ever releasing him from his custody and retained the $15,100.00, that had been paid by Ms. Alzola. Ms. Alzola filed a civil lawsuit against the Respondent in which she obtained a Judgment in the amount of $15,100.00. The Court therein concluded that the: Decision to return him (Martinez) to the Lee County Jail within a few hours of bringing him here without ever releasing him or turning him over to the custody of the plaintiff (Alzola) constituted a breach of their contract with the plaintiff. The acts of the defendants herein did not constitute a "release" of Mr. Martinez anymore than if they had merely transferred him from the Lee County Jail to the Duval County Jail and back. Mr. Martinez remained in the custody of at least two of the defendants' agents at all times. Nothing in the acts or statements of these agents would have indicated to a reasonable person that he was free to leave their custody. In fact, their conduct was a clear indication that Mr. Martinez was still in a custodial status. Count VI Janice Smith met with the Respondent on May 27, 1999, to arrange for a bail bond for her seventeen-year-old son Kevin Smith. Kevin Smith was incarcerated in the Duval County Jail in Jacksonville, Florida. His bond amount was $100,000.00, and the premium on that bond was $10,000.00. Ms. Smith paid $7,000.00 of the premium and entered into a premium agreement for the remaining balance of $3,000.30. Under the terms of the agreement she was to make monthly payments of no less than $300.00 until the balance was paid. The balance was due before discharge of the bond. The Respondent held the title to Ms. Smith's 1999 Chevrolet Lumina as collateral security on the loan. The Respondent told Ms. Smith that he would help her out with any problem that she might have with Kevin. On or about May 31, 1999, she called the Respondent and told him that she was concerned because Kevin was coming home after a curfew that she had set for him. On June 1, 1999, the Respondent called Ms. Smith and recommended that Kevin be surrendered back to the jail for a few days in effect, to teach him a lesson. The Respondent assured Ms. Smith that he would get Kevin out of jail at any time without incurring additional costs. She agreed to allow the Respondent to surrender Kevin back to the jail with the understanding that she could get Kevin out of jail at any time without any additional costs. On June 1, 1999, the Respondent and several of his agents arrived at Ms. Smith's home. At the time of their arrival, Kevin Smith was not at home. The Respondent went into the house with Ms. Smith and two or more of his employees positioned themselves outside the house and waited for Kevin to return home. Kevin Smith approached the house in his vehicle and noticed several cars near his house. He purportedly believed that they belonged to a neighborhood gang which he had had problems with in the past. Allegedly fearing for his safety, he turned in his vehicle and proceeded to drive away. The Respondent's agents tried unsuccessfully to block his retreat with their vehicles and then pursued him but were unable to catch him. Janice Smith then called Kevin on his cell phone to ask him why he left. He replied that he thought the individuals at the house were gang members. Ms. Smith told him that it was just the Respondent and his agents who wanted Kevin to sign some papers. Kevin thereupon went home and attempted to shake the Respondent's hand whereupon the Respondent handcuffed and shackled him and took him back to his office. The Respondent later surrendered him to the Duval County Jail. A few days later, Janice Smith contacted the Respondent and requested that he bond Kevin back out of jail. The Respondent said he would not bond Kevin out of jail until Janice Smith provided proof that Kevin's car had been placed in storage. Ms. Smith put the car in storage and brought the receipt to the Respondent's office. The Respondent still would not bond Kevin out of jail. Ms. Smith went to the Respondent's office on numerous occasions and he refused to meet with her. Ms. Smith made several telephone calls to the Respondent but he would not take or return her calls. After several days had passed, one of the Respondent's employees told Ms. Smith that the Respondent would not bond Kevin out of jail and would not refund the premium payments. In June 1999, when Ms. Smith attempted to purchase a tag for her 1999 Chevrolet Lumina, she learned that the Respondent had transferred the vehicle to his name. The Respondent claimed that that action was taken pursuant to the terms of the premium agreement. However, the Respondent never notified Ms. Smith that the balance was due in full, or of his intent to transfer title of the vehicle to his name. Ms. Smith paid the Respondent the $3,000.00 balance so that the Respondent would release the title to her vehicle, which he did. Ms. Smith paid a total of $10,000.00, as a bail bond premium to the Respondent. The Respondent surrendered Kevin back to the jail but refused to bond him back out of jail as he had previously agreed and he also refused to refund the premium to Ms. Smith.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Insurance revoking the Respondent's license and eligibility for licensure as a bail bond agent, and that the Respondent be found ineligible to apply for licensure with the Department for a minimum period of two years and not until such time as restitution is made to Darryl Irving in the amount of $500.00, Patrick Andrade in the amount of $4,215.80, Jeannett Alzola in the amount of $15,100.00 and Janice Smith in the amount of $10,0003.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. Santurri, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Donald Frank Shirey, Jr. 5337 107th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32244 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0307
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was first licensed as a ball bondsman in 1961 or 1962. In 1969 (Exhibit 2), Petitioner was charged with being incompetent and untrustworthy as a bail bondsman, found guilty and placed on one year's probation which was successfully completed. In 1973, Petitioner was again charged with conducting himself in a manner unbecoming a bail bondsman (Exhibit 3). These charges alleged failure to return the premium paid on a supersedes bond when the prisoner was not released from jail on the bond and failure to maintain his office open to the general public as required. In the Final Order issued in this case, Petitioner was fined $850 and placed on probation for two years. Upon failure of Petitioner to comply with the terms of the Final Order, his license was revoked for a period of ten months after which the revocation was set aside and his license restored. In 1979, a hearing was conducted by the undersigned Hearing Officer on charges alleging that Petitioner had failed to maintain the minimum requirement for permanent office records and failed to maintain a place of business accessible to the public and be actively engaged in the bail bond business in violation of Chapter 64B, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was found guilty as charged, and the recommendation that his license be revoked was adopted by the Commissioner of Insurance in the Final order. In 1986, Petitioner was arrested for operating a donut shop in Tampa utilizing topless waitresses in violation of Tampa Ordinance 24-11. These charges were dismissed on appeal to the circuit court (Exhibit 5). Witnesses called by Petitioner included the attorney who prosecuted the 1979 case (Exhibit 4) against Respondent; the investigator who investigated the 1979 charges for the Department, and a sitting circuit court judge who filed an appeal of the 1979 revocation order on behalf of the Petitioner At the time the charges which led to the revocation were preferred, Respondent was without power to write bonds, but still had an obligation to service bonds still outstanding. The two witnesses who testified in these proceedings on the status of a licensed bail bondsman without power to write new bonds both concurred that this places a bail bondsman in the anomalous position of one who has no need for an office to provide bail bonds for the public but who still needs to be accessible to those clients for whom he has outstanding bonds. This distinction was not clarified at the 1979 hearing. All three witnesses who testified on behalf of Petitioner were aware of nothing that would disqualify Petitioner as a bail bondsman at this time. No evidence was submitted that Petitioner was convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, except for the admission by Petitioner that on or about August 11, 1966, he pleaded guilty to uttering a check without sufficient funds on deposit with which the check could be honored. This offense occurred more than 20 years ago and prior to Petitioner twice being found qualified for licensure by Respondent as a bail bondsman.
