Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Pat LaFratta, applied for a Bail Bond Runner's License, which application was sworn to and subscribed on the 11th day of June, 1978. Petitioner had previously, on July 9, 1976, submitted an application for professional Bail Bondsman. The Respondent, by letter from the Chief of the Bureau of Licensing, Mrs. Onez O'Neal, dated August 31, 1978, informed Mr. LaFratta that his application for Bail Bond Runner's License was denied and stated that "the investigation conducted by this Department reflects that you do not meet the qualifications as set forth in Sections 648.27(2)(4), and 648.34(2)(f), Florida Statutes." The Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. A deposition of Howard Paul Sabin, who was at the time imprisoned for bribery, was entered into the evidence without objection. The deposition was taken at the Hendry Correctional Institute in Immokalee, Florida, on December 20, 1978, by counsel for the Respondent after Respondent had denied Petitioner's application for licensure. Counsel for the Petitioner, Herb Fried, Esquire, 1461 NW 17th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33125, and the Petitioner, Pat LaFratta, were present. Sabin's testimony was that the Petitioner, whom he identified at the taking of the deposition, shared commissions in performing bail bond activities and that Petitioner acquiesced and participated in bribing a police officer. Mr. Sabin testified that Mr. LaFratta used LaFratta's apartment as an office. Telephone calls were made from the apartment to call the jail and speak to people to see if Sabin could help them make bond while only Sabin, not Mr. LaFratta, was licensed. Sabin testified that the name of the agency was AABBEE Bail Bonds and that LaFratta paid Sabin a percentage of bonds solicited by Mr. Sabin and referred to Mr. LaFratta. The time frame Sabin testified about was approximately from September of 1975, to December of 1975. The Petitioner's attorney questioned Sabin about any promises made to him for his testimony and about other bondsmen, but there were no questions or contradictions by Petitioner or his attorney as to testimony concerning the subject of this hearing. A yellow page from a Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company Directory, dated 1976, was submitted into evidence in which there was an advertisement "Bail Bonds, 24-Hour Service Any Court - State, Federal, Criminal, Narcotic - Pat LaFratta, Manager - AABBEE Bail Bonds" and a telephone number. Also submitted into evidence was a copy of a business card "AABBEE Bail Bonds - Pat LaFratta - 24-Hour Service" with the same telephone number as advertised in the yellow pages of the 1976 telephone directory. It is obvious upon examination that the telephone advertisement and card were advising the public using the directory that Petitioner LaFratta was in the bail bond business. Petitioner was not then licensed. On the application for Bail Bond Runner's License of June 11, 1978, Question 14: "Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony?" was answered "Yes." The remainder of the question stated: "If so, complete the following and submit a full and detailed report on a separate sheet." This was answered: "1970 - Broward Cty. Ct. - Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. - Poss. Stolen Prop. - 23 counts, 1 yr. cty. jail 2-5 yrs. probation conc." Petitioner listed no other charges or convictions on the application or on a separate sheet. Respondent submitted in defense of its denial a number of exhibits which were entered into evidence as follows: Exhibit 3(a) concerns the offense of receiving stolen property and is dated October 20, 1969. The solicitor announced a Nolle Prosequi, and the Judge released Petitioner from custody. Exhibit 3(b) concerns the offense of receiving stolen property and is dated October 23, 1967. The solicitor announced a Nolle Prosequi. Petitioner was released from custody. Exhibit 3(c) concerns the offense of auto theft and is dated April 4, 1969. The solicitor announced "No Information," and the Respondent was released from custody. Exhibit 3(d) concerns the offense of uttering a forged instrument and is dated June 30, 1971. The solicitor announced a Nolle Prosequi, and the Judge released Petitioner from custody. Exhibit 3(e) concerns the offense of two counts of receiving stolen property and is dated April 5, 1971. The solicitor announced a Nolle Prosequi. The Judge released the Petitioner from custody. Exhibit 3(f) concerns the offense of receiving stolen property and is dated January 22, 1969. Petitioner was acquitted by a jury and released from custody. Exhibit 3(g) concerns the offense of receiving stolen property and is dated April 5, 1971. The solicitor announced a Nolle Prosequi, and the Judge released Petitioner from custody. Exhibit 3(h) concerns the offense of receiving or aiding in the concealment of parts of a 1968 Chevrolet Impala and is dated October 31, 1969. The State was allowed 30 days to amend because of the vagueness of the charge. Exhibit 3(i) concerns the offense of receiving stolen property and is dated April 5, 1971. The solicitor announced a Nolle Prosequi, and the Judge released Petitioner from custody. Exhibit 3(j) concerns the offense of aggravated assault and is dated October 27, 1967. The Hearing Officer finds that Petitioner was not the defendant in said case. Exhibit 3(k) concerns the offense of receiving stolen property and is dated December 13, 1968. Petitioner was acquitted by a jury and released from custody. Exhibit 3(l) concerns the offense of receiving stolen property arid is dated October 1, 1969. The Petitioner was acquitted by the court and released from custody. Exhibit 3(m) concerns the offense of receiving stolen property and is dated June 25, 1968. The Petitioner was acquitted by the court arid released from custody. Exhibit 3(n) concerns the offense of assault and battery, a misdemeanor, and is dated October 30, 1967. Exhibit 3(o) is a judgment and sentence for the crime of receiving stolen property and is dated October 5, 1971. Petitioner was placed on probation for five years. Exhibit (p) is a judgment and sentence dated April 5, 1971. Petitioner was sentenced to one year in prison and an assessment. Exhibit 3(q) concerns the violation of parole. Respondent's Exhibit 3(e), (g), (i), (o), and (p), supra, are part of a 23-count information which was submitted as Petitioner's Exhibit #6 in Case No. 70-25492, an information for Receiving Stolen property. Respondent's Exhibit 3(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (h), (k), (l), and (m), supra, refer to felony charges of receiving stolen property, uttering a forged instrument and auto theft, which were not listed on the Petitioner's application and were not part of the 23-count information, which information concerned receiving stolen property. Exhibit 3(a), (b), (f), (k), (l), and (m), supra, concern stolen property preceding the dates of the offenses mentioned in the 23-count information. The failure to list the foregoing felony charges shows the Petitioner made material misstatements on his application. Petitioner LaFratta testified that he sent a package regarding the 23 counts mentioned in Findings of Fact No. 3, supra, with both application for Professional Bail Bondsman and for subject license to the Respondent. His testimony was not backed by evidence that he in fact sent the materials to the Respondent, which were required to have been sent at the time the application was made and listed on his application. His testimony that he had requested the clerk to "make out a whole booklet on everything that pertains to me," if true, was not adequate to truthfully answer Question 14, Findings of Fact No. 3, supra. The Hearing Officer finds that Petitioner did not furnished a full and detailed report and information as required by Question 14. It is the finding of the Hearing Officer that Petitioner did not intend to furnish the required information. Petitioner testified that he did not think that he had ever been arrested for assault, but the Respondent presented evidence showing that Petitioner had in fact been arrested for assault and battery. On subject application the Petitioner also failed to fully answer the question as to his employment history for the past five years. He failed to disclose that he had worked for Abel Bail Bonds. On the question as to his residence for the past five years, Mr. LaFratta failed to show that he had been incarcerated at Florida State Prison during that period of time. The herein mentioned 23-count information and the Restoration of Civil Rights were certified in June of 1976, and application for Professional Bail Bondsman was submitted in July of 1976. It is the finding of this Hearing Officer that these instruments were the only information submitted by the Petitioner to the Respondent as to his charges and convictions, despite his testimony. The certificate of Restoration of Civil Rights to Pat LaFratta, dated June 8, 1976, was previous to the application for Bail Bond Runner's License sworn to and subscribed by the Petitioner on June 11, 1978, and to the application for Bail Bondsman sworn to and subscribed by the Petitioner on July 9, 1976. The certificate of Restoration of Civil Rights is dated June 8, 1976, and within a few weeks thereafter Petitioner failed to truthfully answer questions under oath on his application on July 9, 1976, and failed to fully and truthfully answer the question on his application for Bail Bond Runner's License of July 11, 1978.
Recommendation Reject the application of Petitioner, Pat LaFratta, for a license as a Ball Bond Runner. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick F. Maroney, Esquire Florida Department of Insurance Legal Division 428-A Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Max P. Engel, Esquire 1461 North West 17th Avenue Miami, Florida 33125
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of a violation of bail bondsmen disciplinary statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been licensed in the State of Florida as a bail bondsman. He operates Freedom Bail Bonds in Orlando, Florida. On May 28, 1988, law enforcement officers of the Orange County Sheriff's Office arrested John P. Moody and placed him in the Orange County jail. Mr. Moody had never previously been arrested. After he was arrested, Mr. Moody contactedRespondent about obtaining a bail bond in order to get out of jail. Respondent agreed to come to the jail and interview Mr. Moody to determine if Freedom Bail Bonds could provide him a bond. When Respondent arrived at the jail on the evening of May 28, he was informed by an officer of the three charges that were pending against Mr. Moody. The bond was $1000 per charge, and the premium was 10% of the bond. Respondent met with Mr. Moody and asked him whether he had any assets to secure the bond. Mr. Moody explained that he had no assets such as a car, cash, or cash equivalent. However, he said that he owned jointly with his mother some land in Orange County. At the conclusion of the interview, Respondent had decided to write the bond. Respondent then learned from the booking officer that another charge had been added. Following a brief conversation between Respondent and Mr. Moody concerning the new charge, Respondent learned from the booking officer that a fifth charge had been added. After another conversation with Mr. Moody, Respondent learned in this manner that a sixth, and final, charge had been added. In all, Mr. Moody was charged with one count of failing to return a hired automobile and five counts of fraudulent bank deposits. Each charge carried a $1000 bond, so Mr. Moody now required a total bond of $6000, which in turn required a total premium of $600. Due to the increased amount of the bond, Respondent informed Mr. Moody that he would have to secure the bond with a mortgage on the property jointly held with his mother. Mr. Moody agreed, but asked Respondent not to contact Mr. Moody's mother immediately. It was the middle of the night, and Mr. Moody's mother is an invalid. Respondent agreed to allow Mr. Moody to contact his mother later and obtain her signature on a mortgage. Because Mr. Moody lacked the funds, a friend, Marion Reed Johnson, agreed to pay the premium. Knowing that Mr. Moody would not be able to obtain that evening his mother's signature to a mortgage, Respondent insisted on some interim security and agreed to accept six $1000 promissory notes from Mr. Johnson. These notes were payable on demand, but, according to their terms, became void if Mr. Moody appeared in court when ordered to do so and discharged all of the obligations of the bail bond. Respondent gave Mr. Johnson receipts for the $600 premium and six $1000 notes as soon as Respondent received these items. At the same time, also on the evening of May 28, Respondent completed a bail bond application and indemnity form, on which Mr. Moody provided certain background information. Mr. Moody and Mr. Johnson also signed indemnifications in favor of the surety. The application form states that the surety: shall have control and jurisdiction over the principal during the term for which the bond is executed and shall have the right to apprehend, arrest and surrender the principal to the proper officials at any time as provided by law. The application form also provides: In the event surrender of principal is made prior to the time set for principal's appearances, and for reason other than as enumerated below is paragraph 3, then principal shall be entitled to a refund of the bond premium. It is understood and agreed that the happening of any one of the following events shall constitute a breach of principal's obligations to the Surety hereunder, and the Surety shall have the right to forthwith apprehend, arrest and surrender principal, and principal shall have no right to any refund of premium whatsoever. Said events which shall constitute a breach of principal's obligations hereunder are: If principal shall depart the jurisdiction of the court without the written consent of the court and the Surety or its Agent. * * * If principal shall commit any act which shall constitute reasonable evidence of principal's intention to cause a forfeiture of said bond. * * * The application and indemnities were signed. Mr. Johnson paid the $600 premium and executed and delivered the six $1000 demand notes. Respondent then caused Freedom Bail Bond to issue the bond. Mr. Moody was released from the jail during the evening of his arrest (actually during the predawn hours of May 29). May 28 was a Saturday. The following Monday, Respondent gave one of his employees a copy of the warranty deed from Mr. Moody's mother to herself and Mr. Moody. Mr. Moody hadgiven a copy of the deed to Respondent during their initial interview in order to allow Respondent to prepare the mortgage that Mr. Moody had agreed to provide. Respondent instructed the employee to use the legal description from the warranty deed to prepare a mortgage and send it to Mr. Moody for execution by his mother and him. The employee did as instructed and promptly mailed the mortgage to Mr. Moody with instructions for execution, witnessing, and notarization. After about a week, Respondent asked the employee if she had received the executed mortgage. She replied that she had not and proceeded to telephone Mr. Moody. When she asked him about the mortgage, Mr. Moody did not express any unwillingness to sign it, but said that he had not received it. Confirming the mailing address, the employee agreed to send him another mortgage and did so on June 6, 1988. Several times after mailing the second mortgage, the employee contacted Mr. Moody and discussed the need to get the document fully executed and delivered to Freedom Bail Bonds. On one occasion, Mr. Moody agreed to return the executed mortgage on June 22. But on the last of these conversations, Mr. Moody informed the employee, for the first time, that he had no intention of providing the mortgage. The employee told Respondent what Mr. Moody had said and returned the file to Respondent for further action. At about the same time that Respondent's officehad sent the mortgage to Mr. Moody the second time, Mr. Moody's sister telephoned Respondent. Estranged from her brother, she was concerned that Mr. Moody, whom she believed had misused funds of their invalid mother in the past, might try to obtain their mother's signature on a mortgage to secure a bond in order to get out of jail. Mr. Moody's sister informed Respondent that her brother was not authorized to obtain their mother's signature on the mortgage. She said that her brother was not to be trusted, had improperly removed money from their mother's trust in the past, and had defaulted on at least one debt so as to require the creditor to lien the jointly held property in order to be repaid. At about the same time, a different employee of Respondent received an anonymous telephone tip that Mr. Moody was about to depart, or had already departed, on a trip to Alabama with another man. The informant described what turned out to be a vehicle owned by Mr. Johnson, with whom Mr. Moody had been living since his release from jail on May 29. Several attempts by Respondent's employees to reach Mr. Moody over the next two to four days were unsuccessful. In fact, Mr. Moody had gone to Alabama, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Orange County Circuit Court. On July 18, 1988, one of Respondent's employees contacted the Clerk of Court's office and learned that Mr. Moody had not qualified for the services of a Public Defender. In addition, the employee had been notified on or about July 6, byreceipt of a notice of hearing on a Determination of Counsel, that Mr. Moody had not been diligent in obtaining counsel. After determining that other Determination of Counsel hearings had been and were being set by the Court, the employee reasonably concluded that Mr. Moody was not diligently trying to obtain counsel or independently resolve the pending criminal matters. The employee communicated this information to Respondent on July 18. Respondent contacted Mr. Moody by telephone on July 18 and asked when he was going to supply the executed mortgage. Mr. Moody responded that he had determined that Respondent did not need the additional security and was not going to provide it. At this point, Respondent concluded that it was likely that Mr. Moody had in fact left the state without permission. Respondent also concluded that Mr. Moody no longer represented an acceptable risk. Respondent thus directed another employee to join him to arrest Mr. Moody and surrender him to the Orange County Sheriff's Office. Respondent and his employee immediately visited Mr. Moody and asked him whether he had left the state. Mr. Moody admitted doing so. Respondent and the employee then arrested Mr. Moody and returned him to jail. Mr. Moody remained in jail for 63 days until he pleaded guilty to the charges. He was sentenced to the time served, placed on probation for four years, and required to makerestitution, which he has done so far in accordance with the schedule. Following his release from jail, Mr. Moody returned to live with Mr. Johnson and gradually repaid him the $600 that he owed him. Although Mr. Moody demanded return of the $600, he never offered any proof of payment to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson never demanded the return of the money. Respondent has retained the $600 premium. The six $1000 notes were automatically voided when Mr. Moody was arrested on July 18.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399 (904) 488 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399 Attorney David D. Hershel Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399 Attorney Alan B. Robinson 56 East Pine Street Orlando, FL 32801
Findings Of Fact James L. Sponheim is licensed as a Limited Surety Agent to represent Cotton Belt Insurance Company, Inc., and was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. His office is located in Dade City, Florida. (Testimony of J. Sponheim, petitioner's Exhibit 2) Respondent Bonnie L. Sponheim is qualified, but not currently licensed, as a bail bond runner. She was previously licensed as a runner, but her license was cancelled on April 3, 1980. Thereafter, she has served as a secretary in her husband's Dade City office. (Testimony of B. Sponheim, Petitioner's Exhibit l) On August 6, 1980, Stephen W. Sissitka, of Zephyrhills, Florida, made application to the Cotton Belt Insurance Company for appearance bonds B6A095951- 52 to effect his release from the custody of the Pasco County Sheriff's office. The application contained provisions as to events which would constitute a breach of the obligations under the bond, including the applicant's change from one address to another without notifying the Cotton Belt Insurance Company or its agent in writing prior to any such move. On the reverse of the application, Glenna Lilly and Spurgeon Phillips executed an indemnity agreement whereby they agreed to bind themselves to produce Sissitka in court at the required time. The application further identified Glenna Lilly as Sissitka's mother. Phillips executed a separate indemnity agreement on August 30, 1980. He is the father- in-law of Sissitka and resides in Dade City. (Testimony of J. Sponheim, S. Sissitka, Respondent's Exhibits 1,2) On August 6, 1980, Mr. Sponheim, as agent for Cotton Belt Insurance Company, issued the requested bonds in the total amount `of $2,500.00. (Testimony of J. Sponheim, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4) Although Sissitka had listed his address as Zephyrhills, Florida, he was living at the home of his father-in-law Spurgeon Phillips, in Dade City at the time he was released on bond. However, he was having difficulties with his wife and did not remain in Dade City on a continuous basis. On several occasions, he went over night to his mother's house in Zephyrhills, and another time he visited his wife's mother for several days in Pasco County. He did not tell Mr. Sponheim about the latter visit, nor did Phillips know where he was. In fact, he stayed only sporadically with Phillips during the period August to October, 1980, and sometimes would be gone for a week or two. Phillips complained to Mr. Sponheim about his inability to keep up with Sissitka's whereabouts, and wanted to have him returned to custody. As a result, Mr. Sponheim and Phillips had a meeting with Sissitka on October 7, 1980, at which time Mr. Sponheim reminded Sissitka of his obligations to report any changes of address or employment and imposed the requirement that Sissitka "check in" with Sponheim's office once a week. Sissitka was also told to stay at Phillips' house in the future. Sissitka agreed to follow the conditions imposed and keep Mr. Sponheim and Phillips notified of his whereabouts. (Testimony of J. Sponheim, B. Sponheim, Phillips, Harrelson, S. Sissitka, M. Sissitka, Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Stipulation) On October 15, 1980, Mrs. Sponheim discovered Sissitka was no longer employed at a restaurant in Dade City. Mr. Sponheim was out of the state at the time. Mrs. Sponheim was under the impression that Sissitka was living at Zephyrhills, and so she drove out to Phillips' house to talk to his wife in an attempt to ascertain his current situation. When she knocked on the door, Sissitka answered and told her that he had been living there. Mrs. Sponheim told him that they needed to talk. She waited in her car while he put on a shirt and some shoes, and joined her in the car. They then drove to Mr. Sponheim's office. On the way, she asked him about his job and where he was living, but Sissitka indicated that it was none of her business, that Mr. Sponheim had no control over him, and that as long as he showed up in court that was all that mattered. He asked her if he was going to jail, and she told him that was between him and Mr. Sponheim. When they arrived at the office they discussed the conditions of the bond and the arrangements which had been made at the previous meeting with Phillips and Mr. Sponheim on October 7. Sissitka told her that he was tired of being harrassed not only by her husband, but by Phillips, and that everyone was giving him a hard time, and he wanted it stopped. Mrs. Sponheim inferred from this statement that Sissitka wished to terminate the bond relationship and told him that if he wanted to "end it" he was free to go to the jail and surrender himself at any time. At that point, Sissitka said "fine, let's go" but Mrs. Sponheim told him that they needed to talk to Mr. Sponheim about it first. She went into the adjoining private office, telephoned her husband and informed him of the situation. He told her that Sissitka could either go ahead and surrender himself, or otherwise they would have to wait until he returned to the city to settle the matter. He further told her that if Sissitka wanted to turn himself in that she should make sure to get the surrender documents to the jail so that he couldn't walk out again. Mr. Sponheim made a practice of pre-signing the appropriate surrender forms for each person he bonded out at the time the bond was written; therefore, a signed surrender form had been previously prepared for Sissitka. The Pasco County Sheriff's Department requires that the surrender document be filed with that office prior to permitting an individual to surrender himself. Otherwise, the individual would be free to leave the jail because the bond would still be valid. After talking to her husband, Mrs. Sponheim informed Sissitka of the conversation and he asked to use the phone to call his mother. After he completed the call, he said "o.k. let's go." Mrs. Sponheim then filled in the date on the "off bond" form and they walked across the street to the jail. Sissitka went up to the jail door and said "here I am again" and opened the metal door and went on in. Mrs. Sponheim handed the surrender forms to the official at the booking office and said that she was coming off the bond. She then returned to her office and later that day Sissitka called her and inquired about the possibility of being bonded out again because he did not have enough money to post a cash bond. Mrs. Sponheim told him that her husband was not there and he asked if she could bond him out. She replied that she didn't have a license, but gave him the name of another bondsman. (Testimony of J. Sponheim, B. Sponheim, Kelly, Brown, Shytle, Petitioner's Exhibits 5,6)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Sara Kaczmerek Schubert, should be licensed as a limited surety (bail bond) agent pursuant to Chapter 648, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Respondent, the Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the state agency responsible for, among other things, licensing of temporary bail bond agents and bail bond agents in the State of Florida. Chap. 648, Fla. Stat. In particular, the Department's Division of Agent and Agency Services, Bureau of Licensing, has been designated within the Department to review applications and make decisions thereon. Petitioner, Sara Kaczmerek Schubert, is an individual residing in Florida who is seeking licensure as a bail bond agent. Ms. Schubert's Temporary Bail Bond Agent License and Her Application for Licensure. Section 648.355, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to issue a temporary license to an individual as a bail bond agent under certain conditions. Those conditions include the requirements, among others, that the applicant complete basic certification courses within four years prior to the date an application is filed and that the applicant "be employed full time at the time of licensure, and at all times throughout the existence of the temporary license, by only one licensed and appointed supervising bail bond agent, who supervises the work of the applicant and is responsible for the licensee's conduct in the bail bond business. " § 648.355(1)(d) and (e), Fla. Stat. On August 24, 2001, Ms. Schubert was issued a certificate by Florida Bail Bond School, Inc., for successfully completing courses in criminal justice for bail bond agents required as a prerequisite to applying for a temporary bail bond agent license.2 (Stipulated fact). On October 30, 2001, Ms. Schubert was issued a certificate by the University of Florida, Division of Continuing Education, certifying her completion of the requirements of "INS 3 - Bail Bond Agent Qual Crse - Self Study."3 (Stipulated fact). On or about December 12, 2001, the Department received an application from Ms. Schubert seeking licensure as a temporary bail bond agent (hereinafter referred to as a "temporary license") pursuant to Section 648.355, Florida Statutes. Ms. Schubert designated Jenny Garcia, Florida License number A03131, Manager of Estrella Bail Bonds, on the application as her supervising bail bond agent. (Stipulated fact). After review of Ms. Schubert's application, the Department concluded that she met the requirements of Section 648.355, Florida Statutes, and on or about April 22, 2002, issued her a temporary license, license number E023179. (Stipulated fact). Ms. Schubert was employed by Estrella Bail Bonds and was under the supervision of Ms. Garcia upon the issuance of her temporary license. Between July 2002 and December 2002, Ms. Schubert completed her temporary license internship hours of employment with Estrella Bail Bonds. (Stipulated fact). In October 2002, in anticipation of completing her internship, Ms. Schubert filed an application for the bail bond agent license at issue in this proceeding. By letter dated April 18, 2003, the Department denied Ms. Schubert's license application based upon the following alleged facts: You, Sara K. Schubert, have acted in the capacity of, and held yourself out as bail bond agent without being properly licensed and appointed, in violation of the Florida Insurance Code. You have established a place of business, designated by you as "A Bunny Bail Bonds Agency," which is not under the active full-time charge of a licensed and appointed bail bond agent; you have provided, or had provided on your behalf, internet advertising and business cards which identify you as the agent/owner of "A Bunny Bail Bonds Agency" and advertise the services of that agency; you have entered into a lease agreement for office space for "A Bunny Bail Bonds Agency," representing yourself as the President of that agency; you have provided for the advertising of the services of "A Bunny Bail Bonds Agency" at the leased location; you have acquired and maintained telephone services for "A Bunny Bail Bonds Agency," and have advertised the availability of the bond agency's services through the availability of that telephone service. You are operating a bail bond agency separate from your supervising agent's business address. Ms. Schubert's Business Planning and General Activities. As early as the beginning of 2001, Ms. Schubert decided that she wanted to become licensed as a bail bond agent and began planning accordingly. In addition to taking the steps required by the Department to obtain licensure as a bail bond agency, including obtaining a temporary license, Ms. Schubert began taking certain actions to ensure that she could begin to operate her bail bond agency immediately upon being licensed as a bail bond agent. The steps which Ms. Schubert took to prepare her business included the naming of her business, the creation of a corporate entity, logo, and business slogan, obtaining local and toll-free telephone numbers for the business, having a business plan prepared, having an internet web-page readied, executing a lease for office space, arranging for a yellow-pages advertisement, and obtaining advertising materials, including business cards, key chains, pens, and stickers. In addition to planning for her future business, Ms. Schubert also actually advertised her future business. The evidence failed to prove that Ms. Schubert or anyone on her behalf was actually "appointed by an insurer by power of attorney to execute or countersign bail bonds in connection with judicial proceedings who receives or is promised money or other things of value therefor" or that that she "pledge[d] United States currency, United States postal money orders, or cashier's checks as security for a bail bond in connection with a judicial proceeding and receive[d] or [was] promised therefor money or other things of value." The evidence also failed to prove that Ms. Schubert, based upon the facts alleged by the Department in support of its denial of her license application, is incompetent, untrustworthy, unfit as to character and background or lacking in one or more of the required qualifications for license or appointment, or has demonstrated a course of conduct or practice which indicate that she is incompetent, negligent, or dishonest. The following is a summary of the timing of the events pertinent to this matter, each of which is discussed in further detail, infra.: 2001 April: Future business is named. A Bunny Bail Bonds, Inc. formed. Aug. to Oct.: Courses required for temporary license taken. December: Application for temporary license filed. 2002 March: 1 year lease for office space executed. April: Temporary bail bond agent license issued. Spring: Business cards, stickers, pens, and other advertisements purchased. Internet web page created. Sign placed on door of office, mail box, and office-building information board. July to Dec.: Internship for Estrella Bail Bonds. October: Ms. Schubert filed application for licensure. November: Telephone service contract entered into. Department investigation begun. 2003 February: Telephone approval to arrange for yellow- pages advertisement obtained from Department. April: Business plan prepared. Department denied license application. May: Department's investigation closed with letter of guidance. Naming and Incorporating the Future Business. In April 2001, at least eight months prior to filing her application for temporary license with the Department, Ms. Schubert decided that she would call her bail bond agency "A Bunny Bail Bonds." Toward that end, on April 16, 2001, Ms. Schubert filed documents with the Department of State creating a corporate entity named "A Bunny Bail Bonds Agency, Inc." The Articles of Incorporation for the corporation, which were signed by Ms. Schubert on or about April 10, 2001, designated Ms. Schubert as the president of, and the registered agent for, the corporation. The Articles of Incorporation do not describe the nature of the business to be conducted by the corporation. Telephone Services for A Bunny Bail Bonds. At roughly the same time that Ms. Schubert decided on the name of her business in April 2001, Ms. Schubert contacted AT&T to inquire about obtaining a toll-free number for A Bunny Bail Bonds. Ms. Schubert selected and reserved "866 The-Buny" (843-2869) as the toll-free number for A Bunny Bail Bonds. The evidence failed to prove, however, that any calls were actually made to this number. The evidence also failed to prove whose name the toll-free service was contracted under. Effective November 1, 2002, just over six months after receiving her temporary license and two months before she completed her required internship with Estrella Bail Bonds, Ms. Schubert opened an account for telephone services for A Bunny Bail Bonds. The account was opened with BellSouth Telecommunications, the local telephone provider for Fort Lauderdale. Ms. Schubert contracted for basic service for three separate phone lines at a monthly charge of $27.75: telephone numbers (954) 462-1600; 462-5800; and 469-1300. Ms. Schubert also selected three optional services for A Bunny Bail Bonds: the "Complete Choice for Business Messaging Package," the "Complete Choice for Business Maintenance 3 Line Package," and the "Complete Choice for Business 3 Line Package."4 Ms. Schubert committed to pay $164.00 a month for the optional services she agreed to.5 Office Space Rental. On or bout March 13, 2002, almost a month before Ms. Schubert was issued her temporary license, Ms. Schubert entered into a one-year lease agreement for a 350 square-foot office (hereinafter referred to as the "Office"), identified as "suite 3" and located at 521 South Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. (Stipulated fact). The Office is conveniently located across the street from the Broward County courthouse. The lease agreement identifies "A Bunny Bail Bonds Agency, Inc., Sara Schubert, President" as the Lessee of the Office and was entered into by Ms. Schubert as "President" of A Bunny Bail Bonds Agency, Inc. (Stipulated fact). The one-year lease period commenced April 1, 2002, the month Ms. Schubert received her temporary license. She made a security deposit in the amount of $873.50 and has paid a monthly rental fee of $463.75 for the Office. (Stipulated fact). The evidence failed to prove that the Office was actually used to carry out any bail bond business.6 The mailbox for the Office was located with other mailboxes for the building at a central location. To ensure that she received mail addressed to the Office, Ms. Schubert placed a small yellow-sticky on the box which had "#3, Schubert, A Bunny Bail Bonds" hand-written on it. Web-Page for A Bunny Bail Bonds. Ms. Schubert arranged to have an internet web page created for A Bunny Bond Bonds. The web page identifies Ms. Schubert as "Agent/Owner" of A Bunny Bail Bonds, identifies the business address as 521 South Andrew Street, Suite 3, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33001 (the address for the Office), and lists three telephone numbers: the toll-free telephone number she had reserved with AT&T; (305) 606-9662 a Dade County telephone number; and (954) 439-2211, a Broward County telephone number. The Broward County telephone number is listed as Ms. Schubert's home telephone number on Respondent's Exhibits 13 through 15. The web page represents that A Bunny Bail Bonds accepts all major credit cards. The A Bunny Bail Bonds web page was accessible in December 2002 and it is inferred, because of the telephone numbers listed on the web page, that the web page was developed after March 2002 (when the lease was entered into) and before November 2002 (when local telephone services were contracted for). The web page was not registered with any internet search engine and, therefore, could only be accessed if the web address was known. The web-address was, however, included on the business cards Ms. Schubert purchased. The evidence failed to prove whether anyone other than someone at the Department ever accessed the web page. Yellow-Page Advertisement. Ms. Schubert had applied for licensure in October 2002 and, therefore, she began planning to place an advertisement in the newest addition of the telephone book yellow pages for 2003, when she anticipated that she would be able to open her business. Because of concern over whether she would receive her license before the deadline for taking out a yellow-pages advertisement expired, she arranged for James Moore, a friend and licensed bail bond agent, to contact the Department about going forward with the advertisement in anticipation of the approval of her license. (Stipulated fact). Despite the fact that Ms. Schubert had not received her license and had in fact been the subject of an investigation by the Department, the Department, through its agents, approved the placement of the yellow pages advertisement by Ms. Schubert. In reliance upon the Department's approval, Ms. Schubert paid $28,000.00 for a half-page yellow-pages advertisement for A Bunny Bail Bonds. The advertisement included the corporate name, a picture of Ms. Schubert with her name and "C.E.O." under it, the web page address, the toll-free telephone number, telephone number (954) 462-1600, the address of the Office, and the logos for several credit cards. Business Cards, Stickers, Pens, and Key Chains. In anticipation of becoming licensed as a bail bond agent, Ms. Schubert purchased business cards, stickers, ink pens, and key chains to be used in advertising A Bunny Bail Bond. The business cards, which were purple, included the name of the corporation, a logo which consists of a rabbit with a key in its paw standing behind a rabbit dressed in striped- prison garb (hereinafter referred to as the "Logo"), Ms. Schubert's name as "Agent/Owner," a business slogan, "We'll get your tail out of jail" (hereinafter referred to as the "Slogan"), the address of the Office, the toll-free telephone number listed as the "Office" number, telephone number (954) 439-2211, Ms. Shubert's home telephone number, as a "Mobile" number, and the internet web page address.7 The stickers included the name of the corporation, the Logo, and two telephone numbers: the toll-free number and (954) 439-2211, Ms. Schubert's home telephone number.8 The pens purchased by Ms. Schubert include the name of the corporation, the Logo, and two telephone numbers: the toll- free number and (954) 439-2211, Ms. Schubert's home telephone number.9 The business cards described in Finding of Fact 38, the stickers, and the pens were purchased sometime after Ms. Schubert leased the Office in March 2002 and before she contracted for local telephone services for the office in November 2002. A later version of business cards was purchased by Ms. Schubert in late 2002 or early 2003.10 The later version of the business card changed the telephone numbers listed on the card to (954) 462-1600 as the "Office" number, 1-866-The-Buny as a "Toll Free" number, and (305) 366-5532 as a "Pager" number. These cards were purchased after November 2002 when Ms. Schubert contracted for local telephone services. Ms. Schubert also purchased key chains which include the name of the name of the corporation, the logo, the toll-free number, and telephone number (954) 462-1600.11 The key chains were, therefore, purchased after November 2002 when Ms. Schubert contracted for local telephone services. Good Business Planning vs. Public Harm. Most of Ms. Schubert's actions described in this Recommended Order constituted good business planning. Those activities, to the extent there was no public disclosure, also were of little if any potential harm to the public: creating a corporation, selecting the name of a future business, contracting for the office and telephone services, creating a web page not generally accessible to the public, obtaining a business plan, and purchasing advertising materials (business cards, key chains, pens, and stickers). The number of individuals involved with those transactions and who, therefore, were aware of Ms. Schubert's activities, were too insignificant to constitute any potential harm to the public. Ms. Schubert, however, went beyond good business planning when she began to disclose the existence of her company to the public before she obtained her license: In November 2002, if not earlier, a piece of wood shaped like a rabbit and one of the stickers purchased by Ms. Schubert were placed on the door of the Office, which was located in a building where person seeking the services of bail bond agencies often visited12; Ms. Schubert replaced the rabbit on her door with a crow. She placed several of her business cards on top of the crow. The cards were, therefore, available to anyone who passed by the Office13; Ms. Schubert had a sign on the door of her automobile with A Bunny Bail Bonds written on it; Ms. Schubert placed a number of her cards, pens, and key chains on the door of a bail bond agency located in the same building the Office was located in. The bail bond agency was Dolphin Bail Bonds, which was owned by Ronald Blum14; and Ms. Schubert sent a Christmas present to her former employer in an envelope with "Bunny Bail" and the address of the Office as the return address. The Department's Investigation of Ms. Schubert. During the fall of 2002, the Department received a complaint from Mr. Blum of Dolphin Bail Bonds, suggesting that Ms. Schubert was operating A Bunny Bail Bonds. On or about November 25, 2002, as a result of Mr. Blum's complaint, Patricia Anthony, an investigator for the Department, sent a letter to Ms. Schubert informing her of the investigation. (Stipulated fact). On December 5, 2002, Ms. Schubert met with Ms. Anthony to discuss the matter. (Stipulated fact). Ms. Schubert executed an affidavit at Ms. Anthony's request, concerning her use of the Office. (Stipulated fact). At no time after the investigation was commenced until the investigation was completed, sometime in 2003, was the office found to be open despite the fact that Ms. Anthony visited the office several times. (Stipulated fact). The Department's investigation of Ms. Schubert was concluded with the issuance of a letter of guidance on or about May 29, 2003. (Stipulated Fact).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the granting Ms. Schubert's application for licensure as a limited surety (bail bond) agent pursuant to Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, conditioned on her taking additional bail bond agent training and/or placing Ms. Schubert on probation for an appropriate period of time. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 2004.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Alizer Alvarez (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and authority to regulate insurance and insurance-related activities. Limited surety licensees, bail bond agents, are included within the Petitioner’s authority. At all times material to the issues of this case, Respondent has been licensed as a limited surety agent. Respondent’s license number is E177613. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent operated as a bail bond agent. At all times material to the issues of this case, Respondent conducted bail bond business at 2329 Union Street, #1, in Fort Myers, Florida. Respondent was designated as the primary bail bond agent for Sunshine State Bail Bonds (Sunshine State). Sunshine State was located at 2329 Union Street, #1, Fort Myers, Florida. Annette Lilian Alvarez was licensed in Florida as a temporary bail bond agent. Ms. Alvarez’s license number is P153920. At all times material to this case, Ms. Alvarez was employed by and appointed as a temporary agent with Respondent. The allegations set forth in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint identify Baker as an inmate in the Lee County, Florida, jail. Inmate Baker was arrested on or about July 15, 2009. The total amount needed to bond Inmate Baker out was $8,500.00. Respondent issued four appearance bonds to obtain Inmate Baker’s release. Each of the bonds identified Bond Out Now BB, located at 2329 Union Street, #1, Fort Myers, Florida 33901, telephone number (239)334-0060, as the bond contact in the matter. Within 24 hours of facilitating Inmate Baker’s release by posting the bonds, Respondent took action to return her to jail. Ms. Alvarez presented Inmate Baker through the jail entrance and processed her back into custody. In order to do so, paperwork was completed and exchanged with jail staff. With regard to Inmate Baker’s return, Ms. Alvarez signed the bail bond agent form and turned Inmate Baker over to the jail staff. Respondent did not sign the bail bond form regarding Inmate Baker’s return. Additionally, Respondent did not accompany Ms. Alvarez into the jail where Inmate Baker was turned over to jail staff and processed back into custody. Respondent’s claim that he accompanied Ms. Alvarez in this endeavor has not been deemed credible. Counts III and IV of the Administrative Complaint pertain to Inmate Malfregeot. On or about May 6, 2009, Inmate Malfregeot was booked into the Lee County, Florida, jail. Inmate Malfregeot’s bond was set at $1,000.00. Inmate Malfregeot telephoned his mother and asked her to arrange bond so that he could be released. Without being asked by the Malfregeot family, Respondent wrote and posted the bond to secure Inmate Malfregeot’s release. Respondent left a document instructing Inmate Malfregeot to report to Sunshine State within 24 hours of his release. The document was given to Inmate Malfregeot on the jail grounds. Respondent’s business card was provided to Inmate Malfregeot’s mother when she was on the jail grounds. Inmate Malfregeot’s bond was posted on a form for United States Fire Insurance Company (USFIC). At the time the USFIC bond was issued, Respondent was not authorized to write and post bonds on behalf of USFIC. The USFIC bond included a notation written by Respondent that stated, "court notices were to be provided to Bond Out Now BB at the address noted above." Respondent was not designated as a primary bond agent for Bond Out Now BB. Respondent operated and did business representing his company as Bond Out Now BB. Respondent was the only licensed bail bond agent who wrote bonds for Bond Out Now BB. At all times material to the allegations of this case, there was no primary bail bond agent designated for Bond Out Now BB, doing business at 2329 Union Street, #1, Fort Myers, Florida.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order revoking Respondent’s license as a limited surety agent, license number E177613. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 5th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. David, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ahizer Alvarez 1023 Alvin Avenue Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Barry Stephen Yanks (Yanks), has applied to respondent, Department of Insurance (Department), for examination as a bail bondsman (limited surety agent) pursuant to Chapter 648, Florida Statutes. By letter dated February 7, 1989, the Department denied Yanks' application. The gravamen of the Department's denial was its contention that on December 9, 1987, Yanks had accepted jewelry as collateral for a bail bond, and that such jewelry had not been timely returned to its owner. As a consequence, the Department concluded that Yanks had acted as a bail bondsman without being licensed as such, and that he lacked the fitness and trustworthiness to engage in the bail bond business. Yanks filed a timely petition for formal hearing to contest the Department's action. At hearing, the proof failed to demonstrate that Yanks had acted inappropriately as contended by the Department. Rather, the proof demonstrated that when Yanks accepted jewelry from Corrine Hough on December 9, 1987, as collateral for a bail bond to be written on her son, that he was acting on behalf of the attorney for American Bankers Insurance Company (American), the proposed surety. Under the arrangements made with Ms. Hough, the collateral was to be held by the attorney for American because she did not have confidence in the bondsman who was to write the bond, one Nestor Tabares, to safeguard her property. Accordingly, at the request of American's attorney, Yanks secured the collateral from Ms. Hough, gave her a receipt, and delivered the jewelry back to the attorney. After delivery of the jewelry to the attorney, Yanks had no further contact with or control over it. While there was a delay of some 10 months following the termination of the bond that was ultimately written on Ms. Hough's son before her jewelry was returned, such delay was not occasioned by or within the control of Yanks. In sum, Yanks did not act as a bail bondsman on December 9, 1987, and did not exert any control over Ms. Hough's jewelry such that he might be held accountable for any delay in its return.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting the application of Petitioner, Barry Stephen Yanks, for examination as a bail bondsman (limited surety agent) pursuant to Chapter 648, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of October 1989. 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 2nd day of October 1989. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Yanks have been adopted in substance in paragraphs 1-5. The purposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Department are addressed as follows: Subordinate or not necessary to the result reached. To the extent supported by the proof, adopted in paragraph 3, otherwise rejected. Adopted in paragraph 3. Not relevant. 5 & 6. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert V. Elias, Esquire Office of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Ana Hernandez-Yanks, Esquire 1481 N.W. 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 The Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Mr. Patterson is currently eligible for licensure and is licensed in this state as a limited surety agent (bail bondsman). At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Patterson was eligible for licensure and was licensed in Florida as a limited surety agent (bail bondsman) with Crews Bonding Agency located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. As such, he was a full-time employee of the Crews Bonding Agency and worked the 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 a.m., or night shift, each night. Mr. Patterson was the only licensed bail bondsman on this shift at the Crews Bonding Agency. Ralph Bunch Collins was also a full-time employee of Crews Bonding Agency at all times material, and at all times material, Mr. Collins worked the night shift with Mr. Patterson. Mr. Collins was recognized by Mr. Patterson and his employer as an administrative assistant whose job entailed clerical duties with regard to the bonding process. Mr. Patterson and Mr. Collins worked as a team. Mr. Collins is not a limited surety agent, bail bondsman, runner, or permittee under Chapter 648, F.S. At all times material, Jerelyn Rodriguez, ne' Langtree, was licensed in Florida as a limited surety agent (bail bondsman) with Crews Bonding Agency. She, also, was a full-time employee of that agency and was its designated office manager. Mrs. Rodriquez worked the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily with an administrative assistant named Mrs. Cook, and together Rodriquez and Cook constituted the Crews Bonding Agency's day shift team. The 1983 version of the statute under which Mr. Patterson is charged in the Administrative Complaint read as follows: 648.441 Furnishing supplies to an unlicensed bail bondsmen prohibited: civil liability and penalty.-- No insurer, bail bondsman, runner, or permittee under this chapter shall furnish to any person any blank forms, applications, stationery, or other supplies to be used in soliciting, negotiating, or effecting bail bonds until such person has received from the department a license to act as a bail bondsman and has duly qualified as such. Any insurer, licensee, or permittee who furnishes to any bail bondsman or other person not named or appointed by `the insurer represented any of the supplies mentioned in subsection (1) and accepts any basil bond business from or writes any bail `bond business for such bail bondsman, person, or agency shall be subject to civil liability to any insured of such insurer to thee same extent and in the same manner as if such bail bondsman or other person had been appointed, licensed, or authorized by the insurer, general agent, or bail bondsman to act in its or his behalf by the department. [Emphasis supplied] On March 27, 1984 a Consent Order was entered in the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, Florida, in the case styled, Jack I. Etheridge and F.G.C. Bonding and Insurance Corporation v. State of Florida and State of Florida Department of Insurance, Case No. 82-10537. That Consent Order provided, in pertinent part, as follows: 4. Florida statute 648.441(1) likewise must be given a liberal and common sense application in order to preserve its constitutionality. It is the intent of the Legislature, as interpreted by this Court that said subsection is designed to prohibit licensed bail bondsmen from allowing non- licensed persons to actually conduct a (sic) legitimate and licensed activities of a licensed bail bondsman. Therefore this Court finds that it is a constitutionally permissable (sic) legislative act to prevent licensed person (sic) from providing non- licensed persons with forms and supplies of the trade that would permit the non-licensed persons to violate the law. However, this does not preclude clerical activities by non- licensed persons under the direct supervision of a licensed person to the extent that it is consistent with the general intent of said section. (Emphasis supplied) [Patterson Exhibit 1] The wife of Jack I. Etheridge, who was a plaintiff in the foregoing civil lawsuit, was an owner of the Crews Bonding Agency at all times material to the instant administrative proceeding. The foregoing Circuit Court Consent Order to which DOI was a party is the only relevant interpretation by a court of competent jurisdiction of Section 648.441 F.S. which either party hereto or the undersigned has been able to discover. DOI put on no expert evidence of agency construction of the statute either formally by rule or informally by policy. Subsequent to that Circuit Court Consent Order, the statute interpreted therein [see FOF 5, supra] was amended to add subsection (3), as follows: Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. All three statutory subsections were in effect at all times material to the administrative charges against' Mr. Patterson. During the night shift of New Year's Eve, December 31, 1988, Susan Miller a/k/a Sharon Miller, who was then the wife of James Edward Miller, contacted the Crews Bonding Agency by telephone and relayed certain necessary information to Ralph Collins as a predicate to securing a bond to get her husband out of the Duval County Jail. In turn, Mr. Collins called the jail and received basic information for making out the necessary bonding papers. Mrs. Miller arrived at the bonding agency and Mr. Collins prepared certain paperwork for her signature, that of her husband, and that of the Mr. Patterson as bail bondsman. It is the unrefuted testimony of Mr. Patterson, Mr. Collins, Jerelyn Rodriquez, and Gilbert Clark that in doing so, Mr. Collins was conforming to the standard operating procedure of the Crews Bonding Agency and the custom in the bonding trade at least as far as that trade has been practiced within Duval County, Florida, since the entry of the March 27, 1984 Consent Order. Patterson Exhibit 2 and the testimony of Correctional Officer Larry Wooten established that, provided the licensed bondsman presents the bond and personally receives the prisoner into his custody, the foregoing clerical practice and procedure has been acquiesced-in by a published policy of the Duval County Sheriff's Office and by county jail personnel, of which Mr. Wooten is one. There was unrefuted testimony that without such clerical help, a licensed bondsman could not function 24 hours a day, as is common in the trade. It is also the unrefuted testimony of Mr. Patterson, Mr. Collins, and Mrs. Rodriquez that at all times material to the Miller transaction, Mr. Collins was subject to the supervision of Mr. Patterson, that Mr. Patterson had the absolute right to alter any document prepared by Mr. Collins prior to signing the Miller bond, and that Mr. Patterson ultimately could have rejected underwriting Mr. Miller's bond if, after Mr. Patterson's review, the documents Mr. Collins had prepared did not conform to the insurance law, rules, or standards to which Mr. Patterson, as a licensee, was bound to conform. The foregoing testimony is further supported by the testimony of Gilbert Clark. Mr. Clark is a licensed bail bondsman who is not now and never has been associated with the Crews Bonding Agency. He testified that Mr. Patterson could ultimately have refused to place the Miller bond even if Mr. Patterson's only dissatisfaction upon his review of the documents prepared by Mr. Collins had been the sufficiency of the collateral or premium provided by the Millers. With regard to the Miller transaction, Mr. Collins prepared the Indemnity Agreement (DOI Exhibit 2e) for signature by Mr. Miller's wife, which Mr. Collins notarized with certificate, seal, and stamp. Collins prepared a Promissory Note (DOI Exhibit 2f) and signed on the line provided for a witness to Mrs. Miller's signature but without applying his notary certificate, seal, or stamp. Collins prepared a Premium Receipt (DOI Exhibit 2g) and signed on the line acknowledging that the premium had been "received by" him in the form of a check from Mr. and Mrs. Miller. The nature of the Premium Receipt and the Collateral Receipt does not necessarily require the Millers' signatures, but Mr. Collins testified that his own signature on the Premium Receipt was meant to signify that he had witnessed signatures and that he had signed it as a notary but that he did not affix a notary certificate, seal, and stamp because he saw no reason for those formalities. Because of the requirements of Chapter 117 F.S. governing notaries public, because the document speaks for itself, and because Mr. Collins testified that he, in fact, received the premium, his testimony that he signed the Premium Receipt for the Miller transaction only as a notary or witness is not credible, particularly since the exhibit (DOI Exhibit 2g) does not bear the Millers' signatures. Mr. Collins prepared the Collateral Receipt (also DOI Exhibit 2g) and received the collateral, signifying same by his signature. (TR 40-41). However, Mr. Patterson signed on the Miller bond and went through all the bond papers, including the foregoing, with Mr. Miller after Mr. Patterson personally physically obtained Mr. Miller's release from jail. On July 7, 1989, Henry A. Robinson went to Crews Bonding Agency in an effort to bond his son, Henry Steve Robinson, out of the Duval County Jail. All of the father's negotiations were with Mrs. Rodriquez. The father did not testify. At all times material to the Robinson transaction, both Mrs. Cook and Mr. Collins had signs on their respective desks, proclaiming them to be administrative assistants, and a sign on Mr. Patterson's desk proclaimed him to be a bail bondsman. When Mr. Patterson and Mr. Collins arrived at Crews Bonding Agency for the July 7, 1989 night shift, some paperwork had already been prepared by Mrs. Rodriquez and others. Mrs. Rodriquez had already reviewed all the papers prepared by someone else, and Mrs. Rodriquez had tentatively committed to underwriting the bond on Henry Steve Robinson. Mr. Patterson did not thereafter "second guess" Mrs. Rodriquez's initial work or judgment despite his absolute right to reject the bond for all the reasons aforesaid in FOF 12. Some further Robinson transaction paperwork was prepared by Mr. Collins after he came on duty. The nature of several of these documents did not require either the signature of the father, the mother, or the son or the notarizing thereof, but the evidence indicates that Mr. Collins thought some of them did. Premium Receipt 127003 (DOI Exhibit 4f, apparently one of two such receipts) and the Collateral Receipt (DOI Exhibit 4b) for this transaction were signed by Mr. Collins on the "received by" lines. He testified that he signed these only as a Crews employee, i.e., a clerk administrative assistant, and as a notary but without affixing his notarial seal. Collins testified that he signed as a witness for the father's signature on the witness line as a Crews employee for the Contingency Promissory Note (DOI Exhibit 4c, TR 48-50), that he did not notarize the note initially when the senior Mr. Robinson signed it in his presence because arrangements were made for the senior Mr. Robinson's convenience to allow Mrs. Robinson to sign the following day, and that the next day, Mr. Collins just witnessed on the other side of that document. However, the documentary evidence (DOI Exhibit 4c) is clear that Mrs. Robinson (the mother) never signed the Contingency Promissory Note. Mr. Collins testified that he signed as a Crews Bonding Agency employee and then notarized with a certificate, seal, and stamp the Indemnity Agreement to the effect that it had been signed by Mr. Robinson's father and mother when in fact the mother never signed that document. (TR 52-56, DOI 4e). Due to the provisions of Chapter 117 F.S., the discrepancy between the exhibits and the testimony, and the vacillation of Mr. Collins in giving his oral testimony, it is found that contrary to Mr. Collins' oral testimony, he was confused or uninformed as to his actual function with regard to the Robinson transaction. However, Mr. Patterson reviewed all the Robinson papers and documents and signed the General Appearance Bond as surety and as attorney-in-fact and an agent of Crews Bonding Agency. Mr. Patterson also personally effectuated Henry Steve Robinson's release from jail on July 7, 1989. Henry Steve Robinson (the son) had been bonded out of the Duval County Jail by the team of Patterson and Collins of the Crews Bonding Agency on at least two occasions, and due to Mr. Robinson's confusion of dates, his testimony concerning exactly what papers he went over with Mr. Patterson or anyone else on July 7, 1989 was somewhat vague. However, he was very clear on some points: Mr. Collins never said he was a bail bondsman, it was Mr. Patterson who signed Robinson out of jail each time, and Robinson signed papers in the bonding agency office each time. Robinson believed that Mr. Patterson was the person who explained all the papers to him in Collins' presence on the date in question, but could not be sure. Mr. Collins and Mr. Patterson asserted that as of the July 11, 1990 formal hearing, Crews Bonding Agency clerical personnel are no longer permitted to sign premium and collateral receipts. This instruction was given in anticipation of amendments to Section 648.441 F.S. which were due to go into effect October 1, 1990. Although Mrs. Miller did not testify, the evidence as a whole from other witnesses supports the reasonable inference that this case arose partly because she complained to DOI when Mr. Collins and other Crews Bonding Agency employees refused to summarily reincarcerate her husband upon her oral complaints of domestic problems. No finding has been made concerning what impression of Mr. Collins was formed by Mrs. Miller or concerning the state of Mrs. Miller's mind because the evidence presented on those issues was speculative and not the type of hearsay which would explain or supplement direct and probative evidence. Neither Mr. Miller or Mr. Henry Steve Robinson appeared to have any complaints with the bonding process or participants.
Recommendation DOAH Case No. 90-0406 Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DOAH Case No. 90-0584 Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and `Treasurer enter a Final Order granting Mr. Patterson's application for a resident license to represent Amwest Surety Insurance Company as a limited surety agent (bail bondsman). DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of October, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 17th day of October, 1990.
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
