The Issue Whether Respondents acted as a loan broker by assessing or collecting advance fee payments from borrowers in violation of sections 687.14(4)(a) and (b) and 687.141(1), Florida Statutes, and, if so, the appropriate penalty to be imposed against Respondents.
Findings Of Fact OFR is responsible for the administration and enforcement of chapter 687, Florida Statutes. On December 13, 2010, First Solutions, Inc. (“First Solutions”), was incorporated in the state of Florida. At all times material hereto, Andrew Mangini has been the sole officer/director of First Solutions. The mailing address of First Solutions and Mr. Mangini are the same: 830 Hawthorn Terrace, Weston, Florida 33327. At all times material hereto, First Solutions has been the sole owner of the fictitious name, Credit One. Credit One was registered as a fictitious name with the State of Florida, Department of State, on December 22, 2010. The mailing address for the fictitious name of Credit One is 830 Hawthorn Terrace, Weston, Florida 33327. On July 20, 2010, Unsecured Loan Source II, Inc., was incorporated in the state of Florida. At all times material hereto, Michael Puglisi has been the sole officer/director of Unsecured Loan Source II, Inc. The mailing address of Unsecured Loan Source II, Inc., is 5340 North Federal Highway, Suite 201, Lighthouse Point, Florida 33064. On January 22, 2009, Internet Transaction Center, Inc., was incorporated in the state of Florida. At all times material hereto, Mr. Mangini and Mr. Puglisi have been officers/directors of Internet Transaction Center, Inc. The mailing address of Internet Transaction Center, Inc., is 830 Hawthorn Terrace, Weston, Florida 33327. During the time in which Mr. Puglisi was an officer/director of Internet Transaction Center, Inc., his mailing address was 5340 North Federal Highway, Lighthouse Point, Florida 33064. At all times material hereto, Respondents operated and conducted business as Unsecured Loan Source and Credit One Total. On December 24, 2010, Mr. Mangini opened a business bank checking account at TD Bank, N.A., in the name of First Solutions, Inc., d/b/a Credit One. In early 2012, Nicole Gentry sought to obtain an unsecured personal loan over the internet. Ms. Gentry’s internet search led her to Unsecured Loan Source. Ms. Gentry contacted Unsecured Loan Source by telephone and spoke with a representative named “Ed” about securing an unsecured personal loan. Ms. Gentry provided “Ed” with certain personal, credit, and bank account information to withdraw a loan fee of $499.00. Ms. Gentry paid the $499.00 loan fee in order to obtain a personal loan from Unsecured Loan Source. The $499.00 fee was debited from Ms. Gentry’s bank account shortly after she submitted her online application for the loan, and the fee was deposited directly into the TD business bank checking account of First Solutions, Inc., d/b/a Credit One. Subsequently, Ms. Gentry received an email requesting additional information, and she provided the information requested. However, Ms. Gentry never received a loan. In August 2011, Rosa Saenz of Taft, California, attempted to obtain an unsecured personal loan. Ms. Saenz’s internet search led her to Credit One Total. Ms. Saenz contacted Credit One Total and spoke with a representative named “Nick” about securing an unsecured personal loan in the amount of $5,000. Ms. Saenz completed a form titled “Credit One Total Payment by Check Authorization Form” and faxed it to Credit One Total. The form reflects that Credit One Total is located at “5340 North Federal Hwy #201 Lighthouse Point, FL 333064 Ph. 312-554-5980 Fax 954-531-1440.” In the form, Ms. Saenz provided Credit One Total with certain personal, credit, and bank account information, so that Credit One Total could withdraw an initial installment loan fee of $267.00. Ms. Saenz made the initial installment fee payment of $267.00, and, within a couple of weeks, she made a second installment fee payment to Credit One Total. Ms. Saenz did not specify the amount of the second installment. No direct evidence was presented that the two payments made by Ms. Saenz were, in fact, deposited into the First Solutions business bank checking account at TD bank. The bank records received in evidence do not include records from the year 2011, and begin with the year 2012. However, the business checking account of First Solutions was utilized by Credit One Total. The TD bank records reflect that checks made payable to Credit One Total were deposited directly into the business bank checking account of First Solutions, Inc., d/b/a Credit One. Both payments were made by Ms. Saenz as an advance fee in order that she would obtain the loan from Credit One Total, and so that Credit One would repair her credit report. The credit repair, however, was ancillary to Ms. Saenz’s principal reason for making the advance fee payments--to obtain a personal loan. Although Ms. Saenz paid the two installment fee payments to Credit One Total for a loan, she never received a loan. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondents assessed or collected advance fee payments from two borrowers, Ms. Gentry and Ms. Saenz. The clear and convincing evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondents acted as a loan broker by assessing or collecting advance fee payments from Ms. Gentry and Ms. Saenz. Respondents did not have an exemption from section 687.14 in order to be considered a loan broker. OFR failed to prove by persuasive, credible, and clear and convincing evidence that Respondents acted as a loan broker with regard to anyone other than Ms. Gentry and Ms. Saenz.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Office of Financial Regulation, enter a final order finding Respondents operated as a “loan broker” by assessing or collecting advance fees in two instances in violation of section 687.141(1), Florida Statutes; imposing a total fine not to exceed $10,000; and ordering Respondents to cease and desist from all such activity. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 15th day of February, 2016.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Department of Juvenile Justice's (Department) proposed award of certain contracts to Bay Area Youth Services, Inc. (BAYS), based on evaluations of proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact On July 2, 2003, the Department issued Request for Proposal (RFP) No. V6P01 for operation of IDDS programs in Judicial Circuits 1 through 20. The Department issued a single RFP and anticipated entering into 20 separate contracts, one for each circuit. Each contract was for a three-year period with the possibility of a renewal for an additional three-year period. The RFP was prepared based on a "contract initiation memo" generated within the Department and upon which the scope of services set forth in the RFP was based. The Department assigned one contract administrator to handle the procurement process. An addendum dated July 18, 2003, was issued to the RFP. As amended by the addendum, the RFP required submission of information in a tabbed format of three volumes. Volume I was the technical proposal. Volume II was the financial proposal. Volume III addressed past performance by the vendor. The addendum also allowed providers to submit some information in electronic format. The addendum requested, but did not require, that it be signed and returned with the submission. BAYS did not return a signed copy of the addendum in its proposal. Failure to sign and return the addendum was not fatal to the consideration of a proposal. The RFP set forth only two criteria for which noncompliance would be deemed "fatal" to a proposal. Failure to comply with a fatal criterion would have resulted in automatic elimination of a provider's response; otherwise, all responses submitted were evaluated. The proposals were opened on July 31, 2003. The contract administrator and staff reviewed the bids to ascertain whether required items were included, and noted the proposed costs on bid tabulation sheets. The first fatal criterion was failing to submit a properly executed "Attachment A" form to a submission. Attachment A is a bidder acknowledgment form. Both BAYS and JSP included a completed Attachment A in the responses at issue in this proceeding. The second fatal criterion was exceeding the Maximum Contract Dollar Amount. RFP Attachment B, Section XIII, provides in relevant part as follows: The Maximum Contract Dollar Amount will be the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount multiplied by the number of years in the initial term of the Contract . . . . EXCEEDING THE ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONTRACT DOLLAR AMOUNT IS A FATAL CRITERION. ANY PROPOSAL WITH A COST EXCEEDING THE ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONTRACT DOLLAR AMOUNT WILL BE REJECTED. The information reviewed as to each provider's cost proposal was set forth in Volume II, Tab 1, which included RFP Attachment J. RFP Attachment J is a cost sheet where providers were required to set forth proposal costs identified as the "Maximum Payment" under their proposal. Attachment K to the RFP identifies the counties served in each circuit, number of available slots in each circuit, and the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount for each circuit. JSP appears to have simply copied information from Attachment K onto Attachment J. The Department's contract administrator was the sole person assigned to review Volume II of the responses. Volume II included the cost proposal, the supplier evaluation report (SER), and the certified minority business enterprise (CMBE) subcontracting utilization plan. Neither BAYS nor JSP exceeded the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount applicable to any circuit at issue in this proceeding. Both BAYS and JSP identified a Maximum Payment equal to the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount as their proposal cost. Both BAYS and JSP received scores of 100 points for cost proposals in all responses at issue in this proceeding. JSP asserts that the instructions as to identification of the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount were confusing and that its actual cost proposal was less than that set forth as the "Maximum Payment" on Attachment J. JSP asserts that it actually listed its cost proposal at the section identified on Attachment J as "renewal term dollar amount proposed." JSP asserts that the Department should have reviewed supporting budget information set forth in Attachment H to the RFP to determine JSP's cost proposal, and that the Department should have determined that JSP's actual cost proposal was less than that of BAYS. The Department did not review the budget information in Attachment H, but based its cost evaluation of the proposals on the total figures set forth on Attachment J. Nothing in the RFP suggests that underlying information as to cost proposals would be reviewed or evaluated. The evidence fails to establish that the Department's reliance on the information set forth on Attachment J was unreasonable or erroneous. The evidence fails to establish that the Department's scoring of the cost proposals was contrary to the RFP. The evidence fails to establish that JSP is entitled to have its cost proposal re-scored. One of the requirements of the RFP was submission of a "Supplier Evaluation Report" (SER) from Dunn & Bradstreet. The submission of the SER was worth 90 points. Dunn & Bradstreet transmitted most of the SERs directly to the Department, and the Department properly credited the providers for whom such reports were transmitted. The Department's contract administrator failed to examine BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for the SER included within its proposal. The failure to credit BAYS for the SERs was clearly erroneous. BAYS is entitled to additional credit as set forth herein. The RFP sought utilization of a CMBE in a provider's proposal. BAYS proposal included utilization of The Nelco Company, an employee leasing operation. The Nelco Company is a properly credentialed CMBE. Under the BAYS/Nelco arrangement, BAYS would retain responsibility for identification and recruitment of potential employees. BAYS performs the background screening and makes final employment decisions. BAYS retains the right to fire, transfer, and demote employees. The Nelco Company would process payroll and handle other fiscal human resource tasks including insurance matters. The Nelco Company invoices BAYS on a per payroll basis, and BAYS pays based on the Nelco invoice. JSP asserts that under the facts of this case, the participation of The Nelco Company fails to comply with the RFP's requirement for CMBE utilization. BAYS proposals also included utilization of other CMBEs. There is no credible evidence that BAYS utilization of The Nelco Company or of the other CMBEs included within the BAYS proposals fails to comply with the RFP's requirement for CMBE utilization. The Department assigned the responsibility for service proposal evaluation to employees located within each circuit. The contract administrator and staff distributed appropriate portions of Volume I of each proposal to the evaluators. The evidence establishes that the evaluators received the documents and evaluated the materials pursuant to written scoring instructions received from the Department. Some reviewers had more experience than others, but there is no evidence that a lack of experience resulted in an inappropriate review being performed. In two cases, the evaluators worked apart from one another. In one circuit, the evaluators processed the materials in the same room, but did not discuss their reviews with each other at any time. There is no evidence that evaluators were directed to reach any specific result in the evaluative process. JSP asserts that there was bias on the part of one evaluator who had knowledge of some unidentified incident related to JSP. The evidence fails to establish the facts of the incident and fails to establish that the incident, whatever it was, played any role in the evaluator's review of the JSP proposal. JSP also asserts that another evaluator had contact with JSP at some point prior to his evaluation of the RFP responses. There is no evidence that the contact was negative or was a factor either for or against JSP in the evaluation of the RFP responses. The RFP required that each provider's proposal include letters of intent from "local service resources" indicating a willingness to work with the provider and a letter of support from the State Attorney in the judicial circuit where the provider's program would operate. The RFP indicates that Volume I of a provider's response should contain five tabbed sections. The RFP provides that "information submitted in variance with these instructions may not be reviewed or evaluated." The RFP further provides that failure to provide information "shall result in no points being awarded for that element of the evaluation." JSP included letters of support in Tab 5 of Volume I. BAYS included letters of support in a tabbed section identified as Tab 6 of Volume I. JSP asserts that information included in Tab 6 of BAYS proposals should not have been evaluated and that no points should have been awarded based on the information included therein. The evidence fails to support the assertion. Based on the language of the RFP, submission of information in a format other than that prescribed is not fatal to a proposal. The Department reserved the authority to waive such defects and to evaluate the material. Here, the Department waived the variance as the RFP permitted, and reviewed the material submitted by BAYS. JSP asserts that BAYS proposal breached client confidentiality by inclusion of information regarding an individual who has allegedly received services through BAYS. Records regarding assessment or treatment of juveniles through the Department are deemed confidential pursuant Section 985.04, Florida Statutes (2003). The evidence fails to establish that an alleged violation of Section 985.04, Florida Statutes (2003), requires rejection of the BAYS proposals. There is no evidence that the information was released outside of the Department prior to the bid protest forming the basis of this proceeding. The evidence establishes that JSP misidentified the name of its contract manager in its transmittal letter. The evidence establishes that the misidentification was deemed immaterial to the Department, which went on to evaluate the JSP proposals. The results of the evaluations were returned to the contract administrator, who tabulated and posted the results of the process. On August 25, 2003, the Department posted a Notice of Intent to Award contacts based on the proposals submitted in response to the RFP. Insofar as is relevant to this proceeding, the Department proposed to award the contracts for Circuits 5, 6, and 20 to BAYS. The Department received four proposals from IDDS program providers in Circuit 5 (DOAH Case No. 03-3671BID). According to the Notice of Intended Contract Award, BAYS was the highest ranked bidder with 651.8 points. JSP was the second highest bidder with 642.6 points. White Foundation was the third highest bidder at 630.7 points, and MAD DADS was the fourth bidder at 442.8 points. The evidence establishes that BAYS included its SER in its Circuit 5 proposal. The Department neglected to examine BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for its SER. BAYS should have received an additional 90 points, bringing its total points to 741.8. The Department received two proposals from IDDS program providers in Circuit 6 (DOAH Case No. 03-3672BID). According to the Notice of Intended Contract Award, BAYS was the highest ranked bidder with 649.0 points. JSP was the second highest bidder with 648.8 points. The evidence establishes that BAYS included its SER in its Circuit 6 proposal. The Department neglected to examine BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for its SER. BAYS should have received an additional 90 points, bringing its total points to 739.0. The Department received two proposals from IDDS program providers in Circuit 20 (DOAH Case No. 03-3673BID). According to the Notice of Intended Contract Award, BAYS was the highest ranked bidder with 644.2 points. JSP was the second highest bidder with 620.6 points. The evidence establishes that BAYS included its SER in its Circuit 20 proposal. The Department neglected to examine BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for its SER. BAYS should have received an additional 90 points, bringing its total points to 734.2. MOTION TO DISMISS BAYS asserts that the Petitions for Hearing filed by JSP must be dismissed for failure to comply with Section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), which requires that a protesting bidder post a bond or cash in an amount equal to one percent of the estimated contract amount by the time a formal written bid protest is filed. Item 8 of the RFP indicated that the bond or cash amount required was one percent of the total contract amount or $5,000, whichever was less. However, RFP Attachment "B," Section IX, indicates that it replaces RFP Item 8, and provides that the required bond or cash amount is one percent of the estimated contract amount. Pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), JSP had 72 hours from the announcement of the bid award to file a Notice of Protest and an additional ten days to file a Formal Written Protest. The notice of intended bid award was posted on August 25, 2003. Accordingly, the written protest and appropriate deposits were due by September 8, 2003. The Department's Notice of Intended Award referenced the bond requirement and stated that failure to post the bond would constitute a waiver of proceedings. On September 8, 2003, JSP provided to the Department a cashier's check for $2,159.70 in relation to its protest of the award for Circuit 5. The contract amount was $647,910. One percent of the contract amount is $6,479.10. On September 8, 2003, JSP provided to the Department a cashier's check for $3,414.52 in relation to its protest of the award for Circuit 6. The contract amount was $1,025,857.50. One percent of the contract amount is $10,258.57. On September 8, 2003, JSP provided to the Department a cashier's check for $2,231.69 in relation to its protest of the award for Circuit 20. The contract amount was $669,507. One percent of the contract amount is $6,695.07. In response to JSP's insufficient cashier's checks, the Department, by letter of September 12, 2003, advised JSP of the underpayment and permitted JSP an additional ten days to provide additional funds sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute. JSP, apparently still relying on the superceded language in the RFP, forwarded only an amount sufficient to bring the deposited funds to $5,000 in each case. By letter dated September 25, 2003, the Department again advised JSP that the deposited funds were insufficient and provided yet another opportunity to JSP to deposit additional funds. On September 29, 2003, JSP forwarded additional funds to provide the appropriate deposits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a Final Order as follows: Dismissing the Petition for Hearing filed by MAD DADS of Greater Ocala, Inc., in Case No. 03-3670BID based on the withdrawal of the Petition for Hearing. Dismissing the Petitions for Hearing filed by JSP for failure to comply with Section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), and for the other reasons set forth herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 16th day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Barclay, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Brian Berkowitz, Esquire Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building, Room 312V 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Larry K. Brown, Executive Director MAD DADS of Greater Ocala, Inc. 210 Northwest 12th Avenue Post Office Box 3704 Ocala, Florida 34478-3704 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire The Nelson Law Firm, P.A. Post Office Box 6677 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact The First Variable Rate Fund for Government Income, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as the Fund) is an open-end diversified investment company incorporated under Maryland law. The Fund is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, as a diversified, open-end management company. The Fund has an authorized capital of 2.5 billion shares of common stock with a par value of $.001 per share which may be issued in classes and are freely transferable. Each outstanding share is entitled to one vote on all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders and to a prorata share of dividends declared and of the Fund's net assets in liquidation. Shares of the Fund are issued and redeemed at their net asset value. It is the Fund's policy to maintain a constant net asset value of $1.00 per share. The net asset value is determined by subtracting liabilities from value of assets and dividing the remainder by the number of outstanding shares. The Fund's shares are sold to the public without a sales charge. The Fund is a money market fund. Its investment goals are high current income, preservation of capital and liquidity. In pursuing these goals, the Fund invests solely in debt obligations issued or guaranteed by the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, assignments of interests in such obligations, and commitments to purchase such obligations ("U.S. Government- backed obligators"). The fund may invest in U.S. Government-backed obligations subject to repurchase agreements with recognized securities dealers and banks. Some of the U.S. Government-backed securities are supported by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury; others are supported by the right of the issuer to borrow from the Treasury; still others are supported only by the credit of the instrumentality. The Portfolio of Investments of the Fund on December 31, 1982 contains the following types of investments: U.S. Treasury Bills; Student Loan Marketing Association; Certificates of Deposit; Certificates of Deposit Investment Pools with U.S. Government guarantee on the underlying certificates; Repurchase agreements collateralized by securities issued by or guaranteed by the U.S. Government; Variable rate loans guaranteed by agencies of the U.S. Government. The Portfolio of Investments of the Fund on December 31, 1981 contains the following types of investments: U.S. Treasury Bills; Federal Farm Credit Banks; Repurchase agreements substantially collateralized by securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government; Certificate of Deposit Investment pools with U.S. Government guarantee on the underlying certificates; Variable rate loans guaranteed by agencies of the U.S. Government. Repurchase agreements are transactions in which a person purchases a security and simultaneously commits to resell that security to the seller at a mutually agreed upon time and price. The seller's obligation is secured by the underlying security. The resale price reflects the purchase price plus an agreed upon market rate of interest. While the underlying security may bear a maturity in excess of one year, the term of the repurchase agreement is always less than one year. In the event of the bankruptcy of a seller during the term of a repurchase agreement, a substantial legal question exists as to whether the Fund would be deemed the owners of the underlying security or would be deemed only to have a security interest in and lien upon such security. If the Fund's interest is deemed a security interest in and lien upon such security, the Fund may realize a loss or may be delayed in receiving the repurchase price due it pursuant to the agreement or in selling the underlying security. The Fund will only engage in repurchase agreements with recognized securities dealers and banks. In addition, the Fund will only engage in repurchase agreements reasonably designed to secure fully during the term of the agreement the seller's obligation to repurchase the underlying security and will monitor the market value of the underlying security during the term of the agreement. If the value of the underlying security declines, the Fund may require the seller to pledge additional securities or cash or secure the seller's obligations pursuant to the agreement. If the seller defaults on its obligation to repurchase and the value of the underlying security declines, the Fund may incur a loss and may incur expenses in selling the underlying security. Although all the securities purchased by the Fund are Government-backed as to principal or secured by such securities, some of the types of Government securities the Fund buys may be sold at a premium which is not backed by a Government guarantee. The premiums are amortized over the life of the security; however, if a security should default or be prepaid, the fund could realize as a loss the unamortized portion of such premium. Petitioners, R. W. and Joyce S. Aronson remitted $66.56 by check #235 dated April 10, 1982 in payment of Florida Intangible Tax for 1982. If it is determined that the Fund at issue herein is totally exempt from taxation, the aforesaid Petitioners are entitled to a refund in the amount of $3.96. Petitioner, Helen T. Aronson remitted $84.30 by check #138 dated February 28, 1983 in payment of Florida Intangible Tax for 1983. If it is determined that the Fund at issue herein is totally exempt from taxation, the aforesaid Petitioner is entitled to a refund in the amount of $16.73. The Department of Revenue computes intangible tax on shares of corporations on the basis of "just value" which for publicly held corporations, is market value. The Department of Revenue computed the value of the shares of the Fund on the basis of market value. A review of the Prospectus forwarded with the stipulation of facts discloses that in the Prospectus dated March 1, 1982 only $73,186,000 was invested in United States Government obligations of the total of $1,121,285,000 invested by the Fund; and that in Prospectus dated February 28, 1983, $199,387,000 was invested in United States Government obligations of the total of $1,125,500,000 invested by the Fund. Thus, approximately 6.5 percent in 1982 and 17.7 percent in 1983 of the value of the funds were invested in funds exempt from the Florida intangible tax. Six and one-half percent (6-1/2 %) of $3.96 is $0.26 and 17.7 percent of $16.73 is $2.96.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether supplemental payments made to the Petitioner by Brevard Community College constitute creditable compensation for purposes of determining retirement benefits under the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact From 1970 until his retirement in June 1998, Brevard Community College employed Stephen J. Megregian at an executive level. The State of Florida, Division of Retirement, manages and oversees operation of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) in which Brevard Community College (BCC) participates. In June 1990, the college adopted an Employee Benefit Plan for BCC Executive Employees. The provisions of the plan covered Mr. Megregian, an executive employee. In fact, Mr. Megregian drafted the plan, which was adopted by the college's Board of Trustees. The executive benefit plan included a severance pay benefit for plan participants. The severance benefit was calculated according to a formula using the employee's daily base pay as multiplied by the sum of "benefit days." Benefit days were earned according to employment longevity. A "severance day" calculation determined the amount of severance pay a departing employee would receive. Apparently, at some point in 1994, participants in the FRS learned that the Division of Retirement would exclude some types of compensation, including severance pay, from the "creditable compensation" used to determine retirement benefits. In June 1995, the college amended the plan to provide a severance pay "opt-out" provision to plan participants. The provision entitled plan participants who were within five years of eligibility for FRS retirement benefits to "opt-out" of the severance package and instead immediately begin to receive supplemental payments. Mr. Megregian drafted the "opt-out" provision, which was adopted by the college board. The decision to "opt-out" was irrevocable. A plan participant could not change his or her mind and take the severance package once the "opt-out" decision was made. The supplemental payments were calculated based upon the "severance days" that the employee would have otherwise earned during the year. The payments were made along with the employee's salary payment. The "opt-out" plan did not require a participant to retire after the fifth year of receiving the supplemental payment. The Petitioner asserts that the creation of the "opt- out" provision was in accordance with information provided by the Division of Retirement. There is no evidence that the Division of Retirement provided any information suggesting that the "opt-out" provision would result in an increase in creditable compensation for purposes of determining FRS benefits, or that the "opt-out" provision was an acceptable method of avoiding the severance pay exclusion. There is no evidence that, prior to March of 1998, the college specifically sought any direction or advice from the Division of Retirement as to the supplemental payments made to employees under the "opt-out" provision. The evidence as to why the college did not simply increase base salaries for employees to whom supplemental payments were being made is unclear. There was testimony that the plan was designed to avoid unidentified tax consequences. There was also testimony that the supplemental plan was designed to avoid increasing some employees base salaries beyond the percentage increases awarded to other employees. There was apparently some concern as to the impact the supplemental payments would have on other college employees who were not receiving the additional funds. There is no evidence that the Petitioner performed any additional duties on the college's behalf in exchange for the supplemental payments. The Petitioner was eligible to participate in the "opt- out" plan beginning in the college's 1995-1996 fiscal year, and he elected to do so. As a result of his election, supplemental payments were made in amounts as follows: Fiscal Year 1995-1996, $7,938.46. Fiscal Year 1996-1997, $8,147.13. Fiscal Year 1997-1998, $8,395.40. On March 21, 1998, Brevard Community College requested clarification from the Division of Retirement as to how the supplemental payments would affect a plan participant's benefit. On April 30, 1998, the Division of Retirement notified the college that the supplemental payments would not be included within the calculation of creditable compensation. The Petitioner retired from his employment at Brevard Community College on June 30, 1998. The Petitioner is presently entitled to retirement benefits under the FRS. The Division calculates FRS retirement benefits based on "creditable compensation" paid to an employee during the five years in which an employee's compensation is highest. Some or all of the three years during which the Petitioner received supplemental payments are included in the calculation of his creditable compensation. The evidence fails to establish that the supplemental payments made to the Petitioner should be included within the creditable compensation upon which FRS benefits are calculated. Under the statutes and rules governing FRS benefit determinations, the supplemental payments made to the Petitioner are "bonuses" and are excluded from the "creditable compensation" calculation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the State of Florida, Division of Retirement, enter a final order finding that supplemental payments made to Stephen J. Megregian are bonus payments and are excluded from calculation of creditable compensation for FRS benefit purposes. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 2nd day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Pearson, Esquire Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth, P.A. Post Office Box 2346 Orlando, Florida 32802-2346 Robert B. Button, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact John E. Livingston applied for energy assistance on November 16, 1983. From the income shown on his application, Petitioner would be eligible for $84 in benefits. On December 28, 1983, Respondent mailed a letter to Petitioner requesting he present additional evidence to verify the VA compensation shown on his application. Due to some mix-up in the mail, this letter was not delivered to the mailing address of Petitioner until February 28, 1983. The letter was mailed to the address given by Petitioner as his mailing address. This address is the church at which Petitioner is assistant pastor and to which he goes daily. By notice dated February 1, 1984, Petitioner was notified that his application for assistance was denied because he had failed to present the additional information requested within 10 working days as required by rule. Petitioner then submitted his request for hearing.
The Issue The issue is the amount payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or AHCA), in satisfaction of Respondent's Medicaid lien from a settlement offer received on behalf of Petitioner, Ciara Thomas.
Findings Of Fact Ciara Thomas is a six-year-old female who currently resides in St. Petersburg, Florida. Respondent is the state agency authorized to administer Florida's Medicaid program. See § 409.902, Fla. Stat. On October 18, 2012, Ciara, then two and one-half weeks shy of her third birthday, was severely injured when she fell into a bathtub and was scalded by hot water. At that time, Ciara, her mother, and a brother were tenants of a residential dwelling located at 8181 91st Terrace, Seminole, Florida, which was owned by Selvie Berberi, the landlord. Ciara suffered from second- and third-degree burns over 65 percent of her total body surface area, and in particular, to her back, buttocks, chest, bilateral tower extremities, bilateral upper extremities, and genitals. Ciara received extensive medical care and treatment for her scald burns at Tampa General Hospital, where she was hospitalized from October 18, 2012, through January 9, 2013. The parties have stipulated that through the Medicaid program, AHCA spent $174,675.05 on behalf of Ciara. Because of the extensive nature of the burns on her lower extremities and entire back, Ciara has undergone five skin grafts. She has completed physical therapy in the burn center and does not anticipate any further medical treatment until she is fully grown. Ciara has very visible scars over much of her body, which will not likely improve over time. The skin feels rubbery, with no smooth texture, and it is affected by the weather. Whenever she is outside, Ciara must be completely covered with clothing. She attends school but cannot play outdoors due to potential injury or infection. Because of the condition of her skin, she is subjected to stares by other persons and students, causing her to be extremely self- conscious. Petitioner filed suit in Pinellas County Circuit Court against the landlord in negligence for her failure to provide safe and proper working plumbing to the rental home. Among other things, the water heater had been set far above the legal limits of 120 degrees. During the pendency of that litigation, the landlord's homeowner's insurance company offered payment in settlement in the amount of $101,000.00, representing the $100,000.00 coverage limit for bodily injury liability, and $1,000.00 as payment of the coverage limit of the policy's medical payments provisions. At hearing, Ciara's mother indicated that she intends to accept the offer if it is approved by the court. AHCA contends it should be reimbursed for Medicaid expenditures on behalf of Petitioner pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f). Under the formula, the lien amount is computed by deducting a 25 percent attorney's fee ($25,250.00) and taxable costs ($879.59) from the $101,000.00 recovery, which yields a sum of $74,870.41. This amount is then divided by two, which yields $37,435.21. Under the statute, Respondent is limited to recovery of the amount derived from the statutory formula or the amount of the lien, whichever is less. Petitioner agrees that under the statutory default allocation, AHCA would be entitled to $37,435.21. Section 409.910(17)(b) provides that a Medicaid recipient has a right to rebut the default allocation described above. Utilizing that provision, Petitioner asserts that reimbursement should be limited to the same ratio as her recovery amount is to the full or total value of her damages. Under this theory, Petitioner contends that had her case gone to trial, a jury would have awarded at least $3.5 million, or the mid-point between $3 million and $4 million. Because the settlement represents a recovery of 2.9 percent of the valuation of her total damages, Petitioner contends she should pay 2.9 percent of AHCA's past medical expenses, or $5,066.00, to satisfy the Medicaid lien. The statute requires that Petitioner substantiate her position by clear and convincing evidence. To support the proposed full value of damages, Petitioner presented the testimony of Keith Ligori, a trial attorney in Tampa for the last 15 years, who specializes in all types of personal injury cases. Mr. Ligori has handled similar cases "numerous times," and on a daily basis he makes assessments of the valuation of potential claims. He is familiar with the reasonable valuation of personal injury cases in the greater Tampa Bay area, including Pinellas County. Mr. Ligori presented fact and opinion testimony on the issue of valuation of damages. Before forming his opinion on damages in this case, Mr. Ligori reviewed the medical records, including photographs of Ciara, interviewed the child and her mother, and discussed the case with her trial counsel. He also relied on his training and experience and familiarity with other cases in the Tampa Bay area. Based on his review of the case, Mr. Ligori valued total damages, conservatively, at $3.5 million. This figure took into account non-economic factors, including mental anguish, loss of ability or capacity to enjoy life, disability, and scarring and disfigurement, and economic damages consisting of the medical expenses paid by AHCA. Mr. Ligori testified that if he was actually trying the case before a jury, he would seek damages of between $5 million and $10 million. The undersigned finds the valuation of damages at $3.5 million to be credible and persuasive and is hereby accepted. In summary, by clear and convincing evidence, Petitioner has demonstrated that, conservatively, the full value of her damages is $3.5 million. The settlement amount of $101,000.00 is 2.9 percent of the total value of Petitioner's damages. The application of this factor to total medical expenses incurred by AHCA results in an allocation of $5,066.00 as a reasonable payment of the Medicaid lien.
The Issue The amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded to Jerry Ann Winters (Petitioner) based on the Order of the Second District Court of Appeals dated November 8, 2002, and pursuant to Subsection 120.595(5), Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner retained attorneys Mark F. Kelly and Robert F. McKee to represent her in an administrative proceeding challenging the proposed termination of her employment by USF and in the appeals that followed the issuance of the Final Orders by USF. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 is an invoice dated December 18, 2002, submitted to the Petitioner by her legal counsel. The invoice contains charges billed to the Petitioner for the period between January 17, 2001, and November 22, 2002. The invoice indicates a total of 339.75 hours expended on her behalf. The invoice contains duplicated entries for November 14, 2002. Discounting the duplication reduces the total hours expended to 339.50. The practice of the Petitioner's counsel is to bill in quarter-hour increments and to round up. According to the invoice, the Petitioner was billed at a rate of $275 per hour. Mark F. Kelly graduated from Vanderbilt Law School in 1976. Since then he has practiced labor and employment law in Florida before state and federal agencies and has a substantial appellate practice. He was previously awarded fees in the range of $250 approximately four years ago. Robert F. McKee graduated from Stetson University College of Law in 1979. He received a Master of Laws degree in Labor and Employment Law from Georgetown University Law Center in 1981. Since then he has practiced labor and employment law in Tampa, Florida. He was previously awarded fees in the range of $250 approximately four years ago. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of Steven Greg Wenzel. Mr. Wenzel has practiced law in Florida for more than 30 years and is board-certified in Labor and Employment Law. He has extensive trial experience. He has previously provided expert testimony related to the reasonableness of attorneys' fees in approximately 12 cases. Mr. Wenzel is familiar with the fees charged by attorneys representing employees in employment-related cases in central Florida. Mr. Wenzel's testimony related to the experience, reputation, and ability of Petitioner's attorneys. It also indicated that they have substantial experience in the area of labor and employment law and are well-regarded by their peers. No credible evidence to the contrary was presented during the hearing. Mr. Wenzel's testimony adequately addressed the applicable factors set forth in Rule 4-1.5(b)1 of the Florida Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct to be considered in determining the reasonableness of fees. Mr. Wenzel opined that based on their knowledge and experience, the type and complexity of the case, and the aggressive nature of the litigation; a reasonable hourly rate was $290 ranging to $310. Mr. Wenzel's testimony in this regard is credited. The invoiced rate of $275 per hour is reasonable. Mr. Wenzel also opined that the quarter-hour billing practice was reasonable and, in fact, conservative related to other practices with which he was aware. Mr. Wenzel's testimony in this regard is credited. At the same time that the Petitioner was challenging the proposed employment termination, a civil case involving the Petitioner, a number of the basketball players, and USF was proceeding. In that case, different legal counsel represented the Petitioner. Review of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 indicates that the invoice includes charges related to persons and activities involved in the civil case. Neither Mr. Kelly nor Mr. McKee had any official involvement in the civil case. Mr. Kelly participated apparently unofficially in mediation efforts to resolve the pending disputes. The invoice contains daily total charges for billed activity. On some days, activity was recorded for both the administrative case and the civil case. Charges related to the civil case are not reimbursable in this proceeding. Because the invoice precludes an accurate separation of time spent on the administrative case from the civil case, all billings for dates upon which charges were incurred related to the civil case have been excluded from consideration in this Order. The charges related to conversations with John Goldsmith, who represented the Petitioner in the civil case, are excluded. These charges occurred on March 14, 2001; April 2, 2001; April 6, 2001; September 21, 2001; October 19, 2001; and May 13, 2002, and total 8.25 hours. The charges related to conversations with Jonathon Alpert, who represented the basketball players in the civil case, are excluded. The charges occurred on April 10, 2001, and April 11, 2001, and total 6.75 hours. The charge related to a conversation with Tom Gonzalez, who represented USF in the civil case, is excluded. This charge occurred on April 23, 2002, for .50 hours. The charges related to conversations with Mary Lau, who was a mediator assigned to the civil case, are excluded. These charges occurred on April 24, 2002, and May 8, 2002, and totaled 1.25 hours. The invoice includes a charge for May 15, 2002, related to a telephone conference with "Judge Scriven" regarding settlement. Judge Scriven is otherwise unidentified. The charge, for .25 hours, is excluded. The invoice includes a charge for Mr. McKee's attendance at mediation on May 16, 2002, related to the civil case, for 2.5 hours. This charge is excluded. The sum of the excluded time set forth above is 19.50 hours. Deduction of the 19.50 hours from the properly invoiced total of 339.50 results in a total of 320 hours. Based on Mr. Wenzel's testimony that the invoiced hours were reasonable given the nature and complexity of this case, it is found that the reduced level of 320 hours set forth in the invoice and directly applicable to the administrative case is a reasonable expenditure of time. The invoice also sets forth costs that were billed to the Petitioner. The invoice includes numerous routine office expenses (postage, copying, telephone, and facsimile costs) that are not properly recoverable costs in this proceeding. Other billed costs are set forth without sufficient information to determine the relationship of the cost to the administrative proceeding. A filing fee with the District Court of Appeal was billed on January 15, 2001, preceding the administrative hearing in this case. Further the billed charges include witness fees for several witnesses, only one of which testified in the administrative hearing. The invoice also includes service fees for subpoenas that appear to have been charged subsequent to the completion of the administrative hearing. Based on review of the invoice, properly recoverable costs of $307 are found. This sum includes the following items: witness fee and mileage for Paul Griffin ($7) dated April 5, 2001; service fee for subpoena for Paul Griffin ($50) dated April 11, 2001; and filing fee-clerk, District Court of Appeal ($250) dated October 5, 2001. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 is a "Retainer and Fee Agreement" executed by the Petitioner and her counsel which provides as follows: Partial contingency fee. Client will pay for services rendered at the reduced rate of $110 per hour. To compensate attorney for this reduced rate and the risk involved in undertaking a case on these terms, in addition to the $110 hourly rate, attorney will be entitled to 25% of any settlement money or judgment. In the event attorney's fees are awarded to the client by any court or tribunal and collected, attorney will be entitled to such fee (less any amount paid by client, which will be reimbursed pro rata) or the partial contingency fee, whichever is greater. Attorney requires a retainer deposit from client in the amount of $2,500, to be replenished from time-to-time as required to cover outstanding fees and costs. The Retainer and Fee Agreement is dated December 2, 2002, and the Order of the District Court of Appeal for the Second District, which granted the Petitioner's Motion for fees and costs, is dated November 8, 2002. It is unclear whether a written agreement between the Petitioner and legal counsel existed prior to the December 2, 2002, agreement.
The Issue Whether certain payments received by the Petitioner, James Gomia, from the Leon County Clerk of Court subsequent to July 1, 1989, constitute creditable "compensation" within the meaning of Rule 22B-6.001(16), Florida Administrative Code, for purposes of determining Mr. Gomia's retirement benefits.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Gomia's Employment. The Petitioner, James Gomia, has been employed by the Clerk of Court in and for Leon County, Florida, for the past eleven years. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Gomia has been employed as an Assistant Finance Director and Deputy Clerk. By virtue of his employment with the Clerk's office Mr. Gomia is eligible to participate in the Florida Retirement System pursuant to Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. Mr. Gomia's Compensation. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Gomia received a monthly base salary from his employment with the Clerk's office. The Clerk's office operates for budget purposes on a fiscal year which begins October 1st and ends September 30th. In addition to his base salary, Mr. Gomia has been paid the following amounts (hereinafter referred to as "Additional Compensation"), during the following months: Month Amount September, 1989 $1,750.00 May, 1990 500.00 September, 1990 1,750.00 May, 1991 600.00 September, 1991 2,150.00 Mr. Gomia has been paid Additional Compensation twice a year since he was employed by the Clerk's office. The Clerk's Policy of Paying Additional Compensation. It has been the policy of Paul F. Hartsfield, Leon County Clerk of Court, to pay Additional Compensation to employees of the Clerk's office, with one exception not relevant to this proceeding, for at least the past twenty years. Additional Compensation has been paid to Clerk's office employees twice a year. One payment is made in May/June and the other payment is made in September/October/November. The amount of Additional Compensation paid to each employee is the same. For example, in May, 1991, all employees received $600.00 as Additional Compensation. The amount to be paid as Additional Compensation is included in the budget submitted by the Clerk's office each year for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The amount requested is included as part of a lump-sum request for the amount of funds necessary to pay all salary, including employees' base salary. Although the amount of the payments to be made as Additional Compensation is broken out in the work papers to the budget each year, those figures are only seen by the financial personnel and not the Board of County Commissioners. Lack of Written Policy. The decision of whether Additional Compensation is paid is within the sound discretion of the Clerk to make. The Clerk of Court is under no legal obligation to make such payments even if included in an approved budget. The policy of paying Additional Compensation has not been reduced to writing. Nowhere has the Clerk stated in writing that the Clerk's office has a policy: That applies all employees will receive Additional Compensation equally; Additional Compensation will be paid no later than the eleventh year of employment; Additional Compensation will be paid for as long as an employee continues employment; and Additional Compensation will be paid at least annually. The only written indication that Additional Compensation will be paid to employees is the inclusion of the dollar amount necessary to make the payments in the work papers of the Clerk's office budget. Nowhere in the work papers to the budget or the budget itself are the conditions set out in finding of fact 13 included. Even if the work papers (or the budget) of the Clerk's office were sufficient to constitute a formal written policy, the policy evidenced in the work papers only applies to the fiscal year the work papers relate to. Therefore, if the work papers or budget constitute a written policy it is only a policy to pay Additional Compensation for the upcoming fiscal year and not on a recurring basis. Although a policy of paying Additional Compensation to Clerk's office employees exists, that policy has not formally been reduced to writing. Mr. Hartsfield, the Leon County Clerk of Court, admitted that there was no formal written policy during his deposition and in a letter dated November 12, 1991, attached as Respondent's exhibit 1 to Mr. Hartsfield's deposition.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a Final Order declaring that the Additional Compensation paid to James Gomia between September, 1989, and September, 1991, was not paid as "average final compensation" for purposes of Rule 22B-6.001(6), Florida Administrative Code, and dismissing Mr. Gomia's Amended Petition with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 September, 1992. APPENDIX Case Number 92-2504 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Gomia's Proposed Findings of Fact Findings of fact 1, 4 and 6-11. Hereby accepted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Findings of fact 1-3. Findings of fact 4 and 6. Finding of fact 16. Conclusion of law. Findings of fact 4, 6 11 and 13. Finding of fact 4 and 6. Whether the payments come within the Department's rules is a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry H. Mitchell, Esquire 103 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Burton M. Michaels Assistant Division Attorney Division of Retirement Department of Administration Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1566 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Larry Strong Acting Secretary Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Susan Kirkland General counsel Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Bobbie Lynn Teddlie, Jr., should be disciplined on charges that he violated various provisions of the Insurance Code in connection with the replacement of an 82-year-old's retirement investments with an annuity.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Bobbie Lynn Teddlie, Jr., is a Florida- licensed life insurance agent, life and health insurance agent, health insurance agent, and life and health variable annuity contracts salesman. He is not licensed to sell or broker securities. There was no evidence that Respondent previously was subject to license discipline. In May 1998, while he was employed with Senior Estate Services, Respondent visited Genevieve Rathje, an 82-year-old widow and retiree, for purposes of delivering a revocable living trust prepared at her request, having it executed, and listing Rathje's assets that would be subject to the trust. Rathje's 40- year-old son, Larry, one of two beneficiaries under her estate planning arrangements, was at her home when the documents were delivered. After delivery and execution of the trust, Rathje's assets were discussed; they included an Edward Jones securities account, a COVA Financial Life Insurance Company (COVA) annuity, and a SunTrust account. Rathje mentioned that she was not happy about the market risk and fluctuations in the value of the Edward Jones account. Her son concurred. They showed Respondent some recent Edward Jones statements showing the fluctuations and some negative returns. In discussing their concerns, Respondent compared the Edward Jones account to the COVA annuity, with its guaranteed rates of return. Ultimately, Rathje and her son both stated that they preferred the annuity investment. (According to Rathje's deposition testimony, she also had been advised by an estate planning attorney to replace her Edward Jones account, which would be subject to probate on her death, with an annuity.) Respondent then presented an American Investors Life Insurance (American Investors) annuity offered by Senior Estate Services. Rathje and her son decided to liquidate and replace her investments, less approximately $30,000 for capital gains taxes and purchase of a new condominium, with an American Investors annuity. There was no evidence that Respondent misrepresented the American Investors annuity to Rathje or her son; to the contrary, there was convincing evidence that there were no misrepresentations. Nor was there any convincing evidence that Respondent made any misrepresentations to induce Rathje to liquidate her investments to purchase the American Investors annuity. To facilitate the transaction, Respondent arranged to have Rathje's Edward Jones account liquidated through Financial West Group (Financial West), a California securities broker associated with Senior Estate Services. There was no convincing evidence that Respondent made these arrangements against the wishes of Rathje and her son, or without their knowledge and approval. There was no evidence that either Rathje or her son had any complaint about the use of Financial West. Respondent also had Respondent cash in the COVA annuity, less surrender charges. The proceeds, less approximately $30,000 for capital gains taxes and the new condominium, were used to purchase an American Investors annuity. Less than 30 days later, Senior Estate Services went out of business, and Respondent obtained employment with Professional Insurance Systems. Respondent decided to replace the American Investors annuity because his commission was being held, and Respondent did not think it ever was going to be paid to him. In his new employment, Respondent was able to offer Rathje a United Life and Annuity Insurance Company (United Life) annuity, which was superior to the American Investors annuity in several respects. Since the 30-day "free look" period on the American Investors annuity had not yet expired, it was possible to replace it with a United Life annuity without any penalty or surrender charge. Respondent returned to Rathje's home with a more experienced Professional Insurance Systems agent named Phil Mednick to offer the United Life annuity and compare it to the American Investors annuity. Rathje's son was there to participate in his mother's decision, since he was a beneficiary. Respondent's presentation persuaded Rathje and her son that the United Life annuity was superior to the American Investors annuity. Arrangements were made to rescind the American Investors annuity for a full refund and replace it with a United Life annuity. (Respondent's commission on the sale of the American Investors annuity was reversed, so Respondent received no additional compensation by replacing the American Investors annuity with the United Life annuity. To the contrary, he had to split the commission on the United Life annuity with Mednick-- $4,500 each.) At Rathje's request, it was arranged for United Life to pay her monthly interest checks in the amount of $200 (according to Respondent) prior to the "Annuity Commencement Date" (July 28, 2008). There was no evidence that Respondent made any misrepresentations in comparing the two annuities. Two weeks later, Respondent and Mednick returned to Rathje's home to deliver the United Life annuity. Rathje's son, Larry, was there again. During this visit, Rathje expressed dissatisfaction with her IRA account at SunTrust. Respondent and Mednick told them about a Life USA Fixed Index Annuity. Rathje and her son agreed that it was better than the SunTrust account, and arrangements were made to liquidate the SunTrust account and replace it with a Life USA Fixed Index Annuity. Since the IRA was being rolled over, there were no tax consequences. It is not clear from the evidence how or why the complaint against Respondent was filed. Neither Rathje's son, Larry, nor anyone from the Department of Insurance testified. Rathje's deposition testimony was unclear. Apparently, when she was having her income tax return prepared in 1999, she "got a little alarmed" when her "tax man" told her she had no money "in there" (presumably the Edward Jones account). This apparently led to a Department of Insurance inquiry into Respondent's role in these transactions and eventually to a complaint being filed by Rathje. Yet in her deposition, Rathje testified: "I didn't say [Respondent] did anything wrong. I'm not sure if he did." Asked in her deposition what she thought the problem was, Rathje answered: "I don't know. Why ask me?" Rathje also became upset when she requested $2,300 (presumably from United Life) to put new hurricane shutters on her house and, according to Rathje's deposition testimony, was told: "You're already getting $400 a month." (This statement does not make sense and never was explained by the evidence.) Apparently, one basis for the charges against Respondent was that Rathje was not made to understand that the United Life annuity was subject to its own terms regarding withdrawal of funds before the "Annuity Commencement Date," and related surrender charges. But the greater weight of the evidence was that Respondent explained all of this to both Rathje and her son. In addition, it was clearly explained in the annuity documents themselves. It was not proven that Respondent misled Rathje and her son with respect to withdrawal of funds and surrender charges under the United Life annuity. The other basis for the charges against Respondent was the Department's assertion that the liquidation of the Edward Jones account and COVA annuity and their replacement with the United Life annuity patently was to Rathje's financial detriment. (Respondent presented some evidence that the United Life annuity was better than the American Investors annuity, but the Department presented no evidence of the specifics of the American Investors annuity.) According to the March 1998 Edward Jones account statement, Rathje had assets with a total value of $171,329.56. Included in the account were several stock and bond mutual funds, taxable and non-taxable bonds, and a GNMA mortgage-backed security fund. Also reflected on the Edward Jones statement as being held outside Edward Jones was the COVA annuity. These assets are detailed in Findings 11 through 16. The Income Fund of America, Inc. and the Putnam Growth and Income Fund were funds consisting of a mix of stocks and bonds. The Income Fund of America, Inc. had a value of $17,132.97, an unrealized capital gain of $1,323.09, and an estimated annual yield of 4.26%. The Putnam Growth and Income Fund had a value of $15,055.70, an unrealized capital gain of $2,528.96, and an estimated annual yield of 1.59%. The Putnam High Yield Advantage Fund was a taxable bond fund with a current value of $25,928.17, an unrealized capital loss of $1,071.83, and an estimated annual yield of 9.4%. The Putnam Tax-Free Income Trust High Yield Fund was a non-taxable bond fund with a value of $28,131.57, an unrealized capital gain of $818.31, and an estimated annual tax-free yield of 4.88%. As a Class B fund, Rathje could have been assessed a sales charge on the sale of shares of this fund. There were two Van Kampen American Capital Municipal Income Funds. Both were tax-free municipal bond funds. One was a Class A fund, which charges an up-front load on the purchase of shares but no sales charge on the sale of shares; the other was a Class B, which did not charge an up-front load on the purchase of shares but imposed a charge on their sales. The Class A fund had a value of $7,314.69, and an estimated annual tax-free yield of 5.38%. The Class B fund had a value of $15,544.23 and an estimated annual tax-free yield of 4.65%. The unrealized gain or loss of the Van Kampen funds was stated as "not available," probably because the cost bases of the funds were not known. There was a municipal bond issued by the Metropolitan Sewer District of Walworth County, Wisconsin, which had current (maturity) value of $15,000, an unrealized gain of $708.75, and a tax-free yield of 6.3%. There also was a taxable corporate bond issued by the Philadelphia Electric Company with a current (maturity) value of $26,000, an unrealized capital loss of $1,007.50, and an estimated yield of 7.125%. The GNMA fund paid interest of 9.5%. It had a principal value of $1,000 but a current value of $990. The COVA annuity was a five-year fixed annuity in the amount of $10,000 with a current value of $17,814.28. It was issued on May 25, 1990, and was renewed five years later for a second five-year term. As of March 1998, it was paying 6% interest, tax-deferred; this appears to have been the interest rate for the five-year renewal period. The COVA annuity was subject to a 6% surrender charge and an interest (or market) adjustment. At the time the COVA annuity was liquidated, there was a net surrender charge of $780, after credit was given for a positive $202.08 interest adjustment. The United Life annuity ultimately purchased by Rathje also paid 6% interest, tax-deferred, but paid a 1% bonus in addition the first year. On the $120,000 annuity purchased by Rathje, the bonus was worth a total of $1,200. After the first year, interest was subject to adjustment annually but was guaranteed not to fall below 4%. Surrender charges were 10% in the first year, decreasing 1% each year until the eighth year, to 3%, where it would remain until eliminated in year 11. Contrary to the Department’s argument, it was not patently against Rathje’s financial interest to liquidate the Edward Jones investments and replace them with cash (for capital gains taxes and a new condominium) and the United Life annuity. While some of the Edward Jones investments were performing well (and arguably better than the United Life annuity) at the time, it is not clear that all of them were performing that well, and all of them were subject to market fluctuations. Two of the investments were showing unrealized capital losses in March 1998. (Even the individual bonds were subject to the market on a sale before their maturity; the return of the principal only was guaranteed if held until maturity.) It was not patently unreasonable for Rathje to resort to an annuity to reduce her exposure to losses if the market went down. It certainly was not so obvious that the transaction was contrary to Rathje’s financial interests that Respondent, who was not an expert in securities investing, should have refused to participate. Less easily explained was the decision to liquidate the COVA annuity, at a loss of $780 in net surrender charges (after credit for the interest adjustment.) Even taking into account the United Life annuity’s one-time 1% bonus, this only resulted in $174 on the $17,418.77 net surrender value of the COVA annuity on August 5, 1998, for a net loss of approximately $606 on the exchange. It would be five years before the surrender charge on the United Life annuity fell to the 6% surrender charge on the COVA annuity; by that time, the COVA renewable term would have expired, and the value of the COVA annuity could have been reinvested at no surrender charge. There was no basis in the evidence to predict the interest adjustment on the COVA annuity if liquidated later but before expiration of the renewal period. The only apparent financial reason to prefer the exchange of annuities would have been the potential for the United Life annuity to pay more than 6% (on the assumption that the COVA annuity was locked-in at 6% until expiration of the renewal period.) But there also was the potential for the United Life annuity’s interest to decrease to the guaranteed floor of 4%, and preference for such market sensitivity would have run counter to Rathje’s primary stated objective of eliminating market fluctuations. The only other logical reason for Rathje to liquidate the COVA annuity and replace it with United Life would have been to reduce the number of her investments to just one. Respondent testified that Rathje and her son indeed expressed such a desire. Although Respondent omitted this claim in his written statement to the Department (Petitioner's Exhibit 2), there was no evidence to the contrary. In the absence of any coherent complaint by Rathje or her son, Respondent's testimony is accepted as a valid explanation for Respondent's participation in the liquidation of the COVA annuity, even at a net cost of $606. As a result, not only was the evidence insufficient to prove intent to defraud or misrepresent, it also was insufficient to prove negligent analysis of the transaction and improper advice to Rathje. A fortiori, the evidence was insufficient to prove lack of fitness, incompetence or untrustworthiness.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order finding Respondent, Bobbie Lynn Teddlie, Jr., not guilty of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 25th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Stacey L. Turmel, Esquire 412 East Madison Street, Suite 803 Tampa, Florida 33602 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 2 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
