The Issue On January 8, 2016, the Escambia County School District (District) issued Request for Proposal Number 161301 (RFP) for custodial services. The RFP was issued to solicit proposals to clean the District’s Zone Three schools. After evaluating the proposals, the District awarded the contract to American Facility Services, Inc. (AFS), who was the highest-scoring proposer. Enmon Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Jani-King of Pensacola (Jani-King), received the second highest score and is protesting the scoring and proposed award of the contract to AFS. At issue is whether the District’s decision to award the cleaning contract to AFS was contrary to a governing statute, the District’s rules or policies, or project specification; and, if so, whether such action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The Escambia County School District is an independent taxing and reporting public entity managed, controlled, operated, administered, and supervised by the District’s school officials. Jani-King of Pensacola is a master franchise territory of Jani-King International. Enmon Enterprises, LLC, has bought the rights to sell franchises in a geographic territory referred to as “Jani-King of Pensacola.” Jani-King of Pensacola is one of 13 territories that Enmon Enterprises, LLC, has bought from Jani-King International. On January 6, 2016, the District issued the RFP for custodial services. When the RFP was issued, the District still had approximately five years left on its contract with the incumbent provider of cleaning services. Once an RFP is posted, the District gives those interested in responding an opportunity to ask questions. Those questions, along with the District’s answers, are compiled and posted on the District’s website for all to see, creating an equal playing field. No inquiry was submitted regarding the requirement that “Responder must provide the last two (2) years’ audited financial statements for the Responder.” The RFP was created by John Dombroskie, Escambia County School District’s director of purchasing, and Jim Beagle, a custodial manager. The RFP required vendors to show “financial ability,” by demonstrating the wherewithal and knowledge to cover the expenses associated with fulfilling the terms of the contract. As noted, part of this requirement included the submission of two years of audited financial statements. The entire “financial ability” section of the RFP was worth ten total points in the overall evaluation of the bidding companies. According to Brad Mostert, senior auditor with the District, the District requested audited financial statements primarily in order to assess whether a bidding company could handle the start-up cost of the job, since it would be 45 to 60 days before the winning company would be paid. Mr. Mostert testified that the District wanted to ensure that “for the initial period of their services, 45 to 60 days, that they would be able to maintain their operations, i.e., pay their payroll for the folks they would have to hire and invest in the equipment that they would have to invest in to perform the duties under the bid.” The RFP stated that any proposal which did not provide all of the requested items would be deemed non-responsive. However, the District expressly reserved the right to waive any conditions or criteria set forth in the RFP. The District also reserved the right to waive any irregularities and technicalities. The Evaluation Committee Instructions, which were provided to each committee member, stated, “[e]ach committee member will review and assign points to the areas giving the best proposal the highest assigned points for each area evaluated. Points will be awarded based on the responses that each proposal received. Lack of a response for any item will receive zero points in that item.” Within the Financial Ability section of the Evaluation Committee Instructions it was stated that “Responder must provide the last two (2) years’ audited financial statements for the Responder.” The proposals were opened on March 1, 2016. At the time bids were opened, John Dombroskie, with purchasing, was present, along with Jim Beagle, with custodial services, and Michelle Kiker, a senior auditor from internal auditing. These three individuals served as witnesses to which bids were timely received by the District, and they also made the initial determination as to which bids should be rejected as non- responsive. Three submitted proposals were immediately rejected and were not considered as they were deemed non-responsive. One proposal submitted by Owens Realty Services was dismissed because it was not signed, and two other proposals submitted by ABM Janitorial Services and GCA Services Group were dismissed for failure to submit a bid bond. Mr. Dombroskie put together a diverse committee to evaluate the remaining submitted proposals. The committee members were: Terry St. Cyr, assistant superintendent, Finance and Business, Escambia County School Board; Brad Mostert, internal auditor for Escambia School Board; Jim Beagle, manager III, custodial services; Keith Rich, custodial employee; Chuck Peterson, maintenance director; Shawn Dennis, assistant superintendent; and Margret Warr, assistant principal. John Dombroskie acted as a non-voting supervisor of the committee. The committee met on March 14, 2016. Mr. Dombroskie gave the proposals to the committee members about a week prior to their meeting, along with the Evaluation Committee Instructions, in the hopes that they would read and evaluate the proposals on their own. Each committee member was given evaluation sheets, which contain the criteria area, plus the points that could be earned by a perfect score in that area. Jani-King and AFS both submitted proposals in response to the RFP. AFS submitted reviewed, rather than audited, financial statements. Jani-King submitted audited financial statements. AFS’s proposal was the lowest in proposed cost and received the highest total score from the evaluation committee. Jani-King’s proposal was the second highest scored proposal and it had the second highest proposed cost. The Jani-King proposal also included 30 percent more staffing than the AFS proposal. In its proposal, Jani-King submitted three or four franchise owners’ resumes who could potentially do the work if Jani-King was the winning bidder. At the time it submitted its proposal, Jani-King had not yet selected the franchise owner who would actually service the account. Jani-King did not supply audited financial statements or any other financial information for any of the franchise owners to the District. Jani-King instead submitted audited financial statements only for Enmon Enterprises, LLC. AFS’ proposal deviated from the RFP requirements because AFS submitted reviewed financial statements, rather than audited financial statements. At least two other bidders also submitted reviewed financial statements, rather than audited financial statements. It is unknown how many prospective bidders did not submit bids because of the requirement that proposals include (the more costly) audited financial statements. Also unknown is how many additional bids would have been submitted had the requirement been for reviewed, rather than audited, financial statements. The fact that some companies had submitted reviewed, rather than audited, statements arose at the beginning of the evaluation committee meeting. The issue was raised by committee member, Bradley Mostert, an auditor for the District, who understands the difference between an audited and a reviewed statement. Mr. Mostert explained these differences to the evaluation committee in relation to the bidder, American Maintenance Services, who also submitted reviewed, rather than audited, financial statements. As the recording of the meeting reveals, Mr. Mostert explained the differences between reviewed and audited financial statements, but there was no substantive discussion among the committee members as to whether non-audited financial statements would provide the necessary assurance that the winning bidder would have the financial wherewithal to perform under the terms of the contract. In addressing the committee members about the issue, Mr. Mostert stated: [F]or an audit, I’m testing the material portion of all of those transactions that are relevant to those financial statements. For a review, I’m compiling the numbers. I’m getting them together. I’m doing some analysis, maybe ratios, maybe stuff like that, but in an audit, I’m in the nitty gritty. I’m looking at documents that support those numbers in the material portion. (Oh) present fairly, (um) that means there’s nothing materially out of compliance with the appropriate rules that they need. But what I’m saying is, the weight behind that opinion is different than an audit, and it may not matter, but it is different. There was less work performed on those financials. (Audio recording of March 14, 2016, meeting at 12:05-12:56). Mr. Mostert did not explain to the committee members the difference in the opportunity for fraud or material misstatement with reviewed financial statements as compared to audited financial statements. According to Mr. Mostert, he simply wanted to point out to the committee members that there “is a little bit of a difference” between reviewed and audited financial statements. At hearing, Jani-King introduced in evidence the “Guide to Financial Statement Services: Compilation, Review and Audit” published by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The publication highlights the significant differences between reviewed and audited financial statements. The review is the base level of CPA assurance services. * * * A review is substantially narrower in scope than an audit. A review does not contemplate obtaining an understanding of your business’s internal control; assessing fraud risk; testing accounting records through inspection, observation, outside confirmation or the examination of source documents or other procedures ordinarily performed in an audit. In a review engagement, the CPA will issue a formal report that includes a conclusion as to whether, based on the review, he is aware of any material modifications that should be made to the financial statements in order for them to be in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework. In contrast to reviewed financial statements, audited financial statements provide a much higher level of assurance as to the validity of the financial information presented: CPA issues a formal report that expresses an opinion on whether the financial statements are presented fairly, in all material aspects, in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework. * * * The CPA performs procedures in order to obtain “reasonable assurance” (defined as a high but not absolute level of assurance) about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. In an audit, your CPA is required to obtain an understanding of your business’s internal control and assess fraud risk. Your CPA is also required to corroborate the amounts and disclosures included in your financial statements by obtaining audit evidence through inquiry, physical inspection, observation, third-party confirmations, examination, analytical procedures and other procedures. As between financial statement review and audit, only audited statements include a licensed professional’s assessment of fraud risk, and a reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement. As noted by Jani-King’s expert in accounting and auditing, Marvin Beasley, only an audited report confirms that “the financial statements present fairly in all respects the financial condition of the company.” This is because the financial data presented in reviewed statements is simply provided by the client, rather than being independently verified as required in an audited statement. Mr. Beasley further noted that the difference in a review versus an audit is the level of assurance one should associate with those two types of reports because of the amount of work done by the audit or accounting firm. The work it takes to issue a reviewed report is substantially less in volume and scope than the work an auditor or certified public accountant (CPA) would be required to do to issue an audited report. Consequently, the cost of obtaining audited financial statements is considerably higher than the cost of obtaining reviewed financial statements. The CPA on the committee, and the District’s chief financial officer, Terry St. Cyr, did not consider the submission of reviewed versus audited statements to be a material deviation from the RFP. Brad Mostert also did not think the submission of reviewed, instead of audited, financial statements should disqualify the bidders “because of the nature of the bid.” The evaluation committee deemed the submission of reviewed, rather than audited, statements as “acceptable for [their] purposes.” At hearing, Mr. St. Cyr explained the District’s rationale in deciding not to reject proposals that included reviewed, but not audited financial statements: Q Did the submission of those reviewed financial statements instead of audited financial statements send up any red flags or give you cause for concern about those bids or proposals? A It did not concern the District. Even though it stated audited financials, we were satisfied, based on the level of testing or evaluation that we were doing, and the services to be performed, that we were not worried about whether or not they were audited, as long as they were reviewed with the reviewed statement by the auditor that the financial statements do not have a material misstatement, we were good with relying on them. The reviewed financial statements contained in the AFS proposal do not include an auditor’s or CPA’s statement that the financial statements do not contain a material misstatement. To the contrary, on the cover page of the reviewed financial statements, the accounting firm noted that: A review is substantially less in scope than an audit, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. * * * Based upon our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements in order for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Committee members were told not to consider price as part of their scoring, and there was no discussion about pricing during the committee meeting. At the end of the meeting, John Dombroskie gave the committee a sheet with the number of points that was to be given each bidder based on their pricing. This number was reached by calculating total value based on total cost and then price per square footage. To calculate the points that should be assessed to each bidder based on cost, Mr. Dombroskie took the lowest proposed cost, assigned the maximum points (in this case 30), and then divided the other costs into that lowest cost. He then multiplied that factor by the 30 allotted points to reach a scoring amount based on cost. The recommended supplier, pursuant to the tabulation results, was AFS with a score of 94 points. Jani-King was the second highest scored supplier with a score of 83.65 points. No one on the Evaluation Committee scored AFS a zero in financial ability for failure to submit audited financial statements. The Bid Award Notice, provided prior to Jani-King’s protest being filed, stated that if an agreement was not reached with AFS, the District would negotiate with the second highest scored bidder. The District does not have blanket discretion to decide what requirements of the RFP it may waive; and accordingly, the District must adhere to the material requirements of its RFP. AFS’s submission of reviewed, rather than audited financial statements, was a material deviation from the requirements of the RFP, and was not a minor irregularity. The RFP provided that non-responsive proposals would be discarded. Nonetheless, the AFS proposal was improperly reviewed and scored. The District never informed Jani-King or any other potential bidders that the requirement for each bidder to provide audited financial statements would be waived. The District’s decision to allow bids with reviewed financial statements, but without audited financial statements, was contrary to the requirements of the RFP. The District’s decision to allow bids with reviewed financial statements, but without audited financial statements, was clearly erroneous based upon the requirements of the RFP. The District’s decision to allow bids with reviewed financial statements, but without audited financial statements, provided a competitive advantage to AFS over other responders who complied with the requirements of the RFP; and thus, the District’s decision was contrary to competition. The District’s decision to allow bids with reviewed financial statements, but without audited financial statements, is unsupported by facts or logic when the RFP and Evaluation Committee Instructions expressly mandate that each responder must provide audited financial statements. If the AFS bid was properly deemed to be non- responsive, then Jani-King would have been the highest scored responsive bidder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Escambia County School Board, enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is further RECOMMENDED that the contract issued in response to Request for Proposal, Solicitation Number 161301, entitled "Custodial Services" be awarded to Enmon Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Jani-King of Pensacola, as the highest scoring responsive vendor. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 26th day of August, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: David C. Willis, Esquire Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. Suite 1400 300 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Brian W. Hoffman, Esquire Carver Darden Koretzky Tessier Finn Blossman & Areaux, LLC Suite A 801 West Romana Street Pensacola, Florida 32502 (eServed) Sandra Destin Sims, Esquire Jani-King Gulf Coast Region 122 West Pine Street Ponchatoula, Louisiana 70454 Malcolm Thomas, Superintendent Escambia County School District 75 North Pace Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32505 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether respondent acted as a mortgage lender within the meaning of Section 494.001(3), Florida Statutes, and thus is subject to Division licensure requirements.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance (Division), is a state agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Florida Mortgage Brokerage and Lending Act which is codified in Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Among other things, the Division regulates mortgage lenders and requires such persons or entities to secure a license. Respondent, White Pine Resouces, Inc. (WPR), is a Florida corporation formed in March 1986. Its sole shareholder is John R. Grass, a Pensacola attorney. Although the corporation was originally formed for a number of purposes, its primary activity is the real estate investment business. It holds no licenses issued by, or registrations with, the Division. WPR's current business address is 358-C West Nine Mile Road, Pensacola, Florida. WPR's principal source of money is Grass, or his professional association, who loan money to the corporation. In some cases, the money is used to acquire parcels of property for resale, make necessary repairs or improvements, and then provide owner financing to the buyer. In other cases, WPR loans money to persons needing to make improvements to their homes or rental property and takes back a second mortgage from the borrower. These types of transactions, which occurred during the years 1992-95, are found in documents offered in evidence as petitioner's exhibits 1-5. Respondent has also stipulated that several other transactions of this nature occurred during that same period of time. In every case, WPR was investing its own money or that of its principal. In 1992, a Division examiner analyst noted the following listing in the Yellow Pages section of the Pensacola telephone directory under the heading of "Mortgages": White Pine Resources Having Trouble With Financing Residential & Land Fast Service on 1st Mortgages The advertisement also contained respondent's street address and telephone number. In the 1993-94 telephone directory, WPR carried the following advertisement under the "Mortgages" section of the Yellow Pages: White Pine Resources Specialists! Bad Credit - We Can Help Vacant Land Loans In the 1995-96 telephone directory, WPR placed the following advertisement in the "Mortgages" section of the Yellow Pages: White Pines Resources A Private Investor Not a Mortgage Broker Specialists! We Can Help Vacant Land Loans Although the Division first noted one of WPR's Yellow Page advertisements in 1992, for some reason it did not conduct a formal investigation of respondent's activities until February 28, 1994. On that day, an examiner analyst made an unannounced visit to respondent's office for the purpose of inspecting its records to determine if WPR was acting as a mortgage lender. However, WPR's principal, John R. Grass, was not in the office, and the analyst simply left his business card and a message for Grass to contact him. The next morning, Grass telephoned the analyst's supervisor and advised him that since WPR was merely a private investor, and not a mortgage lender, it was not subject to the Division's regulation, and hence it would not provide copies of its records. A subpoena duces tecum was then issued by the Division, records were produced pursuant to the subpoena, and this controversy ensued. The parties agree, however, that this action was not prompted by complaints from consumers or other persons having dealings with WPR. The record indicates that a mortgage lender differs from a private investor in several material respects. An important distinction is that a private investor uses its own funds rather than those of another party. Also, a private investor does not buy or sell paper, does not escrow taxes, does not split or broker commissions, and does not close its own loans. In all of these respects, WPR had the attributes of a private investor. When mortgage brokerage firms are involved in transactions with private investors, they must supply the private investor with certain documents that are not provided to an institutional investor. Among others, they include a disclosure agreement, receipt of recorded instruments, an appraisal or waiver of the same, and title insurance. In addition, Division rules require that a mortgage brokerage firm record its transactions with private investors in a log journal known as DBF-MB-888. The evidence shows that for transactions between WPR and at least two mortgage brokerage firms during the years in question, the two firms recorded those transactions on DBF-MB-888. They also provided WPR with documents typically given to private investors. The Division has adopted Rule 3D-40.290(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides that a person is deemed to be holding himself out to the public as being in the mortgage lending business if he advertises in a manner "which would lead the reader to believe the person was in the business of buying, making or selling mortgage loans." The rule has not been challenged and, for purposes of resolving this controversy, is presumed to be valid. In view of the representations that WPR provided "Fast Service on 1st Mortgages" and "Vacant Land Loans," it is fair to infer that the Yellow Page advertisements made by WPR would reasonably lead the reader to believe that WPR was in the business of buying, making or selling mortgage loans. Therefore, by virtue of advertising in the Yellow Pages, WPR is deemed to be holding itself out to the public as being in the mortgage lending business. During the years 1993-95, the Division routinely sent WPR questionnaires regarding various WPR transactions with licensed lenders. The transmittal letter accompanying the questionnaire noted that the Division was conducting "a routine examination" of the licensed lender (and not WPR), and WPR's comments would "be of material assistance to (the Division) in determining compliance with the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Act." By way of an estoppel defense, WPR has essentially contended that the questionnaires constituted a representation by the Division that WPR was merely a private lender. It further contends that, to its detriment, it relied upon that representation. But there is nothing in the documents that states that the Division considered WPR to be a private lender. Nor is there any evidence that the Division made any other oral or written representations to WPR that it did not need to secure a license. Finally, assuming arguendo that such a representation occurred, there was no showing that WPR relied to its detriment on such an alleged "misstatement of fact." WPR also raises the defense of laches arguing that it was severely prejudiced by the Division's delay in prosecuting this action. Except for testimony that respondent was forced to secure the services of an attorney to defend against this action, and its principal was required to attend a hearing, there was no showing of prejudice on the part of WPR.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order requiring respondent to cease and desist from engaging in the mortgage lending business without a license. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, 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 June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-0290 Petitioner: Because petitioner's post-hearing filing is more in the nature of a memorandum of law containing argument rather than proposed findings of fact, specific rulings have not been made. Respondent: Because respondent's post-hearing filing is more in the nature of a memorandum of law containing argument rather than proposed findings of fact, specific rulings have not been made. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry L. Hooper, III, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Clyde C. Caillouet, Jr., Esquire 4900 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 103 Pensacola, Florida 32503 John T. Reading, Jr., Esquire 358-C West Nine Mile Road Pensacola, Florida 32534-1818
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The applicant's proposed banking facility is to be located at the intersection of Southeast First Street and Federal Highway in Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida. The designated primary service area (hereinafter referred to as PSA) encompasses the southern portion of Palm Beach County, including all of the City of Boca Raton, a portion of the town of Highland Beach and unincorporated areas west of Boca Raton. The applicant's PSA was determined and identified by considering traffic patterns, shopping, retail, professional services, business industries, geographical barriers and competitive financial institutions. The PSA is bounded on the north by the C-15 Canal, on the south by the Palm Beach/Broward County line, on the east by the Atlantic Ocean and on the west by the Florida Turnpike. The east/west boundaries are located 6.2 air miles apart, and the north/south boundaries are 7.1 air miles apart. The proposed site is located 5.2 air miles from the northern boundary of the designated PSA, 1.9 air miles from the southern boundary, 1.1 air miles from the eastern boundary and 5.1 air miles from the western boundary. According to one source, the entire PSA is within an average twelve minute driving time distance. One witness conducted a survey travelling on main traffic arteries from different points within the PSA to the proposed site. This experiment was conducted on February 4, 1980, during the winter tourist season, and involved some lunch time traffic. The driving times from nine different sites ranged from four minutes to nineteen minutes. The center of the downtown Boca Raton area is located approximately two blocks from the applicant's proposed site. The PSA contains six north/south traffic arteries and six east/west traffic arteries. Interstate 95 (I-95) separates the PSA approximately in half. The area east of I-95 is densely populated with limited vacant land available for development. The area west of I-95 is significantly less populated than the area east of I-95, with substantial vacant land available for future growth. Most new construction is taking place in the area west of I-95. This includes several large residential developments, a regional mall and office plazas. According to the applicant, there are 334 commercial establishments within one- half mile of the proposed site. The largest of the 86 light industries in Boca Raton is IBM, with approximately 3,600 employees. The IBM plant is located approximately 4 1/2 miles from the applicant's proposed site. According to data obtained from the Area Planning Board of Palm Beach County, the applicant estimates the 1979 population of the PSA to be 56,178. It is projected that this figure will be increased by 77.9 percent over the next seven-year period and that the population of the PSA will reach almost 94,000 by the year 1985. In mid-1978, there were 18 residential projects underway within the PSA with plans to add 30,662 new dwelling units to the area. As of September, 1979, according to the applicant, 4,967 single-family dwellings and condominium units had been completed and another 2,187 were presently under construction. The majority of the units are located west of I-95. Gulfstream's economic expert was of the opinion that I-95 would be a barrier beyond which persons residing or working west of I-95 would not cross to do their banking business. Two of the protesting banks located very close to the proposed site of the applicant have the same southern and eastern PSA boundaries, but smaller northern and western boundaries. These PSAs were designated in 1959 and 1971, at a time when there was little activity west of I- 95. According to data compiled by the Bureau of Economics and Business Research, Division of Population Studies at the University of Florida, the population of Palm Beach County as of April 1, 1979, was 564,447. This represents an annual average growth rate of 6.6 percent between 1970 and 1976, 3.6 percent between 1976 and 1977, 5.7 percent between 1977 and 1978, and 5.6 percent between 1978 and 1979. The same source shows Boca Raton's population of 49,744 to represent average annual growth rates of 8.5 percent between 1970 and 1976, 4.7 percent between 1976 and 1977, 4.2 percent between 1977 and 1978, and 2.4 percent between 1978 and 1979. The population of the unincorporated areas of the county showed similar patterns of growth rates -- a high growth rate between 1970 and 1976, a drop to almost half between 1976 and 1977, an upward trend between 1977 and 1978 and another drop between 1978 and 1979. The average annual growth rates in the population of Highland Beach for the same four periods of time were 34.2, 26.4, 9.8 and 2.2 percent. The growth in the County's population results almost exclusively from net migration, which is favorable to a new banking institution. Net migration accounted for 99.08 percent of the population growth in 1978, and for 99.21 percent in 1979, leaving only .79 percent due to natural increase. The labor group (ages 15 through 64) constitutes some 59 percent of the County's population, and retirees (older than 65) comprise some 20 percent of the population. The average annual unemployment rate declined from 9.1 to 7.1 percent between 1977 and 1978. These figures are somewhat higher than the State averages. Since 1969, the per capita personal income figures for West Palm Beach and Boca Raton have been consistently higher than the state averages. The median family incomes for the PSA have, since 1969, exceeded both the county and the state median family income figures. Approximately ten commercial banking facilities presently exist within the applicant's designated PSA with about six more having been approved, but unopened. Three of the existing facilities are main offices and they are the petitioners herein. The main office of Gulfstream is located 0.2 miles northeast of the proposed site. The main office of the Boca Raton National Bank is located 0.5 miles south of the proposed site and the main office of Citizens National Bank is located 1.0 mile northeast of the proposed site. The branch office of the intervenor is located 1.7 miles northeast of the proposed site. There are also over twenty existing and/or approved but unopened savings and loan offices within the applicant's PSA. There are presently no state chartered independent banks within the PSA. The petitioners Citizens National and Boca Raton National Banks are independent national banks affiliated through common ownership of stock. As of June, 1979, the total deposits of all existing commercial banking facilities located within the PSA increased from the previous year. The total deposits of the individual savings and loan institutions within the PSA ranged from $3.5 million to $118.5 million in March of 1978, to $4.7 million to $127 million in March of 1979. Of the 36 reporting banks in Palm Beach County, between June of 1978 and June of 1979, the following increases were noted: a 20.7 percent increase in loans, a 12.7 percent increase in time deposits, a 3.2 percent increase in demand deposits and an 8.5 percent increase in total deposits, which total deposits amounted to $2,253,491,000. The most recently opened full service bank located nearest to the applicant, though outside the applicant's PSA, experienced large increases in loans and total deposits. This bank, the Florida Coast Bank of Palm Beach County, opened in May of 1978 and grew by 286 percent in loans over a year's period and had total deposits in the amount of $11.8 million by November 30, 1979. It is proposed that the new bank will be capitalized with a total of $1.5 million, composed of $750,000.00 common capital, $450,000.00 surplus and $300,000.00 in undivided profits. There will be 150,000 shares of stock sold. As of the date of the application, 117,500 shares had been sold to 45 individual purchasers. Some 83 percent of the subscribers are residents of Palm Beach County. Of this figure, approximately 78 percent are residents of Boca Raton and reside within the PSA. Saul Slossberg, an organizer and proposed director, has subscribed to ten percent of the stock. In addition, he holds the remaining unsubscribed stock as trustee. It is intended that these shares held in trust will be distributed to the public. The proposed board of directors is composed of six members. Only one of the six, Charles A. Heeg, has been a bank officer, and that was in the trust department of another local bank. The applicant does not intend to offer trust services. Two other proposed directors have served as directors of other financial institutions. Norman I. Stone, who is presently in the brokerage business, served as a member of the board of directors of a New York bank for seven or eight years in the 1950's. Sy Reece, a real estate broker and warehouse developer, presently serves as a director of a savings and loan institution in Miami and is on the advisory board of the First American Bank of North Palm Beach. The principal organizer, Saul A. Slossberg, is a developer and general contractor with no prior direct banking experience. The other two proposed directors are Karl Enselberg, a medical doctor, and Melvin Schwartz, an attorney who has been involved in corporate banking matters. The organizers have not yet made a determination as to the identity of any of the key officers of the proposed bank. The chief executive officer will not be anyone from the organizing group. The proposed banking quarters will consist of a 4,000 square foot single-story building with twenty-three parking spaces and drive-in teller facilities. Both the land and the building are owned by Saul Slossberg, a proposed director. Initially, the bank will be housed in 3,000 square feet at an annual rental of $36,000.00. After the first year, the bank will have an option to lease the additional 1,000 square feet for an added annual fee of $12,000.00. Utility costs will be paid by the lessor. The bank will have a ten year lease, with an option to purchase. An appraisal from an MAI appraiser indicates that the market value of the land and the building will be $400,000.00. All of the proposed directors have been informed that Mr. Slossberg is the lessor for the proposed banking quarters, and Mr. Slossberg intends to make a full disclosure of the transaction terms to all subscribers of stock. If the lease or rental terms are unacceptable to the Department, Mr. Slossberg is willing to change it or to sell the property to a third party. While the interior layout has not been determined yet, it is anticipated that there will be four teller stations, with room to expand to eight. Citizens National Bank is presently operating in a 4,000 square foot building and services some $14 million in accounts. Citizens does utilize some off-site services, such as electronic data processing. Mr. Slossberg has also purchased a strip of land containing 6,800 square feet adjacent to the proposed site for the express purpose of making expansion possible, should it be needed. This space could be used to provide 15 to 18 additional parking spaces. The applicant intends to offer the prevailing banking services, prices, interest rates and hours of business as other banks in the area. It intends to be competitive in basic and ancillary services. It will not have a trust department. It is intended that the proposed new bank will offer more personalized services and will cater primarily to individuals and small and medium-sized businesses. The applicant expects to make primarily smaller loans under $50,000.00, for which it feels there is a demand. The loan portfolio of the Boca Raton National Bank indicates that as of September 28, 1979, 1,102 out of its 1,108 loans were loans under $50,000.00. Other banks in the downtown area do not have on-site drive-in teller facilities. The applicant projects total deposits of $4 million, $7 million and $10 million for the first, second and third years of operation. It also projects a loss of $69,834.00 during the first year of operation, a loss of $11,289.00 during the second year and a profit of $78,170.00 during the third year of operation. Due to higher income and expense figures occurring since the date of its application, these loss and profit estimates may need to be adjusted. The name of the proposed new bank is Royal Palm Bank. This name was selected because the words "Royal Palm" appear in a nearby street, a shopping center, a yacht club, and a dinner theatre and it was felt by the organizers that people could easily relate to the proposed name and it tends to express an affiliation with the City of Boca Raton. The applicant did not consult with any expert or studies regarding bank names. No expenses have been incurred with respect to the proposed name, and there would be no economic hardship to the organizers if they are required to select a different name for the bank. The intervenor Royal Trust Bank of Palm Beach, N.A. is a branch office and member of the Royal Trust Bank Corporation. It is located 1.7 miles northeast of the proposed site. The Royal Trust Bank Corporation has a registered service mark which has been in use since 1976, and the intervenor utilizes this trade mark. The service mark contains a palm tree. The Royal Trust Bank Corporation also publishes a periodical entitled the "Royal Palm News." For the years 1977, 1978, and 1979, the statewide advertising campaign of the Royal Trust Banks resulted in an expenditure of $1,080,000.00. Of this figure, $803,005.00 was expended in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties. In Palm Beach County, the intervenor has engaged in television, radio, magazine and newspaper advertising activities. Other advertising materials utilized by the intervenor such as matches, service literature and things of that nature, also include the logo containing the palm tree. The intervenor intends to continue the use of the name Royal Trust Bank and the logo containing a palm tree. It is felt that the palm tree in connection with the registered service mark plays an important part in the identification of the intervenor and Royal Trust Banks. In accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes, 120.57(1)(a)(12), conclusions of law and a recommendation are not included in this Report. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert I. MacLaren, II, Esquire Osborne and Hankins Suite 200, Weir Plaza Bldg. 855 South Federal Highway Post Office Drawer 40 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 David B. Van Kleeck, Esquire Buchanan, Ingersoll and Van Kleeck Suite C, Plaza II Bldg. 301 West Camino Gardens Blvd. Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Walter A. Engdahl, Esquire 140 East Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Karlyn Ann Loucks Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Paul Paul, Landy and Beiley Penthouse, Peninsula Federal Bldg. 200 South East 1st Street Miami, Florida 33131 Mark E. Pollack and Edward A. Stern Pollot, Stern and Pollock, P.A. 627 South West 27th Avenue - Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33135 =================================================================
Conclusions As set forth in Rule 3C-10.051, Florida Administrative Code, when an application for authority to organize and operate a new state bank is filed, it is the applicant's responsibility to prove that the statutory criteria warranting the grant of authority are met. The Department of Banking and Finance (hereinafter referred to as the Department) shall conduct an investigation pursuant to Subsection 659.03(1), Florida Statutes, which was done in this case, and then approve or deny the application in its discretion. This discretion is neither absolute nor unqualified, but is instead conditioned by a consideration of the criteria listed in Subsection 659.03(2), Florida Statutes, and wherein it is provided that: The department shall approve or disapprove the application, in its discretion, but it shall not approve such application until, in its opinion: Public convenience and advantage will be promoted by the establishment of the proposed bank or trust company. Local conditions assure reasonable promise of successful operation for the proposed bank or the principal office of the proposed trust company and those banks or trust companies already established in the community. The proposed capital structure is adequate. The proposed officers and directors have sufficient banking and trust experience, ability and standing to assure reasonable promise of successful operation. The name of the proposed bank or trust company is not so similar as to cause confusion with the mane of an existing bank. Provision has been made for suitable banking house quarters in the area specified in the application. If, in the opinion of the Department, any one of the six foregoing criteria has not been met, and cannot be remedied by the applicant, it cannot approve the application. An applicant, can, however, take corrective action in most circumstances, to meet the criteria set forth in Subsections 659.03(2)(c), (d), (e), or (f), Florida Statutes, if any one of these is found to be lacking. For example, if all other statutory criteria are met, the applicant may increase capital, or make certain changes in the board of directors, or change the name, or alter the provisions for suitable banking house quarters, because these factors are, at least to some degree, within its control. It is the Department's policy to allow applicants to make certain changes to meet these criteria if all other criteria are met; to do otherwise would be to subject applicants to unnecessary red tape. However, it is the Department's position that there is little, if anything, that an applicant can do to alter its ability to meet the criteria set forth in Subsections 659.03(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, since applicants CANNOT easily change the economic and demographic characteristics of an area. Therefore, if either one or both of these criteria are not met, the Department cannot approve the application. For purposes of applications for authority to organize and operate a new bank, Rule 3C-10.051(1), Florida Administrative Code, defines the primary service area (PSA), as "the smallest area from which the proposed bank expects to draw approximately 75 percent of its deposits. It should be drawn around a natural customer base and should not be unrealistically delineated to exclude competing banks or to include areas of concentrated population." Based upon man-made traffic barriers, population concentrations, commercial activity, traffic patterns and the location of existing offices of financial institutions in the area, the Department concludes that the Applicant's designated PSA is unrealistically delineated. The Applicant extended the western boundary of its designated PSA to the Florida Turnpike to include an area of high growth potential west of Interstate 95 (I-95), a limited-access highway. In conjunction with the residential and commercial development of this area, numerous offices of financial institutions have located or have been approved to be located nearby. It is unrealistic to expect the population living west of I-95 to drive past these financial institutions, cross I-95 (at the limited number of available crossings) and drive to the other side of Boca Raton to bank at the downtown location of the Applicant's proposed site, especially when no new services are being offered by the bank. Likewise, residents north of 40th Street, N.W. (Spanish River Boulevard) generally would not drive past the numerous financial institutions located there, cross two heavily traveled east-west arteries, and travel through Boca Raton to the downtown location of the proposed bank. By including these areas, Applicant's designated PSA is not drawn around a natural customer base which can reasonably be expected to bank at a financial institution located at the Applicant's proposed site. The Department concludes that based on traffic patterns, man-made barriers and location of other financial institutions, the northern and western boundaries of a realistic PSA of the Applicant's proposed site are 40th Street, N.EW. (Spanish River Boulevard), and I-95, respectively. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that public convenience and advantage will not be promoted by the establishment of the proposed bank in this case. Therefore, the criterion in Subsection 659.03(2)(a), Florida Statutes, is NOT met. As set forth in Rule 3C-10.51(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the location and services offered by existing banking and financial institutions in the service area are considered as indicative of the competitive climate of the market. The traffic patterns in the area, as well as the area's general economic and demographic characteristics are also considered in evaluating this statutory criterion. Because it is recognized that the establishment of a new bank ANYWHERE would promote convenience and advantage for at least a few people, SUBSTANTIAL convenience and advantage for a SIGNIFICANT number of people must be shown; otherwise, a new bank could be justified for every street corner in the state. Clearly, such a result was not the legislative intent in regulating entry into the banking industry, nor is it in the public interest. The record indicates that access to the proposed site is inconvenient due to difficult ingress and egress caused by a heavy and continuous flow of traffic on South Federal Highway and the lack of a traffic light to regulate the traffic for the benefit of users of the proposed site; that the proposed site is located in downtown Boca Raton east of I-95, a mature area housing mainly offices and relatively small retail trade establishments; that there is only limited room for growth in its vicinity without major reconstruction and rehabilitation projects; that the Applicant's designated PSA already has ten commercial banking offices and thirteen savings and loan offices serving it; that the more realistic PSA, as delineated by the Department, still has nine banking offices serving it, of which three are main offices, two are branches which were formerly full-service banks, and fourteen savings and loan offices; that five of these banking offices and eight of the savings and loan offices are located in proximity to the proposed site and are more conveniently accessible from the main centers of commercial activity within the realistic PSA; that of the three bank main offices within the realistic PSA two are located within 0.5 of a mile from the proposed site and the third is within one mile from it, and, that in addition, there are three branch offices of three other banks located within a 1.7 mile radius of the proposed site; and that the proposed new bank would not offer any new services or improve on existing services. Due to the number of existing banking and savings and loan offices in or near the realistic PSA, their locational distribution, and the fact that the record does not reflect inadequate or an insufficient variety of financial services, it appears that the banking needs of the PSA's resident and working populations are being conveniently and adequately served at this time and that competition in the realistic PSA would not be significantly enhanced by the establishment of the proposed new bank, which will not offer any new services. Located within the central portion of the realistic PSA, the proposed site could offer some convenience for businesses and residents situated nearby, but the existing banking and savings and loan offices, which are presently serving most of them, are more easily accessible and more conveniently located for most of the PSA residents and businesses. Furthermore, because of the population density within the realistic PSA and the fact that it is a mature area with little room for expansion, rapid population growth is unlikely. In view of the above, the Department concludes that the criterion in Subsection 659.03(2)(a), Florida Statutes, is not met. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that local conditions do not assure reasonable promise of successful operation for the proposed bank and those banks already established in the community. Therefore, the criterion in Subsection 659.03(2)(b), Florida Statutes, IS NOT met. As set forth in Rule 3C-10.051(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, current economic conditions and, to a lesser extent, the growth potential of the area in which the new bank proposes to locate are important considerations in determining the bank's probable success. Essential to the concept of banking opportunity is that there does and will exist a significant volume of business for which the new bank can realistically compete. The growth rate, size, financial strength, and operating characteristics of banks and other financial institutions in the PSA are also import indicators of economic conditions and potential business for a new bank. It is noted that the statutory standard requires that ". . .local conditions ASSURE reasonable PROMISE of successful operation for the proposed bank and those already established in the community. . ." (E.S.), NOT merely that local conditions INDICATE a POSSIBILITY of such success. Banking involves a public trust. Unlike private enterprise establishments generally, banks operate on the public's capital and therefore, the Legislature has vested in the Comptroller the responsibility of protecting that public interest. Furthermore, the failure of a bank, as opposed to private enterprise establishments generally, may have an unsettling effect on the overall economic welfare of the community, and that is why the Florida Legislature and the United States Congress have imposed stringent requirements for the industry. This Department is responsible for enforcing this legislative standard. Public interest is best served by having a banking system whereby competition is encouraged, where appropriate, yet at the same time ensuring that the financial resources of the residents in the community are stable and safe. That was the intent of the Legislature in regulating entry into the banking industry. The record indicates that between June 30, 1978 and June 30, 1979 the rates of growth of the total deposits of the existing offices of commercial banks located within the PSA were uneven, ranging between poor to good, although all of them showed increases. These increases ranged between $1.9 million and $23.4 million. There is no evidence in the record that the performance of these banks can be duplicated by the Applicant. As was already pointed out in the discussion of the criterion of convenience and advantage, both the resident and business populations of the realistic PSA are conveniently and adequately served by this PSA's existing offices of financial institutions. Since the Applicant does not plan to offer any new services, no significant transfer of customers, if any, from existing institutions to the proposed new bank can be expected. This is especially true of those customers with loan or other commitments to one or more of the existing institutions. As to new and uncommitted customers, the realistic PSA is a densely populated mature area in downtown Boca Raton and the Applicant is not likely to benefit to any significant degree in the near future from the population growth in other parts of the City or in Palm Beach County. Although the record also shows that the total deposits and loans of Florida Coast Bank of Palm Beach County, N.A., the most recent bank to open in Palm Beach County (May, 1978) but which is located outside of the Applicant's designated PSA, grew significantly during its first 18 months of operation, this bank serves a different PSA. There was no evidence in the record that the rate of growth of that PSA's population and its demographic and economic characteristics, as well as the number, nature, and competitive climate of the offices of financial institutions serving it are analogous to the Applicant's realistic PSA. It cannot, therefore, be reasonably assumed that the Applicant will be able to duplicate its performance. It should also be noted that this bank is more conveniently located to and accessible from that section of the Florida Turnpike which serves the southern portions of Palm Beach County. Based on the above considerations, the Department is of the opinion that the feasibility of materialization of the Applicant's deposit projections remains inconclusive. In view of the fact that the statutory standard requires that ". . .local conditions ASSURE reasonable PROMISE of successful operation for the proposed new bank. . .", the Department concludes that the criterion in Subsection 659.03(2)(b), Florida Statutes, is not met. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that the proposed capital structure of the proposed new bank is adequate. Therefore, the criterion in Subsection 659.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes, IS met. Capital should be adequate to enable the new bank to provide the necessary banking services, including loans of sufficient size, to meet the needs of prospective customers. It should be sufficient to purchase, build or lease a suitable permanent banking facility complete with equipment. Generally, the initial capital for a new nonmember bank should not be less than $1.0 million in nonmetropolitan areas and $1.5 million in metropolitan areas. However, greater capital may be required of a new bank which is a member of the Federal Reserve System because of the more restrictive uses of capital imposed by that body. The capital referred to be allocated among capital stock, paid in surplus, and undivided profits in the ratios set forth in Section 659.04(3), Florida Statutes. The Applicant's proposed capital accounts total $1.5 million and are allocated according to the statutory ratios. Therefore, the criterion in Subsection 659.03(2)(c), Florida statutes, is met. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that although the proposed directors have good character, have reputations of financial responsibility, ability and good standing in their community, they do not have sufficient direct commercial banking experience to assure reasonable promise of successful operation for the proposed new bank. Therefore, the criteria in Subsection 659.03(2)(d), Florida Statutes, ARE NOT met. As set forth in Rule 3C-10.051(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code, the organizers, proposed directors, and officers as a group shall have reputations evidencing honesty and integrity. They shall all have employment and business histories demonstrating their responsibility in financial affairs. At least one member of a proposed board of directors, other than the Chief Executive Officer, shall have direct banking experience. In addition, the organizers, proposed directors, and officers shall meet the requirements of Sections 659.11 and 659.54, Florida Statutes. Officers shall have demonstrated abilities and experience commensurate with the position for which proposed. Members of the initial management group, which includes directors and officers, shall require prior approval of the Department. Changes of directors or Chief Executive Officer during the first year of operation shall also require prior approval of the Department. While it is not necessary that the names of proposed officers be submitted with an application to organize a new state bank, the Chief Executive Officer and operations officer must be named and approved at least sixty (60) days prior to the bank's opening. The Department concludes that the proposed directors have, as a group, good character, sufficient financial standing, business experience and responsibility, but the board lacks in-depth experience in commercial banking to assure reasonable promise of successful operation. Were this the only requirement not met, the Department would generally allow the Applicant to correct this deficiency by adding at least one director other than the Chief Executive Officer, with direct commercial banking experience. It should be noted that interlocking directorships involving existing financial institutions competitively near the proposed site of a new institution are discouraged. Such interlocking directorships could possibly restrict competition and create fiduciary problems. In this instance, one of the proposed directors is presently a director of a savings and loan association in Miami which, because of its service area, is not considered a directly competitive financial institution. The Department concludes, therefore, that the interlocking directorship in this instance will not restrict competition or create fiduciary problems. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that the name of the proposed new bank, Royal Palm Bank, is so similar as to cause confusion with the name of existing banks. Therefore, the criterion of Subsection 659.03(2)(e), Florida Statutes, IS NOT met. As set forth in Rule 3C-10.051(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code, in determining whether an applicant meets the requirements of this statutory criterion, the Department will consider the names of all existing banks in the state. This provision shall not apply to affiliates of bank holding companies. In addition to the foregoing criterion an applicant shall meet the requirements set forth in Section 607.024, Florida Statutes. The Applicant's proposed name, Royal Palm Bank, begins with the same word as the Royal Trust Bank, which has a branch located 1.7 miles northeast of the proposed site. In addition to the similarity of name, the Royal Trust Bank uses a registered trade mark containing a palm tree in all of its advertising and service literature, which plays an important part in the identification of the Royal Trust Bank. In view of the similarity of the names, the identification of the Royal Trust Bank with a palm tree and the monies expended by the Royal Trust Bank in advertising over the last three years, the Department concludes that the Applicant's proposed name, Royal Palm Bank, is so similar as to cause confusion with the name Royal Trust Bank. It should also be noted that the Applicant did not incur any expenses in the identification and promotion of the proposed name or consult with any expert or perform studies regarding the bank's name. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that provision has not been made for suitable banking house quarters in the area specified in the application. Therefore, the criterion of Subsection 659.03(2)(f), Florida Statutes, IS NOT met. As set forth in Rule 3C-l0.051(2)(f), Florida Administrative Code, permission to open in temporary quarters may be granted, generally not to exceed one (1) year. An extension, generally not to exceed six (6) months, may be granted for good cause shown. The permanent structure of a new bank should contain a minimum of 5,000 square feet, unless the applicant satisfactorily shows that smaller quarters are justified due to the performance of certain auxiliary services off the premises. In addition, it shall meet Federal Bank Protection Act requirements and be of a sufficient size to handle the projected business for a reasonable period of time. The facility shall be of a nature to warrant customer confidence in the bank's security, stability, and permanence. Other pertinent factors include availability of adequate parking, an adequate drive-in facility if such is contemplated, and possibilities for expansion. Temporary quarters are not contemplated by the Applicant. The proposed banking quarters consist of a 4,000 square foot single-story building, of which the Applicant intends to initially occupy 3,000 square feet. The record does not indicate that any auxiliary services will be performed off- premises. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 3C-10.051(2)(f), Florida Administrative Code, and the criterion of Subsection 659.03(2)(f), Florida Statutes, are not met. Were this the only requirement that had not been met, the Department would generally allow the Applicant to correct the deficiency. Rule 3C-10.051(3), Florida Administrative Code, relating to stock distribution and financing, provides that To encourage community support, wide distribution of stock ownership is desirable. The majority of the stock should be issued, whenever possible, to local residents of the community, persons with substantial business interests in the community, or others who may reasonably be expected to utilize the services of the bank. Subscribers to 5 percent or more of the stock may not finance more than 50 percent of the purchase price if the extension of credit is predicated in any manner the stock of the new bank, whether or not such stock is pledged. The Department concludes that the initial stock distribution among 45 subscribers, most of whom reside or have businesses in the PSA, is acceptable, although generally a wider distribution is desirable to encourage community support. Rule 3C-10.051(4), Florida Administrative Code, relating to insider transactions requires that Any financial arrangement or transaction involving the proposed bank and its organizers, directors, officers, and shareholders owning 5.0 percent or more of the stock, or their relatives, their associates or interests should ordinarily be avoided. Should there be transactions of this nature they must be fair and reasonable, fully disclosed, and comparable to similar arrangements which could have been made with unrelated parties. The Department concludes that there is an insider transaction involved in the lease of the proposed bank building from Saul Slossberg, a proposed director and subscriber of more than five percent of the stock. The transaction has been disclosed to all of the proposed directors, however, it is not apparent from the record that the transaction has been disclosed to all the subscribers. Information has been submitted to indicate that the terms of the transaction are comparable to similar arrangements which could have been made with unrelated parties. 12. Rule 3C-10.051(5), Florida, Administrative Code, sets forth that In all cases appraisals of land and improvements thereon shall be made by an independent qualified MAI appraiser, and be dated no more than six (6) months prior to the filing date of the application. Based upon comparable information submitted to the Department, the Department concludes that the proposed leasing arrangements are reasonable and competitive.
The Issue Whether or not the corporate names Sarasota Yacht Club on Coon Key, Inc., and Sarasota Yacht Club, Inc., are deceptively similar to each other and, if so, whether or not pertinent rules and regulations of the Department of State require the latter chartered corporation to amend its Articles of Incorporation and registration to reflect a new name due to a "bad faith" name reservation by Respondent, Sarasota Yacht Club, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony adduced at the hearing, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Documents on file in the Division of Corporations, Department of State, reveal that the Articles of Incorporation for the Sarasota Yacht Club, 1/ a Florida corporation not for profit, were granted by the Circuit Court of Sarasota County, Florida, on June 30, 1926. (See Exhibit A of the Stipulation received herein as the parties' Joint Exhibit 1.) Sarasota Yacht Club came under the jurisdiction of the Division of Corporations of the Department of State (Respondent) on April 18, 1963, with the filing of certain amendments to the Articles of Incorporation (Exhibit B of Joint Exhibit 1). The Sarasota Yacht Club was dissolved on September 3, 1976, for failure to file its Annual Report for 1974 and subsequent years. Notices mailed by Respondent, Division of Corporations, to the Sarasota Yacht Club were directed to 1100 Ringling Boulevard, an address which was erroneously given on the 1973 Annual Report of Sarasota Yacht Club, whose correct address is 1100 John Ringling Boulevard. (Exhibit C of Joint Exhibit 1.) The postmaster of Sarasota, Florida, upon inquiry by the Department, indicated that mail addressed to the Sarasota Yacht Club at 1100 Ringling Boulevard would not automatically be forwarded to 1100 John Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida. (Joint Exhibit 1 and testimony of John W. Arnold, the manager of Sarasota Yacht Club on Coon Key, Inc., during the calendar years 1975 through 1979.) On July 9, 1979, Martin J. McGuire, Ethel May McGuire and William Kecht filed Articles of Incorporation under the name Sarasota Yacht Club, Inc., which corporation was granted Charter No. 748001. (Exhibit D of Joint Exhibit 1.) Sarasota Yacht Club reinstated its Charter under the name of The Sarasota Yacht Club on Coon Key, Inc., on September 24, 1979, with the original Charter No. 705493. (Exhibit E of Joint Exhibit 1.) Sarasota Yacht Club, Inc., Charter No. 748001, failed to file its Annual Report prior to July 1, 1980, and was involuntarily dissolved December 8, 1980, and failing reinstatement of Charter No. 748001, pursuant to Chapter 10- 1.09, Florida Administrative Code, the name Sarasota Yacht Club will become available for reissuance on December 8, 1981. (Joint Exhibit 1.) Sarasota Yacht Club on Coon Key, Inc., Charter No. 705493, has attempted to reserve the name Sarasota Yacht Club so that it may be restored to the use of its name granted on June 30, 1926, however, the Respondent, Department of State, Division of Corporations, will not process said name reservation until December 8, 1981. (Exhibit F of Joint Exhibit 1.) During the years 1975 through 1979, when Messr. Arnold was manager of Sarasota Yacht Club, the Club continued to do business with various State agencies and regularly renewed various licenses with the Department of Natural Resources; gasoline dealers; special fuel certificates; Department of Business Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants; Internal Revenue Service special tax stamps and licenses issued by the City of Sarasota, including the Health Department. Also, during this period, the Club received various letters which were not properly addressed, such as John Ringling Causeway, Ringling Causeway, etc. As stated herein, Sarasota Yacht Club, Inc., Charter No. 748001, was formed on July 3, 1979, for the express purpose of encouraging boating and yachting to provide entertainment food, refreshments and social activities for its members and guests. Accordingly, the purpose for which that club was formed is the identical purpose for which Petitioner was originally formed and continues to operate since 1926. Also, both corporations operate in the same locality, Sarasota, Florida. Respondent, Sarasota Yacht Club, Inc., however, has not conducted any business in furtherance of its corporate purpose other than the chartering of the corporation. Martin McGuire, one of the incorporators of Respondent, Sarasota Yacht Club, Inc., was a former member of Petitioner. His membership was terminated for reasons unknown to the Hearing Officer, during 1979. On July 12, 1979, Norman Jacobson, an attorney licensed to practice in Florida received a phone call from Martin McGuire. Attorney Jacobson has known attorney Martin McGuire for more than thirty-five (35) years. Attorney Jacobson attended law school with Martin J. McGuire at John Marshall Law School, Chicago, Illinois. During the July 12, 1979, conversation, attorney McGuire related to attorney Jacobson, certain alleged problems that Sarasota Yacht Club, Inc., was experiencing including personal, financial and tax liabilities which could affect the Club (Petitioner) if made known to the public. This conversation took place subsequent to the time when attorney McGuire had been expelled as a member of Petitioner. According to Jacobson, attorney McGuire agreed to dissolve Corporate Charter No. 748001 provided Petitioner do the following: l. Reinstate his membership in good standing; Guarantee his continued membership in good standing; and Agree to certain unspecified changes in Petitioner's by-laws. Attorney Jacobson advised attorney McGuire that those concessions could not and would not be made if his recommendation to the Club's membership were adopted. Attorney Jacobson considered McGuire's demands to be a form of blackmail. Attorney Jacobson reported to the Club (Petitioner) the details of the conversation and discussions that he had with attorney McGuire as outlined above and the Club unanimously agreed to maintain its original decision to cancel attorney McGuire's membership. Messr. Brady, a former practicing attorney and also an employee of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, is familiar with Petitioner's history. Messr. Brady recounted that the Club was formed during 1926, and its stature has continuously grown. The Club presently boasts of a membership in excess of 500 and regularly sponsors regattas and other sailing events. The Club is sponsoring its third annual sailing regatta this month and one of its female members is a finalist in this year's Adams Cup Race.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the corporate name Sarasota Yacht Club, Inc., be found deceptively similar to Sarasota Yacht Club on Coon Key, Inc., and that approval for use of the name Sarasota Yacht Club, Inc., be withdrawn by the Secretary of State. 2/ RECOMMENDED this 16th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16 day of November, 1981.
The Issue Whether Respondent, when he voted April 18, 2002, as a member of the Palm Beach Gardens City Commission, on Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002, relating to Parcel 6 and Parcel 24, respectively, of the Mirasol development project, knew that these measures would inure to the special private gain or loss of a principal by whom he was retained and thereby violated Section 112. 3143(3), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Order Finding Probable Cause, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the public hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations set forth in the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation2: Each of the "Sabatello construction companies" referred to in the parties' Stipulations of Fact 3 and 4 was wholly owned by Carl Sabatello and his brothers Paul, Theodore, and Michael Sabatello (Sabatello Brothers), with each brother owning an equal (25%) share of the company. Of these companies, only one, Sabatello Development Corporation IV (SD IV) was involved in the Mirasol Project. SD IV has been in continuous existence since its formation in or around the 1980's. Carl Sabatello serves as its president, "oversee[ing] all [of its] functions." SD IV is a Subchapter S corporation. As such, its profits are passed through to the Sabatello Brothers, its four shareholders, in equal amounts. Respondent is a certified public accountant. Since 1989, through his accounting firm, he has provided tax preparation services to SD IV and the Sabatello Brothers. His firm has derived "anywhere from 15 to 25%" of its total income from the monies received for providing these services. Before establishing his accounting firm in 1989, Respondent was SD IV's chief financial officer and one of its shareholders. Taylor Woodrow Communities (Taylor Woodrow) was the master developer of the Mirasol Project. Taylor Woodrow's Craig Perna had "overall responsibility for every aspect of the [Mirasol] development" project, including the "selection of builders." The builder selection process started with Mr. Perna getting the names of "prominent builders in the Palm Beach Gardens market" having "excellent reputation[s]" and then contacting them to inquire as to their interest in participating in the Mirasol Project. Carl Sabatello was among those Mr. Perna contacted. He was contacted (by telephone) in mid-May of 2000, and advised Mr. Perna he was "very interested" in having his company, SD IV, considered for selection as a builder in Mirasol. SD IV, was one of at least ten or 12 builders vying to be selected to participate in the Mirasol Project. Over a period of approximately eight months (from mid-May 2000, to mid-January 2001), Taylor Woodrow requested and obtained from SD IV and from the other would-be participants in the project (Other Builders) information and documents in order to evaluate these builders' qualifications for selection. In the latter part of 2000, prior to any selection having been made, Carl Sabatello requested the Palm Beach Gardens City Attorney, Leonard Rubin, Esquire, "to provide a [written] legal opinion as to [Mr. Sabatello's] obligation to abstain from voting in [his] official capacity on matters relating to Mirasol that come before the [Palm Beach Gardens] City Council." In response to Mr. Sabatello's request, Mr. Rubin prepared a written memorandum, dated December 5, 2000, which was provided, not only to Mr. Sabatello, but to all members of the Palm Beach Gardens City Council, including Respondent, as well as to the Interim City Manager. The memorandum read as follows: You have indicated that the Sabatello Companies, of which you are a principal, is currently in negotiations with the developers of the Mirasol Planned Community District ("PCD") to become a builder of homes within that community. Your activities as a builder would be limited to specific parcels or pods within the PCD. You asked this office to provide a legal opinion as to your obligation to abstain from voting in your official capacity on matters relating to Mirasol that come before the City Council. Voting conflicts for members of the City Council are governed by section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Subsection (3)(a) provides that a municipal officer shall not vote in an official capacity on any measure that "would inure to the special gain" of the officer, a principal by whom the officer is retained, or a relative or business associate of the officer. According to the state Ethics Commission, the determination of whether the officer receives a special private gain is based upon the size of the class of persons affected by the vote at issue. The Mirasol PCD encompasses a variety of residential, commercial, recreational and community uses. The residential uses range from low density single family homes to high density multi-family apartments. It is anticipated that your company's activities will be limited to the construction of single family dwellings within a specific, identifiable parcel for which a site plan has already been approved. Because of this limited involvement, there does not appear to be any requirement that you abstain from every vote relating to the approval of plats, parcels and site plans within the entire Mirasol PCD. See CEO 85-62 (city council member not prohibited from voting on rezoning of property within a large redevelopment area where member's corporation owns a parcel of land within the same area). By way of example, the City Council's approval of the site plan for the fire station or the plat for Jog Road in no way inures to your or your company's special private gain. You would, however, be required to abstain from any additional votes relating to the specific parcels or pods within the community in which your company possesses or acquires an interest by virtue of a contractual relationship with the master developer. Where a conflict of interest exists, you are required to state the nature of your interest prior to the vote and file a voting conflict memorandum with the City Clerk, within 15 days. The existence of a voting conflict does not necessarily require you to abstain from all discussion relating to the matter (although you are free to do so). If you plan to participate in discussion of a matter in which you know you have a conflict, you must file a written conflict memorandum before the public meeting. You have also expressed concern that upon learning that your company will be building homes within Mirasol, members of the public may perceive a conflict of interest in all matters relating to Mirasol. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, it would be appropriate to make the following disclos[ure] prior to any vote: "While it is anticipated that the Sabatello Companies will be building homes within Mirasol, the matter before the City Council does not concern the areas in which such construction will take place and is wholly unrelated to any interest held by me or my corporations." Should you have any questions or be in need of additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office. In January of 2001, Taylor Woodrow selected SD IV to build on Mirasol Parcel 4.3 It sent Carl Sabatello a letter dated January 22, 2001, advising him of the selection, along with a Parcel Builder Agreement and Exclusive Agency Brokerage Agreement for Mirasol Parcel 4. These agreements were fully executed in February of 2001. Sometime thereafter SD IV began building on Mirasol Parcel 4. SD IV was one of first builders to start construction in Mirasol. SD IV eventually purchased all 46 lots in Mirasol Parcel 4, constructing homes on each. All of the homes it built were sold. On or about October 18, 2001, at Respondent's request, Mr. Rubin prepared and distributed to Respondent and the other members of Palm Beach Gardens City Council a written memorandum designed to provide "clarification and confirmation from [the City Attorney's] office regarding a Council Member's obligation to vote on an item before the City Council." In this memorandum, Mr. Rubin made the following points: A council member must vote in the absence of a voting conflict or conflict of interest. Section 28[6].012, Florida Statutes, requires a member of the City Council, who is present at a meeting, to vote on an item before the Council unless there is, or appears to be, a conflict of interest or voting conflict pursuant to the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. * * * A voting conflict arises when the vote inures the Council member's own special private gain or loss of the special private gain or loss of the Council member's principal, family member or business associate. * * * The special private gain to the Council member depends on the size of the class of persons affected and is fact-specific. * * * The special private gain to the Council member must be direct and proximate. * * * In the event of a voting conflict, a Council member must disclose the nature of the conflict and abstain from voting. Mr. Rubin's memorandum "reinforced what [Respondent] already knew about the law." On April 18, 2002, the Palm Beach Gardens City Council voted on and passed two measures concerning the Mirasol Project, one, Resolution 54, 2002, dealing with Mirasol Parcel 6 (a 10.11 acre site within the development), and the other, Resolution 57, 2002, dealing with Mirasol Parcel 10 (a 14.6-acre site within the development). As the summary statement on its first page reflects, Resolution 54, 2002 was: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for the approval of a site plan to allow for the development of 41 semi-custom homes, known as Mirasol Parcel 6, located within the Mirasol Planned Community District (PCD), as more particularly described herein; providing for conditions of approval; providing for waivers; providing for severability; providing for conflicts; and providing for an effective date. Section 5 of the resolution granted the following waivers: From Section 78-498 of the LDRs, to permit a 45-foot wide right-of-way. The code requires a minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit a minimum lot width of 60 feet. The code requires a minimum width of 65 feet. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit lot coverage of 50%. The code requires a maximum lot coverage of 35%. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit a building side setback of 3 feet 1 inch on a "zero" side and 6 feet 11 inches on a "non-zero" side. The code requires a minimum side setback of 7.5 feet. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit a screen/accessory side setback of 3 feet 1 inch on a "zero" side and 5 feet on a "non-zero" side. The code requires a minimum side setback of 7.5 feet. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit a screen/accessory rear setback of 3 feet. The code requires a minimum setback of 10 feet. As the summary statement on its first page reflects, Resolution 57, 2002 was: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for the approval of a site plan to allow for the development of 26 custom homes, known as Mirasol Parcel 10, located within the Mirasol Planned Community District (PCD), as more particularly described herein; providing for conditions of approval; providing for waivers; providing for severability; providing for conflicts; and providing for an effective date. Section 5 of the resolution granted the following waivers: From Section 78-498 of the LDRs, to permit a 45-foot wide right-of-way. The code requires a minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit lot coverage of 45%. The code requires a maximum lot coverage of 35%. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit a building/screen side setback of 10 feet. The code requires a minimum side setback of 12 feet. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit an accessory structure setback of 5 feet. The code requires a minimum side setback of 12 feet. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit a screen/accessory rear setback of 3 feet. The code requires a minimum setback of 10 feet. The "waivers" that were granted by Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002 were from the requirements of the Palm Beach Gardens Code that Taylor Woodrow, or whichever builder(s) it subsequently selected to build on the affected parcels, would otherwise have to meet. At the April 18, 2002, Palm Beach Gardens City Council meeting, Carl Sabatello orally announced to those in attendance, including Respondent, that he was going to abstain from voting on Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002, explaining that he was involved in discussions regarding the possible purchase of the two parcels that were the subject of these measures. At the time of the vote on Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002, although he may have been aware of the investment Mr. Sabatello's company had made in Mirasol Parcel 4, Respondent had no knowledge of any connection that Mr. Sabatello or his company may have had with Mirasol Parcel 6 and Mirasol Parcel 10 other than what Mr. Sabatello had told the audience at the meeting about the matter. As far as Respondent knew, neither Mr. Sabatello nor his company owned or had a contract to purchase Mirasol Parcel 6 or Mirasol Parcel 10. Respondent did not attempt to engage Mr. Sabatello in conversation or otherwise seek to find out more about the discussions Mr. Sabatello had referred to in his abstention announcement. Respondent did, however, consult with the Palm Beach Gardens City Attorney to determine whether or not he should vote on the resolutions. Respondent "knew [that the law required him] not to vote [on] things that a client had an interest in," but, based on what Mr. Sabatello had said at the meeting, he believed that Mr. Sabatello was merely "in a discussion phase" regarding the acquisition of an interest in Mirasol Parcel 6 and Mirasol Parcel 10 and that there had not been any agreement reached on the matter. He therefore voted on Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002, consistent with the advice that the Palm Beach Gardens City Attorney had given. Approval of the site plans for Mirasol Parcel 6 and Mirasol Parcel 10 (which the passage of Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002, respectively, accomplished) was needed before any permits for building on those two parcels could be obtained. Mr. Sabatello, on April 18, 2002, filled out a voting conflict form (Form 88, Memorandum of Voting Conflict) explaining why he did not vote on Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002. On the form, he indicated that these votes "inured to the special gain of Sabatello Development Corp, IV, Inc, by whom I am retained," and then added that this "company," of which he was "an officer and owner[,] [was] in the process of negotiating [the] purchasing of Pod 6 & Pod 10." At the time he cast his votes for Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002, Respondent was "not privy" to the contents of Mr. Sabatello's completed voting conflict form. On April 30, 2002, 12 days after the votes on Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002, SD IV entered into an agreement with Taylor Woodrow to purchase all of the lots in Mirasol Parcel 6. It closed on lots 10, 11, 32, and 33 on September 25, 2002, and on the remaining lots in the parcel on January 3, 2003. SD IV built a home on every lot it purchased in Mirasol Parcel 6, and it sold every home it built. SD IV received a contract to purchase Mirasol Parcel 10, but it never executed the contract and therefore never acquired an interest in the parcel.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a public report finding the evidence presented at the public hearing in this case insufficient to clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent violated Section 112.3143(3), Florida Statutes, by voting at the April 18, 2002, Palm Beach Gardens City Council meeting on Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002, and dismissing the complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 4th day of March, 2009.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s amended petition on the grounds that Petitioner lacks standing to administratively challenge the Department’s decision not to disapprove Hensler’s proposed appointment to Sunniland’s board of directors and that the Department, having failed to act within the time frame prescribed by Rule 3C-100.0385, Florida Administrative Code, does not have the authority to reconsider its decision and issue a letter of disapproval, as requested by Petitioner.16 DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April 1997
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number BK-392077. He has held a Florida real estate license for approximately the past 20 years. At no time during this period has any disciplinary action been taken against him. Since July 13, 2000, Respondent has been the qualifying broker for Doctor's Choice Companies, Inc. (DCC), which he owns. DCC specializes in dental practice sales and purchases and related services. As the owner of DCC, Respondent is responsible for its advertising. The DCC advertisements he has "published or caused to be published" include those listing dental practices for sale. Respondent's Exhibit B is a copy of a one-page DCC advertisement that Respondent had published in the November 2006 edition of Today's FDA, a journal of the Florida Dental Association.2 At the top of advertisement appeared the following: Doctors Choice Companies, Inc. Dental Practice Sales and Purchase "Over 100 Statewide Opportunities" "LOCAL AGENTS - EXPERT SERVICE" MAIN OFFICE (EAST COAST) - (561)746-2102 SOUTHEAST, FL - (954)257-3059 NORTH, FL - (407)310-4829 NAPLES/SARASOTA, FL - (954)830-3147 CENTRAL, FL - (407)291-9311 WESTCOAST, FL - (727)323-3589 DADE/KEYS, FL - (305)904-1682 This was followed by twelve photographs of twelve different individuals: Respondent, Dr. Tony Cruz, Morcie Smith, Dr. Pyser, Mary Ann Serkin, Dr. Marshall Berger, Mary Lou Johnson, Curtis Johnson, Dr. Jack Saxonhouse, Dr. James Vandenberghe, John Lytle, and Sandy Harris. The photographs were arranged in three rows of four across. Directly under each photograph was the name of the person depicted; his or her title or function (in Respondent's case, "Lic. Real Estate Broker" and "President"; in Dr. Pyser's case, "Licensed Consultant"; in Ms. Harris' case, "Associate Placement"; and in the case of the others, "Licensed Agent"); and, except in Respondent's case, the geographic area he or she covered (in Dr. Cruz's, as well as Mr. Lytle's, case, "Dade County/Keys, FL" ; in Mr. Smith's, as well as Dr. Vandenberghe's, case, "West Coast, FL"; in Dr. Pyser's case, "Naples/Sarasota, FL"; in Ms. Serkin's case, "North, FL"; in Dr. Berger's case, "Southeast, FL"; in Ms. Johnson's, as well as Mr. Johnson's, case, "Central, FL"; in Dr. Saxonhouse's case, "Palm Beach County"; and, in Ms. Harris' case, "Statewide"). The following text was at the bottom of this one-page advertisement: FOR INFORMATION ON OPPORTUNITIES - CALL OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE www.doctorschoice1.net -Practice Sales and Purchases -Pre-Retirement Strategy -Practice Appraisals -Associate Placement (Buy-In's) -Commercial Property Sales/Leasing -Investment Real Estate To the immediate right of this text were five telephone numbers ((727)254-9707, (561)746-2102, (407)257-9841, (305)904-1682, and (954)257-3059). To the right of these telephone numbers was the DCC logo. Dr. Jerry Pyser is a licensed dentist with whom Respondent has had a 15 to 20-year business relationship. Dr. Pyser does not now, nor did he at any time material to the instant case, hold a Florida real estate license of any kind. At no time material to the instant case did Respondent believe that Dr. Pyser held such a license. Gregory Auerbach is a Florida-licensed real estate sales associate. He and his father, Stuart Auerbach, are associated with Professional Transitions, Inc. (PTI), which is a competitor of DCC's. There is "bad blood" between Respondent and Stuart Auerbach and their respective companies. In November 2006, Gregory Auerbach represented PTI at a meeting of dental professionals held in Gainesville, Florida. DCC was also represented at the meeting. On a table at the meeting site, Mr. Auerbach observed Respondent's Exhibit B, along with the second page of another DCC promotional document (Petitioner's Exhibit A2), which contained various dental practice listings. At the top of Petitioner's Exhibit A2 was a Gainesville listing, followed by a St. Augustine listing. The remaining listings were grouped under the following headings: "DADE COUNTY- Call Dr. Tony Cruz- (305)904-1682/Kenny Jones- (561)746-2102"; "WEST COAST- Morcie Smith- (727)254- 9707/Dr. Jerry Pyser- Naples to Sarasota (954)830-3147"; and "SPECIALTY- Call Kenny Jones (561)746-2102." Beneath these three categories of listings was the following: ASSOCIATE PLACEMENT OPPORTUNITIES - POSITIONS AVAILABLE NOW!! Need a Job or Need an Associate. Call Sandy Harris (561)746-2102 or Go to our website at www.doctorschoice1.net and click on the Dental Associate Placement Link. PLUMBED (BUILTOUT) SETUP SPACE'S [SIC] - Call for Statewide Locations! Email: Info@doctorschoice1.net Website: www.doctorschoice1.net We Buy - Sell - Lease Medical - Dental - Veterinary Properties Last Revised: 11/6/2006 Page 2[3] Respondent's Exhibit B and Petitioner's Exhibit A2, particularly when read together, were misleading in that they conveyed the impression that Dr. Pyser was licensed to engage in activities relating to the sale and purchase of dental practices in Florida (as a point of contact), when, in fact, as Respondent was aware, Dr. Pyser had no such license. Prospective purchasers reading these "flyers" would have been reasonable, but in error, in believing that, if they were to contact Dr. Pyser, they would be dealing with a person possessing a Florida real estate license. Mr. Auerbach picked up these two DCC "flyers" (Respondent's Exhibit B and Petitioner's Exhibit A2) from the table on which they were laying and took them with him when he left the meeting.4 He subsequently sent them, along with four pages from DCC's public website that he had printed (Petitioner's Exhibit A3-6),5 to Petitioner. The matter was investigated by Dawn Luchik, one of Petitioner's investigators. Ms. Luchik spent 11 hours (at a Petitioner-assigned hourly rate of $33.00) conducting her investigation.6 Following the completion of Ms. Luchik's investigation, Petitioner issued the Administrative Complaint against Respondent described above.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a Final Order dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint; finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; fining him $1,000.00 for committing these violations; and ordering him to pay Petitioner's reasonable costs incurred in investigating these violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 14th day of February, 2008.
Findings Of Fact J.D. Bligh Construction, Inc. (Petitioner), was incorporated and began doing business on or about February 18, 1974. Petitioner engaged in the construction business; erecting, repairing and remodeling buildings and structures; and performing public works. The majority of Petitioner's work is subcontracted out. At Petitioner's inception, Jack D. Bligh and his wife, Carol E. Bligh, were co-owners with each possessing 50 percent of the stock in the business. Jack Bligh was the President and the only Director. Petitioner was started as a family business. At all times material hereto, Jack Bligh was licensed as a certified Management contractor by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. Petitioner is authorized by the State of Florida to engage in the construction business under his license. Petitioner had no employees other than Jack and Carol Bligh and subcontracted out work for which contracts were awarded or agreements entered into. All proposals for work and contract agreements on behalf of Petitioner were accepted and executed by Jack Bligh. Jack Bligh was the guarantor on behalf of Petitioner. For example, he was the guarantor for Petitioner's lease agreement for the site location of its business, dated June 15, 1988. Carol Bligh's duties with Petitioner were clerical and administrative, such as determining draw requests, ordering supplies and banking. She had no experience in the construction industry whether it was Management contracting or actual field experience. Jack Bligh, her husband, was responsible for the actual running of the business and handling the day-to-day operations of the business, such as contracting, estimating, bidding and hiring and firing subcontractors. On or about August 22, 1985, Jack and Carol Bligh formed J. D. Bligh Airport Construction, Inc., with Jack Bligh as the sole director and President, owning 49 percent of the stock, and Carol Bligh as Secretary, owning 51 percent of the stock. It was a wholly owned subsidiary and formed on the advice of their insurance agent and accountant for liability insurance purposes regarding a contract for work at the Fort Lauderdale International Airport, which at that time was a big project for Jack and Carol Bligh. In September 1988, Petitioner, as contractor, contracted with the Boca Raton Airport, Inc., d/b/a Boca Aviation to perform work at the airport at a cost of approximately $533,000. The subsidiary corporation, J. D. Bligh Airport Construction, Inc., was not used for this job. In July 1990, Petitioner entered into a contract as subcontractor to perform work at the Opa-Locka Airport at a cost of approximately $65,000. The subsidiary, J. D. Bligh Airport Construction, Inc., was also not used for this job. On or about August 8, 1990, J. D. Bligh Airport Construction, Inc., was changed to J. D. Bligh Caribbean Construction, Inc. The purpose of the name change was again for liability insurance purposes in order to perform work in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. The Blighs were rebuilding apartments damaged by Hurricane Hugo. Also, in September 1992, Petitioner again contracted with Boca Raton Airport to perform work at a cost of approximately $272,000. Carol Bligh executed the contract and the performance bond. For 17 years, Jack Bligh remained Petitioner's President until on or about January 15, 1991, at which time Carol Bligh became President. She was gratuitously given additional stock in the business by her husband for her long years of service and dedication to Petitioner. With this additional stock, Carol Bligh also became the minority/majority stockholder. When Carol Bligh became President of Petitioner and minority/majority owner with 51 percent in January 1991, her main duties and responsibilities did not change. She continued with the clerical and administrative aspect of Petitioner's Management contracting business. However, her duties and responsibilities also expanded to include dealing with bonding, securing lines of credit and insurance, setting-up workers compensation, assisting in policy- making, financial planning and operational procedures, and contract negotiations. On or about October 3, 1991, Carol Bligh's duties and responsibilities relating to hiring and firing were officially increased by Petitioner's directors to include hiring and firing of all personnel, including office and field personnel. In 1990, Carol and Jack Bligh's daughter, Janice Bligh, joined the business. Using his more than 17 years experience in the construction business, Jack Bligh began training her in Petitioner's contracting business, which included taking her to job sites for observation of the work being performed. Around mid-1991, Janice Bligh was placed in control of field supervision, estimating and bidding. For the past year and a half, Jack Bligh performed these functions only when she was unable to do so. Janice Bligh received her training as a field supervisor from her father, Jack Bligh, through observing him and the subcontractors. His supervision extends over the subcontractors since the majority of Petitioner's work is subcontracted out. Janice Bligh is taking courses in contracting and has completed three; one in estimating, one in plan reading and one in the South Florida Building Code. She is not currently licensed in the construction industry but eventually wants to take the State licensing examination to become a Management contractor but that is 2 1/2 to 3 years away. She has limited knowledge of the statutory requirements placed upon a Management contractor in terms of authorized scope of work and required liability coverage. Since Carol Bligh became Petitioner's President, proposals and agreements or contracts have been signed by either Janice Bligh or Carol Bligh. Also, bonding documents have been signed by Carol Bligh. Authorized signers and users on Petitioner's bank account are Carol, Jack and Janice Bligh, individually, with either one of them being authorized to execute bank documents on behalf of Petitioner. When Petitioner needed funds for operating expenses, they came from Carol and Jack Bligh. A promissory note dated April 15, 1992, from Petitioner to Carol Bligh was signed by Carol Bligh, as President, and came from funds in Carol and Jack Bligh's joint account. However, another promissory note dated June 30, 1992, involved funds loaned to the businesses from a business owned by Jack Bligh's father. Additionally, a promissory note dated April 15, 1993, was from Petitioner to Carol and Jack Bligh, equally. On or about December 1, 1992, Janice Bligh became a shareholder and officer of Petitioner's business, acquiring 2 percent of the stock from Jack Bligh, thereby leaving him with 47 percent of the stock. Carol Bligh retained 51 percent of the stock. Even though Janice Bligh was a shareholder and part owner of Petitioner, an indemnity agreement with a bonding surety dated February 23, 1993, was signed by Carol and Jack Bligh only. Also, the agreement reflected no differentiation of liability. As to wages, Petitioner's quarterly wage report dated April 17, 1991, reflects Jack Bligh's salary as $3,650, Carol Bligh's salary as $7,250, Janice Bligh's salary as $5,200, Jill Bligh's salary as $1,209 and Lawrence Massey's salary as $4,093.76. Jill Bligh is another daughter of Carol and Jack Bligh. She performs office work, run errands and answers the telephone. She is neither an officer nor a director. Petitioner's quarterly wage report dated July 12, 1991, reflects Jack Bligh's salary as $650, Carol Bligh's salary as $650, Janice Bligh's salary as $5,200, Jill Bligh's salary as $1,698 and Lawrence Massey's salary as $1,593.77. Petitioner's quarterly wage report dated October 15, 1991, reflects Jack Bligh's salary as $440, Carol Bligh's salary as $600, Janice Bligh's salary as $5,200 and Jill Bligh's salary as $1,804.50. Petitioner's quarterly wage report dated January 27, 1992, reflects Jack Bligh's salary as $390, Carol Bligh's salary as $300, Janice Bligh's salary as $2,400 and Jill Bligh's salary as $1,522.50. Carol Bligh testified that she and Jack Bligh reduced their salary to aid the business economically in the bad economic times of the construction industry. However, her testimony is not credible in light of the salary paid their daughter Jill Bligh in relationship to the work she performed. Petitioner applied for certification by Respondent as a minority business enterprise (MBE) on March 24, 1992. An initial review of the documentation provided by Petitioner indicated that Petitioner did not meet the criteria for MBE status; however, questions remained so a telephone interview with Carol Bligh was held in July 1992. Based on the documentation provided and the telephone interview, Petitioner was denied MBE status and notified by certified letter, dated July 14, 1992. Petitioner has been certified as a MBE by local governments.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services issue a Final Order denying J. D. Bligh Construction, Inc., certification as a Minority Business Enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of February 1994. ERROL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February 1994.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty of investigating and prosecuting complaints against real estate professionals in the State of Florida. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been duly issued license numbers 0263586, 0261820, 0260480, and 0300938. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker with the following entities: Avatar Realty, Inc., 4550 Poinciana Boulevard, Kissimmee, Florida; Avatar Communities, Inc., 201 Alhambra Circle, Coral Gables, Florida 33134; Golden Gate Realty, Inc., 4736C Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida; and Avatar Condominium Management, Inc., 201 Alhambra Circle, Coral Gables, Florida. Prior to February 20, 1987, Respondent was the owner of a convenience store known as Hemispheres Food Mart, which was located in the Hemispheres condominium and office complex in Hollywood, Florida. On or about February 20, 1987, Respondent, as owner, entered into a three month exclusive right of sale listing agreement with South Florida Business Negotiators, Inc., for the sale of the Hemispheres Food Mart, at an asking price of $100,000. In connection with the foregoing listing agreement, the Respondent represented and warranted as true that the: "Business doing $286,000 yearly net $55,000 ambitious owner can improve potential to $350,000 yearly." On or about April 1, 1987, the Respondent, as seller, entered into a "Contract for Purchase and Sale of Stock of Hemispheres Food Mart, Inc., D/B/A Hemispheres Mini Mart" with Kenny Mohammed and Annie Mohammed, his wife, as purchasers, to sell the corporate stock of Hemispheres Food Mart, Inc. to the Mohammeds. This contract was executed by the Mohammeds on April 2, 1987. The first line of the contract reflects an erroneous date for the contract of May 5, 1987. Paragraph 12 of the "Contract for Purchase and Sale of Stock of Hemispheres Food Mart, Inc., D/B/A Hemispheres Mini Mart", provided as follows: 12. PURCHASER'S RIGHT TO INSPECTION OF SELLER'S RECORDS. The Purchaser, within 72 hours after the con- tract has been signed and executed by both parties, shall have the right, either by himself or through his accountant, to inspect the financial records and receipts of the Seller to verify the amount of sales of the Seller on a weekly basis. The Purchaser shall verify that the average gross sales on a weekly basis for the Seller, during the time period from January 1 through April 1 (the season) exceed the sum of $8,400.00 per week. If the Purchaser by himself or through his accountant determines that the gross sales for the Seller are less than $8,400.00 per week, the Purchaser shall have the unilateral right to terminate its obligations under the terms of this Contract. Seller shall supply Purchaser with copies of 1985 and 1986 tax returns. The Seller agrees to allow the Purchaser to sit in the place of business for a period of one week to observe and verify that the stated daily gross sales of the business exceed $1,200.00. If during the one-week observation period the daily gross sales do not meet $1,200.00, the Purchaser reserves the right to cancel this Agreement and the deposit held in escrow shall be refunded to them. On May 7, 1987, Respondent and the Mohammeds executed an addendum to their contract. Paragraph 23 of the addendum provides as follows: 23. INSPECTION OF RECORDS It is hereby agreed that both parties shall have complied with paragraph 12, PURCHASERS' RIGHT TO INSPECTION OF SELLER'S RECORDS, and therefore same shall be considered null and void. The representation contained in the contract relating to the level of sales was for sales made during the "season" between January 1 and April 1. Mr. Mohammed exercised his right to observe the sales during the week that began April 6, 1987. During the week long observation period, the sales for two of the days did not equal $1,200. Mr. Raymond provided various records and cash register tapes for the period January 1 - April 1, 1987, for inspection by Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Mohammed's financial adviser. Following the inspection of these records and the one-week observation period, Mr. Mohammed, against the advice of his attorney, elected to close the transaction. The transaction closed in May 1987. (The closing statement signed by Respondent and the Mohammeds does not reflect the day in May the transaction closed.) Subsequent to the closing, the Mohammeds sued Respondent in a civil action brought in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida. The "Final Judgment for Plaintiffs" entered September 19, 1989, by Circuit Judge J. Cail Lee provides, in pertinent part, as follows: ... [T]he Court having heard the testimony of all witnesses and having examined the proofs offered by the respective parties, the court finds that he testimony of the two witnesses was to the effect the defendant, Warren Raymond, falsified sales during the sales verification period to induce the plaintiffs, Kenny Mohammed and Annie Mohammed, to complete the purchase of the Hemispheres Mini Mart, and that constituted fraud, and that constituted a basis not only for compensatory damages but punitive damages as well. It is therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the plaintiffs have a judgment against the defendant for fraud in the sum of $750.00 compensatory damages and $15,000.00 punitive damages ... Respondent appealed the judgment entered against him by Judge Lee. While the case was on appeal, Respondent and the Mohammeds settled the civil suit. Respondent did not admit any wrongdoing in the Settlement Agreement. Thereafter, on March 26, 1990, Judge Lee entered a "Final Judgment of Settlement" in the civil action which vacated the "Final Judgment for Plaintiffs" that he had entered September 19, 1989, and which dismissed with prejudice the civil action the Mohammeds had brought against Respondent. There was no competent evidence presented at the formal administrative hearing that Respondent had (a) misrepresented the value of the premises or potential of the business, (b) generated false sales during the observation period, (c) falsified cash register receipts, (d) conspired with his friends to falsify sales, or (e) otherwise engaged in fraud during the course of his business dealings with the Mohammeds.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which dismisses the Administrative Complaint brought against Respondent in this proceeding. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of January, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5320 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-5, 7 and 11 (the first of the two paragraphs that are numbered 11) are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed finding that the contract was dated May 5, 1987, is rejected as being contrary to the finding that the contract was dated April 1, 1987. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The use of the term "induced" is rejected as being contrary to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 9 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the record. The last sentence is rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 (the second of the two paragraphs that are numbered 11) are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-5, 7-14 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed finding that the contract was dated May 5, 1987, is rejected as being contrary to the finding that the contract was dated April 1, 1987. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 15 and 16 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: James Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Senior Attorney 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Norman Segall, Esquire Bentata Hoet & Associates & Zamora, Segall, Lacasa & Schere 3191 Coral Way - Third Floor Miami, Florida 33145 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
