Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, Fidelity Standard Mortgage Company (Fidelity Standard) and First Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. (First Fidelity) were mortgage brokers licensed by respondent, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance (Division). In or around early 1983, Fidelity Standard and First Fidelity filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code. By virtue of this action, numerous investors lost substantial amounts of money invested with the two brokers. In 1977 the legislature established in chapter 494 a mortgage brokerage guaranty fund from which payment is made to persons "adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to have suffered monetary damage as a result of any (unlawful) acts by a mortgage broker... who was licensed under, this chapter at the time the act was committed." Certain conditions must be met in order to establish eligibility for payment from the fund, and payments for claims are limited in the aggregate to $50,000 per mortgage broker, regardless of the number of claimants. 1/ Among other things, section 494.043 requires that a claimant must have (a) received a final judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction against the broker, (b) caused to be issued a writ of execution upon the judgment and the return indicates insufficient assets to satisfy the judgment, (c) made a reasonable search to discover assets of the broker, and has found none, (d) applied any amounts recovered from broker to the damages awarded by the court, and (e) given notice to the Division by certified mail at the time the action was instituted. Where as here, the broker has filed for bankruptcy, steps (b) and (c) need not be taken by the claimant, except to file a claim in the bankruptcy proceeding. There is also a two year period in which investors may perfect their claims. These persons receive first priority to payment from the fund. In the case of both Fidelity Standard and First Fidelity, this period expired on June 18, 1986. Thus, in order to share in the first distribution of moneys from the fund, a claimant had to satisfy the above criteria by that date. In addition to these criteria, a claimant must assign to the Division any interest in the judgment received once all criteria in section 494.043 have been met. The statute imposing this requirement (s. 494.044) provides that this must be done after the claimant has received payment from the fund. In its proposed final order concerning Fidelity Standard entered on August 7, 1986, the Division concluded that the following claimants should receive payment from the fund in the amounts specified below: Claimant Claim Allowed David Swid $ 2,321.00 William & Olivia Petruzel 2,321.00 Vera G. Marino 2,321.00 Benjamin Rosenberg 2,321.00 Lee Rosenberg 2,321.00 Shasha Enterprises 2,321.00 Eli Krause 1,995.00 Eugene Brooks, M.D., P.C. 2,321.00 Eugene Brooks 2,321.00 Steven Jankovich 2,100.50 Stacy Sher 2,100.50 Frederick Low 2,321.00 Patricia Worthley 2,321,00 Alfred Vanderlaan 2,321.00 Ben Sakow 2,048.00 Thomas Shisler 1,229.00 David Irving 2,321.00 Betty Burwell 1,662.00 Alisa Kreimer 2,321.00 Samuel Rudnick 2,321.00 Bonnie & Howard Lenkowitz 1,204.00 Larry & Sally Lenkowitz 525.00 Stuart & Barbara Schrager 2,321.00 Helen & Eugene Loos 2,321.00 Total Payments $50,000.00 In a second order entered the same day involving First Fidelity, the Division proposed that the following claimants receive payment from the fund as indicated below: Claimant Fund Award Swid $ 2,620.00 Morton 2,620.00 Ghane 2,620.00 Petruzel 2,620.00 Marino 2,620.00 B. Rosenberg 2,620.00 L. Rosenberg 2,620.00 Shasha Enterprises 2,620.00 Krause 2,254.00 Brooks, M.D., P.C. 2,620.00 Brooks 2,620.00 Jankovich 2,372.00 Sher 2,372.00 Low 2,620.00 Worthley 2,620.00 Vanderlaan 2,620.00 Sakow 2,313.00 Shisler 1,389.00 Irving 2,620.00 Loos 2,620.00 Total Payments $50,000.00 After the entry of the proposed final order in Case No. 86-3575, petitioners, David Swid, Vera G. Marino et al., Samuel Rudnick et al., and William and Olivia Petruzel, who are named as recipients from the fund, requested a hearing to either contest or support the proposed payout from the fund. In addition, petitioners, Merele Dunne, Ida Orlick and Ilene Kirshner, whose claims were denied, challenged the proposed action. In Case No. 86-3576 involving First Fidelity, petitioners, William and Olivia Petruzel, David Swid, Esmail Ghane and Vera G. Marino et al., who are named as recipients of the fund, have requested a formal hearing to either challenge or support the agency action. Petitioners, Harry and Yetta Neiderman, Harold E. and Eva L. Roys and Harold S. Johnson, whose claims to participate in the initial distribution of the fund were denied, also requested a hearing to contest the action. The Claimants David Swid -- Swid satisfied all statutory criteria in section 494.043 for perfecting his claim against both Fidelity Standard and First Fidelity by June 18, 1986. His partial assignment to the Division of the judgment against the brokers was also filed on June 18, 1986, but was not furnished to the Division until July 9, 1986. Even so, Swid has satisfied all criteria, and is eligible to participate in the initial payout from the fund. Marino et al. -- This group of claimants includes fifteen investors. 2/ Marino et al. received two identical judgments against First Fidelity and Fidelity Standard and otherwise satisfied all statutory criteria by June 18, 1986. Because the group is not entitled to a double recovery, the amount awarded by the court has been divided in half. An assignment of the judgments was filed with the Division on June 12, 1986, but did not reflect the page and book number where the judgments were recorded. However, the judgments were filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, and records of that court are not kept by book and page number. Therefore, the assignment was in proper form, and all statutory criteria have been met. William and Olivia Petruzel -- The Petruzels obtained final judgments against First Fidelity and Fidelity Standard on April 11, 1985, in the United States Bankruptcy Court. Partial assignments of the judgments dated April 4, 1986, in favor of the Division were filed with the Division in April 1986. Therefore, all pertinent criteria have been met, and the Petruzels are eligible to share in the initial payout from the fund. Harold E. and Eva L. Roys and Harold S. Johnson -- These parties are claimants against First Fidelity. There is no evidence that they perfected their claims prior to June 18, 1986. Therefore, their claim to participate in the first distribution of moneys from the fund should be denied. Rudnick et al. -- This group of claimants includes six investors in Fidelity Standard. 3/ They obtained a final judgment against Fidelity Standard on June 10, 1986, in Broward County circuit court. Assignments of this judgment to the Division were executed in August 1986, and later filed with the Division. Therefore, Rudnick et al. have qualified for participation. Ida Orlick and Merele Dunne -- These two claimants were investors in Fidelity Standard and First Fidelity. They did not obtain a final judgment against those brokers until June 25, 1986, or after the two-year period to perfect claims had expired. Therefore, they are not entitled to participate in the first distribution of moneys from the fund. 4/ Harry and Yetta Neiderman -- These claimants were investors in First Fidelity. They obtained a final judgment in bankruptcy court against the broker prior to June 18, 1986. The Division proposed to deny the claim on the ground no documentation was submitted to prove that a claim had been filed with the bankruptcy court. At final hearing, the Neidermans submitted a proof of claim which reflected such a claim was previously filed with the court on July 15, 1982. Therefore, all statutory criteria have been met. Irene Morton -- Morton was an investor in First Fidelity who, like the others, lost her investment by virtue of illegal acts of that broker. She has perfected her claim in a timely manner and is entitled to participate in the first distribution of moneys from the fund. Esmail Ghane -- This investor lost approximately $30,000 due to the illicit acts of First Fidelity. He has subsequently obtained a judgment against the broker and has satisfied in a timely manner all other statutory criteria. Therefore, he has perfected his claim and is eligible for payment from the fund. At the same time, it is noted that Ghane's cause of action against the broker arose prior to October 1, 1985, and that he must share in the lower aggregate award ($50,000) that applies to claims arising before that date. Computation of Payments In addition to obtaining judgments for their lost principal, virtually all of the claimants were awarded either prejudgment or post-judgment interest, or both, by the courts adjudicating their claims. Further, some of the claimants have previously received payments from the fund for illegal acts occurring on the part of Franklin Capital Corporation, an affiliated corporation of First Fidelity and Fidelity Standard. By stipulation of counsel, the following amounts are the correct amounts due the claimants for losses arising from illicit acts by Fidelity Standard and First Fidelity assuming their claims are both timely and valid. The amounts are computed after deducting prior payments and by using only the principal amount awarded by the courts, and by including principal and pre- judgment interest. Fidelity Standard (without interest) Fund Claimant Award Swid $ 3,021.00 Petruzel 3,021.00 Marino 3,021.00 B. Rosenberg 3,021.00 L. Rosenberg 3,021.00 Shasha Enterprises 3,021.00 Krause 1,435.00 Brooks, M.D., P.C. 2,870.00 Brooks 1,888.00 Jankovich 1,511.00 Sher 1,511.00 Low 1,813.00 Worthley 1,813.00 Vanderlaan 2,417.00 Sakow 1,511.00 Shisler 906.00 Irving 2,553.00 Burwell 477.00 Kreimer 1,081.00 Rudnick 2,290.00 B & H Lenkowitz 1,686.00 L & S Lenkowitz 70.00 Schrager 3,021.00 Loos 3,021.00 $50,000.00 Fidelity Standard (with prejudgment interest) Claimant Fund Award Swid $ 2,279.50 Petruzel 2,279.50 Marino 2,279.50 B. Rosenberg 2,279.50 L. Rosenberg 2,279.50 Shasha Enterprises 2,279.50 Krause 1,959.50 Brooks, M.D., P.C. 2,279.50 Brooks 2,279.50 Jankovich 2,062.50 Sher 2,062.50 Low 2,279.50 Worthley 2,279.50 Vanderlaan 2,279.50 Sakow 2,011.50 Shisler 1,206.50 Irving 2,279.50 Burwell 1,531.50 Kreimer 2,219.50 Rudnick 2,279.50 B & H Lenkowitz 2,279.50 L & S Lenkowitz 474.50 Schrager 2,279.50 Loos 2,279.50 $ 50,000.00 Fidelity (without Standard interest) Claimant Fund Award Swid $ 3,021.00 Petruzel 3,021.00 Marino 3,021.00 B. Rosenberg 3,021.00 L. Rosenberg 3,021.00 Shasha Enterprises 3,021.00 Krause 1,435.00 Brooks, M.D., P.C. 2,870.00 Brooks 1,888.00 Jankovich 1,511.00 Sher 1,511.00 Low 1,813.00 Worthley 1,813.00 Vanderlaan 2,417.00 Sakow 1,511.00 Shisler 906.00 Irving 2,553.00 Burwell 477.00 Kreimer 1,081.00 Rudnick 2,290.00 B & H Lenkowitz 1,686.00 L & S Lenkowitz 70.00 Schrager 3,021.00 Loos 3,021.00 $50,000.00 Fidelity Standard (with pre-judgement interest) Fund Claimant Award Swid $ 2,279.50 Petruzel 2,279.50 Marino 2,279.50 B. Rosenberg 2,279.50 L. Rosenberg 2,279.50 Shasha Enterprises 2,279.50 Krause 1,959.50 Brooks, M.D., P.C. 2,279.50 Brooks, 2,279.50 Jankovich 2,062.50 Sher 2,062.50 Low 2,279.50 Worthley 2,279.50 Vanderlaan 2,279.50 Sakow 2,011.50 Shisler 1,206.50 Irving 2,279.00 Burwell 1,531.50 Kreimer 2,219.50 Rudnick 2,279.50 B & H Lenkowitz 2,279.50 L & S Lenkowitz 474.50 Schrager 2,279.50 Loos 2,279.50 $50,000.00 First Fidelity (without interest) Claimant Fund Award Neiderman $ 2,995.00 Swid 2,995.00 Morton 2,995.00 Ghane 2,995.00 Petruzel 2,995.00 Marino 2,995.00 B. Rosenberg 2,995.00 L. Rosenberg 2,995.00 Shasha Enterprises 2,995.00 Krause 1,422.50 Brooks, M.D., P.C. 2,845.00 Brooks 1,872.00 Jankovich 1,497.25 Sher 1,497.25 Low 1,797.00 Worthley 1,797.00 Vanderlaan 2,396.00 Sakow 1,497.25 Shisler 898.25 Irving 2,530.50 Loos 2,995.00 $50,000.00 First Fidelity (with prejudgment interest) Fund Claimant Award Neiderman $ 2,489.80 Swid 2,489.80 Morton 2,489.80 Ghane 2,489.80 Petruzel 2,489.80 Marino 2,489.80 B. Rosenberg 2,489.80 L. Rosenberg 2,489.80 Shasha Enterprises 2,489.80 Krause 2,140.44 Brooks, M.D., P.C. 2,489.80 Brooks 2,489.80 Jankovich 2,253.44 Sher 2,253.44 Low 2,489.80 Worthley 2,489.80 Vanderlaan 2,489.80 Sakow 2,197.44 Shisler 1,318.44 Irving 2,489.80 Loos 2,489.80 $50,000.00 The inclusion of post-judgment interest in the calculation of the awards has an inconsequential effect on the amounts to be paid and accordingly has been disregarded.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the initial payment from the mortgage brokerage guaranty fund for damages arising from illicit acts by Fidelity Standard and First Fidelity be made in accordance with the schedules set forth in finding of fact 16, said amounts to include prejudgment interest. All other claims for relief should be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1987.
Findings Of Fact For the purposes of these proceedings, Jager Industries, Inc. and Castle Realty Ltd. are synonymous as Petitioner. Through name changes, Castle Realty Ltd. became Jager Industries, Inc. Under the provisions of the Mortgage Brokerage Act, Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, the Office of the Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance (Department), is charged with the responsibility and duty of administering the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund (Fund) which includes the duty to approve or deny applications for payment from the Fund, as set forth in Section 494.042, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, 1st Federated Realty Mortgage, Inc. (1st Federated) was licensed as a mortgage broker in this state pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, having license number HE 7896. On or about January 8, 1981, 1st Federated filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa, Division. Thereafter, on or about December 16, 1981, 1st Federated was dissolved. On January 29, 1985, the Department received a letter dated January 25, 1985, by regular mail, requesting payment from the Fund on behalf of Castle Realty Ltd. Attached to the letter was a final judgment entered on April 21, 1982, in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County against 1st Federated in the principal amount of $50,000 based upon a violation of Section 494.042(2)(d), Florida Statutes, a Writ of Execution returned unsatisfied and an Affidavit of Reasonable Search. Thereafter on May 17, 1987, the Department received by certified mail a copy of the Complaint filed against 1st Federated and supporting documents including a copy of the Master Loan Commitment, Affidavit and Acceptance of Service. Pursuant to the Master Loan Commitment, Castle Realty paid $50,000 to 1st Federated as a Master Commitment Fee in exchange for a promise by 1st Federated to fund up to $4,000,000 for individual condominium loans. The individual commitments and closing of loans were subject to the lender approving the borrower's credit; however, approvals could not be unreasonable withheld. Timely notice of the institution of the action by Petitioner against 1st Federated as required by s. 494.043(5), Florida Statutes (1985), was waived by Respondent. No evidence was submitted regarding the number of claims involving 1st Federated and the amount of those claims that have been paid by Respondent from the Fund. Accordingly, no recommendation is made regarding the amount of Petitioner's claim that may be paid from the Fund pursuant to the limitations contained in s. 494.044, Florida Statutes (1985). By Notice of Intent to Deny Payment from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund dated May 22, 1987, Respondent entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and denied Petitioner's claim. As grounds therefor, Respondent concluded that the 1985 and 1986 amendments to Chapter 494 were applicable in this case as those amendments were remedial or procedural in nature and should be given retrospective application. Thereafter, Petitioner requested formal proceedings by petition filed June 16, 1987, and this request was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Comptroller's letter dated July 23, 1987.
The Issue Whether the Department of Corrections (DOC) acted arbitrarily or illegally in selecting ARC Developmental Companies, Inc. (ARC) as the intended lessee under a proposed lease, Lease No. 700:0606? Whether, as DOC now advocates in its proposed recommended order, DOC should award the lease to LFFO because ARC's proposal is non-responsive? Whether DOC's interests would be best served by starting over?
Findings Of Fact In a single headquarters complex in Tallahassee, DOC has decided to consolidate administrative offices now scattered among various buildings. To that end, DOC's RFP for Lease No. 700:0606 seeks 56,154 square feet of office space by January 1, 1994, and (after other current leases expire) an additional 149,651 square feet of adjoining office space for occupancy on March 31, 1995. The RFP requires that DOC have the right to renew for each of two successive five-year terms, after an initial ten-year term. ARC has an option to purchase land on which it proposes to build all the office space it would lease to DOC. The RFP assumes that the office buildings to be leased do not yet exist, and requires only that "turn key" facilities be available at the times specified in the RFP. LFFO owns one of the buildings housing DOC offices now, and proposes to borrow money at commercial rates to finance construction of additional office space on adjacent land it already owns. After evaluating the competing proposals, DOC concluded that they were both responsive to the RFP, and assigned each points. ARC received a score of 97.66 points and LFFO received a score of 96.66 points. Over the initial ten- year term, ARC's proposal would require DOC to pay $30,175,129.10, while LFFO's proposal calls for payments aggregating $30,718,454.30 over the initial ten-year term. Joint Exhibit No. 4. Problematic Undertaking The RFP calls for some form of monetary assurance that a proposer will contract with DOC, if selected. Specifically, Paragraph IV(L) states: All Proposals shall include a Proposal Security Fee which may be in the form of cash, a Cashier's Check or Proposal Bond, and shall be in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), payable to the Department of Corrections. The agency reserves the right to reject any security tendered. The Proposal Security fee ties [sic] will be returned with[in] thirty (30) calendar days after the agency and the accepted proposer have executed a written lease. Joint Exhibit No. 1 at 32. The purpose in requiring a security fee or a proposal bond was to satisfy DOC of the proposers' good faith, "that they intended to enter into a contract" (T.72) with DOC, if given the opportunity. LFFO met the security fee requirement with a $10,000 cashier's check, while ARC submitted a bond issued by Highlands Insurance Company of Houston, Texas (Highlands), at the behest of Brown & Root Building Company (Brown & Root). Designated as principal on the bond, Brown & Root and, in the event of Brown & Root's default, Highlands, as surety, are obligated to pay DOC $10,000, on conditions stated in the bond, which, however, could never arise, because Brown & Root did not submit a proposal to DOC. The bond specifies the undertaking: [I]f the Obligee [DOC] shall accept the bid of the Principal [Brown & Root] and the Principal shall enter into a contract with the Obligee in accordance with the terms of such bid, and give such bond or bonds as may be specified in the bidding or contract documents with good and sufficient surety for the faithful performance of such contract and for the prompt payment of labor and material furnished in the prosecution thereof, or in the event of the failure of the Principal to enter such contract and give such bond or bonds, if the Principal shall pay to the Obligee the difference not to exceed the penalty hereof between the amount specified in said bid and such larger amount for which the Obligee may in good faith contract with another party to perform the work covered by said bid, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. Joint Exhibit No. 2. Signed by the president of Brown & Root and an attorney in fact for Highlands, the bid bond submitted with the ARC proposal misidentifies Brown & Root as the bidder for DOC's "State Headquarter Building," a reference to proposed Lease No. 700:0606. Joint Exhibit No. 2. Brown & Root is a general contractor named in ARC's proposal as a member of the "ARC Team." Joint Exhibit No. 2 at 41, and section entitled "Construction Phase Management Plan"; T.72, 239. But ARC is the bidder, the offeror making ARC's proposal, as Mr. Arthur R. Collins, the sole officer, director and shareholder of ARC, has clearly and consistently stated. Deposition of Collins, at 44-45. This is also clear from the four corners of the ARC proposal itself. There is no partnership or joint venture agreement between ARC and Brown & Root. Deposition of Collins, p. 42; T. 59-60, 255. Mr. Collins testified that a letter to ARC from Brown & Root constitutes "a letter agreement" between ARC and Brown & Root, which "essentially gives ARC Developmental Companies all rights to market and represent Brown & Root Building Company specifically as relates to this particular project." Deposition of Collins, p. 44. Otherwise stated, ARC and Brown & Root have an "agreement in principle" (T.239) under which Brown & Root is "responsible for design, build and finance, all three components." (T.240) There are, however, "ongoing negotiations as to some of the details" (Deposition of Collins, p. 44) and the "final terms and conditions are under negotiation," (T.255) or were at the time of the hearing. ARC's proposal did not contain the letter said to embody the agreement in principle between it and Brown & Root, nor did the letter come in evidence at hearing. Apparently nobody has ever signed anything on behalf of ARC purporting to bind ARC to any agreement, even in principle, between ARC and Brown & Root. Whether or not ARC contemplated that Brown & Root would perform all financing, designing and building, it is ARC to whom DOC had to look to accept responsibility to perform as DOC's contractor. The RFP specifies that the successful proposer cannot assign or transfer the contract "or his power to execute such contract" to any person without prior written consent of the agency. Joint Exhibit No. 1, p. 34, IV(T). The RFP also provides that a "transfer shall not be requested prior to completion of the facility and acceptance by the agency." Joint Exhibit No. 1, p. 34, IV(T). DOC would not have accepted a proposal without a security fee or proposal bond. T. 138. DOC concluded that the bid bond furnished with ARC's proposal provided the assurance the RFP sought. T. 138-139. But the bid bond does not assure that DOC will receive $10,000, in the event that ARC refuses to execute a lease, if its proposal is accepted. Although the bid bond represents ARC's effort to fulfill the security deposit requirement set out in paragraph IV(L) of the RFP, (Deposition of Collins at 42, 43), the bid bond does not purport to bind ARC in any way. The bid bond submitted with ARC's proposal makes no mention of ARC Developmental Companies, Inc. Joint Exhibit No. 2; T. 75. While LFFO suffered a detriment in submitting its security deposit: loss of use of $10,000 for a period already lasting several months; and the proposal bond ARC submitted cost it nothing (although Brown & Root presumably paid the premium), it is not clear that ARC enjoyed a material competitive advantage, as a result. But the RFP security requirement also sought to protect DOC's investment of time and money in evaluating proposals it solicited. The security deposit requirement cannot, under DOC policy not called into question here, be waived; and ARC's proposal is not responsive to the requirement. DOC's determination that the bid bond constitutes good security cannot withstand scrutiny. DOC's conclusion that the bond was sufficient was based on the bid bond itself, and on nothing else. T. 138-139. Construing the bid bond to meet the RFP's "earnest money" requirement is an arbitrary distortion of its terms. The purpose of requiring a security deposit or a proposal bond -- to provide the contracting agency some assurance that the successful bidder would in fact enter into a contract with the agency (T.72) -- was frustrated. The bid bond submitted by ARC provides no security whatsoever to DOC that ARC will enter into a contract with the agency. Ability, Financial Resources, History and References Paragraph V(H) of the RFP indicated that an evaluation committee would review all proposals to determine, among other things, the [c]omposition of the group submitting the proposal and their financial resources available to accomplish this project. Joint Exhibit No. 1, pp. 44-5. The RFP also speaks of financial criteria that the proposer itself must meet: S. Qualification of Proposers: Each proposer shall be required, before the award, to show to the complete satisfaction of the agency that he has the necessary facilities, ability and financial resources, to furnish the service and facilities as specified herein in a satisfactory manner, and he may also be required to show past history and references which will enable the agency according to the foregoing requirements and will justify the agency in assessing his the proposal. Joint Exhibit No. 1, p. 34, IV (strike through and emphasis in original). The RFP states that time is of the essence, which may account for the concern it evinces over the financial ability of proposers. ARC has furnished DOC no balance sheet, audited or otherwise. In its proposal, information ARC provided relating to its financial resources consisted of a single credit report dated September 22, 1992, which disclosed only: NO PUBLIC RECORDS OR OTHER INFORMATION IN FILE VER INC 01-13-92, NO CREDIT REFS GIVEN Joint Exhibit No. 2. The testimony at hearing did not establish what financial resources ARC has acquired, if any, since its incorporation last year. ARC is involved with one other project, for which financing is currently being sought (T.249-252), but otherwise has no real estate development experience. T.254. Among things lenders who finance real estate development consider are "the history and the experience of the borrower or borrowing entity, . . . their numbers, . . . their financial capacity . . . what type of equity injection [they] are going to put into the deal, whether it be cash or hard land . . . ." T.153. ARC did not demonstrate its ability to "inject" any equity into this project. Tax-Exempt Financing Proposed ARC's proposal contains a September 18, 1992, letter from the Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation, addressed to Brown & Root, the body of which states in its entirety: Regarding the issuance of tax-exempt debt to finance the proposed facility to be leased to the Florida Department of Corrections, as their state headquarters office building. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette is pleased to participate in the successful development of the proposed project. Based upon current market conditions and the procurement of credit enhancement or an investment grade rating for the issue, we are confident that we can successfully underwrite a public offering of tax-exempt bonds. Joint Exhibit No. 2. This is not a firm commitment, only an undertaking to use "best efforts." Deposition of Shirey, p.24. After receiving the proposals, DOC solicited additional financial information from LFFO and from ARC by letters dated October 19, 1992, which state: The request for proposal stipulated that additional information pertaining to your capabilities to perform the project to our satisfaction may be necessary. The Chief of the Bureau of Finance and Accounting is charged with gathering the necessary information for determining if your group can realistically perform the project. This is considered a pass/fail criteri[on]. Joint Exhibit No. 8. The letters instructed both proposers to "[p]rovide a plan to finance both the construction and subsequent operation of the facility," including detailed information on all financing arrangements, specifically: A description of all financing arrangements (i.e. - debt, equity, lease agreement, etc.). A description of the proposed sources of financing for the construction and operation of the facility. Documentation should include specific commitment statements from financiers. The principal amount of debt to be issued or equity to be committed to finance the project. The annual interest rate for each debt component. A debt amortization schedule. An analysis of projected cash flow for both the construction period and the term of the lease. A description and value of all collateral to be pledged. Joint Exhibit No. 8. DOC anticipated that the proposers would respond with the financing plan they actually intended to use to finance construction of the project. Deposition of Biddy, p. 18; T. 98. In response to DOC's October 19, 1992, letter, ARC submitted a second letter from Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, dated October 22, 1992. Joint Exhibit No. 11. The second Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette letter stated, in part: The final amount of the debt will be dependent on the final plan and specifications provided by the contractor and architect and negotiations with the ultimate investor. The final debt amount will be made available prior to the closing. The financing will provide 100 percent of the funds necessary to construct the project. The final interest rate or rates. (See Number 3 above). Debt Ammorization schedule. (See numbers 3 & 4 above). An accompanying Memorandum of Terms summarized some of the RFP requirements, gave a brief description of the property on which ARC has an option, and stated: FINANCING: Construction/Permanent financing will be obtained by selling tax exempt certificates of participation (the "Certificates") in the Lease Agreement. Proceeds from the sale of the Certificates will fund construction and provide permanent financing for the Facility. . . . It is anticipated that the Certificates will be rated or credit enhanced by a policy of municipal bond insurance. SECURITY: Certificate holders will be secured by an undivided interest in payments received pursuant to the Lease. Certificate holders will be additionally secured by a deed on the Property recorded in the name of the trustee on behalf of Certificate holders. Joint Exhibit No. 11. DOC was evidently satisfied with LFFO's response to its letter of October 19, 1992. Joint Exhibit No. 11. Following ARC's October 22, 1992, response to DOC's October 19, 1992 letter, however, DOC wrote ARC requesting still more financial information. DOC's letter stated: Thank you for responding so promptly to our letter of October 19, 1992 concerning the financial viability of the proposal submitted by ARC Development Companies, Inc. However, we do not see in your response the level of detail that is necessary to alleviate the concerns we have. Joint Exhibit No. 14. In response to this letter, ARC wrote DOC a letter dated November 6, 1992. Joint Exhibit No. 15. The response included a cash flow analysis, which assumed a bond issue of $27 million repayable over 20 years, with interest at 8 3/4 percent; along with a resolution from the City of Midway, purporting to authorize the creation of a nonprofit corporation to issue some $29 million worth of revenue bonds to finance the construction of the project (in Tallahassee). Joint Exhibit No. 15. The cash flow analysis assumed $170,000 would be borrowed from some other, unidentified source, and did not indicate how cash flow shortfalls projected for 1994 and 1995 were to be covered. At ARC's October 23, 1992, oral presentation to DOC officials, Mr. Collins emphasized that ARC's proposal was based on tax-exempt financing. Joint Exhibit No. 7, pp. 9, 27, 60, 72-73. ARC's post-submittal correspondence with DOC concerning financial arrangements reiterated reliance on tax exempt financing. Joint Exhibits Nos. 11, 14, 17 and 18. Mr. Collins' testimony at hearing assumed tax exempt financing would be available to ARC to build and operate the proposed headquarters. Contingent Award On December 18, 1992, DOC announced its decision to award Lease No. 700:0606 to ARC, contingent upon ARC's "providing to the Department within 45 days of this notice, and to the Department's satisfaction, sufficient commitments to ensure ARC's ability to finance construction of the project as presented in their proposal." Joint Exhibit No. 16. The December 18, 1992, award letter shows on its face that the Department was not "completely satisfied" with ARC's financing proposal at the time it made the award. Mr. Kronenberger admitted as much in his testimony. T. 146. At hearing DOC's Mr. Kronenberger also testified that the award was made contingent so that DOC could satisfy itself that ARC's proposal did not contemplate a lease-purchase and that tax-exempt financing was appropriate for this project. T. 131-132. The contingent award letter made no reference, however, either to a lease-purchase or to the tax-exempt nature of the proposed financing. Joint Exhibit No. 16; T. 145, 147. Before December 18, 1992, ARC's proposed financing involved the City of Midway's authorizing a nonprofit corporation to issue bonds. Joint Exhibit No. 14. Mr. Collins' testimony at hearing suggested that ARC has now abandoned efforts to involve the City of Midway with financing the project. To allow ARC to substitute another financing proposal at this juncture would afford ARC a competitive advantage over LFFO, and would constitute an arbitrary departure from prescribed procedure. DOC's letters of inquiry during the proposal evaluation process were intended to elicit from the proposers "the financing plan" they actually intended to use. Deposition of Biddy, p. 18; T.98. Allowing ARC 45 additional days to submit an acceptable financing proposal gave it a material competitive advantage over LFFO. ARC could "shop around" for financing as the intended awardee, and not merely as a bidder. "[I]f a developer . . . had an award in hand, he would be in a very advantageous situation to shop [for] the best deal he could get . . . considering rate, term, structure, price, so forth " T.154. Governmental Lessee ARC's proposal to use tax-exempt financing raises "two types of concerns. One is the ability to get the tax opinion and do the deal, and then there's the issue of state law." Deposition of Kubik, p. 50. Unless reputable tax counsel are of the opinion that (possibly imputed) interest paid from lease payments to holders of bonds or certificates of participation sold (to raise the money needed to build DOC's headquarters building) as tax-exempt qualify for tax exemption under the Internal Revenue Code, the paper cannot be marketed as tax- exempt. The purpose of the pertinent Internal Revenue Code provisions is to subsidize state and local governments, not private developers, by allowing governmental borrowing at lower rates. Certain financing arrangements involving private developers may, however, entail issuance of tax-exempt securities where state or local government is, in economic effect, borrowing money, legal technicalities notwithstanding. Deposition of Piemont, p. 40. One such arrangement involves state or local government as a lessee under a lease including an agreement to purchase, so that the governmental entity is "building equity" (T.23) (or, if the facility depreciates, bearing the loss.) Certificates of participation in the stream of lease payments, or bonds to be retired by applying lease payments, are then sold as tax-exempt securities. The test is "that the income derived from the obligations be from the payment of governmental lessees to provide essential function facilities." Deposition of Arnspiger, p. 9 Brown & Root's financial consultant contemplates a lease under which DOC would have the option to purchase the property, after ten years, for "the amount remaining on the indebtedness." Deposition of Arnspiger, p. 14. In the twentieth year, the price "would be a dollar." Id. "For tax purposes the owner of the facility would be the lessee." Deposition of Harris, p. 11. A lease under which a governmental tenant expressly agrees to purchase the premises may be economically equivalent to a lease with an option to purchase at a nominal price so low as to be "irresistible." Florida law limits the circumstances under which state agencies can borrow money and pledge the state's taxing power to repay the debt. T.136. Section 255.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.) provides: (1)(b) When specifically authorized by the Appropriations Act and in accordance with s. 255.2501, if applicable, the Division of Facilities Management may approve a lease-purchase, sale-leaseback, or tax-exempt leveraged lease contract or other financing technique for the acquisition, renovation, or construction of a state fixed capital outlay project when it is in the best interest of the state. Specific authorization in an earlier Appropriations Act authorized the Division of Facilities Management to approve a tax-exempt financing technique for acquisition of office space for DOC, but that authorization expired unused. Here the RFP solicited offers by lessors to execute a standard state lease on a form drafted by the Department of General Services and attached as an appendix to the RFP. Under the standard state lease, the lessor retains ownership of the building at all times. The lessee is not obligated to file a form 8038 with the Internal Revenue Service or to monitor for compliance with arbitrage restrictions imposed by Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code, both of which would be necessary if tax-exempt obligations were sold to finance the building. Deposition of Piemont, pp. 16-22. ARC's proposal amounts to an offer to employ a financing technique for the acquisition and construction of a state fixed capital outlay project that the legislature has not approved. ARC's proposal is not responsive to the RFP because the method of financing the proposal contemplates cannot be accomplished if the parties execute a standard state lease, as contemplated by the RFP.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DOC reject ARC's proposal as nonresponsive and consider seeking the necessary approvals to draw an RFP soliciting proposals for a headquarters building that would eventually belong to the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 5th day of May, 1993. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-6, 8, 11, 13-17, 19-36, 39- 41, 43, 44 and 46 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, DOC's determination of responsiveness was tentative, free-form action. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 9, 10, 18, 38, 47, 48, 49 and 52 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 12, the undertaking assumed Brown & Root had submitted a proposal. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 37 pertains to an immaterial matter. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 42, the issuance of certificates can defeat tax exemption if certain requirements are not observed. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 45, the distinction between a lease including an agreement to purchase and a lease with the option to purchase is not necessarily dispositive for tax purposes. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 50 and 51, ARC's proposal contemplates a lease with an option to purchase. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 53, Mr. Piemont testified that one of the requirements for "on behalf of" financing "is that the governmental entity gets actual ownership." Deposition of Piemont, p. 41. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 37, 38, 44-49, 58, 60, 64 and 65 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, the exact cause of the differential was not proven. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 15, 32-36, 39-42, 51, 61, 62, 71, 72, 73 and 74 pertain to subordinate matters. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 19, 21, 22, 43, 63, 75 and 76 have been rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 24 and 29, DOC witnesses testified that absent a bond the proposal would have been rejected as non-responsive; the bond ARC submitted was the equivalent of no bond at all. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 31, the award letter shows on its face DOC's misgivings about ARC's ability to finance the project. With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 50, 52--57, 67, 68, 69 and 70 the proposed findings are correct only in the sense that "purchase", "ownership", and the like are understood to mean "for tax purposes." With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 66, if a government entity is lessee, a non-governmental lessor may issue certificates of participation in the lease payments. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 21, 23, 26 and 28 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to intervenor's proposed finding of fact No. 5, it is not clear what Brown & Root's contractual obligations are. With respect to intervenor's proposed finding of fact No. 6, the bond does not constitute an offer or proposal. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact Nos. 8 and 25 have been rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact Nos. 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 22, 29, 30 and 31 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to intervenor's proposed findings of fact Nos. 18 and 20, ARC's financing proposal was non-responsive, whether or not such an approach might be viable, if responsive to the RFP and otherwise lawful. With respect to intervenor's proposed finding of fact No. 24, insofar as it is not predicated on hearsay, there was no showing that any rating agency, insurer or bond fund is aware of applicable Florida law. With respect to intervenor's proposed finding of fact No. 27, what is required for tax purposes does not depend on whether the lessee has a legal right to forgo the purchase. COPIES FURNISHED: M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Stephen Ferst, Esquire Florida Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, #500 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Harry K. Singletary, Jr. Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, Esquire General Counsel 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact In June, 1975 Randall J. Conley, attempting to set his son and daughter-in-law up in business, arranged for them, with his help, to purchase Roger Sparks' business known as Sparky's Pizza. By Exhibit 6 dated June 17, 1975 the owner and lessor of the premises executed, with Randall M. Conley and his wife Sandra, a Consent to Assignment whereby the lease between the lessor and Mr. Spaghetti and Roger Sparks was assigned to the younger Conley and his wife and the previous lessees were released from further liability under the five year lease they had executed on April 30, 1974. (Exhibit 10) By Collateral Assignment Note dated 6-2-75 Randall J. Conley, Randall M. Conley and Sandra Conley obligated themselves to pay the Florida Center Bank $9750 over a five-year period and pledged the equipment and fixtures in the pizza business as security therefor. In October, 1975 Sandra, who had been operating the business, left for another job preparatory to separating from her husband. The business closed on November 1, 1975 and Defendant learned that the lessees were delinquent in the rent and payments on the chattel mortgage. Thereafter he attempted to sell the business. In November, 1975 Charles Hicks, the owner of a small fast-food chain, while looking for a site for a franchisee, saw the empty Sparky's Pizza and ascertained that information on occupying the property could be obtained from Defendant. He called Defendant's office and was told the rent was $260 per month. Arrangements were made for Defendant to show him the property the same afternoon. On November 25, 1975 Defendant showed Hicks and his putative franchisee, Ronald Beasley, the property. After being assured that the rental included the equipment and fixtures they agreed to accept an assignment of the lease if the lessor agreed and to bind the transaction Hicks gave Defendant a check for $200 made payable, at the request of Defendant, to Randall J. Conley. No written agreement was executed by the parties at this time. The check stated on its face that it was a deposit on lease of building here involved. The following day Defendant called Hicks and told him that the lessor had agreed with the assignment and that he should bring a check for $7,000 to pay for the equipment, plus a check for the rent. Hicks objected to the purchase of the equipment and demanded return of his $200 deposit. Defendant refused to return the money and Hicks immediately tried to stop payment on the check. When he did so he learned that his check had been cashed by Defendant as soon as the bank opened that morning, November 26. After Hicks was unsuccessful in getting his deposit returned he reported the incident to the FREC and the complaint here under consideration was filed. Defendant contends that he was operating as the owner of the lease and not in his capacity as a broker; that the consent to assignment of the lease did not result in an assignment; that by executing the collateral installment note he was part owner of the business; that when his daughter-in-law left and the business folded he acquired the leasehold by abandonment; and that he was entitled to retain Hicks' deposit of $200 as liquidated damages. One witness called by Defendant testified that the bank's policy on chattel mortgage loans was that they would only make such loans to the owners of the business. However, he acknowledged that he did not handle the loan here involved and never saw any documents showing Randall J. Conley having an interest in the leased premises, the equipment and fixtures for which was the subject of the loan represented by Exhibit 9. Defendant had advertised the sale of the lease in the newspaper and therein indicated the assignee of the lease would be required to assume payments on the equipment. Neither Hicks nor Beasley ever saw any such advertisement.
The Issue Is Worldwide Investment Group, Inc. (Worldwide) entitled to apply to the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection (the Department) for funds to reimburse Worldwide for costs associated with petroleum clean-up at 500 Wells Road, Orange Park, Florida, Facility ID#108736319? See Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Property Howard A. Steinberg is a Certified Public Accountant, (CPA) licensed to practice in Florida. In addition to his work as a CPA, Mr. Steinberg has other business interests. Among those interests is Worldwide, a corporation which Mr. Steinberg formed for the purpose of acquiring certain assets, or properties, from Home Savings Bank and American Homes Service Corporation (Home Savings Bank). Worldwide became a corporation in July 1996. Mr. Steinberg is the sole shareholder of that corporation and has been since the inception of the corporation. In addition to controlling all of the assets within Worldwide, Mr. Steinberg is the sole officer of the corporation. The corporation has no other employees. Worldwide has its office in Hollywood, Florida, in the same physical location as Mr. Steinberg's accounting firm of Keystone, Steinberg and Company, C.P.A. Under its arrangement with Home Savings Bank, Worldwide acquired property known as Save-A-Stop at 500 Wells Road, Orange Park, Florida. Mr. Steinberg engaged the law firm of Burnstein and Knee, to assist Worldwide in the purchase of the Save-A-Stop property. The Save-A-Stop property is a commercial parcel that has experienced environmental contamination from petroleum products. To address that problem the firm of M. P. Brown & Associates, Inc., (Brown) was paid for services in rendering environmental clean-up of that site. Substantial work had been done by Brown to remediate the contamination before Worldwide purchased the property from Home Savings Bank. Home Savings had paid Brown for part of the costs of clean-up before Worldwide acquired the Save- A-Stop property. After the purchase, Mr. Steinberg paid Brown to finish the clean-up. Application for Reimbursement Mr. Steinberg, as owner of Worldwide, understood that the possibility existed that Worldwide could be reimbursed for some of the clean-up costs by resorting to funds available from the Department. On July 29, 1997, Bonnie J. Novak, P.G., Senior Environmental Geologist for Brown, wrote to Mr. Steinberg to provide a cost estimate for preparing a reimbursement application in relation to the Save-A-Stop property. The cost to prepare the application was $1,870.00. On August 27, 1996, Mr. Steinberg accepted the offer that had been executed by Brown by Mr. Steinberg signing a contract, and by calling for Brown to prepare an application, to be presented to the Department for reimbursement of costs expended in the clean-up. In furtherance of the agreement between Worldwide and Brown, $935.00 was paid as part of the costs of preparation of the application. This payment was by a check mailed on August 27, 1996. The balance of the fee was to be paid upon the completion of the preparation of the application. In 1996, outside the experience of his businesses, Mr. Steinberg was having difficulties in his marriage. To address the situation, Mr. Steinberg filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. That Petition was filed in April 1996, at which time Mr. Steinberg assumed custody of the children of that marriage, with no right for their mother to unaccompanied visits. After filing for dissolution, Mr. Steinberg relied on others to assist him in dealing with his personal and business life. From December 1996 through January 6, 1997, Mr. Steinberg was particularly influenced by the upheaval in his personal life. It caused him to request extension of deadlines from the Internal Revenue Service for the benefit of his clients whom he served as a CPA. During December, Mr. Steinberg was only in his office for approximately 10 percent of the normal time he would have spent had conditions in his personal life been more serene. On January 6, 1997, the conditions in Mr. Steinberg's personal life took a turn for the worse when his wife committed suicide. In December 1996, attorney Jerrold Knee, who had assisted Mr. Steinberg as counsel in purchasing the Save-A-Stop property, spoke to someone at Brown concerning the status of the preparation of the application for reimbursement of funds expended in the clean-up. He was told that the application was being worked on. Mr. Knee was aware that the deadline for filing the application was December 31, 1996. Mr. Steinberg was also aware of the December 31, 1996, deadline for submitting the application. In that connection, Mr. Knee was familiar with the difficulties that Mr. Steinberg was having in Mr. Steinberg's marriage in 1996. Mr. Knee knew that Mr. Steinberg was infrequently in the office attending to business. Mr. Knee surmised that Mr. Steinberg was relying upon Mr. Knee to make certain that the application was timely submitted, and Mr. Knee felt personally obligated to assist Mr. Steinberg in filing the application, given the knowledge that Mr. Steinberg was not in the office routinely during December 1996. His sense of responsibility did not rise to the level of a legal obligation between lawyer and client. Although Mr. Knee was aware of the pending deadline for submitting the application for reimbursement, and had inquired about its preparation by Brown, and had discussed it with Mr. Steinberg, Mr. Knee never specifically committed to making certain that the reimbursement application was filed on time. As it had committed to do, Brown prepared the reimbursement application for the Save-A-Stop site. The application was for the total amount of $58,632.85, not including preparation charges and CPA Fees. Written notification of the preparation of the application was provided to Mr. Steinberg on December 12, 1996. The correspondence reminded Mr. Steinberg that the application needed CPA approval, an invoice and registration, and a signed certification affidavit. Most importantly, the notification reminded Mr. Steinberg that an original and two copies of the application must be sent to a person within the Department prior to December 31, 1996. The notification specifically indicated the name of that individual within the Department and set forth that person's address. The notification arrived in Mr. Steinberg's office during the week of December 12, 1996. That notification was not opened until late January or early February 1997. Mr. Steinberg opened the letter at that time. During December 1996 Mr. Steinberg was responsible for opening the mail received in his office. No other person was expected to open that mail for the benefit of Worldwide. Untimely Application On February 6, 1997, Worldwide submitted its application for reimbursement for clean-up at the Save-A-Stop location. That application was received by the Department on February 7, 1997. The Department has consistently interpreted the statutory deadline for submitting reimbursement applications in accordance with Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1996) to be absolute. Consequently, on February 11, 1997, the Department denied the Worldwide application because it had been filed beyond the December 31, 1996, deadline recognized by the statute. Worldwide contested that proposed agency action by requesting a hearing to examine the issue of the timing of the application submission. Consequences of Untimely Application In Florida, petroleum taxes are deposited for the benefit of the Inland Protection Trust Fund. The Florida Legislature allows monies to be appropriated from those deposited funds. In that budgetary process, the Governor's office serves as liaison in requesting the Legislature to appropriate monies from the Inland Protection Trust Fund in relation to the costs of cleanup of sites contaminated by petroleum products. To assist the Governor's office, the Department identifies the need for covering the costs of the clean-up and makes a recommendation to the Governor to provide to the Legislature concerning the amount to be appropriated for the clean-up. In the history of the clean-up program, in 1995, problems were experienced with fraudulent and inflated claims calling for reimbursement for the cost of clean-up. This led to a debt of approximately $550,000,000.00. There was a concern that that debt could not be repaid in a reasonable time frame. In response, the Department, as authorized by the Legislature in action taken in 1996, negotiated a bond transaction through the Inland Protection Financing Corporation. With the advent of the bond issue, $343,000,000.00, not to include the cost of funding the bond, was made available to pay for petroleum clean-up. That bond issue was designed to fund the payment of reimbursement applications that had been received before the end of the life of the petroleum clean-up reimbursement program in place. During the 1996 session, in which the Legislature approved the bond issue, the Legislature also made changes to the petroleum clean-up program. The changes were fundamental in that applicants were no longer reimbursed for clean-up work that had been performed. With the advent of the legislative changes, petroleum clean-up, under a system calling for payment from the fund, could only be conducted if an applicant was pre-approved to conduct the clean- up. As part of that process of gaining funds pursuant to the bond issue, the Department performed an analysis, as authorized by the Legislature, to determine that amount necessary to pay existing obligations that had accrued under the petroleum clean-up reimbursement program that predated the Legislative change in 1996. To ascertain the existing obligation, the Department totaled the known dollar amount associated with the existing reimbursement applications and a portion of unreviewed reimbursement applications that had been received. The Department adjusted the sum to be paid in association with applications that had not been reviewed to that point, having in mind prior experience in which only 82 percent of claims had been allowed. The overriding concern by the Department was that it needed to determine whether the bond issue would be sufficient to defease the backlog of applications for reimbursement previously filed. Information concerning the reimbursement obligations was made known to the Florida Supreme Court in bond validation proceedings held before that court. The Inland Protection Finance Corporation was also made aware of the reimbursement obligations. In 1997, the Department gave further information to the Inland Protection Financing Corporation, indicating that the amount of bond was sufficient for reimbursement obligations. The Department in association with the terms of the bond transaction agreed that the bond proceeds would not be used to fund claims that were received after January 3, 1997. The deadline for submitting applications had been extended until January 3, 1997, by virtue of a statutory amendment found at Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes, (1997). Therefore, consistent with the statutory change, the Department had allowed applications submitted after December 31, 1996, but before January 4, 1997, to be considered on their merits. The December 31, 1996, deadline had existed under Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). The statutory change occurred because a number of applications that were filed pursuant to the December 31, 1996, deadline set forth in Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996) did not meet that deadline. The reason for this failure was due to weather conditions that caused overnight couriers, Federal Express and United Parcel Service, to be unable to deliver parcels to the Tallahassee, Florida, airport. These applications, as other applications, were sent to the Department at a Tallahassee, Florida, address. Based on the inability of the two couriers to deliver applications under the timeline anticipated, the Department did not receive that group of applications until January 2, 1997. Subsequently, the applications were accepted as timely based upon the amendment found in Section 376.371(12), Florida Statutes (1997) which extended the filing deadline until January 3, 1997. As a policy consideration, the Department believes it must strictly enforce the deadline for submission of reimbursement applications, as extended by the Legislature, to avoid the future accrual of debt for applications submitted after January 3, 1997, which the Department cannot reasonably anticipate. Apropos of the present case, the Department does not believe that it is well-advised to allow even a single claim for reimbursement, if that claim was received after January 3, 1997. To date, 64 applications have been received by the Department subsequent to December 31, 1996. All but six of those applications were received no later than January 3, 1997. Two of that six applications for reimbursement are still pending before the Department. Historically 22,000 applications for petroleum clean-up have been received by the Department since 1986. At the time of the hearing, 9,000 applications were pending before the Department. In December 1996, 3,000 applications were received calling for reimbursement of costs. At the time of hearing, approximately $340,000,000 in reimbursement claims had not been satisfied. Petitioner makes its claim to be excepted from the deadline for submitting its application based upon the doctrine of equitable tolling.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the application of Worldwide to participate in the reimbursement program for clean-up expenses as untimely. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: P. Tim Howard, Esquire P. Tim Howard and Associates, P.A. 1424 East Piedmont Drive, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Jeffrey Brown, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Insurance was the government agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of insurance agents and the regulation of the practice of the insurance profession in this state. Respondent, Alan Chappuis, was licensed in Florida as a life insurance agent, health insurance agent, general lines agent, and a life, health and variable annuity contracts salesman. Erna Swan, an 84 year old twice widowed lady, and the individual to whom Respondent sold the annuity policies in question, was unable, at the time of the hearing, to recall the names of either of her former husbands or when they passed away. She recalls that both husbands worked in insurance and that she has lived in the Pinellas County area for a long time, but cannot recall for how long. Mrs. Swan lives alone and can cook for herself and bathe and dress herself, but does not know how much her current income is or the source of that income. She was able to recognize Respondent as her insurance agent of several years standing, but cannot recall whether she ever purchased anything from him, and she does not know what Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company is. She does not know what an annuity is or whether she ever wanted to buy one from the Respondent. By the same token, she cannot recall if he ever tried to sell her an annuity. Mrs. Swan has known Nadine Hopkins, a close friend, for about 10 years. She also recognizes Mr. Wells and Mr. Tipton, her attorney and stock broker respectively, but does not know what they do. Mrs. Swan maintains a room in her condominium apartment which she uses for an office where, before she was placed under the guardianship of Ms. Hopkins, she paid her bills and kept her business records, such as they were. She recalls that she had a brokerage account with Merrill Lynch but cannot remember what it was for or what type of securities were in it. She is familiar with Bayridge Baptist Church, of which she is a member, and she recognizes that she has given money to the church over the years. Mrs. Swan's driver's license was cancelled several years ago because, according to Ms. Hopkins, she felt she could not take the test required to renew it. Mrs. Swan does not recall this though she remembers she used to own a car. She cannot remember what kind it was. Mrs. Swan's apartment is paid for. There are no mortgage payments. She claims she still writes checks for her monthly bills by herself, but also notes that Ms. Hopkins does it. More likely it is the latter. She still answers her phone, answers her mail, and reads the newspaper. She is, however, obviously incompetent to testify to the nature of an annuity, and it is quite clear that at this time she would be unable to understand the provisions of an annuity contract and the difference between an annuity contract and an investment portfolio in another product. Mr. Tipton, formerly a stock broker with Merrill Lynch, first met Mrs. Swan in the early 1960's through a family member who worked at the family insurance agency. At that time Mrs. Swan and her husband had purchased the agency from his family, and in the years following the Swans stayed as friends of Mr. Tipton. Mr. Tipton became an investment advisor in 1981 to Mr. Swan who passed away sometime in either 1985 or 1986. He started buying U.S. Government bonds and thereafter moved to tax free investments. When Mr. Swan passed away, Mrs. Swan became the owner of the account. During 1992 and 1993, Mr. Tipton would see Mrs. Swan once or twice a month. At that time, toward the end of 1993, it was clear to him that her memory appeared to be slipping. She would not remember things they had talked about and was unable to participate fully in the decisions made on her investments. At the end of 1993, Mrs. Swan's portfolio with Merrill Lynch was valued at approximately $360,000, plus a money market balance of $18,000. The account statement for October, 1993 reflected she had 5 municipal bonds valued at $80,000, tax free bond funds valued at $273,620, and approximately $18,000 in money market funds. Her estimated annual income from the bonds was approximately $6,631, or approximately $520.00 per month. Her tax free bond funds income returned approximately $1,200 per month, and her Nuveen Fund, approximately $50.00 per month, giving her a grand total of approximately $1,800 per month investment income in addition to her Social Security monthly payment of somewhat in excess of $650. On December 20, 1993, Mr. Tipton, as a representative of Merrill Lynch, received a letter moving Mrs. Swan's account to another brokerage firm, located in Texas, but with a local representative. At that time, Mr. Tipton tried to stop the transfer by contacting his main office, but was advised that by the time he had received the letter, the transfer had been completed. Mr. Tipton wanted to stop the transfer because when he called Mrs. Swan to inquire about it, she indicated to him that she did not want her account moved. Several weeks later, Mrs. Swan called Mr. Tipton to find out where her Merrill Lynch monthly account statement was. She did not recall at that time that her Merrill Lynch account had been closed and the securities therein transferred to the Texas brokerage concern. Because of this call, sometime in early January, 1994, Mr. Tipton called Mr. Wells, Mrs. Swan's attorney, and set up a meeting for the three of them. There were approximately three meetings of the three of them between January and March, 1994. The substance of their discussions was the fact that the broker to whom the Merrill Lynch account had been transferred had liquidated her entire account and used the proceeds thereof to pay for the annuities sold to Mrs. Swan by Mr. Chappuis and his associate, Mr. Mednick. According to Mr. Tipton, up until this time, Mrs. Swan had never indicated any dissatisfaction with the interest and income she was earning on her Merrill Lynch brokerage account. Mr. Tipton absolutely denies there was any churning of her account to garner more commissions. The only transfer was a sale at a premium in February, 1993 of bonds of the Jacksonville Electric Authority to create more capital for investment to provide greater income. The brokerage account owned by Mrs. Swan was not insured against loss of principal though many of the particular funds in which much of the money was invested were, however, individually insured. In 1990, Mrs. Swan's account, which had been in her name individually, was transferred to a trust account of which she was the beneficiary for life, with the provision that at her death, the funds therein would be distributed to various religious organizations and a few friends. Mrs. Swan had no family heirs. No commission was earned by Mr. Tipton on the transfer, though he did receive a commission on both the above-mentioned sale of the Jacksonville Electric bonds and the purchase of a tax free bond fund with the proceeds. Her brokerage account permitted her to write checks on the funds in the money fund. Mr. Tipton claims he never engaged in a transaction regarding Mrs. Swan's account without first talking to her about it. In his opinion, whenever he did make a change she appeared alert and aware enough to participate effectively. The last major transaction was the 1990 bond sale, however. Mrs. Hopkins and Mrs. Swan attend the same church. In late 1993 or early 1994, Respondent's business card was always on Mrs. Swan's refrigerator. At no time did she ever speak disparagingly of him to Mrs. Hopkins, or complain about any insurance product he sold her. Mrs. Hopkins was not Mrs. Swan's guardian at that time and Mrs. Swan was paying her own bills, however not effectively. She was late getting them out and complained it was becoming difficult for her to type out the checks. According to Mrs. Hopking, Mrs. Swan was not extravagant in her spending. She did not take cruises, go to expensive restaurants or buy a lot of clothes. Mrs. Swan, in Ms. Hopkins' opinion, lived comfortably. She was generous in the terms of her charitable contributions. Since being appointed Mrs. Swan's guardian, Mrs. Hopkins had seen her financial records and she knows that Mrs. Swan donated a lot of money to various churches and religious organizations. Mrs. Swan received many requests for donations and indicated that as long as she had the money to give she would do so. In later years, however, as Mrs. Hopkins recalls, it became a physical and mental burden for Mrs. Swan to write the checks, and she frequently commented on this. Mr. Wells is Mrs. Swan's attorney, specializing in estate and trust planning. He met Mrs. Swan through a friend in 1990 and began to serve as her estate planner. In the spring of 1994 Mr. Wells met with Mr. Tipton and Mrs. Swan regarding the Respondent's sale of her security portfolio and the purchase of the two annuities in issue here with the proceeds. At that time Mrs. Swan seemed to have no knowledge of the transaction. As a result, he called Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company to get some information on what needed to be done in order to bring about a recision of the policies, but before any action was taken, the entire matter was turned over to Mr. Keirnan, another attorney, who does trial work. As a result of Keirnan's efforts, approximately two weeks before the hearing, Mr. Wells, on behalf of Mrs. Swan, received a check in the amount of approximately $372,000 from Guarantee Trust and Life Insurance Company as full reimbursement of the premiums paid for the two annuities in issue. From the time the annuities were issued in December, 1993 and January, 1994, Mrs. Swan had only her Social Security check to live on. She also received a check from Guarantee for $5,000, at her request, at the time the policies were issued as the balance in her brokerage account over the amount required as premiums for the annuities. She received nothing from her annuities which, as set up, did not call for the payment of any monthly income. As a result, Mr. Wells felt it necessary to borrow between $15,000 and $20,000 at 8 percent for Mrs. Swan from other trusts he managed to provide funds for Mrs. Swan to live on. From the documents which Mr. Tipton and Mrs. Swan brought to him in March, 1994, Wells could determine that the two annuities were purchased for her but she, at that time, did not seem to know anything about them. Though the annuities offered several options to permit period withdrawal of principal and interest, none had been selected by Mrs. Swan and as they then existed, she would draw no income from them until she was 100 years of age. When Mr. Tipton and Mrs. Swan came to Mr. Wells' office and brought the paperwork showing she had sold her securities to buy the annuities, Mr. Wells called Respondent to find out what had happened to Mrs. Swan's money. About the same time, he drafted a letter to Respondent at Mrs. Swan's request in which she requested Respondent not contact her any more. This letter was written because Mrs. Swan had said Respondent had "pestered" her at home and upset her on some occasions before the letter was written. Guarantee's manager of Government Relations and Compliance, Mr. Krevitzky, identified the two policies issued to Mrs. Swan. According to Mr. Krevitzky, an annuity is a savings vehicle which holds funds over a period at interest with provision for single or periodic pay out. Interest on both annuities in issue here was guaranteed at a rate of 4.5 percent per year or higher. The first year, the policies earned only the guaranteed 4.5 percent interest, and the income was credited to the policy from January, 1994 until the policies were surrendered as a part of the litigation settlement on March 25, 1995. At that point, since it was considered that the policies were rescinded and therefore void ab initio, the interest earned was forfeited and not paid. Only the premiums paid in were refunded in total. The commission paid to the Respondent and his associate, Mr. Mednick, was paid out of company funds and not Mrs. Swan's funds. The annuity contracts sold by the Respondent to Mrs. Swan had options for five different pay-outs, some of which would have returned income to her during the pendency of the contract. However, none of these was selected by Mrs. Swan and there was no evidence to indicate that Respondent ever explained any of them to her. As they existed as of the date they were cancelled, and at all time up until then, Mrs. Swan would receive no income until the annuity matured at her age 100. This is an unreasonable situation for an individual of Mrs. Swan's age and situation. Mr. Krevitzky contends that the potential pay out options could have provided Mrs. Swan with a substantial income equal to or exceeding the income she was received from her securities portfolio. Most of these options would have included a partial return of principal, however, whereas the income from the prior held portfolio was interest only with her principal remaining intact. One option provided an income for a guaranteed period which, in some circumstances, could have resulted in her receiving more than the amount paid in for the contract. The ultimate fact remains, however, that at the time of sale, and at all times thereafter, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Chappuis was directed to stay away from Mrs. Swan, he had failed to assist her in the selection of any income option and she was receiving no current income at all from the annuities. In each of the two years prior to the purchase, for 1992 and 1993, she had regular tax free investment income of between $26,000 and $27,000, in addition to the capital gains of approximately $23,000 from the sale of the bonds in 1992. It matters not that she needed little to live on or donated a great portion of her income to charity. This decision was hers to make. By the same token, it matters not that no request for income was made, during the pendency of the annuities, by or on behalf of Mrs. Swan. Annuities have several benefits over other types of investments, according to Mr. Krevitzky. One is the tax deferment provision for interest earned on the annuity. Another is the fact that, subject to local law, the principal of the annuity is not subject to garnishment. A third is the guaranteed return of principal at the end of the annuity which permits older annuitants to provide for their heirs while maintaining income during their lifetimes. Many senior citizens look to the safety of their investment rather than the taxability of the interest. Therefore, in selling annuities to seniors, the agents stress these factors and the no-probate consideration. David W. Johnson has been an independent contractor with Respondent's broker, Professional Systems Associates, since 1989 and is the annuity manager for the firm. Mr. Johnson indicates that there has been an increase in the annuity business with seniors in 1993 - 1994. Funds for the purchase of the annuities usually comes from bank certificates of deposit, but sometimes, like in the instant case, the funds come from a brokerage account. In his experience, seniors choose annuities over certificates of deposit and brokerage accounts. According to Mr. Johnson, if Mrs. Swan had wanted to stop the transfer from her account she could have done so up until the transaction was completed, even after the securities had been liquidated and the funds sent to Guarantee. This is so, he claims even though Mrs. Swan gave authority to make the transfer in the documentation accompanying her application for the annuities. Mr. Johnson indicated it takes about two weeks after the receipt of the premium before Guarantee issues the annuity contract and at any time before issue, the transaction could be cancelled and the money returned. Even after issue, there is a "free look" period during which the contract may be cancelled without penalty. Though the contract may be cancelled and the premium returned, the former securities are still liquidated and the brokerage account closed. According to Mr. Johnson, there was nothing in the paperwork regarding these annuities which he saw which would raise any flag for consideration. He did not feel it necessary to call Mrs. Swan to see if she really wanted the policy and he never received a call from her or anybody else regarding it. Mr. Chappuis' partner in this sale was Scott Mednick who has been a licensed insurance agent since 1984 and who is an independent contractor with the same agency. Mr. Mednick was solicited to accompany Mr. Chappuis to Mrs. Swan's home in December, 1994 because of his expertise in the annuity field. Respondent had described Mrs. Swan to him as a long time customer. Respondent claimed that Mrs. Swan had indicated she was concerned about her brokerage account and he wanted to show her some product, annuities, she might be interested in. Mr. Mednick has known Respondent for eleven years and knows him to be a top producer. Respondent's reputation is that he is cheap and close with the dollar. Nonetheless, Mr. Mednick claims he was not surprised that Respondent was willing to share the commission on this sale in order to be sure the client got the proper product. Mrs. Swan let Mr. Mednick examine her monthly statement from Merrill Lynch. It appeared to Mr. Mednick that the account had not grown over the years. This is not surprising in that the portfolio was made up solely of tax free bond funds, tax free municipal bonds and tax free money marts, the volatility of and fluctuation in price of which is minimal. Mr. Mednick cannot now recall if Mrs. Swan indicated she knew about her stocks. However, he relates that he and the Respondent suggested she look into annuities as an alternative which Respondent explained to her. In addition, he claims they provided her with a lot of written material. Based on Mrs. Swan's action, words and attitudes expressed, Mr. Mednick believed she completely understood what was explained to her and wanted to make the change. It was his belief she seemed to understand she would pay no commission on the purchase; that she would have a guaranteed income that she could not outlive; that the annuity avoided the volatility of the stock market; and it was not attachable by creditors. As structured and sold to Mrs. Swan, however, she was to get no income at all from this product until she reached the age of 100/. Mr. Mednick asserts that at no time did he feel that Respondent had less than the best interests of Mrs. Swan at heart and he can recall no time when Respondent lied to Mrs. Swan. All representations made by either Respondent or Mednick allegedly came from the brochures left with her. Mednick indicates that during their conversation, Mrs. Swan did not seem concerned about getting her principal out of the investment. She was most concerned about her desire to leave the principal to the church. Mednick claims that at the time of the sale, the two agents asked Mrs. Swan if she wanted her interest paid quarterly but she said to let it accrue. This representation, in light of the other evidence, is not credible. Taken together, Mednick's testimony does nothing to detract from Respondent's sale of this product, inappropriate as it was for this client, to Mrs. Swan. Mr. Mednick's credentials are somewhat suspect, and his credibility poor, however. By his own admission, he has been administratively fined by the Department on two occasions based on allegations of misconduct. He denies any misconduct, however, claiming he accepted punishment only as an alternative to a prolonged contest of the allegations. The allegations herein were referred to an investigator of the Department to look into. As is the custom of the Department, he did not interview the Respondent but merely sought to gather facts concerning each allegation to be sent to the Department offices in Tallahassee where the analysis and determination of misconduct is made. By the same token, he did not call or speak with Mrs. Swan, Mr. Mednick, or anyone at Professional Systems. He spoke with Mr. Tipton, Mr. Wells, Mrs. Hopkins and with Mr. Keirnan a couple of times.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the insurance licenses and the eligibility for licensure of the Respondent herein, Alan Chappuis, be suspended for nine months. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. - 27 Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's post hearing submittal was entitled "Respondent's Final Argument." However, because it makes specific Findings of Fact, the submittal will be treated as though it were Proposed Findings of Fact which will be ruled upon herein. First sentence accepted. Balance rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. & 3. Accepted that Mr. Krevitzky testified and that there was nothing in the contract which would cause Respondent to misrepresent. The product may well be a worthy product for someone in a different financial position than Ms. Swan, and the issue is whether Respondent fully explained the implications and ramifications of the contracts to her. Rejected as a misconception of the nature of the witness' testimony. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted as a summary of the witness' testimony. First and second sentences accepted. Balance rejected as an unwarranted conclusion drawn from the evidence. Accepted but irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Alan Chappuis, Pro se P. O. Box 86126 Madiera Beach, Florida 33738 The Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Wilbur Lewis Hallock, at all times relevant thereto, was a licensed real estate broker-salesman having been issued license number 0035549 by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, in 1971. He also has the designation of a Graduate of the Realtors Institute (GRI), having successfully completed its requirements. At the time the events herein occurred, Hallock was a salesman for Don Asher and Associates in Orlando, Florida. On or about August 8, 1980, Respondent, through reading the Orlando Sentinel Star, became aware of a mortgage foreclosure proceeding by Winter Park Federal Savings and Loan Association 1/ pending against James A. and Jeanie Lockwood, husband and wife, who owned a home located at 4813 and 4815 Basswood Lane, Orlando, Florida. 2/ Hallock had been told to vacate his apartment, and was in the process of finding a new home. He was "looking for a bargain" and believed he found one when he read of the Lockwoods' plight. The Lockwoods were separated at that time and only James Lockwood lived in the house on Basswood Lane. Hallock telephoned James Lockwood on Friday evening, August 8, 1980, and told him he was aware of the foreclosure proceeding and wished to meet with him to discuss a possible sale or way to avoid foreclosure proceedings. Lockwood, who was in the process of moving to Winter Haven and wished to immediately sell the property, was receptive and invited Respondent to meet with him that evening. Respondent and a lady friend (Mrs. Florence Harrison) then visited James that night. Hallock introduced himself, and showed two cards to prove his identity. Hallock made clear he did not represent his employer, Don Asher and Associates, but was simply representing himself. Although conflicting stories as to what happened during and after this first meeting were given by the various witnesses, the undersigned finds the following to be the more credible version of the sequence of events. Upon meeting Lockwood, Hallock proceeded to discuss the various alternatives available to Lockwood. These included selling the home to Hallock's brother, who lived in Miami, allowing Hallock himself to purchase the house, or simply letting the lending institution foreclose. Because the mortgage payments were in arrears and a foreclosure proceeding in progress, Lockwood offered to give the house to Hallock if he would bring the payments current. Hallock, who knew consideration for a real estate transaction was required, declined the offer and instead offered James "a minimum of $50 equity." No total purchase price was discussed since the balances on the first mortgage, and a second mortgage held by Freedom Federal Savings and Loan of Tampa, were unknown. Neither was the agreement reduced to writing. James also wished to avoid paying a commission on the sale of the house that might be due since another realtor, Area One West, Inc., held a listing. However, Hallock advised James that because Jeanie Lockwood had not signed the agreement, the listing realtor would have "no claim whatsoever." Hallock also told James that his wife needed to concur in their agreement. That same evening, Hallock telephoned Jeanie Lockwood, who resided in an apartment in Orlando. He told her he had just talked with her husband concerning a possible sale of their house, and wished to discuss the matter with her that evening. She agreed, and subsequently met Hallock and Mrs. Harrison later that evening. Also present was Jeanie's neighbor, Carol Gordon, who had been asked by Jeanie to sit in on the discussions. Hallock identified himself to the ladies, told them that he had become aware of the foreclosure proceeding by reading a newspaper, and had discussed a possible sale with the husband. He briefly described the same alternatives available to her as he had with James. When asked by Hallock whether she wished to keep the house or move into it, Jeanie stated she did not. No purchase price or equity payment was discussed that evening. However, Hallock requested Jeanie to call the two lending institutions on the following Monday morning to authorize him to ascertain the balances owed on the mortgages. He also advised her that the listing then held on the property by the other realtor was not valid because Jeanie had failed to sign the listing agreement. Hallock called James early the next morning (Saturday) and asked to meet with him. James was moving his possessions out of the home that day and told Hallock to come over right away. Upon arriving at the home, Hallock told James he had a deed prepared that conveyed the property to him and wished to have James sign it that day before he moved to Winter Haven. However, he indicated he would not record it or pay any consideration until the mortgage balances were ascertained, the chain of title checked, and final confirmation received from the Lockwoods. James agreed to meet Hallock at 10:00 a.m. that morning to sign the deed. Hallock then telephoned Jeanie and asked to meet her that morning. When they met, Hallock explained he wished her to sign the deed that day so he would not have to interrupt her work schedule during the following week. Hallock told her to meet James and himself at Wescott Realty at 10:00 a.m. to sign the papers. He also told her that "the least you will get is $100 for the house." At approximately 10:00 a.m. that morning, the Lockwoods and Hallock met at Wescott Realty in Orlando. There they executed a warranty deed conveying the property in question from the Lockwoods to Hallock (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). It was notarized by Barbara Boehmer, an employee of Wescott. Also present was Mary Black, another employee of Wescott. Prior to their signing the document, the Lockwoods were asked by Hallock if they were of legal age, were husband and wife, were under duress or threat to sign, or were subject to the influence of drugs or alcohol. Although the signing was done in a rather hasty fashion, there was no effort by Respondent to cover or conceal any portion of the document. The word "deed" was not mentioned at any time during the transaction, nor were the Lockwoods verbally advised at that time as to the nature of the document being signed. Neither was any money or other consideration exchanged. On Monday, August 11, 1980, Jeanie Lockwood called Margaret M. Norman at Winter Park Federal Savings and Loan to request the balance on the mortgage held by that institution. Mrs. Norman advised Jeanie to make the request in writing; Jeanie then prepared a letter requesting that the institution give Hallock "any information he requires regarding the foreclosure on our house at 4815 Basswood Lane." (Respondent's Exhibit 2). Hallock telephoned Jeanie on Monday evening and told her he would give her $65 equity instead of $50.00. She concurred with this amount. He also told her he was in the process of having the title checked and would not record the deed unless the title was clear. On Tuesday morning, Hallock telephoned Mrs. Norman to ascertain the balance on the mortgage held by Winter Park Federal Savings and Loan. Upon receiving preliminary information concerning the mortgage, Hallock called James in Winter Haven and advised him the wife had accepted the $65 equity offer on Monday night. The husband complained he wanted an amount closer to $100; Respondent said he would "split the difference" and upped the equity payoff to $75. The husband then gave his concurrence. At 11:43 a.m. on August 12, 1980, Hallock recorded the warranty deed signed by the Lockwoods in the Orange County Courthouse and paid $232 for documentary stamps affixed to the deed (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). He later requested and obtained from the Department of Revenue a partial refund of the stamp tax after he determined the stamp tax paid exceeded the amount actually required. After recording the deed he obtained a cashier's check in the amount of $75 and mailed it to James in Winter Haven. However, James never cashed the check and returned it to Hallock. On that same Tuesday, Jeanie called Area One West, Inc., the listing realtor, to let them know she had received foreclosure papers on the second mortgage. A salesperson told Jeanie that she had a prospective buyer for the house, and suggested they view the property that afternoon. Thereafter, two representatives of Area One West, the prospective buyer and Jeanie all met at 4815 Basswood Lane. Upon reaching the premises, they found the realtor's sign and multilock in the carport, the front door unlocked, and Hallock's car in the driveway. Inside was Hallock showing the house to a prospective buyer. Jeanie told Hallock she now had a buyer and would not sell the house for $65. Hallock told her he had bought the home, already recorded the deed she had previously signed on Saturday, and had mailed James a check for $75. Jeanie then accused Hallock of being "in cahoots" with James. On August 14, 1980, Respondent telephoned James Lockwood in Winter Haven to inquire about a lawnmower, edger and books that James had left in his house. James told Hallock to keep his books but stated he wished to keep the lawnmower and edger. During the next day or two, James came and took the lawnmower, drapes and oven racks from the house. Thereafter, Hallock called James and asked if he would swap the edger for the missing oven racks; James agreed. Hallock ultimately changed the locks on the house on Saturday, August 16, 1980. James Lockwood is a 29-year-old stockholder employed by Merrill Lynch in Winter Haven, Florida. Prior to his present employment, he worked for an Orlando automobile dealership. His wife is a secretary with the State of Florida. Although their formal education was not disclosed, James did attend college for an undisclosed period of time. Jeanie described her husband as being as honest and truthful "as the next person" but acknowledged he sometimes lied. The listing agreement with Area One West, Inc., was signed by James Lockwood and Carol Lockwood on July 3, 1980 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). 3/ Carol is his second wife. Jeanie did not sign the agreement. The house was originally listed for $56,900 on the agreement but that figure was marked through and replaced with a figure of $49,900. Hallock purchased the house for approximately $39,600.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the complaint against Respondent Wilbur Lewis Hallock be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 3rd day of June, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and at all material times has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida. He holds license number 0404010. On or about October 14, 1985, Respondent, as seller, entered into a purchase and sale contract with William and Lois Ehmke, as buyers, with respect to Respondent's condominium known as Unit 502 of Blind Pass Lagoon Condominiums located at 9825 Harrell Avenue, Treasure Island, Florida. The Ehmke contract called for a purchase price of $85,000, which included $15,000 as an earnest money deposit. The contract form provided a paragraph for the closing date, but this was left blank. The only special clause in the contract provided that: The Buyer(s) shall pay $550.00 monthly beginning the date said unit is occupied by buyer and until buyers home in Deluth, Minn. is sold. At the time of closing upon Condo Unit 502, Phase 3, the buyers' shall reimburse the Seller the difference between $550.00 and actual costs to carry the unit per month. ($755.00 plus 90.00 maintenance, or $300.pr [i.e., $300 per month]. The Ehmkes duly paid Respondent the $15,000 deposit and moved into the condominium, which they occupied continuously from October, 1985, through December, 1986. The Ehmkes paid Respondent $550 per month for each month of their occupancy. When making the deal, the Ehmkes were aware that the average time that a house remained unsold on the market in Deluth was 210 days. They knew that the market was very slow because of a sluggish local economy. They expected their house to be sold in about 210 days. After 210 days passed and the house had not sold after the Ehmkes' good faith efforts to sell it, the Ehmkes asked Respondent to refund their $15,000 deposit. Respondent refused. Negotiations resulted in Respondent returning to the Ehmkes $10,000 of the deposit in July, 1987. Respondent did not stand in a confidential or fiduciary relationship with the Ehmkes. William Ehmke had owned and operated a restaurant in Deluth and, after meeting Respondent, initiated discussions with Respondent concerning Mr. Ehmke's desire to purchase property in Florida. Respondent showed the Ehmkes other properties and informed them from the start that Respondent and his daughter owned the condominium unit in question. The mortgage payments, insurance, taxes, and maintenance fees on the condominium unit were about $850 per month in October, 1985. During the period that the Ehmkes occupied the condominium unit, the maintenance fees went up by $30 per month and there was a $1200 special assessment. All of these expenses were borne by Respondent. However, Mr. Ehmke was aware that every month he was losing $300 of his deposit toward these expenses. The fair rental value of the condominium unit from December 1 through April 30 each year is $1400 to $1600 per month. By the time that the Ehmkes vacated the unit, Respondent had paid at least $3000 in monthly expenses over the rent received and the $1200 the special assessment. He had also lost at least $3000 in premium seasonal rentals. Mr. Ehmke has since received his real estate salesman's license. He admits that the $5000 retained by Respondent does not cover Respondent's out-of- pocket expenses. He also admits that he has no complaints about the transaction in retrospect. Frank Myles owns all of the stock of Myles, Inc., which owned Unit 202 of Blind Pass Lagoon Condominiums in Treasure Island. Having been neighbors with Respondent for two years and also involved part-time in real estate sales, Mr. Myles mentioned to Respondent that he was trying to sell his unit. After their conversation, Respondent delivered to Mr. Myles a contract for the purchase and sale of his unit. The contract was executed by all parties on July 29, 1986. The buyers were Ralph and Margaret Magno, who had recently purchased another unit in the same complex through Respondent as the broker. The purchase price was $94,000 to be paid cash at closing, as Mr. Myles had said he desired. The contract contained no contingencies, such as for financing, which was also consistent with Mr. Myles' previous instructions to Respondent. The contract called for a closing on or before August 25, 1986, and provided that time was of the essence. The Magnos paid an earnest money deposit of $8000 to Pat Jano and Associates, "reg. real estate broker." The form language of the contract provided that Respondent was to "hold said earnest money or deposit and act as escrow agent until closing of deal ..." The contract elsewhere provided that if the purchaser failed to perform any of his obligations, then he "shall forfeit said earnest money or deposit; and the same shall be retained by the Seller as liquidated damages, and the escrow agent is hereby authorized by the purchaser to pay over to the Seller the earnest money or deposit." In the event of a default by the purchaser, the earnest money would be divided equally between Respondent and the seller. On or about August 13 or 14, 1986, the Magnos discovered that the financing terms that they had arranged with a third-party lender could no longer be obtained. Respondent promptly notified Mr. Myles of the problem. Mr. Myles and Respondent tried unsuccessfully to resolve the problem with the lender, which ultimately declined to make the loan. When first informed of the buyers' financing problems, Mr. Myles told Respondent that the two of them should push the sellers through to closing. (Tr. 82.) Immediately after this conversation with Respondent, Mr. Myles stepped aside so that his lawyer could handle what had become a "shaky" deal. (Tr. 84.) On August 16, 1986, Respondent refunded all of the earnest money to the Magnos by delivering to Mr. Magno a check drawn on Respondent's escrow account in the amount of $8000 and payable to Mr. Magno. Respondent returned the deposit without the prior knowledge of Mr. Myles or consent of Myles, Inc. (Tr. 73 and 8.) Mr. Myles' lawyer sent a letter dated August 20, 1986, to Respondent informing him that Myles, Inc. intended to proceed to closing and would not consent to the release of the earnest money deposit to the Magnos. Mr. Myles appeared at the closing at the time and place specified in the contract. The Magnos did not appear. Myles, Inc. never received its share of the forfeited deposit. Myles, Inc., through Mr. Myles, stated in a letter dated May 13, 1987, that it was "no longer" pursuing any legal action against Respondent and that no suits were filed and no further action would be taken. During a lengthy meeting with Petitioner's investigator, Respondent never suggested that he had had Myles' permission to return the Magnos' deposit. Rather, he said only that he had returned the deposit out of "loyalty" to the Magnos. At the hearing, Respondent testified that he told Mr. Myles that Respondent was going to return the deposit to the Magnos and Mr. Myles' only reaction was that "those are the breaks." (Tr. 129.) This apparent inconsistency between the testimony of Mr. Myles and Respondent, both of whom were credible witnesses, is reconciled by the finding that Mr. Myles never consented to the release of the earnest money, but Respondent misunderstood their conversation in this regard. Since October 16, 1986, Respondent's principal place of business has been 7345 Bay Street, St. Petersburg, Florida. Respondent failed to maintain a sign at this location from October 16, 1986, through January 8, 1987. He was having a sign prepared by a third party during that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that a final order be entered dismissing Counts I, II and IV of the Administrative Complaint and finding Respondent guilty of the allegations set forth in Counts III and V of the Administrative Complaint. It is recommended that the Final Order impose an administrative fine of $1000 with respect to Count III and a reprimand with respect to Count V. ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4391 Treatment Accorded Petitioner's proposed Findings 1,3-5. Adopted. 2,6. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. The location of Respondent's "principal office and each branch office" is relevant under Section 475.22 to determine where he was required to maintain a sign. The statute does not refer to the office registered with Petitioner. 7-8,16. Adopted. 9-.14. Adopted. 15,17. Rejected as unnecessary. 18. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant for the reason set forth for rejecting the proposed findings in paragraphs 2 and 6. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings Rejected as legal argument, except that Respondent and the Ehmkes entered into a contract. Last sentence - rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Remainder rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary, except that the blast sentence is adopted as to the sign being made. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Brian E. Johnson, Esquire 7190 Seminole Boulevard Seminole, Florida 34642 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
