Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.30, F.S., Chapters 120, 455, and 475, F.S., and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Charles B. Harvey, Jr. is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0474466 in accordance with Chapter 475, F.S. The last license issued was as a broker t/a Commercial & Investment Realty, 1116D Thomasville Road, P. O. Box 785, Tallahassee, Florida 32317. On or about April 17, 1992, Petitioner's Investigator Juanita Waller conducted a routine office/inspection audit of Respondent at 1116D Thomasville Road, Tallahassee, Florida and discovered that Respondent's trust account #077780-00242743 had an approximate shortage of $3,343.07, calculated as $29,205.00 in total trust liability but only $25,861.93 as reconciled bank balance. Thereafter, the Respondent wrote Investigator Waller and provided evidence that a portion of the missing funds was caused by an $875 "bad check" which had been deposited into his escrow account. Additionally, Investigator Waller found that Respondent failed to properly reconcile his escrow account by comparing the total trust liability with the reconciled bank balance of the trust account, as required by the rules of the Commission. Rather, he had been balancing his checkbook only. Respondent has been completely cooperative with Petitioner agency and upon notification of his errors and omissions immediately began the process of correcting the procedures used in reconciling his escrow account in accord with the requirements of the agency. He also immediately made restitution from his own monies to his escrow account as soon as he was made aware what had happened. It is noted that reconciliation of monthly written statements were not required by the agency until shortly before Respondent was investigated, however he had a duty to apprise himself of all statutes and rules and to govern himself accordingly. Likewise, he accepted "full responsibility" for allowing funds from individual clients' accounts to be used to pay for expenses incurred by other clients' properties, and has taken steps to prevent such occurrences in the future. No loss has been incurred by any party. Respondent has made good any payments owed.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be issued and filed by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding the Respondents not guilty of breach of trust but guilty of culpable negligence as charged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, guilty of having failed to maintain trust funds in escrow as charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, and guilty of having failed to properly reconcile his escrow account as charged in County III of the Administrative Complaint and further ordering that all the Respondent's licenses, registrations, certificates and permits be reprimanded and placed on probation for a period of one year and Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine of $300 (total) within sixty (60) days of the entry of the Final Order and that before the end of the probationary period he successfully complete and provide satisfactory evidence to the Florida Real Estate Commission of having successfully completed the thirty (30) hour Brokerage Management course, these education hours to be in addition to any other professional education required by the Respondent by the licensing provisions of this state, and further providing that if all these requirements not be successfully fulfilled as required by the Final Order, then all the Respondent's licenses, registrations, certificates and permits shall be suspended until all such requirements are completed but in no event shall such suspension exceed ten (10) years. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of January, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 92-6154 DOAH CASE NO. 92-6154 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59 (2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) Petitioner's PFOF: 1-5 Accepted. 6 Accepted as modified. Respondent's filed no PFOF: COPIES FURNISHED: Charles B. Harvey, Esquire 1018-104 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Jack McRay General Counsel 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact The Department rules on the Proposed Findings of Facts and Exceptions, submitted by the parties as follows: APPLICANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Applicant's Proposed Findings numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, and 29 are accepted to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the Findings of Fact rendered by the Hearing Officer. Applicant's Proposed Finding number 22 is accepted to the extent that factual matters are discussed. However, to the extent that it suggests that "public convenience and advantage" will be promoted by establishment of the trust company, the Department rejects this conclusionary statement as inconsistent with the Department's conclusion as to this criterion based on the reasons as discussed in paragraph three (3) contained in the Conclusions of Law of the Final Order. Applicant's Proposed Finding number 25 concerning the telephone survey has been dealt with in the Hearing Officer's Finding number 13, as adopted by the Department. Applicant's Proposed Finding number 26 concerns several counter- arguments addressing contentions proposed by the Protestants. As to (1) "Concentration", (2) "Dual Banking", and (3) "Siphoning of Capital". To the extent that no significant findings of fact, if any, were premised on these contentions, there is no necessity to respond. A portion of the Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact number 10, was excepted to, concerning the "concentration" argument, and will be treated below in paragraph 9. Number 4 concerning injury to existing institutions has been dealt with in the Final Order in paragraph 4 of the Conclusions of Law, as to the "reasonable promise". The Applicant's Conclusions of Law numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 are accepted. Numbers 2, 3, and 8 are rejected as contrary to the Conclusions of the Final Order. PROTESTANT'S (FLORIDA BANKERS ASSOCIATION) PROPOSED FINDINGS Protestant's Proposed Findings numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 29, 30, 34, and 35 are accepted to the extent that they are generally consistent with the Hearing Officer's Findings or with the Final Order. Protestant's Proposed Findings numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47 are rejected to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Hearing Officer's Findings or with this Final Order, or are otherwise irrelevant or immaterial. APPLICANT'S EXCEPTIONS The Applicant's Exceptions numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 concern Proposed Findings that were not specifically referenced in the Hearing Officer's Report. However, they are generally consistent with the Hearing Officer's Findings and have been accepted by the Department to the extent that they are consistent with the Final Order. Exception 7, concerning Proposed Finding number 18, has been discussed above in paragraph 1. Exception 8, concerning Proposed Finding number 22, has been discussed above in paragraph 2. Exception number 9, concerning objection to portions of Finding of Fact number 10, is rejected. The first sentence of the Finding may speak in terms of "national trust business", but is viewed in terms of trust business throughout the nation. In no wise does it imply that there is a national market for personal trust business. The language should be viewed in the context of the overall finding. Exception number 10 is duly noted and reflected in the Final Order. Exception number 11 has been addressed in the Final Order in paragraph 4 of the Conclusions of Law as to "resonable promise." CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of the Department of Banking and Finance and that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent by Certified U.S. Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to: Thomas J. Cardwell, Esquire, Post Office Box 231, Orlando, Florida 32802; Robert A. White, Esquire, Aubrey Kendall, Esquire, and Paul Brenner, Esquire of the firm Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwoody and Cole, 1600 Southeast First National Bank Building, Miami, Florida 33131; Howard A. Setlin, Esquire, 1111 Lincoln Road Mall, Suite 600, Miami Beach, Florida 33139; Bruce Culpepper, Esquire, 350 East College Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32301; Robert Asti, Esquire, 2400 First Federal Building, Miami, Florida 33131; Richard R. Paige, Esquire, Alfred I. DuPont Building, Miami, Florida 33131; Charles Cane, Esquire, 801 Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida 33009; and G. Kenneth Kemper, Esquire, 9999 N.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 200, Miami Shores, Florida 33138, on this 24 day of January, 1980. FRANKLYN J. WOLLETT Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9886
Findings Of Fact On February 28, 1986 Respondent submitted a revised tax assessment to Petitioner for intangible taxes for the years 1979, 1980 and 1981 on assets held by Petitioners in the Fidelity Daily Income Trust Fund. Based on recomputed taxable percentages of these assets of 25.1 percent, 21.2 percent and 36.8 percent for the years 1979, 1980 and 1981 the recomputed tax is: 1979 - $ 26.57 1980 - 22.45 1981 - 45.94 TOTAL $ 94.96 (Exhibit 1) Adding penalties and interest through January 22, 1986 to the taxes owed results in a total owed as of January 22, 1986 of $193.98 (Exhibit 1).
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto The Ambrosia Home was a licensed nursing home facility subject to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 10C-7 and 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. During the summer of 1982 an auditor from the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Office of the Auditor General conducted an examination of the patient trust fund accounts of The Ambrosia Home. During the course of this audit some 11 instances were found where deceased patients' trust funds had been disbursed by the nursing home without the benefit of probate proceedings. A report of these findings was forwarded to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Office of Licensure and Certification, and the Administrative Complaint dated March 7, 1983, was issued. Respondent had a policy under which all patients entering the nursing home completed a simple "will" which provided that if funds accruing to them monthly for personal use remained in their accounts after their demise, they directed disbursement of these funds to pay all outstanding debts to The Ambrosia Home and remaining funds be used for funeral expenses or paid directly to their named beneficiaries. The 11 patients whose trust funds were not all placed in an interest-bearing account upon their death had completed such a document designating a beneficiary of these funds. The funds which were allegedly not placed in an interest-bearing account upon the death of the patient were disbursed for funeral expenses or paid to the designated beneficiary. This policy had been in existence at The Ambrosia Home for a considerable period of time and inspectors from the Office of Licensure and Certification had inspected these trust fund records several times without noting that such disbursements violated the Florida Probate Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was, at the time of the hearing and at all times material to this proceeding, registered with the Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker. During the period of the transactions involved in this proceeding the Respondent was operating and registered as an active broker and President of Fortiner Realty Company, which was a corporate real estate broker registered with the Commission. In Count One of the Complaint, the Respondent is charged with failing to maintain a security deposit in his trust account in connection with a real estate transaction involving Phillip E. Andrews and Betsy K. Andrews, as sellers, and Joseph T. Lyons and Marion C. Lyons, as purchasers. In Count Two of the Complaint the Respondent is charged with converting the deposit in the Andrews-Lyons transaction to his own use. During March, 1976, Claude I. Allen was employed at the Respondent's real estate office as a salesman. Allen negotiated a transaction between the Andrewses and the Lyonses. On March 17, 1976, the Lyonses made an offer to purchase the Andrews property and submitted a $1,000.00 deposit to Allen. On March 18, 1976 the $1,000.00 was deposited in the Respondent's trust account at the Palmer Bank of Ft. Myers. On March 22, 1976 the Andrewses accepted the offer and the Lyonses provided an additional $2,000.00 deposit to Allen. On that same date the $2,000.00 was deposited in the Respondent's trust account. The transaction closed on May 11, 1976. It was a smooth transaction. On May 110, 1976 $3,000.00 was withdrawn from the Respondent's trust account as a part of the transaction. During the entire time from March 17 through May 11, 1976, the monies deposited by the Lyonses remained on deposit in the Respondent's trust account. There is no evidence to support a finding either that the Respondent failed to maintain the $4,000.00 in the trust account, or that he converted any part of the deposit for his own use. In Count Three of the Complaint the Respondent is charged with failing to maintain a deposit in his trust account in connection with real estate transactions between Mac-Nel Ltd. and M & N Ltd. as sellers, and Stanley G. Courtney, as purchaser. In Count Four the Respondent is charged with converting all or part of the security deposit to his own use. The Respondent was one of several partners in Mac-Nel Ltd. and M & N Ltd. On august 28, 1976, Stanley G. Courtney entered into separate contracts to purchase all of the property owned by the two partnerships. Through six separate checks Courtney made a deposit of $13,500.00 to the Respondent to be placed in the Respondent's trust account. The evidence is unclear as to when or in what manner the deposit was placed in the trust account, or whether all of it was in fact placed in the trust account. The bank records reflect that $17,600.00 was placed in the Respondent's trust account on August 30, 1976, and it is possible that the Courtney checks formed a part of that deposit. During August and September, 1976, the Respondent's financial condition became grave. He had apparently defaulter on several notes to the Palmer Bank in which he had his trust account. The bank sued on the notes, and put a hold on the Respondent's accounts. In order to allow the Courtney transactions to close, the Respondent was able to withdraw allow a portion of the deposits made by Courtney form his trust account. He transferred his interest in the property to a Mr. Blankenship, so that Mr. Blankenship could close the transaction unfettered by the Respondent's financial plight. After he withdrew the money from his trust account, and forwarded it to Blankenship, the Respondent took no further part in the Courtney transaction either as a party to the transaction or as a broker. The closing of the transaction was delayed due in part to the Respondent's bankruptcy, however, it did close on October 29, 1976. Courtney was credited with the full amount that he had deposited with the Respondent. It is clear that the Respondent did not maintain all of the monies deposited by Courtney in the trust account. His reason for failing to do that was to permit the transaction to close even though the Respondent had gone bankrupt. The evidence would not support a finding that the Respondent converted any portion of the Courtney deposit to his own use. In Count Five of the Complaint the Respondent is charged with failing to maintain a deposit in his trust account in connection with a transaction involving Charles and Margaret Lathrop as sellers, and William and Jeannette Whitacre as purchasers. In Count Six the Respondent is charged with converting all or part of the deposit in that transaction to his own use. On or about June 29, 1976, the Whitacres entered into a contract to purchase property from the Lathrops. The transaction was negotiated by Mary E. Bishop, a saleswoman who was employed by the Respondent in his real estate company. The Whitacres delivered a $6,500.00 check to Mrs. Bishop as a deposit on the transaction. The bank records received into evidence do not clearly reveal when or in what manner the Whitacre's deposit was placed in the Respondent's trust account. The bank statements do show a $7,000.00 deposit made into the Respondent's trust account at the Palmer Bank of Ft. Myers on July 1, 1976, and it is possible that the Whitacre's check was a part of that deposit. Bank records from other trust accounts maintained by the Respondent such as that at the Cape Coral Bank do not reveal any deposit that could have been the Whitacre's check. The Lathrop/Whitacre transaction closed successfully on August 18, 1976, and the Whitacres were credited with the $6,500.00 that they had submitted to the Respondent's firm. It is apparent from the bank records that $6,500.00 was not on deposit at all times in the Respondent's trust account between July 1 and August 18, 1976. During most of that period the Respondent's balance in his trust account was less than $6,500.00. No evidence was offered from which it could be concluded that the Respondent made any specific use of the money deposited by the Whitacres. It is apparent, however, that the money was not used as intended, i.e., it was not maintained in the Respondent's trust account. In Count Seven of the Complaint the Respondent is charged with fraud, misrepresentation, and dishonest dealing in connection with his handling of the business of a partnership known as 27 Oaks Ltd. The Respondent was the general partner in 27 Oaks Ltd. He was responsible for carrying on the business of the partnership for the benefit of eight limited partners. The partnership owned property which it was seeking to develop and sell in small parcels. On November 19, 1975, a mortgage payment in the amount of $21,300.00 was due from the partnership. In accordance with the partnership agreement, the Respondent solicited funds from the limited partners so that the mortgage payment could be made by letter dated October 15, 1975. The evidence does not reveal whether the Respondent received sufficient contributions from the limited partners to pay the mortgage payment. The evidence reveals only that he received $9,997.00 from the limited partners in response to his solicitation. The Respondent did not make the mortgage payment when it was due, but instead received a ninety-day extension. The new date was February 19. The principal payment on the mortgage was not made on that date, but instead, the Respondent made payments on the interest due. Ultimately the payment was made in a manner satisfactory to the mortgagee by early June, 1976. The Real Estate Commission has charged that the Respondent received funds sufficient to make the mortgage payment in November, 1975, but that he applied the money to some other purpose. This contention is not supported by the evidence. The evidence does not reveal that the Respondent received sufficient money to make the mortgage payment. The bank records reveal that there was sufficient money in the 27 Oaks Ltd account to make the mortgage payment in November, and that the Respondent withdrew most of that money. The evidence does not establish that the Respondent improperly withdrew the money, or that the Respondent improperly withdrew the money, or that he put it to any but a valid partnership purpose. The Commission has also contended that the Respondent failed to maintain the monies he received from the limited partners in a trust account. Nothing in the partnership agreement requires that such monies be kept in a trust account, and the Respondent's failure to do so could not, therefore, constitute fraud or misrepresentation. Even if the contract were construed arguably to require that funds be placed in a trust account, certainly there are equally valid arguments that is does not. In Count Eight of the Complaint the Respondent is charged with fraud, misrepresentation, and dishonest dealing in connection with his handling of the affairs of a Florida limited partnership know as Randag Properties Ltd. During 1976 the Respondent was the sole general partner of Randag Properties Ltd. The partnership owned property which it was seeking to develop into apartments. The Respondent was responsible for carrying on the partnership business. The property consisted of more than 40 acres on a river and a navigable canal. Part of the property was a small appendage which contributed little to the development potential of the property. In order to raise money to prepare the property for development, the Respondent sold the appendage to an ajoining property owner. That transaction closed on or about May 28, 1976. The Respondent had contributed more than $30,000 of his own money to the partnership in order to prepare the property for development. These expenditures included attorneys fees that he had incurred; a boundary survey, a high tide location survey, and a topographical survey; fees to the Florida Secretary of State's office; real estate taxes; land clearing expenses; and various miscellaneous expenditures. The Respondent had also made an advance to one of the limited partners. The Respondent applied most of the proceeds from the sale of the appendage to compensate himself for the expenditures that he had incurred. The Respondent had a disagreement with one of the limited partners, Mr. Swartz, as to whether the proceeds of the sale should be applied to compensate the limited partners for their initial investment or the Respondent for his expenditures. The Respondent's applying the proceeds to compensate himself does not appear to be contrary to the partnership agreement and it does appear that he had validly incurred expenses on behalf of the partnership to which he was entitled to be compensated. The Respondent ultimately resigned as the general partner on October 12, 1976, in order to save the partnership from the consequences of his bankruptcy, and was replaced by Swartz. Early in October, 1976, the Respondent issued a promissory note to the partnership, but there was no showing that this promissory note was the consequence of any fraud, but rather that it was for the purpose of placing the partnership in a favorable position in relation to the Respondent's bankruptcy. The Respondent ended up losing money through his participation in the partnership while the limited partners ended by making a substantial profit. All of the limited partners were advised of the sale of the appendage either prior to the sale or shortly after. There is no requirement in the partnership agreement that they be advised in advance of the sale, or that they assent to it. The Respondent is charged in Count Nine of the Complaint with fraud, misrepresentation, and dishonest dealing in connection with a business transaction that he had with William K. Gamble and Dorothy V. Gamble. The allegations in essence are that the Respondent received loans from the Gambles, and that he pledged certain property as security for the loans. He was required under the terms of the promissory notes and the collateral assignment that accompanied them to provide other adequate security in the event that he sold any of the property that served as collateral for the loans. It is alleged that the Respondent sold the property, did not advise the Gambles, and did not substitute any other property as security for the promissory notes. The only testimony offered to establish that the property that served as collateral was sold was the testimony of Mrs. Dorothy V. Gamble. Mrs. Gamble had no direct knowledge that the property was in fact sold. It is apparent from the evidence that the Respondent has defaulted on the promissory notes. In Count Ten of the Complaint it is alleged that the Respondent failed to maintain a deposit in his trust account in connection with a real estate transaction involving Herbert J. Haase and Katherine M. Haase, as trustees, the sellers, and Loyal H. Tingley as purchaser. In Count Eleven it is alleged that the Respondent converted all or part of the deposit to his own use. On or about August 6, 1976, Tingley entered into a contract to purchase property from the Haases. Herbert Haase was a real estate salesman employed in the Respondent's real estate firm, and he held title to the subject property in trust. The Respondent was the actual owner. Tom Carpenter, another salesman employed in the Respondent's firm, was the sales man in the transaction. Tingley delivered a $5,000 check to Carpenter as a deposit on the transaction. Another real estate broker, a Mr. Himmelrick, had negotiated mortgage modifications in connection with the sale. He and the mortgage bank insisted that the deposit be placed in Himmelrick's trust account. Accordingly, the Respondent deposited the $5,000 check from Tingley into his trust account, and delivered a $5,000 check from his trust account to Himmelrick. Carpenter advised Tingley that Himmelrick and the bank insisted upon having the $5,000 deposited in Himmelrick's trust account prior to the time that the check was forwarded from the Respondent's trust account to Himmelrick. Tingley consented to that arrangement. While it is true that the Respondent did not keep the $5,000 deposit in his trust account, his failure to do so was with the consent of the purchaser, and resulted only in the deposit being placed in the trust account of a participating realtor. The evidence would not sustain a finding that the Respondent converted any part of the deposit to his own use. In Count Twelve of the Complaint it is alleged that the Respondent issued over 22 checks drawn on his trust account wherein said checks were not honored for payment for the reason of insufficient funds; that the Respondent placed funds in his trust account that did not come from valid trust account sources; and that the Respondent caused his account to have a negative closing balance on May 13, 1876. The evidence would not sustain any finding that the Respondent issued checks which were not honored for payment. It is apparent from the bank records that several checks issued by the Respondent drawn on his trust account were not covered by the balance in the trust account. Bank records indicated a "OC" next to such withdrawals on the ledger sheets. The bank witnesses testified, however, that frequently such entries are honored by the bank and are not returned due to the insufficient funds. The evidence would not sustain a finding that the Respondent placed money in his trust account that came from sources there were not proper for placing in a trust account. Nothing in the bank records offered into evidence demonstrates which deposits may not have been valid trust account deposits. The deposit slips merely show the payor of the checks. The bank records do reveal that the Respondent's trust account balance in the Palmer Bank of Ft. Myers on May 13, 1976 was a negative balance of $732.60. On September 29, 1978, the Florida Real Estate Commission entered its final order finding the Respondent guilty of a of a violation of the Real Estate License Law. The Respondent's registration as a real estate broker was suspended for a period of ninety days. The Real Estate Commission Case Number was Progress Docket Number 3130. All of the events involved in the instant proceeding occurred prior to the time that the final order was entered in Case Number 3130 and indeed prior to the time that the Complaint was issued in Case Number 3130. The Respondent has enjoyed a very good reputation in his community for fair dealing, truthfulness and competence. None of the acts which the Respondent committed that led to the instant proceedings show that the Respondent has engaged in a course of conduct or in practices which demonstrate that he is so incompetent, negligent, dishonest and untruthful that the money, property, transactions and rights of others may not safely be entrusted to him. The Administrative Complaint in Case Number 3130 before the Florida Real Estate Commission was issued on January 14, 1977. In included twenty-seven counts. All of the allegations related to the Respondent's dealings with various real estate salesman, and his alleged failure to share real estate commissions with the salesmen. In connection with the transactions involved, it was asserted in several counts that the Respondent failed to place deposits properly in his trust account. None of the charges in the first administrative complaint are grounded upon the facts alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint. The facts involved in the instant proceeding did, however, all occur at about the same time as the facts alleged in the first complaint, and all occurred prior to the date that the Administrative Complaint was filed in Case Number 3130. New facts came to the attention of the Commission due in part to comments made to one of the present real estate commissioners by a Ft. Myers resident. With diligent inquiry it is possible that the Commission could have discovered the facts which have resulted in the instant proceeding and included them as additional counts in the complaint in Case Number 3130. It has not, however, been shown that the Commission had reason to believe that it should make such diligent search and inquiry. B
Findings Of Fact On December 30, 1993, the Department received an application to organize a proposed new trust company to be located in Miami, Dade County, Florida, and to be called Columbus Trust Company (Columbus). Four individuals to be associated with Columbus are foreign nationals: Arturo Vinueza and Mario Yepes are proposed board of directors members; and Catalina Landes and Pedro Ycaza are major stockholders of Columbus. All other directors and stockholders of Columbus are citizens of the United States. They are: Charles C. Hardwick, III, Michael Hollihan, and Timothy S. Reed. All of the individuals listed in paragraphs 2 and 3 attended the public hearing. Mr. Vinueza is the proposed chief executive officer for Columbus. He is a graduate of the University of Miami and has more than thirteen years of banking and trust experience. Mr. Vinueza has served as manager or managing director of Citibank, N.A., Quito, Ecuador; Banco Popular International, Nassau; The Jersey Private Bank and Trust, Nassau; and Banco Popular del Ecuador, Miami Agency. Charles C. Hardwick, III, a proposed director, is a graduate of the University of Colorado, College of Law. He has more than twelve years of experience in international finance. Timothy S. Reed, a proposed director, is a graduate of Dartmouth College, and is a career banker, having retired from Citibank, N.A., New York, after more than thirty years of continuous service. He has served as general manager of Banco Popular del Ecuador, Miami Agency, for the past three years. Michael Hollihan, a proposed director who will serve as chief investment officer, has a degree in economics from the University of Wisconsin. He has completed graduate course work in economics at the University of South Carolina, and has been engaged in the business of international trade, finance and investments for more than twenty years. Mr. Hollihan was previously employed by Banco Central del Ecuador. For the past four years he has served as President of JPBT Advisors, Inc. in Miami. Mario Yepes, a proposed director, also has a degree in economics and was a teacher at the university of Colombia. He worked for a number of years for Bank of America, both in Miami and in Venezuela. Catalina Echevaria Landes, a major stockholder, is a business woman and interior designer. She has her own business located in Miami. Pedro Ycaza, a major stockholder, has a degree in business from a university in Ecuador. He worked for various banks in Ecuador for a number of years before joining Banco Popular in 1986. The Applicants seek to organize Columbus to provide trust services and investment management services to individuals having business or personal interests in the Miami area, and to JPBT Advisors, Inc. JPBT Advisors, Inc. advises certain mutual funds specializing in international investments. The Applicants propose to expand such services gradually to include private banking and investment management services to international investors residing or doing business in Miami and Dade County, Florida. The existing business of JPBT Advisors, Inc., which has annual revenues of approximately $3 million, will contribute to the income of Columbus during its initial period of operations as the bank develops its personal trust and investment management business. The proposed board of directors consists of individuals having many years of banking and business experience in the areas of international finance and asset management. Both Mr. Vinueza, the proposed chief executive officer, and Mr. Reed, a proposed outside director, have had direct experience as officers of financial institutions within the past three years and are presently employed in such capacities. The initial capital for Columbus will be $2 million. The initial capitalization of Columbus is adequate in relation to is proposed business activities. The corporate name of Columbus is reserved with the Department of State. Columbus will have suitable quarters in the Barnett Bank building located at 701 Brickell Avenue, Miami. Columbus' application was prepared by Richard Hunt, a financial consultant, who has been engaged in the business of providing such consulting services to organizing financial institutions for more than 25 years. The economic study and demographic analysis of the market for fiduciary services in Dade County, prepared by Mr. Hunt, concluded that the organization of Columbus will serve the convenience and advantage of its expected clients. The local conditions in Miami are favorable to Columbus' business plan. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO REPORT OF PUBLIC HEARING, CASE NO. 94-6306 All proposed findings of fact were submitted by stipulation of the Department and Columbus. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol-Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Rod Jones Shutts and Bowen 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Orlando, Florida 32801 Albert T. Gimbel Chief Banking Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Jeffrey D. Jones Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE DIVISION OF BANKING IN RE: Application for Authority to Organize a State Chartered Trust Administrative Proceeding Company to be located at Number: 3328-B-11/94 701 Brickell Avenue, Miami, DOAH Case Number: 94-6306 Dade County, Florida (Columbus Trust Company) / FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL ORDER Having considered the facts and information contained in the application for authority to organize and operate Columbus Trust Company (Applicant), 1 have determined that the Applicant has met all six (6) statutory criteria set forth in Section 658.21, Florida Statutes, or can meet those criteria by complying with specific conditions. Accordingly, the application is approved, subject to the conditions specified herein.
The Issue Whether an administrative fine should be imposed against Respondent for alleged violation of Sections 400.102(1)(b) and 400.162, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the letter of Joseph D. Dowless, Jr., dated March 16, 1978. Representatives of Respondent Sweeting Nursing Home did not appear at the hearing and therefore the matter proceeded as uncontested pursuant to Rule 28- 5.25(5), Florida Administrative Code. At the commencement of the hearing, the Hearing Officer inquired of Petitioner's counsel as to the accuracy of the charge of a violation of Section 400.102(1)(b), F.S., which involves misappropriation or conversion of the property of a resident of a nursing home facility, Petitioner's counsel announced that it wished to proceed under Section 400.102(1)(c) as a violation of provisions of Chapter 400 rather than on a conversion theory. In view of the fact that such an amendment involves an allegation of lesser severity than that originally alleged in the notice of charges and was fairly encompassed within such letter, the Hearing Officer permitted the amendment.
Findings Of Fact Sweeting Nursing Home, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, is a facility licensed by Petitioner under Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. As a result of an audit of the facility for the year ending March 31, 1976, Petitioner's hospital consultant with its Office of Licensure and Certification visited Petitioner's premises on March 10, 1978, to see if certain deficiencies existing in the patient trust fund, as indicated in the audit, had been corrected. The audit deficiencies were failure to reconcile patient trust fund account balances with the general ledger account balance on a regular basis, improper documentation to support fund receipts and disbursements, failure to reconcile patient trust fund account liability and patient trust fund cards, transfer of patient trust fund cards to the patient's file upon the patient's departure from the home, and inclusion of old balances in the liability account due to patients who are no longer at the facility. Petitioner's consultant found that inadequate records existed to properly audit the accounts and determined that the deficiencies cited in the audit had not been corrected. On the occasion of his visit, Respondent's administrator, Mrs. Marie Camacho, admitted that she was in violation of pertinent regulations regarding handling of patient trust funds and that such funds were frequently used to meet payroll expenses due to the fact that the home did not receive other regular funds from state sources on a timely basis. She stated, however, that trust fund monies were always returned to the trust fund account when the facility received Medicare or Medicaid payments. Petitioner's consultant also inquired as to the availability of bank statements of the trust fund accounts and was told that such records were at an accounting firm in Miami, Florida. No attempt was made, however, by the consultant to contact the accounting firm. (Testimony of Hanson) Patient trust funds are derived from monies received by patients from governmental or private sources for personal expenses. In the case of Medicaid, patients receive $25.00 a month from their social security checks for this purpose. Deposits and withdrawals from these accounts are recorded on individual patient ledger cards. Normally, disbursements are made from a petty case account with a monthly withdrawal from the patient's trust fund bank account to equal the amount withdrawn within the period. Although there is a lag time of approximately three months from the time a patient is admitted in the nursing home until the government commences monthly payments for care, the nursing home is expected to be sufficiently solvent to meet its expenses pending receipt of such monies. (Testimony of Hanson)
Recommendation That an administrative fine of $1,000 should be imposed against Respondent Sweeting Nursing Home for violation of Sections 400.162(4) and (5), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Harold L. Braynon District X Legal Counsel Department of HRS 800 West Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Sweeting Nursing Home 2137 N.W. 4th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Steven W. Huss Staff Attorney Central Operations Services Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Philip H. Bergman Stephen W. Crair 9000 Southwest 87th Court Miami, Florida 33176
Findings Of Fact Respondent Multicare Corporation is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in Pinellas County, Florida. It operates the William and Mary Nursing Hotel, New Fern Restorium, and Lakeview Nursing Home. In early August, 1977, Jack Fullerton, a hospital consultant with petitioner's Office of Licensure and Certification, visited the William and Mary Nursing Hotel to conduct an annual survey concerning the facility's compliance with pertinent law concerning patient trust fund accounts. He was informed at that time by a representative of the William and Mary Nursing Hotel that all such records were maintained at the corporate offices of respondent located at the New Fern Restorium. Accordingly, on August 19 he visited such offices to review available records. He was informed by respondent's head bookkeeper at that time that patient trust funds of all three nursing homes were maintained in one bank account of the corporation in the St. Petersburg Bank and Trust Company. In the course of his visit, Fullerton reviewed the bank statements for the period January through July, 1977. Although he asked to see the check register for the account, respondent's representative declined to make it available to him and he did not press the matter. He was also provided with monthly reports of patient trust fund balances for each patient. Although there were individual ledger cards showing daily expenditures for each patient, Fullerton did not make an in depth review of each such account to determine the daily balance for each patient. Indeed, he termed his inspection a "cursory review" of respondent's accounting procedures. Based on his examination of the above mentioned records, he noted that at various times during a particular month, the bank account balance reflected a lesser sum than that credited to patient trust accounts at the beginning of each month. For example, in January, 1977, the total patient trust accounts amount to $17,373.06, but in reviewing the bank statement, the balance shown on January 24 was only $18.10. Fullerton therefore surmised that patient trust funds had been used during the course of the month to meet corporate operating expenses. Based on this assumption, he rendered a report to his superiors on August 25, 1977, wherein he recommended that if his findings were considered sufficiently evident of an improper practice in violation of subsection 400.162(5), Florida Statutes, consideration should be given to imposing a fine against the respondent. However, he acknowledged in his report that he had compared monthly with daily balances and stated "to be specific, a complete audit would be indicated." Fullerton did not find any instance where a patient had been denied or deprived of the use of trust funds. Fullerton also found no irregularities in respondent's accounting and bookkeeping procedures. There is no prohibition against the commingling of trust fund monies and corporate funds in one bank account. (Testimony of Fullerton, Petitioner's exhibit 1) The responsible official of respondent corporation testified that expenditures from patient trust funds are posted on a quarterly basis, while deposits to such funds are posted monthly. Therefore, the records utilized by petitioner's auditor in determining the alleged impropriety did not reflect amounts spent daily by the patients for incidental expenditures after the monthly entries had been reflected in the books of the corporation. He further testified that the amounts posted also included monies advanced for private patients which were not in the nature of trust funds received for Medicaid patients. Further, there is up to a 90 day delay in receipt of Medicaid payments which often requires respondent to finance patient trust fund accounts out of its own resources until such federal funds are received. Although the official conceded that patient trust funds are merged into the corporate bank account which is also used for operating expenses, the firm maintains continuing lines of credit and other resources to insure that the amount represented by such trust funds is always available to it. (Testimony of Mosher)
Recommendation That the charges against respondent Multicare Corporation be dismissed. Done and Entered this 10th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara D. McPherson, Esquire District V Attorney Department of HRS Post Office Box 5046 Clearwater, Florida 33518 John Dew, Esquire Post Office Box 28 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at the formal hearing was whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's real estate broker's license for failing to obey a lawful order of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida. A Final Judgment was entered against Richard B. Abel, P.A., in the case of Mark Freeman v. Richard B. Abel, P.A., Case No 85-5678CA-JRT, on August 17, 1986, in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Lee County, Florida. The Final Judgment was for an amount of $6,839 representing real estate commissions owed by Richard B. Abel, P.A. to Mark Freeman, plus interest and attorney's fees. A two count Administrative Complaint was filed by the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, against Respondent on June 27, 1988. The Complaint alleged inter alia that Respondent: (a) failed to satisfy a Final Judgment in Circuit Court for the payment of a real estate commission; and (b) failed to maintain trust funds in his real estate brokerage trust account or some other proper depository until disbursement in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), (k), Florida Statutes. A Final Order was entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission (the "Commission") on December 6, 1988, accepting a Stipulation between Respondent and the Commission in settlement of the Administrative Complaint filed on June 27, 1988 (the "Final Order"). The terms of the Final Order provided that: Richard B. Abel, P.A., was reprimanded for failing to pay the Final Judgment entered against it in Circuit Court and was required to pay the amount due Mark Freeman within 45 days from the entry of the Final Order; Respondent, in his individual capacity, personally guaranteed the amount owed by Richard B. Abel, P.A., to Mark Freeman, and further agreed not to violate any provision of Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes; and Respondent waived his right to contest the validity and enforcement of either the Final Order or Stipulation accepted in the Final Order. Neither Richard B. Abel, P.A., nor Respondent has paid the sums due pursuant to the terms of the Final Order entered by the Commission on December 6, 1988. The evidence submitted by Petitioner was uncontroverted. Respondent admitted that he placed the monies owed by Richard B. Abel, P.A., to Mark Freeman in the escrow account of Richard B. Abel, P.A., and disbursed the funds to himself, the sole owner, operator, director and officer. Respondent stated that he fully intended to pay Mr. Freeman when Respondent was able to do so. Respondent's sole defense was that the original debt was that of a corporation rather than a personal debt of Respondent. Respondent is in violation of the Final Order of the Comission entered on December 6, 1988.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of failing to obey a lawful order of the Florida Real Estate Commission in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, fined $1,000, and placed on probation for a period not to exceed 5 years. The conditions of probation may include any of those prescribe in Florida Administrative Code Rule 21V-24.001(2)(a) except those prescribing re-examination or being placed on broker-salesman status. In the event Respondent fails to pay in full any fine imposed on Respondent or to complete the terms of any probation imposed on Respondent, it is recommended that Respondent's license be suspended for 8 years. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 4th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3727 Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Included in Finding 1 Included in Finding 2 Included in Finding 4 Included in Finding 5 5-6 Included in Finding 6 7-8 Included in Finding 7 9 Included in Finding 9 COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Departmen of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Richard B. Abel 2478 Inagua Avenue Miami, Florida 33133
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute violations of the statutes and rules regulating the practice of real estate in the State of Florida. Respondent, Benjamin C. Rolfe, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0318091 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Mr. Rolfe was as a broker with Squires Realty of the Palm Beaches, Inc., 721 U.S. 1, #217, North Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent, Duane C. Heiser, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0038233 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Mr. Heiser was as a broker effective February 8, 1991, at Duane C. Heiser Realty Co., 1312 Commerce Lane A1, Jupiter, Florida. On or about December 12, 1998, a Final Order was issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission and received by Mr. Heiser whereby his real estate broker's license was suspended for two (2) years from January 12, 1989, through January 10, 1991. During the month of October 1989, Mr. Heiser violated the lawful suspension order of the Commission by personally delivering rental checks to and ordering the disbursement of escrow funds from the Property Management-Operating Account, which is an escrow account, of Squire's Realty Company of the Palm Beaches, Inc. Between March 22 and March 26, 1990, the escrow account records of Mr. Rolfe, who was the qualifying broker for Squire's Realty of the Palm Beaches, Inc., were audited by Petitioner's authorized representatives. The Escrow/Trust Account Audit revealed that Respondent Rolfe failed to properly document and reconcile the Property Management-Operating Account, which is an escrow account. Mr. Rolfe was responsible for this account. Mr. Rolfe was negligent regarding the management of this escrow account by allowing a suspended licensee, Mr. Heiser, access to this account. Mr. Rolfe and Petitioner stipulated that the appropriate penalty for Mr. Rolfe's violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, would be the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00 and the placement of his licensure on probation for a period of one year. They further stipulated that the administrative fine was to be paid within thirty days of the filing of the final order. They also stipulated that during his term of probation Mr. Rolfe would be required to complete sixty hours of continuing education with thirty of those sixty hours being the thirty hour management course for brokers. They further stipulated that Mr. Rolfe would be required to provide to Petitioner satisfactory evidence of his completion of those sixty hours of continuing education and that those sixty hours of continuing education are to be in addition to any other continuing education required of Mr. Rolfe to remain active and current as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. Mr. Heiser and Petitioner stipulated that the appropriate penalty for Mr. Heiser's violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, would be the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00 and the placement of his licensure on probation for a period of one year. They further stipulated that the administrative fine was to be paid within thirty days of the filing of the final order. They also stipulated that during his term of probation, Mr. Heiser would be required to complete sixty hours of continuing education with thirty of those sixty hours being the thirty hour management course for brokers. They further stipulated that Mr. Heiser would be required to provide to Petitioner satisfactory evidence of his completion of those sixty hours of continuing education and that those sixty hours of continuing education are to be in addition to any other continuing education required of Mr. Heiser to remain active and current as a real estate broker in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which: Dismisses Counts I, III, and V of the Administrative Complaint; Finds Mr. Heiser guilty of having violated a lawful order of the Florida Real Estate Commission in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Final Order impose an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00 upon Mr. Heiser and place his licensure on probation for a period of one year. It is also recommended that the conditions of probation require that Respondent Heiser pay the said administrative fine within thirty days of the filing of the final order and that he be required to complete sixty hours of continuing education during his term of probation. It is further recommended that as part of the sixty hours of continuing education, Mr. Heiser be required to successfully complete the thirty hour management course for brokers, that he be required to provide satisfactory evidence of completion of such continuing education to Petitioner, and that these sixty hours of continuing education be in addition to any other continuing education required of Respondent Heiser to remain active and current as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. Finds Mr. Rolfe guilty of culpable negligience in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count IV of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Final Order impose an administrative fine in the amount of $300.00 upon Mr. Rolfe and place his licensure on probation for a period of one year. It is also recommended that the conditions of probation require that Respondent Rolfe pay the said administrative fine within thirty days of the filing of the final order and that he be required to complete sixty hours of continuing education during his term of probation. It is further recommended that as part of the sixty hours of continuing education, Mr. Rolfe be required to successfully complete the thirty hour management course for brokers, that he be required to provide satisfactory evidence of completion of such continuing education to Petitioner, and that these sixty hours of continuing education be in addition to any other continuing education required of Respondent Rolfe to remain active and current as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of December, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Neil F. Garfield, Esquire Garfied & Associates, P.A. World Executive Building Suite 333 3500 North State Road 7 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33319 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
