The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent Department of Corrections (the Department) properly determined that there were no responsive proposals to the Request for Proposals entitled Mental Healthcare Services in Region IV, RFP #08-DC-8048 (the RFP); (b) whether the Department's intended award of a contract to provide mental healthcare services to inmates in Region IV to Intervenor Correctional Medical Services, Inc. (CMS), pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), is unlawful; and (c) whether Petitioner MHM Correctional Services, Inc. (MHM), has standing to challenge the Department's intended award of a contract to CMS pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008).
Findings Of Fact The RFP Process The Department issued the RFP on February 5, 2009. Two addendums were issued to the RFP, the first on February 6, 2009, and the second on March 11, 2009. The Department did not receive any protest of the RFP or addendums from MHM or any other proposer within the statutorily set time limit of 72 hours from the issuance of the RFP. At the time of issuance of the RFP, MHM was the incumbent provider of mental health services to inmates in Region IV. At that time, MHM was providing the services at a rate of $77.62 per month/per inmate. MHM's contract to provide mental health services in Region IV was the result of a prior vendor being financially unable to perform the contract at its agreed rate. The RFP sought proposals from vendors to provide comprehensive mental healthcare services for inmates located at 14 correctional institutions located in the southern part of the State beginning on July 1, 2009. The Department’s contract with MHM for those services was set to expire on June 30, 2009. The Department had previously attempted another procurement for replacement of those services in late 2008. Proposals to the RFP were received and opened in a public meeting on March 23, 2009, from CMS, MHM, the University of Miami's Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences (the University of Miami), and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Wexford). The Department’s Bureau of Procurement and Supply (BPS) was responsible for overseeing the RFP. The Procurement Manager for the RFP was Ana Ploch. Ms. Ploch’s duties included drafting the proposal with the assistance of the Office of Health Services, managing the procurement process by coordinating release of documents, conducting related meetings (such as proposers’ conferences, proposal opening, and price opening), conducting site visits, supervising the evaluation process, and keeping records of the process through completion of a summary report of the procurement. Once the Department received the proposals, it began the eight-phased review and evaluation process as set forth in Section 6 of the RFP. Phase 1 of the review and evaluation process began with the public opening of the proposals that took place on March 23, 2009. Phase 1 also included the review of the proposals to determine if they met mandatory responsiveness requirements. Determination of meeting mandatory responsiveness requirements was made by BPS staff. Mandatory Responsiveness Criteria or “fatal criteria” is described in Section 5.1 of the RFP as requirements that must be met by a proposer for the proposal to be considered responsive. A failure to meet any one of the three following criteria would result in an immediate finding of non- responsiveness and the rejection of the proposal: (a) the subject proposal must be received by the Department by the date and time specified in the RFP; (b) the proposal must include a signed and notarized Certification Attestation Page for Mandatory Statements; and (c) the price proposal must be received by the Department by the date and time specified in the RFP and must be in a separate envelope or package in the same box or container as the project proposal. There is no dispute that all four proposals met these mandatory responsiveness/fatal criteria. In addition to the fatal criteria, a proposal could be found to be non-responsive for failing to conform to the solicitation requirements in all material respects. The RFP, Section 1.20, clearly set forth the definition of a “material deviation” and the basis for rejecting a proposal as follows: 1.20 Material Deviations: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to proposals to be submitted by vendors. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this RFP indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where any deviation therefrom is not material. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient proposal is not in substantial accord with this RFP’s requirements, provides an advantage to one proposer over other proposers, or has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items or services proposed, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a proposal. (Emphasis in original.) A Responsive Proposal is defined in the RFP Section 1.29 as “[a] proposal, submitted by a responsive and responsible vendor that conforms in all material respects to the solicitation.” A minor irregularity is defined in Section 1.26 of the RFP as: 1.26 Minor Irregularity: A variation from the RFP terms and conditions which does not affect the price proposed or gives the proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other proposers or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. Phase 2 consisted of a review of the business/corporate qualifications and technical proposal/service delivery narratives contained in the proposals. This phase was completed individually by evaluation team members. The evaluation team, which consisted of 5 employees from the Department’s Office of Health Services, met with Ms. Ploch on March 24, 2009, for instruction on how to proceed with the evaluation. The team members were given the evaluation materials on that date. Evaluation and scoring of the proposals was done separately by each individual without discussion among the members. At the March 31, 2009, bid tabulation meeting, which occurred after the team members scored the proposals, Ms. Ploch told the team members that MHM and the University of Miami were non-responsive to the RFP. Then the scores for the different categories were recorded as announced by each member of the evaluation team. All four proposals were scored for the three categories listed in RFP Section 5.3 (business/corporate experience), Section 5.5 (project staff) and Section 5.6 (technical proposal and service delivery narrative). There is no allegation that the scores assigned to the proposals were done in error or that they were not in compliance with Department rules or procedures. Phase 3 of the review and evaluation process was completed at the same time as Phase 2 and 4, by Ms. Ploch and the BPS staff. That review of the proposals included a determination as to whether the proposers were in compliance with Section 5.3 “Business/Corporate Qualifications.” At that point in the review process, BPS determined that the University of Miami’s proposal was non-responsive in that the proposer did not have the necessary business experience. This finding has not been disputed by any party. An independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) completed Phase 4 of the review and evaluation process. The Department hired the CPA to review the financial requirements of Section 5.4 of the RFP. The CPA, Richard Law, was given all the proposals, including the financial documentation, on March 24, 2009. He conducted his review separately from the Department's reviews in Phases 2 and 3. Mr. Law has been a licensed CPA for over 30 years. His major practice area is conducting audits for state governments, as well as private businesses. With more than 10 years of experience reviewing financial documentation for the Department and assisting on the setting of financial benchmarks for numerous procurements, he is highly qualified to perform the evaluation and assessment of these basic financial criteria. The financial requirements and the financial documentation and information that the proposers had to submit are set out in Section 5.4 of the RFP. That section is entitled “Financial Documentation,” and provides as follows in pertinent part: Tab 4-Financial Documentation The Proposer shall provide financial documentation that is sufficient to demonstrate its financial viability to perform the Contract resulting from this RFP. Three of the following five minimum acceptable standards shall be met, one of which must be either item d, or item e, below. The Proposer shall insert the required information under Tab 4 of the Proposal. Current ratio: = .9:1 or (.9) Computation: Total current assets ÷ total current liabilities Debt to tangible net worth: = 5:1 Computation: Total liabilities ÷ net worth Dun and Bradstreet credit worthiness (credit score): = 3 (on a scale of 1-5) Minimum existing sales: = $50 million Total equity: = $5 million NOTE: The Department acknowledges that privately held corporations and other business entities are not required by law to have audited financial statements. In the event the Proposer is a privately held corporation or other business entity whose financial statements ARE audited, such audited statements shall be provided. If the privately held corporation or other business entity does not have audited financial statements, then unaudited statements or other financial documentation sufficient to provide the same information as is generally contained in an audited statement, and as required below, shall be provided. The Department also acknowledges that a Proposer may be a wholly-owned subsidiary of another corporation or exist in other business relationships where financial data is consolidated. Financial documentation is requested to assist the Department in determining whether the Proposer has the financial capability of performing the contract to be issued pursuant to this RFP. The Proposer MUST provide financial documentation sufficient to demonstrate such capability including wherever possible, financial information specific to the Proposer itself. All documentation provided will be reviewed by an independent CPA and should, therefore, be of the type and detail regularly relied upon by the certified public accounting industry in making a determination or statement of financial capability. To determine the above ratios, the most recent available and applicable financial documentation for the Proposer shall be provided. This financial documentation shall include: The most recently issued audited financial statement (or if unaudited, reviewed in accordance with standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountant). All statements shall include the following for the most recently audited (immediate past) year. auditors’ reports for financial statements; balance sheet; statement of income; statement of retained earnings; statement of cash flows; notes to financial statements; any written management letter issued by the auditor to the Proposer’s management, its board of directors or the audit committee, or, if no management letter was written, a letter from the auditor, stating that no management letter was issued and that there were no material weaknesses in internal control or other reportable conditions; and a copy of the Dun & Bradstreet creditworthiness report dated on or after February 5, 2009. (Emphasis in original) The RFP provided as follows in Section 5.4.2: If the year end of the most recent completed audit (or review) is earlier than nine (9) months prior to the issuance date of this RFP, then the most recent unaudited financial statement (consisting of items b, c, d and e above) shall also be provided by the Proposer in addition to the audited statement required in Section 5.4.1. The unaudited financial data will be averaged with the most recent fiscal year audited (or reviewed) financial statement to arrive at the given ratios. Throughout Section 5.4 of the RFP, the emphasis is on the need for audited financial statements. The use of unaudited financial statements alone does not apply to MHM pursuant to the terms of the RFP, but they did apply to other proposers. Both audited and unaudited financial statements were averaged to determine ratios for CMS and Wexford, where their audited financial statements were older than 9 months. This was clearly permissible under Section 5.4.2. MHM’s proposal included audited financial statements dated September 30, 2008, and also additional information, including unaudited financial statements and a financial narrative in which it admitted that its current ratio as of September 30, 2008, was 0.82 and that it had a negative equity of $24.8 million dollars. MHM was fully aware that it could have difficulty meeting the financial ratios before the Department issued the RFP. As early as January 2008, MHM was considering a stock repurchase. MHM knew its existing contract would come up for rebid. MHM also knew that the Department sometimes used financial criteria and financial ratios as pass/fail ratios. MHM was concerned that the stock repurchase would trigger one of those ratios, causing them to lose the contract. In January 2008, Susan Ritchey, MHM's Chief Financial Officer, and Steve Wheeler, MHM's President and Chief Operating Officer, contacted Mr. Law. Ms. Ritchey and Mr. Wheeler wanted to discuss their concerns regarding financial ratios that the Department might require in the future. During the hearing, Mr. Wheeler denied that the contact with Mr. Law had anything to do with the instant RFP. There is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Law gave Ms. Ritchey and Mr. Wheeler inappropriate advice. The independent review by Mr. Law of MHM’s financial documentation resulted in the finding that MHM only met two of the minimum acceptable standards required by Section 5.4 of the RFP. Mr. Law set out his conclusions on a Department form entitled “Phase IV, Financial Documentation Review to Be Completed by Independent CPA.” That sheet reflected that MHM had failed the current ratio with a score of .819, when a ratio of = 9:1 or (.9) was required (item a). Likewise, MHM failed the “Debt to tangible net worth” and the “total equity” criteria (items b and e, respectively), since MHM had a negative equity of $22 million dollars. MHM passed the two remaining criteria. First, it met the minimum existing sales (item d) with sales at $217 million (greater than or equal to $50 million). Second, it met the requirement of the Dun & Bradstreet creditworthiness score (item c), which needed to be less than or equal to 3, with a score of The Dun & Bradstreet score was not noted on the Department review form because MHM had already failed three of the financial minimum acceptable financial standards. MHM disputes the finding that it failed the “Debt to tangible net worth” requirement (item b) which was a ratio of = 5:1 or “less than or equal to 5 to 1, a whole number.” Net worth is the same as equity. Following proper accounting practices and a commonsense reading of this mathematical phrase required that both numbers be whole numbers, neither could be a negative. Put simply, a proposer could only have a maximum of five dollars in debt for every one dollar in net worth to pass this minimum acceptable standard. So, for purposes of evaluating this ratio, once it was determined that MHM had a negative equity of $22 million dollars, there was no way for MHM to pass this critical requirement. The “Debt to tangible net worth” criteria, was meant to be “Debt to net worth.” The computation set out below the criteria reflects the proper calculation needed to find debt to net worth, not debt to tangible net worth. Mr. Law performed the computation for debt to net worth as set out in the description of the computation, which was more advantageous to proposers than debt to “tangible net worth,” and resulted in a more favorable ratio. The ratio of “-1.77,” reflected on MHM's financial documentation review sheet is a mistake because Mr. Law used the number he reached averaging the audited and unaudited financial statements. The correct number is “-2.16,” which is based only on MHM's audited financial statement of September 30, 2008. That is, it was a greater negative number, but still negative. Either way, MHM fails this criteria. MHM had no dollars in net worth as of the issuance date of the RFP. Instead, MHM had a negative net worth of $24,785,000.00 as of the end of its fiscal year on September 30, 2008, as reflected in its audited financial statement. As to item “a”, “Current ratio,” a finding of .819 was reached by taking the total current assets ($23,493) and dividing into that number the total current liabilities ($28,692), both reflected on the MHM’s audited financial statement of September 30, 2008. These numbers taken from MHM’s audited financial statements for total current liabilities; total current assets and total equity represent millions, rounded for accounting purposes. MHM reached a similar finding of .82 using its September 30, 2008, audited financial statements. On the date the RFP was issued, February 5, 2009, MHM’s audited financial statement of September 30, 2009, was indisputably less than 9 months old and was the only financial statement under Section 5.4.2 of the RFP that could be used to compute the ratios in Section 5.4.2. Even if the unaudited financial statement submitted by MHM were averaged with the most recent audited financial statement, as demonstrated by Mr. Law’s attempts to do so, MHM would still not have met the current ratio. Nowhere in the RFP does it allow for the use of unaudited financial statements alone when there are existing audited financial statements. Mr. Law’s completed Phase 4 review of the financial documentation. He returned it to the Department on March 30, 2009. The Department conducted Phase 5 of the review and evaluation process, the Public Opening of the price proposals, on April 2, 2009, in a properly noticed meeting. At that time, the Department knew that there were only two responsive proposals (CMS and Wexford). No public announcement regarding the status of the other proposals had been made at that time. The RFP contained a price cap of $70.00 per inmate per month as reflected in Section 5.11.2 of the RFP and the Price Information Sheet. The intent of the price cap of $70 per month was to achieve a price savings for the Department over what it was then paying for mental healthcare services in Region IV, which was nearly $78.00. The goal of $70 was considered to be possibly unrealistic, but the true intent was to keep from exceeding the current rate of $78.00. At the price opening, the following prices were announced: (a) MHM’s price was $70.00 per inmate per month; (b) the University of Miami’s price was $69.49 per inmate per month; (c) CMS’s price was $74.49 per inmate per month; and (d) Wexford’s price was $95.00 per inmate per month. It was later determined that CMS had also submitted an alternative price sheet. However, the alternative price sheet did not affect the responsiveness of CMS's proposal or the Department's subsequent decision. Based on the fact that CMS’s and Wexford’s proposed prices exceeded the amount set by the RFP, their proposals were deemed non-responsive to the RFP. Consequently, as of April 2, 2009, there were no responsive proposers to the RFP. BPS staff prepared a final score and ranking sheet as required by Section 6.2.7 of the RFP. The scoring and ranking included just the two proposals, CMS and Wexford, that were responsive going into the Phase 5 Price Opening. BPS staff did not perform further scoring and ranking of the two proposals that were non-responsive prior to the Price Opening. Department of Corrections’ Procedure 205.002, entitled “Formal Service Contracts,” addresses the Department’s procedures, terms, and conditions for soliciting competitive offers for certain types of services. The Procedure has separate sections for Invitations to Bid, Requests for Proposals, Invitations to Negotiate and general sections that address all three. There is no requirement in the procedure that addresses the specific situation facing the Department in the mental healthcare procurement. The section of Procedure 205.002 that Petitioner points to, Section (5)(r)3., applies only to instances when the Department is seeking to single source a procurement or negotiate with a single responsive bidder. The section reads as follows in pertinent part: (r) Receipt of One or Fewer Responsive Bids, Proposals or Responses: * * * 3. If the department determines that services are available only from a single source or that conditions and circumstances warrant negotiation with the single responsive bidder, proposer, or respondent on the best terms and conditions, the department’s intended decision will be posted in accordance with section 120.57(3), F.S., before it may proceed with procurement. This section of the procedure is clearly inapplicable in the instant case since there were no responsive proposals. Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008) Faced with no responsive proposers, the Department considered its options. The Department then decided to negotiate for a contract on best terms and conditions pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), in lieu of going through a third competitive solicitation. The Department’s decision to negotiate was ultimately made by the Assistant Secretary for Health Services in the Department's Office of Health Services. The BPS staff and legal counsel advised Assistant Secretary Dr. Sandeep Rahangdale about the options available to the Department. Dr. Rahangdale had the following three options: (1) to reject all proposals and begin what would be the third competitive procurement for mental healthcare services in less than 8 months; (2) to negotiate a contract on best terms and conditions under Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), since there were less than two responsive proposals to the RFP; or (3) to use the statutory exemption for health services under Section 287.057(5)(f), Florida Statutes (2008), and enter into a contract with any vendor the Department selected. Option 1, to begin a new procurement was time-barred because the Department needed a new contract in place by July 1, 2009. Dr. Rahangdale’s primary concern was to insure that the Department provided constitutionally mandated health care, including mental healthcare to all inmates in its custody. In making the decision to negotiate, Dr. Rahangdale reasonably chose to begin negotiations with CMS. He made this decision because, of the two proposers who were responsive except for exceeding the price cap, CMS’s price was closest to the $70.00 per inmate per month goal. Wexford, the other proposer that was responsive except for price, had submitted a price of $95.00 per inmate per month. Thus, the Department had a reasonable belief there was a better chance of reaching its $70 goal through negotiations with CMS. Additionally, CMS was the highest scored technical proposal of the only two responsive proposals prior to the Price Opening. Thus, CMS was a better choice for the Department from a delivery of services standpoint. The Department made a reasoned decision to not abandon all the criteria of the RFP that had to do with qualifications, such as business experience (failed by University of Miami) or financial viability (failed by MHM). Dr. Rahangdale considered and determined that the nature of MHM’s and the University of Miami’s failure to be responsive could not be changed or cured in the negotiation process unless the Department lowered its expectations regarding performance and corporate viability. Negotiations were conducted between April 7, 2009, and April 9, 2009, by Jimmie Smith of the Office of Health Services. Dr. Rahangdale instructed Mr. Smith to undertake negotiations with CMS on best terms and conditions, and to strive to get as close as possible to a price of $70.00 per inmate per month in the negotiations. Mr. Smith is a Registered Nurse working in the Department’s Office of Health Services. His working job title is Assistant Program Administrator/Contracting. He has the responsibility to contact potential vendors for health-related services and commodities and to ensure that formal contracts or purchase orders are issued for the required health-related services and commodities. Mr. Smith typically is charged with making initial contact with vendors, handling negotiations for exempt health service contracts, and coordinating the procurement of the services with BPS. He is also a contract manager for healthcare services and advises other contract managers. Mr. Smith was eminently well qualified to negotiate this contract for mental healthcare services on behalf of the Department. Prior to beginning his negotiations, Mr. Smith obtained a complete copy of CMS’s proposal, including the price proposal. He contacted CMS'S Senior Director of Business Development, Frank Fletcher, by telephone to conduct the negotiations. Emails dated April 9, 2009, between the Department and CMS’s representative reflect an offer by CMS to perform the scope of work described in the RFP at a capitated rate of $70.00 for the first year of service, with a $2.50 escalator per year for a five-year non-renewal contract term. CMS also proposed adding a 30-day period for correction of performance measures, prior to the imposition of liquidated damages. The Department counter-offered with a requirement that any failure to correct the performance measure violation within the 30-day period would result in retroactive imposition of liquidated damages to the day of the violation. These terms and conditions were presented to Dr. Rahangdale who approved them. Dr. Rahangdale considered the $2.50 escalator, but decided he was satisfied with the initial year price of $70, a 10% savings for the Department over its current contract and a savings of three million over the life of the contract. On April 10, 2009, Mr. Smith confirmed the tentative agreement to Mr. Fletcher by email. CMS understood that the agreement was tentative until the Department posted a notice of agency decision. The BPS staff prepared an Agency Action Memo, the Summary Report, and the Notice of Intent to Award. The Agency Action Memo contained a recommendation for award and an option of non-award. The Agency Action Memo stated as follows in part: The Department made the determination that it was in the best interest of the State to proceed with negotiations as authorized by Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes. The Department negotiated with the highest- ranked Proposer on the best terms and conditions for the resulting Contract. Based upon the results of the negotiation conducted, it is recommended that the Department awards a Contract to Correctional Medical Services, Inc. A Summary Report was attached to the Agency Action Memo. The report explained the RFP process in detail. It explained the reasons for finding MHM and the University of Miami non-responsive. It explained that CMS and Wexford were non-responsive because they exceeded the price cap. 55.. The report charted the results of the Phase 5--Public Opening of Price Proposals as follows in abbreviated form: PROPOSER UNIT PRICE ANNUAL COST FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE CMS $74.59 $16,536,780 Passed Passed Wexford $95.00 $21,090,000 Passed Passed U. of M. $69.49 $15,426,780 Passed Failed MHM $70.00 $15,540,000 Failed Passed The report set forth the Department's reasons for negotiating on best terms and conditions pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), in pertinent part as follows: Phase 8--Notice of Agency Decision The procurement of Mental Healthcare Services in Region IV was under competitive solicitation for over eight (8) months, via two (2) different solicitations (ITN and RFP). The companies that submitted proposals in response to this RFP also submitted responses to the previous ITN. Pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes, the Department negotiated with the highest-ranking proposer on the best terms and condition and in the best interest of the state, in lieu of resoliciting competitive proposals for a third time. The last page of the report charted the Final Score and Ranking for CMS and Wexford. The first chart showed the actual points received by the proposers, the highest points received by any proposal, and the awarded points. The second chart showed the proposed unit price, the lowest verified price, and the awarded points. The third chart showed the total response points, with CMS having 500 and Wexford having 454.64. MHM and the University of Miami were non-responsive as to RFP requirements that the Department, in its sole discretion, determined were non-negotiable. Therefore, the Department properly determined that CMS was the highest-ranking proposer after the Price Opening. As Bureau Chief, Mr. Staney was ultimately responsible for verifying that the four proposals were non-responsive. He and Dr. Rahangdale signed the Agency Action Memo, recommending an award to CMS. On April 15, 2009, Mr. Staney sent the documents to his supervisor, Director of Administration Millie J. Seay. The BPS staff briefed Ms. Seay regarding the Agency Action Memo. Ms. Seay questioned whether the Department should negotiate with Wexford. The BPS staff explained that Dr. Rahangdale had considered negotiating with Wexford but that he was satisfied with the negotiated rate and the higher technically-scored proposal from CMS. On Monday, April 20, 2009, Ms. Seay signed the Agency Action Memo. The next day the Department posted its intent to award a contract to CMS. The Department's Notice of Agency Decision announced the intent to award a contract for Mental Healthcare Services in Region IV to CMS as follows: DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS NOTICE OF AGENCY DECISION RFP #08-DC-8048 MENTAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES IN REGION IV Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 287.057(6), Florida Statutes, the Department of Corrections announces its intent to award a contract for MENTAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES IN REGION IV to the following vendor: Correctional Medical Services, Inc. This announcement gave all interested parties notice that the Department was taking some action with regard to the referenced RFP. The Notice also contained the statutorily required language giving all interested parties a point of entry to challenge the Department’s intent to award. Accordingly, no proposers were denied an opportunity to inquire into the details of the process that led to an award under the referenced statute, including the evaluation of the proposals and the Department’s decision to wait until it had completed Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), negotiations to post the intended agency decision. 63 MHM timely filed its Formal Bid Protest Petition with the Department on May 4, 2009.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended: That the Department enter a final order awarding the contract for Mental Healthcare Services in Region IV to CMS and dismissing the protest of MHM. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent condominium association timely mailed or hand delivered to unit owners either a copy of the annual financial report for the year 2004 or, alternatively, a notice stating that a copy of the report would be provided to any owner, free of charge, upon request.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Eden Isles Condominium Association, Inc. ("Association") is the entity responsible for operating the common elements of the Eden Isles Condominium ("Condominium"), which consists of seven buildings comprising 364 units. As such, the Association is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of Petitioner Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes ("Division"). The Association retained Louis John Claps, C.P.A. & Associates, P.A. ("Claps") to audit the Association's books and prepare a financial statement respecting the year ending December 31, 2004. Thereafter, under a cover letter dated May 2, 2005, Claps delivered to the Association a financial report for the year 2004. This financial report was readily available to the members of the Association's governing Board of Directors ("Board"), who in turn could make copies thereof for delivery to the unit owners in their respective buildings. (The owners in each building elect a "building director" to serve on the Board.) In addition, the financial report was available for inspection and copying at the Association's office; any unit owner who asked for a copy was given one. The Association, however, did not mail or hand deliver to each unit owner either a copy of the financial report or, alternatively, a notice stating that a copy of such report could be had, at no charge, upon request.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order finding the Association guilty of the charge of failing to timely provide each unit owner with either the annual financial report for the year 2004 or, alternatively, a notice stating that a copy of such report would be delivered, without charge, to any owner who requested one. In consequence of the Association's violation of Section 718.111(13), Florida Statutes, the Division should: (a) impose a civil penalty against the Association in the amount of $1,092; (b) order the Association to mail or hand deliver to each unit owner, within 30 days after the date of the Final Order, either a copy of the financial report for the year 2004 or, alternatively, a notice stating that a copy of such report will be provided at no cost to any owner who requests one in writing; and (c) order the Association to furnish the Division, within 45 days after the date of the Final Order, with an affidavit attesting that the remedial action just described has been taken. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2007.
Findings Of Fact The incorporation of the condominium association of the Orchards of Radcliffe, a Condominium, (hereinafter "Radcliffe Condominium") occurred on October 19, 1981, and the declaration of condominium occurred on or about December 12, 1981. Interrogatory answers 7 and 9, P. Ex. 3. The Developer of the Radcliffe Condominium, was the Respondent, Radcliffe Condominium, Inc., d/b/a Orchards of Radcliffe, a Condominium. The Developer of the Radcliffe Condominium elected pursuant to section 718.116(8)(a)1, Fla. Stat. (1985), to be excused from the payment of its share of the common expenses and obligated itself to pay that portion of the common expenses incurred during the election period which exceeded the amount assessed against other unit owners. Answer to interrogatory 2(a), P. Ex. 3. The Developer did not offer a guarantee of common expenses pursuant to section 718.116(8)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (1985). The first closing of a condominium unit at Radcliffe Condominium occurred on January 6, 1982. Interrogatory answer 1, P. Ex. 3. The turnover of control from the Developer to the condominium association occurred on January 22, 1986. P. Ex. 2. The Developer of the Radcliffe Condominium did not make monthly payments on the common expenses incurred from about May, 1982, through January, 1986, on some of the units owned by the Developer. The Developer contends that by using funds from related corporations, it paid expenses of maintenance directly to suppliers and creditors as needed, and that in so doing, it paid more than what it had obligated itself to pay monthly for assessments for common expenses on Developer owned units. The Department contends that the Developer did not pay the monthly obligations for units owned, that the failure to make such payments was the cause of the association not having enough funds to pay expenses when due, and that the Developer now owes a substantial amount for back payments. The Developer did in fact pay some bills directly from funds from related corporations. During the course of the final hearing, the Petitioner withdrew all issues that may have existed in this case concerning whether the Respondent owes any amount for past assessments, or the amount owed. As a result, the Respondent was not permitted to attempt to prove the amount of payments of expenses that were paid directly rather than as monthly unit assessments. Consequently, on this record, no finding of fact can be made as to the amount of direct payments, or whether the amount of such direct payments exceeded the amount of unit assessments owed by the Developer, but not paid. Within sixty days after turnover, a Developer is required to provide the condominium association with a turnover review. A turnover review is intended to provide the association with an accounting only for the period during which the Developer had control. A turnover review is intended to show whether the Developer fulfilled its stewardship responsibilities toward the condominium association. It is less formal than an audit, but more formal than a mere compilation. The Developer provided the condominium association with the turnover review on or about November 28, 1986, eight months late. A substantial reason for the delay was that the Developer did not completely pay the Certified Public Accountant who was hired to do the review. Another substantial reason for the delay was the fact that the Developer did not keep good records of payments of association expenses, and failed to follow good accounting practices in making payments directly rather than through association accounts. See finding of fact 13. The turnover review reviewed the balance sheet as of June 30, 1986, and the related statements of assessments, revenues, expenses and fund balance, and changes in cash position for the six months ended as of June 30, 1986. P. Ex. 1. The turnover review covered only the six months from January 1, 1986 to June 30, 1986. Thus, the turnover review failed to cover only the period of time that the Developer had control and had stewardship responsibilities toward the condominium association. The turnover review incorrectly assumed that the Developer had made a guarantee of common expenses pursuant to section 718.116(8)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (1985). The turnover review did not address the question whether the Developer paid its unit assessments of common expenses pursuant to section 718.116(8)(a)1, Fla. Stat. (1985) because of the erroneous assumption in the review that the Developer had made a guarantee of common expenses pursuant to section 718.116(8)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (1985). Payment by the Developer of association expenses directly, rather than through association accounts, is contrary to good accounting practices. Failure to pay assessments when due results in retention by the Developer of funds owed the association. Thus, the failure of the Developer to pay assessments when due resulted in a form of commingling of Developer and association accounts and funds. Payment of expenses owed by the association by the Developer's related corporations was another form of commingling of accounts and funds.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes enter its final order assessing a civil penalty of $4,000 against Radcliffe Condominium, Inc., d/b/a Orchards of Radcliffe, a Condominium, and requiring Radcliffe Condominium, Inc., d/b/a Orchards of Radcliffe, a Condominium, within sixty (60) days of the date of the final order to provide the condominium association with a turnover review that complies with the requirements of section 718.301(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (1985) and all other requirements of law governing turnover reviews. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of July, 1987 WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 17th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1227 The following are rulings upon findings of fact proposed by the parties, using the numbers or designations used by each party, which have been rejected in this Recommended Order: Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: 1. The second sentence has been adopted as a conclusion of law. Rejected for the reasons stated in finding of fact 7. A conclusion as to whether "enough" money would have been available in association accounts cannot be made since a full accounting of all payments and expenses has not been made or placed in evidence. The second sentence has been adopted as a conclusion of law. 9. Most of this proposed finding of fact has been adopted as a conclusion of law. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: The testimony as to discussions with the Petitioner was not sufficiently precise in time for a conclusion to be drawn that either the Respondent was acting diligently toward obtaining the turnover review, or that the Petitioner had consented to the delay. As a matter of law, the responsibility for the turnover review is upon the Developer, and is not the responsibility of the association's agent. Section 718.301(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (1985). The second paragraph does not establish a defense since the Developer had the responsibility to maintain good records. The commingling occurred by the retention of funds due the association and the payment of association expenses from accounts not associated with the expenses. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Coats, Director Department of Business Regulation Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Karl M. Scheuerman, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Paul Haggar, President Radcliffe Condominium, Inc. 7939 Radcliffe Circle Port Richey, Florida 33568
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice as a certified public accountant in the state of Florida based upon the alleged violations of Chapter 473, Florida Statutes, set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaints filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was licensed to practice as a certified public accountant ("CPA") in the state of Florida, having been issued license number AC0001638. Respondent's most recent business address was 224 North Federal Highway, Suite #4, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301. Petitioner has presented evidence of a number of Final Orders entered by the Florida Board of Accountancy (the "Board") against Respondent as a result of prior disciplinary action initiated by Petitioner. While the records presented are somewhat confusing and bear several different case numbers, it appears that, as a result of the various cases, Respondent has been on probation for approximately the last 12 years. According to the records presented, the first action taken against Respondent's license is reflected in a Final Order dated December 31, 1981 and filed on February 8, 1982 in DPR Case Number 0000499. That Final Order indicates that a stipulation executed by Respondent "as to facts, law and discipline" was accepted by the Board "with no changes." The stipulation referenced in that Final Order was not included with the exhibits entered into evidence in this proceeding. Thus, the "facts, law and discipline" are not of record in this case. Next, the Board entered a Final Order dated May 11, 1982 and filed on May 17, 1982 in DPR Case Numbers 16369, 16370 and 15399 imposing a $1,000 fine against Respondent and suspending his license for eighteen (18) months. An Amended Final Order dated September 3, 1982 was filed in DPR Case Numbers 16369, 16370 and 15399 on September 15, 1982. That Amended Final Order accepted a signed stipulation dated July 30, 1982 and modified the Final Order entered on May 11, 1982. In lieu of the fine and suspension imposed in the May 11 Final Order, the Amended Final Order placed Respondent on probation for five years with a requirement for a review of Respondent's practice at the end of each year by a CPA selected by the Department at Respondent's expense. The independent certified public accountant was supposed to submit written and oral reports to the Board and the Department regarding Respondent's compliance with the applicable statutes and rules governing the accounting profession. The Stipulation which was incorporated into the Amended Final Order specifically required Respondent to comply "with all provisions of Chapter 455 and 473, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto." The Stipulation provided in part as follows: The Board shall determine at a public hearing whether [Respondent] has complied with Chapters 455 and 473, F.S. and the rules promulgated thereto. The Board may restrict or prohibit [Respondent's] practice of public accountancy during his period of probation as it deems necessary to protect the public safety and welfare. It is clearly understood and agreed that, in the event the DEPARTMENT, the BOARD or the BOARD'S Probable Cause Panel find sufficient evidence to believe reasonable cause exists that [Respondent] has violated any of the conditions of probation as outlined above, a notice of said violation shall be sent to [Respondent], by certified mail, setting forth the nature of the alleged violation and an emergency hearing will be held by the BOARD or the BOARD'S Probable Cause Panel, and upon a find [sic] of probable cause, [Respondent's] probation may be vacated and his license to practice accountancy in the State of Florida, subject to automatic suspension, with further disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to Chapters 455 and 473, F.S. If Respondent has not complied with all the terms and conditions of this joint stipulation and final order of the BOARD, the BOARD shall enter an Order imposing such further terms and conditions of probation pursuant to the statutory powers set forth in 473.323(1)(3), F.S., and shall further cause said matter to be referred to the BOARD'S Probable Cause Panel or such other jurisdictional authority as may be established for purposes of determining probable cause and initiating further administrative and/or judicial action against the Respondent. * * * [Respondent] expressly waives all further procedural steps and expressly waives all rights to seek judicial review of, or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity of a joint stipulation of facts, conclusions of law and imposition of discipline, and the final order of the BOARD incorporating said stipulation. At a meeting on January 21, 1985, the Florida Board of Accountancy reviewed a report from the consultant hired to conduct the inspection and review of Respondent's public accountancy practice in accordance with the terms of the Amended Final Order entered on September 15, 1982. Based upon its review of the consultant's report, the Board imposed an additional condition of probation that all audits, reviews and compilations prepared by Respondent were to be reviewed prior to their issuance by a CPA selected by Respondent at Respondent's expense. This additional aspect of Respondent's probation was incorporated in a Final Order dated February 15, 1985 and entered on February 28, 1985 in DPR Case Number 0016369. In an Administrative Complaint dated December 4, 1985, Petitioner charged Respondent with violating the terms of his probation by issuing compilations without prior review by another CPA. This Administrative Complaint was assigned DPR Case Number 0063064. As reflected in a Final Order dated February 23, 1987 and filed on March 10, 1987 in DPR Case Number 0063064, Respondent's probation was extended until September 1988 based upon a signed Stipulation dated November 16, 1986 which was accepted by the Board during its meeting on January 30, 1987. As a result of the March 10, 1987 Final Order extending Respondent's probation, Respondent was required to continue to obtain review and approval by an independent CPA prior to issuance of any audited financial statements, reviewed financial statements and compiled financial statements and related accountant's reports. In an Administrative Complaint dated December 7, 1989 in DPR Case Number 0063064, Petitioner charged Respondent with violating Section 473.323(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as a result of his issuance of financial statements without prior review by a CPA as required by the previous Final Orders entered against Respondent. The Complaint did not specify any date(s) or specific financial statements involved. At a meeting on February 22, 1990, the Board accepted a Counter- Settlement Stipulation signed by Respondent on March 26, 1990 in Case Number 0063064. The Board entered a Final Order dated April 4, 1990 and filed on April 10, 1990 confirming its acceptance of the Counter-Stipulation. 2/ The Counter- Settlement Stipulation incorporated in the April 1990 Final Order extended Respondent's probation "until the terms of probation have been met." The terms of probation were stated to be: That the Respondent shall not violate the provisions of Chapters 455 or 473, Florida Statutes or the rules promulgated pursuant thereto or the terms and conditions of this joint stipulation. A Department of Professional Regulation Certified Public Accountant consultant shall interview the Respondent's clients to determine the type of work product they are receiving from the Respondent. A Department of Professional Regulation Certified Public Accountant Consultant shall conduct a review of the Respondent's tax practice along with work papers at the Respondent's expense. The Counter-Stipulation further provided that: Respondent and the Department fully understand that this Stipulation, and the subsequent Final Order incorporating same, will not in any way preclude additional proceedings by the Board and/or Department against the Respondent for acts or omissions not specifically detailed in the investigative findings of the Department upon which a finding of probable cause was made. Respondent and the Department expressly waive all further procedural steps, and expressively waives [sic] all rights to seek judicial review of or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity of the joint stipulation and the Final Order of the Board, if said stipulation is accepted by the Board and incorporated in the Final Order.... In early 1991, Marlyn Felsing, a CPA retained as a consultant to conduct a review of Respondent's work pursuant to the terms of his probation, met with Respondent and reviewed financial statements, work papers and various tax returns prepared by Respondent for his clients. Felsing reviewed the financial statements and/or business tax returns for approximately four of Respondent's business clients and reviewed the personal income tax returns for approximately three of Respondent's clients who were business owners. He also reviewed all of the related work papers and discussed his review with Respondent. Felsing prepared a report dated April 23, 1991 detailing several problems and deficiencies he found during his review. A copy of Felsing's report was offered into evidence in this case and he testified at the hearing regarding many of those findings. This evidence was offered in support of the charges in the First DOAH Complaint (DOAH Case Number 92-3421) as amended. Neither Felsing's report nor any of his findings are specifically alleged in the First DOAH Complaint. That Complaint referenced a probation report which "revealed deficiencies which were brought before the Probable Cause Panel, and it was determined that Respondent had violated the terms of the Final Order." As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, the First DOAH Complaint was filed on January 23, 1992. As reflected in a Final Order dated June 19, 1991, and filed on July 1, 1991 in DPR Case Number 0063064, the Board reviewed a probation report during its meeting on May 21, 1991 and approved a settlement stipulation extending the probation imposed by the April 4, 1990 Final Order for a period of one (1) year. The settlement stipulation referenced in this July 1, 1991 Order has not been offered into evidence in this proceeding. As best can be determined from the evidence presented in this case, the Final Order entered in DPR Case Number 0063064 on July 1, 1991, was entered after review of the probation report prepared by Marlyn Felsing on April 23, 1991. Thus, it appears that the Board has already taken final action with respect to the deficiencies found in Felsing's report. During the Board Meeting on May 21, 1991, the Board also considered whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent with respect to another Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent on January 7, 1991. That new Administrative Complaint was assigned DPR Case Number 95979 and contained allegations that Respondent "was associated with personal financial statements for Michael Raybeck which did not meet the appropriate standards." As reflected in a Final Order dated June 19, 1991 and filed on July 1, 1991 in DPR Case Number 95979, the Board during its May 21, 1991 meeting accepted a settlement stipulation signed by Respondent on April 15, 1991. In that settlement stipulation, Respondent admitted the allegations in the Administrative Complaint in DPR Case Number 95979. The Settlement Stipulation provided as follows: * * * Stipulated Disposition 2. Respondent's license to practice public accounting is currently on probation in case number 63064. Probation in this case shall run concurrently with the probation in case number 63064. The same CPA consultant who is assigned to review the Respondent's practice in Case Number 63064 shall also review the personal financial statements the Respondent's office prepares. The consultant shall also review the Respondent's records to determine whether he is accepting commissions. These additional terms shall also be paid for by the Respondent. * * * 5. Respondent and the Department fully under- stand that this Stipulation, and the subsequent Final Order incorporating same, will not in any way preclude additional proceedings by the Board and/or Department against the Respondent for acts or omissions not specifically detained [sic] in the investigative findings of the Department upon which a finding of probable cause was made. * * * 8. This Settlement Stipulation is [sic] an admission of any liability on behalf of the Respondent and is being entered into merely to resolve a dispute. It shall not be admissible in any court of law or any subsequent adminis- trative proceeding for any purpose. As reflected in an Order dated September 29, 1992 and filed on September 30, 1992 in DPR Case Number 90-95979, the Board reviewed a probation report during its September 24, 1992 meeting and determined "that the probation imposed upon Respondent by the Final Order dated July 1, 1991, shall be extended and/or modified as follows: extend probation and defer action until Case Number 90-13254 is resolved." Case Number 90-13254 is the Second DOAH Complaint, which was filed on July 6, 1992 (DOAH Case Number 92-5696). The Second DOAH Complaint includes specific allegations against Respondent based upon his purported preparation of misleading financial statements for American British Enterprises, Inc. and Federal Restaurants, Inc. The Second DOAH Complaint The evidence presented in this case established that Respondent provided a number of accounting services to American British Enterprises, Inc. and Federal Restaurants, Inc. The exact nature and scope of the services provided by Respondent are not entirely clear. Respondent's records of his engagement include a balance sheet of Federal Restaurants as of August 17, 1987; Consolidated Financial Statements of American British Enterprises, Inc. as of August 25, 1987; Interim Compiled Financial Statements, American British Enterprises, March 31, 1988; Financial Statements of American British Enterprises, Inc. November 30, 1988; and Financial Statements of American British Enterprises, Inc., December 31, 1988. The Second DOAH Complaint, as amended, alleges that the financial statements referenced in paragraph 19 above were included in due diligence packages for American British Enterprises and were distributed to broker- dealers. No persuasive evidence was presented regarding any such distribution. The Second DOAH Complaint also alleges that "Respondent distributed misleading financial statements to brokers with the purpose of driving up the price of the stock so they could sell shares they controlled at a profit." No evidence was presented to support this allegation. Respondent's counsel suggested that all of the financial statements in question were simply drafts and were not intended to be issued. The evidence established that Respondent executed a letter in connection with the August 17, 1987 Balance Sheet of Federal Restaurants which provided as follows: I have examined the accompanying Balance Sheet of Federal Restaurants, Inc., as of August 17, 1987 whose sole Assets are Cash and [sic] Purchase Deposit. My examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and accordingly, included such procedures as I considered necessary in the circumstances. In my opinion the enclosed Balance Sheet represents the financial position of Federal Restaurants, Inc., as of August 17, 1987 in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals. Similarly, Respondent's records include a signed letter to the Board of Directors of American British Enterprises in connection with the August 28, 1987 Consolidated Balance Sheet. That letter provides that Respondent conducted an examination "in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and accordingly, included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as I considered necessary in the circumstances." The letter further opines that the financial statements "present fairly the Consolidated Financial Position...[of the companies] in conformity with generally accepted accounting principals." Respondent's records also include a signed letter regarding both the November, 1988 and December, 1988 Financial Statements for American British Enterprises indicating that Respondent had conducted an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and that, in his opinion, the financial statements "present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position" of the company as of the stated date. There is no indication on any of these financial statements that they were drafts that were not to be issued. Aside from the letters noted in paragraph 22, the only evidence presented that any of the financial statements listed in paragraph 19 above were issued was the testimony of one of Petitioner's experts who suggested that the statements had to have been issued since they were found in the SEC's files. However, no direct evidence was presented to establish that any investors or potential investors received the financial statements. Moreover, no evidence was presented that any such investors suffered a loss as a result of their reliance upon the financial statements. Certified public accountants are required to utilize specific guidelines in the performance of accounting services. Those guidelines are codified in the Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services ("SSARS"). The failure to abide by the SSARS guidelines constitutes performance below acceptable accounting standards. Petitioner has presented testimony from two experts regarding the deficiencies in the various financial statements referenced in paragraph 19 above. Many of the problems cited by Petitioner's experts relate to alleged deficiencies in Respondent's work papers. Respondent's expert has challenged some of those alleged deficiencies. Because the work papers have not been offered into evidence, it is impossible to resolve some of the conflicts in the experts' opinions. Nonetheless, the evidence was sufficient to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Respondent's work was not in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals in several respects and the financial reports identified in paragraph 19 failed to comply with the SSARS in several ways. The August 17, 1987 balance sheet of Federal Restaurants indicates that the only assets of the company were cash and a purchase deposit on a contract to acquire a restaurant. The balance sheet of Federal Restaurants as of August 17, 1987 has no notes to it. Accounting Principals Board ("APB") Opinion 22 provides that a description of all significant accounting policies of the reporting entities should be included as an integral part of the financial statements. In this particular instance, the omission of accounting policies is of minor importance since the balance sheet only reflects two assets: cash being held in escrow and a deposit on a contract to purchase a restaurant (the "Purchase Contract"). As discussed below, none of the financial statements prepared by Respondent disclosed the terms of the Purchase Contract. Furthermore, it appears from other documents in Respondent's records that the corporation is wholly owned by American British Enterprises and/or is jointly controlled, but there is no disclosure of that relationship in the financial statements. These omissions are significant deficiencies which have not been explained. Statement of Auditing Standards ("SAS") 41 requires work papers to support the conclusions of an audit. According to SAS 41, the work papers constitute the principal record of the work that the auditor has done and the conclusions that he has reached concerning significant matters. Respondent's records do not include work papers for the August 17, 1987 audit. SAS 22 provides guidance to an independent auditor making an examination in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards on the considerations and procedures applicable to planning and supervision, including preparing an audit program, obtaining knowledge of the entity's business, and dealing with differences of opinion among firm personnel. While there is conflicting evidence as to what was included in Respondent's work papers, the evidence was clear that Respondent's records for the August 17, 1987 audit do not comply with the requirements of SAS 22, because there was no clearly identified planning memos or audit programs. In fact, there is not even an engagement letter. SAS 19 requires an independent auditor to obtain certain written representations from management as part of an examination made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and provides guidance concerning the representations to be obtained. Petitioner's experts contend that Respondent's work papers do not include an appropriate representation letter from management for any of the Financial Statements. Respondent's expert contends there was such a letter with respect to the August 27, 1987 Consolidated Financial Statements. While it is not clear what is contained in the records, it is clear that the records do not clarify conflicting documentation in Respondent's work papers regarding the relationship between Federal Restaurants and American British Enterprises. Furthermore, Respondent's records do not include a clear statement from management regarding the terms of the Purchase Contract and the apparent contingencies involved with that Contract. Consequently, Respondent has failed to comply with SAS 19 and SAS 45 (which addresses related-party disclosures). The August 27, 1987 Consolidated Financial Statements are not properly consolidated in accordance with Accounting Research Bulletin ("ARB") 51. In addition, the consolidated Financial Statements do not include the disclosures required by Accounting Principals Board Opinion 22. Respondent's expert contends that the statements were mistakenly entitled and they should have been captioned as "combined" rather than consolidated financial statements. Even if this after the fact justification is accepted, the statements do not adequately disclose the relationship between the companies. Respondent's expert suggests that the August 25 Consolidated Financial Statement for American British Enterprises and Federal Restaurants reflects a voidable acquisition of Federal Restaurants by American British Enterprises. If this interpretation is accepted, the August 17, 1987 Balance Sheet for Federal Restaurants was not necessarily misleading for failure to disclose its relationship with American British Enterprises. However, the August 25, 1987 Consolidated Financial Statements are incomplete since the transaction is not fully explained. Moreover, there is no disclosure that the companies were apparently under common control or ownership. With respect to the November, 1988 balance sheet of American British Enterprises, the evidence established that there was a discrepancy between the amount reflected in the financial statement for a note receivable which was the major asset of the corporation and the confirmation in the work papers regarding that asset. While this discrepancy may have been due to a discount and/or accrued interest, no explanation is provided. The discrepancy constitutes a violation of SAS 1, Section 331, which addresses the appropriate background information for receivables, and SAS 1, Section 530 which addresses the dating of the auditor's report. If the discrepancy is due to a discount, Respondent failed to comply with APB Opinion 6, paragraph 14 which requires unearned discounts to be shown as a deduction from the related receivable and/or APB Opinion 21, paragraph 16 which provides for the discount or premium to be reported on the balance sheet as a direct deduction from or addition to the face amount of the note. The work papers for the November audit do not include a reconciliation between the 1982 financial statements of the predecessor corporation and the 1987 statements. There is no documentation of efforts to communicate with the prior auditor nor is there any discussion of the consistency of application of accounting principals between the two statements. As a consequence, the statements do not conform with SAS 7 which addresses communications with a prior auditor. The work papers fail to reflect any audit work being performed on the appraisal for the equipment collateralizing the note. In addition, the work papers include a confirmation from the stock transfer agent that doesn't agree with the number of shares reflected on the financial statement. There is no explanation for this discrepancy nor is there any clear indication of the audit work performed. The financial statements also include a footnote referencing a joint venture agreement. Respondent's records do not include any evidence of audit work performed with respect to this venture agreement. The deficiencies noted in paragraph 33 also appear in the December 31, 1988 financial statements for American British Enterprises. Furthermore, Respondent's records do not contain an audit file for this December statement. The November 30, 1988 and the December 31, 1988 audits of American British Enterprises do not contain a segregation between current and noncurrent assets. This deficiency is relatively insignificant since the company was essentially just a holding company. However, it does constitute a violation of ARB 43. Similarly, the cash flows in the financial statements were not presented in the appropriate format or style required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 95. However, it appears that all of the necessary information was present. The deficiencies found in the financial statements prepared for Federal Restaurants and American British Enterprises constitute negligence on the Respondent's part and establish a failure to exercise professional competence and due professional care in the performance of accounting services. On or about June 14, 1990, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filed a civil lawsuit against Respondent and three other defendants alleging the preparation of false and misleading financial statements for American British Enterprises, Inc. On August 5, 1991, Respondent executed a Consent of Edwin Tunick to the Entry of a Final Judgement of Permanent Injunction in the civil action initiated by the SEC. On September 2, 1991, a Final Judgement of Permanent Injunction as to Edwin Tunick was entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Fort Lauderdale Division) in Case Number 90-6483CIV-ZLOCH. That Final Judgment "permanently restrained and enjoined" Respondent from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77q(a) and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C 78 (j)b and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Final Judgment did not include any specific findings of any violations of the federal securities laws.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Accountancy enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case Number 92-3421 (DPR Case Number 91-09729); finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 473.323(1)(a), (g) and (h), Florida Statutes, and Rules 21A-22.0001, 21A-22.0002, and 21A-22.003, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case Number 92-5696 (DPR Case Number 90-13254) and dismissing the other charges in that Complaint. As penalty for the violations, Respondent should be fined $1,000, and his license should be suspended for three years. Before resuming practice, Respondent should be required to complete such mandatory continuing education courses as may be mandated by the Board and he should be placed on probation for three (3) years. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 14th day of November, 1994.
The Issue The issue is whether the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued to Respondent, Dave's Tractor, LLC, on August 27, 2018, is correct.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a limited liability company engaged in the construction business with offices at 434 Skinner Boulevard, Suite 105, Dunedin, Florida. It uses tractors and a grading process to prepare land prior to building construction for commercial clients. Its managing member is David Richardson. The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. To enforce this requirement, the Department conducts random inspections of job sites and investigates complaints concerning potential violations of workers' compensation rules. On May 25, 2018, Christina Brigantty, a Department investigator, conducted a routine inspection of a job site at 3691 Tampa Road, Oldsmar, Florida. She observed two men working in a ditch, one man mixing cement, the other man driving a tractor. Investigator Brigantty observed four individuals at the job site, including the two working in the ditch: Dylan Richardson; Ismael Demillon; Javier Mastica; and Jorge Duran. She was informed by the individuals that they worked for Richardson Trailers, LLC. Investigator Brigantty called Mr. Ramsey, corporate officer for Respondent, who confirmed that Respondent hired Richardson Trailers, LLC, as a subcontractor. She later confirmed through discussions with Dylan Richardson and the Coverage and Compliance Automated System that Richardson Trailers, LLC, had no workers' compensation insurance on its employees. The parties have stipulated that at the time of the inspection, Respondent had not secured workers' compensation for any of the four individuals observed on the job site. Investigator Brigantty received approval from her supervisor to issue Respondent a Stop-Work Order and Request for Business Records for Penalty Calculation (BRR). These papers were served on Respondent on June 30, 2018. The BRR requested numerous types of business records for the period May 26, 2016, through May 25, 2018, including business tax receipts (occupational licenses), trade licenses or certifications, and competency cards held by Respondent or any of its principals; payroll documents (time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earnings records, check stubs, and payroll summaries for both individual employees and aggregate payrolls, and federal income tax documents reflecting the amount of remuneration paid or payable to each employee, including cash); and account documents including all business check journals and statements, which would include cleared checks for all open and/or closed business accounts established by the employer. Respondent failed to provide any business records in response to the BRR to determine Respondent's payroll for the audit review period. Therefore, the Department proceeded to compute a penalty based on imputed payroll in accordance with section 440.107(7)(e), Florida Statutes. This formula produced a penalty assessment of $165,654.10. On August 27, 2018, the Department served Respondent with an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment totaling $165,654.10. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(4), the Department also gave Respondent 20 business days in which to provide business records that would confirm Respondent's actual payroll during the two-year review period. This meant the records were due by September 25, 2018. A final hearing was scheduled initially for January 24, 2019. By agreement of the parties, on January 4, 2019, the case was rescheduled to March 15, 2019. One ground for granting a continuance was that the parties were "waiting on outstanding discovery that is being located and is necessary for an amicable resolution," presumably referring to items listed in the BRR. The final hearing was conducted on March 15, 2019, or almost seven months after the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued. A week before the final hearing, Respondent began providing business records to the Department, including bank statements and checks on March 8, 2019, and a general ledger on March 13, 2019. Given the time constraints, they were not reviewed by the auditor until the day before the final hearing. The auditor conceded at hearing that these records would result in a "significantly lower" penalty, and they were sufficient to recalculate the penalty. Even so, at this late date, the Department refuses to recalculate the assessment. Respondent's principal, Mr. Richardson, testified that he has "no way to pay" the penalty, it will force him out of business, and he will be required to terminate his employees. Mr. Richardson also testified that he requested the records from the bank on "numerous occasions," but the bank refused to provide them directly to the Department or referred him to other branch offices. However, bank records are not the only way an employer can demonstrate the amount of payroll. This also can be established by business taxes or other records described in the BRR. Mr. Richardson denied knowing that business taxes are an option if bank records are unavailable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order finding that Respondent violated the workers' compensation laws by failing to secure and maintain required workers' compensation insurance for its employees, and imposing a penalty of $165,654.10. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven R. Hart, Qualified Representative Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Kyle Christopher, Esquire Department of Financial Services Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed) Adrian Shawn Middleton, Esquire Middleton & Middleton, P.A. 1469 Market Street Tallahassee, Florida 32312-1726 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was required to secure workers' compensation insurance for employees as delineated by Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2008), and, if so, whether he did so. If Petitioner was required to provide insurance and did not, this case must also address what penalty for such failure is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for administering and enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers' compensation insurance for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. At all times material to this case, the Department alleged the Petitioner is an "employer" as that term is used within the law. In contrast, the Petitioner has denied being an employer and maintains he was not required to secure workers' compensation insurance for anyone. The Petitioner is from Mexico but is domiciled in Florida. He has been engaged in the business of roofing for approximately twenty years. Roofing is a construction activity under the workers' compensation law. On February 15, 2006, the Department's investigator, Kathleen Petracco, along with an investigator from the Martin County Building Department, Contractor Licensing, made a random stop at 861 SW Bay Pointe Circle, Palm City, Florida. Investigator Petracco observed nine workers performing roofing work at that location. Of the nine workers, only one spoke English well enough to respond directly to inquiries presented by Investigator Petracco. That individual, identified in this record as "Victor," served as the translator for the other workers who spoke Spanish. According to Victor, the lead worker (later known to be Victor Briceno), he and the other eight workers all worked for an individual by the name of “Jesse.” “Jesse” or "Jessie" was later determined to be Jesus Mijares, the Petitioner. Through Victor, Investigator Petracco also interviewed Remigio Lopez, Luis Velasquez, Rubin Hernandez, Antonio Briceno, Jose Velasca, Sebastian Rodriguez and Marco Duran. All of the workers represented that they worked for the Petitioner who paid them $100.00 per day in either cash or by check. Investigator Petracco contacted the Petitioner who informed her that he was asked by “Steve” (later determined to be Steve Thaden) from All American General Construction (All American) to go to the worksite with a crew to tear off a roof. At that time the Petitioner admitted that the workers on the site were his employees whom he paid $100 per day in either cash or by check. Joe Jameson is one of the owners of All American. The company has been in busy since Hurricane Andrew struck Florida. Mr. Jameson acknowledged that Steve Thaden (his nephew) had been employed by the company but claimed that Mr. Thaden was not authorized to hire the Petitioner or others to perform work on jobsites. There is no evidence that the Petitioner and the nine men at the jobsite in question were employees of All American on the date Inspector Petracco visited the site. An individual may be exempt from workers’ compensation benefits. To be exempt, an application must be filed and the procedures of the law must be met. None of the nine men on the jobsite were exempt under the law. The Department maintains a database (the Coverage and Compliance Automated System or CCAS) of all workers’ compensation exemptions in the State of Florida. Inspector Petracco found a construction exemption for Jesus Mijares through the Paul E. Hahn Corporation, with an effective period of February 28, 2004, through February 27, 2006. 11. Sections 440.107(3) and 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes, authorize the Department to issue stop work orders to employers unable to provide proof of workers’ compensation coverage. Failure to provide such proof is deemed “an immediate serious danger to public health, safety, or welfare. . . ,” and the Department has no discretion in issuing a stop-work order. See § 440.107(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Prior to issuing a stop-work order, the Department’s investigator must determine: the identity of the employer; whether the employer has secured the payment of workers’ compensation for the workers on a job site, either through a policy or employee leasing; the type of work being performed by the workers; and the type of remuneration (for example, check or cash). In this case, Investigator Petracco accepted the representations of the Petitioner and the nine workers at the site. Accordingly, Investigator Petracco determined that the Petitioner had employees operating at a job site for whom he had failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance. Based upon this determination, on February 15, 2006, the Department issued to, and personally served on Petitioner, a stop-work order and order of penalty assessment for failing to obtain coverage that meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statute, and the Insurance Code, Chapter 726, Florida Statutes (2006). Also at that time, Investigator Petracco issued a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Records Request) to Petitioner. The Records Request required Petitioner to produce business records for a period of three years, from February 15, 2003, through February 15, 2006. Employers working on job sites in Florida are required to keep business records that enable the Department to determine whether the employer is in compliance with the workers' compensation law. At the time the Order was issued, and pursuant to Section 440.107(5), Florida Statutes, the Department had in effect Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.015. The Rule provides, in part: In order for the Department to determine that an employer is in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 440, F.S., every business entity conducting business within the state of Florida shall maintain for the immediately preceding three year period true and accurate records. Such business records shall include original documentation of the following, or copies, when originals are not in the possession of or under the control of the business entity: All workers’ compensation insurance policies of the business entity, and all endorsements, notices of cancellation, nonrenewal, or reinstatement of such policies. * * * Records indicating for every pay period a description of work performed and amount of pay or description of other remuneration paid or owed to each person by the business entity, such as time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earnings records, payroll summaries, payroll journals, ledgers or registers, daily logs or schedules, time and materials listings. All contracts entered into with a professional employer organization (PEO) or employee leasing company, temporary labor company, payroll or business record keeping company. If such services are not pursuant to a written contract, written documentation including the name, business address, telephone number, and FEIN or social security number of all principals if an FEIN is not held, of each such PEO, temporary labor company, payroll or business record keeping company; and For every contract with a PEO: a payroll ledger for each pay period during the contract period identifying each worker by name, address, home telephone number, and social security number or documentation showing that the worker was eligible for employment in the United States during the contract for his/her services, and a description of work performed during each payperiod by each worker, and the amount paid each pay period to each worker. A business entity may maintain such records or contract for their maintenance by the PEO to which the records pertain. * * * All check ledgers and bank statements for checking, savings, credit union, or any other bank accounts established by the business entity or on its behalf; and All federal income tax forms prepared by or on behalf of the business and all State of Florida, Department of Unemployment Compensation UCT-6 forms and any other forms or reports prepared by the business or on its behalf for filing with the Florida Department of Unemployment Compensation. The Petitioner failed to provide any of the requested records, including his federal tax returns. The Petitioner failed to provide a credible explanation as to why he did not provide the records requested. Further, the Petitioner's self- serving assertions at the hearing that the nine men were not his employees has not been deemed credible. It is undisputed that nine workers were performing a roofing construction service at the jobsite. They were dispatched to the site by the Petitioner, paid a daily wage by the Petitioner, and were accountable to the Petitioner for the quality of their work performance. When an employer fails to provide requested business records that the statute requires it to maintain and to make those records available to the Department, the Respondent may impute that employer’s payroll using the statewide average weekly wage as defined in Section 440.12(2), Florida Statutes, multiplied by a factor of l.5. See § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028. Based upon the foregoing, the Department imputed the gross payroll for the entire period for which the requested business records were not produced. By imputing the gross payroll of the employees utilizing the average weekly wage in effect at the time the stop- work order was issued, the Department calculated a penalty for the time period of October 1, 2003, through February 15, 2006. The average weekly wage was $683.00 in 2006. Investigator Petracco assigned a class code to the type of work performed by Petitioner utilizing the SCOPES Manual, multiplied the class code’s assigned approved manual rate by the imputed gross payroll per $100.00, and then multiplied all by 1.5. She then utilized the imputed payroll for the same number of employees for each of the years assessed pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(2). The Amended Order was issued and assessed a penalty of $635,727.60. That Amended Order was served on Petitioner by certified mail on August 3, 2006. Investigator Petracco acknowledged that the approved manual rate for class codes may fluctuate from year to year and the penalty worksheet reflected any such fluctuations for the computations she performed. Additionally, Investigator Petracco did not include the Petitioner on the penalty worksheet, and did not factor him into the penalty calculation because he possessed a valid workers’ compensation exemption for the penalty period. Later, after further reflection on the matter, Investigator Petracco recalculated the penalty assessment. This decision was based, in part, upon Investigator Petracco giving the Petitioner the benefit of the doubt in accepting the assertions that the employees were paid at a rate of $100 per day and by going back only to January 1, 2005. The Department relied on these assertions and thus recalculated the penalty to the reduced amount of $236,209.79. Investigator Petracco issued the Second Amended Order which was served via a Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment. The Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment was granted by order on February 11, 2008. Investigator Petracco also utilized business records that were subsequently provided by Petitioner’s counsel in response to the prior records request. In so doing, Jesus Mijares was included in the penalty for the period of May 15, 2003, through January 23, 2004, for which he was paid remuneration (in the form of checks written to him), and during which he did not have a current, valid workers’ compensation exemption. These checks were made payable directly to Jesus Mijares from the Paul E. Hahn Company. That company did not have a workers’ compensation policy or any coverage for its employees. Although the Petitioner claimed that all of the workers were employees of various companies that he procured them for, there are no copies of checks or any records that would corroborate this assertion. The Petitioner further asserts that he was the victim of the matter. The credible evidence supports the findings that the Petitioner was contacted to perform roofing construction, that he procured the workers to do the work requested, that the workers were paid a daily rate of $100.00 (either in cash or check), and that the Petitioner was responsible for assuring that the roofing work was performed correctly. The Petitioner has been doing roofing for 20 years. Presumably, he performs the work in a satisfactory manner. The Petitioner does not have workers' compensation insurance coverage for any of the men who work for him. Moreover, the men are not covered by any of the general contractors for whom the Petitioner does the work. Finally, the men are not part of an employment pool that covers them. The Petitioner provided copies of checks to the Department from the Paul E. Hahn Company that were provided to other individuals who were employees of that company. The checks were remuneration to the employees only. In contrast, the Petitioner was unable to explain why some employees received checks and he received checks from which he was to pay other workers. Based upon the most credible assessment of the facts, it must be found that the Petitioner operated as a subcontractor. He paid his employees from the check written to him. Based upon the checks written to him by the Paul E. Hahn Company, based on the lack of records provided by the Petitioner, and the past trend of his work history as a roofing subcontractor, together with the statements from the men on the jobsite, it is found that the Petitioner was an employer within the meaning of the workers' compensation law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a Final Order sustaining the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and imposing a penalty in the amount of $236,209.79 against this Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Kristian Dunn, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 R. Patrick Beatty, Esquire 32 East Ocean Boulevard Post Office Drawer 2333 Stuart, Florida 34995 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's real estate broker's license should be revoked or otherwise penalized based upon the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
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, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 445 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Michael L. Liddle, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0241275 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license was issued to Respondent as a broker, c/o Liddle Property Services, Inc., 10877 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida 33050. In 1988, Respondent undertook to manage the rental of an apartment for Patricia D. King and her husband Leonard King. Chris Fullum, an employee of the Respondent, was handling the details of renting the apartment for the Kings. In conjunction with the rental of the Kings' apartment, Respondent sent the Kings a net rental income check dated October 1, 1988, for $612 which the Kings attempted to deposit in their bank account. The escrow check from the Respondent was returned to the Kings on October 21, 1988, marked "NSF" (non-sufficient funds). At the request of Respondent, Ms. King attempted to redeposit the check, but it was returned again on November 1, 1988 marked "NSF" and "do not present again as a cash item enter only for collection." Ms. King filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Professional Regulation and sent a copy of her complaint letter to the Respondent on November 10, 1988. On November 15, 1988, she received a cashier's check from Respondent for the returned net rental income check plus returned check charges. In the latter part of 1988, Respondent managed the rental of an efficiency apartment (#116 Ocean Isles Fishing Village), for Marva Kay Mizell. In conjunction with the rental described in paragraph 7, the Respondent sent to Ms. Mizell her net rental income checks for September and October 1988 totaling $620.37. After Marva Kay Mizell deposited the checks, the checks were returned to her marked "NSF". Ms. Mizell sent a copy of the complaint she filed with the Department of Professional Regulation to the Respondent. Thereafter, on January 9, 1989, Respondent sent Marva Kay Mizell a cashier's check covering the returned net rental income checks plus returned check charges. On January 20, 1989 Respondent was interviewed in his office by Petitioner's investigator, George B. Sinden, who was accompanied by another investigator, William Reich. Respondent advised Petitioner's investigators that his bookkeeper had left his employ in August 1988, and Respondent had been lax in maintaining the escrow account during September and October of that year during which period of time approximately IS checks were returned for insufficient funds. At the January 20, 1989 meeting, Respondent further advised that he had "made all the checks good." In response to a request for documentation regarding the rentals he was managing, Respondent admitted he had no written rental agreements or leases. He offered as an explanation that his rentals were short term, i.e., one day to three months. Investigator Sinden determined from Respondent that Respondent typically maintains a "tally sheet" on each unit and sends the owner a monthly "recap" with their net rental income check each month. On January 20, 1989, an office inspection and audit of Respondent's escrow trust accounts was conducted by Petitioner's investigator George B. Sinden, assisted by Petitioner's investigator William Reich. Respondent's escrow accounts were found to be short in the amount of $1,236.19. There were no pending sales at the time of the audit. Respondent told Petitioner's investigators that he (Respondent) would deposit $1,236.19 into the escrow account and would provide proof thereof along with a copy of the last 13 bank statements, all returned checks and proof of payment by February 6, 1989, to the Miami FDPR office. As of February 23, 1989, the documentation promised by Respondent had not been received. As of March 28, 1989, very little documentation had been received by Petitioner's investigators. Efforts by Petitioner's investigators to contact Respondent have been unsuccessful and Respondent has failed to return phone calls from the investigators. Because of Respondent's lack of good accounting practices, both Ms. Mizell and Ms. King were unable to determine whether their real property had, in fact, been rented or leased during any given time or how often the units were rented.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent Michael L. Liddle guilty of all charges as alleged in Case No. 89-4981 and that the real estate broker's license of Respondent be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of February, 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Michael L. Liddle c/o Liddle Property Services, Inc. 10877 Overseas Highway Marathon, Florida 33050 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. Case Number 89-4981 The 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. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order where Accepted or Reason for Rejection 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. 3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3. 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. 11. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. 12. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12. 13. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. 14. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. 15. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 16. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. 18. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Notice to Show Cause, filed on September 14, 2010, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating condominiums, including condominium associations, pursuant to chapter 718, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Whitehall was a condominium association operating in the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Whitehall was responsible for managing and operating Whitehall Condominium in West Palm Beach, Florida. Pertinent to the case at hand, regarding a condominium's year-end financial statement, section 718.111, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: (13) Financial reporting. --Within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year, or annually on a date provided in the bylaws, the association shall prepare and complete, or contract for the preparation and completion of, a financial report for the preceding fiscal year. Within 21 days after the final financial report is completed by the association or received from the third party, but not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year or other date as provided in the bylaws, the association shall mail to each unit owner at the address last furnished to the association by the unit owner, or hand deliver to each unit owner, a copy of the financial report or a notice that a copy of the financial report will be mailed or hand delivered to the unit owner, without charge, upon receipt of a written request from the unit owner. The division shall adopt rules setting forth uniform accounting principles and standards to be used by all associations and addressing the financial reporting requirements for multicondominium associations. The rules must include, but not be limited to, standards for presenting a summary of association reserves, including a good faith estimate disclosing the annual amount of reserve funds that would be necessary for the association to fully fund reserves for each reserve item based on the straight-line accounting method. This disclosure is not applicable to reserves funded via the pooling method. In adopting such rules, the division shall consider the number of members and annual revenues of an association. Financial reports shall be prepared as follows: (a) An association that meets the criteria of this paragraph shall prepare a complete set of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The financial statements must be based upon the association's total annual revenues, as follows: * * * An association with total annual revenues of $ 400,000 or more shall prepare audited financial statements. (emphasis added). Whitehall's annual revenue is in excess of $400,000.00. Therefore, Whitehall is required to produce audited year-end financial statements. Whitehall's fiscal year coincided with the calendar year. As a result, Whitehall's 2009 year-end financial statement was due on or before May 1, 2010. On December 11, 2009, Whitehall engaged Hafer Company, LLC (Hafer), a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) firm, to produce its audited 2009 year-end financial statement. Whitehall must rely upon a third-party vendor, such as Hafer, to produce its audited financial statement. Hafer assigned Nicole Johnson as the auditor to produce Whitehall's audited 2009 annual financial statement.4/ Ms. Johnson's process involved, among other things, preparing a draft audit; providing a draft audit to the condominium board, which reviews the draft audit with Ms. Johnson; and then preparing the final audit. Whitehall's engaging Hafer in December 2009 did not contribute to any delay in producing Whitehall's audited financial statement. Ms. Johnson wanted to begin the auditing process early and made a request to Whitehall to begin on or about January 6, 2010, but Whitehall was not prepared to go forward at that time. She was not concerned with beginning at a later date because, among other things, her suggested date was an early date for beginning the auditing process. Whitehall's day-to-day bookkeeping and accounting was performed by a third-party vendor, The Accounting Department, Inc. (Accounting). On February 3, 2010, Ms. Johnson met with Accounting's representative who was handling the day-to-day bookkeeping and accounting. Having the meeting occur in February 2010 was not late or abnormal in the ordinary course of preparing an audited year-end financial statement for a condominium; and did not contribute to any delay in Ms. Johnson's producing Whitehall's audited 2009 year-end financial statement. On February 3, 2010, Ms. Johnson began her field-work and received the primary bulk of the accounting information necessary to complete the audit. From February 3, 2010, Ms. Johnson maintained communication, whether by telephone, email, or other methods of communicating, with Whitehall's directors and officers, and its property manager, Michael Weadock, who is a licensed Community Association Manager (CAM). Ms. Johnson's communications included requesting additional information, asking questions, and obtaining clarifications regarding items for the audited year-end financial statement. One of the items needed by Ms. Johnson to complete the audited year-end financial statement was independent verification from Whitehall's banks regarding Whitehall's certificates of deposit (CDs). Ms. Johnson, as the auditor, was responsible for obtaining the independent verification of the CDs from Whitehall's banks. Due to the economic crisis, which occurred in 2009, banks nationwide were taking an unusual amount of time to respond to auditors' requests associated with the independent verification of bank account information. The banks from which Ms. Johnson was requesting independent verification were no different. She did not receive independent verification of Whitehall's CDs until after the May 1, 2010, due date for Whitehall's audited 2009 financial statement. Whitehall could do nothing to expedite the banks' response to Ms. Johnson's requests. Additionally, on May 28, 2010, Ms. Johnson sent an email to Mr. Weadock requesting additional items that were outstanding. The requested items were non-bank items and were not items that would delay the completion of a draft audit, but were required for the final audit. The next business day, Whitehall provided the requested items. Whitehall had control over these non-bank items, which delayed completion of the final audit. Subsequently, Ms. Johnson received the independent verification of Whitehall's CDs from the banks. On June 23, 2010, Ms. Johnson completed Whitehall's audited 2009 Financial Statement and forwarded a copy to the Department. Even though the final audit was not completed until June 23, 2010, on or about June 10, 2010, Whitehall posted on its bulletin board a notice indicating that copies of the audited 2009 Financial Statement were available in its office. However, subsequently, another notice was posted on the bulletin board indicating, among other things, that copies of the audited 2009 Financial Statement would be available at the Board of Directors Meeting on July 1, 2010, in order to provide for the completion of the audited year-end financial statement. Whitehall does not dispute that neither notice complies with the manner/method of delivery requirement in section 718.111(13). Additionally, Whitehall provided notice to its unit owners as to the availability of the audited 2009 Financial Statement through its community television channel, website, and email blast. This same manner/method of sending the notices to unit owners was used in the past by Whitehall. Whitehall does not dispute that this manner/method of providing notice does not comply with the manner/method of delivery requirement in section 718.111(13). At the time of hearing, Whitehall had not provided its unit owners with a copy of the audited 2009 Financial Statement by mail or hand-delivery. Whitehall has prior disciplinary history regarding its failure timely to prepare and provide its audited year-end financial statements in prior years. On April 1, 2010, Whitehall and the Department entered a Consent Order resolving several statutory violations. One of the violations in the Consent Order was Whitehall's failure timely to prepare and provide its 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 audited year-end financial statements. As to this violation, the Consent Order concluded that Whitehall failed timely to prepare and provide the audited year-end financial statements for the four consecutive years. The Consent Order did not include a violation of the manner/method of delivery of notices regarding the year-end financial statements for the four consecutive years. Subsequent to the Consent Order, the Department received a complaint from a one of Whitehall's unit owners regarding Whitehall's failure timely to provide a copy of the 2009 audited year-end financial statement. The Department's usual practice is that, if a repeat violation occurs within a two-year period, administrative action is taken resulting in a consent order or notice to show cause. Considering the recent Consent Order, the Department followed its usual practice and appropriately pursued the complaint. On September 14, 2010, the Department filed a Notice to Show Cause against Whitehall, which is the subject matter of the instant case. Even though the unit owner's complaint did not include the manner/method in which notice was provided, the evidence fails to demonstrate that the Department was restricted to investigate only that which was complained of. The evidence fails to demonstrate that the Department's investigation of a violation of section 718.111(13) by Whitehall was improper. Further, the evidence fails to demonstrate that the Department's enforcement of the requirements of section 718.111(13) was selective enforcement against Whitehall. The evidence demonstrates that the Department participated in this proceeding primarily due to Whitehall having previously, within a short period of time, violated section 718.111(13) regarding Whitehall's failure timely to provide its unit owners a copy of audited year-end financial statements. Additionally, the evidence fails to demonstrate that either the Department or Whitehall needlessly increased the cost of litigation in the instant case.5/ Consequently, the evidence fails to demonstrate that the Department participated in this proceeding for an improper purpose as defined by section 120.595(1)(e)1.6/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes, enter a final order: Finding that Whitehall Condominiums of the Villages of Palm Beach Lakes Association, Inc., violated section 718.111(13), Florida Statutes, by failing to deliver, in the manner authorized by statute, a copy of its audited 2009 year- end financial statement to all of its unit owners no later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year, and by failing to make audited 2009 year-end financial statement available in the manner authorized by statute, when it became available; and Imposing a fine in the amount of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 2013.
