Findings Of Fact Shechet holds Certificate No. R-0573 as a certified public accountant practicing in the State of Florida, which he received by virtue of reciprocal status, having previously practiced in the State of Ned York. Shechet began his accounting career in 1924 and has practiced his profession continuously for the fifty-three years since that time. The records of the Board reflect that Shechet provided no evidence of the completion of any courses or studies that would give him credits towards the reestablishment of his professional competency in the period between January 1, 1974, and April 2, 1977. On September 15, 1975, Shechet sat for an examination which was approved by the Hoard and given to practicing certified public accountants pursuant to applicable law requiring reestablishment of professional competency. Shechet received a score of 3 out of a possible score of 100. The established passing grade for the examination is 75. The examination consisted of 100 multiple choice questions, each with 4 responses. The approved method of answering the questions was to select one response and then, on the answer sheet, darken the circle corresponding to the letter assigned to the selected response. If more than one circle is darkened in a given set of responses, the answer is marked wrong. In each of the 100 answers, Shechet marked more than one response either by darkening, check mark or "X". On May 13, 1977, the State Board of Accountancy suspended Shechet's certificate R-0573 as a certified public accountant for failing to comply with requirements for the reestablishment of his professional knowledge and competency to practice public accounting.
The Issue Whether the certificate of Respondent to practice public accounting in Florida should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended as indicated in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to certain facts, as follow: That the Certificate Holder received an undergraduate degree in accounting from the University of Cincinnati in August of 1968. That the Certificate Holder was employed by major CPA firms from August of 1968 to September of 1970 as an accountant. That the Certificate Holder passed the uniform CPA exam in California in 1969, and was granted a CPA license by California upon completion of the necessary experience requirements in May of 1971. That the Certificate Holder attended law school at the Ohio State University from September 1970 through December 1972. In December 1972 he was awarded a Juris Doctor Degree from that institution. That prior to graduating from law school, the Certificate Holder made application to secure a position in accounting. He secured a position with the certified public accounting firm of Arthur Young and Co. in Cincinnati, Ohio, which position commenced on January 1, 1973. That while employed as a certified public accountant by Arthur Young and Co., the Certificate Holder, in the summer of 1973, was offered a position with a certified public accounting firm in Miami, Florida. That in July 1973 the Certificate Holder accepted that position with McClain and Co., CPA's of Miami, Florida, which position was to begin in August 1973. That during the summer of 1973, the Certificate Holder requested the Florida State Board of Accountancy to forward him an application to apply for a reciprocal CPA certificate and the Board responded that an application would not be sent to anyone who was not a resident of the State of Florida. That during the summer of 1973, the Certificate Holder made an application with the Florida Bar to become a member of the Florida Bar. That the Certificate Holder moved his family from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in July 1973 and began working on a full-time basis for the Florida CPA firm of McClain and Co. in August of 1973. At that time he again requested an application for a reciprocal CPA certificate; said application being received by the Certificate Holder in late September of 1973. That the Certificate Holder completed the application for a reciprocal CPA certificate and submitted the same to the Florida State Board of Accountancy in October 1973. That in November 1973 the Certificate Holder took the Florida Bar examination in Tampa, Florida. That the Certificate Holder was admitted to the Florida Bar in December 1973 and was granted a reciprocal CPA certificate by the Florida State Board of Accountancy in January 1974. That the Certificate Holder was discharged by the Florida certified public accounting firm of McClain and Co. in may 1974. That the Certificate Holder taught part-time in the Accounting Department of Florida International University beginning in January 1974 thru 1976. After his discharge from the public accounting firm of McClain and Co., he continued at Florida International University on a substantially full-time basis thru the summer of 1974 and into the fall of 1974. That in August 1974 the Certificate Holder opened an office for the practice of law in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, but this office was staffed only on a part-time basis as the Certificate Holder was devoting the great bulk of his time to his teaching activities at Florida International University in Miami, Florida. That in February, 1975, the Certificate Holder opened an office for the practice of law in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, (200 SE 6th Street, Suite 100- B), which office was from that time staffed on a full-time basis by the Certificate Holder. That since February 1975 the Certificate Holder has been actively engaged in the full-time practice of law in the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and That the Certificate Holder has been a resident of and domiciled in the State of Florida from August 1973 thru and including the date of the Stipulation." (Exhibit 1). The parties stipulated at the hearing that the respondent joined the Florida Institute of Certified Practicing Accountants on Jun 17, 1974, as an active member, and changed his status to that of a non-practicing member of the institute on August 22, 1975. Respondent testified at the hearing that his purpose in attending law school in 1970 and eventually obtaining a law degree was predicated upon his desire to advance more rapidly in the tax department of an accounting firm. He had noted that most of the accountants doing tax work in accounting firms generally held law degrees and received higher salaries. Since he was interested in taxation, he did not obtain a master's degree in accounting which involves primarily audit work or preparation of financial statements. Respondent did tax work for an accounting firm in Cincinnati, Ohio, after graduation from law school in 1972 and secured a similar position with an accounting firm in Florida, McClain and Company, in the summer of 1973. He applied for admission to the Florida Bar the same summer because he believed his failure to do so might cause an adverse reaction by prospective employers in the accounting field. Prior to the Florida move, respondent did not seek employment with a law firm because he felt that the opportunities were much better in public accounting and he enjoyed that type of work. After passing the Florida Bar examination in October 1973, respondent did not seek employment in a law firm because he was well satisfied with his accounting position. After he was involuntarily discharged from his job with McClain and Company in May 1974, he sought employment with both accountant firms and law firms in the tax area. Although he began a graduate law program in taxation in January 1974, his purpose was to acquire greater knowledge and ability concerning tax matters for his work in accounting. Respondent testified that at the time he had applied for the Florida reciprocal license as a certified public accountant, he intended to practice public accounting in the State of Florida on a full-time year-round basis. He conceded that he has not been engaged in the full-time practice of accountancy since his termination with the accounting firm in the spring of 1974. (Testimony of Respondent, Exhibits 2, 3). On December 30, 1975, respondent advised the petitioner by means of a "CPA information card" that he was not engaged in the practice of public accounting. By letter of June 21, 1976, petitioner requested respondent to return his certificate along with a stipulation and waiver of hearing. The practice of petitioner in such cases is to request that a registrant waive his right to a hearing on the question of whether or not his certificate should be revoked on the ground that he is not engaged in the full-time year-round practice of public accounting in Florida. In the event the registrant does not agree to waive such a hearing, petitioner normally proceeds to file an administrative complaint seeking revocation of the certificate. (Testimony of Respondent, Composite Exhibit 4).
Recommendation That petitioner's administrative complaint against respondent Thomas F. Luken be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: James S. Quincey, Esquire Post Office Box 1090 Gainesville, Florida 32602 David Hoines, Esquire First National Bank Building Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394
The Issue Whether Respondent, when he voted April 18, 2002, as a member of the Palm Beach Gardens City Commission, on Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002, relating to Parcel 6 and Parcel 24, respectively, of the Mirasol development project, knew that these measures would inure to the special private gain or loss of a principal by whom he was retained and thereby violated Section 112. 3143(3), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Order Finding Probable Cause, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the public hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations set forth in the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation2: Each of the "Sabatello construction companies" referred to in the parties' Stipulations of Fact 3 and 4 was wholly owned by Carl Sabatello and his brothers Paul, Theodore, and Michael Sabatello (Sabatello Brothers), with each brother owning an equal (25%) share of the company. Of these companies, only one, Sabatello Development Corporation IV (SD IV) was involved in the Mirasol Project. SD IV has been in continuous existence since its formation in or around the 1980's. Carl Sabatello serves as its president, "oversee[ing] all [of its] functions." SD IV is a Subchapter S corporation. As such, its profits are passed through to the Sabatello Brothers, its four shareholders, in equal amounts. Respondent is a certified public accountant. Since 1989, through his accounting firm, he has provided tax preparation services to SD IV and the Sabatello Brothers. His firm has derived "anywhere from 15 to 25%" of its total income from the monies received for providing these services. Before establishing his accounting firm in 1989, Respondent was SD IV's chief financial officer and one of its shareholders. Taylor Woodrow Communities (Taylor Woodrow) was the master developer of the Mirasol Project. Taylor Woodrow's Craig Perna had "overall responsibility for every aspect of the [Mirasol] development" project, including the "selection of builders." The builder selection process started with Mr. Perna getting the names of "prominent builders in the Palm Beach Gardens market" having "excellent reputation[s]" and then contacting them to inquire as to their interest in participating in the Mirasol Project. Carl Sabatello was among those Mr. Perna contacted. He was contacted (by telephone) in mid-May of 2000, and advised Mr. Perna he was "very interested" in having his company, SD IV, considered for selection as a builder in Mirasol. SD IV, was one of at least ten or 12 builders vying to be selected to participate in the Mirasol Project. Over a period of approximately eight months (from mid-May 2000, to mid-January 2001), Taylor Woodrow requested and obtained from SD IV and from the other would-be participants in the project (Other Builders) information and documents in order to evaluate these builders' qualifications for selection. In the latter part of 2000, prior to any selection having been made, Carl Sabatello requested the Palm Beach Gardens City Attorney, Leonard Rubin, Esquire, "to provide a [written] legal opinion as to [Mr. Sabatello's] obligation to abstain from voting in [his] official capacity on matters relating to Mirasol that come before the [Palm Beach Gardens] City Council." In response to Mr. Sabatello's request, Mr. Rubin prepared a written memorandum, dated December 5, 2000, which was provided, not only to Mr. Sabatello, but to all members of the Palm Beach Gardens City Council, including Respondent, as well as to the Interim City Manager. The memorandum read as follows: You have indicated that the Sabatello Companies, of which you are a principal, is currently in negotiations with the developers of the Mirasol Planned Community District ("PCD") to become a builder of homes within that community. Your activities as a builder would be limited to specific parcels or pods within the PCD. You asked this office to provide a legal opinion as to your obligation to abstain from voting in your official capacity on matters relating to Mirasol that come before the City Council. Voting conflicts for members of the City Council are governed by section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Subsection (3)(a) provides that a municipal officer shall not vote in an official capacity on any measure that "would inure to the special gain" of the officer, a principal by whom the officer is retained, or a relative or business associate of the officer. According to the state Ethics Commission, the determination of whether the officer receives a special private gain is based upon the size of the class of persons affected by the vote at issue. The Mirasol PCD encompasses a variety of residential, commercial, recreational and community uses. The residential uses range from low density single family homes to high density multi-family apartments. It is anticipated that your company's activities will be limited to the construction of single family dwellings within a specific, identifiable parcel for which a site plan has already been approved. Because of this limited involvement, there does not appear to be any requirement that you abstain from every vote relating to the approval of plats, parcels and site plans within the entire Mirasol PCD. See CEO 85-62 (city council member not prohibited from voting on rezoning of property within a large redevelopment area where member's corporation owns a parcel of land within the same area). By way of example, the City Council's approval of the site plan for the fire station or the plat for Jog Road in no way inures to your or your company's special private gain. You would, however, be required to abstain from any additional votes relating to the specific parcels or pods within the community in which your company possesses or acquires an interest by virtue of a contractual relationship with the master developer. Where a conflict of interest exists, you are required to state the nature of your interest prior to the vote and file a voting conflict memorandum with the City Clerk, within 15 days. The existence of a voting conflict does not necessarily require you to abstain from all discussion relating to the matter (although you are free to do so). If you plan to participate in discussion of a matter in which you know you have a conflict, you must file a written conflict memorandum before the public meeting. You have also expressed concern that upon learning that your company will be building homes within Mirasol, members of the public may perceive a conflict of interest in all matters relating to Mirasol. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, it would be appropriate to make the following disclos[ure] prior to any vote: "While it is anticipated that the Sabatello Companies will be building homes within Mirasol, the matter before the City Council does not concern the areas in which such construction will take place and is wholly unrelated to any interest held by me or my corporations." Should you have any questions or be in need of additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office. In January of 2001, Taylor Woodrow selected SD IV to build on Mirasol Parcel 4.3 It sent Carl Sabatello a letter dated January 22, 2001, advising him of the selection, along with a Parcel Builder Agreement and Exclusive Agency Brokerage Agreement for Mirasol Parcel 4. These agreements were fully executed in February of 2001. Sometime thereafter SD IV began building on Mirasol Parcel 4. SD IV was one of first builders to start construction in Mirasol. SD IV eventually purchased all 46 lots in Mirasol Parcel 4, constructing homes on each. All of the homes it built were sold. On or about October 18, 2001, at Respondent's request, Mr. Rubin prepared and distributed to Respondent and the other members of Palm Beach Gardens City Council a written memorandum designed to provide "clarification and confirmation from [the City Attorney's] office regarding a Council Member's obligation to vote on an item before the City Council." In this memorandum, Mr. Rubin made the following points: A council member must vote in the absence of a voting conflict or conflict of interest. Section 28[6].012, Florida Statutes, requires a member of the City Council, who is present at a meeting, to vote on an item before the Council unless there is, or appears to be, a conflict of interest or voting conflict pursuant to the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. * * * A voting conflict arises when the vote inures the Council member's own special private gain or loss of the special private gain or loss of the Council member's principal, family member or business associate. * * * The special private gain to the Council member depends on the size of the class of persons affected and is fact-specific. * * * The special private gain to the Council member must be direct and proximate. * * * In the event of a voting conflict, a Council member must disclose the nature of the conflict and abstain from voting. Mr. Rubin's memorandum "reinforced what [Respondent] already knew about the law." On April 18, 2002, the Palm Beach Gardens City Council voted on and passed two measures concerning the Mirasol Project, one, Resolution 54, 2002, dealing with Mirasol Parcel 6 (a 10.11 acre site within the development), and the other, Resolution 57, 2002, dealing with Mirasol Parcel 10 (a 14.6-acre site within the development). As the summary statement on its first page reflects, Resolution 54, 2002 was: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for the approval of a site plan to allow for the development of 41 semi-custom homes, known as Mirasol Parcel 6, located within the Mirasol Planned Community District (PCD), as more particularly described herein; providing for conditions of approval; providing for waivers; providing for severability; providing for conflicts; and providing for an effective date. Section 5 of the resolution granted the following waivers: From Section 78-498 of the LDRs, to permit a 45-foot wide right-of-way. The code requires a minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit a minimum lot width of 60 feet. The code requires a minimum width of 65 feet. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit lot coverage of 50%. The code requires a maximum lot coverage of 35%. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit a building side setback of 3 feet 1 inch on a "zero" side and 6 feet 11 inches on a "non-zero" side. The code requires a minimum side setback of 7.5 feet. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit a screen/accessory side setback of 3 feet 1 inch on a "zero" side and 5 feet on a "non-zero" side. The code requires a minimum side setback of 7.5 feet. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit a screen/accessory rear setback of 3 feet. The code requires a minimum setback of 10 feet. As the summary statement on its first page reflects, Resolution 57, 2002 was: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for the approval of a site plan to allow for the development of 26 custom homes, known as Mirasol Parcel 10, located within the Mirasol Planned Community District (PCD), as more particularly described herein; providing for conditions of approval; providing for waivers; providing for severability; providing for conflicts; and providing for an effective date. Section 5 of the resolution granted the following waivers: From Section 78-498 of the LDRs, to permit a 45-foot wide right-of-way. The code requires a minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit lot coverage of 45%. The code requires a maximum lot coverage of 35%. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit a building/screen side setback of 10 feet. The code requires a minimum side setback of 12 feet. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit an accessory structure setback of 5 feet. The code requires a minimum side setback of 12 feet. From Section 78-141 of the LDRs, to permit a screen/accessory rear setback of 3 feet. The code requires a minimum setback of 10 feet. The "waivers" that were granted by Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002 were from the requirements of the Palm Beach Gardens Code that Taylor Woodrow, or whichever builder(s) it subsequently selected to build on the affected parcels, would otherwise have to meet. At the April 18, 2002, Palm Beach Gardens City Council meeting, Carl Sabatello orally announced to those in attendance, including Respondent, that he was going to abstain from voting on Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002, explaining that he was involved in discussions regarding the possible purchase of the two parcels that were the subject of these measures. At the time of the vote on Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002, although he may have been aware of the investment Mr. Sabatello's company had made in Mirasol Parcel 4, Respondent had no knowledge of any connection that Mr. Sabatello or his company may have had with Mirasol Parcel 6 and Mirasol Parcel 10 other than what Mr. Sabatello had told the audience at the meeting about the matter. As far as Respondent knew, neither Mr. Sabatello nor his company owned or had a contract to purchase Mirasol Parcel 6 or Mirasol Parcel 10. Respondent did not attempt to engage Mr. Sabatello in conversation or otherwise seek to find out more about the discussions Mr. Sabatello had referred to in his abstention announcement. Respondent did, however, consult with the Palm Beach Gardens City Attorney to determine whether or not he should vote on the resolutions. Respondent "knew [that the law required him] not to vote [on] things that a client had an interest in," but, based on what Mr. Sabatello had said at the meeting, he believed that Mr. Sabatello was merely "in a discussion phase" regarding the acquisition of an interest in Mirasol Parcel 6 and Mirasol Parcel 10 and that there had not been any agreement reached on the matter. He therefore voted on Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002, consistent with the advice that the Palm Beach Gardens City Attorney had given. Approval of the site plans for Mirasol Parcel 6 and Mirasol Parcel 10 (which the passage of Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002, respectively, accomplished) was needed before any permits for building on those two parcels could be obtained. Mr. Sabatello, on April 18, 2002, filled out a voting conflict form (Form 88, Memorandum of Voting Conflict) explaining why he did not vote on Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002. On the form, he indicated that these votes "inured to the special gain of Sabatello Development Corp, IV, Inc, by whom I am retained," and then added that this "company," of which he was "an officer and owner[,] [was] in the process of negotiating [the] purchasing of Pod 6 & Pod 10." At the time he cast his votes for Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002, Respondent was "not privy" to the contents of Mr. Sabatello's completed voting conflict form. On April 30, 2002, 12 days after the votes on Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002, SD IV entered into an agreement with Taylor Woodrow to purchase all of the lots in Mirasol Parcel 6. It closed on lots 10, 11, 32, and 33 on September 25, 2002, and on the remaining lots in the parcel on January 3, 2003. SD IV built a home on every lot it purchased in Mirasol Parcel 6, and it sold every home it built. SD IV received a contract to purchase Mirasol Parcel 10, but it never executed the contract and therefore never acquired an interest in the parcel.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a public report finding the evidence presented at the public hearing in this case insufficient to clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent violated Section 112.3143(3), Florida Statutes, by voting at the April 18, 2002, Palm Beach Gardens City Council meeting on Resolution 54, 2002 and Resolution 57, 2002, and dismissing the complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2009.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s amended petition on the grounds that Petitioner lacks standing to administratively challenge the Department’s decision not to disapprove Hensler’s proposed appointment to Sunniland’s board of directors and that the Department, having failed to act within the time frame prescribed by Rule 3C-100.0385, Florida Administrative Code, does not have the authority to reconsider its decision and issue a letter of disapproval, as requested by Petitioner.16 DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April 1997
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: The BOARD is the state agency charged with the duty to license, regulate, and discipline construction industry contractors pursuant to Chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes (1979). VARNUM is a licensed, certified general contractor holding two currently active licenses, CG C000832 and CG CA00832 (Prehearing Stipulation). Here, the BOARD seeks to discipline VARNUM'S licenses on the ground that he submitted to the BOARD a false, erroneous, and misleading Change of Status Application ("Application") which failed to disclose outstanding judgments and liens; VARNUM claims that he either did not know of the outstanding judgments and liens, or that he reasonably believed that they had been satisfied prior to the filing of this Application. (Prehearing Stipulation, Testimony of Varnum). On September 28, 1978, VARNUM filed his Application with the BOARD. The purpose of the Application was to qualify, under his licenses, a corporation known as General Contractors of Florida, Inc.; Richard Gale was identified as its president, VARNUM, its executive vice president. Within the Application, VARNUM answered the following questions in the negative: "12(b) Are there now any unpaid past due bills or claims for labor, materials, or services as a result of the construction operations of any person named in (i) below or any organization in which any such person was a member of the personnel? Yes ( ) No (x) * * * "(c) Are there now any liens, suits, or judgments of record or pending as a result of the construction operations of any person named in (i) below or any organization in which any such person was a member of the personnel? Yes ( ) No (x)" * * * "(d) Are there now any liens of record by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service or the State of Florida Corporate Tax Division against any person named in (i) below or any organization in which any such person was a member of the personnel? Yes ( ) No (x)" Paragraph 12(i), referenced in Questions 12(b) through (d) contained the name "Ira L. Varnum", Respondent. (Testimony of Norman: P.E. 4.) By executing, under oath, the Application, VARNUM expressly vouched for the truth and accuracy of his statements and answers contained therein. The Application expressly warns that "[a]ny wilful falsification of any information contained herein is grounds for disqualification." (P.E. 1.) From 1969 through 1976, VARNUM engaged in contracting under the following business entities: All Florida Builders Diversified, Inc. Varnum Enterprises, Inc. Varnum & Associates, Inc. Structural Concrete Forming, Inc. Ira L. Varnum & Co. (a partnership) Oakridge Construction Co., Inc. General Contractors of Florida, Inc. Since 1976, VARNUM engaged in contracting under the name of "Structural Concrete Forming of Florida, Inc.,"; this has been an active corporation with a gross income of 1.5 to 2 million dollars during the last two years. (Testimony of Varnum, Norman, Gale.) The following tax liens or civil judgments, arising out of VARNUM's prior construction operations, were extant and of record at the time the Application was filed, but were not disclosed by VARNUM in his answers to Questions 12(b) through (d): JUDGMENT OR DEBTOR LIEN CREDITOR DATE RECORDED AMOUNT Judgments: Structural Concrete Forming of Florida, Inc. Jiffy Johns, Inc. 6/1/77 $ 79.92 plus costs, $14.00 All Florida Builders Diversified Morgan Driveway 7/15/74 $ 147.95 Tax Liens: Structural Concrete Forming, Inc. U.S. Internal Revenue Service 2/11/76 $ 5,002.37 Ira Ira L. L. Varnum Varnum and and Co. U.S. Internal Revenue Service 8/3/73 $18,100.25 Ira Ira L. L. Varnum Varnum and and Co. U.S. Internal Revenue Service 3/19/74 $ 5,061.86 Ira Ira L. L. Varnum Varnum and and Co. U.S. Internal Revenue Service 3/22/73 $13,041.17 All Florida Builders U.S. Internal 8/29/73 $30,721.59 Diversified, Inc. Revenue Service All Florida Builders Diversified U.S. Internal Revenue Service 7/27/73 $ 2,404.94 All Florida Builders Diversified U.S. Internal Revenue Service 8/30/73 $21,747.76 All Florida Builders Diversified U.S. Internal Revenue Service 3/20/73 $10,161.41 Varnum Enterprises, Inc. Florida Division of Labor and Employment Opportu- nities 3/11/71 $ 2,700.00 plus int. & penalties Varnum and Associates, Inc. Florida Division of Labor and Employment Opportunities 8/4/70 $ 4,380.88 plus int. & penalties Structural Concrete Forming, Inc. Florida Division of Labor and Employment Opportunities 2/12/75 $ 649.57 plus int. The Jiffy Johns, Inc., judgment was paid by VARNUM prior to filing his Application on September 28, 1978, although the Satisfaction of Judgment was not executed until June 22, 1979, and recorded on June 25, 1979. The Burroughs Corporation may also have held a judgment against Varnum Enterprises, dated May 25, 1973; however, the copy introduced into evidence is illegible and, therefore, cannot support an affirmative finding. (Testimony of Norman, Varnum; P.E. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14; R.E. 2.) VARNUM did not willfully or knowingly falsify or fail to disclose the existence of the outstanding judgments and tax liens when he completed his Application. He believed that those judgments and liens had been satisfied years earlier, and had no reason to believe otherwise. When the tax liens were initially filed, he had turned them over to his attorney, Paul Mueller, for handling. Mueller had been resident agent for many of VARNUM's construction companies and VARNUM retained him to perform business-related legal services. VARNUM had reason to believe that the judgments and liens filed several years earlier had been handled and satisfied by Mueller, in accordance with VARNUM's instructions. The holders of those judgments and liens have not made an effort to collect or enforce them against VARNUM. VARNUM's assertion that he believed there were no outstanding judgments or liens against him at the time of his Application is buttressed by his experience in refinancing and subsequently selling his residence in 1978. Although one Federal tax lien and several other judgments and claims were satisfied and paid-off at the time of these two separate mortgage transactions, the judgments and liens here in question did not surface, were apparently unknown to the parties, and were not noted or included in the closing statement and title insurance policy accompanying the mortgages and sale. (Testimony of Varnum; R.E. 1, 3, 4.) Furthermore, since 1976 VARNUM has conducted in the same community a construction business under the name of "Structural Concrete Forming of Florida, Inc." That company has enjoyed a good credit rating with its suppliers, and has had no judgments or tax liens filed against it. The holders of the judgments and liens here in question never contracted the company to discuss, or seek collection of these outstanding claims. (Testimony of Gale, Varnum). VARNUM has filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Findings of Fact Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 28 are hereby adopted. To the extent that his proposed findings of fact are not adopted herein, they are specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Conclusions Although Respondent made a false background on his Application--that there were no outstanding liens or judgments against him--the Petitioner Licensing Board, failed to establish that Respondent knew, or should have known that the statement was false. To the contrary, the evidence shows that Respondent made the false statement innocently, and upon a reasonable belief that it was true. Respondent is, therefore, not guilty of the charges, and the Board's Second Amended Administrative Complaint should be DISMISSED.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed against VARNUM be DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of October, 1980. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1980.
