The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner's application for registration as an associated person of Koch Capital, Inc. should be denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Glenn D. Whaley submitted a Form U-4, Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration, seeking registration as an associated person of Koch Capital, Inc. One of the states in which Petitioner sought registration was the State of Florida. The Department of Banking and Finance (Department) is the Florida agency charged with the administration and enforcement of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (the Act), and its implementing rules. The Department denied Mr. Whaley's application for registration as an associated person in a letter dated August 27, 1990, based upon its determination that he had violated the Act, that he had filed an application for registration which contained a material false statement; and that his disciplinary history within the securities industry constituted prima facie evidence of his unworthiness to transact the business of an associated person. Mr. Whaley has been employed in the securities industry since approximately 1984, and has been employed with several different securities dealers, including Rothschild Equity Management Group, Inc. (Rothschild), Fitzgerald Talman, Inc., and H. T. Fletcher Securities, Inc. The effective date for Mr. Whaley's registration as an associated person of Rothschild in the State of Florida was April 18, 1985. In October 1985, Department examiner Michael Blaker, conducted an examination of the books and records of Rothschild. The examination revealed violations of the provisions of the Act, including the sale of securities by unlicensed representatives. The commission reports and sales journals prepared by Rothschild revealed that Mr. Whaley, while unregistered with the Department, had effectuated approximately sixteen (16) sales of securities during the period of April 1 through 17, 1985. On May 15, 1989, the State of Missouri Commissioner of Securities issued a cease and desist order against Fitzgerald Talman, Inc. and Glenn D. Whaley. The order found that Mr. Whaley had offered for sale and sold securities on behalf of Fitzgerald Talman, Inc. in the State of Missouri without benefit of registration for himself or the securities. On or about November 8, 1989, the Department issued an Administrative Charges and Complaint against Mr. Whaley seeking revocation of his registration as an associated person of H. T. Fletcher Securities, Inc. based on his failed to timely notify the Department of the Missouri Cease and Desist Order, as required by Rule 3E-600.010(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Administrative Charges and Complaint were served on November 13, 1989. On or about December 12, 1989, the Department issued a Default Final Order revoking Mr. Whaley's registration with H. T. Fletcher Securities, Inc., based upon his failure to request a hearing regarding the Administrative Charges and Complaint. The Form U-4 requires the applicant to swear and affirm that the information on the application is true and complete to the best of his knowledge and that false or misleading answers will subject him to administrative penalties. The Form U-4 application contains no disclosure of the Department's December 1989, revocation of Petitioner's registration with H. T. Fletcher Securities, Inc., as required by Question 22E.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a Final Order denying the application of Mr. Whaley for registration as an associated person of Koch Capital, Inc., in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of January, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 25th day of January, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Karniewicz, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Legal Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Glenn D. Whaley 5400 Northwest Fifth Avenue Boca Raton, Florida 33487 Honorable Gerald Lewis, Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged by the Administrative Complaint, and, if she did, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting complaints against real estate professionals, including licensed real estate salesmen. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent, America Canizales, was licensed by Petitioner as a real estate salesman. At the time of the hearing, however, Respondent's license was on inactive status. Respondent was the real estate salesman who represented Elvira Martinez when Ms. Martinez bought her apartment in the middle of 1987. As a result of her professional dealings with Ms. Martinez, Respondent learned that Ms. Martinez was interested in investing in real estate. On December 4, 1987, Respondent persuaded Ms. Martinez to enter into a real estate transaction with her. Respondent intended to purchase a house for the sum of $34,000, but she did not have the funds necessary to close the transaction. Respondent needed an additional $5,000 to apply toward the purchase price and to pay the costs of closing. The house was to be purchased by Respondent in her individual capacity in a transaction that was independent of her status as a real estate salesman. The agreement executed by Respondent and Ms. Martinez on December 4, 1987, provided for Ms. Martinez to give to Respondent the sum of $5,000. In exchange for this money, Respondent agreed that she would convey to Ms. Martinez one-half interest in the $34,000 house after she had acquired title to the property. In the event the transaction did net close and Respondent did not obtain title to the house, Respondent was to return to Ms. Martinez the sum of $5,000 without the payment of interest. Between December 4, 1987, and December 8, 1987, Ms. Martinez gave to Respondent a check made payable to America Canizales in the amount of $5,000. This check, dated December 9, 1987, was to be held in trust by Respondent until the closing on the purchase of the $34,000 house. At no time did Respondent deposit the check in a bank account. There was no evidence that Respondent took any action to safeguard Ms. Martinez's check or the funds represented by the check. Although the check was dated December 9, 1987, the check was cashed on December 8, 1987, at the bank used by Ms. Martinez. The person who cashed the check endorsed it in the name of America Canizales. On or about December 10, 1987, Respondent told Ms. Martinez that Respondent's husband had stolen all of Respondent's money and that he had also stolen Ms. Martinez's check. Respondent also told Ms. Martinez that because of the theft, she would be unable to close their contemplated transaction and promised to repay the $5,000. Respondent offered no further explanation or accounting for the funds. Respondent made repeated promises to repay Ms. Martinez the sum of $5,000 on the occasions Ms. Martinez was able to contact her. Thereafter, Respondent moved from the State of Florida without letting Ms. Martinez know where she could be reached. When Ms. Martinez located Respondent in Chicago, Illinois, Respondent again promised to repay Ms. Martinez. As of the time of the formal hearing, Respondent had returned to Dade County, Florida, but she had made no effort to repay Ms. Martinez the sum of $5,000. Respondent repeatedly misled Ms. Martinez as to her intentions to repay her. The factual allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner to "initiate this case were denied by Respondent. The request for a formal hearing was timely filed by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of `Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the final order revoke the real estate salesman's license issued to Respondent, America Canizales. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Alexander, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 America Canizales 158 West 10th Street Hialeah, Florida 33010 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents are guilty of misrepresentation or breach of trust and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact In October 1993, Respondent Sylvester (Respondent) took his daughter, whose last name was Rodriguez by marriage, to a real estate sales office that was selling units of a new condominium building. Respondent's daughter was 42 years old at the time. Speaking to the qualifying broker for the selling broker, Respondent advised her that he was a real estate salesperson for Respondent Lyric Realty Group, Inc. and wanted to show a unit to his daughter. Respondent referred to his daughter by name, rather than as his daughter, and did not mention to the broker that his customer was his daughter. Respondent gave the qualifying broker his card and signed his name in a log to protect his interest in the cooperating broker's sales commission. After touring a model unit, Mrs. Rodriguez expressed sufficient interest that Respondent obtained a form contract from the qualifying broker before leaving the premises. Respondent completed the contract, but left negotiations to Respondent Mitulinsky because Respondent was going out of town. Respondent Mitulinsky is the qualifying broker for Respondent Lyric Realty Group, Inc. Her involvement with the transaction was limited to contact with the listing broker, transmitting prices between Mrs. Rodriguez and the seller. Respondent Mitulinsky did not disclose that Mrs. Rodriguez was Respondent's daughter. But the evidence fails to suggest that Respondent Mitulinsky was in any way aware that the seller's broker was ignorant of the relationship between Respondent and Mrs. Rodriguez. The evidence also fails to suggest that the nature and extent of the conversations between Respondent Mitulinsky and the qualifying broker were such as to support an inference of concealment of the relationship by Respondent Mitulinsky. Prior to agreeing upon a final price, the seller's qualifying broker agreed to increase the commission to be paid Respondent Lyric Group Realty, Inc. by one percentage point to three percent. The listing price for the unit was $285,000. Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez submitted the contract with a price of $240,000. Following verbal negotiations, the seller returned the same contract with a price of $268,000, which the buyers accepted on October 29, 1993. A salesperson employed by the listing broker admits that she knew of the relationship between Respondent and his daughter prior to closing. After the contract was signed but prior to closing, Respondent, Mrs. Rodriguez, a home inspector, and the salesperson visited the unit. As the inspector worked, Mrs. Rodriguez and her father spoke freely, as they had in past visits, with Mrs. Rodriguez referring to Respondent as "dad" and he referring to her by her first name. The salesperson immediately informed her broker, who immediately reported the information to the seller. However, the seller elected to do nothing with the information because he was satisfied with the sales price and net proceeds. Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez were purchasing the first unit to be sold at the seller's project. This makes the first transaction especially risky for both the seller and the buyers. The purchase price represented the fair market value for the unit. The unit appraised at $271,000 at the time of the sale to Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez. On January 6, 1994, the parties closed on the unit pursuant to the provisions of the contract. The $16,080 sales commission was split evenly between the listing broker and Respondent Lyric Realty Group, Inc.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Real Estate enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint against all respondents ENTERED on September 30, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE, 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 September 30, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel Villazon, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Peter Hobson, Esquire 606 East Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact Respondent Starla K. Rose, was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0046404. On February 25, 1985, an Information was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, charging Respondent with one count of grand theft, Sections 512.014(1)a and b and 512.014(2)b, Florida Statutes, two counts of insurance fraud by false or fraudulent claims Section 517.234(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes; and, one count of false report of the commission of a crime, Section 817.49, Florida Statutes. Respondent pled not guilty to the Information. On June 6, 1985, a verdict was rendered which found Respondent guilty of one count of grand theft, one count of insurance fraud by false or fraudulent claims and one count of false report of the commission of a crime. The court adjudged Respondent guilty of issuing a false report of the commission of a crime, withheld adjudication of guilt on the remaining counts, placed Respondent on probation for 3 years, and ordered her to pay costs. Respondent filed a timely motion for new trial following rendition of the verdict. At the time of final hearing in this case, no disposition had been made of Respondent's motion for new trial.
Findings Of Fact In 1981, Barry Kandel, an employee of Allied Publishing Group, Inc., solicited Petitioners to purchase stock in Allied, a Florida Corporation. On May 1, 1981, Petitioners purchased one share of stock in Allied for $13,500. By mid-1982, Allied had gone out of business. Petitioners made unsuccessful demands for the return of their money on Brian E. Walker, the Secretary of Allied; on Thomas W. Kuncl, the President of Allied; and on Kandel. On November 19, 1984, Petitioners filed suit against Kandel, Kuncl, Walker, and Allied. The Civil Complaint filed in Case No. 84-6932 in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Palm Beach County, contained general allegations of fraud. On February 20, 1985, Petitioners obtained a default judgment against Allied only. No evidence was offered in this cause regarding the disposition of the litigation as to the individual defendants. The default judgment contains no factual determinations and does not specify a violation of either section 517.07 or section 517.301, Florida Statutes. Kandel currently resides in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and Kuncl currently resides in the Gainesville, Florida, area. Kuncl was the last known person to have custody of and control over Allied's books and records. Petitioners filed a claim with Respondent, seeking reimbursement for $10,000 from the Securities Guaranty Fund, pursuant to sections 517.131 and 517.141, Florida Statutes. Their claim was denied by letter dated July 8, 1987, for failure to meet the statutory conditions. Neither Allied nor any individual associated with Allied who dealt with Petitioners was registered or licensed by the State of Florida pursuant to chapter 517, Florida Statutes, in any capacity. Petitioners did not cause a writ of execution to be issued against Allied nor the individuals associated with Allied. Petitioners did not attempt a reasonable search as to whether Allied possessed real or personal property or other assets which may be set off against a proposed claim to the Securities Guarantee Fund. Don Saxon, Director of the Division of Securities and Former Assistant Director, has been the only individual responsible for administering the Securities Guaranty Fund since 1983. The Department's interpretation of section 517.131(2), Florida Statutes, is that it requires a claimant to demonstrate findings of a violation of section 517.07 and/or section 517.301, Florida Statutes, by a licensed dealer, a licensed investment adviser or a licensed associated person. The Department's interpretation of section 517.131(3)(a), Florida Statutes, is that it requires a claimant to provide the Department with a certified copy of a judgment demonstrating a violation of section 517.07 and/or section 517.301, Florida Statutes. The Department's interpretation of section 517.131(3)(b), Florida Statutes, is that it requires a claimant to submit a copy of the writ of execution to the Department. During Saxon's tenure in administering the Securities Guaranty Fund, the Department has not waived any of the statutory requirements for claiming monies from the Fund. Section 517.131 and section 517.141, Florida Statutes, were enacted in 1978 and have remained virtually intact. The legislature did substitute the term "associated person" in place of the term "salesman" in section 517.131(2), Florida Statutes, without comment, although the order of licensed entities in that section was altered. The legislative intent behind the establishment of section 517.131, Florida Statutes, was to eliminate the bonding requirement for "individuals registered to be broker/dealers or investment advisers ... substituting therefor, a 'Security Guaranty Fund' to be funded through an assessment imposed upon them." The legislative intent behind section 517.141, Florida Statutes, was that disbursement from the Securities Guaranty Fund would be made to any person suffering monetary damages as a result of "some violation by a registrant."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioners' claim for payment from the Securities Guaranty Fund. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald Lewis, Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Charles E. Scarlett, Esquire Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Richard O. Breithart, Esquire 818 U.S. Highway One, Suite 8 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 Charles L. Stutts, Esquire Office of the Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent, by and through his employees: (a) sold unregistered securities in the secondary market which were marked up in excess of 10 percent of the prevailing market price and which were not exempt from registration; (b) permitted an agent to service accounts prior to the agent's effective date of registration in the State and concealed such action; and (c) failed to maintain minimum net capital requirements for his corporation; and (d) failed to properly supervise the activities of his employees and agents.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owned the stock of a holding company and was an officer in a wholly owned subsidiary of the holding company. Respondent and another individual owned the stock of Dean, Johnson and Burke Holding Company ("Holding"). Holding owned the stock of Dean, Johnson and Burke Securities, Inc. ("Securities"). Respondent was the Secretary of Securities. Respondent had ultimate responsibility for disbursements and profits for Holding and Securities. Respondent monitored the checkbooks and daily expenses for Securities. Respondent's accountant provided financial information to Respondent concerning the daily operations of both companies. The information was provided on forms supplied by Respondent. Respondent kept a daily record of how much each company made or lost, how much was owed, and other accounting information. Respondent made sure that the bills were paid and that the credit of each company remained good. Respondent also controlled the hiring of key personnel. Brent A. Peterson was a manager and principal for Securities. 2/ Mr. Peterson set prices for the firm. Mr. Peterson engaged in transactions in which prices were set for securities to be sold to customers in excess of 10 percent above and below the prevailing market price. Out of 457 trades, approximately 38 were sold at prices that exceeded a 10 percent markup (the "marked up securities"). The marked up securities were sold at prices in excess of 10 percent of the prevailing market rate. The National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., ("NASD") determined that the securities were marked up in excess of 10 percent of the prevailing market price based upon Securities' contemporaneous costs. When a dealer is simultaneously making a market in a security (a "market maker"), the NASD looks to the prevailing market price for the purpose of determining if a markup exceeds 10 percent. The prevailing market price is the price at which dealers trade with one another, i.e., the "current inter-dealer market." 3/ When a dealer is not simultaneously making a market in a security (a "non-market maker"), the contemporaneous costs of the dealer are used for the purpose of determining if the securities have been marked up in excess of 10 percent. The contemporaneous costs reflect the prices paid for a security by a dealer in actual transactions closely related in time to the dealer's retail sales of that security. Such a standard is normally a reliable indication of prevailing market price in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Securities was not a market maker in the marked up securities. Even though securities may be sold at the same market price by one firm that is a market maker and one that is not a market maker, the latter may be deemed by the NASD to have marked up the security by more than 10 percent depending on the firm's contemporaneous costs. Many of the marked up securities were sold to customers at the same market price as that the customers would have paid other brokerage houses. 4/ Since Securities was not a market maker in the marked up securities, the standard used by the NASD to determine the amount of markup was the contemporaneous costs paid by Securities. The securities involved in the 38 trades were marked up more than 10 percent over Securities' contemporaneous costs. Respondent sold unregistered securities that were not exempt from registration. Unregistered securities may be sold if they are reasonably related to the current market price. The marked up securities were not reasonably related to the prevailing market price because they were marked up more than 10 percent over Securities' contemporaneous costs. Robert M. Long sold securities to customers as an employee of Securities prior to the effective date of his registration with Petitioner. Mr. Long was registered with Petitioner as a registered representative on May 18, 1988. Mr. Long was employed by Securities, from April 19, 1988, through September 20, 1989. Mr. Peterson advised Mr. Long that Mr. Long was authorized to trade securities. Pursuant to Mr. Paterson's advice, Mr. Long sold securities in Tel-optics prior to the effective date of his registration with Petitioner on May 18, 1988. Respondent concealed the sale of securities by Mr. Long prior to the effective date of his registration with Petitioner. Mr. Long's registered representative number was 34. Relevant order tickets showed Mr. Long as the person engaged in the sale of securities prior to May 18, 1988. Registered representative number 30 had been used on the order tickets at the time of the trades. After Mr. Long was registered with Petitioner, Mr. Long's number 34 was added to the order tickets and number 30 was crossed out. Securities operated with a net capital deficiency of approximately $30,000. The net capital deficiency resulted from the failure to accrue liabilities. The net capital deficiency was discovered by Mr. Long and Jeff Clark, an examiner for the NASD. The invoices for bills for the unaccrued liabilities were not filed where bills and invoices were normally filed and were found by Mr. Long concealed in drawers and other remote locations in the office. The net capital deficiency was discovered by Mr. Long on August 28, 1989, but not reported to Petitioner until September 19, 1989. Mr. Long did not notify Petitioner of the net capital deficiency at Securities until the deficiency could be verified by Mr. Clark.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent is guilty of committing the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, requiring Respondent to cease and desist from all violations of Florida statutes and rules, and imposing a fine in the aggregate amount of $9,000. The fine should be imposed in the amount of $2,000 for selling securities in excess of a 10 percent markup and $3,500 for each of the other two acts that constituted violations of applicable statutes and rules. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of July, 1991. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1991.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to licensure in Florida as a Non-resident Life and Variable Annuity Agent?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Linda C. Ballou, applied for a license as a Non-resident Life and Variable Annuity license by application completed on October 30, 2003. The Department denied her license by letter dated March 18, 2004. There is no explanation of why there was a delay in issuing the March 18, 2004 denial letter. There was no apparent request for additional information to complete the application after October 30, 2004, or information requested to resolve qualification issues. The Department denied the Petitioner's application on the basis that the Petitioner was not trustworthy or competent based upon her having been enjoined from violating the Federal Securities and Exchange Law and being barred from associating with any broker or dealer for three years after which she could reapply for association. The Department introduced and properly authenticated Respondent's Exhibits 3, 5, 6, and 7, together with a copy of the Petitioner's statement, Respondent's Exhibit 4, regarding the action of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Petitioner testified regarding the events that were the subject of the SEC action. The Petitioner was counseling persons, particularly seniors, on purchasing life and annuity contracts primarily for long term care. She was an agent for CNA and New York Life, both of which were insurance companies. She was required to possess a "6-63 license" by her employer that authorized her to sell mutual funds and other instruments, which would be classed as securities. She carried errors and omissions (O & E) coverage with New York Life and paid the premium for O & E coverage for one year. While so employed, she was introduced by the president of CNA to his father, who told her about bonds payable in full in nine (9) months. He explained to her that these bonds were not securities, which are instruments payable in year or longer. There were several of these bonds available; however, the only one that she sold was one issued by Sebastian International Enterprises (SIE), a Florida-based television production company. These bonds paid very high rates of interest, and appeared to be a good investment. The Petitioner called the local bank and found that SIE was a viable company engaging in the business of producing films for television. She visited the company and saw them making television shows. The company had contracts to make additional television shows, and the company remained at all times pertaining to this case a viable company. After checking into the company, she invested in the company's bonds; she sold the bonds to members of her family; and members of the public. She never had any problems with the payment of premiums by the company. After selling SIE bonds for approximately a year, she saw a news story about one of the other companies, which had been presented to her by the father of the president of CNA, being investigated for being a "Ponzi" scheme. She checked with her attorney about the sale of SIE bonds, and, thereafter, contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on his advise. The FBI referred the matter to the SEC, which opened an investigation of SIE. The Petitioner cooperated fully with this investigation. Ultimately, the financial records of SIE were seized, and the SEC determined that the sale of the nine-month bonds was a "Ponzi" scheme. Although no action was ever taken against SIE or the Petitioner's broker, the Petitioner and two others holding SEC licenses were disciplined. Although as a result of the aforementioned, the Petitioner surrendered her California license to sell insurance, she has been reinstated, and was able to seek an SEC securities broker's license after the three years ran. The administrative proceeding SEC brought against the Petitioner alleged that the Petitioner violated the Federal Securities and Exchange Act. The SEC order and complaint is based upon admissions by the Petitioner and recites that the Petitioner consents to the entry of the anticipated injunction without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint. See Respondent's Exhibit 3. The complaint filed against the Petitioner in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida is Respondent's Exhibit 5. This complaint states that the funds from the sale of the subject bonds were to fund the operations of SIE. The Petitioner testified that the proceeds were used to fund the daily operation of the company. This complaint also makes various allegations of misconduct and fraud against the Petitioner; however, no evidence was received at hearing in support of any of the SEC allegations, and the consent agreement signed by the Petitioner specifically states that she does not admit or deny the allegations contained in the complaint. By signing the agreement, the Petitioner avoided litigation on the issue and, although she voluntarily agreed to repay all commissions she earned from the sale of these notes (approximately $156,000), the agreement recites that she would not have to repay the money in light of her bankruptcy unless her statement were determined to be false. 77 United States Code 77c provides in pertinent part regarding items that are exempted as securities as follows: (3) Any note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker's acceptance which arises out of a current transaction or the proceeds of which have been or are to be used for current transactions, and which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited[.] (Emphasis supplied.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department issue the Petitioner a Non-resident Life and Variable Annuity Agent license. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 18th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda C. Ballou 1001 Bridgeway No. 314 Sausalito, California 94965 Michael T. Ruff, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher, Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact The complaining witnesses in this case, the Marino's, owned real property in Fern Park, Florida that they listed in November, 1973, with Area One, Inc., a corporate broker. They were very anxious to sell this property. At all times here involved, respondent was a registered real estate broker and was employed as a salesman and office manager of Area One, Inc. The property was listed through salesman Eleanor Stanfield although respondent Greene accompanied her to the Marino's when the listing was obtained. Approximately two weeks thereafter, respondent obtained a prospective buyer for the property who was willing to purchase but couldn't meet the cash down payment required to make up the balance over a 95 percent mortgage. The buyer, Borsack, was an acquaintance respondent had known socially for a year or so. The suggestion was made that if Marino could loan Borsack the money for the down payment the latter would sign a balloon note payable twenty dollars per month for the first five years with the balance then due and payable. When bringing this proposal to Marino, respondent told him it was not the best deal but it was the best he could offer at the moment. At the time, Borsack was employed as a salesman and was apparently earning a good salary. Marino was receptive to the idea and agreed to loan the buyer $2400. Marino was advised by his lawyer that he should have more security for the loan than the note signed by Borsack alone and respondent agreed to guarantee the note. Marino prepared a check for $2400 which he exchanged for a cashier's check for a like amount. This was given to respondent when he executed as the guarantor and was subsequently given to the closing agent. There was conflicting testimony regarding the dispenser of the information that the existence of the note should be withheld from the mortgage broker at the closing. The complaining witnesses contended that respondent so advised them, but he denies ever giving such advice. Regardless of the complicity of respondent in this regard, both parties to the contract were aware that the mortgage would not be approved if the existence of the loan was disclosed to the mortgagee. To account for his cash payment at closing, Borsack produced for the mortgage a letter from his sister reciting a gift from her of $2200. Borsack also signed a residential loan application (Exhibit 8) in which he indicated no financing other than first mortgage and the cash he would pay at closing. Both buyer (Borsack) and seller (Marino) executed an affidavit (FNMA Form 1009)(Exhibit 10) on which they advised the mortgagee no secondary financing was involved in the transaction. At the time the loan was made by Marino to Borsack the former's attorney was aware of the circumstances surrounding the transaction and this attorney advised Marino that it would be all right for him to accept the note provided payment was guaranteed by respondent. Although no testimony was elicited from the attorney in this regard, I would expect him to be cognizant of the fact that the mortgage would not be approved if the mortgagee was aware of the loan from seller to buyer. Considerable testimony was adduced regarding whether or not the promissory note given by the buyer to the seller constituted secondary financing as intended on Exhibits 8 and 10. Since this determination is not necessary to the results reached below, respondent's understanding that "secondary financing" relates only to that financing that would create a lien on the property is likewise immaterial to the result. During a 60 day period including the time this transaction occurred, respondent sold four pieces of property for the Marino's. At no time during the negation which resulted in the sales of the property from Marino to Borsack did respondent give any false or misleading information to the Marinos. Although no evidence was presented to this effect, the complaint alleges, and the answer admits, that after the transaction closed Borsack subsequently defaulted on his mortgage and on his note to Marino; that respondent made a few payments on the note he had guaranteed before stopping these payments; and that Marino obtained a judgment against respondent for the amount of the promissory note. Thereafter, in December 1975, some two years after any act of respondent in this transaction that could have given rise to a violation of Chapter 475, F.S. occurred, the Marinos filed a complaint with the FREC and the investigation and administrative complaint here involved followed.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in an Administrative Complaint dated August 13, 2003.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent Jean- Rene Joseph has been licensed in the State of Florida as a bail bond agent. At all times material to this case, Respondent worked as a bail bond agent with a bail bond company named America's Best Bail Bonds, Inc. At approximately 2:30 or 3:00 a.m. on the morning of January 29, 2002, Santacroce contacted Respondent for the purpose of arranging bail for a friend of hers named John Raymond Moyer ("Moyer"). Moyer needed a bond in the amount of $1,500.00. Respondent agreed to provide, and did provide, the requested bail bond for a fee of $150.00. On the morning of January 29, 2002, Santacroce paid $150.00 cash for the bail bond fee. Santacroce also agreed to furnish collateral for the bail bond issued on behalf of Moyer. In this regard, Santacroce agreed that she would either deliver the title to a specified automobile as collateral, or she would make payments of $250.00 per week until the bail bond on behalf of Moyer was fully collateralized. In the early morning hours of January 29, 2002, Santacroce did not have an original certificate of title to an automobile with her. Instead, she gave Respondent a color photocopy of title number 50460657, which was a certificate of title to an automobile. The certificate showed title to a 1986 Chevrolet in the name of a registered owner named Oliver C. Todd ("Todd"). Handwritten information on the certificate indicated that the registered owner had sold the automobile to AAA National Auto Sales, who in turn had sold the automobile to Santacroce. Santacroce also had with her at that time an affidavit signed by Todd that authorized Santacroce to retrieve the subject automobile from a towing company, as well as a document from Festa Towing Service, Inc, itemizing towing and storage charges. During the early morning hours of January 29, 2002, Respondent and Santacroce both signed a receipt document numbered 11122. Section 4 of that document describes the collateral or collateral documents as consisting of a promissory note and "Fl car title #50460657 or weekly payment of $250.00." Santacroce never made any payments towards collateralization of the subject bail bond. Moreover, Santacroce never delivered to Respondent the original of the certificate of title described above. Less than two weeks later, Moyer was arrested and jailed on other criminal charges. Through another bail bond company, Moyer posted bail on the second arrest. Santacroce no longer wished to have any liability on the bail bond issued on January 29, 2002. Accordingly, she asked Respondent to "surrender" the bond and have Moyer returned to jail. Moyer failed to appear for his court appearance that was guaranteed by the bail bond obtained by Santacroce. A bond forfeiture order was issued on February 12, 2002. Eventually, Moyer appeared, the forfeiture order was set aside, and the surety was discharged. Respondent's employer incurred expenses in the amount of $50.00 to have the forfeiture order set aside. At some point after the surety was discharged, Santacroce asked Respondent to return what Santacroce described as the certificate of title she had given to Respondent. Respondent could not return a certificate of title to Santacroce, because Respondent never received a certificate of title from Santacroce. Respondent never returned the photocopy of the certificate of title to Santacroce. That photocopy was still in Respondent's possession as of the day of the final hearing.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint in this case be dismissed because there is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent received "car title #50460657" or anything else of value as collateral security for the subject bail bond. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. 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 7th day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Dickson E. Kesler, Esquire Department of Financial Services Suite N-321 401 Northwest Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Hernan Hernandez, Esquire 1431 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
