The Issue Whether Respondent's insurance license should be suspended or revoked or otherwise disciplined because Respondent violated the Florida Insurance Code.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency with jurisdiction over licensing insurance agents pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. Respondent applied for a license with the Department as a non-resident life, health, and variable annuity agent by submitting an application which he signed on July 4, 1999. He was awarded nonresident insurance License No. D008927 on July 12, 1999. Question seven on the July 4, 1999, application for licensure, inquired, "Has anyone ever obtained a judgement, or is there currently pending, any type of civil action against you individually or against any entity in which you are or were an officer, director, partner, or owner based upon allegations of fraud, misrepresentation or conversion or which in any way involved the subject of insurance?" Respondent checked a box which indicated a negative answer. Because the application submitted by Respondent appeared to be correct, Respondent was issued the aforementioned license. On July 4, 1999, when Respondent answered question seven, a judgment by default had been entered against Respondent by the Circuit Court of Maryland for Montgomery County, in a case styled Paley, Rothman, Goldstein, Rosenberg & Cooper, Chartered, v. Daniel D. Manoff. The judgment was in the amount of $7,590.36 and was filed with the Clerk on July 6, 1994. The complaint which resulted in the judgment alleged that Respondent had failed to pay for legal services received. This complaint involved the breach of a contract. Therefore, Respondent's answer to question seven was correct, insofar as the unrevealed judgment is concerned, because the judgment did not involve a matter "based upon allegations of fraud, misrepresentation or conversion or which in any way involved the subject of insurance." A complaint was filed against Petitioner on May 18, 1998, in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Montgomery County, styled First Financial Group, et al., v. Daniel Manoff, et al., v. The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, et al. Respondent was a defendant in that case. The suit which was the subject of the complaint was unresolved on July 4, 1999, when Respondent answered question seven. The complaint in the First Financial Group case alleged that Respondent committed fraud. Because of this, Respondent incorrectly answered question seven. When Respondent signed the application for an insurance license on July 4, 1999, he was aware, or was provided ample opportunity to be aware, that a truthful application was expected by the Department. This is because immediately above the signature line are the words, "Final Statement," and below those words are explicit warnings as to the hazards of signing the application when the person providing the imprimatur has not provided correct information. The warnings include one which informs that signing a false statement is a second degree misdemeanor and another that states that the signature is made under penalties of perjury. In addition to the foregoing, the "Final Statement" contains an oath which avers that, ". . . I have not withheld any information on myself that would in any way affect my qualifications." The information sought by question seven is material to the decision as to whether the Department considered Respondent to be qualified to hold an insurance license. Had the information requested been timely supplied, Respondent would not have been awarded a license absent further inquiry into his experiences with the legal system in Montgomery County, Maryland. Respondent worked for Agency 10 of the Berkshire Life Insurance Company in Rockville, Maryland, at the time he submitted the application for licensure which is the subject of this proceeding. The person charged with carrying out administrative duties at that agency was Kathy Cody. Among other duties, she was responsible for obtaining licenses and appointments for agents and managers in the Rockville field office. When processing applications, Ms. Cody, and sometimes another administrator in the office, typically would solicit information from the agent, broker or manager requiring a license and would prepare an application. She did this for many people for many states. Respondent was licensed in a number of states and Ms. Cody assisted Respondent in obtaining some of those licenses. She does not specifically remember the application at issue. It was Ms. Cody's practice to submit completed application forms to the home office in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. If the paperwork was in order, the home office would send the applications to the appropriate state licensing agency. Ms. Cody, or in any event, someone in the office other than Respondent, sent his Florida application to the home office. Respondent did not complete the entire application. He did, however, sign the application which meant that he swore to the accuracy of its contents. Sue Carter processes license applications for the Department. She has engaged in this work since 1984. According to Ms. Carter, if an application is received which reveals an unsatisfied judgment, then further inquiry is made. According to Ms. Carter, it is the policy of the Department to refuse to license someone with a pending complaint alleging fraud. Therefore, she stated, if Respondent's application had revealed the existence of the First Financial Group complaint, the Department would not have issued a license to Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which finds that Respondent violated on one occasion, Section 626.611(1), (2) and (7), and Section 626.211(1), Florida Statutes, and which requires Respondent to surrender his non-resident life, health, and variable annuity insurance agent license. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 8th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Dwight Manoff Post Office Box 267 Poolesville, Maryland 20837 Richard J. Santurri, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
Findings Of Fact Parties Respondent, Department of Insurance (DOI) and Intervenor, Department of Banking and Finance (DBF) are state agencies charged with the regulation of insurance and banking activities, respectively. Great Northern Insured Annuity Corporation (GNA) is an insurance company and agency operating in Florida and elsewhere in space leased in financial institution lobbies, customer service areas and atriums. From its approximately eighty-four locations in Florida it markets annuities, securities and whole life insurance products. Approximately one-third of its 1992 sales of $130 million was in annuities. GNA's principal profits in Florida are derived from its sale of annuities, which it directly underwrites and services. First Nationwide Bank (FNB) leases space in its lobbies and other common areas to insurance agencies and companies, including Vista Financial Group, (Vista). In 1992 Vista sold approximately $13.5 million in annuities from the locations it leases from FNB. First Union Mortgage Corporation (FUMC) is a financial institution with "grandfathered" insurance activities pursuant to section 626.988(5), F.S. It has also been granted a certificate of authority by DOI as a Third Party Administrator pursuant to section 626.88, F.S. Florida Bankers Association (FBA) is a trade association of the banking industry in Florida. It represents its financial institution members. The Association of Banks in Insurance Inc. (ABI) is a trade association of financial institutions and insurance companies. The Florida Association of Life Underwriters (FALU) is a professional association of life, health and direct writer multi-line insurance agents with approximately 8,900 members. James Mitchell and Co. and its subsidiary, JMC Insurance Services Corporation (JMC) are California corporations involved in marketing financial products, including annuities in Florida. Florida Central Credit Union, Railroad and Industrial Federal Credit Union and GTE Federal Credit Union are state or federally chartered credit unions authorized to do business in Florida. Credit Union Services, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of GTE Federal Credit Union, sells insurance to credit union members. The Florida Association of Insurance Agents (FAIA) is a trade association representing independent insurance agents in Florida. Barnett Banks Trust Company, N.A. is a trustee for annuities issued by James Mitchell and Company. Barnett Banks Insurance, Inc. is a Florida licensed insurance company providing credit insurance of various types for credit extended by Barnett Banks throughout Florida. BTI Services, Inc. a subsidiary of Barnett, provides records administration services for insurers. Marketing One, Inc., Liberty Securities Corporation and Compulife, Inc. market annuities to existing and prospective customers of financial institutions. Those marketing activities are conducted from lobbies, atriums or other central areas of the premises of the financial institutions. The Financial Institutions Insurance Association is a California non- profit association of financial institutions and insurance companies with members in Florida who lease space to insurance agency tenants. California Federal Bank is a federal savings bank operating branches in the State of Florida and leasing space to a company selling insurance in that space in bank branch offices. The Statute Although other sections of statutes are cited as "law implemented" in proposed Chapter 4-223, its undeniable focus is section 626.988, F.S., as described in the first rule of the proposed chapter: 4-223.001 Purpose. The purpose of these rules is to implement the provisions of Section 626.988, Florida Statutes, and to ensure that customers of financial institutions conduct their business in an atmosphere free from direct or indirect coercion, unfair competition, and unfair or deceptive trade practices, and to implement those statutory provisions which prohibit insurance agents and solicitors who are directly or indirectly associated with, under contract with, or controlled by a financial institution from engaging in insurance agency activities as an employee agent, principal, or agent of a financial institution agency. These rules establish procedures and standards for insurance companies, agencies, agents and solicitors in their relationships and business arrangements with financial institutions. Embodied in Florida's insurance code, a code described as more lengthy than the New Testament, Section 626.988 F.S. enacted in 1974, ". . . generally prohibits banking institutions from engaging in insurance agency activities. . . ." Florida Association of Insurance Agents, Inc. v. Board of Governors, 591 F.2d 334 (U.S. 5th Cir. 1979). The prohibition is accomplished indirectly by forbidding licensed insurance agents or solicitors from engaging in insurance agency activities under certain relationships with financial institutions. There are exceptions to the blanket prohibition, including an amendment in 1990 to permit state chartered banks to sell annuities in the event that federal law permits federal banks to sell annuities. After almost twenty years of attempted enforcement, DOI has described section 626.988, F.S. as "a vague statute with imprecise standards". (Notice of proposed rule, Florida Administrative Weekly, June 26, 1992) The Rules DOI's experience with interpretation and enforcement of Section 626.988, F.S. commenced in earnest in the early 1980's, when insurance companies began to market annuities in the lobbies or public access areas of financial institutions. Many of these companies consulted with the department and obtained guidance as to the applicability of the law to their varied circumstances. In 1985, American Pioneer Life Insurance Company, through its counsel, Edward Kutter, Esquire, inquired of Commissioner Gunter concerning the effect of the law on its operations. American Pioneer Life Insurance Company was a wholly owned subsidiary of American Pioneer Savings Bank. Donald Dowdell, General Counsel of the department, responded by letter dated November 18, 1985. He analyzed the relationships among the insurer, the financial institution, and the insurance agents and determined that there was no significant probability of the financial institution exercising control over the agents: . . . In view of the fact that American Pioneer Savings Bank is the ultimate parent of American Pioneer Life Insurance Company, the specific issue which must be resolved in responding to your inquiry is whether an independent agent appointed by American Pioneer Life is directly or indirectly associated with, or retained, controlled, or employed by American Pioneer Savings Bank. Absent such a relationship, Section 626.988 does not prevent American Pioneer Life and its agents from marketing insurance in this state. . . . These corporate relationships in and of themselves do not create a prohibited relationship between American Pioneer Savings Bank and independent insurance agents appointed by American Pioneer Life. . . . It is recognized that as the corporate parent, American Pioneer Savings Bank may influence or control various corporate activities of its subsidiaries which would not entail control of the solicitation, effectuation and servicing of coverage by insurance agents. If, in fact, American Pioneer Savings Bank does not directly or indirectly control the conduct of insurance activities by American Pioneer Life agents but, instead, the agents sell insurance free of influence from the financial institution, the prohibitions of the statute are inapplicable. (GNA Exhibit No. 8) (emphasis added) Thus, in 1985, the department limited the prohibitions of section 626.988, F.S. to the financial institution's control of, and authority over, an agent's insurance activities. By 1986, other aspects of an association became a concern of the department. Letters responding to inquiries outlined requirements that leased space and insurance sales literature be physically or visually separated from the functions of the financial institution. (GNA Exhibits No. 10, 13 and 16) As a result of the body of opinions being circulated in the form of incipient policy, the department proposed rules implementing section 626.988. These proposed rules were later withdrawn before adoption, but the department continued to use them as guidelines. During this period, DOI received a handful of complaints, mostly from agents. Douglas Shropshire, director of Agent and Agency Services during the relevant period, testified that he could not recall a single consumer complaint with respect to financial institutions engaging in the distribution of insurance products. Gail Connell, identified by Mr. Shropshire as "the Department's person most intimately familiar with field investigation of .988 issues" (Tr. at 760), agreed. (FUMC Exhibit No. 35, at 184-85 See also. FUMC Exhibit No. 36 at 347-50, 353) In 1991, in anticipation of the rule-making mandate of section 120.535, the department reviewed its guidelines. As a part of that review, representatives of the agents' associations, FALU, FAIA and others, were consulted as to the desirability of the rules. In January, 1992, DOI published proposed rules that were substantially similar to the guidelines. Donald Dowdell stated that the proposed rules published at that time represented the department's determination of a reasonable interpretation of the statute, adding, "[T]he line was drawn with the realization of what was happening in the real world today. We could have -- I think the statute prohibits an association, and as I indicated yesterday, if we had wanted to be Draconian about it and make life easier on ourselves, we could have attempted to prohibit any kind of association and see how that would have flown." (FUMC Exhibit No. 36 at 260-261) The rules published in January of 1992 were withdrawn in order to permit the department to correct some perceived inadequacies in the economic impact statement. The rules were presented at a workshop and were republished in June, 1992. The rules were virtually the same as those published in January. A public hearing was held July 12, 1992. On October 6, 1992, DOI published a Notice of Change which materially altered Rules 4-223.003, .004, and .005. According to the Notice of Change, the change was in response to comments received at the public hearing held July 12. More specifically, the amendments were the result of the department's adoption of FALU's position in its petition challenging the June version of the rules. The amendments most significantly provided a definition of "associated" or "associate" and forbade insurance agents from occupying space virtually anywhere within the confines of a financial institution. Mr. Shropshire drafted the amendment to Rules 4-223.003-.005. His source for the definition of "associate" was Webster's Dictionary. Mr. Shropshire testified that the modified proposal resulted from "explosive changes" in the number of banks involved in insurance in this state (Tr. at 793) and information which had come to his knowledge which indicated a need for a more restrictive rule. The two sources of information regarding insurance activities in Florida identified by Mr. Shropshire were the report prepared by investigator Ernest Ulrich in support of the economic impact statement and an ongoing investigation and prosecution of JMC for its marketing of annuities. Both sources predate or were contemporaneous to the June publication of the rules. Mr. Shropshire's reason for the October change was the anticipated difficulty DOI faced in enforcing its rules as originally published. He stated, "So it was getting plain to us that we were going to have to very vigorously and closely and labor-intensively enforce the rule, if it was passed as it was promulgated in June of '92." (tr. at 808) As described by Mr. Shropshire and others, the agency was concerned that insurance activities in financial institutions were not being conducted behind partitions, or even behind planters or other visual separations; and that bank agents were making referrals, taking telephone messages, and setting appointments for insurance agents who covered multiple bank branches on a "circuit-rider" system. Banks leasing space to agents also commonly paid bank employees a bonus for making appointments and referrals of customers to the agents. DOI determined that these leasing arrangements established a strong connection between the bank and the agent, in effect wrapping the insurance program in the bank's colors and presenting it as another bank product. This, to DOI, justified the previously characterized "Draconian" measures. The banks' and other witnesses freely described the economic advantage to a financial institution of having insurance services available at the same location for its customers. Additional amendments to the proposed rules were published in December 1992. Those amendments acknowledge or track the statutory exceptions to the section 626.988(2), F.S. prohibitions. The rules therefore do not apply to mortgage insurance business, credit unions, banks located in cities having a population of less than 5,000, and the sale of annuities when national banks have been authorized to sell such annuities. During the course of the formal hearing, the agency proposed a final change to the rules at issue, clarifying that Chapter 4-223 does not apply to credit life and disability insurance and credit unemployment insurance. (American Banking Insurance Co. Exhibit No. 1) The Economic Impact Dr. Tim Lynch, Director for the Center for Economic Policy Analysis for Florida State University, conducted surveys, collected data and analyzed the economic impact of the June 1992 version of the proposed rules. He prepared the economic impact statement for DOI. Dr. Lynch was consulted by the department about the October changes to the proposed rules and did additional analysis on the impact of the proposed changes. The economic impact statement prepared for the June publication was not amended, but Dr. Lynch's observations are found in his notes, or what he terms a "work in progress". He discussed those observations with department staff and considers the economic impact of prohibiting leases to be at least in the $ millions. The agency did not republish an economic impact statement after the October changes, but plainly considered the impact of those changes as articulated by its consultant, Dr. Lynch. Prohibiting the sale of annuities on bank premises would have a devastating effect on companies engaged in that activity. Banks, also, would be affected, as they recognize a substantial benefit of providing their customers the convenience of an in-house service. Although annuities are defined in Florida law as "life insurance" (See Section 364.602(1), F.S.) they are generally considered investments for future security rather than a cushion against loss. On March 20, 1990, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a formal approval letter stating, among other things, that under controlling Federal banking law, annuities are primarily financial investment instruments that national banks are permitted and authorized to sell. (GNA Exhibit No. 41) A follow-up letter to J. Thomas Caldwell as representative of the Florida Bankers Association specifically concluded that federally chartered banks in Florida were authorized to sell annuities. (GNA Exhibit No. 42) The OCC conclusion with regard to the authority of national banks was upheld in the Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co. v. Robert Clarke, et. al., (VALIC) on November 22, 1991, by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Civil Action No. H-91-1016, 786 F. Supp. 639. The case is pending on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. (Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company v. Clarke, Case No. 92-2010) In the meantime, the OCC continues to issue opinion letters consistent with its earlier opinion. (See 5/10/93 letter filed as supplemental authority on 6/18/93) National banks are presently selling annuities, and the impact of the October 1992 absolute prohibitions is nullified as to annuity products by the December 1992 amendments addressed in paragraph 30, above.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner application for licensure as a resident life, variable annuity and health agent should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for issuing licenses "authorizing a person to be appointed to transact insurance or adjust claims for the kind, line, or class of insurance identified in the document." §§ 626.015(9) and 626.112(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Prior to December 4, 2002, Mr. Porras was licensed in Florida as an insurance agent. He was also part-owner of The Garpo Group, Inc. ("Garpo Group"), an insurance agency. On October 18, 2002, the Department (formerly the Department of Insurance) and Mr. Porras entered into a Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order ("Settlement Stipulation") as a result of an investigation by the Department that resulted in allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Porras. In the Settlement Stipulation, Mr. Porras agreed to surrender his agent's licenses to the Department. Mr. Porras did not admit in the Settlement Stipulation that he committed the acts alleged by the Department. A Consent Order was entered on December 4, 2002. The Consent Order incorporated the terms of the Settlement Stipulation and provided that the surrender of Mr. Porras's licenses "shall have the same force and effect as a revocation pursuant to Section 626.641, Florida Statutes"; that Mr. Porras "shall not engage or attempt or profess to engage in any transaction or business for which a license or appointment is required under the insurance code or directly or indirectly own, control, or be employed in any manner by any insurance agent or agency . . . ."; and that Mr. Porras "shall not have the right to apply to the Department for another license under the Insurance Code within two (2) years of the effective date of revocation." Neither the Settlement Stipulation nor the Consent Order included a deadline by which Mr. Porras was required to divest himself of his ownership interest in the Garpo Group. On April 24, 2003, a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Agreement") was executed whereby Mr. Porras, Eduardo Garcia, Mayda Garcia, and Luis Garcia, who were identified as the principals of the Garpo Group, agreed to sell the Garpo Group to Jose Peña and Peter Rivero. The Agreement included a purchase price of $50,000.00, payable in an initial deposit of $20,000.00, with the remaining balance to be paid "in monthly installments of no less than $500.00 (Five Hundred Dollars), and no more than $2,500.00 (Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars)." A Special Condition of the Agreement provided that Mayda Garcia, "Shareholder/Registered Agent/General Agent/Director," and Luis Garcia, "Shareholder/Director," would "remain in Corporation in their current capacity until final payment for sale of business is paid." Mr. Porras retained an interest in the monthly payments to be made by Mr. Peña and Mr. Rivero for the purchase of the business. In accordance with the terms of the Consent Order, Mr. Porras surrendered his license and did not subsequently engage in the transaction or solicitation of insurance. Mr. Porras did not exercise any control over the Garpo Group after entry of the Consent Order. Mr. Porras worked for the Garpo Group as a bookkeeper from May 2004 through October 2004.3 He was paid $175.00 per week, and his duties included reconciling the Garpo Group's bank accounts, entering deposits in the system, and cutting checks on the Garpo Group accounts.4 It can be reasonably inferred from the evidence presented by Mr. Porras regarding his understanding of the terms of the Consent Order that Mr. Porras was aware when he accepted employment with the Garpo Group that the terms of the Settlement Stipulation and of the Consent Order prohibited him from any involvement in the business of the Garpo Group, including employment "in any manner."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the Department of Financial Services enter a final order finding that Lorenzo Alejandro Porras violated the terms of a Consent Order entered by the Department of Financial Services and denying his application for licensure as a resident life, variable annuity, and health agent, pursuant to Section 626.611(13), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 29th day of March, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, William Robert Pearson, should be disciplined for alleged statutory and rule violations for his role in several insurance transactions.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is licensed in Florida as a life including variable annuity agent (2-14), life including variable annuity and health agent (2-15), life agent (2-16), life and health agent (2-18), and health agent (2-40), regulated by the DFS's Division of Insurance Agent and Agency Services. He was so licensed at all times pertinent to this case. He was first licensed in 1988 and has been disciplined once, in September 2002, when he was given a Letter of Guidance for misrepresenting to a Pinellas Park resident that an annuity he sold her would generate interest in excess of 6.8 percent, when the guaranteed rate was three percent for the first year. During the transactions alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, the Respondent also was registered with OFR's Division of Securities as a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker representative associated with Transamerica Financial Advisors, Inc. (Transamerica). On August 21, 2012, based on some of the same facts alleged in this case, OFR charged the Respondent with failing to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade because he: participated in the liquidation of variable and fixed annuities on behalf of several elderly customers referred by insurance agents not licensed as FINRA broker representatives; executed the liquidations recommended to the customers by insurance agent Richard Carter; failed to appropriately record the transactions on the books and records of Transamerica; failed to review the transactions, or have them reviewed by Transamerica, as to suitability; and provided Agent Carter with blank Transamerica letterhead to be used to facilitate the transactions. A Stipulation and Consent Agreement was entered on December 18, 2012, in which the Respondent admitted the OFR charges and agreed to never seek a license or registration as a dealer, investment advisor, or associated person under the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, chapter 517, Florida Statutes. A Final Order incorporating the settlement agreement was entered on January 11, 2013. (This Final Order is the basis for Count IX, which was added to the charges in this case, as well as for one of the Respondent's affirmative defenses.) Count I-–Geraldine Busing Geraldine Busing was born on December 1, 1930. She has a high school education. Her husband of 44 years died in 2001. When alive, he handled the family finances. Mrs. Busing's income is from a pension of $728 a month and social security payments of $1,090 a month. In addition, she had substantial investments in two Schwab accounts. During the market decline of 2007-2008, Mrs. Busing became dissatisfied with the performance of her Schwab accounts. An insurance agent named Richard Carter recommended that she invest in annuities, which would reduce her taxes. (In her deposition, testimony was elicited from Mrs. Busing that Agent Carter told her that the Respondent would do her taxes for free for the rest of her life. It is not likely that he made such a representation, and there is no evidence that the Respondent knew about such a representation.) Mrs. Busing followed Agent Carter's recommendation. Agent Carter did not have a FINRA license and approached the Respondent, who worked for Transamerica, to facilitate the liquidation of Mrs. Busing's Schwab accounts, so she could follow Agent Carter's recommendations. The Respondent agreed. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent provided blank Transamerica forms to Agent Carter and that Agent Carter "shuffled" the forms together with an EquiTrust Life Insurance Company (EquiTrust) annuity application and suitability forms and requested Mrs. Busing's signatures (although, it is alleged, one or more of the signatures on the Transamerica forms were not hers.) It is alleged that, unbeknownst to Mrs. Busing, Agent Carter gave the Respondent these forms, as well as a copy of her Schwab account statements, so he could liquidate her accounts, which totaled $627,000 at the time, "dump" the proceeds into a Transamerica account, and then "funnel" the liquidated assets into two EquiTrust annuities. It is alleged that Mrs. Busing became aware of these transactions in September 2010 after discussions with her accountant. Mrs. Busing testified that she has never met the Respondent and does not know him. She testified that she gave all of her Schwab account information to Agent Carter and did not expect him to share it with the Respondent. She testified that Agent Carter had her hurriedly sign a stack of papers without giving her a chance to review them. She said she was surprised when her stock broker, Barry Tallman, called to tell her that her Schwab accounts had been liquidated and used to open a Transamerica account. She denied ever receiving or signing the Schwab bank check dated July 7, 2010, used to open the Transamerica accounts; denied ever providing the Respondent and Transamerica with information for her customer account information (CAI) form used to open the Transamerica accounts; and denied that several of the Geraldine Busing signatures on the Transamerica documents used for the transactions were her signatures. She admitted to signing a Transamerica check dated August 13, 2010, which was used to purchase the EquiTrust policies. The Respondent testified that he telephoned Mrs. Busing at Agent Carter's request. He testified that she told him she wanted to implement Agent Carter's recommendation to liquidate the Schwab accounts and purchase annuities. He testified that he told her his services were not required because her current broker (Mr. Tallman) could handle it for her, unless she just wanted to avoid confronting her current broker. He said she wanted the Respondent to handle it, and he replied essentially that he would do whatever she and Agent Carter wanted him to do for her. The Respondent testified that he then mailed Mrs. Busing forms she had to fill out, sign, and return to him. He testified that he talked to her briefly by telephone about 15 to 20 times to answer questions she had about the forms. When she told him she received a Schwab check in the amount of about $150,000 and asked if she should mail it to him, he cautioned her that it would be better not to mail it and offered to drive to her house to get the check, which he did and returned immediately to Transamerica to open a Transamerica account with it. He testified that the Transamerica funds were used to purchase EquiTrust annuities at the direction of Agent Carter and Mrs. Busing. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Mrs. Busing's version of the facts is true and that the Respondent's version is untrue. To the contrary, Mrs. Busing's memory did not seem to be very good, and she seemed confused during her testimony. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the Respondent made any investment or insurance recommendations or misrepresentations to Mrs. Busing. The Petitioner's own witnesses (DFS and OFR investigators, Karen Ortega and Mercedes Bujans) testified that the Respondent never acted as Mrs. Busing's insurance agent. It was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mrs. Busing incurred tax and commission charges as a result of her Schwab account being liquidated, other than Transamerica's standard "ticket charge" for the transactions, which the Respondent admitted. There was no evidence that the Respondent received any remuneration on the EquiTrust annuity sales. Those commissions went to Agent Carter. The Petitioner contended in its proposed recommended order that the Respondent listed Mrs. Busing's annual income to be between $25,000 and $50,000, her investment objective as growth and income, and her investment time horizon as long-term. (Busing Deposition Exhibit 87). There was no testimony to put the exhibit in context or explain it. On its face, Busing deposition Exhibit 87 was a request from Transamerica to the client to confirm certain information. The form had the Respondent's name printed on it, but it was not signed by either the Respondent or Mrs. Busing, and the evidence did not prove who completed the form. (The CAI form contained similar information and had both their signatures.) The Petitioner contends that the information on the confirmation request was "absurd," because it listed Mrs. Busing's annual income as between $25,000 and $50,000, when her taxable income was $11,108 for 2009 and $8,251 for 2010. There was evidence that her total annual income was about $48,000 for 2007, $32,600 for 2008, $22,358 for 2009, and $19,001 for 2010, with the decline due to the decline in the stock market. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the income information on that form or the CAI form was absurd. The investment objective and investment time horizon on the forms were questionable, but the evidence was not clear and convincing that these were misrepresentations by the Respondent. The Transamerica account was a Pershing money market account used to facilitate the purchase of annuities. The evidence was that a separate suitability analysis would be required by the insurance company offering the annuity. The evidence was not clear that the information in the forms signed by the Respondent was used for the purchase of EquiTrust annuities on behalf of Mrs. Busing. Those purchases were recommended and executed by Agent Carter. The evidence was not clear and convincing that switching Mrs. Busing's investments from Schwab to EquiTrust annuities was not suitable for Mrs. Busing or in her best interest. No expert witness testified to that effect. Counts II through IV–-The Kesishes In 2010, William Kesish and his wife, Josefa, owned several annuities. Mr. Kesish had managed their business affairs before he developed Parkinson's disease and dementia in his old age. After that, Mrs. Kesish cared for him and took over the family's finances by default. Mr. Kesish died on November 26, 2010. Mrs. Kesish was born in Spain in 1937. English is her second language. In 2010, she had difficulty conversing and reading in English and was unable to write in English. After her husband became mentally disabled, she used their bank account to provide for their needs, but she had no investment acumen beyond knowing generally that it was better to make more money from their investments than to make less or to lose money. She was recovering from cancer treatment in 2010 and was physically frail. On May 25, 2010, Paula Rego, a professional guardian, met with an attorney who believed the Kesishes were being exploited and in need of a guardian. Ms. Rego reviewed documentation provided by the attorney and, in June 2010, agreed to Mrs. Kesish's voluntary request to become the guardian of the Kesishes' property. On July 8, 2010, Ms. Rego became aware of the Respondent's involvement in the Kesishes' financial business. She telephoned the Respondent to explain her guardianship role and faxed him on July 15, 2010, to direct him to cancel any investment transactions that were underway. The Petitioner presented the testimony of Ms. Rego to explain her review of the documentation she collected in her research to attempt to piece together the financial transactions involving the Kesishes. She also testified as to the surrender charges and, to some extent, the tax liabilities that resulted from them. She also related statements made by Mrs. Kesish to her and, to some extent, to the DFS and OFR investigators, Karen Ortega and Mercedes Bujans, who also related some of the statements Mrs. Kesish made to them. The Petitioner also introduced an affidavit prepared by Ms. Ortega and signed by Mrs. Kesish on March 31, 2011. All of Mrs. Kesish's statements were hearsay. The hearsay cannot itself support a finding of fact.3/ In general, the hearsay demonstrated that Mrs. Kesish did not have a clear recollection of her interactions with the Respondent at the time of her statements. Agent Carter introduced the Respondent to Mrs. Kesish in March 2010. The Petitioner alleged essentially that Agent Carter schemed and collaborated with the Respondent to exploit the Kesishes by tricking them into financial and insurance transactions that would not be in their best interest, but would generate commissions and fees for them. It was alleged that, as with Mrs. Busing, the Respondent's FINRA licensure was required to buy and sell securities in furtherance of the scheme. The Respondent testified that Agent Carter told him about his clients, the Kesishes, and that he went to meet Mrs. Kesish in person because he had difficulty communicating with her over the telephone due to her hard-to-understand Spanish accent and limited proficiency in spoken English. He testified that she told him she wanted to get out of the stock market and was unhappy with her current stockbroker, Doreen Scott. (That part of the Respondent's testimony was corroborated by Ms. Rego, who concurred that Mrs. Kesish did not like dealing with Ms. Scott because she talked down to her.) The Respondent testified that he went to Mrs. Kesish's house, asked if he could be of assistance to her, and discussed her financial situation with her. He testified that he then returned to his Transamerica office and mailed forms for her to fill out and sign.4/ Similar to his dealings with Mrs. Busing, the Respondent testified that he spoke to Mrs. Kesish several times by telephone to answer questions about the forms. It is reasonable to infer that the Respondent knew Agent Carter would be helping her. The Respondent testified that when the completed forms were returned to him by mail, he telephoned Mrs. Kesish to verify the information on the forms and, in some cases, get information that was omitted to add it to the forms. The Petitioner attempted to prove that the Respondent knew or should have known Mrs. Kesish was mentally disabled and incapable of voluntarily instructing the Respondent to effectuate financial transactions on her behalf. Mrs. Kesish lacked knowledge in investing and was susceptible to being misled and exploited, but it was not proven that Mrs. Kesish was mentally incapacitated or unable to consent to Agent Carter's recommendations or instruct the Respondent. Ms. Rego herself did not find it necessary to initiate involuntary proceedings to establish a plenary guardianship of Mrs. Kesish's person and property until October 2013. (Count II) One of the Kesishes' investments was a Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company (Genworth) variable annuity (G-58), which they bought on October 31, 2008, for $86,084.89. It was designed to begin paying monthly income on October 31, 2022. It provided a waiver of surrender charges if either Kesish was hospitalized, admitted to a nursing facility, or died. As of March 31, 2010, G-58 had a contract value of $102,954.90. Mrs. Kesish signed a form on letterhead of the Respondent and Transamerica that expressed her desire for the Respondent to be their insurance agent on G-58. On May 27, 2010, the Respondent used an automated account transfer (ACAT) to liquidate G-58 and transfer the funds to a Transamerica brokerage account he opened for the Kesishes on the same date. The Respondent did not independently determine whether the liquidation was suitable or in the Kesishes' best interest. He relied on Agent Carter to do this. The Respondent and the Kesishes signed the CAI form to open the brokerage account. The surrender of G-58 took effect on June 14, 2010. As a result of the liquidation, the Kesishes were assessed a surrender charge of $4,576.91 and federal tax was withheld, and the net proceeds from the liquidation were $90,314.19. On June 29, 2010, the funds in Mrs. Kesish's Transamerica account were added to an EquiTrust policy Agent Carter had sold her (E-92F). The Respondent testified that this was done at the direction of Agent Carter and Mrs. Kesish. The Respondent did not act as the Kesishes' EquiTrust agent and received no commissions. The Petitioner alleged and proposed a finding that the liquidation of G-58 allowed Agent Carter to represent to EquiTrust that the Kesishes had no other annuities and that the addition to E-92F was not replacing another annuity, which allowed Agent Carter to avoid having Genworth attempt to "conserve" G-58 (i.e., question the Kesishes as to whether they wanted to reverse the liquidation within the grace period for doing so). The evidence cited in support of the allegation and proposed finding is documentation of the initial purchase of E-92F in April 2010, not the addition in June 2010. There was no clear and convincing evidence that actions taken by the Respondent resulted in Agent Carter circumventing the replacement notice requirement, or that the Respondent should be held responsible for what Agent Carter did or did not do regarding the EquiTrust annuity. According to the Respondent, he made no investment recommendations to Mrs. Kesish, and all such recommendations were made by Agent Carter. He testified that he only took action in accordance with the wishes of Mrs. Kesish, who was being advised by Agent Carter. He denied that his purpose was to generate commissions or fees for himself or for Agent Carter, or to enable Agent Carter to conceal the replacement of the Genworth annuity. It was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent's testimony was false. The Petitioner's proposed recommended order cites the testimony of Tarek Richey regarding his concerns about the Respondent's use of an ACAT to liquidate annuities, transfer of the proceeds to Pershing accounts at Transamerica, and use of those funds to purchase other annuities. Mr. Richey is a FINRA- licensed securities broker at Questar Capital Corporation, who employed and supervised the Respondent for about a month in early 2011, after he left Transamerica in December 2010. While supervising the Respondent, Mr. Richey was advised of OFR's investigation of the Respondent and reviewed the Respondent's documentation on the subject of OFR's investigation. One of Mr. Richey's concerns from his review of the Respondent's documentation was the use of ACAT, which would not guarantee that the client is aware of resulting surrender charges and tax consequences. He also was concerned that ACAT could have been used to bypass and avoid the use of forms required to analyze the suitability of annuities purchased for the Kesishes (and other clients). While he expressed these concerns, Mr. Richey had no personal knowledge and did not testify that the Kesishes (or the other clients) actually were unaware of surrender charges and tax consequences, or that liquidation was not suitable or in their best interest. Another of Mr. Richey's concerns was that the use of ACAT could result in the replacement of annuities without completing the required forms that would provide notice to the insurance company that its annuity was in the process of being replaced and give it an opportunity to conserve its annuity. Mr. Richey did not know that the use of ACAT actually resulted in the bypass of the replacement policy notice requirements for the Kesishes and other clients. He also did not testify that the Respondent should be held responsible for what Agent Carter did or did not do regarding replacement notices. Ms. Rego testified (based in part on discussions with a financial planner who did not testify) that she did not think the Genworth and EquiTrust transactions were not in the best interest of the Kesishes, mainly because of the Genworth surrender charge and tax consequences. There was no other expert testimony on the subject, and the evidence was not clear and convincing that those transactions were unsuitable or not in their best interest. (Count III) The Kesishes owned a Riversource Life Insurance Company (Riversource) annuity (R-30) that they bought on October 5, 2006. The contract had declining withdrawal charge rates that held at eight percent for the first four years. It had a death benefit rider. On March 23, 2010, a letter on the Respondent's Transamerica letterhead, written in English and signed by Mrs. Kesish, directed Riversource to list the Respondent as the Kesishes' financial advisor. On April 23, 2010, Mrs. Kesish signed a form directing Riversource to liquidate R-30. She also signed a form saying she knew there would be surrender charges. On April 26, 2010, Riversource sent the Kesishes a check for $26,430.07 (which was net after $2,454.30 in surrender charges). The testimony from Ms. Rego as to whether the liquidation of the Riversource annuity was contrary to the Kesishes' best interest, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements, was similar to her testimony with respect to the Genworth liquidation. There was no other expert or other clear and convincing evidence. (Count IV) The Kesishes also had Great American Life Insurance Company (Great American) annuities in the amounts of approximately $560,854 (GA-25) and $28,785 (GA-00), which were purchased in January 2010. GA-25 was owned by the Kesishes' trust, with Mrs. Kesish as trustee; GA-00 was owned by Mr. Kesish. By June 4, 2010, they had contract values of $580,854.71 and $29,970.46, respectively. On June 18, 2010, Agent Carter took Mrs. Kesish to lunch. A letter dated June 18, 2010, signed by Mrs. Kesish for her and her husband, written in English on the Respondent's Transamerica letterhead, directed the transfer of GA-25 to a Transamerica Pershing account (TA-25). An ACAT form dated June 20, 2010, signed by Mrs. Kesish and the Respondent, directed the liquidation of Mr. Kesish's GA-00 and the transfer of the proceeds to the Kesishes' Transamerica Pershing account. This transaction took effect on July 7, 2010.5/ After becoming involved through Attorney Hook, Ms. Rego had numerous discussions with Mrs. Kesish and with Agent Carter regarding the Kesishes' investments. Agent Carter attempted to explain and justify his actions to Ms. Rego and blame other insurance agents who he claimed had essentially stolen his clients by tricking them into replacing Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America (Allianz) annuities sold to them by him with GA-25 and GA-00. Ms. Rego's research notes evidence her understanding that the Great American sales to the Kesishes were unsuitable. During Ms. Rego's discussions and research throughout June 2010, the Respondent's name did not come up, and Ms. Rego was unaware of the Respondent having anything to do with the Kesishes. When she learned about the Respondent's role on July 8, 2010, she attempted to contact him. On July 15, 2010, she faxed the Respondent to instruct him to stop acting on behalf of the Kesishes. There is no clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent did not follow Ms. Rego's instructions.6/ On July 17, 2010, Great American sent Mr. Kesish a conservation letter urging him not to surrender GA-00. Ms. Rego then contacted Great American and had the surrender of GA-25 and GA-00 stopped. Had the transactions not been stopped, the Kesishes $60,000 in surrender charges would have been imposed. There was no other expert testimony or other clear and convincing evidence that the liquidation of the Great American annuities was contrary to the Kesishes' best interest, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements. Counts V through VI–-Edith Paz Edith Paz was born on January 20, 1926, and lives in Sun City Center. She has a high school diploma and held various jobs, from retailing to making plates in a dental office. Mrs. Paz married a GI returning from World War II. Her husband was successful in business before his retirement. Meanwhile, Mrs. Paz founded a successful real estate business and invested in the stock market. Mr. Paz died in 1999. In 2001, Mrs. Paz created a revocable trust with herself as trustee. When Mrs. Paz retired, she moved to Sun City Center. She did some investing, but was dissatisfied with her investments and her financial representative at the time. About that time, she met Glenn Cummings, an insurance agent who was a less experienced associate of Agent Carter and also not FINRA- licensed. After several conversations, Agent Cummings gained her trust and advised her to liquidate and consolidate her assets before deciding what other financial products to purchase. He referred her to the Respondent for that purpose. Agent Cummings and Mrs. Paz testified that he referred Mrs. Paz to the Respondent on the advice of Agent Carter to save "exit fees" on liquidating her investments. The evidence was not clear as to how the Respondent would be able to do this. The Respondent testified to his understanding that Mrs. Paz wanted to get out of the stock market and switch to more stable investments and that she had a bad relationship with her stockbroker. The Respondent's testimony is consistent with Mrs. Paz's actual losses in the stock market and her testimony that she listened to and followed the advice of Agent Cummings because she was dissatisfied with her prior financial advisor, a Mr. Shrago. Mrs. Paz testified that she spoke to the Respondent just once, briefly. That conflicts with the testimony of the Respondent and Agent Cummings. Their testimony was that there were several telephone conversations after the initial contact. They related that the Respondent mailed Mrs. Paz the forms that needed to be filled out, that Agent Cummings was with Mrs. Paz when she filled out the forms, and that both spoke to the Respondent several times during the process. According to Agent Cummings, this happened on July 29, 2010, when he visited Mrs. Paz to show her illustrations regarding the annuities he was recommending. While there, he helped her complete the forms the Respondent had sent to have her investments liquidated and consolidated into a Transamerica Pershing account. There also was conflict in the testimony as to whether anyone explained investment options and consequences to Mrs. Paz. She testified that no one gave her any explanation. Agent Cummings testified that he explained everything in detail to Mrs. Paz and that she also talked to the insurance agents who represented the companies whose annuities she would be surrendering. He testified that Mrs. Paz knew exactly what she was doing. The Respondent testified that he had no involvement in those explanations. He testified that he simply made sure he understood what Mrs. Paz wanted him to do for her. (Count V) In May 2007, Mrs. Paz purchased a Jackson National Life Insurance Company (Jackson National or JNL) annuity (JNL-42A) on the advice of Mr. Shrago. The initial premium was $100,000, and it was issued with a five-percent bonus. As of May 25, 2007, it had an account balance of $105,017.01 and was receiving an annual rate of return of 7.75 percent. On July 12, 2010, Mrs. Paz signed a letter directing Jackson National to make the Respondent, who held an appointment to represent Jackson National, her agent-of-record on JNL-42A. The change took effect on July 15, 2010. On July 29, 2010, Jackson National faxed the Respondent a statement of account for JNL-42A, listing the balance as $108,253.48 (which reflected a prior withdrawal of $2,500 by Mrs. Paz). The statement disclosed the surrender charges in effect. After her discussions with Agent Cummings, Mrs. Paz signed forms requesting that JNL-42A be liquidated and the proceeds rolled over into a Great American Life Insurance Company (Great American or GA) annuity (GA-61). The Respondent facilitated the rollover. As a result of the rollover, Mrs. Paz incurred surrender charges of $4,871.41 and a partial recapture of the initial bonus in the amount of $2,706.34, for a total loss of $7,577.75. The Petitioner alleged, and Mrs. Paz testified, that the Respondent never discussed with her that there would be surrender charges. The Respondent did not disagree, but explained that he understood Agent Cummings already had done so and that he just made sure he was following Mrs. Paz's wishes. Concurring, Agent Cummings testified that he did explain the surrender charges to Mrs. Paz. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent's actions "insulated M[r]s. P[az] from comparative financial counseling by her then current Jackson National insurance agent Gary Mahan." This was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. To the contrary, there was evidence that it was Mrs. Paz's choice to change agents, that Mr. Mahan knew about the change, and that he had no objection to the Respondent taking over for him as agent of record on the policy. The Petitioner also alleged that the Respondent "provided [Agent Cummings] with the Transamerica brokerage application, transfer forms and letter of instructions to transfer JNL 42A" to the Respondent as account representative. It was not proven that these documents were not mailed to Mrs. Paz in accordance with the Respondent's testimony. There was no expert testimony or other clear and convincing evidence that the liquidation of Mrs. Paz's Jackson National annuity and purchase of a Great American annuity was contrary to her best interest, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements. Mrs. Paz testified that Agent Cummings initially told her she would have to pay the Respondent $1,500 as a fee for his services with respect to JNL-42a and later told her the fee would be $2,600. Agent Cummings testified that the Respondent told her what his fee would be during the telephone conversation on July 29, 2010. Regardless who told Mrs. Paz what the Respondent's fee would be, or what she was told it would be, Mrs. Paz made out a $2,607.28 check to Agent Cummings' company, Big Financial, on July 29, 2010. On August 2, 2010, Big Financial gave the Respondent a check made out to the Respondent for $2,530, with the notation "Paz." (It is not clear from the evidence why the Big Financial check was made out for $2,530. When the DFS investigator questioned the discrepancy, Agent Cummings reimbursed Mrs. Paz $77.28.) The Respondent deposited the check the next day. The Allianz compliance guide prohibited agents from charging an additional fee for services that customarily are associated with insurance products. The Great American compliance guide prohibited fraudulent acts. By accepting the check from Big Financial, the Respondent received a fee from Mrs. Paz that was not authorized. (Count VI) Prior to meeting Agent Cummings or the Respondent, Mrs. Paz had investment accounts with Wedbush (WB-37) and Wells Fargo. There were two Wells Fargo accounts, an IRA (WF-15), and a trust account (WF-70). As of June 30, 2010, the Wedbush account (WB-37) had a balance of $349,438.11. The Wells Fargo IRA account (WF-15) had a net value of $51,737.11 prior to June 30, 2010. The Wells Fargo trust account (WF-70) had a balance of $332,798.76 prior to June 2010. The Respondent and Mrs. Paz communicated in the same manner they did for the Jackson National transaction. Mrs. Paz signed forms that enabled the Respondent to transfer the funds in the Wedbush and Wells Fargo accounts into two Transamerica brokerage accounts (TA-02) and (TA-86) using ACAT. Some of the forms referred to the Respondent as Mrs. Paz's "investment professional," but the sole purpose of the Respondent's involvement was to use Transamerica as a funnel to transfer funds from one investment to another. By August 11, 2010, the funds in the TA-02 account were used to purchase an Allianz annuity sold by Agent Cummings in the amount of $335,589.65. The funds in the TA-86 account were used to purchase a Great American annuity (GA-60) sold by Agent Cummings in the amount of $45,769.38. There was no expert testimony or other clear and convincing evidence that the liquidation of Mrs. Paz's Wedbush and Wells Fargo accounts and purchase of an Allianz annuity was contrary to her best interest, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements. Counts VII and VIII-–The Penwardens Wayne Penwarden was born on December 4, 1943. His wife, Sandra, was born on October 10, 1939. They inherited some money and decided to invest it. As of August 31, 2009, they had Morgan Stanley investment accounts that totaled close to half a million dollars. They also had an annuity with ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (ING) purchased for $150,000 on April 24, 2008. Agent Carter became acquainted with the Penwardens and introduced them to the Respondent. The Amended Administrative Complaint alleged that the Respondent provided required forms to Agent Carter for him to get the Penwardens signatures and, then, used funds from their Transamerica accounts to fund the purchase of Allianz annuities, which was deceitful and against the wishes of the Penwardens. The Petitioner's proposed recommended order proposed no such findings, and there was no clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent was guilty of those acts, that he said or did anything to deceive or mislead or withhold information from them, or took any action regarding them without their full knowledge and consent. (Count VII) On September 30, 2009, the Penwardens signed a change of agent request to make the Respondent their new ING insurance agent. They also signed CAI forms to open Transamerica brokerage accounts and transfer the funds from the Morgan Stanley investment accounts into them, using ACAT. The funds in the Transamerica accounts were then used to purchase Allianz's indexed annuities sold to the Penwardens by Agent Carter. On September 23 and October 16, 2009, the Penwardens purchased two Allianz MasterDex X annuities (MD-47) and (MD-24), respectively, with initial premium payments of $141,269.40 for MD-47 and $373,979.59, plus a premium bonus of $37,397.96, for MD-24. On June 17, 2010, acting on instructions from Agent Carter on behalf of the Penwardens, the Respondent liquidated the ING annuity. On June 30, 2010, the Penwardens added the $115,281.47 proceeds from the liquidation of the ING annuity to MD-47. The Petitioner proposed a finding that the surrender of the ING annuity cost $6,000 in surrender charges, which is true. The Petitioner omits from its proposed finding that the Penwardens received a premium bonus on the Allianz policy that more than offset the ING surrender charge. There was no expert testimony or other clear and convincing evidence that the liquidation of the Penwardens' Morgan Stanley accounts and ING annuity and purchase of Allianz annuities was contrary to their best interests, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements. (Count VIII) The Penwardens became dissatisfied with Agent Carter, and on November 9, 2010, signed a letter drafted by the Respondent on Transamerica letterhead to substitute him for Agent Carter as their sole financial advisor. On November 12, 2010, the Respondent was notified by Allianz that he would receive no commissions as servicing agent on policies sold to the Penwardens by another agent. On or about November 22, 2010, $37,408.54 was transferred from the Allianz MD-47 annuity into a new Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company (Nationwide or NW) annuity (NW-08). The Respondent also effected a partial Internal Revenue Code, section 1035, exchange from the MD-47 annuity to a new annuity purchased from Nationwide (NW-09) for $23,746.19. On November 7, 2011, the Respondent faxed a request to transfer funds from the MD-24 annuity to fund a North American Company for Life and Health Insurance (North American or NA) annuity (NA-68). The Petitioner proposed a finding that the Respondent undertook these transactions on November 22, 2010, and on November 7, 2011, in order to benefit himself alone by generating commissions to replace the servicing agent commissions he was not getting on the Allianz policies. This was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. To the contrary, the Respondent explained that the transactions were done for the Penwardens' benefit after discussions regarding the benefits of diversifying out of the Allianz annuity into other annuities, which was accomplished cost-free. There was no clear and convincing evidence that these transactions were contrary to the Penwardens' best financial interest or that they were done solely to benefit the Respondent. There was no expert testimony or other clear and convincing evidence that the partial transfers from the Penwardens' Allianz annuities to other Nationwide and North American annuities were contrary to their best interest, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements. In early December 2011, Mr. Penwarden replaced the Respondent with another insurance agent. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent went to the Penwardens home to harangue them for two hours about their decision to switch agents. The only evidence on this allegation was the deposition testimony of Mr. Penwarden and the testimony of the Respondent. Mr. Penwarden's testimony as to what occurred was vague. The Respondent agreed that he was disappointed that the Penwardens were switching agents, but testified that he went to the home to retrieve the policies he sold to the Penwardens, which would have to be returned to the insurance companies to cancel at no cost during the "free-look" period. He testified that he waited for an hour or more while Mr. Penwarden tried to find the policies in his home. The evidence was not clear and convincing, and the Petitioner did not propose a finding as to this allegation. Count IX and Related Affirmative Defenses Count IX is based on the Final Order entered in OFR's securities case against the Respondent as an additional ground for discipline under section 626.621(13), Florida Statutes. The Respondent cites it in his affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel on Counts I through VIII. See Finding 2, supra. The Respondent also argues that the additional charge is barred by the ex post facto clause of the Florida constitution and due process clauses of the United States and Florida constitutions. As to the due process argument, the Respondent admitted the OFR Final Order in his answer to the original charges. He also had ample opportunity to demonstrate prejudice from the added charge, which he could not, and to present legal arguments, which he did. As to ex post facto, section 626.621(13) was added to the Florida Statutes, effective June 1, 2011. See Ch. 175, §§ 47 and 53, Laws of Fla. (2010). That was before the Respondent entered into the Stipulation and Consent Agreement that formed the basis for the OFR Final Order. Disciplinary guidelines for section 626.621(13) were added to the Florida Administrative Code on March 24, 2014. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69B-231.090(13). As to the collateral estoppel defense, the Respondent testified that he entered into the settlement with OFR because he was under heightened supervision by his employer due to securities violations, and he did not think any employer wanted to provide the required supervision (which he referred to as "baby-sitting.") The Respondent did not testify that he relied on the OFR Final Order to bar charges by DFS or that he believed the OFR Final Order would bar DFS charges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Agent and Agency Services, enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating section 626.611(7) and rule 69B-215.210 under Count V, and section 626.621(13) under Count IX, dismissing the other charges, and suspending the Respondent's insurance licenses for 12 months. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 15th day of October, 2014.
