The Issue Whether either Petitioner is entitled to Unclaimed Property Account Number 108502717.
Findings Of Fact The Department receives unclaimed property and disburses that property from the State of Florida Treasury to the rightful owners. During the last fiscal year, the Department's Bureau of Unclaimed Property received in excess of $300,000,000 of unclaimed property, and paid claims in excess of $212,000,000. The Department has the duty to evaluate the merits of each claim for unclaimed property and to pay only those claimants who can establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are the rightful owners of the unclaimed property. Anja Sova was born in 1921 in Finland, but resided in Lake Worth, Florida. Her husband's brother was married to Iina Sova, who resided in Finland. Anja Sova opened several accounts with different banks during her lifetime; two of those accounts were opened at Washington Mutual Bank, and she designated Iina Sova, her sister-in-law, and Silja Lappalainen, her grand-niece and Iina's granddaughter, as joint pay-on-death beneficiaries. In January 2001, at the age of 79, Anja Sova opened a Certificate of Deposit (CD) account with Sterling Bank, depositing $95,000.00 in the account. The CD designated the pay- on-death beneficiary as Silja Sova. Anja Sova signed the signature card for this CD three times, once right next to the name of the designated beneficiary, Silja Sova. The bank had no other information as to the beneficiary. Anja Sova died in a car accident in 2002. The accounts with Washington Mutual were paid to the designated beneficiaries, her sister-in-law, and her grand-niece. Unclaimed Property Account Number 108502717 consists of the matured Sterling Bank CD, worth $127,031.97, and designates Silja Sova as the pay-on-death beneficiary. It had been held by Sterling Bank until its remittance to the Department as unclaimed property. American Research is a corporate claimant representative, and represents the residual heirs of Anja Sova's estate. Choice Plus is also a corporate claimant representative, and represents Silja Lappalainen, Anja Sova's grand-niece. American Research ran searches through various private, social, and governmental databases in the United States, and found no person named Silja Sova. In 2013, American Research also requested and received an Extract from the Population Information System in Finland. This database was created in 1969. The Extract revealed one person named Silja Sova; that person is a child born in 2009, who lives in Finland. No credible evidence was presented on whether the Extract includes only living persons, or if it also includes deceased persons (persons who were born between 1969 and 2001 and died before November 2013, when the search was done through the Extract). American Research argued that Silja Sova simply does not exist. It is unknown, however, whether Anja Sova's husband had more brothers with the surname Sova, or whether Anja Sova's father-in-law had brothers. The undersigned cannot find, given the scant evidence presented, that Silja Sova does not exist, and never existed, in Finland. American Research also proposed the theory that Anja Sova purposely created a fictitious name when designating Silja Sova as the beneficiary. There was no credible evidence presented to support this theory, either; it was mere speculation. An Order for Subsequent Administration was entered by a probate court in Palm Beach County, Florida, on April 11, 2013. It establishes the residual beneficiaries of Anja Sova's estate, but it does not include Silja Lappalainen, Anja Sova's surviving grand-niece. Choice Plus was also unable to locate a person named Silja Sova, and argued that the CD mistakenly designated the pay-on-death beneficiary as Silja Sova when it should have read Silja Lappalainen, Anja's grand-niece who had also been a beneficiary on the Washington Mutual accounts. Curiously, Choice Plus represents Silja Lappalainen, but did not offer testimony from her at the hearing.1/ Instead, Choice Plus offered into evidence an affidavit from Iina Sova, the deceased's sister-in-law, disclaiming any interest in the account. The affidavit is not found credible or reliable; it is written in a language that the affiant did not speak, there is no indication that a certified translator was present while the statement was being made, and the affidavit is replete with hearsay. Unfortunately, there was no credible evidence presented to support Choice Plus's argument that the designation of Silja Sova as the pay-on-death beneficiary was indeed a mistake that a then 79-year-old great-aunt made. The record is void of any credible evidence which meets the preponderance of the evidence standard, entitling either Petitioner to Unclaimed Property Account Number 108502717.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that American Research and Investigations, Inc.'s claim for Unclaimed Property Account Number 108502717 be DENIED. It is also RECOMMENDED that Choice Plus, LLC's claim for Unclaimed Property Account Number 108502717 be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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 18th day of April, 2014.
The Issue The case as presented on the stipulation presents one issue of fact and one issue of law as follows: Issue of Fact: Whether the reservation of a corporate name by a plaintiff in a lawsuit against a principal of the corporation whose name was reserved after its dissolution shows bad faith when the dissolved corporation is known by the plaintiff to be operating as a corporation and the plaintiff does not activate a corporation in the name reserved. Issue of Law: Whether the law firm of Schoninger, Jankowitz and Siegfried reserved the corporate name, National Realty Resources, Inc., in good faith as required by Section 607.027, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to the Amended Prehearing Stipulation the parties stipulated to the introduction of the following exhibits: Letter dated November 14, 1980, from Karl Adler to Dana McKinnon, Director Letter dated December 9, 1980, from Karl Adler to Mr. Dana McKinnon, Director Letter dated March 15, 1976, from Secretary of State to Michael J. Padula Corporate Return for 1977 1978 Corporate Return Certificate of Involuntary Dissolution, dated December 5, 1979, with attached computer printout Computer printout dated November 20, 1980, showing dissolution of National Realty Resources, Inc., December 5, 1979, and reservation of corporate name, August 13, 1980, by said law firm Letter dated December 2, 1980, from Schoninger, Jankowitz and Siegfried to Secretary of State reserving National Realty Resources, Inc. for 120 days from December 11, 1980, according to official stamp of the Department of State thereon Computer printout dated December 15, 1980, showing dissolution of National Realty Resources, Inc. on December 5, 1979, and reservation of corporate name by said law firm on December 11, 1980. Summons and Complaint in Mangowood Development Corporation v. Melvin Katz and Ronald Horowitz in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, Case #80- 2541CA(L)01 I, having Exhibit A attached thereto, letter dated April 23, 1980, from Schoninger, Jankowitz and Siegfried to the Secretary of State reserving the corporate name National Realty Resources, Inc., having stamped thereon by the Secretary of State a reservation for 120 days as of April 30, 1980. The parties stipulated to the following facts: 1/ The Department of State in accordance with law properly gave notice to Petitioner National Realty Resources, Inc. at 5975 West Sunrise Boulevard, Sunrise, Florida, that said corporation would be dissolved if its annual report were not filed. Said address was the last address filed by said corporation with the Secretary of State. Although not required by law, the Department also furnished to said corporation at that address forms for the filing of an annual return. More than two years prior to the date the Secretary of State gave notice to the corporation, the corporation changed its corporate address to 610 Barnett Bank Towers, 2929 East Commercial Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, without notifying the Secretary of State. The corporation, Petitioner in this cause, failed to timely file its 1979 and 1980 annual corporate returns and, after proper notice by the Secretary of State, was dissolved by Proclamation of the State of Florida [on December 5, 1979]. The law firm of Schoninger, Jankowitz and Siegfried, P.A. reserved the corporate name, National Realty Resources, Inc., on April 30, 1980. Said law firm filed a law suit executed on July 21, 1980, against Melvin Katz and Ronald Horowitz, and caused a summons to be issued on July 23, 1980, for Melvin Katz to be served at National Realty Resources, Inc., 2929 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 610, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. The letter of Petitioner's attorney requesting reinstatement was sent to Respondent November 14, 1980; however, Respondent refused to reinstate said corporation's corporate name pursuant to the reservation of that name by Schoninger, Jankowitz and Siegfried, P.A. Said law firm renewed its reservation of the corporate name with Respondent on December 11, 1980. Petitioner has filed with Respondent the necessary reinstatement papers for its dissolved corporation. Reinstatement is dependent upon Respondent's determination that reservation of Petitioner's corporate name by Schoninger, Jankowitz and Siegfried, P.A. was not in good faith. The following are added findings of fact based on the record: At the time the corporate name was reserved, the law firm of Schoninger, Jankowitz and Siegfried knew that Petitioner was being operated as an active corporation and has taken no action to activate a corporation under the name reserved. The reservation of the corporate name, National Realty Resources, Inc., by the law firm of Schoninger, Jankowitz and Siegfried was not in good faith and was undertaken in conjunction with a law suit against individuals who were principals with said corporation prior to its dissolution.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Secretary of State revoke the reservation of the corporate name, National Realty Resources, Inc., reserved by the law firm of Schoninger, Jankowitz and Siegfried and reinstate said name to the Petitioner in this cause. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon county, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 1981.
The Issue There are two issues presented in this case. The first issue is whether a statement by the Department of Banking and Finance (the "Department"), denying joinder of multiple unrelated abandoned property claims, in a Final Order directed to Petitioner is an unpromulgated rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The second issue is whether the Department has a policy of delaying decisions on unclaimed property claims past the statutory 90th day, such that the policy constitutes an unpromulgated rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the State agency responsible for administering the Florida Unclaimed Property Act, Chapter 717, Florida Statutes. As such, the Department is responsible for collecting and maintaining unclaimed property and processing claims for the return of the unclaimed property to its missing owners. The Department accomplishes this task through a staff composed of 12 full-time employees and 14 OPS employees. Individuals as well as private investigative agencies file claims for property held by the Department. Private investigative agencies account for appropriately 12 percent to 14 percent of the claims filed and approximately 38 percent to 42 percent of the property value returned to owners. The Department's Claims Process The Department has established internal procedures so that claims are processed timely, efficiently, and accurately. Claimants must submit claims in writing on a form supplied by the Department. The Department logs-in each claim on the day it is received. If the Department determines a claim is in compliance with Rules 3D-20.0021 and 3D-20.0022, Florida Administrative Code, and the proof submitted with the claim is sufficient to establish the claimant's ownership and entitlement to the funds, it is paid. If the Department determines that the claim is incomplete, within 5 to 15 days of its receipt of the claim, the Department sends the claimant a pre-screen letter advising the claimant of the additional information required to prove the claim. Rule 3D-20.0021(1), Florida Administrative Code. When the claimant resubmits the claim with the additional material that has been requested, the claim is re-logged into the computer and a 90th day is set. Rule 3D-20.0021(2), Florida Administrative Code. Claims supervisors receive a daily computer report alerting them of the claims which are 61 days old and aging. They receive high priority. Complex claims which are submitted with initial insufficient proof are referred to the legal department for review and resolution. During fiscal year 1999/2000 the Department processed and approved approximately 107,000 claims having an aggregate value of approximately $67 million. Throughout the review process, the Department assists claimants in developing the proof necessary to prove the claim in lieu of summarily denying the claim. In mid-1999, the Department's Unclaimed Property Program went on-line, which significantly increased the number of claims filed. From around July 1, 1999 through December 31, 2000, the Department processed claims for approximately 132,900 unclaimed property accounts. The statutory 90-day period for determination was exceeded for an estimated 5000 of those accounts: 1,146 claims were denied and 3,991 claims were approved. However, of those 3991 approved accounts, 1,254 accounts were from an extended project with the FDIC which took about a year to complete. In sum, excluding the 1,254 FDIC accounts, the Department exceeded the 90th day on approximately 3 percent of the claims filed during this period. The Petitioner Petitioner is a licensed private investigator who specializes in the recovery of unclaimed property held by the Comptroller's office. Petitioner maintains both an individual and an agency license to engage in the business of locating missing owners of unclaimed property. He has been licensed by the Florida Department of State as a private investigator since 1993. In the course of Petitioner's business, his clients sign a form agreement which authorizes Petitioner to represent the client in recovering the abandoned property held by the Comptroller's Office. Petitioner represents the client through the entire claims process until the claim is either paid to his trust account or denied. If the claim is paid, Petitioner deducts his fractional share and costs and forwards the net value of the claim to the client. If the claim is denied, Petitioner's agreement with his client authorizes him to file a request for hearing on the client's behalf. Petitioner's Agreement Form Petitioner's agreement states that Petitioner has located property which may belong to the client, and pending the requisite proof of ownership, that Petitioner will recover the property for the client. The agreement provides that for his services, the "Agent is assigned a fee of 30 percent" and further provides that the agreement is an "irrevocable limited power of attorney." Lastly, the agreement recites that in any dispute between Petitioner and his client, "proper venue is in Volusia County, Florida." Petitioner's Business Since 1998, Petitioner has filed claims for approximately 3,000 unclaimed property accounts. Of those 3,000 accounts, 152, roughly 5 percent of Petitioner's claims, have exceeded the 90-day determination period. Petitioner files claims for all types of unclaimed property, but primarily involving dissolved corporations. Because of the nature of his business niche, Petitioner's claims are often more complex because they involve older accounts, lost or destroyed corporate documents, and archived banking information. Moreover, a decision by a bankruptcy trustee about whether or not to reopen a bankruptcy estate may also be needed to establish entitlement to the property, if the company was liquidated through a bankruptcy proceeding. Claimants, including Petitioner, routinely request the Department's assistance in obtaining additional information from the reporting company in order to establish ownership and entitlement on behalf of their client. Prior to August 2000, Petitioner had not requested the Department provide a denial letter of any of his claims in which the 90th day had exhausted while additional information was gathered. The Controversy In August 2000, Petitioner had six claims, representing four separate clients, pending with the Department, all of which were over the 90 days. In each case the Department determined the evidence provided was insufficient to establish the client's ownership of the property. Over the months during which these claims were pending, Petitioner met with the Department on several occasions to address the proof issues. On August 9, 2000, the Department sent Petitioner a letter outlining the deficiencies in each of the four files and advising Petitioner that unless he could provide the evidence needed by August 25, 2000, the Department would deny each claim. Petitioner faxed a letter dated September 7, 2000, to the Department stating he would be out of the country during the month of September and requested that the denials for the files listed in the August 9, 2000, letter be held until after he returned home on September 26, 2000. Petitioner's letter also requested that the "DOAH hearing be held in Daytona Beach, Florida, when each of the hearings takes place." To accommodate Petitioner's request, the Department delayed issuing the Individual Notices of Intent to Deny each of the four claims until October 3, 2000. Petitioner timely responded to the four denials with a single Petition for Hearing, attempting to consolidate the four unrelated cases. On November 27, 2000, the Department entered an Order denying his Petition for failure to comply with the Florida Administrative Code and granted Petitioner 20 days in which to re-file a conforming petition. The Order also advised Petitioner that consolidating these unrelated cases was inappropriate. On December 1, 2000, Petitioner signed and mailed the instant Rule Challenge, which specifically identified these four files. It was received by DOAH on December 6, 2000. On December 1, 2000, the same day the Rule Challenge was mailed to DOAH, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a standstill agreement, tolling all matters related to these four files as well as several other files. The agreement was reduced to writing and signed on December 7 and 8, 2000. On December 13, 2000, Petitioner and his attorney again met with the Department to discuss the evidence required to prove the claims in these four files. The Challenged Statement Petitioner challenges the "joinder" statement in the Department's Order which advised him that "it is inappropriate to consolidate four unrelated cases in a single Petition for Hearing." Petitioner contends this statement is a rule which has not been adopted pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. He further contends that the statement as applied is contrary to Rule 1.110(g), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The Challenged Policy As a separate but related matter, Petitioner also asserts that the Department has a tacit policy of delaying determinations on claims past the 90th day. Petitioner argues that the effect of this policy is to deny the claimant a point of entry into administrative proceedings. He contends that this policy has the force of a rule which has not been adopted pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Sanctions The Department requested that attorneys' fees be assessed against Petitioner. The Department incorrectly asserts this matter is completely without merit and was brought for an improper purpose, namely, to harass.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case was whether Respondent's license as a registered real estate salesman in Florida should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact 1. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent, ROGER W. DART, was licensed as a registered real estate salesman in Florida under license number 0306123. This license, however, became involuntary inactive on March 31, 1980 and was, at the times involved in this case, delinquent. 2 On February 26, 1984, Respondent placed an advertisement in the Panama City, Florida, News-Herald, under the Condominiums for Sale section of the classified advertisements which read: GULFRONT CONDO., 2BR 2B, fully fur., $79,900 By owner. 243-5356. On February 26, 1984, Respondent was not the owner of the condominium apartment so advertised. The owner was Kendal Sanborn. Telephone number 243-5356, in Panama City, Florida, is the phone number of Respondent. Pursuant to the advertisement referenced above, Respondent procured James D. Hill and Lavanda H. Hill, his wife, as purchasers of the property in question, and as a result, after the closing on April 12, 1984, Respondent received a fee of $2,000.00 for arranging the purchase. This fee was paid by a check drawn on The Commercial Bank in Panama City, on the escrow account of Lawyer's Title Insurance Corporation, dated April 23, 1984, and references the file relating to James D. Hill. Respondent admittedly holds an inactive real estate salesman's license, but has not been active in the real estate business for several years. He is a licensed boat captain for off-shore fishing boats and in the winter season, when fishing is not active, he also captains cargo boats and off-shore tug boats. He also buys and sells boats on his own. He knows and is a close friend of Kendal Sanborn, the sale of whose property gave rise to this case. Mr. Sanborn is a real estate developer from Atlanta and Respondent works for him periodically as a fishing boat captain. When Mr. Sanborn comes to the Panama City area, he generally stays with or in quarters belonging to Respondent. At the time in question, Mr. Sanborn owed Respondent a considerable amount of money for fishing trips, tackle, and rental on the property he rents from Respondent. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sanborn currently is indebted to Respondent for the same type of things. The transaction in question here was the only one in which Respondent has been involved for anyone other than himself since his license became inactive. He has never submitted any other advertisement listing his telephone number for real estate transactions (just for boats) since that time. Respondent's involvement in the one transaction in issue took place because Mr. Sanborn was indebted to him at the time for a sum substantially larger than the $2,000.00 he received. He acted as he did here both as a favor to Mr. Sanborn, who wanted to sell his property, and, also, to facilitate getting the money which was owed to him.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Roger W. Dart's license as a real estate salesman in Florida be suspended for a period of six months and that he be ordered to pay an administrative fine of $250.00. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 26th day of September, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 26th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Glenn L. Hess, Esq. 9108 West Highway 98 Panama City, Florida 32407 Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore Carpino. Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issue presented in this case concerns whether the Department of Banking and Finance’s application of Section 717.124(5), Florida Statutes, as amended effective October 1, 2001, to claims filed prior to October 1, 2001, but paid after October 1, 2001, is an unpromulgated rule in violation of Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Computer Mart Claim 1.(A) On or about September 4, 2001, Petitioner filed a claim on behalf of Computer Mart, Inc., for unclaimed property account number 3563-1994-44 in the amount of $1,854.85 and reported in the name of Computer Mart (“the Computer Mart Claim”). Prior to the filing of the Computer Mart Claim, Computer Mart, Inc., executed an Agreement authorizing Petitioner to file the claim on its behalf. Petitioner obtained a bankruptcy search for Florida Central Realty, formerly known as Computer Mart. On or about October 12, 2001, the Department approved the Computer Mart Claim. The Agreement authorized the payment of fees of thirty percent of the accounts claimed, which equaled $556.45. The remaining seventy percent of the accounts claimed equaled $1,298.40. On or about October 19, 2001, the Department issued a warrant in the amount of $556.45 to Petitioner. On or about October 19, 2001, the Department issued a warrant in the amount of $1,298.40 to Computer Mart, Inc. Diversified Claim 2.(A) On or about September 4, 2001, Petitioner filed a claim on behalf of Diversified Hospitality Group, Inc., for unclaimed property account numbers 6467-96-31364, 1165-92- 2634, 1165-92-2241, 1165-92-24712, and 1165-92-1871 in the aggregate amount of $4,165.60 and reported in the name of Diversified Hospitality or Diversified Hospitality Group (“the Diversified Claim”). Prior to the filing of the Diversified Claim, Diversified Hospitality Group, Inc., executed an Agreement authorizing Petitioner to file the claim on its behalf. Petitioner obtained a bankruptcy search for Diversified Hospitality Group, Inc. On or about October 8, 2001, the Department approved the Diversified Claim. The Agreement authorized the payment of fees of thirty percent of the accounts claimed, which equaled $1,249.68. The remaining seventy percent of the accounts claimed equaled $2,915.92. On or about October 19, 2001, the Department issued a warrant in the aggregate amount of $1,249.68 to Petitioner. On or about October 19, 2001, the Department issued a warrant in the aggregate amount of $2,915.92 to Diversified Hospitality Group, Inc. Charde Claim 3.(A) On or about November 13, 2001, Petitioner filed a claim on behalf of Charde, Inc., for unclaimed property account number 4432-00-2 in the amount of $1,641.47 and reported in the name of Charde, Inc. (“the Charde Claim”). Prior to the filing of the Charde Claim, Charde, Inc., executed an Agreement authorizing Petitioner to file the claim on its behalf. Petitioner obtained a bankruptcy search for Charde, Inc. On or about November 13, 2001, the Department approved the Charde Claim. The Agreement authorized the payment of fees in the amount of $125.00. After the deduction of fees, the remaining amount equals $1,516.47. On or about November 20, 2001, the Department issued a warrant in the amount of $125.00 to Petitioner. On or about November 20, 2001, the Department issued a warrant in the amount of $1,516.47 to Charde, Inc. MTS Claim 4.(A) On or about July 11, 2001, Petitioner filed a claim on behalf of MTS Roofing and Installation Corporation, for unclaimed property account number 1495-96-83 in the amount of $1,000.00 and reported in the name of MTS Roofing Corporation (“the MTS Claim”). Prior to the filing of the MTS Claim, MTS Roofing and Installation Corporation, executed an Agreement authorizing Petitioner to file the claim on its behalf. Petitioner obtained a bankruptcy search for MTS Roofing and Installation Corporation On or about November 7, 2001, the Department approved the MTS Claim. The Agreement authorized the payment of fees of thirty percent of the accounts claimed, which equaled $300.00. The remaining seventy percent of the accounts claimed equaled $700.00. On or about November 14, 2001, the Department issued a warrant in the amount of $300.00 to Petitioner. On or about November 14, 2001, the Department issued a warrant in the amount of $700.00 to MTS Roofing & Installation Corp.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Jack L. Goodwin, is registered as an inactive real estate broker, holding license number 0032656. In 1975 the Respondent was found guilty of the crime of possession of a stolen motor vehicle. He served six months in the Broward County jail, and was placed on probation for five years. This term of probation was terminated by the court in 1978. On December 29, 1978, the Respondent received a restoration of his civil rights by the State of Florida. The Respondent's present license was applied for in 1979. In this application, the Respondent made full disclosure of his conviction, sentence, and early termination of the probationary term. A copy of the Certificate of Restoration of Civil Rights was also submitted as part of this application. A broker's license was issued to the Respondent on September 17, 1979. Previously, and for a period of approximately seven years, the Respondent held a real estate salesman's license. This license was superceded by the broker's license in 1979. Based upon the uncontroverted testimony of the Respondent, the circumstances surrounding his arrest for possession of a stolen motor vehicle are as follows. The subject vehicle was purchased by the Respondent from persons whom he thought to be legitimate automobile brokers. Sometime thereafter he discovered that the vehicle had been stolen. When the Respondent attempted to sell this vehicle to another party, he was arrested. There is no evidence that the Respondent stole the vehicle initially.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against Jack L. Goodwin be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 24th day of May, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack L. Goodwin 1560 S.W. 19th Street Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this order closing file is entitled to Judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Agency Clerk of the Department of Management Services, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950, and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Order Closing File was filed in the official records of the Department of Management Services and copies were furnished to: Larry D. Scott, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Management Services, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950; Jane M. Letwin, Esquire, 5426 SW 25" Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312, and Judge Claude B. Arrington, Division of Administrative Hearings, the DeSoto net Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060, this | a day of Quis, Us? ‘ , 2009. Debbie Shoup Clerk Department of Management Services (850) 487-1082 2 of 2 Jul 11 2009 11:41 a7/11/2889° 12:23 9549617454 PACK-SHIP&BEYOND PAGE 91/03 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS GLORIA MARSHALL, Petitioner CASE NO: 08-3716 JUDGE ARRINGTON v. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT. Respondent. / PETITIONER’S AMENDED NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER, GLORIA MARSHALL, through undersigned counsel, hereby files this AMENDED PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, on the following grounds: 1. Petitioner Marshall is not working for the employer since June of 2008, when she retired after a long career as an employee of the Broward County School Board. Most of the documents to be used in this petition are already in possession of Respondent and the attorney for Petitioner. 2. Petitioner patiently and conscientiously worked as an adult ed teacher from 1981 through 2005, a period of some twenty four years. EXHIBIT att Jul 11 2009 11:41 @7/11/2889 12:23 9549617454 PACK-SHIP&BEYOND PAGE 62/83 3. In view of the relationship between the Repondent and Petitioner, who has been enrolled several times in the FRS, Petitioner contends that the Respondent exercise its fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the member by not opposing this dismissal without prejudice. 4. Petitioner contends that no prejudice to Respondent will result. 5. No expenses have been incurred thus far other than the transmission of employment records by the Respondent to undersigned counsel, and those will not change. If a plan has been proposed for the case by Respondent, that plan can be laid aside and will serve the same purpose in the future. 6. In light of the circumstances which prevail, to insist on the prosecution of this petition at this time will not serve the interests of justice. 7. Petitioner has indicated that she is unable to assist in this petition until the month of December 2009. 8, In addition, the goal sought in these proceedings is a very precious one, that is, a pension and social security fund which will influence the comfort or lack thereof of this petitioner’s last years, and is worthy of the Court’s indulgence in acknowledging this dismissal without prejudice. BASED ON THE FOREGOING recitation of facts, Petitioner files this ‘ Amended Notice of Voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Jul 11 2009 11:42 97/11/2009 12:23 9549617454 PACK-SHIP&BEYOND PAGE 43/03 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been fax-filed with the Department of Administrative Hearings and e-mailed to 850 922 6312, to Larry Dz. Scott, Esq., Asst. General counsel to DMS, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Eleventh day of July, 2009. LAW OFFICE OF JANE M. LETWIN Attorney for Petitioner: Florida Bar Number 990329 5426 SW 25" Avenue, Fort Lauderdale Fl 33312 Phone: 954 245 8495: Fax: 954 301 8401 E-mail; Janeletwintv@aol.com By * ou Jane M. Letwin
