The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Robert M. Johnson (Johnson) served as Florida State Senator for District 25 from 1984 to 1992. His local legislative office was located in Sarasota. From 1988 through 1992, Martha Hetrick, Roma Issacs and Donna Peacock were employed by Johnson as executive secretaries. Included among their duties was the preparation of travel reimbursement vouchers. Martha Hetrick, Johnson's executive secretary from December 1984 until June 1988, had previously worked for the state and was familiar with how to complete travel vouchers. She reviewed Johnson's legislative calendar to identify legislative trips. The legislative calendar did not contain any mileage figures for any specific trip or for travel to or from any specific destination. The mileage amounts for a new destination were initially calculated by her by using a street and highway map, together with a ruler. Once a mileage amount for a destination was calculated, it was not remeasured. Instead, previously prepared travel vouchers were used for specific mileages, and recurring destinations and their mileage were put on a chart. This procedure for preparing vouchers for local legislative travel was passed on by Ms. Hetrick to her successor, Roma Issacs, who in turn passed this procedure to her successor, Donna Peacock. When Ms. Hetrick completed a travel reimbursement, it contained information identifying the date, destination, purpose and mileage for each trip. The completed voucher would be placed in Johnson's "to sign" folder. Johnson never asked Ms. Hetrick to falsify any mileage on the travel vouchers when she prepared them for him. Johnson told her to be careful and accurate in the completion of the travel vouchers. Donna Peacock served as Johnson's executive secretary from January of 1990 until April 30, 1992. Her duties included the preparation of travel reimbursement vouchers. Her predecessor, Roma Issacs, trained Ms. Peacock in completing Johnson's travel vouchers. Ms. Issacs gave Ms. Peacock a list of destinations and mileage figures and showed her where the old travel vouchers were kept. Ms. Peacock reviewed Johnson's calendar to determine the destinations for his trips and prepared the voucher with the date and mileage. The mileage utilized came from the list of destinations and mileage figures which were given to her by Ms. Issacs. She placed the completed travel vouchers in a folder for Johnson to take home and sign. Neither Johnson nor anyone in his office asked Ms. Peacock to do anything improper with respect to travel vouchers. From 1988 to 1992, Johnson signed travel reimbursement vouchers and submitted them to the Joint Legislative Management Committee for payment for local legislative travel. These vouchers routinely listed inflated mileage claims for Johnson's local legislative travel. Johnson never personally prepared any travel voucher nor did he provide the specific mileage amounts to his legislative staff to be placed on the individual vouchers. On 22 occasions from July 1988 to December 1990, Johnson submitted travel vouchers for payment listing the round-trip distance from his local legislative office to the Mote Marine Laboratory as 38 miles when the actual round-trip distance is just under nine miles. Between July 1988 and June 1990, Johnson's vouchers contained six round-trips between his local legislative office and St. Armands Circle with distance ranging from 32 miles to 38 miles, while the actual mileage is six miles. Two of Johnson's travel vouchers listed six miles as the round-trip distance between his local legislative office and the Sarasota City Hall. The actual distance is less than one-half mile. Twelve of Johnson's travel vouchers were for trips from his local legislative office to the Asolo Performing Arts Center, the Ringling Museum, and the Sudakoff Center. Johnson's travel vouchers listed the round-trip mileage as 17, 18, and 22 miles, respectively, for those destinations. The farthest trip was to the Sudakoff Center which involves an 8.8 mile round trip from Johnson's office. On 14 occasions, Respondent traveled from his local legislative office to Longboat Key and back. Johnson's travel reimbursement vouchers claimed round-trip mileage ranging from 32 to 35 miles when the actual round-trip mileage from Johnson's office to Longboat Key's Town Hall and back is just over 16 miles. Two of Johnson's travel reimbursement vouchers listed the round-trip mileage between Johnson's office and the Gulf Gate Mall as 22 miles when it is actually only 13 miles. Each travel voucher contained the following statement: I hereby certify or affirm that above expenses were actually incurred by me as necessary traveling expenses in the performance of my official duties; attendance at a conference or convention was directly related to official duties of the agency; any meals or lodging included in a conference or convention registration fee have been deducted from this travel claim; and that this claim is true and correct in every material matter and same confirms in every respect with the requirements of Section 112.061, Florida Statutes. Johnson reviewed the travel vouchers by looking at the "left column of the travel voucher" to make sure that the trips listed related to Senate business. If he noted a trip which involved a political or personal activity, Johnson directed that the trip be deleted from the travel voucher. He did not specifically review the dates listed. Johnson assumed that the mileages listed were correct. His assumption was based on the fact that every employee of the Senate were required to read the Joint Legislative Management Committee policy manual which includes travel policies. In the latter part of 1990, Donna Peacock noticed a discrepancy between the claimed mileage and the actual mileage as a result of driving Johnson to various events and locations. She told Johnson, and he advised her to "fix it." Thereafter Ms. Peacock corrected the travel voucher and her master list of mileages whenever she noted a discrepancy. Sometime in 1991, Johnson told Ms. Peacock not to include claims for less than four miles on the travel vouchers. From mid-year 1991 to the end of 1991, Johnson's claims for local travel claims did decrease; however, his actual travel did not decrease. On September 5, 1992, during Johnson's reelection campaign, a story appeared in the Sarasota Herald Tribune stating that during the period of 1988 through 1990, Johnson routinely filed travel reimbursement vouchers containing erroneous local mileage. The day before the article appeared, Johnson received correspondence from his political opponent, indicating that the voters would not appreciate knowing about the travel vouchers. Johnson thereafter instructed his legislative aides, to review all of his travel vouchers for the years 1987 through 1992 for local mileage accuracy. Johnson instructed his aides to review all claims for local travel, and to identify for refund any inaccuracies. He also instructed his aides to identify for refund any trip shorter than four miles, and to resolve any uncertainties in favor of the State. In a check payable to the Joint Legislative Management Committee, and dated September 11, 1992, Johnson voluntarily remitted the sum of $2,331.16 to reimburse the State for erroneous local travel payments received by him during the years of 1988 through 1992. The State Attorney's office for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, at Johnson's request, investigated whether there was sufficient evidence to file criminal charges against him for violating Section 112.61(10), Florida Statutes, by submitting fraudulent mileage claims. Although expressing the opinion that Johnson's record keeping and voucher preparation were unquestionably sloppy, the State Attorney's office concluded that there was no evidence to demonstrate that Johnson knowingly committed a criminal act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED a Final Order and Public Report be entered finding that Robert Johnson did not violate Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, and dismissing the compliant filed against him. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2390EC To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the Respondent's Proposed findings of fact: Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: The first half of the first sentence is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 11-14: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 15: The second sentence is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 16-18: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 19: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 20-22: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 23-24: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 25: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 26: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 27: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 28: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The second, third, and fourth sentences are rejected as not supported by credible testimony. The fifth and sixth sentences are accepted in substance. The seventh sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The last sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraph 29: The first sentence is accepted in substance to the extent that there was a reduction in the travel claimed from mid 1991 to the end of 1991. The second and third sentences are rejected as not necessary. The fourth and fifth sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 30: The last sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 31: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. COPIES FURNISHED: John E. Griffin, Esquire Special Advocate Commission on Ethics 3840 North Monroe Street, Suite 304 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Mark Herron, Esquire Post Office Box 10555 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2555 Carrie Stillman Complaint Coordinator Commission on Ethics Post Office Box 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Ethics Commission Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Findings Of Fact Santa Cruz Marketing, Inc., d/b/a SMI (hereinafter referred to as SMI), a Delaware corporation, is located at Suite 29, 1280 South Powerline Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069. Although SMI began operating as a business in Florida in December of 1988, it was not authorized to do business in Florida until December of 1991. At all times material hereto, Edward Winders has been the president/secretary, Jim Winders has been the vice president/treasurer, and Cecil Butler has been the general manager for SMI. Edward Winders and Jim Winders each own 50% of the stock of SMI. Cecil Butler has no ownership interest in SMI and is simply a salaried employee. Edward Winders and Jim Winders are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the business. Although Cecil Butler has some unidentified level of supervisory responsibility over some of the other employees, no evidence was offered that he in any way participates in management decisions regarding the operation of the business itself. SMI advertises by placing ads in newspapers throughout the United States. Its ad reads as follows: "Easy credit card, cash advance, $5000 credit line, no credit check! Call 1-800-347-0773." SMI's business operations consist of the following units: the origination department, the customer service department, the clerical section, and the shipping section. When a call is placed using the toll-free number, that telephone call is answered by an account representative in the origination department. A written script called a credit card presentation is utilized by the account representative. The account representatives do not deviate from that script. The account representative obtains basic information from the caller, gives a brief program description, and then causes to be sent a packet of information called the first mailer to the caller. The script utilized by the account representative, however, does not tell the account representative how to answer questions from the callers. No evidence was offered as to any procedures SMI may have in place for assuring the correctness of answers given to callers' questions. The credit card presentation script tells the caller that he or she has reached the "easy credit card division," advises the caller that "our credit card offers a $5,000 line of credit which includes cash advance availability, now our major credit cards are also available regardless of credit history!", advises the caller that there are no annual fees and that the lifetime membership is a "one time processing fee," advises the caller that he or she is participating in a "limited membership drive," and advises the caller that "all the information on our credit card will be in your package along with our customer service number." The first mailer greets the "prospective member," refers to SMI's credit card program, encloses a pre-approved application, sets forth the amount of SMI's "lifetime membership fee," encloses a "100% money-back guarantee certificate," encourages the recipient to return his or her application and membership fee within 10 days, and promises a $100 gift certificate usable on the charge balance. The lifetime membership fee is $75 if paid by money order or cashier's check and $85 if paid by personal check or C.O.D. No further information is given regarding the details of SMI's "credit card program." An enclosure in the first mailer is a one-page sheet entitled "Special Notice." It features a facsimile of a Visa card and a facsimile of a MasterCard card. The short text includes the following language: Mail today and receive all these privileges. *CASH ADVANCES *VISA CARD AVAILABLE *MASTERCARD AVAILABLE *$100.00 MERCHANDISE CERTIFICATE *ADD POSITIVE INFORMATION ON YOUR CREDIT REPORT HAPPY SHOPPING!!!! The enclosed return envelope is directed to Santa Cruz Marketing, Inc. The line underneath that states that the envelope is going to "SMI Card Distribution Center." If the recipient does not immediately comply, a second mailer is sent five days later. The enclosures are the same as in the first mailer. The "dear prospective member" letter is different and is "just a friendly reminder that we have not received your lifetime membership fee for your pre-approved $5,000 credit card." It encourages the recipient to "take advantage of this unique credit card offer!" and advises the recipient that if the recipient's deadline has already expired, then a call should be placed to SMI's customer service department at a non-toll-free number. After the recipient submits the pre-approved application and pays the membership fee, he or she then receives the membership package. That package begins with a letter greeting the "new card member" and contains the following introductory paragraph: Welcome to the wonderful world of home shopping with your SMI credit card. As a preferred card member, you are offered the opportunity to purchase merchandise from our fantastic color catalogues filled with a wide variety of items. Attached to the letter is an SMI credit card. That letter is the first advice given by SMI to its new "lifetime member" that he or she has paid $75 to join a home shopping club. The letter further advises the recipient that purchasing merchandise from SMI's catalogues will "enable you to establish that A+ credit rating you have always desired, but which may have been denied to you in the past." The letter further advises that SMI will submit monthly statements to the member and that the member can then pay 10% of the balance (with a minimum payment of $15) or the balance can be paid in full. The letter also advises that the new member will pay no interest charges on his or her purchases, "but please remember in order to help you establish your A+ credit rating, your payments must be made on time." The membership packet also contains two merchandise catalogues, an order form, and a price list. According to the price list and the terms of SMI's home shopping program, two prices are available to an SMI member. For each item, the member may pay a specified cash price and a specified shipping charge. Alternatively, the member can pay a credit price, which is higher than the cash price. If the member chooses to purchase the item on credit, the member will pay the higher price as follows: the member includes with his or her order form a specified portion of the credit price as a down payment on the item, with the balance of the credit price being charged to the member's charge account. The member paying the higher credit price will also pay the specified shipping charge. The promised $100 merchandise certificate is included in the membership packet. The certificate specifies that it can only be applied to the credit portion of an order after the down payment for that order is paid and that the certificate is void after 30 days from the date on which the membership was issued. The membership packet includes, for the first time, a description of SMI's cash advance program. The description of that cash advance program begins as follows: Once you have established a sufficient credit record with SMI, you will be extended 'cash advance privileges'. Simply prove your credit worthiness by shopping with your SMI credit card. All you have to do is, charge and pay for at least $500.00 of purchases of your unpaid balance. Once you have done that, you have qualified for a cash advance of $250.00. CASH ADVANCES OFFERS Immediate cash No interest charge Low monthly payments No processing fee Cash advances up to $2,500.00 According to the program, a cash advance of $2,500 would only be available if a member had charged and paid for $5,000 worth of purchases. The flyer also recites that the $100 merchandise certificate does not apply to cash advances. The next flyer contained in the membership packet is entitled "Qualify for a Visa or MasterCard." That flyer features facsimiles of both a MasterCard and a Visa card. The description of that portion of SMI's program begins as follows: Simply prove your credit worthiness by using your SMI Credit card. Just charge and pay for at least $750.00 of your unpaid balance. It's as simple as that! Once you have established a sufficient credit record, you will be sent a 'GOOD CREDIT REFERENCE LETTER' that you can use when applying for credit elsewhere. Plus, you will receive a 'MAJORITY APPROVED' application for a visa or mastercard with 'NO SECURITY DEPOSIT REQUIRED.' UNSECURED - NO SECURITY DEPOSIT REQUIRED (WE WILL DO IT FOR YOU) A $380.00 IMMEDIATE CREDIT LINE CASH ADVANCES COMPETITIVE INTEREST RATES ONE TIME PROCESSING CHARGE ONLY $35.00 ANNUAL CHARGE MAJORITY APPROVED WE ARE SO SURE THAT YOU WILL BE APPROVED THAT WE WILL SEND YOU A 'CASHIERS CHECK FOR $380.00' IF YOU DO NOT QUALIFY. The flyer points out that the $100 merchandise certificate does not apply to this part of the program. Another flyer contained in the membership packet explains a second way in which a member can qualify for a Visa or MasterCard as follows: New Collateralized Credit Card Program You Can Now Obtain a Major Bank Credit Card even though you may have previously been turned down! Under the 'collateralized credit card program' the member may obtain a secured major bank credit card which 'requires a security deposit equal to your initial credit limits.' If the member returns the coupon requesting details, SMI provides the name of another company, Access Credit Card Company, which company would charge an additional fee to provide the member with an application from New Era Bank. If the member followed that procedure, he or she would most likely obtain a Visa or MasterCard bank card from New Era Bank with a credit limit equal to the amount of money the member was willing to deposit in New Era Bank since that bank approves the majority of such applications. The membership packet contains three additional flyers. The first one relates to the SMI jewelry catalogue and explains that most gold items are sold by weight at current gold market prices, that prices fluctuate daily with the market, and that the member should check with SMI's ordering department by phone to receive current market prices. The second flyer gives the member information on joining the Select Coupon Club by paying a membership fee of $19.95 and receiving coupons for use at the supermarket. The third flyer describes a program whereby the member can pay $14.95 postage and handling and receive a Hotel Express Membership Directory and membership discount at participating hotels and resorts. A customer cannot obtain an SMI credit card prior to payment of the $75 membership fee. A customer cannot obtain credit for purchasing products from SMI's catalogues prior to payment of the membership fee. The SMI catalogues, received after payment of the fee, are not available to the general public. The customer is not informed prior to paying the membership fee, either during telephone conversations with SMI account representatives or from the first two mailers, that the credit card which the customer would receive can only be used to purchase goods from the two SMI catalogues. Although prospective members are advised in the first and second mailers that Visa and MasterCard cards are available, they are not told how they can obtain such cards until after they have paid their fee. Until after payment of the fee, they are not told that they can obtain a secured, i.e., a fully collateralized bank card by depositing in that bank monies equivalent to the credit limit then extended to them by the bank. Customers are not told prior to the payment of their membership fee, either by SMI account representatives during telephone conversations or in the first or second mailers, that the obtaining of a secured Visa or MasterCard card from New Era Bank will also require the payment of a processing fee and will carry a minimum $500 deposit requirement. Until after payment of the fee, they are not told that the alternative is to charge and pay for $750 worth of merchandise from SMI's two catalogues (not including the amount paid as a down payment on each item purchased) which amounts to $850 worth of charged merchandise if the customer uses the $100 gift certificate, in exchange for SMI then giving the customer a letter saying the customer is a good credit risk, which the customer can then present in applying for credit elsewhere. No evidence was offered that any other organization considers SMI's letter of recommendation meaningful. Prior to the payment of the fee, the prospective member is not advised that the cash advances which he or she would become entitled to receive are limited to an amount of one-half of the total balance the member has paid on the member's SMI charge account balance. No member has received a cash advance from SMI. No members have obtained a Visa or MasterCard card by charging and then paying for $750 worth of products from SMI's catalogues. Other than those documents previously described, no other documents, contracts, or statements are provided by SMI to prospective members or members. SMI purchases the products found in its catalogues at the distributorship cost, a lower price than members pay for the products when they purchase from SMI. As of July 1, 1991, SMI had 12,567 members. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, SMI had over fifteen thousand members. Eighty-four members had purchased items from the SMI catalogues. Petitioner received a consumer complaint regarding SMI in February of 1990. On June 28, 1990, Petitioner served on SMI a subpoena requesting that SMI provide to Petitioner the following information: Name of surety bonding company, location of surety bond and copy of surety bond; location and account number of Florida escrow account, proof of account; copy of information statement and consumer contract. SMI was unable to respond to the subpoena by providing that information because it did not have those items. SMI did respond to the subpoena, however, by providing copies of its advertising and the materials used in its mailers and membership packages. SMI further obtained a bond pursuant to Petitioner's direction to do so. In a series of letters from SMI's attorney to Petitioner, SMI submitted revised advertising and revised informational documents requesting Petitioner's approval of the revisions to bring SMI in compliance with the Department's requirements. The Department failed to respond to SMI's requests. Rather, on March 21, 1991, the Department served on Jim Winders and Cecil Butler an Administrative Complaint for Entry of a Cease and Desist Order and Imposing Penalties, alleging that Jim Winders and Cecil Butler were operating as a credit service organization without fully complying with Chapter 817, Florida Statutes. Jim Winders and Cecil Butler timely requested a formal hearing, and this cause was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. While this administrative proceeding was pending, on July 1, 1991, the activities of loan brokers became regulated, and responsibility therefor was assigned to the Department. On August 12, 1991, the Department filed its Amended Complaint for Entry of a Cease and Desist Order and Imposing Penalties which included the allegations in the original Administrative Complaint, named SMI as a Respondent for the first time, added allegations that the three Respondents were operating as loan brokers, and further added allegations that the three Respondents were operating as retail sellers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered Finding Respondents SMI and Jim Winders guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Complaint for Entry of a Cease and Desist Order and Imposing Penalties as described in this Recommended Order; Finding Respondent Cecil Butler not guilty of the allegations contained within the Amended Complaint for Entry of a Cease and Desist Order and Imposing Penalties; Ordering Respondent SMI to cease and desist from violations of the statutes regulating the operation of credit service organizations, loan brokers, and retail sellers; Ordering Respondent Jim Winders to cease and desist from violations of the statutes regulating the operation of credit services organizations and loan brokers; Imposing an administrative fine against Respondent SMI in the sum of $90,000 to be paid by a date certain; and Imposing an administrative fine against Respondent Jim Winders in the sum of $6,000 to be paid by a date certain. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-30, 34-46, 56, 57, 59- 66, 71-83, 85-89, and 91 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 31, 32, 95, and 96 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 33 and 97 have been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 84, 90, 92-94, and 111 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 47-55, 58, and 67-70 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 98-106 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 107-110 have been rejected as not being supported by any competent evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 4-11 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 12-19 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Bridget L. Ryan, Esquire Richard Bisbee, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Jan Peter Weiss, Esquire Parkway Plaza-Suite 21 1280 South Powerline Road Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all relevant times, respondent, Passport Internationale, Inc. (Passport or respondent), was a seller of travel registered with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). As such, it was required to post a performance bond with the Department conditioned on the performance of contracted services. In this case, petitioner, Edmund Houze, has filed a claim against the bond for $348.00 alleging that Passport failed to perform on certain contracted services. In response to a promotion run by an Augusta, Georgia merchant, petitioner filled out a card for a "free" trip to the Bahamas, plus four days accommodation in Daytona Beach and Orlando. Thereafter, he was contacted by Caribbean Sun Tours (CST), a telemarketeer operating out of Tampa, Florida. During his conversation with a CST representative, petitioner was told that if he could not confirm his requested travel dates, his money would be refunded. On November 6, 1990, petitioner agreed to buy a travel certificate entitling the holder to a five-day, four-night vacation package to the Bahamas, plus four nights lodging in Florida. The certificate cost $399.00, and petitioner sent a check in that amount to CST. The certificate issued by CST carried the name, address and logo of Passport. At hearing, Passport contended that CST had "got hold" of some of Passport's travel certificates from another telemarketeer and was reselling them to travelers without Passport's authorization. Passport conceded, however, that it honored all certificates sold by CST, including petitioner's certificate. Accordingly, it is found that CST was acting as an agent on behalf of Passport. On June 1, 1991, petitioner sent Passport a deposit in the amount of $140.00 with his reservation for the cruise and land accommodations. He selected August 5-8, 1991, as the dates on which he desired to travel to Florida. He was told by Passport that the dates were unavailable. Further efforts by petitioner to find an acceptable date for travel were unsuccessful. At that point, and consistent with the representation made by Passport's agent, petitioner requested a refund of his money. He also filed a complaint with the Department. Passport agreed to refund petitioner the $140.00 deposit. Passport has denied liability for the remaining $348.00 on the theory that CST never sent it the money, and that company has gone out of business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the claim of petitioner against the bond of respondent be granted, and that he be paid $348.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Edmund Houze Route 1, Box 481 Reidsville, Georgia 30453 Michael J. Panaggio 2441 Bellevue Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Robert G. Worley, Esquire 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue At issue is whether respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Phillip Bantu Gilbert, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0460883. Respondent's licensure status On May 13, 1992, respondent applied to the Department for licensure as a real estate broker. As part of that application, respondent was required to make an election with regard to whether, upon successful completion of the examination, he would be actively employed or preferred an inactive broker's license. Specifically, the application provided: EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION You must select one of the following options for your first license which automatically will be mailed as notice of passing the exam- ination, together with your examination score. The receipt of either license will establish your broker's status. You may immediately file a request to change employer, register as a real estate broker (sole proprietorship), or become a broker-member of a corporation or partnership, at no additional charge. [ ] I will continue my present employment as a broker-salesman. (ATTACH COPY of your current salesman's license or Validated Confirmation Slip.) [x] I wish to be issued an inactive broker's license and understand that it may be converted to a broker's or broker-sales- man's license if I file and request same when notified that I have passed the examination. Respondent elected the second option, to be issued an inactive broker's license. Respondent successfully completed the examination, and on December 21, 1992, was issued his broker license. Such licenses do not carry any legend reflecting active or inactive status; however, due to his election, which evidenced no current real estate employment or place of business, respondent's status was inactive. Following licensure, respondent began to actively operate as a broker, under the name Bantu Enterprises, at 150 Northwest 56th Street, Miami Shores, Florida. Bantu Enterprises, of which respondent is president and founder, is a Florida corporation, and has never been registered as a trade name or real estate brokerage company by the Department. Respondent's license continued in a voluntary inactive status until, following the investigation hereinafter discussed, he applied to the Department for active status. That application, filed March 1, 1994, identified the name and business address of the owner/broker as Phillip B. Gilbert, 150 Northwest 56 Street, Miami, Florida. The Morong transaction On or about June 14, 1993, Chester Morong and Lynette Morong, his wife, submitted an offer to purchase certain real property located at 700 Northwest 55 Avenue, Plantation, Florida, to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for $177,250.00. Such offer was submitted through Bantu Enterprises, with Phillip B. Gilbert noted as the principal broker and sales person, and reflected an earnest money deposit of $1,500.00 being held by the broker. On June 30, 1993, respondent was advised by the VA that the Morong offer had been accepted for processing, and respondent was accorded three business days to present the Morongs to an authorized VA lender to process their offer. Respondent apparently complied with such requirement, and on August 4, 1993, the VA advised respondent that the Morongs had been approved to purchase the property and a closing date of August 13, 1993, was established. On August 9, 1993, the VA sent by overnight express to respondent, as the broker of record, the closing package. Under established procedure, respondent was to close the transaction, and then return to the VA, within 10 days of the closing, the closing package, the proceeds due the VA, and a recording receipt for any legal instruments that were recorded. On August 13, 1993, Mr. Morong requested of respondent that the closing be postponed for fourteen days. According to Mr. Morong, a hurricane had destroyed his parents' home in Trinidad the previous weekend, and he had been required to use the closing monies, among others, to provide them assistance. Respondent assured Mr. Morong that the time for closing could be extended; and on some date between August 13 and August 16, 1993, secured the Morongs' signatures to the closing documents in anticipation of closing. Among those documents was a mortgage deed to secure the repayment of the VA financing and a mortgage note in the sum of $175,750.00. On August 16, 1993, the VA contacted respondent's office and advised that there might be a title problem, and that the closing might have to be postponed to see if the problem could be resolved. According to the VA, respondent's office manager informed them that Mr. Gilbert told her to inform the VA that the sale had closed. In fact, the sale had not closed at that time. At or about 2:30 a.m., August 17, 1993, respondent telephoned Mr. Morong and stated he had received a call from the VA and that if he didn't have the closing costs the next day he (respondent) would quit claim the property to another person. On August 17, 1993, Mr. Morong telephoned the VA and learned that there might be a title problem with the property, associated with a bankruptcy. Acting on that advice, Mr. Morong delivered a letter to Mr. Gilbert that same day, which letter stated: Without prejudice I would like to formally withdraw my offer to close on the purchase of the above captioned property. This decision though saddening for us . . . was arrived at due to the attending problems with the property. I would like the urgent return of my $1500 earnest money. I also would like to bid on another property. On August 19, 1993, Mr. Morong was given a check, post-dated for August 21, 1993, on the account of Bantu Enterprises, in the sum of $1,500.00, for return of his escrow deposit. That check was subsequently negotiated and paid. Respondent did not advise the VA of Mr. Morong's withdrawal of the offer to purchase or his return of Mr. Morong's earnest money deposit. Had he done so, the closing on this property would not have occurred and the VA would have offered the property to the next highest bidder (offeror). Under such circumstances, respondent would have lost the six percent commission he anticipated from the transaction. Subsequent to Mr. Morong's withdrawal of his offer to purchase on August 17, 1993, respondent proceeded to close on the property, without the Morongs' consent. In so doing, respondent caused the special warranty deed from the VA to the Morongs, as well as the mortgage previously executed by the Morongs, to be recorded in the public records of Broward County, Florida. Thereafter, on August 26, 1993, respondent caused a quit claim deed, dated August 18, 1993, between Chester Morong and Lynette Morong, his wife, as grantors and Beverly A. Henry, a single woman, as grantee, to be recorded in the public records. That quit claim deed, prepared by respondent's brokerage, is a fraudulent document since the signatures affixed to the quit claim deed purporting to be those of Mr. and Mrs. Morong are forgeries, as the Morongs never executed any such document. On August 23, 1993, the VA received the closing package back from respondent, along with the settlement proceeds. Facially, the documents reflected that the sale had closed on August 13, 1993, and that Chester Morong and Lynette Morong, his wife, were the owners of the property. No reference was made to the transfer to Ms. Henry, and no request was made, at the time, for an assumption of mortgage package. The investigation of respondent's records and escrow accounts Following a complaint from Mr. Morong, after he discovered that the closing had occurred as heretofore discussed, a Department investigator commenced an audit of respondent's business practices. Among the items addressed by the investigator with respondent on his initial visit was a request to audit respondent's account to ascertain when Mr. Morong's $1,500.00 deposit was placed in escrow, and into what escrow account it was placed. To adequately conduct such an audit, the investigator would need respondent's bank deposit slips, monthly bank statements, case files and broker's monthly reconciliations. Respondent advised the investigator that he did not have the documents available at the time. Subsequently, on February 16, 1994, the investigator served a subpoena on respondent to compel production of the documents. That subpoena commanded that respondent produce on February 21, 1994, the following: For the period Jan. 1, 1993 to present, all sale/purchase agreements, contracts, leasing or rental agreements either closed, pending or null and void including monthly bank state- ments and cancelled checks plus monthly reconciliations of all escrow accounts and bank deposit slips. In response to the subpoena, respondent produced some bank statements and cancelled checks on an account for Bantu Enterprises, but no banking information for accounts in his name. As for the documents produced, they were fragmentary and not inclusive of the audit period, no contracts or case files were produced, and no written monthly reconciliations, as required by Rule 61J2-14.012, Florida Administrative Code, were produced. Consequently, a complete picture of respondent's activities was not presented, and the audit could not be completed. As of the date of hearing, respondent had still failed to produce the documentation requested by the subpoena, and the audit could not be completed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered which finds respondent guilty of Counts I and III through VII of the administrative complaint, and which dismisses Count II of the administrative complaint. As a penalty for such violations, respondent's broker's license should be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May 1996.
The Issue The issue for disposition is whether Barry Amos d/b/a Cloud Nine Travel violated section 559.927, F.S., by operating as a seller of travel without being registered, and if so, what remedial action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues here, Barry Amos operated a business at 4312-101 Plaza Gate Lane, Jacksonville, Florida. In the latter months of 1993, Mr. Amos was interested in starting up a travel agency. He requested information from the department and was sent a registration packet with forms and a copy of the statute and rules. On December 29, 1993, Mr. Amos wrote to the department requesting an exemption from registration based on his understanding that he was entitled to such. His letter references a telephone conversation with "Melissa" at the department and states: "She informed me that since I would not be handling ticket stock or actual payments that I would not be required to register or post the surety bond with your department." (Petitioner's composite exhibit #1) Mr. Amos did not receive his exemption; instead the department sent another letter on February 10, 1994 reiterating that the law required registration unless he provided proof that he was exempt. Joseph Nicolosi is an investigator with the department's Division of Consumer Services. On July 19, 1994 he conducted what he calls an "on-site inspection" of Mr. Amos' business. He had the information on the business but did not have a proper phone number. He looked in the yellow pages and found a listing for "Cloud 9 Travel" with a telephone number. The individual who answered Mr. Nicolosi's telephone call identified himself as Barry Amos. Mr. Nicolosi asked about coming to the office to look at brochures and to plan a trip from Jacksonville to Colorado. Mr. Amos told him that his wife would meet him someplace or send him the brochures. Mr. Amos also said that he would have to figure out the cost of the trip and call him back and that payment would be made by Mr. Nicolosi to him for the trip; he, Mr. Amos, would make the arrangements. After the telephone call was terminated, Mr. Nicolosi called Mr. Amos back a few minutes later and asked if he would accept a check as payment. Mr. Amos replied that it would be better to use a credit card but he agreed that he would accept a check. Mr. Amos concedes that when he was in business as Cloud 9, he accepted personal or cashier's checks from the public for ticket purchases. He did not accept payment from the public for what he called "services", like a commission. The checks he accepted for ticket purchases were made out to Cloud 9 Travel and were used to purchase tickets for the clients. Commissions were paid to Cloud 9 from the ticket sellers. Barry Amos ceased operation as Cloud 9 Travel in January, 1995. He never registered as a seller of travel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter its final order finding that Respondent, Barry Amos d/b/a Cloud 9 Travel, violated section 559.927, F.S., imposing an administrative fine of $250.00, requiring that Respondent continue to cease and desist until properly registered as a seller of travel and denying such registration until the administrative fine is paid. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY W. CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Jo Englander, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Mr. Barry Amos 4312-101 Plaza Gate Lane Jacksonville, Florida 32217
The Issue At issue is whether respondent committed the offense alleged in the petitioner's "notice of intent to impose administrative fine and to issue cease and desist order" and, if so, what administrative action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, is a state agency charged, inter alia, with administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 559, Part XI, Florida Statutes, regulating "sellers of travel." Here, petitioner has charged that respondent had operated as a "seller of travel" without being registered as required by Section 559.927(2), Florida Statutes. The only proof offered to support such contention at hearing was a written inspection report prepared by James Kelly, an inspector employed by petitioner. 1/ That report recited that Mr. Kelly performed an inspection of respondent's premises on November 4, 1994, that he met with Denise Arencibia (who was later identified as respondent's vice president), and that the following events transpired: Went in undercover and asked about weekend cruises. Denise gave me a brochure for the Seaward & gave me prices at $329 per person. She can make all arrangements. They will accept a cashier's check payable to Escape Travel Services. Mr. Kelly did not, however, appear at hearing or otherwise offer testimony in this case. Consequently, for the reasons discussed in the conclusions of law, there is no competent proof of record to support a finding that respondent operated as a "seller of travel" on the date of Mr. Kelly's inspection as contended by petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the charges against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September 1995.
Findings Of Fact In January 1984, Respondent Department of Transportation (DOT) published a Request for Proposal for travel services (RFP). After receiving proposals, Respondent reconsidered its financial statement requirement and returned all proposals. DOT then published a second RFP deleting the financial statement requirement. In its second RFP, Respondent stated: The Department intends to award the contract to the responsive and responsible proposer whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the Department. A responsive proposer is one who has submitted a proposal which conforms in all material respects to this Request for Proposal . . . As the best interest of the State may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all proposals or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in proposals received. Proposers are cautioned to make no assumptions unless their proposals have been evaluated as being responsive. The RFP directed that all proposals include a resume of the travel agency, explaining the abilities that make it best qualified to perform the required services and information relating to years of experience, ownership, minority ownership, volume of business, proof of membership in Air Traffic Conference (ATC) and International Air Transport Association (IATA), number of persons employed, number of persons to be assigned to DOT business, and computer/communications facilities. The required minimum services specified in the RFP included: 1) planning fares and itineraries; 2) scheduling and arranging airline and rental car reservations; 3) issuing and delivering airline tickets; 4) processing unused tickets; 5) providing sufficient direct communications to DOT; 6) providing rental car confirmation numbers; 7) ensuring social security numbers recorded on tickets; 8) providing copies of used tickets for billing reconciliation purposes; 9) providing a monthly financial statement in a prescribed format, and 10) providing monthly summary analysis of travel trends and patterns. Each travel agency was also required to list any additional services it proposed to provide that were not included in the minimal travel service requirements and to list the additional services to be incorporated in the executed contract. In order to determine the proposal which offered the most advantageous combination of services, Respondent developed a rating scale for the assignment of points to each additional service proposed according to its value (zero points for no value, one point for limited value, two points for reasonable value, and three points for significant value). Respondent intended that the agency proposing the most advantageous combination of services would receive the highest number of points and therefore award of the contract. Proposals were submitted by eight travel agencies. The proposals were evaluated by Respondent and points were assigned on the zero to three point rating scale. Intervenor's score was highest with 24 points. Petitioner's proposal was second with 14 points. Respondent initially announced its intention to award the contract to Intervenor, but thereafter advised proposers that it intended to reject all proposals and withdraw the intended award. Respondent's intent to withdraw is based on its admitted failure to announce criteria. This failure allowed bidders to obtain points for services of questionable or non-existent value. Petitioner, for example, received one point for Telex service which was not available when the proposal was submitted and still not installed at the time of final hearing. The ratings were highly subjective as indicated by the disagreement of witnesses over the value of various services. Intervenor, for example, received several points for such questionable services as a newsletter, proposed workshops and staff visits. However, Respondent's principal rater supported his reasons for assignment of points on a rational basis. He conceded only a one point change in Petitioner's score and no change in Intervenor's score. Both Intervenor and Petitioner claim advantages for the reliability and range of services provided by their computer systems. Respondent lacked the expertise necessary to resolve these competing claims with the precision demanded by Petitioner. However, the evidence offered at hearing by Petitioner in support of its claims of system superiority was largely self serving and unsubstantiated by any studies or performance data.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying the petition of Universal Travel and Tours, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 9th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas M. Beason, MOYLE, JONES & FLANIGAN 118 North Gadsden Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark A. Linsky, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William L. Grossenbacher, Esquire BORNE, RHODES, & JAFFRY Post Office Box 1140 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Paul N. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for resolution is whether DABT should record Redex lien on liquor license number 15-00129. This requires a determination of whether the lien was offered for recording more than 90 days after the date of its creation.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters herein, A. J. Liquors, Inc. held 4-COP alcoholic beverage license number 15-00129, issued by DABT. (Exhibit #2) On February 5, 1988, a security agreement was executed by A. J. Liquors, Inc. and other related corporations in favor of Redex Inc., identified in the agreement as the secured creditor. The agreement purported to grant a security interest to Redex in virtually all property, tangible and intangible, owned or later acquired by the debtor corporations. (See description of "Collateral", Exhibit #1, page 3). There is no evidence that the security interest was ever perfected or that Redex signed the agreement. A subsequent agreement, styled "Omnibus Agreement" was signed by A. J. Liquors and the other debtor corporations on May 27, 1988. This agreement recites the inability of the debtors to meet their obligations under prior agreements, including the February 5, 1988, "Security Agreement". (Exhibit 3, page 2). The terms of the Omnibus Agreement provides, among other things, that Redex would reduce the amount of outstanding obligations of A. J. Liquors and the other debtor corporations from approximately $6.4 million to $3,250,000.00. Attached to the Omnibus Agreement is a promissory note executed by the debtors in the amount of $3,250,000.00, providing for payments to Redex to commence on July 15, 1988. Also attached to the Omnibus Agreement is a detailed listing of various assets owned by the debtor corporations and intended to be assigned, transferred, or pledged to Redex. A. J. Liquors' license number 15- 00129 is described in exhibit C-1 attached to the Omnibus Agreement. Paragraph 5 of the Omnibus Agreement states: 5. Although the obligations of Debtor under the Service Agreements and Guaranties are immediately due in full, to induce Secured Creditor to agree to the provisions of Paragraphs 6 and 7 hereof, McFadden and Strohlin have agreed to immediately pledge the assets set forth in Exhibit "C-1" by executing, and by having their respective wives or James T. McFadden execute as called for, the instruments attached as Exhibits "C- 2" through "0-6" and by executing or causing to be executed any additional instrument which may be useful or necessary to perfect a security interest in favor of Secured Creditor relative to any or all assets set forth in Exhibit "C-1." (Exhibit #3, page 6) The referenced paragraphs 6 and 7 are generally covenants not to sue, except as provided in the promissory note by Redex, as secured creditor, after complete transfer of the assets. (Exhibit #3, pages 6-8). Hugh McFadden and Carl Strohlin executed the Omnibus Agreement on May 27, 1988, with the apparent authority of A. J. Liquors, Inc. Hugh McFadden signed as "President" of A. J. Liquors. Redex signed the Omnibus Agreement on July 15, 1988, as "Secured Creditor". The Statement under the signature of its president provides: "Executed by Redex, Inc. July 15, 1988, to be effective as of the day and date first above written." The date on page one is May 27, 1988. On October 11, 1988, Redex sought to record its interest in the liquor license. It submitted DBL Form F39L and the $5.00 fee. These were received by DABT's Bureau of Licensing and Records on October 12, 1988, eight-nine (89) days after Redex signed the Omnibus Agreement. On October 20, 1988, the Division advised the Petitioner that it was unable to record the lien, as it had been created on May 27, 1988, the date of the Omnibus Agreement, and more than ninety (90) days prior to the date it was presented for recording in violation of Section 561.65, F.S. Redex, as secured creditor, gave value to A. J. Liquors and the other debtors when it agreed to reduce the outstanding loans. Redex made this agreement on July 15, 1988, when it executed the Omnibus Agreement, and thereby accepted the debtors' offer. There is no evidence that Redex had the Omnibus Agreement or the liquor license in its possession prior to July 15, 1988. Redex' security interest in A. J. Liquors' license was created on July 15, 1988. The parties have agreed that if it is determined that the lien should have been recorded by the Department, the effective date of the recording will be October 12, 1988. (Joint Prehearing Statement filed March 10, 1989).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter its final order accepting for filing, effective October 12, 1988, Redex Inc.'s security interest in beverage license number 15-00129. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of April, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX The following constitute rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in paragraph 2. However, the validity of that agreement is not in issue. Adopted in Paragraph 5. Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 8. and 6. Adopted in Paragraph 11. Adopted in Paragraph 12. Adopted in Paragraph 9. Adopted by implication in Paragraph 12. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 2, except that it was never established that Redex "entered" into the agreement. Adopted by implication in Paragraph 2. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Paragraph 2. Adopted in Paragraph 3. Adopted in part in Paragraph 4. Redex did not actually "enter" in that agreement until July 15, 1988. Adopted in Paragraph 5. and 10. Adopted in Paragraph 6. Adopted in Paragraph 7 and 8. Adopted in Paragraph 9. Adopted in Paragraph 10 Adopted in Paragraph 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry P. Linscott, Esquire Beth Ball, Esquire 2300 Sun Bank Center 200 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32802 Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Harry Hooper, Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
