Findings Of Fact Russell Bruce Moncrief is licensed with Respondent as a general lines agent (2-20) and at all times here relevant was so licensed. Shortly after Respondent opened his bail bond office, he was approached by Sams who represented himself as a bounty hunter who could pick up "skips" and others the bail bondsman wanted for surrender under their bonds. Sams represented that he was a member of the Florida Assurity Association, that he so worked for several bail bondsmen and was qualified to pick up skips for bail bondsmen. Sams produced an impressive badge, business cards and arrest forms for the bondsman to sign which would authorize Sams to pick up the individuals who had skipped out on their bonds. At this time Respondent had no skips to pick up and suggested Sams contact him later; and, during the period between June and September, 1978, Sams picked up some five (5) to eight (8) individuals on whom Respondent had written a bond and returned these people to Respondent. For these services, Respondent paid Sams a percentage of the bond. This relationship with Sams terminated when the latter gave Respondent a worthless check. Subsequently, Sams learned that his "bounty hunting" was unauthorized and applied for licensure as a bail bond runner. During Petitioner's investigation of Sams' application, his association with Respondent became known and Respondent told Petitioner's agents of his relationship with Sams. This led to an investigation of Respondent and to the charges here preferred. On March 9, 14, 15 and 20, 1979, agents of Petitioner visited the office of Respondent during the morning hours and found the office closed. These times the office was visited were generally between 9:00 A.M. and 12:00 Noon. On March 9, 1979, Nelson Messimore waited at Respondent's office from 6:00 A.M. until 2:00 P.M. before the office was opened. This individual tried numerous times to call the phone number shown on a sign inside Respondent's office but received no answer. He obtained the bond desired when the office was opened. From the time he opened his bail bond office in early 1978, until he learned of the charges being investigated, Respondent had his office opened around noon by his secretary who stayed at the office until 6:00 P.M. Respondent usually arrived between 2:00 and 4:00 P.M. and kept the office open until nearly midnight. During this period he had an answering service to answer his calls 24 hours per day when the office was not open and a paging service to "beep" him when someone was trying to contact him. After learning that Petitioner's agents deemed his office hours to be in violation of Petitioner's regulations, Respondent engaged the services of another bail bondsman and had the office opened at 8:00 A.M. and it remained open during the normal working day. Respondent continued to keep the evening hours he previously used. On or about February 28, 1978, Respondent was given the jail card of Willie Frank Boone by the booking officer to use in preparing a bailbond. Boone had previously been bonded by Respondent and he was somewhat familiar with Boone's record. While the card was in his custody, Respondent thought one entry on the card was an error and interlined that item. Further perusal of the card led Respondent to realize the card had not been in error. When he returned the card to the booking officer, he told the booking officer of the changes he had made to the card. This caused considerable consternation in the booking officer and led to procedural changes to not allow custody of the jail cards to be given to bail bondsmen. The change to the jail card made by Respondent could not benefit Respondent financially or otherwise. However, the change could have affected the sentencing of the accused.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Robert Mitchell Thomas, was licensed and eligible for licensure and appointment as a limited surety agent (bail bondsman) by petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department). When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed as manager/agent of the Fort Myers office of Hamilton Bonding, Inc. (Hamilton). At hearing respondent represented he has been licensed as a bail bondsman for approximately fifteen years. The facts which underlie this dispute are as follows. On November 16, 1989, Debra Rahn, a resident of Cape Coral, Florida and the wife of Richard A. Rahn, had Richard arrested for possession of a controlled substance and/or narcotic paraphanelia. She did this so that Richard could be placed in a drug treatment program. His bond was thereafter set in the amount of $2500. In order to get Richard released from jail and placed in the drug program, Debra contacted respondent at Hamilton's Fort Myers office and, after conferring with respondent, agreed to enter into an indemnity agreement with Thomas wherein respondent, acting as agent for Hamilton, agreed to post a $2500 surety bond with the Lee County Sheriff's Department for the release of Richard. In return for this service, Debra paid respondent a premium in the amount of $250. In addition to paying the foregoing sum of money, Debra was asked to sign a blank security agreement, notice of lien and power of attorney, and to deliver to respondent the title to her 1983 Chevrolet Chevette. After doing so, she received a receipt for the premium and automobile title. Finally, Debra was told there would be no other fees for this service. A few weeks later, Debra decided she wanted off of the bond because Richard was not responding favorably to the drug treatment. She accordingly telephoned Thomas who offered her several alternatives. One alternative suggested by respondent was for Debra to file new charges against Richard so that he would be arrested and shown to be in violation of the terms of the bond. Acting on respondent's advice, in early January 1990 Debra filed additional unspecified charges against her husband. On January 10, 1990, Ronald W. Millette, a licensed bail bondsman who had worked for respondent on previous occasions, was told by respondent that Debra wanted off of the bond and to pick up Richard and return him to the Lee County jail. He was paid a $50 fee for this service. That evening Millette went to Debra's house and advised her to go to respondent's office because Richard might seek retribution against her. Later on that evening, Millette apprehended Richard and carried him to respondent's office. Respondent and Millette then transported Richard to the jail. It may be reasonably inferred from the evidence that on a later date, the obligation of the surety on the bond was released by the court. In accordance with Millette's instructions, Debra went to respondent's office the evening of January 10 and was told by respondent that Richard was handcuffed in the next room. Whether this statement was accurate is not of record. In any event, respondent told Debra she must pay an additional $250 pick-up fee or he would not return her automobile title. This amount was derived by taking ten percent of the original $2500 bond. Respondent requested this fee even though there is no evidence that he forfeited any portion of Richard's bond or that the court ordered any fees. Debra replied she did not have the money but would return on Saturday to pay the money due. On a later undisclosed date, Debra's Chevette was "totaled" in an automobile accident. Because of this, she claimed she was unable to promptly pay the $250 fee. Even so, respondent continued to make demands for the money. The record does not show whether the automobile title was returned to Debra although Millette believes another employee in respondent's office did so at a later date. On May 29, 1990, respondent sent Debra a letter in which he again demanded payment of the $250 fee. However, based upon advice from a Department employee, he apologized to her for calling the fee a "pick-up fee" and instead characterized the charge as a "principal's apprehension fee" for expenses incurred in having Millette place Richard in custody on January 10. The record reflects that on June 10, 1990, Debra sent respondent a $10 check as partial payment on the demand but the check was never cashed. There is no evidence that respondent's license has ever been disciplined during his lengthy tenure as a bail bondsman.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsections 648.44(1)(g), 648.45(2)(d), (g), (j), (l), and 648.45(3)b) and (d), Florida Statutes (1989), and that his license be suspended for ten days and a $500 administrative fine be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1991.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaints filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents are correct and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensure and regulation of limited surety agents (bail bondsmen) operating in the State of Florida. The Respondents are individually licensed as limited surety agents in Florida and are officers and directors of "Big John Bail Bonds, Inc.," a bail bond agency. In November of 1999, Gustavo Porro contacted the Respondents regarding bail for Jessie James Bray, a friend of Mr. Porro's son. Mr. Porro did not know Mr. Bray. Based on the charges against Mr. Bray, four bonds were issued, two for $1,000 each and two for $250 each, for a total bond amount of $2,500. The $1,000 bonds were related to pending felony charges and the small bonds were related to pending misdemeanor charges. Mr. Porro signed a contingent promissory note indemnifying American Bankers Insurance Company for an amount up to $2,500 in the event of bond forfeiture. Bray did not appear in court on the scheduled date and the two $1,000 bonds were forfeited. For reasons unclear, the two $250 bonds were not forfeited. The contingent promissory note signed by Mr. Porro provided that no funds were due to be paid until the stated contingency occurred, stated as "upon forfeiture, estreature or breach of the surety bond." After Bray did not appear for court, the Respondents contacted Mr. Porro and told him that the bonds were forfeited and he was required to pay according to the promissory note. On April 15, 2000, Mr. Porro went to the office of Big John Bail Bonds and was told that he owed a total of $2,804, which he immediately paid. Mr. Porro was not offered and did not request an explanation as to how the total amount due was calculated. He received a receipt that appears to have been signed by Ms. Vath. After Mr. Porro paid the money, Ms. Vath remitted $2,000 to the court clerk for the two forfeited bonds. The Respondents retained the remaining $804. Bray was eventually apprehended and returned to custody. The Respondents were not involved in the apprehension. On July 11, 2000, the court refunded $1,994 to the Respondents. The refund included the $2,000 bond forfeitures minus a statutory processing fee of $3 for each of the two forfeited bonds. On August 9, 2000, 29 days after the court refunded the money to the Respondents, Mr. Porro received a check for $1,994 from the Respondents. Mr. Porro, apparently happy to get any of his money back, did not ask about the remaining funds and no explanation was offered. In November of 2000, Ms. Vath contacted Mr. Porro and informed him that a clerical error had occurred and that he was due to receive additional funds. On November 6, 2000, Mr. Porro met with Ms. Vath and received a check for $492. At the time, that Ms. Vath gave Mr. Porro the $492 check she explained that he had been overcharged through a clerical error, and that the additional amount being refunded was the overpayment minus expenses. She explained that the expenses included clerical and "investigation" expenses and the cost of publishing a notice in a newspaper. There was no documentation provided of the expenses charged to Mr. Porro. At the time the additional refund was made, there was no disclosure that the two $250 bonds were never forfeited. At the hearing, the Respondents offered testimony asserting that the charges were miscalculated due to "clerical" error and attempting to account for expenses charged to Mr. Porro. There was no reliable documentation supporting the testimony, which was contradictory and lacked credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order requiring that the Respondents be required to refund $318 to Mr. Porro, which, combined with the previous payments of $1,994 and $492, will constitute refund of the total $2,804 paid by Mr. Porro to the Respondents. It is further recommended that the limited surety licenses of Matilda M. Vath and John L. Vath be suspended for a period of not less than three months or until Mr. Porro receives the remaining $318, whichever is later. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street, Room 612 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Sandro L. De Andrade, committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent has been licensed by the Department as a limited surety agent performing bail bond services. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility and authority of regulating limited surety agents such as Respondent. On or about March 18, 1995, Bernard Barrineau and Maggie Porto, on special assignment to investigate activities occurring at the Dade County courthouse, went to the east wing of the county jail to observe. While there they met an individual later known to them as Respondent who was assisting someone regarding bail bond services. Respondent asked Mr. Barrineau to go outside with him for a cigarette break. While on the grounds outside Respondent handed Mr. Barrineau a business card bearing the business name "Curly Bail Bonds" and the address as 1670 N.W. 17th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33125. When Ms. Porto came out and approached the two men, Respondent handed her an identical business card with the instruction "just in case." Neither Mr. Barrineau nor Ms. Porto asked Respondent for assistance. Neither did anything to encourage Respondent to think either sought bail bond assistance from him. Either Mr. Barrineau or Ms. Porto answered "yes" when asked if they were at jail to get someone out. The question may have been posed by the client Respondent was at the jail to assist. Respondent was called to the jail to assist someone whose parent was charged with DUI. Ms. Porto and that individual talked while Respondent filled out papers. Respondent alleged he did not hear the conversation. According to Respondent, he was only at the jail to assist the client whose parent was charged with DUI. The "client" did not testify in this matter. At all times material to this case, the business address on record with the Department for the Respondent was McCroys Store, 23 E. Flagler Street, Miami, Florida. Respondent received an appointment to execute bail bonds on behalf of Allegheny Mutual Casualty Company on August 1, 1994. Respondent had been conducting bail bond business for seven months when the incident complained of occurred.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order suspending Respondent's limited surety agent license for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, 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 5th day of March, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-3016 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dickson E. Kesler, Esquire Division of Agent and Agency Services 8070 Northwest 53rd Street Suite 103 Miami, Florida 33166 Larry E. Rogers, Esquire 2121 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 240 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Sandro Lorenz De Andrade 1670 Northwest 17th Avenue Miami, Florida 33125
The Issue At issue is whether respondent committed the offense alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact The Department excepts to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact number 15, asserting that the hearing officer mischaracterized the persuasive weight of the evidence regarding Mr. Rubino's ownership of the bail funds. At hearing, Mr. Rubino testified that the money he supplied was half of the bond amount necessary to obtain the release of his client's codefendant, Mr. Sergio Gonzalez (Transcript pages 36, 42- 44). He further testified that the source of the bond funds originated from his office account (Transcript page 47) and were not drawn from a check (Transcript page 49). Mr. Rubino's only proof that he owned the bail funds was the following statement: possessed it as "I possessed the money in my pocket" (Transcript page 45). The hearing officer's findings that it was incredulous for Mr. Rubino to advance his own money for a codefendant's bail; that the money advanced by Rubino was street money; and that Mr. Rubino was equivocal in his responses were supported by competent substantial evidence. It is for the hearing officer to consider all the evidence presented, resolve conflicts, judge credibility of witnesses, draw permissible inferences from the evidence, and reach ultimate findings of fact based upon competent substantial evidence. Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 475 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Therefore, the Department's Exception to Finding of Fact number 15 is REJECTED. The Department excepts to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact number 16, asserting that the hearing officer ignored the Respondent's implicit admission that he mistakenly released the bail money to Ms. Maria Diaz. At hearing, Respondent presented a letter (Respondent's Exhibit 6) in which he advised Mr. Fernandez of his intent to file a complaint with the Miami Police Department against Ms. Maria Diaz for theft of the bail funds. The Respondent also presented a police report receipt from the Miami Police Department (Respondent's Exhibit 4) demonstrating that he filed a police report against Ms. Diaz (Case Incident Number 346-1561T) in connection with the alleged theft of the above-referenced money. Both exhibits were received into evidence and demonstrated that the Respondent concluded that Ms. Diaz was not entitled to the bail money after the fact. Notwithstanding this evidence, the hearing officer's Finding of Fact number 16 addressed Mr. Rubino's ownership interest in the bail funds, not whether Respondent wrongfully returned the bail funds. The Department's arguments regarding this exception are misplaced because the Department fails to demonstrate how the hearing officer's finding of fact that Mr. Rubino did not have any lawful entitlement to the bail funds was not supported by competent substantial evidence. See Heifetz, supra. Therefore, the Department's Exception to Finding of Fact number 16 is REJECTED. The Department excepts to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact number 17, alleging that Mr. Joaquin Fernandez's testimony regarding his disavowment of the bail money was taken out of context. However, Mr. Fernandez's testimony on transcript page 177 is consistent with his testimony contained on transcript pages 163 and 165. Thus, the Department has failed to prove that the hearing officer's finding of fact was not supported by competent substantial evidence. As a result, the Department's Exception to Finding of Fact number 17 is REJECTED. The Department excepts to Finding of Fact number 20, alleging that said finding is inconsistent with the hearing officer's Finding of Fact number 16. The Department confuses the hearing officer's observations regarding Mr. Fernandez's credibility concerning the Respondent's good character with the elements necessary to prove the violations cited in the administrative complaint. Mr. Fernandez testified at hearing that he continued to do business with the Respondent following his written request for the return of the bail money; that he was a very good friend of the Respondent; and that the Respondent was deceived by Ms. Diaz to release the bail money to her (Transcript pages 173- 174,182). The Department has failed to prove that the hearing officer's finding of fact regarding Mr. Fernandez's credibility was not supported by competent substantial evidence. Consequently, the Department's Exception to Finding of Fact number 20 is REJECTED. The Department excepts to Finding of Fact number 21, asserting that the hearing officer drew improper inferences from the evidence presented regarding Respondent's deposit of $10,000 into his attorney's trust account. It appears that the Department has interpreted the hearing officer's finding of fact as dispositive of Respondent's guilt. However, the hearing officer's findings are supported by competent substantial evidence through the testimony of Mr. Rubino, Petitioner's Exhibits 5D, 5E, and 5F and Respondent's Exhibit 10. Moreover, the hearing officer is permitted to draw permissible inferences based upon the evidence presented. Heifetz, supra. Therefore, the Department's Exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact number 21 is REJECTED. RULINGS ON THE DEPARTMENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARING OFFICER'S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The hearing officer was entirely correct in finding that Respondent was justified in his belief that Mr. Rubino was not entitled to the return of the bond premium payment. However, the hearing officer erred as a matter of law by concluding that Ms. Diaz was entitled to the return of the bail money. Respondent did not receive the funds from Ms. Diaz, as evidenced by the pre- numbered receipt given to Mr. Fernandez. Respondent had not received any purported written or oral permission from Mr. Fernandez authorizing the release of the funds to Ms. Diaz. There is no evidence noted in the recommended order or the exceptions, that Mr. Fernandez ever indicated to the Respondent that Ms. Diaz was the source of the funds, or had any right to the funds. Respondent had no basis, other than Ms. Diaz's bald oral assertions, that she had any right to receive the refund of the premium deposits. It is uncontested that Respondent received the bail bond premium deposit from Mr. Fernandez's office, and gave Mr. Fernandez a written receipt. In the usual course of business, bail bondsmen return bail moneys to the receipted person or persons upon termination of the bond liability. This receipting system is fundamental to bail bondsmen accounting procedures. See Rule 4-221.115, Florida Administrative Code. Certainly, under normal circumstances, Respondent could have and should have returned the funds to Mr. Fernandez, which would have shielded him from any liability, if he had done so. And in normal circumstances, Respondent would be guilty of violating 648.295(1), Florida Statutes and would be subject to discipline by the Department. However, these are not normal circumstance, due to Mr. Fernandez's testimony that he did not know where the bond premium deposit money came from, where it went, and "could care less." In these highly unusual circumstances, in which the apparently wronged and victimized person, Mr. Fernandez, is indifferent to the events that transpired, it would be incongruous and inequitable to find that the Respondent violated section 648.295(1), Florida Statutes, for failing to return the bond funds to a person, who by his own testimony, "could care less" what happened to the funds. Therefore, while rejecting the hearing officer's conclusion that the Respondent was justified in returning the funds to Ms. Diaz, the hearing officer's ultimate recommendation that the case be dismissed is accepted. Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, as discussed in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 above, the Department has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent is subject to discipline by the Department pursuant to section 648.45(2), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Department's Exception to Conclusion of Law number 27 is REJECTED. Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, as discussed in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 above, the Department has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent is subject to discipline by the Department pursuant to section 648.43(3), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Department's Exception to Conclusion of Law number 28 is REJECTED. Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, as discussed in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 above, the Department failed to prove that Respondent utilized the bail money to his own use or benefit. As a result, the Department failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated section 648.295(3), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Department's Exception to Conclusion of Law number 30 is REJECTED. Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, as discussed in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 above, the Department failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated section 648.295(1), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Department's Exception to Conclusion of Law number 32 is REJECTED RULINGS ON THE DEPARTMENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARING OFFICER'S ENDNOTES The Department was correct in bring the instant action based upon the allegations, as alleged in the administrative complaint. However, the Department's Exception to Endnote number 1 is REJECTED, to the extent that the allegations were proved by clear and convincing evidence. The Department's Exception to Endnote number 2 is ACCEPTED. The Department's Exception to End note number 3 is REJECTED because the hearing officer clearly stated in this endnote that Finding of Fact number 15 was based upon the record evidence. The Department's Exception to Endnote number 4 is REJECTED. Rule 4- 231.160(e), Florida Administrative Code, permits the Department to consider the timeliness of restitution as a mitigating or aggravating factor. The Department does not have any legal authority, aside from situations involving Consent Orders, thorough its penalty rule or statutory provisions of the Florida Insurance Code, to order restitution or to condition its penalty on the making of restitution. Upon careful consideration of the Record, the submissions of the parties and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is ORDERED: The Findings of Fact of the hearing officer, as modified in this Order, are adopted as the Department's Finding of Fact. The Conclusions of Law of the hearing officer, as modified in this Order, are adopted as the Department's Conclusion of Law. The End notes of the hearing officer, as modified in this Order, are adopted as the Department's End notes. The hearing officer's Recommendation that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed is ACCEPTED as being the appropriate disposition for this particular case. Any party to these proceedings adversely affected by this Order is entitled to seek review of this Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Review proceedings must be instituted by filing a Notice of Appeal with the General Counsel, acting as the agency clerk, at 412 Larson Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300, an a copy of the same and the filing fee with the appropriate District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of rendition of this Order. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of July, 1996. BILL NELSON Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the administrative complaint. 4/ DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April 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 12th day of April 1996.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent committed violations as alleged in the amended administrative complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case the Respondent has been licensed as a limited surety agent. On April 10, 1995, Elsa De La Cruz went to the criminal courthouse in Miami, Dade County, Florida, and waited on the fifth floor. A male who represented himself to be Respondent approached Ms. De La Cruz and asked her if he could help her. He specifically wanted to know if she was there to bail someone out and identified himself as a bail bondsman. The male also gave Ms. De La Cruz a business card bearing Respondent's name and business location. Ms. De La Cruz left the fifth floor of the courthouse and walked to the east wing which is commonly referred to as "the jail wing." The same male was also there and again approached Ms. De La Cruz. At this time he advised her that if the bond was set at $10,000, he would need $1,000 and collateral to help her. Ms. De La Cruz left the property and returned to her office to complete the affidavit which is Petitioner's exhibit 2. Ms. De La Cruz did not initiate any of the contact between herself and the male who represented himself as Respondent. On April 11, 1995, Maggie Porto went to the criminal courthouse in Miami, Dade County, Florida, and waited on the fifth floor. A male who later identified himself as Respondent initiated contact with Ms. Porto and advised her that he was in business if she needed him. After a short while, Ms. Porto left the fifth floor and walked over to the east wing of the criminal center. Upon her arrival there, the same male handed Ms. Porto a business card. When Ms. Porto asked the male if he was the man identified on the card, the subject answered "yes." The business card represented Respondent's name. Later, Ms. Porto left the criminal center and returned to her office to complete the affidavit which is Petitioner's exhibit number 3. All contact between Ms. Porto and Respondent was initiated by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order revoking Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, 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 8th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-3032 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 4, 5 and 6 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the allegation as to the time of the incident is rejected as not supported by the record or hearsay. With regard to paragraph 3, the allegation as to when the business card was delivered to Ms. De La Cruz is rejected as contrary to the weight of the record. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dickson E. Kesler, Esquire Division of Agent and Agency Services 8070 Northwest 53rd Street, Suite 103 Miami, Florida 33166 Noel A. Rivera 2200 Northwest 11th Street Miami, Florida 33172 Anthony Alvarez 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 201 Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Findings Of Fact Petitioner issued license No. 23-1635-2COP to respondents, authorizing them to sell beer and wine for consumption on the premises. Later, on February 2, 1978, after Osvaldo Iglesia's indictment for conspiracy to import "approximately 50,000 pounds of marijuana . . . and 25 kilos of cocaine," Special Agent Harold Lierly of the federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) telephones petitioner's Officer Alford, seeking assistance in apprehending Osvaldo Iglesia. Officer Alford then telephoned Osvaldo Iglesia and asked him to come to petitioner's office and to bring his driver's license with him; and notified the DEA. When Mr. Iglesia arrived, Officer Alford checked his identification, and DEA agent Leslie W. Thompson effected an arrest, pursuant to warrant. Subsequently, Osvaldo Iglesia was released from custody upon the posting of a $150,000.00 bond. When he failed to report for his removal hearing on February 16, 1978, a bench warrant issued, Petitioner's exhibit No. 4, and the magistrate recommended bond forfeiture. Petitioner's exhibit No. 1. On February 24, 1978, a United States District Judge ordered forfeiture of the bond. Petitioner's exhibit No. 2. On April 18, 1978, a judgment of bail bond forfeiture, in the amount of $50,000.00, seems to have been entered. Petitioner's exhibit No. 3.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner revoke respondent's license, No. 23-1635-2COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Osvaldo & Rosalba Iglesia 2500 Palm Avenue Hialeah, Florida
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a temporary limited surety/bail bond agent pursuant to Sections and 648.355, Florida Statutes, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying; documentary materials received into evidence; stipulations by the parties; evidentiary ruling made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes; and the record evidence submitted, the following relevant and material facts are determined: Pursuant to Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, Respondent has jurisdiction over bail bond licensure, appointments, and related activities. Petitioner appeared before the undersigned in this proceeding, identified himself and admitted that he is the individual prosecuted in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for, Hillsborough County, Florida, Case No. 88-CF-15373, State of Florida v. Bennie Small, Jr., on a Direct Information of two counts of grand theft, and that Respondent has jurisdiction over him and the subject matter involved in its denial letter. The record evidence demonstrated that on or about January 21, 1987, Petitioner entered into a real estate contract with Deltricia Wiggins, a prospective homebuyer. Ms. Wiggins, believing Petitioner to be the realtor representing the seller, gave Petitioner $500.00 to assist her in the purchase of the home. Thereafter, she became aware that the subject home had been sold and demanded that Petitioner return her $500.00. Petitioner failed or refused to return her $500.00. Ms. Wiggins contacted the Hillsborough County State Attorney's Office and made a report. At no time during the above transaction was Petitioner a licensed real estate sales person or licensed real estate broker. The record evidence demonstrated that Petitioner entered into a real estate contract with Janet Richardson, a prospective homebuyer. Ms. Richardson, believing Petitioner to be the realtor representing the seller, gave Petitioner $500.00 to assist her in the purchase of a family home. Thereafter, she became aware that the subject home had been sold and demanded that Petitioner return her $500.00. Petitioner failed or refused to return her $500.00. At no time during the above transaction was Petitioner a licensed real estate sales person or licensed real estate broker. On October 26, 1988, the State Attorney's Office filed a Direct Information charging Petitioner with two counts of grand theft. The two counts of grand theft stemmed from Petitioner's above two unlicensed real estate transactions. At some unknown time on or before January 5, 1989, Petitioner returned the money to both Misses Wiggins and Richardson. The fact that he subsequently returned money to his two victims did not negate his taking their money under illegal and false pretense. Record evidence demonstrated that on January 17, 1989, Petitioner was represented by the Office of the Public Defender of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for, Hillsborough County, Florida, in Case No. 88-CF-15373, and a plea of no contest to the charge of grand theft was entered on his behalf. Circuit Judge Harry Lee Coe accepted the plea of no contest on behalf of Petitioner, withheld adjudication of guilt, imposed no probation, and ordered that Petitioner not practice law nor practice real estate without appropriate licensure. Petitioner produced no record evidence that the no contest plea entered on his behalf by the public defender and that the judgment and sentence of the Court imposed by Circuit Judge Harry Lee Coe, of the Hillsborough County Circuit Court on January 17, 1989, in Case No. 88-CF-15373, has been overturned, reversed or set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. Petitioner, through his evidence and post-hearing submittals, presented the following arguments in support of his position that "he did not enter a plea of no contest to the grand theft charge." First, Petitioner argued that while in court, "he" personally did not enter a no contest plea. Second, he argued that "his" personal approval that a no contest plea be entered on his behalf was neither requested nor given to the public defender that represented him. Third, he argued that he was not made a party at the bench conference between the presiding Judge, the prosecutor, and his public defender, when discussions regarding the terms and condition of resolving his case were ongoing and concluded. Fourth, he argued that copies of the court docket sheet, recording entries written by the court's clerk, who sat in court and made each docket sheet entry as pronounced by the court, were insufficient to establish that those recorded actions were actually taken by the court. Because of the foregone alleged irregularities, argued Petitioner, there is no "official court record" of his having entered a no contest plea to the grand theft charge. Petitioner put forth no evidence in support of his several arguments challenging Respondent's denial of his license application. Petitioner proffered no evidence of the official judicial disposition of the two counts of grand theft filed against him. Petitioner failed to produce a scintilla of evidence in support of his assertions that Respondent did not fully comply with the Florida Statutes when Respondent, by letter dated June 2, 2003, informed Petitioner that his application for licensure as a surety/bail bond agent was denied, and the denial was based on a January 17, 1989, plea of no contest to the charge of grand theft, a felony, in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for, Hillsborough County, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's, Bennie Small, Jr., application for licensure as a temporary limited surety/bail bond agent. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 2004.
