The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of unlawfully employing a felon in the conduct of the bail bond business, in violation of Sections 648.44(8)(b) and 648.45(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 4-221.001, Florida Administrative Code. If so, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed limited surety agent, holding license number A025071. At all material times, Respondent has been the president and owner of Dolly Bolding Bail Bonds, Inc. (Dolly Bolding), which is located at 108 South Armenia Avenue in Tampa. In July 1999, Carver Taitt visited the office of Dolly Bolding to obtain a bail bond for his son, who had been arrested on drug charges. The judge had set bond at $20,000, so the bail bond premium was $2000. Mr. Taitt spoke with Respondent and said that he did not have the entire $2000; he had only $1000. Respondent declined to extend Mr. Taitt credit for the $1000 balance. Mr. Taitt then offered $1500, and Respondent agreed to allow Mr. Taitt to owe Dolly Bolding the remaining $500. At this time, Mr. Taitt saw Frank Cueto, Sr., also known as “Paunch,” in the office of Dolly Bolding. Mr. Taitt also told Mr. Cueto that Mr. Taitt would pay the remaining $500. Mr. Taitt had obtained bonds in the past five years from Dolly Bolding. During this time, he had often seen Respondent and Mr. Cueto in the office, and Mr. Taitt was acquainted with both of them from these past purchases of bonds. Mr. Cueto contacted Mr. Taitt several times and asked him to pay the remaining $500. At one point, Mr. Cueto threatened that Dolly Bolding would revoke the bond if Mr. Taitt did not immediately pay the remaining $500, especially because he was about to take a trip whose cost would approximate the outstanding balance. Mr. Taitt paid the $500 on the day prior to his son’s court appearance. When he complained to Mr. Cueto that he should have trusted Mr. Taitt based on their past relationship, Mr. Cueto replied that money is money. Mr. Taitt’s son missed his court appearance, and the judge ordered the forfeiture of the bond. The judge later entered an order reinstating bail, but this order did not reinstate the obligation previously undertaken under the bond by Dolly Bonding or its principal. Consequently, Mr. Taitt telephoned Dolly Bonding and requested a reissuance of the bond. Told that Respondent was unavailable, Mr. Taitt spoke with Mr. Cueto. Mr. Cueto told Mr. Taitt that no surety company would agree to reissue the bond. In the meantime, the assistant public defender obtained an order from the judge for the administrative release of Mr. Taitt’s son. By this means, the jail released Mr. Taitt’s son immediately without posting any bond. The facts contained in paragraphs 4-8 above are derived from Mr. Taitt’s testimony. This constitutes some, but not all, of Mr. Taitt’s testimony. The Administrative Law Judge has not credited much of the remainder of the testimony, including, most significantly, Mr. Taitt’s testimony that Mr. Cueto was always in the office of Dolly Bolding and that he seemed to run the bonding business. Mr. Taitt was angered by Mr. Cueto’s involvement in this transaction. Much of his uncredited testimony lacked the detail of his credited testimony. As for the credited testimony, Respondent, who was not always present in the office, was not able to rebut the more-detailed portion of Mr. Taitt’s description of Mr. Cueto’s handling of the transaction. Mr. Cueto did not testify, although he is engaged to be married to Respondent and lives with her. However, Respondent’s testimony is credited over Mr. Taitt’s vague, conclusory testimony as to the business relationship between Respondent and Mr. Cueto. Thus, consistent with Respondent’s testimony, the Administrative Law Judge finds that Mr. Cueto has not exercised any dominion over Dolly Bolding or Respondent. Respondent is an articulate, intelligent individual, who is a college graduate. She makes all bonding decisions for Dolly Bolding. Mr. Cueto is not an employee, officer, or shareholder of Dolly Bolding, and Respondent is not an employee, officer, or shareholder in any company owned by Mr. Cueto. He maintains an office in the same building as Dolly Bolding’s office, and he is present in the Dolly Bolding office on a frequent basis. At least in the case of the bond for Mr. Taitt’s son, Mr. Cueto has involved himself to some extent in Respondent’s bonding business. It is entirely possible that Mr. Cueto’s involvement in this bonding transaction is isolated, as he may have been inclined to involve himself to an unusual degree in a bonding matter due to the number of years that Mr. Cueto has known Mr. Taitt. It is even more likely that Mr. Cueto’s involvement in this bonding transaction was without the knowledge of Respondent. Mr. Cueto is a felon. He was convicted in 1994 of unlawful engaging in the bail bond business and misleading advertising. Mr. Cueto was formerly a licensed limited surety agent, but Petitioner suspended his license sometime ago. Respondent was at all times aware of these aspects of Mr. Cueto's background. In November 1991, Petitioner commenced an administrative proceeding against Respondent, as a licensed limited surety agent, for allowing an unlicensed person to participate in the bail bond business. By Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order and Consent Order, both signed in April 1992, Respondent agreed, and was ordered, to pay an administrative fine of $2000.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance dismiss the Second Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ROBERT E. MEALE 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 6th day of April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Anoush A. Arakalian Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Joseph R. Fritz Joseph R. Fritz, P.A. 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent violated Subsections 648.44(8)(a), 648.44(8)(b), 648.45(2), 648.45(2)(e), 648.45(2)(j), 648.45(2)(k), 648.45(3), 648.45(3)(c), 648.45(3)(e), 648.30(1), 648.30(2), 648.30(3), and 648.30(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Chapter 648, the Department has jurisdiction over bail bond licensure, appointments, and related activities. Respondent, Pamela Jean Coleman, appeared before the undersigned in this proceeding, identified herself as Pamela Jean Coleman, and admitted that she is the Respondent in this matter and that the Department has jurisdiction over her and the subject matter involved in the Notice of Intent. At all times relevant to the dates and occurrences referred to in the Notice of Intent, Respondent was also known as Deborah Lee Diehl, Pamela Jean Jones, Pamela Jones, Pamela Coleman, Pam Jones, and Pamela J. Coleman. At all times relevant to the dates and occurrences referred to in the Notice of Intent, Respondent was not licensed as a bail bond agent in the State of Florida. On March 28, 1975, in Case Number 75-239CF, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida (Criminal Division), Respondent pled guilty and was adjudged guilty of buying or receiving or aiding in concealment of stolen property, a felony (a crime of moral turpitude). On October 22, 1975, in Case Number 75-2390CF, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida (Criminal Division), Respondent, a/k/a Deborah Lee Diehl, pled guilty and was adjudged guilty of the felony of violation of drug abuse law. Records of the State of Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) show that the conviction set forth in paragraph 6 above included convictions on March 28, 1975, and July 17, 1975, for parole violation. At the final hearing counsel for Respondent stated: Mr. Franklin: . . . I don't think there is any dispute as to those underlying facts about what happened in 1975 -- Ms. Coleman: Correct. Mr. Franklin: -- and what happened subsequent. And the subsequent event was that Ms. Coleman was -- received the grace of executive clemency. She did receive a limited restoration of civil rights that granted to her the restoration of all of her civil rights with the exception of a specific statutory authority to own or possess a firearm, at least as to all of the '75 convictions. . . . By Executive Order Number 80-C-0 filed with the Florida Secretary of State on March 7, 1980, Respondent was granted restoration of civil rights, except to specific authority for possession or owning a firearm, for any and all felony convictions in the State of Florida and/or restoration of civil rights in the State of Florida for any and all felony convictions in any state other than Florida, or in any United States court or military court for which this person has been duly discharged from imprisonment and/or parole, adult community control or probation, and for which this person has not been heretofore granted clemency. This grant of clemency included, but was not limited to, Case Nos. 75-239CF and 75-2390CF, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach, Florida. On April 16, 1991, in Case Number CF91-1923AI-XX, Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida, Respondent, a/k/a Pamela Jean Jones, was charged with grand thief. On or about November 25, 1991, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the reduced charge of petit theft and was found guilty and convicted of petit theft.1 Petit theft is a first-degree misdemeanor, which constitutes a crime of moral turpitude. Record of the Delaware Secretary of State, dated May 5, 1997, confirmed that the Clarence Luther Cephas, Ltd., Inc. (Cephas Bail Bond Agency) was duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, was in good standing, and had a legal corporate existence as of May 5, 1997. Record of the Florida Secretary of State, Application for Reinstatement, confirmed that the Cephas Bail Bond Agency applied as a corporation qualified to do bail bond business in Florida and was reinstated to do bail bond business as of January 19, 1999. The Cephas Bail Bond Agency's application listed Pamela J. Coleman, 2353 Mammoth Grove Road, Lake Wales, Florida, as its president, secretary, director, and registered agent. The application dated October 26, 2000, bore the signature of Respondent and listed her telephone number as (863) 533-0405. Two Uniform Business Reports (UBR) of the Cephas Bail Bond Agency were filed with the Florida Secretary of State on August 6, 2001, and March 29, 2002. Both reports bore the signature of Respondent as President of the Cephas Bail Bond Agency. Testimony of Petitioner's witnesses conclusively established, without dispute, that Respondent participated in the bail bond business of the Cephas Bail Bond Agency during the approximate period of March 1997 to November 27, 2002. During that span of time, Respondent did on various occasions act and represent herself to the public as one having power to act in several capacities and positions with the Cephas Bail Bond Agency. Her activities included acting as a registered agent, a director, a bail bond agent, a temporary bail bond agent, a runner, a bail enforcement agent, and a bounty hunter. Clarence Luther Cephas, Sr., under oath on November 27, 2002, gave the following statement: I have known Pamela Coleman/Jones for approximately four years and she has been affiliated with me for most of the time that I have been in the bail bond business. I had asked her if she had ever been convicted of a felony and she said that she had been convicted as a teenager. She has a Certificate of Restoration of Civil Rights from the Office of Executive Clemency that is dated March 7, 1980. I was under the impression that if her rights had been restored, that it would not be a problem with her working for me. I named Pamela as an officer in my corporation because I did not have any family that I could list as an officer except for my daughter, who is a deputy sheriff and could not be an officer of the corporation. Records of the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida, show that on or about December 16, 2002, an Amended Information was filed in Case No. CF02-00597A-XX, State of Florida vs. Pamela Jean Coleman, W/F, 09/17/1958, XXX-XX-9751, charging that between November 27, 2000, and January 25, 2002, in Polk County, Florida, Respondent, having been convicted of or pled guilty or no contest to a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude or a crime punishable by imprisonment of one year or more under the law of any state, territory, or county, regardless of whether adjudication of guilt was withheld, did participate as a director, officer, manager, or employee of a bail bond agency or office thereof, or exercise direct or indirect control in any manner in such agency or office, or own shares in a closely held corporation which had an interest in a bail bond business, contrary to Section 684.44. The testimonial and documentary evidence clearly and convincingly, during the period of November 2000 through December 2001, identified Respondent as the person who, on various occasions, did act in several capacities and positions as a bail bond agent and performed functions, duties, or powers prescribed for licensed bail bond agents. Undisputed evidence identified Respondent as the person who, early in 2001, presented herself to another and engaged in conduction and solicitation of bail bond business in the office of the Cephas Bail Bond Agency. Undisputed evidence identified Respondent as the person who, on June 19, 2001, presented herself and identified herself as Pamela Jean Coleman, Vice-President of Clarence Cephas Bail Bonds, to Noel Collier who was working in her husband's law office as a paralegal. Respondent presented to Ms. Collier bond release paperwork from the Cephas Bail Bond Agency and requested that a mutual client facing criminal charges sign the paperwork. Undisputed evidence demonstrated that on or about September 2001, Respondent held herself out as the person with whom to conduct bail bond business with Constance Castro in or about the home of Clarence Luther Cephas, Sr., that served also as the Cephas Bail Bond Agency office. The records of Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida, show that on or about January 31, 2003, in criminal Case No. CF02-00597A-XX, Respondent (a/k/a Deborah Lee Diehl, a/k/a Pamela Jean Jones, a/k/a Pamela Jones, a/k/a Pamela Coleman, a/k/a Pam Jones, and a/k/a Pamela J. Coleman) was tried, found guilty, and adjudicated guilty of a violation of Subsection 648.44(8), acting as a bail bondsman while being a convicted felon, a felony of the third degree, as charged in the aforesaid Amended Information. Respondent was sentenced by the court to 60 days in county jail (to be served on weekends) and placed on probation for a period of five years. The conditions of Respondent's probation required her to: (1) Pay restitution in the amount of $457.99 to the Department of Insurance within two years; (2) pay court costs of $400.00 within two years; and (3) not to be employed as a bail bondsman or to have any contact with her husband's (Clarence Luther Cephas, Sr.) business. Counsel for Respondent represented on this record that: (1) he was counsel of record in Case No. CF02-00597A-XX and that Respondent, in this proceeding, was the person charged, tried, convicted, and adjudicated guilty; and (2) he has filed a timely appeal of the conviction and sentence on behalf of Respondent in Case No. CF02-00597A-XX, in the Second District Court of Appeal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order as follows: Finding that Respondent, Pamela Jean Coleman, is disqualified from participation in bail bond-related activities by a prior conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; and that Respondent is guilty of participating in the bail bond business, in violation of Subsections 648.30(1) through (3); 648.44(8)(a); 648.45(2)(e), (j), and (k); and 648.45(3)(a), (c), and (e). Enter a Cease and Desist Order pursuant to Section 626.9581 and the Florida Insurance Code, directing Respondent, Pamela Jean Coleman, to immediately cease and desist any and all bail bond-related activities in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2003, 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 17th day of October, 2003.
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.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulated facts, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent Joseph Aloysius Von Waldner has been licensed as a limited surety agent. He has been in the bail bond business for nine years and has had no previous or subsequent complaints issued against him. On five occasions during January and February of 1979, respondent did authorize, hire and remunerate Delbert Leroy Sams to pick up principals or skips and surrender them to the Orange County Jail. Delbert Leroy Sams was not and has not been previously licensed in any capacity by the Department of Insurance. On March 2, 1979, Mr. Sams was denied a license by the Department of Insurance. At the time respondent engaged the services of Mr. Sams, respondent believed that Mr. Sams was working as a bail bond runner for another bail bondsman. Respondent did not inquire of Sams as to whether Sams was or was not licensed by the Department of Insurance. Respondent knew that other bail bondsmen had used Sams as a runner, and Sams showed respondent some business cards and forms which Sams used when picking up principals. Respondent admits that he was negligent for not inquiring into Mr. Sams' licensure. Respondent was called in for an investigation by the petitioner's chief investigator, Melvin R. Thayer, on February 28, 1979. After talking with Mr. Thayer and becoming aware that Mr. Sams was not licensed, respondent no longer used Sams as a runner.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order finding that respondent violated the provisions of Florida Statutes, s648.45(1)(j) and imposing an administrative penalty against respondent in the amount of $100.00, said penalty to be paid within thirty (30) days of the date of the final order. Respectfully submitted and entered this 27th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. T. Taylor, Esquire Room 428-A, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard L. Wilson, Esquire 100 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Insurance Commissioner Bill Gunter The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to a license as a limited surety/bail bond agent.
Findings Of Fact On July 22, 2002, Petitioner signed, under penalty of perjury, a statement declaring that his application for a license as a limited surety/bail bond agent was true. In the application, Petitioner answered "no" to the question: Have you ever been charged, convicted, found guilty, or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a crime under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory, or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered?" By Information dated February 28, 1971, the State of Florida charged Respondent with "unlawfully and feloniously break[ing] and enter[ing]" into a dwelling with the intent to commit a felony--namely, grand larceny. By Order entered October 15, 1971, the court acknowledged that Respondent had entered a plea of guilty to "breaking and entering with intent to commit a misd[demeanor]," withheld adjudication of guilt, and placed Petitioner on three years' probation. By Order entered August 15, 1974, the court terminated Petitioner's probation, noting that he had successfully completed it.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a license as a limited surety/bail bond agent. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 30th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Santiago Lavan-dera Law Office of Pena and Lavan-dera 7950 Northwest 155th Street, Suite 201 Miami Lakes, Florida 33016 Eduardo Federico Godoy 969 East 29th Street Hialeah, Florida 33013 Ladasiah Jackson Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's insurance licenses based upon the alleged violations of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed in Florida as a limited surety agent (bail bondsman). On September 15, 1989, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent seeking disciplinary action against Respondent's license as a result of his alleged employment of a convicted felon identified as Ira Stern. That case, Department of Insurance Case No. 89-L-650RVE, was settled pursuant to a Consent Order entered on January 2, 1990, pursuant to which Respondent was fined $500 and placed on probation for one year. Respondent also agreed not to employ any individual disqualified by Section 648.44(7)(a) to work at his bail bond agency and agreed that no unlicensed person employed by his bail bond agency would be permitted to engage in any activity for which a license was required. The Consent Order incorporated a Settlement Stipulation which specifically provided that the settlement was entered to avoid the costs and uncertainty of litigation and did not constitute an admission by Respondent of any violation of the insurance code. At the time of the hearing in this case, Respondent's license was apparently under suspension pursuant to an Emergency Order of Suspension issued by the Department in Department Case No. 93-ESO-005JDM. The Emergency Order of Suspension is not referenced in the Administrative Complaint and no copy of that Emergency Order has been provided. The basis for entry of that Emergency Order was not established in this case and the parties stipulated that the Emergency Order was not a part of this proceeding. For at least two years prior to the hearing in this case, Respondent was appointed to write bail bonds by American Bankers Insurance Group ("American Bankers"). Respondent previously operated a company known as Barry's Bail Bonds. Apparently as a result of some unsatisfied judgements, Respondent did not issue any bail bonds in his name or in the name of Barry's Bail Bonds during the first 6 months of 1992. At the time of the transactions alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was married to Linda Ratner. Linda Ratner was a qualified and appointed agent of American Bankers. She was also the principle of Linda's Bail Bonds, Inc. The evidence established that Respondent was a primary contact for American Bankers on behalf of Linda's Bail Bonds. It appears that Linda's Bail Bonds and Barry's Bail Bonds were operating out of the same office in Fort Lauderdale for some periods during 1991 and 1992. Other businesses were also apparently operated out of this office. The evidence established that an individual by the name of Ira Stern was involved in the operations of that office during late 1991 and the first nine months of 1992. The evidence was inconclusive as to who actually employed Ira Stern. The evidence did establish that Respondent and Ira Stern primarily handled the day to day operations of the office, including the bail bond business transacted out of the office. No evidence was presented that Ira Stern was a convicted felon and/or that he was the same individual identified in the prior Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. Respondent solicited and issued bail bonds through Linda's Bail Bonds on several occasions from January 1992 through July 1992. The evidence established that Linda Ratner signed several American Banker's power of attorney forms in blank. As discussed in more detail below, Respondent utilized several of these forms on behalf of clients during the time period in question. Respondent's authority to write bonds for American Bankers was terminated by American Bankers on or about July 24, 1992. At that same time, the authority of Linda Ratner and Linda's Bail Bonds, Inc. was also terminated. At some point after this termination, Respondent turned over to American Bankers certain tangible collateral that had been held in a safe deposit box. This collateral was turned over sometime between July and September of 1992. The exact date was not established. On September 11, 1992, employees of American Bankers accompanied by a Department investigator, went to Respondent's office and collected all of the files and tangible collateral in the office relating to the outstanding bonds written by Respondent and/or Linda's Bail Bonds for American Bankers. No cash collateral was recovered in connection with those files. Upon arriving at the office, representatives of American Bankers and the Department investigator dealt exclusively with a man who identified himself as Ira Stern and who claimed to be the office manager. As noted above, Respondent was previously disciplined by Petitioner for employing an Ira Stern, who was allegedly a convicted felon. No direct evidence was presented to establish the identity of the person in the office on September 11, 1992 nor was there any evidence that the person who identified himself as Ira Stern was a convicted felon and/or the same individual whom Respondent was accused of improperly employing in the previous disciplinary case. Moreover, no conclusive evidence was presented to establish who actually employed the individual in question. On or about July 9, 1992, Anna Agnew and her husband called Linda's Bail Bonds to obtain a bond to get their nephew out of jail. Respondent responded to the call and told the Agnews that he would issue a bond in return for $100 cash and the delivery of a $1,000 check which was to serve as collateral for the bond. Respondent told the Agnews that he would hold the check as collateral without cashing it until their nephew's case was resolved. To obtain the release of the Agnews' nephew, Respondent submitted American Bankers power of attorney number 0334165 which had been signed in blank by Linda Ratner and filled out by Respondent. The amount of the bond was $1,000. Shortly after the Agnews' nephew was bonded out of jail, Mrs. Agnew discovered that the check they gave to Respondent had been cashed. After the Agnews' many attempts to contact Respondent regarding the check were unsuccessful, Mrs. Agnew wrote to the Department complaining of the situation. On August 17, 1992, the Agnews' nephew's case was resolved. Respondent failed to return the Agnews' collateral within the time provided by law. In an attempt to retrieve their collateral after their nephew's case was completed, Mrs. Agnew testified that her husband unsuccessfully attempted to contact Respondent at his office on a least one occasion. At the time of Mr. Agnew's visit, Respondent's office was allegedly not open. No conclusive evidence was presented as to who cashed the Agnews' check or what happened to the proceeds. On or about January 8, 1993, the managing general agent for American Bankers returned $1,000 to the Agnews in repayment of the collateral. On or about June 21, 1992, American Bankers' power of attorney form number 0333494 was submitted to the Broward County Circuit Court to obtain the release from jail of Wentworth McNorton. The amount of the bond was $1,000. The power of attorney form had been signed in blank by Linda Ratner and was filled in by Respondent. Mr. McNorton's mother, Linnette, arranged for the issuance of the bond by paying Respondent $100 in cash. In addition, she gave Respondent a diamond ring appraised in excess of $10,000 as collateral for the bond. Linnette McNorton asked Respondent to hold the ring as collateral until she could arrange to substitute some other collateral. Liability on Mr. McNorton's bond was discharged by the court on July 14, 1992. Respondent did not return Mrs. McNorton's ring within twenty-one days of discharge of liability on the bond as required by law. Linnette McNorton continued to call Respondent for several months after her collateral was due to be returned. At no time during this period did Respondent return Mrs. McNorton's calls or inform her of the whereabouts of her ring. Approximately five months after Wentworth McNorton was released, Linnette McNorton and her husband went to Respondent's home and confronted him. Respondent advised the McNortons that he did not have the ring and that it had been turned over to the insurance company. Sometime prior to September of 1992, employees of American Bankers took possession of Mrs. McNorton's ring along with other tangible collateral held by Respondent in a safe deposit box. As noted in paragraph 9 above, the evidence did not establish the exact date American Bankers took control of the collateral in the safe deposit box. At the time, Mrs. McNorton's ring was marked improperly and the staff of American Bankers was unable to identify which file it belonged with. Mrs. McNorton's ring was finally returned to her on April 15, 1993 by American Bankers after they had determined that the mislabelled and unidentified ring in their possession was Mrs. McNorton's. On or about March 13, 1992, American Bankers power of attorney numbers 0295546, 0295547, and 0295548 were executed for the issuance of three bail bonds on behalf of Kevin Krohn, the principle. The total face value of these three bonds was $3,000. The powers of attorney had been signed in blank by Linda Ratner. The other handwriting on the powers of attorney appears to be Respondent's, however, the circumstances surrounding the execution and delivery of these powers was not established. The records obtained from Respondent's office on September 11, 1992 indicate that Jeanette Krohn, the indemnitor, paid $300 in premiums for the three bail bonds described in paragraph 24 and also put up $3,000 in cash collateral. The handwriting on the collateral receipts appears to be Ira Stern's however, the circumstances surrounding the execution of these documents was not established. The last of the bonds described in paragraph 24 was discharged by the court on April 22, 1992. In July of 1992, the Department received a complaint that Jeanette Krohn was unable to obtain the return of her $3,000 cash collateral. The Department notified American Bankers of the complaint and a representative of the insurance company contacted Respondent who advised that the collateral had been repaid on June 22, 1992 by check no. 1021 drawn on the trust account of Linda's Bail Bonds. June 22, 1992 was well beyond the twenty-one days provided by law for return of the collateral. The check which Respondent told the insurance company was issued to return Ms. Krohn's collateral was purportedly signed by Linda Ratner. The check was dishonored by the bank. The signature of Linda Ratner on the check given to Ms. Krohn was forged. The evidence was insufficient to establish who forged the signature. American Bankers paid Jeanette Krohn $3,000 on or about January 8, 1993 as repayment for the cash collateral placed for the bonds. In March of 1992, M. T. Heller contacted Respondent to procure a bail bond. Respondent arranged for the issuance of the bond. When the bond was discharged, Mr. Heller returned to Respondent's office, where he dealt with Ira Stern in attempting to obtain return of the collateral.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, and III of the Administrative Complaint and dismissing Counts IV and V. As a penalty for the violations, an administrative fine of $1,500 should be imposed and the license issued to the Respondent, Barry Seth Ratner, under the purview of the Florida Department of Insurance should be suspended for a period of two years, followed by a two year probationary period. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 4th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Subordinate to Findings of Fact 3. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4 and 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 26. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 28. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 23. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 20 and 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 31. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 32. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 33. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. The second sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. The third sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11 and 15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17-23. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 24-30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 2 and 31-34. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph D. Mandt, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated sections 648.442(1), 648.442(2), 648.442(4), 648.571(1), 648.45(2)(e), 648.45(2)(h), 648.45(2)(j), 648.571(3)(b)1., and 648.571(3)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2007),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69B-221.145(4)(a) and 69B- 221.145(4)(b), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating insurance and insurance-related activities, including limited surety (bail bond) licensees in Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Wilson has been licensed in this state as a limited surety (bail bond) (2-34) agent, license number D012026. Mr. Wilson is the owner of Against All Odds Bail Bonds (Against All Odds), which is located in Tampa, Florida. As a bail bond agent, Mr. Wilson's duties include writing bail bonds for defendants who are incarcerated; ensuring the defendants appear for court dates; arresting defendants who fail to appear in court and returning them to jail; and returning collateral to defendants when requested. In 2007, Mr. Wilson was the only limited surety agent working at Against All Odds. In May 2007, Michael Wisher (Mr. Wisher) was arrested for driving under the influence, and his bond was set at $2,000. Mr. Wilson was contacted to post a surety bond on Mr. Wisher's behalf. On May 12 or 13, 2007, Mr. Wilson met Mr. Wisher at the Hillsborough County Jail, where Mr. Wisher was being held. Mr. Wilson advised Mr. Wisher that the premium for the bail bond was $200 and that an additional $1,800 for collateral was required. Mr. Wisher agreed to the arrangement and gave Mr. Wilson permission to use his credit card for the payment. Mr. Wilson used Mr. Wisher's credit card at the jail to pay for the premium and collateral for a total of $2,000. Mr. Wilson secured an appearance bond with United States Fire Insurance Company on May 13, 2007. Mr. Wilson was released and accompanied Mr. Wilson to the office of Against All Odds, where he executed an Indemnitor/Guarantor Check List dated May 12, 2007. Two of the provisions of the checklist provide: I understand that my collateral cannot be released until all bonds posted on my behalf for defendant have been exonerated and written notice form the court received by the bail agency. I understand that it is my [Mr. Wisher's] responsibility to request return of any collateral provided. There may be a delay of return of collateral until the bail agency has researched the exoneration date and verified the bail bond status with the appropriate courts. The process may be done faster if I obtain written verification of the bond exoneration from the court and provide it to the bail agency. Mr. Wilson did not issue a receipt to Mr. Wisher, showing that Mr. Wisher had paid $2,000. Based on Mr. Wilson's testimony, the Indemnitor/Guarantor Check List is not the receipt. Mr. Wilson claims that he did issue a collateral receipt, but that receipt did not show the credit card fee that was being imposed. According to Mr. Wilson, the copy of the receipt was destroyed in a fire. Mr. Wisher's testimony is credited that he did not receive a receipt. Computer records of the Clerk of Hillsborough Circuit Court show that on September 18, 2007, the bond was deactivated and a certificate of discharge of bond was issued in Mr. Wisher's case. Mr. Wilson claims not to have received the certificate of discharge, and no certificate of discharge was entered in evidence. Mr. Wisher contacted Mr. Wilson on December 17, 2007, requesting that his collateral be returned. Mr. Wisher advised Mr. Wilson that the bond had been discharged. Mr. Wilson was aware that the bond had been discharged because he had checked the computer records of the Clerk of the Hillsborough Circuit Court and saw the record showing the discharge of the bond. Mr. Wilson sent Mr. Wisher a money order for $500 on January 3, 2008. He sent Mr. Wisher another money order dated January 31, 2008, for another $500. Mr. Wisher did not agree to have his collateral returned in installments. By the end of January 2008, Mr. Wilson still owed Mr. Wisher $800. Mr. Wisher made numerous telephone calls to Mr. Wilson in an attempt to get the remaining amount of his collateral. In June 2008, Mr. Wisher wrote Mr. Wilson two times in an attempt to get his collateral returned. Both letters were returned by the United States Postal Service as unclaimed. Mr. Wisher did not receive any additional money from Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson claims that he mailed Mr. Wisher an additional $400, but the evidence does not support his claim. He submitted a copy of an envelope addressed to Mr. Wisher with a first class stamp on it. The envelope did not bear a post mark. The exhibit also had a portion of a customer receipt from the United States Postal Service, which states return of collateral in the section entitled "Pay To" and Michael Wisher in the section labeled "C.O.D. or Used For." The receipt contains no date and does not specify what service or goods for which the receipt was issued. Additionally, it appears that the receipt is not complete based on the wording at the bottom which states serial number; year, month, day; post office; and amount. Such wording would suggest that additional information would be part of the receipt, but the receipt provided by Mr. Wilson did not contain the additional information. In addition to the premium of $200, Mr. Wilson charged Mr. Wisher $400 for a credit card fee. This amount represented percent of the total bond amount, not just the collateral amount. The credit card fee which Mr. Wilson charged was more than the fee which the credit card company charged him for use of the credit card. Mr. Wilson claims that he was taught at the bail bond school held in Fort Lauderdale that up to 20 percent of the total bond amount could be charged to the client for the use of a credit card. The Department did not establish that Mr. Wilson failed to have a sign in his office posting the credit card fee schedule when Mr. Wisher visited his office. However, Mr. Wisher was not provided a copy of the credit card fee schedule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Wilson did not violate sections 648.442(1), 648.442(4), and 648.571(3)(b)2.; finding that Mr. Wilson violated sections 648.442(2), 648.571(1), 648.571(3)(b)1., 648.45(2)(e), 648.45(2)(h), and 648.45(2)(j) and rules 69B-221.145(4)(a) and 69B-221.145(4)(b); suspending Mr. Wilson's license for six months; imposing an administrative fine of $5,000; and requiring Mr. Wilson to return the remainder of Mr. Wisher's collateral to him. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN BELYEU KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of a violation of bail bondsmen disciplinary statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been licensed in the State of Florida as a bail bondsman. He operates Freedom Bail Bonds in Orlando, Florida. On May 28, 1988, law enforcement officers of the Orange County Sheriff's Office arrested John P. Moody and placed him in the Orange County jail. Mr. Moody had never previously been arrested. After he was arrested, Mr. Moody contactedRespondent about obtaining a bail bond in order to get out of jail. Respondent agreed to come to the jail and interview Mr. Moody to determine if Freedom Bail Bonds could provide him a bond. When Respondent arrived at the jail on the evening of May 28, he was informed by an officer of the three charges that were pending against Mr. Moody. The bond was $1000 per charge, and the premium was 10% of the bond. Respondent met with Mr. Moody and asked him whether he had any assets to secure the bond. Mr. Moody explained that he had no assets such as a car, cash, or cash equivalent. However, he said that he owned jointly with his mother some land in Orange County. At the conclusion of the interview, Respondent had decided to write the bond. Respondent then learned from the booking officer that another charge had been added. Following a brief conversation between Respondent and Mr. Moody concerning the new charge, Respondent learned from the booking officer that a fifth charge had been added. After another conversation with Mr. Moody, Respondent learned in this manner that a sixth, and final, charge had been added. In all, Mr. Moody was charged with one count of failing to return a hired automobile and five counts of fraudulent bank deposits. Each charge carried a $1000 bond, so Mr. Moody now required a total bond of $6000, which in turn required a total premium of $600. Due to the increased amount of the bond, Respondent informed Mr. Moody that he would have to secure the bond with a mortgage on the property jointly held with his mother. Mr. Moody agreed, but asked Respondent not to contact Mr. Moody's mother immediately. It was the middle of the night, and Mr. Moody's mother is an invalid. Respondent agreed to allow Mr. Moody to contact his mother later and obtain her signature on a mortgage. Because Mr. Moody lacked the funds, a friend, Marion Reed Johnson, agreed to pay the premium. Knowing that Mr. Moody would not be able to obtain that evening his mother's signature to a mortgage, Respondent insisted on some interim security and agreed to accept six $1000 promissory notes from Mr. Johnson. These notes were payable on demand, but, according to their terms, became void if Mr. Moody appeared in court when ordered to do so and discharged all of the obligations of the bail bond. Respondent gave Mr. Johnson receipts for the $600 premium and six $1000 notes as soon as Respondent received these items. At the same time, also on the evening of May 28, Respondent completed a bail bond application and indemnity form, on which Mr. Moody provided certain background information. Mr. Moody and Mr. Johnson also signed indemnifications in favor of the surety. The application form states that the surety: shall have control and jurisdiction over the principal during the term for which the bond is executed and shall have the right to apprehend, arrest and surrender the principal to the proper officials at any time as provided by law. The application form also provides: In the event surrender of principal is made prior to the time set for principal's appearances, and for reason other than as enumerated below is paragraph 3, then principal shall be entitled to a refund of the bond premium. It is understood and agreed that the happening of any one of the following events shall constitute a breach of principal's obligations to the Surety hereunder, and the Surety shall have the right to forthwith apprehend, arrest and surrender principal, and principal shall have no right to any refund of premium whatsoever. Said events which shall constitute a breach of principal's obligations hereunder are: If principal shall depart the jurisdiction of the court without the written consent of the court and the Surety or its Agent. * * * If principal shall commit any act which shall constitute reasonable evidence of principal's intention to cause a forfeiture of said bond. * * * The application and indemnities were signed. Mr. Johnson paid the $600 premium and executed and delivered the six $1000 demand notes. Respondent then caused Freedom Bail Bond to issue the bond. Mr. Moody was released from the jail during the evening of his arrest (actually during the predawn hours of May 29). May 28 was a Saturday. The following Monday, Respondent gave one of his employees a copy of the warranty deed from Mr. Moody's mother to herself and Mr. Moody. Mr. Moody hadgiven a copy of the deed to Respondent during their initial interview in order to allow Respondent to prepare the mortgage that Mr. Moody had agreed to provide. Respondent instructed the employee to use the legal description from the warranty deed to prepare a mortgage and send it to Mr. Moody for execution by his mother and him. The employee did as instructed and promptly mailed the mortgage to Mr. Moody with instructions for execution, witnessing, and notarization. After about a week, Respondent asked the employee if she had received the executed mortgage. She replied that she had not and proceeded to telephone Mr. Moody. When she asked him about the mortgage, Mr. Moody did not express any unwillingness to sign it, but said that he had not received it. Confirming the mailing address, the employee agreed to send him another mortgage and did so on June 6, 1988. Several times after mailing the second mortgage, the employee contacted Mr. Moody and discussed the need to get the document fully executed and delivered to Freedom Bail Bonds. On one occasion, Mr. Moody agreed to return the executed mortgage on June 22. But on the last of these conversations, Mr. Moody informed the employee, for the first time, that he had no intention of providing the mortgage. The employee told Respondent what Mr. Moody had said and returned the file to Respondent for further action. At about the same time that Respondent's officehad sent the mortgage to Mr. Moody the second time, Mr. Moody's sister telephoned Respondent. Estranged from her brother, she was concerned that Mr. Moody, whom she believed had misused funds of their invalid mother in the past, might try to obtain their mother's signature on a mortgage to secure a bond in order to get out of jail. Mr. Moody's sister informed Respondent that her brother was not authorized to obtain their mother's signature on the mortgage. She said that her brother was not to be trusted, had improperly removed money from their mother's trust in the past, and had defaulted on at least one debt so as to require the creditor to lien the jointly held property in order to be repaid. At about the same time, a different employee of Respondent received an anonymous telephone tip that Mr. Moody was about to depart, or had already departed, on a trip to Alabama with another man. The informant described what turned out to be a vehicle owned by Mr. Johnson, with whom Mr. Moody had been living since his release from jail on May 29. Several attempts by Respondent's employees to reach Mr. Moody over the next two to four days were unsuccessful. In fact, Mr. Moody had gone to Alabama, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Orange County Circuit Court. On July 18, 1988, one of Respondent's employees contacted the Clerk of Court's office and learned that Mr. Moody had not qualified for the services of a Public Defender. In addition, the employee had been notified on or about July 6, byreceipt of a notice of hearing on a Determination of Counsel, that Mr. Moody had not been diligent in obtaining counsel. After determining that other Determination of Counsel hearings had been and were being set by the Court, the employee reasonably concluded that Mr. Moody was not diligently trying to obtain counsel or independently resolve the pending criminal matters. The employee communicated this information to Respondent on July 18. Respondent contacted Mr. Moody by telephone on July 18 and asked when he was going to supply the executed mortgage. Mr. Moody responded that he had determined that Respondent did not need the additional security and was not going to provide it. At this point, Respondent concluded that it was likely that Mr. Moody had in fact left the state without permission. Respondent also concluded that Mr. Moody no longer represented an acceptable risk. Respondent thus directed another employee to join him to arrest Mr. Moody and surrender him to the Orange County Sheriff's Office. Respondent and his employee immediately visited Mr. Moody and asked him whether he had left the state. Mr. Moody admitted doing so. Respondent and the employee then arrested Mr. Moody and returned him to jail. Mr. Moody remained in jail for 63 days until he pleaded guilty to the charges. He was sentenced to the time served, placed on probation for four years, and required to makerestitution, which he has done so far in accordance with the schedule. Following his release from jail, Mr. Moody returned to live with Mr. Johnson and gradually repaid him the $600 that he owed him. Although Mr. Moody demanded return of the $600, he never offered any proof of payment to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson never demanded the return of the money. Respondent has retained the $600 premium. The six $1000 notes were automatically voided when Mr. Moody was arrested on July 18.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399 (904) 488 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399 Attorney David D. Hershel Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399 Attorney Alan B. Robinson 56 East Pine Street Orlando, FL 32801
