The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Respondent has been charged by Administrative Complaint with violations of several provisions of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes. All of the violations charged relate to allegations that the Respondent failed to return certain personal property received by the Respondent as collateral security on a surety bond.
Findings Of Fact Facts admitted by all parties The Respondent, Sergio Roque, Jr., is currently licensed in this state as a limited surety agent. At all times relevant to the dates and occurrences referred to in the Administrative Complaint in this matter, the Respondent was licensed in this state as a limited surety agency. On or about July 19, 1990, Respondent, while acting in his capacity as a limited surety agent, did, as agent for Amwest Surety Insurance Company, post a $100,000 general surety appearance bond, power number X00-0-00000331, to obtain the release of defendant Domingo Arrechea from the Dade County Jail. In conjunction with the posting of the aforementioned surety bond, Respondent did on or about July 19, 1990, receive $10,000, which represented the premium payment for said surety bond. Respondent did in conjunction with the posting of said bond receive from indemnitor Lorraine DeVico a diamond engagement ring, a Rolex watch, and the title to a 1979 Mercedes automobile (ID#11602412149348) as partial collateral security for the aforementioned surety bond. On or about April 3, 1991, Respondent did cause to be surrendered back into custody the defendant Domingo Arrechea, thus terminating all liability for said surety bond. Respondent has failed to return to indemnitor Lorraine DeVico the collateral security described above; namely, the diamond engagement ring, the Rolex watch, and the title to the 1979 Mercedes automobile. Additional facts proved at hearing In addition to the collateral described above, the Respondent also received as collateral from the defendant Arrechea, and from the defendant's wife, a conditional mortgage on a condominium. In addition to the collateral described above, the Respondent also received as collateral from "Mike Farina" a conditional mortgage on real estate owned by Mike Farina. Mike Farina was a friend of the defendant Arrechea. "Mike Farina" later turned out to be a fictitious name. Lorraine DeVico was a very close friend of the defendant Arrechea. The Rolex watch Ms. DeVico put up as part of the collateral for Arrechea's bond was a watch that had been given to her by her father. Shortly after Ms. DeVico put the watch up for collateral, her father began to inquire as to the whereabouts of the watch. Because she felt that her father would disapprove of what she had done, and because her father was the source of most of her wealth, Ms. DeVico told several lies to her father about the whereabouts of the watch. As a result of continuing inquiries by her father, Ms. DeVico wanted her watch back and no longer wanted to be responsible under the indemnity agreement she had signed. Towards the beginning of February 1991, Ms. DeVico began to call the Respondent to advise that she was frightened that the defendant Arrechea was considering jumping bond. The Respondent received numerous calls from Ms. DeVico requesting return of her collateral and requesting to be off the indemnity agreement. Consequently, the Respondent hired MV Investigations on February 16, 1991, to locate the defendant Arrechea. On March 27, 1991, Ms. DeVico advised the Respondent that the defendant Arrechea was not answering his digital pager and that his telephone had been disconnected. She advised the Respondent that she sent her employee to look for Arrechea but could not find him. She asked the Respondent to pick up the defendant Arrechea and get her off the bond, agreeing to pay all the expenses. On April 1, 1991, Ms. DeVico again asked the Respondent to pick up the defendant Arrechea and again agreed that she would pay the costs associated with the pick-up. On April 3, 1991, the investigators hired by the Respondent located and picked up defendant Arrechea and surrendered him back to the Dade County Jail. The Respondent returned the collateral deposited by Mr. Farina and by the defendant Arrechea and his wife. After having the defendant Arrechea picked up and surrendered, the Respondent called Ms. DeVico to give her the information and advise her of the pick-up costs. Ms. DeVico verbally refused to pay any pick-up costs. On April 14, 1991, the Respondent sent by certified mail to Ms. DeVico a notice under Section 648.442, Florida Statutes, notifying her that he would be selling her collateral in ten days against his pick-up expenses. The Respondent sold the Rolex watch and diamond ring pledged as collateral by Ms. DeVico after expiration of the ten days. The indemnity agreement signed by Ms. DeVico in conjunction with applying for bail for the defendant Arrechea included the following language: 2. The indemnitor(s) will at all times indemnify and keep indemnified the Company and save harmless the Company from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, costs, charges, legal fees, disbursements and expenses of every kind and nature, which the Company shall at any time sustain or incur, and as well from all orders, decrees, judgments and adjudications against the Company by reason or in consequence of having executed such bond or undertaking in behalf of and/or at the instance of the indemnitor(s) (or any of them) and will pay over, reimburse and make good to the Company, its successors and assigns, all sums and amounts of money required to meet every claim, demand, liability, costs, expense, suit, order, decree, payment and/or adjudication against the Company by reason of the execution of such bond or undertaking and any other bonds or undertakings executed in behalf of and/or at the instance of the Indemnitor(s) and before the Company shall be required to pay thereunder. The liability for legal fees and disbursements includes all legal fees and disbursements that the Company may pay or incur in any legal proceedings, including proceedings in which the Company may assert or defend its right to collect or to charge for any legal fees and/or disbursements incurred in earlier proceedings. * * * 7. The Indemnitor(s) agree(s) that the Company may at any time take such steps as it may deem necessary to obtain its release from any and all liability under any of said bonds or undertakings, and it shall not be necessary for the Company to give the Indemnitor(s) notice of any fact or information coming to the Company's notice or knowledge concerning or affecting its rights or liability under any such bond or undertaking, notice of all such being hereby expressly waived; and that the Company may secure and further indemnify itself against loss, damages and/or expenses in connection with any such bond or undertaking in any manner it may think proper including surrender of the defendant (either before or after forfeiture and/or payment) if the Company shall deem the same advisable; and all expenses which the Company may sustain or incur or be put to in obtaining such release or in further securing itself against loss, shall be borne and paid by the Indemnitor(s). In conjunction with applying for bail for the defendant Arrechea, Ms. DeVico also signed a Bail Bond Information Sheet which advised her in bold print that: When all agreements have been fulfilled and bond is discharged, in writing or by the court, and without loss expense on the bond, your full collateral will be returned to you.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint, and Imposing an administrative penalty consisting of an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 and a suspension of the Respondent's license for a period of 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. 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 12th day of May 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4378 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all of the parties. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 6: Accepted. Paragraph 7: Rejected for two reasons; first, the proposed finding is irrelevant because it is not alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, second, the proposed finding was not proved by clear and convincing evidence. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 through 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: First sentence accepted. Remainder of this paragraph rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 6 through 13: Accepted in substance with some details clarified. Paragraph 14: First sentence accepted. Remainder rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting procedural details or conclusions of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 16: Rejected as constituting statement of position or legal argument, rather than proposed finding of fact. Paragraph 17: First sentence accepted. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as constituting conclusions of law or legal argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 18: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Paragraphs 19 and 20: Accepted COPIES FURNISHED: David D. Hershel, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Martin L. Roth, Esquire Haber & Roth 1370 Northwest 16th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neill, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue At issue is whether petitioner's request for a bond waiver under the provisions of Section 559.927(10)(b)5, Florida Statutes, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Consolidated Cruises and Tours, Inc., is a "seller of travel," as that term is defined by Section 559.927(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and was formed in April 1993 by Steven Wolf, its president, to carry on the travel business he had previously operated through Consolidated Cruises, Inc., since October 1987. Effective October 1, 1988, Chapter 88-363, Laws of Florida, codified at Section 559.927, Florida Statutes (1989), required sellers of travel to register with the Department, and to post an annual performance bond. Failure to register with the Department or to conduct business as a seller of travel without the required bond was a violation of law, and subjected the person or business to civil and criminal penalties. Consolidated Cruises, Inc., the business through which Mr. Wolf was operating at the time, did not register with the Department as a seller of travel until November 1, 1991. Effective October 1, 1993, Chapter 93-107, Section 1, Laws of Florida, amended Section 559.927, Florida Statutes, to provide that: The department may waive the bond requirement in this subsection if the seller of travel has had 5 or more consecutive years of experience as a seller of travel in Florida. . . . On or about May 25, 1994, petitioner filed an application for registration as a seller of travel with respondent, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs (Department), and requested a waiver of the annual performance bond requirement. Pertinent to this case, the request for waiver described the history of Consolidated Cruises, Inc., and Consolidated Cruises and Tours, Inc., as follows: Consolidated Cruises Inc. was established on 10/1/87 as a company that promoted cruises. The sales for the company was minimal for the first 2 years. The principal stock holder was Steven Wolf (100 percent). In March of 1990 Consolidated Cruises added 3 new major stock holders to the company and split the company stock as follows: Steven Wolf - 25 percent Miriam Wolf - 25 percent Yoav Tavory - 25 percent Judy Tavory - 25 percent In April of 1993 Consolidated Cruises ceased to function since the major stock holders had a disagreement as to the dissolution of the company. In the interim, to keep the company going a new corporation was formed by Steven Wolf & Miriam Wolf called, "CONSOLIDATED CRUISES & TOURS INC. For all practical purposes, the company continued to work the same as before but under the auspices of a new company name. In all the years that we have been providing our services, we have never had ONE complaint. On the basis of our past performance, we request that you waive the requested security bond of $10,000. Our previous registration number for CONSOLIDATED CRUISES INC. are as follows: certificate of registration No: 11347 certificate No. 00283 By letter of June 16, 1994, the Department denied petitioner's request for bond waiver. Such denial was premised on the Department's interpretation of Section 559.927, Florida Statutes, as allowing a waiver of the bond requirement only when the "seller of travel has had 5 or more consecutive years of experience as a seller of travel in Florida" that was lawfully obtained, i.e., that such experience occurred while the person or business was duly registered with the Department as required by law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered denying petitioner's request for a performance bond waiver. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of January 1995. 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 18th day of January 1995. APPENDIX Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraph 4, otherwise not relevant. See, paragraph 9. 3-5. Addressed in paragraph 6, otherwise unnecessary detail. 6. Addressed in paragraph 3, otherwise unnecessary detail. 7 & 8. Addressed in paragraph 5. 9. Addressed in paragraphs 4 and 5. 10 & 11. Addressed in paragraph 6. 12. Rejected as not relevant since the Department did not specify such reason as a basis for denial in its letter of June 16, 1994, did not seek to amend its reasons for denial prior to hearing, and did not raise such issue until after petitioner had presented its case-in-chief. See paragraph 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven Wolf, President Consolidated Cruises and Tours, Inc. 8181 Northwest 8th Manor Plantation, Florida 33324 Jay S. Levenstein, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL - 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL - 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a limited surety agent should be revoked or the licensee otherwise disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 4-1, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated October 16, 1979. In this proceeding, Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent for various alleged violations of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 4-1, Florida Administrative Code, arising out of alleged irregularities in connection with a bonding transaction in 1978. Two witnesses testified for the Petitioner and the parties stipulated to the admission of seven documentary exhibits. The Respondent testified in his own behalf at the hearing.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Timothy Michael Paletti is currently licensed as a limited surety agent to represent Cotton Belt Insurance Company, Inc., at Orange Lake, Florida, and was so licensed during the periods alleged in the Administrative Complaint. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Stipulation) On November 23, 1978, Respondent executed an appearance bond in the Gilchrist County Circuit Court in the sum of $10,000 as agent of the surety, Cotton Belt Insurance Company, in behalf of Rodney D. Lovett, who was charged with robbery. Respondent did not attach either an affidavit or statement, as prescribed in Rule 4-1.14, Florida Administrative Code, to the bail bond at the time it was filed in the office of the Circuit Court clerk. It was not until January 31, 1979, that Respondent filed a statement concerning collateral security for the bond under Rule 4-1.141 in lieu of the affidavit required by Rule 4-1.14, F.A.C. Lovett's wife paid a $1,000 premium for the bond and his sister-in-law, Deborah Johnson, executed a demand note for $10,000, together with a mortgage deed on a dwelling which she owned in Deland, Florida, on November 23, 1978, as collateral security for the bond. During the transaction, Respondent provided Johnson with a business card bearing his Orange Lake telephone number. (Testimony of Johnson, Petitioner's Exhibits 2-4) On January 8, 1979, a Notice of Sentencing was issued by the Gilchrist County Circuit Court Clerk in Lovett's case for January 22, 1979 at Trenton, Florida. On January 13, Respondent contacted Lovett and Johnson by telephone at their respective homes and advised them of the date of the required court appearance. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 5) During January 1979, Lovett and his wife talked to Johnson about the possibility of "leaving and not going to court." Johnson became concerned about these disclosures and attempted to reach Respondent at his Orange Lake telephone number. Numerous calls to that number on January 15th were unanswered. After unsuccessful attempts to reach Respondent through the Cotton Belt Insurance Company and at another telephone number provided by Petitioner, Respondent finally called Johnson's house on January 20, at which time Johnson and a friend, Barry S. Beatty, told Respondent about Lovett's statements concerning his intentions and requested that Respondent pick up Lovett and surrender him to court so the collateral security could be released. Respondent told Johnson that he would look into the matter. He then telephoned Lovett's attorney and the Lovett home, and was assured that everything was all right. (Testimony of Johnson, Beatty, Respondent) On January 22, 1979, Lovett failed to appear at court for sentencing and the bond was therefore declared to be forfeited. Respondent and law enforcement authorities there after made efforts to locate Lovett and he was eventually apprehended and sentenced to confinement. On July 2, 1979, the Gilchrist County Circuit Court ordered that the bond previously estreated be remitted less the cost expended by the State in apprehending the defendant in the amount of $500. The collateral security posted by Johnson is still outstanding due to a dispute over costs sought by Respondent. (Testimony of Johnson, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 6-7) Respondent testified at the hearing that he felt he had made reasonable efforts to assure that Lovett would appear in court. Although Respondent moved his office in late January 1979, his office phone was in operation and his office was open during the week of January 15-22. (Testimony of Respondent)
Recommendation That the charges against Respondent Timothy Michael Paletti be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 9th day of July, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Strom Maxwell, Esquire Department of Insurance 428-A Larson Building Legal Division Tallahassee Florida 32301 Robert J. Costello, Esquire Bates and DeCarlis - Suite B 726 Northwest Eighth Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601
The Issue Did Respondent knowingly permit a person who had been convicted of or who had 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 law of any state, territory or country, regardless of whether adjudication of guilt was withheld, to engage in the bail bond business as an employee of Respondent's bail bond agency? If yes, should Respondent have her limited surety agent license disciplined?
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a limited surety agent, license no. 224404483. Petitioner has regulatory jurisdiction over that license. For that reason Petitioner may impose discipline should Respondent violate laws pertaining to Respondent's activities associated with the license. Respondent is President and Director of Crews Bonding Agency, Inc., 24 North Liberty Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32222, through which business she performs insurance-related activities concerning bail bonds. Crews Bonding Agency, Inc. was incorporated in Florida on March 31, 1988. The corporation is organized for the purpose of transacting any or all lawful business. The corporation provides bail bonds at the Liberty Street premises. The corporation also runs a parking lot concession at that location. Both businesses were operated at times relevant to the inquiry. On August 28, 1995, Star Legal Research, Inc. was incorporated to operate at 350 East Forsyth Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202. That street address is the street adjacent to the Liberty Street address. The Star Legal Research business works out of the same building that Crews Bonding Agency uses. The difference being that the entrance to Crews Bonding Agency is on Liberty Street and the Star Legal Research entrance is on Forsyth Street. A 1995-96 occupational license was issued to Star Legal Research c/o Jack I. Etheridge, Jr., Respondent's son, for the period October 1, 1995 to September 30, 1996. Jack I. Etheridge, Jr. owns Star Legal Research. Jack I. Etheridge, Jr. stated that the purpose for incorporating Star Legal Research was to provide work for Jack I. Etheridge, his father and Respondent's husband, in a setting in which Mr. Jack Etheridge, Jr. contends would be unassociated with Crews Bonding Agency. The attempt to disassociate Mr. Jack Etheridge from Crews Bonding Agency will be subsequently explained. When the hearing was convened Jack I. Etheridge had been working in an office in the building where Crews Bonding Agency has its business. That employment was under the guise of Star Legal Research. The office where Jack I. Etheridge works in the building is separated from the office associated with Crews Bonding Agency by a door. Jack I. Etheridge uses a separate entrance into the office where he works. That entrance is from Forsyth Street rather than the Bonding agency entrance from Liberty Street. The business done by Star Legal Research, according to Jack Etheridge, Jr., is one where "you can research any type of legal matters . . . that's pretty much it". Again, Jack Etheridge, Jr. states that his father, Jack Etheridge, ". . . researches legal, you know, business". Under this arrangement, Jack Etheridge is supposedly no longer affiliated with the Crews Bonding Agency in operating its parking lot or otherwise. From the record, it is unclear exactly what is meant by Jack Etheridge's performance of legal research. At present, the bail bond business is done in the front office to the building that houses Crews Bonding Agency and Star Legal Research. That office faces Liberty Street. In addition to the office where bail bond activities are conducted and the back office which faces Forsyth Street, where Star Legal Research is housed, there is a kitchen in the building. That constitutes the rooms in that building. Contrary to the claim by his son that Jack Etheridge is no longer affiliated with Crews Bonding Agency, Respondent identified that the present circumstances are such that Jack Etheridge helps with the Crews Bonding Agency parking lot business "if he sees a car and I don't, he will go there . . .". Respondent identified that she principally handles the parking lot when she is there at the business premises, but that on one occasion, she was in the hospital and was not available to do that work. Further, she stated that her physician did not really want her "running back and forth to the parking lot". Respondent intends to transfer the parking lot business from Crews Bonding Agency to Star Legal Research by January 1997. At one time, Jack Etheridge had been licensed by Petitioner as an insurance agent entitled to participate in bail bond activities. Prior to the passage of Section 648.44(3), Florida Statutes (1983), he had been convicted of a felony in Florida. Section 648.44(3), Florida Statutes (1983), stated: No person who has been convicted of or who has pleaded guilty or no contest to any felony, regardless of whether adjudication of guilt was withheld, may participate as a director, officer, manager, or employee of any bail bond agency or office thereof or own shares in any closely held corporation which has any interest in any bail bond business. Having a concern that Section 648.44(3), Florida Statutes (1983), might disqualify him from continuing to act as an insurance agent in the bail bond business, Jack Etheridge brought suit in the Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, In and For Duval County, Florida, Case No. 82-10537CA, Division K. Petitioner was named defendant in that suit. As a result, an order was entered stating: The provisions of Florida Statutes 648.44(3), Fla. Stat. (1983), or its successor(s) do not and cannot be determined to effect the status of plaintiff, Jack I. Etheridge, in his individual capacity as an officer and director of F.G.C. Bonding Insurance Corporation nor his ability to continue to maintain stock ownership of shares of F.G.C. Bonding Insurance Corporation. The provisions of this paragraph shall serve as notice to all interested parties that said statute does not apply to Jack I. Etheridge, individually, nor in his capacity as an officer, director and stockholder in F.G.C. Bonding Insurance Corporation. Subsequently, in a case in the United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, Case No. CR.89-40-A-M1, Jack Etheridge pled guilty and was found guilty and convicted of the offense of mail fraud, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1341-2. For this offense, he was imprisoned for a period of five years and ordered to make restitution in the amount of $237,393.83. The sentence was imposed on April 6, 1990. At that time, Jack Etheridge was not licensed by Petitioner. Respondent had separated from Mr. Jack Etheridge in 1986. She was reunited with her husband in 1989. Respondent was aware that her husband had been convicted in Florida in state court, the offense for which he sought relief in Circuit Court Case No. 82-10537CA, Division K, and that he had committed the federal offense in Case No. CR.89-40-A-M1. In August or September, 1992, federal probation officers came to the Crews Bonding Agency and spoke to Respondent about her husband's pending release from federal prison. In particular, those persons indicated that Mr. Jack Etheridge was going to be released in December of 1992. In this conversation, the probation officers told Respondent that they expected the husband to work for Crews Bonding Agency in a capacity that did not involve the handling of bail. Respondent told them that her husband could not work at the agency because she did not wish to jeopardize her Florida insurance license and livelihood. This is taken to mean that she was concerned about having a convicted felon working for her at the bail bond agency. In the conversation with the probation officers, Respondent was persuaded that the probation officers had the authority to place her husband with the bail bond agency to give the husband employment in some capacity, other than dealing with bail bond activities. The probation officers did not indicate the specific authority for requiring this placement. Respondent replied to the probation officers that her husband could run the parking lot and clean up. In offering that arrangement, Respondent operated on the assumption that the probation officers were familiar with the requirements in the Florida Insurance Regulations and Statutes. In the conversation between Respondent and the federal probation officers, Respondent made no mention of the ruling in the Circuit Court Case No. 82-10537CA, Division K, concerning her husband's exemption from Section 648.44(3), Florida Statutes (1983), and its effects, or any subsequent law. After the conversation with the probation officers, and prior to her husband's release from prison, Respondent sought advice of counsel concerning the propriety of having her husband employed by Crews Bonding Agency. Robert Persons, Esquire is corporate counsel for Crews Bonding Agency. He incorporated the business. He has done work for the business as corporate counsel, beginning in 1988. He was aware that Mr. Jack Etheridge had been incarcerated in the federal corrections system. Before Mr. Jack Etheridge was released, Mr. Persons reviewed the previously-quoted language in Circuit Court Case No. 82-10537CA, Division K, in response to Respondent's request for legal advice. Respondent had told Mr. Persons that it was possible that she was going to hire her husband to run the parking lot for the Crews Bonding Agency. She wanted to know if there would be a problem with Petitioner's statutes that prohibited a bonding agency from operating with a felon working for it. Specifically, Respondent asked Mr. Persons if her husband could work in the parking lot. Mr. Persons told Respondent that his interpretation of the order was that the statutory prohibition against felons working for a bonding agency did not apply to her husband. For that reason, he did not believe that there would be a problem having the husband work at the parking lot. Moreover, he told Respondent that he did not believe that it presented a problem, in that the activities by the husband, when running the parking lot business, did not involve employment with the bail bonding operation. When he gave this advice, Mr. Persons was familiar with the parking lot concessions operation, having used the parking lot himself. He was also familiar with the bail bond business conducted by Crews Bonding Agency. John Gary Baker, Esquire was retained to assist Mr. Jack Etheridge in meeting the terms of the federal parole granted the client. This included correspondence with the probation office in an attempt to obtain early release. Once Mr. Jack Etheridge was released, Mr. Baker went with the client and spoke to probation officer, Diane Thomas. This conversation took place sometime in late August or early September, 1993. Ms. Thomas told Mr. Baker and Mr. Etheridge that Mr. Etheridge needed to obtain a job as a means to meet requirements for restitution. In this conversation, Ms. Thomas inquired concerning Respondent's income in an attempt to determine the amount that Mr. Etheridge should pay in the way of restitution. Mr. Baker tried to impress Ms. Thomas with the fact that Respondent's income and business were separate from Mr. Etheridge's circumstance. In the conversation, Mr. Etheridge told Ms. Thomas that he wished to be a bus driver. That was his profession prior to being involved in the insurance business in Louisiana, which led to his incarceration. Ms. Thomas would not agree to that arrangement. She indicated that Mr. Etheridge had to be located in a place where the probation officers could come and see him at anytime, day or night. Ms. Thomas asked the question about whether Mr. Etheridge could work for his wife at Crews Bonding Agency, and Mr. Etheridge stated that he did not wish to work for his wife. Ms. Thomas responded to these remarks by saying that she had an order that indicated that Mr. Etheridge could work at the Crews Bonding Agency. This refers to the Circuit Court Case No. 82-10537CA, Division K. Ms. Thomas further told Mr. Etheridge that Mr. Etheridge needed to work at Crews Bonding Agency. Before the date upon which the meeting was held with Ms. Thomas, Mr. Baker had not been acquainted with the circuit court order. When Mr. Baker and Mr. Etheridge left the meeting with Ms. Thomas, they went to the Crews Bonding Agency office; and Mr. Etheridge produced a copy of the circuit court order. Respondent was there at that time. Mr. Baker reviewed the order and expressed an opinion to Respondent and her husband that the husband could work at Crews Bonding Agency in any capacity, other than giving out forms or advice about bail bonds. At that point, there was conversation about the husband running the parking lot. That arrangement was one which Mr. Baker stated would be acceptable and would satisfy the terms of Mr. Etheridge's probation. Moreover, Mr. Baker offered the advice that the circuit court order would allow the husband to attend to clerical matters, such as answering the telephones. David R. Fletcher, Esquire was acquainted with Respondent. Mr. Fletcher was aware that Jack Etheridge had been incarcerated in a federal facility. Mr. Fletcher was approached by Respondent, who asked Mr. Fletcher about the Circuit Court Case No. 82-10537CA, Division K, and the meaning of the order. In particular, Respondent made Mr. Fletcher aware that she was concerned about the federal probation office's instructions or the condition upon which Mr. Etheridge's probation would be served as an employee at Crews Bonding Agency. Respondent told Mr. Fletcher that she was concerned that this would create a problem because of the husband's prior record, taken to mean felony record. When Mr. Fletcher read the order, he expressed the opinion that the husband was exempt from the disqualifying provisions for felons working in a bail bond agency. At the time the conversation was held between Mr. Fletcher and Respondent concerning the husband's status as a felon, Mr. Fletcher understood that the husband would be returning from incarceration and working at the bail bond agency as a parking lot attendant. Respondent relied upon advice of counsel in deciding to allow her husband to work at the bail bond agency as a parking lot attendant. As contemplated by the instructions which the probation officers gave Mr. Jack Etheridge, he took employment at the Crews Bonding Agency. His duties included running the parking lot, vacuuming the building where the bond agency was located, and answering the telephone at the bail bond agency. When he would answer the telephone, Respondent noted that Jack Etheridge would state that he was not a bail bond agent and that the person who was calling would need to speak to the "bonds man". At times, Respondent received calls that had been patched through from the bail bond agency to another location, through efforts by Jack Etheridge. Respondent is aware that her husband took messages for the bail bond agency, as well. Respondent observed that Jack Etheridge principally stayed in the back office, which fronts Forsyth Street, when he worked for the Crews Bonding Agency as parking lot attendant. Specific remarks made by Jack Etheridge in receiving calls for the bonding agency would be "Crews Bonding, would you hold please". If someone needed to speak to Respondent immediately, Mr. Etheridge would state "she is busy, hold please, if you will give me your number, I will have her call you back". Once while Jack Etheridge was employed at the Crews Bonding Agency, following release from federal prison, Ms. Thomas came to the agency to check on his status. Upon that occasion, Respondent spoke to Ms. Thomas and asked if her husband could drive a bus, instead of being employed by the bail bond agency. Ms. Thomas replied in the negative and stated that the husband had to stay with the agency and work with Respondent. Ms. Thomas told Respondent that Mr. Jack Etheridge had to be paid a check from the bonding agency. Respondent honored that request. The reason given for requiring that Mr. Jack Etheridge be paid a check was based upon the statement by Ms. Thomas that the husband had to take evidence of the check being issued and present that to the probation office. According to the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Jack Etheridge was paid $800.00 for four weeks worked in the third quarter of 1993; $2,800.00 for 13 weeks worked in the fourth quarter of 1993; $2,419.23 for 12 weeks worked in the first quarter of 1994; $2,854.61 for 13 weeks worked in the second quarter of 1994; and $3,080.00 for 13 weeks worked in the third quarter of 1994. Jack Etheridge, Jr. observed that his father, upon taking the position as parking lot attendant, worked in the kitchen area of the premises most of the time for a period and then moved into the back office, which fronts Forsyth Street, later on. The kitchen area is separated from the room where the bail bonding business is conducted. The room on Liberty Street is where Respondent has traditionally conducted her bail bond business. Jack Etheridge, Jr. never observed his father work in a bail bond capacity once the father returned from incarceration. He did observe that when a car came into the parking lot, his father would direct the driver where to park the car and then return to the building. Jack Etheridge, Jr. made these observations while working in the front office, where bail bond business was conducted, and never noted his father being in that front office. Jack Etheridge, Jr. was at the premises most every day before attending the police academy. After attending the police academy, he spends most of his time at the bail bond agency, pending employment as a policeman. Mr. Persons goes to the location of the bail bond agency two to three times per week and uses a parking space in the parking lot. On those occasions, he sees Jack Etheridge in the parking lot. Mr. Persons has seen Jack Etheridge at the location of the Crews Bonding Agency numerous times, following Jack Etheridge's release from prison. Mr. Persons has gone to that location 150 times within two and one-half years, and it would be uncommon for Jack Etheridge not to have been at the location when Mr. Persons came by. On some visits Mr. Persons has spent as much as 15 or 20 minutes with Respondent and her son at the bail bond agency. On occasions when he visited the bail bond agency, he has never observed Mr. Jack Etheridge do anything related to the bail bond business, unless one considers that answering the telephone at the bail bond agency, when Respondent is unable to, constitutes bail bond business. Mr. Persons has seen Jack Etheridge put a caller on hold and then refer the call to Respondent. The observation by Mr. Persons, where Mr. Jack Etheridge was involved with answering the telephone in the bail bond office, was not the usual circumstance. In the past, when Mr. Persons observed the operation at the bail bond agency, the door separating the room that faces Liberty Street and the room that faces Forsyth Street was open. More recently, that door has been closed between the two rooms. Mr. Persons observed that in the more recent circumstances, Jack Etheridge was using the office that fronts Forsyth Street. Mr. Persons observed that at the time the hearing was conducted, Jack Etheridge was still maintaining the parking lot. Mr. Persons observed that prior to the creation of the Star Legal Research business, Jack Etheridge, when not located in the parking lot, would be found in the office which fronts Forsyth Street. In summary, under the present circumstances, it is unclear what Mr. Jack Etheridge is principally involved with at the premises primarily associated with Crews Bonding Agency and its businesses. Following advice by Mr. Baker that it would be acceptable for Mr. Jack Etheridge to work at the bail bond agency, he has been in the Crews Bonding Agency office approximately 100 times. On almost every occasion, Jack Etheridge would be in the back room on Forsyth Street. Nine out of ten times, Jack Etheridge would be in that location when observed by Mr. Baker. The only times that Mr. Baker would observe Jack Etheridge in the front office, where the bail bonding business was being conducted, would be if other bail bond agency employees were out making a bond or something of that nature. In that instance, Jack Etheridge would be sitting in the front office, where the bail bond business is conducted; and if someone came to park their car, he would take care of that business. If someone came into the office and asked about a bail bond, Jack Etheridge would remark, "Look, Anne (Respondent) is going to be back in a half hour, she is making a bond, or Clara will be back. Come back, or you can sit over there and wait". Clara refers to another employee of the bail bond agency. Mr. Baker also observed that on the occasion on which Jack Etheridge was in the front office, he would refuse to give information about bail bonds and limit himself to handling parking duties and answering the telephone if no one else was available to answer the telephone. Mr. Fletcher has seen Jack Etheridge at the bail bond agency location approximately twice per week, following Mr. Etheridge's release from incarceration. On these occasions, Mr. Fletcher would give Jack Etheridge keys to Mr. Fletcher's car and seek assistance in parking. In these visits to the agency, Mr. Fletcher never observed Jack Etheridge perform work as a bail bond agent. In fact, he never observed Jack Etheridge work anywhere other than in the parking lot. Respondent and her husband brought further action in Circuit Court Case No. 82-10537CA, assigned to Division CV-F. At that time, the previous judge, who had issued the aforementioned order on March 27, 1984, was not presiding in the case. That refers to the Honorable Henry Lee Adams, Jr., who now serves as a federal district judge. The judge who presided in the reopening of the circuit court case was the Honorable Lawrence D. Fay, Circuit Judge. On October 30, 1995, Judge Fay entered an order in Case No. 82- 10537CA, Division CV-F, enjoining consideration of Count I to the present administrative complaint, in which he ordered: The Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction is here- by GRANTED with respect to Count I of the Administrative Complaint and First Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Defendant against Plaintiff, Anne Evans Etheridge, and Defendant shall be enjoined from proceeding against Plaintiff, Anne Evans Etheridge, as to Count I of same in DOAH Case No. 95-3964. Judge Fay also ruled: The Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction is here- by DENIED with respect to the filing of any complaints under Section 648.44(7), Florida Statutes, relative to convictions, guilty pleas, or no contest pleas by Jack I. Ethe- ridge entered subsequent to March 27, 1984. Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust adminis- trative remedies. Based upon the orders by Judge Fay, administrative prosecution has proceeded to resolve Count II to the administrative complaint addressed in DOAH Case No. 95-3964.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which dismisses the First Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 15th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-3964 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the parties. Petitioner's Findings: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 5 constitutes legal argument. Respondent's Findings: Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 3 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 4 is established through the Preliminary Statement. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 7 is subordinate to facts found, with the exception that several other local attorneys were not contacted for advice. One additional attorney was sought out for advice, Mr. Baker. Paragraph 8, the first sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The remaining sentences are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 9 through 13 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 14 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 15-16 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Dickson E. Kesler, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Agent and Agency Services 8070 North West 53rd Street, Suite 103 Miami, FL 33166 Judy Groover, Esquire 24 North Market Street, Suite 301-A Jacksonville, FL 32202 Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Respondent's licenses as an insurance agent in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Department of Insurance was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of insurance professionals and the regulation of the insurance industry in this state. Respondent, Harold R. Leiffer, was licensed by the state as a life and health (debit) agent, a life agent, a life and health agent, a general lines agent, and a public adjuster (for fire and allied lines, including marine casualty and motor vehicle damage and mechanical breakdown insurance), and was engaged in the practice of the insurance profession under those licenses in Florida. In January, 1991, Donna L. Devor, at the time, the owner of Cobra Construction Co., a corporation, was contacted by the Respondent after she received a bid for the construction of a fire station in Florida. Ms. Devor had previously known the Respondent as an insurance agent through a company she was associated with to which he had provided construction bonds in the past. On this occasion, in January, 1991, according to Ms. Devor, Respondent called to say he was with a new company and could get her the bond she needed to support the bid she had been awarded. Ms. Devor invited him over to talk about it and they discussed it. Again, he indicated he would be able to get her the bond she needed. The next day, when he came back with the preliminary paperwork, he asked for a check in the amount of $850.00. According to Ms. Devor, he indicated that of that sum, $500.00 was to cover setup fees and other fees by the bonding company and $300.00 was to go to DSI, his agency. In response, Ms. Devor gave him a check for $850.00 made payable, at his request, to ICI, Respondent's other company, after which he left with the forms she had signed, some in blank. When he left, he promised to process the paperwork immediately in response to her stressing the urgency of the need for the bond. After several days passed with no response, Ms. Devor attempted to contact Respondent by phone but was unable to reach him. When she finally was able to speak with him, he asked her to come to his office to discuss the bonding company's requirement that she place her house as collateral for the bond. Ms. Devor immediately declined to do this but nonetheless went to his office at DSI to talk with him. When she arrived, he immediately called the bonding company which again requested she place her house as security, and she again refused. When this happened, Respondent asked her to come back the next day as he would try another source for the bond. When she contacted him the following day, he indicated he could get the bond from an Atlanta firm but she would have to go there to pick it up. She agreed to do this and Respondent, in addition, asked for a financial statement which she arranged to have provided. Ms. Devor flew to Atlanta and was met there by Respondent who drove her to the bonding company's office. When she met with company officials, she was told they imposed a coinsurance requirement of $100,000.00 in the company's name be put up by her and she did not have this cash available. Respondent, she claims, knew this. Nonetheless, she was furnished an office and a telephone to try to get the money but was unable to do so and as a result, the bonding company declined to issue the bond. After that failure, she returned to Orlando and, realizing that Respondent was apparently unable to help her, started to look for another bonding company. She called Respondent's secretary several times attempting to reach him to get her money back but, when she was unable to do so, finally sent him a letter requesting the return of her $850.00 payment. Respondent failed to respond to that letter and she continued to try to reach him, unsuccessfully, by phone. Finally, she was able to contact DSI's owner who indicated she had never heard of Ms. Devor and asked she be shown proof that the bond premium was paid. When Ms. Devor sent a copy of the check she had given to Respondent, the owner evidenced some dissatisfaction with Respondent but failed to refund the money. Ms. Devor continued to try to reach Respondent by phone without success. When she found where he lived, she wrote him another letter asking not only for the return of the amount she had paid him but also for reimbursement of expenses she had incurred in flying to Atlanta. She received neither. However, about a week or so later, she received a call from Respondent on her answering machine which left no return number. She was thereafter unable to again contact Respondent nor did she ever receive reimbursement of her payment to him. The $850.00 check was endorsed by Respondent with his own name and deposited to his personal account, Number 1307004115, at the Orange Bank in Winter Park, Florida. According to Mr. Leach, Vice-President of security operations for Pinnacle Insurance in Carrolton, Georgia, the company to which Ms. Devor flew at Respondent's request, the company file for Cobra Corporation shows no bond was ever issued to that company. Florida does not allow a charge for setup fees in any case, and he would not have received one in connection with this application even if the bond had been issued. It is company policy not to charge a fee of any kind if a bond is not issued. Only if the application is approved and the applicant then withdraws is a fee charged. In any case, the premium on a $100,000.00 bond such as that sought here would be $2,500.00. Respondent at one point owned Statewide Insurance and sold it to DSI, the company with whom he was associated at the time he took the bond application from Ms. Devor. His story of the transaction differs somewhat from that of Ms. Devor, however, in that he denies calling her to solicit her business. Instead, he claims, she called him and begged that he get her the bond she needed for this contract. In fact, he claims, she said she'd do anything she had to do, or pay any fee necessary, to get the bond. When he explained what the fees would be, she agreed to them. Respondent contends he got the bond through United American Security in Boston, which charges a setup fee of $500.00. When Ms. Devor, however, could not live with the company's conditions, indicating she could not get the required additional credit from her bank, she rejected that condition and Respondent agreed to try with Pinnacle. It is, he claims, Ms. Devor, who suggested they go to Atlanta where Mr. Mathieson, the representative of the insurance company at the time, imposed the requirement for collateral. He also contends she agreed to this. Afterwards, he asserts, Ms. Devor claimed to have gotten a bond without collateral from a company in Ft. Lauderdale which she presented to the contracting party. From the check for $850.00 which Respondent received from Ms. Devor, he paid $500.00 to United American as its setup fee, and $250.00 to Pinnacle for its fees. Respondent did not provide a cancelled check as evidence of either payment, however. He cannot account for the additional $100.00. In any case, he contends, after Ms. Devor requested a refund, he contacted both United American and Pinnacle to request reimbursement, but both refused because, they claimed, they had accepted her and had done credit checks on her. Respondent claims that Ms. Devor was offered two bonds, both of which she rejected because she did not want to put up the collateral or security requested by the bonding companies. He went to the companies under those conditions because, he contends, she had previously stated she would accept conditions, implying she would do anything necessary to get the bonds. In support of Mr. Leiffer's assertions, he introduced an enrollment form with United American Contractor's Association signed by Ms. Devor which indicates Cobra Construction Corp. applied for enrollment in the association and submitted a check for $500.00 as an enrollment fee. He also introduced a contractor's questionnaire reflecting the payment of a $250.00 application setup fee with Pinnacle to cover underwriting reviews and efforts in establishing a bond account. Ms. Devor, however, while admitting her signature appears thereon, does not recall having signed either document, contending that they may have been among those documents Respondent asked her to sign at the beginning of their relationship regarding this bond, some of which she signed in blank. Respondent, who had previously been with DSI and had just recently gone with ICI, nonetheless could give no reasonable justification for placing the $850.00 fee paid to him by Ms. Devor in his personal bank account and not in the account of one of the two companies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint in this case, alleging misconduct by Respondent, Harold Rush Leiffer, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 10th day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence not a FOF. Second sentence accepted but evidence was presented by Respondent to show that Respondent signed an application for membership in UACA ($500.00) and with some other unspecified concern for 1 $250.00 setup fee. Balance of paragraph accepted. Rejected as unproven by clear and convincing evidence. FOR THE RESPONDENT: No Proposed Findings of Fact submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Harold R. Leiffer 2026 St. George Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neill General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
