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
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, Fidelity Standard Mortgage Company (Fidelity Standard) and First Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. (First Fidelity) were mortgage brokers licensed by respondent, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance (Division). In or around early 1983, Fidelity Standard and First Fidelity filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code. By virtue of this action, numerous investors lost substantial amounts of money invested with the two brokers. In 1977 the legislature established in chapter 494 a mortgage brokerage guaranty fund from which payment is made to persons "adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to have suffered monetary damage as a result of any (unlawful) acts by a mortgage broker... who was licensed under, this chapter at the time the act was committed." Certain conditions must be met in order to establish eligibility for payment from the fund, and payments for claims are limited in the aggregate to $50,000 per mortgage broker, regardless of the number of claimants. 1/ Among other things, section 494.043 requires that a claimant must have (a) received a final judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction against the broker, (b) caused to be issued a writ of execution upon the judgment and the return indicates insufficient assets to satisfy the judgment, (c) made a reasonable search to discover assets of the broker, and has found none, (d) applied any amounts recovered from broker to the damages awarded by the court, and (e) given notice to the Division by certified mail at the time the action was instituted. Where as here, the broker has filed for bankruptcy, steps (b) and (c) need not be taken by the claimant, except to file a claim in the bankruptcy proceeding. There is also a two year period in which investors may perfect their claims. These persons receive first priority to payment from the fund. In the case of both Fidelity Standard and First Fidelity, this period expired on June 18, 1986. Thus, in order to share in the first distribution of moneys from the fund, a claimant had to satisfy the above criteria by that date. In addition to these criteria, a claimant must assign to the Division any interest in the judgment received once all criteria in section 494.043 have been met. The statute imposing this requirement (s. 494.044) provides that this must be done after the claimant has received payment from the fund. In its proposed final order concerning Fidelity Standard entered on August 7, 1986, the Division concluded that the following claimants should receive payment from the fund in the amounts specified below: Claimant Claim Allowed David Swid $ 2,321.00 William & Olivia Petruzel 2,321.00 Vera G. Marino 2,321.00 Benjamin Rosenberg 2,321.00 Lee Rosenberg 2,321.00 Shasha Enterprises 2,321.00 Eli Krause 1,995.00 Eugene Brooks, M.D., P.C. 2,321.00 Eugene Brooks 2,321.00 Steven Jankovich 2,100.50 Stacy Sher 2,100.50 Frederick Low 2,321.00 Patricia Worthley 2,321,00 Alfred Vanderlaan 2,321.00 Ben Sakow 2,048.00 Thomas Shisler 1,229.00 David Irving 2,321.00 Betty Burwell 1,662.00 Alisa Kreimer 2,321.00 Samuel Rudnick 2,321.00 Bonnie & Howard Lenkowitz 1,204.00 Larry & Sally Lenkowitz 525.00 Stuart & Barbara Schrager 2,321.00 Helen & Eugene Loos 2,321.00 Total Payments $50,000.00 In a second order entered the same day involving First Fidelity, the Division proposed that the following claimants receive payment from the fund as indicated below: Claimant Fund Award Swid $ 2,620.00 Morton 2,620.00 Ghane 2,620.00 Petruzel 2,620.00 Marino 2,620.00 B. Rosenberg 2,620.00 L. Rosenberg 2,620.00 Shasha Enterprises 2,620.00 Krause 2,254.00 Brooks, M.D., P.C. 2,620.00 Brooks 2,620.00 Jankovich 2,372.00 Sher 2,372.00 Low 2,620.00 Worthley 2,620.00 Vanderlaan 2,620.00 Sakow 2,313.00 Shisler 1,389.00 Irving 2,620.00 Loos 2,620.00 Total Payments $50,000.00 After the entry of the proposed final order in Case No. 86-3575, petitioners, David Swid, Vera G. Marino et al., Samuel Rudnick et al., and William and Olivia Petruzel, who are named as recipients from the fund, requested a hearing to either contest or support the proposed payout from the fund. In addition, petitioners, Merele Dunne, Ida Orlick and Ilene Kirshner, whose claims were denied, challenged the proposed action. In Case No. 86-3576 involving First Fidelity, petitioners, William and Olivia Petruzel, David Swid, Esmail Ghane and Vera G. Marino et al., who are named as recipients of the fund, have requested a formal hearing to either challenge or support the agency action. Petitioners, Harry and Yetta Neiderman, Harold E. and Eva L. Roys and Harold S. Johnson, whose claims to participate in the initial distribution of the fund were denied, also requested a hearing to contest the action. The Claimants David Swid -- Swid satisfied all statutory criteria in section 494.043 for perfecting his claim against both Fidelity Standard and First Fidelity by June 18, 1986. His partial assignment to the Division of the judgment against the brokers was also filed on June 18, 1986, but was not furnished to the Division until July 9, 1986. Even so, Swid has satisfied all criteria, and is eligible to participate in the initial payout from the fund. Marino et al. -- This group of claimants includes fifteen investors. 2/ Marino et al. received two identical judgments against First Fidelity and Fidelity Standard and otherwise satisfied all statutory criteria by June 18, 1986. Because the group is not entitled to a double recovery, the amount awarded by the court has been divided in half. An assignment of the judgments was filed with the Division on June 12, 1986, but did not reflect the page and book number where the judgments were recorded. However, the judgments were filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, and records of that court are not kept by book and page number. Therefore, the assignment was in proper form, and all statutory criteria have been met. William and Olivia Petruzel -- The Petruzels obtained final judgments against First Fidelity and Fidelity Standard on April 11, 1985, in the United States Bankruptcy Court. Partial assignments of the judgments dated April 4, 1986, in favor of the Division were filed with the Division in April 1986. Therefore, all pertinent criteria have been met, and the Petruzels are eligible to share in the initial payout from the fund. Harold E. and Eva L. Roys and Harold S. Johnson -- These parties are claimants against First Fidelity. There is no evidence that they perfected their claims prior to June 18, 1986. Therefore, their claim to participate in the first distribution of moneys from the fund should be denied. Rudnick et al. -- This group of claimants includes six investors in Fidelity Standard. 3/ They obtained a final judgment against Fidelity Standard on June 10, 1986, in Broward County circuit court. Assignments of this judgment to the Division were executed in August 1986, and later filed with the Division. Therefore, Rudnick et al. have qualified for participation. Ida Orlick and Merele Dunne -- These two claimants were investors in Fidelity Standard and First Fidelity. They did not obtain a final judgment against those brokers until June 25, 1986, or after the two-year period to perfect claims had expired. Therefore, they are not entitled to participate in the first distribution of moneys from the fund. 4/ Harry and Yetta Neiderman -- These claimants were investors in First Fidelity. They obtained a final judgment in bankruptcy court against the broker prior to June 18, 1986. The Division proposed to deny the claim on the ground no documentation was submitted to prove that a claim had been filed with the bankruptcy court. At final hearing, the Neidermans submitted a proof of claim which reflected such a claim was previously filed with the court on July 15, 1982. Therefore, all statutory criteria have been met. Irene Morton -- Morton was an investor in First Fidelity who, like the others, lost her investment by virtue of illegal acts of that broker. She has perfected her claim in a timely manner and is entitled to participate in the first distribution of moneys from the fund. Esmail Ghane -- This investor lost approximately $30,000 due to the illicit acts of First Fidelity. He has subsequently obtained a judgment against the broker and has satisfied in a timely manner all other statutory criteria. Therefore, he has perfected his claim and is eligible for payment from the fund. At the same time, it is noted that Ghane's cause of action against the broker arose prior to October 1, 1985, and that he must share in the lower aggregate award ($50,000) that applies to claims arising before that date. Computation of Payments In addition to obtaining judgments for their lost principal, virtually all of the claimants were awarded either prejudgment or post-judgment interest, or both, by the courts adjudicating their claims. Further, some of the claimants have previously received payments from the fund for illegal acts occurring on the part of Franklin Capital Corporation, an affiliated corporation of First Fidelity and Fidelity Standard. By stipulation of counsel, the following amounts are the correct amounts due the claimants for losses arising from illicit acts by Fidelity Standard and First Fidelity assuming their claims are both timely and valid. The amounts are computed after deducting prior payments and by using only the principal amount awarded by the courts, and by including principal and pre- judgment interest. Fidelity Standard (without interest) Fund Claimant Award Swid $ 3,021.00 Petruzel 3,021.00 Marino 3,021.00 B. Rosenberg 3,021.00 L. Rosenberg 3,021.00 Shasha Enterprises 3,021.00 Krause 1,435.00 Brooks, M.D., P.C. 2,870.00 Brooks 1,888.00 Jankovich 1,511.00 Sher 1,511.00 Low 1,813.00 Worthley 1,813.00 Vanderlaan 2,417.00 Sakow 1,511.00 Shisler 906.00 Irving 2,553.00 Burwell 477.00 Kreimer 1,081.00 Rudnick 2,290.00 B & H Lenkowitz 1,686.00 L & S Lenkowitz 70.00 Schrager 3,021.00 Loos 3,021.00 $50,000.00 Fidelity Standard (with prejudgment interest) Claimant Fund Award Swid $ 2,279.50 Petruzel 2,279.50 Marino 2,279.50 B. Rosenberg 2,279.50 L. Rosenberg 2,279.50 Shasha Enterprises 2,279.50 Krause 1,959.50 Brooks, M.D., P.C. 2,279.50 Brooks 2,279.50 Jankovich 2,062.50 Sher 2,062.50 Low 2,279.50 Worthley 2,279.50 Vanderlaan 2,279.50 Sakow 2,011.50 Shisler 1,206.50 Irving 2,279.50 Burwell 1,531.50 Kreimer 2,219.50 Rudnick 2,279.50 B & H Lenkowitz 2,279.50 L & S Lenkowitz 474.50 Schrager 2,279.50 Loos 2,279.50 $ 50,000.00 Fidelity (without Standard interest) Claimant Fund Award Swid $ 3,021.00 Petruzel 3,021.00 Marino 3,021.00 B. Rosenberg 3,021.00 L. Rosenberg 3,021.00 Shasha Enterprises 3,021.00 Krause 1,435.00 Brooks, M.D., P.C. 2,870.00 Brooks 1,888.00 Jankovich 1,511.00 Sher 1,511.00 Low 1,813.00 Worthley 1,813.00 Vanderlaan 2,417.00 Sakow 1,511.00 Shisler 906.00 Irving 2,553.00 Burwell 477.00 Kreimer 1,081.00 Rudnick 2,290.00 B & H Lenkowitz 1,686.00 L & S Lenkowitz 70.00 Schrager 3,021.00 Loos 3,021.00 $50,000.00 Fidelity Standard (with pre-judgement interest) Fund Claimant Award Swid $ 2,279.50 Petruzel 2,279.50 Marino 2,279.50 B. Rosenberg 2,279.50 L. Rosenberg 2,279.50 Shasha Enterprises 2,279.50 Krause 1,959.50 Brooks, M.D., P.C. 2,279.50 Brooks, 2,279.50 Jankovich 2,062.50 Sher 2,062.50 Low 2,279.50 Worthley 2,279.50 Vanderlaan 2,279.50 Sakow 2,011.50 Shisler 1,206.50 Irving 2,279.00 Burwell 1,531.50 Kreimer 2,219.50 Rudnick 2,279.50 B & H Lenkowitz 2,279.50 L & S Lenkowitz 474.50 Schrager 2,279.50 Loos 2,279.50 $50,000.00 First Fidelity (without interest) Claimant Fund Award Neiderman $ 2,995.00 Swid 2,995.00 Morton 2,995.00 Ghane 2,995.00 Petruzel 2,995.00 Marino 2,995.00 B. Rosenberg 2,995.00 L. Rosenberg 2,995.00 Shasha Enterprises 2,995.00 Krause 1,422.50 Brooks, M.D., P.C. 2,845.00 Brooks 1,872.00 Jankovich 1,497.25 Sher 1,497.25 Low 1,797.00 Worthley 1,797.00 Vanderlaan 2,396.00 Sakow 1,497.25 Shisler 898.25 Irving 2,530.50 Loos 2,995.00 $50,000.00 First Fidelity (with prejudgment interest) Fund Claimant Award Neiderman $ 2,489.80 Swid 2,489.80 Morton 2,489.80 Ghane 2,489.80 Petruzel 2,489.80 Marino 2,489.80 B. Rosenberg 2,489.80 L. Rosenberg 2,489.80 Shasha Enterprises 2,489.80 Krause 2,140.44 Brooks, M.D., P.C. 2,489.80 Brooks 2,489.80 Jankovich 2,253.44 Sher 2,253.44 Low 2,489.80 Worthley 2,489.80 Vanderlaan 2,489.80 Sakow 2,197.44 Shisler 1,318.44 Irving 2,489.80 Loos 2,489.80 $50,000.00 The inclusion of post-judgment interest in the calculation of the awards has an inconsequential effect on the amounts to be paid and accordingly has been disregarded.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the initial payment from the mortgage brokerage guaranty fund for damages arising from illicit acts by Fidelity Standard and First Fidelity be made in accordance with the schedules set forth in finding of fact 16, said amounts to include prejudgment interest. All other claims for relief should be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found Upon the suggestion of a special investigator with the Department of Insurance, a letter dated April 23, 1984, and signed by Northeast Regional Director Thomas P. Poston was written to the respondent at the address listed for him in the Tallahassee licensing office. This letter advised the respondent that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer had received complaints from Orange and Seminole Counties that he was recruiting clients during initial court appearances and that this appeared to be a violation of Section 648.44(b) of the Florida Statutes. The letter admonished respondent to immediately terminate such solicitation and advised him that any additional complaints would bring further action. The evidence does not establish whether respondent received this letter of April 23, 1984. The respondent was involved in another administrative proceeding with the petitioner, the facts of which were not brought into evidence in the instant proceeding. In the former proceeding, Case No. 84-L-3155, a Consent Order was entered which required respondent to pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 and placed him on probation for a period of one year with the condition that he strictly adhere to the Florida Insurance Code. On or about December 4, 1984, Kenneth Martin was working on the property of Ray Dittmore. Respondent had previously, in July of 1984, written three bailbonds for Mr. Martin, all of which had been forfeited due to Mr. Martin's failure to appear in court. Upon learning of the whereabouts of Mr. Martin, respondent sent his employee, George Burfield, to Mr. Dittmore's property to apprehend Martin and return him to custody. Mr. Dittmore was present when Mr. Burfield arrived to take Martin into custody and felt that Mr. Burfield had misconducted himself during the apprehension process. After the incident, Dittmore telephoned respondent to complain about the conduct of his employee Burfield. Later that same day, Mr. Dittmore went to the Orange County Jail with his attorney, Warren Linsey, for the purpose of posting a cash bond for Kenneth Martin. There were prisoners confined in the Orange County Jail on December 4, 1984. While Mr. Dittmore was at the booking window counting his money, approximately $3,000.00, respondent approached him. Mr. Linsey recalls that respondent immediately introduced himself as a bondsman and offered his services. George Cox, also a bondsman, was present and recalls that when respondent saw Mr. Dittmore counting money at the window, respondent approached him, stated that he was a bail bondsman and informed him that Dittmore did not have to post the cash and could use him (respondent) instead. Mr. Dittmore recalls that after he told the deputy that he wished to bond out Kenneth Martin, respondent approached him at the window and asked him if he was the Dittmore he had spoken to earlier that day. Dittmore then recalls that respondent told him he didn't have to put up $3,000.00 because respondent could sell him a bond. According to Mr. Dittmore, respondent also told him that he wouldn't bond Martin out, that Dittmore was "dumb" for doing so and would end up losing his money. Respondent, who had previously written about $1,800.00 worth of bonds on Kenneth Martin and only received $216.00 as a remission for returning him to custody on December 4, 1984, recalls the incident at the Orange County Jail with Mr. Dittmore as follows. From his nearby position at the booking window, he could overhear and see that a "Dittmore" was there to post a bond for Kenneth Martin. After inquiring of Mr. Dittmore if he was the same Dittmore he had spoken with earlier, respondent introduced himself, apologized for what had happened earlier that day, begged him not to bail Martin out and told him he was foolish for doing so. He does recall later saying to George Cox that there were better ways to invest cash. Because respondent had previously lost money on Kenneth Martin, he had no intention of writing another bond on him on the same date he had been responsible for Martin's return to custody. Joseph Barrow was arrested on May 29, 1985, and was taken to the Seminole County Jail. At the time of his arrest, he had been drinking alcoholic beverages. Although subpoenaed to appear as a witness in this administrative hearing, Joseph Barrow was released and was not called upon to testify by the petitioner. According to sworn testimony taken on January 28, 1986, Joseph Barrow recalls that after he was fingerprinted at the Seminole County Jail on the evening of May 29, 1985, he called home to have his wife contact a bail bondsman to get him out of jail. He does not know if his family did contact a bondsman that night. However, he did speak with a bail bondsman that night at the jail, but could not remember his name. The description of the bondsman given in Joseph Barrow's statement of January 28, 1986, matched the respondent's physical appearance at the hearing. Joseph's wife, Michele Barrow, testified that her husband telephoned her the night he was arrested and asked her to find a bondsman. Neither the time of that telephone conversation nor the family's immediate response to that request were established at the hearing. On May 30, 1985, James Barrow, Joseph's brother; Donna Brino, Joseph's sister; and Michele Barrow, Joseph's wife, were at the Seminole County Jail for the purpose of getting Joseph out of jail. There were prisoners confined at the jail on that date. James recalls that, as he was standing in line to obtain information regarding his brother, respondent was also waiting in line and asked him why he was there. James replied that he was there to get his brother out of jail and asked respondent if he was a bondsman. Respondent stated that he was and asked James who his brother was. After James told respondent that his brother was Joe Barrow, respondent referred to a white piece of paper and replied that he had talked to Joe the previous night and had advised him to wait until the hearing that morning to see if his bond would be reduced. When James learned that he would need $250.00 to get his brother out of jail, he left the jail and went to the bank. When he returned to the jail, respondent approached him and asked him if he had gotten the $250.00. James recalls that when he replied that he had, respondent said "Well, give me the money, and I'll get your brother out of jail." James did not give respondent the money because his sister and sister-in-law who were standing behind respondent, were shaking their head "no." Joseph told James that he had spoken to a bondsman the night before, but could not remember the bondman's name. Michele Barrow recalls that as James was waiting in line at an information window, respondent approached him, asked if he needed a bondsman, and told James that he had spoken to Joseph the night before. At that point in time, Donna Brino, Joseph's sister, was on the telephone trying to contact a bondsman. Donna Brino did not hear the conversation which occurred between James Barrow and the respondent prior to James leaving the jail for the bank. She was aware that Joseph had spoken to a bondsman the night before and that he did not remember who that was. Because of her use of pronouns in lieu of names, Ms. Brino's description of the events which transpired on May 30th at the Seminole County Jail is unclear. She apparently telephoned Action Bail Bonds and left a message. While waiting for the message to be returned, she saw Bruce Moncrief, another bondsman, and spoke with him about writing her brother's bond. She stated that after she had already made arrangements with bondsman Bruce Moncrief, respondent told her she was stupid for using Moncrief and attempted to obtain the money from her brother James. Respondent testified that he was called to the Seminole County Jail by someone in the Barrow family on the evening of May 29, 1985. He went to the jail and spoke with Joseph Barrow. Upon learning that Joseph could not then afford to arrange for the $5,000.00 bail which had been set, respondent advised Joseph to wait until the next day when the amount of bail would be reduced. Respondent states that Joseph told him that his brother would get some money and would be contacting him. Respondent told Joseph that he would be at the jail the next day for the first appearances. Respondent also states that Joseph's brother, James, called him the next morning and he told James that it was better to wait until the first appearance and the reduction of the bond, that he would be at the jail for first appearances and that he would meet him there at that time. Respondent admits that he did approach James at the Seminole County Jail because he looked like his brother, Joseph, and said "I'm the one you're looking for. I talked to you this morning." After Joseph's bond was reduced to $2,500.00, respondent communicated this to James, and James left to go to the bank to get the money. At this point, respondent believed that he was going to write the bond, so he began preparing the papers and waited 30 to 45 minutes for James to return with the money. It was not until James returned from the bank that respondent learned he was not going to write Joseph's bond and that the family had obtained Mr. Moncrief instead.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Amended Administrative Complaint against the respondent be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this day of September, 1986. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0462 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioner and the respondent have been carefully considered and are accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below: Petitioner 6 and 7. Rejected, not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 8 and 9. Rejected. These ultimate conclusions are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 11. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected, not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 19 and 20. Rejected as Unsupported by the evidence. Respondent - Respondent's proposals contain unnumbered and mixed factual findings and legal conclusions. Each of the topics included has been addressed in either the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order, except: Page 2, first paragraph Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Page 4, last full paragraph Rejected, Unsupported and irrelevant in light of factual findings and legal conclusions. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard W. Thornburg, Esquire Bill Gunter Department of Insurance Insurance Commissioner Legal Division and Treasurer 413-B Larson Building Department of Insurance Tallahassee, Florida 32301 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603
The Issue Whether Respondent has violated provisions of the Florida Statutes or the Florida Administrative Code which relate to his licensure as a limited surety agent (a bail bondsman) as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what is the appropriate discipline? PRELIIMINARY STATEMENT On August 28, 1996, the Division of Administrative Hearings received a letter from the Department of Insurance signed by Dick Kessler, Esquire, of the Department’s Division of Legal Services. The letter was in regard to “CARL ALBERT THOMPSON, Case No. 14413-95-A.” In addition to requesting assignment of a Hearing Officer (Administrative Law Judge) to conduct a proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, the letter referred to an enclosed Administrative Complaint and a request for formal hearing. The Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent, Bondsman Carl Albert Thompson, had committed numerous violations of the Florida Insurance Code and the Florida Administrative Code related to his licensure as a limited surety agent or bail bondsman in two counts. The first count alleged generally that he wrote bail bonds in the case of Jose Zamora in the amount of $10,000 and, notwithstanding that all obligations of the bond had been released, refused to refund the bond less the premium claimed. The second count alleged that Thompson failed to have on file with the Department of Insurance an accurate business address. Also attached to the letter of August 21, 1996, were both an answer to the Administrative Complaint submitted by Respondent’s attorney, Ms. Germann, in which he denied pertinent parts of the complaint, and an Election of Rights Form in which he disputed factual allegations in the complaint and requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The case proceeded to hearing on December 16, 1996, in Arcadia, Florida. The Respondent was not present. Through Ms. Germann, he filed a motion to bifurcate the hearing to allow the Department’s case-in-chief to proceed as scheduled while allowing him to appear at a later date, since he alleged he was unable to attend due to a last-minute illness. The motion was granted on the condition that Respondent would provide physician documentation of the illness. Such documentation was never filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Following the granting of the motion, Petitioner proceeded with its case, offering into evidence 13 exhibits all of which were admitted. Petitioner also presented nine witnesses, including six members of the Villafuerte family: Hilario Villafuerte, Consuela Ylda Villafuerte, Martin Villafuerte, Jose Isidro Zamora, Ylda Patricia Villafuerte, and Juana Ramirez. The second phase of the proceeding was scheduled for February 19, 1997. It was canceled because of an accident which befell Ms. Germann. Pursuant to agreement of the parties, the hearing was rescheduled for April 18, 1997. Three days prior to commencement of the re-scheduled second phase of the proceeding, Mr. Migneault served a notice of appearance. He also filed a motion for continuance on the basis of inadequate time for him to prepare and conflicts with scheduled criminal jury trials. The motion was denied, not because it did not on its face allege good cause for a continuance, but because good cause was not shown in light of all the circumstances of the case: Mr. Thompson’s failure to appear at the originally noticed hearing, Mr. Thompson’s failure to provide physician documentation of his December 1996 illness, the seriousness of the case, the lengthy delay which had already ensued and the Department’s objection to further delay. At the April 18 hearing, Mr. Migneault did not appear. Ms. Germann, however, was present in order to petition for withdrawal as counsel for Respondent. Prior to presenting her withdrawal, Ms. Germann on Mr. Migneault’s behalf, announced that Respondent was in jail in Charlotte County and, on that basis, moved ore tenus for a continuance. Ms. Germann was permitted to withdraw. In response, the Department presented testimony of its law enforcement investigator, Antonio Davis, who reported that he had been informed by Charlotte County law enforcement personnel that Respondent, indeed, was in jail. Investigator Davis further reported, however, that he had been informed by the same personnel that Respondent turned himself into Charlotte County authorities under an outstanding warrant for his arrest issued months earlier and that he had done so at 9:30 that morning, one- half hour prior to noticed commencement of the hearing. The ore tenus motion for continuance was denied. Because Respondent was not present and was represented solely by Mr. Migneault, who also was not present, no defense was presented in a case continued twice and delayed for over four months for the very purpose of allowing presentation of Respondent’s case. The hearing was concluded and the record closed without any evidence from Respondent in defense of very serious charges against him.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Carl Albert Thompson, at all times relevant to these proceedings, has been licensed by the Department of Insurance as a limited surety agent, known colloquially as a bail bondsman. His agent number, according to records of the department, is 265683823. Records with the Department show this address of the agency for whom he wrote bonds: Sechrest Bail Bonds Inc 128 Herald Ct Punta Gorda FL Petitioner’s Ex. No. 1. The Department of Insurance is the agency for the State of Florida responsible for licensing limited surety agents and, upon sufficient grounds, disciplining them for violation of the Florida Insurance Code or Florida Administrative Code relating to the licensing and conduct of licensed bail bondsmen. The Arrest of Jose Zamora Jose Zamora is the nephew of Consuelo Villafuerte; he is the son of one of her sisters. In February of 1995, Jose lived with his aunt and her husband, Hilario Villafuerte in the area of Arcadia, Florida, where Mr. Villafuerte works as the leader of a crew of orange pickers. The Villafuertes have a close, extended family which includes their son Martin. Like his father, Martin is the leader of a crew of orange pickers. Martin Villafuerte attended schools in the Arcadia area. He speaks English fluently. Hilario and Consuela Villafuerte came to the United States from Mexico as adults. They speak English, but not as well as their son. Both were more comfortable at final hearing testifying in Spanish with the assistance of an interpreter than in English which Mr. Villafuerte termed “broken.” Shortly before February 13, 1995, Jose Zamora, was arrested for driving while intoxicated. Bail was set at $10,000. It was not the first time Mr. Zamora had been arrested. “[Y]ears back . . . [he] had had a similar case . . . .” (Tr. 73.) In this first case of Jose’s, however, bail was half as much: $5,000. The Villafuerte family had dealt with Jose’s bail in this first case through Hilario Villafuerte. Mr. Villafuerte deposited the $5,000 in cash at the sheriff’s office at the jail. The experience was a successful one succinctly described by Hilario Villafuerte at final hearing: “When [Jose’s] court was over I went with my nephew and they gave me the $5,000 without missing five cents.” (Tr.73.) The first of the Villafuertes to learn of Jose’s second arrest, the February 1995 arrest, was Martin. About to leave for church, he received a phone call from a friend that his cousin had been in an accident. He went to the scene immediately. After Jose was taken to jail, Martin inquired about his release and learned that bail was set at $10,000. It was important to Martin that Jose be bailed out. Not only was he a member of the family, but Jose was also a member of Martin’s orange picking crew, for which Martin shoulders a heavy responsibility. In the several years that he has led the crew, the only day of work Martin has ever missed was the first day of hearing in this case so that he could testify. Martin had to work the weekend of Jose's February 1995 arrest. He asked his father to go to the jail to deliver the bail money. First, though, Martin had to raise the ten thousand dollars, not a simple matter. The Villafuerte Family Pitches In Jose Zamora had been giving his aunt some of the money he earned at work for her to save for him. In February of 1995, it amounted to $1,200, not nearly enough to meet the amount of his bail. Martin canvassed family members. Martin and his wife, Ylda, had $4,000 in the bank, while Martin’s sister, Juana Ramirez, was able to contribute the remainder needed: $4,800. The family was able to amass the $10,000 needed to make bail for Jose. The money was withdrawn from bank accounts in, or converted into, $100 denominations. On February 13, 1995, Hilario and Consuela Villafuerte with the $10,000 in cash, all in $100 bills nestled safely inside Consuela Villafuerte’s purse, set out for the county jail. Mix-up at the Jail In the interim between Jose Zamora’s first case and the February 1995 case, the jail had been remodeled. When they arrived at the sheriff’s office in the jail, Hilario Villafuerte noticed the result of the remodeling; the physical arrangement was different from when he had been there before. There was no interpreter at the jail through whom Mr. Villafuerte could explain the purpose of his visit in Spanish. Instead, Mr. Villafuerte told the receptionist at the front desk in English as best he could, why he had come to the jail. The receptionist asked whether he had the $10,000 in cash. When Mr. Villafuerte responded in the affirmative, the receptionist did not seem to know what to do. She asked Mr. Villafuerte the same question three or four times. Each time he responded in the affirmative. She called over a uniformed member of the sheriff’s department. Mr. Villafuerte could not hear what he said but he observed him shake his head “no.” The receptionist then told Mr. Villafuerte to take the money to any of three places across the street. An Unlucky Choice The three places to which Mr. Villafuerte was directed were bail bond establishments, one of them Fowler Bail Bonds where Mr. Thompson was employed. Mr. Villafuerte thought, however, because the sheriff’s office had been renovated that he was being directed to a new branch office of the sheriff’s department where bail money could be received. Mr. and Mrs. Villafuerte crossed the street and knocked on the door of Fowler Bail Bonds. Carl Albert Thompson answered. Mr. Villafuerte told him, “that they had sent me from the Sheriff’s Department to give him that money for the bond for Jose Isidro Zamora.” (Tr. 69.) Mr. Thomspon indicated he would accept the ten thousand dollars. The only legitimate purpose for taking more than a 10% premium, in this case one thousand dollars, was as additional collateral. Mrs. Villafuerte removed the money from her purse and gave it to her husband. In the presence of Mrs. Villafuerte, Mr. Villafuerte counted out the $10,000 for Thompson to see in thousand dollar piles: ten piles of ten $100 bills. Thompson wrote the Villafuertes a receipt for $10,000, the amount they entrusted to his care. The receipt was not pre-numbered. It did not indicate on its face the purpose for which the money was received, the number of the Power of Attorney form attached to the bond, or the penal sum of the bond. Posting of the Bonds On the same day as the Villafuerte’s visit to Mr. Thompson’s office, February 13, 1995, two General Surety Appearance Bonds, each in the sum of $5,000, for a total of $10,000, were filed with the Clerk of Courts for DeSoto County for two charges in the case of State of Florida vs. Jose Zamora: “DUI w/ personal injury,” and “DUI w/ property damage.” Petitioner’s Composite Ex. No. 7. The premium for each of the two bonds was $500 for a total of $1,000. The bonds are signed by both Jose Zamora and, for Accredited Surety & Casualty Company, Inc., as surety, by Carl Thompson, “attorney-in-fact.” Id. The Remaining Nine Thousand Dollars The additional $9,000 the Villafuerte’s gave to Mr. Thompson was not deposited or paid to a surety company; nor did Thompson place the money with the DeSoto County sheriff’s department for the bail of Jose Zamora. On February 14, 1997, there was deposited in an account at the First State Bank of Arcadia, named the “Carl Thompson DBA/Fowler Bail Bonds Escrow Account,” (Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 11), $9,000, all in one-hundred dollar bills, bills that had composed nine of the ten stacks counted out to Carl Albert Thompson by Hilario Villafuerte the day before. Obligations of the Bond Fulfilled In the interim between the posting of the bond and the deposit of the $9,000 in Mr. Thompson’s escrow account, Jose Zamora was released from jail. The case then reached disposition; the obligations of the bond were fulfilled. Attempts to Retrieve the Money After finalization of Jose Zamora’s case, he and Hilario and Martin Villafuerte went together to Mr. Thompson’s office two or three times. Thompson was not there. Martin persisted. Eventually he contacted Mr. Thompson. Thompson told him that it would take two months for paperwork to be completed before the money could be returned. His suspicion not aroused, Martin told Thompson that he would be checking with him from time to time during the two-month period. True to his word, Martin continued to visit Mr. Thompson’s office. In the two months following his initial contact with Thompson after disposition of Jose Zamora’s case, he went by the office approximately 15 times. Whenever he saw Mr. Thompson, Martin was given slightly different details as to why the money was not yet available. Finally, because the family needed the money, Martin visited the courthouse and made an inquiry. He was told that everything was cleared and that he was entitled to receive any cash bond money owed by Mr. Thompson for the Zamora case. More visits and conversations ensued with Mr. Thompson until the Villafuerte family realized that it was not likely that Thompson would return the ten thousand dollars or any part of it. (Thompson had told the Villafuertes that they were entitled to only an amount slightly less than $9,000 because 10% of the money was the premium for the two bonds posted and because there was a slight charge for paperwork.) The Villafuertes hired an attorney in an attempt to regain their ten thousand dollars. On November 17, 1995, the attorney wrote a letter to the Department of Insurance to inquire as to steps that might be taken toward filing a complaint or pursuing the return of the money entrusted to Mr. Thompson. The letter led to investigation and the administrative complaint in this case. The Administrative Complaint The Administrative Complaint is in two counts. Because of his misappropriation of the Villafuerte's money, refusal to refund it, and issuance of an improper receipt, the first count charges Thompson with having violated or being accountable under the following provisions of law: Sections 648.295(1) and (3), 648.33, 648.36, 648.442(1), (4) and (8), 648.45(2), (2)(d), (2)(e), (2)(f), (2)(g), (2)(h), (2)(j), and (2)(l), 648.45(3), (3)(b) and (3)(d), Florida Statutes; and, Rules 4-221.105, 221.115 and 120, Florida Administrative Code. The second count charges Thompson with violating Section 648.421, Florida Statutes, and Rule 4-221.060, Florida Administrative Code for failure to notify in writing the Department of a change in name, address or telephone number of the agency or firm for which he writes bonds. Change of Agency The name and address of the agency for which Mr. Thompson’s was writing bonds listed in Department records at the times material to this case were not correct. Thompson left the Sechrest office in Sarasota to work for Fowler Bail Bonds as a subagent in its Arcadia office where he met the Villafuertes. When he did so, he did not notify the Department of Insurance of the change of name, business address and telephone address of the agency for which he was then writing bonds, Fowler Bail Bonds. Thompson no longer works for Fowler. He left in November of 1995 for another company after Fowler put pressure on him because of poor performance generally.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Department of Insurance revoke the “limited surety agent” license of Carl Albert Thompson. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, LL-26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dickson E. Kessler, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N-321 Miami, Florida 33128 David J. Migneault, Esquire 201 West Marion Avenue, Suite 205 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Wayne Calvin Summerlin, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services, on May 4, 2007, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals licensed to conduct insurance business in Florida. Ch. 626, Fla. Stat. Respondent Wayne Calvin Summerlin was, at the times relevant, licensed in Florida as a bail bond agent. Mr. Summerlin’s license number is A257941. Count I; Failure to Notify Department of Change in Employer. On or about July 23, 2003, Mr. Summerlin became the owner of, and began serving as primary bail bonds agent for, Wayne’s Bail Bonds. Having notified the Department of his relationship with Wayne’s Bail Bonds, he continued in this capacity until he sold Wayne’s Bail Bonds in 2004. Subsequent to his sale of Wayne’s Bail Bonds, Mr. Summerlin was employed as a bail bonds agent with Broward County Bail Bonds. Mr. Summerlin became an associate with Broward County Bail Bonds on or about September 13, 2005. Mr. Summerlin failed to inform the Department in writing, within ten days of beginning his employment with Broward County Bail Bonds of the fact that he was writing bail bonds for Broward County Bail Bonds. Count II; Failure to Notify Department of Change in Business Address. Mr. Summerlin, as of June 2005, maintained his business address as 15 Northeast Fourth Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. As of December 2005 Mr. Summerlin maintained his business address as 15 Southwest Seventh Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On August 16, 2005, business cards with Mr. Summerlin’s name on them were found by a Department investigator with the following address on them: 10 South New River Drive, No. 109, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Summerlin did not report to the Department that his business address had changed to 10 South New River Drive, No. 109, Fort Lauderdale. Counts III through VI. The Department apparently abandoned these Counts, having failed to address them in the Department’s Proposed Recommended Order. The evidence failed to prove the allegations of fact that support Counts III, IV, V, and VI.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department finding that Wayne Calvin Summerlin violated the provisions of Section 648.45(3)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint; dismissing Counts III through VI of the Administrative Complaint; and suspending his licenses and appointments as a bails bond agent for a period of three months. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 14th day of November, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Alan Fox, Senior Attorney Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Wayne Calvin Summerlin 520 Southeast 16th Avenue Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
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
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Landmark Real Estate and Investment Exchange, Inc. (Landmark), was a corporation licensed as a broker. It holds license number 0170938 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Respondent, Stephen P. McCrady, was a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0227524 by petitioner. McCrady was also the qualifying broker and officer of Landmark. License renewal fees have apparently not been paid by respondents since 1984 and their licenses are accordingly considered to be inactive. However, such licenses can be reactivated by respondents paying the required fees and completing any necessary continuing education requirements. At the present time, McCrady's license has a status of "pending litigation" because of the instant proceeding. On October 28, 1983, the Division (then the Florida Real Estate Commission) entered a Final Order against respondents in which respondents were reprimanded and ordered to pay a $500 fine within thirty days from the date of order. This fine was never paid. On April 3, 1984, respondent McCrady filed a chapter 7 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. On September 17, 1984, that Court entered a Discharge of Debtor order which released the debtor (McCrady) "from all dischargeable debts" and declared null and void certain other debts. The order further provided that "all creditors who [sic] debts are discharged ... (or) whose judgments are declared null and void ... are hereby enjoined from commencing, continuing or employing any action, process or act to collect, recover or offset any such debt as a personal liability of the debtor." Respondent Landmark did not file a petition nor was it a party to McCrady's bankruptcy proceeding. When the agency Final Order was entered, McCrady could not afford to pay the $500 fine. However, he telephoned a Division attorney and asked if he could pay the fine by installments. He was told he could not do this. Shortly afterwards he filed for personal bankruptcy. It was his impression that the bankruptcy proceeding discharged all debts, including the $500 administrative fine. McCrady did not advise the Division that he had filed for bankruptcy until after the complaint in this proceeding had been filed. McCrady intends to again use his real estate license in the future. Because of serious personal and financial problems, he has not used the license for several years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondents be found guilty of violating Rule 21V-10.31, Florida Administrative Code, and Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1985), and that they each be required to pay $250 within thirty days from date of the final order in this proceeding to satisfy the terms of the Final Order previously entered on October 23, 1983. Otherwise, their licenses should be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1145 Petitioner: Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan J. Hartman, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Ronald R. Rogowski, Esquire 628 S.E. 5th Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mr. Harold R. Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
