The Issue Whether Respondent may levy upon property belonging to Petitioner (specially, funds in Petitioner's account, number 300126719, at Admiralty Bank), as proposed in Respondent's March 30, 2000, Notice of Intent to Levy?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner operates a Chevron station at 4109 Northlake Boulevard in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, at which it engages in the business of selling motor fuels at posted retail prices. Petitioner maintains a business account at Admiralty Bank. The number of its account is . Petitioner's Local Option Motor Fuel License number is 60-023068. Petitioner was delinquent in remitting to the Department "local option gas tax" payments for the period from July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996. The Department provided Petitioner notice of Petitioner's failure to make these payments. The Department filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Palm Beach County a Tax Warrant "for collection of delinquent local option gas tax[es]," in the amount of $106,904.62, plus penalties (in the amount of $59,556.47), interest (in the amount of $12,026.25), and the amount of the "filing fee" ($12.00), for a "grand total" of $178,499.34. Rafael Fanjul is the president and sole owner of Petitioner. On May 2, 1997, Mr. Fanjul, on behalf of Petitioner, entered into a Stipulation Agreement with the Department, which provided as follows: THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ELF SERVICES, D/B/A PALM BEACH CHEVRON S/S THE TAXPAYER, TAX IDENTIFICATION NO. 60- 123068, HEREBY AGREE THAT THE $178,024.29 TAX LIABILITY IS DUE THE STATE OF FLORIDA. IT IS FURTHER AGREED THE SUM OF TAX, PENALTY, AND INTEREST REFERENCED ON THE WARRANT OR WARRANTS DATED 02/20/97 IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: The taxpayer will retire the tax, penalty, and interest shown on the Tax Warrant or Warrants whose dates or dates are shown above. The taxpayer waives any and all rights to institute any further judicial or administrative proceedings under S.72.011, F.S., with respect to this liability and; The taxpayer further agrees to meet each payment term which is detailed on the Amortization Schedule and Payment Coupons provided by the Department of Revenue. IN THE EVENT THE TAXPAYER FAILS TO MEET THE PAYMENT TERMS DETAILED ON THE ENCLOSED AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE AND PAYMENT COUPONS OR FAILS TO TIMELY REMIT ALL TAXES WHICH BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT, ANY UNPAID BALANCE OF TAX, PENALTY, AND/OR INTEREST SCHEDULED PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BECOME IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE. Mr. Fanjul had the authority to bind Petitioner to the terms set forth in the Stipulation Agreement. There has been no showing that, in so doing, he acted involuntarily or under coercion or duress. Petitioner made some, but not all of the payments, set forth on the Amortization Schedule incorporated by reference in the Stipulation Agreement. 4/ On May 1, 1998, Petitioner entered into a second Stipulation Agreement with the Department, which provided as follows: THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ELF SERVICES, D/B/A PALM BEACH CHEVRON S/S 4806, THE TAXPAYER, TAX IDENTIFICATION NO. 60- 123068, HEREBY AGREE THAT THE $142,701.38 TAX LIABILITY IS DUE THE STATE OF FLORIDA. IT IS FURTHER AGREED THE SUM OF TAX, PENALTY, AND INTEREST REFERENCED ON THE WARRANT OR WARRANTS DATED 02/20/97 IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: The taxpayer will retire the tax, penalty, and interest shown on the Tax Warrant or Warrants whose dates or dates are shown above. The taxpayer waives any and all rights to institute any further judicial or administrative proceedings under S.72.011, F.S., with respect to this liability and; The taxpayer further agrees to meet each payment term which is detailed on the Amortization Schedule and Payment Coupons provided by the Department of Revenue. IN THE EVENT THE TAXPAYER FAILS TO MEET THE PAYMENT TERMS DETAILED ON THE ENCLOSED AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE AND PAYMENT COUPONS OR FAILS TO TIMELY REMIT ALL TAXES WHICH BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT, ANY UNPAID BALANCE OF TAX, PENALTY, AND/OR INTEREST SCHEDULED PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BECOME IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE. Mr. Fanjul had the authority to bind Petitioner to the terms set forth in the second Stipulation Agreement. There has been no showing that, in so doing, he acted involuntarily or under coercion or duress. Petitioner made some, but not all of the payments, set forth on the Amortization Schedule incorporated by reference in the second Stipulation Agreement. 5/ On August 12, 1999, Petitioner entered into a third Stipulation Agreement with the Department, which provided as follows: THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ELF SERVICES, D/B/A PALM BEACH CHEVRON S/S 4806, THE TAXPAYER, TAX IDENTIFICATION NO. 60- 123068, HEREBY AGREE THAT THE $88,375.04 TAX LIABILITY IS DUE THE STATE OF FLORIDA. IT IS FURTHER AGREED THE SUM OF TAX, PENALTY, AND INTEREST REFERENCED ON THE WARRANT OR WARRANTS DATED 02/20/97 IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: The taxpayer will retire the tax, penalty, and interest shown on the Tax Warrant or Warrants whose dates or dates are shown above. The taxpayer waives any and all rights to institute any further judicial or administrative proceedings under S.72.011, F.S., with respect to this liability and; The taxpayer further agrees to meet each payment term which is detailed on the Amortization Schedule and Payment Coupons provided by the Department of Revenue. IN THE EVENT THE TAXPAYER FAILS TO MEET THE PAYMENT TERMS DETAILED ON THE ENCLOSED AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE AND PAYMENT COUPONS OR FAILS TO TIMELY REMIT ALL TAXES WHICH BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT, ANY UNPAID BALANCE OF TAX, PENALTY, AND/OR INTEREST SCHEDULED PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BECOME IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE. Mr. Fanjul had the authority to bind Petitioner to the terms set forth in the third Stipulation Agreement. There has been no showing that, in so doing, he acted involuntarily or under coercion or duress. The Amortization Schedule incorporated by reference in the third Stipulation Agreement required Petitioner to make 47 weekly payments of $1,000.00 each from August 12, 1999, to June 29, 2000, and to make a final payment of $28,994.57 on July 6, 2000. As of January 12, 2000, Petitioner was five payments behind. Accordingly, on that date, the Department sent a Notice of Delinquent Tax to Admiralty Bank, which read as follows: RE: ELF SERVICES INC. DBA: PALM BEACH GARDENS CHEVRON STA 48206 FEI: 65-0055086 ACCT: ST#: To Whom It May Concern: You are being notified, under the authority contained is Subsection 212.10(3), Florida Statutes, that the referenced dealer is delinquent in the payment of gas tax liabilities in the amount of $75,581.47 to the State of Florida. You may not transfer or dispose of any credits, debts, or other personal property owed to the dealer, that are to become under your control during the effective period of this notice. Any assets in your possession exceeding the dollar amount shown above may be released in the ordinary course of business. This notice shall remain in effect until the Department consents to a transfer or disposition or until sixty (60) days elapse after receipt of this notice, whichever period expires the earliest. Please furnish a list of all credits, debts, or other property owed to the dealer in your possession and the value of these assets to the Department. Chapter 212.10(3), F.S. requires this list within five (5) days. If you fail to comply with this notice, you may become liable to the State of Florida to the extent of the value of the property or amount of debts or credits disposed of or transferred. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at the telephone number below. On or about January 18, 2000, in response to the foregoing notice, Admiralty Bank advised the Department in writing that "the balance being held" in Petitioner's account at the bank was $2,223.53. On February 10, 2000, the Department sent Admiralty Bank a Notice of Freeze, which read as follows: RE: Elf Services Inc. DBA Palm Beach Gardens Chevron FEI: 65-0055086 ACCT: ST#: Dear Custodian: You are hereby notified that pursuant to Section 213.67, Florida Statutes, the person identified above has a delinquent liability for tax, penalty, and interest of $75,581.47, which is due the State of Florida. Therefore, as of the date you receive this Notice you may not transfer, dispose, or return any credits, debts, or other personal property owned/controlled by, or owed to, this taxpayer which are in your possession or control. This Notice remains in effect until the Department of Revenue consents to a transfer, disposition, or return, or until 60 consecutive calendar days elapse from the date of receipt of this Notice of Freeze, whichever occurs first. Further, Section 213.67(2), F.S., and Rule 12-21, Florida Administrative Code, require you to advise the Department of Revenue, within 5 days of your receipt of this Notice, of any credits, debts, or other personal property owned by, or owed to, this taxpayer which are in your possession or control. You must furnish this information to the office and address listed below. Your failure to comply with this Notice of Freeze may make you liable for the amount of tax owed, up to the amount of the value of the credits, debts or personal property transferred. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions please contact the undersigned at the telephone number listed below. On March 22, 2000, the Department sent to Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Levy upon Petitioner's "Bank Account # , in the amount of $2,320.07, . . . in the possession or control of Admiralty Bank" "for nonpayment of taxes, penalty and interest in the sum of $75,581.47." After receiving information from Admiralty Bank that Petitioner actually had $7,293.36 in its account at the bank, the Department, on March 30, 2000, sent Petitioner a second Notice of Intent to Levy, which was identical in all respects to the March 22, 2000, Notice of Intent to Levy except that it reflected that Petitioner's account at Admiralty Bank contained $7,293.36, instead of $2,320.07. Petitioner's account at Admiralty Bank does not contain any monies paid by a third party to Petitioner as salary or wages. The amount of the Petitioner's current outstanding delinquent "tax liability" is $75,581.47.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order upholding its March 30, 2000, Notice of Intent to Levy and proceed with the garnishment of the funds in Petitioner's account at Admiralty Bank. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 25th day of October, 2000.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is liable for a penalty of $4,741.76 for the alleged failure to maintain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees in violation of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees in accordance with the requirements of Section 440.107. Respondent is a Florida corporation engaged in the construction business. The corporate officers of Respondent in 2007 were: Julie Magill, Glen Magill, Jamie Guerrero, and Richard Magill. The corporate officers after amendment on June 12, 2008, were: Julie Magill, Albert Farradaz, and Farid O’Campo. Corporate officers are eligible to obtain exemption from the requirements of workers’ compensation through the process described in Section 440.05. Construction exemptions are valid for a period of two years. The expiration date of each exemption is printed on an exemption card issued to each card holder. Julie Magill, Glen Magill, and Jaime Guererro obtained construction exemptions as officers of Respondent, pursuant to Section 440.05. Julie Magill acknowledged receiving a card for each exemption with the expiration date printed on each exemption card. The exemption for Julie Magill expired on June 2, 2008. The exemption for Glen Magill expired on May 29, 2008, and the exemption for Jaime Guererro expired on May 29, 2008. Petitioner notifies exemption holders at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. Petitioner sent the Notice of Expiration to Julie Magill at Respondent's current mailing address. On October 5, 2009, an investigator for Petitioner interviewed Mr. Cliff Chavaria, an installer and repairer of air-conditioner units. Mr. Chavaria was an employee of Respondent. Respondent did not maintain workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Mr. Chavaria in violation of Chapter 440. It is undisputed that Mr. Chavaria did not have any type of coverage for workers’ compensation insurance. Mr. Jaime Guererro and Mr. Glen Magill also had no exemptions and no workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Respondent offered tax records for 2007 as Exhibit 8 at the hearing to show gross payroll for Julie and Richard Magill. The offered exhibit was an attempt to re-create tax information from an internet website. Respondent was given 10 days following the date of the hearing to produce an authenticated version of this document. No documentation was received.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, issue a final order imposing a penalty assessment in the amount of $4,741.76. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 2010.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees as required by Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2008). Respondent is a Florida Corporation that engages in the painting business. Abner Gonzalez is Respondent's President. Painting is a workplace operation that satisfies the criteria of the term "construction industry" as set forth in the Basic Manual of the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI). On May 15, 2009, Petitioner's investigator, Allen DiMaria conducted an investigation at the intersection of Normandy Boulevard and Guardian Drive in Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. DiMaria observed one worker on a ladder and another worker on the ground painting a block and masonry entrance to a development. The workers at the site identified themselves to Mr. DiMaria as Abner Gonzalez and César Silvestre. Mr. Gonzalez stated that Respondent had a contract to paint the wall and that he and Mr. Silvestre were Respondent's employees. Mr. Gonzalez stated that, as a corporate officer, he had an exemption for workers' compensation. Mr. Gonzalez admitted that Respondent had not secured workers' compensation for Mr. Silvestre. Mr. DiMaria was able to confirm that Mr. Gonzalez had a current valid construction exemption, specifically for painting. However, Mr. Gonzalez did not have a painting exemption for the entirety of the prior three years. On May 15, 2009, Mr. DiMaria issued and personally served on Respondent a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment for failure to comply with statutory requirements. Mr. DiMaria also issued Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Because Respondent did not promptly provide Petitioner with the requested business records, Petitioner's staff imputed Respondent's payroll and calculated the penalty as the average weekly wage rate multiplied by 1.5. pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes. Petitioner then issued the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $26,180.24 on June 11, 2009. Respondent subsequently provided Petitioner with business records. The records included Respondent's bank statements for the prior three years and Respondent's 2007 Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Returns. The records also showed that Respondent provided employment without workers' compensation insurance to persons other than Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Silvestre during the prior three years. On June 26, 2009, Petitioner issued the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment based upon Respondent's business records in the amount of $7,641.14. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, showing the reduced penalty, was served on Respondent by certified mail.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent issue a final order affirming the Stop-Work Order and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $7,641.14. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Paige Billings Shoemaker, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Abner Gonzales 1924 Firefly Drive Green Cove Springs, Florida 32043 Tracy Beal, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for employees and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation ("Division") is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement within the state that employers cover employees with workers' compensation insurance. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2009). Respondent, Jurgenson Trading Corporation, is owned, in part, by Julio Raudsett, and operates a "Subway" sandwich restaurant franchise in Hialeah, Florida. It is a family-owned business with a total of five employees, three of whom are related. Cesar Tolentino, an investigator for the Division, conducted a field interview of Raudsett, who admitted that he did not carry workers' compensation insurance. Tolentino checked the database in the Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS"), and there were no records showing workers' compensation coverage for the Subway employees, nor any notices of applicable exemptions. Martha Aguilar, Tolentino's supervisor authorized the issuance of a Stop-Work Order that was personally served on Raudsett by Tolentino by hand-delivery on April 17, 2009. At the same time, Tolentino served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Raudsett provided his business records, including payroll journals and unemployment tax returns. Based on Aguilar's review of the business records, the Division issued its Amended Order of Penalty Assessment ("Order") on June 8, 2009, with an assessed penalty of $19,873.79. Aguilar determined the amount of the penalty, using the following steps: (1) assigning each employee the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) class code that was applicable for restaurant workers; (2) determining how much the employee had been paid from April 2006 to April 2009 (the period of non-coverage); and (3) assigning the rate to the gross pay to calculate the insurance premium that should have been paid, then multiplying that by 1.5, as required by rule. The NCCI class codes for employees administrative staff as compared to restaurant workers are lower and, therefore, their workers' compensation insurance premiums would be lower. The business records available to Aguilar did not distinguish among employee's responsibilities. Absent that information, the penalty is, by law, calculated using the highest NCCI class code associated with that kind of business, and was correctly done in this case. Raudsett has entered into a payment plan with the Division. He objected only to that portion of the penalty that was based on his earnings, and those of his wife, Maribel Medina, who works part-time, and his father-in-law, Rolando Medina. He claims an exemption for the three of them as owners and managers of the corporation. Excluding their salaries and associated penalties, according to Joseph Cabanas, Respondent's accountant, would reduce the penalty by $10,267.67, to $9,606.12. Cabanas testified that Raudsett, an immigrant from Venezuela, was not aware of workers' compensation laws, and that was why the three owners/officers of the Respondent's corporation failed to file a Notice of Elections to be Exempt from coverage until after the Division's investigation began.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, that upholds the assessment of a penalty of $19,873.79. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Douglas D. Dolan, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Joseph Cabanas 10520 Northwest 26 Street, Suite C-201 Doral, Florida 33172
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint (as amended at the final hearing)? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a Florida-licensed real estate salesperson. He holds license number 0186760. Respondent passed the salesperson examination on November 6, 1995. From November 13, 1995, through February 26, 1997, Respondent was an active salesperson in association with Nicholas Chillemi, an individual broker trading as ReMax 100 (ReMax) and located at 10205 Southern Boulevard in Royal Palm Beach, Florida. From February 27, 1997, through June 24, 1998, Respondent was an active salesperson in association with Bowen Realty, Inc., a broker corporation trading as Bowen Realty and located in Jupiter, Florida. From June 25, 1998, through September 30, 1999, Respondent was an active salesperson in association with Forum Realty, Inc., a broker corporation trading as Realty Executives of the Palm Beaches and located in Lake Worth, Florida. On October 1, 1999, Respondent's salesperson license became involuntary inactive (which is its current status) due to non-renewal. At no time material to the instant case did Respondent hold a real estate broker license At all times material to the instant case, Javier and Maria Velilla owned residential property located at 1290 McDermott Lane in Royal Palm Beach, Florida (McDermott Lane Property). Respondent and Ms. Velilla have known each other for 16 or 17 years. They first met in Chicago, Illinois. Some time prior to September 1, 1996, not very long after he had moved from Chicago to Florida and had begun working as a real estate salesperson for Mr. Chillemi, Respondent returned to Chicago and visited Ms. Velilla. During his visit, Respondent agreed, as a representative of ReMax, 2/ to help the Velillas find a tenant for the McDermott Lane Property. Through the efforts of Respondent, a tenant was ultimately found for the property. The tenant was Belinda Vosatka. On or about August 28, 1996, the Velillas (as lessors) and Ms. Vosatka (as lessee) entered into a Residential Lease for Single Family Home and Duplex (McDermott Lane Property Lease). The McDermott Lane Property Lease covered the one-year period from September 1, 1996, to August 31, 1997, and required Ms. Vosatka to make a security deposit of $850.00 and lease payments of $850.00 a month. Paragraph VI of the McDermott Lane Property Lease provided as follows: NOTICES. Henry Saldana is Landlord's Agent. All notices to Landlord and all Lease Payments must be sent to Landlord's Agent at 10205 Southern BLVD, R.P.B., Fl 33411 unless Landlord gives Tenant written notice of a change. Landlord's Agent may perform inspections on behalf of Landlord. All notices to Landlord shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by hand delivery to Landlord or Landlord's Agent. Any notice to Tenant shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, or delivered to Tenant at the Premises. If Tenant is absent from the Premises, a notice to Tenant may be given by leaving a copy of the notice at the Premises. The Velillas agreed to pay Respondent $50.00 a month for acting as their "agent" under the McDermott Lane Property Lease ("Agent" Fee Arrangement). Respondent entered into this agreement with the Velillas in his individual capacity, not as a ReMax salesperson on behalf of Mr. Chillemi. (As Respondent was aware at the time he entered into the "Agent" Fee Arrangement, collecting lease payments from tenants and providing related property management functions were not among the services that ReMax provided its clients.) Respondent made Mr. Chillemi aware of the McDermott Lane Property Lease, but at no time did he inform Mr. Chillemi about the "Agent" Fee Arrangement, much less share with Mr. Chillemi the $50.00 payments he received from the Velillas for acting as their "agent." On September 1, 1996, Respondent received from Mr. Chillemi a $425.00 commission for his role in the leasing of the McDermott Lane Property. For approximately the first half of the lease period, the Velillas received from Respondent, within five days of the beginning of each month, money orders in the amount of the monthly lease payments Ms. Vosatka was required to make under the McDermott Lane Property Lease, and the Velillas, in turn, paid Respondent (by check payable to Respondent) $50.00 a month in accordance with the "Agent" Fee Arrangement." Thereafter, however, to the dissatisfaction of the Velillas, the money orders began arriving later in the month. Upon looking into the matter, Ms. Velilla discovered that, pursuant to Respondent's instructions (which he had given without the Velillas' express authorization), Ms. Vosatka had been making her monthly lease payments by sending Respondent personal checks payable to Respondent. Displeased with this arrangement, Ms. Velilla had Respondent draft the following Amendment to Lease, which she and her husband (as lessors) and Ms Vosatka (as lessee) signed: It is mutually agreed and understood by the parties [who] entered into a leasing agreement on August 26, 1996 for the property located at 1290 McDermott Ln. Royal Palm Beach, Fl 33411 and herein referred to as, Javier & Maria Victoria Velilla, as the Landlord, and Belinda Vosatka, as the Tenant, that the rent for the above named property shall be due and payable by way of Cashier's Check or Money Order and to the name of the above mentioned Landlord on the same dates as agreed on the original lease. In consideration to the rent being paid by Cashier's Check or Money Order, the Landlord agrees to allow Four D[o]ll[a]rs ($4.00) allowance to the Tenant for expenses incurred for issuance of the payment. Therefore, the actual rent due by the Tenant shall be in the amount of $846 per month. The rest of the terms of the lease stand as originally agreed. Ms. Vosatka paid her rent for two or three months following the execution of this Amendment to Lease with cashier's checks payable to the Velillas. She then stopped making payments. When Ms. Velilla contacted Respondent and inquired about the situation, Respondent told her that Ms. Vosatka had health problems and was not able to work. After not receiving any lease payments for approximately three months, the Velillas, at the urging of a friend, traveled to Florida to inspect the McDermott Lane Property. Upon arriving at the property, they found that Ms. Vosatka had vacated the premises, leaving it in deplorable condition.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint (as amended at the final hearing) in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 10th day of October, 2000.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Edward J. Miller, is entitled to be licensed as a resident life and variable annuity insurance agent.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Edward J. Miller, is employed at Washington Mutual Bank. His supervisor is Tracy Tarach. It was Ms. Tarach's desire that Mr. Miller become licensed as a resident life and variable annuity insurance agent. To that end, she and Mr. Miller filed the necessary papers with Washington Mutual Bank to approve the application process as well as the course to become licensed. The process of having the bank issue the check to cover the licensing procedure was timely. Additionally, the Petitioner could only be scheduled for the licensure class and completion of the licensing process when the bank took favorable action on the request. Accordingly, for this Petitioner the licensing process was dragged out over the course of several months. In January 2003 the Petitioner completed the state application for licensure but did not transmit it to the state. He submitted the request to the bank for course approval and planned to submit the paperwork when it was successfully completed. At that time, the Petitioner did not have any criminal charges pending against him and the answers noted on the application were all correct and truthful. In February 2003 the Petitioner was stopped for DUI. The next workday the Petitioner went to his supervisor and fully disclosed the arrest as well as the charge. The Petitioner made no effort to hide the arrest from his employer and the employer considers the Petitioner a valuable employee, despite the incident. In March 2003 the Petitioner was formally charged with DUI, a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, the bank approved the Petitioner's request to take the course for licensure. The forty-hour course in another work location required the Petitioner to travel to the school site and reside in a hotel for a week while the course work was completed. Obviously the Petitioner's supervisor was willing to invest the costs of licensure school and accommodations for the Petitioner with full knowledge of the Petitioner's pending criminal matter. After successfully completing the licensure course in April 2003 the Petitioner submitted the license application to the state. He failed to double-check the forms. He failed to correct an answer that was now incorrect. That is, he failed to fully disclose the arrest. Subsequently, the criminal case went to hearing, and the Petitioner entered a plea and was placed on probation. The resolution of the DUI charges was completed after the application was submitted. Section 3 of the license application asks several screening questions of applicants for licensure. Applicants are required to answer "yes" or "no", depending on the information sought. In this case, it is undisputed that the Petitioner failed to correct his answers to the questions posed in Section 3. More specifically, the Petitioner failed to truthfully disclose that he had been arrested for DUI. This failure was an oversight on the Petitioner's part, and not intended to deceive the Department. The answers should have been corrected when the Petitioner amended the application form to include the information regarding his completion of the Gold Coast School of Insurance class on April 11, 2003. He did not do so. When the Department reviewed the Petitioner's application and discovered the false answer, it took action to deny the licensure request. That denial was entered on January 22, 2004. A notice of the denial was provided to the Petitioner and he timely challenged the proposed action. On October 31, 2003, the Petitioner completed all of the terms of his court-ordered probation and the entire DUI incident was put to rest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a Final Order granting the Petitioner's application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dana M. Wiehle, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Edward J. Miller 6205 Northwest West Deville Circle Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986
The Issue Whether Respondent has committed the acts alleged in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and Stop Work Order and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Workers' Compensation is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. Lucio Cabrera is a workers' compensation compliance investigator for the Department. On April 1, 2008, he visited a work site in Jacksonville where 16 men were working on a multi- family apartment complex. Mr. Cabrera spoke to the workers and asked several questions designed to determine for whom the men worked and whether they were covered by workers' compensation insurance. At the time of the site visit, Mr. Cabrera prepared a Field Interview Worksheet, upon which he recorded the names and other information regarding the men seen at the work site. He also created a separate document, which he requested the men to sign. The people present at the worksite on the day in question were Jose Sosa Santibanez, Alvaro Gaona, Edegun Gonzalez, Pablo Rodriguez, Jose Antonio Chavez, Jose Manuel Camacho, Crisoforo Chavez, Vicente Urbina Arreola, Francisco Zapata, Maximino Sanchez Simon, Francisco Javier Ortiz, Juan Rodriguez, Homero Moreno Martinez, Pascual Castillo Moreno, Luis Manuel Rodrigues and Cipriano Patino Zabaleta.1/ The men worked for Jesus Sosa Corp. Present at the job site was the company representative, Jesus Sosa Santibanez (Sosa). The company provided workers' compensation coverage through an employee leasing company, Convergence Employee Leasing, Inc. (Convergence). However, Sosa also paid the employees additional funds directly, for which no workers' compensation coverage was obtained. Cabrera was able to confirm that while coverage was provided through Convergence, there was no separate coverage for the portion of salary provided directly by Sosa, and Sosa had not filed for an exemption from coverage as an owner or director of Jesus Sosa Corp. On April 2, 2008, Mr. Cabrera served Mr. Sosa with a Request for Production of Business Records, which requested that Sosa provide certain enumerated business records for the period "12/22/08 through 3/21/08." Clearly, this request means to convey that records from December 22, 2007, through March 21, 2008, were to be supplied. The request specified that the records should be supplied within five business days, which would have made the responses due on or before April 9, 2008. On April 1 and April 7, 2008, the Department received records related to the relationship between Convergence and Jesus Sosa Corp., including a copy of the employee leasing contract, timecard verification reports for the period requested, a list of employees and their listed hire dates for purposes of payroll by Convergence. On April 17 and 29, 2008, additional records were produced, including a copy of Jesus Sosa's business license from the City of Jacksonville and copies of check stubs dating from December 27, 2007, through March 21, 2008. On April 30, 2008, a Stop-Work Order was issued against Jesus Sosa, d/b/a Jesus Sosa Corp., a dissolved Florida corporation, requiring that Sosa and the company cease all business operations for all worksites in the state for failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation. The Stop-Work Order was served on counsel for Mr. Sosa by hand delivery May 1, 2008. On May 1, 2008, Mr. Cabrera also provided to counsel for Mr. Sosa, a second Request for Production of Business Records for the period of February 17, 2006, through April 30, 2008, for the purpose of enabling the Department to determine the appropriate penalty for violation of the provisions of Section 440.07, Florida Statutes. Like the prior request, records were to be produced within five business days. Although not entirely clear when they were received, sometime in May 2008, additional records in the form of a handwritten disbursement ledger were provided to the Department. However, no records such as traditional payroll records, tax records, quarterly earnings reports or certificates of exemption were received. The check stubs for the additional period of time requested could not be located. Mr. Sosa admitted freely that he paid additional amounts to his employees over and above what they were paid through his arrangement with Convergence. He insisted that employees were paid this additional compensation by check and not by cash. There is no admissible, credible evidence to refute this assertion, and Mr. Sosa's testimony is credited. The Department decided that the records provided were insufficient to determine the payroll for the company. Accordingly, the Department decided that salary would be imputed, based upon the statewide average weekly wage as defined in Section 440.12(2), Florida Statutes, multiplied by 1.5. The Department entered an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on May 27, 2008. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a penalty of $909,941.76. There are two aspects of imputing payroll relevant to these proceedings. First, whether there was sufficient information to determine the amount that would be considered salary for the employees involved, and second, the duration of their employment by Sosa. Sosa appeared in this hearing with the assistance of an interpreter. Clearly, he is more comfortable communicating in Spanish than he is in English. Although the investigator spoke Spanish to the individuals at the worksite, neither the Stop Work Order nor the Requests for Production of Business Records are in Spanish.2/ Mr. Sosa admitted that his records were disorganized and in some respects incomplete. However, he indicated that he provided what records he had in his possession. The Convergence records provided indicate that a contract was entered into between Sosa and Convergence on October 15, 2007, and payments for workers compensation were made on behalf of relevant employees from that date forward for the period records were originally requested. The Convergence records also include an employee roster with hire dates for each employee. For the requested time period prior to December 22, 2007, Sosa provided a handwritten disbursement record. The record includes four columns: 1) the date; 2) the payee; 3) what appear to be reimbursement amounts for items such as gas, rent, tools, etc.; and 4) what appears to be a total amount provided to the payee. It would be difficult from the information provided to determine how much salary each employee was paid. Based on the admissible evidence provided, imputation of salary was appropriate based on the statewide average weekly wage for framing. The Department imputed salary for each employee from February 17, 2006. It determined that the period of employment for each employee could not be determined from the records provided, and therefore, imputed salary for all sixteen men from the date of incorporation. Sosa testified that many of his employees were hired not long before the site visit because he had received more work framing out the buildings of an apartment complex. In the normal course of business, he would not have sufficient work for so many employees. His testimony is consistent with the increase in the number of employees covered by Convergence over the period of time Convergence records were provided, and is credited. A careful comparison of the Convergence records, the check stubs and the handwritten ledger give a fairly consistent indication of how long each employee worked for Mr. Sosa. The Department had sufficient information to determine the length of employment for each person listed as being present April 1, 2008. While there are some variations in spelling for some names provided, it is sufficiently clear to be able to determine who is being referenced. Jose Sosa Santibanez ran the company. Although he testified that he did not actually perform any work for a few months after incorporating the company, there are no records to support his assertion, and he provided no actual "start date." Therefore, it is appropriate to impute salary for Mr. Sosa for the full period beginning February 17, 2006. The list provided to the Department by counsel for Respondent indicated that Alvaro Gaona (also spelled Garna) was hired June 16, 2006. The earliest record of payment to Mr. Gaona was October 14, 2006. Payments were made on his behalf by Convergence since October 15, 2007. For the purpose of imputing salary, Goana's start date should be listed as June 16, 2006. Edegun Gonzalez (also listed as Edeon Gonzales) was listed as being hired November 2, 2007. The earliest record on the disbursement ledger for him is November 2, 2007, and Convergence lists his hire date as November 8, 2007. For the purpose of imputing salary, Edegun Gonzalez' start date should be listed as November 2, 2007. Pablo Rodriguez was listed as being hired November 2, 2007. The earliest record related to Pablo Rodriguez on the disbursement ledger is also November 2, 2007. The hire date listed by Convergence is March 10, 2008. For the purpose of imputing salary, Pablo Rodriguez’s start date is November 2, 2007. José Chavez is listed as being hired November 30, 2007. The earliest record of payment to José Chavez in the disbursement ledger is November 30, 2007. Convergence lists his hire date as November 8, 2007. For the purpose of imputing salary, José Chavez' start date is November 8, 2007. José Manuel Camacho (also spelled Clamacho) is listed as beginning employment November 30, 2007. The earliest record of payment to Camacho is November 30, 2007. Convergence lists his hire date as December 10, 2007. For the purpose of imputing salary, Camacho's start date is November 30, 2007. Crisoforo Chavez is listed as being hired September 28, 2007, and the earliest record of payment to him is also September 28, 2007. Convergence lists his hire date as November 8, 2007. For the purpose of imputing salary, Crisoforo Chavez' start date is September 28, 2007. Vicente Urbina Arreola is listed as being hired February 29, 2008. The earliest record of any payment to him is also February 29, 2008. Convergence lists his hire date as March 10, 2008. For the purpose of imputing salary, Urbina's start date is February 29, 2008. Francisco Zapata is listed as being hired February 29, 2008. The earliest record of any payment to him is also February 29, 2008. Convergence lists his hire date as March 10, 2008. For the purpose of imputing salary, Zapata's start date is February 29, 2008. Maximino Sanchez Simon listed as being hired February 29, 2008. The earliest record of any payment to him is also February 29, 2008. Convergence lists his hire date as March 10, 2008. For the purpose of imputing salary, Maximino Sanchez' start date is February 29, 2008. Francisco Javier Ortiz is listed as being hired March 7, 2008. The earliest record of any payment to him is also March 7, 2008. Convergence lists his hire date as March 10, 2008. For the purpose of imputing salary, Ortiz' start date is March 7, 2008. Luis Manuel Rodrigues is listed as being hired March 7, 2008. The earliest record of any payment to him is March 14, 2008. Convergence lists his hire date as March 10, 2008. For the purpose of imputing salary, Luis Rodrigues' start date is March 7, 2008. Juan Rodriguez is listed as being hired March 7, 2008. The earliest record of any payment to him is also March 7, 2008. Convergence lists his hire date as March 10, 2008. For the purpose of imputing salary, Juan Rodriguez’s start date is March 7, 2008. Homero Moreno Martinez is listed as being hired March 7, 2008, and the earliest record of payment to him is also March 7, 2008. Convergence lists his hire date as March 10, 2008. For the purpose of imputing salary, Homero Martinez’s start date is March 7, 2008. Pascual Castillo Moreno is listed in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12 as being hired April 11, 2008. There is no record of any payments to him in the check stubs or disbursement ledger. Convergence lists his start date as March 10, 2008, and payments were made on his behalf. The listed start date in Exhibit 12 is in error, as Mr. Moreno was present at the work site on April 1, 2008. However, because there is no admissible evidence of additional payments to him, there is no basis for imputing salary for Pascual Castillo Moreno. Cipriano Patino Zabaleta is also listed in Exhibit 12 as being hired April 11. 2008. There is no record of any payments to him in the check stubs or disbursement ledger. Convergence lists his start date as March 10, 2008, and payments were made on his behalf. Like Moreno, Cipriano Zabeleta was present on April 1, 2008, and was covered by Convergence at that time. Inasmuch as there is no admissible evidence of additional payments to him, there is no basis for imputing salary for Mr. Zabaleta. The Department imputed salary for all 16 employees through April 30, 2008. Records were requested through April 30, 2008, and no additional records beyond March 22, 2008, were provided. However, Sosa admitted that the men were employed through April 25, 2008. Imputation of salary for the employees for which imputation of salary is appropriate should be calculated through April 30, 2008.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered that finds Jesus Sosa, d/b/a Jesus Sosa Corp., is guilty of failing to secure workers' compensation insurance as required by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes; recalculates the penalty in light of the dates of employment reflected in the Findings of Fact; and gives credit against the final penalty calculation for the amount paid in workers' compensation premium through Convergence. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2008.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of violating a lawful order of the Florida Real Estate Commission and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On August 18, 1992, the Florida Real Estate Commission issued a final order following an administrative hearing and recommended order from a hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The final order, which was filed September 2, 1992, concerned Respondent and several other individuals who were also named respondents. The final order suspends Respondent's license for 90 days, places her license on suspension for two years thereafter, requires continuing education, and requires Respondent to pay a fine of $1000. Unlike the case with respect to another respondent required to pay a fine, the final order does not provide a time within which the fine is to be paid. Respondent testified that she never received a copy of the final order when it was issued. She testified that, when she received the administrative complaint, she did not receive the sole exhibit attached to the complaint, which was the final order. She also testified that she does not have the money to pay the fine. Respondent's testimony that she has been unaware of her obligation to pay the $1000 fine is discredited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for a period of five years, commencing 90 days from the date of the final order; provided, however, that Respondent may avoid the suspension by paying the $1000 fine from the previous case in its entirety within 90 days from the date of the final order in the subject case. ENTERED on March 16, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 16, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 James H. Gillis, Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate Legal Section Hurston Bldg.--North Tower Suite N-308 400 W. Robinson St. Orlando, FL 32801-1772 Linda Futch, pro se P.O. Box 051025 Ft. Myers, FL 33905
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to receive survivor benefits from a joint and survivor annuity, under Option 3 of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) defined benefit plan, following the death of her spouse, Anne M. Birch, who, as an FRS member, elected Option 1 in 2012 when Florida law would not allow Ms. Birch to elect Option 3 or 4 and designate the joint annuitant as Petitioner, whom she lawfully married after electing Option 1.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Birch, who was born on September 12, 1950, and Petitioner, who was born on August 26, 1956, fell in love and began to live together in 1992. They jointly owned all significant property, including their primary residence, with a right of survivorship and were jointly liable for household expenses and debt, including the mortgage note on their primary residence. On January 31, 2001, Ms. Birch executed a will that left any remaining property to Petitioner and named her as the personal representative of the estate.1/ Ms. Birch designated Petitioner as her primary beneficiary for employee benefits that authorized such designations. On October 11, 2002, Ms. Birch and Petitioner signed an Amended Declaration of Domestic Partnership, pursuant to the Broward County Domestic Partnership Act of 1999, to register themselves as domestic partners under Broward County Ordinance 1999-18. Fully vested and having accrued substantial benefits from having worked for Broward County in an FRS-covered position for nearly 30 years, on October 23, 2012, Ms. Birch entered DROP, effective October 1, 2012. At that time, Ms. Birch elected Option 1 for the payment of her benefits, checking the "no" box in response to the question of whether she was married. As described in the Conclusions of Law, Option 1 is the maximum benefit and is payable for the life of the retiree. Ms. Birch's monthly Option 1 benefit was $3039.25. The monthly Option 3 benefit, which, as described below, is payable until the latter death of the FRS member or her surviving spouse,2/ would have been nearly $1000 less than the monthly Option 1 benefit.3/ Respondent implemented Ms. Birch's election by paying Ms. Birch's Option 1 benefits into her DROP account. In August 2013, Ms. Birch became ill with cancer. She eventually had to quit working and terminated DROP, at which point Respondent paid Ms. Birch her Option 1 benefits directly. On June 16, 2014, Ms. Birch and Petitioner were lawfully married in Massachusetts. Almost two years later, on May 24, 2016, Ms. Birch died, at which time all payments under Option 1 ended. When Ms. Birch and Petitioner registered as domestic partners in Broward County, no state allowed or recognized same- sex marriage, often pursuant to a "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA). Continuously since 1997, Florida law banned the allowance and recognition of same-sex marriage, even if performed in a jurisdiction where such a marriage were legal, and restricted "marriage" to a legal union between a man and a woman and "spouse" to a member of such a union. § 741.212(1) and (3); Ch. 97-268, § 1, at 4957, Laws of Fla. (Florida DOMA).4/ Massachusetts was the first state to allow and recognize same-sex marriage, effective in 2004. Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 798 N.E. 2d 941 (Mass. 2003) (decision stayed 180 days to allow legislature to enact law consistent with the court's ruling). Three or four years after Goodridge, Ms. Birch and Petitioner visited Massachusetts, but did not exercise their right to enter into a lawful marriage at that time. A series of court decisions invalidated the federal and state DOMAs, including the Florida DOMA. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), held that the federal DOMA, as applied to federal tax law, was unconstitutional. By order entered August 21, 2014, in Brenner v. Scott, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (N.D. Fla. 2014) (Brenner I), Respondent was enjoined from enforcing or applying the Florida DOMA, although the court stayed its injunction. The U.S. Supreme Court lifted the stay,5/ as reported by the district court in Brenner v. Scott¸ 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91969 (N.D. Fla. 2016) (Brenner II), in which, on March 30, 2016, the court issued a summary judgment on its injunction in Brenner I. Between Brenner I and Brenner II, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that state DOMAs were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). Petitioner testified that she and Ms. Birch would have been lawfully married by October 2012, when Ms. Birch retired, but for the Florida DOMA. This testimony is credited. Long prior to 2012, Ms. Birch and Petitioner organized their financial affairs as though they were lawfully married, sharing assets and liabilities equally. Petitioner testified credibly that she and Ms. Birch always "played by the rules": thus, Ms. Birch and Petitioner would have been deterred from getting married prior to Ms. Birch's retirement, such as when they were visiting Massachusetts in 2007, due to the legal futility of attempting to obtain recognition in Florida of a marriage lawfully performed elsewhere. Less persuasive is Petitioner's testimony that, in October 2012, Ms. Birch would have elected Option 3, if this option had been available to her, and it is impossible to find on this record that she would have done so. There is no evidence that Ms. Birch and Petitioner rearranged their financial affairs to achieve, to the extent possible, an Option 3 election. Household income was $1000 per month greater under Option 1 than Option 3, so life insurance on Ms. Birch or an annuity for Petitioner could have mitigated Ms. Birch's inability to choose Option 3 when she retired. Prior to retiring, Ms. Birch did not attempt to elect Option 3 in writing or orally. Even after retiring, as noted below, Ms. Birch displayed ambivalence about whether she wanted to change her election. As a named defendant in Brenner I, on April 14, 2015, Respondent responded to the injunction against its enforcement or application of the Florida DOMA by issuing Information Release #2015-184 (Release). Sent to FRS members who retired prior to January 2, 2015, and elected Option 1 or 2, the Release states: . . . FRS retirees and . . . DROP participants who were in legally-recognized same-sex marriages at the time they retired or began DROP participation and chose Option 1 or Option 2 will have an opportunity to change benefit payment options in light of . . . Brennan. These retirees will be able to change their retirement payment option from their current selection to Option 3 or Option 4 to provide a continuing monthly benefit to their spouse. The retirees impacted by this change have an effective retirement date or DROP begin date on or before January 1, 2015. The Release provides that an eligible retiree interested in a second election must contact Respondent in writing, identify the retiree's spouse, and certify that the retiree and spouse were married in a state or country that allowed same-sex marriage when the FRS member retired. The Release states that Respondent will respond with an estimate of the new benefit payment under the option that the retiree intends to select and provide the retiree with the paperwork necessary to make the second election. Available on Respondent's website,6/ the Release provides the opportunity of a second election of Option 3 or 4 to any FRS member7/ who retired prior to January 2, 2015; chose Option 1 or 2 when she retired; and was in a same-sex marriage when she retired. The Release places no limit on how far in the past the retirement took place.8/ The thrust of Petitioner's case is directed toward backdating her lawful marriage to Ms. Birch to a point prior to Ms. Birch's retirement. As noted above, the timing of the lawful marriage is a problem under the Release, which requires a lawful marriage at the time of retirement, but another problem under the Release is the fact that the Release provides to the FRS retiree, not her surviving spouse, the opportunity for a second election, nor, as discussed immediately below, is this a technical requirement that can be overcome by Petitioner's serving as a representative of Ms. Birch--the second election is extended only to living FRS retirees. The virtue of the Release for Petitioner is that it confers the opportunity of a second election without any proof that, at the time of the first election, the FRS member would have elected Option 3 or 4. If Petitioner does not rely on the Release, she must also prove that Ms. Birch would have elected Option 3 or 4, which, as noted above, she has failed to prove. By limiting the second election to the FRS retiree, the Release limits the potential of adverse selection in allowing a second election, possibly years after the first election.9/ There are three possibilities at the time of the second election: both spouses are alive, only the FRS retiree is alive, and only the surviving spouse is alive. The Release's restriction of the right to make the second election to the FRS retiree means that the second and third possibilities do not result in second elections: respectively the FRS retiree would not reduce her payment to provide an annuity to a spouse who is already deceased10/ and a surviving spouse has no right to make an election under the Release. The couple may gain a minor financial advantage by the opportunity to revisit the payment option several years after the retirement of the FRS member, so that they may be better informed of the health of each of them. But the surviving spouse would gain a significant financial advantage by the opportunity to revisit the payment option after the death of the FRS member. Shortly after Respondent issued the Release, Ms. Birch filed with Respondent a Spousal Acknowledgement Form that she had signed on May 8, 2015. This form indicates that Ms. Birch is married, but nothing else. At about the same time, though, Ms. Birch contacted Respondent by telephone to discuss the Release and any choices that she may now have under the Release. By letter dated May 26, 2015, Respondent calculated monthly benefit amounts under Options 1 through 4, but the letter warns: "Your benefit option will not be changed unless you complete and return the required forms noted in this letter" and indicate a choice of repaying in a single payment or installments the excess benefits of Option 1 over the smaller benefits paid under Option 3 or 4. The May 26 letter requires further action on Ms. Birch's part and predicates any right to a second election upon a lawful marriage at the time of retirement. The record provides no basis for finding that any of Respondent's representatives misstated the lawful-marriage condition. To the contrary, in at least one conversation with Ms. Birch, Respondent's representative insisted on verification of a lawful marriage as of October 2012. Additionally, Ms. Birch was not requesting a right to make a second election; at most, she was gathering information to prepare to decide whether to ask to change her election. By June 26, 2015, pursuant to a note documenting a telephone conversation between Ms. Birch and a representative of Respondent, Ms. Birch decided to keep Option 1 rather than make a second election of Option 3.11/ In May 2016, Ms. Birch finally made a clear attempt to change her election to Option 3. By letter dated May 12, 2016, Ms. Birch stated that she was lawfully married to Petitioner on June 12, 2012, and asked for "the change in beneficiary for my pension, due to the one time option given" in the Release. Even at this late date, Ms. Birch was not yet ready to elect Option 3 because the letter concludes: "I would like to see the breakdown of monetary options to make an informed decision." However, on May 20, 2016, during a telephone call with a representative of Respondent, Ms. Birch provided the date of birth of Petitioner and asked Respondent to expedite her request because she did not have long to live. On the same date, Ms. Birch signed an Option Selection form electing Option 3. By letter dated July 18, 2016, Respondent acknowledged the death of Ms. Birch and informed Petitioner that all pension benefits ended at that time. By letter dated September 22, 2016, Petitioner asked for reconsideration and supplied copies of various documents, the relevant provisions of which have been referenced above. By letter dated October 20, 2016, Respondent denied the request for reconsideration.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for benefits under Option 3 from Ms. Birch's FRS account and dismissing Petitioner's Request for Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 2018.
The Issue The issues in this case are as follows: Whether a refund request submitted by Petitioner, FICURMA, Inc. (Petitioner or FICURMA), to Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Respondent or Department), on January 21, 2010, requesting a refund of assessments paid during 2005 and 2006, is barred pursuant to section 215.26(2), Florida Statutes (2009),1/ because the refund request was not submitted within three years after the assessment payments were made. Whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel can be raised to allow a refund that would otherwise be time-barred by section 215.26(2), and, if so, whether the facts show the sort of rare circumstances that would justify application of that doctrine against a state agency.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency that has been statutorily designated as the administrator of the SDTF (§ 440.49, Fla. Stat.) and as the administrator of the WCATF (§ 440.51). The Department's administration of these two funds includes making the requisite assessments to the entities required to pay the assessments and ensuring payment by the assessable entities for deposit into the state Treasury. §§ 440.49, 440.51. As the state agency with the responsibility for the collection of these assessments, the Department is charged with the authority to accept applications for refunds pursuant to section 215.26, for overpayments of assessments, for payment of assessments when none are due, or for payments of assessments made in error. The Department is responsible for making determinations on applications for refunds of SDTF and WCATF assessments. "FICURMA" stands for Florida Independent Colleges and Universities Risk Management Association. FICURMA, Inc., is an independent educational institution self-insurance fund that was established in December 2003, pursuant to the authority of section 624.4623, Florida Statutes (2003). FICURMA was approved as a Florida workers' compensation self-insurer meeting the requirements of section 624.4623, effective December 10, 2003. FICURMA's members self-insure their workers' compensation claims under chapter 440. On November 16, 2004, Evelyn Vlasak, the assessments coordinator for the SDTF and WCATF assessments, wrote to Ben Donatelli, FICURMA's executive director, to advise that the assessments unit of the Department's Division of Workers' Compensation (Division) received notice that FICURMA had been approved to write workers' compensation insurance in Florida, effective December 10, 2003. Therefore, Ms. Vlasak informed FICURMA that it was required to register with the Division; it was required to pay assessments to the WCATF and SDTF, calculated on the basis of premiums paid to FICURMA by its members; and it was required to submit quarterly premium reports to the Division. Ms. Vlasak enclosed quarterly report forms for FICURMA to catch up on its premium reports for the last quarter of 2003 and the first three quarters of 2004. Ms. Vlasak also enclosed Bulletin DFS-03-002, dated June 26, 2003, which attached two Orders Setting Assessment Rates, one for the WCATF for calendar year 2004, and the other for the SDTF for fiscal year 2003-2004. The two orders, issued by E. Tanner Holloman, then-director of the Division, included a Notice of Rights. This notice advised of the right to administrative review of the agency action pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, by filing a petition for hearing within 21 days of receipt of the orders. In bold, the Notice of Rights concluded with the following warning: "FAILURE TO FILE A PETITION WITHIN THE TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF YOUR RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THIS ACTION." Mr. Donatelli testified that Ms. Vlasak's letter came as a surprise, because he and the others involved in lobbying for the passage of section 624.4623 and setting up FICURMA, pursuant to the new law, believed that FICURMA was not subject to SDTF and WCATF assessments. Mr. Donatelli said that he called Ms. Vlasak to ask why FICURMA had to pay when according to their interpretation of the statute authorizing FICURMA to be created, FICURMA was not subject to the assessment requirements. Mr. Donatelli said that in response to his question, Ms. Vlasak stated that it was her interpretation of the statute that FICURMA was required to pay assessments. She stated that she would have that confirmed by "Legal," but that FICURMA should be prepared to start paying in order to avoid penalties for late payment. Mr. Donatelli testified that "obviously with her response, then we started to think hard about reading [section 624.4623] again, and we did, and didn't see any reason that we needed to pay this." But he also testified that when Ms. Vlasak said she would confirm her interpretation with the legal department, he began calculating what the assessments might cost, because they had not been collecting funds to cover the assessments from its members, since they did not know they had to pay the assessments. The next communication received by FICURMA from Ms. Vlasak came by way of a December 20, 2004, memorandum to all carriers and self-insurance funds, providing information to assist with computation of premiums to be reported for the fourth quarter 2004 SDTF and WCATF assessments. At around the same time, FICURMA received Bulletin DFS 04-044B. This bulletin attached copies of the two Orders Setting Assessment Rates signed by Tom Gallagher, then-Chief Financial Officer. One order was for the WCATF for calendar year 2005 and the other order was for the SDTF for fiscal year 2004-2005. As with the previous bulletin attaching two orders for the prior year, this mailing included a Notice of Rights, which provided a clear point of entry to contest the action by filing a petition for administrative hearing within 21 days of receipt. Mr. Donatelli acknowledged that the two Holloman orders and the two Gallagher orders all ordered FICURMA to pay the SDTF and WCATF assessments. Mr. Donatelli testified that after reviewing the second set of orders received, FICURMA did not believe it had any alternative but to pay the assessments. However, because there was a reference to some "legal stuff," he "asked the legals" to take a second look, because this was not an insignificant payment. In fact, the calculation of assessments to catch up for the prior quarters of missed payments was more than $104,000. When asked why, if he believed FICURMA was not assessable, Mr. Donatelli did not direct "the legals" to file a petition for an administrative hearing on FICURMA's behalf to contest the assessment rate orders, Mr. Donatelli's response was: "Basically, it was our respect of the opinion of the Office Of Insurance Regulations [sic: Division of Workers' Compensation] that said that we had to pay that. I mean--we were basically trying to--being good citizens." Accordingly, FICURMA chose to not challenge the assessments, or otherwise object to paying the assessments. Instead, FICURMA transmitted payment on December 26, 2004, for SDTF and WCATF assessments calculated to be due for the fourth quarter of 2003 and the first three quarters of 2004, totaling $104,282.11. Neither this payment, nor subsequent FICURMA assessment payments were made "under protest." Mr. Donatelli's question to Ms. Vlasak sometime in late 2004--whether FICURMA was assessable under either section 440.49 (for the SDTF) or section 440.51 (for the WCATF)--was never put in writing. However, FICURMA's general counsel wrote to Ms. Vlasak on January 7, 2005, to raise a different assessment question: "whether [FICURMA] is assessed and therefore required to pay into the [SDTF] as it was established within the past year and as such none of the group's claims would be eligible for reimbursement from the Fund." This question, limited to the SDTF assessments, was not based on the status of FICURMA as an entity authorized by section 624.4623 but, rather, was based on the fact that the SDTF had been closed for certain new claims before FICURMA was established. After no response was received, FICURMA's general counsel wrote a second time on February 14, 2005, attaching another copy of the January 7, 2005, letter. Neither of these letters asked about Mr. Donatelli's prior telephonic inquiry regarding whether FICURMA was assessable at all because of its status as an entity formed under section 624.4623. Ms. Vlasak responded in writing after the second written inquiry by FICURMA's general counsel that addressed the propriety of the SDTF assessments. Ms. Vlasak stated the Department's position that assessments were to continue to all assessable entities, even though the SDTF was being prospectively abolished. Ms. Vlasak concluded, therefore, that FICURMA "is not exempt" from the SDTF assessments. Ms. Vlasak's letter dated February 16, 200[5],4/ responded only to the written inquiry in the January 7, 2005, letter and February 14, 2005, reminder letter and, thus, addressed only the limited question about SDTF assessments. Thereafter, until 2009, FICURMA had no further telephonic or written communications with the Division about FICURMA's assessability. Instead, FICURMA fell into the pattern of making quarterly premium reports and assessment payments, pursuant to notice by the Department. In total, FICURMA's payments received by the Department in 2005 and 2006 add up to $288,607.32 in SDTF assessments and $63,164.70 in WCATF assessments. The breakdown of assessment payments credited by quarter is as follows: 2003, Q 4 (received 1-11-05) SDTF: $7,652.36 WCATF: $2,962.75 2004, Q 1 (received 1-11-05) SDTF: $22,957.34 WCATF: $ 7,618.49 2004, Q 2 (received 1-11-05) SDTF: $23,685.39 WCATF: $ 7,860.20 2004, Q 3 (received 1-11-05) SDTF: $23,685.39 WCATF: $ 7,860.19 2004, Q 4 (received 2-10-05) SDTF: $25,543.10 WCATF: $ 8,476.00 2005, Q 1 (received 5-2-05) SDTF: $29,258.54 WCATF: $ 4,854.45 2005, Q 2 (received 7-29-05) SDTF: $29,258.54 WCATF: $ 4,854.45 2005, Q 3 (received 11-1-05) SDTF: $29,350.54 WCATF: $ 4,854.85 2005, Q 4 (received 2-2-06) SDTF: $27,193.93 WCATF: $ 4,527.53 2006, Q 1 (received 5-1-06) SDTF: $23,340.73 WCATF: $ 3,098.33 2006, Q 2 (received 7-26-06) SDTF: $23,340.73 WCATF: $ 3,098.33 2006, Q 3 (received 10-27-06) SDTF: $23,340.73 WCATF: $ 3,098.33 In 2007, 2008, and part of 2009, FICURMA continued these quarterly payments pursuant to notice by the Department, paying quarterly assessments to the SDTF totaling $363,441.86 and to the WCATF totaling $31,132.88. In the 2009 legislative session, the adoption of a new law authorizing another type of self-insurance fund contained language that caused Ms. Vlasak to question whether certain other self-insurance funds authorized under different statutes were assessable under sections 440.49 and 440.51. The 2009 law, codified in section 624.4626, Florida Statutes (2009), specifically provided that a "self-insurance fund that meets the requirements of this section is subject to the assessments set forth in ss. 440.49(9), 440.51(1), and 624.4621(7), but is not subject to any other provision of s. 624.4621 and is not required to file any report with the department under s. 440.38(2)(b) which is uniquely required of group self-insurer funds qualified under s. 624.4621." (Emphasis added). In contrast, section 624.4623, the statute under which FICURMA was formed, contained the following language: "An independent education institution self-insurance fund that meets the requirements of this section is not subject to s. 624.4621 and is not required to file any report with the department under s. 440.38(2)(b) which is uniquely required of group self-insurer funds qualified under s. 624.4621." (Emphasis added). Ms. Vlasak asked the Division's legal office to analyze the legal question and give advice. Meanwhile, Ms. Vlasak and her supervisor, Mr. Lloyd, agreed that the standard quarterly assessment notices would not be sent to FICURMA, so that the Department could consider the question of its assessability after receiving advice from its legal office. By not sending the notices, the clock would not start on the deadlines for FICURMA to pay the assessments without imposition of a statutory penalty for late payment. FICURMA, however, had been well-conditioned to expect those quarterly notices and became concerned when the expected notices did not arrive. Mr. Donatelli and his assistant, Joanne Hansen, called Ms. Vlasak several times to ask why nothing had been received yet. They ultimately spoke with Ms. Vlasak, who advised that the Department was reviewing whether FICURMA was assessable, and it did not have to worry about not receiving the notices because payments would not be due until after the notices were received. On October 1, 2009, the Department's legal staff issued a Memorandum of Opinion regarding independent education institution self-insurance funds (like FICURMA), authorized by section 624.4623. This opinion analyzed section 624.4623, as well as the statutory terms used to identify which entities are subject to assessments in section 440.49 (for the SDTF) and section 440.51 (for the WCATF). Based on that analysis, the opinion concluded that self-insurance funds qualifying under section 624.4623 (like FICURMA), are not subject to SDTF or WCATF assessments. Although the analysis was prompted by a different self-insurance fund statute adopted in 2009, the conclusion reached as to section 624.4623 entities would apply to the entire time period since the adoption of section 624.4623 in 2003. The Department witnesses testified unequivocally that the legal opinion was advisory only, and it was up to the administration to make the policy decision to follow the advice given. However, it is difficult to discern any "policy" choice to be made, since the plain import of the opinion was that the statutes were not susceptible to any different interpretation other than that section 624.4623 entities were not subject to SDTF or WCATF assessments. Nonetheless, the legal opinion was reviewed, and, ultimately, the Department agreed with the advice. On November 14, 2009, Ms. Vlasak and Mr. Lloyd called Mr. Donatelli to advise that FICURMA was not required to pay SDTF or WCATF assessments anymore. In addition, they discussed how FICURMA could go about requesting refunds of assessments previously paid. However, they alerted FICURMA to the fact that section could present a problem with respect to requests for refunds of payments made more than three years ago. At the time of this conversation, all of the assessments paid in 2005 and 2006 had been made more than three years ago, while the payments made in 2007-2009 were within the three-year window. On January 12, 2010, Ms. Vlasak wrote to FICURMA, sending the forms for applying for refunds. In the letter, she reiterated the potential problem for refund requests of payments made more than three years ago. Accordingly, she recommended that FICURMA submit separate requests for payments made within the last three years versus those made more than three years ago, as the former would be able to go through more easily. FICURMA completed four separate refund application forms: one for SDTF payments made in 2005 and 2006; one for WCATF payments made in 2005 and 2006; one for SDTF payments made in 2007-2009; and one for WCATF payments made in 2007-2009. The refund forms state that the refund requests are submitted pursuant to section 215.26; FICURMA did not fill in the blank that is required to be filled in if the refund requests were being submitted under any other statute besides section 215.26. The applications were dated January 20, 2010, and were received by the Department on January 21, 2010. The Department approved the refund applications for payments made in 2007-2009 and caused warrants to be issued to FICURMA to refund $363,441.86 for SDTF assessments and $31,132.88 for WCATF assessments. By authorizing refunds of assessments paid in 2007, 2008, and 2009, the Department has acknowledged that FICURMA should never have been assessed under sections 440.49 and 440.51 and should never have been served annually with the Orders Setting Assessment Rates or quarterly with assessment notices. The Department acknowledged FICURMA's entitlement to refunds despite FICURMA's failure to challenge the assessments in 2007, 2008, and 2009 pursuant to the Notice of Rights provided annually. However, as warned, on May 12, 2010, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Applications for refund of the 2005 and 2006 payments to the SDTF and the WCATF. The sole reason for the denial was that section 215.26(2) required that refund applications be filed within three years after the right to the refund accrued "or else the right is barred." The Department noted--as stated on the refund application form--that the three-year period normally commences when the payments are made. No evidence was presented regarding what are considered "normal" circumstances or what sort of not-normal circumstances would have to be shown to establish that the three-year period in section 215.26(2) would commence at some other point in time, rather than when payments are made.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order denying the requests for refunds of SDTF and WCATF assessments paid by Petitioner, FICURMA, Inc., in 2005 and 2006, because Petitioner's requests are time-barred by section 215.26(2) and because Petitioner has not met its burden of proving that equitable estoppel should be applied against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 2011.
