The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to the previously unclaimed property held by Respondent in the form of cash realized from the sale of 24 shares of AT&T.
Findings Of Fact Originally residents of New Hampshire, the now-deceased Flora and William Keniston vacationed annually in Tampa. During their visits, they became good friends with Herman Ortmann. At some point, Mr. Ortmann suggested to Mr. and Mrs. Keniston that they share his home with him--rent-free--during their annual September-to-April stay in Florida. The Kenistons accepted his suggestion and, for five or six winters, occupied Mr. Ortmann's home, which is located at 3102 Paul Avenue. Mr. Ortmann died on March 8, 1966. In his will, Mr. Ortmann left five dollars to his son and the residue of his estate to Petitioner, who was his cousin. On December 19, 1966, Petitioner, as executrix of Mr. Ortmann's estate, conveyed all interest in the Paul Avenue property to Mr. Keniston for $5500. On the same date, Mr. Keniston conveyed the fee simple interest in the Paul Avenue property, subject to a life estate in himself, to Petitioner and her husband. After the sale of the Paul Avenue property, Petitioner helped the Kenistons, who did not have a car, with many chores, such as taking them to buy groceries, attend church, and get hair cuts. On November 15, 1975, Mr. Keniston died. Following Mr. Keniston's death, Petitioner helped Mrs. Keniston, who no longer had a legal interest in the Paul Avenue property, find a new residence in a home shared by several unrelated adults of similar age. Petitioner testified that Mrs. Keniston lived several years in this home; however, her death certificate states that she died on October 4, 1976-- less than one year after the death of her husband. By operation of law, Petitioner and her husband acquired the fee simple interest in the Paul Avenue residence upon Mr. Keniston's death, and Petitioner remains in the house today. When Mrs. Keniston moved from the Paul Avenue property, she handed Petitioner two certificates evidencing ownership of 12 shares, each, in American Telephone and Telegraph Company (ATT). Mrs. Keniston instructed Petitioner to use these stock certificates to pay for Mrs. Keniston's funeral and "keep the rest." However, Mrs. Keniston, who was the sole registered owner of both certificates, never executed any instrument transferring an interest in these certificates to Petitioner. After delivering the certificates to Petitioner, Mrs. Keniston continued to receive and cash her monthly dividend checks of approximately $28. After Mrs. Keniston's death, Petitioner bought her a casket and paid for the funeral, at a total cost of about $3000. Petitioner retained the original stock certificates, but, after obtaining legal advice, determined that the she could not sell the certificates due to the absence of an assignment. Petitioner did not file a claim against the estate of Mrs. Keniston for reimbursement of the $3000, and Petitioner has not otherwise been reimbursed for these expenses. Petitioner has retained the original stock certificates. At some point, ATT transferred either the stock-- presumably by replacement stock certificates--or its cash equivalent to Respondent as unclaimed property; the value of the property at the time of the transfer was $1154.70. If ATT transferred the stock to Respondent, Respondent has since sold it. Either way, Respondent maintains the cash derived from the sale of the ATT stock in a noninterest-bearing account. Due to periodic payments received since its transfer to Respondent-- probably dividend payments earned prior to Respondent's sale of the stock--the current value of the account is $3081.04 (Account). Mrs. Keniston died intestate. By Order of Summary Administration entered May 24, 2000, the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, Probate Division, ordered an immediate distribution among four persons of Mrs. Keniston's assets, which consist of the Account. The order states that all interested persons were served with notice of the hearing or waived notice of the hearing, even though neither Petitioner nor Respondent seems to have received notice of the hearing. The order acknowledges that Respondent holds the Account and authorizes persons holding any property of the decedent to transfer it, pursuant to the order. On June 16, 2000, the representative of the four heirs named in the probate order filed with Respondent a claim of ownership of the Account. On June 1, 2000, Petitioner filed with Respondent a claim of ownership of the Account. Determining that Mrs. Keniston was the actual owner of the Account, Respondent concluded that her four heirs were entitled to the Account. On May 8, 2001, Respondent filed with the probate court a Motion to Vacate Order and Reopen Summary Administration. The probate court had not taken any additional action by the time of the final hearing in this case.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order awarding the Account to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Robert F. Milligan Office of the Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level 09 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Robert Beitler, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Fletcher Building, Suite 526 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Denise Douglas Qualified Representative 2616 Jetton Avenue Tampa, Florida 33629 Staci A. Bienvenu Assistant General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Fletcher Building, Suite 526 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Linda Dunphy, Esquire Post Office Box 16008 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, William D. Manser (Respondent) was licensed in Florida as a real estate broker, having been issued license number BK 0427410. Respondent was a broker/officer of United Equity Marketing, Inc., located at 6635 West Commercial Boulevard, Tamarac, Florida. Since October 1, 1995, his broker's license has not been on an active status due to non-renewal of the corporate registration. By warranty deed dated February 14, 1992, James and Angela Cunduff became owners of property located at 6531 Southwest Seventh Place, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. By Articles of Agreement for Deed dated February 25, 1992, James and Angela Cunduff agreed to convey the property to Respondent's corporation, United Capital Networks, Inc., if certain conditions were complied with. The conditions included Respondent's corporation making all the mortgage payments and paying the taxes on the property, and keeping the buildings on the property properly insured. In return, James and Angela Cunduff agreed, among other things, to execute a warranty deed to Respondent's corporation and to place the warranty deed in escrow. Respondent and the Cunduffs agreed that the Articles of Agreement for Deed would not be recorded. Respondent looked upon himself and conducted his actions as the owner of the property at 6531 Southwest Seventh Place, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On October 31, 1995, Mary J. Augustine signed a lease agreement for the rental of a portion of the home, the rear of the home, located at 6531 Southwest Seventh Place, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The rear area of the home had its own entrance. The rental was for one year, beginning November 15, 1995, and ending October 30, 1996. Respondent used part of the home as a storage area. At the front of the home, there were two separate entrances. One of the separate entrances was for the storage area. The other separate entrance was for another area of the home. The lease agreement indicated United Equity Markets, Inc., as the managing agent of the property. The lease agreement required signatures of the "Tenant" and the "Lessor." Ms. Augustine signed the lease as "Tenant," and Respondent signed as "Lessor," adding the word "Agent" next to his signature. United Equity Markets, Inc., is Respondent's corporation. Prior to the signing of the lease, Respondent had met with Ms. Augustine at the house at least twice before she signed the lease agreement. Respondent represented himself as the manager of the property. The home was listed as a single-family residence. Ms. Augustine believed that the home would be occupied by Respondent, another tenant, and herself. The evidence is insufficient to show and make a finding that three families would live or had lived at the home. In accordance with the lease agreement, Ms. Augustine gave Respondent $1,290, as a security deposit. Ms. Augustine had also given Respondent, prior to the security deposit, $645 for the first month's rent. Ms. Augustine wanted to move into the rear portion of the home approximately two weeks prior to the beginning of the rental period. Respondent agreed that Ms. Augustine could have access to the home and clean the rear area where she was going to reside. Ms. Augustine had problems with, such things as, the refrigerator, oven, and swimming pool. She decided not to rent the home. Ms. Augustine demanded her deposit and first month's rent from Respondent. However, he refused to return the monies. The lease agreement contained a default provision, providing for the recovery of damages by the lessor if the tenant defaulted. The lease agreement also contained a security provision, providing for the non-refundable nature of the security deposit under certain conditions, including termination of the lease prior to its expiration. Ms. Augustine attempted but could not contact Respondent at his office because he had closed his office prior to October 1995. Ms. Augustine attempted also to contact Respondent at the telephone number that he had provided her, which was his home number. She was again unsuccessful due to Respondent having his telephone disconnected because he had gone to New York to care for his ill sister. Respondent did not provide Ms. Augustine with an accounting of the monies. Respondent was conducting his own personal real estate transaction with Ms. Augustine.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against William D. Manser. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 24th day of February, 1999.
The Issue This case was presented on an administrative complaint filed by the Florida Real Estate Commission against Florida Vantage Properties, Inc. and Richard Stewart Grimes, alleging that the Respondents were guilty of violation of Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by having placed or caused to be placed upon the public records of Palm Beach County, a written document which purports to effect the title of, or encumber, real property; and the recording of which was not duly authorizod by the owner of the property and for the purpose of collecting or coercing the money to the Respondents. The Florida Real Estate Commission introduced evidence that the Respondent Grimes, in behalf of the Respondent Florida Vantage Properties, Inc., (hereafter Vantage) filed an affidavit with an attached letter of agreement, which was Introduced and received into evidence as Exhibit 2, in the public records of Palm Beach County. The Florida Real Estate Commission introduced other evidence that Grimes caused those documents to be placed upon public records of Palm Beach County without the authority of the owner of the property which was the subject of the documents and for the purpose of collecting or coercing the payment of money to the Respondents. The Respondents introduced evidence concerning the documents which had been placed on the public records of Palm Beach, County concerning their original execution, purpose, and circumstances surrounding their having been placed upon the public records. Based upon the evidence presented, the issue of fact presented in this case is whether the affidavit and letter of agreement (Exhibit 2) purports to effect the title of or encumber the subject real property?
Findings Of Fact Richard Stewart Grimes and Florida Vantage Properties, Inc. are registered real estate brokers holding registrations issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Grimes, together with his two co-owners, sold C.W. Collins Corporation, hereafter Collins Corp., the following real property pursuant to a deposit receipt contract executed on August 20, 1973 and identified and introduced into evidence as Exhibit 4. Lot 6, Block 2, & Lots 5, 9, & 11, Block 5, Carriage Hill, as recorded in Plat Book 30, Pages 67 & 68 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County. The deposit receipt contract (Exhibit 4) was the product of negotiations entered into between Collins Corp. and Grimes and his co-owners. These negotiations had resulted in the execution of a deposit receipt contract identified and received into evidence as Exhibit 6. This deposit receipt contract addressed the proposed purchase of six lots to include the four lots eventually sold pursuant to the deposit receipt contract (Exhibit 4). Also introduced and received into evidence was a letter of agreement covering the property described in the deposit receipt contract (Exhibit 6). This letter of agreement is the same in all respects as the latter of agreement in Exhibit 2 with the exception that it addressed the two additional lots which, were the subject of the deposit receipt contract (Exhibit 6). The evidence introduced, to include the exhibits referended above, show that a portion of the consideration for the sale of the property to Collins Corp. was the letter of agreement (Exhibit 2) which contained an exclusive right of sale for Vantage and a deferred payment agreement under which Collins Corp agreed to Pay Vantage $1,000 on each lot sold by Collins Corp. Both Grimes and Collins agreed that the exclusive right of sale had been terminated prior to the date Exhibit 2 was filed in the public records of Palm Beach County, November 6, 1975. However, Collins Corp. could not unilaterally terminate the deferred payment agreement expressed in the last sentence of the letter of agreement as follows: C. W. COLLINS CORP. may also sell the property themself (sic) and will then pay only a $1,000.00 fee to FLORIDA VANTAGE PROPERTIES, INC. on each lot or house and lot package at time of closing. Grimes, as chief officer of Vantage, consulted legal counsel when Collins Corp. failed to pay $1,000 to Vantage when the corporation sold the first lot. Grimes authorized counsel to take action to obtain payment of the monies due Vantage from Collins Corp. As a result, Grimes executed the affidavit of October 7, 1975 (Exhibit 2) and caused this to be placed on the public records of Palm Beach County by counsel for Vantage and Grimes. Neither the affidavit nor the letter of agreement assert any interest in the subject property and the filing in no way constituted a notice of lis pendens.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action on the complaint against Florida Vantage Properties, Inc. or Richard Stewart Crimes. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of August, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX The Respondent timely filed Proposed Findings of Fact (PFF) in this cause, which were considered by the Hearing Officer as follows: Paragraphs 1 and 2 of PFF are incorporated in paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order (RD). Paragraphs 3 and 4 of PFF are incorporated in paragraph 2 of the RD. Paragraph 5 of PFF is incorporated in paragraph 3 of the RD. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8 & 10 of PFF are incorporated in paragraph 4 of the RD. Paragraphs 9, 11, 12,13 and 14 are not material to consideration of the issue presented. Paragraph 15 is consistent with the ultimate conclusion of law reached in the RD. COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Arthur C. Koske, Esquire Post Office Box 478 299 West Camino Gardens Blvd. Boca Raton, Florida 33432 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION CD 14999 Petitioner, PROGRESS DOCKET vs. NO. 3283 FLORIDA VANTAGE PROPERTIES, INC. and RICHARD STEWART GRIMES DOAH NO. 78-696 Respondents. PALM BEACH COUNTY /
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, SA Lee was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate salesperson, having been issued license number SL-0640485 on July 15, 1996. Further, Respondent SA Lee was a real estate salesperson in association with Respondent Realty, a real estate broker corporation. At all times material hereto, Respondent SE Lee was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate broker, having been issued license number BK-0594787. Further, Respondent SE Lee was the qualifying broker and officer of Respondent Realty. At all times material hereto, Respondent Realty was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate broker corporation, having been issued license number CQ-0272573. In 1996, Brian Mulally (buyer) wanted to buy certain residential property located at 4397 Vicliff Road, West Palm Beach, Florida. Maryann Duchesne and Margaret Reppucci were the sellers of the property. Medallion Realty was the listing broker for the property. Paula Castro was the real estate salesperson representing Medallion Realty. The sellers authorized Medallion Realty and Ms. Castro to represent them, to be their agents in the sale of their property. Respondent SA Lee, as sales agent for Respondent Realty, notified the buyer that she was not representing him. The buyer knew at all times that Respondent SA Lee was not his representative in the purchase of the property. In a "Disclosure" document dated September 4, 1996, the buyer acknowledged that Respondent SA Lee was not representing him and that the sellers were compensating Respondent SA Lee.1 The sellers did not authorize Respondent SA Lee to represent them in the sale of their property and were not aware of the Disclosure document. Respondent SA Lee and Respondent Realty were not representing the sellers or the buyer. However, an inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that Respondent SA Lee and Respondent Realty were working together with Medallion Realty in the sale of the property and that Respondent SA Lee and Respondent Realty were sub-agents of Medallion Realty.2 The buyer and sellers executed a Contract for Sale and Purchase (Contract) of the property, with the buyer executing the Contract on September 30, 1996, and the sellers on October 1, 1996. The effective date of the Contract was October 1, 1996. The Contract provided, among other things, that Respondent Realty would hold deposits in escrow; that the buyer's first deposit would be $100; that the buyer's second deposit of $1,900 would be made within five days of October 1, 1996; that, within five days of October 1, 1996, the buyer would make application for a mortgage loan; that, within 15 days of October 1, 1996, the buyer would obtain a written commitment for a mortgage loan; that the closing date was October 31, 1996; and that Medallion Realty and Respondent Realty were the listing broker and cooperating broker, respectively. The buyer was to obtain the money for the second deposit from a family member. He had planned a trip around the time of the execution of the Contract, during which he would obtain the money for the second deposit. When the buyer returned from his trip, he did not have the money for the second deposit. The buyer informed Respondent SA Lee of his failure to return with the money for the second deposit. Shortly thereafter, Respondent SA Lee and Ms. Castro had a telephone conversation regarding the property. During their conversation, Respondent SA Lee informed Ms. Castro that the buyer had not made the second deposit but that he was still going to obtain the money for the second deposit. The disclosure to the sellers' agent, Ms. Castro, of the buyer's failure to remit the second deposit was before the due date for the deposit, which was on or before October 6, 1996. Ms. Castro continued to make inquiries to Respondent SA Lee as to the payment of the second deposit by the buyer. Respondent SA Lee informed Ms. Castro that she was trying to get the deposit from the buyer who was advising her (Respondent SA Lee) that he was getting the money for the deposit. Ms. Castro was continuously aware that the buyer had not remitted the second deposit to Respondent SA Lee. Respondent SA Lee and Ms. Castro wanted the real estate transaction to proceed. Respondent SA Lee's communication with the sellers was through Ms. Castro. Respondent SA Lee did not have access to a telephone number for the sellers. The sellers obtained the services of a closing agent, who was also their attorney. On or about October 11, 1996, approximately five days after the due date for the second deposit, the sellers' attorney, acting as closing agent, contacted Ms. Castro regarding the second deposit. Ms. Castro informed the sellers' attorney that she would contact Respondent SA Lee and get back with her (the sellers' attorney). On or about October 15, 1996, approximately nine days after the due date for the second deposit, the sellers' attorney, in her role as the closing agent, contacted Respondent SA Lee and requested an escrow letter regarding the second deposit. Obtaining the escrow letter would allow the beginning of the preparation of the closing documents. Respondent SA Lee informed the sellers' attorney that she would contact Ms. Castro and that Ms. Castro would in turn contact the sellers' attorney. Respondent SA Lee contacted Ms. Castro. No escrow letter was forwarded to the sellers' closing agent because no second deposit had been made by the buyer. Even without the escrow letter, the closing agent began the preparation of the closing documents. Thereafter, the sellers' attorney, acting as closing agent, contacted Respondent SA Lee several times regarding the remittance of the second deposit, but Respondent SA Lee never gave the sellers' closing agent a forthright response; Respondent SA Lee never informed the sellers' closing agent that the buyer had not remitted the second deposit.3 Respondent continued to communicate with Ms. Castro regarding the second deposit. The sellers' closing agent was not informed until around October 28 or 29, 1996, that the buyer had not remitted the second deposit. Other problems, regarding the real estate transaction, in addition to the remittance of the second deposit, erupted between the buyer and the sellers. At that time Ms. Castro allowed the sellers' attorney to step-in and handle all matters regarding the transaction. The evidence indicates that this change occurred sometime between October 15 and October 30, 1996. When the sellers' attorney began to handle all matters regarding the real estate transaction, Respondent SA Lee should have, but did not, inform the sellers' attorney that the buyer had not remitted the money for the second deposit. The second deposit was eventually remitted by the buyer on or about October 30, 1996. The buyer forwarded the money directly to the sellers' attorney per Respondent SA Lee's instructions. For several reasons, including the buyer's failure to timely remit the second deposit, the closing did not occur on October 31, 1996, as provided in the Contract. The closing on the property occurred on November 27, 1996. Sometime after the closing of the real estate transaction, Respondent SE Lee ceased to be the qualifying broker for Respondent Realty. Sharon E. Lee became the qualifying broker and officer for Respondent Realty. No evidence was presented by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Petitioner) as to Respondent SE Lee's failure to properly supervise the activities of Respondent SA Lee or Respondent Realty. No evidence was presented as to whether Respondent SA Lee or Respondent Realty had a history of disciplinary action taken against them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate enter a final order and therein: Dismiss Count III against Stephen E. Lee. Find Sherry Ann Lee guilty of Counts I and II. Find C. Mist Realty, Inc. guilty of Count IV. Impose upon Sherry Ann Lee an administrative fine of $1,000, payable under the terms and conditions deemed appropriate, and the completion of a 45-hour post-licensure course. Reprimand C. Mist Realty, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 16th day of June, 2000.
The Issue Whether the Department of Financial Services (the “Department”) correctly denied the unclaimed property claim submitted by Choice Plus, LLC (“Choice Plus” or “Petitioner”), on behalf of Louis Nardi as attorney-in-fact for Felicia Leggiero (“Leggiero”).
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, and the record as a whole, the undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material fact: Choice Plus is registered with the Department as a “claimant’s representative” pursuant to section 717.1400, Florida Statutes (2020). In Florida, a claimant’s representative may file claims with the Department on behalf of owners of unclaimed property for a fee. See Joint Ex. 1, Bates Nos. 0001-17. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering and processing claims, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 717, the Florida Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act (“Act”). See Joint Ex. 4, Bates No. 0045. Between 2005 and 2018, the Department received unclaimed stock shares and dividends reported in the names of John R. Leggiero and Felicia R. Leggiero, from various holders. The Department currently maintains the funds, totaling $116,322.10, in 24 unclaimed property accounts. See Joint Ex. 1, Bates Nos. 0001-3. The Claim by Choice Plus On or about May 26, 2020, Choice Plus filed a written claim, No. C8610372, on behalf of Louis Nardi, as attorney-in-fact for Felicia R. Leggiero, for 24 unclaimed property accounts. In support of the claim, Choice Plus provided the Department a copy of a Limited Power of Attorney (“LPOA”) and full disclosure statement, pursuant to section 717.135, executed by Louis Nardi; a copy of Louis Nardi’s driver’s license; a copy of Leggiero’s driver’s license; a Florida Certificate of Death for John R. Leggiero, indicating that he predeceased Felicia R. Leggiero; a copy of a durable power of attorney where Leggiero designated her brother, Louis Nardi, as her attorney-in-fact; and the results of a TLO.com search.1 See Joint Ex. 1, Bates Nos. 0001-17. The LPOA and full disclosure statement, executed on May 4, 2020, authorized Choice Plus to file a claim on behalf of Louis Nardi as attorney-in- fact for Felicia R. Leggiero, for a fee of $11,632.21. § 717.135, Fla. Stat. The LPOA included the following language: CP offers to advance its expertise and financial resources, including legal expenses, on Claimant’s behalf, to prove entitlement and secure release of property from any person or entity in possession of property. In exchange for CP’s resources Claimant irrevocably assigns Claimant’s right, title and interest in property up to the amount and/or percentage reference above as Compensation. If CP 1 A people and business location system that searches public and proprietary databases. fails to document Claimant’s entitlement, nothing will be owed to CP. See Joint Ex. 1, Bates Nos. 0004-5. As a part of the Department’s statutorily mandated review of the claim submitted by Choice Plus, it conducted a Driver and Vehicle Information Database (“DAVID”) search for Leggiero on June 17, 2020. The search indicated that she died on May 27, 2020. See Joint Ex. 4, ¶ 3; and Joint Ex. 5, Bates No. 0042. In part, because of her death, the Department issued a Request for Information (“RFI”) on June 18, 2020, to Choice Plus. The RFI noted that Felicia R. Leggiero was deceased, and requested probate documentation for her estate. See Joint Ex. 2, Bates No. 0018. As it turns out, this is a common request when the Department has questions or concerns about a claim that is filed, or needs additional documentation as it sorts through and evaluates the merits of a claim. On July 13, 2020, the Department received Choice Plus’s response to the RFI. The response consisted of a four-page memorandum which extensively outlined the law and the position of Choice Plus on the claim. In the memorandum, Choice Plus took the position that the claim was complete when filed, and that the claim determination was retroactive to the date of filing the claim. See Joint Ex. 3. Choice Plus further argued that the Department should not consider subsequent events, i.e., the death of the claimant, when determining entitlement to the unclaimed property. Interestingly, however, it took the position that the Department must pay the claim to the “estate” of the deceased claimant. Id. However, and of particular note, Choice Plus provided no documentation to show that (1) Felicia R. Leggiero’s estate had been submitted to probate court for administration; (2) that Choice Plus represented Felicia Leggiero’s estate; or (3) represented the personal representative of her estate. See Joint Ex. 3, Bates Nos. 0019-24. After its review of the claim file and the memorandum submitted by Choice Plus, the Department issued a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) on October 20, 2020, stating that it would enter a final order denying the claim filed by Choice Plus on behalf of Louis Nardi as attorney-in-fact for Felicia R. Leggiero. The Department took the position, essentially, that at the time it began its review of the claim, Leggiero had already died and that, therefore, as a matter of law, Leggiero no longer had any legal or beneficial entitlement to the unclaimed funds, as entitlement had already vested in her estate. See Joint Ex. 4, Bates Nos. 0045-49, ¶¶ 11-13. Director Graham also testified that the Department’s treatment of this particular claim was consistent with the Department’s treatment of similarly situated claims where the claimant or person entitled to the property dies after submitting a claim to the Department, but before the Department has the opportunity to review and evaluate the claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order affirming the denial of Petitioner’s claim. However, it is recommended that the Department should accept and consider the submission of a supplemental claim by any lawful beneficiaries or heirs of Felicia Leggiero to determine entitlement pursuant to the provisions of chapter 717 and other provisions of law. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Alao, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Diane Wint, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services Room 612.14, Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 2021. Michael J. Farrar, Esquire Michael J. Farrar, P.A. 18851 Northeast 29th Avenue, Suite 700 Aventura, Florida 33180
The Issue Whether either of the Petitioners is entitled to the funds in Unclaimed Property Account Number 117786622.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is the state agency authorized to administer the Florida Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, chapter 717, Florida Statutes. In that capacity, the Department, as custodian, receives dormant accounts from various entities and safeguards the funds until the rightful owner files a claim establishing his or her entitlement to the funds. In 2013, the Department received $273,100 from Amco Insurance Company (“Amco”), a subsidiary of Nationwide Insurance Company (“Nationwide”). Amco reported the funds as the proceeds of a Matured Life-Limiting Age insurance policy payable to the “Estate of Larry Bunda” and “Home Q Servicing” (hereinafter cited as “HomEq,” the company’s preferred name styling). Amco also provided a last known address for HomEq of Post Office Box 57621, Jacksonville, Florida 32241, as an additional property identifier. The funds are now identified as Unclaimed Property Account Number 117786622. Global is registered with the Department as a claimant’s representative pursuant to section 717.1400, Florida Statutes, which permits it to file claims with the Department on behalf of apparent owners. In 2015, Global began investigating account number 117786622. In an email dated July 13, 2015, Nationwide reported to Bonnie McKee-Flores of Global that the customer in question was named Larry R. Bunda, born on October 19, 1950, with a reported address of 546 Elm Street, Ramona, California. Global investigated the status of Larry R. Bunda. It obtained a Washington State Certificate of Death indicating that Larry R. Bunda died on September 8, 2008, in Seattle, Washington, of injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident. Global discovered three heirs to the estate of Larry R. Bunda: Amelia Bunda of Bremerton, Washington; Robert Bunda of Bremerton, Washington; and George Bunda of El Cajon, California. On September 13, 2016, Ms. McKee-Flores of Global sent an email to Nationwide requesting the issue date and check number of the check issued to Larry Bunda and HomEq Servicing. Ms. McKee-Flores explained that she was attempting to obtain a release from HomEq’s successor, Ocwen, for the funds to be released to the Bunda estate, and that the information as to the check would help persuade Ocwen to sign the release. Nationwide responded: “The original check # was 0371843635 and it was issued on 11/05/2009.” Nationwide did not state to whom the check was made payable. The three heirs initiated a probate proceeding in the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, Case No. 2016 CP 000687. On September 22, 2016, the court entered an Order of Summary Administration adjudging that there be an “immediate distribution of the assets of the decedent” equally to each of the heirs. Each heir was to receive a “one-third (1/3) share of decedent’s share” of the Department’s Unclaimed Property Account Number 117786622. On October 17, 2016, Global filed with the Department a claim on behalf of the Bunda heirs, claiming 50 percent of the funds in account number 117786622, with HomEq (or its successor) entitled to the other 50 percent as the joint named payee on the life insurance policy. The Global claim was filed on Department Form DFS-UP- 108, which is the form prescribed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69G-20.0021(6) for claims filed by a claimant’s representative. There is no dispute that Global used the correct form to file its claim. On December 19, 2016, Ocwen filed its claim to the “Matured Life--Limiting Age” policy issued by Amco to the “Estate of Larry Bunda” and “Home Q Servicing.” Ocwen claimed the funds as the successor company to HomEq. The Ocwen claim was filed on Department Form DFS-UP- 106, which is the form prescribed by rule 69G-20.0021(4) for claims filed directly by apparent owners, including corporations. At some point after the claims were filed, the Department made further inquiry to Nationwide as to the nature and status of the insurance policy. In an email dated January 30, 2017, Jenn Hupp, a Nationwide premium processor, reported to Department regulatory specialist Tiffani Ealy Claven as follows: “I show that check 378366435 was issued on claim 84M85897 date of loss 10/22/2007. In payment of: POLICY LIMITS FOR DWELLING LOST IN FIRE-- REISSUE OF CK 378364049.” Ms. Hupp did not provide a date for either of the referenced checks, nor did she expressly state to whom they were made payable. Neither check number referenced by Ms. Hupp matched the check number that Nationwide provided to Global on September 13, 2016. None of the referenced checks were made part of the record. The actual policy document was provided to the Department by Nationwide no sooner than October 31, 2017.2/ The Department did not make Global aware that it had the policy document until November 14, 2017, when Global filed a written motion seeking to exclude the policy on grounds of inadequate notice. After hearing argument at the final hearing, the undersigned overruled Global’s objection and admitted the policy. The policy was not a life insurance policy but a homeowner’s policy, number HMC 0009452948-6, issued by Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Allied Property”), another subsidiary of Nationwide, for the period running from May 6, 2007, to May 6, 2008. The face value of the insurance policy was $273,100 for a dwelling, and included additional coverages for other structures, personal property, and personal liability. The policy declarations page identified Larry R. Bunda of 546 Elm Street, Ramona, California, as the named insured. The policy declarations page identified 546 Elm Street, Ramona, California, as the insured property. The policy identified HomEq as the mortgage loss payee on the first mortgage. HomEq’s address was listed as Post Office Box 57621, Jacksonville, Florida 32241-7621. Nothing in the record explains why Nationwide originally reported the policy to the Department as a life insurance policy, or why it was reported by Nationwide’s Amco subsidiary rather than by Allied Property, the issuer of the policy. In support of its claim, Ocwen submitted a copy of a Deed of Trust, dated October 5, 2005, relating to the property located at 546 Elm Street, Ramona, California. The Deed of Trust identifies Larry R. Bunda as the purchaser/borrower, BNC Mortgage, Inc., as the lender, and TD Service Company as the trustee. The Deed of Trust identifies Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as the beneficiary, “acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns.” The Deed of Trust reflects a purchase price of $495,000. The Deed of Trust, in the Uniform Covenants, at paragraph 5, requires Mr. Bunda to insure the property against fire, flood, and other hazards, and further states: All insurance policies required by Lender . . . shall include a standard mortgage clause, and shall name Lender as mortgagee and/or as an additional loss payee and Borrower further agrees to generally assign rights to the insurance proceeds to the holder of the Note up to the amount of the outstanding loan balance. If Mr. Bunda failed to purchase the insurance, then the lender, through its servicing agent, had the authority to purchase insurance at Mr. Bunda’s expense. In the event of loss, insurance proceeds were to be applied to restoration or repair of the property. If restoration or repair were “not economically feasible or Lender’s security would be lessened,” the insurance proceeds would be applied to the amounts secured by the Deed of Trust, with any excess paid to the borrower, Mr. Bunda. Ocwen also provided an Assignment of Deed of Trust, dated August 10, 2011, that specifically identifies 546 Elm Street, Ramona, California, as the subject property. In the Assignment of Deed of Trust, MERS, as nominee for BNC Mortgage, Inc., assigns its rights under the Deed of Trust to U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”), as “Trustee under Securitization Servicing Agreement Dated as of December 1, 2005 Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-11” (the “Securitization Servicing Agreement”). U.S. Bank’s address is listed as c/o Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, at Ocwen’s West Palm Beach, Florida, office. The Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded at the San Diego County Recorder’s Office on August 25, 2011. Ocwen submitted a copy of a Substitution of Trustee, dated March 3, 2011, in which MERS, as nominee for U.S. Bank, and “as trustee for the Securitization Servicing Agreement,” substitutes Western Progressive, LLC (“Western Progressive”), as trustee under the Deed of Trust, in place of TD Service Company, the original trustee. The Substitution of Trustee was not recorded in the San Diego County Recorder’s Office until July 12, 2011. In its preliminary decision, the Department accepted that the Deed of Trust on 546 Elm Street, Ramona, California, was included in the Securitization Servicing Agreement, the first mention of which in the record is in the Substitution of Trustee dated March 3, 2011. Ocwen submitted a Limited Power of Attorney, dated June 1, 2012, listing the Securitization Servicing Agreement among those items over which U.S. Bank granted Ocwen a limited power of attorney. The Assignment of Deed of Trust also names the Securitization Servicing Agreement, implying a connection to the Deed of Trust on the Bunda mortgage. However, the Securitization Servicing Agreement itself is not part of the record in this case. The Assignment of Deed of Trust certainly assumes that the Bunda mortgage is part of the Securitization Servicing Agreement, but there is no document establishing that fact. The failure to tie the Bunda mortgage to the Securitization Servicing Agreement would not affect the assignment of rights from BNC Mortgage to U.S. Bank, or the substitution of trustee from TD Service Company to Western Progressive, because both of those documents are executed in direct reference to the Deed of Trust on the Bunda property. However, the Limited Power of Attorney from U.S. Bank to Ocwen references only the Securitization Servicing Agreement. There is no record evidence directly establishing that Ocwen’s limited power of attorney includes the Deed of Trust on the Bunda property. It appears that the Department was willing to infer that the Deed of Trust is included in the Securitization Servicing Agreement based on the indirect evidence of the Assignment of Deed of Trust and the Substitution of Trustee. Ocwen submitted a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Form 8-K filed by Ocwen Financial Corporation, dated September 8, 2010, detailing Ocwen Financial Corporation’s acquisition of “HomEq Servicing,” through its subsidiary Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (the “Ocwen” referenced throughout this Order), effective September 1, 2010. The acquisition includes the “mortgage servicing rights and associated servicer advances” of HomEq. In the Form 8-K, HomEq is identified as “the U.S. non-prime mortgage servicing business” owned by Barclays Bank PLC, a British company, and Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc., a Delaware corporation. Florida Division of Corporations documents identify HomEq Servicing as a fictitious name registered by Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc., on August 29, 2006. The registration was canceled on October 27, 2010. Ocwen submitted a series of notices sent to Larry R. Bunda at 546 Elm Street, Ramona, California, giving notice of transfers of loan servicers. In a notice dated January 27, 2006, HomEq informed Mr. Bunda that the servicing of his account was being transferred from Option One to HomEq, effective February 1, 2006. HomEq sent another notice, dated August 11, 2010, addressed to Larry R. Bunda at 1306 Poindexter Avenue West, Bremerton, Washington 98312-4333. By this time, Mr. Bunda had been dead for almost two years. The address is the same as that given by Mr. Bunda’s heir, Robert Bunda, in the claim documents filed by Global. It is also the address given for “Rob Bunda” as the decedent’s son on Larry R. Bunda’s death certificate. Nothing in the record of this case indicates how HomEq came by this address for Larry R. Bunda in 2010. The August 11, 2010, notice was intended to inform Mr. Bunda that HomEq was transferring the servicing of his account to Ocwen, as of September 1, 2010. This is consistent with Ocwen’s Form 8-K, which stated that Ocwen was acquiring HomEq, effective September 1, 2010. Ocwen submitted a Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust (“Notice of Default”), dated February 17, 2011, over the signature of Marco Marquez. Mr. Marquez’ position is unclear, as the signature line includes both “Western Progressive, LLC, as agent for beneficiary” and “By LSI Title Company, As Agent.” The relationship of LSI Title Company to this case is unexplained in the record. The document indicates that it was recorded in the San Diego County Recorder’s Office on February 18, 2011. The date on the Notice of Default is prior to the appointment of Western Progressive as trustee by the Substitution of Trustee document dated March 3, 2011. The source of Western Progressive’s authority to do anything regarding the property as of February 17, 2011, is unexplained in the record. The Notice of Default does not state to whom it is addressed. By February 17, 2011, Larry R. Bunda was long dead, but the document includes no acknowledgement of his death or of any effort to locate his heirs. The text of the document repeatedly refers to “your property,” states that “you are behind in your payments” and advises “you” how to obtain a written itemization of the amount “you must pay.” Nothing in the document gives any indication that the “you” being addressed is anyone other than Larry R. Bunda, the borrower, who was dead. The Notice of Default offers the recipient an opportunity to bring the account into good standing by paying all past due payments, stated as $121,831.17 as of February 17, 2011. The Notice of Default goes on to provide: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: That Western Progressive, LLC is either the original trustee, the duly appointed substituted trustee, or acting as agent for the trustee or beneficiary under a Deed of Trust dated 10/5/2005, executed by LARRY R. BUNDA, A WIDOWER, as Trustor, to secure certain obligations in favor of BNC MORTGAGE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION A CORPORATION [sic], AS LENDER, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as beneficiary, recorded 10/12/2005, as Instrument No. 2005-0881960, in Book , Page , and rerecorded on as of Official Records in the Office of the Recorder of San Diego County, California describing land therein as: As more particularly described on said Deed of Trust. The subject obligation includes ONE NOTE(S) FOR THE ORIGINAL sum of $495,000.00. A breach of, and default in, the obligations for which such Deed of Trust is security has occurred in that payment has not been made of the following: Installment of Principal and Interest plus impounds and/or advances which became due on 9/1/2008 plus late charges, and all subsequent installments of principal, interest, balloon payments, plus impounds and/or advances and late charges that became payable. You are responsible to pay all payments and charges due under the terms and conditions of the loan documents which come due subsequent to the date of this notice, including, but not limited to, foreclosure trustee fees and costs, advances and late charges. Furthermore, as a condition to bring your account in good standing, you must provide the undersigned with written proof that you are not in default on any senior encumbrance and provide proof of insurance. Nothing in this notice of default should be construed as a waiver of any fees owing to the beneficiary under the deed of trust, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the loan documents. Again, the statements addressed to “you” do not appear to reference anyone other than the borrower, Larry R. Bunda, who was dead well before the Notice of Default was issued. In fact, Mr. Bunda was dead before the due date cited by the Notice of Default. Also, the assertion that Western Progressive “is either the original trustee, the duly appointed substituted trustee, or acting as agent for the trustee or beneficiary under a Deed of Trust dated 10/5/2005, executed by LARRY R. BUNDA, A WIDOWER, as Trustor, to secure certain obligations in favor of BNC MORTGAGE” was not true as of February 17, 2011, at least insofar as the record evidence of this case indicates. Western Progressive was not substituted as trustee until March 3, 2011.3/ The Notice of Default concludes with the following statements: The mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has fulfilled its obligation under California Civil Code Section 2923.5(a) by contacting the borrower either in person or by telephone to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore options to avoid foreclosure prior to 30 days of filing the Notice of Default. The borrower was advised of their right to a subsequent meeting within 14 days of the initial contact. In addition, the borrower was provided with the toll-free telephone number made available by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency. The quoted statements cannot be true. Neither the mortgagee, nor the beneficiary, nor any authorized agent contacted the borrower, Larry R. Bunda, either in person or by telephone, because Larry R. Bunda was dead. The borrower was not advised of his right to a subsequent meeting, nor was he provided with a toll-free HUD number, because he was dead. The record is bereft of information as to the legal effect under California law of falsely attesting to having provided the notice apparently required by the cited provision of that state’s civil code, or of failure to provide notice to the actual, living parties in interest. Unsurprisingly, the borrower did not respond to the Notice of Default and the property proceeded to a trustee’s sale. Ocwen submitted a Notice of Trustee’s Sale, dated July 8, 2011, and recorded in the San Diego County Recorder’s Office on July 12, 2011. This document is signed by Robin Pape, Trustee Sales Assistant, on behalf of Western Progressive, as trustee. The Notice of Trustee’s Sale begins as follows: YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 10/5/2005. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. Nothing in the Notice of Trustee’s Sale gives any indication that it is addressed to anyone other than Larry R. Bunda, who remained dead on July 8, 2011. The Notice of Trustee’s Sale informs the recipient that the trustee’s public auction sale will occur on August 8, 2011, at the South entrance to the County Courthouse, 220 West Broadway, San Diego, California. It lists the street address of the property as 546 Elm Street, Ramona, California 92065, and states that the amount of the unpaid balance and other charges is $610,258.23. Finally, Ocwen submitted a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale, dated September 20, 2011, and recorded at the San Diego County Recorder’s Office on September 29, 2011. The document states that Western Progressive, as Trustee under the Deed of Trust, “does hereby GRANT and CONVEY to Matthew D. Parker, a named man as his sole and separate property . . . all right title and interest conveyed to and now held by it as Trustee under the Deed of Trust in and to the property situated in the county of San Diego, State of California, described as follows ” There follows a legal description matching the Bunda property at 546 Elm Street, Ramona, California. The Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale also provides as follows: This conveyance is made in compliance with the terms and provisions of the Deed of Trust executed by LARRY R. BUNDA, A WIDOWER as Trustor, dated 10/5/2005 in the Official Records in the office of the Recorder of San Diego, California under the authority and powers vested in the Trustee designated in the Deed of Trust or as the duly appointed Trustee, default having occurred under the Deed of Trust pursuant to the Notice of Default and Election to Sell under the Deed of Trust recorded on 10/12/2005, instrument number 2005-0881960, Book ---, Page and rerecorded on --- as --- of official records. Trustee having complied with all applicable statutory requirements of the State of California and performed all duties required by the Deed of Trust including sending a Notice of Default and Election to Sell within ten days after its recording and a Notice of Sale at least twenty days prior to the Sale Date by certified mail, postage pre-paid to each person entitled to notice in compliance with California Civil Code 2924b. All requirements per California Statutes regarding the mailing, personal delivery and publication of copies of Notice of Default and Election to Sell under Deed of Trust and Notice of Trustee’s Sale, and the posting of copies of Notice of Trustee’s Sale have been complied with. Trustee, in compliance with said Notice of Trustee’s sale and in exercise of its powers under said Deed of Trust sold said real property at public auction on 9/14/2011. Grantee, being the highest bidder at said sale became the purchaser of said property for the amount bid, being $65,000.00, in lawful money of the United States, in pro per, receipt thereof is hereby acknowledged in full/partial satisfaction of the debt secured by said Deed of Trust. Again, there is no indication that any living person with an interest in the estate of Larry R. Bunda was given notice of this sale, despite the assurances of Western Progressive, in the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale. The facts recited above raise many questions. First, why is this case being heard in Florida? Larry R. Bunda lived in California. His heirs live in the states of Washington and California. Ocwen’s filings indicate that it is based in Boston, Massachusetts. The real property was in California and the Deed of Trust was drafted on a California-specific form. The mortgage was declared in default according to California law, and the foreclosure and subsequent resale were performed under California law. The insurance policy was issued by a California agency. It appears the only connection of this unclaimed property to Florida is the address provided to the Department by Amco in its initial 2013 report: “last known address” of Post Office Box 57621, Jacksonville, Florida 32241. This address turned out to be that of HomEq. According to Ocwen’s Form 8-K, HomEq ceased to exist as a separate company as of September 1, 2010, approximately three years before Amco reported the unclaimed funds to the Department. The only real connections to Florida in this case are Global and Ocwen’s acts of following the money to its landing place at the Department. It is understandable that the Department took custody of the unclaimed property at the time Amco submitted it, given that the only address on the documentation was in Jacksonville. However, at some point it should have occurred to the Department that its unclaimed property counterpart in the State Controller’s Office of California might be better placed to resolve this controversy involving issues of California real property law, inheritance law, and insurance law.4/ One example will suffice to illustrate the problem of a Florida administrative agency attempting to apply California law to resolve these issues. In its proposed recommended order, the Department confidently argues that a 2014 amendment to section 580b of the California Code of Civil Procedure alters the analysis of this case as to the extinguishment of the debtor-creditor relationship during foreclosure proceedings. The Department fails to note that three separate Federal courts in California have concluded that the operation of the 2014 amendment is prospective only. It would therefore be inapplicable to the instant case. See Shin v. Citizens Bank, N.A., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14997 at n.2 (S.D. Cal. 2018); Prianto v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94673 at n.2 (N.D. Cal. 2014); Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185345 at 19 (C.D. Cal. 2013). An agency more familiar with California law might have been aware of the court decisions and the California rules of statutory construction that underlay their conclusions. Given its insistence that California law governs this case, the Department should have considered whether a California tribunal would be better placed to resolve these issues.5/ A second question regards the status of Ocwen, which filed its claim on Department Form DFS-UP-106, the form prescribed for “apparent owners.” Section 717.101(2) defines “apparent owner” as “the person whose name appears on the records of the holder as the person entitled to property held, issued, or owing by the holder.” It is unclear whether Amco or the Department would be considered the “holder” of the insurance proceeds, but it makes no difference as Ocwen’s name did not appear on the records of either entity. Ocwen could ultimately be found to be an “owner” as defined in section 717.101(18), and could be a “claimant” as defined in rule 69G-20.030(14), but Ocwen was not an “apparent owner” at the time it filed its claim, under the express terms of section 717.101(2). Therefore, it appears that Ocwen’s claim was filed on the wrong form and should have been filed on Form DFS-UP-107, prescribed by rule 69G-20.0021(5) for “claims filed by other than apparent owners,” which includes heirs, personal representatives, or beneficiaries, if Ocwen believed it was entitled to claim the funds as an owner. The Department should not have processed the Ocwen claim because it was not “complete” under the terms set forth in rule 69G-20.0021(1)(b), which provides that a complete claim “shall include the correct claim form identified in this rule.” Even if it were accepted that the rule’s definition of “apparent owner” should not be read literally and that Ocwen was entitled to file its claim as “apparent owner” by virtue of its status as HomEq’s purchaser and successor in interest,6/ there remains the question of whether HomEq, and therefore Ocwen, could be considered the “owner” of the unclaimed property in the sense required by section 215.965, Florida Statutes, which provides: Disbursement of state moneys.— Except as provided in s. 17.076, s. 253.025(17), s.717.124(4)(b) and (c), s. 732.107(5), or s. 733.816(5), all moneys in the State Treasury shall be disbursed by state warrant, drawn by the Chief Financial Officer upon the State Treasury and payable to the ultimate beneficiary. This authorization shall include electronic disbursement.[7/] (Emphasis added). The record evidence establishes that HomEq, and Ocwen as its successor, functioned as no more than loan servicers. While it is true that HomEq is named on the insurance policy as the “mortgage loss payee,” there is nothing in the record that establishes HomEq as the “ultimate beneficiary” of the insurance policy. HomEq’s part of the insurance transaction would be to collect the proceeds and pass them on to the ultimate beneficiary of the insurance contract, i.e., the lender whose money is at risk under the Deed of Trust. Ocwen could succeed to no more of an interest than that held by HomEq. The Department argues that “Ocwen is claiming the funds in its own name under the authority of a limited power of attorney to act on U.S. Bank’s behalf as a loan servicer.” For the sake of argument, the undersigned will put aside Ocwen’s failure to connect the Bunda mortgage to the Securitization Servicing Agreement for which it has a limited power of attorney. The Department offers no explanation as to what set of circumstances would allow an entity operating pursuant to a limited power of attorney--by definition,8/ in a representative capacity--to claim ownership, in its own name, of funds it seeks as agent on behalf of its principal. The Department simply takes it as a given that Ocwen may claim as an owner. The Department specifically relies on language from the Limited Power of Attorney giving Ocwen authority to: Demand, sue for, recover, collect and receive each and every sum of money, debt, assessment, and interest (which now is, or hereafter shall become due and payable) belonging to or claimed by U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee . . . . The Department seems to believe that this language self-evidently establishes Ocwen’s ownership interest in the proceeds of this insurance policy, when it merely authorizes Ocwen to go out and recover funds “belonging to U.S. Bank.” It does not transfer ownership of those funds to Ocwen. It does not make Ocwen the ultimate beneficiary of the insurance policy. The undersigned is aware of cases such as Lenart v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, 869 So. 2d 588 (Fla 3d DCA 2004), in which the court assumed without discussion that a loan servicer such as Ocwen may stand in the shoes of the mortgagee as “owner” for the purpose of litigation over insurance proceeds. However, Lenart involved litigation between private parties. It did not involve an unpaid property claim before the Department, which has very specific requirements under statute and rule, including the “apparent owner” limitation on the use of Form DFS-UP-106 and the “ultimate beneficiary” limitation on the disbursement of moneys from the State Treasury in section 215.965. Even if Ocwen were to establish its right to claim insurance proceeds as the mortgage loss payee, it would not necessarily have proven its right to claim those funds once they have become unclaimed property and passed to the Department’s custody. In its attack on the proposed award to Ocwen, Global contends that Ocwen’s documentation fails to establish that the rights of HomEq as the loss payee on the insurance policy were transferred to Ocwen by its acquisition of HomEq in 2010. As indicated above, the undersigned is persuaded that Ocwen did succeed to HomEq’s rights but finds that those rights are insufficient to establish Ocwen’s status as an owner of the proceeds. The record evidence at most establishes that Ocwen is the agent of the ultimate beneficiary of the insurance policy. Global cites Martin Young v. Department of Banking and Finance, 659 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), for the proposition that the Department may not disburse funds to Ocwen because Ocwen is no more than a creditor in this case. In Martin Young, the Department had awarded unclaimed insurance proceeds to creditors of the apparent owner. On appeal, the Court first held that the Department has no statutory authority to prioritize competing claims, a holding since superseded to a degree by statute. See § 717.1241, Fla. Stat. More to the point, the court held that creditors were not “owners” because they did not have a “legal or equitable interest” in the subject property. “Insurance proceeds are personal property which judgment creditors cannot reach or claim an interest in until after resorting to judicial process.” Martin Young, 659 So. 2d at 411. The Department distinguishes Martin Young by arguing that it involved unsecured creditors, whereas U.S. Bank was a secured creditor by reason of the recorded Deed of Trust containing a power of sale provision and the homeowner’s insurance policy with the standard mortgagee clause. Global accurately points out that the Martin Young court stated no distinction between secured and unsecured creditors. However, the court’s holding appears expressly limited to the reach of judgment creditors who have not obtained a lien by way of writ of execution. The Department is correct that a secured creditor such as U.S. Bank already has a lien on the property and executes on that lien when it forecloses on the secured loan. Of course, the Department’s analysis assumes that U.S. Bank’s agents foreclosed on the property in accordance with California law. As indicated in Findings of Fact 31-45, there is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the default and foreclosure were properly performed. Though Martin Young appears not to preclude an award to Ocwen, the statutes and rules under which the Department operates do not allow Ocwen, as U.S. Bank’s agent, to claim “ownership” of the unclaimed funds. The question at the heart of this case, regarding the claim of Global and especially that of Ocwen, is: what happened in California? The Department’s preliminary decision to award the claim to Ocwen assumes that a check was issued to the Bunda estate, that the Bunda estate failed to keep up the payments on the property, and that the Bunda estate allowed the foreclosure to occur in 2011. The evidence supports none of the Department’s assumptions. It is known for certain that Larry R. Bunda entered into a Deed of Trust to purchase the property at 546 Elm Street, Ramona, California, on October 5, 2005. It is known for certain that Larry R. Bunda purchased homeowner’s insurance on the property with a face value of $273,100 for the dwelling and that the term of the insurance was from May 6, 2007, to May 6, 2008. It is known for certain that Larry R. Bunda died on September 8, 2008. Beyond these facts, matters become hazier if one relies on the documents in evidence without assuming facts outside the record. One may reasonably presume the correctness of Nationwide’s report that the total loss of Mr. Bunda’s dwelling occurred on October 22, 2007. That date coincides with the time of the Witch Creek fire, which began near the town of Ramona and destroyed over 1,000 residences and other buildings. Therefore, it is reasonable to find that Larry R. Bunda was alive when the loss occurred. Nationwide reported to Global that the original check to pay the insurance claim was check number 0371843635 and was issued on November 5, 2009, more than one year after Larry R. Bunda’s death. Nationwide offered no explanation as to why the check was issued more than two years after the loss was incurred. Nationwide did not provide a copy of the check or state to whom the check was made payable. No explanation was given for the failure of any party to negotiate the check. Nationwide later reported to the Department that two other checks had been issued: check number 378364049 and the reissued check number 378366435. Nationwide gave no dates for these two checks. Nationwide did not provide copies of these checks or state to whom the checks were made payable. No explanation was given for the failure of any party to negotiate either of the checks. No evidence was presented as to why Nationwide issued more than one check. No evidence was presented as to why none of these checks was ever negotiated. If one presumes that the checks were made payable to the policy payees, Larry R. Bunda and HomEq, and that Mr. Bunda was dead at the time they were issued, then one questions why HomEq apparently failed to take any steps to secure the funds for its principal. Was HomEq aware that Larry R. Bunda was dead at the time the checks were issued? Such might be inferred from the August 11, 2010, notice that HomEq sent to Mr. Bunda at his son’s address in Bremerton, Washington. However, it is just as likely that Mr. Bunda moved in with his son after the loss of his home and sent HomEq a forwarding address. Any finding on that score would be speculative. In any event, HomEq was absorbed by Ocwen on September 1, 2010. The record indicates no further correspondence addressed to Bremerton, Washington. As HomEq’s successor, Ocwen should have known of the Washington address, but the record contains no direct mailings from Ocwen to Larry R. Bunda. There is nothing in the record indicating that Western Progressive’s Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee’s Sale were addressed to anyone other than the borrower, Larry R. Bunda, who was long dead by the time the default and foreclosure proceedings on 546 Elm Street began. Nonetheless, the Notice of Default falsely stated that Western Progressive had contacted “the borrower either in person or by telephone” to explore options to avoid foreclosure. Further, at the time it issued the Notice of Default, Western Progressive had yet to be substituted as trustee under the Deed of Trust. Based on this record and the briefs of the parties, there is no way to ascertain the rights (if any) of Larry R. Bunda’s heirs to unwind the sale of the property or seek damages for Western Progressive’s selling of the property without notice to the Bunda estate. This point is important because a large part of the Department’s argument for awarding the claim to Ocwen rests on the assumption that the Bunda heirs “waived” their right to contest the Ocwen claim because of “the foreclosure they allowed to occur in 2011.” There is no record evidence that the Bunda heirs even knew of the foreclosure, let alone “allowed” it to happen. The Department simply assumes a fact not in evidence.9/ Global claims that the Bunda heirs are entitled to one-half of the proceeds of the insurance policy as the successors to Larry R. Bunda as the joint named payee on the policy. Global relies on the Order of Summary Administration entered by the Leon County circuit court on September 22, 2016, adjudging that there be an immediate distribution of the assets to the Bunda heirs. On November 15, 2017, the circuit court on its own motion entered an Order to Set Aside Order of Summary Administration, citing unspecified “abnormalities” that had been found in the estate file. Thus, Global’s reliance on the Order of Summary Administration is misplaced. As to the heirs’ entitlement to one-half of the proceeds, this argument would be more persuasive had the policy been one for life insurance, as the Department and Global originally believed. Because the actual policy was a homeowner’s insurance company, the heirs’ rights would appear to be subsidiary to the rights of the secured creditor to obtain the difference between the value of the note and the price obtained from the trustee’s sale of the property in its damaged condition. Again, however, this hierarchy of rights depends on a finding that the Notice of Default, the Notice of Trustee’s Sale, and the trustee’s sale of the property at 546 Elm Street were conducted in accordance with California law. The Department appears sanguine that this is the case, but the record presented at the hearing does not permit a finding that Ocwen’s principal, U.S. Bank, through its agent, Western Progressive, gave notice to any living person with an interest in Larry R. Bunda’s estate of the default, foreclosure, or trustee’s sale on the property at 546 Elm Street in Ramona, California. The record is not even clear that Western Progressive was an authorized agent at the time it issued the Notice of Default. The record permits no conclusion as to the legal effect of a failure to notify the estate or of falsely attesting that notice has been given to the borrower. Nonetheless, a finding that Ocwen has failed to establish ownership of the funds does not necessitate a finding that the Bunda heirs are entitled to the funds. Enough is known of the situation to permit the conclusion that the Bunda heirs’ claim is likely a subsidiary claim. It would be premature to award them half of the unclaimed property until the Department or some other entity conducts a proper investigation and determines whether the foreclosure on the Bunda mortgage was conducted in accordance with California law. Global’s final ground for claiming entitlement to the funds is that it filed the first complete claim. Section 717.1241(1)(a) provides: When conflicting claims have been received by the department for the same unclaimed property account or accounts, the property shall be remitted in accordance with the claim filed by the person as follows, notwithstanding the withdrawal of a claim: To the person submitting the first claim received by the Division of Unclaimed Property of the department that is complete or made complete. The Department concedes that Global filed all of the necessary paperwork. Its application was not “incomplete” in the clerical sense that Global left out any of the information required by Form DFS-UP-108. The Department contends that Global’s application was not substantively complete in that it did not establish proof of entitlement to the funds on the part of the Bunda heirs. “Proof of entitlement” is expressly required in order for an application to be deemed “complete.” Section 717.1241(3) provides: “A claim is complete when entitlement to the unclaimed property has been established.” See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 69G-20.0021(1)(b)&(c). The Department observes that section 717.1241 is a procedural statute enacted to provide guidance to the Department when it receives claims from two or more claimants, all of whom are entitled to the property. The “first to file” language does not create an independent basis for establishing entitlement but is a way for the Department to choose among entitled claims. For purposes of commencing a review, the Department deems a claim “complete” when all the required documentation has been submitted. If a claim is missing information, the Department may return it to the claimant or request additional information from the claimant. If more information is sought, the claim is abated until the Department receives the requested information or deems the claim withdrawn for failure to provide the information. § 717.124(1)(b), Fla. Stat. If the claimant provides the requested information, then the Department will review the claim on the merits to determine whether entitlement has been demonstrated. The Department argues that the merits review is subsequent to and separate from the claimant’s submission of the required documents. Global has conflated the claimant’s responsibility to provide all required documentation with the Department’s responsibility to review the claim on the merits and determine whether entitlement has been established by a preponderance of the evidence. The mere fact that the claimant provides the documentary information required by statute and rule does not mean the claim is “complete” in the sense that entitlement is established. The Department’s argument is correct. The facts of this case do not permit a finding that the Bunda heirs are entitled to the unclaimed funds. A secured lienholder who followed all proper steps in notifying the borrower or his heirs of the default, of the foreclosure, and of the pending trustee’s sale would be entitled to cover any deficiency with some or all of the proceeds of the insurance policy. Ocwen’s failure to demonstrate that all proper steps were taken means that it is not entitled to the unclaimed funds under the facts of this case, but Ocwen’s failure does not establish that Global’s claim is “complete” on the merits. In summary, Ocwen has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled to the funds in Unclaimed Property Account Number 117786622 because: It failed to file its claim on the correct form; It failed to establish its right to claim as an “owner” of the property; and It failed to establish that the foreclosure and sale of the Bunda property were conducted in accordance with California law. Global failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled to a portion of the funds in Unclaimed Property Account Number 117786622 because its claim is subsidiary to that of the secured creditor, and the evidence did not foreclose the possibility that U.S. Bank may have a valid claim to the property as the secured creditor, if the regularity of the events surrounding the foreclosure and sale of the Bunda property can be established. Under the facts established by the record of this case, neither claimant established its entitlement to Unclaimed Property Account Number 117786622. This finding and recommendation should not preclude the Department from allowing Ocwen to file a proper claim as a representative of U.S. Bank and then undertaking further investigation to establish whether the foreclosure sale on the Bunda property was conducted in accordance with California law. If Ocwen is unable to establish U.S. Bank’s right to the unclaimed property as a secured creditor, then the subsidiary claim put forward by Global on behalf of the Bunda heirs should be held entitled to the property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the claim of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, for entitlement to Unclaimed Property Account Number 117786622 be DENIED, without prejudice. It is also RECOMMENDED that the claim of Global Discoveries Ltd., LLC, for entitlement to Unclaimed Property Account Number 117786622, be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 23rd day of April, 2018.
The Issue Should Respondent's license as a real estate broker be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility of investigating and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, issued license number 0152815 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Robert L. Purlee and Doris A. Purlee (Purlees) conveyed certain real property located at Unit 1303-A, Jamestown Condominiums, within Pinellas County, Florida, to Ralph F. Marotte and Eve K. Marotte (Marottes), on June 18, 1993, for an agreed upon sum of $15,000, with installments due over a period of 120 months, at the rate of $181,99 per month, beginning July 15, 1993. Since there was no express language in the deed to express a contrary intent, the conveyance to the Marottes created an estate by the entirety which was not available to answer for the individual debts of either of the tenants. The Marottes executed a mortgage and ad promissory note creating a lien against the property in favor of the Purlees, to secure the timely payment of the sum owed by the Marottes. At the time the Marottes purchased the property in question from the Purlees, there were no other liens or encumbrances against the property. At the time the deed was recorded, there was two personal judgments filed of record against Ralph F. Marotte, individually, but no personal judgments filed of record against Ralph F. Marotte and Eve K. Marotte, jointly or as husband and wife, or Eve K. Marotte, individually. Since no copies of these judgments, certified or otherwise, were introduced as evidence, and David Eaton appeared to be confused about these judgments, this finding is based on the testimony of Eve K. Marotte which I find credible. On November 10, 1993, the Marottes authored and caused to be delivered to the Purlees a letter which provides in pertinent part: We are unable to financially own this unit, therefore, we wish to deed it back to you and your wife, and record it in the courthouse. Rather than go thru foreclosure proceedings and lawyer’s fees etc., thought the simplest best way for both of us is to just return the property back to you both, and have the tenant send her rent payment directly to you. We have prepared the deed - and after it is recorded - have the courthouse send it to you directly. (Emphasis Supplied) * * * On December 8, 1993, the Marottes authored and caused to be delivered to the Purlees a letter which provides in pertinent part: Attached is a copy of the Quit Claim Deed - which is being recorded and will be mailed to you directly. (Emphasis Supplied) * * * On January 6, 1994, the Marottes authored and caused to be delivered to the Purlees a letter which provides in pertinent part: We went to the courthouse to record the deed, and realized that we did not take the mortgage off, so we are enclosing a satisfaction of mortgage, so that we can turn the property back to you- and you will then own it free and clear as you did before. As soon as we received this paper from you, will turn over everything, to you, that is, keys, etc. (Inventory remains the same). (Emphasis Supplied) * * * From the notation on the quit claim deed it appears that the Marottes attempted to record the deed at the courthouse but changed their mind as indicated in the letter. The Purlees executed the satisfaction of mortgage and posted it with the United States Postal Service for delivery to the Marottes. Subsequently, the Purlees discussed the matter with their attorney, David A. Eaton, who advised the Purlees to have the satisfaction of mortgage retrieved from the postal service. This was accomplished, and the Marottes did not receive the satisfaction of mortgage. Therefore, the Marottes did not record the quit claim deed transferring title back to the Purlees. Based on the testimony of Eve K. Marotte which I find credible, Eve K. Marotte continued in her effort to deed the property back to the Purlees, and even discussed the possibility of satisfying the personal judgments against Ralph F. Marotte in the process. In fact, Respondent even arranged for the sale of the property but that did not prove fruitful either. At the time the Marottes attempted to deed the property back to the Purlees, the Marottes did not advise the Purlees of the personal judgments against Ralph F. Marotte, individually. Since the conveyance of the property to the Marottes created an estate by the entirety, the property would not have been subject to any judgments against Ralph F. Marotte, individually upon the Marottes deeding the property back to the Purlees. There was no intent on the part of the Respondent to “saddle” the Purlees with Ralph F. Marotte’s personal judgments. Likewise, there was no intent on the part of Respondent to mislead or misrepresent the circumstances surrounding the attempt to “deed back” the property or to induce the Purlees to execute a satisfaction of mortgage so that the Marottes could record such satisfaction or mortgage without recording the quit claim deed and thereby have the property free and clear of the mortgage. Although the Marottes did make some of the mortgage payments, they did not make all of the payments as contemplated by the mortgage and promissory note. Their failure to make mortgage payments was due to their financial condition and not that the Marottes were intentionally attempting to deprive the Purlees of the property without paying for the property. The Marottes collected some rent from the property but apparently did not apply this money toward the mortgage payment. However, there was no evidence, other than the requirement of making the mortgage payments, that the Marottes were required to pay the rent over to the Purlees. On or about November 6. 1995, the Purlees filed a complaint with the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for Pinellas County, against the Marottes alleging, inter alia, that Respondent committed fraud and dishonest dealing in a real estate transaction. On a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Purlees, the court entered a Final Judgment Against Licensed Real Estate Broker, Eve K. Marotte, for Monetary Damages Arising Out of Fraudulent Conduct in a Real Estate Brokerage Transaction on March 1, 1996. Additionally, the court entered a Final Judgment Against Eve K. Marotte and Ralph F. Marotte for the total sum of $95, 454.95 which included $22, 284.54 in actual damages, $66,853.62 in trouble damages pursuant to Section 772.11, Florida Statutes, $5,250.00 in attorney’s fees, and $1,066.79 in taxable costs. Because of this judgment and other financial and personal circumstances surrounding the Respondent’s life at that time, the Respondent filed for bankruptcy which eventually “wiped out” this judgment. Subsequently, the Purlees filed a separate proceeding for foreclosure of the mortgage, and obtained title to the property by foreclosure sale on or about August 1997. Between the time of the initiation of the foreclosure proceeding and gaining title to the property, the Purlees had a receiver appointed to receive the rent on the property. Although David Eaton testified that the Marottes failed to turn over rents during this period, there is insufficient evidence to show that the Marottes received any rent during this period or that the property was rented at all times during this period. Clearly, after engaging an attorney and obtaining the large judgment, the Purlees were not interested in taking the property back without the judgment being satisfied. Likewise, it is equally clear that Respondent was not financially able to pay the judgment. Respondent did not intentionally or otherwise misrepresent the facts in order to induce the Purlees to accept the deed back and release her from her obligation, or act in a fraudulent manner in order to convince the Purlees to release Respondent from her obligation, or act dishonestly in her dealings with the Purlees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing both Count I and Count II of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Geofrrey T. Kirk, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32801 Eve K. Marotte, pro se 2616 46th Terrace North St. Petersburg, Florida 33714
The Issue Whether Margaret Ann Reese is guilty of, and should be disciplined for committing, fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, or breach of trust in a business transaction?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Margaret Ann Reese was licensed by the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. She holds license number 0454079. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Reese was licensed as a real estate salesman, c/o Ellison Realty, Inc., 2226 E. Silver Springs Boulevard, Ocala, Florida 32671. During 1986, Ms. Reese showed certain real property and a mobile home (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), which was owned by Frederick W. and Mary Holm to Mary Kennedy and John J. Korsun, Sr., her father. The Property is located in Oxford, Sumter County, Florida. The Property was listed by Nehimiah Clark David, another real estate salesman with Ellison Realty, Inc. Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Korsun inspected the Property several times. Water damage to the ceilings of the mobile home was noticed during the inspections. Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Korsun expressed concern about the condition of the roof of the mobile home. The roof was, therefore, repaired by the owners. On November 5, 1986, Ms. Reese obtained a Contract of Sale, wherein Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Korsun offered to purchase the Property. Because of their concern about the condition of the roof, Ms. Reese added the following under paragraph X, "Special Clauses," in the Contract of Sale: "Seller warrants roof for 1 year." The Contract of Sale was mailed to Mr. and Mrs. Holm in Punta Gorda, Charlotte County, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Holm struck the language included by Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Korsun in the Contract of Sale concerning the one year warranty of the roof and added "sold as is" in paragraph X, "Special Clauses." Mr. and Mrs. Holm then executed the Contract of Sale, as modified, and mailed it to Ellison Realty, Inc. Ms. Reese, after receiving the Contract of Sale from Mr. and Mrs. Holm, informed Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Korsun that their offer had been accepted. Ms. Reese did not inform Ms. Kennedy or Mr. Korsun that the sellers had modified the Contract of Sale by deleting the one year warranty of the roof and adding the language that the sale was "as is." Ms. Reese failed to provide a copy of the Contract of Sale signed by the Holms or have Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Korsun initial the modifications made by the Holms. A copy of the Contract of Sale, as modified by the Holms, was not provided to Ms. Kennedy until February or March, 1987. The sale of the Property was closed on December 5, 1986. Closing took place at the offices of Advanced Title Searching, Inc., and was conducted by the President of Advanced Title, Robert M. Connell. At the closing Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Korsun decided that the Property would be sold only to Ms. Kennedy. Ms. Kennedy was not specifically informed during the closing that the language concerning the one year warranty of the roof had be stricken and that the language "sold as is" had been added. She was told, however, that the Property was being sold "as is" by Mr. Connell. Mr. Connell also followed his routine of reviewing paragraph X of the Contract of Sale with Ms. Kennedy and having her initial and sign a Buyers Affidavit. Among other things, Ms. Kennedy acknowledged by signing the Buyers Affidavit that she had reviewed paragraph X of the Contract of Sale. The Buyers Affidavit also refers to the only special clauses in paragraph X of the Contract of Sale as executed by Mr. and Mrs. Holm Although the terms of the sale were generally described by Mr. Connell and Ms. Kennedy signed the Buyers Affidavit, Ms. Kennedy was not shown the Contract of Sale as executed by Mr. and Mrs. Holm, she was not specifically told about the removal of the special clause concerning the one year warranty on the roof or that the roof was "as is," and she did not understand what she was signing. In approximately February, 1987, following Ms. Kennedy's purchase of the Property, the roof of the mobile home began leaking water during a rain storm. Ms. Kennedy called Ms. Reese to report the damage. Ms. Reese then informed Ms. Kennedy for the first time that the language concerning the one year warranty of the roof had been stricken and that the language "sold as is" had been added to the Contract of Sale. Ms. Reese offered to pay the cost of repairing the roof. Ms. Kennedy declined this offer because she wanted the roof replaced.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Margaret Ann Reese by found guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that Ms. Reese be reprimanded and required to pay a fine of $500.00. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1294 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 3-6. 4 7. 5 8. A copy of the contract was provided in 1987, not 1988. 6 9-10. 7 See 10-11. 8 10. The last two lines of this proposed finding of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 9 12. 10 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 11 13. 12-13 Hereby accepted. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 3-6. 4 7. 5 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Mr. David's testimony was contradicted by Ms. Reese's admissions to the Petitioner's investigator. 6 8. 7 10. See 11. 8 See 10-11. 9 12. 10 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 11 13. 12-13 Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 3280 Steven W. Johnson Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick D. Landt, III, Esquire Post Office Box 2045 Ocala, Florida 32678 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether either Petitioner is entitled to Unclaimed Property Account Number 108502717.
Findings Of Fact The Department receives unclaimed property and disburses that property from the State of Florida Treasury to the rightful owners. During the last fiscal year, the Department's Bureau of Unclaimed Property received in excess of $300,000,000 of unclaimed property, and paid claims in excess of $212,000,000. The Department has the duty to evaluate the merits of each claim for unclaimed property and to pay only those claimants who can establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are the rightful owners of the unclaimed property. Anja Sova was born in 1921 in Finland, but resided in Lake Worth, Florida. Her husband's brother was married to Iina Sova, who resided in Finland. Anja Sova opened several accounts with different banks during her lifetime; two of those accounts were opened at Washington Mutual Bank, and she designated Iina Sova, her sister-in-law, and Silja Lappalainen, her grand-niece and Iina's granddaughter, as joint pay-on-death beneficiaries. In January 2001, at the age of 79, Anja Sova opened a Certificate of Deposit (CD) account with Sterling Bank, depositing $95,000.00 in the account. The CD designated the pay- on-death beneficiary as Silja Sova. Anja Sova signed the signature card for this CD three times, once right next to the name of the designated beneficiary, Silja Sova. The bank had no other information as to the beneficiary. Anja Sova died in a car accident in 2002. The accounts with Washington Mutual were paid to the designated beneficiaries, her sister-in-law, and her grand-niece. Unclaimed Property Account Number 108502717 consists of the matured Sterling Bank CD, worth $127,031.97, and designates Silja Sova as the pay-on-death beneficiary. It had been held by Sterling Bank until its remittance to the Department as unclaimed property. American Research is a corporate claimant representative, and represents the residual heirs of Anja Sova's estate. Choice Plus is also a corporate claimant representative, and represents Silja Lappalainen, Anja Sova's grand-niece. American Research ran searches through various private, social, and governmental databases in the United States, and found no person named Silja Sova. In 2013, American Research also requested and received an Extract from the Population Information System in Finland. This database was created in 1969. The Extract revealed one person named Silja Sova; that person is a child born in 2009, who lives in Finland. No credible evidence was presented on whether the Extract includes only living persons, or if it also includes deceased persons (persons who were born between 1969 and 2001 and died before November 2013, when the search was done through the Extract). American Research argued that Silja Sova simply does not exist. It is unknown, however, whether Anja Sova's husband had more brothers with the surname Sova, or whether Anja Sova's father-in-law had brothers. The undersigned cannot find, given the scant evidence presented, that Silja Sova does not exist, and never existed, in Finland. American Research also proposed the theory that Anja Sova purposely created a fictitious name when designating Silja Sova as the beneficiary. There was no credible evidence presented to support this theory, either; it was mere speculation. An Order for Subsequent Administration was entered by a probate court in Palm Beach County, Florida, on April 11, 2013. It establishes the residual beneficiaries of Anja Sova's estate, but it does not include Silja Lappalainen, Anja Sova's surviving grand-niece. Choice Plus was also unable to locate a person named Silja Sova, and argued that the CD mistakenly designated the pay-on-death beneficiary as Silja Sova when it should have read Silja Lappalainen, Anja's grand-niece who had also been a beneficiary on the Washington Mutual accounts. Curiously, Choice Plus represents Silja Lappalainen, but did not offer testimony from her at the hearing.1/ Instead, Choice Plus offered into evidence an affidavit from Iina Sova, the deceased's sister-in-law, disclaiming any interest in the account. The affidavit is not found credible or reliable; it is written in a language that the affiant did not speak, there is no indication that a certified translator was present while the statement was being made, and the affidavit is replete with hearsay. Unfortunately, there was no credible evidence presented to support Choice Plus's argument that the designation of Silja Sova as the pay-on-death beneficiary was indeed a mistake that a then 79-year-old great-aunt made. The record is void of any credible evidence which meets the preponderance of the evidence standard, entitling either Petitioner to Unclaimed Property Account Number 108502717.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that American Research and Investigations, Inc.'s claim for Unclaimed Property Account Number 108502717 be DENIED. It is also RECOMMENDED that Choice Plus, LLC's claim for Unclaimed Property Account Number 108502717 be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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 18th day of April, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent obtained his registration as a real estate salesman by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment. On October 14, 1976, Petitioner's Administrative Complaint was sent by registered mail to the Respondent at his designated address: Post Office Box 805, U.S. Highway 52 West, Dade City, Florida 33525. A return receipt signed by the Respondent showed date of delivery as October 26, 1976. (Exhibit 1) However, Respondent did not execute and return an enclosed Election of Rights form that accompanied the Administrative Complaint wherein he could have indicated his desires as to an administrative hearing. Nevertheless, Petitioner requested that a Hearing Officer be appointed in the matter and issued a Notice of Hearing to Respondent at the same address by certified mail on January 19, 1977. This correspondence was returned by postal authorities as "Unclaimed" (Exhibit 2). An Order of the Hearing Officer changing the hour set for the hearing from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on February 15, 1977 was mailed to the Respondent on February 7, 1977. However, neither Mr. Bryant nor any representative in his behalf appeared at the hearing on February 15, 1977. It being determined that proper notice had been provided to the Respondent in accordance with Section 475.40 and Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the Petitioner presented its evidence in uncontested proceedings.
Findings Of Fact Respondent filed his application for registration as a real estate salesman with Petitioner on October 10, 1972. He completed Question 9 therein in the following manner: "9. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses, without regard to whether sentence has been passed or served, or whether the verdict or judgment has been reversed or set aside or not, or pardon or parole granted? Yes If yes, state details in full. Yes - See back of sheet" On the back of the application page, Respondent listed the following: "Have 2 traffic tickets, Pasco County, Dade City, Fla. - County Court Improper Passing Out of Date inspection sticker" Respondent was issued his registration as a salesman by Petitioner, effective January 29, 1973, Certificate Number 20527. The certificate was renumbered 0010908 when reissued in 1974 and 1975. It was issued again as "Non Active Salesman" on April 19, 1976 with expiration date March 31, 1978. (Composite Exhibit 3) Records of the Sheriff, Pasco County, show that the Respondent was arrested on six different occasions during the years 1961 to 1970. Five of these arrests were based on worthless check charges and one arrest was for failure to appear, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint of Petitioner. (Exhibit 4, Administrative Complaint) Respondent was charged on October 23, 1970 on an information of the State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Pasco County, Case Number 2010, for "Obtaining property in return for worthless check" in violation of Chapter 832, Florida Statutes. He was also charged on October 23, 1970 in the same Judicial Circuit, Case Number 2011, for "Obtaining property in return for worthless check" in violation of Chapter 832, Florida Statutes. (Exhibit 5)
Recommendation That the registration of Respondent Joseph M. Bryant as a non-active real estate salesman be revoked, pursuant to subsection 475.25(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32389 Mr. Joseph M. Bryant Post Office Box 805 U.S. Highway 52 West Dade City, Florida 33525
