The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was at all times relevant hereto licensed by Petitioner in the State of Florida as a Limited Surety Agent (Bail Bondsman) and as a Life and Health Insurance Agent. On January 1, 1988, Daniel Del Sardo was arrested and incarcerated in Broward County, Florida, on charges of forgery, uttering a forged instrument, grand theft of the second degree, and possession of a stolen credit card. His bail was set in the amount of $3,100.00. On March 29, 1988, Sabastian Del Sardo (Complainant), the father of Daniel Del Sardo, and Respondent entered into an agreement for Accredited Surety & Casualty Company, Inc., for whom Respondent acted as agent and attorney in fact, to post the bail bond for Daniel Del Sardo. Complainant paid Respondent the sum of $350.00 as the premium for the bail bond and agreed to indemnify Accredited Surety & Casualty Company, Inc., the surety on the bond, in the event the surety suffered a loss on the bail bond. In addition, Complainant tendered to Respondent, as additional security, a check in the amount of $1,000.00 and the title to a 1979 Cadillac. Complainant told Respondent to hold the check until April 3, 1988, the date Complainant was scheduled to receive his social security check. On April 4, 1988, Complainant gave to Respondent the sum of $750.00 in cash in exchange for the $1,000.00 check that Respondent had been holding since March 29, 1988. The collateral security was accepted by Respondent as attorney in fact and in trust for Accredited Surety & Casualty Company, Inc. By the terms of the agreement executed by Complainant and Respondent, Complainant was entitled to a return of the collateral security within 21 days after the bail bond was discharged in writing by the court. On or about April 7, 1988, Complainant asked Respondent to take Daniel Del Sardo back into custody because Daniel had gotten back on drugs and had been stealing from Complainant and Complainant's wife. Respondent had sufficient justification to return Daniel Del Sardo to custody. While there was a verbal agreement between Complainant and Respondent that Respondent would return Daniel to custody, there was no agreement as to how, or whether, Respondent was to be compensated for doing so. Respondent incurred expenses in locating Daniel Del Sardo and in returning him to custody. Respondent and one of his employees spent over twenty hours looking for Daniel Del Sardo. When he was located, Daniel Del Sardo was high on drugs and did not go to jail peaceably. While he was in the process of taking Daniel Del Sardo back into custody, Respondent's clothing was damaged. Respondent's employee transported Daniel Del Sardo from Miami, Florida, to the Broward County, Florida, jail on April 10, 1988. On April 20, 1988, Daniel Del Sardo changed his plea from not guilty to guilty on the four counts and was sentenced to a total of four years in prison. The bond posted on behalf of Daniel Del Sardo was discharged on April 26, 1988. On April 28, 1988, Complainant asked Respondent to return the car title and the $750.00 security deposit he had given Respondent. Respondent refused to return the entire deposit and told Complainant that he was going to keep the sum of $525.00 to reimburse himself for expenses he had incurred in taking Daniel Del Sardo back into custody. Complainant did not agree that Respondent was entitled to reimbursement of expenses. Further, Complainant did not agree that $525.00 was a reasonable figure for the expenses Respondent had incurred. In response to Complainant's demand that his entire deposit be refunded, Respondent, on April 28, 1988, returned the car title and the sum of $225.00 to Complainant. Respondent kept the sum of $525.00 to reimburse himself for the expenses he incurred in returning Daniel to custody. In charging Complainant for the expenses he incurred in returning Daniel Del Sardo to custody and in deducting those expenses from the collateral security, Respondent was following a practice that has developed among those engaged in the bail bond business in Dade County, Florida. Complainant filed a complaint with Petitioner on the grounds that his entire deposit of $750.00 had not been returned, asserting that there had been no agreement that he would pay Respondent's expenses for taking Daniel back into custody. On or about June 20, 1988, one of Petitioner's investigators contacted Respondent about the complaint. On June 21, 1988, Respondent paid to Complainant the sum of $525.00, representing the balance of the security deposit he had earlier received from Complainant. On January 26, 1989, Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Respondent based on his dealings with Sabastian Del Sardo. The administrative complaint charged Respondent with violating the following: Section 648.44(1)(g), Florida Statutes, Section 648.442(1), Florida Statutes, Section 648.442(4), Florida Statutes, Section 648.45(2)(e), Florida Statutes, Section 648.45(2)(f), Florida Statutes, and Section 648.45(2)(j), Florida Statutes. Respondent denied the allegations of the Administrative Complaint and timely requested a formal hearing. There was no evidence that Respondent has been previously disciplined by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Florida Department of Insurance, enter a final order which finds that Respondent, Gerald Carpenter, violated the provisions of Sections 648.422(1) and (4), Florida Statutes, and Section 648.45(2)(j), Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 be levied against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 6th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2356 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of paragraph 1 are rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. Whether Respondent was justified in returning Daniel Del Sardo to custody is not in issue. The proposed findings of paragraph 2 are rejected as being speculation. The proposed findings of paragraph 3 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of paragraph 4 are rejected as being conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian Norton, Esquire Office of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Randolph Q. Ferguson 1644 Northwest 17th Avenue Miami, Florida 33125 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Pat LaFratta, applied for a Bail Bond Runner's License, which application was sworn to and subscribed on the 11th day of June, 1978. Petitioner had previously, on July 9, 1976, submitted an application for professional Bail Bondsman. The Respondent, by letter from the Chief of the Bureau of Licensing, Mrs. Onez O'Neal, dated August 31, 1978, informed Mr. LaFratta that his application for Bail Bond Runner's License was denied and stated that "the investigation conducted by this Department reflects that you do not meet the qualifications as set forth in Sections 648.27(2)(4), and 648.34(2)(f), Florida Statutes." The Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. A deposition of Howard Paul Sabin, who was at the time imprisoned for bribery, was entered into the evidence without objection. The deposition was taken at the Hendry Correctional Institute in Immokalee, Florida, on December 20, 1978, by counsel for the Respondent after Respondent had denied Petitioner's application for licensure. Counsel for the Petitioner, Herb Fried, Esquire, 1461 NW 17th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33125, and the Petitioner, Pat LaFratta, were present. Sabin's testimony was that the Petitioner, whom he identified at the taking of the deposition, shared commissions in performing bail bond activities and that Petitioner acquiesced and participated in bribing a police officer. Mr. Sabin testified that Mr. LaFratta used LaFratta's apartment as an office. Telephone calls were made from the apartment to call the jail and speak to people to see if Sabin could help them make bond while only Sabin, not Mr. LaFratta, was licensed. Sabin testified that the name of the agency was AABBEE Bail Bonds and that LaFratta paid Sabin a percentage of bonds solicited by Mr. Sabin and referred to Mr. LaFratta. The time frame Sabin testified about was approximately from September of 1975, to December of 1975. The Petitioner's attorney questioned Sabin about any promises made to him for his testimony and about other bondsmen, but there were no questions or contradictions by Petitioner or his attorney as to testimony concerning the subject of this hearing. A yellow page from a Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company Directory, dated 1976, was submitted into evidence in which there was an advertisement "Bail Bonds, 24-Hour Service Any Court - State, Federal, Criminal, Narcotic - Pat LaFratta, Manager - AABBEE Bail Bonds" and a telephone number. Also submitted into evidence was a copy of a business card "AABBEE Bail Bonds - Pat LaFratta - 24-Hour Service" with the same telephone number as advertised in the yellow pages of the 1976 telephone directory. It is obvious upon examination that the telephone advertisement and card were advising the public using the directory that Petitioner LaFratta was in the bail bond business. Petitioner was not then licensed. On the application for Bail Bond Runner's License of June 11, 1978, Question 14: "Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony?" was answered "Yes." The remainder of the question stated: "If so, complete the following and submit a full and detailed report on a separate sheet." This was answered: "1970 - Broward Cty. Ct. - Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. - Poss. Stolen Prop. - 23 counts, 1 yr. cty. jail 2-5 yrs. probation conc." Petitioner listed no other charges or convictions on the application or on a separate sheet. Respondent submitted in defense of its denial a number of exhibits which were entered into evidence as follows: Exhibit 3(a) concerns the offense of receiving stolen property and is dated October 20, 1969. The solicitor announced a Nolle Prosequi, and the Judge released Petitioner from custody. Exhibit 3(b) concerns the offense of receiving stolen property and is dated October 23, 1967. The solicitor announced a Nolle Prosequi. Petitioner was released from custody. Exhibit 3(c) concerns the offense of auto theft and is dated April 4, 1969. The solicitor announced "No Information," and the Respondent was released from custody. Exhibit 3(d) concerns the offense of uttering a forged instrument and is dated June 30, 1971. The solicitor announced a Nolle Prosequi, and the Judge released Petitioner from custody. Exhibit 3(e) concerns the offense of two counts of receiving stolen property and is dated April 5, 1971. The solicitor announced a Nolle Prosequi. The Judge released the Petitioner from custody. Exhibit 3(f) concerns the offense of receiving stolen property and is dated January 22, 1969. Petitioner was acquitted by a jury and released from custody. Exhibit 3(g) concerns the offense of receiving stolen property and is dated April 5, 1971. The solicitor announced a Nolle Prosequi, and the Judge released Petitioner from custody. Exhibit 3(h) concerns the offense of receiving or aiding in the concealment of parts of a 1968 Chevrolet Impala and is dated October 31, 1969. The State was allowed 30 days to amend because of the vagueness of the charge. Exhibit 3(i) concerns the offense of receiving stolen property and is dated April 5, 1971. The solicitor announced a Nolle Prosequi, and the Judge released Petitioner from custody. Exhibit 3(j) concerns the offense of aggravated assault and is dated October 27, 1967. The Hearing Officer finds that Petitioner was not the defendant in said case. Exhibit 3(k) concerns the offense of receiving stolen property and is dated December 13, 1968. Petitioner was acquitted by a jury and released from custody. Exhibit 3(l) concerns the offense of receiving stolen property arid is dated October 1, 1969. The Petitioner was acquitted by the court and released from custody. Exhibit 3(m) concerns the offense of receiving stolen property and is dated June 25, 1968. The Petitioner was acquitted by the court arid released from custody. Exhibit 3(n) concerns the offense of assault and battery, a misdemeanor, and is dated October 30, 1967. Exhibit 3(o) is a judgment and sentence for the crime of receiving stolen property and is dated October 5, 1971. Petitioner was placed on probation for five years. Exhibit (p) is a judgment and sentence dated April 5, 1971. Petitioner was sentenced to one year in prison and an assessment. Exhibit 3(q) concerns the violation of parole. Respondent's Exhibit 3(e), (g), (i), (o), and (p), supra, are part of a 23-count information which was submitted as Petitioner's Exhibit #6 in Case No. 70-25492, an information for Receiving Stolen property. Respondent's Exhibit 3(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (h), (k), (l), and (m), supra, refer to felony charges of receiving stolen property, uttering a forged instrument and auto theft, which were not listed on the Petitioner's application and were not part of the 23-count information, which information concerned receiving stolen property. Exhibit 3(a), (b), (f), (k), (l), and (m), supra, concern stolen property preceding the dates of the offenses mentioned in the 23-count information. The failure to list the foregoing felony charges shows the Petitioner made material misstatements on his application. Petitioner LaFratta testified that he sent a package regarding the 23 counts mentioned in Findings of Fact No. 3, supra, with both application for Professional Bail Bondsman and for subject license to the Respondent. His testimony was not backed by evidence that he in fact sent the materials to the Respondent, which were required to have been sent at the time the application was made and listed on his application. His testimony that he had requested the clerk to "make out a whole booklet on everything that pertains to me," if true, was not adequate to truthfully answer Question 14, Findings of Fact No. 3, supra. The Hearing Officer finds that Petitioner did not furnished a full and detailed report and information as required by Question 14. It is the finding of the Hearing Officer that Petitioner did not intend to furnish the required information. Petitioner testified that he did not think that he had ever been arrested for assault, but the Respondent presented evidence showing that Petitioner had in fact been arrested for assault and battery. On subject application the Petitioner also failed to fully answer the question as to his employment history for the past five years. He failed to disclose that he had worked for Abel Bail Bonds. On the question as to his residence for the past five years, Mr. LaFratta failed to show that he had been incarcerated at Florida State Prison during that period of time. The herein mentioned 23-count information and the Restoration of Civil Rights were certified in June of 1976, and application for Professional Bail Bondsman was submitted in July of 1976. It is the finding of this Hearing Officer that these instruments were the only information submitted by the Petitioner to the Respondent as to his charges and convictions, despite his testimony. The certificate of Restoration of Civil Rights to Pat LaFratta, dated June 8, 1976, was previous to the application for Bail Bond Runner's License sworn to and subscribed by the Petitioner on June 11, 1978, and to the application for Bail Bondsman sworn to and subscribed by the Petitioner on July 9, 1976. The certificate of Restoration of Civil Rights is dated June 8, 1976, and within a few weeks thereafter Petitioner failed to truthfully answer questions under oath on his application on July 9, 1976, and failed to fully and truthfully answer the question on his application for Bail Bond Runner's License of July 11, 1978.
Recommendation Reject the application of Petitioner, Pat LaFratta, for a license as a Ball Bond Runner. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick F. Maroney, Esquire Florida Department of Insurance Legal Division 428-A Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Max P. Engel, Esquire 1461 North West 17th Avenue Miami, Florida 33125
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaints filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents are correct and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensure and regulation of limited surety agents (bail bondsmen) operating in the State of Florida. The Respondents are individually licensed as limited surety agents in Florida and are officers and directors of "Big John Bail Bonds, Inc.," a bail bond agency. In November of 1999, Gustavo Porro contacted the Respondents regarding bail for Jessie James Bray, a friend of Mr. Porro's son. Mr. Porro did not know Mr. Bray. Based on the charges against Mr. Bray, four bonds were issued, two for $1,000 each and two for $250 each, for a total bond amount of $2,500. The $1,000 bonds were related to pending felony charges and the small bonds were related to pending misdemeanor charges. Mr. Porro signed a contingent promissory note indemnifying American Bankers Insurance Company for an amount up to $2,500 in the event of bond forfeiture. Bray did not appear in court on the scheduled date and the two $1,000 bonds were forfeited. For reasons unclear, the two $250 bonds were not forfeited. The contingent promissory note signed by Mr. Porro provided that no funds were due to be paid until the stated contingency occurred, stated as "upon forfeiture, estreature or breach of the surety bond." After Bray did not appear for court, the Respondents contacted Mr. Porro and told him that the bonds were forfeited and he was required to pay according to the promissory note. On April 15, 2000, Mr. Porro went to the office of Big John Bail Bonds and was told that he owed a total of $2,804, which he immediately paid. Mr. Porro was not offered and did not request an explanation as to how the total amount due was calculated. He received a receipt that appears to have been signed by Ms. Vath. After Mr. Porro paid the money, Ms. Vath remitted $2,000 to the court clerk for the two forfeited bonds. The Respondents retained the remaining $804. Bray was eventually apprehended and returned to custody. The Respondents were not involved in the apprehension. On July 11, 2000, the court refunded $1,994 to the Respondents. The refund included the $2,000 bond forfeitures minus a statutory processing fee of $3 for each of the two forfeited bonds. On August 9, 2000, 29 days after the court refunded the money to the Respondents, Mr. Porro received a check for $1,994 from the Respondents. Mr. Porro, apparently happy to get any of his money back, did not ask about the remaining funds and no explanation was offered. In November of 2000, Ms. Vath contacted Mr. Porro and informed him that a clerical error had occurred and that he was due to receive additional funds. On November 6, 2000, Mr. Porro met with Ms. Vath and received a check for $492. At the time, that Ms. Vath gave Mr. Porro the $492 check she explained that he had been overcharged through a clerical error, and that the additional amount being refunded was the overpayment minus expenses. She explained that the expenses included clerical and "investigation" expenses and the cost of publishing a notice in a newspaper. There was no documentation provided of the expenses charged to Mr. Porro. At the time the additional refund was made, there was no disclosure that the two $250 bonds were never forfeited. At the hearing, the Respondents offered testimony asserting that the charges were miscalculated due to "clerical" error and attempting to account for expenses charged to Mr. Porro. There was no reliable documentation supporting the testimony, which was contradictory and lacked credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order requiring that the Respondents be required to refund $318 to Mr. Porro, which, combined with the previous payments of $1,994 and $492, will constitute refund of the total $2,804 paid by Mr. Porro to the Respondents. It is further recommended that the limited surety licenses of Matilda M. Vath and John L. Vath be suspended for a period of not less than three months or until Mr. Porro receives the remaining $318, whichever is later. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 22nd day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street, Room 612 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's insurance licenses based upon the alleged violations of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed in Florida as a limited surety agent (bail bondsman). On September 15, 1989, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent seeking disciplinary action against Respondent's license as a result of his alleged employment of a convicted felon identified as Ira Stern. That case, Department of Insurance Case No. 89-L-650RVE, was settled pursuant to a Consent Order entered on January 2, 1990, pursuant to which Respondent was fined $500 and placed on probation for one year. Respondent also agreed not to employ any individual disqualified by Section 648.44(7)(a) to work at his bail bond agency and agreed that no unlicensed person employed by his bail bond agency would be permitted to engage in any activity for which a license was required. The Consent Order incorporated a Settlement Stipulation which specifically provided that the settlement was entered to avoid the costs and uncertainty of litigation and did not constitute an admission by Respondent of any violation of the insurance code. At the time of the hearing in this case, Respondent's license was apparently under suspension pursuant to an Emergency Order of Suspension issued by the Department in Department Case No. 93-ESO-005JDM. The Emergency Order of Suspension is not referenced in the Administrative Complaint and no copy of that Emergency Order has been provided. The basis for entry of that Emergency Order was not established in this case and the parties stipulated that the Emergency Order was not a part of this proceeding. For at least two years prior to the hearing in this case, Respondent was appointed to write bail bonds by American Bankers Insurance Group ("American Bankers"). Respondent previously operated a company known as Barry's Bail Bonds. Apparently as a result of some unsatisfied judgements, Respondent did not issue any bail bonds in his name or in the name of Barry's Bail Bonds during the first 6 months of 1992. At the time of the transactions alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was married to Linda Ratner. Linda Ratner was a qualified and appointed agent of American Bankers. She was also the principle of Linda's Bail Bonds, Inc. The evidence established that Respondent was a primary contact for American Bankers on behalf of Linda's Bail Bonds. It appears that Linda's Bail Bonds and Barry's Bail Bonds were operating out of the same office in Fort Lauderdale for some periods during 1991 and 1992. Other businesses were also apparently operated out of this office. The evidence established that an individual by the name of Ira Stern was involved in the operations of that office during late 1991 and the first nine months of 1992. The evidence was inconclusive as to who actually employed Ira Stern. The evidence did establish that Respondent and Ira Stern primarily handled the day to day operations of the office, including the bail bond business transacted out of the office. No evidence was presented that Ira Stern was a convicted felon and/or that he was the same individual identified in the prior Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. Respondent solicited and issued bail bonds through Linda's Bail Bonds on several occasions from January 1992 through July 1992. The evidence established that Linda Ratner signed several American Banker's power of attorney forms in blank. As discussed in more detail below, Respondent utilized several of these forms on behalf of clients during the time period in question. Respondent's authority to write bonds for American Bankers was terminated by American Bankers on or about July 24, 1992. At that same time, the authority of Linda Ratner and Linda's Bail Bonds, Inc. was also terminated. At some point after this termination, Respondent turned over to American Bankers certain tangible collateral that had been held in a safe deposit box. This collateral was turned over sometime between July and September of 1992. The exact date was not established. On September 11, 1992, employees of American Bankers accompanied by a Department investigator, went to Respondent's office and collected all of the files and tangible collateral in the office relating to the outstanding bonds written by Respondent and/or Linda's Bail Bonds for American Bankers. No cash collateral was recovered in connection with those files. Upon arriving at the office, representatives of American Bankers and the Department investigator dealt exclusively with a man who identified himself as Ira Stern and who claimed to be the office manager. As noted above, Respondent was previously disciplined by Petitioner for employing an Ira Stern, who was allegedly a convicted felon. No direct evidence was presented to establish the identity of the person in the office on September 11, 1992 nor was there any evidence that the person who identified himself as Ira Stern was a convicted felon and/or the same individual whom Respondent was accused of improperly employing in the previous disciplinary case. Moreover, no conclusive evidence was presented to establish who actually employed the individual in question. On or about July 9, 1992, Anna Agnew and her husband called Linda's Bail Bonds to obtain a bond to get their nephew out of jail. Respondent responded to the call and told the Agnews that he would issue a bond in return for $100 cash and the delivery of a $1,000 check which was to serve as collateral for the bond. Respondent told the Agnews that he would hold the check as collateral without cashing it until their nephew's case was resolved. To obtain the release of the Agnews' nephew, Respondent submitted American Bankers power of attorney number 0334165 which had been signed in blank by Linda Ratner and filled out by Respondent. The amount of the bond was $1,000. Shortly after the Agnews' nephew was bonded out of jail, Mrs. Agnew discovered that the check they gave to Respondent had been cashed. After the Agnews' many attempts to contact Respondent regarding the check were unsuccessful, Mrs. Agnew wrote to the Department complaining of the situation. On August 17, 1992, the Agnews' nephew's case was resolved. Respondent failed to return the Agnews' collateral within the time provided by law. In an attempt to retrieve their collateral after their nephew's case was completed, Mrs. Agnew testified that her husband unsuccessfully attempted to contact Respondent at his office on a least one occasion. At the time of Mr. Agnew's visit, Respondent's office was allegedly not open. No conclusive evidence was presented as to who cashed the Agnews' check or what happened to the proceeds. On or about January 8, 1993, the managing general agent for American Bankers returned $1,000 to the Agnews in repayment of the collateral. On or about June 21, 1992, American Bankers' power of attorney form number 0333494 was submitted to the Broward County Circuit Court to obtain the release from jail of Wentworth McNorton. The amount of the bond was $1,000. The power of attorney form had been signed in blank by Linda Ratner and was filled in by Respondent. Mr. McNorton's mother, Linnette, arranged for the issuance of the bond by paying Respondent $100 in cash. In addition, she gave Respondent a diamond ring appraised in excess of $10,000 as collateral for the bond. Linnette McNorton asked Respondent to hold the ring as collateral until she could arrange to substitute some other collateral. Liability on Mr. McNorton's bond was discharged by the court on July 14, 1992. Respondent did not return Mrs. McNorton's ring within twenty-one days of discharge of liability on the bond as required by law. Linnette McNorton continued to call Respondent for several months after her collateral was due to be returned. At no time during this period did Respondent return Mrs. McNorton's calls or inform her of the whereabouts of her ring. Approximately five months after Wentworth McNorton was released, Linnette McNorton and her husband went to Respondent's home and confronted him. Respondent advised the McNortons that he did not have the ring and that it had been turned over to the insurance company. Sometime prior to September of 1992, employees of American Bankers took possession of Mrs. McNorton's ring along with other tangible collateral held by Respondent in a safe deposit box. As noted in paragraph 9 above, the evidence did not establish the exact date American Bankers took control of the collateral in the safe deposit box. At the time, Mrs. McNorton's ring was marked improperly and the staff of American Bankers was unable to identify which file it belonged with. Mrs. McNorton's ring was finally returned to her on April 15, 1993 by American Bankers after they had determined that the mislabelled and unidentified ring in their possession was Mrs. McNorton's. On or about March 13, 1992, American Bankers power of attorney numbers 0295546, 0295547, and 0295548 were executed for the issuance of three bail bonds on behalf of Kevin Krohn, the principle. The total face value of these three bonds was $3,000. The powers of attorney had been signed in blank by Linda Ratner. The other handwriting on the powers of attorney appears to be Respondent's, however, the circumstances surrounding the execution and delivery of these powers was not established. The records obtained from Respondent's office on September 11, 1992 indicate that Jeanette Krohn, the indemnitor, paid $300 in premiums for the three bail bonds described in paragraph 24 and also put up $3,000 in cash collateral. The handwriting on the collateral receipts appears to be Ira Stern's however, the circumstances surrounding the execution of these documents was not established. The last of the bonds described in paragraph 24 was discharged by the court on April 22, 1992. In July of 1992, the Department received a complaint that Jeanette Krohn was unable to obtain the return of her $3,000 cash collateral. The Department notified American Bankers of the complaint and a representative of the insurance company contacted Respondent who advised that the collateral had been repaid on June 22, 1992 by check no. 1021 drawn on the trust account of Linda's Bail Bonds. June 22, 1992 was well beyond the twenty-one days provided by law for return of the collateral. The check which Respondent told the insurance company was issued to return Ms. Krohn's collateral was purportedly signed by Linda Ratner. The check was dishonored by the bank. The signature of Linda Ratner on the check given to Ms. Krohn was forged. The evidence was insufficient to establish who forged the signature. American Bankers paid Jeanette Krohn $3,000 on or about January 8, 1993 as repayment for the cash collateral placed for the bonds. In March of 1992, M. T. Heller contacted Respondent to procure a bail bond. Respondent arranged for the issuance of the bond. When the bond was discharged, Mr. Heller returned to Respondent's office, where he dealt with Ira Stern in attempting to obtain return of the collateral.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, and III of the Administrative Complaint and dismissing Counts IV and V. As a penalty for the violations, an administrative fine of $1,500 should be imposed and the license issued to the Respondent, Barry Seth Ratner, under the purview of the Florida Department of Insurance should be suspended for a period of two years, followed by a two year probationary period. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Subordinate to Findings of Fact 3. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4 and 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 26. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 28. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 23. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 20 and 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 31. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 32. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 33. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. The second sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. The third sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11 and 15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17-23. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 24-30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 2 and 31-34. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph D. Mandt, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 648.30(1), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On June 3, 1999, pursuant to Section 626.9581, Florida Statutes, the Department filed a Notice of Intent to Issue Cease and Desist Order and Assess Penalty against Respondent, alleging that he was not currently nor was he at all times relevant to the notice, licensed to transact bail bond business in the State of Florida. Respondent requested a hearing in the matter but failed to appear at the appointed time and place duly noticed for the administrative hearing in this matter. Respondent is not and was not at all times relevant to the subject matter of Petitioner's Notice of Intent to Issue Cease and Desist Order and Assess Penalty, licensed to transact bail bond business in the State of Florida. On February 6, 1998, Respondent, in the Circuit Court of Pasco County, Florida, in Case No. 9603891CFAWS, entered a plea of nolo contendere and was adjudicated guilty attempting to perform the responsibilities of a bail bondsman without a license, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of Section 648.30, Florida Statutes. It is a violation of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, for an unlicensed person to act in the capacity or attempt to act in the capacity of a bail bond agent, temporary bail bond agent, or runner or perform or attempt to perform any of the functions, duties, or powers prescribed therefor.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer: Enter a final order finding that Respondent engaged in a deceptive act by acting or attempting to act in the capacity of a bail bond agency. Issue a Cease and Desist Order directing Respondent to immediately cease and desist from acting or attempting to act in the capacity of a bail bond agent until or unless he is properly licensed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 23rd day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson Commissioner of Insurance and Treasurer Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Ray Henry Anderson 13933 Muriez Avenue Hudson, Florida 34667 Dickson E. Kesler, Esquire Department of Insurance 401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite N-321 Miami, Florida 33128
Findings Of Fact The facts relevant to the charges here preferred are largely undisputed. In May 1978 Respondent's business address as reported by him to Petitioner was 2812 North 34th Street, Tampa, Florida. This address was visited by Petitioner's investigators on 23, 24, 25, and 30 May 1978. The building located at that address is owned and used by Scaglione Construction Company as its main office. There is no sign on the exterior of this building indicating a bail bondsman's office is located inside. While visiting the address, the investigators were advised that Respondent had no office there but Frank Puig did have a bail bond office in the building. Although there was some dispute regarding whether the investigators were shown Puig's office, or even allowed to go to the door of that office, whether they did or not is immaterial because Respondent readily admitted he had no files at this location and conducted no business therefrom. Again witnesses differed on whether there was a sign on the door of the office occupied by Puig. Whether there was a sign on that door reading "Frank Puig - Bail- bondsman" is irrelevant to the charge that Respondent had no sign designating his office. During the period in question, in fact, during most, if not all, of 1978, Respondent testified he was without power [of attorney] to write bonds. Exhibit 1 shows that three companies, Midland Insurance Company, Allied Fidelity Insurance Company, and Cotton Belt Insurance Company, Inc. all renewed Respondent's limited surety agency in October 1977 and all cancelled his limited surety agency 12-14-78. Respondent's testimony indicated that he was an agent only for Cotton Belt and that his power to write bonds had been withdrawn. According to Respondent's own testimony, he had no permanent office in which to keep his files and records and that these records were carried in his car and stored at his residence when not in his car. He was using Puig's telephone number as a place at which messages could be left for him. Respondent also testified that during 1978 he wrote no bonds and was only servicing existing accounts which preceded 1978.
