Findings Of Fact On January 7, 1981, the Petitioner notified the Respondent that an action was being commenced to revoke the Respondent's self-insurance privilege pertaining to employee compensation insurance coverage in the State of Florida. That notification stated as grounds that the Respondent, having had its self- insurer's surety bond terminated, the revocation proceeding would take place. The notification letter afforded the Respondent an opportunity for hearing on this revocation question and on January 24, 1981, the Respondent requested a formal hearing. The matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 3, 1981. On February 13, 1981, the Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the request for formal hearing and the Petitioner identified the steps that it deemed to be necessary before the Respondent could continue as a self-insured employer, to include the necessity to provide an excess loss insurance policy. The formal hearing de novo was conducted on March 27, 1991. The Respondent has employees working in the State of Florida and it has been operating as a self-insured employer in the State of Florida from 1977, through January, 1981, by the process of posting a $25,000 surety bond. On December 11, 1980, the Petitioner received a termination notice related to the Respondent's self-insurer's bond. The bond issued by the Underwriters Insurance Company of North America was officially cancelled February 3, 1981. The Respondent, subsequent to the time of the bond cancellation, has failed to purchase a further bond, which bond at present must be a minimum amount of $380,000 or to provide other sufficient security. In lieu of the opportunity for self-insurance, the Respondent could purchase a workers' compensation insurance policy; however, at the time of the hearing, in addition to not having an appropriate bond or other security, the Respondent had not purchased such an insurance policy. The Respondent has no cash and negotiable instruments filed with the Florida Bureau of Self Insurance as surety for workers' compensation coverage. The Respondent also is without an acceptable excess loss insurance policy for purposes of workers' compensation.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Edward J. Miller, is entitled to be licensed as a resident life and variable annuity insurance agent.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Edward J. Miller, is employed at Washington Mutual Bank. His supervisor is Tracy Tarach. It was Ms. Tarach's desire that Mr. Miller become licensed as a resident life and variable annuity insurance agent. To that end, she and Mr. Miller filed the necessary papers with Washington Mutual Bank to approve the application process as well as the course to become licensed. The process of having the bank issue the check to cover the licensing procedure was timely. Additionally, the Petitioner could only be scheduled for the licensure class and completion of the licensing process when the bank took favorable action on the request. Accordingly, for this Petitioner the licensing process was dragged out over the course of several months. In January 2003 the Petitioner completed the state application for licensure but did not transmit it to the state. He submitted the request to the bank for course approval and planned to submit the paperwork when it was successfully completed. At that time, the Petitioner did not have any criminal charges pending against him and the answers noted on the application were all correct and truthful. In February 2003 the Petitioner was stopped for DUI. The next workday the Petitioner went to his supervisor and fully disclosed the arrest as well as the charge. The Petitioner made no effort to hide the arrest from his employer and the employer considers the Petitioner a valuable employee, despite the incident. In March 2003 the Petitioner was formally charged with DUI, a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, the bank approved the Petitioner's request to take the course for licensure. The forty-hour course in another work location required the Petitioner to travel to the school site and reside in a hotel for a week while the course work was completed. Obviously the Petitioner's supervisor was willing to invest the costs of licensure school and accommodations for the Petitioner with full knowledge of the Petitioner's pending criminal matter. After successfully completing the licensure course in April 2003 the Petitioner submitted the license application to the state. He failed to double-check the forms. He failed to correct an answer that was now incorrect. That is, he failed to fully disclose the arrest. Subsequently, the criminal case went to hearing, and the Petitioner entered a plea and was placed on probation. The resolution of the DUI charges was completed after the application was submitted. Section 3 of the license application asks several screening questions of applicants for licensure. Applicants are required to answer "yes" or "no", depending on the information sought. In this case, it is undisputed that the Petitioner failed to correct his answers to the questions posed in Section 3. More specifically, the Petitioner failed to truthfully disclose that he had been arrested for DUI. This failure was an oversight on the Petitioner's part, and not intended to deceive the Department. The answers should have been corrected when the Petitioner amended the application form to include the information regarding his completion of the Gold Coast School of Insurance class on April 11, 2003. He did not do so. When the Department reviewed the Petitioner's application and discovered the false answer, it took action to deny the licensure request. That denial was entered on January 22, 2004. A notice of the denial was provided to the Petitioner and he timely challenged the proposed action. On October 31, 2003, the Petitioner completed all of the terms of his court-ordered probation and the entire DUI incident was put to rest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a Final Order granting the Petitioner's application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dana M. Wiehle, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Edward J. Miller 6205 Northwest West Deville Circle Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986
The Issue The issues in this case are whether SDPhotonics, LLC (Respondent), failed to provide workers' compensation coverage; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing section 440.107, Florida Statutes. Section 440.107 mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida must secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant, Respondent was a limited liability company, organized under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal office currently located at 4304 Scorpius Street, UCF High Technology Incubator, Orlando, Florida. Dennis Deppe is the founder and CEO of SDPhotonics, LLC, which is a research and development company. Respondent is a non-construction type entity. Mr. Marquez is an insurance analysist II/investigator for the Department in the central part of the state. He has 12 years of experience in this position. His duties include making sure that businesses comply with the workers’ compensation laws of Florida. In order to perform his duties, Mr. Marquez has several methods to check for particular workers’ compensation coverage. Initially, Mr. Marquez may check the Division of Corporations website, “Sunbiz.org,” to obtain the name of the corporation; its federal identification number; the mailing and principle address(es), the registered agent; and corporate officer information. With this information, Mr. Marquez may check Petitioner’s internal database called: coverage and compliance automated system (CCAS). Using a corporate name, Mr. Marquez could check CCAS to see whether a corporation has workers’ compensation coverage. Insurance companies are also required to submit workers’ compensation coverage information, and Mr. Marquez could check that registry. Corporate officers may request an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage; however, the officer must apply for the exemption. Mr. Marquez could check that registry as well. In mid-December 2015, Mr. Marquez was assigned to check on Respondent’s workers’ compensation coverage. Mr. Marquez checked Petitioner’s CCAS system and determined that Respondent did not have a workers’ compensation policy or any active exemptions for its officers. On December 16, 2015, Mr. Marquez went to Respondent’s physical location and discovered that no one was present. He left a business card with a written request for someone to contact him. On December 17, 2015, Dr. Deppe contacted Mr. Marquez via telephone. Mr. Marquez identified himself and explained the reason for the call to Dr. Deppe. As was his custom, Mr. Marquez requested the name of Respondent’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, the policy number and the effective date of the coverage. Dr. Deppe thought there was coverage through Paychex,3/ but he was unable to provide the requested information. Dr. Deppe stated he would look into it and return the call. On December 18, 2016, Mr. Marquez spoke with Dr. Deppe again. During that conversation, Dr. Deppe confirmed that Respondent did not have workers’ compensation coverage, but that he was working to have it by the end of the day. Later that same morning, Mr. Marquez met with Dr. Deppe and again requested the name of Respondent’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, the policy number and the effective date of the coverage. Dr. Deppe was unable to provide the requested information, although he did provide the name of his insurance agent. Additionally, Dr. Deppe provided the names of Respondent’s five employees: James Beadsworth, Jason Leshin, Nick Cox, Jeremy Leshin, and Dennis Deppe. Mr. Marquez then stepped outside to his vehicle, and via his computer consulted the CCAS database to determine whether Respondent had secured workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption from the requirements for coverage for his employees. At that time, Mr. Marquez determined that Respondent did not have any current workers’ compensation coverage for its employees and Respondent did not have an exemption from such coverage from the Department. Mr. Marquez telephoned his supervisor, Robert Cerrone, who authorized the service of a Stop-Work Order along with a Request for Production of Business Records (Request) on Dr. Deppe on December 18, 2015. Both were served on Respondent at approximately 11:30 a.m. on December 18, 2015. The following Monday, Dr. Deppe presented to Petitioner’s Orlando field office, paid $1,000.00 towards the penalty and provided proof of coverage with the Hartford Casualty Insurance Company. Ms. Proano confirmed that the appropriate classification code for Respondent’s CEO was 8810 (for a clerical position) and for Respondent’s employees was 4511 (for “analytical laboratories, including laboratory, outside employees, collectors of samples”). These codes were derived from the Scopes Manual, which lists all of the various jobs that may be performed in the context of workers’ compensation. The manual is produced by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., the nation’s most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers’ compensation. The corresponding approved manual rates for the classification codes 8810 and 4511 were applied using the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027 to determine the appropriate penalty. Petitioner is statutorily authorized to use an audit period of two years from the issuance of the Stop-Work Order. Respondent employed less than four employees during 2013 and 2014, and did not have to have worker’s compensation cover. Petitioner only computed the penalty for 2015 because Respondent had five employees during that time. Petitioner has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation for its employees as required by chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Petitioner determined the appropriate penalty using section 440.107(7)(d)1. The amount of Respondent’s penalty, $6,092.10, is subject to a reduction of $3,843.23, which is the amount it paid to obtain the appropriate insurance. The amended penalty amount is $2,248.87.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, issue a final order upholding the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assess a penalty in the amount of $2,248.87.5/ DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 22nd day of July, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Amy Ostrau is a registered real estate salesman having been issued License No. 0144468 by the Board of Real Estate. The last known address of the Respondent is c/o Ann Ford, Inc., 7370 Northwest 5th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33317. The Respondent, at all material times alleged herein, was a registered real estate salesman employed by Ann Ford Realty, Inc. On or about March 29, 1980, Respondent obtained a written deposit receipt and contract for sale and purchase from a prospective purchaser, H. Steven Hill. The contract indicated that the selling broker Ann Ford, Inc., broker, held an initial deposit of $500.00. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) The $500.00 deposit check was received by Respondent from a friend of Hill because Hill did not have a check available at that time. Respondent placed the deposit check in her office file and it remained there until Friday, April 11, 1980 when a second deposit check, in the amount of $17,750.00, was presented by the buyer. At this time, the first deposit check was returned to Hill by the Respondent. Respondent presented the second deposit check to her broker and it was then deposited by mail into the broker's escrow account on April 15, 1980. The check evidently was credited to the broker's account on April 15, 1980. (The response to request for admissions refers to the pertinent month as August, which is obviously in error.) On or about April 17, 1980, and as a result of a request by Hill, a building inspection was conducted on the house. The inspection disclosed several deficiencies in the house and the estimated repair cost for the deficiencies exceeded the amount specified in the contract for repairs. Payment of the second deposit check in the amount of $17,750.00 was stopped on April 21, 1980 by Hill, and, as a result, there was no earnest money deposit remaining in the escrow account. Respondent's husband, an attorney, Norman M. Ostrau, represented the purchaser, H. Steven Hill, in the transaction. Respondent was asked by Hill to hold the $500.00 earnest money deposit check until the contract was accepted and signed by the sellers. Pursuant to these instructions, Respondent failed to turn over the deposit check to her employer immediately upon receipt of the same. A civil action for damages is pending in the Broward County Circuit Court brought on behalf of the sellers of the property against the buyer and broker, with counterclaim by the buyer. (Respondent's Exhibit 2)
Recommendation That the Board of Real Estate suspend the license of Respondent, Amy Ostrau, for a period of thirty (30) days pursuant to Subsection 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 101 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33307 Michael Rifkin, Esquire OSTRAU & RIFKIN 8751 West Broward Blvd. Suite 302 Plantation, Florida 33324 Mr. C. B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are: (1) Whether Respondent, Bravo Construction, Inc. ("Respondent"), was in violation of the workers’ compensation requirements of Chapter 440.107, Florida Statutes (2003),1/ by failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its workers; (2) Whether such individuals possessed current valid workers’ compensation exemptions; and (3) Whether Respondent paid its workers remuneration outside of Respondent’s employee leasing company.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, which requires that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Respondent is a company engaged in the construction industry. Specifically, Respondent's business is framing houses. At all time relevant to this proceeding, Elias Bravo was president of the company. On May 26, 2004, the Department’s investigators, Carol Porter and Kelley Dunning, conducted a random visit of a work site in Grassy Point, a gated community in Port Charlotte, Florida, and discovered Mr. Bravo and his workers on site as the house-framers. When the investigators arrived at the site, they spoke with Mr. Bravo, who advised the investigators that Respondent utilized a personnel leasing company, Time Management, which was actually a brokerage firm for Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. ("SEPL"), to secure workers’ compensation coverage. On May 26, 2005, Mr. Bravo was the only person in his crew who had coverage with SEPL. At the time of the site visit, the other men were not listed with SEPL because Mr. Bravo still had their applications in his car. After Respondent was unable to provide proof that the men had workers' compensation coverage pursuant to Subsections 440.107(3) and (7)(a), Florida Statutes, the investigators issued a Stop Work Order to Respondent while at the work site on May 26, 2004. On the same day that the Stop Work Order was issued, Investigator Dunning served Mr. Bravo with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("Request for Production of Business Records"). The Department requested copies of Respondent's business records in order to determine whether Respondent had secured workers' compensation coverage; whether Mr. Bravo or Respondent's employees had workers' compensation exemptions; and, if not, to determine the penalty assessment. In response to the Request for Production of Business Records, Mr. Bravo provided certificates of insurance, Respondent's check stubs written to various entities or individuals on behalf of Respondent, payroll records, and Form 1099s for the year ending 2003. Many of the documents provided by Mr. Bravo indicated that Respondent made payments directly to the entities and individuals. The Department maintains records regarding the workers' compensation coverage of individuals and entities in a statewide database called Compliance and Coverage Automated System ("CCAS"). The CCAS database is utilized by the Department to verify if an individual or entity has workers' compensation coverage or a valid exemption from coverage. As part of the Department's investigation, Investigator Porter conducted a CCAS search for Respondent's workers’ compensation insurance coverage records. This search verified that Mr. Bravo had workers' compensation coverage. However, many of the workers or entities to whom Respondent made direct payments did not have workers’ compensation coverage or current valid workers’ compensation exemptions. Based on a review of the payroll records, check stubs, and the Form 1099s that Respondent provided to the Department, Investigator Porter determined that Respondent was an "employer" as that term is defined in Subsection 440.02(16), Florida Statutes. Subsequently, the Department reassessed the original penalty and issued the Amended Order with the attached penalty worksheet which detailed the basis of the penalty assessment. In determining the amended penalty assessment, Investigator Porter disregarded and did not include Respondent's payments to any individual or entity that had workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption from such coverage. The Amended Order, which reflected a penalty assessment of $97,416.68, was issued to Respondent on May 28, 2004.2/ Respondent paid remuneration to the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the Amended Order for work they performed. Nonetheless, during the period covered by the penalty assessment, Respondent did not secure workers' compensation coverage for the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet, and none of them had workers' compensation coverage or exemptions from such coverage. The individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the Amended Order were Respondent's employees during the relevant period, in that they were paid by Respondent, a construction contractor, and did not have workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption from such coverage. Mr. Bravo had workers' compensation coverage through SEPL. However, none of the employees listed on the Amended Order had workers' compensation coverage through SEPL, because they were paid directly by Respondent. A personnel leasing company provides workers' compensation coverage and payroll services to its clients, then leases those employees back to the clients for a fee. Respondent was a client of SEPL, and based on that relationship, Mr. Bravo believed that he and his workers received workers' compensation coverage through that personnel leasing company. However, the workers' compensation coverage provided by SEPL applied only to those employees SEPL leased to Respondent. In the case of leased employees, Respondent would have to make payments to the leasing company and not directly to his workers. The leasing company would then, in turn, pay the leased employees. When, as in this case, the construction company makes direct payments to individuals performing construction work, those workers are not leased employees and, thus, are not secured by the workers’ compensation coverage provided by the personnel leasing company. See § 468.520, Fla. Stat. Some of the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet may have been "dually employed"; that is, sometimes they were employed by Respondent and at other times, they were employees of SEPL and were leased to Respondent. However, during the periods in which individuals worked for Respondent and were paid by Respondent, and were not paid by SEPL, they were without workers’ compensation coverage unless Respondent provided such coverage. With regard to the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet, Respondent provided no such coverage. Respondent, through Mr. Bravo, paid its employees directly, thus, circumventing SEPL and losing the coverage that the employees may have had through it. The Department assessed the penalty against Respondent based on the remuneration Respondent gave directly to the employees outside of SEPL, the class code assigned to each employee utilizing the SCOPES Manual adopted by the Department in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021, and the guidelines in Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order that affirms the Stop Work Order and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which imposes a penalty of $97,416.68. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 10th day of May, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondents,1/ David Feliciano, d/b/a D and S Handyman, Inc., a Dissolved Florida Corporation, and D and S Handyman, Inc., failed to provide workers’ compensation coverage; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the various requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Section 440.107(3) mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida must secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. The testimony and evidence substantiates that D and S Handyman, Inc., a Dissolved Florida Corporation, is engaged in the construction industry in Florida as D and S Handyman, Inc., and that David Feliciano is its sole proprietor. On September 7, 2016, Investigator Murvin conducted a random jobsite workers’ compensation compliance investigation (Compliance Investigation). Investigator Murvin spoke with Mr. Feliciano who was working at a jobsite at 713 Lake Cummings Boulevard, Lake Alfred, Florida. During their discussion, Mr. Feliciano stated he had his own corporation (Respondent), and that Respondent was a subcontractor of ANS Plumbing to this job. Respondent was to install the plumbing at this jobsite. Mr. Feliciano claimed he had an exemption. Investigator Murvin checked the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations’, Sunbiz website to verify Respondent’s status. Mr. Murvin determined that David Feliciano, d/b/a D and S Handyman, Inc., was no longer an active corporation but that when it was active, Mr. Feliciano was the sole corporate officer and registered agent. Investigator Murvin then checked the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) to see whether Respondent had a workers’ compensation insurance policy or any current exemptions. CCAS is the Department’s internal database that contains workers’ compensation insurance policy information and exemption information. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which is then input into CCAS. Investigator Murvin’s CCAS search revealed that Respondent had no workers’ compensation coverage or exemptions during the relevant period. An exemption is a method by which a corporate officer can exempt himself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. Mr. Feliciano held an exemption as Respondent’s owner from December 11, 2013, until it expired on December 11, 2015. Investigator Murvin then contacted ANS Plumbing and confirmed that Respondent was subcontracted to install the plumbing at the jobsite. ANS Plumbing also confirmed that Mr. Feliciano of Respondent had an “exemption on file.”3/ Finding no insurance in place, Investigator Murvin contacted his supervisor, who directed him to issue the SWO. The SWO was issued and served on Mr. Feliciano/Respondent on September 7, 2016. Additionally, a business records request (BRR) was also served on Mr. Feliciano for Respondent’s business records. This BRR sought additional information concerning Respondent’s construction business between December 12, 2015 (the day after Mr. Feliciano’s exemption expired), through September 7, 2016 (the date the SWO issued). Respondent did not provide any business records to the Department in response to the BRR. The lack of business records compelled the Department to use the imputation formula to determine Respondent’s payroll. The Department assigned PA Richardson to calculate the appropriate penalty. For the penalty assessment calculation, PA Richardson consulted the classification codes listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Classification codes are assigned to various occupations to assist the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. Based on the information obtained from the jobsite, PA Richardson assigned the appropriate class code for plumbing, 5183.4/ PA Richardson determined the gross payroll for Respondent for the entire period of non-compliance, which included two separate periods of non-compliance, i.e., December 12, 2015, through December 31, 2015, and January 1 through September 2016. There were different rates for each period. PA Richardson then utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for those classification codes and the related periods of non-compliance. PA Richardson applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)l. and rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty of $6,859.70. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was engaged in the construction industry (specifically plumbing) in Florida between December 12, 2015, and September 7, 2016; that Respondent employed Mr. Feliciano; and that Respondent did not have the requisite workers’ compensation insurance or an exemption to cover Mr. Feliciano during the applicable period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services imposing a penalty of $6,859.70 against Respondent, David Feliciano, d/b/a D and S Handyman, Inc., a Dissolved Florida Corporation, and D and S Handyman, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 28th day of February, 2017.
The Issue Whether a civil penalty should be assessed against the Respondent, or whether the license held by Respondent should be suspended or revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Carolina Rosenberg, trading as Eastview Apartments, is licensed by the Petitioner, the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business Regulation, and is in business at 1530 Washington Avenue in Miami Beach, Florida. A Notice to Show Cause was issued by Petitioner on September 1, 1978, notifying Respondent that certain evidence, which, if true, is good and sufficient cause pursuant to Section 509.261, Florida Statutes, to assess a civil penalty against the Respondent, or to suspend or revoke her License #23- 5830H for failure to return a security deposit of $175.00 to Paul C. Kent and failure to provide a written notice making a claim against said security deposit. Paul C. Kent was a tenant in Eastview Apartments, Unit #518, from September of 1977, through June, 1978. As a condition of renting such unit, Mr. Kent was required to and did pay a security deposit in the amount of $175.00. Mr. Kent was not required to and did not sign a written lease, and at no time during his tenancy was he furnished with a copy of Section 83.49, Florida Statutes. He was not furnished with any specific address for Respondent Rosenberg, the owner, or for a person authorized to receive written notices on her behalf. Mr. Kent said that he gave the manager of Eastview Apartments thirty (30) days' oral notice of his intent to terminate his tenancy. Respondent Rosenberg was notified personally of his intention to terminate his tenancy two (2) weeks before the end of the last month for which he paid rent. No written notice was furnished to Mr. Kent of the Respondent's intention to impose a claim upon his security deposit, and such monies were not returned to him. Respondent Rosenberg testified that the tenant, Mr. Kent, had moved out in the middle of the month, that she felt she had the right to retain the security deposit for the expense of getting the apartment ready to lease again, and that Mr. Kent never came back to ask for the security deposit. Submitted into evidence without objection was a receipt for rental payments dated August 30, 1977, on which it was stated "Received from Paul C. Kent $50.00 for security deposit on 518," and "Balance due $125.00." Said receipt was signed by Kay Kukla, who was the manager of Eastview Apartments at that time. A receipt for $25.00, signed by said manager, was marked "Balance of security paid in full." The Petitioner Division submitted a memorandum of law. This instrument was considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed memorandum has not been adopted in, or is inconsistent with, factual findings in this order it has been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Respondent, Carolina Rosenberg, be assessed a fine of $200.00. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Jo. M. Gallay, Esquire Department oil Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Carolina Rosenberg c/o Eastview Apartments 1530 East Washington Avenue Miami Beach, Florida
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 475.025(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what the appropriate penalty is.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, O. Dane Streets was licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker having been issued License No. 0085710-1 for an address in Lakeland, Florida. In the Spring or early Summer of 1991, Nathan Price, a minister in Orlando, Florida, contacted Respondent to solicit Respondent's participation in representing Price's daughter, Melissa Howard, in purchasing real estate in Orlando. Price and Respondent have been business and social acquaintances for more than 10 years, and Price was helping his daughter and son-in-law in purchasing a home. The Howard's found a house they liked, Respondent obtained the listing information from the listing broker and prepared a contract for sale and purchase (Exhibit 1). As modified and accepted by all parties, this contract provided for a $1000 earnest money deposit to be held in escrow by Respondent's real estate company. In lieu of obtaining the deposit from Price or Howard, Respondent told Howard to give the earnest money deposit to the selling broker as all of the transactions were to be conducted in Orlando. The $1000 earnest money deposit was given to neither Respondent nor the listing broker, ReMax Southwest in Orlando. The failure of Respondent to follow up to insure that the earnest money deposit had been given to the listing broker in this transaction does not reach the status of fraud or dishonest dealing as Respondent had no such intent. Shortly before the August 21, 1991 closing date, Price advised Respondent that the mortgage lender was asking about the earnest money deposit. Respondent immediately obtained a cashier's check dated August 8, 1991 (Exhibit 2) in the amount of $1000 which Price presented at the closing on August 21, 1991. In his testimony, Respondent acknowledged that he erred in not obtaining the earnest money deposit or failing to check to be sure the deposit had been made with the listing broker. Since Respondent is located in Lakeland and the property being purchased is in Orlando when the closing was held, Respondent thought everything would be simplified if the deposit was held by the listing broker. When the listing broker learned that the deposit of $1000 had never been received by Respondent and placed in escrow, a complaint was made to the Florida Real Estate Commission, and these proceedings followed. Respondent has held licenses from the Florida Real Estate Commission for some 20 years, and this is the first time any charges have been brought against his license.
Recommendation It is Recommended that a Final Order be entered finding O. Dane Streets not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged. ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1992. Copies furnished to: Steven N. Johnson, Esquire Darlene F. Keller Division of Real Estate Division Director 400 W. Robinson Street Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801-1900 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801-1900 O. Dane Streets Post Office Box 6852 Jack McRay, Esquire Lakeland, FL 33807 Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the respondent on September 9, 1981 be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 11th day of May, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. Jordan, Esquire CONRAD, SCHERER & JAMES 707 Southeast Third Avenue Post Office Box 14723 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Philip Jansen, Esquire JANSEN & DE GANCE, P.A. Post Office Box 7375 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 Mr. C. B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Richard L. Faircloth has held a real estate salesman's license, No. SL 0407933, issued by petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, authorizing him to work, since July 16, 1990, as a salesman for Discount Realty-Fla., Inc., a corporate broker in Alachua, Florida, whose "qualifying broker" is respondent's wife, Lise H. Faircloth. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. On December 1, 1990, Alvin and Betty J. Wilson came to Mr. Faircloth's office in Alachua to sign a form deposit receipt and purchase and sale agreement, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, by which they offered to purchase a house on Northwest 18th Terrace in Gainesville; and they gave Mr. Faircloth five hundred dollars in cash, as earnest money. Mr. Faircloth did not recall at hearing whether he put the money in his pocket at that point, but the money was never deposited in an escrow or trust account. After Mr. and Mrs. Wilson left, Mr. Faircloth communicated their offer by telephone to a representative of the house's owner. The offer was declined. When he telephoned the Wilsons with the news, he asked them to come back to his office. With their return later that day, a conversation lasting about an hour and a half began, at the end of which the Wilsons authorized respondent and his broker to retain the earnest money deposit for use in the event respondent located another house they decided to make an offer to purchase. For the same purpose, Mrs. Wilson later wrote respondent a check in the amount of $1,500, which was duly deposited in the broker's escrow account. Shortly thereafter, respondent drew a check on the escrow account in Mr. Wilson's favor in the amount of $200 (so he could pay an electric bill), but the bank refused to cash it. Funds in the escrow account were insufficient, because the Wilsons' $1,500 check had bounced. Mr. Faircloth also wrote a check the Wilsons used as a deposit when they rented a truck to move into a duplex they rented from him. The deposit check was ultimately returned to respondent, without being cashed. (When the Wilsons moved, respondent regained possession of the dog he had earlier given the Wilsons' son. He was never reimbursed $78 he expended for the care and feeding of this dog, after it had become the Wilsons' property.) The Wilsons paid $450 a month, in advance, while they rented the duplex, and nobody ever asked for a security deposit. When Mrs. Wilson received a check from Beneficial National Bank (who lent money against an anticipated tax refund) in the amount of $1,466, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, she endorsed it in favor of respondent or the broker and, as far as the evidence showed, this money was put in escrow (although $200 might have been deducted beforehand.) In any event, respondent transferred $200 to the Wilsons more or less contemporaneously. Altogether, the Wilsons entrusted respondent with $1,776 ($500 + $1466 - $200 = $1,766) for possible use as earnest money. After Mr. and Mrs. Wilson bought a house respondent had shown them in December of 1990, but through another broker's office, without availing themselves of Mr. Faircloth's assistance in closing the transaction, they asked him to return the money they had given him. He gave them a check signed by his wife, drawn on a Discount Realty-Fla., Inc. account in the amount of $1,316, on which was written "return of deposit less 450 00/100 security." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. The check was dated April 17, 1991. At hearing, Mr. Faircloth testified that the $1,316 check to the Wilsons represented a $50 overpayment. He conceded that $450 had been improperly deducted from the moneys the Wilsons paid, as a claimed security deposit. But he contended that he and the Wilsons had agreed to a non- refundable, $500 "finder's fee" during their second visit on December 1, 1990. In fact, the Wilsons never agreed to any finder's fee, non-refundable or otherwise. At the time it was received, respondent and his wife gave two receipts for the Wilsons' $500. Each reflected that it was to be deposited as earnest money, and no subsequent writing indicated any different agreement between the parties. As late as April of 1991, respondent's conduct, notably delivery of the $1,316 check to the Wilsons, was inconsistent with the putative agreement about a finder's fee he testified to at hearing.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for one year. DONE and ENTERED this 14 day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. Copies furnished to: Janine Myrick, Esquire P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 33802 Richard L. Faircloth Post Office Box 1859 Alachua, FL 32615 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14 day of August, 1992. Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900
