Findings Of Fact John F. Cole, David J. Hayes and Andre LeClerc conveyed certain real estate situated in Broward County ("the property") to respondent by quitclaim deed dated December 16, 1976, and recorded on December 29, 1976. This instrument reflects payment of a documentary stamp tax in the amount of thirty cents ($0.30) as well as a documentary surtax. On September 30, 1971, Thomas N. Sprague and Peggy A. Sprague had mortgaged the property to Merle Ford to secure repayment of the principal sum of twenty-three thousand five hundred dollars ($23,500.00). On October 1, 1971, the Spragues mortgaged the property to Atlantic Federal Savings and Loan Association of Fort Lauderdale to secure repayment of the principal sum of one hundred three thousand dollars ($103,000.00) On November 21, 1973, John A. Kasbar, as trustee, mortgaged the property to the Spragues to secure repayment of the principal sum of twenty- three thousand one hundred dollars ($23,100.00) On June 5, 1969, Esther E. Adams conveyed the property by warranty deed to Andre LeClerc, as trustee. The warranty deed reflected payment of a documentary stamp tax in the amount of five hundred forty-three dollars ($543.00). The property which was the subject of these transactions is evidently worth a substantial sum of money, but the evidence fails to establish the value of the interest quitclaimed on December 16, 1976, and does not establish what consideration for the quitclaim deed was given, if any was given.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the notice of proposed assessment be withdrawn. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Mr. Ronald Payne, Esquire 621 South Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida
The Issue The issue is whether Section 11B(3) of the Florida Workers' Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2004 Second Edition, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The petitions filed by FFVA and TIC challenge the validity of Section 11B(3) of the 2004 Manual,4/ which prior to October 1, 2007, was adopted by reference as part of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501(1). Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501(1) was amended effective October 1, 2007, to adopt by reference the Florida Workers' Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition ("the 2006 Manual"). Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501(1), as it existed when the petitions were filed and as it currently exists, adopts by reference the 2006 Manual, not the 2004 Manual. The 2004 Manual is no longer adopted by reference as part of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501, or any other rule. AHCA applied the 2004 Manual in the reimbursement dispute initiated by HRMC against FFVA under Section 440.13, Florida Statutes, as reflected in the determination letter issued by AHCA on October 24, 2007, which was attached to FFVA's petition. The reimbursement dispute is the subject of the pending DOAH Case No. 07-5414. AHCA applied the 2004 Manual in a reimbursement dispute involving TIC under Section 440.13, Florida Statutes, as reflected in the determination letter issued by AHCA on January 9, 2008, which was attached to TIC's petition. The reimbursement dispute is the subject of the pending DOAH Case No. 08-0703.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Stipulated Facts, Supplemental Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Banking and Finance, enter a final order that the following disbursements from the Mortgage Broker Guaranty Fund be made Payee on the claims against Polk Investments, Inc.: Amount Amendolaro $ 2,661,22 Victorias 10,000.00 Fournier, Janice 10,000.00 Wilson 1,334.71 Ledfords 6,573.09 Fournier, Robert 10,000.00 Murphy 4,715.49 Murphy as Trustee 4,715.49 Total $50,000.00 RECOMMENDED this 13th day of November, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSON, 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 13th day of November, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul C. Stadler, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis P. Johnson, Esquire SHELNUT AND JOHNSON, P.A. Suite One Belvedere Professional Center 1525 South Florida Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33806-2436 Cristy F. Harris, Esquire HARRIS, MIDYETTE & CLEMENTS, P.A. Post Office Box 2451 Lakeland, Florida 33806-2451 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles Stutts General Counsel Plaza Level The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Joseph John Ripa, committed the offenses alleged in a First Amended Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services, on May 11, 2006, and amended on October 16, 2006, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals licensed to conduct insurance business in Florida. Ch. 626, Fla. Stat.1 Respondent Joseph John Ripa was, at the times relevant, licensed in Florida as a life and health (2-18) insurance agent. Mr. Ripa's license number is A220906. At the times relevant to this matter, Mr. Ripa was associated as an agent with Fidelity Assurance, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Fidelity Assurance"), an insurance agency. As an agent for Fidelity Assurance, Mr. Ripa sold annuities, including equity indexed annuities, to a target clientele of individuals 65 years of age or older. Equity Indexed Annuities. Very broadly speaking, an "annuity" is an insurance/investment product whereby a person invests money in exchange for regular payments over a period certain, over one or more specified individuals' lifetimes, or over a combination of life(s) and a period certain. There are two primary types of annuities: one is called a "fixed" annuity because payments are made in fixed amounts or in amounts that increase by a fixed percentage; the other is called a "variable" annuity because payments vary according to the investment performance of a specific type of investments, typically bond and equity mutual funds. Fixed annuities maybe "deferred" or "immediate." With a deferred fixed annuity, an investment of money is made and the earnings thereon are deferred both in payment and for tax purposes until payment at a later time. An immediate fixed annuity is one where an investment of money is made and payments (a potion of principal and earnings) begin immediately. Immediate annuities usually have "mortality" component also: upon the death of the annuitant, payments are made to a beneficiary. Within the past ten years or so, equity indexed deferred annuities, a form of fixed annuity, has been developed and marketed in Florida. The features of this type of annuity are far more complex than the traditional fixed annuity. For any annuity, and especially an equity indexed deferred annuity, a prospective annuitant must understand a number of things about the annuity: (a) the overall product features; (b) investing; (c) tax impacts of the annuity; (d) the projected rates of return and how certain those rates are; (e) the risks associated with the insurance company, or "credit risk"; (f) liquidity of the investment; and (g) fees or costs associated with the annuity. There are several features of deferred annuity products, including equity indexed deferred annuities, which can have adverse consequences for some annuitants: (a) it is far more complex than traditional fixed annuities; (b) the uncertainty of the return on the annuitant's investment; (c) the treatment of income from the annuity as ordinary income rather than capital gains; (d) the treatment for tax purposes to beneficiaries (no stepped-up basis or capital gains); (e) the lack of liquidity and surrender charges; (f) inflexibility in changing or "rebalancing" the mix of assets invested in; and (g) fees associated with the annuity. Count I: The VandenBosch Transactions. In December 2003 Mr. Ripa met with Emil and Georgette VandenBosch at their Boynton Beach, Florida home. Emil was 88 years of age at the time and Georgette was 89 years of age. While the evidence failed to prove their exact net worth, they were retired and of relatively modest means.2 As a consequence of the December 2003 meeting, Mr. Ripa sold a fixed deferred annuity in the amount of $108,900.69, contract number 449001, from American Investors Life Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "American Investors")(hereinafter referred to as the "First VandenBosch Annuity"). The annuitant was Georgette VandenBosch. The First VandenBosch Annuity, while allowing up to a 10 percent withdrawal from the annuity, after the first year the annuity was in force, once a year. For any other withdrawal from the annuity the contract provided for a 12 percent, 12-year declining surrender charge. Consequently, in order for the VandenBosches to fully access the annuity without penalty, Ms. VandenBosch would have to live until she was at least 101 years of age. Her life expectancy at the time she purchased the First VandenBosch Annuity was only 5.35 years, a fact that Mr. Ripa knew or should have been aware of. The sale of the First VandenBosch Annuity generated commissions of $7,895.30 for Mr. Ripa or his agency, Fidelity Assurance. In January 2004, Mr. Ripa again met with the VandenBosches, this time selling them a $26,520.11 deferred annuity, half in a traditional fixed annuity and half in an equity indexed annuity, contract number 449729, from American Investors (hereinafter referred to as the "Second VandenBosch Annuity"). The annuitant was Emil VandenBosch. Within four months after purchasing the Second VandenBosch Annuity, Mr. VandenBosch, through Mr. Ripa, invested an additional $22,200.00 into the annuity, for a total investment of $48,620.11. The Second VandenBosch Annuity, while allowing up to a 10 percent withdrawal of the annuity once a year after the first year, provided for a 12 percent, 10-year declining surrender charge for any other withdrawals. Consequently, in order for Mr. VandenBosch to fully access the annuity without penalty, Mr. VandenBosch would have to live until he was at least 99 years of age. His life expectancy at the time he purchased his annuity was only 4.85 years, a fact that Mr. Ripa knew or should have been aware of. The sale of the Second VandenBosch Annuity generated commissions of $4,862.02 for Mr. Ripa or his agency, Fidelity Assurance. It has been the practice of the VandenBosches, that Mr. VandenBosch handled all financial transactions impacting the family. It is, therefore, inferred that Mr. VandenBosch was responsible for the purchase of the First and Second VandenBosch Annuities. While neither Emil nor Georgette VandenBosch testified at the hearing of this matter,3 one of their children, Donald VandenBosch did. While much of his testimony constituted hearsay, not subject to any exception under Chapter 90, Florida Statutes,4 he did testify credibly that Mr. VandenBosch was, at the times relevant to this matter, experiencing declining health. His declining health included macular degeneration, which impacted his eye sight, and a decline in his mental capacity. While the evidence failed to prove clearly and convincingly that Mr. VandenBosch was unable to read the documents involved with the purchase of the First and Second VandenBosch Annuities, it is found that, due to his declining mental capacity and the complexity of the contracts for the annuities, Mr. VandenBosch relied heavily, if not exclusively, on Mr. Ripa's representations concerning the policies Mr. Ripa sold them. In January 2005, the VandenBosches, along with their son, Donald VandenBosch, arranged to meet with Ripa. During that meeting the VandenBosches told Mr. Ripa that they desired to access their investments and needed his assistance to avoid the high penalties associated with withdrawals.5 Mr. Ripa accurately explained that the only way to avoid the surrender penalties and access their investments currently would be to make a once-a-year withdrawal of up to 10 percent of the annuities. After emphasizing to Mr. Ripa that they did not want to incur any penalties, Mr. Ripa was instructed to arrange for them to make a 10 percent withdrawal from the First VandenBosch Annuity, which Mr. Ripa explained would amount to the equivalent of approximately $950.00 to $970.00 per month. At no time during the meeting was their any instruction given to Mr. Ripa to arrange for the cancellation of either of the annuities or the purchase of any other product. Mr. Ripa agreed to prepare the necessary paperwork to carry out the VandenBosches' instructions. The events of the January 2005 meeting support a finding that the First and Second VandenBosch Annuities did not meet the VandenBosches' financial goals and were not suitable investments for them. In particular, it is inferred that the VandenBosches did not want to invest in a product that so severely restricted their access to their assets. Despite the clear instructions to Mr. Ripa concerning the VandenBosches' wishes,6 Mr. Ripa presented the VandenBosches with forms for their execution subsequent to their January 2005 meeting which resulted in the cancellation of the First VandenBosch Annuity and the purchase of a new immediate fixed annuity from American Investors, contract number 473129. As a result of these transactions, the VandenBosches incurred a surrender penalty of $11,301.65, the very result they had explicitly told Mr. Ripa they wished to avoid. The monthly payments received by the VandenBosches through the newly purchased fixed annuity were very close to the amount of money they would have received by taking a penalty- free yearly withdrawal and dividing that amount on a monthly basis. There was, therefore, no apparent reason why the VandenBosches would have incurred the penalty of $11,301.65 imposed upon them for canceling the First VandenBosch Annuity. These transactions were carried out by Mr. Ripa despite instructions to contrary, despite the severe penalty incurred by the VandenBosches, and without any discernable reason. It is, therefore, inferred that Mr. Ripa, at best, simply failed to adequately explain the transactions or, at worst, deceived the VandenBosches into believing the documents he provided for their signature were consistent with their instructions during the January 2005 meeting. Count II: The Tuinstra Transaction. In May of 2004, Gerald Tuinstra met with Mr. Ripa at his Boynton Beach home. Mr. Tuinstra was 83 years of age at the time. His wife, Marcella, was 80 years of age and had recently moved into a nursing home. Mr. Tuinstra contacted Mr. Ripa because he was interested in creating an income source with money he had received from the sale of some property. He wanted to create an income source in order to help with the funding of his wife's nursing home expenses, while avoiding the exhaustion of his limited assets. Additionally, Mr. Tuinstra was interested in protecting his property against possible loss which might be caused by the need to seek government funding for his wife's nursing home costs. At the time of his meeting with Mr. Ripa, the money which Mr. Tuinstra was interested in investing was deposited in a bank where it was earning approximately 4 percent interest. Mr. Tuinstra explained his investment goals to Mr. Ripa during their meeting and Mr. Ripa assured him that both goals could be achieved through products offered by Mr. Ripa. As to the goal of creating an income source, Mr. Ripa told Mr. Tuinstra that he would earn 7.37 percent interest on his investment for the first year and would likely earn more in following years. Mr. Ripa told Mr. Tuinstra that he would receive $391.05 per month, writing this amount on notes he left with Mr. Tuinstra. Mr. Ripa did not inform Mr. Tuinstra that the annuity he was proposing was subject to the risk of earning even less then he was currently earning from his bank account or even earning nothing. Mr. Ripa also assured Mr. Tuinstra that his investment would be protected, meeting his second investment goal. Based upon Mr. Ripa's representations, which were, at best, misleading, Mr. Tuinstra purchased a $40,000.00 equity indexed deferred annuity from American Investors, contract number 458412, recommended by Mr. Ripa (hereinafter referred to as the "Tuinstra Annuity"). Mr. Tuinstra's wife was made the annuitant. The money used to make this purchase constituted substantially all of Mr. Tuinstra's liquid assets. The commission on the sale of the Tuinstra Annuity was $4,200.00. The Tuinstra Annuity provided for a 17 percent surrender charge for the first three years of the contract, declining to a 3 percent charge in the 13th year. Mr. Tuinstra's life expectancy at the time of the purchase was 6.65 years. Mr. Tuinstra was not informed of these provisions of the contract by Mr. Ripa during their meeting. In fact, Mr. Ripa led Mr. Tuinstra to believe that he would be receiving monthly payments throughout the term of the annuity. The Tuinstra Annuity that Mr. Ripa had assured Mr. Tuinstra would provide the monthly income he desired, actually failed to provide for any payment. The only provision for a return of his investment without penalty during the first 13 years of the contract was the allowance of a 10 percent withdrawal, after the first year of the contract, on an annual basis, which was not what Mr. Tuinstra asked for or was told he was limited to. When the actual contract for the Tuinstra Annuity was received by Mr. Tuinstra from American Investors, he read the contract and realized that much of what Mr. Ripa had told him about what he was purchasing was incorrect. He then began making efforts to cancel the policy, which he was ultimately able to do. It was during these efforts that he learned for the first time about the withdrawal penalties, not from reading the rather lengthy contract, but from an unidentified man he spoke to about the contract at Fidelity Assurance. Count III: The Putnam Transaction. In March of 2005, the son of Louis Bruno, who was 90 years of age at the time, was pursuing court proceedings to be appointed Mr. Bruno's guardian. Mr. Bruno was living in Boyton Beach, Florida at the time with his companion of 15 or so years, Irene Putnam. Due to his advanced age and lack of short-term memory, Mr. Bruno was unable to manage his own finances, instead, relying upon Ms. Putnam, who had a power of attorney from Mr. Bruno. Ms. Putnam was 82 years of age at that time. At some time shortly before a hearing was scheduled to be held on the guardianship matter, Ms. Putnam and Mr. Bruno discussed the upcoming proceeding with Mr. Ripa, whom Mr. Bruno and Ms. Putnam had known as a friend for a number of years. Mr. Ripa agreed to testify at the court proceeding on behalf of Mr. Bruno. At some point during their discussion, Mr. Ripa asked Mr. Bruno and Ms. Putnam whether they realized that, if Mr. Bruno lost the court proceeding, his son would have authority over all of his assets, including $18,000.00, which Mr. Bruno maintained in two separate bank accounts. This money represented Mr. Bruno's liquid assets at the time. The possibility of losing control of his money was not something that Mr. Bruno or Ms. Putnam had considered and, in response to Mr. Ripa's warning, they asked him if he knew how they could avoid this result. Mr. Ripa told Mr. Bruno and Ms. Putnam that he knew how the money could be protected until after the proceeding. They unequivocally explained to Mr. Ripa that they did want to protect the money, but for only a short period of time. Their intent, which was fully explained to Mr. Ripa, was to re-take possession of the money immediately after the guardianship proceeding ended, in which they expected to prevail. Instead of carrying out Mr. Bruno's clear, unequivocal goal, Mr. Ripa, no more than two or three days before the March 2005 guardian proceeding, sold Mr. Bruno an $18,000.00 equity indexed deferred annuity from American Investors, contract number 476076, with Ms. Putnam as the annuitant7 (hereinafter the "Putnam Annuity"). The Putnam Annuity provided for penalties for withdrawal of the annuity during the first 10 years of the contract, starting at 12 percent during the first year and declining thereafter. Ms. Putnam, whose life expectancy was 8.45 years, would have had to survive to age 92 in order to withdraw the full annuity without penalty. Mr. Bruno would have had to live to age 100 to do so. The commission on the sale of the Putnam Annuity was $1,800.00. Following Mr. Bruno's successful defense of the guardianship proceeding, Ms. Putnam spoke to Mr. Ripa about the retrieval of the $18,000.00 investment. Having received the actual contract, however, Ms. Putnam realized that the Putnam Annuity was not what Mr. Bruno and she had believed they were purchasing. Indeed, having relied totally on Mr. Ripa to protect Mr. Bruno's money for a very short time, including allowing him to complete all of the paperwork for them, she had not even realized that Mr. Bruno had purchased an annuity of any kind prior to receiving the contract. In response to her inquiry, Mr. Ripa suggested that Ms. Putnam have Mr. Bruno surrender another annuity which he owned, one without surrender charges, thereby obtaining cash for his immediate needs and avoiding any surrender charges on the Putnam Annuity. While this suggestion would have allowed Mr. Bruno to replace the $18,000.00 he had tied up in the Putnam Annuity, it was not an option that had ever been discussed with Mr. Bruno or Ms. Putnam and was contrary to what they had requested that Mr. Ripa do with the $18,000.00. Count IV: The LaValley Transactions. In September 2005, Mr. Ripa met with Virginia LaValley at her Boyton Beach, Florida home. Ms. LaValley, who lived alone, was 75 years of age at the time. Ms. LaValley had been evidencing signs of dementia as early as 2003, and her symptoms had continued to increase up to the time Mr. Ripa met with her.8 She had begun to have difficulty remembering simple words to describe objects as early as 2003. During 2005 (prior to September), she had expressed the belief that a computer-generated form letter had been personally written to her; she had begun piling her mail on the dining room table rather than deal with it; she believed that she would "go to jail" if she threw out any of the mail sent to her; she had sealed return envelopes from solicitations she had received and written words to the effect that she would not mail them until the addressees provided her with stamps, a demand that the addressees could not be aware of without the letters being mailed to them, a fact that Ms. LaValley did not understand; and she had stopped reconciling her checkbook or otherwise keeping up with her personal finances.9 Janet Yocum, a friend and an individual who had sold annuities to Ms. LaValley in the 1990's, noticed as early as 2003 that Ms. LaValley was having difficulty following simple instructions concerning the completion and return of a form that Ms. Yocum had sent to Ms. LaValley. It was obvious to Ms. Yocum, although she did not see Ms. LaValley on a regular basis, that Ms. LaValley was losing her ability to understand even simple matters long before Mr. Ripa's meeting with Ms. LaValley. While Mr. Ripa was not aware of some of the foregoing events, it is found that Ms. LaValley's state of health in September 2005 should have been evident to Mr. Ripa when he met with her. If nothing else, Mr. Ripa should have realized that Ms. LaValley was not capable of understanding the complexities of fixed annuity contracts, much less equity indexed deferred annuity contracts. Despite what must have been obvious to him, Mr. Ripa convinced Ms. LaValley during his September 2005 meeting to surrender six annuities which she had purchased from Jackson National Life Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Jackson National") between 1993 and 1997. Mr. Ripa also convinced Ms. LaValley to use the proceeds from the Jackson National annuities, which were old enough to avoid any surrender charges for their surrender and provided for a minimum return of at least 3 percent, to purchase two American Investors annuities (hereinafter referred to jointly as the "LaValley Annuities"). One of the LaValley Annuities, contract number 499901, was an equity indexed deferred annuity for which Ms. LaValley paid $19,500.00. The other, contract number 500794, was also an equity indexed deferred annuity in the amount of $19,079.49. Both provided surrender penalties over 15 years, with a penalty for the first year of 19 percent. Ms. LaValley, whose life expectancy at the time was 12.6 years, would have to live until she was 91 years of age to avoid any surrender penalty. The minimum interest on the annuities was 2 percent compared to the minimum 3 percent rate of the Jackson National policies. During his meeting with Ms. LaValley, Mr. Ripa gave her a company brochure from American Investors' parent, "Amerus." There were a number of handwritten notations on the brochure written by Mr. Ripa. One notation indicates "7%" and is followed by Mr. Ripa's initials. Next the heading "Fixed Strategy" is the notation "3%." While there was no evidence explaining what was said about these notations, they all emphasize "positive" aspects or selling points for the annuity products sold to Ms. LaValley. What Ms. LaValley took from the meeting and, likely, the notations, is that she would be earning 7 percent each year on the LaValley Annuities.10 As further evidence of her declining mental state, when Ms. LaValley received a letter from American Investors' parent company within two weeks after purchasing the LaValley Annuities congratulating her on her purchases. Ms. LaValley, apparently not realizing what the letter meant, wrote a note dated "10/4/200[5]"11 on it stating that "I do not want American Investors Life. Please Cancel." Her signature followed this note. This letter, with her handwritten reply, was returned to American Investors. Whether Ms. LaValley intended to "cancel" the LaValley Annuities or simply thought the letter was a solicitation to purchase insurance is not clear. If the former, she clearly evidenced intent to cancel the LaValley Annuities; if the latter, she evidenced a lack of understanding about what she had done only two weeks before. American Investors apparently treated Ms. LaValley's instructions literally as evidence of her intent to cancel the LaValley Policies, apparently informing Mr. Ripa. Mr. Ripa then revisited Ms. LaValley and prepared a letter for her signature repudiating her attempt to cancel the annuities. The letter, Petitioner's Exhibit 10, was faxed from Fidelity Assurance's fax machine on October 13, 2005. The Unsuitability of the VandenBosch, Tuinstra, Putnam and LaValley Annuities. Given the ages of the annuitants at the time of the purchase of the various annuities at issue in this case (all except one of which were equity indexed deferred annuities; the other was a deferred fixed annuity), their relatively modest financial situations, the long-term nature of the annuities and the high penalties associated with accessing their investments should the need arise (all of the individuals involved would have had to outlive their life expectancies in order to access their investments without penalty), the VandenBosch Annuities, the Tuinstra Annuity, the Putnam Annuity, and the LaValley Annuities were not suitable investments for those individuals, a fact which Mr. Ripa knew or should have known. The foregoing conclusion is also supported by the VandenBosches' efforts not too long after purchasing their annuities to unsuccessfully access their investments and their expression of disappointment upon learning of the severe withdrawal penalties associated with accessing their investments; Mr. Tuinstra's explanation of his intended investment goals when he purchased his annuity and the failure of the Tuinstra Annuity to meet those goals; Ms. Putnam's and Mr. Bruno's explanation of their intended short-term investment goal when the Putnam Annuity was purchased and the failure of the Putnam Annuity to meet that goal; and Ms. LaValley's obvious impaired ability to understand the nature of the transactions carried out by Mr. Ripa, transactions that make no sense from a financial point of view. Finally, the conclusion that the investments at issue in this case were sold to inappropriate purchasers is based upon the obvious failure of Mr. Ripa to perform a basic suitability analysis at the time he sold the annuities to the any of the individual involved or, if he did perform such an analysis, his failure to recognize that the annuities were not a suitable investment for those individuals. The VandenBosches, the Tuinstras, Ms. Putnam and Mr. Bruno, and Ms. LaValley were all individuals of somewhat advanced age and modest financial resources. It is hard to imagine how Mr. Ripa could have performed the type of financial risk analysis he should have performed for these individuals and still concluded that the annuities sold to them were appropriate. None of the individuals were looking for such long-term investments and it was proved that some expressed interest in short-term investments or investments that would create an immediate income stream: the VandenBosches expressed their desire for a return of their funds shortly after Mr. Ripa sold them their annuities; Mr. Tuinstra testified convincingly of his desired investment outcome (income producing and asset protection); and Ms. Putnam testified convincingly that she and Mr. Bruno only wanted to protect his funds for a few weeks. Despite these known goals, Mr. Ripa sold the VandenBosches, the Tuinstras, and Ms. Putnam and Mr. Bruno a product which did nothing but thwart those goals. Jurisdiction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department finding that Joseph John Ripa violated the provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, described, supra, requiring that he pay an administrative fine of $40,000.00 and revoking his licensure as a life and health agent. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2007.
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Maxey Roger Watson, is guilty of violations of Sections 626.561, 626.611(3), 626.621(2), 626.611(9), 626.611(10), 626.621(6) and 626.611(7), Florida Statutes, through his business transactions with James B. Galloway. Whether or not the Respondent, Maxey Roger Watson, is guilty of violations of Sections 626.561, 626.611(3), 626.621(2), 626.611(9), 626.61L(10), 626.621(6) and 626.611(7), Florida Statutes, through his business transactions with Nancy E. Galloway.
Findings Of Fact THIS CAUSE comes on for consideration based upon the Administrative Complaint filed by the State of Florida, Office of Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner, against Maxey Roger Watson. The case number before the State of Florida, Office of Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner is Case No. 78-L-42K. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Office of Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner, is an agency of the State of Florida having among other functions the regulation of the insurance industry operating in the State of Florida. The authority for such regulation is found in Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, Maxey Roger Watson, is licensed by the Petitioner in the various categories of licenses set forth in the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The facts in this case reveal that between January of 1974 and April of 1977, inclusive, one James B. Galloway of Lake Butler, Florida, had been issued policy number VA 33672 through the Hartford Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company. During that same period, Nancy E. Galloway of Lake Butler, Florida, had been issued policy number VA 33671 with the Hartford Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company. Those two policies were part of an annuity program which the Respondent's company, First Jacksonville Corporation, had negotiated for the benefit of the Galloways and other employees of the Union County, Florida, School Board. During the time periods pertinent to this administrative complaint, the Respondent, Maxey R. Watson, was the majority stockholder of First Jacksonville Corporation, and did business as First Jacksonville Corporation. In addition, he was knowledgeable of the negotiations concerning the aforementioned Galloway policies. The specific terms and conditions of the arrangement which First Jacksonville Corporation had with the Union County School Board were to the effect that the payment of the premiums on the annuity plan would be handled by a payroll deduction from the warrants of the employees in the category of the Galloways. In turn, this money for the premium payments would be transmitted to First Jacksonville Corporation. First Jacksonville Corporation would then be responsible for the transmittal of the premium payments to the Hartford Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company and commissions would be forwarded to the First Jacksonville Corporation upon receipt of the premium payments. Another aspect of the arrangement, in theory, was to have the Hartford Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company submit billings for the premium payments directly to the First Jacksonville Corporation to aid the First Jacksonville Corporation in determining the amounts to be submitted to the insurer. However, even without those billing statements the premiums belonged to the insurer and were to be transmitted to it by First Jacksonville Corporation. Between January of 1974 and April of 1977, inclusive, the Union County School Board paid the premium payments on the policies of the Galloways to Maxey Roger Watson d/b/a First Jacksonville Corporation. The amount of the premium payments in this time sequence was a total of $2,164.00 for James B. Galloway and $2,164.00 for Nancy E. Galloway. These amounts, set forth as premium payments due and owing to the Hartford Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company on the accounts of the Galloways, were never remitted by First Jacksonville Corporation to the Hartford Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company, notwithstanding the obligation of the Respondent through his company to do so. The money received as premium payments on the Galloway accounts was placed in a bank account of the First Jacksonville Corporation and it was kept there together with other monies than the Galloway premiums. The Respondent had access to this bank account and used the proceeds of the premiums for personal and business reasons. The Respondent's explanation of why he used the premium payments for purposes of his own is tied in with his contention that the Hartford Insurance Group was acting unreasonably when it forwarded the billing statements on the accounts such as the Galloways directly to the Union County School Board, as opposed to the First Jacksonville Corporation, which had been agreed to. Respondent found out about this problem in 1973. He then began to take steps to have the arrangement changed to send premium notices directly to the various school boards he dealt with and have them remit the premiums directly to the insurance company and remove his organization from the responsibility. Nonetheless, the problem with the non-payment of premiums from First Jacksonville Corporation to the Hartford Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company continued to exist from 1973 through April of 1977 related to the accounts of the Galloways. During the pendency of that time period the Respondent used the Galloways' premiums for personal and business purposes, knowing that he was obligated to remit the premiums to the Hartford Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company. The Respondent was responsible for the bookkeeping of the First Jacksonville Corporation during the period of January of 1974 through and including April of 1977 and had the further expertise of being a licensed C.P.A. in the State of Florida. The Respondent had what he characterized as being an open-ended invoicing system for dealing with the premium payments. Under this system, according to the Respondent, it was difficult to ascertain what premium payments were due and owing to the various insurance companies, unless First Jacksonville Corporation received current billing statements on the amounts due and owing to the insurer. However, under the circumstances, the action of the Respondent in not remitting the Galloway premium payments to the Hartford Insurance Group constituted a willful violation of the provisions of the Insurance Code under Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. In view of these facts, the Petitioner has charged the Respondent with various violations of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, in his transactions with James B. Galloway and Nancy E. Galloway. The first allegation pertains to Section 626.561, Florida Statutes. The Respondent has violated the conditions of that section in that he took the trust funds constituted of the premium payments in behalf of the Galloways and failed to account for and pay those premium payments to the insurer in the regular course of business and, not being lawfully entitled to those premiums, diverted and appropriated the funds to his own use. The complaint next alleges that the Respondent violated Section 626.611(13), Florida Statutes. That provision has been violated because the Respondent has willfully failed to comply with the requirements of Section 626.561, Florida Statutes, for the reasons stated above. The Administrative Complaint makes an allegation that the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 626.611(9), Florida Statutes. This allegation has been established because the evidential facts show the Respondent is guilty of fraud and dishonest practices in the conduct of the business transactions involving the Galloways. A further allegation of the Administrative Complaint concerns an alleged violation of Section 626.611(10), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is guilty of a violation of that provision in that he misappropriated, converted and unlawfully withheld monies belonging to the Hartford Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company in the matter of the premium payments of the Galloways. There is an allegation that the Respondent has violated the provision of Section 626.621(6), Florida Statutes. Likewise, the Respondent has been shown to be guilty of that provision in that he has shown himself to be a source of injury or loss to the public or a detriment to the public's interest in his willful conversion and misappropriation of the Galloway premium payments to his own use, when those payments were properly to be remitted to the Hartford Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company. Finally, the Respondent has been charged with the violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes. That substantive allegation is one that the Respondent has demonstrated a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. Taking into account all of the facts of this case, this contention of the Administrative Complaint has been shown.
Recommendation It is recommended that the various licenses held by the Respondent, Maxey Roger Watson a/k/a Maxey Roger Watson, stated in the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2, be revoked. This recommendation takes into account the facts reported herein and the additional consideration of the Respondent's failure to comply with an agreement to repay the Hartford Insurance Group the premiums due on the Galloway accounts after entering into such agreement to make whole the Hartford Insurance Group. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edward L. Kutter, Esquire Office of the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner 428-A Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Frederick B. Tygart, Esquire Suite 400, Fletcher Building 100 Riverside Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32204
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Vivian Lide, is a licensed real estate broker holding license number 0157178, issued by the Petitioner. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction over licensure of real estate salesmen, broker-salesmen and brokers and regulation of their licensure status and professional practices and operations. In late 1975, or early 1976, Mrs. Eunice McCallum moved with her husband to the Miami area from Canada. When they arrived in Miami, Mrs. McCallum and her husband were referred to the Respondent by a business associate of Mrs. McCallum's husband to obtain her services in locating a home for them to purchase. They sought the Respondent's services and the Respondent located a house they liked and felt they could afford. They closed the purchase of the house in January, 1976. The McCallums were short of cash and therefore gave a second mortgage and note to the corporation of which the Respondent was a shareholder and officer for the balance of cash they needed to close the sale. After giving the second mortgage they were still $300 short of money needed to close and so Mrs. McCallum borrowed the $300 from the Respondent herself, giving back a note. That note was later satisfied. During the ensuing year, Mrs. McCallum and the Respondent became good friends. Mrs. Lide was the only friend that Mrs. McCallum had in Florida at that time and she often confided in her regarding her marital and financial problems. In later 1977, Mrs. McCallum's financial posture began to go awry and her severe marital problems culminated in her divorce. Mrs. Lide, through her friendship with Mrs. McCallum, was familiar with her financial and marital situation at this time and was a witness on her behalf in the dissolution proceeding. Because of her severe financial problems and as a result of the dissolution of her marriage, Mrs. McCallum felt that she had to sell her house in order to stabilize her financial situation. Accordingly, on December 14, 1977, she entered into an exclusive listing contract with the Respondent to sell the subject residence located at 10400 S.W. 155th Terrace, Miami, Florida. The listing contract enumerates a sale price of $38,000. The Respondent advised Mrs. McCallum to sell her residence because her first and second mortgage payments were both in delinquency and this was the only way she had to recoup her financial deficit. Thirty-eight thousand dollars was determined by Mrs. Lide and agreed by Mrs. McCallum to be the price which would allow her to pay off both mortgages and recoup a small amount of cash in her pocket. On approximately January 10, 1978, a realtor, Jack Rosha, came to Mrs. McCallum's home with Mrs. McCallum and the Respondent present and brought an offer to purchase the property. The evidence is unclear regarding the precise amount of the offer, it was either $39,000.00 or $39,500.00. Rosha represented to the Respondent and Mrs. McCallum that he had received a deposit or binder from his client, but refused to disclose to the Respondent, who represented Mrs. McCallum, whether he had actually placed a binder deposit in his escrow account and Mrs. Lide felt that it was not truly a bona fide offer. In any event, she advised Mrs. McCallum that since it proposed a purchase financed through a Veterans Administration loan, which would require the seller paying a substantial amount of money as "points" (a fee required to be paid by the seller in order for the Veterans Administration to finance the purchase), then the offer would not allow her enough money to retire the two mortgages and have any cash for herself. After this meeting and several phone conversations this offer and a later offer were rejected for this reason and no sales transaction was ever consummated with Jack Rosha's clients. Some weeks later, with Mrs. McCallum's financial difficulties unresolved as yet, Mrs. McCallum and the Respondent entered into an agreement whereby Mrs. Lide, on behalf of her corporation, would forebear requiring payments on the outstanding second mortgage, which was delinquent, and would allow Mrs. McCallum to retain possession of the property in return for which Mrs. McCallum would execute a quit claim deed to Mrs. Lide and would pay her first mortgage payments to Mrs. Lide in order for Mrs. Lide to ascertain that the property and the mortgages encumbering it were secure and that payments thereon were being kept current. As a Part of this agreement, Mrs. Lide assured Mrs. McCallum that she could redeem the property at any time when she paid off the delinquent amounts on the mortgages, thus redeeming the property without paying any additional purchase price fees or profit to Mrs. Lide. With this arrangement in mind, the parties met in late January, 1978, before a notary and executed the required transfer of title document to file with Stockton, Whatley and Davin (the first mortgagee), and Mrs. McCallum executed a quit claim deed in favor of Mrs. Lide. At this meeting, the notary duly notarized the documents and asked Mrs. McCallum if she understood the import of what she was signing and the contents thereof. Mrs. McCallum gave every indication that she understood the nature and purpose of the transaction at that time. Some months later, a dispute arose as to amounts of money which remained due on the first and second mortgages between Mrs. McCallum and Mrs. Lide and Mrs. McCallum demanded an accounting of the amounts paid Mrs. Lide and the amounts remaining due, at which point relations between the two parties became strained, with the ultimate result that Mrs. McCallum filed suit against Mrs. Lide in Circuit Court. The ultimate result of the Circuit Court action was that the quit claim deed was set aside and the judge awarded a judgment in favor of Mrs. Lide for in excess of $11,000.00, representing the amounts found by the judge due to the Respondent from Mrs. McCallum, representing the first and second mortgage payments due up to that point. It was in the course of these proceedings, after the parties had become hostile to each other, that Mrs. Lide instituted the corollary eviction action against Mrs. McCallum. Although Mrs. McCallum represented at the hearing that she signed the quit claim deed without knowing what she was signing and with the content of the deed concealed by another piece of paper so that she could only see the signature line, this testimony is belied by that of Mrs. Lide. Mrs. Lide disclosed the entire nature of the transaction to Mrs. McCallum and the purpose of it, which was to both protect her security interest in the property and to enable Mrs. McCallum to avoid foreclosure, to remain living in the premises and still have the opportunity to redeem the property upon bringing both mortgages current. The testimony and evidence adduced by the Respondent regarding her desire to protect her security interests and still help her former friend, to stabilize her financial situation and still have a place to live, coupled with the testimony which establishes that the notary asked Mrs. McCallum if she understood the content and import of the papers she was signing, obtaining Mrs. McCallum's assent, establishes Mrs. Lide's account of the circumstances surrounding this transaction to be more accurate and worthy of belief. The Hearing Officer finds the testimony of Mrs. McCallum to be too colored by the later hostility that arose between her and the Respondent concerning the accounting for monies owed the Respondent to constitute testimony sufficiently substantial and credible to refute the contrary testimony and evidence adduced by the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against Vivian Lide be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 23rd day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore J. Silver, Esquire 9445 S.W. Bird Road, 2nd Floor Miami, Florida 33165 Harold Barkas, Esquire 600 Concord Building Miami, Florida 33130 William M. Furlow, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found Upon the suggestion of a special investigator with the Department of Insurance, a letter dated April 23, 1984, and signed by Northeast Regional Director Thomas P. Poston was written to the respondent at the address listed for him in the Tallahassee licensing office. This letter advised the respondent that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer had received complaints from Orange and Seminole Counties that he was recruiting clients during initial court appearances and that this appeared to be a violation of Section 648.44(b) of the Florida Statutes. The letter admonished respondent to immediately terminate such solicitation and advised him that any additional complaints would bring further action. The evidence does not establish whether respondent received this letter of April 23, 1984. The respondent was involved in another administrative proceeding with the petitioner, the facts of which were not brought into evidence in the instant proceeding. In the former proceeding, Case No. 84-L-3155, a Consent Order was entered which required respondent to pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 and placed him on probation for a period of one year with the condition that he strictly adhere to the Florida Insurance Code. On or about December 4, 1984, Kenneth Martin was working on the property of Ray Dittmore. Respondent had previously, in July of 1984, written three bailbonds for Mr. Martin, all of which had been forfeited due to Mr. Martin's failure to appear in court. Upon learning of the whereabouts of Mr. Martin, respondent sent his employee, George Burfield, to Mr. Dittmore's property to apprehend Martin and return him to custody. Mr. Dittmore was present when Mr. Burfield arrived to take Martin into custody and felt that Mr. Burfield had misconducted himself during the apprehension process. After the incident, Dittmore telephoned respondent to complain about the conduct of his employee Burfield. Later that same day, Mr. Dittmore went to the Orange County Jail with his attorney, Warren Linsey, for the purpose of posting a cash bond for Kenneth Martin. There were prisoners confined in the Orange County Jail on December 4, 1984. While Mr. Dittmore was at the booking window counting his money, approximately $3,000.00, respondent approached him. Mr. Linsey recalls that respondent immediately introduced himself as a bondsman and offered his services. George Cox, also a bondsman, was present and recalls that when respondent saw Mr. Dittmore counting money at the window, respondent approached him, stated that he was a bail bondsman and informed him that Dittmore did not have to post the cash and could use him (respondent) instead. Mr. Dittmore recalls that after he told the deputy that he wished to bond out Kenneth Martin, respondent approached him at the window and asked him if he was the Dittmore he had spoken to earlier that day. Dittmore then recalls that respondent told him he didn't have to put up $3,000.00 because respondent could sell him a bond. According to Mr. Dittmore, respondent also told him that he wouldn't bond Martin out, that Dittmore was "dumb" for doing so and would end up losing his money. Respondent, who had previously written about $1,800.00 worth of bonds on Kenneth Martin and only received $216.00 as a remission for returning him to custody on December 4, 1984, recalls the incident at the Orange County Jail with Mr. Dittmore as follows. From his nearby position at the booking window, he could overhear and see that a "Dittmore" was there to post a bond for Kenneth Martin. After inquiring of Mr. Dittmore if he was the same Dittmore he had spoken with earlier, respondent introduced himself, apologized for what had happened earlier that day, begged him not to bail Martin out and told him he was foolish for doing so. He does recall later saying to George Cox that there were better ways to invest cash. Because respondent had previously lost money on Kenneth Martin, he had no intention of writing another bond on him on the same date he had been responsible for Martin's return to custody. Joseph Barrow was arrested on May 29, 1985, and was taken to the Seminole County Jail. At the time of his arrest, he had been drinking alcoholic beverages. Although subpoenaed to appear as a witness in this administrative hearing, Joseph Barrow was released and was not called upon to testify by the petitioner. According to sworn testimony taken on January 28, 1986, Joseph Barrow recalls that after he was fingerprinted at the Seminole County Jail on the evening of May 29, 1985, he called home to have his wife contact a bail bondsman to get him out of jail. He does not know if his family did contact a bondsman that night. However, he did speak with a bail bondsman that night at the jail, but could not remember his name. The description of the bondsman given in Joseph Barrow's statement of January 28, 1986, matched the respondent's physical appearance at the hearing. Joseph's wife, Michele Barrow, testified that her husband telephoned her the night he was arrested and asked her to find a bondsman. Neither the time of that telephone conversation nor the family's immediate response to that request were established at the hearing. On May 30, 1985, James Barrow, Joseph's brother; Donna Brino, Joseph's sister; and Michele Barrow, Joseph's wife, were at the Seminole County Jail for the purpose of getting Joseph out of jail. There were prisoners confined at the jail on that date. James recalls that, as he was standing in line to obtain information regarding his brother, respondent was also waiting in line and asked him why he was there. James replied that he was there to get his brother out of jail and asked respondent if he was a bondsman. Respondent stated that he was and asked James who his brother was. After James told respondent that his brother was Joe Barrow, respondent referred to a white piece of paper and replied that he had talked to Joe the previous night and had advised him to wait until the hearing that morning to see if his bond would be reduced. When James learned that he would need $250.00 to get his brother out of jail, he left the jail and went to the bank. When he returned to the jail, respondent approached him and asked him if he had gotten the $250.00. James recalls that when he replied that he had, respondent said "Well, give me the money, and I'll get your brother out of jail." James did not give respondent the money because his sister and sister-in-law who were standing behind respondent, were shaking their head "no." Joseph told James that he had spoken to a bondsman the night before, but could not remember the bondman's name. Michele Barrow recalls that as James was waiting in line at an information window, respondent approached him, asked if he needed a bondsman, and told James that he had spoken to Joseph the night before. At that point in time, Donna Brino, Joseph's sister, was on the telephone trying to contact a bondsman. Donna Brino did not hear the conversation which occurred between James Barrow and the respondent prior to James leaving the jail for the bank. She was aware that Joseph had spoken to a bondsman the night before and that he did not remember who that was. Because of her use of pronouns in lieu of names, Ms. Brino's description of the events which transpired on May 30th at the Seminole County Jail is unclear. She apparently telephoned Action Bail Bonds and left a message. While waiting for the message to be returned, she saw Bruce Moncrief, another bondsman, and spoke with him about writing her brother's bond. She stated that after she had already made arrangements with bondsman Bruce Moncrief, respondent told her she was stupid for using Moncrief and attempted to obtain the money from her brother James. Respondent testified that he was called to the Seminole County Jail by someone in the Barrow family on the evening of May 29, 1985. He went to the jail and spoke with Joseph Barrow. Upon learning that Joseph could not then afford to arrange for the $5,000.00 bail which had been set, respondent advised Joseph to wait until the next day when the amount of bail would be reduced. Respondent states that Joseph told him that his brother would get some money and would be contacting him. Respondent told Joseph that he would be at the jail the next day for the first appearances. Respondent also states that Joseph's brother, James, called him the next morning and he told James that it was better to wait until the first appearance and the reduction of the bond, that he would be at the jail for first appearances and that he would meet him there at that time. Respondent admits that he did approach James at the Seminole County Jail because he looked like his brother, Joseph, and said "I'm the one you're looking for. I talked to you this morning." After Joseph's bond was reduced to $2,500.00, respondent communicated this to James, and James left to go to the bank to get the money. At this point, respondent believed that he was going to write the bond, so he began preparing the papers and waited 30 to 45 minutes for James to return with the money. It was not until James returned from the bank that respondent learned he was not going to write Joseph's bond and that the family had obtained Mr. Moncrief instead.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Amended Administrative Complaint against the respondent be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this day of September, 1986. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0462 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioner and the respondent have been carefully considered and are accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below: Petitioner 6 and 7. Rejected, not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 8 and 9. Rejected. These ultimate conclusions are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 11. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected, not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 19 and 20. Rejected as Unsupported by the evidence. Respondent - Respondent's proposals contain unnumbered and mixed factual findings and legal conclusions. Each of the topics included has been addressed in either the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order, except: Page 2, first paragraph Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Page 4, last full paragraph Rejected, Unsupported and irrelevant in light of factual findings and legal conclusions. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard W. Thornburg, Esquire Bill Gunter Department of Insurance Insurance Commissioner Legal Division and Treasurer 413-B Larson Building Department of Insurance Tallahassee, Florida 32301 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603
