The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a "resident public all lines insurance adjuster" should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On or about February 27, 1989, a six-count criminal information was filed in Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 89- 4970 against Petitioner. Count I of the information alleged that Petitioner: on the 6th day of February, 1989, in the County [of Dade] and State [of Florida], did unlawfully and feloniously utter and publish as true to and upon DALLY SHUAIB and/or CAMPEAU CORPORATION, doing business as BURDINES, a certain false, forged or counterfeited and printed order or receipt for delivery or merchandise commonly known as a CREDIT CARD RECEIPT or RECORD OF CHARGE, upon which credit card receipt or record of charge the defendant or a person whose name or identity is to the State Attorney unknown, did forge the signature of MICHAEL YAMAGUCHI, thereon, with the intent thereby to injure of defraud MICHAEL YAMAGUCHI and/or DALLY SHARUIB and/or CAMPEAU CORPORATION, doing business as BURDINES or other person or persons whose name or names and identity are to the State Attorney unknown, the defendant at the said time and place well knowing that the said credit card receipt or record of charge was false and forged aforesaid, in violation of 831.02 Florida Statutes, contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida. Count II of the information alleged that Petitioner: on the 6th day of February, 1989, in the County [of Dade] and State [of Florida], did unlawfully and feloniously with intent to defraud CAMPEAU CORPORATION, doing business as BURDINES and/or MICHAEL YAMAGUCHI use for the purpose of obtaining goods, to wit: CLOTHING a credit card which he knows is stolen by representing without the consent of the card holder that he is the holder of the specified card, and such card has not in fact been issued, in violation of 817.61 Florida Statutes, contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida. Count III through VI of the information each alleged that Petitioner: on the 6th day of February, 1989, in the County [of Dade] and State [of Florida], having received a credit card, property of MICHAEL YAMAGUCHI, as owner and custodian, which he knew had been lost, mislaid, or delivered under a mistake as to the identity or address of the cardholder, did then and there unlawfully retain possession of said credit card, with intent to use it, to sell it, or to transfer it to a person other than the issuer or the cardholder, in violation of 817.60 Florida Statutes, contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida. On April 17, 1989, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to all six counts of the information (1989 Plea). Adjudication of guilt was withheld, and he was placed on probation for one year. On or about March 31, 2000, a one-count criminal information was filed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No. F00-8233, alleging that Petitioner: on or about MARCH 1, 2000, in the County [of Miami-Dade] and State [of Florida], did unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly inflict physical injury upon a child, to wit: A. C. (A MINOR), without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to said child, by SLAPPING C. (A MINOR) IN THE FACE, in violation of s. 827.03(1), Fla. Stat., contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida. On July 17, 2000, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge (2000 Plea). Adjudication of guilt was withheld, and he was placed on 18 months' probation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Armin Toro 490 Southwest 101st Terrace Plantation, Florida 33324 Dean Andrews, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos G. Muniz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was a member of the United State Army stationed in Korea from the Fall, 1983 until early 1984, having achieved the rank of E-5. In December, 1983 Petitioner overpurchased certain rationed items. Specifically, he purchased three months of rationed items, having accumulated allocations from prior months, although he was only authorized to utilize the ration allocation for the current month. Petitioner testified he did not know, and was not told, that unused allocations for rationed items could not be accumulated and utilized later. Petitioner plead guilty to the misdemeanor charge resulting from this overpurchase. He spent two months in confinement, was reduced in grade from E-5 to E-1, and forfeited $150 in pay for four months. As a result of his loss in grade, Petitioner understood that his pay would be reduced to that of E-1. However, upon receipt of his pay following his reduction in grade, he realized his pay had only been reduced the $150 per month he was to forfeit for four months, but had not been reduced to that of E-1. He allowed another month to go by, and when the adjustment still was not made he reported this to his commanding officer. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner was reassigned to duty within the United States, and he testified he reported the continued overpayment to his new commanding officer. A total of eight months elapsed after he was reduced in grade when he continued to receive E-5 pay. Thereafter, Petitioner was charged in December, 1984 with the misappropriation of government funds, a felony, and on February 26, 1985 he plead guilty to this charge. He was confined for six months, without pay, and given a misconduct discharge. On or about May 29, 1986 Petitioner applied for licensure as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida, and in response to Question 6 he fully disclosed his guilty pleas to the two offenses described above, the sentences imposed, and the fact that he had received a misconduct discharge. On or about September 11, 1986 Petitioner was notified on behalf of Respondent that his application for licensure would be denied based upon his answer to Question 6 and the offenses noted therein. Petitioner timely requested a hearing. Petitioner honestly disclosed his prior offenses occurring in 1983 and 1984 on his application for licensure. He offered the testimony of Andrew Carl Atkison, a friend and former business associate, in mitigation and to establish his honesty since his misconduct discharge.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Martha L. Socarras is a Hispanic female born in 1970. In March 2006 Petitioner filed with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, an application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. On that application, she answered in the affirmative question numbered 1 in the Background Information portion of the application. That question asked if she had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty. In support of her application she submitted a certified copy of the Judgment in a Criminal Case entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on December 8, 1999. That Judgment recites that Petitioner pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to file false claims against Health and Human Services, mail fraud, and paying kickbacks. Counts 2 through 27 were dismissed by the prosecution. Petitioner was sentenced to two years in prison followed by three years of supervised probation. The Judgment also recites that the actual monetary loss was $700,000 and assessed the total amount of restitution to be paid by Petitioner as $1,114,676.04. The Judgment then provides that the amount of restitution was reduced to partial restitution in the amount of $500,000 due to Petitioner's inability to pay the full amount. The Judgment further provides that restitution to the Palmetto Government Benefits Administration was to be paid through the federal court. Petitioner was released from the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut, on January 4, 2002, but was detained by the United States Immigration & Naturalization Service. At the time of her release, she still owed $499,500 in restitution. In March 2002 an Immigration Judge granted Petitioner permanent resident status at the conclusion of the immigration removal proceeding. On January 3, 2005, Petitioner completed her probation and was discharged from supervision. Petitioner filed her application for licensure only a year later. Petitioner also provided to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation an unexecuted consent agreement between herself and the federal government providing that she would pay the $500,000 in restitution at the rate of $200 per month commencing February 1, 2005. Petitioner attributes her criminal conduct to ignorance of the Medicare laws. She was employed for three years by her brother's medical equipment business. Although Medicare performed several audits of that business during Petitioner's employment there, the last audit revealed that Petitioner and her brother were paying "commissions" to persons for referring patients to her brother's business. Petitioner asserts that she did not know that what they were doing was illegal. At the final hearing Petitioner testified that she had offered to the federal government property she owns which is sufficient in value to pay the required restitution but did not know if the federal government would accept her offer. The several letters of recommendation which Petitioner submitted to the Department are from persons who have known her as long as 18 years. None appear to know about her criminal conviction or to have noticed that she was missing for two years. One alleges the author has known Petitioner for five years, which must mean she met Petitioner while Petitioner was in prison. Similarly, the persons who testified on her behalf at the final hearing did not appear to know that she had a conviction or that she was in prison for two years. One witness testified she has known Petitioner for ten years and that she saw Petitioner three or four times a week. Another witness testified both that he has had no business dealings with Petitioner and that he transacts business with her. As evidence of rehabilitation, Petitioner offered evidence that she is a very religious person and active in ministry. However, that aspect of her life appears to have pre- existed her criminal conduct, existed during her criminal conduct, and continues to exist. It, therefore, fails to prove rehabilitation. Petitioner offered no evidence concerning her employment since her release from prison. Her witnesses offered vague testimony indicating she works in the title insurance industry, but no evidence was offered as to her role therein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 13th of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Daniel Villazon, P.A. 1020 Verona Street Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Michael E. Murphy, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline Respondent’s certification as a law enforcement officer pursuant to Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner issued Certificate Number 91034 to Respondent on August 24, 1984. At all times material to this matter, Respondent worked as a patrolman for the City of Chiefland Police Department. During the last couple months of his active duty service, he was training to become a K-9 officer. In 1993, Petitioner issued a letter of guidance to Respondent and placed him on one year of probation after Respondent admitted that he had engaged in sex while on duty. On March 17, 1994, Henry W. Nicholson became Chief of Police in the City of Chiefland. In the summer of 1994, Michelle Hallman (formerly Michelle King) worked at ABC Pizza. She was eighteen years old at that time. On days that she was not working, Michelle sometimes went to ABC Pizza to help the other employees close up. On one such evening, Ms. Hallman met Respondent and Officer Hicks in the ABC Pizza Parking lot. They had a casual conversation in which Ms. Hallman joked that she would tell the Chief that Respondent had pinched her on the butt. Respondent laughed and replied that he would tell the Chief that Ms. Hallman dropped on her knees and begged. Respondent also told Ms. Hallman that he did not need that kind of trouble again. The Chief pulled into the parking lot while Ms. Hallman was talking to Respondent and Officer Hicks. The Chief needed to let Respondent know that he was not planning to go to K-9 training with Respondent that evening. About a month later, on June 10, 1994, Respondent was patrolling near a community center known as the Pine Land Center. He saw Ms. Hallman riding by in her car. He and Ms. Hallman pulled their respective cars into the parking lot of the community center and had another casual conversation. During this conversation, Ms. Hallman asked Respondent if he ever messed around. Respondent replied that because of his past problems he never went out with anyone unless the girl asked him. The next evening, June 11, 1994, Respondent began his shift at 6:00 p.m. He was scheduled to work a twelve hour shift. Early in the evening, Respondent saw Deputy Meeks, a deputy with the sheriff’s office. They agreed to eat supper together at the Subway around 11:00 p.m. As the evening progressed, Respondent answered several calls. Between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. Respondent responded to a call involving a dog bite. After completing the matter involving the dog bite, Respondent saw Ms. Hallman at or near the Circle K. She told him she wanted to talk to him. They agreed to meet at a small public park known as Delma Lock. The park was near a school and a football field. A baseball game was in progress at a baseball field located between the Circle K and the park. The area of the park in which Respondent and Ms. Hallman met was dimly lit. Even so, Ms. Hallman felt like there were too many people around the park or driving by that might recognize her. Respondent suggested they go to the police station. Respondent parked his patrol car in front of the police station. When Ms. Hallman arrived she parked on the side of the building. They went in the side door and into Respondent’s office. There was no other person present in the building. Ms. Hallman told Respondent that she had been a witness to an automobile accident earlier in the day. Respondent and Ms. Hallman had been in his office just a few minutes when Deputy Meeks knocked on the back door of the police station. Respondent opened the door for Deputy Meeks who was ready to go to the Subway for supper. While Respondent and Deputy Meeks were eating their sandwiches at the Subway, Ms. Hallman came in to get a sandwich for a friend of hers. She carried on a brief conversation with Respondent. Sometime around midnight, Respondent spent a few minutes at the Midtown Jiffy visiting with a friend of his, Joan Schubert. From 12:46 to 12:56 a.m., Respondent checked on the alarm at the Senior Citizens Center. Respondent next saw Ms. Hallman near the Circle K. They agreed to meet back at the Delma Lock park. Once again there were too many people at the park for Ms. Hallman to be comfortable. Respondent suggested they meet at the Department of Transportation building. He told Ms. Hallman how to find the building. Ms. Hallman arrived at the designated building first. Respondent pulled into the driveway and told her to follow him. They drove behind the building and parked. Both of them got out of their cars. The area was well lit, but cars from the highway in front could not see what was going on. Respondent took off his gun belt and dropped his pants. Ms. Hallman dropped her shorts. They had sexual intercourse standing up and leaning against the trunk of Ms. Hallman’s car. After having sex, Respondent heard a radio call for Deputy Meeks to respond to a disturbance at Levy Norris’s house. The call originated around 1:35 a.m. The dispatcher explained that the Norris residence was across the road from the Catholic church and down an unpaved road beside Thompson’s garage. Respondent knew that Deputy Meeks was making the final loop of his patrol before going off duty at 2:00 a.m. Respondent was out of breath when he got to his radio. He called Deputy Meeks on the radio and asked him where he was coming from. Deputy Meeks replied that he was in Rosewood which was at least ten miles away. Respondent said that he was “right here at the church.” Respondent asked Deputy Meeks whether he should wait or go on to the Norris residence. Deputy Meeks told Respondent to go ahead and gave Respondent directions. Respondent left Ms. Hallman in the parking lot of the Department of Transportation building. She did not see him again. Respondent was enroute to the Norris residence by 1:38 a.m. He arrived on the scene at 1:42 a.m. It took him four minutes to get there. The Catholic church was used as a landmark to identify the road on which Levy Norris lived. It is located in the same vicinity as the Department of Transportation building where Respondent met Ms. Hallman. Later in June of 1994, Ms. Hallman went to Chief Nicholson to complain that another of his officers made derogatory comments about her which caused her to lose a prior job. Ms. Hallman said the same officer was attempting to get her fired from her current job by making derogatory remarks about her to her employer. In the course of investigating this complaint, Chief Nicholson learned that Respondent may have had an affair with Ms. Hallman. Chief Nicholson called Ms. Hallman and requested that she come to his office. At that meeting, Ms. Hallman denied that she and Respondent had sex. A day or two later, Ms. Hallman returned to Chief Nicholson’s office. She admitted that she had sex with Respondent. Respondent never included his interaction with Ms. Hallman in his duty log. Respondent gave sworn statements to Chief Nicholson on June 24, 1994 and July 1, 1994. When questioned, Respondent knowingly made false statements to mislead Chief Nicholson about his relationship with Ms. Hallman. Chief Nicholson concluded his internal investigation and decided to terminate Respondent’s employment. Chief Nicholson advised Respondent of his decision in a memorandum dated July 6, 1994 and received by Respondent’s counsel on July 25, 1994. The Chiefland City Commission, sitting as the City Personnel Review Board, conducted a hearing on August 29, 1997. Respondent’s employment with the City of Chiefland was terminated effective September 6, 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent’s law enforcement certification. DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul D. Johnston, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Joan Stewart, Esquire 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1218 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Michael Ramage, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact The following facts are stipulated by the parties and are incorporated herein: The Respondent has been the clerk of court for Collier County since June of 1986. The Respondent was the clerk of court at all times material to this complaint. In July of 1990, the Respondent's wife was issued a citation for having glass bottles on the beach, a violation of municipal ordinance No. 16.30, City of Naples. On August 21, 1990, upon failure to timely pay the fine for the violation of the above-described ordinance or to appear in court on this date, an arrest warrant for Theresa Giles was issued. On August 30, 1990, on or about 4:30 p.m., police officers arrived at the Respondent's residence to arrest Ms. Giles for her failure to appear or to pay fine. The officers allowed Ms. Giles to make a telephone call to her husband at the clerk's office. The Respondent went to one of his deputy clerks, Lorraine Stoll and discussed the situation with her. As a result, Ms. Stoll called the officers at the Respondent's home and informed them that the bench warrant for Ms. Giles was recalled. Ms. Giles was not taken into custody as a result of Ms. Stoll's action. These facts are derived from the evidence presented, weighed and credited: Respondent, James Giles was the Collier County finance director, performing the pre-audit function for the county, when he was appointed county clerk to finish a two year term in 1986. He was then elected to a four year term ending in January 1993, and was not reelected. His prior employment experience was as a private certified public accountant, an employee of St. Johns County, and an auditor for the State of Florida. On August 30, 1990, when Theresa Giles called her husband, she was very upset. He had promised to pay the fine, but had forgotten. She was home alone with her young child and her elderly mother when the deputies came to serve the warrant and arrest her. The ticket, or "Notice to Appear" issued to Ms. Giles for her infraction plainly provides notice that if the fine is not paid or the person fails to appear in court at the appointed time, an arrest warrant shall be issued. (Advocate Exhibit No. 2) James Giles immediately called his misdemeanor division and Kathleen Heck answered the phone. After he briefly explained the situation, she went to find the supervisor, Lorraine Stoll. As the two women were at Ms. Stoll's desk, bringing Ms. Giles' case up on the computer, Mr. Giles appeared in person. This was a very unusual situation because the clerk rarely came back to the misdemeanor office. He was Lorraine Stoll's immediate supervisor. He asked if there was anything that could be done and Ms. Stoll responded that the warrant could be recalled. Before she could explain any further, he handed her a paper with his home phone and asked her to make the call. Ms. Giles answered the phone and put the deputy on; Ms. Stoll told him the warrant was recalled, and Ms. Giles was not arrested. Ms. Stoll then told Mr. Giles that the fine and court costs had to be paid. He said the whole thing was ridiculous, that he could not believe a warrant could be issued for such a minor offense. By this time it was after 5:00 p.m. and the cashier's office was closed. Giles paid the $36.50 fine the next day and paid the $100.00 court costs on September 13, some two weeks later. (Respondent's exhibits nos. 1 and 2). James Giles admits being upset at the time that the phone call was made, but was trying to calm down because he knew Lorraine Stoll to be excitable. He was flabbergasted that someone could be arrested for having bottles on the beach. He denies that he pressured Ms. Stoll, but claims he was trying to be rational and get sound advice. He wanted her to make the call because he felt it would "look bad" if he did. James Giles did not raise his voice but both Ms. Stoll and Ms. Heck perceived he was upset and in a pressure situation. Ms. Stoll had never been involved in a circumstance where the warrant was recalled while the deputies were getting ready to make an arrest. She has worked in the misdemeanor section of the clerk's office for eleven and a half years, as deputy clerk. No ordinary citizen could have received the advantage that the clerk and his wife received. Judge Ellis, a Collier County judge, has a written policy providing that a bench warrant may be set aside after payment of costs and fine. Another county judge, Judge Trettis, requires that his office or the State's Attorney be called, and does not have a written policy. Ms. Stoll does not have the authority to recall a warrant without following the proper procedure. This situation was out of the ordinary. She made the telephone call because her boss told her to, and their main concern was that the warrant needed to be recalled so Ms. Giles would not go to jail. On the other hand, Ms. Stoll did not tell Mr. Giles that he was pressuring her, nor did she have the opportunity to tell him the proper procedure before making the telephone call. James Giles' explanation that he was simply seeking advice of his staff and then acting on it without wrongful intent is disingenuous. Whatever his actual knowledge of proper procedures for recalling a warrant, he knew or should have known that what he was doing was not an opportunity available to other citizens. His experience in the clerk's office and in prior public service should have clued him that no one else could simply get a deputy clerk to intercept an arrest with a telephone call.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Commission on Ethics enter its final order finding that James Giles violated Section 112.313(6), F.S., and recommending a civil penalty of $250.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 27th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4942EC The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Advocate's Proposed Findings 1. Adopted as stipulated facts in paragraphs 1-5. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. Adopted in substance in paragraph 12. 8.-10. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. 11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1. A.-E. Adopted as stipulated facts in paragraphs 1-5. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 8 and 12. Rejected as the sequence suggested is contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as misleading. The evidence shows the process was incorrect and both staff knew it was incorrect. The clerk was informed about the correct procedure after the phone call. The procedure is set out in paragraph 13. The evidence is not clear that the fine and costs could not have been paid the same day. By the time Mr. Giles finished complaining, it was after 5:00. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence, considering the totality of Ms. Stoll's testimony as well as Ms. Heck's. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as immaterial. 3. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. More specifically, this proposed finding suggests that the culpability was Ms. Stoll's rather than Respondent's. That suggestion is supported only by Ms. Stoll's timid admissions that she should not have made the phone call without having received the payment from her boss. Ms. Stoll's acceptance of blame does not relieve the Respondent of his responsibility. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig B. Willis Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1502 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Raymond Bass, Jr., Esquire Bass & Chernoff 849 7th Avenue, South - Suite 200 Naples, Florida 33940-6715 Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate or broker should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, who was 49 years old at the time of the final hearing in this cause, is an applicant for licensure as a real estate sales associate or broker. Respondent Florida Real Estate Commission is authorized to certify for licensure persons who are qualified to practice as real estate brokers and sales associates in the state of Florida. Petitioner's Criminal History On April 15, 1986, Petitioner was arrested in Middleton, New York, for the charge of second degree assault. Petitioner ultimately pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of third degree assault and was ordered to pay a fine of $300. In or around June 1990, the State Attorney for Florida's Fifteenth Judicial Circuit charged Petitioner, in case number 91-239207, with one count of burglary of a dwelling (a second degree felony), three counts of grand theft (each a third degree felony), and two counts of dealing in stolen property (each a second degree felony). Subsequently, on August 14, 1991, Petitioner pleaded guilty to each of the foregoing charges and was sentenced to eight months of incarceration in the Palm Beach County jail. Approximately seven years later, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York indicted Petitioner for wire fraud. On July 8, 1998, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment, followed by a term of probation (the exact length of which is not established in the instant record). Petitioner was also ordered to pay $745,000 in restitution to the victim(s) of his fraudulent behavior. Subsequently, in or around 2003, Petitioner——having previously completed his prison sentence——fell behind on his restitution payments, at which point the government violated his supervision. As a result, Petitioner was incarcerated for approximately 30 days until his wife's family satisfied the arrearage of $26,230.61. Although not established precisely by the testimony or exhibits, it appears that Petitioner's supervision in connection with the wire fraud charge was terminated in 2005 or 2006 and that the outstanding restitution balance of $500,000 was reduced to a civil judgment. Application for Licensure and Intent to Deny On May 16, 2011, Respondent received Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate or broker. In the application, Petitioner properly responded "yes" to question number one, which asked, among other things, if he had ever pleaded guilty or no contest to a crime in any jurisdiction. Subsequently, on May 20, 2011, Respondent advised Petitioner in writing that it required: [T]he full details of any criminal conviction . . . including the nature of any charges, outcomes, sentences, and/or conditions imposed; the dates, name and location of the court and/or jurisdiction in which the proceeding were held or are pending . . . . (emphasis added). Nearly one month later, on June 17, 2011, Respondent received an eight-page facsimile from Petitioner, which included, in relevant part: the second page of the federal criminal judgment, a document which actually consists of six pages1/ (the other five pages are not part of the record, nor does it appear that they were provided to Respondent); the judgment and sentence in connection with the Florida burglary, grand theft, and dealing in stolen property charges; and, as quoted below, Petitioner's vague explanations of the New York assault charge, Florida offenses, federal mail fraud charge, and probation violation: [New York assault charge] Pled guilty to a fight. Fined $300. [Florida charges] [S]tems from one arrest pled guilty sentenced to 8 months jail time. There is an error in record it looks like several arrest [sic] but it was only one document provided. [Federal wire fraud charge] [A] single charge of wire fraud sentenced to 30 months ordered to pay restitution. [Federal probation violation] I was violated for being unable to keep up with restitution payments was released after paying the sum of $26230.61. On July 16, 2010, Respondent filed its Notice of Intent to Deny Petitioner's application for licensure. The intended denial was based upon the following reasons: B. Failing to demonstrate: honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness and good character, a good reputation for fair dealing competent and qualified to conduct transactions and negotiations with safety to others. G. Convicted or found guilty or entered a plea of nolo contendre to, regardless of adjudication, a crime which directly relates to activities of a licensed broker or sales associate or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing. M. The Commission concludes that it would be a breach of its duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public to license this applicant and thereby provide him/her easy access to the homes, families or personal belongings of the citizens of Florida. Petitioner's Final Hearing Testimony During the final hearing, Petitioner testified that he has not been arrested since 2003——when he was violated for the restitution arrearage——and that he presently manages an automobile dealership. Regarding his criminal conduct, Petitioner offered very little detail other than a brief explanation that the wire fraud charge involved a scheme in which he ordered laptop computers but never paid for them. Notably, Petitioner expressed no remorse for his conduct, either during his hearing testimony or in the written materials submitted to Respondent during the application process. Further, and equally troubling, Petitioner conceded that he has made no payments whatsoever against the outstanding restitution judgment since 2006. With respect to the Florida burglary, dealing in stolen property, and grand theft charges (to which he pleaded guilty), Petitioner testified that he did not commit a burglary and that he only attempted to pawn items that had been stolen by somebody else——an explanation the undersigned finds dubious at best. Once again, Petitioner expressed no remorse for his criminal misdeeds.2/ As to the present state of his character, Petitioner testified that he now values——and recognizes the importance of—— honesty, a good reputation, and fair dealing. However, other than these self-serving remarks, his present employment, and the absence of any recent arrests, Petitioner offered no persuasive evidence of his honesty or character. Further, no credible evidence was adduced concerning his reputation for fair dealing. Ultimate Factual Findings The undersigned determines, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he is honest, trustworthy, of good character, and has a reputation for fair dealing, all of which are requirements for licensure as a real estate professional. Furthermore, the undersigned finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the statutory disqualification of eligibility that flows from a guilty plea to one or more crimes involving moral turpitude has not been overcome by way of subsequent good conduct and lapse of time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate or broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer 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 20th day of January, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1997), by obtaining a license by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment. (All Chapter and Section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the regulation and discipline of real estate licensees in the state. Respondent is licensed in the state as a real estate sales person pursuant to license number 0640934. The last license issued to Respondent was c/o Raizor Realty, Inc., 12007 Cypress Run Road, Orlando, Florida 32836. On July 3, 1996, Respondent applied for a license as a real estate salesperson. On the application, Respondent signed a sworn affidavit that all of his answers were true and correct and: . . . are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever. . . . Question nine on the application asked Respondent whether he had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere, even if adjudication was withheld. Respondent answered "no." Petitioner relied on the accuracy of the application and issued a license to Respondent. Respondent is active in the practice of real estate and depends on his license to earn a living. Respondent has no prior disciplinary history and has been licensed for approximately two years. On February 20, 1985, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of misdemeanor theft. The court suspended the sentence. Petitioner had changed the price stickers on a pair of shoes valued at $20 and on a jar of vitamins. The court found Respondent guilty of misdemeanor theft, fined him $100, and sentenced him to 30 days in jail. The jail sentence was suspended pending completion of six-months' probation. Respondent completed probation in a satisfactory and timely manner. Respondent did not willfully misstate a material fact. He conferred with friends. They advised Respondent that the matter was immaterial and more than seven years old. Respondent answered no to question nine on his application in the good faith belief that the crime was immaterial and not the type of offense addressed in the question. When Petitioner's investigator inquired of Respondent, Respondent answered all questions fully and truthfully and cooperated in the investigation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), and dismissing the charges against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 1999 West Colonial Drive, Suite 211 Orlando, Florida 32804 James Kimbler, Acting Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, was correct in its denial of the Petitioner's application and request to transfer a Series 4-COP beverage license for the premises, Hank's Bar and Grill.
Findings Of Fact The facts reveal that sometime in December, 1978, the Petitioner, James Sylvester Cooper, determined to apply for the transfer of a Series 4-COP beverage license which originally had been issued to the Petitioner's since deceased father. The license was issued by the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The license which had been held by Mr. Cooper's father was for the premises known as Hank's Bar and Grill, 518 South Campbell Street, Daytona Beach, Florida. In pursuit of the request for transfer, the Petitioner completed a personal questionnaire form which was given to him by the Respondent, and may be found as the Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. In actuality, a form was completed for this license transfer and the transfer of a license in a companion application, D.O.A.H. Case No. 79-533. The Petitioner also completed a fingerprint card by affixing his fingerprints to that document, and the document may be found as the Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. The fingerprint card was submitted in December, 1978. The questionnaire was completed on January 3, 1979. Both items were filed with the Respondent in its office located in Daytona Beach, Florida. When the Petitioner completed the questionnaire form, his initial response to question No. 6 was, "No". The thrust of the question No. 6 was to ask the applicant if he had been arrested for the violation of any other laws of the State of Florida not enumerated in questions Nos. 1 through 5 of the first page of the questionnaire or arrested for the violation of laws of other states or the United States, excluding minor traffic violations and instructed that if the answer was, "Yes," that details be provided concerning the nature of the events surrounding the arrest. When the questionnaire which was submitted on January 3, 1979, was reviewed by employees of the respondent, it was noted that the answer to question No. 6 was in the negative, notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent had received information from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement that possible charges for carrying a concealed firearm in Daytona Beach, Florida, and for issuing a check for which insufficient funds were available to honor the check, which latter charge purportedly was brought in Duval County, Florida. Officer Blanton, the employee of the Respondent who made this discovery, tried to contact the Petitioner in person and was unsuccessful. Later, Officer Blanton was able to contact Mr. Cooper by telephone and to request that the Petitioner come in to discuss the answer to question No. 6. Cooper agreed and came to the office of the Respondent in Daytona Beach on January 8, 1979. At the meeting on January 8, 1979, when confronted with his answer to question No. 6, the Petitioner responded that he did not understand that question to mean that you had to indicate all arrests. The Petitioner said he understood the question to mean that only convictions should be reported. Once the Petitioner had teen specifically advised by the Respondent's employee that the form, as it suggested, required an applicant to indicate arrests, he admitted that he had been arrested by the Daytona Beach, Florida, Police Department for carrying a concealed firearm, and stated further that the adjudication of quilt in that matter had been withheld. Cooper said that he would verify this disposition of the case and report back to the Respondent to establish the fact of the disposition by providing the Respondent with an official record. At the meeting referred to above which was held on January 8, 1979, between Officer Blanton and the Petitioner, Mr. Cooper denied any arrest having occurred in Duval County, Florida, relating to a worthless check. The Petitioner left the office of the Respondent, to shortly return with his attorney, Mr. Moore, and a further conversation was held on January 8, 1979, pertaining to the Petitioner's arrest record. A discussion was held concerning the carrying of a concealed firearm case in Daytona Beach, Florida, and the Duval County, Florida, worthless check allegations. Again, the Petitioner admitted being arrested for carrying a concealed firearm, but denied any involverent in a worthless check charge in Duval County, Florida. In view of this further denial of a knowledge of a Duval County, Florida, charge, Officer Blanton indicated that he would check into the matter further. After the second meeting between the Respondent's employee and the Petitioner, and on the same day, January 8, 1979, the employee of the Respondent discovered another allegation of an arrest which had taken place in Daytona Beach, Florida, for the offenses of loitering and prowling. On January 10, 1979, the Petitioner reported back to the office of the Respondent in Daytona Beach, Florida, and amended his application form by striking in the column the word, "No" and writing in the column the word, "Yes" and indicating that the carrying a concealed firearm complaint had taken place in 1974. In support of his position he produced documents that showed that the disposition of that case had been: withhold adjudication of quilt and place the Petitioner on two years unsupervised probation. When questioned about the loitering and prowling arrest, the Petitioner initially denied that arrest, but later indicated that he thought it was vagrancy. Subsequent to that discussion, he indicated on the application form that a loitering charge had occurred in June, 1976, for which he had paid a $35.00 fine. In the meeting on January 10, 1979, when the employee of the Respondent interrogated Petitioner further about any incidents in Duval County, Florida, involving a worthless check, the Petitioner again replied that he had no connection with such a charge. On January 11, 1979, the Respondent, in its Daytona Beach office, received a reply to its inquiry about the Duval County, Florida, case for a worthless check. That response may be found as Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 4 which is a transmittal sheet and an arrest and booking report. The arrest and booking report shows that the Petitioner, James Sylvester Cooper, had been arrested in May of 1975 in connection with a check charge. Officer Blanton then contacted Mr. Cooper and indicated that the Respondent would need to know the disposition of the Duval County, Florida, charge, to which Cooper replied that be would go to Jacksonville and take care of the matter by bringing back a disposition of the case. Later in the month, Mr. Moore, the Petitioner's attorney, spoke with Officer Blanton and asked for the case number of the Duval County, Florida, allegation against the Petitioner. Mr. Moore was given the information and stated he would discover the nature of the allegation in Duval County and contact the Respondent when he had ascertained the facts of those charges and had attended them. On January 31, 1979, Officer Blanton saw that the application for the license was submitted through channels to the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, in Tallahassee, Florida. The application was reviewed in view of the answer to question No. 6 as amended, on January 10, 1979, which answer reflected the carrying of a concealed firearm charge and the loitering charge in Daytona Beach, but did not reflect the worthless check charge in Duval County, Florida. Acting in view of this information, the Director issued a letter on February 7, 1979, indicating his intent to deny the application for transfer of the license. In that letter the operative provisions of the statement of denial were couched in this language: The applicant's failure to truthfully answer questions concerning his qualifications and his criminal history record are indicative of a lack of good moral character. Subsequently, in keeping with his representations, the Petitioner's attorney went to Jacksonville and discovered that there was outstanding a case against the Respondent for failure to appear in connection with a worthless chock charge, and this allegation was pursuant to Section 300.405, Florida Statutes. A disposition of the case was achieved on March 8, 1979. A copy of the disposition may be found in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. In the course of the hearing in this cause, the Petitioner testified about the matter in Duval County, Florida, which dates from May, 1975. Petitioner's explanation was that he had some occasional contact in Duval County, Florida, in 1974 and 1975 and that while living there he mistakenly assumed that his roommate would pay the landlord, which did not occur, and led to some type of claim by the landlord. The Petitioner stated that although he does not recall a summons being served on him, he does recall that his roommate contacted him to tell him about an outstanding worthless check, for which he went voluntarily to the Judge's Chambers, then reported to be fingerprinted in the jail area and reported back to the Judge's Chambers and paid off the check through the Judge's secretary. In fact, the Petitioner had been arrested in Duval County, Florida, in the year 1975, in connection with a worthless check claim and the facts of this case indicate that he had a knowledge of that case when he answered question No. 6 in the submitted questionnaire on January 3, 1979, as amended on January 10, 1979. This is borne out by the facts which were revealed in the process of checking on the arrest allegation through the office of the Respondent and the answers that the Petitioner gave to the representative of the Respondent, and by the Petitioner's admission in the course of the hearing that he had been fingerprinted and taken to court in connection with a worthless check charge and by his grudging recognition in the course of the hearing that the events and charges complained about in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 3; i.e., the arresting and booking report and attendant disposition of the case, were matters which took place in Duval County, Florida, and matters that pertained to him. Likewise, the Petitioner only admitted the loitering arrest and conviction after being confronted for a third time, the first time being in filling out the form which was handed in on January 3, 1979; the second occasion of January 8, 1979, when he was told that the questionnaire, just as it said, required that all arrests be reported; the third instance, January 10, 1979, by direct questioning concerning the offense in which he initially denied the loitering arrest. Finally, the Petitioner in his initial completion of the questionnaire, even though the questionnaire clearly said to report arrests, did not do so until told to do so specifically on January 8, 1979, and then he only reported the arrest for carrying a concealed firearm. In reading the basis of the denial of the license, which has been set out above, it could be read to address the issue of the answers which the Petitioner gave in the application questionnaire on the basis that those answers were not truthful and the additional allegation that the Petitioner's criminal history record both show a lack of good moral character as described in Section 561.15, Florida Statutes; however, in the course of the hearing, the Respondent's counsel asserted that the true basis of denying the license application was related solely to whether the answers which the Petitioner gave on the questionnaire were truthful concerning the subject of his criminal history record, and that the denial was not related to any criminal history per se. Therefore, this Recommended Order is rendered in keeping with the Respondent's counsel's representation and the Petitioner conducted his case to comport with that limitation. Having established the nature of the statement of denial the question becomes one of whether the answers to question No. 6 on the personal questionnaire are of such a caliber that they demonstrated a lack of good moral character on the part of the Petitioner to the extent that he is not entitled to be the recipient of the beverage license that he has applied for. Subsection 561.15(1), Florida Statutes, states: 561.15 Licenses; qualifications required.-- (1) Licenses shall be issued only to persons of good moral character, who are not less than 18 years of age. Licenses to corporations shall be issued only to corporations whose officers are of good moral character and not less than 18 years of age. There shall be no exemptions from the license taxes herein provided to any person, association of persons or corporation, any law to the contrary notwithstanding. When considered in view of that standard, the facts in this case demonstrate that the Petitioner does not show the requisite good moral character expected of a person licensed by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The Petitioner's response to question No. 6, a legitimate inquiry made to him by the Respondent, ranged from equivocation to undeniable misstatements of the facts known to him and by these actions the Petitioner has shown himself to be a person not to be entrusted with a beverage license. The Petitioner, the record will show, has had some experience as a law enforcement officer and for this reason, his counsel contended that the Petitioner would not be so bold as to erroneously answer the questionnaire, knowing that the fingerprint identification card would be the vehicle by which a successful records check could be conducted and the arrests discovered. The tone of the testimony in this case as concluded puts that theory to rest. There is, however, another view which can be asserted on the question of the significance of the Petitioner's police experience. That view is that the Petitioner indeed knew the difference between what it meant to be convicted of an offense as contrasted with being arrested, and even with this knowledge selected the course of conduct which he pursued in answering question No. 6 on the application form. Finally, it was shown in the course of the hearing that the Petitioner had lived at certain residences in Duval County, Florida, which residence addresses are not reflected in the answers to the questionnaire and had held employment with an organization known as General Wholesale, which statement of employment is not reflected in the answers to the questionnaire. These items were first revealed at the hearing. These facts were made known subsequent to the Director's letter denying the application which was dated February 7, 1979, and for that reason they did not constitute the basis for denying the application and have not been relied upon by the Hearing Officer in reaching the factual conclusions, conclusions of law and recommendation in this matter.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner's application for transfer of the Series 4 COP beverage license connected with the premises, Hank's Bar and Grill, be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Reginald E. Moore, Esquire 724 Second Avenue Post Office Box 1848 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Francis Bayley, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
