Findings Of Fact Abraham Scott, Jr., is a registered general contractor with the FCILB and holds general contractor's license no. RG0008305. Pursuant to an agreement entered during April, 1975, Respondent and Mrs. Ruth Jenkins of Lake Butler entered into a contract for construction of a home at a cost of $37,000. To finance the project, Mrs. Jenkins secured a loan from Guaranty Federal Savings & Loan Association of Starke, Florida in the amount of $30,600 and she additionally paid Respondent approximately $5,913.57. Guaranty Federal Savings & Loan had disbursed approximately 90 percent of the construction loan to Respondent when Mrs. Jenkins received liens filed against her property in the amount of approximately $9,579.53. The lienors included Lake City Industries, North Florida Concrete, Mayo Electric, Roy Ward Wholesale Distributors, Sawyer Slade Gas Company and a local carpet distributor. At that juncture, Mrs. Jenkins complained to Respondent regarding the liens filed against her property and the fact that the house was not completed as per their agreement to no avail. Thereafter, Mrs. Jenkins contacted Mr. Harold K. Davis, Branch Manager of Guaranty Federal Savings & Loan Association, who terminated all further disbursements of the construction loan. At that point, approximately $28,436.50 had been disbursed to Respondent. Mr. Hermon Cherry, investigator with FCILB investigated the Jenkins' complaint and discussed the matter with Respondent. Mr. Cherry testified that Respondent advised him that he had used part of the money from the Jenkins' project to complete a job in Hamilton County and that when the proceeds from that job were received, those receipts would be used to satisfy liens placed against the Jenkins property. Petitioner's Exhibit #3, is a statement given to investigator Cherry on March 22, 1976, by Respondent. The statement is somewhat corroborative of Cherry's testimony that Respondent used portions of the construction loan monies received from the Jenkins project to complete another job. Respondent acknowledged that he was having financial problems in another county "in which I have money from this job tied in the amount of $2,500. As soon as I can collect this money from these jobs, I will clear this matter up". (See Petitioner's Exhibit #3). Respondent acknowledged that he had monies due him from a project he had completed in Jasper, Florida and that this job was completed prior to the commencement of the Jenkins project. However, he failed to state that all obligations due and owing on that job in Jasper had been satisfied or that all unpaid subcontractors, materialmen, etc., who furnished materials, supplies or labor, in connection with the Jasper project had been paid. Based on that statement and Respondent's acknowledgement that the liens had been placed on the Jenkins project based on his financial difficulties with another project in which he clearly stated in Petitioner's Exhibit #3 that money from the Jenkins project had been tied up on another project, I find that the two matters, when coupled together provides proof positive that the Respondent diverted funds received for completion or the Jenkins project to another project and as a result thereof, he was unable to fulfill the terms of his obligation and contract with Mrs. Jenkins, in violation of Chapter 468.112(2)(e). During the course of the hearing, Respondent introduced evidence indicating that a settlement agreement was being worked out to resolve the differences with Mrs. Jenkins property and to satisfy all lien claimants who had filed liens against Mrs. Jenkins' property. Mrs. Jenkins acknowledged the settlement agreement and indicated her willingness to accept the terms thereof as full satisfaction of Respondent's obligations to her pursuant to the construction of her home. (See Respondent's Exhibit #1.) Respondent testified further that he intends to fulfill all of the remaining deficiencies that may exist with respect to the Jenkins property and that he at all times intended to fulfill his obligations to her. For these reasons, I shall recommend that the Respondent's registered general contractor's license be suspended rather than revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recommend that the Respondent's registered general contractor's license be suspended for a period of 90 days in accord with the authority contained in Chapter 468.112(3)(a), F.S. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Mr. Abraham Scott, Jr. Route 1, Box 503 Lake City, Florida JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner has enough creditable service in the Florida Retirement System (FRS), within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(17)(a), Florida Statutes (2009),1 to be "vested" and, therefore, eligible for a retirement benefit.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is not currently an employee of any FRS employer. Petitioner was an employee of several different FRS employers during the 1970's and 1980's. Petitioner proved that he had creditable earnings from three FRS employers. The creditable earnings were from Hillsborough County from October 1977 through April 1978, Pasco County from August 1987 through December 1987, and Hernando County from March 1988 through August 1989. Petitioner has 3.09 years of creditable service in the FRS. The creditable service is not sufficient to vest Petitioner and does not entitle Petitioner to retirement benefits. Petitioner was employed with the City of Largo, Florida, for some time. However, that municipality was not an FRS participating employer during the period of employment. Petitioner worked for the U.S. Postal Service for some time. That agency is not an FRS participating employer. Petitioner was a student on work study at both the University of Florida and Florida State University. Paid student positions at state universities were not positions which were included in the FRS during that time. Petitioner also seeks to purchase his military time of approximately 22 months. Members of the FRS are allowed to purchase certain military service after they vest in the FRS. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner has sufficient years of service to vest in the FRS and then purchase military service. Petitioner was employed in some state positions prior to 1975. Until 1975, the FRS was a "contributory" system. Employers withheld contributions to the retirement system from the wages of participating members and forwarded the withheld amounts to the Division. It is undisputed from Petitioner's testimony that no retirement contributions were ever withheld from his wages during the period that FRS was a contributory system.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for retirement benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 5th day of April, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Report of the hearing officer submitted on December 6, 1979, is hereby adopted and incorporated herein. It should be noted, however, that the total time and savings deposits for commercial banks in Collier County as of June 30, 1979, was $266,668,000 rather than $226,668,000 as indicated in the hearing officer's Report. The idea of establishing another savings and loan association in Naples originated with Robert E. Talley, a banker, and Allan L. McPeak, a lawyer. The name proposed for the new association is Marine Savings and Loan Association. No financial institution operating in Collier County at the time of the hearing had the word "Marine" in its name. All of the savings and loan associations in operation in Collier County at the time of the hearing had the word "federal" in their names. Applicant proposes to establish an office in downtown Naples, within a few blocks of several other financial institutions. Applicant has entered into a lease for the proposed facility, at an annual rental of $50,000, renewable for two three-month periods, during the pendency of Applicant's application. The lease provides for a ten-year term at an annual rental of $50,000, if the application is approved, with the option to renew for two additional five-year terms. The lease also contains an option to purchase which must be exercised within thirty-six months of opening or no later than March, 1983, whichever first occurs, at a purchase price of $600,000. In support of its application, Applicant caused an MAI appraisal to be prepared. According to the appraisal, the leased premises have a fair market value, as of March 14, 1979, of $433,000. According to a second, CCIM appraisal, also prepared at Applicant's instance, the property will be worth $632,400 as of February 26, 1982. Initially, Applicant plans to occupy the northern 4,285 square feet of the 6,700 square foot, single-story building it is leasing. Subleases with two tenants who are to occupy the southern portion of the building will be structured so as to provide additional space for expansion by Applicant. The leased premises include 43 parking spaces. Additional parking is available on adjacent streets. The site is easily accessible. Traffic conditions appear to pose no problems. The proposed savings and loan association would be a full service financial institution and expects to be competitive with the existing savings and loan offices in the primary service area (hereinafter PSA) with respect to interest rates and breadth of services. Some of the services that the proposed savings and loan association plans are a drive-in teller window, a night depository, safety deposit boxes, a walk-up window, extended hours on week days (from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.), evening hours on Fridays (from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 pm.), Saturday hours (from 9:00 a.m. to Noon), and safekeeping facilities. Most of the existing savings and loan associations in the PSA do not offer extended hours, drive-in teller windows or safekeeping facilities. The proposed PSA includes the populated portion of the city of Naples and segments of unincorporated Collier County to the north and east of the city. It is bounded on the north by Pine Ridge Road, 4.7 miles away; on the east by County Barn Road, 4.2 miles away; on the south by Gordon Pass and Holly Avenue, 3 miles away; and on the west by the Gulf of Mexico, .7 miles away. The PSA is roughly rectangular except for an indentation in the northeastern corner. Twelve savings and loan association offices now operate within the PSA. One savings and loan association has headquarters within the PSA. Four of the eleven branch offices in the PSA are limited facilities. The Protestant's main office is located 0.2 miles southeast of the premises Applicant has leased. Protestant has filed an application to relocate its main office to a site in unincorporated Collier County, 4.8 miles north of Applicant's proposed site and to make its present main office a branch office. One branch office is now located 0.2 miles southwest of the proposed site; three are between 1.3 miles and 2.0 miles from it; and one is 8.7 miles to the north. Except for the Protestant, no savings and loan association now operating in Collier County has headquarters in Collier County. There are 14 commercial bank offices, including five main banking offices and nine branch offices in operation within the PSA. Three of the five main bank offices are located within 0.3 miles of the proposed site; one is 2.6 miles away and another is 7.5 miles away. Of the branch offices, one is located one mile southwest of the proposed site; three are 1.3 to 2.0 miles from it; four are between 2.2 and 4.0 miles from it and one is 8 miles away. In addition, there are three approved but unopened branch offices which are to be located between 3.1 and 5.3 miles-from Applicant's proposed site. The main office of Security Trust of Naples, a non-deposit trust company, is located 0.3 miles southwest of Applicant's proposed site. Applicant proposed five million dollars as the initial capitalization for the savings and loan association. The capital accounts would initially consist of $1,500,000 common stock and $3,500,000 paid-in surplus. Eighteen percent of the stock of the proposed savings and loan association has been subscribed to by nine organizers. The remaining 82 percent has been subscribed to by more-than 400 members of the general public, mostly from the Collier County area. Applicant has estimated the permanent 1979 population of the PSA at 47,000. This represents an average annual rate of growth of 11.6 percent from the PSA's 1970 population of 23,000. Applicant estimates the County's 1979 permanent population at 77,900, the seasonal population of the PSA at between 12,000 and 14,000, and the seasonal County population at between 15,000 and 20,000. The Applicant estimated the combined permanent and seasonal populations of the County at between 92,900 and 97,900 and that of the PSA at between 59,000 and 61,000. The Applicant projects for the 1982 permanent population of the PSA a figure of 53,000, representing an average annual growth rate of 4.3 percent from 1979. According to data compiled by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Division of Population Studies, at the University of Florida, the population of Collier County on April 1, 1970, was 38,040; on July 1, 1979, 64,761; on July 1, 1977, 68,900; on July 1, 1978, 74,572. According to the same source, the population of Naples on April 1, 1970, was 12,042; on July 1, 1976, 17,425; on July 1, 1977, 17,437; and on July 1, 1978, 17,462. The population of unincorporated areas of Collier County, including Everglade City, according to the same source, was 25,998, on April 1, 1970; 47,336, on July, 1976; 51,463 on July 1, 1977; and on July 1, 1978, The population of Collier County grew at an average annual rate of approximately 11.7 percent between 1970 and 1976. Between 1976 and 1977, the County's population grew at a slower rate, viz., approximately 6.4 percent. The rate of growth increased to approximately 8.2 percent between 1977 and 1978. Between 1970 and 1976, the population of Naples grew at an annual average rate of approximately 7.5 percent. During the years 1976, 1977 and 1978, the population of Naples did not increase significantly. The population of the unincorporated areas of Collier County grew at an average annual rate of approximately 13.7 percent between 1970 and 1976, at a rate of approximately 8.7 percent between 1976 and 1977, and at a rate of approximately 11.0 percent between 1977 and 1978. Almost all (94.14 percent) of the population growth in the County between 1970 and 1978, was the result of net migration. Between 1970 and 1978, the proportion of Collier County's population older than 65 years of age increased from 14.0 percent in 1970, to approximately 17.5 percent in 1978. Recent unemployment data for Collier County show an unemployment rate of 10.2 percent for July, 1979 (revised), and 9.8 percent for August, 1979 (preliminary), in the County as compared to the state averages of 6.6 and 6.1 percent for the same months, respectively. The per capita personal income for Collier County was $6,905 in 1976, and $7,663 in 1977. The 11.0 percent increase from 1976 to 1977, is higher than the 9.8 percent increase in the state average for the same period. Collier County's averages were above the state averages of $6,101 in 1976, and $6,697 in 1977. The proposed board of directors would be composed of nine members, at least seven of whom are full-time Florida residents and at least eight of whom are United States citizens. Robert E. Talley, the proposed president and chief executive officer, has had extensive commercial banking experience. From 1964 to 1972, he served as vice-president and loan officer for the Manatee National Bank; from 1972 through 1973, he was senior vice-president of the National Bank of St. Petersburg; from 1973 through 1977, he was president, chief executive officer, and a director of the Community Bank of Homestead; and from 1977 to 1978, he was executive vice-president and branch manager of the National Bank of Collier County. Proposed director, Roland Erickson, served as president and director of the Guaranty Bank and Trust Company, Worcester, Massachusetts, from 1947 to 1964. Proposed director, Harold S. Smith, served as a director and member of the executive committee of the Bank of Everglades from 1948 through 1951. Proposed director, Hendry P. Albrecht, is president of Gale-Realty, Inc., which is involved in investments, including rental property. Although most of the proposed board of directors appear to be successful businessmen, none of them has had direct savings and loan association experience. On June 30, 1975, commercial banks in Collier County had total deposits of $245,086,000 of which $152,499,000 were time and savings deposits. On June 30, 1976, commercial banks in Collier County had total deposits of $301,664,000, of which $193,488,000 were time and savings deposits. On June 30, 1978, commercial banks in Collier County had total deposits of $369,928,000 of which $224,982,000 were time and savings deposits. On June 30, 1979, commercial banks in Collier County had total deposits of $423,365,000 of which $266,668,000 were time and savings deposits. In March of 1979, Protestant held more than three quarters of all moneys on deposit with savings and loan associations in Collier County. At that time, $141,996,000 was on deposit at the Protestant's home office; $10,890,000 at its Tamiami North branch, even though this office first opened in September of 1977; $26,989,000 at its Lely branch; $4,728,000 at its Tamiami South satellite; and $5,537,000 at its Golden Gate facility. In March of 1979, Coast Federal's Tamiami North branch held $56,667,000. On deposit at First City Federal's Tamiami North branch was $6,855,000 in March of 1979. At the same time, Gulf Federal's Fifth Avenue branch had deposits of $7,018,000. In March of 1979, First Federal of Fort Myers had $10,256,000 on deposit at its Tamiami North branch and $235,000 at its Olde Naples facility, which opened in February of 1979. Time and savings deposits in savings and loan associations and commercial banks in Collier County amounted to $552,839,000 in 1978, up 55.62 percent from 1976. At the time of the hearing, there was commercial activity in Naples and residential development, particularly to the north of the PSA. Some thirteen financial institutions were in operation in the western part of Collier County, north of Applicant's proposed site, at the time of the hearing. Applicant has projected savings deposits at the end of the first, second and third years of operation to be $10,000,000, $15,000,000 and $20,000,000, respectively. Applicant also presented a pro forma budget which projected net profit for the first three years to be $191,700, $256,000 and $319,100, respectively. The Deputy Comptroller, Gerri Raines Dolan, and the Director of the Division of Banking, Ryland Terry Rigsby, as advisory staff members to the Comptroller, reviewed the application and the Department's entire file relating to the application. They assisted and concurred with the Comptroller in the ultimate determination of the application.
Conclusions As set forth in Rule 3C-20.45, Florida Administrative Code, when an application for authority to organize and operate a new state savings and loan association is filed pursuant to Chapter 3C-9, Florida Administrative Code, it is the applicant's responsibility to prove that the statutory criteria warranting the grant of authority are met. The Department shall conduct an investigation pursuant to Subsection 665.031(3), Florida Statutes, which was done in this case, and then approve or disapprove the application in its discretion. This discretion is neither absolute nor unqualified, but is instead conditioned by a consideration of the criteria listed in Subsection 655.031(4), Florida Statutes, wherein it is provided that: The Department shall approve the application upon such terms and conditions as it determines necessary to protect the public interest or disapprove the application at its discretion, but it shall not approve such application, unless in its opinion: Public convenience and advantage will be promoted by the establishment of the proposed thrift institution; Local conditions assure reasonable promise of successful operation of the proposed thrift institution and those thrift institutions already established in the community; The proposed officers and directors have good character, sufficient financial standing, and adequate experience and responsibility to assure reasonable promise of successful operation of the thrift institution; and The proposed savings account capital and organization expense fund or capital stock subscriptions comply with the requirements of this chapter. and Subsection 665.051(1), Florida Statutes, wherein it is provided that, The name of every association shall include either the words "savings association" or "savings and loan association." If in the opinion of the Department, any one of the above criteria has not been met and cannot be remedied by the applicant, it cannot approve the application. An applicant can, however, take corrective action in most circumstances to meet the criteria set forth in Subsections 665.031(4)(c), or (d), and 665.051(1), Florida Statutes, if any of these are found to be lacking. For example, if all other statutory criteria are met, the applicant may increase capital, or make certain changes in the board of directors, or change the name, or alter the provisions for suitable quarters, because these factors, at least to some degree, are within its control. It is the Department's policy to allow applicants to make certain changes to meet these criteria if all other criteria are met; to do otherwise would be to subject applicants to unnecessary red tape. However, it is the Department's opinion that there is little, if anything, that an applicant can do to alter its ability to meet the criteria set forth in Subsections 665.031(4)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, since applicants CANNOT readily change the economic and demographic characteristics of an area. Therefore, if either one or both of these criteria are not met, the Department cannot approve the application. For purposes of applications for authority to organize and operate a new state savings and loan association, Rule 3C-20.45(1), Florida Administrative Code, defines PSA as the "smallest area from which the proposed association expects to draw approximately seventy-five percent of its deposits. It should be drawn around a natural customer base, should not be unrealistically delineated to exclude competing financial institutions or to include areas of concentrated population." Based upon, traffic patterns, natural and manmade geographic barriers and the location of other existing offices of financial institutions in the area, the Department concludes that the Applicant's PSA is realistically delineated. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that public convenience and advantage will be promoted by the establishment of the proposed savings and loan association. Therefore, the criterion in Subsection 665.031(4)(a), Florida Statutes, IS met. As set forth in Rule 3C-20.45(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the location and services offered by existing savings and loan association offices in a service area are indicative of the competitive climate of the market and should be considered. Other financial institutions such as banks and credit unions may be considered competing institutions to the extent their services parallel those of a new savings and loan association. Also, the traffic patterns in the area, as well as the general economic and demographic characteristics of the area, must be considered in evaluating this statutory criterion. Because it is recognized that the establishment of a new savings and loan association ANYWHERE would promote the convenience and advantage for at least a few people, SUBSTANTIAL convenience and advantage for a SIGNIFICANT number of people must be shown; otherwise, a new savings and loan association could be justified for every street corner in the state. Clearly, such a result was not the legislative intent in regulating entry into the savings and loan association industry, nor is it in the public interest. Based upon the facts set forth above, the Department has determined that the establishment of the proposed savings and loan association will substantially increase convenience to a significant number of residents of the PSA. This is particularly true in view of the significant growth of the various financial institutions in the area since 1976, as well as the past and projected population growth in the PSA. The Protestant, which is the only other savings and loan association with a main office in Collier County, held more than seventy-five percent of all savings and loan deposits in the County in March, 1979. Consequently, the proposed institution will served as a needed competitive alternative. The site is easily accessible and traffic patterns are favorable. Furthermore, the Applicant intends to offer a variety of new services not generally offered by other financial institutions within the PSA. Therefore, the criterion of public convenience and advantage is met. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that local conditions do assure reasonable promise of successful operation of the proposed thrift institution and those thrift institutions already established in the community. Therefore, the criterion in Subsection 665.031(4)(b), Florida Statutes, IS met. As set forth in Rule 3C-20.45(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, current economic conditions and, to a lesser extent, the growth potential of the area in which the new savings and loan association proposes to locate are important considerations in determining the association's probable success. Essential to the concept of thrift institution opportunity is that there does and will exist a significant volume of business for which the new savings and loan association can realistically compete. The growth rate, size, financial strength and operating characteristics of savings and loan associations and other financial institutions in the service area are also important indicators of economic conditions and potential business for a new savings and loan association. It is noted that the statutory standards require that " . . . local conditions ASSURE reasonable PROMISE of successful operation of the proposed thrift institution and those thrift institutions already established in the community . . ." (E.S.), NOT merely that local conditions INDICATE a POSSIBILITY of such success. Thrift institutions involve a public trust. Unlike private enterprise establishments generally, a savings and loan association operates on the public's capital and therefore, the Legislature has vested in the Comptroller the responsibility to protect that public interest. Furthermore, the failure of a savings and loan association, as opposed to private enterprise establishments generally, may have an unsettling effect on the overall economic welfare of the community and that is why the Florida Legislature and the United States Congress have imposed stringent requirements for the industry. This Department is responsible for enforcing this legislative standard. Public interest is best served by having a thrift institution system whereby new competition is encouraged where appropriate, yet, at the same time, ensuring that the financial resources of the residents in the community are stable and safe. That was the obvious intent of the Legislature in regulating entry into the thrift institution industry. The Applicant's estimated 1979 PSA population of 47,000 and its projections for the near future seem more than reasonable in view of the latest official estimates by the University of Florida. The population base is healthy, a balanced mixture of residents, local businessmen and commuters, with a steady recent history of growth and projections for significant future growth. Although there are other savings and loan offices already existing in or near the PSA, the Department has concluded that the total savings potential within the PSA will readily support a new institution. The Department further concludes that the extensive deposit and loan growth of the existing financial institutions within the PSA justifies the establishment of another competitive alternative. The increasing population, the high per capita income, and the business and residential mix of the PSA point to an expanding and stimulated economy in the PSA for the present as well as the near future. Clearly, these factors are conducive to assuring the reasonable promise of success for the proposed savings and loan association and for those thrift institutions already established in the community. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that the proposed directors, as a group, have good character, sufficient financial standing and responsibility, but do not have sufficient experience in the savings and loan field to assure reasonable promise of successful operation of the proposed association. Therefore, one of the criteria of Subsection 665.031(4)(c), Florida Statutes, IS NOT met. As set forth in Rule 3C-20.45(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, the organizers, proposed directors and officers shall have reputations evidencing honesty and integrity. They shall have employment and business histories demonstrating their responsibility in financial affairs. At least one member of a proposed board of directors, other than the chief managing officer, shall have experience in the savings and loan field or in a business directly related thereto such as mortgage banking, real estate finance and commercial banking where real property lending has constituted an integral part of such banking experience. The organizers, proposed director's and officers shall meet the requirements of Sections 665.131 and 665.703, Florida Statutes, as applicable. A majority of the organizers and directors of a proposed thrift institution shall be, whenever possible, from the local community and shall represent a diversification of occupation and experience commensurate with the position for which proposed. Members of the initial management group, which includes directors and officers, shall require prior approval of the Department. Changes of directors or chief managing officer during the first year of operation shall also require prior approval of the Department. While it is not necessary that the names of proposed officers he submitted with an application to organize a new savings and loan association, the chief managing officer and operations officer must be named and their names submitted for departmental approval at least sixty (60) days prior to the association' opening. In addition, interlocking directorships involving existing financial institutions competitively near the proposed site of a new institution are discouraged. Such interlocking directorships could possibly restrict competition and create fiduciary problems. Although the proposed directors have, as a group, good character, sufficient financial standing and responsibility, none of the proposed directors has any direct experience in the savings and loan field. Only Robert E. Talley, as a proposed director, has demonstrated that he has the requisite related business experience by virtue of his background in commercial banking, real estate, and mortgage brokerage. Because the selection of directors for a proposed new savings and loan association is generally within an applicant's control, the Department wilt, in this case, allow the Applicant to remedy the above inadequacy in the proposed board of directors by the addition of one director with sufficient experience in the savings and loan field or in a business directly related thereto or by further demonstrating that one of the proposed board members already has the requisite related business experience. While the department has noted that Robert E. Talley has been proposed as the chief managing officer, the Department does not approve or disapprove an applicant's proposed chief managing officer until the association makes an application for insurance of its accounts. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that the proposed savings account capital and the organization expense fund or capital stock subscriptions comply with the requirements of Chapter 665, Florida Statutes. Therefore, the criteria of Subsection 665.031(4)(d), ARE met. As set forth in Rule 3C-20.45(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code, capital should be adequate to enable the new savings and loan association to provide the necessary services of promoting thrift and home financing to meet the needs of prospective customers. Capital should be sufficient to purchase, build or lease a suitable permanent facility complete with equipment. Generally, the initial capital (withdrawable savings for a mutual association applicant and total stock and paid-in surplus for a stock association applicant) for a new savings and loan association should not be less than $1.5 million in non- metropolitan areas and $2.0 million in metropolitan areas. To encourage community support, a wide distribution of stock ownership is desirable. A majority of the stock should be issued wherever possible to local residents of the community, persons with substantial business interests in the community, or others who may reasonably be expected to utilize the services of the association. Subscribers to five (5) percent or more of the stock may not finance more than fifty (50) percent of the purchase price if the extension of credit is predicated in any manner on the stock of the new association, whether or not such stock is pledged. Generally, all proposed stock for-a stock savings and loan association shall be subscribed to at the time the application is submitted to the Department. The organizers may initially subscribe to all proposed stock, but should disclose the anticipated amount of individual stock to be retained. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that the name, Marine Savings and Loan Association, meets the criterion of Subsection 665.051(1), Florida Statutes, and is not so similar as to cause confusion with the name of an existing financial institution. As set forth in Rule 3C-20.45(4), Florida Administrative Code, the Department will consider the possibility that a name similar to that of another financial institution may cause confusion in the minds of the public or be misleading and may deny the use of such name, with the exception of names specifically authorized under Subsection 665.051(1), Florida Statutes. The Department concludes that the name Maring Savings and Loan Association is not so similar as to cause confusion with the name of an existing financial institution. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that provision has been made for suitable quarters. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 3C- 20.45(6)(d), Florida Administrative Code, ARE met. As set forth in Rule 3C-20.45(6)(d), should temporary quarters be contemplated by an applicant until a permanent facility is completed, permission to open in temporary quarters may be granted, generally not to exceed one year. The permanent structure of a new savings and loan association should generally contain a minimum of 5,000 square feet unless the applicant satisfactorily shows that smaller quarters are justified due to the performance of certain auxiliary services off-premises. It shall be of sufficient size to handle the projected business for a reasonable period of time. The facility shall be of a nature to warrant customer confidence in the association's security, stability and permanence. Other pertinent factors include availability of adequate parking, an adequate drive-in facility if such is contemplated and possibilities for expansion. The Applicant presently plans permanent quarters in a building containing 4,285 square feet, which will have adequate parking and drive-in facilities. No temporary quarters are contemplated. Since adequate provision has been made for expansion up to 6,700 square feet, the Department considers that provision has been made for suitable quarters. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that the proposed acquisition of the association's proposed site has been fully disclosed and does not constitute an insider transaction. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 3C- 20.45(3) ARE met. Rule 3C-20.45(3), Florida Administrative Code, provides that any financial arrangement or transaction involving the organization of a proposed association and its organizers, directors, officers and shareholders owning five (5) percent or more of the stock, or their relatives, their associates or interests should ordinarily be avoided. Should there be transactions of this nature, they must be fair and reasonable, fully disclosed and comparable to similar arrangements which could have been made with unrelated parties. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that the provisions of Rule 3C-20.45(6)(e), Florida Administrative Code, have NOT been met. Pursuant to Rule 3C-20.45(6)(e), Florida Administrative Code, appraisals of land and improvements thereon shall be made by an independent qualified appraiser and be dated no earlier than six months from the filing date of the application. In those instances where the application involves a lease arrangement, the appraisal should be directed to the comparability of the proposed lease with other leasing arrangements for similar business property. The application involves a lease arrangement and, although the Applicant has submitted an acceptable appraisal as to the fair market value of the leased premises, it has not submitted an appraisal directed to the comparability of the proposed lease with other leasing arrangements for similar business property. However, since this is a criterion that is within the control of the Applicant, the Department may approve the application upon the condition that this deficiency is remedied.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The applicant Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company is located at 4600 West Cypress Street, Tampa, Florida, and was established on May 31, 1974. Excluding its Chief Executive Officer and Executive Vice-President, the applicant has 25 officers with a combined total of 352 years of banking experience. The average age of the officers is 41, with an average of 15 years of banking experience. Six of the management team are past bank presidents. The applicant presently has two existing branch banking facilities. One is located 0.9 miles Southeast from the main office and one is located 8.6 miles Northwest of the main office. A third facility, acquired by merger, located 19.4 miles Southeast of the main facility, has been approved and was expected to open in April, 1979. As a result of the merger between Metropolitan and the American Guarantee Bank, the applicant now has 160 employees, The applicant has paid regular cash dividends to its stockholders since opening. As of December 31, 1978, the applicant had total assets of over $187,000,000.00. Its loans to loanable funds ratio has been maintained at about 80 percent. That ratio was 76.7 percent as of February 14, 1979. The protestant stipulated at the hearing that the applicant had no problem meeting its liquidity needs. As of December 31, 1978, the applicant had an adjusted capital to assets ratio of 8.2 percent. Its net profit to asset ratio was .836 percent as of December 31, 1978. The establishment of the proposed branch is expected to have no significant effect upon future earnings of the applicant. It is anticipated that the slight loss after the first year of operation will not exceed two cents per share and that the branch will contribute significantly to earnings of the applicant after the first year. The applicant presently has approximately $1.4 million in deposits and $2.8 million invested in loans from residents and business people in the primary service area of the proposed branch bank. The name of the proposed facility is to be Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Carrollwood Branch Office. It is to be located on the southwest corner of Dale Mabry Highway and Ehrlich Road, an unincorporated area of Hillsborough County, approximately 8.8 air miles from the main office. The property is presently owned by the applicant. No officer or employee of the applicant has an interest in the land purchased. The total cost of the land, building, furniture and fixtures and other fees is expected to amount to approximately $409,500.00. As of December 31, 1978, the applicant had an amount in excess of $1,391,500.00 to invest in bank premises. The proposed facility will offer full services, including checking and savings services, certificates of deposits, installment and commercial loans, VISA cards, safe deposit boxes, a 24-hour teller machine and Saturday banking. Additionally, the applicant intends to extend its main office services of international banking and trust services to the proposed branch. The building is to contain some 4,300 square feet and the drive-in area will contain some 1,050 square feet. Forty-three parking spaces will be provided. There will be five interior teller windows and four drive-in teller stations. The facility will also have a community room available for local citizens. The lending authority of the proposed branch manager will be $25,000.00 on an unsecured basis and $50,000.00 on a secured basis. Larger loans can be made available through consultation and approval of the parent bank. Long-term mortgage loans and acquisition and development loans will be available through the proposed branch. The proposed facility will have a branch manager and six staff (non- officer) members. The designated proposed branch manager is A. H. Vermeulen who has 22 years of experience in the banking industry and is currently a vice- president of the applicant. Mr. Vermuelen suffered a heart attack several weeks before the administrative hearing in this cause. It is expected that he will be able to resume his duties with the applicant. However, if he is unable to do so, the applicant has designated Charles Overholt as the proposed branch manager. Mr. Overholt has had 12 years of banking experience, has been an assistant branch manager of the Flagship Bank in St. Petersburg and is currently the applicant's vice-president in charge of the bookkeeping department. The applicant projects that total deposits at the proposed branch bank will be $5,000,00.00 at the end of the first year of operation, and $11,000,000.00 and $17,000,000.00 respectively at the end of the second and third years of operation. At the end of the first year of operation, the applicant anticipates a net loss of $22,100.00. Net profits of $211,300.00 and $459,500.00 are estimated for the end of the second and third years of operation. The site for the proposed branch banking facility is located on a main north/south traffic artery (North Dale Mabry Highway) and fronts on a major east/west traffic artery (Ehrlich Road). In selecting this site and designating the primary service area, the factors of residential development, population growth, traffic activity and flow, and existing financial institutions and services in the area were considered. Within the applicant's primary service area, there are presently two existing banks. The protestant Carrollwood is located 2.8 miles south of the applicant's site and the Exchange Bank of Temple Terrace branch is located 2.9 miles south of the proposed site. By an Order dated February 20, 1979, the Office of the Comptroller granted authority to the Sun Bank of Tampa Bay to open a branch bank to be located approximately 1.5 miles south of the site. Other applications for branch banks in the area are pending and there are several savings and loan institutions in the area. While the population of Tampa has declined in recent years, there have been considerable increases in population in the unincorporated areas of Hillsborough County, including the applicant's primary service area. The largest part (76.63 percent) of the increase in the unincorporated areas have resulted from net migration, as opposed to natural increase. There has been a good balance of growth in both the working or labor age group and the group aged 65 and above. The per capita personal income figures for Hillsborough County are below the State average and are increasing somewhat slower that the State average. The comparative figures report for June 30, 1977, through June 30, 1978, show that the protestant increased its total deposits by a little over 30 percent, the Exchange Bank of Temple Terrace increased its total deposits by almost 25 percent, and the Sun Bank of Tampa Bay likewise increased deposits by a little over 21 percent. The average for increases in deposits for the County was 16.6 percent. Official state estimates of population for the primary service area are not available. The applicant estimates the 1978 population of the primary service area to be 20,800. A population of 25,000 is projected for 1980 and a population of 33,000 is projected for 1985. The population of this area has grown approximately 105 percent since the year 1970. The two existing banks in the area result in a population per bank of 10,400 persons. The Sun Bank's branch brings this down to 6,933 persons per banking facility. The national average population per banking office is 4,715 and the Florida average is 8,086. The figures above for the primary service area do not take into account savings and loan institutions in the area nor customers served by banks outside the primary service area. The primary service area is mainly a "bedroom," residential community at the present time, with little commercial or industrial development. There is no significant concentration of employment in the area. The makeup of the populace is primarily upper middle class. Most of the residential development has occurred West of North Dale Mabry Highway. There are between 8,600 and 10,500 new residential units planned in the subdivisions located within the primary service area and, as of the date of the subject application, some 1,900 had been completed. Developers and landowners feel that commercial development in the area will naturally follow the residents development. At least two land developers in the primary service area have had difficulty obtaining financing in the form of large acquisition and development loans and construction loans from existing banks within the primary service area. The applicant is in substantial compliance with all state and federal laws affecting its operations. In accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes Section 120.57(1)(a)(12), conclusions of law and a recommendation are not included in this Report. Respectfully submitted and entered this 29th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. Riley Davis William S. Lyman Taylor, Brion, Buker and Green Assistant General Counsel P. O. Box 1796 Office of the Comptroller Tallahassee, Florida 32302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert W. Perkins and Richard B. Collins Comptroller Gerald A. Lewis Michaels, Sheffield, Perkins, The Capitol Collins and Vickers Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Post Office Box 10069 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The purpose of the mandatory public hearing is to afford the public an opportunity to comment on the application from a foreign national for authority to organize Union Credit Bank, a proposed new bank to be located in Miami, Dade County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On October 18, 1999, the Department received an application (Application) from a foreign national to organize a new bank, Union Credit. The proposed location of Union Credit was Miami, Dade County, Florida. The Department published a notice of receipt of the Application in the October 29, 1999, publication of the Florida Administrative Weekly. The Department has satisfied the notice requirements of Subsection 120.80(3)(a)1.a., Florida Statutes, and Rule 3C-105.103, Florida Administrative Code. By letter dated November 8, 1999, the Department made a timely request for additional information, including additional information from Union Credit's proposed officers and directors (Applicants). The Department did not receive all of the additional information that it had requested from the Applicants until March 1, 2000. On April 3, 2000, the Applicants, as required by federal law, filed a separate application with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"). Identified on the Application are three individuals associated with Union Credit, Oddie Rishmague (O. Rishmague) , Miguel Rishmague (M. Rishmague), and Jorge Luis del Rosal, who are foreign nationals. Mr. O. Rishmague is a proposed director and the proposed sole owner. Mr. M. Rishmague is a proposed director, the proposed chairman of the board of directors, and a proposed officer. Mr. del Rosal is a proposed director. All other proposed officers and directors identified on the Application are citizens of the United States. The other proposed officers and directors are: John H. Blake, Alexander J. Evans, Robert Tamayo, Milton H. Lehr, and Grace V. McGuire. Mr. O. Rishmague, a proposed director and the proposed sole owner of Union Credit has more than 12 years of international banking experience. From 1988 to 1995, he served as Vice-Chairman of Banco Osorno. During his tenure, Banco Osorno grew from a small bank to the second largest bank in Chile. For the past five years, Mr. O. Rishmague has been a member of the board of directors of Corpbanca. In addition to his banking experience, Mr. O. Rishmague served as a director of Provida, a private company that manages $12 billion dollars of pension fund assets. Mr. Tamayo is the proposed president and chief executive officer for Union Credit. He has over 38 years of banking experience in the areas of international and domestic banking. From 1984 to July of 1993, Mr. Tamayo served as a Senior Vice President for Espirito Santos Bank of Florida, a state chartered domestic bank. From July of 1993 to 1999, he served as a Senior Vice President and General Manager of Banco Boliviano Americano’s Miami agency office. Mr. Lehr, a proposed director, has substantial banking experience. From 1976 to 1999 he served as a member of the board of directors of Republic National Bank of Miami. Mr. Blake, a proposed director, has over 13 years of banking experience. From 1986 to 1999 Mr. Blake served as a member of the board of directors of Republic National Bank of Miami. Mr. M. Rishmague, the proposed chairman of the board of directors, served two years as a member of the board of directors of Corpbanca. Ms. McGuire, a proposed director, is a self-employed bank consultant who has worked with numerous domestic and international banks on a variety of complex banking issues. Mr. del Rosal is a retired corporate executive. Mr. Evans is a certified public accountant. No evidence was presented and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the presently identified proposed officers do not have sufficient financial institution experience, ability, standing, and reputation to indicate reasonable promise of successful operation. No evidence was presented and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the proposed directors do not have sufficient business experience, ability, standing, and reputation to indicate reasonable promise of successful operation. None of the proposed officers or directors have been convicted of, or pled guilty or nolo contendere to, any violation of Section 655.50, Florida Statutes, relating to the Florida Control of Money Laundering in Financial Institutions Act; Chapter 896, Florida Statutes, relating to offenses related to financial institutions; or any similar state or federal law. Mr. Blake and Mr. Lehr, proposed directors who are not proposed officers, have had at least one year of direct experience as a director of a financial institution within three years of the date of the Application. Mr. Tamayo, the proposed president and chief executive officer, has had at least one year of direct experience as an executive officer of a financial institution within the last three years. The Applicants seek to organize Union Credit to provide a variety of competitive deposit products and other related banking services, including residential and commercial lending, within the Miami area. Union Credit’s target customers include individual consumers, professionals, and both small and large businesses. The initial gross capital for Union Credit will be $10,000,000.00, and will be classified as follows: $5,000,000.00 of paid-in capital; $4,750,000.00 of paid-in surplus; and $250,000.00 designated as undivided profits. Union Credit is authorized to issue, at opening, 1,000,000 shares of common stock at $10.00 per share. The initial capitalization of Union Credit is adequate in relation to its proposed business activities. However, should Union Credit’s capital fall below $10,000,000.00 within its first three years of operation, Mr. O. Rishmague will immediately contribute, from his own personal assets, the funds necessary to maintain Union Credit’s capital at the level of $10,000,000.00, thus ensuring that Union Credit’s gross capital remains, at a minimum, at $10,000,000.00. Thereafter, Mr. O. Rishmague has committed to infuse additional capital, as may be appropriate, as Union Credit grows in asset size. The local conditions in Miami are favorable to Union Credit’s business plan. Union Credit’s financial plan also appears reasonable and attainable. The Department and Applicants recognize that the corporate name of Union Credit is not, and cannot, be reserved with the Department of State. The Department of State no longer reserves corporate names. Union Credit will have suitable quarters. It will be located at 1150 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. No member of the public appeared at the public hearing or spoke in opposition to the Application. No one testified in opposition to the Application. The Applicants cause notice of the public hearing to be published in the Miami Herald on May 4, 2000. The notice complied with the requirements of Rule 3C-105.106(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Applicants satisfied the notice requirements of Subsection 120.80(3)(a)4, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Alcides I. Avila, Esquire Patricia M. Hernandez, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000 Miami, Florida 33131 Robert Alan Fox, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance 101 East Gaines Street Fletcher Building, Suite 526 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Robert F. Milligan Office of the Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level 09 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry L. Hooper, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Fletcher Building, Suite 526 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners have filed an application with the Respondent to organize a new bank in Ocala, Marion County, Florida. The name of the proposed bank would be the Citizens First Bank of Ocala. The Petitioners are the organizers and proposed directors of the bank. Each of the Petitioners is of good moral character, and each enjoys an outstanding reputation. None of the Petitioners have been convicted of any crimes involving breach of trust, and none have filed for bankruptcy, or have any history of being bad credit risks. Together the Petitioners constitute a diverse group with very broad and successful business experiences. The Petitioner William R. Kidd is a registered professional engineer and realtor who has lived and worked in Ocala since 1950. Mr. Kidd has broad experience in evaluating various aspects of real estate transactions, and he has extensive experience in arranging financing of construction projects. Mr. Kidd owns a pollution control company which has a net worth of approximately $25,000 and a real estate business with sales since 1975 in excess of $10,000,000. He also manages and operates a successful consulting engineering firm. Mr. Kidd plans to invest $40,000 in the new bank, and he has sufficient funds readily availably to make that investment. Mr. Kidd is willing to invest more money in the enterprise if additional capitalization is required. Mr. Kidd is interested in working with the bank, particularly in relation to financing of real estate transactions, and construction projects. The Petitioner Ralph Murphy was born in Marion County and has spent most of his life there. Mr. Murphy owns a linen service company which does approximately $18,500 to $19,000 in business weekly. The linen service, which Mr. Murphy has managed since it was a small entity doing less than $2,500 in business weekly, has a net worth of approximately $900,000. Mr. Murphy serves on the Boards of Directors of several other corporations. Mr. Murphy intends to purchase $40,000 of stock in the proposed new bank, and he has funds readily available with which he can do that. Mr. Murphy is willing to devote as much time as is necessary to organize the bank. The Petitioner Milton L. Copeland manages an insurance firm which writes commercial insurance policies for businesses in Florida and in Georgia. His company has offices in Ocala and Jacksonville. The Ocala office writes approximately $2,000,000 in insurance policies annually. The Jacksonville office writes approximately $15,000 in policies weekly. Mr. Copeland has a personal net worth of approximately $800,000. Mr. Copeland intends to buy $40,000 worth of stock in the proposed new bank, and he has funds readily available for that purpose. Mr. Copeland wishes to take an active part in soliciting new accounts for the bank, and he could devote as much as two full days per week to bank activities. If further capitalization of the proposed bank were considered necessary, Mr. Copeland is willing to increase his investment in the bank. The Petitioner James Cunningham owns and operates a funeral home business in Ocala. He has lived in Ocala most of his life. The dollar volume of Mr. Cunningham's business during 1976 was approximately $250,000. Mr. Cunningham is a City Councilman in Ocala. He is a black man. It has only been in recent years that blacks have even been employed at local banks, and no blacks presently serve on the Boards of Directors of any banks operating in Ocala or Marion County. Mr. Cunningham intends to purchase $40,000 worth of stock in the new bank. He will need to borrow no more than 25 percent of that amount in order to make the investment. Mr. Cunningham desires to take an active part in soliciting accounts and customers for the new bank, and he is willing to devote whatever time would be required for that purpose. The Petitioner Marjorie Renfroe owns and operates a boat, motor and trailer sales and service business in Marion County. Her business had gross sales during 1976 of approximately $350,000. Ms. Renfroe serves on the Board of Directors of the United Way in Marion County, and on the Board of Directors of the Central Florida Community College. Ms. Renfroe plans to buy $40,000 worth of stock in the new bank, and if further capitalization were found necessary, she is willing to increase her investment, and is able to do so. Ms. Renfroe is willing to devote as much time as necessary to managing the new bank, and she is particularly interested in providing services to employees and students of the local community college, especially instructional sorts of courses for students. No women presently serve on the Boards of Directors of any banks in Marion County. One woman serves on the Board of Directors of a savings and loan institution in Marion County. The Petitioner Van G. Staton manages a Belk-Lindsey Department Store in Ocala, Florida. He has lived in Ocala and managed the department store since 1956. The store employs 48 persons and had gross sales during 1976 of approximately $3,000,000. The annual payroll of the store is $400,000 to $500,000. The Petitioner serves on the Board of Directors of a local automobile sales and service corporation, and from 1970 through 1975 he served on the Marion County School Board. Mr. Staton plans to purchase $40,000 of stock in the new bank, and he would not need to borrow more than 50 percent of that amount. Mr. Staton would favor additional capitalization, and would be willing to increase his investment. Mr. Staton is particularly interested in having extended business hours in the new bank beyond the hours presently served by banks operating in Marion County, and Saturday openings. He is willing to spend as much time as is necessary with banking activities. The Petitioner Owen C. Shelton owns and manages two corporations which operate fifteen convenience stores. The total sales for the two corporations was approximately $17,000,000 during 1976. Mr. Shelton has lived in Ocala for 15 years. His personal net worth is in excess of $1,000,000. Mr. Shelton has been in the grocery business for twenty-five years. He started with one small store. His corporations employ approximately 185 persons. Mr. Shelton plans to purchase $40,000 worth of stock in the new bank, and he is willing to increase his investment if further capitalization is required. The Petitioner Terry Trexler is President and Chairman of the Board of Nobility Homes, a mobile home manufacturing business. The company does business in 29 states, and does from 5.1 to 5.2 million dollars worth of business on a quarterly basis. Mr. Trexler has lived in Ocala for 15 years. Mr. Trexler plans to invest $40,000 in purchasing stock in the new bank, and he intends to be active in soliciting new accounts and customers for the bank. The Petitioner Sam Kinlaw is a resident of Orlando, Florida. He has a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration from the University of Florida, and attended the Banking School of the South at Louisiana State University. Mr. Kinlaw has been active in the banking business, or in similar financial businesses since approximately 1958. He has served as the head of installment loan departments and commercial lending departments of banks in Florida. Beginning in 1972, he became the Chief Executive Officer of the Semoran Bank, which was a new Federally chartered bank. He was responsible for setting up the bank, hiring personnel, establishing policies, and carrying on the day-to-day operations of the bank. He served in that capacity from near the end of 1972 until September, 1975. He has not been involved in the banking business since then. Mr. Kinlaw intends to purchase a "qualifying share" of stock in the bank. He intends to serve on the Board of Directors during the time that the bank is being organized, until other persons with direct banking experience are named to the Board of Directors. The Petitioner Braxton Jones owns and operates several convenience stores and two supermarkets. He has lived in Ocala nearly all of his life. He is prepared to purchase between $20,000 and $30,000 of stock in the new bank, and he is willing to devote whatever time would be necessary to organize and operate the bank. The Petitioner Clarence Woodrow Hicks has lived in Marion County for approximately 30 years. He formerly owned and operated Hicks News Agency, which was involved in the wholesale distribution of magazines, books, postcards and sundry items. He also owned two retail book stores. Mr. Hicks has sold his business and is now semi-retired. He serves as a consultant to the new owners of his business. During the time that he operated the businesses, they did approximately three million dollars of business per year. Mr. Hicks' net worth is in excess of one million dollars. Mr. Hicks has time available to devote to the new bank. The proposed Citizens First Bank of Ocala would, if the instant application were granted, be located at the northwest corner of the intersection of State Road 200 and Southwest 16th Avenue in Ocala. The location is approximately one mile west of Pine Street (Federal Highways 441, 27, and 301), which is the primary north/south artery through Ocala. The proposed bank would be located just over three miles east of Interstate Highway 75. State Road 200 is presently a four lane highway which serves as one of the primary routes from the Interstate Highway into Ocala. Southwest 16th Avenue is presently two- laned, but all right of ways have been acquired and construction will shortly commence to four-lane the road. All of the banks and the savings and loans associations which presently operate in the Ocala area are located east of Pine Street. There are no banking facilities in the Ocala area which are located to the west of Pine Street. Location of a banking facility to the west of Pine Street would serve the convenience of persons in Ocala who live or work on the west side of Pine Street. Pine Street is a very busy highway, which has not been properly designed so that it can be easily crossed. Furthermore, a railroad track runs parallel to Pine Street to the West, and presents an additional barrier. While it is not impossible for persons who live or work on the west side of Pine Street to bank on the east side, the testimony is unrebutted that it is inconvenient to do so due to traffic congestion, and the railroad. There are many persons who reside on the west side, of Pine Street. The area to the north of the proposed bank site is a residential area. There are many low income residences, and trailer park type residential facilities in that area. There are also many moderate income residences to the south and the west of the proposed site all on the west side of Pine Street. The total population of the primary service area, which is designated to be west of Pine Street, is estimated to be 14,300, as of July, 1977. This represents more than a 35 percent increase from 1970 population figures. Many more residences are planned in the area. Over 1,200 new homes have recently been completed, and more than 500 are under construction. Larger residential developments are in the planning stages. There is considerable commercial activity in the areas surrounding the proposed site. The Ocala Industrial Park is located immediately across State Road 200 from the proposed site, and the South 40 Industrial Park is also nearby. Thirty-eight firms presently occupy space in the Ocala Industrial Park, employing more than 1,500 persons and occupying more than one million square feet of building space. Fourteen firms are presently located at the South 40 Industrial Park, employing nearly 350 persons and utilizing more than 300,000 square feet of building space. Both Industrial Parks have experienced steady growth. Many businesses, including several automobile sales and service businesses, have located on State Road 200. Construction is scheduled to begin on a major shopping mall in January, 1978, by the Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation. The mall will be located on State Road 200 just east of Interstate Highway 75. Construction will take approximately 12 months. More than 900 persons will be employed at the mall. In addition, most of the horse farms which surround the Ocala area are located west of Pine Street. There are six banking institutions located in Marion County. The two banks located out of the Ocala area have no particular relevance to this matter. Four banks are located in Ocala. Only one of these banks is an independent bank. The others are parts of larger bank holding companies which are not centered in Ocala. Total bank deposits in Marion County have increased steadily from a total of $176,586,000 in 1973 to $236,336,000 in June, 1977. Although estimates vary, it is evident that the population of Marion County has increased from a 1970 total of approximately 69,000 to a 1977 total of from 104,000 to 127,000. It appears that existing banks in Marion County are in a healthy financial position and are experiencing steady growth. There are many interlocking relationships on the Boards of Directors of the existing banks. None of the Petitioners presently serve on the Boards of any of the existing banks, and this can only promote more lively competition among the banks. Petitioners have proposed to keep their bank open for longer hours than existing banks, and for additional banking days. Petitioners propose to provide specialized counselling for new business people, and education courses for students who attend the nearby Central Florida Community College. It appears that local banks have frequently acted adversely on loan applications from local developers, who have been able to borrow money at favorable rates outside of Marion County. The presently existing banks have not adequately served the very large and active horse farming industry that is located in Ocala, and several horse farmers have needed to go to Gainesville to obtain adequate farm businesses. Banks in Marion County have shown a deposit gain of nearly sixteen percent during the year 1976, as compared to a State of Florida average of approximately 7.4 percent. Of the sixteen counties in which new bank charters were granted in the period from January, 1975, through March, 1977, only two counties had a total deposit growth greater than was experienced in Marion County. A savings and loan association was chartered and opened in Marion County in January, 1975. The association has achieved very good success, and has not proved harmful to other financial institutions, which have also shown steady growth during this same period. Petitioners have projected a net profit at the end of the third year of their operation of $163,300 based on deposits of $10,000,000. A more conservative estimate of a net profit of $61,350, based on $8,000,000 in deposits after three years was estimated by Examiner Howze, a bank examiner who conducted an investigation of the instant application for the Respondent. George Lewis, II, the former Director of the Division of Banking, prepared a proposed budget which showed that the bank would be operating at a loss after three years. George Lewis' estimates are not credible. He estimated that the return on commercial loans would be at a rate of from 7 and 1/4 to 8 percent during the first, second and third years. Nine percent is a more realistic figure, and is itself conservative. The Respondent approved the charter of the Shores Bank of Lake Wier in Marion County which indicated a nine percent return on loans. George Lewis furthermore showed a three percent cost on all demand deposits. This cost is not justified by any factors currently accepted in the banking business. George Lewis apparently based the additional cost on his feeling that the legislature may pass a law requiring banks to pay such a return on all demand deposits. Such speculation has not been shown to be justifiable, and cannot serve as a reasonable factor to be used in predicting a proposed bank's profits. Petitioners propose to issue capital stock in the amount of $1,000,000, and thus to capitalize the new bank in that amount. This is adequate capital to serve the needs of the proposed bank during the first three years of its operation. George Lewis, II, testified that additional, capitalization would be required, but he gave no reason for his opinion. To the extent that additional capital is required, the Petitioners are in a position to raise it, and are willing to do so. Only one of the Petitioners who would serve on the first Board of Directors of the proposed bank has any direct banking experience. All of the Petitioners have engaged in considerable banking activities, but only Sam Kinlaw has served in an active capacity with a bank. The Petitioners propose to hire experienced persons to serve as the bank's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operations Officer. These persons would also serve on the Board of Directors. The Petitioners do represent a good cross-section of successful business people. Their varied business experiences within Marion County would be very helpful to the new bank. In order to properly operate the bank, however, they will require experienced officers. Consistent with the Respondent's policy, the Petitioners have not yet named their officers. To do so, the Petitioners would place the persons they propose to hire in an untenable position in their present capacities. The Respondent has, in the past, approved bank charter applications for further processing under similar circumstances, so as to allow applicants an opportunity to recruit acceptable, experienced individuals to serve as officers. The Board of the proposed bank, as presently constituted, does not have adequate banking experience so as to assure a reasonable prospect of success. If, however, experienced, competent officers, who will also serve on the Board, are hired, the Board would be such as to assure a reasonable promise of success. The parties have stipulated that the name of the proposed bank, the Citizens First Bank of Ocala, is not so similar to any existing bank as to cause confusion with the name of the existing bank. The property which the Petitioners have obtained for the proposed bank is an excellent location. Petitioners plan to utilize a structure which is already on the land to commence operations. The structure has approximately 3,000 square feet of floor space, is aesthetically appropriate, and can be fairly easily modified to serve as a banking facility. The structure, when modified to increase the size of the lobby and to provide appropriate security measures, should prove adequate during the first three years of the bank's operation. There is sufficient land for additions to be made, and the structure is physically sound so that a second floor could be added. The Petitioners are prepared to increase the size of the facility as required.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioners' application for authority to organize and operate the Citizens First Bank of Ocala be approved for further processing, and that the application be finally approved when the Petitioners have satisfied the Respondent that they have retained appropriate individuals to serve as the bank's principal officers, and that these persons will also serve on the Board of Directors. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER 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 30th day of December, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Gary Williams, Esquire AUSLEY, McMULLEN, McGEHEE, CAROTHERS & PROCTOR Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 S. Craig Kiser, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Legal Annex Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Joseph C. Jacobs, Esquire Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Willard Ayres, Esquire Post Office Box 1148 Ocala, Florida 32670 Appendix
Findings Of Fact In the United States in the twentieth century credit unions were conceived as cooperative societies incorporated for the two-fold purpose of promoting thrift among their members and creating a source of credit for their members at legitimate rates of interest for provident purposes. This has remained the raison d'etre of credit unions since their proliferation which began in the first third of this century. As such cooperative lending associations they have allowed people with limited means a way of pooling their savings to make a source of funds available for low interest loans. In Florida there have been several methods of withdrawal traditionally used by members of credit unions to withdraw funds from their deposit or share accounts. The first of these methods has been a direct personal visit by the member to the credit union to execute the withdrawal. Over the years however it has become common for many withdrawals by members to be made pursuant to telephone instructions by the member to the credit union, by letter from the member to the credit union, or by continuing instructions from the member to the credit union ordering the withdrawal of certain sums periodically. Frequently the recipient of these withdrawals has been the member himself or herself. However it is common for these withdrawals to be paid to third parties such as the member's creditors, family members, insurance companies or other financial institutions, at the member's direction. These withdrawals have usually been paid by a check from the credit union drawn on the credit union's local bank account or in cash. However, credit unions have also utilized methods of payment such as drafts, electronic funds transfer or other internal or external accounting transactions between and among institutions where the credit union may have established accounts. The Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code are silent with regard to the manner in which a credit union member may withdraw his or her shares or deposits or a part thereof. Over their years of development credit unions have instituted many programs for their members which have been accepted as furthering the purpose of the credit union as a thrift institution. These programs presently include debt proration and automatic payment of bills, financial counsel inn, traveler's checks, money orders, share and deposit accounts, and certificates of deposit. A share draft is a negotiable or non-negotiable draft which directs a credit union to pay funds from a member's share or deposit account to either the member or a third party designated by the member. The four credit union Petitioners have share draft programs which function in essentially the same manner, their distinctions being slight. A share draft is payable through a bank and is similar to other forms of payable through drafts drawn against other non-bank institutions such as money order companies and insurance companies. A member of one of the four Petitioner credit unions who desires to use share drafts must first establish a separate share or deposit account with the credit union. The member contracts with the credit union for participation in the program. All share drafts are paid out of that account. The member receives a book of drafts with the member's name pre- printed on each draft. To the layman these drafts look like checks. However, they are not checks. A share draft can be made payable to cash or any payee in any amount, provided the draft does not exceed the available balance in the member's share draft account. A share draft may be presented directly to the credit union by a member to withdraw cash from the member's share draft account, or, a payee who has received a share draft from a member may bring it to the credit union for payment from the member's share draft account. Ordinarily, however, a payee who has received a share draft from a member will deposit the draft in the payee's own bank account. The draft will then be delivered to the credit union's payable through bank through the normal bank clearing channels used also for checks. The information on the draft is extracted by the payable through bank and converted either to an electronic medium or some other form of communication medium which is then used to deliver a request to the credit union for payment of the draft. Three of the credit union Petitioners in this cause, Pinellas County Teachers' Credit Union, Duval County Teachers' Credit Union, and Publix Employees' Credit Union participate in the share draft program originated and sponsored by ICU Service Corporation, and use the Chase Manhattan Bank as the payable through bank. The fourth credit union Petitioner, Leon County Teachers' Credit Union, is not a part of the ICU Service Program, and utilizes the Capital City First National Bank of Tallahassee as its payable through bank. One of the differences between the ICU program and that utilized by the Leon County Teachers' Credit Union is the manner in which the payable through banks collect from the credit unions the money they paid out each day on drafts delivered to them. In the ICU program, the payable through bank (Chase) collects by the issuance of a pre-authorized draft drawn on the involved credit union's regular bank. In the Leon County Teachers' Credit Union there is no such draft and the collection is effected by debit entries on the credit union's account at the payable through bank (Capital City). Unlike the other three credit union Petitioners, Leon County Teachers' Credit Union, Petitioner herein, refers to its program as a "thrift account program" and refers to the instruments used by the members as "withdrawal checks", as opposed to share drafts. However, these are differences of form and not substance. The programs of all four credit union Petitioners are herein referred to as "share draft programs" and the payment instruments used in those programs are referred to as "share drafts". The instruments are, in their design, drafts and not checks. Drafts are a common instrument of commerce and are drawn on, and paid by, a wide variety of organizations other than banks. The share draft programs of the credit union Petitioners were instituted to allow credit unions to provide a contemporary means of withdrawing funds maintained in a member's share or deposit account and to offer a transaction account, i.e. an account into which funds could be deposited and on which a payment instrument could be drawn for the depositor to pay his obligations to third parties. Without regard to the share draft programs many members of credit unions, at least in recent years, have deposited a substantial portion of their pay check in their credit union accounts with the apparent intention of quickly withdrawing the bulk of the deposit to meet their current expenses. Thus, members of credit unions who have so acted have in effect used their share and deposit accounts for transaction purposes on a regular basis. A program very important to a credit union's performance of its responsibilities is the payroll deduction system whereby a member may authorize his or her employer to deduct from his or her pay check an amount which will automatically be deposited in the credit union each pay day. This payroll deduction system enables members to establish regular patterns of thrift and savings. It further enables members who have previously borrowed money from the credit union to liquidate their debts in a financially prudent and systematic manner. The payroll deduction system also provides a regular and steady flow of funds into members' accounts thus giving credit unions relatively stable assets with which to meet the loan needs of their members. Various governmental agencies have recently attempted to establish for the beneficiaries or employees of their programs direct deposit systems for the transfer of government benefits such as social security, retirement, payroll, and disability compensation into an account at the beneficiary's or employee's chosen financial institution. To maintain the economy of these direct deposit programs, the governmental agencies who disburse the funds have mandated or may reasonably be expected to mandate in the future, that the entire check must go to one financial institution, thus eliminating the possibility that the recipient would direct a portion of the check to his or her credit union with the remainder going to another financial institution. The expansion of this direct deposit concept, with its limitation on dividing the check, to include payroll checks, is a possibility in the near future. The Petitioners herein are seriously concerned that without the ease of withdrawal promoted by the share draft programs, the members who are now depositing a portion of their check in a payroll deduction system will, with the advent of limitations on dividing checks, choose to deposit their funds elsewhere than a credit union, thus depriving the credit union of funds presently available for the meeting of their statutory responsibilities. The share draft programs offer a transaction account which provides a convenient vehicle for the withdrawal of funds by members from their credit union, thereby making the credit union an attractive repository for the entire pay check of its members in a payroll deduction system or other benefits deduction system wherein it is required that the entire check be deposited in one institution. As noted above the concept of a share or deposit account being used as a transaction account by credit union members predates share draft programs. Thus, while the share draft programs provide a more convenient method of withdrawal to credit union members, the share draft programs themselves do not introduce the concept of using credit union accounts as transaction accounts. This concept already exists. The share draft programs do, however, offer the opportunity for extensive expansion of this concept. To the extent that the business world readily accepts share drafts as payment of debt in lieu of a check or cash, share draft programs, in their practical effect, are essentially identical to the checking account system of this country which traditionally has been a unique function of commercial banks. Prior to the commencement of their share draft programs, each of the Petitioner credit unions sought and received the permission of the Office of the Comptroller, State of Florida, for the conduct of the programs. In each case this permission was received, by letter, from Daniel T. Burnette, Director, State Credit Unions, Office of the Comptroller, State of Florida. Beginning prior to the commencement of the share draft programs and continuing to the date of hearing, the Office of the Comptroller has been kept fully informed by the Petitioner credit unions of the institution and conduct of their share draft programs. The Petitioner credit unions have had no reason to believe that the Director of State Credit Unions for the Office of Comptroller did not speak with the authority of that office. By letter dated November 1, 1976, the Comptroller of the State of Florida notified the Petitioner credit unions of his intent to terminate their share draft programs, which termination led to this proceeding. The By-laws of the Publix Employees' Credit Union, in Article X, Section 5, state that "[a]ll payments or withdrawals of money for any purpose may be made by cash or check." The By-laws of the Pinellas County Teachers' Credit Union, in Article X, Section 5, state that "[a]ll payments or withdrawals of money for any purpose shall be made by check." The By-laws of the Leon County Teachers' Credit Union, in Article X, Section 5, state that "[a]ll payments or withdrawals of money for any purpose shall be made by check, excepting share and deposit withdrawals and loan advances which may be made in cash in accordance with policies set forth by the Board of Directors." The By- laws of the Duval County Teachers' Credit Union do not contain any restrictions or prohibitions on the manner in which payments or withdrawals may be made or allowed by the credit union.
The Issue In this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner Dave Taylor (“Taylor) alleges that various purported “statements” which he attributes to Respondent Department of Banking and Finance (the “Department”) constitute rules-by-definition that were not adopted under, and therefore violate, Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence adduced at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Department of Banking and Finance is the state agency charged with the administration of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, titled “Mortgage Brokerage and Mortgage Lending.” As such, it is responsible for regulating all persons, including mortgage brokers and lenders, licensed under that chapter. Taylor is licensed under Chapter 494 as a mortgage broker and as a “continuing education school.” His firm, Florida Compliance Specialists, Inc., provides consulting services to Chapter 494 licensees. The present dispute stems from amendments to Chapter 494 that the legislature enacted during the 2001 regular session. See Ch. 2001-228, Laws of Florida. These amendments were contained in a bill (CS/HB 455) approved by the governor on June 13, 2001, and became effective on October 1, 2001; they created a new position called “principal representative.” As defined by the legislature, the term “principal representative” means “an individual who operates the business operations of a licensee under part III.” Section 494.001(29), Florida Statutes (2001) (emphasis added).4 This statutory definition is amplified in a mandate that requires all licensees (and applicants) to designate a “principal representative who exercises control of the licensee’s business[.]” Sections 494.0061(8) and 494.0062(11), Florida Statutes. (Emphasis added). Notably, the terms “operates” and “exercises control of” are not defined. As mentioned, the statute requires all licensees and applicants to designate a PR. Although PRs do not engage in a licensed occupation (i.e. there is no PR license), an individual appointed to the post of PR after October 1, 2001, must satisfy certain educational and testing requirements (the details of which are not important here), and the designating lender must submit documents showing that its PRD has complied with those requirements.5 After the governor signed CS/HB 455 into law but before the amended statutes took effect, the Department began making rules to implement the new provisions. Before long, proposed rules were published in the August 31, 2001, issue of Florida Administrative Weekly. One provision of these proposed rules instructed that “[a]n individual can only be a principal representative for one [lender].” This “one lender to a PR” proposal did not implement an explicit statutory directive but arose from the Department’s then-prevailing interpretation of the statutory description of a PR as one who “operates” and “exercises control of” the lender’s business. Further illuminating the Department’s understanding of these terms were the Designation forms that it proposed to adopt, wherein the PRD was required to acknowledge that he or she would be “in full charge, control, and supervision of the [lender’s] business.” A person, the Department reasoned, could be “in full charge,” etc., of but one company at a time. In the course of rulemaking, however, the Department receded from its original interpretation. As a result, revised proposed rules——from which the bright line, “one lender to a PR” directive had been deleted——were published in the October 5, 2001, Florida Administrative Weekly.6 An amended Designation, which unlike earlier versions lacked language requiring a PRD to confirm (with his or her signature) having “full charge, control, and supervision” of the applicant’s or licensee’s business, was proposed as well.7 By the end of January 2002, the Department’s proposed rules relating to PRs had been adopted and, at the time of this Final Order, were among the agency’s duly promulgated, existing rules. See Rule 3D-40.242, Florida Administrative Code. Although the Department does not presently have a bright line rule or policy that flatly forbids an individual from serving simultaneously as PR to more than one licensee, the Department continues to be skeptical that a dual designee can effectively perform, for more than one lender at a time, the responsibilities that it believes inhere in the office of PR. Accordingly, whenever a lender or applicant nominates an XPR for PR, the Department without exception subjects that lender’s Designation to stricter scrutiny than would be given if its PRD were not an XPR. (Indeed, if the PRD is not an XPR, then the Department presumes that he or she will be able to carry out the duties of a PR and hence makes no inquiry as to how the PRD will function as PR.) The first outward manifestations of the Department’s internal decision to scrutinize any Designation in which an applicant’s PRD is an XPR emerged in late November 2001 after the agency had received four separate applications naming Taylor as PR.8 As the Department had discovered upon review of these four applications, Taylor was already serving as PR to an existing licensee. This situation had given rise to a dilemma for which the Department was not fully prepared, as evidenced by a November 26, 2001, e-mail message from an agency attorney to the responsible policy makers in which she (the attorney) had advised that: There are two pending applications in which there are no deficiencies and we need to decide how will [sic] we will proceed since we took out the language in the rule that specifically stated an individual could only be a PR for one company at a time. Let me know what times you would be available [for a meeting to decide what to do]. The Department quickly decided what to do. Between November 27 and November 29, 2001, the Department issued four nearly identical letters, one sent by certified mail to each applicant who had chosen Taylor as its PR, which provided, in pertinent part: We are in receipt of your company’s application to become licensed as a mortgage lender in the State of Florida. A review of the application materials indicates that [applicant’s name] has designated Dave Taylor at [address] as the company’s Principal Representative. [The next four paragraphs quote Sections 494.001(29); 494.0062(11); 494.0062(1)(f); and 494.0062(12), Florida Statutes, which pertain to PRs.] Sections 494.0072(1) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes, provide as follows: Whenever the department finds a person in violation of an act specified in subsection (2), it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties against that person: Revocation of a license or registration. Suspension of a license or registration, subject to reinstatement upon satisfying all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Placement of the licensee or applicant on probation for a period of time and subject to all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of a fine in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for each count or separate offense. Denial of a license or registration. Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (1) may be taken: (c) A material misstatement of fact on an initial or renewal application.[9] Dave Taylor has already been designated as a principal representative for another licensed lender under part III of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Please advise in detail how Mr. Taylor will operate and exercise control over your business.[10] We request that your response be submitted to the Department within 10 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at [phone number]. On or about November 30, 2001, the Department created a new deficiency code, DF 416, the description of which is “principal representative is designated to more than one entity.” This is an active deficiency code and is used consistently as a “red flag” on all applications to which it applies. When an application is tagged with a DF 416, the applicant is sent a letter in the form of the letters quoted in the preceding paragraph. This letter will hereafter be referred to as the “DF 416 Inquiry Letter.”11 It is important to emphasize that all applicants whose PRD is an XPR are sent the DF 416 Inquiry Letter, without exception.12 It is undisputed that Taylor has met all of the educational and testing requirements necessary to serve as a PR, and that the Department has no objection, based on facts and circumstances unique to Taylor, to Taylor’s being a lender’s PR. (In fact, he is presently a PR to one lender,13 under a designation to which the Department, consistent with its policy and practice of making no inquiry concerning PRDs who are not XPRs, raised no objection.) The Department’s concern about Taylor’s having been designated a PR by more than one company is indistinguishable from the concern that it expresses regarding all dual designees. This is why, although the contents of the DF 416 Inquiry Letter were developed to resolve a problem that specifically involved Taylor and his clients, the Department decided (and was able) to implement its Taylor-made solution on a generally applicable basis by sending the DF 416 Inquiry Letter to all applicants whose PRD is a dual designee. Each of the four applicants that had designated Taylor as its PR declined the Department’s November 2001 invitation to submit detailed information regarding the manner in which Taylor would operate and control the licensed business. Each applicant chose, instead, to designate someone else as PR. Thus, whatever advantages or considerations Taylor expected to receive in exchange for serving as these lenders’ PR were lost; the Department’s letters (the letters that became the form for the DF 416 Inquiry Letter) were the proximate cause of that loss, in that but for the letters, the lenders would not summarily have severed their respective business relationships with Taylor. After deciding how to deal with applicants whose PRDs are XPRs, the Department turned its attention to the dual designees of existing licensees. This was, in a sense, a bigger problem because, in their respective Designations, more than 50 licensees had selected an individual for PR who was a dual designee. Beginning around December 12, 2001, the Department sent all these lenders a letter similar to the DF 416 Inquiry Letter. This letter stated: We are in receipt of the principal representative designation forms for the following companies: [lender’s names]. A review of the principal representative forms indicates that [PRD’s name and address] has been designated the Principal Representative for both companies. [The next two paragraphs quote statutory provisions pertaining to PRs.] Sections 494.0072(1) and (2)(p) state as follows: Whenever the department finds a person in violation of an act specified in subsection (2), it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties against that person: Revocation of a license or registration. Suspension of a license or registration, subject to reinstatement upon satisfying all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Placement of the licensee or applicant on probation for a period of time and subject to all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of a fine in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for each count or separate offense. Denial of a license or registration. Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (1) may be taken: (p) Failure to comply with, or violations of, any other provision of ss. 494.001-494.0077. Please advise in detail how you will operate and exercise control over both of the above- mentioned businesses. We request that your response be submitted to the Department within 14 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at [phone number]. This form letter will be referred to as the “Compliance Inquiry Letter.” The evidence is unequivocal that the Department has sent, and plans to send, the Compliance Inquiry Letter to all licensees whose Designation names a person determined to be a dual designee, without exception.14 Taylor’s Description of the Alleged Rules-by-Definition In his petition, as required by Section 120.56(4)(a), Florida Statutes, Taylor described the alleged rules-by- definition. Here, in his words, are the Department’s alleged statements: Only one person can realistically “operate the business operations” of a licensee and “exercise control over the licensee’s business.” Therefore, only one individual shall prima facie be designated as principal representative for only one mortgage lender. The above rule shall not apply, however, to mortgage lenders which the Department deems to be “grand-fathered” i.e., such companies who designated their principal representative on or prior to October 1, 2001, the effective date of the statutory amendments. In such instances, an individual will be permitted multiple designations without further departmental scrutiny or inquiry as to how that individual will “operate” or “exercise control over each business.”[Footnote omitted]. Except for “grand-fathered” companies, if an individual once designated principal representative by a mortgage lender is similarly designated principal representative by a separate mortgage lender, the Department based upon the agency statement recited in (a) above, will require the subsequent mortgage lender(s) (i.e., the lender(s) other than the one first designating that individual) to provide in writing a detailed explanation to the Department, subject to potential sanctions, describing how that individual will operate and exercise control over that second mortgage lender. The Department considers as a “licensing deficiency” any mortgage lender application or principal representative designation submitted to the Department where the individual designated as the mortgage lender’s principal representative has previously been and continues to be designated principal representative by another mortgage lender. The Department, based upon this “deficiency,” shall not deem the application(s) “complete” for purposes of section 120.60, Florida Statutes. Such application(s) shall be subjected to the licensing procedures set forth in paragraphs (e) and (f) hereafter. In conformity with the agency statement set forth in (a) above, the Department will not undertake an inquiry of the principal representative designation submitted by the mortgage lender who first designated the individual as its’ principal representative. The Department will require mortgage lenders to provide the information referred to in section c above, through the use of a form, [i.e., the form letters attached as EXHIBITS “14”, “15”, & “16”, to this Petition]. Further, this form created for the purpose of soliciting information [not specifically required by statute or an existing rule] will require mortgage lenders to provide a response, specifically subject to announced sanctions, of details not otherwise required under the applicable statutes or rules. The Department, though requiring mortgage lenders to comply with the agency statements through the threat of announced sanctions, shall not provide to mortgage lenders or their designated principal representatives any clarifying or defining circumstances or criteria the Department will deem as acceptable——contractual or otherwise——for a person to be designated as principal representative for more than one mortgage lender. Any responses provided by such mortgage lenders in response to the Department’s written form shall be submitted by the applicant “at their peril.” Ultimate Factual Determinations In his just-quoted statements “a,” “c,” “d,” and “e,” Taylor described, with reasonable particularity, the essence of policies that, in fact, fall within the statutory definition of the term “rule.” Statement “a” describes (albeit somewhat imprecisely) a Departmental mindset, the view that a person is likely to have difficulty simultaneously serving more than one master as a PR; the last sentence of statement “d” accurately describes the Department’s related policy of not inquiring as to how a PRD who is not a dual designee will operate and control the lender’s business (because the agency presumes that a person will probably have no difficulty serving as PR to one lender at a time). Taken together, these views, in fact, constitute the Department’s interpretation of the PR statutes.15 Taylor’s statement “c” and the third sentence of “d” (all of which, of course, he attributes to the Department) correctly describe, for the most part,16 the Department’s policy of requiring additional information from all licensees and applicants whose Designations nominate an XPR for the position of PR. This policy is plainly driven by the Department’s interpretation of the PR statutes, and it leads, in turn, directly to statement “e.” Restated to conform to the evidence, statement “e” holds that the Department will send either the DF 416 Inquiry Letter or the Compliance Inquiry Letter, whichever is applicable, to any lender whose PRD is an XPR. It is the form letters——the DF 416 Inquiry Letter and the Compliance Inquiry Letter——that have emerged as the most visible, most readily identifiable unadopted rules of the Department, for they solicit information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. By the end of December 2001 at the latest, rulemaking was both feasible and practicable with regard to the above- described statements, but no effort was made to adopt them as rules. Thus, the Department failed timely to commence rulemaking with regard to these statements in accordance with Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.17
Conclusions For Petitioner: H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire Law Office of H. Richard Bisbee 124 Salem Court, Suite A Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2810 For Respondent: Cynthia K. Maynard, Esquire James H. Harris, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Fletcher Building, Suite 526 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the parties' factual stipulations, the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: On August 28, 1992, Petitioner submitted to the Department its application for licensure as a mortgage lender. 1/ On October 28, 1992, the Department sent Petitioner a letter announcing its intent to deny Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage lender. The text of the letter read as follows: This is to inform you that your Application for Licensure as a Mortgage Lender for Citifirst Mortgage Corp. is hereby denied. The denial is based on Section 494.0072(2)(k), Florida Statutes. Section 494.0072(2), Florida Statutes, "Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection may be taken: . . . (k) Acting as a mortgage lender or correspondent mortgage lender without a current active license issued under ss. 494.006-494.0077." The Department's investigation revealed Citifirst Mortgage Corp. has acted as a mortgage lender without a current, active license. Please be advised that you may request a hearing concerning this denial to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Requests for such a hearing must comply with the provisions of Rule 3-7.002, Florida Administrative Code (attached hereto) and must be filed in duplicate with: Clerk Division of Finance Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 (904) 487-2583 within twenty-one (21) days after receipt of this notice. Failure to respond within twenty-one days of receipt of this notice shall be deemed to be a waiver of all rights to a hearing. Should you request such a hearing, you are further advised that at such a hearing, you will have the right to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative; to offer testimony, either oral or written; to call and cross examine witnesses; and to have subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum issued on your behalf. Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing on the proposed denial of its application. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where it is still pending.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Eric Kachnycz, LLC d/b/a Done Right Irrigation and Lighting (“Done Right”), should have a penalty assessed against it by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (the “Department”), and, if so, the amount of such penalty or assessment.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the State agency responsible for, inter alia, ensuring that all businesses operating in this State have workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Done Right is a duly-formed and validly-existing limited liability company in the State of Florida. It was formed on July 27, 2004, for the purpose of conducting any and all lawful business. At the time of its formation, Eric Kachnycz was the only listed manager or managing member of the company. His address was listed as 9 Twin River Drive, Ormond Beach, Florida. The registered agent for the company was listed as Betty C. Kachnycz, at the same address. In 2011, Daniel Dupuis was added as a managing member of the company. His address was listed as a post office box in Ormond Beach, Florida. By way of a document filed with the Secretary of State, Division of Corporations, on March 1, 2016, Daniel Dupuis was withdrawn as a managing member of the company. On January 14, 2016, Kent Howe, a compliance investigator with the Department, conducted an investigation at 316 Ocean Dunes Road in Daytona Beach, Florida. Upon arrival at the site at around 11:00 a.m., Mr. Howe noted the presence of a large white truck and work trailer parked in front of the residence. The truck and trailer were imprinted with the name and contact information for Done Right. Mr. Howe saw a person (later identified as Daniel Dupuis) engaged in repair work on a sprinkler or irrigation system in the front yard of the residence. After about ten minutes observing Mr. Dupuis, Mr. Howe approached and asked him for whom he worked. Mr. Dupuis responded that he worked for Done Right and that Mr. Kachnycz owned and operated the business. There was another person at the job site who Mr. Dupuis identified as the owner of the residence. That person, with whom Mr. Howe did not converse, was observed walking into and out of the house and, just before Mr. Howe left the site at 1:00 p.m., was seen using a shovel to back-fill some of the irrigation ditches that had been dug.1/ Mr. Howe tracked down and called Mr. Kachnycz to inquire as to the existence of workers’ compensation insurance for his employees, including Mr. Dupuis. Mr. Kachnycz said that the only two persons associated with Done Right, he and Mr. Dupuis, had existing exemptions from workers’ compensation coverage. Further, Mr. Kachnycz said the he had personally applied for the exemptions himself. Mr. Howe checked the Department’s compliance and coverage automated system (CCAS) to verify the exemptions. He found that Mr. Kachnycz had a current exemption, but Mr. Dupuis’ exemption had expired on April 26, 2015, approximately nine months previous. Exemptions have a two-year term once granted, but may be renewed on-line prior to their expiration. Mr. Kachnycz obtained an exemption in 2004 and has renewed it every two years thereafter. Mr. Dupuis obtained his first exemption in February 2011, but did not timely renew it before it expired two years later. He then obtained an exemption in April 2013, but it expired in 2015. He did not have an exemption in place on January 14, 2016, while working at the job site. He did, however, apply for an exemption just two days later, i.e., on January 16, 2016. After verifying the corporate information for Done Right and checking CCAS to see if any other insurance coverage was in place, Mr. Howe determined that Done Right was not in compliance with workers’ compensation insurance requirements. The information gathered by Mr. Howe was presented to his area district manager, who approved the issuance of a stop work order. Mr. Howe prepared the SWO (along with a request for business records) and hand-delivered the documents to Mr. Dupuis at the job site. Mr. Howe attempted to serve the registered agent of Done Right, Betty C. Kachnycz, at her residence but Mr. Kachnycz said she was working out of town at her job as a registered nurse. So, instead of hand-delivery, Mr. Howe sent a copy of the SWO and request for business records to Mrs. Kachnycz via certified mail. The documents were delivered and signed as accepted by Mrs. Kachnycz on January 23, 2016. Subsequently, Mr. Howe had a conversation with Mr. Kachnycz concerning the possibility of Mr. Kachnycz signing a Conditional Agreed Release from the SWO. A blank copy of that agreement was provided for Mr. Kachnycz’ review, but he never signed the agreement. Mr. Howe later had another conversation with Mr. Kachnycz during which the latter inquired about the “criminal” charges against him related to the SWO. Mr. Howe knew nothing of any criminal charges and no evidence of such was offered at final hearing. Mr. Howe had no further contact with Mr. Kachnycz. Mr. Kachnycz ultimately asked for a formal administrative hearing to contest the SWO and penalty assessment, resulting in the instant case. During the preparation phase prior to final hearing, the Department continued to attempt to obtain the business records for Done Right. The Department served interlocking discovery on Done Right to obtain the business records along with other information. Mr. Kachnycz, however, steadfastly refused to provide the records unless, in his words, “[the records are] not used against me in a court of law.” During his deposition in this matter, Mr. Kachnycz reiterated his demand that his business records not be used against him in this proceeding, a clear indication of Mr. Kachnycz’ lack of understanding of the administrative process. There is no basis in law for such a demand by a party to an administrative proceeding. Mr. Kachnycz also invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and otherwise refused to answer questions posed to him during the deposition.2/ Review of an entity’s business records by the Department allows it to assess the amount of workers’ compensation insurance coverage for the business. A review also allows the Department to determine whether a penalty should be imposed at all. Had Done Right provided its business records in the instant case, it may have resolved the dispute without the necessity of a final administrative hearing. We shall never know. Based upon the absence of business records for Done Right, the Department used its existing rule constructs to formulate the amount of the penalty to be assessed. Anita Proano, an employee in the Department’s bureau of compliance, established a penalty using standard guidelines. Since Done Right did not provide business records for review, the imputed method was employed.3/ First, the payroll was calculated by using the average weekly wage in effect at the time of the issuance of the SWO and, per statute, multiplying by two. Class Code 5183-–under the construction umbrella, but specifically including irrigation and lawn sprinkler systems-– was assigned to the work being done by Done Right. The period of non-compliance was set at September 3, 2015, through December 31, 2015, and January 1, 2016, through January 14, 2016. Those are the dates within the Department’s two-year audit period that Done Right was deemed to be out of compliance. The imputed gross payroll amount was $29,571.77 for the first period of non-compliance and $3,450.04 for the second period. Those figures, divided by 100, resulted in the amounts of $295.72 and $34.50, respectively. The approved manual rate set for the two periods was $5.46 and $5.11, reflecting the rates for Class Code 5183. The premium owed by the employer for the first period was calculated at $1,614.62 and the premium it should have paid for the second period was $176.30. Those amounts, multiplied by two, resulted in assessed penalties of $3,229.24 and $352.60, for a total penalty of $3,581.84. Done Right presented no evidence to contest the amount of the penalty or the calculation thereof. Instead, Mr. Kachnycz inquired of the Department’s witnesses whether they had signed loyalty oaths and, if so, if they remembered what was in the oath. He expressed his displeasure at the process for penalizing small businesses and invoked his Constitutional rights (State and Federal), but provided no evidence germane to the issues of this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assessing a penalty of $3,581.84 against Respondent, Eric Kachnycz, LLC, d/b/a Done Right Irrigation and Lighting. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2016
