The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a public adjuster should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined after his conviction for aiding in the preparation of a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 7206(2).
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Mr. Lesser be found guilty of violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes (1987), and that his licensure as a public adjuster be suspended for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of December, 1989. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 28th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-0502 Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: 1 and 2. Adopted in finding of fact 3. Adopted in finding of fact 4. Implicit in findings of fact 5 and 6. Adopted in finding of fact 6. Adopted in finding of fact 8. Adopted in finding of fact 8. Adopted in finding of fact 8. Implicit in finding of fact 11. Rulings on findings proposed by Mr. Lesser: 1-11. Inapplicable. Adopted in finding of fact 3. Adopted in finding of fact 3, to the extent necessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in finding of fact 5. Adopted in finding of fact 5. Adopted in finding of fact 5, though finding of fact 5 includes certain logical deductions or inferences. Made more specific in findings of fact 5 and 6. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 7. Rejected. Not only were the laundering transactions illegitimate because they allowed Benevento Maneri to mischaracterize the source of their income, they also created false expenses for Lesser and Company, Inc., which artificially lowered the income of Lesser and Company, Inc., by the amount of the expense. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 7. It is difficult to determine what Mr. Lesser actually thought the source of the money was, but he knew it was illicit. See, finding of fact 7. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 8. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 9. 25 and 26. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 9. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 10 The extent of Mr. Lesser's danger cannot be determined from this record, although he was in some danger. Covered in finding of fact 9 Adopted as modified in finding of fact 11. Rejected. See, finding of fact 8. The IRS first contacted Mr. Lesser. He then went to Mr. Weinstein to set matters straight. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 11. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 4. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 12. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 12. A light sentence implies the factors set out in finding of fact 35, were taken into consideration, but does not prove that they were all the reasons the U.S. District Judge took into consideration. To the extent necessary, mentioned in finding of fact 12. Rejected as procedural. 38-51. Covered in findings of fact 13 and 14. The proposed findings are subordinate to the findings made in findings of fact 13 and 14. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Robert V. Elias, Esquire Office of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 William W. Corry, Esquire Jack M. Skelding, Jr., Esquire Patrick J. Phelan, Jr., Esquire Parker, Skelding, Labasky & Corry 318 North Monroe Street Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee Florida 32301 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters in issue here, Bellot Realty operated a real estate sales office in Inverness, Florida. The Department of Transportation was the state agency responsible for the operation of the state's relocation assistance payment program relating to business moves caused by road building operations of the Department or subordinate entities. Frank M. Bellot operated his real estate sales office and mortgage brokerage, under the name Bellot Realty, at property located at 209 W. Main Street in Inverness, Florida since July, 1979. He operated a barber shop in the same place from 1962 to 1979. He moved out in October, 1991 because of road construction and modification activities started by the Department in 1989. The office was located in a strip mall and the other tenants of the mall were moving out all through 1990. Mr. Bellot remained as long as he did because when the Department first indicated it would be working in the area, its representatives stated they would be taking only the back portion of the building. This would have let Mr. Bellot remain. As time went on, however, the Department took the whole building, including his leasehold, which forced him out. He received a compensation award from the Department but nothing from any other entity. Though the instant project is not a Federal Aid Project, the provisions of Section 24.306e, U.S.C. applies. That statute defined average annual net earnings as 1/2 of net earnings before federal, state and local income taxes during the two taxable years immediately prior to displacement. During 1988, Mr. Bellot's staff consisted of himself and between 3 and 5 other agents from whom he earned income just as had been the case for several prior years. In 1988 his Federal Corporate Income Tax return reflected gross income of $120,843.00 and his profit was reflected as $27,377.25. The Schedule C attached to his personal Form 1040 for that year reflected gross sales of $25,078.00 with deductions of $5,250.00 for a net income of $19,828.00. Two of his agents foresaw the downturn in business as a result of the road change and left his employ during 1989. A third got sick and her working ability, with its resultant income, was radically reduced. This agent was his biggest producer. For 1989, Petitioner's tax return reflected the company's gross receipts were down to $50,935.75 and his operating loss was $5,700.03. However, the Schedule C for the 1989 Form 1040 reflected gross revenue of $21,450 with a net profit of $14,503. In 1990, the Schedule C for the Form 1040 reflected gross receipts of $5,565.00 which, after deduction of expenses, resulted in a net profit of $1,665.00 for the year. The corporate return reflects gross receipts of $23,965.96 and a net income figure from operations of $1,282.21. Mr. Bellot contends that neither 1989 or 1990 were typical business years as far as earnings go. Aside from a loss of activity and a general decline in business in Inverness, his parents, who were always in the office due to a terminal illness, caused him lost work time as he was very busy with them. He was also involved in a move and in refurbishing a house. In 1990, Mr. Bellot decided he could no longer stay in his office location due to the fact that the Department decided to take his whole building. Even if the taking had been of only one-half the building, however, it still would have put him out of business because it would have taken his parking area. At that time, the Department was rushing Mr. Bellot to vacate the premises. He was in difficult financial straits, however, and it would not have been possible for him to move but for the Department's compensation payments. As it was, he claims, the compensation was after the fact, and he had to borrow $30,000.00 in his mother's name in order to rehabilitate the building he moved into. Instead of utilizing income figures from years in which business activity was normal, the Department chose to use the income figures from 1989 and 1990, both of which were, he claims, for one reason or another, extraordinary. In doing so, since the income in those years was much lower than normal, the compensation he received was also much lower, he claims, than it should have been. He received $8,725.50. Had the 1988 and 1989 years income been used, the payment would have been $20,000.00, the maximum. He also claims the Department used the incorrect operating expense figures concerning travel expense. The Schedule C reflects a higher deduction for automobile expense for both years, arrived at by the application of a standard mileage expense approved by the Internal Revenue Service. In actuality, the expense was considerably less and, if the real figures had been used, his income would have been increased substantially for both years. Mr. Bellot's appeal was reviewed by Ms. Long, the Department's administrator for relocation assistance who followed the provisions of departmental manual 575-040-003-c which, at paragraph (IV) on page 33 of 35, requires the displacee to furnish proof of income by tax returns or other acceptable evidence. At subparagraph (e) on page 31 of 35 of the manual, the requirement exists for the displaced business to "contribute materially" to the income of the displace person for the "two taxable years prior to the displacement." If those two years are not representative, the Department may approve an alternate two year period if "the proposed construction has already caused an outflow of residents, resulting in a decline of net income. " To grant an alternative period, then, the Department must insure that the loss of income is due to the Department's construction and not to other considerations. Here, the Department's District Administrator took the position it was not it's actions which caused the Petitioner's loss of income. Ms. Long took the same position. The Department's District 5 initially notified the people of Inverness of the proposed project somewhere around 1988. The project was to straighten Main Street out through downtown Inverness for approximately 2 miles. There is no evidence as to when the first affected party moved and Ms. Long does not know whether or not the project had an adverse effect on business in downtown Inverness. Petitioner's evidence does not show that it did.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's appeal of the Department's decision to refuse to use alternate tax years or actual mileage deduction in its calculation of a relocation assistance payment be denied. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 29th day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and, in part, incorporated herein. Rejected as not proven by competent, non-hearsay, evidence. Accepted. Not proven. Merely a statement of Petitioner's position. Accepted that Petitioner's business income dropped. It cannot be said that the road project's were the primary cause of the decline in Petitioner's business. There is no independent evidence of this. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted. Balance not based on independent evidence of record. Not a proper Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of and attempted justification of Petitioner's position. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as argument and not Finding of Fact. Not a Finding of Fact but a recapitulation of the evidence. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted. & 3. Accepted. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 10. Accepted. 11. & 12. Accepted. 13. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 James R. Clodfelter Acquisitions Consultant Enterprises, Inc. P.O. Box 1199 Deerfield Beach, Florida 33443 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton Jpp. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether Respondents discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of sex when Respondents denied Petitioner's application to rent an apartment.
Findings Of Fact Mizner Park, located in Boca Raton, Florida, is a mixed use complex, consisting of apartments, retail stores, and offices. The apartment complex is owned and managed by Crocker Downtown Development Associates. Ms. Terrill Jaroszewicz (Jaroszewicz) is the property manager for Mizner Park. Ms. Mary Sims, who reports to Jaroszewicz, is in charge of the residential apartments in the complex. At the time in question, Ms. Jan Pratt (Pratt) was a leasing consultant for the apartments. Pratt's duties included taking applications from prospective tenants, processing the applications, and gathering the necessary information needed to make a decision on whether to approve the application. When Pratt had completed processing the application, she would take the application package to Sims, who would review the package and make a decision on whether to approve the application. Respondents, collectively referred to as Mizner, required that prospective tenants fill out an application form, agree to have a credit check performed, provide sufficient information to verify their current income, agree to a check of the tenants' residency history for the past two years, pay a $50, nonrefundable fee for processing the credit check, and provide a security deposit. Mizner wanted to rent its apartments to tenants who had a good credit history, had a monthly annual income of at least three times the amount of the lease amount, and had a good history as a tenant. On June 15, 1994, Petitioner, Sanford J. Gubernik (Gubernik), who is a male, met with Pratt and filled out an application to lease an apartment at Mizner Park. Gubernik had omitted his social security number when he completed the application. Pratt advised him that it would be necessary to have his social security number in order to do the credit check. Gubernik was reluctant to give Pratt his social security number and to have a credit check done. He gave Pratt a check for $50 for the credit check and a check for $885 as a security deposit. Gubernik is an independent contractor who works for a number of sunglass and eyewear companies. His annual income varies each year. When he filled out the application, Pratt asked Gubernik to provide her copies of his income tax returns for the last two years so that she could verify his income for the last two years. Pratt had a credit check run on Gubernik. Mizner's computers were down on the day that the credit check was performed so the company performing the credit check mailed her a copy of the credit report rather than having her receive the report via the computer, which was the normal method that Pratt received credit reports on prospective tenants. Gubernik had two federal income tax liens, which showed up on his credit report. One lien was dated October, 1993 in the amount of $10,058, and the other lien was dated February, 1991 for $36,829. Pratt advised Sims of the tax liens. Sims told Pratt that she should contact Gubernik and advise him that his credit was a problem. She further advised Pratt that if the credit report was correct and that Gubernik had not satisfied the liens or was not in good standing with the Internal Revenue Service that his application would be denied. Gubernik had traveled to New Orleans to visit clients. While there he received a message on his cellular telephone that Pratt needed to talk to him. He called Pratt and she advised him that there was a problem with his credit report and he should call the credit reporting company and get a copy of the report. Gubernik advised Pratt that the problem was two tax liens. Pratt advised him that they would hold the apartment but that he needed to come in and get the issue of the tax liens resolved by showing that he was trying to pay off the liens. When Gubernik returned from New Orleans he took copies of his income tax returns to Pratt. She advised him that she needed verification that he was making payments on the liens. Gubernik became very irate and told Pratt that he had never had a problem because of the tax liens and that he had no intention of paying them. Pratt advised Gubernik that his application was denied because of the tax liens. Still upset, Gubernik requested to see the manager. Sims was not in the office on that day so Pratt took the application file to Jaroszewicz and told her that a gentleman wanted to talk to her about the denial of his lease application. Jaroszewicz reviewed the application and immediately saw that the problem was the tax liens that appeared on the credit report. Pratt showed Gubernik to Jaroszewicz' office. Gubernik was visibly upset. Jaroszewicz told him that there was a problem with his credit report and that Mizner could not approve his lease application. Gubernik offered to pay his rent in advance. However, prepayment of rent was against Mizner's policy because of accounting reasons and the possibility of poor payment in the future when the prepayment amount was depleted. Gubernik offered to have his rent deducted from his monthly checks that he received from a sunglass company. Mizner's policy was not to have the rent deducted from the tenant's paycheck because the employee could change employers. Gubernik became more and more upset as the conversation with Jaroszewicz continued. Finally Jaroszewicz told Gubernik that there was no need to discuss the matter any further and showed him to the door. The apartment which Gubernik tried to rent was leased to a male in August, 1994. On June 2, 1994, a female applied to Mizner to rent an apartment. A credit check was done and revealed that the prospective tenant had two tax liens totalling approximately $36,000. The female's application was denied by Mizner because of the tax liens. In 1994, Mizner's first time rentals were divided about equally between single males, single females, and families. Gubernik claims that his application was denied not because he had tax liens but because he was a man. Mizner contends that the only reason that Gubernik's application was denied was because he had two tax liens for over $40,000 which represented meant to Mizner that Gubernik had a bad credit history.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Crocker Downtown Development Associates, Terrill Jaroszewicz, and Mizner Associates, Ltd. did not commit a discriminatory housing practice against Sanford J. Gubernik and denying his petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Sanford J. Gubernik 212 Northwest 4th Avenue Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Patrick M. Muldowney, Esquire Shutts & Bowen 20 North Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is liable for a penalty of $4,741.76 for the alleged failure to maintain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees in violation of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees in accordance with the requirements of Section 440.107. Respondent is a Florida corporation engaged in the construction business. The corporate officers of Respondent in 2007 were: Julie Magill, Glen Magill, Jamie Guerrero, and Richard Magill. The corporate officers after amendment on June 12, 2008, were: Julie Magill, Albert Farradaz, and Farid O’Campo. Corporate officers are eligible to obtain exemption from the requirements of workers’ compensation through the process described in Section 440.05. Construction exemptions are valid for a period of two years. The expiration date of each exemption is printed on an exemption card issued to each card holder. Julie Magill, Glen Magill, and Jaime Guererro obtained construction exemptions as officers of Respondent, pursuant to Section 440.05. Julie Magill acknowledged receiving a card for each exemption with the expiration date printed on each exemption card. The exemption for Julie Magill expired on June 2, 2008. The exemption for Glen Magill expired on May 29, 2008, and the exemption for Jaime Guererro expired on May 29, 2008. Petitioner notifies exemption holders at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. Petitioner sent the Notice of Expiration to Julie Magill at Respondent's current mailing address. On October 5, 2009, an investigator for Petitioner interviewed Mr. Cliff Chavaria, an installer and repairer of air-conditioner units. Mr. Chavaria was an employee of Respondent. Respondent did not maintain workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Mr. Chavaria in violation of Chapter 440. It is undisputed that Mr. Chavaria did not have any type of coverage for workers’ compensation insurance. Mr. Jaime Guererro and Mr. Glen Magill also had no exemptions and no workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Respondent offered tax records for 2007 as Exhibit 8 at the hearing to show gross payroll for Julie and Richard Magill. The offered exhibit was an attempt to re-create tax information from an internet website. Respondent was given 10 days following the date of the hearing to produce an authenticated version of this document. No documentation was received.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, issue a final order imposing a penalty assessment in the amount of $4,741.76. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th 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 15th day of April, 2010.
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Department's Rule 12B-8.001(5), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner is entitled to be reimbursed for its attorney's fees incurred in the underlying proceeding.
Findings Of Fact On December 31, 1997, Respondent Department of Insurance issued its Notice of Intent to Issue Cease and Desist Order, alleging that Petitioner And Justice for All, Inc., d/b/a Legal Club of America, was engaged in the legal expense insurance business without being properly licensed, and Petitioner requested an evidentiary hearing regarding that Notice of Intent. That cause was thereafter transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 98-0442. Prior to the scheduled evidentiary hearing, the parties stipulated that there remained no genuine issues of material fact and that the controversy could be resolved based upon an agreed record, a joint pre-hearing stipulation, and proposed recommended orders. After the submission of those documents, a Recommended Order was entered on February 3, 2000, finding that Petitioner was not selling legal expense insurance and, therefore, was not subject to regulation by the Department. On May 2, 2000, the Department entered its Final Order modifying portions of the Recommended Order and finding that Petitioner was selling legal expense insurance and was subject to regulation by the Department. Petitioner appealed that Final Order. On September 26, 2001, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, filed its Opinion finding that the Department improperly rejected the holdings in the Recommended Order, reversing the Department's Final Order, and remanding the cause for entry of an order consistent with its Opinion. On January 11, 2002, the Department entered its Amended Final Order determining that Petitioner was not selling legal expense insurance and was not subject to regulation by the Department. On May 1, 2002, Petitioner filed its Motion for Attorney's Fees in this cause seeking an award for fees incurred in the underlying proceeding in the amount of $7,500, pursuant to Section 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. On May 14, 2002, the Department filed its Response to Motion for Attorney's Fees, alleging that the Department does not dispute the factual or legal basis for Petitioner's Motion and further alleging that the Department has no objection to the Motion being granted.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent, David Wesley Eby, has been licensed in the State of Florida to engage in the business of insurance as a life and health agent, a general lines agent, and a health agent. Prior to March 27, 1990, a disciplinary proceeding was instituted against Respondent by the Department of Insurance and Treasurer under its Case No. 89-L-659KL. On March 2, 1990, the parties to Case No. 89-L-659KL entered a Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order for the purposes of resolving that matter. Paragraph 3 of the Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order described the nature of the allegations involved in Case No. 89-L-659KL as follows: On September 7, 1989, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, alleging that Respondent failed to return unearned commissions to a premium finance company upon the cancellation of automobile insurance policies. On September 28, 1989, the Respondent, DAVID W. EBY, filed an answer denying the allegations in the complaint. On March 27, 1990, a Consent Order was entered in Case No. 89-L-659KL wherein the Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order dated March 2, 1990, was approved and incorporated by reference and Respondent was ordered to pay an administrative penalty of $500.00. The Consent Order also placed Respondent on probation for a period of one year and contained the following condition of probation: Respondent is placed on probation for a period of one (1) year pursuant to Section 626.691, Florida Statutes, and as a condition of probation, Respondent shall pay to Crown Premium Finance Company Five Hundred Fifty Five Dollars and Fifty-Six Cents ($555.56) within sixty (60) days of issuance of this Consent Order. By paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 of the Administrative Complaint filed December 20, 1990, Petitioner charged Respondent as follows: Crown Premium Finance Company has not received the $555.56 which you were required to pay. You, DAVID WESLEY EBY, have failed to pay the $555.56 to Crown Premium Finance Company which you were required to pay pursuant to the Consent Order of March 27, 1990. You, DAVID WESLEY EBY, have failed to comply with and willfully violated a proper order of the Department of Insurance and Treasurer. The Administrative Complaint charges Respondent, based on the factual allegations contained therein, with having violated the provisions of Sections 626.611(4),(7), and (13); 626.621(2),(3), and (6); and 626.691(2), Florida Statutes. Respondent failed to pay the $555.56 to Crown Premium Finance Company within the sixty (60) day period as required by the Consent Order. Although Respondent suffered financial difficulties after he entered into the Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order, he made no effort to gain the money to pay Crown Premium Finance Company within the 60 day period other than asking relatives for a loan. He did not advise Petitioner or Crown Premium Finance Company that he was having financial difficulties and that he would require additional time to comply with the terms of his probation. Respondent paid to Crown Premium Finance Company the sum of $555.56 on November 5, 1990, which is beyond the time set for payment by the Consent Order, but before the date the Administrative Complaint was filed. Respondent testified that he encountered severe financial difficulties, that those difficulties prevented his timely payment to Crown Premium Finance Company, and that he would have paid the money on time if he had been able to do so. While this testimony was unrefuted, the testimony is also considered to be insufficient to excuse his failure to timely make restitution to Crown Premium Finance Company or to establish his inability to do so. These conclusions are based on the self-serving nature of Respondent's testimony, the relatively small sum involved in the amount of restitution required by the Consent Order, Respondent's limited efforts to secure the necessary funds to timely pay restitution, and his complete failure to contact either Petitioner or Crown Premium Finance Company regarding his difficulties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which finds that Respondent made restitution as required by the Consent Order entered in Case 89-L-659KL, but that the restitution was not made within the time set by said Consent Order as a condition of his probation. It is further recommended that Respondent's licensure be suspended for a period of ten days for this violation. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of July, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioners. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order but are rejected in part as being contrary to the findings made. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. 1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Willis F. Melvin, Jr. Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Orrin R. Beilly, Esquire 105 S. Narcissus Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance of Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is liable for intangible taxes, interest, and penalties, and, if so, how much.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was incorporated in October, 1985. An S corporation, the original shareholders of Petitioner were Thomas Riden, who has practiced law in the Tampa Bay area for 25 years; Hal Lyons, who is experienced in the recreational business; Gus Stavros and Walter Loebenberg, who are established businessmen in the Tampa Bay area. The original business of Petitioner was boat-repairing. The first business location was the Pasadena property located in St. Petersburg. Petitioner derived its name from this property. The boat-repair business did not prosper. By December, 1985, Mr. Lyons wanted to sever his relationship with the company and did so at that time or shortly thereafter. This left the three other shareholders to run the business. Mr. Riden is a practicing attorney, who heads a 17-person law firm in Tampa. The other shareholders are prominent businessmen and investors, who were unavailable to handle the day-to-day responsibilities of the new company. In early 1986, the three remaining shareholders decided that they needed to hire someone with considerable experience in the boatyard business. They found a good general manager at another boatyard in the area. In negotiating with this individual, the shareholders decided that Petitioner needed to expand into boat sales in order to make the company prosper. Thus, on April 1, 1986, the shareholders caused Petitioner to acquire the assets of the other boatyard business, including the general manager with whom they had been negotiating. The results of the acquisition were that Petitioner now operated boatyards in Naples and Sarasota, as well as St. Petersburg, and sold boats from several prominent and predominantly expensive lines, such as Hatteras and Bertran. Some of these boats, such as the 77-foot Hatteras, retail for $4 million. Petitioner owned all of the boatyards except for the Sarasota location, which had been leased by the company which had sold its assets to Petitioner. Later in 1986, the land underlying the Sarasota boatyard was foreclosed, and Petitioner bought the assets of a nearby boatyard business in order to maintain a Sarasota presence. As hindsight later disclosed, Petitioner's dramatic business expansion was ill-timed, as 1986 was the last good year in the luxury boat market. The 1986 Tax Reform Act removed many tax advantages to owning or leasing luxury craft or boatyard businesses. Shortly thereafter, the crisis in the lending community associated with the savings and loan bail-out chilled lending, both as to prospective purchasers of luxury boats and of the boatyard business itself. Later, a special federal tax was imposed upon luxury boats of the type that Petitioner was marketing. And all of these events took place against a backdrop of declining real estate values, largely as a result of the some of the same reasons. For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraph, Petitioner performed poorly. On gross receipts of $20.5 million in taxable year 1986, Petitioner showed a tax loss of $451,255. On gross receipts of $23.9 million in taxable year 1987, Petitioner showed a tax loss of $963,974. On gross receipts of $25.4 million in taxable year 1988, Petitioner showed a tax loss of $1.2 million. On gross receipts of $22.5 million in taxable year 1989, Petitioner showed a tax loss of $2.9 million. On gross receipts of $19.8 million in taxable year 1990, Petitioner showed a tax loss of $1.4 million. On gross receipts of $7.8 million in taxable year 1991, Petitioner showed a tax loss of $2.3 million. The financial statements similarly depict a financially stressed corporation. The balance sheet for the year ending December 31, 1986, shows a total shareholders' equity of ($103,344). For the year ending December 31, 1987, the balance sheet shows a total shareholder's equity of ($994,918). For the year ending December 31, 1988, the balance sheet shows a total shareholders' equity of ($1.7 million). For the year ending December 31, 1989, the balance sheet shows a total shareholders' equity of ($4.6 million). For the year ending December 31, 1990, the balance sheet shows a total shareholders' equity of ($7.1 million). None of the financial statements is audited because the corporation has not qualified as a going concern since its inception. The corporation has survived solely on the basis of the ongoing shareholder loans that it has received. The corporation ceases to exist as soon as the shareholders refuse to make more loans. Likewise, the shareholder debt, which is the intangible property that is the subject of the present proceeding, remains viable only as long as the shareholders are willing to continue to fund the corporation; in other words, the debt to the shareholders presently cannot be repaid from any source other than the shareholders. In starting Petitioner, as well as in acquiring the assets described above, the shareholders committed substantial sums of money to the company, either in the form of cash or, more frequently, personal guarantees so as to enable the new corporation to obtain bank loans for which it would not otherwise have been eligible. The practice of Petitioner and its shareholder was to treat the shareholder advances to the company as shareholder advances. These loans were undocumented and carried no interest. These loans are subordinated to all other debt of the corporation. As time passed, instead of obtaining repayment of their loans, the shareholders had to meet the constant demands of the business for more money. Although, in retrospect, it might have been prudent to cut losses early and sell the business assets for whatever they could get, the shareholders continued to fund the business. Their motivation in doing so varied. At first, they poured more money into the business in the hope that business would recover. Later, they continued to bail out the business in order to meet such basic obligations as inventory acquisition, payroll, and mortgage debt in the hope that, if they maintained the business until business and economic conditions improved sufficiently, they could at least cover outstanding debt with the sale proceeds. For varying reasons related to their backgrounds and standing in their respective communities, the bankruptcy of individuals is a particularly unappealing prospect. Given the extent of shareholder guarantees, the bankruptcy of the corporation would not assist the shareholders in addressing their financial situations. After an audit, Respondent proposed an assessment of intangible tax based on the value of the shareholder loans for taxable years 1986 through 1989. Valuing these loans at their face value, the assessed intangible taxes totaled for each of the four years, respectively, $301.01, $2869.75, $998.51, and $1175.98. The assessed penalties for each of the four years are, respectively, $120.40, $1247.90, $499.41, and $570.40. The assessed interest for each of the four years is, respectively, $137.56, $967.07, $216.33, and $113.67. The grand total is $9217.99. Petitioner has proved that the fair value of the shareholder debt was considerably less than the face value of the debt. The debts were subordinated to all other debt of Petitioner. The financial condition of Petitioner, as well as prevailing business and economic conditions, decreased the value of these debts well below their face value. Additional shareholder loans, which were made for business and personal reasons, were worth less than their face amount immediately after being made due to the above-described factors. On top of the rest of these factors, there is no market for shareholder loans to a closely held corporation, especially when the loans are undocumented and the corporation can most generously be described as ailing. However, the fair value of the shareholder loans bear some speculative value, which, given the decline in fortunes during the years in question, itself declines over the four years. The fair value of the shareholder loans pertaining to taxable year 1986 are 25 percent of the face value. The fair value of the shareholder loans pertaining to taxable years 1987-1989 are 10 percent of the face value. Therefore, the intangible tax and related interest should be correspondingly reduced by 75 percent for 1986 and 90 percent for the remaining three years. The failure to pay the portion of intangible taxes finally determined to be due was due to reasonable cause and not wilful negligence, wilful neglect, or fraud.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order determining that Petitioner owes intangible taxes and interest on the shareholder loans whose value has been reduced by 75 percent for 1986 and 10 percent for 1987-1989 and that Petitioner owes no penalties. ENTERED on April 13, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on April 13, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Clifford Hunt Julie Kirk Riden, Earl & Kiefner, P.A. 100 2d Avenue South, Ste 400N St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Leonard F. Binder Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to a waiver of the bond requirement set forth Section 559.927, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Ladatco is a "seller of travel" as that term is defined in Section 559.927(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Ladatco deals exclusively in wholesale travel packages. Ladatco primarily packages and sells tours of Central and South America to retail travel agents. Until the last few years, the retail travel agents handled virtually all of the ticketing involved in the packages. Changes in the industry have resulted in Ladatco becoming more involved in the ticketing aspect as part of the services it provides in assembling the packages. However, Ladatco has very little direct contact with consumers. Ladatco originally began operations in 1967 as a subsidiary of another company. Ladatco has been conducting business in its current corporate form since 1976. Michelle Shelburne has been working for the company since 1969. She has been the president of Ladatco for at least the last ten years and she owns fifty percent (50 percent) of the outstanding stock. Annie Burke and Rosa Perez are the other officers of the company and they each own approximately twenty two and half percent (22 1/2 percent) of the stock. Both Burke and Perez have worked for Ladatco since approximately 1970. The remaining five percent of the outstanding stock is owned by an attorney who has represented Ladatco since 1967. Ladatco has seven other full time employees and operates out of an office building that is owned jointly by Shelburne, Perez and Burke. Under Section 559.927(10)(b), Florida Statutes, a seller of travel is obligated to post a performance bond or otherwise provide security to the Department to cover potential future claims made by travelers. The security required by this statute is for the benefit of consumers and may be waived by the Department in certain circumstances. On or about May 27, 1994, Ladatco submitted an Application for Security Waiver (the "Application") pursuant to Section 559.927(10)(b)5, Florida Statutes. In lieu of audited financial statements, Ladatco submitted a copy of its 1993 income tax return with the Application. Line 30 of that income tax return reflects a net loss for tax purposes of $100,722. In reviewing an application for a bond waiver, the Department looks at the taxable income on the income tax return. It is the Department's position that if a company shows a loss for tax purposes, it is lacking in financial responsibility and is ineligible for a bond waiver. Based on this policy, the Department denied Ladatco's Application by letter dated August 2, 1994. The certified public accountant who has handled all outside accounting services for Ladatco since 1977 testified at the hearing in this matter. He submitted a history of operations for the company from 1985 through 1993. The accountant explained that, in 1986, Ladatco acquired a very expensive computer system with customized software. The cost of this system was depreciated over a five year period. In addition, until 1991, the company operated out of a building that it owned. The building was sold to the individual principals of the company in 1991. During the years the company owned the building, a significant amount of depreciation was generated for tax purposes. The large depreciation expenses for the years 1986 through 1991 generated losses for tax purposes which have been carried over for future years. Thus, while the company's operations for 1993 generated a profit of $65,000, the loss carry over resulted in a net loss for income tax purposes. The current year forecast for the company, based upon existing bookings, projects a net income in excess of $64,000 for the year ending December 31, 1994. In sum, an isolated look at the taxable income loss reflected on the 1993 income tax return does not provide an accurate picture of the financial responsibility of this company. This closely owned company has been in business for approximately twenty eight (28) years. The three principals in the company have all been with the firm for more than twenty four (24) years. The company has demonstrated a great deal of stability and, while profitability has fluctuated from year to year, the company has continually met its obligations for more than a quarter century. There is every indication that it will continue to do so in the future. Ladatco has maintained a bond with the Airline Reporting Corporation ("ARC") for approximately two and a half years. The amount of the bond varies from year to year, but is generally in the vicinity of $35,000. The statute provides that a company which has successfully maintained a bond with the ARC for three years is entitled to a security waiver. While the ARC bond only protects the airlines and not the travelers, Ladatco will qualify for a waiver under this provision in approximately May of 1995. There is no indication of any unresolved complaints against Ladatco nor is there any evidence of civil, criminal or administrative action against the company.
Recommendation Based upon the forgoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order granting Ladatco's application for security waiver pursuant to Section 559.927(10)(b)5, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of December 1994. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Only the Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact. The following constitutes my ruling on those proposals. Adopted in pertinent part Finding of Fact 6 and also addressing the Preliminary Statement and in the Conclusions of Law. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Finding of Facts 7 and 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Michelle D. Shelburne, President Ladatco, Inc. d/b/a Ladatco Tours 2220 Coral Way Miami, Florida 33145 Jay S. Levenstein, Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact Albert Earl Wise, II, (Al,II) (Case No. 86-2161) began work as a securities salesman in Memphis, Tennessee, approximately November 15, 1982. He was a plumber when an old friend recruited him to be come a salesman with G.I.C. Government Securities, Inc., which was registered with the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities (Department), from June 8, 1982, until October 1, 1985. In February, 1983, Al,II, was transferred to Tampa to work in the branch office being opened there by an office manager named Lonnie Kilpatrick. Kilpatrick had been a government trader with the firm in Memphis. In approximately July, 1984, Al,II, became the Tampa branch manager. As the firm's Florida business expanded, Kilpatrick took over sole ownership and named Al,II, general manager over all the offices in Florida. Al,II, also became vice-president, comptroller and member of the board of directors of G.I.C. Government Securities, Inc. As general manager, Al,II, was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company. A more accurate description of his duties is that of sales manager as he was primarily responsible for promoting sales and motivating the account executives/sales persons. Al,II's, duties did not include registration of securities, as he possessed no training in that area, nor deciding what products G.I.C.. Government Securities would sell. Notwithstanding having been named comptroller and vice- president, Al,II, was not allowed by Kilpatrick, despite request, to audit or examine the company's books and records. Lonnie Kilpatrick decided what securities the entity would offer, as well as who, if anyone, would have access to the corporate records. Dorothy (also known as D'Oresa) Wise Young (Case No. 86-1848) was employed by G.I.C. Government Securities, Inc., as an associated person from September, 1983, through April, 1985, and as Sarasota branch manager from January through April, 1985. She is Al,II,'s daughter. Albert Earl Wise, III, (Al,III) (Case No. 86-1888) was employed by G.I.C. Government Securities, Inc., as an account executive from February, 1983, through April, 1985, became Boca Raton and Orlando branch manager, and was a member of the board of directors of G.I.C. Government Securities, Inc. Al,III, is Al,II,'s son. Glenn Patrick Young (Case No. 86-1847) was employed by G.I.C. Government Securities, Inc., as an associated person from January through April, 1985. He is Dorothy's husband. David Randall Phillips (Case No. 86-1887) was employed by G.I.C. Government Securities, Inc., as an associated person or agent from August, 1984, to May, 1985. He is a long-time, close friend of Al,III. William Fredrick Mann (Case No. 86-2160) was employed by G.I.C. Government Securities, Inc., as an associated person or agent from February to April, 1985. He is Al,III,'s father-in-law. Al,II, was employed as a general manager of G.I.C. Securities Corporation from at least January 27, 1985 to March 5, 1985 and supervised the sale of securities by unregistered agents of G.I.C. Securities Corporation to following investors located outside the State of Florida: Fred E Martin or Matalie L. Martin $85,000 Post Office Box 449 West Upton, Massachusetts 01587 Gregory E Westerman $50,000 2034 Strathmoor Boulevard Louisville, Kentucky 40205 Karen E Prevett $70,000 72 Old Farm Road Mansfield, Massachusetts 02048 Harvey Notis or Marion Notis $50,000 R. D. 3 Box 1248 Great Harrington, Massachusetts 01230 C. T. George $155,000 Living Revocable Trust Trust Dated 01/31/83 20 Palmer Drive Canton, Massachusetts 02021 Geoffrey P. Pollitt $25,000 313 Simon Willard Road Concord, Massachusetts 01742 Walter Kossman or Virginia Kossman $25,000 1594 S. Circle View Seven Hills, Ohio 44131 Robert Anandale Trustee $30,000 Dated 02/28/84 F.B.O. Robert Allandale c/o Central National Bank 6690 McKenzie Road North Olmstead, Ohio 44070 William P. Giblin $25,000 6433 Beverly Drive Parma Heights, Ohio 44129 Walter Kossman or Virginia Kossman $25,000 1594 South Circle View Seven Hills, Ohio 44131 Dorothy L. Bayman or Dale L. Bayman $85,000 150 Belleair Avenue Dayton, Ohio 45420 Dorothy Wise Young was employed by G.I.C. Securities Corporation as an account executive although not registered with Respondent in any capacity at anytime concerning said employment. Young also sold securities on behalf of G.I.C. Securities Corporation to the following investors despite not being properly registered with Respondent: Albin W. Johnson Box 333 Randolph, Massachusetts 02368 $75,000 T. W. Wenzlick or Viola 421 Jeffrey Drive R. Wenzlick $25,000 New Washington, Ohio 44854 Harvey Notis or Marion Notis $50,000 R. D. 3, Box 142C Great Barrington, Massachusetts 01230 Al,III, was employed by G.I.C. Securities Corporation as an account executive from January to April, 1985, and admitted engaging in the sale of one or more securities while employed by said firm. Al,III, also admitted to not being properly registered in the State of Florida with G.I.C. Securities Corporation. G.I.C. Securities Corporation was denied a license by Order of the Department dated April 16, 1984, in part for material false statements in the application and demonstration of the applicant's unworthiness to transact the business of a broker/dealer. G.I.C. Securities Corporation subsequently filed a petition for formal hearing regarding the Department's denial of registration. On August 30, 1984, G.I.C. Securities Corporation entered into a stipulation, consent agreement and final order with the Department. This written agreement provided that the firm would not apply to the Department for registration under Section 517.12(1), Florida Statutes, for a period of twelve months from August 30, 1984, and that it would fully and faithfully comply with all of the provisions of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, and the rules of the Department. On the basis of these findings of fact, on April 9, 1985, the Department ordered the firm to cease and desist from violating Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, and more specifically from selling unregistered securities and from selling securities without being lawfully registered to do so. Al,II, also sold unregistered Government National mortgage Association GNMA/U.S. Treasury Trust Note securities, to the following individuals in the following amounts: Joseph or Bernice Metcalf 4299-14th Street N.E. St. Petersburg, Fl 33703 $25,000 Bruce or Diane J. Fenton 2435 Post Road Sarasota, Fl 33581 $5,000 Betsy O. Lester 1200 Capri Circle S. Apt. 29 Treasure Island, Fl 33706 $10,000 Ernest L. Miller Post Office Box 458 Lake Hamilton, Fl 33851 $7,000 John and Louise Magill 4260 S.E. 20th Place Apt. Cape Coral, Fl 33904 208 $10,000 Mrs. Lina Anker-Simmons Post Office Box 353 Boca Grande, Fl 33921 $10,000 Charles W. Wood or Babetta 211 W. Emily Tampa, Fl 33603 Edmunds $10,000 Margaret McMenamy 1225 N.W. 16th Street Pembroke Pine, Fl 33026 $20,000 Suzanne J. Lewis 4703 Brookwood Drive Tampa, Fl 33629 $10,000 Raymond or Suzanne Lewis 4703 Brookwood Drive Tampa, Fl 33629 $10,000 Deno or Barbara Kazanis 2310 Southern Lights Lutz, Fl 33549 $5,000 William K. Mall, IV 9500 82nd Avenue N. Seminole, Fl 33543 $20,000 Carl E. or Minnie E. Gustafson $10,000 Post Office Box 451 Matlacha, Fl 33909 John A. or Louis Gress $22,000 Post Office Box 1555 Palm Harbor, Fl 33563 Marguerite Gould or Marguerite Robertson $10,000 16183 Dublin Circle Casa Bella Bldg. A-Apt. 103 Ft. Myers, Fl 33908 Robert J. Evans $7,000 Rt. 2, Box 12-B Moore Haven, Fl 33471 Virginia H. or Robert E Bartlett $10,000 4703 Baycrest Drive Tampa, Fl 33615 Robert S. or Helen M. Gerard $5,000 or Frances C. Rafter JT WROS, 4521 W. Rogers Avenue Tampa, Fl 33611 Jacinto R. or Palmira M. Fernandez $10,000 8436 Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Fl 33604 Paul E. or Elizabeth A. Cleveland $10,000 306 Kllburn Road Holiday, Fl 33590 William F. Price $30,000 custodian for Gary Cotton Dan Cook 9105 Tudor Dr #F102 Tampa, Fl 33615 Ruth T. Penner or Laura B. Wood $5,000 1204 W. Risk-Apt. G Plant City, Fl 33566 Edward G. or Eleanor G. Daniels $20,000 4630 B.E. 20th Place Cape Coral, Fl 33904 Frederick S. Crysler $5,000 1200 Johnston Road Unite B-24 Dade City, Fl 33525 Hazel H. Aspinwall or Frederick F. Smith $30,000 69 Arrowhead Drive St. Augustine, Fl 32086 Jay E or Betty A. Yager $20,000 or Martha Dean Post Office Box 465 Astatula, Fl 32705 Katherine B. Wolf $10,000 1850 Palmcrest Lane Clearwater, Fl 33546 Howard J. or Margaret M. Williams $10,000 8290 Oakhurst Road Seminole, Fl 33542 Roy or Dorothy Schreiner $15,000 4112 Robin Way Valrico, Fl 33594 Alfred or Frances Richter $13,000 7248 Antigua Place Sarasota, Fl 33581 Kaye Reid Wainwright $50,000 10671 William Tell Drive Orlando, Fl 32821 Charles A. Kottmeier $25,000 1200 Druid Road S. #7 Clearwater, Fl 33516 Bernie or Sylvia Albert or $10,000 Sharon Terry Albert 10642 Watertown Court Orlando, Fl 32809 Arnold or Gloria Barr $10,000 7503 Willow Court Tampa, Fl 33614 Edward Daniels Development Company $35,000 4630 S.E. 20th Place Cape Coral, Fl 33904 John W. DuBrian $30,900 2912 Tiburon Drive New Port Richey, Fl 33553 Arthur and Ruth P. Hiller $10,000 10702 Westbrook Dr Orlando, Fl 32821 Charles A. Kottmeir $40,000 200 Druid Road S. #7 Clearwater, Fl 33516 Kenneth S. Preston $12,000 11839 U.S. Hwy 41 S. Gibsonton, William E. Fl 33534 Morris $11,000 271-B Deming Avenue North Port, Fl 33596 Walter Leena M. Fennander $7,000 1727 Bayshore Boulevard Dunedin, Fl 33528 Thomas B. or Charlene M. Austin $10,000 309 15th Avenue Indian Rocks Beach, Fl 33535 Katherine Wolf $10,000 1850 Palmcrest Lane Clearwater, Fl 33546 Dorothy Wise Young sold unregistered Government National Mortgage Association GNMA/U.S. Treasury Trust Note securities, to the following individuals in the following amounts: George W. Arnold $8,000 618 4th Avenue S. St. Petersburg, Fl 33701 W. R. Bauman or Barbara Nagle $10,000 Post Office Box 16 Yankeetown, Fl 32698 George W. or Marjorie E. Border $10,000 860 N. Lake Avenue Avon Park, Fl 33825 Joan or Jerome Brenan 0005 Granite Lane Orlando, Fl 32821 $10,000 Freida Blockner 14623 Bonaire #607 Delray Beach, Fl 33446 $5,000 John or Elizabeth Grabowski 2308 Castilla Isle Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33301 $10,000 Louis or Mary Hoffman 3512 Spring Valley Drive New Port Richey, Fl 33552 $10,000 Raymond F. Joyce custodian for Salvatore Leone 267 S. Ocean Boulevard #212 C Pompano Beach, Fl 33062 $5,000 John or Caroline Susanec $10,000 215 Stafford Avenue Brooksville, Fl 33512 Stephen Karakay $10,000 Box 3344 Sarasota, Fl 33578 Mrs. Floyd A. Flowers or James A. Monroe $5,000 Route 2, Box 330H Crestview, Fl 32536 Fannie Felicia Caliuzzi $5,000 2742 C. Sherbrook Lane Palm Harbor, Fl 33563 Emma Carolyn Hammond $95,000 130 Devon Drive Clearwater, Fl 33515 A. E. or Joyce LaBeau $12,000 1801 Marine Park Way #106 New Port Richey, Fl 33552 A. E. or Joyce LaBeau $13,000 1801 Marine Park Way #106 New Port Richey, Fl 33552 A. E. or Joyce LaBeau $7,000 1801 Marine Park Way #106 New Port Richey, Fl 33552 Oscar Ritter $5,000 952 N.E. 199th Street #415 N. Miami Beach, Fl 33179 Murial or Sherry Stearns 580 Rio Vista Avenue $9,000 Daytona Beach, Fl 32014 F. William or Frances C. Van 219 87th Street Stone Harbor, N.J. 08247 Ness $6,000 Kaye Reid Wainwright 10671 William Tell Drive Orlando, Fl 32821 $50,000 Adele Althouse 400 Freedom Square U.S.A. Apt. J 619 Seminole, Fl 33542 $5,000 Murial or Sherry Stearns 580 Rio Vista Avenue Daytona Beach, Fl 32014 $10,000 F. William or Frances C. Van 112 S.W. 1st Avenue Seller Apt. Ness $10,000 Delray Beach, Fl 33444 McKinely or Grace Anderson 12408 Oakleaf Avenue Tampa, Fl 33612 $10,000 Mrs. Eileen Coutts 190 S.W. 72nd Terrace Margate, Fl 33068 $18,000 John C. Bertram 1416 Lake Marion Drive Apopka, Fl 32703 $8,000 Luther or Alena D. Ellis Rt. 2, Box 72 Wauchula, Fl 33873 $20,000 F. H. or H. Elizabeth Groezinger $15,000 2308 Crescent Ridge Road Daytona Beach, Fl 32018 Luther or Alena D. Ellis $30,000 Rt. 2, Box 72 Wauchula, Fl 33873 Mrs Isabelia K. Berg $6,000 5421 B Lakefront Blvd. Delray Beach, Fl 33445 Al,III, sold unregistered Government National Mortgage Association GNMA/U.S. Treasury Trust Note securities, to the following individuals in the following amounts: Charles S. Ammerman or Florence F. Ammerman $6,500 710 Lake Hiawassee Orlando, Fl 32811 Eva Wilson $15,000 409 S.E. 2nd Court Deerfield Beach, Fl 33441 Frank or Jean Arnold $18,000 6020 Shakerwood Circle, #G-108 Tamara, Fl 33319 Virginia Cummins or J. H. Cromer $15,000 311 S. Dean Street Westport, Indiana 47283 Morris or Sylvia Erlbaum $10,000 6795 Huntington Lane Bld. #14, Apt. #207 Delray Beach, Fl 33446 Lois G. Crosley $41,000 1626 Silversmith Place Orlando, Fl 32818 Sandy Garrison or Mary M. Boitnott $15,000 3104 Harrison Ave., #C-18 Orlando, Fl 32804 William or Rose Herzog $25,000 Custodian for Ronald Coyne 258-A Hibiscus Drive, M.F.L. Leesburg, Fl 32788 Helen Klein or Shari Weitzner $5,000 3205 Portofina #C-4 Coconut Greek, Fl 33066 Mattye Oliver or Eileen Johnson $3,000 147 W. State Street Kennett Square, PA 19348 Alma Pagliaro or Nancy De Marco $10,000 or Godfrey D. De Marco 9925-B Papaya Tree Trail Boynton Beach, Fl 33436 Gai S. Verner I.T.F. Bill Trilsch $25,000 901 N.W. 31st Avenue Box 13 Pompano Beach, Fl 33069 Harry or Anita Cope $5,000 417 Piedmont I Delray Beach, Fl 33445 Al Rappaport or Ellen Rappaport $15,000 2780 Pine Allen Rd. N. Sunrise, Fl 33329 Godfrey D. De Maro or Nancy De Marco $5,000 9925-B Papaya Tree Trail Boynton Beach, Fl 33436 Morris Erlbaum or Sylvia Erlbaum $10,000 6795 Huntington Lane Delray Beach, Fl 33446 A. Froid or Gertrude Froid $10,000 in trust for Roy Lee Froid 2600 S.W. 18th Terrace Ft. Lauderdale, Fl 33315 Max Pendergrast or Carol Pendergrast $20,000 custodian for Eric & Kurt Pendergrast 1611 S.W. 26th Street Ft. Lauderdale, Fl 33315 Glenn Patrick Young sold unregistered Government National Mortgage Association GNMA/U.S. Treasury Trust Note and GNMA/Mortgage Backed Collateral Note securities, to the following individuals in the following amounts: Wanda G. Baugh $10,500 Trustee for Buford Sitzlar Post Office Box 1523 Bonita Springs, Fl 33923 Wanda Baugh $5,000 Trustee for Buford Sitzlar Post Office Box 1523 Bonita Springs, Fl 33923 Norman R. or Margaret 3442 Gerhardt Street A. Keyes $25,000 Sarasota, Fl 33577 Norman R. or Margaret 3442 Gerhardt Street Sarasota, Fl 33577 A. Keyes $25,000 Howard W. or Hazel M. 3300 26th Avenue East Apt. 17-A Bradenton, Fl 33508 Kerr $10,000 David Randall Phillips sold unregistered Government National Mortgage Association GNMA/U.S. Treasury Trust Note securities, to the following individuals in the following amounts: Frank G. and Mildred W. Reynolds $2,500 JTWROS 400 S. Orlando #305 Maitland, Fl 32751 Vivian W. McCann or Marilyn Culpepper $10,000 JTWROS 2211 Beatrice Drive Orlando, Fl 32810 Stanislaw Szamrej or Stanislawa Szamrej $10,000 or Zdzislaw Szamrej JTWROS 2204 Stanley Street Orlando, Fl 32803 Paul Gheorghiu or Martha Gheorghiu $2,500 JTWROS 6565 Carder Drive Orlando, Fl 32818 Marjorie R. Romano or Michael Romano $40,000 11508 Benbow Court Orlando, Fl 32821 William Fredrick Mann sold unregistered Government National Mortgage Association GNMA/U.S. Treasury Trust Note securities to Mark Fulkerson or Bea Kuykendall, 7900 Montezuma Trail, Orlando, Fl, in the amount of $41,000. On April 9, 1985, the Department issued an Administrative Charges and Complaint against G.I.C. Government Securities, Inc., alleging among other things the sale of unregistered securities. On June 27, 1985, the Department entered into a Stipulation and Consent Order whereby G.I.C., its officers and directors and other persons acting in cooperation or concert with them or at their direction were permanently enjoined in part from selling unregistered securities and from obtaining money or property by means of untrue or misleading statements. Despite their positions with Kilpatrick's firms, the petitioners were not told, and did not know, that G.I.C. Securities Corporation was not registered with the Department. Al,III, and Dorothy Wise Young were registered in the states of Ohio (Al,III, only), Delaware and Massachusetts, and Kilpatrick, who had the benefit of legal counsel, had told them that it was legal for them to sell from their Florida offices to customers in those states. Likewise, Kilpatrick and the company's legal counsel, Tony Todd, told Al,II, Al,III, and Dorothy in late 1984 that the Government National Mortgage Association GNMA/U.S. Treasury Trust Notes and GNMA/Mortgage Backed Collateral Notes issued by Southern Bond Clearing were exempt from registration. Following Kilpatrick's instructions, they had their salesmen, including Glenn Patrick Young, Phillips and Mann, sell the securities. Despite their respective positions with G.I.C. Government Securities, Inc., and despite their representation on their U-4 Form applications to be associated persons with the firm that they were familiar with Florida's securities laws, none of the petitioners knew that those securities were unregistered securities for which there was no exemption. In March, 1985, Al,II, was in Memphis interviewing with the securities broker Turner & Sellhorn, Inc., about possible employment. At the time, although earning income well into six figures, Al,II, was dissatisfied with the way Kilpatrick was keeping him in the dark about some aspects of the companies' operations and finances. While in Memphis, Al,II, called in to his Tampa office and was told that the Department was engaged in some kind of audit. After he returned to the office, on April 4, 1985, he confronted Kilpatrick and demanded to know what the audit was about. Kilpatrick told him for the first time that violations had been committed by selling unregistered securities and selling for G.I.C. Securities Corporation, which had not been registered. Although Al,II, and Al,III, technically were members of the board of directors of G.I.C. Government Securities, Inc., there were no meetings of the board during their tenure, and Kilpatrick did not fully disclose the details of the firm's operations and finances to them. The Wises also were not made privy to the operations of related firms, such as Southern Bond Clearing. Dissatisfied with the position in which Kilpatrick had placed him and Al,III, Al,II, decided to resign despite Kilpatrick's offer of concessions and an expenses-paid trip to Europe as enticement to Al,II, stay on with the company. Al,II, resigned the next day, effective April 15, 1985. Al,III, resigned as a director on April 17, 1985. When Al,II, resigned, the other petitioners--family and friends whom Al,II, had brought to the company--began discussing plans to leave. On April 9, 1985, Gerald Lewis, as Comptroller, entered the cease and desist orders enjoining G.I.C. Securities Corporation from selling any securities while still unregistered and enjoining both G.I.C. Government Securities, Inc., and G.I.C. Securities Corporation from sales of unregistered securities. But the orders did not otherwise enjoin G.I.C. Government Securities, Inc., from conducting business. When Dorothy Wise Young inquired of a Department employee, the violations were characterized as "technical." The petitioners then decided that, to be able to have uninterrupted income, the others would stay at the company until Al,II, secured employment at Turner & Sellhorn and could hire the others on at Turner & Sellhorn. But on April 30, 1985, Kilpatrick required all employees to sign a new employment contract which provided, among other things, for 90 days notice before an employee could terminate employment. At that point, the petitioners still at the company (i.e., all but Al,II) refused to sign the new contract and resigned from employment. Up to the departure of the petitioners from Kilpatrick's companies, none of them had any reason to think that securities they sold would not be delivered in due course of time to the customers who purchased them. Securities always had been delivered properly during the term of their employment with the companies. The petitioners, like the Department's employees, were not privy to the companies' finances and had no reason to believe the companies would not, or would not be able to, deliver securities that had been purchased. It is not a customary practice in the industry for securities salesmen associated with a broker/dealer to remain responsible for insuring delivery of securities after termination of employment with the broker/dealer. To the contrary, it is customary for the salesman to rely on the broker/dealer to follow through on delivery of securities. On or about July 22, 1985, the petitioners' U-4 Form applications to be associated persons with Turner & Sellhorn, Inc., were granted, and they began employment at Turner & Sellhorn. They mailed notices to their former customers to advise the customers of their new place of employment. Later in the summer of 1985, some of the petitioners were told by former customers both that G.I.C. Government Securities, Inc., had begun selling short-term zero coupon repurchase agreements and that some former customers had not yet received possession of securities purchased from some of the petitioners on or before April 30, 1985, an extraordinary delay. After discussing these developments with Mr. Turner, the petitioners concluded that Kilpatrick's companies might be having financial difficulties and that the former customers might be at risk. The petitioners began to try to contact all of their former customers to caution them about the "zero repos" and to be sure they had received possession of their securities. This was not easy since many of the petitioners' former customers already had left for summer residences up north, some without leaving a forwarding address or telephone number. Glenn Patrick Young sent letters to the U.S. Postal Service and paid its service fee to obtain a good address or telephone number at which to contact six of his former customers If former customers the petitioners were able to contact had not yet received their securities, petitioners advised them to contact G.I.C. Government Securities, Inc., immediately and demand satisfaction--either possession of their securities or return of their investment. They further advised the customers that, if the company did not satisfy them within a week to ten days, they should contact the Department. Thanks to petitioners' efforts, several of their former customers recovered either their security or investment. For example, Al,III, was able to contact former customer Bryant on August 20, 1985, on Bryant's return to Florida and was told that Bryant still had not received the GNMA certificate he had bought on March 26, 1985. Following Al,III,'s advice, Bryant got his certificate on September 6, 1985. Glenn Patrick Young was contacted by former customer Bough about a "zero repo." He advised her not to invest and to contact the Department. Young also called former customers Neukom and Horowitz and, by his advice, helped Neukom get her $23,000 investment returned around September 25, 1985, and helped Horowitz get his $66,000 GNMA certificate on September 6, 1985, after a six month delay. David Randall Phillips helped former customers, including Mrs. Moffat, who called Phillips at his home for help in August, 1985, because she still had not received the security she had purchased in April, 1985. Phillips advised Moffat to write a letter to the Department, and she got her security within five days. Unfortunately, not all of petitioners' former customers had gotten satisfaction--either the security they had purchased or the return of their investment--by the time G.I.C. Government Securities, Inc., went bankrupt on or about October 1, 1985. Some, including Lillian Nelson and Raymond Dennis (customers of Phillips), did not listen to petitioners' advice and counsel. One couple, the Bakers of Ft. Myers, were contacted by Glenn Patrick Young but misinformed him that they had received possession of their security when in fact they had not. Others could not be contacted because petitioners were unable to get a good address or telephone number for them during the summer and early autumn, 1985. Dr. Stanley Pollock of 332 Fifth Avenue, Suite 213, McKeesport, Pennsylvania, purchased three GNMA certificates in the amount of $195,131 from Dorothy Wise Young near the end of her employment at G.I.C. Government Securities. Young tried to telephone Pollock but had a bad telephone connection. She tried to leave a message for Pollock to call her if he had not yet received his securities and, when Pollock did not call her, she assumed that he had received them. In fact, Pollock never got the message because of the bad connection. As a result, Dr. Pollock did not receive or obtain registered ownership of the securities which he had purchased. He currently has a claim pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida for the purchase price of the certificates. At the direction of Richard Johnson of Tampa, Richard J. Hansen, IRA Plans Administrator, Retirement Accounts, Inc., Post Office Box 3017, Winter Park, Florida, purchased two GNMA certificates from Al,III, on behalf of Johnson in the amount of $18,470.37. Mr. Johnson did not receive the certificates. He moved to Wisconsin June through October, 1985, and gave Al,III, no forwarding address or telephone number (although Al,III, could have made contact with Mr. Johnson through Mr. Hansen.) James and Katheryn Putnal of Route 1, Box 14, Myakka City, Florida, purchased an $85,000 GNMA certificate from Glenn Patrick Young on April 12, 1985. In addition, M. Reed and Edna M. Veazey of 2141 Third Street East, Bradenton, Florida purchased a $50,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) certificate from him on February 11, 1985. Both couples moved from Florida (the Putnals from May 8 through August, 1985, and the Veazeys until October, 1985), and neither gave Young a forwarding address or telephone number. Young unsuccessfully tried to locate them through the U.S. Postal Service and then gave up. Before they left to go up north, the Putnals did receive Young's announcement that he had left G.I.C. and was starting employment with Turner & Sellhorn. But when they returned they called G.I.C., not Young, to inquire about delivery of their certificate and were told it was coming, give it time. The Veazeys also contacted G.I.C., not Young, after Young switched to Turner & Sellhorn and, in fact, bought two more GNMA certificates from G.I.C. after Young had left (although they still had not received the security they had purchased from Young on or about February 19, 1985.) Both the Putnals and the Veazeys have had to make claims in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida for the purchase price of the certificates. While employed by G.I.C. Government Securities, William Fredrick Mann sold GNMA certificates to the following individuals in the following amounts: Louis M. Totka or Marguerite A. Totka 117 Pine Circle Drive $25,000 Lake Mary, Fl 32746 Mignon Weinstein or Philip Weinstein 2910 Plaza Terrace Drive Orlando, Fl 32803 $40,000 Philip Weinstein or Mignon Weinstein 2910 Plaza Terrace Drive Orlando, Fl 32803 $55,000 Although Mann was able to contact these former customers in late July or in August, 1985, and advise and counsel them how to get satisfaction (i.e., either possession of the securities they had purchased or return of their investments, for some reason the Totkas and the Weinsteins did not get satisfaction before the G.I.C. bankruptcy. Despite their association with Kilpatrick's G.I.C. companies, the petitioners have been able to maintain a good reputation for competence, honesty and trustworthiness in their business dealings. Testimony of this kind came from Mr. Turner and Mr. Sellhorn of Turner & Sellhorn, Inc., and several of petitioners' former customers--four customers of Al,II; one of Dorothy; four of Al,III; three of Glenn Patrick Young; and three of Phillips. More than being responsible for the violations in which they have participated, petitioners have been fellow victims of Kilpatrick's violations. The most serious of the violations--failure to account for and deliver securities-- occurred after the petitioners left G.I.C. and through no doing of their own.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that a final order be entered in these cases granting the applications of all of the petitioners for registration as associated persons with Certified Capital Corporation. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 86-1847, 86-1848, 86-1887, 86-1888, 86-2160 and 86-2161 To comply with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), the following rulings are made on proposed findings of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact were organized and filed separately by petitioner. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact were not timely filed and do not require explicit rulings (although they have been considered, as reflected in the Findings Of Fact.) Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact As To Glenn Patrick Young (Case No. 86-1847). 1.-5. Accepted and incorporated, along with additional findings. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact As To Dorothy Wise Young (Case No. 86-1848). 1.-8. Accepted and incorporated, along with additional findings. 9. Rejected as contrary to facts found that Dr. Pollock had no contact with Young; in part, subordinate; otherwise, accepted and incorporated, along with additional findings. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact As To David Randall Phillips (Case No. 86-1887). 1.-5. Accepted and incorporated, along with additional findings. 6. Subordinate to facts found. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact As To Albert Earl Wise, III (Case No. 86-1888). 1.-8. Accepted and incorporated, along with additional findings. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact As To William Fredrick Mann (Case No. 86-2160). 1.-6. Accepted and incorporated, along with additional findings. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact As To Albert Earl Wise (Case No. 86-2161). 1.-7. Accepted and incorporated, along with additional findings. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Echevarria, Esquire ECHEVARRIA & BENCHIMOL, P.A. Suite 3016, First Florida Tower 111 East Madison Street Tampa, Fl 33602 Charles E. Scarlett, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0305 Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0305 Charles Stutts General Counsel Plaza Level The Capitol Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0305 =================================================================
