The Issue Whether Petitioner lacks the moral character to be licensed as a Florida real estate salesperson.
Findings Of Fact On May 4, 2004, Petitioner, Rene Anthony Acker, filed an application for licensure with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesperson. On that application, Acker revealed that he had pled nolo contendere and was placed on probation for twelve months on July 2, 2003, for fraudulent use of a credit card. At hearing, Acker testified regarding the events that led to his arrest. In November of 2003 during the beginning of the Christmas shopping season, while he was a clerk at a Target Department Store, a person of interest to local law enforcement for credit card theft and who was under surveillance, presented merchandise to Acker for purchase with a credit card. The card was in the name of someone other than the customer. The card was accepted by Acker and the system, and the transaction completed. Subsequently, the customer returned with a high- dollar item and attempted to purchase it with the same credit card. Acker accepted the card, but the system refused to accept the card on the second occasion. Several months later, the deputy sheriff, who was working the case, came to Acker and asked him to identify the customer as part of an effort to make a case against the customer, a person with whom Acker was acquainted as the son of the owner of a restaurant where Acker had worked as a waiter. Acker told the deputy that he had no independent recollection of the transaction, and could not identify the customer from the surveillance camera pictures he was shown. The deputy indicated that if Acker did not cooperate and identify the individual, Acker would be charged with credit card fraud. Acker stated that he could not identify the customer from the photographs as the person with whom he was acquainted. Acker was subsequently charged with credit card fraud. After consulting an attorney, Acker pled nolo contendere to the charge. It was clear that this was a plea of convenience under the plea agreement that was worked out. The only evidence introduced by the Commission was Acker's file that reflected that Acker revealed the plea on his application and the court records of his plea, probation, and early release from probation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: It is recommended that application of Petitioner be granted pursuant to the Commission's discretion upon consideration of the matters presented in mitigation. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S __ STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 12th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Rene Anthony Acker 138 Via Tisdelle Orange Park, Florida 32073 Barbara Rockhill Edwards, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Administrative Law Division The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Guy Sanchez, Chairman Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Respondent Amy Ostrau is a registered real estate salesman having been issued License No. 0144468 by the Board of Real Estate. The last known address of the Respondent is c/o Ann Ford, Inc., 7370 Northwest 5th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33317. The Respondent, at all material times alleged herein, was a registered real estate salesman employed by Ann Ford Realty, Inc. On or about March 29, 1980, Respondent obtained a written deposit receipt and contract for sale and purchase from a prospective purchaser, H. Steven Hill. The contract indicated that the selling broker Ann Ford, Inc., broker, held an initial deposit of $500.00. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) The $500.00 deposit check was received by Respondent from a friend of Hill because Hill did not have a check available at that time. Respondent placed the deposit check in her office file and it remained there until Friday, April 11, 1980 when a second deposit check, in the amount of $17,750.00, was presented by the buyer. At this time, the first deposit check was returned to Hill by the Respondent. Respondent presented the second deposit check to her broker and it was then deposited by mail into the broker's escrow account on April 15, 1980. The check evidently was credited to the broker's account on April 15, 1980. (The response to request for admissions refers to the pertinent month as August, which is obviously in error.) On or about April 17, 1980, and as a result of a request by Hill, a building inspection was conducted on the house. The inspection disclosed several deficiencies in the house and the estimated repair cost for the deficiencies exceeded the amount specified in the contract for repairs. Payment of the second deposit check in the amount of $17,750.00 was stopped on April 21, 1980 by Hill, and, as a result, there was no earnest money deposit remaining in the escrow account. Respondent's husband, an attorney, Norman M. Ostrau, represented the purchaser, H. Steven Hill, in the transaction. Respondent was asked by Hill to hold the $500.00 earnest money deposit check until the contract was accepted and signed by the sellers. Pursuant to these instructions, Respondent failed to turn over the deposit check to her employer immediately upon receipt of the same. A civil action for damages is pending in the Broward County Circuit Court brought on behalf of the sellers of the property against the buyer and broker, with counterclaim by the buyer. (Respondent's Exhibit 2)
Recommendation That the Board of Real Estate suspend the license of Respondent, Amy Ostrau, for a period of thirty (30) days pursuant to Subsection 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 101 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33307 Michael Rifkin, Esquire OSTRAU & RIFKIN 8751 West Broward Blvd. Suite 302 Plantation, Florida 33324 Mr. C. B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and at all material times has been a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida. He holds license number HK0008557. In 1986, he was employed by Cityfed Mortgage Company. In July, 1986, Respondent met John and Audrey-Ann Marzano, husband and wife, at a party at the home of a mutual friend, Barbara Fieste. The Marzanos and Respondent agreed that he would pre-qualify them for a mortgage in order to determine the maximum amount of a mortgage loan that they could anticipate receiving. On or about October 22, 1986, the Marzanos signed a contract to purchase a home in a subdivision known as Coventry in the Melbourne area. The contract was prepared by Ms. Feiste, who was not a licensed real estate broker or salesman. Respondent, who was a licensed real estate broker or salesman at the time, reviewed the contract to determine its sufficiency from the point of view of a mortgage lender. No counterparts or copies of the contract remain in existence. Respondent was to deliver the signed contract offer to the seller or its attorney, but never did so. On October 22, 1986, the Marzanos delivered to Respondent a check drawn on their personal checking account in the amount of $2500 and payable to "EMBY Associates." "EMBY Associates" was a corporation that Respondent had recently formed or was about to form. This payment represented the Marzanos' earnest money deposit that was to accompany the contract offer. Respondent deposited the check in his personal checking account on October 23, 1987. He endorsed the check, "EMBY Assoc" and, beneath that, "MB Reed." After receiving the check from the Marzanos, Respondent or someone at his direction added to the payee line on the check, "or MB Reed." Respondent deposited the Marzanos' check into an account that he had opened about ten days earlier. Either Respondent or Ms. Feiste could sign checks drawn on the account. In fact, the account belonged to Respondent, who signed all of the checks drawn on it during the months of October and November, 1987. Ms. Feiste was on the account only in the event that Respondent died or became disabled. The Marzanos' bank honored the check and debited their account in the amount of $2500. Between the opening of the account and the day that Respondent deposited the Marzanos's check, he had written checks in the total amount of $2570.22 against total deposits during the same period of $937.04. All of the checks drawn on the account were for personal expenses of Respondent. The single largest check was in the amount of $2025 representing rent for Respondent's personal residence. The monthly statement dated November 3, 1986, shows that one of Respondent's checks was returned for insufficient funds one week after he deposited the Marzanos' check. The monthly statement dated December 3, 1986, shows that 19 of Respondent's checks were returned for insufficient funds between November 14 and December 3, 1986. The contract signed by the Marzanos was never signed by the seller. Notwithstanding the fact that Respondent stressed to the Marzanos the importance of acting quickly on the house due to its favorable price, he allowed them to submit a contract without a deadline for the time for acceptance. After making the offer, the Marzanos applied for a mortgage with Cityfed Mortgage Company through Respondent. Weeks passed with the Marzanos hearing nothing about their offer. Finally, they demanded that Respondent return to them their money. Respondent offered different explanations as to what had happened to their money, but declined to repay them the $2500 that they had entrusted to him. Repeated demands were unsuccessful and the Marzanos never received their money back. Respondent testified that he took $2500 in cash in a sealed envelope to the receptionist of the law firm that represented the seller. He testified that he neither asked for nor received a receipt and that that was the last that he saw of the money. An attorney representing the firm testified that the firm had never accepted a cash earnest money deposit. Respondent testified that the source of the cash was the repayment by a Mr. Hamel of the final installment of a note, of which Respondent had no copy. Respondent omitted mention of this critical fact in his lengthy answer to the Administrative Complaint or in any of his statements to investigators. Respondent's testimony that he delivered $2500 cash is implausible. In fact, he used the Marzanos' money for personal expenditures and never transferred cash representing their earnest money deposit to anyone.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was first licensed as a real estate salesperson in Florida in 1997. She has been licensed continuously since that time, although she did not reside or work in Florida for one year in 1998 and 1999. Her license has never been disciplined. Having entered into a contract to purchase, as her personal residence, a townhouse in Palm Beach Gardens for $85,000, Respondent contacted a licensed mortgage broker, Gary Carlson. Respondent and Mr. Carlson had previously worked together, in their respective professions, while employed by a large residential real estate business. Respondent asked Mr. Carlson to find her a mortgage lender, and Mr. Carlson agreed to do so. Mr. Carlson obtained a mortgage loan application from Respondent and submitted it to an institutional mortgage lender that Mr. Carlson represented. At all times in this transaction, Mr. Carlson served as the agent of the mortgage lender, not Respondent. After examining the application and related information on the proposed mortgage loan, the lender directed Mr. Carlson to obtain additional information, including an affidavit to the effect that Respondent had never been known as Lea Taylor Nola and that she had never been married. Respondent disclosed to Mr. Carlson that she had been known as Lea Taylor Nola and she had been married, although she was now divorced. Mr. Carlson assured her that the requirements were unimportant and advised her to sign statements that she did not know Lea Taylor Nola and that she had never been married. Respondent did so. Upon examination of the closing documents, including the unattested statements described in this paragraph, the lender funded the mortgage loan, and Respondent purchased the townhouse. The mortgage loan remains in good standing two years later.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Jauna Watkins, Acting Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 James P. Harwood Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Richard L. Robbins Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, LLP 999 Peachtree Street, Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3996
Findings Of Fact At all times material here to, Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker under the laws of the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0044295. On or about June 4, 1981, Respondent, representing himself to Doris Colon as the duly appointed, qualified and acting broker for Alvin Katz if, and representing that Alvin Katzif was the owner of certain real property located at 636-638 Southwest Eighth Avenue, Miami, Florida, accepted from Colon a written offer to purchase said property. Colon's offer was accompanied by a deposit of $5,000, receipt of which was acknowledged by Respondent on or about June 6, 1981. That deposit was delivered to the Respondent, as broker, to be held by him in escrow under the terms of the Deposit Receipt. The vendor named in the Deposit Receipt Agreement Alvin Katzif, was unable to sell the property in accordance with the terms expressed in that Deposit Receipt Agreement. Therefore, the sale was never consummated. Approximately one month after signing the Deposit Receipt Agreement, Alvin Katzif advised Respondent that he did not hold title to the property and that there were numerous and diverse claims to the property. Respondent never placed Colon's $5,000 deposit in an escrow account but rather placed the deposit in a personal account. Colon, through counsel, made a demand for the $5,000 earnest money deposit. Respondent failed to provide Colon with an accounting or delivery of her deposit until such time as she obtained a civil judgment against him. At no time did Respondent request an escrow disbursement order or submit the matter to arbitration or seek interpleader. Respondent converted Colon's $5,000 earnest money deposit to his own use. On or about the same day that Colon gave Respondent her $5,000 deposit made payable to him, Respondent gave Colon a check for $10,000 made payable to her. The $10,000 paid to Colon was not a loan to her and had no relation to the Katzif/Colon transaction. Rather, the $10,000 was a deposit toward the purchase of a duplex owned by Colon in which Respondent was then living as a tenant and which he desired to purchase from Colon. That transaction was completed, and the closing took place on August 12, 1981. The closing statement reflects credit given to Respondent of $10,000 toward the purchase price of the duplex he bought from Colon. The duplex Colon sold to Respondent is located at 2931-41 Southwest Sixth Street, Miami, Florida. When Respondent gave Colon his $10,000 deposit toward the purchase price of the duplex which he bought from her, he took her to friends of his at Intercontinental Bank, where she opened an account. She then wrote the $5,000 check out of that account, which check was the deposit which accompanied her offer on the property she wished to purchase from Katzif. In other words, the only relationship between the $10,000 check given to Colon by Respondent and the $5,000 check given to Respondent by Colon is that the fact that Respondent gave Colon a $10,000 down payment on the duplex he was purchasing from her gave Colon the opportunity to make an offer on the Katzif property using $5,000 of the $10,000 as a deposit on the offer to Katzif.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and revoking his real estate broker license number 0044295. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Martin I. Carlin, Esquire 3000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 402 Miami, Florida 33137 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether Respondents committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Raymond Mangicapra is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida. He holds license number 0326800. FUGI is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. It holds registration number 0245691. At all times material to the instant case prior to March 5, 1992, Mangicapra was the broker of record for FUGI. On March 5, 1992, he resigned as FUGI's broker of record and its president. Approximately five months later he returned to FUGI in the capacity of a licensed broker-salesman The Angulo Transaction On or about April 26 1991, Jose Angulo, his wife Martha Salazar Angulo, and their son Carlos Angulo, signed a written contract (hereinafter referred to as the "Angulo contract") to purchase from Lofts Development Corp. (hereinafter referred to as "LDC"), for $98,300.00, real property located in the Willow Wood subdivision in Palm Beach County upon which a residence was to be constructed. FUGI, through its then broker of record, Mangicapra, negotiated the sale for LDC. Mangicapra was also a part-owner of LDC and its qualifying agent. His partner was Vincent Ferri. Ferri, on behalf of LDC, signed the Angulo contract on May 2, 1991. Article II, Section C. of the Angulo contract provided, in part, as follows: Use of Mortgage Loan: Time to Make Application: Purchaser intends to pay for a portion of the Purchase Price by obtaining a permanent mortgage loan ("Mortgage Loan"). Purchaser agrees to make application(s) for such Mortgage Loan from a bona fide lending institution approved by Seller ("Mortgagee") in the amount of [$96,050.00], at applicable interest rates. Purchaser agrees to make application for such Mortgage Loan within five (5) days from execution of this Contract by Purchaser. Purchaser agrees to promptly execute all necessary documents, disclose all information within fourteen (14) days of request and pay all costs as and when requested of it by Mortgagee and/or Seller in conjunction with such application and take all other measures to aid in being approved for a Mortgage Loan, including the making of further applications for a Mortgage Loan. Failure to Obtain Mortgage Loan: Purchaser agrees that in the event Purchaser fails to qualify for such Mortgage Loan or fails to qualify for a Mortgage Loan sufficient in an amount to enable Purchaser to close after duly and promptly complying with all requests of the Mortgagee and/or Seller, Purchaser shall notify Seller of this fact, in writing, whereupon Seller may request that Purchaser make further applications for a Mortgage Loan. In the event that Purchaser fails to qualify for a Mortgage Loan with any Mortgagee after duly and promptly complying with all requests of the Mortgagee and/or the Seller, as provided above, then Seller shall, at its sole discretion, either (a) give a Mortgage Loan to Purchaser at applicable interest rates at the time such Mortgage Loan is closed for the Full Amount; or (b) transfer or otherwise assign a Mortgage Loan obtained by Seller at applicable interest rates at the time such Mortgage Loan is obtained for the Full Amount which Purchaser agrees to assume at closing in lieu of any other Mortgage Loan and for which Purchaser shall reimburse Seller for all loan closing costs, title insurance premiums and escrow balances existing at closing relative to such assumed Mortgage Loan; (c) in the instance where Purchaser is approved for a Mortgage Loan in an amount less than the Full Amount, unless otherwise prohibited by reason of government or lender regulations, take a purchase money second mortgage from Purchaser at applicable interest rates for a term not to exceed five (5) years and Purchaser shall pay all closing costs in connection with such purchase money second mortgage; or (d) return any monies paid hereunder less a sum for engineering and other expenses reasonably incurred in effecting and processing this Contract whereupon this Contract shall be terminated and the parties hereto shall be relieved of all further rights and obligations hereunder. Default by Purchaser: In the event Seller ascertains that Purchaser has failed to qualify for a Mortgage Loan due to Purchaser's failure to duly or promptly comply with all requests of the Mortgagee and/or Seller or due to failure on the part of Purchaser to supply accurate information, then any such event shall constitute default by Purchaser hereunder, entitling Seller to retain all sums paid hereunder as set forth in accordance with Article VI hereof. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Article II to the contrary or notwithstanding a subsequent mortgage disapproval by a Mortgagee, Purchaser specifically agrees that once a mortgage approval is obtained by Purchaser from one Mortgagee, the deposit monies paid by the Purchaser to Seller shall no longer be refundable. . . . Article III, Section D. of the Angulo contract provided, in part, as follows: Subject to the following provisions of this Paragraph, the estimated date of completion for the residence shall be on or about 120 days from mtg approv. . . . . In the event said Residence shall not be completed two (2) years from the date of this Contract as aforesaid, Purchaser shall have the option to cancel this Contract by giving written notice to Seller ("Cancellation Notice") within 5 days after two (2) years from the date of this Contract ("Cancellation Period") and upon such cancellation Seller shall refund to Purchaser his deposit made hereunder. Upon such Refund, all parties to this Contract shall be fully discharged and relieved from the terms and obligations hereof. Liability of Seller is limited to the Refund and in no event shall Seller be liable to Purchaser for any damages which Purchaser may sustain. In the event Purchaser does not send the Cancellation Notice within the Cancellation Period, this Contract shall remain in full force and effect and Purchaser shall not have the right to cancel this Contract unless Seller is otherwise in default of this Contract. Seller shall not be obliged to make, provide or compensate for any accommodations to Purchaser as a result of delayed completion nor shall Seller be liable for any expenses or inconveniences to Purchaser which may directly or indirectly arise from delay of delivery of possession. Article VI, Section A. of the Angulo contract addressed the subject of "Purchaser's Default." It provided, in part, as follows: If Purchaser shall fail to cure such default within such seven (7) day period, Seller shall, and does hereby have the unrestricted option to (1) consider Purchaser in default under this Contract, (2) retain all sums paid to it, whether held in escrow or otherwise, hereunder as agreed upon and liqu[id]ated damages and in full settlement of any claim for damages, and (3) terminate all rights of Purchaser under this Contract. . . . Article VII of the Angulo contract addressed the subject of "Deposit Money." It provided as follows: Seller shall at its option have the right to use the deposit money for any purposes as it deems necessary. Article VIII, Section B. of the Angulo contract provided as follows: Purchaser represents and warrants that this sale of the Property pursuant to this Contract was made by Seller's personnel and Purchaser agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Seller against any claims of real estate brokers for commissions relating to this sale. Article VIII, Section C. of the Angulo contract provided as follows: This Contract may not be assigned, sold or transferred by Purchaser without the prior written consent thereto by Seller, which consent may be withheld in Seller's sole discretion. There was no comparable provision in the contract restricting LDC's right to assign. Article VIII, Section E. of the Angulo contract provided as follows: This Contract shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, legal representatives, successors and, as permitted hereunder, assigns. Addendum E to the Angulo contract, which was signed by the Angulos on April 26, 1991, and by Ferri on May 2, 1991, provided, in part, as follows: The purchaser(s) of a one or two family residential dwelling unit has the right to have all deposit fund[s] (up to 10 percent of the purchase price) deposited in an interest bearing escrow account. This right may be waived in writing by the purchaser(s). Purchaser(s) hereby waive their right to have all deposit funds (up to 10 percent of purchase price) deposited in an interest bearing escrow account. . . . First Union Group, Inc., is the agent for the Seller(s) and will be paid for his services by the Seller(s). . . . The Angulos' initial deposit was a check, which they gave to Mangicapra, made out to FUGI in the amount of $500.00. In conjunction with making this payment, they signed a Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement, which provided, in part, as follows: It is specifically understood that this Earnest Money deposit is to be held in First Union Group, Inc's (hereinafter First Union Group) trust account. Upon acceptance of said reservation/contract between [the Angulos] (buyer) and Lofts Development Corp. (seller), and upon clearance of said deposit, buyer agrees that First Union Group may automatically transfer to seller said Earnest Money and said Earnest Money shall be treated as purchasers['] initial investment deposit. Purchaser agrees that once said reservation/contract between buyer and seller named above is accepted by seller, and there is in effect a purchase agreement, any and all future deposits due per said purchase agreement shall be made payable directly [to] seller. If any future deposits are inadvertently made payable to First Union Group, buyer hereby gives First Union Group the right and authorization to transfer said deposit money to seller. Any deviation to the above must be in writing from buyer at the time of the reservation/contract. . . . The "automatic transfer" of deposit monies from the real estate broker holding these monies to the seller/builder, like that authorized by this signed Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement, was the accepted practice in the area. Mangicapra deposited the $500.00 check he had been given by the Angulos in FUGI's interest-bearing money market escrow account at Capital Bank in Delray Beach, Florida. The deposit was noted on the Angulos's ledger card. Respondents did not have the written permission of all interested parties to place the Angulos' deposit monies in such an interest-bearing account. Respondents received three other earnest money deposits from the Angulos: a check, dated May 30, 1991, payable to FUGI in the amount of $700.00 (hereinafter referred to as the "May 30 check"); a check, dated June 30, 1991, payable to FUGI in the amount of $700.00 (hereinafter referred to as the "June 30 check"); and a check, dated July 30, 1991, payable to FUGI in the amount of $600.00 (hereinafter referred to as the "July 30 check"). The June 30 and July 30 checks were deposited in FUGI's interest- bearing money market escrow account at Capital Bank and the deposits were noted on the Angulos' ledger card. The May 30 check, however, was inadvertently deposited in FUGI's general operating account at Capital Bank, instead of its escrow account, as a result of a bookkeeping error. On or about August 8, 1991, Respondents wrote a check (hereinafter referred to as "check #1395") transferring $4,800.00 from its Capital Bank escrow account to LDC. The $4,800.00 represented escrow funds being held by Respondents in connection with six different transactions. It included $1,800.00 of the $2,500.00 in earnest money deposits that Respondents had received from the Angulos. The transfer of this $1,800.00 to LDC was in accordance with the Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement signed by the Angulos. Upon receiving check #1395, Ferri endorsed it back to FUGI to compensate FUGI for services it had provided LDC and for expenses FUGI had incurred in conjunction with the performance of these services. The endorsed check was deposited in FUGI's interest-bearing money market account at Capital Bank. On or about November 1, 1991, Donna Archer, who was then an employee of FUGI, sent a Verification of Escrow Deposit to Paragon Mortgage Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "PMC"), from whom the Angulos were attempting to obtain a mortgage loan. Archer provided the following erroneous information in this Verification of Escrow Deposit: As Escrow Agent in the [Angulo] transaction, we are now holding the following amount in our escrow account for the above captioned transaction: $2,500.00------- total held in escrow. On or about December 26, 1991, PMC sent the Angulos the following letter advising them that their application for a mortgage loan had been conditionally approved: We are please[d] to inform you that your application for a FHA mortgage in the amount of 95,750.00 has been approved. The following items are contingencies on the loan and must be met prior to closing. Provide independent documentation of YTD income for Martha (i.e. copy of ledger signed by accountant of employer) Amendment of contract to reflect the following, contract to remain current through closing Hazard insurance policy for at least the loan amount Survey with flood certification [C]lear soil treatment guaranty Clear final inspection Proof of 10 year HOW warranty or 2/10 [h]ome buyers warranty At the time this conditional loan commitment was made, the master appraisal of the property was about to expire. Accordingly, an extension of the deadline was sought by PMC. By written agreement, dated April 26, 1992, and signed by Ferri and Jules Minker, the president of Contemporary Community Concepts Corp. (hereinafter referred to as "Contemporary"), LDC, which no longer wished to construct homes in the Willow Wood subdivision, assigned the Angulo contract to Contemporary: In consideration of the sum of $10.00 Ten Dollars lawful money of the United States, I, Vincent A. Ferri, President of Lofts Development Corporation, hereby assign without reservation or limitation and free of encumbrance, the purchase contract between Jose Antonio and Martha Salazar Angulo, his wife and Lofts Development Corporation, dated April 26, 1991 to Contemporary Community Concepts Corporation. The deposit monies indicated and due under the contract in the approximate amount of $1800.00 Eighteen Hundred Dollars, are not transferred by this agreement and remain with Lofts Development Corporation. In fact, the "deposit monies indicated and due under the contract," amounted to $2,500.00, although only $1,800.00 of that amount had been transferred to LDC. In May of 1992, upon attempting to contact Mangicapra to find out why LDC had not yet begun to work on their house, the Angulos discovered that FUGI had closed the office out of which it had been conducting its business. The Angulos brought the matter to the attention of Sharon Couglin of PMC. Couglin wrote a letter to an official at HUD to apprise the agency of the situation. A copy of the letter was sent to the Florida Real Estate Commission. Notwithstanding the Angulos' beliefs to the contrary, FUGI was still in business. It had simply moved to another location in Boynton Beach. (Mangicapra was not at this time, however, associated with FUGI in any way.) Minker contacted FUGI and the Angulos and advised them that the Angulo contract had been assigned to Contemporary. In his discussions with the Angulos, Minker told them that they would be given credit for the earnest money deposits that they had made. The Angulos, in turn, indicated that they wanted Contemporary to proceed with the construction of the house LDC had agreed to build for them. In accordance with the Angulos' stated desires, Contemporary proceeded with the construction of the house. As the house neared completion, the Angulos learned that the conditional mortgage loan commitment they had received was no longer valid because the master appraisal had expired. They thereupon tried to contact FUGI to explore their options. This time they were successful in their efforts to get in touch with a FUGI representative. They spoke with Denise Preziosi, who had replaced Mangicapra as FUGI's broker of record. The Angulos asked Preziosi if they could obtain a refund of their deposit monies in the event they decided that they did not want to go through with their purchase of the house. Preziosi indicated that she did not know the answer to the question and that, in any event, FUGI no longer held any of the Angulos' deposit monies. At the time she made this statement, Preziosi was under the mistaken impression that FUGI had transferred all of these monies to LDC. On or about November 25, 1992, Preziosi sent a letter to Minker, the body of which read, in part, as follows: I am in receipt of a copy of the "Agreement" between Contemporary Community Concepts Corporation and Lofts Development Corporation which Patti faxed to me yesterday. In reading this Agreement, I noticed that the amount stated as a credit to the Angulos is $1800 rather than the $2500 they did in fact pay to Lofts. I understand that you did not nor will not receive any money from Lofts but that you agreed to accept the assignment of the contract and would give them credit for their deposit. In this regard, please amend your records to reflect a credit of $2,500 as deposit monies rather than $1,800. The Angulos made their final color selections for the house in mid- December, 1992. Thereafter Minker obtained a certificate of occupancy for the house. Although Carlos Angulo, in Minker's office, signed a document prepared by Minker agreeing "to complete loan processing for a new loan and to close on [the house] when funds are made available as a result of this application, but not to exceed 60 days," 1/ when Carlos took this document home and presented it to his parents for their signature, they refused to sign it. The Angulos did not "complete loan processing for a new loan." The Angulos have not been refunded any of the $2,500.00 in earnest money deposits they have made, nor have they received any of the interest earned on these deposits. It has not been shown, however, that the Angulos are now, or were at any time previous hereto, entitled to such a refund under the provisions of their contract with LDC. The White-Hunt Transaction On or about May 3, 1990, Stacey White-Hunt signed a written contract (hereinafter referred to as the "White-Hunt contract") to purchase from LDC, for $97,000.00, real property located in the Delray Garden Estates subdivision in Palm Beach County upon which a residence was to be constructed. FUGI, through its then broker of record, Mangicapra, negotiated the sale for LDC. Ferri, on behalf of LDC, signed the White-Hunt contract on May 9, 1990. The White-Hunt contract contained provisions identical in all material respects to Article II, Section C., Article III, Section D., Article VI, Section A., Article VII, and Article VIII, Sections B., C. 2/ and E. of the Angulo contract, as well as Addendum E to the Angulo contract. (These contractual provisions are set out above.) White-Hunt's initial deposit was a check, which she gave to Mangicapra, made out to FUGI in the amount of $500.00. In conjunction with making this payment, she signed a Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement, which was identical in all material respects to the Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement signed by the Angulos. Respondents received one other earnest money deposit from White-Hunt. It was a check payable to FUGI in the amount of $1,000.00. The $500.00 check and the $1,000.00 check were deposited in FUGI's interest-bearing money market escrow account at Capital Bank and the deposits were noted on White-Hunt's ledger card. Respondents did not have the written permission of all interested parties to place White-Hunt's deposit monies in such an interest-bearing account. On or about May 23, 1990, Respondents wrote a check transferring $6,500.00 from its Capital Bank escrow account to LDC. The $6,500.00 represented escrow funds being held by Respondents in connection with various transactions. It included the $1,500.00 in earnest money deposits that Respondents had received from White-Hunt. The transfer of this $1,500.00 to LDC was in accordance with the Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement signed by White-Hunt. White-Hunt sought, but failed to qualify for, a conventional mortgage loan. Thereafter she applied for an FHA mortgage loan. By notice dated October 10, 1991, she was advised that her application had been denied. On February 7, 1992, the law firm representing White-Hunt sent a letter to Respondents, the body of which read as follows: Please be advised that I have been retained by Stacey Hunt with regard to the above- referenced Contract in order to secure a return of her deposit. I have enclosed herein copies of the deposit checks made payable to ERA First Union Group in the total sum of $1,500.00 which were provided to you on April 17, 1990 and May 8, 1990. Since Ms. Hunt has failed to qualify for a mortgage, in accordance with Paragraph (b)(2) of the Contract, this letter shall serve as formal demand for a return of any and all deposits placed with your company and any and all interest accrued thereon. In the event I am not in receipt of a check payable to Ms. Hunt on or before February 14, 1992, I will presume that you have converted these funds and proceed to undertake . . . any and all efforts to have the funds returned including, without limitation, contacting the Florida Real Estate Commission. Preziosi, on behalf of FUGI, responded by letter to the law firm. The body of her letter read as follows: In response to your letter of even date enclosed please find a copy of a Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer which was signed on April 17, 1990 by Stacey Hunt. You will note that this agreement states that once a contract between buyer and seller is in effect, any deposit money given to First Union Group, Inc. will be transferred to the seller and treated as the initial investment deposit. Further, all future deposits are to be made payable to the seller. If an additional deposit was received by First Union Group, Inc., it too would be transferred to the seller. In this regard, be advised that on May 23, 1990, $1,500 that was being held by First Union Group, Inc. on behalf of Ms. Hunt was transferred to Lofts Development Corp. as per this agreement. Also enclosed is a copy of the check together with a copy of the escrow cards which represented all deposits transferred via this check. Respondents have not returned any deposit monies to White-Hunt; however, as Preziosi pointed out in her letter, well before White-Hunt had requested a refund from them, Respondents had transferred these monies to LDC in accordance with the Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement White-Hunt had signed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby recommended that the Commission enter a final order finding Mangicapra guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, III, IV, V, and XV of the Amended Administrative Complaint to the extent indicated above, suspending Mangicapra's license for a period of 120 days and fining him $3,000.00 for having committed these violations, finding FUGI guilty of the violations alleged in Counts VI, VIII, IX, X, and XX of the Amended Administrative Complaint to the extent indicated above, suspending FUGI's registration for a period of 120 days and fining it $3,000.00 for having committed these violations, and dismissing the remaining allegations set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 April, 1993.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a food service worker in the cafeteria at Ballard Elementary School. Respondent was hired by Petitioner on November 5, 1998. Prior to the incidents giving rise to the Complaint, Respondent had a relatively good employment record, with two disciplinary matters documented in her personnel file. On September 17, 2001, Respondent was given a written reprimand for refusing to follow her supervisor's directions and giving inappropriate verbal responses. More recently, on April 16, 2012, Respondent received a verbal reprimand for not properly accounting for student meals. Just days after Respondent received a verbal reprimand related to accounting for student meals, a vehicle in which Respondent was a passenger was stopped by a police detective. As described below, this traffic stop ultimately led to Respondent's arrest and subsequent third-degree felony charge for engaging in a scheme to defraud in an amount less than $20,000, in violation of section 817.034(4)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2011).1/ On February 21, 2013, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charge. Adjudication was withheld, pending Respondent's successful completion of a five-year term of probation with specified conditions. The circumstances giving rise to the criminal charge against Respondent were described in detail by the City of Bradenton Police Department detective who arrested Respondent. The detective testified that on April 20, 2012, he pulled over a vehicle for failing to stop at a stop sign. The detective approached the passenger side of the vehicle, where Respondent was seated. The detective observed a laptop computer on Respondent's lap, open and in use with a portable internet access device, but Respondent quickly shut the laptop as the detective approached. For reasons that are not germane to the Complaint in this case, the detective instructed Respondent to exit the vehicle, and he placed her in handcuffs. The detective asked for identification, and Respondent told him it was in her purse, which she had placed on the passenger seat when she exited the vehicle. The detective retrieved Respondent's purse and looked inside for her identification. In addition to Respondent's identification, the detective also found several Visa debit cards with different people's names on them. Also in the purse were written instructions for filing tax returns through TurboTax, along with ledgers containing names, social security numbers, dates of birth, and other personal identification information. Some of the names on the ledgers matched the names on the debit cards found in Respondent's purse. Respondent was arrested for an unrelated matter and transported back to the police station for questioning. At the police station, Respondent was given her Miranda rights and then questioned about the laptop and material found in her purse. In her post-Miranda interview, Respondent told the detective that the laptop was hers, but she had sold it to a woman she knew only as "Tiffany" for $200. Respondent told the detective that she and Tiffany entered into an arrangement whereby Respondent would assist Tiffany in a scheme to file tax returns in other people's names using TurboTax. The TurboTax filings would direct that the tax refunds, issued on debit cards, be sent to Respondent's residence. For each debit card received pursuant to this scheme, Tiffany would pay Respondent $500, with one exception: Respondent admitted to the detective that she gave her mother's personal information to Tiffany, who filed a tax return in Respondent's mother's name; for this debit card, the deal was that Respondent and Tiffany would split the amount of the tax refund 50-50. Respondent gave information to the detective regarding where "Tiffany" could be found, but there was no "Tiffany" at the place Respondent identified. The detective determined through a search of Respondent's laptop that Turbotax had been in use when he approached the vehicle and saw Respondent quickly closing the computer. However, Respondent admitted that she had already filed her own tax return, so there would be no reason for her to be using Turbotax, except in furtherance of the scheme to secure other people's tax refunds. The detective traced the individuals whose names were on the debit cards found in Respondent's purse, and he discovered that they all were residents of a nearby retirement community. He interviewed the residents, who reported to the detective that they did not know Respondent and that they had not authorized Respondent or "Tiffany" to file tax returns on their behalf. Respondent admitted to the detective that she knew what she was doing was wrong and illegal. At the hearing, Respondent provided only vague, general, and somewhat contradictory testimony regarding the circumstances giving rise to the criminal charge to which she pled no contest. On the one hand, she claimed that although she was charged, she "didn't have nothing to do with what went on[.]" She later admitted that she was wrong, but took the position that she already had been punished for her wrongdoing and deserved a second chance. The only specific fact Respondent disputed regarding her role in the debit card scheme was whether she was the one who actually filed the tax returns. Respondent did not deny that she took part in the scheme to defraud vulnerable people out of their tax refunds for her own financial gain. Respondent did not deny that she used her own mother's personal information for Respondent's financial gain. Overall, Respondent's testimony lacked credibility and did not effectively refute the detective's more credible testimony. Respondent's court appearance at which her plea was made was on February 21, 2013, at 11:00 a.m. That day was a work day for Respondent, and the hours she was supposed to work were 7:00 a.m. to 9:45 a.m., and 10:15 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Respondent acknowledged that she left the cafeteria sometime between 10:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. for her court appearance and did not return to work that day. However, Respondent filled out her semi-monthly payroll sheet form to reflect that she was present and working from 7:00 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. and from 10:15 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., on February 21, 2013. Respondent signed the payroll sheet that she filled out to falsely reflect that she was working and should be paid for time that she was not actually at work. Petitioner's food services department informed its employees that it considers the accurate completion of time records on the payroll sheet to be very important. A June 2012 written policy was circulated to food service employees to emphasize that each employee must take care to ensure that the time records are accurate, including "[a]ctual start and [a]ctual end times," verified by the employee's signature. As emphasis, a text box on the written policy contained the message that "[p]utting false or incorrect information on your timesheet is Time Card Fraud and is grounds for disciplinary action up to and including recommendation for termination." Respondent acknowledged that she is aware that Petitioner expects employee time records to be accurate and truthful, and that falsification of a time sheet is considered time card fraud. Respondent also acknowledged that it was her signature on the payroll sheet that was filled out inaccurately for February 21, 2013. Respondent testified that she did "not remember" putting down the wrong hours or signing the payroll sheet, but the fact remains that the record was submitted with her signature verifying that she worked hours that she admittedly did not work on February 21, 2013. The result of Respondent's signed submission was that she was paid for hours that she knows she did not work. The credible evidence established that Respondent filled out her time records on the payroll sheet form to reflect that she worked a full day on February 21, 2013, which she knew was not true. Respondent signed the payroll sheet form, vouching for the false information that she knew would be used to pay her for hours she did not work. Respondent did not dispute Petitioner's authority to terminate her for just cause, nor did Respondent dispute most of the facts alleged as the basis for establishing just cause. Instead, Respondent's position was that despite her wrongdoing, she should be given a second chance, having worked for Petitioner for 15 years. Essentially, then, Respondent's defense was an argument for mitigation of the penalty to be imposed. In furtherance of her position, Respondent presented testimony from two character witnesses, but the witnesses knew little to nothing about the nature of the criminal charge to which Respondent pled no contest. Neither witness offered any information about Respondent for the time period at issue in this case. One witness was a neighborhood acquaintance who has only known Respondent for three months. The other witness was a former cafeteria supervisor who was terminated by Petitioner five years ago. The former supervisor testified that during the time she and Respondent worked together, Respondent was a hard worker who had her difficult moments, but who complied with and followed instructions "most of the time." When Respondent asked her former supervisor whether she believed that everyone deserves a second chance, the witness responded as follows: "I believe everyone should have a second chance. Some people need more than two chances, and [Respondent] might be that person. There's been times that maybe she hadn't followed the rules entirely, but who does?" Petitioner advocated against leniency based on the unrefuted evidence that a cafeteria worker, such as Respondent, has access to personal and financial information about students and their families. Accounts are established for students to draw on for their cafeteria purchases. Student account funds are deposited, withdrawn, and accounted for by food service workers. Family names, phone numbers, and addresses are included with the student account records. In addition, many account records reflect personal financial information of the student's family, including information on applications submitted to qualify students for free or reduced-cost lunches and information from governmental programs that provide aid to students, such as the state-federal program to provide temporary assistance for needy families (TANF).2/ It is reasonable for Petitioner to be concerned with the risk that would be presented by allowing Respondent to continue in her position where she has access to individual financial information of students and their families. It is not unreasonable for Petitioner to be unwilling to take that risk, given Respondent's very recent involvement in a scheme to defraud vulnerable people, including her own mother, for Respondent's financial gain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Manatee County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent, Nikki M. Brydson. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 December, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent is entitled to contest the forfeiture of his retirement benefits.
Findings Of Fact On December 28, 2006, Respondent sent a Notice of Forfeiture to Petitioner at 2848 Carriage Court, Kissimmee, Florida 34772, via certified mail. Petitioner’s actual residence was not in Kissimmee, but rather located at 2848 Carriage Court, Saint Cloud, Florida 34772. The certified mail receipt for the Notice of Forfeiture was returned unsigned. A printout of the United States Postal Service’s website scanned in as part of Petitioner's file with the Division indicates that the Notice of Forfeiture was delivered on January 6, 2007, in Saint Cloud, Florida 34772. A handwritten notation on the copy of the printout indicates that: “must file petition on or before Jan 29, 2007.” On January 22, 2007, Robert Augustus Harper, who represented himself as counsel for Petitioner, sent a letter to Respondent requesting “all records and documents on Mr. Day.” This letter was stamped as received on January 25, 2007, in Respondent’s records. Respondent’s records do not indicate whether a response was ever sent to Mr. Harper or Petitioner. On April 8, 2009, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent regarding the appeal of his criminal case, which was stamped as received on April 10, 2009, by Respondent. The letter advised that it was “to update your office of my retirement account with the State.” The letter further stated: At this time I have gone through one appeal process of criminal offences [sic] filed against me, out of the original 15 charges filed 13 has [sic] been reversed or found not guilty by either the Circuit Court or Appeals Court [sic] We are in the process of further appealing the remaining two counts. Enclosed is a letter from my attorney which was sent to you prior to our first appeal. After over 30 years of retirement payments made and a few years paid by myself in the 1970’s I hope this results in a favorable ending to myself. No response was sent to this letter by Respondent. On July 26, 2017, Petitioner met with employees of Respondent and received a copy of the Notice of Forfeiture. At that meeting, an employee of the Division, identified as Mr. Dame, submitted the following electronic inquiry: “Member never received reply to his letter dated April 8, 2009. He would like a reply ASAP. He also would like to know the disposition of his contributions.” On August 9, 2017, Kathy Gould, bureau chief of Benefit Calculations for Respondent, sent Petitioner a letter in response to his inquiry of July 26, 2017. The August 9, 2017, letter from Ms. Gould to Petitioner stated in pertinent part: The Division has reviewed the legal circumstances surrounding the forfeiture of your Florida Retirement System Benefits. On December 28, 2006, a Notice of Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits was sent by certified mail to you. This notice also included a statement of your rights to appeal the forfeiture decision by administrative hearing within 21 days, if you believed your rights under Chapter 121, F.S. were improperly or wrongfully determined. We have no evidence that you filed an appeal with the Division within 21 days. You have $315.89 in employee contributions on deposit. I am enclosing a Request For Refund of Employee Contributions (form FRS- M81) for your completion. Please contact our office if you have any questions or need additional information. On September 18, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent a letter addressed to Ms. Gould stating in pertinent part: Thank you for your letter dated August 9, 2017. Although your letter indicates that a Notice of Retirement Benefits was sent by certified mail on December 28, 2006, I did not receive the notice. In fact, when I visited with staff of the Division of Retirement on July 26, 2017, I was advised of the existence of the forfeiture notice and provided a copy of the Certified Mail Receipt from my file. Importantly, the receipt is unsigned and the mailing address was incorrect. The file also includes a request from my attorney for a copy of all records and documents related to myself. The letter is dated January 22, 2007. No documents, records, or other response, however, was provided. The timing of the forfeiture letter is very curious to me. At the time the letter was mailed, my convictions were under appeal. A decision was not issued until February 22, 2008. Day v. State, 977 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). That decision reversed all of the convictions for the misdemeanor offenses. The two felony convictions were upheld but, as of the date of the forfeiture letter, they were on appeal and not yet final. My file also includes a letter dated April 8, 2009, from myself to the Division of Retirement advising that the process of further appealing the remaining two felony counts was continuing. The letter attached the previous letter from my attorney requesting a copy of my file. Again, no response from the Division was received. I believe that I have a meritorious argument regarding whether the retirement benefits for my 30-years of service were lawfully forfeited. Under the circumstances, it would be greatly appreciated if you would review my file and advise whether the Division will re-issue the forfeiture letter so as to allow me appropriate notice and an opportunity to contest the determination. The letter was stamped as received by Respondent on September 21, 2017. On October 12, 2017, Respondent, through its Assistant General Counsel Mitchell Herring sent a letter to Petitioner denying his request to reissue the forfeiture letter. The pertinent part of the letter states: I am responding to your letter dated September 18, 2017 addressed to Kathy Gould. Based on a review of the original legal file related to the forfeiture of your retirement benefits, a Notice of Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits was mailed to 2848 Carriage Court, Kissimmee, FL on December 28, 2006 and delivered to that address on January 6, 2007. This was the address that you provided to the Florida Retirement System as your home address, and therefore constituted your address of record. Accordingly, this Notice was effective pursuant to section 120.569, Florida Statutes (2006), and your opportunity to file a petition expired on January 27, 2007. There is no record indicating that a petition was filed. More importantly, our records indicate that the Department was not provided with any notice that an appeal of your criminal conviction was occurring until more than two years after the Notice had originally been sent. Regardless of this, had the appeal overturned all convictions which could have served as the basis for the forfeiture of your retirement benefits, the forfeiture would have been reversed. However, this did not occur, as either of the two convictions for grand theft which still stand are independently sufficient bases for the forfeiture of retirement benefits pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2001-2017), and were included as justification for the forfeiture in the Notice of Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits. Because it has been more than ten years since the Department notified you of its forfeiture of your rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System, a sufficient basis for the forfeiture still exists, and the Department provided effective notice of its intended action pursuant to law, the Notice of Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits will not be re-issued. At the hearing, Petitioner persuasively testified and offered evidence that he neither received the Notice of Forfeiture in January 2007, nor was aware that such a notice had been issued until his meeting with an employee of the Division near the end of July 2017. When Petitioner obtained a copy of the Notice of Forfeiture during his July 2017 meeting, he noticed that it had an incorrect address, i.e., it was mailed to Kissimmee instead of St. Cloud. Kissimmee and St. Cloud are distinct cities and the only two incorporated cities in Osceola County. Petitioner further explained that his home in St. Cloud was located about a quarter-mile down a private dirt road from a county-maintained road. His home was situated on five acres, with a fence surrounding the property and a locked gate at the driveway. He purchased the property in 2001 and resided there until 2011. Petitioner testified that all of the mailboxes for homes on the private dirt road were clustered together and located at the end of the road where it intersected with the county-maintained road. Anyone from the post office would have been unable to access Petitioner's home because of the fence and locked gate. Petitioner also had a “cur dog” that would not let anybody on the property. The other individuals residing in Petitioner's home in January 2007 were his wife and daughter. Petitioner's wife worked during the week and his daughter went to school and worked part-time. Petitioner testified that there would have been no one around during the week to receive any certified mail delivered at his home from the post office. There were occasions where the post office would leave certified mail slips in Petitioner’s mailbox at the end of the road. On such occasions, Petitioner would go into town to the post office to pick them up. Petitioner did not recall, however, the delivery of, or anyone showing up at his home with, a certified mail letter from the Division. The fact that Petitioner was aware that his criminal convictions could impact his ability to obtain retirement benefits does not demonstrate that he received the Notice of Forfeiture in January 2007. Petitioner acknowledged that he never asked for his deferred retirement option program (DROP) proceeds to be distributed. However, when asked why he sent his letter in April 2009, advising the Division of the status of his appeals and post-conviction efforts, if he was unaware of the forfeiture letter, Petitioner explained that he was still able to work, he was not 62 at the time, and that he wanted to let the Division know that he was still out there. Petitioner further explained that he informed the Division about the status of his appeals because he thought that he could receive his retirement benefits if he won in the appeal process. Petitioner's testimony that he did not receive the Notice of Forfeiture until his meeting with a Division employee in July 2017 was credible. The location and physical description of Petitioner’s home was uncontested and it appears unlikely that the postal service would have been able to deliver the certified mail to Petitioner. Other than the printout of the United States Postal Service website indicating that the Notice of Forfeiture was delivered on January 6, 2007, in St. Cloud, Florida, the Division produced no evidence that Petitioner, in fact, received it. The absence of a signed receipt, when considered with the postal service’s Track and Confirm printout indicating delivery, could, at best, suggest that Petitioner deliberately failed to pick up the certified mail letter. If delivered to St. Cloud, it is plausible that the certified mail slip was placed in the wrong mailbox. The evidence is insufficient, however, to show that Petitioner refused to accept the certified mail letter. The Division’s records do not include any notation that the certified mail was undeliverable or refused. Considering the evidence in light of all of the surrounding facts and circumstances, it is found, as a matter of fact, that the evidence is insufficient to show that Petitioner received the Notice of Forfeiture in January 2007. The Department presented no testimony regarding the practices and policies of the Division when the Notice of Forfeiture was issued. Division employees who were historically involved with Petitioner’s retirement forfeiture issues have either retired or obtained employment elsewhere. The deposition testimony of Mary Katherine Gould, the present bureau chief of the Division’s Benefit Calculations, discussed the Division’s current practice regarding unsigned certified mail receipts for notices of forfeiture. Ms. Gould testified that, currently, additional efforts are undertaken to locate the member and additional certified mailings are attempted to obtain the member’s signature on the return receipt. She also indicated that current practice would include further review of a member’s file to discover any other addresses. Petitioner’s retirement file with the Division shows that the general counsel for the Department at the time was aware that the certified mail return receipt was neither signed nor dated. And, there is nothing in the file indicating that Petitioner was avoiding delivery of the certified mail. Based on her review of Petitioner’s file, Ms. Gould could not determine whether any additional efforts had been made to search for a different address to attempt another certified mail delivery. Had the Division reviewed its own files, it could have easily discovered Petitioner’s correct mailing address. There are letters, applications, and other retirement form submittals within Petitioner’s file reflecting that his correct mailing address at the time was 2848 Carriage Court, St. Cloud, Florida 34772. For example, there are several documents from Petitioner related to his DROP application and submittals that contain his correct mailing address. His file also contains several letters and documents mailed from the Division to Petitioner at his correct address. The Division’s file for Petitioner further reveals that it received the public records request by Petitioner’s attorney, Robert Harper, on January 25, 2007. At the hearing, Petitioner explained that he had retained Mr. Harper to represent him in the appeals of his convictions, which were ongoing at the time of the public records request. Petitioner also asked Mr. Harper to help him “keep track of . . . the retirement part.” There is no evidence that the Department ever responded to Mr. Harper’s request. According to practice, the Division calendars the 21-day time period for the challenge of a forfeiture as commencing on the date the notice is received by the member. Although there is no certified mail return receipt, the purported delivery date of the Notice of Forfeiture indicated by the postal service was January 6, 2007. Therefore, had Petitioner actually received the Notice of Forfeiture, there was still time for Petitioner to contest the forfeiture, when the Division received the public records request by Mr. Harper on January 25, 2007. On January 30, 2007, five days after Mr. Harper’s public records request, the Division sent a memorandum to the General Counsel’s office. The subject of the memorandum is “Request for OGC Assistance with Public Records Request." The memo specifically advised that the public records request was for a copy of Petitioner’s retirement file and that there was a “legal block of Mr. Day’s retirement account because of possible forfeiture. There should be a file in the Legal Office.” An interoffice memorandum regarding the matter from Sarabeth Snuggs, director of the Division, to Geoffrey Christian, Office of General Counsel, dated February 1, 2007, states, in part: The return receipt was neither signed nor dated. However, according to the postal service’s track and confirm website, the letter was delivered on January 6, 2007. The member has failed to protest the forfeiture action within the 21-day time limit. The benefits are now forfeited and the legal file is closed. In other words, even though the certified mail receipt was returned unsigned, and despite the fact that the Division and its general counsel were aware of the pending unanswered public record’s request from Petitioner’s counsel, the Division closed Petitioner’s file on the grounds that Petitioner failed to timely challenge the forfeiture. Regarding Petitioner’s meeting with Division employee, Mr. Dame, on July 26, 2017, Petitioner provided undisputed and persuasive testimony that Mr. Dame provided him with a copy of the Notice of Forfeiture, the certified mail return receipt, and the Postal Service Track and Confirm printout. During the meeting, Mr. Dame pointed out the fact that the return receipt was unsigned. At the time, Mr. Dame also advised Petitioner that he was going to send an inquiry regarding the issue and that Petitioner should “sit tight, we’ll see what happens.” Mr. Dame never advised Petitioner that his 21-day time period to challenge the forfeiture letter would re-commence based upon the fact that Petitioner received a copy of the Notice of Forfeiture during that July 2017 meeting. Petitioner filed the Petition in this case in response to the letter from the Department’s Assistant General Counsel Mitchell Herring, dated October 12, 2017, because it had a case number on it. The letter referenced Petitioner’s September 18, 2017, letter and “OGC Case No. 17-36457.” Prior to that time, Petitioner's understanding was that the Division was investigating the circumstances surrounding his forfeiture letter. Based upon these facts, it is found that the Department never provided Petitioner with a clear point of entry within which to contest the forfeiture of his retirement benefits.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Management Services, either reissue the Notice of Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits to Petitioner or otherwise allow him a point of entry with a 21-day time period within which to contest the forfeiture of retirement benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 2015.
Findings Of Fact A Quit-Claim Deed was executed the 3rd day of March, 1975, by Bayshore 21, Inc., first party to Marc Broxmeyer an undivided 70 percent interest; Gerald Schefflan and Pearl Schefflan, his wife, an undivided 20 percent interest; and Yetta Young an undivided 10 percent interest. The deed was recorded in Official Records Book of Dade County, Florida. The deed reflects that no documentary stamp taxes were affixed to the deed. At the time of the conveyance there existed upon the property three outstanding mortgages: one in the amount of One Million Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,450,000) in favor of Washington Federal Savings and Loan; one in the amount of One Million Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand One Hundred Six Dollars ($1,880,106) in favor of Sidney Salomon, et al.; and Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($12,500) in favor of Harold Kravitz. The total consideration for the conveyance amounted to Three Million Three Hundred Forty- Two Thousand Six Hundred Six Dollars ($3,342,606). The undisputed facts of the transaction as outlined at the hearing and agreed to by the Petitioners' attorney are as follows: Prior to August 17, 1974, all the outstanding stock of a corporation known as Tepmon of Florida, Inc., (Marvin Glick, presidents and controlling person and Eugene J. Howard, secretary) was held by Sidney Salomon, Jr., Hid Salomon, III, Elliot Stein, the Estate of Preston Estep and John Soult. On or about April 17, 1974, these people entered into an agreement for purchase and sale of corporate stock with Bayshore 21, Inc., pursuant to which Bayshore 21, Inc., agreed to purchase for Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,500,000) all of the outstanding capital stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc. At the time, Tepmon of Florida, Inc., had as its only asset a certain parcel of real property known as the Golden Strand Hotel, as shown by suit, Shoprite Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Tepmon, Inc., et al. in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, Case No. 74-29983. Pursuant to the purchase and sale agreement, a closing was to be held in various stages on August 19 and 20, 1974, at which time Sidney Salomon, et al., delivered to Bayshore 21, Inc., all of the capital stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc. Bayshore 21, Inc., in turn executed and delivered at the closing a chattel mortgage in the amount of One Million Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand One Hundred Six Dollars ($1,880,106), the security for which there was sixty-nine (69) shares of capital stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., which stock represented the outstanding stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., and carried with it the ownership and control of said corporation. Also given to Sidney Salomon, et al, by Bayshore 21, Inc., at the closing was a purchase money mortgage in the amount of One Million Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand One Hundred Six Dollars ($1,880,106), which mortgage secured the real property known as the Golden Strand Hotel. The reason for the two separate security devices, one the chattel mortgage secured by the outstanding sixty-nine (69) shares of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., stock and the other the real property mortgage secured by the Golden Strand Hotel, was that the parties contemplated that upon Bayshore 21's acquisition of the outstanding Page 3 of 7' pages capital stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., Tepmon would be dissolved and completely liquidated. Mindful that such liquidation would render valueless as collateral the capital stock of Tepmon, the parties provided in a collateral security agreement, dated August 20, 1974, that the purchase money real estate mortgage would constitute the substitute collateral security for repayment of the outstanding purchase money obligation owed by Bayshore 21, Inc., to Sid Salomon, et al., effective upon the dissolution of Tepmon of Florida, Inc. Subsequent to acquiring all the capital stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., Bayshore 21, Inc., did in fact effectuate a complete dissolution and liquidation of Tepmon of Florida, Inc. Pursuant to such dissolution, the sole asset of Tepmon of Florida, Inc, the Golden Strand Hotel, should have become titled in the name of Tepmon of Florida, Inc.'s sole stockholder, Bayshore 21, Inc., in order to give effect to the validity of the purchase money mortgage. This is not what occurred however, as Sidney Salomon, et al., point out in their Cross-Claim to the aforementioned suit, the truthfulness of which assertions have been admitted by the Petitioners. The September 5, 1974 deed of conveyance of the Golden Strand Hotel from Tepmon of Florida, Inc., to Petitioners (which should have been to Bayshore 21, Inc.) contained only minimum stamps in the amount of eighty-five cents (85). As a result of the Cross-Claim in the aforementioned suit filed by Sidney Salomon, et al., against Petitioners, a stipulation and agreement was entered into resolving the matter in a manner which gave effect to the purchase money real estate mortgage given by Bayshore 21, Inc., to the Salomons. Pursuant to such stipulation, the Petitioners agreed that "the allegations made in the Cross Claim . . . are true and correct and Cross Claimants are entitled to the relief prayed for therein. Cross Defendants [Petitioners] have no defenses thereto, legal or equitable, or any kind whatsoever Pursuant to this stipulation, the Petitioners agreed to execute Quit-Claim Deeds conveying any interest they may have received in the property pursuant to the September 5, 1974 deed of conveyance from Tepmon of Florida, Inc., to Bayshore 21, Inc., the entity which was the sole stockholder of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., at the time of its dissolution and liquidation. By Quit-Claim Deeds dated January 2, 1975, Gerald and Pearl Schefflan conveyed their interest to Bayshore 21, Inc., Yetta Young conveyed her interest back to Bayshore 21, Inc., Marc Broxmeyer conveyed his interest back to Bayshore 21, Inc., and the last Board of Directors of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., comprised of Marvin Glick and Eugene Howard, also conveyed any interest that entity may have retained back to Bayshore 21, Inc. At this point Bayshore 21, Inc., finally held the title it was supposed to have acquired upon the dissolution and liquidation of Tepmon of Florida, Inc. Also at this point the validity of the purchase money real estate mortgage given by Bayshore 21, Inc., to Sidney Salomon, et al., was reestablished and the parties were returned to the posture called for and required by their purchase and sale agreement dated April 17, 1974. When, on March 3, 1975, Bayshore 21, Inc., conveyed title to the Golden Strand Hotel to the Petitioners in this action, by unstamped deed, the conveyance was a voluntary conveyance. At the time of the conveyance, three outstanding mortgages encumbered the real property. Such mortgages were a One Million Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollar ($1,450,000) mortgage in favor of Washington Federal Savings and Loan; the One Million Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand One Hundred Six Dollar ($1,880,106) purchase money mortgage in favor of Sidney Salomon, et al.; and a Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Dollar ($12,500) mortgage in favor of Harold Kravitz. When Petitioners took title to this real property, they took title subject to three outstanding mortgages. The Hearing Officer further in summary finds: The transactions related in the foregoing findings of fact ultimately transferred title of real property to Bayshore 21, Inc., pursuant to an agreement dated April 17, 1974. Fee simple title was then transferred from Bayshore, Inc., to Petitioners by Quit-Claim Deed dated March 3, 1975, subject to mortgage liens.
Recommendation Affirm the assessment of documentary stamp taxes made by the Respondent in this cause. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene J. Howard, Esquire 2212 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137
