The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be permitted to return his retirement contributions and be reinstated in the Florida Retirement System so that he can apply for disability benefits from the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a thirty-four year old man, having left high school in the eleventh grade in order to get married, but later took the GED test to qualify as a high school graduate. Some years later he was informed by an Ophthalmologist that he had fallen into the bracket of being legally blind, a status which categorizes a person who has ten percent (10%) or less vision. Petitioner can and does read. He worked for a bakery which entailed work with machinery and required extensive reading, but was advised by the ophthalmologist to find a job where he would not be required to work with machinery and which did not require extensive reading. Petitioner began participating in the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System on July 1, 1969, when he became a partner in a blind vending stand. He elected to become a member of the Florida Retirement System on December 1, 1970. Petitioner attended two (2) agency meetings at which retirement was discussed. He stated that he had changed from the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System (Chapter 122, Florida Statutes) to the Florida Retirement System (Chapter 121, Florida Statutes), and was prompted to make the change because a senior partner in the business who had been there for many years said that it was a good idea for him and for the younger partner to sign into the new system. He stated that there probably was a discussion relative to the merits of the new retirement system but that he did not remember anything about it. He did, however, sign the card to change retirement systems. On June 1, 1971, Petitioner suffered some type of injury to his back which was subsequently diagnosed as a sprain. Petitioner received medical treatment and returned to work where he continued to work for the Bureau of Blind Services for approximately three years, resigning November 11, 1974. On March 5, 1975, Petitioner obtained a lump sum as a settlement for this disputed claim under the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act. Petitioner went on leave February 5, 1974, after supplying his supervisor, Mr. Eurgil G. Crawford, Administrative Vending Stand Section, Bureau of Blind Services, with a letter from the physician stating that Petitioner had a "nervous condition." In a letter of October 10, 1974, Mr. Crawford advised Petitioner to either return to work or to contact them if it was not possible. He also stated that the Petitioner would have sixty (60) days in which he might come back to work if he so desired, but that after that time his position would have to be filled permanently by another employee. Petitioner had had some employment problems with the other two (2) members of the three (3) man working team. The problems involved the work at the stand, cleanliness and the lifting necessary to operate the stand. He stated that he and the other two (2) members just could not get together as far as working as a team was concerned. After termination of employment, which was voluntary on the part of Petitioner, Petitioner contacted the supervisor, Mr. Crawford, and asked whether he was entitled to benefits he had contributed and was told that he was. Thereupon, Mr. Crawford sent him the necessary forms to apply for a refund. A refund was made after Petitioner had signed the proper forms and returned them to Mr. Crawford. Two (2) state warrants were issued to Petitioner, one on December 19, 1974, and a subsequent one to close out his account. Petitioner did not work after leaving the Blind Services and has not attempted to find work but receives disability benefits from Social Security based on a 15 percent permanent partial disability rating. He stated that "I have come up with a couple of not so advantageous jobs, you know, its a possibility of getting hurt and one thing and another, I haven't done anything." Subsequently, Petitioner requested information from the Respondent and, after receiving literature from them in 1976, tendered a sum of money equal to the refund he had received so he could apply for disability retirement benefits. The tender of the repayment of his contributions was denied. Petitioner applied for this administrative hearing. Petitioner contends: That he was unaware of a choice to apply for a disability rating when he signed the waiver to obtain a refund. That the supervisor owed Petitioner a special duty to inform him of the possibility of applying for disability benefits before requesting a return of his contributions. Respondent contends: That Petitioner was present at meetings at which the retirement system was discussed; he had information that caused him to transfer to the Florida Retirement System; that he knew of eligibility requirements under the Florida Retirement System and that requirements for eligibility were written in a booklet he had obtained from an employee of the retirement system and that he testified he knew of the five year eligibility requirement. That Petitioner voluntarily signed the waiver, that he had due notice and that the tender of the refund was properly denied.
Recommendation Deny the Petition. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Townsend, Esquire Albritton, Sessums & Di Dio 100 Madison Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33602 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Assistant Division Attorney Division of Retirement Department of Administration Cedars Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Judith Richards, is eligible for the health insurance subsidy offered to Florida Retirement System retirees.
Findings Of Fact In November 2011, Petitioner was hired by the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office to work as a crossing guard. The Osceola County Sheriff’s Office is an FRS-participating employer, and the position held by Petitioner was in the 2 It is well established that issues related to subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time during the pendency of a proceeding. 84 Lumber Co. v. Cooper, 656 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). “Regular Class” of FRS membership. In 2011, newly hired eligible employees (members) of the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office were required to participate in either the FRS pension plan or the investment plan. Petitioner elected to participate in the investment plan. Generally, the pension plan offers eligible employees a formulaic fixed monthly retirement benefit, whereas an employee’s investment plan benefits are “provided through member-directed investments.” Pursuant to section 112.363, Florida Statutes, retired members of any state-administered retirement system will receive an HIS benefit if certain eligibility requirements are satisfied. Section 112.363(1) provides that a monthly subsidy payment will be provided “to retired members of any state- administered retirement system in order to assist such retired members in paying the costs of health insurance.” Section 112.363(3)(e)2. provides that beginning July 1, 2002, each eligible member of the investment plan shall receive “a monthly retiree health insurance subsidy payment equal to the number of years of creditable service, as provided in this subparagraph, completed at the time of retirement, multiplied by $5; … [and] an eligible retiree or beneficiary may not receive a subsidy payment of more than $150 or less than $30.” On July 18, 2019, Petitioner’s employment with the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office ended, and at that time she had 7.77 years of FRS creditable service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying the application for retiree health insurance subsidy submitted by Mrs. Richards. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge 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 3rd day of March, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Gayla Grant, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 David DiSalvo, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 Judith Richards 2337 Louise Street Kissimmee, Florida 34741 William Chorba, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether at the time of his father's death, Armando Martinez, Jr., was a "dependent beneficiary" of his father, a vested member of the Florida Retirement System, so as to be entitled to his father's retirement benefits?
Findings Of Fact Armando Martinez, Jr., was born on February 22, 1974, to Natalie M. Martinez and the late Armando Martinez, Sr. In 1992, when Armando, Jr., was eighteen years old, Mr. and Mrs. Martinez were divorced. The following year, 1993, less than two weeks after Armando, Jr.'s, nineteenth birthday, Armando Martinez, Sr., died. The cause of death was liver cancer, a disease from which Ms. Martinez presently suffers. At the time of his death on March 7, 1993, Mr. Martinez was a vested member of the Florida Retirement System. A municipal employee, he had been a bus operator. At some point close to commencement of his employment, slightly more than ten years prior to his death, Armando Martinez, Sr., had executed a Form M-10. The form named his wife, Natalie, as his primary beneficiary. Armando, Jr., the only child of Armando, Sr., and Natalie Martinez, was named as the sole contingency beneficiary. Following Mr. Martinez, Sr.'s death, Ms. Martinez disclaimed Florida Retirement System benefits. She did so in order for Armando, Jr., as the contingent beneficiary, to be able to receive the benefits. On February 17, 1997, the Division of Retirement denied Armando, Jr., survivor benefits. Had Mr. Martinez, Sr., died one-year and several weeks earlier, that is, prior to Armando, Jr.'s eighteenth birthday, the Division would have approved distribution of survivor benefits to him. But, although he was still a high school student, since he was older than nineteen by a few days at the time of his father's death, the Division required proof that Armando, Jr., had received half of his support from his father at the time of his father's death. No such proof was provided to the Division prior to or at the time of its preliminary denial. In fact, in his 1992 tax return, Mr. Martinez did not claim his son Armando, Jr., as a dependent. In this formal administrative proceeding, however, Armando Martinez, Jr., provided such proof, proof which was lacking until hearing. The year 1992 was very difficult for Armando Martinez, Jr., and his family. His parents separated, Armando, Jr., lived with his mother. Armando, Sr., lived elsewhere. Prior to his death, divorce proceedings were finalized. In the meantime, Ms. Martinez had lost her job. She remained unemployed for the entire year and in early 1993 as well. Armando, Jr., was still in high school at the time of his father's death. During the 1992-93 school year, to support himself and his mother, he obtained work part-time while he remained in school. Ms. Martinez paid the rent for their apartment at a rate of between $370 and $500 per month. The monthly phone bill of Ms. Martinez and Armando, Jr., was approximately $50; utility payments $70; groceries $300; gasoline $10, automobile insurance $100; and school supplies $40. There were other expenses, clothes, for example, that occurred from time-to-time. In addition to minimal government support to Ms. Martinez and Armando, Jr.'s, part-time employment income, Armando, Jr., was supported by cash payments provided by his father. Two or three times a month, Armando's father and a girl friend, Karen Jones, would drive to the front of the house. Because of his illness, Mr. Martinez remained in the car while Ms. Jones brought cash, usually between two and five hundred dollars in an envelope to the front door. On more than one of these occasions, Ms. Jones, the envelope, and the cash were observed by friends of the family at the moment of delivery. Ms. Martinez log of the estimates of these payments totals approximately $8,500, an amount in excess of Mr. Martinez's income reported in his 1992 tax return filed before his death in 1993 to be $6,389.00. But, Mr. Martinez, Sr. had access to other means of support and other monies including proceeds from insurance policies. The $8,500 provided to Armando, Jr., by Armando Martinez, Sr. constituted more than half of Armando, Jr.'s, support for the year 1992 and up until Mr. Martinez, Sr.'s, death in early 1993.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that the Division of Retirement recognize Armando Martinez, Jr., to have been the dependent beneficiary of Armando Martinez, Sr., at the time of Mr. Martinez, Sr.'s, death, and therefore entitled to retirement benefits. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Button, Esquire Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Natalie Martinez Suite 3811 3801 Northgreen Avenue Tampa, Florida 33624 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 A.J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue Whether Petitioner has forfeited his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System (FRS), pursuant to sections 112.3173 and 121.091(5)(f), Florida Statutes, because of his conviction for official misconduct, a third degree felony under section 838.022(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The FRS is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. Respondent is charged with managing, governing, and administering the FRS. In January 1987, Petitioner began employment with the Florida Department of Transportation ("DOT"), an FRS-participating employer. By reason of this employment, Petitioner was enrolled in the FRS, and DOT made contributions to the FRS on his behalf. In March 2001 and March 2005, Petitioner was elected to separate four-year terms as a Commissioner on the City Commission of the City of Deerfield Beach, Florida ("City"), an FRS-participating employer. By reason of his public office as a City Commissioner, Petitioner was enrolled in the FRS, and the City made contributions to the FRS on his behalf. Before entering upon the duties of his public office, pursuant to Florida law and the City Charter, Petitioner was required to take and subscribe substantially to the following oath: I do solemnly swear or affirm that I am a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America and a registered voter and resident of the City of Deerfield Beach, as shown by the public records of Broward County, Florida. I am being employed as a Commissioner of the City of Deerfield Beach and will be a recipient of public funds. As such Commissioner I further swear or affirm that I will support the Charter of the City of Deerfield Beach, the Constitution of the State of Florida, and the Constitution of the United States, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of my office upon which I am about to enter. All elected officials of the City were subject to the standards of ethical conduct for public officers set by Florida law and the City Charter. Effective December 11, 2008, Petitioner resigned his position as City Commissioner. On or about December 29, 2008, Petitioner was charged, by information, with one count of grand theft, a third degree felony, in violation of sections 812.014(1)(a) and (b) and (2)(c)2., Florida Statutes; one count of official misconduct, a third degree felony, in violation of section 838.022(1), Florida Statutes; and one count of falsifying records, a first degree misdemeanor, in violation of section 839.13, Florida Statutes. The crimes with which Petitioner was charged were alleged to have occurred between October 6, 2007 and January 10, 2008. The basis for the official misconduct charge was that Petitioner falsified a campaign treasurer's report as part of his campaign for mayor of the City. The campaign treasurer's report is an official record or document belonging to the office of the City Clerk and/or the Florida Department of State, Division of Elections. Petitioner is no longer employed by DOT or the City. Petitioner is not retired from the FRS, and he has not received FRS retirement benefits. On or about May 7, 2010, Petitioner filed with the Division a completed FRS Pension Plan Application for Service Retirement (Form FR-11). By letter dated May 11, 2010, the Division advised Petitioner in relevant part as follows: This letter is to advise you of the status of your application for Florida Retirement System benefits. Our Legal office is reviewing your current legal situation for a determination of whether a forfeiture of benefits has occurred. If the determination is that forfeiture occurred, you will be notified and given information if you wish to appeal that determination. Your retirement application is pending until this review is complete. On May 10, 2011, a jury rendered a verdict which found Petitioner guilty as charged in the information. On July 29, 2011, the court adjudicated Petitioner guilty of the crimes. On or about August 3, 2011, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal in Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal. On May 1, 2013, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Petitioner's convictions for grand theft, official misconduct, and falsifying records, and authored an opinion which addressed Petitioner's contention that he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal on the count of official misconduct. The Court wrote in relevant part: Section 838.022(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), makes it "unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any person or to cause harm to another, to ... [f]alsify, or cause another person to falsify, any official record or official document." In this case, the basis for the official misconduct charge was that appellant falsified a campaign report as part of his campaign for mayor of Deerfield Beach. On appeal, appellant focuses on section 838.022(2)(a), which defines "public servant" as not "includ[ing] a candidate who does not otherwise qualify as a public servant," for the argument that "he was not a public servant at the time of the alleged offense" but was "merely a candidate for public office." However, as the State argues, at the time appellant was a candidate for mayor, he "otherwise qualif[ied] as a public servant" by virtue of his status as a city commissioner. Chapter 838 defines "public servant" as including "[a]ny officer or employee of a state, county, municipal, or special district agency or entity." § 838.014 (6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007). The statute distinguishes a mere candidate from a public job or office holder in order to reach the evil of public servants misusing their office. Here, appellant was not just a candidate at the time of the offense; it was his dual status as a candidate and an incumbent commissioner that brought him within the ambit of the statute. ... Gonot v. State, 112 So. 3d 679, 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)(emphasis in original). ULTIMATE FACTUAL FINDINGS Petitioner forfeited his rights and benefits under the FRS pursuant to sections 112.3173 and 121.091(5)(f), Florida Statutes, because he was convicted of official misconduct, a third degree felony, in violation of section 838.022(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order finding that the Petitioner was convicted of a felony under section 838.022(1), Florida Statutes, and directing the forfeiture of his FRS retirement rights and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 13th day of December, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Mamie Wilson worked at the Southeast Florida Tuberculosis Hospital in Lantana, Florida from January, 1952 to September, 1958. At that time she resided at 1109 Sapodilla Avenue. She left the job in 1958 after she became pregnant. Ms. Wilson thereafter moved to 1103 Division Street in West Palm Beach. Ms. Wilson was thereafter employed at the county nursing home by Palm Beach County from March, 1964 through August, 1974. She resigned due to injuries that she received in an automobile accident. In 1983, Ms. Wilson wrote to the Administrator of the Division of Retirement and requested that her retirement beneficiary be changed from her mother, Anna Williams, who had died, to her son, Alonzo Peterson. In response, she received a letter dated November 21, 1983 from the Division of Retirement stating that if she retired as of November 1, 1983 she would be retired to a retirement benefit of $65.96 per month based upon 10.75 total years of service with average final compensation of $4,788. The letter also told her that her service at the Lantana Tuberculosis Hospital may be creditable and if she wished to claim that service she should have her salaries and earnings certified to determine if this service was includable for retirement purposes. Ms. Wilson never responded to this letter because she did not intend to retire at that time, she only wanted to change her beneficiary. In January, 1986, Ms. Wilson was preparing to retire and went to the county courthouse where she was assisted in preparing a Request for Audit form for retirement effective as of March 16, 1986. On the form the only employment she had listed was that at the Palm Beach County Nursing Home from 1964 to 1974. She then received a letter dated February 25, 1986 estimating her service as 16.33 years on the assumption that Ms. Wilson would pay $1,413.82 to repurchase the time she worked at the tuberculosis hospital for which the Division of Retirement contended her contributions had been refunded in 1961. If she did so, her retirement benefit would be $106.41 per month. If her retirement was based solely on the time she worked at the county nursing home, her monthly benefit would be $66.19 per month. The evidence is not persuasive that Ms. Wilson received, in 1961, $449 as a refund of her retirement contributions for the time she was employed at the tuberculosis hospital. The Department of Administration, Division of Retirement has been unable to show any application by Ms. Wilson for these funds, and had been unable to produce the state warrant by which these funds were paid to show that it was cashed by her [the warrant has since been destroyed]. The Department has produced a receipt prepared for use in connection with the delivery of that warrant. It shows Ms. Wilson's address as 1103 Division Street, an address where she did not live at the time she actually worked for the hospital, though she did move to that address later. That receipt is not signed, however. The appearance of an address on that receipt of a place where Ms. Wilson did not live at the time she was employed at the hospital gives rise to the inference that someone must have been in contact with the hospital to provide a current address for Ms. Wilson as of 1961. That fact, standing alone, is not sufficient to carry the burden of persuasion that Ms. Wilson received the money in the absence of a signature on that receipt, any signature on an application from Ms. Wilson seeking the refund of her retirement contributions or a signature on the refund warrant. That a warrant was prepared at the request of someone, delivered to someone and cashed by someone, with no proof that that someone was Ms. Wilson, is insufficient to deprive her of her retirement benefits.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the retirement benefit paid to Ms. Wilson be in the amount of $106 per month for 16.33 years of creditable service. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway The Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Alexander Myers, Esquire Forum III, Suite 106 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Brett Findler, Esquire Florida National Bank, Suite 350 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Burton M. Michaels, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Building C, Suite 207 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the regulatory agency charged under Section 20.34, Florida Statutes to regulate the practice of real estate in Florida. The Respondent, Mark Grossman was at all material times licensed as a real estate broker, holding license 0180769. The license was issued, % of Cel Mar, Inc., 900 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida 33432. The Respondent Cel Mar, Inc., has been a corporation registered as a real estate broker, holding license 0244592 at the same address in Boca Raton. Mr. Grossman was licensed as the qualifying broker and officer for Cel Mar, Inc. Since 1983, Mr. Grossman acted as a property manager for a Mr. Carlos Farner Sr., who resided in Guatemala, Central America, and found tenants for a condominium unit 632-16 in the Spanish Oaks condominiums which Farner had purchased in 1978. As of December 1, 1987, the tenants were Brenda Wigle and Gary Taroli. Mr. Grossman was to collect monthly rents on the unit and place these funds in a savings account at Coral Gables Federal Savings and Loan; acount 38- 0000625-6. Mr. Farner used the funds to cover the mortgage payments due to Coral Gables Federal on the property. The principal and interest payment due monthly on the mortgage was $567.92. Under his oral agreement with Mr. Farner, the tenant's rental payments were not to be placed in trust. Rather, Mr. Grossman collected the rent, and used the rental monies to perform any maintenance necessary on the property. Mr. Grossman was entitled to collect a commission equal to ten percent of the annual rental out of the monthly payments. At first, he took his commission "off the top." It is not clear whether this meant he retained all of the first month's rent and part of the second month's rent as his commission, or kept 10% of every rental payment. The remaining money was to be placed in the account at Coral Gables Federal. From the inception of their relationship, the property rented by Mr. Grossman for Mr. Farner did not generate a rental sufficient to pay fully for upkeep, the broker's commission, and the condominium fees, taxes and principal and interest payments on the mortgage. It was not part of Mr. Grossman's duties to determine how much money, in addition to that which he deposited to the Coral Gables Federal savings account after making appropriate deductions, Mr. Farner had to add to the account to make the mortgage payments as they came due. Mr. Farner handled this matter himself, apparently through direct contact with the bank. Carlos Farner, Sr. died on or about March 1, 1988, in Houston, Texas. Mr. Grossman collected rents on the condominium unit for the months January through March 1988, and deposited the money into Mr. Farner's account at Coral Gables Federal Savings and Loan. The rent paid by the current tenant was $675 per month. As of March 15, 1988, the balance in the Coral Gables Federal savings account was $2,449.73. Mr. Grossman continued to collect monthly rental payments after March 1988, but these funds were not deposited with Coral Gables Federal because Mr. Grossman had not received his commission payments due on the rental for three years. Instead, he unilaterally decided to place these rental payments, less any costs incurred for maintenance of the property, in his escrow account. Mr. Grossman paid himself $2,025 as rental commissions due from the escrow account under what he claims were the subsisting terms of his oral agreement with Mr. Farner. Mr. Grossman did not seek any disbursement order from the Florida Real Estate Commission in making the payment to himself out of his escrow account. He believed that he was entitled to take that payment under his agreement with Mr. Farner. Mr. Grossman had not been paid his commission for three years because Mr. Farner was in some financial difficulties due to his businesses in Guatemala. Mr. Grossman had developed a long term relationship with Mr. Farner, however, and was willing to carry the money owed to him by Farner. Mr. Grossman failed to explain what agreement he came to with Farner to stop taking his commissions "off the top," but by 1988 he was not in the practice of withholding any portion of the tenants' rental payment from the Coral Gables Federal savings account deposit and retaining that money as his commission. This course of conduct leads the Hearing Officer to find that by 1988 Mr. Grossman's agreement with Mr. Farner did not include an entitlement for Grossman to deduct rental commissions from tenants' rental payments. Although Mr. Grossman denies it, the evidence and the inferences derived from it lead the Hearing Officer to believe that Mr. Grossman learned of Mr. Farner's death shortly after the date Mr. Farner died, and placed the mortgage payments for April, May and June in his trust account because those were the only funds available to him to pay the commissions which Mr. Farner owed to Grossman. There was no effort made to notify Mr. Farner's heirs or estate of this sudden change in the application of the rental payments from deposit in the savings account to set-off for commissions due. There were no further payments from the tenant under the lease agreement after June 1988. The last month's rent was paid using the security deposit, and the tenant moved out. Ultimately, the property was foreclosed by Coral Gables Federal Savings and Loan Association for failure to pay the amounts due under Mr. Farner's mortgage. There is no evidence as to what happended to the $2,449.73 balance in the Coral Gables Federal savings account as of March 15, 1988. The evidence is insufficient to show that the foreclosure action filed by Coral Gables Federal was a direct result of the failure of Mr. Grossman to deposit the rental payments for April, May and June in the Coral Gables Federal Savings and Loan Association rather than in his escrow account. It was not Mr. Grossman's duty to determine what amounts were owed to Coral Gables Federal. The evidence gives rise to the inference that the mortgage was already in default before April 1988. The interest calculation contained in the affidavit of indebtedness, exhibit 6, shows that the bank regarded the mortgage as being in default from February 10, 1988. Mr. Grossman had continued to make deposits in the Coral Gables Federal Savings and Loan Association account of Mr. Farner through March of 1988, and in mid-March the balance of that account was almost $2,500. See, Composite exhibit 4, page 2. Sometime after the death of Carlos Farner, Sr., Mr. Grossman received a demand from his son, Carlos Farner, Jr. for monies Mr. Grossman had received as rental payments on the condominium unit. The evidence does not establish that the son made any demand before Mr. Grossman disbursed to himself the money held in his escrow account. Consequently, the evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Grossman made the payment to himself while he knew that there was a conflicting demand to the money in his escrow account.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Mr. Grossman be found guilty of violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, that he be fined $1,000 and his licensure be suspended for 2 years. The licensure of Cel Mar should be suspended for an equal period. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of January, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. 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 18th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5818 Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: 1. Adopted in paragraph 1. 2 and 3. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in Findings 3 and 8. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Except that the proposed finding that the failure to deposit the funds at Coral Gables Federal "resulted in a foreclosure action" is rejected. It is not clear why Coral Gables Federal had not received its mortgage payments, and it was not Mr. Grossman's duty to make them. It appears that there was more than adequate money in the savings account to make any mortgage payments due. Generally adopted in Findings 9 and 10. It is not clear that Mr. Grossman waited until September 1988 to withdraw the funds from his escrow account. Implicit in Findings 10 and 11. Though it is not clear how the tenant made the payment in July. The August payment was taken from the last month's rent which had been paid at the inception of the lease. Adopted in Finding 11. Implicit in Findings 8 through 11. Adopted in Findings 9 and 10. Although it is not clear that the withdrawal from the escrow account was made in July 1988. There is no escrow account statement in evidence for the month of July 1988. Rejected because it is not persuasive that Mr. Farner, Jr. made any claim for the escrow funds before they were disbursed out of the escrow account. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Billie T. Morrison, Esquire 1330 Southeast 4th Avenue, Suite D Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Darlene F. Keller, Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Harry Marcus (“Petitioner”), timely claimed creditable service for retirement benefits pursuant to section 121.085, Florida Statutes, and whether the adult education teacher position Petitioner held, for which he seeks creditable service for retirement benefits, was a temporary position.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Retirement System (“FRS”) is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. Respondent is charged with managing, governing, and administering the FRS. On February 12, 1979, Petitioner began employment with the Florida Department of Labor & Employment Security (“FDLES”), an FRS-participating employer. By reason of this employment, Petitioner was enrolled in the FRS, and FDLES made contributions to the FRS on his behalf. On January 4, 1991, Petitioner voluntarily resigned his employment with FDLES. At that time, Petitioner had 11 years and 11 months creditable service with FRS based on his employment with FDLES. On January 23, 1991, Petitioner submitted a Florida Retirement System Application for Service Retirement to the State of Florida, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement (“DOA Division of Retirement”).3/ On February 28, 1991, Petitioner submitted a request to the DOA Division of Retirement, that his application for service retirement be withdrawn. On March 12, 1991, the DOA Division of Retirement canceled Petitioner’s application for service retirement. At that time, the DOA Division of Retirement advised Petitioner that: Your retirement date will be the first of the month following your termination date if your retirement application is received by us within 30 days after your termination date. If the application is received after the 30 days, your retirement date will be the first of the month following the month we receive it. On September 27, 1993, Petitioner began employment with the Broward County, Florida, School Board (“School Board”) as a part-time, temporary, adult vocational education instructor at “Whispering Pines.” Whispering Pines is an “off-campus” adult education program. The School Board is an FRS-participating employer. Petitioner was employed by the School Board from September 27, 1993, until April 2009, when he voluntarily resigned his employment with the School Board. Throughout Petitioner’s entire employment with the School Board, he was compensated on an hourly basis and held the same position, that of a part-time, temporary, adult vocational education instructor. Each school year throughout his employment with the School Board, Petitioner signed an Agreement for Part-Time Instruction in Vocational, Adult and Community Education. By signing the agreement, Petitioner acknowledged that his employment was part-time, temporary, and subject to School Board Policy 6Gx6-4107. Each of the agreements for part-time instruction that Petitioner signed, provided that: THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT UPON NOTICE. This appointment is contingent upon sufficient enrollment and attendance in the course assigned or the class will be cancelled and this agreement shall be null and void. The instructor’s signature below indicates acceptance of the appointment subject to all terms and conditions of Board Policy 6Gx6- 4107 which is printed on the reverse side of this agreement. * * * THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 6Gx6-4107 6Gx6-4107 PART-TIME, TEMPORARY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL IN VOCATIONAL, ADULT, AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION PROGRAMS EMPLOYMENT OF PART-TIME, TEMPORARY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL IN VOCATIONAL, ADULT, AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION PROGRAMS SHALL BE APPROVED, ASSIGNED AND PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES. AUTHORITY: F.S. 230.22(1)(2) Policy Adopted: 5/3/84 Rules The conditions of employment listed herein apply only to those instructional personnel employed on a part-time, temporary basis to teach courses on a course by course basis or to provide part-time instructional support to programs in post-secondary adult vocational education, adult general education, Community Instructional Services, and education for personal improvement. Part-time, temporary teachers shall have no guarantee or expectation of continued employment and may be terminated upon written notice by the location administrator. A part-time, temporary employee must meet the same employment criteria as full-time employees with the exception that full-time or part-time teaching certificates may be accepted. Community Instructional Services and Education for Personal Improvement teachers need not be certified. The superintendent is authorized to appoint personnel to positions covered by this policy pending action by the School Board at its next regular or special Board meeting. The principal (or administrative designee) shall recommend for employment only persons who have completed all requirements for the recommended position. Instructors appointed to teach courses requiring certification who are approved on an “applied for” status must file a valid Florida Teacher’s Certificate not later than ninety (90) days from the date of employment. Failure to provide such certificate within the specified time may result in [rescission] of the appointment. Part-time, temporary teachers shall be paid an hourly salary based upon the Salary Schedule adopted for part-time temporary employees. Part-time teaching experience cannot be used toward experience credit on the full- time Teacher Salary Schedule. Part-time, temporary teachers shall not be eligible for a continuing contract or for a Professional Service Contract and are not entitled to fringe benefits. As a part-time, temporary employee, Petitioner did not hold a regularly-established position with the School Board. Petitioner’s employment with the School Board was term-to-term, and he had no expectation of continued employment. Because Petitioner held a temporary position, he is not eligible for service credit in the FRS based on his employment with the School Board. Even though Petitioner is not entitled to eligible service credit in the FRS based on his employment with the School Board, he is eligible to participate in the FICA Alternative Plan, which is separate and distinct from the FRS. The FICA Alternative Plan is designed for individuals, such as Petitioner, who held temporary positions and, therefore, are ineligible for service credit in the FRS. Petitioner participated in the FICA Alternative Plan through his employment with the School Board. As a participant in the FICA Alternative Plan, Petitioner contributed to the plan, the School Board did not contribute to the plan, and Petitioner was prohibited from participating in the FRS. In 2008, Petitioner requested that Respondent review his service with the School Board to determine if he is eligible for coverage under the FRS based on his employment with the School Board. On June 23, 2008, Respondent informed Petitioner that he is not eligible for creditable service based on the fact that he was employed by the School Board as a part-time, temporary employee. No clear point-of-entry was provided by Respondent at that time for Petitioner to institute formal proceedings to challenge the decision. On March 9, 2009, Petitioner submitted a Florida Retirement System Pension Plan Application for Service Retirement to Respondent. On March 11, 2009, Respondent wrote to Petitioner acknowledging the receipt of his service retirement application, and an effective retirement date of April 1, 2009. Respondent also provided Petitioner with an estimate of retirement benefits, which is based on an employment termination date of January 4, 1991, and Petitioner’s 11.91 years of service with FDLES. Subsequently, Petitioner was added to the retirement payroll effective April 2009, and he has received monthly retirement benefits based on his 11 years and 11 months of service with FDLES. The evidence adduced at the final hearing established that Petitioner timely claimed creditable service for retirement benefits pursuant to section 121.085. Petitioner first sought creditable service for retirement benefits in 2008, based on his employment with the School Board. However, Petitioner did not retire from the School Board until 2009. Nevertheless, Petitioner is not eligible for creditable service for his years of employment with the School Board because his employment with the School Board was in the part-time, temporary position of an adult vocational education instructor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, concluding that Petitioner is not eligible for creditable service for his employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 28th day of August, 2014.
