The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Bobbie Lynn Teddlie, Jr., should be disciplined on charges that he violated various provisions of the Insurance Code in connection with the replacement of an 82-year-old's retirement investments with an annuity.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Bobbie Lynn Teddlie, Jr., is a Florida- licensed life insurance agent, life and health insurance agent, health insurance agent, and life and health variable annuity contracts salesman. He is not licensed to sell or broker securities. There was no evidence that Respondent previously was subject to license discipline. In May 1998, while he was employed with Senior Estate Services, Respondent visited Genevieve Rathje, an 82-year-old widow and retiree, for purposes of delivering a revocable living trust prepared at her request, having it executed, and listing Rathje's assets that would be subject to the trust. Rathje's 40- year-old son, Larry, one of two beneficiaries under her estate planning arrangements, was at her home when the documents were delivered. After delivery and execution of the trust, Rathje's assets were discussed; they included an Edward Jones securities account, a COVA Financial Life Insurance Company (COVA) annuity, and a SunTrust account. Rathje mentioned that she was not happy about the market risk and fluctuations in the value of the Edward Jones account. Her son concurred. They showed Respondent some recent Edward Jones statements showing the fluctuations and some negative returns. In discussing their concerns, Respondent compared the Edward Jones account to the COVA annuity, with its guaranteed rates of return. Ultimately, Rathje and her son both stated that they preferred the annuity investment. (According to Rathje's deposition testimony, she also had been advised by an estate planning attorney to replace her Edward Jones account, which would be subject to probate on her death, with an annuity.) Respondent then presented an American Investors Life Insurance (American Investors) annuity offered by Senior Estate Services. Rathje and her son decided to liquidate and replace her investments, less approximately $30,000 for capital gains taxes and purchase of a new condominium, with an American Investors annuity. There was no evidence that Respondent misrepresented the American Investors annuity to Rathje or her son; to the contrary, there was convincing evidence that there were no misrepresentations. Nor was there any convincing evidence that Respondent made any misrepresentations to induce Rathje to liquidate her investments to purchase the American Investors annuity. To facilitate the transaction, Respondent arranged to have Rathje's Edward Jones account liquidated through Financial West Group (Financial West), a California securities broker associated with Senior Estate Services. There was no convincing evidence that Respondent made these arrangements against the wishes of Rathje and her son, or without their knowledge and approval. There was no evidence that either Rathje or her son had any complaint about the use of Financial West. Respondent also had Respondent cash in the COVA annuity, less surrender charges. The proceeds, less approximately $30,000 for capital gains taxes and the new condominium, were used to purchase an American Investors annuity. Less than 30 days later, Senior Estate Services went out of business, and Respondent obtained employment with Professional Insurance Systems. Respondent decided to replace the American Investors annuity because his commission was being held, and Respondent did not think it ever was going to be paid to him. In his new employment, Respondent was able to offer Rathje a United Life and Annuity Insurance Company (United Life) annuity, which was superior to the American Investors annuity in several respects. Since the 30-day "free look" period on the American Investors annuity had not yet expired, it was possible to replace it with a United Life annuity without any penalty or surrender charge. Respondent returned to Rathje's home with a more experienced Professional Insurance Systems agent named Phil Mednick to offer the United Life annuity and compare it to the American Investors annuity. Rathje's son was there to participate in his mother's decision, since he was a beneficiary. Respondent's presentation persuaded Rathje and her son that the United Life annuity was superior to the American Investors annuity. Arrangements were made to rescind the American Investors annuity for a full refund and replace it with a United Life annuity. (Respondent's commission on the sale of the American Investors annuity was reversed, so Respondent received no additional compensation by replacing the American Investors annuity with the United Life annuity. To the contrary, he had to split the commission on the United Life annuity with Mednick-- $4,500 each.) At Rathje's request, it was arranged for United Life to pay her monthly interest checks in the amount of $200 (according to Respondent) prior to the "Annuity Commencement Date" (July 28, 2008). There was no evidence that Respondent made any misrepresentations in comparing the two annuities. Two weeks later, Respondent and Mednick returned to Rathje's home to deliver the United Life annuity. Rathje's son, Larry, was there again. During this visit, Rathje expressed dissatisfaction with her IRA account at SunTrust. Respondent and Mednick told them about a Life USA Fixed Index Annuity. Rathje and her son agreed that it was better than the SunTrust account, and arrangements were made to liquidate the SunTrust account and replace it with a Life USA Fixed Index Annuity. Since the IRA was being rolled over, there were no tax consequences. It is not clear from the evidence how or why the complaint against Respondent was filed. Neither Rathje's son, Larry, nor anyone from the Department of Insurance testified. Rathje's deposition testimony was unclear. Apparently, when she was having her income tax return prepared in 1999, she "got a little alarmed" when her "tax man" told her she had no money "in there" (presumably the Edward Jones account). This apparently led to a Department of Insurance inquiry into Respondent's role in these transactions and eventually to a complaint being filed by Rathje. Yet in her deposition, Rathje testified: "I didn't say [Respondent] did anything wrong. I'm not sure if he did." Asked in her deposition what she thought the problem was, Rathje answered: "I don't know. Why ask me?" Rathje also became upset when she requested $2,300 (presumably from United Life) to put new hurricane shutters on her house and, according to Rathje's deposition testimony, was told: "You're already getting $400 a month." (This statement does not make sense and never was explained by the evidence.) Apparently, one basis for the charges against Respondent was that Rathje was not made to understand that the United Life annuity was subject to its own terms regarding withdrawal of funds before the "Annuity Commencement Date," and related surrender charges. But the greater weight of the evidence was that Respondent explained all of this to both Rathje and her son. In addition, it was clearly explained in the annuity documents themselves. It was not proven that Respondent misled Rathje and her son with respect to withdrawal of funds and surrender charges under the United Life annuity. The other basis for the charges against Respondent was the Department's assertion that the liquidation of the Edward Jones account and COVA annuity and their replacement with the United Life annuity patently was to Rathje's financial detriment. (Respondent presented some evidence that the United Life annuity was better than the American Investors annuity, but the Department presented no evidence of the specifics of the American Investors annuity.) According to the March 1998 Edward Jones account statement, Rathje had assets with a total value of $171,329.56. Included in the account were several stock and bond mutual funds, taxable and non-taxable bonds, and a GNMA mortgage-backed security fund. Also reflected on the Edward Jones statement as being held outside Edward Jones was the COVA annuity. These assets are detailed in Findings 11 through 16. The Income Fund of America, Inc. and the Putnam Growth and Income Fund were funds consisting of a mix of stocks and bonds. The Income Fund of America, Inc. had a value of $17,132.97, an unrealized capital gain of $1,323.09, and an estimated annual yield of 4.26%. The Putnam Growth and Income Fund had a value of $15,055.70, an unrealized capital gain of $2,528.96, and an estimated annual yield of 1.59%. The Putnam High Yield Advantage Fund was a taxable bond fund with a current value of $25,928.17, an unrealized capital loss of $1,071.83, and an estimated annual yield of 9.4%. The Putnam Tax-Free Income Trust High Yield Fund was a non-taxable bond fund with a value of $28,131.57, an unrealized capital gain of $818.31, and an estimated annual tax-free yield of 4.88%. As a Class B fund, Rathje could have been assessed a sales charge on the sale of shares of this fund. There were two Van Kampen American Capital Municipal Income Funds. Both were tax-free municipal bond funds. One was a Class A fund, which charges an up-front load on the purchase of shares but no sales charge on the sale of shares; the other was a Class B, which did not charge an up-front load on the purchase of shares but imposed a charge on their sales. The Class A fund had a value of $7,314.69, and an estimated annual tax-free yield of 5.38%. The Class B fund had a value of $15,544.23 and an estimated annual tax-free yield of 4.65%. The unrealized gain or loss of the Van Kampen funds was stated as "not available," probably because the cost bases of the funds were not known. There was a municipal bond issued by the Metropolitan Sewer District of Walworth County, Wisconsin, which had current (maturity) value of $15,000, an unrealized gain of $708.75, and a tax-free yield of 6.3%. There also was a taxable corporate bond issued by the Philadelphia Electric Company with a current (maturity) value of $26,000, an unrealized capital loss of $1,007.50, and an estimated yield of 7.125%. The GNMA fund paid interest of 9.5%. It had a principal value of $1,000 but a current value of $990. The COVA annuity was a five-year fixed annuity in the amount of $10,000 with a current value of $17,814.28. It was issued on May 25, 1990, and was renewed five years later for a second five-year term. As of March 1998, it was paying 6% interest, tax-deferred; this appears to have been the interest rate for the five-year renewal period. The COVA annuity was subject to a 6% surrender charge and an interest (or market) adjustment. At the time the COVA annuity was liquidated, there was a net surrender charge of $780, after credit was given for a positive $202.08 interest adjustment. The United Life annuity ultimately purchased by Rathje also paid 6% interest, tax-deferred, but paid a 1% bonus in addition the first year. On the $120,000 annuity purchased by Rathje, the bonus was worth a total of $1,200. After the first year, interest was subject to adjustment annually but was guaranteed not to fall below 4%. Surrender charges were 10% in the first year, decreasing 1% each year until the eighth year, to 3%, where it would remain until eliminated in year 11. Contrary to the Department’s argument, it was not patently against Rathje’s financial interest to liquidate the Edward Jones investments and replace them with cash (for capital gains taxes and a new condominium) and the United Life annuity. While some of the Edward Jones investments were performing well (and arguably better than the United Life annuity) at the time, it is not clear that all of them were performing that well, and all of them were subject to market fluctuations. Two of the investments were showing unrealized capital losses in March 1998. (Even the individual bonds were subject to the market on a sale before their maturity; the return of the principal only was guaranteed if held until maturity.) It was not patently unreasonable for Rathje to resort to an annuity to reduce her exposure to losses if the market went down. It certainly was not so obvious that the transaction was contrary to Rathje’s financial interests that Respondent, who was not an expert in securities investing, should have refused to participate. Less easily explained was the decision to liquidate the COVA annuity, at a loss of $780 in net surrender charges (after credit for the interest adjustment.) Even taking into account the United Life annuity’s one-time 1% bonus, this only resulted in $174 on the $17,418.77 net surrender value of the COVA annuity on August 5, 1998, for a net loss of approximately $606 on the exchange. It would be five years before the surrender charge on the United Life annuity fell to the 6% surrender charge on the COVA annuity; by that time, the COVA renewable term would have expired, and the value of the COVA annuity could have been reinvested at no surrender charge. There was no basis in the evidence to predict the interest adjustment on the COVA annuity if liquidated later but before expiration of the renewal period. The only apparent financial reason to prefer the exchange of annuities would have been the potential for the United Life annuity to pay more than 6% (on the assumption that the COVA annuity was locked-in at 6% until expiration of the renewal period.) But there also was the potential for the United Life annuity’s interest to decrease to the guaranteed floor of 4%, and preference for such market sensitivity would have run counter to Rathje’s primary stated objective of eliminating market fluctuations. The only other logical reason for Rathje to liquidate the COVA annuity and replace it with United Life would have been to reduce the number of her investments to just one. Respondent testified that Rathje and her son indeed expressed such a desire. Although Respondent omitted this claim in his written statement to the Department (Petitioner's Exhibit 2), there was no evidence to the contrary. In the absence of any coherent complaint by Rathje or her son, Respondent's testimony is accepted as a valid explanation for Respondent's participation in the liquidation of the COVA annuity, even at a net cost of $606. As a result, not only was the evidence insufficient to prove intent to defraud or misrepresent, it also was insufficient to prove negligent analysis of the transaction and improper advice to Rathje. A fortiori, the evidence was insufficient to prove lack of fitness, incompetence or untrustworthiness.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order finding Respondent, Bobbie Lynn Teddlie, Jr., not guilty of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Stacey L. Turmel, Esquire 412 East Madison Street, Suite 803 Tampa, Florida 33602 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 2 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Insurance was the government agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of insurance agents and the regulation of the practice of the insurance profession in this state. Respondent, Alan Chappuis, was licensed in Florida as a life insurance agent, health insurance agent, general lines agent, and a life, health and variable annuity contracts salesman. Erna Swan, an 84 year old twice widowed lady, and the individual to whom Respondent sold the annuity policies in question, was unable, at the time of the hearing, to recall the names of either of her former husbands or when they passed away. She recalls that both husbands worked in insurance and that she has lived in the Pinellas County area for a long time, but cannot recall for how long. Mrs. Swan lives alone and can cook for herself and bathe and dress herself, but does not know how much her current income is or the source of that income. She was able to recognize Respondent as her insurance agent of several years standing, but cannot recall whether she ever purchased anything from him, and she does not know what Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company is. She does not know what an annuity is or whether she ever wanted to buy one from the Respondent. By the same token, she cannot recall if he ever tried to sell her an annuity. Mrs. Swan has known Nadine Hopkins, a close friend, for about 10 years. She also recognizes Mr. Wells and Mr. Tipton, her attorney and stock broker respectively, but does not know what they do. Mrs. Swan maintains a room in her condominium apartment which she uses for an office where, before she was placed under the guardianship of Ms. Hopkins, she paid her bills and kept her business records, such as they were. She recalls that she had a brokerage account with Merrill Lynch but cannot remember what it was for or what type of securities were in it. She is familiar with Bayridge Baptist Church, of which she is a member, and she recognizes that she has given money to the church over the years. Mrs. Swan's driver's license was cancelled several years ago because, according to Ms. Hopkins, she felt she could not take the test required to renew it. Mrs. Swan does not recall this though she remembers she used to own a car. She cannot remember what kind it was. Mrs. Swan's apartment is paid for. There are no mortgage payments. She claims she still writes checks for her monthly bills by herself, but also notes that Ms. Hopkins does it. More likely it is the latter. She still answers her phone, answers her mail, and reads the newspaper. She is, however, obviously incompetent to testify to the nature of an annuity, and it is quite clear that at this time she would be unable to understand the provisions of an annuity contract and the difference between an annuity contract and an investment portfolio in another product. Mr. Tipton, formerly a stock broker with Merrill Lynch, first met Mrs. Swan in the early 1960's through a family member who worked at the family insurance agency. At that time Mrs. Swan and her husband had purchased the agency from his family, and in the years following the Swans stayed as friends of Mr. Tipton. Mr. Tipton became an investment advisor in 1981 to Mr. Swan who passed away sometime in either 1985 or 1986. He started buying U.S. Government bonds and thereafter moved to tax free investments. When Mr. Swan passed away, Mrs. Swan became the owner of the account. During 1992 and 1993, Mr. Tipton would see Mrs. Swan once or twice a month. At that time, toward the end of 1993, it was clear to him that her memory appeared to be slipping. She would not remember things they had talked about and was unable to participate fully in the decisions made on her investments. At the end of 1993, Mrs. Swan's portfolio with Merrill Lynch was valued at approximately $360,000, plus a money market balance of $18,000. The account statement for October, 1993 reflected she had 5 municipal bonds valued at $80,000, tax free bond funds valued at $273,620, and approximately $18,000 in money market funds. Her estimated annual income from the bonds was approximately $6,631, or approximately $520.00 per month. Her tax free bond funds income returned approximately $1,200 per month, and her Nuveen Fund, approximately $50.00 per month, giving her a grand total of approximately $1,800 per month investment income in addition to her Social Security monthly payment of somewhat in excess of $650. On December 20, 1993, Mr. Tipton, as a representative of Merrill Lynch, received a letter moving Mrs. Swan's account to another brokerage firm, located in Texas, but with a local representative. At that time, Mr. Tipton tried to stop the transfer by contacting his main office, but was advised that by the time he had received the letter, the transfer had been completed. Mr. Tipton wanted to stop the transfer because when he called Mrs. Swan to inquire about it, she indicated to him that she did not want her account moved. Several weeks later, Mrs. Swan called Mr. Tipton to find out where her Merrill Lynch monthly account statement was. She did not recall at that time that her Merrill Lynch account had been closed and the securities therein transferred to the Texas brokerage concern. Because of this call, sometime in early January, 1994, Mr. Tipton called Mr. Wells, Mrs. Swan's attorney, and set up a meeting for the three of them. There were approximately three meetings of the three of them between January and March, 1994. The substance of their discussions was the fact that the broker to whom the Merrill Lynch account had been transferred had liquidated her entire account and used the proceeds thereof to pay for the annuities sold to Mrs. Swan by Mr. Chappuis and his associate, Mr. Mednick. According to Mr. Tipton, up until this time, Mrs. Swan had never indicated any dissatisfaction with the interest and income she was earning on her Merrill Lynch brokerage account. Mr. Tipton absolutely denies there was any churning of her account to garner more commissions. The only transfer was a sale at a premium in February, 1993 of bonds of the Jacksonville Electric Authority to create more capital for investment to provide greater income. The brokerage account owned by Mrs. Swan was not insured against loss of principal though many of the particular funds in which much of the money was invested were, however, individually insured. In 1990, Mrs. Swan's account, which had been in her name individually, was transferred to a trust account of which she was the beneficiary for life, with the provision that at her death, the funds therein would be distributed to various religious organizations and a few friends. Mrs. Swan had no family heirs. No commission was earned by Mr. Tipton on the transfer, though he did receive a commission on both the above-mentioned sale of the Jacksonville Electric bonds and the purchase of a tax free bond fund with the proceeds. Her brokerage account permitted her to write checks on the funds in the money fund. Mr. Tipton claims he never engaged in a transaction regarding Mrs. Swan's account without first talking to her about it. In his opinion, whenever he did make a change she appeared alert and aware enough to participate effectively. The last major transaction was the 1990 bond sale, however. Mrs. Hopkins and Mrs. Swan attend the same church. In late 1993 or early 1994, Respondent's business card was always on Mrs. Swan's refrigerator. At no time did she ever speak disparagingly of him to Mrs. Hopkins, or complain about any insurance product he sold her. Mrs. Hopkins was not Mrs. Swan's guardian at that time and Mrs. Swan was paying her own bills, however not effectively. She was late getting them out and complained it was becoming difficult for her to type out the checks. According to Mrs. Hopking, Mrs. Swan was not extravagant in her spending. She did not take cruises, go to expensive restaurants or buy a lot of clothes. Mrs. Swan, in Ms. Hopkins' opinion, lived comfortably. She was generous in the terms of her charitable contributions. Since being appointed Mrs. Swan's guardian, Mrs. Hopkins had seen her financial records and she knows that Mrs. Swan donated a lot of money to various churches and religious organizations. Mrs. Swan received many requests for donations and indicated that as long as she had the money to give she would do so. In later years, however, as Mrs. Hopkins recalls, it became a physical and mental burden for Mrs. Swan to write the checks, and she frequently commented on this. Mr. Wells is Mrs. Swan's attorney, specializing in estate and trust planning. He met Mrs. Swan through a friend in 1990 and began to serve as her estate planner. In the spring of 1994 Mr. Wells met with Mr. Tipton and Mrs. Swan regarding the Respondent's sale of her security portfolio and the purchase of the two annuities in issue here with the proceeds. At that time Mrs. Swan seemed to have no knowledge of the transaction. As a result, he called Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company to get some information on what needed to be done in order to bring about a recision of the policies, but before any action was taken, the entire matter was turned over to Mr. Keirnan, another attorney, who does trial work. As a result of Keirnan's efforts, approximately two weeks before the hearing, Mr. Wells, on behalf of Mrs. Swan, received a check in the amount of approximately $372,000 from Guarantee Trust and Life Insurance Company as full reimbursement of the premiums paid for the two annuities in issue. From the time the annuities were issued in December, 1993 and January, 1994, Mrs. Swan had only her Social Security check to live on. She also received a check from Guarantee for $5,000, at her request, at the time the policies were issued as the balance in her brokerage account over the amount required as premiums for the annuities. She received nothing from her annuities which, as set up, did not call for the payment of any monthly income. As a result, Mr. Wells felt it necessary to borrow between $15,000 and $20,000 at 8 percent for Mrs. Swan from other trusts he managed to provide funds for Mrs. Swan to live on. From the documents which Mr. Tipton and Mrs. Swan brought to him in March, 1994, Wells could determine that the two annuities were purchased for her but she, at that time, did not seem to know anything about them. Though the annuities offered several options to permit period withdrawal of principal and interest, none had been selected by Mrs. Swan and as they then existed, she would draw no income from them until she was 100 years of age. When Mr. Tipton and Mrs. Swan came to Mr. Wells' office and brought the paperwork showing she had sold her securities to buy the annuities, Mr. Wells called Respondent to find out what had happened to Mrs. Swan's money. About the same time, he drafted a letter to Respondent at Mrs. Swan's request in which she requested Respondent not contact her any more. This letter was written because Mrs. Swan had said Respondent had "pestered" her at home and upset her on some occasions before the letter was written. Guarantee's manager of Government Relations and Compliance, Mr. Krevitzky, identified the two policies issued to Mrs. Swan. According to Mr. Krevitzky, an annuity is a savings vehicle which holds funds over a period at interest with provision for single or periodic pay out. Interest on both annuities in issue here was guaranteed at a rate of 4.5 percent per year or higher. The first year, the policies earned only the guaranteed 4.5 percent interest, and the income was credited to the policy from January, 1994 until the policies were surrendered as a part of the litigation settlement on March 25, 1995. At that point, since it was considered that the policies were rescinded and therefore void ab initio, the interest earned was forfeited and not paid. Only the premiums paid in were refunded in total. The commission paid to the Respondent and his associate, Mr. Mednick, was paid out of company funds and not Mrs. Swan's funds. The annuity contracts sold by the Respondent to Mrs. Swan had options for five different pay-outs, some of which would have returned income to her during the pendency of the contract. However, none of these was selected by Mrs. Swan and there was no evidence to indicate that Respondent ever explained any of them to her. As they existed as of the date they were cancelled, and at all time up until then, Mrs. Swan would receive no income until the annuity matured at her age 100. This is an unreasonable situation for an individual of Mrs. Swan's age and situation. Mr. Krevitzky contends that the potential pay out options could have provided Mrs. Swan with a substantial income equal to or exceeding the income she was received from her securities portfolio. Most of these options would have included a partial return of principal, however, whereas the income from the prior held portfolio was interest only with her principal remaining intact. One option provided an income for a guaranteed period which, in some circumstances, could have resulted in her receiving more than the amount paid in for the contract. The ultimate fact remains, however, that at the time of sale, and at all times thereafter, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Chappuis was directed to stay away from Mrs. Swan, he had failed to assist her in the selection of any income option and she was receiving no current income at all from the annuities. In each of the two years prior to the purchase, for 1992 and 1993, she had regular tax free investment income of between $26,000 and $27,000, in addition to the capital gains of approximately $23,000 from the sale of the bonds in 1992. It matters not that she needed little to live on or donated a great portion of her income to charity. This decision was hers to make. By the same token, it matters not that no request for income was made, during the pendency of the annuities, by or on behalf of Mrs. Swan. Annuities have several benefits over other types of investments, according to Mr. Krevitzky. One is the tax deferment provision for interest earned on the annuity. Another is the fact that, subject to local law, the principal of the annuity is not subject to garnishment. A third is the guaranteed return of principal at the end of the annuity which permits older annuitants to provide for their heirs while maintaining income during their lifetimes. Many senior citizens look to the safety of their investment rather than the taxability of the interest. Therefore, in selling annuities to seniors, the agents stress these factors and the no-probate consideration. David W. Johnson has been an independent contractor with Respondent's broker, Professional Systems Associates, since 1989 and is the annuity manager for the firm. Mr. Johnson indicates that there has been an increase in the annuity business with seniors in 1993 - 1994. Funds for the purchase of the annuities usually comes from bank certificates of deposit, but sometimes, like in the instant case, the funds come from a brokerage account. In his experience, seniors choose annuities over certificates of deposit and brokerage accounts. According to Mr. Johnson, if Mrs. Swan had wanted to stop the transfer from her account she could have done so up until the transaction was completed, even after the securities had been liquidated and the funds sent to Guarantee. This is so, he claims even though Mrs. Swan gave authority to make the transfer in the documentation accompanying her application for the annuities. Mr. Johnson indicated it takes about two weeks after the receipt of the premium before Guarantee issues the annuity contract and at any time before issue, the transaction could be cancelled and the money returned. Even after issue, there is a "free look" period during which the contract may be cancelled without penalty. Though the contract may be cancelled and the premium returned, the former securities are still liquidated and the brokerage account closed. According to Mr. Johnson, there was nothing in the paperwork regarding these annuities which he saw which would raise any flag for consideration. He did not feel it necessary to call Mrs. Swan to see if she really wanted the policy and he never received a call from her or anybody else regarding it. Mr. Chappuis' partner in this sale was Scott Mednick who has been a licensed insurance agent since 1984 and who is an independent contractor with the same agency. Mr. Mednick was solicited to accompany Mr. Chappuis to Mrs. Swan's home in December, 1994 because of his expertise in the annuity field. Respondent had described Mrs. Swan to him as a long time customer. Respondent claimed that Mrs. Swan had indicated she was concerned about her brokerage account and he wanted to show her some product, annuities, she might be interested in. Mr. Mednick has known Respondent for eleven years and knows him to be a top producer. Respondent's reputation is that he is cheap and close with the dollar. Nonetheless, Mr. Mednick claims he was not surprised that Respondent was willing to share the commission on this sale in order to be sure the client got the proper product. Mrs. Swan let Mr. Mednick examine her monthly statement from Merrill Lynch. It appeared to Mr. Mednick that the account had not grown over the years. This is not surprising in that the portfolio was made up solely of tax free bond funds, tax free municipal bonds and tax free money marts, the volatility of and fluctuation in price of which is minimal. Mr. Mednick cannot now recall if Mrs. Swan indicated she knew about her stocks. However, he relates that he and the Respondent suggested she look into annuities as an alternative which Respondent explained to her. In addition, he claims they provided her with a lot of written material. Based on Mrs. Swan's action, words and attitudes expressed, Mr. Mednick believed she completely understood what was explained to her and wanted to make the change. It was his belief she seemed to understand she would pay no commission on the purchase; that she would have a guaranteed income that she could not outlive; that the annuity avoided the volatility of the stock market; and it was not attachable by creditors. As structured and sold to Mrs. Swan, however, she was to get no income at all from this product until she reached the age of 100/. Mr. Mednick asserts that at no time did he feel that Respondent had less than the best interests of Mrs. Swan at heart and he can recall no time when Respondent lied to Mrs. Swan. All representations made by either Respondent or Mednick allegedly came from the brochures left with her. Mednick indicates that during their conversation, Mrs. Swan did not seem concerned about getting her principal out of the investment. She was most concerned about her desire to leave the principal to the church. Mednick claims that at the time of the sale, the two agents asked Mrs. Swan if she wanted her interest paid quarterly but she said to let it accrue. This representation, in light of the other evidence, is not credible. Taken together, Mednick's testimony does nothing to detract from Respondent's sale of this product, inappropriate as it was for this client, to Mrs. Swan. Mr. Mednick's credentials are somewhat suspect, and his credibility poor, however. By his own admission, he has been administratively fined by the Department on two occasions based on allegations of misconduct. He denies any misconduct, however, claiming he accepted punishment only as an alternative to a prolonged contest of the allegations. The allegations herein were referred to an investigator of the Department to look into. As is the custom of the Department, he did not interview the Respondent but merely sought to gather facts concerning each allegation to be sent to the Department offices in Tallahassee where the analysis and determination of misconduct is made. By the same token, he did not call or speak with Mrs. Swan, Mr. Mednick, or anyone at Professional Systems. He spoke with Mr. Tipton, Mr. Wells, Mrs. Hopkins and with Mr. Keirnan a couple of times.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the insurance licenses and the eligibility for licensure of the Respondent herein, Alan Chappuis, be suspended for nine months. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. - 27 Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's post hearing submittal was entitled "Respondent's Final Argument." However, because it makes specific Findings of Fact, the submittal will be treated as though it were Proposed Findings of Fact which will be ruled upon herein. First sentence accepted. Balance rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. & 3. Accepted that Mr. Krevitzky testified and that there was nothing in the contract which would cause Respondent to misrepresent. The product may well be a worthy product for someone in a different financial position than Ms. Swan, and the issue is whether Respondent fully explained the implications and ramifications of the contracts to her. Rejected as a misconception of the nature of the witness' testimony. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted as a summary of the witness' testimony. First and second sentences accepted. Balance rejected as an unwarranted conclusion drawn from the evidence. Accepted but irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Alan Chappuis, Pro se P. O. Box 86126 Madiera Beach, Florida 33738 The Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Edward J. Miller, is entitled to be licensed as a resident life and variable annuity insurance agent.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Edward J. Miller, is employed at Washington Mutual Bank. His supervisor is Tracy Tarach. It was Ms. Tarach's desire that Mr. Miller become licensed as a resident life and variable annuity insurance agent. To that end, she and Mr. Miller filed the necessary papers with Washington Mutual Bank to approve the application process as well as the course to become licensed. The process of having the bank issue the check to cover the licensing procedure was timely. Additionally, the Petitioner could only be scheduled for the licensure class and completion of the licensing process when the bank took favorable action on the request. Accordingly, for this Petitioner the licensing process was dragged out over the course of several months. In January 2003 the Petitioner completed the state application for licensure but did not transmit it to the state. He submitted the request to the bank for course approval and planned to submit the paperwork when it was successfully completed. At that time, the Petitioner did not have any criminal charges pending against him and the answers noted on the application were all correct and truthful. In February 2003 the Petitioner was stopped for DUI. The next workday the Petitioner went to his supervisor and fully disclosed the arrest as well as the charge. The Petitioner made no effort to hide the arrest from his employer and the employer considers the Petitioner a valuable employee, despite the incident. In March 2003 the Petitioner was formally charged with DUI, a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, the bank approved the Petitioner's request to take the course for licensure. The forty-hour course in another work location required the Petitioner to travel to the school site and reside in a hotel for a week while the course work was completed. Obviously the Petitioner's supervisor was willing to invest the costs of licensure school and accommodations for the Petitioner with full knowledge of the Petitioner's pending criminal matter. After successfully completing the licensure course in April 2003 the Petitioner submitted the license application to the state. He failed to double-check the forms. He failed to correct an answer that was now incorrect. That is, he failed to fully disclose the arrest. Subsequently, the criminal case went to hearing, and the Petitioner entered a plea and was placed on probation. The resolution of the DUI charges was completed after the application was submitted. Section 3 of the license application asks several screening questions of applicants for licensure. Applicants are required to answer "yes" or "no", depending on the information sought. In this case, it is undisputed that the Petitioner failed to correct his answers to the questions posed in Section 3. More specifically, the Petitioner failed to truthfully disclose that he had been arrested for DUI. This failure was an oversight on the Petitioner's part, and not intended to deceive the Department. The answers should have been corrected when the Petitioner amended the application form to include the information regarding his completion of the Gold Coast School of Insurance class on April 11, 2003. He did not do so. When the Department reviewed the Petitioner's application and discovered the false answer, it took action to deny the licensure request. That denial was entered on January 22, 2004. A notice of the denial was provided to the Petitioner and he timely challenged the proposed action. On October 31, 2003, the Petitioner completed all of the terms of his court-ordered probation and the entire DUI incident was put to rest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a Final Order granting the Petitioner's application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH 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 July, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dana M. Wiehle, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Edward J. Miller 6205 Northwest West Deville Circle Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Department's Rule 12B-8.001(5), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent violated the law as charged by Petitioner in its Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency with the statutory authority and duty to license and regulate insurance agents in Florida. Respondent has been licensed as a life including variable annuity and health agent, life insurance agent, and life and health insurance agent. At the time of the events which are the subject of this case, Respondent held the aforementioned licenses and was the president of Seniors Financial International, Inc., an insurance agency located in Vero Beach. Storfer is licensed to sell fixed annuities for most of the insurance companies licensed to transact business in the State of Florida, including Allianz, IMG, Aviva, North American, Old Mutual, and American Equity. Storfer keeps himself abreast of the suitability requirements and features of annuities by regularly attending and participating in the quarterly, if not monthly, training presented by insurance companies. The companies also provide seminars at Storfer's office. He goes to their offices or views webinars that can last two-to-three hours. The companies also offer assistance by providing people in-house to answer questions about their products. Even though Storfer could have the option for each client to submit cases to the companies for the company to help prepare and work to find a suitable product for each customer/individual, there was no testimony he did so with the individuals in this case. He also testified that he understood and was knowledgeable about all the products sold, relating to the three clients, from which the AC stems. Storfer regularly holds luncheon/dinner workshops and seminars at restaurants in and around Vero Beach that focus on financial issues. He invites the attendees by mailing them a flier. Each attendee receives a free meal while listening to Storfer's financial presentation. During the luncheons, Storfer does not offer any investment products for sale. However, attendees are asked to complete a "Senior Financial Survival Workshop Evaluation Form" and are invited to request an in- office appointment if they are interested in discussing specific investment products. The form elicits information including family background, financial history, current expenses, and tax liabilities. The attendees are asked to put "yes" or "no" at the top of the form. If an attendee puts yes, then a follow-up appointment is scheduled in Storfer's office. Storfer's wife picks up the forms and sets the appointment. Storfer's procedures at the appointment typically start by filling out a client profile. He goes through the form with the client and asks the client questions to obtain the details regarding age, contact information, beneficiaries, health, estate, plans for money, rate of return, percentage of life saving willing to lose, risk tolerance, liquidity, income needed form investment accounts, what needs to be fixed, income, assets and liability inventory, life insurance, and long-term care insurance/disability insurance. After completing the profile, Storfer reviews the documents that he has requested the client bring in to the appointment. This includes tax returns, an investment portfolio, and list of how much money they have and where it is, including life insurance or long-term care. There is no fee for the appointment. Typically, after the first meeting, Storfer reviews the documents and the client returns for a second appointment. At the client's next appointment, Storfer has reviewed everything and put together a product that he wants to sell the client. He also provides an illustration of the product demonstrating the product's growth and how it would work. If the client decides to go forward and invest in one of the products Storfer has recommended, Storfer gets an application for the product and his wife fills it out.2 After the application has been completed, Storfer's office procedure is to submit it to the company the same day to await approval. Once the application has been approved, then the policy is funded either by transferring from another type of product (direct transfer rollover) or by a 1035 exchange. The policy can not be issued if not funded. Once the policy is funded and issued, the company mails the policy and the documents for the client to sign to Storfer, as the agent to deliver. Storfer's operating procedure is to call the client to set an appointment for policy delivery. The appointment's purpose is to go over the policy with the client, including the amount of money that went into the policy, where the funds came from and what the policy will do for them, including liquidation and charges. Storfer keeps documents which he refers to as client notes in each client's file. After client meetings, he uses a service to dictate what he wants as a summary of the client meeting. The service types up what he says and emails it back to him. It is printed, reviewed, and scanned into his system. Alberto and Celina Grubicy Celina Grubicy ("C.G."), a native of Argentina, was born on April 6, 1940. She was married at age 19 to Alberto Grubicy ("A.G."), who was also born and raised in Argentina. They moved to the United States in 1965; English is their second language. The Grubicys opened a repair shop in New York in 1964. Then, they went in the construction business in Connecticut for about ten years before retiring to Florida. In both successful businesses, C.G. handled the paper work and kept the books. The Grubicys retired in the early 90's and purchased a condominium in Florida, where they now reside. On February 5, 2007, the Grubicys attended Respondent's luncheon seminar at Carrabbas Italian Grill in Vero Beach. At the seminar, the Grubicys listened to the presentation and completed the seminar evaluation form confirming an estate in excess of one million dollars. At the time, A.G. was 65 years old and C.G. was 66 years old. The Grubicys thought the presentation sounded good, so they made an appointment to see Storfer in his office. Prior to any interaction with Storfer, C.G. was the owner of a Transamerica variable annuity with a contract date of September 23, 2002, an AXA Equitable variable annuity with a contract date of June 17, 2005, and a Hartford variable annuity with a contract date of July 25, 2005. Each of the annuities was doing well and approaching dates when surrender charges would no longer apply. The Grubicys met with Storfer on February 7, 2007. At the meeting, the Grubicys informed Respondent that their investment goals were two-fold. They explained that their primary financial goal was safety. Their plan included selling their residential building complex from which they were currently collecting rental payments for income.3 Their goal in five years was to have an investment that would provide their income after they sold the property.4 The Grubicys wanted an investment to replace the rental money that they would no longer receive after the sale of their building. The Grubicys also stressed to Storfer that the security of the investment was a paramount concern. C.G. wanted out of variable annuities because she was concerned about the stock market risk and did not want annuitization to take place. At their second meeting on February 12, 2007, knowing the Grubicys' goals, Storfer misrepresented the advantages for the product he recommended with a graphic illustration on a blackboard. He showed the MasterDex annuity with Allianz in such a fashion, that, when the market advanced in relation to a base line, the return on the annuity would also advance, up to a three percent cap per month on the gain, but that when the market fell below the base line, there would be a zero percent return, but never a loss of the gain made in the previous months, or a loss of invested capital. Storfer recommended and proceeded to sell the Grubicys the Allianz MasterDex 10 ("MasterDex") policy, being fully aware of the Grubicys' goals. He insisted that was the way for the Grubicys to invest because they would never lose their principal compared to the other annuities that have high risk plus excess fees. Storfer did not provide the Grubicys any other investment option. The annuity was a long-term investment that provided for surrender penalties on a declining scale for fifteen years even though Storfer told the Grubicys that the Allianz annuity would mature in five years from the day it started.5 Storfer assured the Grubicys that they were not going to lose anything by investing in the MasterDex annuity with Allianz. They were not accurately informed of the provisions in the contract by Storfer during the meeting nor did Storfer fully review the relevant terms and conditions, including the length of the policy.6 The Grubicys knew that when they surrendered the three variable annuities there would be surrender charges. However, Storfer told them that the product he was selling them had a 12 percent bonus that would offset the monetary lost from surrender penalties of the transferring funds.7 The Grubicys decided to follow Storfer's recommendation with his assurances that they wouldn't lose money, and they surrendered their three annuities to purchase two MasterDex annuities in excess of about one million dollars. After Storfer completed the numerous forms and documents, the Grubicys authorized the transfers of money to Allianz by way of assignment on or about March 2, 2007, and authorized him to buy the new policies. Storfer allocated 100 percent to the Standard & Poors ("S&P") 500 instead of allocating the total investment among three possible choices in smaller increments. Respondent's 100 percent allocation choice on the Supplemental Application contravenes both of the Grubicys' requests on each of their Liquidation Decision forms, which specifically state "the decision to liquidate . . . based solely on . . . desire to eliminate market risk and fees " The annuity product Storfer sold the Grubicys provided for three different values: annuitization value, cash surrender value, and guaranteed minimum value. The Statement of Understanding provided: * * * Annuitization value The annuitization value equals the premium you pay into the contract, plus a 10% premium bonus and any annual indexed increases (which we call indexed interest) and/or fixed interest earned. This will usually be your contract's highest value. Withdrawals will decrease your contract's annuitization value. Cash surrender value The cash surrender value is equal to 87.5% of premium paid (minus any withdrawals) accumulated at 1.5 percent interest compounded annually. The cash surrender value does not receive premium bonuses or indexed interest. The cash surrender value will never be less than the guaranteed minimum value (which we define below). The cash surrender value will be paid if you choose to receive a) annuity payments over a period of less than 10 years for Annuity Option D and five years for Alternate Annuity option IV, or over a period of less than 10 years for all other annuity options, b) annuity payments before the end of the first year for Alternate Annuity Option IV or before the end of the fifth policy year for all other annuity options, or c) a full surrender at any time. Guaranteed minimum value. The guaranteed minimum value will generally be your lowest contract value. The guaranteed minimum value equals 87 5% of premium submitted, minus any withdrawals. The guaranteed minimum value grows at an annual interest rate that will be no less than 1% and no greater than 3%. (emphasis in original) The Grubicys signed the numerous forms and documents without reading them because they trusted Storfer and he sounded as if he knew what he was talking about. They relied on his advice. Storfer sold the Grubicys a policy completely different from what he had described.8 The monthly cap was opposite of the way Storfer explained it. A description of the "monthly cap" stated: Although there is a monthly cap on positive monthly returns, there is no established limit on negative monthly returns. This means that a large decrease in one month could negate several monthly increases. Actual annual indexed interest may be lower (or zero) if the market index declines from one month anniversary to the next, even if the market index experienced an overall gain for the year. (emphasis in original) The Grubicys later learned that the advice Storfer provided them regarding how the MasterDex annuity worked was erroneous. Respondent provided them misleading representations regarding the sale of the annuity products. On April 5, 2007, C.G. received her annuity contract for a MasterDex annuity for approximately $1,123,000, and she executed a Policy Delivery Receipt, Liquidation Decision Form and a Policy Review and Suitability Form. On April 12, 2007, A.G.'s annuity contract for a MasterDex annuity for approximately $35,000 was delivered and he executed a Policy Delivery Receipt, Liquidation Decision Form and a Policy Review and Suitability Form. The sale of the Allianz annuities generated commissions of approximately $95,000.00 for Storfer or his agency, Senior Financial International, Inc. The Grubicys became concerned about the MasterDex product Storfer sold them while watching television at home one day, and seeing a class action lawsuit advertisement about their purchased product. They called Storfer immediately to discuss Allianz. He set up an appointment with the Grubicys to meet with him about their concerns. When Storfer met with the Grubicys, he assured them that they didn't need to change anything, their product was fine. He also informed them that their product was six percent up and not to worry because if the S&P 500 went down, they didn't have to worry because they had already made six percent. In May 2007, the Grubicys went to Connecticut and attended another investment seminar. Afterwards, they set up a meeting with the financial advisor, Mr. Ray ("Ray"). The Grubicys took their investment paperwork to Ray and he reviewed it. Ray explained how the MasterDex worked and called an Allianz customer service representative while they were in the office to further explain how the product worked. The Grubicys were informed that there was a monthly cap of three percent when it went up but no monthly cap on stock market losses. Such a description of the cap combined with the description in the contract support a finding that the MasterDex annuity did not meet the Grubicys' financial goals and was not a suitable investment for them. In particular, the Grubicys had been clear that they did not want to have any market risk. Subsequently, the Grubicys contacted Storfer again and questioned his declaration regarding the cap on stock market losses. Respondent continued to describe the crediting method incorrectly and told them Ray was just trying to sell them something. He insisted that the S&P 500 is the way he explained it earlier and that Ray's interpretation was wrong. Ray eventually sent the Grubicys an article from the Wall Street Journal, which they testified reemphasized that the investment worked completely different from what Storfer continued to tell them. The Grubicys requested a refund from Allianz. Approximately one year later, Allianz eventually set the contract aside and refunded the investment principal, surrender charges for the three annuities, and some interest. The evidence convinces the undersigned that Storfer knowingly made false representations of material facts regarding the MasterDex annuity and its downside cap. Kikuko West Kikuko West ("K.W."), a native of Japan, was born in 1933. She marrried a U.S. soldier and moved to the United States when she was 18 years old. Together they had four children. She is now married to Robert West ("R.W."). K.W.'s employment history started with her working in a bakery, then as a waitress in a Chinese restaurant, and her ultimately owning and operating a successful flower shop for over 30 years in West Warwick, Rhode Island. She sold it in 2006. K.W. sold her house in Rhode Island and used the money to invest in a Smith-Barney mutual fund and an AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company (AXA) annuity (contract # 304 649 121), which she purchased in June 30, 2004. West purchased a condominium in Florida and has been a permanent resident for the past five years. On January, 15, 2008, Robert and Kikuko West ("Wests") attended Respondent's seminar. They scheduled an appointment for January 23, 2008, but didn't show. They attended a second workshop on or about June 3, 2008, and scheduled a meeting for July 9, 2008, but didn't show. The Wests rescheduled their appointment with Storfer on August 4, 2008, and met with him in his office for the first time. Even though K.W.'s husband attended the meeting, the focus of the meeting was her finances. K.W. explained that their monthly income was $2,900 and their monthly living expenses were $2,100, but a majority of it came from her husband's pension so she was worried about income if he passed. She only received $600 a month in social security and wanted income in the future. She had $100,000 for emergencies in a money market account. K.W. also informed Storfer that when she dies she wants her four daughters and six grandchildren to inherit her money. K.W. wanted to stop receiving various statements from each of her numerous investment accounts and bundle her assets. She told Storfer that she wanted to keep everything that she had and would be happy with a rate of return of four or five percent. She emphasized she had zero risk tolerance. K.W. provided the following information for her asset/liability inventory: an AXA variable annuity(non- qualified) in the amount of about $119,589.58; mutual fund (non- qualified) of $253,289.55; IRA (qualified) $80,039.33; CDs (nonqualified) for $25,000 and $35,000; a Fidelity and SunTrust (nonqualified) totaling $40,000; and a Vanguard equaling $60,000. West explained that she didn't have life insurance but had prepaid funeral. Her husband had three life insurance policies. K.W. had a second meeting with Storfer on August 6, 2008. At that meeting, K.W. provided income tax and other paperwork to detail the stocks that she wanted consolidated into one statement.9 Storfer went over the financial illustrations and company profiles he had compiled as proposed investments. Unbeknowest to the Wests, Storfer's plan for restructuring K.W.'s reinvestments was to transfer funds from her variable annuity (approximately $215,000) to a fixed annuity and transfer assets from K.W.'s existing brokerage accoung (approximately $80,000) to a new brokerage account, which were both with American Equity. During the meeting, Storfer also introduced the Wests to Kevin Kretzmar, a broker for Summit Brokerage Services, by speakerphone.10 The discussion consisted of how the money would be transferred.11 The Wests thought Kretzmar worked for Storfer as his assistant and were unaware that he brokered for a separate company. Storfer brought Kretzmar into the transaction to handle the brokerage account because he was not a broker, but he did not make this plain to the Wests. In the meeting, Strofer emphasized to the Wests that K.W. was paying too much in income tax and her investments should be set up to reduce the income tax. Storfer also informed the Wests that K.W. would get a guaranteed eight percent interest each year and would be able to withdraw 10 percent a year with no penalty,12 which K.W. relied upon in deciding to follow Storfer's recommendation to purchase the American Equity annuity selected by Storfer. Respondent provided two letters to K.W. on Seniors Financial International, Inc., letterhead that stated: Kikuko: This would replace the Mutual Funds $253, 289.00. You will receive a bonus w[h]ich is added the first day of $25,329.00. Your account will start with $278,618.00. With an 8% guaranteed growth for income. With no risk. Mitchell Kikuko This would replace the AXA Variable Annuity $119,589.00. You will receive a bonus w[h]ich is added the first day of $11, 959.00. Your account will start with $131,548.00. With an 8% guaranteed growth for income. With no risk. Mitchell After the meeting, the Wests decided to go forward with Storfer's recommendation for K.W.'s investments. On August 8, 2008, the Wests returned to Storfer's office and K.W. agreed to transfer the funds. She signed the applications and contracts including 14 documents, which would transfer the money and invest in the annuity. K.W. did not read everything that she was signing because she couldn't understand all the terminology and trusted and relied upon Storfer. Storfer told K.W. that even after she signed, if she didn't like the product, she could call and everything would get put back to the way it was before. K.W. thought she was purchasing one policy. Respondent sold her two policies numbered 693752 ("the SunTrust transfer" or "the 80K contract") and 693755 ("the AXA transfer" or "the 215K contract"). Both applications indicate each is replacing an AXA policy. K.W.'s SunTrust is not mentioned in the 80K application. The documents attached to the applications K.W. signed without reading also detail that the American Equity Bonus Gold (BG) has a 10 percent bonus; Various "values"; and the minimum guaranteed interest rate is only one percent. The Lifetime Income Benefit Rider (LIBR) document states "a lifetime income that you cannot outlive" is tied to the owner's age. On the BG contract, the income account value (IAV), the second option, was checked at a rate of eight percent rider guaranteed income. The cash surrender penalty listed for the BG contract in the application is 80 percent of the first year premiums.13 The BG application also described a nine percent interest crediting method. Out of the nine options listed, Respondent admitted that he chose the S&P monthly Pt. to Pt. w/Cap & AFR for K.W. The option was not defined in the application, and K.W. had to rely solely on Storfer to define and explain the product. Specific terms and conditions of the annuity such as the penalty free withdrawals14 were defined in the policy contracts, which K.W. never received.15 In the car on the way home from the August 8, 2008, meeting, K.W. looked at the back page of the brochure for American Equity Insurance and read that she could only earn one percent a year with the annuity. This caused her some concern. Subsequently, K.W. called her son-in-law, a director at Merrill Lynch on Wall Street, who agreed to review the documents during K.W.'s upcoming visit to New York. K.W. then called Storfer's office back and left a message not to process the applications. The Wests also attempted to fax Storfer a letter that stated, "I do have to hold off on any changes . . . do no process until I review all papers." On Saturday, August 9, 2008, the Wests met briefly with Storfer in his office16 to request the original paperwork back that had been signed on Friday and stop the process. K.W. instructed Storfer to do nothing until her son-in-law approved it. She and her husband were pleased that Storfer agreed not to process the forms until her son looked at them and said that the investment was good.17 Stofer gave K.W. a yellow manila envelope with copies of the paperwork West had signed and a note. At some point, Storfer processed K.W.'s application for the purchase of the American Equity annuity, contrary to his agreeing not to finalize the purchases until the Wests gave the go-ahead.18 The Wests left for North Carolina to start their vacation on Sunday, August 10, 2008. While on vacation, K.W. opened the manila envelope and discovered that it did not contain the originals of the signed forms she had requested. Additionally, a letter was enclosed dated August 11, 2009,19 on Seniors stationary that stated: Dear Kikuko, Attached is transfer paperwork to transfer the brokerage account from Suntrust to us. We will not sell any investments until you approve them. If you and your son in law have any questions please contact me I will be more then happy to assist. Sincerely, K.W. had her son-in-law review the investment paperwork and requested that he talk to Storfer. After K.W. talked to her son, she decided the investment was not good for her. Ultimately, K.W. learned that her money had been transferred out of the Suntrust account without her permission. She called Storfer's office numerous times to get him to cancel the annuity transactions, but was unable to reach him.20 K.W. was eventually provided Kretzmar's contact information and he instructed her how to reverse the transfer of funds. K.W. had communications with Kretzmar and representatives from American Equity that lead to her funds being refunded. The American Equity annuities were ultimately cancelled. Viewing the evidence as a whole, the undersigned determines that Respondent made false promises not to process K.W.'s annuity applications in connection with the investments and did so contrary to K.W.'s instructions, as well as made false misrepresentations to her regarding the details of the annuity. Doris Jorgensen Ms. Doris Jorgensen ("Jorgensen") was born in New York City on December 20, 1921. She grew up in Connecticut. She married William Jorgensen. While married she owned and operated an antique shop out of her house in Connecticut. She started investing with her husband, William, before he passed in 1999. She and her husband would discuss their investments and decide how to invest together. She has no children and lives alone in Sebastian, Florida. Prior to meeting with Storfer, Jorgensen was the owner of an Integrity Life Insurance Company (Integrity) variable annuity with a contract date of July 28, 2003, and Aviva Life and Annuity Company (Aviva; formerly AmerUs) deferred annuity with a contract date of December 26, 2003. Jorgensen's net worth, before meeting Respondent was approximately a million dollars. Jorgensen attended two luncheon seminars presented by Respondent on April 2, 2007, and on October 23, 2007. She was 86 years old at the time. At the first seminar, Jorgensen filled out a Senior Financial Survival Workshop Evaluation Form, indicating she was a widow, had an estate from $25,000-$200,000, and had concerns in the area of Social Security Tax Reduction, Variable Annuity Rescue, and Equity Index Annuity. When Jorgensen attended the second workshop, she filled out the form identical to the previous one, except she also circled Asset Protection from Nursing Home as a concern. On or about November 5, 2007, Jorgensen met Storfer in his office for the first time. Storfer prepared her client profile and Jorgensen described her risk tolerance as "none" and indicated that she was unwilling to lose any of her life savings through investments. She also informed him that she intended to leave her entire estate to numerous charities and had set up a trust for that purpose. Jorgensen provided Storfer income information at the meeting that indicated that she lived off her monthly social security and pension payments, a total monthly income of $1,800.00, and her expenses were $1,100.00. She also had $120,000 cash and a net worth of $900,000.00. At another meeting, Jorgensen provided Storfer her financial portfolio to review. One meeting Jorgensen had with Storfer was attended by her brother, who did not provide her any advice regarding what to do with her investments. Ultimately, Storfer recommended and sold Jorgensen an Allianz Life Insurance Company Equity Indexed Annuity. Upon his advice, Jorgensen surrendered her $208,015.74 Integrity Life Policy #2100073292 issued on July 28, 2003. The transfer resulted in the initial funding of the Allianz MasterDex,21 which became effective November 16, 2007. Jorgensen told Respondent that she had a problem with monetary loss and Storfer said he could make it up with the Allianz Life. The policy provided that she could start withdrawing the money in five years and then must annuitize the policy and withdraw the money over a 10-year period. The Allianz annuity was delivered on December 12, 2007. The Allianz Life contract, a MasterDex, contract #70610993, included a 10 percent bonus. Respondent placed 100 percent of Jorgensen's funds in the S&P 500 index like the Grubicys. Later, on or about January 16, 2008, Storfer also had Jorgesen authorize an additional transfer of $306,507.21 in funds from her Aviva/AmerUS policy purchased December 1, 2003, to Allianz. The policy was $330,137.95. Surrender charges on the AmerUs annuity would have expired December 1, 2014. On February 4, 2008, the money was sent to Allianz into contract #70610993. Together, Jorgensen's transfers totaled over half-a million dollars and she incurred surrender charges totaling in excess of $29,000. Jorgensen was unable to understand the annuity application and contract language. She trusted Storfer and took him at his word and signed a lot of forms without filling them out or asking questions. Jorgensen testified that she always followed the directions of whoever gave her business advice. Jorgensen also testified in this matter that she was "not certain," "I don't really remember," and "I have no idea whether it was or not" regarding numerous questions relating to the transactions and policy receipts. At some point, Jorgensen attended another investment seminar presented by insurance agent, Ms. Jones ("Jones").22 On February 11, 2008, Allianz gave Jorgensen a receipt for her payment of $306,423.03. Jorgensen contacted Allianz and directed the company to return the transferred funds to Aviva. Jorgensen directed Allianz to "rescind this policy in full." On or about February 14, 2008, Jones also helped Jorgensen with a typewritten letter dated February 15, 2009, from Jones' office to Allianz following up the request. Jorgensen ultimately dealt with Storfer instead of Jones regarding rescission of the Aviva/AmerUs to Allianz transaction. Storfer ultimately placed the funds with Old Mutual/OM Financial annuity ("OM"). An application, transfer/1035 exchange, was executed in Jorgensen's name and other documents relating to the OM annuity on or about March 14, 2008. The policy is signed Doris Jorgensen not "Doris R. Jorgensen." Jorgensen testified she typically signs her name to include the middle initial "R" "Doris R. Jorgensen" on official papers.23 Jorgensen discovered the policy when she received the annuity confirmation letters from OM. Respondent earned a commission of nearly $7,000 on the OM transaction. The policy delivery receipt dated May, 1, 2008, six weeks after the purchase date of the OM policy, also has a signature without a "R" initial and Jorgensen denies the signature is hers. Storfer's signature is not on OM's required policy delivery certification form. The Delivery Receipt for the OM policy is dated May 1, 2008. Jorgensen still has the OM annuity. The undersigned finds that the evidence fails to show that Storfer misrepresented the sale of the two annuities or made false representations regarding the annuities sold to Jorgensen.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the final order be entered by the Department (1) finding that Mitchell Storfer violated the provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, described, supra, and (2) revoking his licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 31st day of December, 2009.
The Issue Whether the licenses as a limited surety (bail bond) agent and as a legal expense agent held by Latesia Lashonda Chavis should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Chavis has been licensed in Florida as a limited surety (bail bond) agent, pursuant to Chapter 648, Florida Statutes and as a legal expense agent, pursuant to Chapter 642, Florida Statutes, since 1994, and has performed related work since 1991. In an application dated April 27, 2006, Chavis sought to receive an additional license as a resident managing general insurance (bail bond) agent. On that Application, Chavis answered "NO" to the following questions: Have you ever had any insurance agency contract terminated by an insurance company or managing general agent for any alleged cause? Are you currently indebted to any insurer, managing general agent, agent, or premium finance company? The Department alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint that Chavis’ answers to those two questions were false. In Count II, the Department alleged that Chavis owed money for checks that had been returned for insufficient funds for premiums and a build up fund ("BUF") account due, based on a contractual relationship with the Al Estes General Agency, Inc. (the "Estes Agency"), Chavis' managing general agent. Count III alleged that Chavis misappropriated, converted and withheld funds owed to the Estes Agency. Count I Chavis testified that, on April 27, 2007, when she filed the pending application, she was not aware that her contract with the Estes Agency had been terminated, having not been informed until she was contacted by the Department's investigator, Terry Flynn, sometime in August 2006. Chavis also testified that she had been in touch with Al Estes, in January, February, and March about her family problems that were taking her away from devoting herself to the bail bond business and offered to take out a loan to pay him what she owed him. She testified that she was trying to help run a family business, a group home, that her aunt died of cancer in April, and that her mother is still battling cancer. Estes confirmed in his testimony that he recalled her telling him that her husband had used her checkbook to take money out of her account and that her mother was sick. It is undisputed that a letter from the Estes Agency, dated February 9, 2006, was sent to Chavis at her address-of- record with the Estes Agency on that date, in Cocoa, Florida. The letter was "A Termination Notice and Demand for Payment and Accounting." Chavis testified that she did not receive the letter. The Estes Agency also sent, on February 9, 2007, a "Termination Request" for Chavis to be terminated as an agent to their insurer, Safety National Casualty Corporation in Iowa. In addition, the Estes Agency notified the Department of the termination of Chavis as their agent by letter dated February 17, 2006, sent to the Department's Orlando office. In that letter, the Estes Agency listed the following reasons for its actions: Un-report [sic] executed powers, owes premium N.S.F. checks for Premium and BUF accounts Unpaid Premium an (sic) BUF Unpaid Forfeitures and judgments Business phone has been turned off. No response to correspondence sent Will not return phone calls On or about March 27, 2006, the Estes Agency sent as its representative, Norman Britten who was apparently accompanied by other people, to Chavis' Cocoa address to seize the files. When Britten arrived, a neighbor told him that Chavis had moved. The neighbor telephoned Chavis, and asked her if he should tell Britten where she had moved. Britten then also talked to Chavis by telephone and she gave him her address in Fort Pierce, and agreed to meet him at her new address to give him the files on pending cases and accounts. Chavis agreed that these activities took place in late March or early April, just before her aunt's death. The files were taken so that the Estes Agency could meet the requirements and minimize the risks of having unpaid forfeitures become judgments within sixty days that, if not paid within thirty-five days, would result in the State's prohibiting an agency from posting additional bonds. The files were also taken to keep an accounting of remissions, and refunds of forfeited bonds after criminal defendants have been caught. Given the conversations concerning moneys owed, notices, seizure of files, and investigations, all activities that took place in January, February and March 2006, it is reasonable to conclude that Flynn testified truthfully that he informed Chavis of her termination while he was conducting the Department's investigation of her in March 2006. Chavis's testimony to the contrary, that she did not know prior to filing the application in April 2006, that she was answering the two questions cited in the Complaint falsely is rejected as untrue. Nor is Chavis relieved of her personal responsibility to be truthful, because she testified that some other unnamed company with whom she planned to become affiliated told her to give the false answers to those questions, because her BUF account should take care of any money that she owed. There is no showing that the other company knew of the returned checks and unpaid premiums and no reasonable expectation that these debts that were not incurred in the regular course of business would be covered by a BUF account. Additional evidence of her actual knowledge of the termination of her contract with the Estes Agency is the fact that Chavis was negotiating with and seeking licensure with another company, while she admittedly was still dealing with her family's problems that were causing her to neglect her bail bond business. The Department proved the allegations in Count I of its Administrative Complaint that Chavis made material misstatements in response to two questions on an application dated April 27, 2006. Counts II and III Contrary to her explanation that she filed the pending application thinking the BUF account would cover any funds owed to the Estes Agency, Chavis testified that, in conversations with Estes in February and March, she offered to take out a loan to pay the money owed to the Estes Agency, and that he mentioned that she owed approximately $12,000. She said she offered to take out a loan because she did not have the money, but that she did not think that either of them had taken into account the BUF account at that time. Chavis agreed that once the BUF account was depleted, if she still owed money to the Estes Agency, she has not paid it. She also testified that she has not paid anything to cover the checks she issued with insufficient funds and does not deny that she owes that money to the Estes Agency. The senior agent for the Estes Agency testified that, after taking into consideration insufficient funds checks, unpaid and unremitted premiums, the BUF account, and remissions total liabilities incurred by or on behalf of Chavis are $18,851.00. The Department proved the allegations of Counts II and III that Chavis owes money to the Estes Agency, that was misappropriated, converted, or willfully and improperly withheld.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that all licenses held by the Respondent under the Code are revoked and that her pending application be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 6th day of November 2007.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Sarah Fuquay (now known as Sarah Fowler) has been licensed as a life and health insurance agent holding license number E082826. The Department is the state agency with responsibility for licensing and regulation of insurance licenses and appointments. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was employed or affiliated with and appointed by Bankers Life & Casualty Company (Bankers Life), working out of the company's offices in Jacksonville, Florida. She is a captive agent, meaning she works only for Bankers Life. In 2006, Frank Hemwey was a resident of the Jacksonville area and was approximately 84 years old. He was retired and was looking to invest the proceeds from the sale of some real estate. In November 2006, Mr. Hemwey received a postcard in the mail which stated: Important! Are you like the majority of our clients and notice a drastic reduction in your income due to decreasing interest rates? At Banker's Life and Casualty Company, we offer an Alternative to a CD. Our Security Builder Bonus Annuity (Policy LA-06T) has a 1st year Interest rate of 7%, Available thru November 30, 2006. (Includes Cash, CD's, Money Market IRA and Mutual Fund Rollovers) You have to call me to believe it! To take advantage of this limited time offer, Call Frank Fowler, Licensed Agent [904-400 3662] Mr. Hemwey called the number provided. Respondent responded to the inquiry and set up an appointment at Mr. Hemwey's home for November 27, 2006. During the meeting with Mr. Hemwey, Respondent filled out a written assessment used by Bankers Life to collect information about potential clients and to make recommendations regarding appropriate investments. Information gathered included information about the family's background and financial history, current expenses and tax liabilities, estate planning options and long term care needs. During their conversation, Mr. Hemwey was totally focused on the prospect of the seven percent return mentioned in the postcard. Respondent explained to him that the product was not a certificate of deposit; Bankers Life does not issue certificates of deposit; and that the insurance company only issues annuities. A brochure was provided to the Hemweys describing the annuity product advertised. Respondent advised Mr. Hemwey several times that the annuity was not a one-year investment; that the seven percent interest rate applied only to the first year; and that a lower guaranteed rate applied after that point. However, because of his focus on the seven percent, he paid little or no attention to what she told him. In his words, "I don't remember . . . anything else because I wasn't interested in anything else." In the section called "Additional Information and Follow-Up Notes," Respondent recorded, "Frank says they understand annuities. Kept cutting me off says he knows. Tried to get him to leave interest in to possibly cut down on taxes & compound interest. Frank said they don't need the $, but might as well take it. Setting up direct deposit of interest." On or about November 28, 2006, Mr. Hemwey contacted Respondent and indicated he wanted to purchase the product they had discussed. Arrangements were made for him to execute the necessary documents at the Bankers Life Jacksonville office. On November 29, 2009, Respondent again met with Mr. Hemwey. At that time, she reviewed the contents of the Fact Finder with him, and he signed the attestation which stated: To the best of my knowledge, the information I have provided in this Fact Finder represents an accurate picture of my current situation and beliefs. . . . I understand that any recommendations made by the agent are based on these responses. Despite this attestation, Mr. Hemwey had not divulged that he and his wife already owned an annuity account. He did include the interest from that account in his estimation of current income, but did not feel that his having an annuity was any of the company's business, as long as the interest received was included in the estimated income. Respondent also went over an Annuity Suitability Questionnaire with Mr. Hemwey, which he signed. This document included the following Owner's Statement: To the best of my knowledge and belief, all statements and answers on this form are true and complete. The information on this worksheet has been explained to me and I have been provided a copy of an Annuity Buyer's Guide. I believe that the proposed annuity will meet my current financial planning objectives. I understand that if I am not satisfied with the policy once I receive it, I may return it for a full refund according to the terms of the policy. (Emphasis added.) Finally, Respondent went over the application with Mr. Hemwey. The front page of the policy specifically identifies Mr. Hemwey as an annuitant and contains the following notices: THIRTY DAY RIGHT TO RETURN THIS POLICY If the Owner is not satisfied with this policy, he or she may return it to Us within 30 days after getting it. The Owner may return it to Us by mail or to the agent who sold it. We will then refund any premium paid. This policy will then be void. THIS POLICY AND THE DATE IT BEGINS This policy is a legal contract between the Owner and Us. It consists of this and the following pages. READ THIS POLICY CAREFULLY. See the POLICY GUIDE on page 1A of this policy. The policy, which Mr. Hemwey signed, repeatedly indicated that it was an annuity contract and identified the rate of return for the first year and succeeding years. For example, on page seven Mr. Hemwey signed in the box marked "signature of annuitant." At the top of that page, it reads, "I hereby apply for an annuity. . . ." The page entitled "Schedule" identifies Mr. Hemwey as the annuitant and states that the guaranteed period is one year, with an interest rate of seven percent. After the first year, the Schedule indicates that the minimum guaranteed interest rate is 2.5 percent for the first ten policy years, and three percent for policy years 11 and after. This page also provides the withdrawal percentage applicable for withdrawal charges, which are explained in detail on page four, following the signature page.2/ Respondent credibly testified that she explained the terms and conditions related to the annuity to Mr. Hemwey in conjunction with filling out the application and related paperwork. Mr. Hemwey tendered $100,000 for the premium required to purchase the annuity. He named his wife as a beneficiary to the annuity. The policy was delivered to Mr. Hemwey's home on or about December 18, 2006. Although he signed a receipt for the annuity, he does not remember the event. When the annuity document was delivered, Respondent went over the contents of the documents with Mr. Hemwey, specifically calling attention to the 30-day cancellation provision on page one and going over the contract summary page with him. She also prepared an annuity withdrawal request, which would enable Mr. Hemwey to receive the interest on the annuity through systematic deposits in his checking account. Mr. Hemwey did not read the annuity contract documents provided to him upon receipt. In October 2007, approximately ten months into the annuity, he called Bankers Life to determine what the next year's interest rate would be. When the company could not provide that information immediately, he requested instructions on canceling the contract. His intent was to move the funds to another vehicle if he could obtain a better interest rate. Mr. Hemwey was advised that withdrawal of the annuity funds would be subject to the withdrawal schedule specified in the annuity contract, i.e., eight percent after the first year. Mr. Hemwey was dissatisfied with this response. Respondent then went to see him, reminded him of the terms of the annuity and tried to see if there was anything that would satisfy him. Mr. Hemwey wanted to continue to earn seven percent. Mr. Hemwey also spoke to Respondent's supervisor, Keith Lozowski, about his confusion regarding the terms of the annuity. He did not claim at that time that Respondent had made any misrepresentation. He maintained that he wanted to continue to receive the seven percent introductory interest rate. Mr. Lozowski explained to Mr. Hemwey that he did not have the authority to guarantee such a rate, and that his contract did not provide for seven percent beyond the first year. At hearing, Mr. Hemwey insisted that he did not know he was purchasing an annuity. His testimony simply is not credible in this regard. He responded to an advertisement for an annuity and signed a document that indicated prominently its status as an annuity. Simply put, Mr. Hemwey paid attention to the advertised introductory interest rate and ignored everything else told or provided to him. He received $7,000 in interest the first year; $3,700 in interest the second year; and is receiving 3.6% interest in the third year. His original investment of $100,000 remains in the annuity. No evidence was presented to indicate that, had Mr. Hemwey been able to withdraw the original investment, he could have received a higher return on his money elsewhere. Respondent did not misrepresent, either by commission or omission, the characteristics of the annuity product that Mr. Hemwey purchased. She did not pressure him to purchase the product he chose.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 10th day of August, 2009.
The Issue Should Petitioner impose discipline against Respondent's insurance agent's license for violation of various provisions within Chapters 624 and 626, Florida Statutes (2004)?
Findings Of Fact License On April 2, 1997, Respondent was licensed in Florida as a non-resident life and health agent (Type class 8-18). Respondent continues to have active appointments in Florida for American Heritage Life Insurance Company. Money Tree Money Tree Lending Group, Inc. (Money Tree) was licensed by the Department of Financial Services, Office of Financial Regulation as a mortgage lending company. Its license type was CL. The license number was Reg. License I.D.: L100000236977. Money Tree was the subject of court action in State of Florida, ex. rel., the Department of Financial Services of the State of Florida, Relator, vs. The Money Tree Lending Group, Inc., a Florida corporation, Respondent, in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida, Case No. 2005 CA 1103. In that matter, on May 11, 2005, the circuit court judge entered an order to seize Respondent's property. Under the court order, the Relator took possession and control of "property, books, documents, accounts, including bank accounts, and other records . . . " of Money Tree. Beyond that date Money Tree was not allowed to transact business, except with the Relator's written consent under terms in the court order. On June 23, 2005, the circuit court judge in Case No. 2005 CA 1103 entered an "Order Appointing the Florida Department of Financial Services Receiver of the Money Tree Lending Group, Inc., for Purposes of Liquidation, Injunction and Notice of Automatic Stay." As the order contemplates, Petitioner was granted authority to "take immediate possession of all the property, assets, and estate, and all property of every kind whatsoever and wherever located belonging to Respondent . . . ", referring to Money Tree. The Relator was further allowed to liquidate the assets of Money Tree. Patti Turpin is employed by Petitioner in its Division of Rehabilitation and Liquidation. She served as a receiver for Money Tree under authority in Circuit Court Case No. 2005 CA 1103. Ms. Turpin also is aware that Money Tree was never issued a certificate of authority from Petitioner authorizing the sale of insurance or annuities. As of the hearing date, Money Tree was still in liquidation and Petitioner was preparing to offer additional distribution of monies recovered from Money Tree. In advance of the liquidation, Petitioner has paid out monies to annuitants who purchased annuities from Money Tree. Money recovered on behalf of Money Tree amounts to approximately $850,000.00, with the expectation that 80 percent of monies paid for the original investments in annuities be returned to the annuitants. The possibility exists that an additional five percent would be returned to the annuitants. Respondent was affiliated with Money Tree in a manner that will be explained. Ms. Turpine, as receiver in association for Money Tree, has not received any return of money from Respondent pertaining to his affiliation with Money Tree. Respondent earned approximately $130,000.00 in commissions for selling annuities for Money Tree. The level of his involvement is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered seven, which shows approximately 90 sales of annuities through Respondent's association with Money Tree, the amount invested by customers and the rate of return. Affiliation On March 2, 2005, Petitioner wrote Respondent care of his company First Capital Financial Incorporated (First Capital), asking that a response be made to Petitioner's Division of Consumer Services. The basis of the inquiry was pertaining to an investigation of Money Tree. The inquiry stated: It has been brought to our attention that you are selling an investment for a three year term. The product resembles an annuity but appears not to be. We are further advised that you are selling this product while operating out of The First Capital Financial Incorporated in Winter Haven, FL. Your licensing record suggests you hold a non-resident license that lists your permanent address as Hahira, GA. We ask that you provide our office with complete documentation of this product offered by the Money Tree. This should include a definition of what it is, under what regulatory authority it falls and how you are able to offer it in Polk County, FL while a resident of Hahira, GA. So that we may properly respond to this request, please furnish us with a complete report of your position on the matter, including any documentation that supports your position. Please reference Service Request number 1-100931056 on all reports and attachments. Your complete reply, to Daniel G. Amend, must be received by March 17, 2005. On March 3, 2005, a fax was sent from Jerry Patterson an employee with Petitioner, in which he asked Respondent to "Please provide the Florida License Company Code Number of the Money Tree Lending Group, Inc., or the annuity company they use. As you know they must be licensed in the State of Florida." In turn Phil Sampiere, president of Money Tree, told Respondent to send information to the Petitioner that had been prepared by Mr. Philip A. Sampiere, Jr. Respondent dispatched that information to Petitioner. The information prepared by Mr. Sampiere is reflected in Respondent's Exhibit Numbered 11. The document is on a letterhead by the Money Tree and in the body its states: Fees. When you buy a fixed immediate annuity, you will pay no loads or management fees. That's generally true for many kinds of "fixed" annuities. But if you buy a "variable" annuity, however, you will pay what's known as a "mortality and expense" fee plus an investment management fee to cover the cost of managing the underlying investments. You may also pay an annual account maintenance fee. THE EXEMPTIONS LISTED BELOW ARE SELF- EXECUTING AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT EXEMPT SECURITIES 517.051 Exempt Securities.- The exemptions provided herein from the registration requirements of s. 517.07 are self-executing and do not require any filing with the department prior to claiming such exemption. Any person who claims entitlement to any of these exemptions bears the burden of proving such entitlement in any proceeding brought under this chapter. The registration provisions of s. 517.07 do not apply to any of the following securities: (10) Any insurance or endowment policy or annuity contract or optional annuity contract or self-insurance agreement issued by a corporation, insurance company, reciprocal insurer, or risk retention group subject to the supervision of the insurance commissioner, or any agency or officer performing like functions, of any state or territory of the United States or District of Columbia. The Money Tree Lending Group, Inc., is supervised by the State of Florida Department of Financial Services and believes it is correct in claiming this exemption according to Florida state law. If you need further explanation please contact Philip Sampiere at the corporate office 941-764-6767 at extension 204. The Money Tree Lending Group, Inc. Philip A. Sampiere, Jr. President Mr. Sampiere had also faxed Respondent a copy of Section 517.051, Florida Statutes (2004), with emphasis placed on Subsection (10), to Petitioner to answer its inquiry concerning the sale of annuities through Money Tree. Respondent was aware of Section 517.051, Florida Statutes (2004), and its language. Respondent was also aware of information of the Petitioner in its Office of Financial Regulation concerning the Money Tree license type CL, ID L1000005023697. A Randy Menne had also provided Respondent with the language of Section 517.051, Florida Statutes (2004), and licensing information from the Department of Financial Services, Office of Financial Regulation pertaining to Money Tree and its license type CL. In responding to Petitioner concerning Respondent's Georgia residence, and his affiliation with Money Tree, on March 16, 2005, Respondent wrote Petitioner. In that correspondence he said: Dear Sir: I have lived in Georgia for over 47 years. Because I live less than 20 miles from the Florida State line I have held a Florida non-resident license for many years. For the last several years I was a State Manager or District Manager for several major insurance companies, over-seeing Georgia and Florida. In my earlier years, when I obtained my non-resident license I was told that if I had a permanent address in Georgia that I only qualified for a non- residence license for Florida. During this last year I have traveled to Winter Haven Florida, where I have family and decided to sell annuities a few days a week in that county. I drive down and spend a few nights and go back to my home in Georgia. I have attached documents showing that I do live in Hahira Georgia. If I have misunderstood Florida's non-resident license procedures, please call me, and I will do whatever is necessary to correct the problem. To answer your question about the Money Tree Lending Group, Inc., I am only a sales rep with that company. I signed on with them a few months ago, and I feel I am not qualified to answer your questions regarding the product issued by The Money Tree Lending Group, Inc. without their consent. I have contacted the owner of The Money Tree Lending Group, Inc., Philip Sampiere of Port Charlotte Florida on this matter. Because I was in Georgia the last week and 1/2 I only received your letter on March 14, 2005. In order to send something to you before the deadline, Mr. Sampiere faxed me these 3 pages and told me to please tell you that if this does not answer your questions and concerns to please contact him so that he may better explain, in detail, and let you speak with his contacts within your department. Philip A. Sampiere, Jr. 3400 Tamiami Trail Suite 203 Port Charlotte, FL 33952 Phone: 941-764-6767 Fax: 941-764-7660 E-mail: TLendingGR@aol.com If I can be of any help, or you need further information, please call or send me a fax. Sincerely, F. Gene Turner After Respondent wrote Petitioner, Mr. Sampiere wrote Respondent on March 30, 2005, concerning this subject. In that letter Mr. Sampiere stated: Gene, I wanted to let you know that I have contacted the State of Florida regarding the letter they sent you about our annuity products. As far as your License and status with the State we hope you are addressing this issue. But with regards to supplying additional information about our products I wanted to let you know that we are and have fully opened our book records, etc to the State for them to review. To date they have not been able to issue a letter claiming any violation of any rules or exemption we are governed to follow. Our attorney has been in touch with the State head legal advisor how [sic] could not give him a reason or rule that we are in violation of this was about mid day Wed the 30th of March 2005. So until we are given the rules we are in violation of or a letter demanding we stop selling our products. We will continue to accept application [sic] from the public and thru our third party annuity sales force. Respondent became aware of correspondence dated May 5, 2005, from Gary Klein, Esquire, attorney for Money Tree addressed to Mr. Sampiere. In pertinent part Mr. Klein in his advice to the client Mr. Sampiere said "In issuing an annuity contracts [sic], I am of the opinion that your Company meets the exemption under Florida Statute 517.051(10), as it is written. Your Company is a Florida Corporation, is issuing annuities and is regulated by the bank regulator." Later Mr. Klein states " . . . I believe your annuity sales are legal under the controlling law of the State." On May 9, 2005, Mr. Klein wrote to Ronald K. Lovejoy, Special Investigator, Bureau of Investigation of the Petitioner, questioning the regulatory activities of Petitioner in relation to Money Tree sales agents and the sale of annuity products. Respondent became aware of this correspondence. On August 10, 2005, Respondent wrote Petitioner on the subject of the sales of annuities of Money Tree. In that correspondence he stated: August 10, 2005 Re. CS# 8591CA#15628 To the Department of Financial Services: I am writing this letter in hopes that you will in some way be able to understand that I did everything in my power and everything I knew how to make sure The Money Tree Lending Group was a known, reputable company in good standing with the State of Florida. I first learned about The Money Tree Lending Group around the first of June 2004 when Randy Menne, the manager of another company I represent called me and told me about an advertisement in the newspaper for a short term annuity. He agreed to check the company out thoroughly and get back with me about his findings. Two weeks later Randy called to inform me that he and his agents were going to start marketing the product because "everything was good with the company and they checked out okay". That same week I drove two hours to meet with Randy and his agents so that we could go over all paper work, I was interested to see what he had done to investigate this company. Randy showed me several documents stating that the Money Tree was a legitimate company. After leaving Randy's office I still felt hesitant about the company and the product, so Randy said he would have the President of the company call me and discuss my concerns. This really impressed me, I had never had the president of a company call me personally before. After speaking with the president I was convinced that the company was truly exempt from certain requirements. After reviewing all documentation and speaking with the president I decided to call the State of Florida Department of Financial Services and ask to speak with someone who understood the "exemption rule". I spoke with Earl Saulter for a very lengthy amount of time and he answered all of my questions in great detail, and just as I hoped, he confirmed that the type of annuity was exempt. At this point everything seemed to be good and I was eager to start marketing this product. I started selling this product in October 2004. On April 29, 2005, Mr. Ron Lovejoy came into my office. I was not in at the time, however, my secretary called me and I spoke with Mr. Lovejoy over the phone for quite some time to find out what was going on. I was dumbfounded to learn of the situation. Mr. Lovejoy asked that I not contact my manager nor Money Tree at this time. I cooperated and opened my office up for a full investigation. Mr. Lovejoy revisited my office on May 4, 2005, he stated that he believed Money Tree had moved their money somewhere and that no one knew where it was. At this time I managed to find a new check in one of my client's files which allowed the state to find new routing numbers. I can assure you that if I had knowledge of any wrong doing from the Money Tree, I would have never sold this product. Furthermore, when I first realized that there could be a potential problem with the Money Tree, I immediately stopped marketing this product on my own. I do feel that I used all of the resources available to me in making the decision to sell the annuity that The Money Tree offered, for example: speaking with a representative from the Department of Financial Services, the president of the Money Tree, and other agents who were currently marketing this product; as well as written documents including information on The State of Florida website, and an active status letter from the State Florida Dept. of Financial Services and a letter from a Florida State Attorney. All of these documents stated that The Money Tree was in good standing with The State of Florida. I have enclosed all of this documentation and I feel that it is pertinent information that confirms the actions I took to check out The Money Tree are as I have stated in this letter. In closing I would like to add that I am an honest person trying to run an honest company who respects the State of Florida. I would never jeopardize the well-being of my family or my business. If I can help in any way to resolve this matter please let me know. Sincerely, Gene Turner Concerning a possible conversation Respondent had with Mr. Saulter, at hearing Respondent said that Mr. Saulter told Respondent about Money Tree "that they were exempt from the securities, that I could sell them from this company, they were in good standing." This is in reference to the sale of annuities. Then Respondent said that he was not sure whether Mr. Slater used the words "securities" or that Mr. Saulter used the word "insurance" in the conversation. Respondent also stated at hearing that Mr. Saulter told him that Money Tree was " . . . a good, legitimate company, no actions taken against them, no disciplinary action and their status was active." The conversation, if it took place, had nothing to do with Money Tree being licensed as a mortgage broker or mortgage lender when Respondent spoke to Mr. Saulter. Respondent in his testimony said that Mr. Saulter told Respondent ". . . I could sell the annuities . . . ." This is understood to mean sell the annuities offered by Money Tree. As established in his post-hearing deposition, Mr. Saulter works for the Petitioner in its Division of Securities. He reviews securities offerings. He addresses questions related to exemptions recognized in Section 517.051, Florida Statutes. He had those responsibilities at times relevant to this inquiry. Mr. Saulter's duties do not include the regulation of annuities or insurance products pertaining to license requirements to participate in those activities. He would not be authorized to answer questions concerning the opportunity to sell annuities. The securities exemption from registering securities as reflected in Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, is unrelated to the provisions within the Florida Insurance Code found in Chapters 624 through 628, Florida Statutes. In Mr. Saulter's experience he is not involved with the Florida Insurance Code. Before taking the deposition, Mr. Saulter had never heard the name Money Tree Lending Group. He does not remember speaking to Respondent. He does not remember speaking to Mr. Sampiere. Having considered the testimony of Respondent at hearing and remarks set forth in his August 10, 2005 correspondence concerning his alleged conversations with Mr. Saulter and the deposition testimony from Mr. Saulter, either no conversation took place or the conversation did not transpire as represented by Respondent. Transactions J.C.T., Jr. and S.J.T. The Ts, husband and wife, reside in Avon Park, Florida. Mr. T. was born on April 10, 1935; Mrs. T. was born April 6, 1936. They are retired. Mr. T. is a retired farmer, and, and Ms. T. retired from her profession as an interior decorator. The Ts had received an inheritance from Mr. T's father of $374,000.00. They were interested in investing some of the money. The Ts saw an advertisement in a newspaper related to the purchase of certificates of deposit (CDs). The advertisement was in association with First Capital, Respondent's company. The Ts were considering purchasing a CD from a bank and perceived the opportunity from First Capital as an alternative for purchasing the CD. The Ts met with Respondent in his office in Winter Haven, Florida. Respondent asked the Ts what they were interested in by way of an investment. They explained that they were interested in immediately accessing the money that was invested, should they need the money. In particular they were concerned about the ability to address the financial needs of their 46-year-old son, who suffers with rheumatoid arthritis. They also were interested in being able to assist another son, who farms for a living and has cash-flow problems at times in putting out his crop. Instead of purchasing a CD from Respondent, the Ts bought three Money Tree annuities from him. Respondent told the Ts that Money Tree was a new company. Respondent told the Ts that the annuities were a good product, although they were not insured. In particular Respondent told the Ts that the annuities were not FDIC insured. He commented that they were "solid." Respondent explained the annuities return on investment, as contrasted with the amount of return on the CD he offered. The Ts determined that the annuities were a better choice of investment. Respondent in discussing the annuities purchased made no mention of the prospect that the Ts might lose money in the investment. Had they known that was a possibility, the Ts would have been concerned. The Fixed Annuity Disclosure Statements associated with the purchases made it clear that the annuities offered by Money Tree were not a bank deposit, and were not FDIC insured or insured by any federal government agency. Altogether the Ts bought $200,000.00 worth of annuities; two in increments of $50,000.00 and one for $100,000.00. The annuities were purchased utilizing application forms from Money Tree as executed by the Ts and Respondent by providing their signature on February 7, 2005. The first of the fixed annuities was for $50,000.00, at four percent return for 18 months, as reflected in the Fixed Annuity Disclosure Statement and Fixed Interest and Term Annuity Contract. The second $50,000.00 annuity was for four and one- half percent return for a period of 24 moths. It also involved a Fixed Annuity Disclosure Statement and Fixed Interest and Term Annuity Contract. Finally, the $100,000.00 annuity, as reflected in the Fixed Annuity Disclosure Statement was for five and a quarter percent return at 36 months. It had the associated Fixed Interest and Term Annuity Contract as part of the transaction. All Fixed Annuity Disclosure Statements were signed by the Ts and Respondent. In these transactions involving the annuities, Respondent was acting as the agent for Money Tree. In separate installments, the Ts have recovered $142,000.000 and approximately $20,000.00 of their purchase price from the Money Tree receiver. J.H.C. Mrs. J.H.C., born June 7, 1934, lives in Lake Placid, Florida. She retired from the real estate business she conducted in Miami, Florida. Mrs. J.H.C. and her husband Mr. R.L.C. saw ads in the newspapers. One of those ads referred to 12-month CDs that were FDIC insured with a 3.70 annual percentage rate of return. The ad referred to First Capital and Respondent's business address in Winter Haven, Florida. A second newspaper advertisement was similar in nature, with the exception that it referred to a 3.84 annual percentage rate of return. The Cs went to Respondent's office in Winter Haven, Florida. They discussed the CDs that had been advertised. Mrs. C. wanted to roll-over monies from an individual retirement account (IRA) to place in CDs. Respondent told her he could not do that. He told her that he could put the money into an annuity which would be very safe. At the time Mrs. C. had no precise understanding of what an annuity was or how an annuity functioned as an investment. She relied upon Respondent's expertise in that connection. On February 14, 2005, Mrs. C. purchased a $10,000.00 annuity from Respondent for an 18-month period, with a four percent interest rate of return. The annuity was through Money Tree. The purchase was made upon a Money Tree application form for the fixed annuity. Mrs. C. made the payment for the annuity to The Money Tree by a check in the amount of $10,000.00. The check that was written by Mrs. C. in the memo section said that it was in relation to "IRA Fixed Annuity." In completing the transaction, a Fixed Annuity Disclosure Statement upon a form provided by Money Tree was signed by both Mrs. C. and Respondent and a Fixed Interest and Term Annuity Contract was entered into related to the Money Tree annuity. The Fixed Annuity Disclosure Statement made it clear that the annuity offered by Money Tree was not a bank deposit, was not FDIC insured or insured by any federal government agency. In addition, a form was executed related to First Capital and signed by Respondent and Mrs. C., that referred to the guaranteed rate of return, on what was described in the form as a individual deferred annuity certificate. It explains surrender charges, withdrawal privileges, the free look period, and information about taxes. The check in payment for the annuity was cashed and the money taken out of Mrs. C's checking account. Respondent did not tell Mrs. C. that she might lose some part of her investment when entering into the annuity contract. The possible loss of investment was an important consideration to her. Mrs. C. had $7,067.00 in one check and an additional $1,000.00 in a second check returned to her from the Money Tree receiver, pertaining to her $10,000.00 annuity purchase. G.R.H. and M.E.H. Mr. G.R.H. and Mrs. M.E.H., his wife, live in Sebring, Florida. He was born January 31, 1935; she was born July 1, 1938. Mr. H. is a retired automobile assembly worker. Mr. H. saw an advertisement in a newspaper which offered a 12-month CD at 3.65 percent rate of return. It referred to First Capital. It gave Respondent's business address at Winter Haven, Florida. Mr. H. was impressed with the fact that the CD advertised was at a higher rate of return than he could receive at local banks where he lived. This advertisement was made sometime in October of 2004. Mr. H. called Respondent's office. The Hs drove to meet with Respondent in his Winter Haven office. Once there, Respondent in discussing the CD advertisement asked Mr. H. if he had access to email. The answer was no. Respondent then told Mr. H. that he could not get the CD in the advertisement because it was not a CD offered locally. Respondent told Mr. H. if Mr. H. had access to email, there would not have been a problem with the purchase. This led to a discussion of an annuity at a 3.75 percent rate of return for an 18-month period as offered through Money Tree. An annuity was purchased by the Hs in the amount of $25,000.00. It was based upon the completion of the Money Tree Fixed Annuity Application, as signed by the Hs and Respondent on October 7, 2004. A Fixed Annuity Disclosure Statement was also executed and signed by the Hs and Respondent, indicating that the annuity offered through Money Tree was not a bank deposit, not FDIC insured and not insured by any other federal government agency. A Fixed Interest and Term Annuity Contract was entered into in the transaction. The Hs paid the $25,000.00 cost by a check written by Mrs. H. During the transaction Mr. H. told Respondent that he did not really believe in annuities. In reply Respondent told Mr. H. that he did not need to worry about it because in 18 months it would mature and be surrendered and the principal paid for the annuity with the accrued interest would be returned. Ultimately Mr. H. thought it was a safe investment to buy the annuity given the short turn around in the maturity date. The Money Tree receiver reimbursed the Hs in an amount in excess of $20,000.00 for their purchase. Other Customers Respondent concedes the sale of Money Tree annuities to 89 to 90 customers. In the transactions his explanation of risk factors was left to the written information that was provided, saying that the investment was not FDIC insured, implying in his mind that there were some risks. No other explanation was made concerning risks for making an investment in the annuities. For verification of his standing with Money Tree, Respondent relied on explanations provided to him by Mr. Sampiere and Mr. Menne; a review of the underlying information, as Respondent described the process involved with the annuities; a conversation Respondent said that he had with a State of Florida employee and a review of information on a web- cite concerning Money Tree. Respondent believed Money Tree was is good-standing with the State of Florida and was not the subject of ongoing disciplinary action. Once problems arose concerning the Money Tree business, Respondent made himself available in his office or by telephone for a period of several weeks to address his customers' concerns.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Sections 624.11(1), 626.611(7), 626.621(2) and (6), 626.901(1) and 626.9541(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2004), and suspending Respondent's non-resident life and health agent (Type class 8-18) license for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 26th day of September, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Felton Eugene Turner 8464 Vickers Road Hahira, Georgia 31632 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Florida Brethren Homes, Inc. is a not for profit corporation doing business as the Palms. The Palms is a nursing home facility certified to participate in the Medicaid program. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing costs claimed by facilities participating in the Medicaid program. The Palms filed a cost report for Medicaid reimbursement for the fiscal period ending December 31, 1987. The cost report reviews the past payment rate and sets the prospective rate. The Department reviewed Petitioner's report and disallowed interest costs in the amount of $298,500 which were included by the Palms. The Palms timely challenged that disallowance. In 1984, the Palms participated in a revenue bond issuance in order to finance the construction of certain improvements to its health care facilities. That bond issue in the amount of $13,970,000 bore a tax exempt interest rate of approximately 12.89 %. For the period ending December 31, 1987, the interest which was due on that bond debt was $298,500. On April 5, 1988, the Palms filed a Chapter 11 action in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Palms did not pay the accrued interest prior to filing its petition in bankruptcy. In fact, the Palms was in default on the interest at the time of the bankruptcy petition. The Medicaid rate which had been established prior to that time had presumed an allowable interest cost for the period and had included that interest payment in the calculation of the rates then available to the Palms. In filing bankruptcy, the Palms sought to restructure its debt. As a result, the Palms executed an Amended And Restated Indenture of Trust which included the accrued but unpaid interest which had accumulated under the 1984 revenue bond issue. The plan called for a bond issuance and for deferred interest certificates to cover the unpaid interest. The deferred interest certificates had not been issued as of the date of the final hearing. The accrued but unpaid interest provided in the deferred interest certificate has a maturity date of December 1, 2016. The unpaid interest is subject to a mandatory prepayment from available net cash flow after December 1, 1992. The restructure of Petitioner's debt has allowed it to remain in business. The plan of reorganization was entered into as a good faith, arm's length transaction. The plan of reorganization was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and the proceedings before that tribunal have concluded. In its audit of the Palms, the Department determined that the deferred interest obligation does not mature and become due and payable until December 1, 2016, and that, therefore, the interest expense is not a reimbursable cost for the period that ended December 31, 1987. The Palms' claims that for cost reimbursement purposes the accrued interest was paid by the refinancing of the debt and that the amount should remain an allowable cost to be included for that period.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department audit disallowing interest claimed for the period that ended December 31, 1987, be confirmed. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-1770 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are not findings of fact but restate the stipulation reached by the parties at the outset of the hearing. Paragraphs 6 through 11 are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as it is not a finding of fact but, if accurate, would be a conclusion of law. Such conclusion has not been reached in this case. Paragraph 13 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 14 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 15, it is accepted that the repayment of the accrued interest is not a short term liability. Otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as a restatement of the issue or fact not supported by the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 20 and 21 are rejected as irrelevant or a conclusion of law. Paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is rejected as a conclusion of law not supported by the record in this case. Paragraph 25 is rejected to the extent that the term "refinancing" is used to suggest a payment of allowable interest; it is accepted that restructuring the Palms' debt was required to allow it to continue in business. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Department: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott D. LaRue Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Karen L. Goldsmith Goldsmith and Grout, P.A. P.O. Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the proposed rules, 60Z-1.026 and 60Z-2.017, Florida Administrative Code, published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 7, 2003 (Volume 29, No. 10, at pages 979-80), constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Florida League of Cities, Inc. (“League”), is a not-for-profit Florida corporation located at 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 300, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. The League is a wholly owned instrumentality of its 405 member cities. The League’s purpose is to work for the general improvement of municipal government and its effective administration in this state, and to represent its members before the legislative, executive and judicial branches of Florida’s state government on issues pertaining to the welfare of its members. The League’s members include 175 cities with pension plans for firefighters established pursuant to Chapter 175; and 184 cities with pension plans for police officers established pursuant to Chapter 185. Petitioner Casselberry maintains a local law pension plan for its firefighters and police officers pursuant to Chapters 175 and 185. Casselberry’s pension plan was in effect on October 1, 1998. Casselberry’s pension plan meets all the minimum benefit requirements of Chapters 175 and 185. Casselberry’s police/fire pension plan provides benefits in addition to or greater than the pension benefits it provides to general employees that cost as much or more than the total amount of premium taxes received by the City of Casselberry. Petitioner Deerfield Beach maintains a local law pension plan for its police officers pursuant to Chapter 185, Florida Statutes. Deerfield Beach’s pension plan meets all the minimum benefit requirements of Chapter 185. Further, Deerfield Beach’s police pension plan provides benefits in addition to or greater than the pension benefits it provides to general employees that cost as much or more than the total amount of premium taxes received by the City of Deerfield Beach. Petitioner Greenacres maintains a local law pension plan for its firefighters and police officers pursuant to Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes. Greenacres’ pension plan meets all the minimum benefit requirements of Chapters 175 and 185. Greenacres’ police/fire pension plan provides benefits in addition to or greater than the pension benefits it provides to general employees that cost as much or more than the total amount of premium taxes received by the City of Greenacres. Petitioner Kissimmee maintains a local law pension plan for its firefighters pursuant to Chapter 175. Kissimmee’s firefighter pension plan meets all the minimum benefit requirements of Chapter 175. Kissimmee’s firefighter pension plan provides benefits in addition to or greater than the pension benefits it provides to general employees that cost as much or more than the total amount of premium taxes received by the City of Kissimmee. Petitioner New Port Richey maintains a local law pension plan for its firefighters pursuant to Chapter 175. New Port Richey’s firefighter pension plan meets all the minimum benefit requirements of Chapter 175, and provides benefits in addition to or greater than the pension benefits it provides to general employees. These benefits cost as much or more than the total amount of premium taxes received by the City of New Port Richey. Chapters 175 and 185, govern the establishment and operation of defined benefit retirement plans for municipal police officers and firefighters employed by cities and special districts. These Chapters also contain a revenue sharing program that allows participating cities and districts to receive a portion of the state excise tax on property and casualty insurance premiums collected on policies covering property within each jurisdiction. In order to qualify for the annual distribution of premium tax revenues provided by Chapters 175 and 185, the local government pension plan must comply with the applicable provisions of those statutes. Sections 175.351(1) and 185.35(1), respectively, of those Chapters were amended in 1999 by Chapter 99-1, Laws of Florida. The two Sections are virtually identical and can be treated interchangeably for the purposes of this proceeding. Section 175.351(1), in pertinent part, reads as follows: PREMIUM TAX INCOME.--If a municipality has a pension plan for firefighters, or a pension plan for firefighters and police officers, where included, which in the opinion of the division meets the minimum benefits and minimum standards set forth in this chapter, the board of trustees of the pension plan, as approved by a majority of firefighters of the municipality, may: Place the income from the premium tax in Section 175.101 in such pension plan for the sole and exclusive use of its firefighters, or for firefighters and police officers, where included, where it shall become an integral part of that pension plan and shall be used to pay extra benefits to the firefighters included in that pension plan; or Place the income from the premium tax in Section 175.101 in a separate supplemental plan to pay extra benefits to firefighters, or to firefighters and police officers where included, participating in such separate supplemental plan. The premium tax provided by this Chapter shall in all cases be used in its entirety to provide extra benefits to firefighters, or to firefighters and police officers, where included. However, local law plans in effect on October 1, 1998, shall be required to comply with the minimum benefit provisions of this chapter only to the extent that additional premium tax revenues become available to incrementally fund the cost of such compliance as provided in Section 175.162(2)(a). When a plan is in compliance with such minimum benefit provisions, as subsequent additional premium tax revenues become available, they shall be used to provide extra benefits. For the purpose of this chapter, ‘additional premium tax revenues’ means revenues received by a municipality or special fire control district pursuant to Section 175.121 that exceed that amount received for calendar year 1997 and the term ‘extra benefits’ means benefits in addition to or greater than those provided to general employees of the municipality. Local law plans created by special act before May 23, 1939, shall be deemed to comply with this chapter. (Underscored language was enacted by Chapter 99-1, Laws of Florida.) The above-quoted underscored language of Sections 175.351 and 185.35 became effective March 12, 1999. The Division of Retirement advised all cities and districts that they could use additional premium tax revenues received in excess of the amount received for 1997 solely to pay for new extra benefits adopted after March 12, 1999. The additional premium tax revenues could not be used to pay for extra benefits adopted before March 12, 1999. Consequently, responsibility for the cost to local governments for extra benefits adopted prior to March 12, 1999, is not defrayed by additional premium tax benefits and must be absorbed by the particular local government. As established by testimony of Respondent's Actuary, Charles Slavin, along with Article X, Section 14 of the Florida Constitution and Part VII, Chapter 112, governmental pension plans must be funded on a “sound actuarial basis.” A plan is actuarially funded when funded by contributions which, when expressed as a percent of active member payrolls or a fixed dollar amount, will remain approximately level from year to year and will not have to be increased in the future, in the absence of benefit improvements. Actuarial funding is based on reasonable assumptions, predictable events and variables so that all the funds necessary to pay employees' future benefits are accumulated by the expected date of benefit payments. A pension plan is funded on a sound actuarial basis when a funding program has been established which, with the payment of level contributions and investment returns over the lifetime of the participants, will fund the difference between the value of expected promised benefits and the available assets. Although pension benefits increase in future years from increased salaries and other facts, pension plans are usually funded on a constant level percentage of payroll. Such funding pays the normal fiscal cost and amortizes unfunded liabilities as required by Chapter 112, Part VII. Payroll growth helps pay for increases in the cost of benefits because employee contributions, based on a level percentage of payroll produce increased funding. Liability increases are offset by payroll growth. Extra benefits for firefighters and police officers in excess of those provided general employees, that were enacted by local governments, prior to or after March 12, 1999, were required by law to be funded on a sound actuarial basis. Premium tax revenues to the local governments are not within the control of those local governments since the amount of tax levied is set by the legislature through statutory enactment. Accordingly, inclusion of future revenues in future years from the premium tax is not a proper actuarial assumption in the funding of extra benefits. Some local governments, despite this categorization of the premium tax revenue, enacted special benefits in reliance upon possible future increases in revenues from the tax to fund special benefits. All local government Petitioners in the present proceeding meet the minimum benefit requirements of Sections 175.162 and 185.16. The cost of extra benefits enacted by Petitioners prior to the effective date of Chapter 99-1 (March 12, 1999), generally exceeded the amount of the premium tax received by Petitioners. Respondent's requirement that Petitioners set aside additional premium tax revenues to fund solely future benefit increases prevented the reduction of future funds for future benefits. Respondent's proposed rules, 60Z-1.026 and 60Z-2.017, are identical with exception that one is applicable to Sections 175.351(1) and 185.35(1), respectively, and read as follows: Use of premium tax revenues: For pension plans that were in effect on October 1, 1998, that have not met the minimum benefit requirements described in Section 185.16, benefits shall be increased incrementally as additional premium tax revenues become available. For pension plans that were in effect on October 1, 1998, that provide benefits that meet or exceed the minimum benefits described in Section 185.16, increases in premium tax revenues over the amount collected for calendar year 1997, must be used in their entirety to provide extra benefits in addition to those benefits provided prior to the effective date of Chapter 99-1, Laws of Florida. For plans that were not in existence on October 1, 1998, premium tax revenues must be used in their entirety to provide extra benefits. Respondent interprets "additional premium benefits" as defined in Sections 175.351 and 185.35 to mean premium tax benefits greater than those received in 1997 and distributed to cities in 1998, prior to enactment of Chapter 99-1. "Extra benefits" means benefits greater than those afforded general employees and in addition to or greater than those benefits enacted prior to the effective date of Chapter 99-1. These definitions presume that amendments in Chapter 99-1 are to be applied prospectively, or after the effective date of that legislative enactment. Extra benefits enacted prior to that date must be funded from premium tax dollars received prior to that date. No evidence was presented by Petitioners of legislative intent that "additional premium tax revenues" should or could be used to fund existing extra benefits enacted prior to Chapter 99-1.
