The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent committed violations as alleged in the amended administrative complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case the Respondent has been licensed as a limited surety agent. On April 10, 1995, Elsa De La Cruz went to the criminal courthouse in Miami, Dade County, Florida, and waited on the fifth floor. A male who represented himself to be Respondent approached Ms. De La Cruz and asked her if he could help her. He specifically wanted to know if she was there to bail someone out and identified himself as a bail bondsman. The male also gave Ms. De La Cruz a business card bearing Respondent's name and business location. Ms. De La Cruz left the fifth floor of the courthouse and walked to the east wing which is commonly referred to as "the jail wing." The same male was also there and again approached Ms. De La Cruz. At this time he advised her that if the bond was set at $10,000, he would need $1,000 and collateral to help her. Ms. De La Cruz left the property and returned to her office to complete the affidavit which is Petitioner's exhibit 2. Ms. De La Cruz did not initiate any of the contact between herself and the male who represented himself as Respondent. On April 11, 1995, Maggie Porto went to the criminal courthouse in Miami, Dade County, Florida, and waited on the fifth floor. A male who later identified himself as Respondent initiated contact with Ms. Porto and advised her that he was in business if she needed him. After a short while, Ms. Porto left the fifth floor and walked over to the east wing of the criminal center. Upon her arrival there, the same male handed Ms. Porto a business card. When Ms. Porto asked the male if he was the man identified on the card, the subject answered "yes." The business card represented Respondent's name. Later, Ms. Porto left the criminal center and returned to her office to complete the affidavit which is Petitioner's exhibit number 3. All contact between Ms. Porto and Respondent was initiated by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order revoking Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, 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 8th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-3032 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 4, 5 and 6 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the allegation as to the time of the incident is rejected as not supported by the record or hearsay. With regard to paragraph 3, the allegation as to when the business card was delivered to Ms. De La Cruz is rejected as contrary to the weight of the record. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dickson E. Kesler, Esquire Division of Agent and Agency Services 8070 Northwest 53rd Street, Suite 103 Miami, Florida 33166 Noel A. Rivera 2200 Northwest 11th Street Miami, Florida 33172 Anthony Alvarez 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 201 Coral Gables, Florida 33134
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Respondent has been charged by Administrative Complaint with violations of several provisions of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes. All of the violations charged relate to allegations that the Respondent failed to return certain personal property received by the Respondent as collateral security on a surety bond.
Findings Of Fact Facts admitted by all parties The Respondent, Sergio Roque, Jr., is currently licensed in this state as a limited surety agent. At all times relevant to the dates and occurrences referred to in the Administrative Complaint in this matter, the Respondent was licensed in this state as a limited surety agency. On or about July 19, 1990, Respondent, while acting in his capacity as a limited surety agent, did, as agent for Amwest Surety Insurance Company, post a $100,000 general surety appearance bond, power number X00-0-00000331, to obtain the release of defendant Domingo Arrechea from the Dade County Jail. In conjunction with the posting of the aforementioned surety bond, Respondent did on or about July 19, 1990, receive $10,000, which represented the premium payment for said surety bond. Respondent did in conjunction with the posting of said bond receive from indemnitor Lorraine DeVico a diamond engagement ring, a Rolex watch, and the title to a 1979 Mercedes automobile (ID#11602412149348) as partial collateral security for the aforementioned surety bond. On or about April 3, 1991, Respondent did cause to be surrendered back into custody the defendant Domingo Arrechea, thus terminating all liability for said surety bond. Respondent has failed to return to indemnitor Lorraine DeVico the collateral security described above; namely, the diamond engagement ring, the Rolex watch, and the title to the 1979 Mercedes automobile. Additional facts proved at hearing In addition to the collateral described above, the Respondent also received as collateral from the defendant Arrechea, and from the defendant's wife, a conditional mortgage on a condominium. In addition to the collateral described above, the Respondent also received as collateral from "Mike Farina" a conditional mortgage on real estate owned by Mike Farina. Mike Farina was a friend of the defendant Arrechea. "Mike Farina" later turned out to be a fictitious name. Lorraine DeVico was a very close friend of the defendant Arrechea. The Rolex watch Ms. DeVico put up as part of the collateral for Arrechea's bond was a watch that had been given to her by her father. Shortly after Ms. DeVico put the watch up for collateral, her father began to inquire as to the whereabouts of the watch. Because she felt that her father would disapprove of what she had done, and because her father was the source of most of her wealth, Ms. DeVico told several lies to her father about the whereabouts of the watch. As a result of continuing inquiries by her father, Ms. DeVico wanted her watch back and no longer wanted to be responsible under the indemnity agreement she had signed. Towards the beginning of February 1991, Ms. DeVico began to call the Respondent to advise that she was frightened that the defendant Arrechea was considering jumping bond. The Respondent received numerous calls from Ms. DeVico requesting return of her collateral and requesting to be off the indemnity agreement. Consequently, the Respondent hired MV Investigations on February 16, 1991, to locate the defendant Arrechea. On March 27, 1991, Ms. DeVico advised the Respondent that the defendant Arrechea was not answering his digital pager and that his telephone had been disconnected. She advised the Respondent that she sent her employee to look for Arrechea but could not find him. She asked the Respondent to pick up the defendant Arrechea and get her off the bond, agreeing to pay all the expenses. On April 1, 1991, Ms. DeVico again asked the Respondent to pick up the defendant Arrechea and again agreed that she would pay the costs associated with the pick-up. On April 3, 1991, the investigators hired by the Respondent located and picked up defendant Arrechea and surrendered him back to the Dade County Jail. The Respondent returned the collateral deposited by Mr. Farina and by the defendant Arrechea and his wife. After having the defendant Arrechea picked up and surrendered, the Respondent called Ms. DeVico to give her the information and advise her of the pick-up costs. Ms. DeVico verbally refused to pay any pick-up costs. On April 14, 1991, the Respondent sent by certified mail to Ms. DeVico a notice under Section 648.442, Florida Statutes, notifying her that he would be selling her collateral in ten days against his pick-up expenses. The Respondent sold the Rolex watch and diamond ring pledged as collateral by Ms. DeVico after expiration of the ten days. The indemnity agreement signed by Ms. DeVico in conjunction with applying for bail for the defendant Arrechea included the following language: 2. The indemnitor(s) will at all times indemnify and keep indemnified the Company and save harmless the Company from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, costs, charges, legal fees, disbursements and expenses of every kind and nature, which the Company shall at any time sustain or incur, and as well from all orders, decrees, judgments and adjudications against the Company by reason or in consequence of having executed such bond or undertaking in behalf of and/or at the instance of the indemnitor(s) (or any of them) and will pay over, reimburse and make good to the Company, its successors and assigns, all sums and amounts of money required to meet every claim, demand, liability, costs, expense, suit, order, decree, payment and/or adjudication against the Company by reason of the execution of such bond or undertaking and any other bonds or undertakings executed in behalf of and/or at the instance of the Indemnitor(s) and before the Company shall be required to pay thereunder. The liability for legal fees and disbursements includes all legal fees and disbursements that the Company may pay or incur in any legal proceedings, including proceedings in which the Company may assert or defend its right to collect or to charge for any legal fees and/or disbursements incurred in earlier proceedings. * * * 7. The Indemnitor(s) agree(s) that the Company may at any time take such steps as it may deem necessary to obtain its release from any and all liability under any of said bonds or undertakings, and it shall not be necessary for the Company to give the Indemnitor(s) notice of any fact or information coming to the Company's notice or knowledge concerning or affecting its rights or liability under any such bond or undertaking, notice of all such being hereby expressly waived; and that the Company may secure and further indemnify itself against loss, damages and/or expenses in connection with any such bond or undertaking in any manner it may think proper including surrender of the defendant (either before or after forfeiture and/or payment) if the Company shall deem the same advisable; and all expenses which the Company may sustain or incur or be put to in obtaining such release or in further securing itself against loss, shall be borne and paid by the Indemnitor(s). In conjunction with applying for bail for the defendant Arrechea, Ms. DeVico also signed a Bail Bond Information Sheet which advised her in bold print that: When all agreements have been fulfilled and bond is discharged, in writing or by the court, and without loss expense on the bond, your full collateral will be returned to you.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint, and Imposing an administrative penalty consisting of an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 and a suspension of the Respondent's license for a period of 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 12th day of May 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4378 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all of the parties. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 6: Accepted. Paragraph 7: Rejected for two reasons; first, the proposed finding is irrelevant because it is not alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, second, the proposed finding was not proved by clear and convincing evidence. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 through 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: First sentence accepted. Remainder of this paragraph rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 6 through 13: Accepted in substance with some details clarified. Paragraph 14: First sentence accepted. Remainder rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting procedural details or conclusions of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 16: Rejected as constituting statement of position or legal argument, rather than proposed finding of fact. Paragraph 17: First sentence accepted. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as constituting conclusions of law or legal argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 18: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Paragraphs 19 and 20: Accepted COPIES FURNISHED: David D. Hershel, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Martin L. Roth, Esquire Haber & Roth 1370 Northwest 16th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neill, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of unlawfully employing a felon in the conduct of the bail bond business, in violation of Sections 648.44(8)(b) and 648.45(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 4-221.001, Florida Administrative Code. If so, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed limited surety agent, holding license number A025071. At all material times, Respondent has been the president and owner of Dolly Bolding Bail Bonds, Inc. (Dolly Bolding), which is located at 108 South Armenia Avenue in Tampa. In July 1999, Carver Taitt visited the office of Dolly Bolding to obtain a bail bond for his son, who had been arrested on drug charges. The judge had set bond at $20,000, so the bail bond premium was $2000. Mr. Taitt spoke with Respondent and said that he did not have the entire $2000; he had only $1000. Respondent declined to extend Mr. Taitt credit for the $1000 balance. Mr. Taitt then offered $1500, and Respondent agreed to allow Mr. Taitt to owe Dolly Bolding the remaining $500. At this time, Mr. Taitt saw Frank Cueto, Sr., also known as “Paunch,” in the office of Dolly Bolding. Mr. Taitt also told Mr. Cueto that Mr. Taitt would pay the remaining $500. Mr. Taitt had obtained bonds in the past five years from Dolly Bolding. During this time, he had often seen Respondent and Mr. Cueto in the office, and Mr. Taitt was acquainted with both of them from these past purchases of bonds. Mr. Cueto contacted Mr. Taitt several times and asked him to pay the remaining $500. At one point, Mr. Cueto threatened that Dolly Bolding would revoke the bond if Mr. Taitt did not immediately pay the remaining $500, especially because he was about to take a trip whose cost would approximate the outstanding balance. Mr. Taitt paid the $500 on the day prior to his son’s court appearance. When he complained to Mr. Cueto that he should have trusted Mr. Taitt based on their past relationship, Mr. Cueto replied that money is money. Mr. Taitt’s son missed his court appearance, and the judge ordered the forfeiture of the bond. The judge later entered an order reinstating bail, but this order did not reinstate the obligation previously undertaken under the bond by Dolly Bonding or its principal. Consequently, Mr. Taitt telephoned Dolly Bonding and requested a reissuance of the bond. Told that Respondent was unavailable, Mr. Taitt spoke with Mr. Cueto. Mr. Cueto told Mr. Taitt that no surety company would agree to reissue the bond. In the meantime, the assistant public defender obtained an order from the judge for the administrative release of Mr. Taitt’s son. By this means, the jail released Mr. Taitt’s son immediately without posting any bond. The facts contained in paragraphs 4-8 above are derived from Mr. Taitt’s testimony. This constitutes some, but not all, of Mr. Taitt’s testimony. The Administrative Law Judge has not credited much of the remainder of the testimony, including, most significantly, Mr. Taitt’s testimony that Mr. Cueto was always in the office of Dolly Bolding and that he seemed to run the bonding business. Mr. Taitt was angered by Mr. Cueto’s involvement in this transaction. Much of his uncredited testimony lacked the detail of his credited testimony. As for the credited testimony, Respondent, who was not always present in the office, was not able to rebut the more-detailed portion of Mr. Taitt’s description of Mr. Cueto’s handling of the transaction. Mr. Cueto did not testify, although he is engaged to be married to Respondent and lives with her. However, Respondent’s testimony is credited over Mr. Taitt’s vague, conclusory testimony as to the business relationship between Respondent and Mr. Cueto. Thus, consistent with Respondent’s testimony, the Administrative Law Judge finds that Mr. Cueto has not exercised any dominion over Dolly Bolding or Respondent. Respondent is an articulate, intelligent individual, who is a college graduate. She makes all bonding decisions for Dolly Bolding. Mr. Cueto is not an employee, officer, or shareholder of Dolly Bolding, and Respondent is not an employee, officer, or shareholder in any company owned by Mr. Cueto. He maintains an office in the same building as Dolly Bolding’s office, and he is present in the Dolly Bolding office on a frequent basis. At least in the case of the bond for Mr. Taitt’s son, Mr. Cueto has involved himself to some extent in Respondent’s bonding business. It is entirely possible that Mr. Cueto’s involvement in this bonding transaction is isolated, as he may have been inclined to involve himself to an unusual degree in a bonding matter due to the number of years that Mr. Cueto has known Mr. Taitt. It is even more likely that Mr. Cueto’s involvement in this bonding transaction was without the knowledge of Respondent. Mr. Cueto is a felon. He was convicted in 1994 of unlawful engaging in the bail bond business and misleading advertising. Mr. Cueto was formerly a licensed limited surety agent, but Petitioner suspended his license sometime ago. Respondent was at all times aware of these aspects of Mr. Cueto's background. In November 1991, Petitioner commenced an administrative proceeding against Respondent, as a licensed limited surety agent, for allowing an unlicensed person to participate in the bail bond business. By Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order and Consent Order, both signed in April 1992, Respondent agreed, and was ordered, to pay an administrative fine of $2000.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance dismiss the Second Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Anoush A. Arakalian Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Joseph R. Fritz Joseph R. Fritz, P.A. 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue Whether the Respondent, a licensed limited surety (bail bond) agent, should be disciplined on charges stated in an Amended Administrative Complaint, DFS case 214761-17-AG; and, if so, the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida limited surety (bail bond) agent license P166880. She has held the license since 2009 and has not been disciplined for any violations before this case. The Respondent entered into a contract with Braswell Surety Services, Inc. (Braswell Surety), the Florida managing general agent for Lexington on March 9, 2011, and wrote bail bonds for Lexington through mid-November 2016. The Respondent was the owner and primary bail bond agent for 1st Premier Bail Bonds (1st Premier), and conducted her business with Braswell Surety and Lexington through 1st Premier. Under the Respondent’s contract with Braswell Surety and Lexington, premiums for the Lexington bail bonds written by the Respondent were to be turned over to Lexington promptly. The Respondent also was obligated to submit a monthly execution report to Braswell Surety. The execution reports were supposed to detail all bonds executed by the Respondent’s company since the last report and include a remittance equal to 20 percent of the total amount of premium written since the last report. The Respondent also was obligated to submit a monthly discharge report to Braswell Surety. The discharge reports were supposed to list all bonds executed by the Respondent’s company that had been discharged by the court since the previous discharge report, along with appropriate documentation evidencing the discharges. The Respondent also was obligated to remit to Braswell Surety, monthly, 10 percent of the total amount of premiums written since the last execution report. This amount was to be held or invested and maintained by Braswell Surety as the Respondent’s “build-up funds” (BUF) account. The purpose of the BUF account was to hold Lexington and Braswell Surety harmless from any loss, cost or expenses or for the payment of losses resulting from bail bonds written by the Respondent’s company. Braswell Surety and Lexington could use money from the BUF account for those purposes at their discretion and could require money used for that purpose to be replaced by the Respondent’s company if Braswell Surety and Lexington deemed the account to be inadequate to provide full protection to them. In November 2016, it came to Braswell Surety’s attention that the Respondent’s company cashed a $9,690 check made out to 1st Premier by the court clerk in reimbursement for a forfeiture that had been remitted. The Respondent testified that the check was cashed before it was noticed that it should not have been made out to the Respondent’s company. Braswell Surety demanded that the Respondent’s company give Braswell Surety or Lexington a check in that amount, which was done. In November 2016, it also came to Braswell Surety’s attention that the Respondent’s company had several other forfeitures paid by Lexington. Braswell Surety sent the Respondent a list of them. The Respondent investigated and determined that many had been set aside and others were expected to be set aside. One still outstanding was in the amount of $35,000. In a letter dated November 9, 2016, the Respondent promised to resolve all issues involving forfeitures by the end of 2017. In her letter, the Respondent complained: “Cutting me off isn’t helping anyone. I’m trying to have you and Lexington all caught up by the end of 2017. I’m working hard to make this right. It’s all about money. I can’t pay if I can’t make money. Please reply and let me know how we can resolve our differences without taking this to a level that can’t resolve anything for anybody.” In November 2016, it also came to Braswell Surety’s attention that the Respondent was not reporting on its inventory of Lexington powers of attorney (powers) sent to the Respondent’s company at the end of 2014 for use in 2015 and at the end of 2015 for use in 2016. (Powers are essentially blank bond forms that can be used for one year.) Only one 2015 power was reported by the Respondent’s company as having been used. None of the other powers for 2015 and 2016 were reported by the Respondent’s company. Braswell Surety and Lexington had information from other sources about a few powers that were used in 2015 and 2016, but it was unknown in late 2016 whether any of the numerous other unreported powers were used or not, or if premiums were owed. By the end of November, Braswell Surety and Lexington decided not to provide the Respondent with powers for 2017. Braswell Surety also reported to the Petitioner that the Respondent owed premiums and forfeitures, and the Petitioner initiated an investigation. On January 9, 2017, Braswell Surety sent the Respondent a letter with an inventory report on the information Braswell Surety and Lexington had about the Respondent’s 2015 and 2016 powers. The letter acknowledged that the Respondent had no 2017 Lexington powers and was not authorized to write any more Lexington bonds. However, the letter stated, the Respondent’s appointment was not terminated, and the Respondent was expected to report all bonds in her inventory and pay all premiums owed to Lexington. During January 2017, the Respondent and Braswell Surety determined that the Respondent owed $14,906 in premiums. There was no evidence as to when any of the premiums owed became due and payable. The evidence was clear and convincing that all or almost all of the $14,906 was due and payable between June and November 2016, even if they might have first become due and payable before June 2016. However, the Petitioner declined to argue that this evidence proved the charges in Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint. To the contrary, the Petitioner conceded in its PRO that those charges were not proven. An attorney for Lexington wrote the Respondent a letter on January 18, 2017, claiming that the Respondent still owed Lexington for forfeitures. The evidence did not prove whether forfeitures were still owed at that time. At some point in time, the Respondent agreed to work for Shamrock Bail Bonds (Shamrock). Shamrock was owned by a bail bondsman named Brendan O’Neal, who was its main agent. The Respondent agreed to act as a sub-agent for Shamrock. Under this arrangement, between the Respondent and Mr. O’Neal, Mr. O’Neal was primarily responsible for any bail bonds written by the Respondent for Shamrock. In order to write bail bonds for Shamrock as a sub- agent, the Respondent had to be appointed as a limited surety agent. On January 20, 2017, the Respondent filled out Form DFS- H2-1544 to be appointed by Palmetto Surety Corporation. The form is mandated and controlled by the Petitioner and is adopted by rule. See § 648.382(1), (2), Fla. Stat. (2016)1/; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69B-221.155(3) (2016).2/ In signing the form, the Respondent swore under oath that she owed no premiums to any insurer. This was untrue, as she did not pay Lexington the $14,906 she owed in premiums until February 20, 2017. The signed form was filed with the Petitioner, as required by statute. See § 648.382(1), (2), Fla. Stat. The Respondent claims not to have known that she was swearing falsely when she signed the Form DFS-H2-1544 because she did not read the form carefully and did not think a sub-agent would be required to swear to owing no premium to any insurer. She claims she would have waited to sign the form until after paying the premium she owed to Lexington if she knew what the form said. However, the evidence was clear that Braswell Surety attempted to motivate the Respondent to pay the premiums owed to Lexington by warning that she could not write bonds for any other insurer until the debt to Lexington was paid. The Respondent also admitted that she knew this from the time she learned it in “bond school” prior to licensure as a bail bondsman and knew it from experience ever since. Her testimony that her status as a sub-agent of Mr. O’Neal confused her is not credible. The evidence, taken as a whole, was clear and convincing that the Respondent intended to misrepresent when she signed the form. Her misrepresentation was relied on by Palmetto Surety and Shamrock.
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 dismissing Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint, finding the Respondent guilty under Count II, and suspending her licenses and appointments for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 3rd day of August, 2018.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license as a limited surety agent should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Background At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Harris was licensed as a limited surety agent and continues to be eligible for licensure and appointment in Florida. On June 2, 1988, Respondent executed a bail bond agreement with Indiana Lumbermen's Mutual Insurance Company (Indiana Lumbermen's) as the insurer of the surety bonds, Underwriters Surety, Inc. (Underwriters) as its agent, and Jim Fowler, Jr. d/b/a Fowler Enterprises (Fowler) as its representative indemnitor and supervising representative. Under the terms of the agreement, Indiana Lumbermen's agreed to act as surety on bail bonds solicited and signed in its name by Respondent Harris. In turn, he agreed to charge, collect and remit all bond premiums through Fowler, who has a separate agreement with Indiana Lumbermen's and Underwriters regarding those duties. Additionally, Respondent agreed to hold Indiana Lumbermen's, Underwriters, and Fowler harmless for all bond forfeitures and court costs expended by any of them for bail bonds issued in Indiana Lumbermen's name by him. Because Fowler was also required to indemnify Indiana Lumbermen's and Underwriters against bond forfeitures and court costs resulting from bonds issued by Respondent Harris, a $10,000 mortgage was placed against Respondent's home as collateral for such losses by Fowler. Indiana Lumbermen's and Underwriters also required Respondent Harris to place two per cent of the face amount of each bond in an indemnity fund. The agreement states that after each indemnification is finally determined and satisfied, the remaining portion of the indemnity fund will be delivered to the Respondent or to Fowler. Fowler and the Respondent agreed that when the indemnity fund built up to $25,000.00 in reserved funds, Fowler would release the mortgage. Respondent could also request that the amount of money he was required to place into the indemnity fund for subsequent bond executions be reduced to one per cent of the face of the bonds. After the bail bond agreement was executed by all parties and the Respondent's wife in June of 1988, the bail bonds service office was opened in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Bond Forfeitures On December 12, 1988, two final judgments were entered in Hillsborough County which required the forfeiture of Surety Bond Power No. BB1-168638 and No. BB1-168639 due to the failure of Charles Douglas, Jr., to appear to answer criminal charges for which the bonds had been issued. Each bond was in the principal amount of $1,000.00 and was issued by Respondent Harris as Attorney- In-Fact for Indiana Lumbermen's. The sum of the two judgments was $2,000.00 and $169.00 and court costs. Warren H. Dawson, attorney for the Defendant, motioned the court to vacate the judgments on January 24, 1989. Instead vacating the judgments, the court stayed the enforcement of the judgments until April 26, 1989. At the chose of the time period, Charles Douglas, Jr., was not located, ad the bond funds were forfeited to the State of Florida for the use and benefit of Hillsborough County. These funds, totalling 2,000.00, were paid to the Clerk of Court by Harry Hamner Enterprises on May 18, 1989, as agent for Fowler. Court costs of $84.50 were paid by Respondent Harris, and $84.50 in court costs remain outstanding. The funds paid to the Clerk of Court on behalf of Fowler were issued to a low Fowler to comply with the bail bond agreement as super representative. Respondent Harris is still obligated to indemnify Fowler for the payment. On December 3, 1990, a remittance of $1,000.00 was given to Fowler because Defendant had been located. As this hearing took place only three days later, it is unknown if a check for the other S1,000.00 was forthcoming to Fowler. If the failure to remit the owner $1,000.00 was an oversight, it could be easily corrected by the Clerk of Court as the location of the Defendant would allow we return of these funds as well. On June 4, 1989, a final judgment was entered in Hillsborough County which required the forfeiture of Surety Bond Power No. BB1-200214 due to the failure of Ivan R. Jacob to appear in court to answer the criminal charges for which the bond had been issued. The bond was in the principal amount of $1,000.00 and was issued by Respondent Harris as Attorney-In-Fact for Indiana Lumbermen's. The judgment was for $1,000.00 and $84.50 in court costs. Warren H. Dawson, attorney for the Defendant, motioned the court to vacate and set aside the judgment and costs on July 12, 1989. The motion was granted on August 24, 1989, except that the payment of $84.50 in court costs was still required. The outstanding court costs of $84.50 were paid by Rubin C. Bazarte, Bail Bonds, on behalf of Indiana Lumbermen's on August 28, 1989. Respondent Harris has not indemnified Indiana Lumbermen's for those funds expended to pay the court costs as required by the bail bond agreement. He is still obligated to do so. On June 14, 1989, a final judgment was entered in Hillsborough County which required the forfeiture of Surety Bond Power No. BB1-197205 due to the failure of William A. Evans to appear to answer criminal charges for which the bond had been issued. The principal amount of the bond was $500.00. It was issued by Respondent Harris as Attorney-In-Fact for Indiana Lumbermen's. The sum of the judgment was $500.00 with court costs of $84.50. The judgment and court costs were satisfied by Rubin C. Bazarte, Bail Bonds, on behalf of Indiana Lumbermen's on August 28, 1939. Respondent Harris has not indemnified Indiana Lumbermen's for the funds expended, as required by the bail bond agreement. On June 21, 1989, a final judgment was entered in Hillsborough County which required the forfeiture of Surety Bond Power No. BB1-197204 due to the failure of Williams A. Evans, Jr., to answer criminal charges for which the bond had been issued. The principal amount of the bond was $500.00, and it was issued by Respondent Harris as Attorney-In-Fact for Indiana Lumbermen's. The sum of the judgment was $500.00 plus court costs of $84.50. On August 28, 1989, the judgment and court costs were satisfied by Rubin C. Bazarte, Bail Bonds, on behalf of Indiana Lumbermen's. Respondent Harris has not indemnified Indiana Lumbermen's for the funds expended, as required by the bail bond agreement. Respondent has not received funds to pay for the bond forfeitures from any source. Bond Net Premiums As part of his duties regarding the issuance of bonds for Indiana Lumbermen's, Respondent was required to regularly report the execution of bail bonds to Fowler and Underwriters. The net premiums were to be paid to either of these agents for Indiana Lumbermen's. According to the business records maintained by Fowler, the Respondent failed to remit the required net premiums owed with reports numbered 35, 36, 37 and 38. The amount of money owed for these premiums is $2,370.00. For April 7, 1989, Rosettia Jacobs paid Respondent $1,000.00 to obtain two bonds for the pretrial release of her son, Andre Hudson. Two bonds, with a face value of $5,000.00 each were executed by Respondent that day. The net premiums for two bonds with a face value of $10,000.00 were listed on bail bond execution report number 36, but the net premium was never paid to Fowler or Underwriters from the cash received from Rosettia Jacobs for that purpose. In July 1989, Melvin Rolfe met with Respondent's son, who represented he could accept funds on behalf of his father for the bail bond business. Melvin Rolfe gave Respondent's son $250.00 for a bail bond in order to obtain the pretrial release of his brother, Joseph Rolfe. Of these funds, $100.00 was for payment of the gross premium and $150.00 was collateral. The bond for $1,000.00 was executed by Respondent on August 1, 1989. The collateral given to Respondent's son was not noted on bail bond execution report number 35. The net premium for the $1,000.00 bond for Joseph Rolfe was not sent to Fowler or Underwriters from the cash delivered by Melvin Rolfe for that purpose. On August 1, 1989, Melvin Hamilton gave the Respondent $250.00 for two bonds in order to obtain the pretrial release of his brother, Mark Hamilton. One bond premium was $100.00 and the other bond premium was $50.00. The additional $100.00 was collateral. Bonds with the total face value of $1,250.00 were executed by Respondent on August 1, 1989. The collateral was not noted on the bail bond execution report number 35, and the net premiums were not sent to Fowler or Underwriters from the funds delivered by Melvin Hamilton for that purpose. On August 4, 1989, Charles Rodriguez paid $350.00 for bond premiums to Respondent in order to obtain the pretrial release of his wife, Tina Dunn. The total gross premium amount was $450.00. Respondent extended credit to Charles Rodriguez and issued three bonds with the total face value of $4,500.00 on August 4, 1989. Although the bonds were issued and noted on bail bond execution report 35, the net premiums were not sent to Fowler or Underwriters from the funds delivered by Charles Rodriguez for that purpose. On September 13, 1989, Fowler, as supervising representative for Indiana Lumbermen's and Underwriters, sent a formal demand to Respondent for the $2,370.00 due for premiums not included with reports numbered 35-38. Respondent has failed to pay any of the funds actually received for those premiums to Fowler, Underwriters, or Lumbermen's. Mitigation Respondent has made some attempts to locate defendants whose bonds have been forfeited to the state. Respondent extended credit to some people seeking bail bonds so he never collected some of the money owed to Indiana Lumbermen's for premiums.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, which demonstrates that Respondent misappropriated net bond premiums owed the insurer on four occasions between April and early August 1989, it is RECOMMENDED: The limited surety license of Rudolph Harris, Respondent, be suspended for one year, pursuant to Section 648.49(1), Florida Statutes [1987]. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of February 1991. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-4689 Petitioner's proposed finding of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #1. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See #18-#23. Also, irrelevant as to charging document which claimed Respondent misappropriated bond forfeiture funds. Rejected. Irrelevant as to charging document which claim Respondent misappropriated forfeiture funds. See HO $14-#17. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #8-#13. Accepted. See HO #35. COPIES FURNISHED: Gordon T. Nicol, Esquire Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Rudolph Harris 812 E. Henderson Avenue Tampa, FL 33602 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact James L. Sponheim is licensed as a Limited Surety Agent to represent Cotton Belt Insurance Company, Inc., and was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. His office is located in Dade City, Florida. (Testimony of J. Sponheim, petitioner's Exhibit 2) Respondent Bonnie L. Sponheim is qualified, but not currently licensed, as a bail bond runner. She was previously licensed as a runner, but her license was cancelled on April 3, 1980. Thereafter, she has served as a secretary in her husband's Dade City office. (Testimony of B. Sponheim, Petitioner's Exhibit l) On August 6, 1980, Stephen W. Sissitka, of Zephyrhills, Florida, made application to the Cotton Belt Insurance Company for appearance bonds B6A095951- 52 to effect his release from the custody of the Pasco County Sheriff's office. The application contained provisions as to events which would constitute a breach of the obligations under the bond, including the applicant's change from one address to another without notifying the Cotton Belt Insurance Company or its agent in writing prior to any such move. On the reverse of the application, Glenna Lilly and Spurgeon Phillips executed an indemnity agreement whereby they agreed to bind themselves to produce Sissitka in court at the required time. The application further identified Glenna Lilly as Sissitka's mother. Phillips executed a separate indemnity agreement on August 30, 1980. He is the father- in-law of Sissitka and resides in Dade City. (Testimony of J. Sponheim, S. Sissitka, Respondent's Exhibits 1,2) On August 6, 1980, Mr. Sponheim, as agent for Cotton Belt Insurance Company, issued the requested bonds in the total amount `of $2,500.00. (Testimony of J. Sponheim, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4) Although Sissitka had listed his address as Zephyrhills, Florida, he was living at the home of his father-in-law Spurgeon Phillips, in Dade City at the time he was released on bond. However, he was having difficulties with his wife and did not remain in Dade City on a continuous basis. On several occasions, he went over night to his mother's house in Zephyrhills, and another time he visited his wife's mother for several days in Pasco County. He did not tell Mr. Sponheim about the latter visit, nor did Phillips know where he was. In fact, he stayed only sporadically with Phillips during the period August to October, 1980, and sometimes would be gone for a week or two. Phillips complained to Mr. Sponheim about his inability to keep up with Sissitka's whereabouts, and wanted to have him returned to custody. As a result, Mr. Sponheim and Phillips had a meeting with Sissitka on October 7, 1980, at which time Mr. Sponheim reminded Sissitka of his obligations to report any changes of address or employment and imposed the requirement that Sissitka "check in" with Sponheim's office once a week. Sissitka was also told to stay at Phillips' house in the future. Sissitka agreed to follow the conditions imposed and keep Mr. Sponheim and Phillips notified of his whereabouts. (Testimony of J. Sponheim, B. Sponheim, Phillips, Harrelson, S. Sissitka, M. Sissitka, Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Stipulation) On October 15, 1980, Mrs. Sponheim discovered Sissitka was no longer employed at a restaurant in Dade City. Mr. Sponheim was out of the state at the time. Mrs. Sponheim was under the impression that Sissitka was living at Zephyrhills, and so she drove out to Phillips' house to talk to his wife in an attempt to ascertain his current situation. When she knocked on the door, Sissitka answered and told her that he had been living there. Mrs. Sponheim told him that they needed to talk. She waited in her car while he put on a shirt and some shoes, and joined her in the car. They then drove to Mr. Sponheim's office. On the way, she asked him about his job and where he was living, but Sissitka indicated that it was none of her business, that Mr. Sponheim had no control over him, and that as long as he showed up in court that was all that mattered. He asked her if he was going to jail, and she told him that was between him and Mr. Sponheim. When they arrived at the office they discussed the conditions of the bond and the arrangements which had been made at the previous meeting with Phillips and Mr. Sponheim on October 7. Sissitka told her that he was tired of being harrassed not only by her husband, but by Phillips, and that everyone was giving him a hard time, and he wanted it stopped. Mrs. Sponheim inferred from this statement that Sissitka wished to terminate the bond relationship and told him that if he wanted to "end it" he was free to go to the jail and surrender himself at any time. At that point, Sissitka said "fine, let's go" but Mrs. Sponheim told him that they needed to talk to Mr. Sponheim about it first. She went into the adjoining private office, telephoned her husband and informed him of the situation. He told her that Sissitka could either go ahead and surrender himself, or otherwise they would have to wait until he returned to the city to settle the matter. He further told her that if Sissitka wanted to turn himself in that she should make sure to get the surrender documents to the jail so that he couldn't walk out again. Mr. Sponheim made a practice of pre-signing the appropriate surrender forms for each person he bonded out at the time the bond was written; therefore, a signed surrender form had been previously prepared for Sissitka. The Pasco County Sheriff's Department requires that the surrender document be filed with that office prior to permitting an individual to surrender himself. Otherwise, the individual would be free to leave the jail because the bond would still be valid. After talking to her husband, Mrs. Sponheim informed Sissitka of the conversation and he asked to use the phone to call his mother. After he completed the call, he said "o.k. let's go." Mrs. Sponheim then filled in the date on the "off bond" form and they walked across the street to the jail. Sissitka went up to the jail door and said "here I am again" and opened the metal door and went on in. Mrs. Sponheim handed the surrender forms to the official at the booking office and said that she was coming off the bond. She then returned to her office and later that day Sissitka called her and inquired about the possibility of being bonded out again because he did not have enough money to post a cash bond. Mrs. Sponheim told him that her husband was not there and he asked if she could bond him out. She replied that she didn't have a license, but gave him the name of another bondsman. (Testimony of J. Sponheim, B. Sponheim, Kelly, Brown, Shytle, Petitioner's Exhibits 5,6)
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaints filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents are correct and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensure and regulation of limited surety agents (bail bondsmen) operating in the State of Florida. The Respondents are individually licensed as limited surety agents in Florida and are officers and directors of "Big John Bail Bonds, Inc.," a bail bond agency. In November of 1999, Gustavo Porro contacted the Respondents regarding bail for Jessie James Bray, a friend of Mr. Porro's son. Mr. Porro did not know Mr. Bray. Based on the charges against Mr. Bray, four bonds were issued, two for $1,000 each and two for $250 each, for a total bond amount of $2,500. The $1,000 bonds were related to pending felony charges and the small bonds were related to pending misdemeanor charges. Mr. Porro signed a contingent promissory note indemnifying American Bankers Insurance Company for an amount up to $2,500 in the event of bond forfeiture. Bray did not appear in court on the scheduled date and the two $1,000 bonds were forfeited. For reasons unclear, the two $250 bonds were not forfeited. The contingent promissory note signed by Mr. Porro provided that no funds were due to be paid until the stated contingency occurred, stated as "upon forfeiture, estreature or breach of the surety bond." After Bray did not appear for court, the Respondents contacted Mr. Porro and told him that the bonds were forfeited and he was required to pay according to the promissory note. On April 15, 2000, Mr. Porro went to the office of Big John Bail Bonds and was told that he owed a total of $2,804, which he immediately paid. Mr. Porro was not offered and did not request an explanation as to how the total amount due was calculated. He received a receipt that appears to have been signed by Ms. Vath. After Mr. Porro paid the money, Ms. Vath remitted $2,000 to the court clerk for the two forfeited bonds. The Respondents retained the remaining $804. Bray was eventually apprehended and returned to custody. The Respondents were not involved in the apprehension. On July 11, 2000, the court refunded $1,994 to the Respondents. The refund included the $2,000 bond forfeitures minus a statutory processing fee of $3 for each of the two forfeited bonds. On August 9, 2000, 29 days after the court refunded the money to the Respondents, Mr. Porro received a check for $1,994 from the Respondents. Mr. Porro, apparently happy to get any of his money back, did not ask about the remaining funds and no explanation was offered. In November of 2000, Ms. Vath contacted Mr. Porro and informed him that a clerical error had occurred and that he was due to receive additional funds. On November 6, 2000, Mr. Porro met with Ms. Vath and received a check for $492. At the time, that Ms. Vath gave Mr. Porro the $492 check she explained that he had been overcharged through a clerical error, and that the additional amount being refunded was the overpayment minus expenses. She explained that the expenses included clerical and "investigation" expenses and the cost of publishing a notice in a newspaper. There was no documentation provided of the expenses charged to Mr. Porro. At the time the additional refund was made, there was no disclosure that the two $250 bonds were never forfeited. At the hearing, the Respondents offered testimony asserting that the charges were miscalculated due to "clerical" error and attempting to account for expenses charged to Mr. Porro. There was no reliable documentation supporting the testimony, which was contradictory and lacked credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order requiring that the Respondents be required to refund $318 to Mr. Porro, which, combined with the previous payments of $1,994 and $492, will constitute refund of the total $2,804 paid by Mr. Porro to the Respondents. It is further recommended that the limited surety licenses of Matilda M. Vath and John L. Vath be suspended for a period of not less than three months or until Mr. Porro receives the remaining $318, whichever is later. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 22nd day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street, Room 612 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
