The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible to participate in the Florida Retirement System (FRS), within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(17)(a), Florida Statutes (2009),1 as a substitute teacher for the Lee County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been an employee of the Lee County School Board (the School Board) from February 28, 2001, through the date of the final hearing. The School Board is a participating member in the FRS. Petitioner has never been a full-time employee of the School Board and has never been eligible for service credits for purposes of the FRS. From February 28, 2001, until some time in May 2004, the School Board employed Petitioner in a temporary, part-time position. From some time in May 2004 through the date of the final hearing, the School Board has employed Petitioner as a substitute teacher. From February 28, 2001, through some time in May 2004, the School Board required part-time employees such as Petitioner to participate in a plan identified in the record as the Bencor FICA Alternative Plan (the Bencor Plan). The Bencor Plan provided retirement benefits for temporary teachers, who were not eligible for FRS retirement benefits. On May 25, 2004, Petitioner submitted a Distribution Request Form to withdraw her accumulated savings from the Bencor Plan. Petitioner was eligible to withdraw her retirement benefits from the Bencor Plan, because she changed her employment status from a temporary teacher to a substitute teacher. Some time in May 2004, Petitioner began teaching as a substitute teacher for the School Board. Petitioner has continued as a substitute teacher for the School Board through the date of the final hearing. As a substitute teacher, Petitioner is not a full-time employee, who is eligible for service credits for purposes of the FRS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for FRS benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2010.
The Issue Whether Petitioner qualifies for retirement benefits as a joint annuitant of the late Roy Hartley, Jr.
Findings Of Fact Roy Hartley, Jr., died on June 11, 1994, with more than ten years of service as a member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Mr. Hartley was employed as a police officer with the Metro Dade Police Department. His Social Security Number was 267-70-3906. At the time of his death, Mr. Hartley had personally contributed the sum of $655.38 to the FRS. On October 29, 1993, Mr. Hartley designated Petitioner as the beneficiary of his retirement benefits on FRS Form M-10. After Mr. Hartley's death, Petitioner applied to the State of Florida, Division of Retirement, for benefits as Mr. Hartley's designated beneficiary. To be entitled to monthly retirement benefits, Petitioner must establish that she was a dependent of Mr. Hartley so as to qualify as a joint annuitant of his monthly retirement benefits. Section 121.091(7)(g), Florida Statutes (1994), contains the option that Petitioner seeks to exercise: (7)(g) The designated beneficiary who is the surviving spouse or other dependent of a member whose employment is terminated by death subsequent to the completion of 10 years of credible service but prior to actual retirement may elect to receive a deferred monthly benefit as if the member had lived and had elected a deferred monthly benefit, as provided in paragraph (5)(b), calculated on the basis of the average final compensation and creditable service of the member at his death and the age the member would have attained on the commencement date of the deferred benefit elected by his beneficiary, paid in accordance with option 3 of paragraph (6)(a). Section 121.021(28)(c), Florida Statutes, contains the definition of the term "dependent beneficiary" that is pertinent to this proceeding: (28) Dependent beneficiary means any person designated by the member to receive a retirement benefit upon the member's death who is either: * * * (c) A person who is financially dependent for no less than one-half of his support from the deceased at retirement or at time of the death of such member, whichever occurs first. Rule 60S-6.001(34), Florida Administrative Code, defines the term "joint annuitant" as follows: JOINT ANNUITANT -- Means . . . any other person who is financially dependent where the other person is someone who is receiving one-half or more of his support from the member or is eligible to be claimed as a dependent or exemption on the Federal income tax return of the member. Petitioner and Mr. Hartley were not married, but they were living together at the time of his death. Except for a relatively short breakup, they had lived together for thirteen years. Petitioner was not claimed as a dependent on Mr. Hartley's federal income tax return. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner worked part-time as a bartender. Respondent requires a person who is claiming to be a dependent of a deceased member pursuant to Section 121.021(28)(c), Florida Statutes, to document that the member contributed more than half of the alleged dependent's support. Stanley Colvin, the administrator of Respondent's retirement section, established that the Respondent typically reviews financial data for the year preceding the member's death in determining whether the deceased member contributed half of the alleged dependent's support. In making this determination, the Respondent determines the amount that the alleged dependent has to contribute to his or her own support and thereafter requires the alleged dependent to establish that the member contributed an amount equal to or more than that amount. Since the member died in June of 1994, Respondent in this case examined the W-2 statements for Petitioner and for Mr. Hartley for several years proceeding his death and for the year 1994. The 1993 W-2 statements reflect that Mr. Hartley had income from his employment of $67,360.23 while Petitioner had income from her employment of $9,450.00. Based on the differences between their earnings, it did not appear that there would be a problem with Petitioner's claim when Respondent's staff first reviewed the claim. The house in which Petitioner and Mr. Hartley lived at the time of his death was titled solely in the name of the Petitioner. This house was purchased in 1992. The fact that Petitioner owned the house only in her name caused Respondent's staff to question this claim. After learning about the house, Respondent's staff asked Petitioner to document that Mr. Hartley contributed more than half of her support and requested that she provide copies of cancelled checks and tax returns. In response to that request, Petitioner provided copies of certain cancelled checks and copies of her tax returns for 1992 and 1993. 1/ Mr. Hartley and Petitioner routinely gambled at Seminole Bingo. The down payment for the house came from their bingo winnings. Although they both gambled at bingo, Petitioner usually sat in the chair so that she would be the one to claim any bingo winnings. These winnings were reported on Petitioner's income taxes for the years 1992 and 1993. For 1992, Petitioner claimed bingo winnings in the amount of $60,531 and wagering losses in the amount $45,850. For 1993, Petitioner claimed bingo winnings in the amount of $21,860 and wagering losses in an equal amount. Petitioner's federal income tax return for 1993 reflected an adjusted gross income of $31,508. This sum included bingo winnings of $21,860. Petitioner testified, credibly, that they did not go to bingo as frequently in 1994 because Mr. Hartley had become interested in racing automobiles, but there was no evidence as to whether Petitioner or Mr. Hartley won at bingo during 1994 prior to Mr. Hartley's death. After reviewing the documentation provided by Petitioner, the Respondent denied monthly benefits to her. Respondent's denial was based on its interpretation of its rule that all income, including gambling winnings, should be considered as being available for the support of a person claiming to be a dependent of a member of the FRS. 2/ Respondent is not concerned with whether the alleged dependent loses his or her winnings at bingo or uses the winnings to pay bills. Respondent allocated the house payments, household expenses, and grocery costs paid by Mr. Hartley to have been one-half for Petitioner's support and the other half for his own support. 3. Respondent determined, correctly, that the documentation did not support a findings that Mr. Hartley contributed more than half of Petitioner's support when the bingo winnings were considered. Respondent advised Petitioner that she was entitled to a refund of Mr. Hartley's contribution to the FRS in the amount of $655.38. Petitioner established that Mr. Hartley paid the house payment ($683.00 per month in 1994), that he paid most of the household expenses, and that he routinely gave Petitioner cash for food, clothes, and miscellaneous expenses. The only bill routinely paid by Petitioner was the utility bill. She also paid her car bill and her auto insurance bill. Mr. Hartley occasionally assisted her with those bills. Based on the totality of the evidence, 4/ including the discrepancy between Mr. Hartley's earned income and Petitioner's earned income, 5/ the fact that Mr. Hartley paid the housing expenses, except for utilities, and the fact that he routinely gave Petitioner cash to use for her support, it is found that Mr. Hartley contributed more than $10,000 a year toward Petitioner's support. The evidence does not, however, support a finding that Mr. Hartley contributed more than $31,000 a year toward Petitioner's support. 6/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and approves Petitioner's application for monthly benefits as a joint annuitant of Roy Hartley, Jr. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1996.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) of the Florida Retirement System (FRS), for the period September 1, 1998, through and including September 30, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a former employee of the School Board of Miami-Dade County (School Board) and is a retired member of FRS. In September 1998, Petitioner became eligible to participate in DROP by virtue of reaching 30 years of service with the School Board. In September 1998, Petitioner asked Respondent for an estimate of her retirement benefits. In January 1999, the estimate of Petitioner's retirement benefits was prepared by Respondent and mailed to Petitioner. During the 1998-99 school year, Petitioner had difficulties in her dealings with a new school principal. 1/ Petitioner testified that she delayed applying for DROP because she believed that her relationship with her employer would improve and she could continue to work as a teacher. Petitioner also testified that School Board administrators gave her erroneous information and misled her as to their intention to permit her to continue to teach. Petitioner argues that she would have elected to participate in DROP beginning September 1, 1998, had her employer told her the truth about her employment status. In this proceeding, Petitioner argues that she be permitted to participate in DROP effective September 1, 1998, on equitable grounds, without specifying the equitable principles upon which she relies. On October 27, 1999, Petitioner completed her application to participate in DROP and filed the application with the School Board's personnel office. Respondent received the completed application via facsimile on November 3, 1999. The first application sent in by Petitioner requested that her DROP participation start retroactive to September 1, 1998. Respondent, through its staff, denied that request and informed Petitioner that she would have to submit a second application, referred to by staff as a corrected application, requesting a start date of October 1, 1999. Pursuant to those instructions, Petitioner submitted a second application requesting that her start date be October 1, 1999. Petitioner's challenge to Respondent's denial of her request to accept her participation in DROP retroactive to September 1, 1998, was timely. Petitioner was later terminated from her position with the School Board. 2/ Respondent has been paid her drop benefits for the period beginning October 1, 1999, and ending when the School Board terminated her employment. Petitioner has not been employed by a FRS employer since the School Board terminated her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for benefits under DROP for the period September 1, 1998 to September 30, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 10th day of August, 2001
The Issue Should the benefits of the Petitioner, Charles Bullock, under the Florida Retirement System Investment Plan, be forfeited due to his plea of no contest and adjudication of guilt to two felony counts of child abuse?
Findings Of Fact The Collier County Sheriff's Office employed Mr. Bullock as a law enforcement officer from 1994 through 2010. Due to his employment, Mr. Bullock was a member of the Florida Retirement System Investment Plan. Mr. Bullock worked in the sheriff's office's civil process unit. He and the other civil process deputies routinely met for coffee in the afternoon about 2:00 p.m., to discuss business. They usually met at the Starbucks in the Coastland Mall in Collier County. Sometimes they met at other locations to avoid drawing public attention and adverse comments. For the same reason, after some unfavorable television coverage, they often dispersed their cars in the parking lot, instead of parking together. Mr. Bullock usually did not wear a uniform, badge, gun, or anything else identifying him as a Collier County deputy or a law enforcement officer. On at least three occasions between November 2009 and February 2010, while on duty, Mr. Bullock went to the food court bathroom after these meetings. The evidence does not establish that Mr. Bullock was wearing a uniform, badge, gun, or anything else identifying him as a Collier County deputy or law enforcement officer on those occasions. On the first two of those occasions, Mr. Bullock sexually molested a male, under the age of 16, by forcing him to allow Mr. Bullock to perform oral sex. On the third occasion, Mr. Bullock was approaching the male minor by looking under and over the bathroom stall divider, when he was interrupted by a mall employee. The evidence does not establish that the minor knew on any of the occasions that Mr. Bullock was a deputy or law enforcement officer. The evidence does not otherwise establish that Mr. Bullock's position as a Collier County deputy facilitated, contributed to, provided the opportunity for, or otherwise played a role in his ability to commit the acts described on those three occasions. He committed the offenses in a public place during normal operating hours. His position as a deputy did not provide access to the food court bathroom that any citizen would not have had. As a result of the interruption of the third encounter and the information the mall employee was able to provide, law enforcement conducted an investigation of Mr. Bullock's conduct in the mall bathroom. The investigation culminated on April 19, 2010, in a warrant to arrest Mr. Bullock. The warrant charged Mr. Bullock with lewd or lascivious battery (violation of section 800.04(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2010)), a second-degree felony, and official misconduct (violation of section 838.022, Florida Statutes (2010)), a third-degree felony. On March 10, 2014, Mr. Bullock entered a plea of no contest to a different charge based upon his sexual molestation of the male under the age of 16. The offense to which Mr. Bullock entered a plea of no contest was child abuse, a violation of section 827.03, Florida Statutes (2010), a third-degree felony. At the time of his plea and in this proceeding, Mr. Bullock maintained that he was not guilty of the charges, but chose to plead no contest because of concerns that the nature of the charges would inflame jurors. The court adjudicated Mr. Bullock guilty of the charges to which he pled no contest. It imposed a sentence of two years' probation, prohibited contact with the victim, required payment of $151.00 in court costs, and required Mr. Bullock to give up his law enforcement certification. On March 20, 2014, the Board notified Mr. Bullock that his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System were forfeited as a result of his no contest plea to child abuse. This proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, State Board of Administration, enter a final order finding that the Petitioner, Charles Bullock, was not convicted of a specified offense as identified in section 112.3173, Florida Statutes, and directing that he not forfeit his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 30th day of September, 2014.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Peter McRedmond, the deceased, should have been permitted to change the beneficiary on his state retirement plan to elect an annuity for the benefit of his estate and the Intervenor, Martin Horton.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Division of Retirement, was the state agency responsible for the control, operation and monitoring of the State Retirement System. Petitioner, Eugene McRedmond, is the surviving brother of Peter McRedmond, deceased, a former member of the Florida Retirement System. Intervenor, Martin V. Horton, is the former live-in friend and companion to Peter McRedmond and the individual who claims an interest in Peter's retirements benefits. For some period prior to 1988, Peter McRedmond was employed at Manatee Community College as a psychology professor and as such was a member of the Florida Retirement System, (FRS). He was so employed until he retired for disability in early 1990. Before that time, however, in August or September, 1988, he was diagnosed as having AIDS by Dr. Warren D. Kuippers, a physician with the Community Migrant Health Center. Tests taken at or around that time indicated he was suffering from toxoplasmosis, a disease of the brain in which significant portions of that organ are eaten by parasites, resulting in intermittent periods of impaired judgement and reasoning ability. He also suffered numerous other medical problems including weight loss, a wasting syndrome, general weakness and fatigue. Notwithstanding the seriousness of his illness, because Mr. McRedmond wanted to qualify for retirement under the FRS system, he continued to work for another year to meet the minimum requirements for retirement. On April 27, 1990, he made application for disability retirement to be effective July 1, 1990. As a part of that application, Mr. McRedmond selected Option 1 under the FRS as the method under which he desired his benefits be paid and named the Intervenor, Mr. Horton, as his designated beneficiary to receive any benefits legally due after his death. Mr. McRedmond could have elected to receive benefits under either Option 1 or Option 2 of the plan. Option 3 was not available to him because of his marital status. Under Option 1, he would receive payments of $639.33 per month for the remainder of his life, regardless of how long he lived. Under Option 2, he would have been paid a slightly lesser monthly sum, $587.51, for the rest of his life, but not less than 10 calendar years, and if he were to die before 10 years were up, the payments would go to his designated beneficiary. In May, 1990, consistent with the procedure then in effect within the Division, Mr. McRedmond was sent a second Option selection form to give him as much information as was possib1e and to make sure he understood what he was doing as it related to his option selection. Mr. McRedmond again selected Option 1, had his signature notarized, and returned the executed form to the Division. The individual who performed the notary service did not recall the transaction but indicated her routine practice was not to notarize a document for anyone who did not appear to know what he was doing. Peter McRedmond died on August 23, 1990 from the disease with which he was afflicted. Several months before his death, in mid June, 1990, Mr. McRedmond and Mr. Horton discussed finances and what Horton could expect after McRedmond's death. It is clear that Mr. McRedmond wanted to make arrangements for Mr. Horton to finish his education without having to work while doing so. At that time, McRedmond's life insurance policy, in the face amount of $60,000.00, had Horton as the beneficiary. Shortly before his death, however, upon the prompting of his brother, Eugene, Petitioner herein, Peter McRedmond directed the policy be changed to make his estate the beneficiary. This was done by Eugene through a power of attorney. There was also some discussion of an additional $500.00 per month which was to go to Mr. Horton, but no one, other than Mr. Horton, recalls this. Also shortly before his death, Mr. McRedmond and Mr. Horton travelled to the family home in Connecticut for several weeks. During that time, Mr. McRedmond had at least one major seizure and family members noticed that while he was sometimes forgetful, for the most part his thinking was rational and normal. There can be little doubt that Mr. McRedmond had deep feelings for Mr. Horton and wanted the latter to be provided for after his death. Friends of both relate the numerous comments McRedmond made to that effect and are convinced that at the time he made the contested election, Mr. McRedmond was not of sound mind sufficient to knowingly make the choice he made. To be sure, the ravages of his disease had taken its toll and there were numerous occasions on which he was not lucid or competent to determine issues such as here. On the other hand, the benefits administrator with whom McRedmond talked at the time he selected his retirement plan option was totally satisfied that at that time, he fully understood the nature and effect of the option he selected and was choosing that which was consistent with his desires at the time. By the same token, the notary, whose testimony was noted previously herein, also was satisfied he knew what he was doing at the time of the second election. In its final configuration, Mr. McRedmond's estate includes all his assets, including the proceeds of the insurance policy previously designated to go to Mr. Horton, for a total of approximately $120,000.00. According to the terms of the will, the estate is to be put into a trust from which Mr. Norton is to receive $1,000.00 per month for his lifetime, as well as all his medical expenses. Since Mr. Horton has tested HIV positive, these can be expected to be extensive. Eugene McRedmond is the executor of the estate. Petitioner and Mr. Horton claim that since the trust contains all of Peter's assets existing at his death, the only other source of the additional $500.00 per month would be the benefits from the FRS. Both cite this as evidence of Mr. McRedmond's intent that the option selection providing for payment after death was his intention. This does not necessarily follow, however. Notwithstanding what Petitioner and Intervenor state were his intentions, Mr. McRedomnd took no action to make the change in option selection which would have effectuated them. Instead, he went out of town to visit family for several weeks, and even after receipt of the first retirement check, received on July 31, 1990, still took no action to make the change. During this period, after the return from Connecticut, Mr. McRedmond's condition deteriorated to the point he was often bedridden and was periodically unaware. However, there is ample evidence to indicate that he was often lucid during this period and still took no action to change his retirement option. During this time, Mr. Horton conducted come of Mr. McRedmond's business affairs for him pursuant to specific instructions. These included making bank deposits and as a part of one of these deposits, when Horton was to deposit two checks as requested by McRedmond, he also deposited the first retirement check. Horton and Eugene McRedmond both claim that at no time did Peter McRedmond ask or authorize him to do so. In a visit that Petitioner made to his brother in early August, 1990, just weeks prior to Peter's death, according to Petitioner his brother explained he had selected the wrong retirement option and requested that Eugene attempt to change the election. Peter gave Eugene a Power of Attorney with which he was to do this as well as to change the beneficiary on the life insurance policy. Consistent with those instructions, Eugene wrote a letter to the Division explaining the situation and that the check had been deposited by mistake. On August 13, 1990, Eugene telephonically contacted the Division where he spoke with Melanie White. During this conversation, in which he again spelled out the circumstances which he believed constituted the mistaken election, he was told to file a power of attorney. When he did this, the Division would not honor it claiming that since it had been executed in May, 1990, some three months earlier, it was not current. Subsequent to the death of Peter McRedmond and the filing of the claim against the Division, Eugene McRedmond and Martin Horton have entered into an agreement whereby any sums recovered from the Division will be split with 25% going to Mr. Horton and 75% going to the Trust. Upon the death of Mr. Horton, any sums remaining in the trust will be split by Eugene McRedmond and another brother.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's and Intervenor's claims for retirement benefits under Option 2 of the Florida Retirement System retirement plan, on behalf of Peter McRedmond, be denied. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 29th day of July, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Buildi5g 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clark of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1991 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 90-7104 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 AND INTERVENOR: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First two sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Third sentence not proven. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted that Peter McRedmond had numerous conversations with friends about providing for Mr. Horton, but it was not established that he mentioned using his retirement benefits for that purpose. & 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not necessarily following from the facts. Rejected as speculation not supported by fact, except that Petitioner claims Peter desired to change the option selection. First sentence accepted. Second sentence accepted in so far as it asserts Peter told Horton he would receive a monthly sum of $1,000.00. Balance rejected. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as speculation and conclusion except for first sentence and first clause of second sentence. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17.-20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21. First and second and last sentences accepted. 22.-24. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 28. Accepted. 29. Irrelevant. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1-4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8.-10. Accepted. Ultimate finding accepted. On the date he filed his application, Peter McRedmond was capable of understanding what he was doing and the implications thereof. & 13. Rejected as comments of the evidence and not Findings of Fact. First four sentences accepted. Remainder rejected except that McRedmond wanted Horton to get at least $1,000.00 per month for life, and more if possible. & 16. Accepted except for last two sentences of 16. Accepted except for last sentence which is a comment on the evidence and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. & 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward S. Stafman, Esquire Stafman & Saunders 318 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Department of Administration Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 1639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 John A. Pieno Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Linda Stalvey Acting General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Petitioner has forfeited his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System (FRS), pursuant to sections 112.3173 and 121.091(5)(f), Florida Statutes, because of his conviction for official misconduct, a third degree felony under section 838.022(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The FRS is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. Respondent is charged with managing, governing, and administering the FRS. In January 1987, Petitioner began employment with the Florida Department of Transportation ("DOT"), an FRS-participating employer. By reason of this employment, Petitioner was enrolled in the FRS, and DOT made contributions to the FRS on his behalf. In March 2001 and March 2005, Petitioner was elected to separate four-year terms as a Commissioner on the City Commission of the City of Deerfield Beach, Florida ("City"), an FRS-participating employer. By reason of his public office as a City Commissioner, Petitioner was enrolled in the FRS, and the City made contributions to the FRS on his behalf. Before entering upon the duties of his public office, pursuant to Florida law and the City Charter, Petitioner was required to take and subscribe substantially to the following oath: I do solemnly swear or affirm that I am a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America and a registered voter and resident of the City of Deerfield Beach, as shown by the public records of Broward County, Florida. I am being employed as a Commissioner of the City of Deerfield Beach and will be a recipient of public funds. As such Commissioner I further swear or affirm that I will support the Charter of the City of Deerfield Beach, the Constitution of the State of Florida, and the Constitution of the United States, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of my office upon which I am about to enter. All elected officials of the City were subject to the standards of ethical conduct for public officers set by Florida law and the City Charter. Effective December 11, 2008, Petitioner resigned his position as City Commissioner. On or about December 29, 2008, Petitioner was charged, by information, with one count of grand theft, a third degree felony, in violation of sections 812.014(1)(a) and (b) and (2)(c)2., Florida Statutes; one count of official misconduct, a third degree felony, in violation of section 838.022(1), Florida Statutes; and one count of falsifying records, a first degree misdemeanor, in violation of section 839.13, Florida Statutes. The crimes with which Petitioner was charged were alleged to have occurred between October 6, 2007 and January 10, 2008. The basis for the official misconduct charge was that Petitioner falsified a campaign treasurer's report as part of his campaign for mayor of the City. The campaign treasurer's report is an official record or document belonging to the office of the City Clerk and/or the Florida Department of State, Division of Elections. Petitioner is no longer employed by DOT or the City. Petitioner is not retired from the FRS, and he has not received FRS retirement benefits. On or about May 7, 2010, Petitioner filed with the Division a completed FRS Pension Plan Application for Service Retirement (Form FR-11). By letter dated May 11, 2010, the Division advised Petitioner in relevant part as follows: This letter is to advise you of the status of your application for Florida Retirement System benefits. Our Legal office is reviewing your current legal situation for a determination of whether a forfeiture of benefits has occurred. If the determination is that forfeiture occurred, you will be notified and given information if you wish to appeal that determination. Your retirement application is pending until this review is complete. On May 10, 2011, a jury rendered a verdict which found Petitioner guilty as charged in the information. On July 29, 2011, the court adjudicated Petitioner guilty of the crimes. On or about August 3, 2011, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal in Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal. On May 1, 2013, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Petitioner's convictions for grand theft, official misconduct, and falsifying records, and authored an opinion which addressed Petitioner's contention that he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal on the count of official misconduct. The Court wrote in relevant part: Section 838.022(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), makes it "unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any person or to cause harm to another, to ... [f]alsify, or cause another person to falsify, any official record or official document." In this case, the basis for the official misconduct charge was that appellant falsified a campaign report as part of his campaign for mayor of Deerfield Beach. On appeal, appellant focuses on section 838.022(2)(a), which defines "public servant" as not "includ[ing] a candidate who does not otherwise qualify as a public servant," for the argument that "he was not a public servant at the time of the alleged offense" but was "merely a candidate for public office." However, as the State argues, at the time appellant was a candidate for mayor, he "otherwise qualif[ied] as a public servant" by virtue of his status as a city commissioner. Chapter 838 defines "public servant" as including "[a]ny officer or employee of a state, county, municipal, or special district agency or entity." § 838.014 (6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007). The statute distinguishes a mere candidate from a public job or office holder in order to reach the evil of public servants misusing their office. Here, appellant was not just a candidate at the time of the offense; it was his dual status as a candidate and an incumbent commissioner that brought him within the ambit of the statute. ... Gonot v. State, 112 So. 3d 679, 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)(emphasis in original). ULTIMATE FACTUAL FINDINGS Petitioner forfeited his rights and benefits under the FRS pursuant to sections 112.3173 and 121.091(5)(f), Florida Statutes, because he was convicted of official misconduct, a third degree felony, in violation of section 838.022(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order finding that the Petitioner was convicted of a felony under section 838.022(1), Florida Statutes, and directing the forfeiture of his FRS retirement rights and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has forfeited her rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System (“FRS”) pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2017).1/
Findings Of Fact Based on the record in this proceeding, including the evidence presented at the formal hearing and the stipulation of the parties in the Joint Response to Pre-hearing Order, the following Findings of Fact are made: The FRS is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. The Florida Division of Retirement is charged with managing, governing, and administering the FRS on behalf of the Florida Department of Management Services. For over 21 years, Ms. Painter was the head softball coach for Gulf Coast, an FRS-participating employer. By virtue of her employment, Ms. Painter was enrolled in the FRS. On May 5, 2014, the Bay County Sheriff’s Office commenced an investigation into allegations that Ms. Painter had misappropriated cash that had been provided to her to pay for players’ meals during a softball tournament in Las Vegas and that Ms. Painter was collecting and keeping rent money from softball players who were on full room-and-board scholarships and had their rent paid by the college. In the summer of 2014, Ms. Painter was charged by information with one count of grand theft, a third-degree felony. Gulf Coast did not terminate Ms. Painter’s employment. Gulf Coast allowed Ms. Painter’s employment contract to expire on June 20, 2014. On January 9, 2015, the information was amended to include seven counts of grand theft, each constituting a third degree felony under section 812.014(1) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes (2014). Though some counts dealt with other allegations, for the purposes of this proceeding, the essential charges involved the meal money and the rental payments. Ms. Painter ultimately entered a plea of nolo contendere to one count of grand theft. During the hearing before the court, the state attorney specified that Ms. Painter was pleading to Count IV, which alleged theft of the meal money. The contemporaneous notes taken by the court clerk state that Ms. Painter was pleading to “Count 4.” The order of probation states that she pled to “Count 4.” However, the actual written “Plea, Waiver and Consent” signed by Ms. Painter and the attorneys shows the numeral “1” under the heading, “Count.” It is unclear from the document whether Ms. Painter was pleading nolo contendere to one count of grand theft, or to Count I of the information. Count I involved the allegation that Ms. Painter had improperly collected rent from one of the scholarship players, Megan Griffith. At the circuit court hearing, no mention was made of the specific factual allegations in the count to which Ms. Painter was pleading. The court made no findings of fact. Ms. Painter was not required to allocute to any facts.2/ Upon entry of the nolo contendere plea, the court withheld adjudication. Ms. Painter was given two years’ probation and ordered to make restitution of $4,400, perform 100 hours of community service, and was directed to have no contact with Gulf Coast or her former players. The undersigned finds that the understanding of all parties, including the court, was that Ms. Painter was pleading nolo contendere to Count IV of the information. The amount of restitution ordered is roughly consistent with the amount of meal money that was at issue in Count IV. The numeral “1” on the plea document is either a misprint or was intended to convey that Ms. Painter was pleading to a single count of grand theft. At the final hearing, Ms. Painter testified that she was given $4,752 in cash to pay for meals during the Las Vegas trip, which began on January 31, 2014, and ended on February 4, 2014. Ms. Painter testified that if the girls were splitting up to eat at different restaurants, she would dole out cash to each group. If everyone was eating at the same restaurant, all the girls would place their orders, and Ms. Painter would pay the entire tab. Ms. Painter testified that this had been her practice on team trips for some time. She stated that she used to give each girl her portion of the total meal money at the start of a trip. However, some girls would inevitably spend all of their money before the end of the trip and Ms. Painter would have to pay for their meals out of her own pocket. By doling out the money one meal at a time, Ms. Painter ensured that it would last the entire five days. Ms. Painter denied keeping any of the meal money for herself. She admitted that she did not keep receipts from each meal she purchased, but testified that meal receipts were not required on multiple day trips, such as the Las Vegas tournament. Nothing she did on this trip was different than her usual practice. At the end of the trip, she returned $132 in unspent meal money to the athletic department. Ms. Painter testified that her nolo contendere plea was made for financial and emotional reasons. The case had dragged on for 17 months. The ordeal was humiliating and exhausting. She stated that accepting the plea deal was the hardest decision she had ever made, but that she did not in fact take any of the meal money from her softball players. The Department offered no admissible direct evidence to contradict Ms. Painter’s version of events. The undersigned did not admit the deposition of Gulf Coast Athletic Director Gregg Wolfe because it was a discovery deposition taken in Ms. Painter’s criminal case. The undersigned did admit the Bay County Sheriff’s Office case file on Ms. Painter’s criminal case, which included witness interviews and Ms. Painter’s bank statements. However, the case file was admitted on the understanding that it was a hearsay document that could only be used to supplement or explain other evidence. In the absence of competent non-hearsay evidence, or any showing by the Department that elements of the case file would be admissible over objection in a civil trial, the case file was of no utility. The Department’s only witness aside from Ms. Painter was its employee Allison Olson, the benefits administrator in the Bureau of Retirement Calculations. Ms. Olson’s knowledge of the case was gleaned purely through her review of the paper record, including the case file and the transcripts of depositions taken in the criminal proceeding. She had no first- hand knowledge of any of the events in question. Ms. Painter offered the deposition testimony of Joanne Booker, a member of Ms. Painter’s softball team at the time of the Las Vegas trip and currently an assistant basketball coach for Gulf Coast. In most essentials, Ms. Booker corroborated Ms. Painter’s testimony. Ms. Booker did not recall many particulars as to how the meals were purchased, but testified that at each meal the players were either given cash by Ms. Painter or had their meals paid for by Ms. Painter. Ms. Booker recalled no problems as to meals and recalled no one complaining about food on the Las Vegas trip. Even if it were found that Ms. Painter’s plea was actually entered as to Count I, the findings would be much the same. Ms. Painter testified that the “rent” she was accused of collecting and pocketing from the scholarship players was actually a voluntary contribution toward the rent of the non- scholarship players, to enable the entire team to live together in the same apartment complex. Ms. Painter testified that any money she collected was turned over to the lessor of the apartments. Again, the Department offered no admissible direct evidence to contradict Ms. Painter’s version of events. Ms. Painter’s testimony was at least credible enough to be accepted in the absence of any competent non-hearsay evidence to the contrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order restoring to Susan Painter her rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System and providing for payment to her of any past due benefits, together with interest at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 25th day of September, 2018.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Heike Stoll (f/k/a Heike Bybee), has standing to assert a claim or right to any portion of her former husband’s Florida Retirement System (“FRS”) benefits as an “innocent spouse” pursuant to Article II, Section 8(d) of the Florida Constitution, and section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2017).1/
Findings Of Fact Mr. Bybee is a member of the FRS Investment Plan by virtue of his former employment as a deputy with the Sarasota County Sheriff, an FRS participating employer. On October 6, 2017, in Sarasota County Circuit Court Case Number 2017CF001018, Mr. Bybee was found guilty by jury verdict of the following felonies under Florida law: Kidnap- Commit or Facilitate Commission of Felony; Crimes Against Person-Exploitation Elderly or Disabled Adult $20,000 to $100,000 dollars; Fraudulent Use of Personal Identifying Information (8 counts); and Computer Crime to Defraud or Obtain Property (3 Counts) (referred to collectively as the “felony convictions”). On October 6, 2017, judgment was entered against Mr. Bybee adjudicating him guilty of the felony convictions. The SBA notified Mr. Bybee that his felony convictions required forfeiture of his FRS benefits under section 112.3173(2)(e), Florida Statutes. Mr. Bybee did not file a petition for hearing to challenge the Notice of Forfeiture or otherwise assert that his felony convictions did not warrant forfeiture of his FRS benefits under the forfeiture statute. Mr. Bybee’s interest in his FRS benefits is subject to forfeiture due to his commission of the crimes, and his felony convictions. Ms. Stoll was married to Mr. Bybee on August 27, 1994. On or about May 9, 2017, Ms. Stoll filed her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in Manatee County (Circuit Court Case Number 2017-DR-2067) asserting her interest in, inter alia, Mr. Bybee’s FRS benefits. On December 8, 2017, Ms. Stoll filed an “FRS Investment Plan Petition for Hearing” asserting her claim of entitlement to her spousal share of Mr. Bybee’s FRS benefits as an “innocent spouse.” On February 26, 2018, Mr. Bybee and Ms. Stoll executed a Marital Settlement Agreement. As to retirement accounts, Mr. Bybee and Ms. Stoll agreed to the following: Retirement Accounts/Pension. Wife shall receive as her sole property, and all equity and value therein, all retirement accounts and/or pensions in the Husband’s sole name, in the joint name of the parties, and/or in the Wife’s sole name, free and clear of any claims or interest which Husband may have thereto. Specifically, Husband has a pension and/or retirement account through the County of Sarasota Sheriff’s Department, State of Florida. Wife shall receive as her sole property, and all equity and value therein, in said pension and/or retirement account, free and clear of any claims or interest which Husband may have thereto. Further, Husband assigns, transfers, and relinquishes any legal or equitable claims, causes of action, or remedies of any nature against the pension and/or retirement account through the County of Sarasota Sheriff’s Department, State of Florida; and Husband shall fully cooperate with Wife in any and all respects as necessary for Wife to pursue any such legal or equitable claims, causes of action, or remedies related any manner said pension and/or retirement account. Ms. Stoll was not charged with or convicted of any crimes related to Mr. Bybee’s felony convictions. Ms. Stoll’s testimony was credible that she was unaware of Mr. Bybee’s crimes, and had not benefited from them in any fashion. On April 16, 2018, a Final Judgement of Dissolution of Marriage was entered in Manatee County Circuit Court Case Number 2017-DR-2067 that “approved, ratified and incorporated” the marital settlement agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration issue a final order finding that Petitioner is not entitled to her former husband’s retirement benefits, because he was a public employee convicted of specified offenses; and pursuant to section 112.3173, he forfeited all of his rights and benefits in his Florida Retirement System Investment Plan account upon committing the crimes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 23rd day of May, 2018.
