16-001917 Richard Ruble vs. Office Of Financial Regulation Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, January 27, 2017.

Summary: Respondent did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner lacked the character, general fitness, and financial responsibility such that his loan originator license should not be renewed. Recommend renewal of license.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

RICHARD RUBLE,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 16 - 1917

OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was conducted in this cas e pursuant to

sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2016), 1/ before

Cathy M. Sellers, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") of the

Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH"), on October 13,

2016, by video teleconference at sites in Lauderdale Lakes, and

Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Christopher Jeffrey Hoertz, Esquire

Gary M. Singer, P.A.

1391 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway

Sunrise, Florida 33323

For Respondent: Scott R. Fransen, Esquire

Office of Financ ial Regulation

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, Richard

Ruble, is entitled to renewal of his loan originator license,

pursuant to chapter 494, F lorida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On December 28, 2015, Petitioner, Richard Ruble, submitted

an application for renewal of a mortgage loan originator

license. On February 15, 2016, Respondent, Office of Financial

Regulation, issued a Notice of Inte nt to Deny Renewal

Application for Loan Originator License Pursuant to Chapter 494,

Florida Statutes. On February 15, 2016, Petitioner timely

submitted a Request for Hearing and Election of Proceedings,

challenging Respondent's proposed denial of his loan originator

license.

The matter was referred to DOAH on April 6, 2016. The

final hearing initially was set for June 16, 2016, but, pursuant

to Petitioner's unopposed motion, was continued to July 27,

2016.

The final hearing in this proceeding was conv ened on

July 27, 2016, as scheduled. However, due to technical issues

with video teleconferencing capabilities between the Tallahassee

office of DOAH and other video teleconferencing sites around the

state, including the Lauderdale Lakes site, the hearing was not

able to be conducted on July 27, 2016. The hearing was

continued and rescheduled to October 13, 2016.

The final hearing was held on October 13, 2016. Petitioner

presented the testimony of Chris Bagnall, and Petitioner's

Exhibits A through W were admitted into evidence without

objection. Respondent presented the testimony of Richard Ruble

and Jason Booth, and Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 3 were

admitted into evidence without objection. The undersigned took

official recognition of chapter 494 and Florida Administrative

Code Chapter 69V - 40.

The one - volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed on

October 28, 2016, and the parties were given until November 7,

2016, to file their proposed recommended orders; however,

pursuant to Petitioner's re quest for an extension of time, the

deadline was extended to November 17, 2016. The parties timely

filed their Proposed Recommended Orders, which were duly

considered in preparing this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Parties

1. Petitioner, Richar d Ruble, holds a loan originator

license, National Mortgage Licensing System Identification

Number 209981 ("LO License"), which was issued by Respondent,

Office of Financial Regulation, and is the subject of this

proceeding.

2. Respondent is the state a gency charged with

administering and enforcing chapter 494, including part II of

that statute, which regulates loan originators.

Background and Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing

3. Petitioner has held his LO License since approximately

2004. As requi red by section 494.00312(7), Florida Statutes,

loan originator licenses must be annually renewed. 2/

4. In 2005 and 2006, Petitioner earned a substantial

income from his business as a loan originator for real estate

mortgage loans. As a result, he incur red a substantial federal

income tax liability.

5. When the real estate market took a dramatic downturn

starting in 2007, Petitioner's income also dramatically dropped.

He suffered significant loss of income starting in 2007. As a

consequence, he has been unable to pay his federal income taxes

since 2006.

6. As a result of Petitioner's federal income tax

liability for the years of 2005 and 2006, on February 12, 2013,

the Internal Revenue Service(ÐIRSÑ) recorded a Notice of Federal

Tax Lien ("Tax Lie n") against Petitioner's real property located

at 3801 South Ocean Drive, Unit 6Z, Hollywood, Florida, 3/ and in

Leon County, Florida.

7. As a consequence of the creation of the Tax Lien,

information constituting "adverse credit history information,"

as d efined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69 - 40.0113(2),

has been included in his credit report.

8. The inclusion of adverse credit history in Petitioner's

credit report prompted Respondent to contact Petitioner sometime

after February 12, 2013, and be fore June 8, 2013, and request

him to provide specified information about release or payment of

the Tax Lien by a June 8, 2013, deadline.

9. Petitioner, through his counsel, contacted Respondent

by correspondence dated June 7, 2013, explaining the

circu mstances under which the Tax Lien had been created and

stating that Petitioner would provide the requested information,

and notifying Respondent that Petitioner's accountant would need

additional time beyond the June 8, 2013, deadline to gather and

provide the requested information.

10. On July 30, 2013, Respondent proposed to deny renewal

of Petitioner's LO on the basis of the Tax Lien.

11. On August 13, 2013, Petitioner provided to Respondent

the requested additional information explaining the

circu mstances under which the Tax Lien was created.

12. On August 15, 2013, Respondent withdrew its notice of

denial of renewal of Petitioner's LO License; this withdrawal

document expressly stated: " Please consider the Notice of

Denial previously issued as withdrawn and of no force and

effect. " Respondent renewed Petitioner's LO, effective

August 15, 2013.

13. On December 30, 2013, Petitioner applied to renew his

LO license for the year 2014.

14. On June 30, 2014, Respondent issued a notice of denial

of renewal of Petitioner's LO.

15. Petitioner timely requested a hearing challenging the

proposed denial of the renewal of his LO License. However,

before the final hearing in that proceeding, the parties settled

the matter by executing a Settlement S tipulation, a condition of

which was that Petitioner provide, by December 31, 2014, all

information required by Respondent to complete review of the

renewal application for his LO.

16. To comply with this condition, on December 22, 2014,

Petitioner subm itted Respondent's 4/ Response Pursuant to

Settlement Stipulation ("Response"), consisting of an

explanation of his adverse credit history due to the Tax Lien

and two lines of credit he had taken out to cover his business

and personal expenses after the 200 7 economic downturn and his

consequent loss of income. The Response was supported by

extensive documentation consisting of Petitioner's personal and

business federal income tax returns; correspondence from

Petitioner's counsel to Respondent addressing the Tax Lien and

the status of Petitioner's efforts to resolve the Tax Lien

matter with the IRS; and correspondence from the IRS dated

September 8, 2014, stating that due to information Petitioner

had provided, it (the IRS) had refunded some taxes paid and

ap plied them to Petitioner's 2005 tax liability, which had, in

part, given rise to the Tax Lien.

17. On December 24, 2014, a Final Order incorporating the

Settlement Stipulation was issued, and the file was closed on

December 29, 2014.

18. On December 31 , 2014, Petitioner filed, and Respondent

deemed received, Petitioner's application to renew his LO

License for the year 2015.

19. Sometime before October 19, 2015 ÏÏ over nine months

later ÏÏ Respondent informed Petitioner that the information that

he had pro vided was not substantively adequate to support

renewal of his LO License for 2015.

20. Thereafter, on October 19 and December 14, 2015,

Petitioner, through his counsel, submitted information

consisting of copies of his income tax returns filed with the

IRS for years 2005 through 2010, as well as copies of his 2011,

2012, and 2013 income tax returns that were filed with the IRS

by his accountant, Chris Bagnall. The last three years of tax

returns (for years 2011, 2012, and 2013) were offered by

Petition er as evidence that he was working diligently with the

IRS to become current with respect to his filed income tax

returns.

21. On December 28, 2015, Petitioner applied to renew his

LO License for the year 2016.

22. On February 15, 2016, Respondent is sued a Notice of

Intent to Deny Renewal Application for Loan Originator License

Pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes (hereafter, "Notice of

Intent to Deny"), proposing to deny Petitioner's application to

renew his LO License for the years 2014, 2015, and 2016. 5/

23. The Notice of Intent to Deny cited three grounds, two

of which remain pertinent to this proceeding: (1) Petitioner

failed to demonstrate that he possessed the general fitness and

responsibility necessary to command the confidence of the

community and warrant a determination that he, as the applicant,

would operate honestly, fairly, and efficiently, as required by

section 494.00312(4)(b) and rule 69V - 40.113; and (2) a

background check revealed that Petitioner's credit history

contained ad verse credit history information ÏÏ specifically, that

the IRS holds an outstanding federal income tax lien on property

owned by Petitioner. At the final hearing, Respondent

expressly abandoned the third ground for its proposed denial ÏÏ

specifically, that Pe titioner had failed to provide certain

information as required under the terms of a final order of

settlement (discussed in greater detail below); accordingly,

that ground is no longer at issue in this proceeding. 6/

24. At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the

testimony of his accountant, Chris Bagnall, who was retained in

2013 to assist Petitioner in preparing and submitting his

overdue tax returns for years 2005 through 2015, and negotiating

a plan for paying his past due income taxes for these y ears.

25. Bagnall explained that it is the IRS's preference to

have the taxpayer make payments toward the outstanding

liability, and then to issue refunds if the taxpayer has

overpaid. Alternatively, if the taxpayer is not able to make

payments toward resolving the outstanding tax liability, the IRS

will negotiate payment plans applying the carryback rules, which

allow income gains and losses to be "netted out" for purposes of

determining overall tax liability. Under this approach, the IRS

will not neg otiate payment plans until all past due tax returns

have been filed. In the meantime, interest and penalties

continue to accrue on the outstanding income tax liability.

26. Bagnall testified, credibly, that after the real

estate market crash in 2008, P etitioner did not have the money

to pay the income tax he owed, and he used what little money he

did have to try to keep his business afloat. Because Petitioner

was not in a position to make a payment toward his tax liability

due to his drastically dimini shed income, and due to not having

timely filed income tax returns for several years, he was not in

a position to negotiate a plan with the IRS to pay the income

taxes he owes. In the meantime, interest and penalties on

Petitioner's past due taxes continu ed to accrue. As of the date

of the final hearing, Petitioner's total liability was

approximately $366,000, a significant portion of which was

attributable to penalties and interest accruing on the

outstanding tax liability. 7/

27. Bagnall testified tha t since Petitioner retained him

in 2013, he has been preparing and filing Petitioner's past due

income tax returns in batches, as Petitioner has been able to

garner the funds to pay for Bagnall's accounting services. As

of the date of the final hearing, B agnall recently had filed

Petitioner's income tax return for 2014, and he testified,

credibly, that he would be filing Petitioner's 2015 income tax

return within a few days after the final hearing. Once

Petitioner's 2015 return was filed, he would be curr ent

regarding the filing status of his income tax returns, so

finally would be in a position to negotiate with the IRS to

develop a plan to pay off his tax liability, with the ultimate

aim of dissolving the Tax Lien.

28. Petitioner acknowledged that as of the date of the

final hearing, he had not voluntarily made any payments toward

addressing his income tax liability. Additionally, Petitioner's

tax returns show gambling losses of $8,782 in 2011, $2,100 in

2012, and $18,546 in 2013.

29. However, as d iscussed above, the evidence shows that

Petitioner, through Bagnall, is taking a comprehensive approach

to resolving his income tax liability based in part on the use

of the carryback rules to net out his overall tax liability.

The evidence does not show that it would have been feasible for

Petitioner to have made individual payments toward his

outstanding tax liability until all of his returns had been

filed and he was in a position to negotiate a repayment plan.

30. Respondent elicited testimony from Petitioner that in

the application for renewal of his LO License filed in

December 2013 for the year 2014, he had failed to disclose the

existence of the Tax Lien until Respondent brought to his

attention that they were aware of the existence of the Tax L ien.

Respondent also elicited testimony that until brought to his

attention by Respondent, Petitioner had failed to disclose, in

his LO License renewal application filed in December 2015 for

the year 2016, that he had filed for personal bankruptcy in

Sept ember 2015. Respondent elicited this testimony to establish

that Petitioner exhibited a pattern of being untruthful and

incomplete in his responses to the application questions, and,

thus, lacks the character to warrant a determination that he

would opera te honestly, fairly, and efficiently, as required by

rule 69V - 40.0113(3)(b), for purposes of entitlement to renewal

of his LO License. 8/

31. However, the evidence does not clearly and

convincingly show that Petitioner intended to be untruthful in

his app lication responses or to hide the existence of the Tax

Lien or his personal bankruptcy from Respondent. It is as

plausible that Petitioner omitted this information in error.

With respect to the Tax Lien, the evidence shows that Petitioner

had previously disclosed the creation of the Tax Lien to

Respondent in correspondence dated June 13, 2013, and had, at

that time, provided an explanation regarding the events leading

to its creation. It would simply be nonsensical for Petitioner

to intentionally falsely deny the existence of the Tax Lien on

his application when he had previously submitted that very

information to Respondent. Similarly, with respect to

disclosure of his personal bankruptcy, Petitioner credibly

testified that the matter had been a topic o f discussion with

Respondent's staff for a period of months. Although Petitioner

amended his 2016 LO License renewal application only shortly

before the final hearing to correctly reflect that he had filed

a personal bankruptcy petition within the past 10 years, the

credible evidence indicates that Petitioner believed that

Respondent was aware of his personal bankruptcy through previous

discussions with Respondent's staff, so would have had no

motivation to intentionally provide false information regarding

that matter on his renewal application.

32. No evidence was presented at the hearing showing that

Petitioner has ever engaged, in the course of conducting his

mortgage loan originator business, in any fraudulent, dishonest,

or other conduct harmful to th e consuming public.

Findings of Ultimate Fact

33. The undersigned found Petitioner to be credible and

forthright in his explanation of the creation and status of the

Tax Lien, his personal bankruptcy, the filing of his tax

returns, and his ongoing effor ts to resolve his adverse credit

history issues that have affected renewal of his LO License. 9/

34. As discussed in detail above, Petitioner's adverse

credit history information is, at least in some significant

measure, a result of circumstances largely beyond Petitioner's

control. When the real estate market collapsed in 2008,

Petitioner suffered an immediate, dramatic drop in income; at

that point, he incurred the large tax liabilities with which he

has been burdened ever since.

35. As discussed abo ve, due to Petitioner's lack of income

during and after the real estate market crash, it took some time

for him to obtain the accounting services he needed in order to

file his overdue tax returns ÏÏ an essential step in negotiating a

tax payment plan with t he IRS. Although Petitioner's efforts to

resolve the Tax Lien with the IRS have taken some time,

Petitioner finally is, or soon will be, in a position to

negotiate a payment plan with the IRS to pay his tax liability

and, ultimately, resolve the Tax Lien.

36. Before now, Petitioner has not been in a position to

comprehensively and systematically pay down his tax liability

pursuant to a negotiated plan. Thus, at this juncture,

Petitioner's lack of voluntary payments toward resolving his Tax

Lien and his gambling losses have not been determined a basis

for finding that Petitioner lacks the character, general

fitness, and financial responsibility to entitle him to renewal

of his LO License. 10/

37. The persuasive evidence shows that Petitioner is

making steady progress toward getting himself in the position,

through bringing himself current in his income tax returns

filings, to negotiate a payment plan with the IRS in order to

comprehensively and systematically pay down his tax liability

with the aim of d issolving the Tax Lien.

38. For these reasons, the undersigned finds that

Petitioner has shown that he possesses the character, general

fitness, and financial responsibility to warrant a determination

that he will operate honestly, fairly, and efficient ly such that

his LO License should be renewed for the year 2016.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

39. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties to, and subject

matter of, this proceeding. §§ 120.569, 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.

40. In this proceeding, Respondent proposes to deny renewal

of Petitioner's LO License. This action is penal in nature

because nonrenewal of a business license is tantamount to

imposing a penalty on the licensee. Wilson v. Pest Control Com. ,

199 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)(noting that a license to

conduct business, once issued, has the quality of property).

Accordingly, Respondent bears the burden to prove Petitioner's

lack of entitlement to renewal of his license by clear and

convincing evidence. Coke v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. ,

704 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Dubin v. Dep't of Bus. Reg. ,

262 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).

41. Section 494.00312 requires individuals who act as loan

originators to be licensed pursuant to the requirements of that

section.

42. Section 494.001(17) defi nes a "loan originator," in

pertinent part, as:

an individual who, directly or indirectly,

solicits or offers to solicit a mortgage

loan, accepts or offers to accept an

application for a mortgage loan, negotiates

or offers to negotiate the terms or

condi tions of a new or existing mortgage loan

on behalf of a borrower or lender, or

negotiates or offers to negotiate the sale of

an existing mortgage loan to a non

[ - ]institutional investor for compensation or

gain.

43. Section 494.00312 establishes specific requirements

that must be met for licensure. Section 494.00312(4) states in

pertinent part:

(4) The office shall issue a loan originator

license to each person who is not otherwise

ineligible and who meets the requirements of

this section. However, it is a ground for

denial of licensure if the applicant:

* * *

(b) Has failed to demonstrate the character,

general fitness, and financial responsibility

necessary to command the confidence of the

community and warrant a determination that

the appl icant will operate honestly, fairly,

and efficiently.

* * *

2. For purposes of evaluating adverse

information found in an applicantÓs credit

report, the information must be considered

within the totality of the circumstances.

44. Section 494. 00313, governing renewal of loan originator

licenses, states in pertinent part: "(2) [t]he office may not

renew a loan originator license unless the loan originator

continues to meet the minimum requirements for initial licensure

pursuant to s. 494.00312 and adopted rule."

45. Respondent has adopted rule 69V - 40.0113 to interpret

and implement sections 494.00312 and 494.00313. That rule

provides in relevant part:

(1) Definitions. As used in this rule, the

term:

(a) "Adverse credit history informat ion"

means the following:

1. Personal bankruptcy within the previous

year.

2. Bankruptcy within the previous year of

any organization based on events that

occurred while the relevant person was a

control person.

3. Outstanding tax lien or other

gover nmental lien.

4. Outstanding judgment based upon grounds

of fraud, embezzlement, misrepresentation,

or deceit.

5. Open collection account or charged - off

account that remains unpaid, except accounts

related solely to unpaid medical expenses.

6. Forecl osure on personally owned property

within the last 5 years.

* * *

(2) Adverse Credit History Information. If

a relevant personÓs credit report or

responses to the license application contains

adverse credit history information, the

Office will notify the applicant in writing

of the specific items constituting adverse

credit history information. The notification

will also inform the applicant of the:

(a) Opportunity to explain the circumstances

surrounding the specific items and provide

any ot her relevant information that the

applicant wishes the Office to consider

surrounding the specific items;

(b) Documents that the Office requires in

order to complete its review of the specific

items. The requested documents provided by

the applicant mus t be legible. Documents

that are typically requested by the Office

include, but are not limited to:

1. Copies of satisfaction of judgment.

2. Copies of satisfaction of outstanding tax

liens or other governmental liens.

3. Copies of court documents t hat reflect

the substance of the matter and how the

matter was resolved or adjudicated.

4. Copies of account statements or letters

from the creditors explaining the current

status of accounts. For security purposes,

the relevant person may redact all bu t the

last four (4) digits of the account number

prior to submitting the document to the

Office.

5. Copies of tax returns, pay stubs, or

other documentation of income. If the

documents requested above cannot be obtained,

the relevant person shall submit evidence of

that fact in order for the license

application to be deemed complete. Evidence

that documents cannot be obtained shall

consist of a written statement from the

agencyÓs or creditorÓs records custodian that

is written on the agencyÓs or credito rÓs

letterhead; indicates that the agency or the

creditor does not have any record of such

matter or that the record was lost, damaged,

or destroyed, or cannot otherwise be produced

and provide a statement as to why the record

cannot be produced; and is si gned by the

agencyÓs or creditorÓs records custodian.

(3) Procedure for Reviewing Adverse Credit

History Information.

(a) When deciding whether to approve an

application for licensure as a loan

originator, mortgage broker, or mortgage

lender, the Offic e must make a determination

regarding whether the relevant person has

demonstrated that he or she possesses the

character, general fitness, and financial

responsibility to warrant the OfficeÓs

determination that the relevant person will

operate honestly, f airly, and efficiently.

In making this determination, the Office will

consider the following information:

1. The relevant personÓs entire credit

history as reflected in the credit report.

2. The information provided by the relevant

person under subsec tion (2).

3. The responses contained in the license

application.

4. The previous licensing history with the

Office including whether the relevant person

was named in any regulatory action by the

Office.

5. Other information that reflects upon an

appl icantÓs character, general fitness, or

financial responsibility.

6 . The time and context of the information

available and any pattern of behavior the

information may demonstrate.

(b) Based on the totality of the

circumstances as developed under paragra ph

(a), the Office will make a determination as

to whether the relevant person has

demonstrated that he or she possesses the

character, general fitness, and financial

responsibility to warrant the OfficeÓs

determination that the relevant person will

operat e honestly, fairly, and efficiently.

In considering the totality of the

circumstances, the fact that an applicant has

been a debtor in a bankruptcy or been the

control person of a bankrupt organization

shall not be the sole basis of the OfficeÓs

determina tion to deny the issuance of a

license.

46. For the reasons discussed above, it is concluded that

Petitioner has shown that he possesses the character, general

fitness, and financial responsibility to warrant a determination

that he will operate honestly, fairly, and efficiently, such that

he is entitled to renewal of his LO License for the year 2016.

47. Accordingly, Respondent failed to meet its burden to

demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner

does not meet the requirements for renewal of his LO License as

set forth in section 494.00312(4) and rule 69V - 40.0113(3)(b).

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order

approving renewal of Petitioner 's loan originator license for the

year 2016.

DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2017, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

CATHY M. SELLERS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeS oto 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 27th day of January, 2017

ENDNOTES

1/ All referen ces are to the 2016 version of Florida Statutes

unless otherwise stated.

2/ Section 494.00312(7) states, in pertinent part, that "[i]f a

person holding an active loan originator license has applied to

renew the license on or before December 31, the loan originator

license remains active until the renewal application is approved

or denied."

3/ On August 19, 2016, the IRS issued a Conditional Commitment

to Discharge Certain Property from Tax Lien, approving issuance

of a certificate of discharge for the Tax Lien with respect to

the real property located at 3801 South Ocean Drive, Hollywood,

Florida, contingent upon the provision of specified

documentation, which subsequently was provided.

4/ Ruble, the Petitioner in this proceeding, was the Responden t

in that case, Respondent's Administrative Proceeding Docket

No. 55981.

5/ At the final hearing, it was clarified that only the denial

of Petitioner's renewal of his LO License for the year 2016

remained at issue.

6/ This issue was addressed in par agraphs 14 and 24 of the

February 15, 2016, Notice of Intent to Deny.

7/ The amount of the Tax Lien recorded in February 2013 was

$366,078.66.

8/ Respondent did not tender for admission, and the undersigned

did not admit into evidence, a copy of Peti tioner's application

for renewal of his LO License for the year 2014. This document

was not disclosed as an exhibit as required in the Order of Pre -

hearing Instructions issued on April 18, 2016.

9/ Respondent asserts in its Proposed Recommended Order th at:

"[f]actors affecting the Office's decision to deny the renewal of

Mr. Ruble's license included the amount of the tax lien (over

$360,000); no evidence of a payment arrangement; and no evidence

that Mr. Ruble made any effort, since its inception, to pa y down

the tax lien." While those factors may have constituted the

basis for Respondent's proposed action to deny renewal of

Petitioner's license, this is a de novo proceeding, "the purpose

of which is to formulate agency action, not review action taken

e arlier and preliminarily." Dep't of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co.,

Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778, 785 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). At the final

hearing, Petitioner presented competent, credible, persuasive

evidence that he has made, and continues to make, progress toward

negotia ting a payment plan to pay down his income tax liability,

with the ultimate goal of dissolving the Tax Lien.

10/ However, it is noted that once Petitioner has negotiated a

payment plan with the IRS, subsequent failure on his part to

make payments towar d reducing his tax liability or incurring

gambling losses should be considered strong evidence of lack of

character, general fitness, and financial responsibility. The

point is, until now, circumstances largely not of Petitioner's

making have impeded his resolution of his tax liability. Once

he is in a position to begin repaying his tax liability

according to a payment plan, his failure to do so ÏÏ particularly

if it is shown that he has chosen to spend money on gambling

rather than satisfying his tax debt Ï Ï would constitute strong

evidence that he lacks the character, general fitness, and

financial responsibility to entitle him to subsequent renewal of

his LO License.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Christopher Jeffrey Hoertz, Esquire

Gary M. Singer, P.A.

1391 Sawgra ss Corporate Parkway

Sunrise, Florida 33323

(eServed)

Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire

Office of Financial Regulation

Fletcher Building, Suite 550

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Scott R. Fransen, Esquire

Office of Financial Regulation

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Liam Kellison Lyon, Esquire

Office of Financial Regulation

Fletcher Building, Suite 550

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Drew J. Breakspear, Commissioner

Office of Financial Regulation

200 E Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0350

(eServed)

Anthony Cammarata, General Counsel

Office of Financial Regulation

The Fletcher Building, Suite 118

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0370

(eSer ved)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Fina l Order in this case.