OAH 16-1005-21744-2
STATE OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COmmerce
|
In the Matter of the Unlicensed
Debt Collection Activities of Brooks, Newman & Stone, Inc. |
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,AND RECOMMENDATION |
This matter came on before Administrative Law Judge Manuel
J. Cervantes (ALJ) pursuant to a Notice and Order for Prehearing Conference,
filed December 9, 2010.
Christopher M. Kaisershot, Assistant Attorney General,
represents the Department of Commerce (Department). No one responded or appeared on behalf of
Brooks, Newman & Stone, Inc. (Respondent).
STATEMENT
OF ISSUES
1.
Did Respondent
violate Minn. Stat. §§ 45.027, subd. 7(a)(2) and 332.33, subd. 1,[1] by
conducting business within the State as a collection agency and collecting
claims for others without having first applied for and obtaining a collection
agency license.
2.
Did Respondent
violate Minn. Stat. §§ 45.027, subd. 7(a)(4) and 332.37(8) by showing
itself to be incompetent, untrustworthy, or financially irresponsible when it
refused or intentionally failed to account for all money collected within 30
days from the last day of the month in which the same was collected.
3.
Did Respondent
violate Minn. Stat. § 45.027, subds. 1a and 7(a)(3) by failing to respond
to the Department’s request for information.
4.
If the answer is
in the affirmative to any issue referenced above, should Respondent be subjected
to discipline and/or civil penalty?
Based
upon all the files records, and proceedings herein, the ALJ makes the following
FINDINGS OF
FACT
1.
Respondent is not licensed by the Department in any capacity, nor is
Respondent exempt from licensure as a collection agency.
2.
On or about
October 5 and October 29, 2009, Respondent faxed debt collection solicitations
to Intelligent Touch Dental (“ITD”), located in
3.
lTD hired
Respondent to collect on at least one account for a debtor located in
4.
On July 19,
2010, the Department sent Respondent an information request, which asked for a
written explanation to lTD’s complaint.
5.
Respondent
received the certified mail, signature required, on July 26, 2010, but to date,
has failed to submit any response to the Department.
Based upon all the files records, and proceedings
herein, the ALJ makes the following
CONCLUSIONS
1.
The Administrative Law Judge and the Commissioner of Commerce have
jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 14.50 and 45.027.
2.
The Notice and
Order for Prehearing Conference was proper, and the Department has complied
with all relevant procedural legal requirements.
3.
Pursuant to Minn. R. 1400.6000, a contested case may be decided
adversely to a party who defaults. Upon
default, the allegations and claims set forth in the Notice and Order for Prehearing Conference, and Statement of Charges
may be taken as true or deemed proved without further evidence.
4.
Respondent engaged in unlicensed collection agency or collector
activities.
5.
Respondent contracted with a
6.
Based upon the
facts set forth in the Statement of Charges, Respondent violated Minn. Stat. §§ 45.027,
subd. 7(a)(2) and 332.33, subd. 1, by conducting business within the State as a
collection agency and collecting claims for others without having first applying
for and obtaining a collection agency license.
7.
Based upon the
facts set forth in the Statement of Charges, Respondent violated Minn. Stat. §§ 45.027,
subd. 7(a)(4) and 332.37(8) by showing itself to be incompetent, untrustworthy,
or financially irresponsible when it refused or intentionally failed to account
for all money collected within 30 days from the last day of the month in which
the same was collected.
8.
Based upon the
facts set forth in the Statement of Charges, Respondent violated Respondent
violated Minn. Stat. § 45.027, subds. 1a and 7(a)(3) by failing to respond
to the Department’s request for information.
9.
Based upon the
facts set forth in the Statement of Charges, Respondent should
be subjected to discipline and/or civil penalty.
10.
This Order is in
the public interest.
Based upon these Conclusions, the
Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
RECOMMENDATION
The Administrative Law Judge
recommends that the Commissioner of Commerce impose an appropriate civil
penalty against Respondent.
Dated: February 9, 2011
s/Manuel
J. Cervantes
|
MANUEL
J. CERVANTES Administrative
Law Judge |
Reported: No Digital Recording
NOTICE
This
report is a recommendation, not a final decision. The Commissioner of the Minnesota Department
of Commerce will make the final decision after a review of the record. The Commissioner may adopt, reject or modify
the Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Under Minn. Stat. § 14.61, the final decision
of the Commissioner shall not be made until this Report has been made available
to the parties to the proceeding for at least ten days. An opportunity must be afforded to each party
adversely affected by this Report to file exceptions and present argument to
the Commissioner. Parties should contact
Michael Rothman, Commissioner, Department of Commerce,
If the
Commissioner fails to issue a final decision within 90 days of the close of the
record, this Report will constitute the final agency decision under Minn. Stat.
§ 14.62, subd. 2a. The record closes upon the filing of exceptions to the Report
and the presentation of argument to the Commissioner, or upon the expiration of
the deadline for doing so. The
Commissioner must notify the parties and the Administrative Law Judge of the
date on which the record closes.
Under Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 1,
the agency is required to serve its final decision upon each party and the
Administrative Law Judge by first class mail or as otherwise provided by law.