RYAN THOMAS DOSEN,. The Florida Bar File No. 2010-71,051(11A-MFC).
Respondent. REPORT OF REFEREE. I. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS;
Pursuant ...
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR,
Supreme Court Case No. SC10-615
Complainant, v. RYAN THOMAS DOSEN,
The Florida Bar File No. 2010-71,051(11A-MFC)
Respondent.
REPORT OF REFEREE I.
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS; Pursuant to the undersigned being duly
appointed as Referee for the Supreme Court of Florida to conduct disciplinary proceedings as provided for by Rules 3-7.2(h)(2) and 3-7.6(m) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, a final hearing of this cause was undertaken. All of the pleadings, notices, motions, orders, and exhibits are forwarded with this report and the foregoing constitute the record in this case. The following attorneys appeared as counsel for the parties: On behalf of The Florida Bar: Daniela Rosette The Florida Bar 444 Brickell Avenue, Suite M-100 Miami, Florida 33131 On behalf of the Respondent: Failed to Appear
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.
Respondent was involved in mortgage fraud in South Florida
between January 2006 and June 2008. Respondent knowingly, and with the intent to defraud financial institutions, namely Washington Mutual and Regions Bank, obtained money, funds, credits and assets owned by and under the custody and control of the financial institutions, by means of false and fraudulent pretenses. 2.
As a result of these actions, on or about March 4,2010, Respondent
pled guilty to one felony count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, the necessary elements of which include: (1) two or more persons who, in some way or manner, come to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment, (2) that Respondent, knowing the unlawful purpose of the plain, joined in, and (3) that the object of the unlawful plan was to commit bank fraud, as charged in the indictment. Based on this plea, Respondent was adjudicated guilty on March 5, 2010 in the cause styled United States of America v. Ryan T. Dosen. Case No. 09-21027-CR-HUCK, before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 3.
The relevant conduct involved in Respondent's plea agreement
included two real estate transactions where Respondent's office, Ryan T. Dosen P.L., acted as settlement agent.
2
4.
In the first transaction, Respondent's office assisted Fernando Soto
("Soto") in obtaining two mortgage loans for the purchase of 5009 London Walk, Unit 44, Miami, Florida from Washington Mutual. The transaction closed at Ryan T. Dosen P.L., which was at all times owned by Respondent. 5.
According to the HUD-1 settlement statement prepared by
Respondent's office and provided to the lender in this transaction, Washington Mutual, Soto was to bring $171,684.25 to close the transaction. Soto did not meet this obligation, but instead, a check was signed off by Respondent from his trust account to meet the cash to close obligations. 6.
Respondent had control of his trust account at all relevant times.
Moreover, the funding of the mortgage loans by the lender was contingent on the purchaser meeting his cash to close obligations. Respondent knew that Soto was not meeting these obligations, and yet allowed the lender to believe this was the case. 7.
After receiving the funds from the lender, Respondent wired
$50,800 for the benefit of Mike Ohana ("Ohana"), directly from his trust account. This amount was not recorded on the HUD-1 provided to the lender, as required by law, and therefore, the lender was not aware that the disbursement would be made. Respondent was aware that Ohana should not have received any loan proceeds but proceeded to make the wire transfer anyway.
3
8.
The second transaction included in Respondent's plea agreement
pertained to the purchase of 4191 Ingraham Highway, Miami, Florida. In connection with this transaction, Respondent's assistant created two different HUD-1 settlement statements, one for the seller and one for the lenders. Two loans were obtained from Countrywide, in addition to a HELOC from Sun Trust Bank in the amount of $400,000. 9.
Out of the funds received from Sun Trust Bank, Respondent
proceeded to disburse $339,500 to Julio and Laura Llanessa, his associates. The Llanessas were not in any way related to the transaction, and the disbursement was not disclosed in the HUD-1 provided to the lenders. This property is now in foreclosure. 10.
Respondent's actions resulted in actual, probable, or intended losses
in an amount in excess of $2.5 million, between $ 1.2 and $ 1.4 million for the London Walk property, and between $800,000 and $900,000 for the Ingraham Highway property. 11.
Although Respondent's sentencing remains pending, under
Florida's Sentencing Guidelines, the criminal court may impose a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of up to thirty (30) years, followed by a term of supervised release of up to five (5) years. Additionally, the criminal court may impose a fine of up to $1 million dollars and is required to order restitution. Respondent will further be required to pay a special assessment of $100.00. 4
12. Respondent has agreed as part of his plea agreement that he "abused his position of trust and used a special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense." III.
RECOMMENDATION AS TO GUILT: Pursuant to Rule 3-7.2(b), I recommend that Respondent be found guilty of
violating Rules 3-4.3 (Misconduct and Minor Misconduct), 4-8.4 (b) (A lawyer shall not commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects), and 4-8.4(c) (A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. IV.
CASE LAW; I considered the following case law prior to recommending discipline: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
V.
The Florida Bar v. Carlson. 183 So.2d 541 (Fla. 1966) The Florida Bar v. Cooper. 429 So.2d I (Fla. 1983) The Florida Bar v. Doyle. 3 So.2d 359 (Fla. 2009) The Florida Bar v. Lopez. 28 So.3d 46 (Fla. 2010) The Florida Bar v. Rassner. 172 So.2d 818 (Fla. 1965)
FLORIDA STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS: I considered the following standards prior to recommending discipline: ■ Standard 5.11 (a) ■ Standard 5.1 l(b)
5
■ Standard 5.1 l(e) ■ Standard 5.11(0 ■ Standard 7.1 VI.
RECOMMENDATION AS TO DISCIPLINARY MEASURES TO BE
APPLIED: Based on the foregoing findings of fact, I hereby recommend that Respondent receive a permanent disbarment. VII. STATEMENT OF COSTS AND RECOMMENDATION AS TO THE MANNER IN WHICH COSTS SHOULD BE TAXED: I find that pursuant to Rule 3-7.6(q) of the Rules of Discipline, reasonable costs are to be awarded to The Florida Bar as the prevailing party in this disciplinary proceeding. The amount to be assessed against Respondent shall be determined by the undersigned following a further submission by The Florida Bar regarding its taxable costs. VIII. PERSONAL HISTORY AND PAST DISCIPLINARY RECORD: Age: 31 Date Admitted to Bar: September 22, 2004 Prior disciplinary record: In The Florida Bar File No. 2009-71,243(11AMES), SC Case No. 09-1102, Respondent was emergency suspended pursuant to a Supreme Court Order dated June 30, 2009. This case subsequently resulted in the filing of a formal complaint in The Florida Bar File No. 2009-70,580(11 A), SC Case No. 09-1613, where this Referee recommended that Respondent be permanently disbarred. The Referee's recommendation in that case remains pending on appeal before the Florida Supreme Court. Additionally, Respondent was felony suspended pursuant to a Supreme Court Order dated April 5, 2010, following the filing of a Notice of Judgment of Guilt in the
6
instant matter. B.
Factors Considered in Aggravation: 9.22(b) - dishonest or selfish motive 9.22(d) - multiple offenses
DATED this 23rd day of
,2010.
Hon. Arthur Rothenberg, Referee Dade County Courthouse 73 West Flagler Street Room 311 Miami, Florida 33130 Copies furnished to: Kenneth L. Marvin, Staff Counsel Daniela Rosette, Bar Counsel Ryan Thomas Dosen, Respondent
7
