Judges: JAMES E. BRADWELL
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Latest Update: Aug. 24, 1992
Summary: Respondents accused of false representations, conspiring to use trick or scheme, and showing a pattern of dishonesty in business. Not proven; dismiss case.
77-0152.PDFSTATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, ) AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF )
FLORIDA, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NOS. 77-152 through
) 77-180 inclusive
ARTHUR ABRAMOWITZ, et al, )
)
Respondents. 1/ )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the above cause came on for hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings' duly designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, on July 26 & 27, 1977, in Miami, Florida. The cases were consolidated based on representation that there were similar issues of law and fact and that some witnesses would give testimony respecting all of the allegations contained in the administrative complaint. Pursuant thereto and in accordance with the Division of Administrative Hearings' rules, the Petitioner's motion to consolidate was granted. 2/
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner, Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire and Florida Real Robert J. Pierce, Esquire
Estate Attorneys for the
Commission: Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
For Repondent Gary F. Canner, Esquire
Hyams: Canner and Chait
1481 Northwest 7th Street Miami, Florida
For Respondents Sandford H. Goldberg, Ester Goldberg, Sylvia Cheen, Goldie Moskowitz,
William Praver, Murray, Harold Mendelow, Esquire Baumback, and Arthur 123 Northwest 12th Avenue Tannenbaum: Miami, Florida
For Respondent Harold Bellman, Esquire
Leon Bellman: 407 Lincoln Road
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
By a three count administrative complaint filed September 15, 1976, the Florida Real Estate Commission (herein sometimes called the Commission) seeks to suspend or revoke or otherwise discipline the referenced Respondents based on allegations that the Respondents, during the course of their employment with Theodore Dorwin, working on behalf of Intermart, Inc., solicited and obtained listings by telephone of property owners nationwide regarding their real property interests in the State of Florida by inducements to the effect that (a) the property could be sold for several times the purchase price, (b) the company had foreign investors who wanted to purchase property in the United States, (c) the property would be sold within six months of the date of the listing and (d) the property would be advertised nationwide as well as in foreign countries.
Concluding, the complaint alleges that the Respondents knew that such representations were false and thereby violated 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count two alleges a similar violation in that Respondents solicited fees in advance knowing that no bona fide effort would be made to sell any of the property so listed with Intermart, Inc., and thereby aided, assisted, or conspired with Intermart, Inc., its officers and directors which amounts to dishonest dealing in a real estate transaction in furtherance of a scheme in violation of 475.25(1)(a), F.S. Based on the foregoing allegations, the complaint concludes in count three that the Respondents are so dishonest and untruthful that disciplinary action should be taken pursuant to 475.25(3), Florida Statutes.
Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel, and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
During times material to the allegations of the administrative complaints filed herein, the Respondents were registered real estate salesmen in the employ of Theodore Dorwin, a registered real estate broker, and at all times material herein, Darwin was the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc.
Raymond Lewis, a salesman employed by Dorwin during the period December, 1975 through mid February, 1976, as a real estate salesman, was initially employed by Florida Landowners Service Bureau. During mid February, 1976, he testified that the name Florida Landowners Service Bureau was changed to Intermart, Inc., and that approximately during this period, he left the employ of Intermart, Inc. He testified that the offices were situated on northwest 79th Street, which consisted of a large room containing six cubicles where salesmen manned the telephones in the cubicles during the hours of approximately 6:00PM through 10:30PM during week days and during the early afternoon and evening hours on weekends. Salesmen were given lead cards which were apparently compiled from the county tax rolls from which a list was given containing out of state landowners. Employees, based on a "pitch" card called out of state land owners to determine their interest in selling their property. He described the procedure as a "front" when an out of state landowner was called to determine interest in selling their land. The "close" procedure was a method whereby those property owners who had displayed some interest in selling their properties were mailed a packet of materials which, among other things, contained a listing agreement. Salespersons were compensated approximately $100 to $125 for each listing secured by an executed listing agreement which in most instances represented approximately one third of the listing fee. During the course of a normal day, salesmen would contact approximately thirty landowners and they would be given estimates of the prospective selling price of their land based on the location of the property and the length of time that the owner had
held it. The testimony of Lewis, which is representative of that given by later witnesses including Jeffrey Barker, August Graser, David Cotton and Henry Halar (all salesmen employed by Dorwin) reveals that property owners were called to determine their interest and if interest was noted, follow-up calls would be made after a packet of materials was sent to interested landowners. After a listing arrangement was obtained, salesmen were compensated by payment of an amount representing approximately one-third of the listing fee. In the case of a listing fee obtained by two or more salespersons, the fee (commission) was divided according to the number of salespersons instrumental in obtaining the listing.
Each salesman who testified indicated that they made no guarantee that a sale would be consummated within a definite period nor were they familiar, in any particulars, with the brokerage efforts to sell the properties of owners who listed their property with Intermart.
Theodore Dorwin, the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc., was subpoenaed and testified that he had no copies of the records which were subpoenaed showing the operations of Intermart, Inc. In this regard, Raymond Lewis also testified that he had no corporate records respecting Intermart.
Both witnesses testified that all corporate records of Intermart had been subpoenaed and were in the custody of the Attorney General for more than one year. Dorwin refused to give any testimony respecting the operational workings of Intermart, Inc., based on fifth amendment self incrimination grounds. The Commission's counsel took the position during the course of the hearing that Mr. Dorwin had waived any and all fifth amendment rights or privileges by virtue of having personally testified in a similar matter before the Florida Real Estate Commission in a proceeding undertaken to revoke or suspend his license as a real estate broker. Having voluntarily taken the stand in that proceeding, the Commission concludes that he is not now entitled to any fifth amendment protections. As evidence of Mr. Dorwin's having voluntarily taken the stand in the prior proceeding, excerpts of the testimony from that proceeding was introduced into evidence. (See FREC Exhibit number 8). Having considered the legal authorities and the arguments of counsel, the undersigned is of the opinion that testimony given by a party in a separate proceeding to which the Respondents were not party to and of which the Respondents had no notice of cannot serve in lieu of evidence on which findings of fact can be based to substantiate allegations pending in the instant case. To do so, would possibly leave open the door for highly prejudicial and damaging testimony to which the Respondents here had no opportunity to rebut, cross examine or otherwise explain, all of which is inherently destructive of their basic rights, fairness and fundamental due process. The cases of Hargis v. FREC 174 So.2d 419 and Vann, 85 So.2d 133 are not deemed inapposite to the conclusion reached here.
The fact that the State's Attorney General is currently conducting an investigation into the operations of Intermart makes clear that the possibility of criminal action or other sanctions exist (e.g. tax problems). For these reasons, I conclude that Dorwin's testimony in a prior proceeding, amounts to no waiver of his constitutional privilege. For these reasons, exhibit number 8 will not be considered as evidence herein. Having so concluded, the record is barren of any evidence, hearsay or otherwise, which would tend to establish in a competent and substantial manner, that the Respondents herein had engaged in conduct alleged as violative of Chapter 475.25, Florida Statutes.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. (Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes).
The authority of the Commission is derived from Chapter 475, Florida Statutes.
The burden of proving that a licensed real estate salesman has violated the real estate licensing law lies with the Florida Real Estate Commission, or its representative. State ex rel Vining v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 281 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1973).
Insufficient evidence was offered at the hearing to establish that the Respondents made false representations within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in count one of the administrative complaint filed herein.
Insufficient evidence was offered dot the hearing to establish that the Respondents aided, assisted, or conspired with another person in furtherance of a design or scheme in violation of 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in count two of the administrative complaints filed herein.
Based on the foregoing conclusions, insufficient evidence was offered to establish that the Respondents are guilty of a course of conduct or practices which show a pattern of dishonesty and untruthfulness within the meaning of 475.25(3), Florida Statutes, as alleged in count three.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is:
RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaints filed herein be dismissed in their entirety.
RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida.
JAMES E. BRADWELL
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings
530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
ENDNOTES
1/ Specifically, the Respondents are: Arthur Abramowitz, 77-152; Murray Baumback, 77-153; Leon Bellman, 77-154; Gino Bonci, 77-155; Sylvia Cheen, 77- 156; David Michael Cotton, 77-157; Armstead M. Covington, 77-158; William H. Evans, 77-159; Robert B. Fullerton, 77-160; Harold Gans, 77-161; Esther I. Goldberg, 77-162; Sanford H. Goldberg 77-163; August Steven Graser, 77-164; Henry J. Halam, 77-165; Joseph Hyams, 77-166; Bernard Koss, 77-167; Erica Leichus, 77-168; Frank W. Markunas, 7-170; Goldie Moskowitz, 77-171; William
Praver, 77-172; Jeffrey A. Rosenstein, 77-173; Bruce Sawyer, 77-174; Jeanne Sawyer, 77-175; Henry Schahet, 77-176; Barry Schoenblatt, 77-177; Francine K. Schoenblatt, 77-178; Arthur Tannenbaum, 77-179; Albert Michael Tkach, 77-180. The administrative complaints respecting Respondents William H. Evans, 77-159, Murray Baumback, 77-153 and Bernard Koss, 77-167 were withdrawn since they surrendered their licenses to the Commission. No action was taken on the complaints filed against named Respondents Robert B. Fullerton, 77-160 and Jeanne Sawyer, 77-175, both of whom are now deceased.
2/ Due to the pendency of certain motions which were, at the time of this hearing, recently filed with the Commission with no action being taken thereon, the undersigned permitted the cases of Respondents Leon Bellman and Joseph Hyams (FREC Progress Dockets 2968 and 2980) to be severed and will be scheduled individually at a later date.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Robert J. Pierce, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Harold Bellman, Esquire
407 Lincoln Road
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Gary F. Canner, Esquire Canner and Chait
1481 Northwest 7th Street Miami, Florida
Harold Mendelow, Esquire
123 Northwest 12th Avenue Miami, Florida
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION,
An agency of the state of Florida,
Plaintiff, PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 2966 DADE COUNTY
vs. DOAH CASE NO. 77-152
ARTHUR ABRAMOWITZ,
Defendant.
/
FINAL ORDER
At a regular meeting of the Florida Real Estate Commission held at its Executive Headquarters in Winter Park, Florida, on November 22, 1977,
PRESENT: Maggie S. Lassetter, Chairman Levie D. Smith, Jr., Vice Chairman Arthur N. Hamel, Member
APPEARANCES: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire,
Attorney for Plaintiff
No appearance for Defendant
This matter came on for Final Order upon the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order and the Plaintiff's Exceptions thereto, and upon consideration thereof, together with a review of the complete record and oral argument of attorney for the Plaintiff, and the Commission, being fully advised in the premises, finds:
1.
That Defendant, Arthur Abramowitz, is presently registered with the Commission as a salesman, 16400 Northeast 17th Avenue, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162.
2.
That the Plaintiff's Exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order are well taken and should be accepted.
3.
That Defendant, Arthur Abramowitz, was granted initial registration as a real estate salesman on October 3, 1962.
4.
That Defendant, Arthur Abramowitz, was registered and operating as a real estate salesman from April 27, 1976, to July 21, 1976, in the employ of corporate real estate broker Intermart, Inc. or Theodore Dorwin, registered real estate broker.
5.
That the unrebutted testimony of five former read estate salesmen of Intermart, Inc. or Theodore Dorwin is that they did not know of any brokerage efforts to sell the properties of owners who listed for an advance fee their property with Intermart, Inc. or Theodore Dorwin.
6.
That the real estate brokers' registrations of Intermart, Inc. and Theodore Dorwin were revoked by Final Order issued by the Commission on March 18, 1977, finding that Intermart, Inc. and Theodore Dorwin from February, 1976 through June, 1976, operated an advance fee business which was designed and carried out with the sole intention of extracting monies from landowners with no intent to carry out the stated promise of earnest efforts to sell the property, in violation of the Real Estate License Law.
7.
The Commission rejects the Hearing Officer's refusal to consider as evidence Plaintiff's Exhibit number 8 which is a transcript of Theodore Dorwin's testimony given in a prior proceeding. The Hearing Officer specifically stated, in reference to Exhibit number 8, "Okay. I will receive it over the objections of counsel." At that point, said exhibit was accepted into evidence and the Hearing Officer cannot now refuse to consider same. At another point in the proceeding the attorney representing Mr. Dorwin, as well as several Defendants (Sylvia Cheen, Esther Goldberg, Sanford H. Goldberg, Goldie Moskowitz, William Praver and Arthur Tannenbaum) specifically stipulated Exhibit number 8 into evidence. None of the Defendants ever objected to the introduction of Exhibit number 8 into evidence at any point in the proceeding.
8.
The Plaintiff specifically rejects the finding that " ... the record is barren of any evidence, hearsay (sic) or otherwise, which would tend to establish in a competent and substantial manner, that the Defendants herein had engaged in conduct alleged as violative of Chapter 475.25, Florida Statutes."
9.
The Commission rejects the Conclusions of Law as set forth by the Hearing Officer in his Recommended Order, and the evidence is ample to support the charges as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
The Defendant owed a duty of fair and honest dealing which the Defendant has clearly breached. Once the Defendant received a share of the advance fee, Defendant's interest and involvement in the transaction abruptly ended. As stated by Justice Terrell in the case of Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419 (1927):
"The real estate business is not an avenue by which one may practice the tricks of his
trade or prey on the innocent and unsuspecting purchaser, nor is it a cloak to cover fraud and deception, or a means for designing per- sons to short-circuit those who would deal squarely and in food faith. It is indeed a highly respectable "business or profession; its ethics are well defined and presumed to
be known to those who patronize or in
that business. No business known to modern society has a longer or more respectable history. Real estate is a primary security for credit in all the civilized countries of the earth, and the real estate broker in our time, and long has been, the medium through which annually many millions of dollars in earnings and savings are secured or invested. He is the agent of his principal in every sense, and when that relation is undertaken, a fiduciary relation is created which bars the agent from becoming interested in the business
or property antagonistic to his principal with- out his knowledge or consent. Every man, in other words, to whom a business is entrusted
by another, has a trust to perform; and every man is a trustee whose business is to advise concerning or to operate the business of another."
10. IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED that:
The Plaintiff's Exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order be, and the same are hereby, accepted;
The Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact be, and the same are hereby, adopted to the extent it is not inconsistent with the findings herein; and
The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order be, and the same are hereby, rejected by the Commission.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendant, Arthur Abramowitz, be, and he is hereby, found guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and for said violation, the registration of Defendant Arthur Abramowitz is hereby suspended for a period of six (6) months.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before the effective date of this Final Order, Defendant Arthur Abramowitz shall surrender his registration certificate to the Commission by return mail.
DONE and ORDERED at Orlando, Florida, this 28th day of December, 1977.
Maggie S. Lassetter Chairman
Levie D. Smith, Jr. Vice Chairman
Arthur N. Hamel Member
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Final Order was mailed to:
Arthur Abramowitz
61400 Northeast 17th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162
by United States registered mail this 28th day of December, 1977.
Executive Director
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
This Final Order shall become effective on the 27th day of January, 1978.
However, you have a right review by an Appellate Court, if you desire.
PLEASE NOTE:
You are to comply with Paragraph 12 of this Final Order, and we are including an envelope for your convenience.
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION,
An Agency of the State of Florida,
Petitioner, PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 2971 DADE COUNTY
vs. DOAH CASE NOS: 77-152 through
77-180
DAVID MICHAEL COTTON, 77-157
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
At a regular meeting of the Florida Real Estate Commission held at its Executive Headquarters in Orlando, Florida, on February 15, 1978,
PRESENT: Maggie S. Lassetter, Chairman Levie D. Smith, Jr., Vice Chairman Arthur N. Hamel, Member
APPEARANCES: Robert J. Pierce
Frederick H. Wilsen Attorneys for Petitioner
R. Daniel Koppen Attorney for Respondent
David Michael Cotton, Respondent
This matter came on for Final Order upon the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order and the Petitioner's Exceptions thereto, and upon consideration thereof, together with a review of the complete record, oral argument of attorneys for the Petitioner and the Respondent, statements by the Respondent himself, and an affidavit submitted by the Respondent, and the Commission being fully advised in the premises, finds:
That Respondent, David Michael Cotton, is presently registered with the Commission as a salesman in the employ of corporate broker Webb International Realty, Inc., 825 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 1647, Miami, Florida 33131.
That the Petitioner's Exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order are well taken and should be accepted.
That Respondent, David Michael Cotton, was granted initial registration as a real estate salesman on July 22, 1968.
That Respondent, David Michael Cotton, was registered and operating as a real estate salesman from August 14, 1975 to April 1, 1976, in the employ of corporate real estate broker Intermart, Inc. or Theodore Dorwin, registered real estate broker.
That the unrebutted testimony of five former real estate salesmen of Intermart, Inc. or Theodore Dorwin is that they did not know of any brokerage efforts to sell the properties of owners who listed for an advance fee their property with Intermart, Inc. or Theodore Dorwin.
That the real estate brokers' registrations of Intermart, Inc. and Theodore Dorwin were revoked by Final Order issued by the Commission on March 18, 1977, finding that Intermart, Inc. and Theodore Dorwin from February, 1976, through June, 1976, operated an advance fee business which was designed and carried out with the sole intention of extracting monies from landowners with no intent to carry out the stated promise of earnest efforts to sell the property, in violation of the Real Estate License Law.
The Commission rejects the Hearing Officer's refusal to consider as evidence Petitioner's Exhibit number 8 which is a transcript of Theodore Dorwin's testimony given in a prior proceeding. The Hearing Officer specifically stated, in reference to Exhibit number 8, "Okay. I will receive it over the objections of counsel." At that point, said exhibit was accepted into evidence and the Hearing Officer cannot now refuse to consider same. At another point in the proceeding the attorney representing Mr. Dorwin, as well as several Respondents (Sylvia Cheen, Esther Goldberg, Sanford H. Goldberg, Goldie Moskowitz, William Praver and Arthur Tannenbaum) specifically stipulated Exhibit number 8 into evidence. None of the Respondents ever objected to the introduction of Exhibit number 8 into evidence at any point in the proceeding.
The Petitioner specifically rejects the finding that " . . . the record is barren of any evidence, heresay (sic) or otherwise, which would tend to establish in a competent and substantial manner, that the Respondents herein had engaged in conduct alleged as violative of Chapter 475.25, Florida Statutes."
The Commission rejects the Conclusions of Law set forth by the Hearing Officer in his Recommended Order, and the evidence is ample to support the charges as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
The Respondent owed a duty of fair and honest dealing which the Respondent has clearly breached. Once the Respondent received a share of the advance fee, Respondent's interest and involvement in the transaction abruptly ended. As stated by Justice Terrell in the case of Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419 (1927):
"The real estate business is not an avenue by which one may practice the tricks of his
trade or prey on the innocent and unsuspecting purchaser, nor is it a cloak to cover fraud and deception, or a means for designing persons to short-circuit those who would deal squarely and in good faith. It is indeed a highly respectable business or profession;
its ethics are well defined and presumed to be known to those who patronize or engage in that business. No business known to modern
society has a longer or more respectable history. Real estate is a primary security for credit in all the civilized countries of the earth, and the real estate broker in our time, and long has been, the medium through which annually many millions of dollars in earnings and savings are secured or invested. He is the agent of his principal in every sense, and when that relation is undertaken, a fiduciary relation is created which bars the agent from becoming interested in the business or property antagonistic to his principal without his knowledge or consent. Every man,
in other words, to whom a business is entrusted by another, has a trust to perform; and every man is a trustee whose business is to advise concerning or to operate the business of another."
IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED that:
The Petitioner's Exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order be, and the same are hereby, accepted;
The Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact be, and the same are hereby, adopted to the extent it is not inconsistent with the findings herein; and
The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order be, and the same are hereby, rejected by the Commission.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Respondent, David Michael Cotton, be, and he is hereby, found guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and for said violation, the registration of Respondent David Michael Cotton is hereby suspended for a period of three (3) months.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before the effective date of this Final Order, Respondent David Michael Cotton shall surrender his registration certificate to the Commission by return mail.
DONE and ORDERED at Orlando, Florida, this 17th day of February, 1978.
MAGGIE S. LASSETTER
Chairman
P. D. SMITH, JR. Vice Chairman
A. N. GAMEL Member
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Final Order was mailed to:
R. Daniel Koppen, Esquire Koppen & Watkins
181 Northeast 82nd Street Little River
Miami, Florida 33138
by United States registered mail this 17th day of February, 1978.
* Executive Director
* NOTE: Document filed with DOAH unsigned. NOTICE TO RESPONDENT:
This Final Order shall become effective on the 20th day of March, 1978.
However, you have a right of review by an Appellate Court, if you desire. PLEASE NOTE:
You are to comply with Paragraph 13 of this Final Order, and we are including an envelope for your convenience.
RJP :pd
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION,
An Agency of the State of Florida,
Petitioner, PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 2980 DADE COUNTY
vs. DOAH CASE NO: 77-166
JOSEPH HYAMS,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
At a regular meeting of the Florida Real Estate Commission held at its Executive Headquarters in Orlando, Florida, on June 5, 1979,
PRESENT: Levie D. Smith, Jr., Chairman Arthur N. Hamel, Vice Chairman Virginia H. Bishop, Member Garth C. Reeves, Jr., Member
APPEARANCES: Frederick H. Wilsen
Attorneys for Petitioner
No appearance for Respondent
This matter came on for Final Order upon an Administrative Complaint and Answers filed herein, and an Offer of Settlement submitted by Gary F. Canner, Esq., attorney for Respondent, by letter dated May 10, 1979, wherein Respondent has consented to the suspension of his registration as a real estate salesman for a period of one year, and upon due consideration thereof, the Commission finds:
1.
According to the records of the Commission, the last address Respondent Joseph Hyams is a non-active salesman, 3526 Buford Highway Northeast, Number 11, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.
2.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the registration of Respondent Joseph Hyams be, and the same is hereby, suspended for a period of one year. The right to appeal having been waived, this order shall take effect immediately.
DONE and ORDERED at Orlando, Florida, this 6th day of June, 1979.
LEVIE. D. SMITH, JR.
Chairman
ARTHUR N. HAMEL
Vice Chairman
VIRGINIA H. BISHOP
Member
GARTH C. REEVES
Member
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Final Order was mailed to Gary F. Canner, Esq., Attorney for Respondent, Canner and Chait, P. A., 1481 Northwest 7th Street, Miami, Florida 33125, by United States registered mail this 12th day of June 1979.
STAFFORD
Executive Director
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT:
In compliance with this Final Order, a stamped, addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience in returning your certificate.
FHW/dd
Docket for Case No: 77-000152
Orders for Case No: 77-000152
| Issue Date |
Document |
Summary |
|
Dec. 28, 1977 |
Agency Final Order
|
|
|
Oct. 18, 1977 |
Recommended Order
|
Respondents accused of false representations, conspiring to use trick or scheme, and showing a pattern of dishonesty in business. Not proven; dismiss case.
|
