STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. )
) CASE NO. 91-7796 LINDA FUTCH, BETTE K. POTTS, ) CASE NO. 92-0127 ARTHUR S. NICHOLS, JANET LYNN COFFING, )
TAILORMADE MANAGEMENT, INC., and ) COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT, INC., )
)
Respondents. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William F. Quattlebaum, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on April 15, 1992, in Fort Myers, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: James H. Gillis, Esq.
Department of Professional Regulation
400 West Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801-1772
For Respondent Futch: Linda Futch, pro se
Post Office Box 051025 Tice, FL 33905
For Respondent Potts: Norman A. Hartman, Jr. Esq.
Post Office Box 6844
Fort Myers, FL 33911-6844 For Respondent Nichols: none
For Respondent Coffing: Janet Lynn Coffing, pro se
1684 SE Plum Drive Arcadia, FL 33821
For Respondent: none Tailormade Mgt., Inc.
For Respondent: none Comprehensive Mgt., Inc.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in this case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaints are correct and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On October 30, 1991, Petitioner filed a 91 page Administrative Complaint alleging that the Respondents had violated various cited sections of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Generally, it was alleged that Respondent brokers repeatedly failed to properly maintain escrow accounts, failed to preserve accurate trust fund records, and failed to reconcile escrow account records.
Respondents Futch, Potts and Coffing disputed the factual allegations and requested a formal hearing. 1/ The files of the Division provide no indication that Respondents Arthur S. Nichols, Tailormade Management, Inc. or Comprehensive Management, Inc., received or responded to the Administrative Complaint. At the hearing, counsel for Petitioner indicated that the allegations against Respondent Arthur S. Nichols had been resolved, and that the complaint had been served on the last known addresses for Tailormade Management, Inc. and Comprehensive Management, Inc. Counsel also stated that the Petitioner intended to settle the case with Respondent Potts, and that he would present no evidence as to to allegations related to Ms. Potts.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Charles W. Pease, Patricia Ann Pease, Debra B. Campbell, Kevin S. Campbell, James M. Tolison, Arnold Roher, Crystal Miller, Bradley Miller, Alex Reisig, Charles Scott Brown, Scott Riebenack, Cheryl Ann Riebenack, Jeffrey C. Cooner, Bette K. Potts, Marie
E. Hayes, and Jean A. Laake and offered exhibits 1-10 which were admitted into evidence. Respondent Futch testified on her own behalf. Respondent Coffing testified on her own behalf.
A hearing transcript was filed on May 19, 1992. On June 1, 1992, the Petitioner requested a 20 day extension of time in which to file a proposed recommended order due to illness. The request was granted. On June 8, 1992, the Petitioner filed a proposed recommended order. No other proposed orders were received. The proposed findings of fact are ruled upon in the Appendix which is attached and hereby made a part of this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times material to this case, Respondent Tailormade Management, Inc. ("Tailormade"), was a corporation registered as a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, license #0259180, located at 12811 Kenwood Lane, #218, Fort Myers, FL 33907. The president of Tailormade was R. C. Hendrickson ("Hendrickson"), an unlicensed person.
At all times material to this case, Respondent Comprehensive Management, Inc. ("Comprehensive"), was a corporation registered as a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, license #0268646, located at 12811 Kenwood Lane, #218, Fort Myers, FL 33907. Until approximately January 30, 1991, the president of Comprehensive was Hendrickson. On or about January 30, 1991, Hendrickson resigned and relinquished her ownership and control to her son, Jay Coffing, an unlicensed person.
The rental escrow account for each company was maintained by Hendrickson and the company bookkeeper. On direction of Hendrickson, the
bookkeeper did not disclose information regarding rental escrow accounts to the licensed broker-salespersons. All accounts were reconciled by the bookkeeper who would provide the reconciliation data to the broker. The licensed broker- salespersons did not actually reconcile any accounts, but relied on the bookkeeper's data.
At all times material to this case, Linda Futch ("Futch") was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, license #0334770. The most recent license issued to Futch was as a broker-salesperson for Rawlings Realty, Inc., 1642 Colonial Boulevard, Fort Myers, FL 33907-1150.
From approximately February 20, 1989 through approximately November 16, 1989, Futch was licensed and operating as qualifying broker and officer for Tailormade.
On October 10, 1989, Hendrickson issued check #RE-1895 in the amount of
$10,000 from the Tailormade rental escrow account to the Tailormade operating account. A check notation indicated that the funds were "advance management fees". Hendrickson admitted to the company bookkeeper that the funds were to be used to pay the outstanding balance owed to the previous co-owner of Tailormade, from whom Hendrickson had purchased the business.
At no time during the period Futch acted as qualifying broker and officer for Tailormade did Futch prepare or sign written monthly escrow account statement reconciliations. Futch did not balance escrow liabilities with the escrow assets. Futch failed to make appropriate entries in monthly reconciliation statements which would note whether a shortage existed and whether corrective action had been taken. Futch maintained no records and was unable to provide any account documentation to the Petitioner's investigator.
Futch resigned as Tailormade broker-salesperson effective November 16, 1989. Futch was apparently succeeded by Bette K. Potts.
In November of 1990, Jeffrey C. Cooner met with a representative of Tailormade and leased a condominium unit, providing a deposit totaling $1,125 of which $350 was a pet and security deposit. Cooner eventually vacated the unit, 2/ and attempted to obtain a refund of the security deposit. By such time, the Tailormade office was vacant and closed. Cooner has received neither an accounting nor a refund of all or part of the security deposit paid to Tailormade.
According to the bookkeeper, as of December, 1990, approximately
$35,000 of rental escrow funds had been removed from the Tailormade rental escrow account by Hendrickson and had not been replaced.
At all times material to this case, Janet Lynn Coffing ("Coffing"), Jay Coffing's wife, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, license #0268647. Coffing's most recent license was as a broker in limbo, listing her home address as 5410 Ashton Circle, Fort Myers, Florida, 33907-7828.
From approximately February 21, 1991 through approximately May 28, 1991, Coffing was licensed and operating as qualifying broker and officer for Tailormade.
From approximately February 14, 1991 through approximately June 14, 1991, Coffing was licensed and operating as qualifying broker and officer for Comprehensive.
Coffing was aware, almost immediately after taking over as qualifying broker and officer for the companies that the escrow funds were short. She spoke to Hendrickson (her mother-in-law) and Jay Coffing about the situation, but apparently received no assistance from them. Coffing utilized operating funds to cover escrow shortages when escrow refunds were necessary, and continued to do so until all funds were depleted.
On March 18, 1991, Charles W. Pease met with a representative of Comprehensive and leased a condominium unit at 13040 Tall Pine Circle in Fort Myers, Florida, providing two checks totaling $1,650 of which $500 was a security deposit. Upon vacating the unit, 3/ Pease attempted to obtain a refund of the security deposit but the Comprehensive office was vacant and closed. Pease has received neither an accounting nor a refund of all or part of the security deposit paid to Comprehensive.
At some time in 1991, 4/ Debra and Kevin Campbell met with Coffing and leased a condominium unit located at 5418 Harbor Castle Drive. At the time the lease agreement was signed, the Campbells paid a $500 security deposit to Tailormade through Coffing. Upon vacating the unit, the Campbells attempted to obtain a refund of the security deposit but were unable to locate Coffing, and the Tailormade office was vacant and closed. The Campbells have received neither an accounting nor a refund of all or part of the security deposit paid to Tailormade.
At no time during the period Coffing acted as qualifying broker and officer for either Tailormade or Comprehensive, did Coffing prepare or sign written monthly escrow account statement reconciliations. Coffing did not balance escrow liabilities with the escrow assets. Coffing failed to make appropriate entries in monthly reconciliation statements which would note whether a shortage existed and whether corrective action had been taken.
Coffing maintained no records and was unable to provide account documentation to the Petitioner's investigator.
On several occasions beginning on July 2, 1991, an investigator from the Department of Professional Regulation visited office location identified as the registered offices of the Respondent Tailormade and Comprehensive companies. The offices were vacant and closed. The investigator contacted Hendrickson and Jay Coffing, and attempted to obtain information from them, but was unable to maintain contact with them. The companies are apparently not operational.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Petitioner has responsibility for disciplinary action taken against licensed real estate brokers. The burden of proof is on the Petitioner to establish the truthfulness of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).
Violation of disciplinary statutes is punishable by denial of a license renewal application, or by a license suspension for a period not to exceed ten years, or by revocation of the license, or through an administrative fine not to exceed $1,000 for each count or separate offense, or through issuance of a reprimand, or through any combination thereof. Section 475.25(1), Florida Statutes. Section 475.25(1), Florida Statutes, in relevant part,
provides that the licence of a Florida real estate broker may be disciplined by the Petitioner when the Respondent:
(b) Has been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction in this state or any other state, nation, or territory; has violated a duty imposed upon him by law or by the terms of a listing contract, written, oral, express, or implied, in a real estate transaction; has aided, assisted, or conspired with any other person engaged in any such misconduct and in furtherance thereof; or has formed an intent, design, or scheme to engage in any such misconduct and committed an overt act in furtherance of such intent, design, or scheme. It is immaterial to the guilt of the licensee that the victim or intended victim of the misconduct has sustained no damage or loss; that the damage or loss has been settled and paid after discovery of the misconduct; or that such victim or intended victim was a customer or a person in confidential relation with the licensee or was an identified member of the general public.
* * *
Has failed to account for or deliver to any person, including a licensee under this chapter, at the time which has been agreed upon or is required by law or, in the absence of a fixed time, upon demand of the person entitled to such accounting and delivery, any personal property such as money, fund, deposit,...which has come into his hands and which is not his property or which he is not in law or equity entitled to retain under the circumstances....
Has violated any of the provisions of this chapter or any lawful order or rule made or issued under the provisions of this chapter or chapter 455.
* * *
(k) Has failed, if a broker, to immediately place, upon receipt, any money, fund, deposit...in a trust or escrow account maintained by him in some bank. wherein
the funds shall be kept until disbursement thereof is properly authorized....
Rule 21V-14.012, Florida Administrative Code, in relevant part, provides:
A broker who receives a deposit such as defined herein shall preserve and make available to the Department, or its authorized representative, all deposit slips and statements of account rendered by the bank or trust company, credit union, or title company with trust powers, in which said deposit is placed, together with all agreements between the parties respecting the transaction, particularly the deposit, and all contracts, agreements, instructions, and directions to and with the said depository, and shall
keep an accurate account in his books of each deposit transaction, as well as an account in his books of each separate bank account wherein such trust funds have been deposited, together with a record of all withdrawals therefrom, and shall support such accounts by such additional data as good accounting practice requires. All such books and accounts shall be subject to inspection by the Department or its authorized representatives at all reasonable times during regular business hours.
A broker shall cause to be made at least monthly a written statement comparing the broker's total liability with the reconciled bank balance(s) of all trust accounts. The broker's trust liability is hereby defined as the sum total of all deposits received, pending and being held by the broker at any point in time. The minimum information to be included in the monthly statement-reconciliation shall be the date the reconciliation was undertaken, the date used to reconcile the balances, the name of the bank(s), the name(s) of the account(s), the account number(s), the account balance(s) and date(s), deposit(s) in transit, outstanding checks identified by date and check number, and any other items necessary to reconcile the bank account balance(s) with the balance per the broker's checkbook(s) and other trust account books and records disclosing the date of receipt and source of the funds. The broker shall review, sign and date the monthly statement-reconciliation.
Whenever the trust liability and the bank balances do not agree, the reconciliation shall contain a description or explanation for the difference(s) and any corrective actions taken reference shortages or overages of funds in the account(s). Whenever a trust bank account record reflects a service charge or fee for a non-sufficient check being returned or whenever an account has a negative balance, the reconciliation shall disclose the cause(s) of the returned check or negative balance and the corrective action taken.
The books, accounts and records pertaining to the broker's real estate brokerage business shall be preserved for a period of not less than five (5) years subsequent to the time of receipt of any money, funds, deposit, check or drafts entrusted to the broker or the conclusion of the broker's involvement in the transaction, whichever results in a greater period of retention of records....
As to Respondent Futch, there is no evidence that any escrow obligations went unmet while she served as broker-salesperson for Tailormade. Although the Petitioner introduced copies of checks supposedly signed by Respondent Hendrickson, the checks are generally illegible and there is no credible evidence that the signature is, in fact, that of Hendrickson. The company bookkeeper testified that Hendrickson admitted issuing a $10,000 check on October 10, 1989, which was drawn on the rental escrow account and was used to pay the outstanding balance owed to the previous co-owner of Tailormade. Futch resigned as Tailormade broker-salesperson effective November 16, 1989.
The evidence establishes only that Futch failed to maintain and reconcile escrow accounts, and failed to preserve and make available appropriate records of said accounts.
Based upon the facts established at hearing, by failing to reconcile the rental escrow account and to maintain appropriate records, Futch failed to comply with a rule of the Department in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
As to Respondent Coffing, it is clear that some escrow obligations went unmet while she served as broker-salesperson for Tailormade and Comprehensive. Coffing was aware almost immediately upon becoming the broker- salesperson that the rental escrow account was short. Some tenants paid deposit funds through Coffing. Coffing used said funds to meet existing escrow obligations and then utilized operating funds to meet escrow obligations until the operating account was depleted. The evidence establishes that Coffing failed to maintain and reconcile escrow accounts, failed to account for or deliver deposits, failed to maintain trust funds in an escrow account until proper disbursement, and failed to preserve and make available appropriate records of said accounts.
Based upon the facts established at hearing, Coffing has been guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust by knowingly accepting rental escrow deposits which were deposited into an account to be used to pay unrelated escrow refunds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Coffing has violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by failing to account for or deliver to any person upon demand, rental escrow deposits to which she was not entitled to retain. Coffing has violated Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, by failing to reconcile the rental escrow account and to maintain appropriate records, and has violated Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep escrow funds in an appropriate account until proper disbursement could be made.
Based upon the facts as established at hearing, Respondent Tailormade Management Company and Respondent Comprehensive Management Company have been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, dishonest dealing, and breach of trust in a business transaction by failing to appropriately maintain rental escrow funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by failing to account for or deliver to any person upon demand, rental escrow deposits to which the companies were not entitled to retain, in violation Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by failing to reconcile the rental escrow account and to maintain appropriate records, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and by failing to keep escrow funds in an appropriate account until proper disbursement could be made, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes.
Guidelines for the imposition of disciplinary action are as stated in Chapter 21V-24, Florida Administrative Code. Except where otherwise provided, the minimum penalty which may be imposed for each violation is a reprimand, or a fine up to $1,000 per count, or both. The recommended range of penalty imposed for a violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, is up to five years suspension or revocation. The recommended range of penalty imposed for a violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, is up to one year suspension or revocation. The recommended range of penalty imposed for a violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, is up to eight years suspension or revocation. The minimum penalty imposed for a violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, is a 90 day suspension and a $1,000
fine, up to revocation. Rule 21V-24.001, Florida Administrative Code. The penalties recommended in this case are as set forth below.
The Administrative Complaint contains numerous additional allegations related to witnesses who were not called to testify at hearing. As to allegations of property owners not receiving rental or security deposit payments, no property owner was called to testify. The Petitioner elicited hearsay testimony from tenants who stated that they had been told by property owners about said lack of payment. Such hearsay testimony is insufficient to support findings of fact and none are made. Section 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
The factual allegations of the Administrative Complaint suggest that, as to the dates and amounts of lease transactions and payments, and as to escrow deposits made, specific information was available to the Petitioner. As the Recommended Order indicates, very little specific information was introduced or admitted at hearing. As to some allegations, the Petitioner's proposed recommended order indicates that such specific facts were established at hearing. Review of the hearing transcript reveals that such information was not offered at hearing, and that the record does not support such specific findings of fact.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED:
That the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order determining Linda Futch guilty of the violations set forth herein and providing for a fine of $1,000, and a suspension of 90 days, to be followed by a probationary period of two years. During the probationary period, Futch shall complete 60 hours of continuing education, including a 30 hour management course for real estate brokers, and shall provide to the Florida Division of Real Estate all written monthly escrow account reconciliation statements for which she is responsible.
That the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order determining Janet Lynn Coffing guilty of the violations set forth herein and providing for a fine of $1,000, and a suspension of 180 days to be followed by a probationary period of three years. During the probationary period Coffing shall complete 60 hours of continuing education, including a 30 hour management course for real estate brokers, and shall provide to the Florida Division of Real Estate all written monthly escrow account reconciliation statements for which she is responsible.
That the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate enter a Final Order revoking the licensure of Respondents Tailormade Management, Inc., and Comprehensive Management, Inc.
DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida.
WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM
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 15th day of July, 1992.
ENDNOTES
1/ The administrative complaint filed against all Respondents are identical. The Petitioner initially jointly transmitted the Potts and Coffing requests for hearing which were assigned DOAH Case No. 91-7796. The Futch request for hearing was subsequently transmitted to DOAH and was assigned Case No. 92-0127. The cases were consolidated on March 3, 1992.
2/ There is no evidence as to when Cooner vacated the condo unit. 3/ The date upon which Pease vacated the unit was not identified. 4/ No dates were provided at hearing.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER
The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the Petitioner.
Petitioner
The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order, except as follows:
4, 5, 7. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. The evidence cited in the proposed findings fails to establish that the referenced checks were issued or signed by Hendrickson.
Rejected, as to amount of funds converted, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. According to the company bookkeeper, the total was approximately $35,000.
Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Although the evidence establishes that Miller deposit funds were placed with Respondent Coffing, there is no evidence that the Millers are currently entitled to the return of security deposit funds. The Millers continue to reside in the apartment. Testimony related to the unit owner is uncorroborated hearsay and insufficient to support a finding of fact.
Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Although the evidence establishes that Reisig deposit funds were placed with Tailormade Management, there is no evidence that Reisig is currently entitled to the return of security deposit funds. Reisig continues to reside in the apartment. Evidence related to the unit owner is uncorroborated hearsay and is insufficient to support a finding of fact.
Rejected, in part, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Although the evidence establishes that Campbell deposit funds were placed with Tailormade Management, there is no evidence that Reisig is entitled to the return of security deposit funds, as the proposed finding indicates. Evidence related to the unit owner is uncorroborated hearsay and is insufficient to support a finding of fact.
Rejected. Uncorroborated hearsay, insufficient to support a finding of fact.
Rejected, in part, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Although the evidence establishes that Brown deposit funds were placed with Tailormade Management, there is no evidence that Brown is currently entitled to the return of security deposit funds. Brown continues to reside in the apartment. Evidence related to the unit owner is uncorroborated hearsay and is insufficient to support a finding of fact.
Rejected, in part, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. There is no evidence that Pease met with Coffing. His testimony was that he met with Patricia Steffler. There is no evidence that Pease made a July 30, 1991 demand on Comprehensive. The July 30 demand was directed to the branch manager of the bank where the escrow account was apparently located. Evidence related to the unit owner is uncorroborated hearsay and is insufficient to support a finding of fact.
Rejected, irrelevant, and in part, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. The cited evidence does not identify the period of Tolison's employment as March 4, 1991 through June 3, 1991, and does not identify the total amount due as $1,284.48. The evidence establishes that James Tolison, owner of an appliance repair business, on occasion repaired appliances for condominium units managed by Tailormade and Comprehensive. As of June, 1991, Tolison was owed approximately $1,200 for said appliance repairs and made a demand for said funds. On June 24, 1991, Tolison received a check for
$479.22. There has been no further payment to Tolison. There is no evidence that the failure to pay Tolison is a violation of any disciplinary statue or rule for which the Petitioner is responsible for enforcement.
Rejected, in part, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. The evidence clearly establishes that the Riebenacks dealt with Jay Coffing, not Janet Coffing. Although the evidence establishes that Riebenack deposit funds were placed with Tailormade Management, at the time of the hearing the Riebenacks resided in the leased condominium unit. There was no evidence that they were currently entitled to the return of security deposit funds. Evidence related to the unit owner is uncorroborated hearsay and is insufficient to support a finding of fact.
Rejected, unnecessary.
Copies furnished:
Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate
Department of Professional Regulation Hurston North Tower
400 W. Robinson Street
P.O. Box 1900
Orlando, Florida 32802
Jack McRay General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
James H. Gillis, Esq.
Department of Professional Regulation Hurston Building North Tower, #308
400 West Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801-1772
Norman A. Hartman, Jr. Esq. GOETZ, HARTMAN, & LANDSTEINER
Post Office Box 6844
Fort Myers, FL 33911-6844
Janet Lynn Coffing 1684 SE Plum Drive Arcadia, FL 33821
Linda Futch
Post Office Box 051025 Tice, FL 33905
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
On August 18, 1992, the Florida Real Estate Commission heard this case to issue a Final Order.
Hearing Officer William F. Quattlebaum of the Division of Administrative Hearings presided over a formal hearing on April 15, 1992. On July 15, 1992, he issued a Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof.
Respondent Coffing filed Exceptions to the Recommended Order. A copy of said Exceptions is attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof. The remaining Respondents did not file Exceptions. After completely reviewing the record and being otherwise fully advised, the Commission adopts the Hearing Officers Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Recommended Penalty. The Commission further accepts the Exceptions filed by Respondent Coffing and amends the Recommended Penalty for this Respondent.
The Florida Real Estate Commission therefore ORDERS that Respondent Coffing be reprimanded and pay a $500 administrative fine within 30 days of the filing date of this Order or the license shall be suspended until such time as the fine is paid in full. The Commission further Orders that Janet Lynn Coffing be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year, subject to the following terms and conditions:
The licensee shall notify the Division of Real Estate of any changes in address or employment.
The licensee shall not violate any provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, or Rules adopted by the Commission.
The licensee shall not be convicted or found guilty of a crime in any jurisdiction.
The licensee shall enroll in and satisfactorily complete a 30-hour broker-management course within one (1) year of the filing date of this Order.
As to Respondent Linda Futch, the Commission ORDERS that the Respondent pay a $1000 administrative fine. The Commission further ORDERS that the license of Linda Futch be suspended for a period of 90 days. Following the suspension, Respondent Futch is to be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years, subject to the following terms and conditions:
The licensee shall notify the Division of Real Estate of any changes in address or employment.
The licensee shall not violate any provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, or Rules adopted by the Commission.
The licensee shall not be convicted or found guilty of a crime in any jurisdiction.
The licensee shall enroll in and satisfactorily complete 60-hours of continuing education, including a 30-hour management course for brokers.
As to Respondents Tailormade Management, Inc. and Comprehensive Management, Inc., the Commission ORDERS that the real estate registrations for these Respondents be revoked.
This Order shall be effective 30 days from date of filing with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation. However, any party affected by this Order has the right to seek judicial review, pursuant to s. 120.68, Florida Statutes, and to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Within 30 days of the filing date of this Order, review proceedings may be instituted by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation at 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 309, Orlando, Florida 32801. At the same time, a copy of the Notice of Appeal, with applicable filing fees, must be filed with the appropriate District Court of Appeal.
DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of August 1992 in Orlando, Florida.
Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by U.S. Mail to: Janet Lynn Coffing, 1684 Southeast Plum Drive, Arcadia, Florida 33821; to Linda Futch, Post Office Box 051025, Tice, Florida 33905; to Hearing Officer William F. Quattlebaum, Division of Administrative Hearings, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550; and to James H. Gillis, Esquire, DPR, Post Office Box 1900, Orlando, Florida 32802, this 18th day of August, 1992, in Orlando, Florida.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Sep. 18, 1992 | Final Order filed. |
| Jul. 16, 1992 | Case No/s 91-7796 and 92-0127: unconsolidated. |
| Jul. 15, 1992 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 4-15-92. |
| Jun. 08, 1992 | Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jun. 01, 1992 | (Petitioner) Motion for Extension of Time filed. |
| May 19, 1992 | Transcript filed. |
| Apr. 16, 1992 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Mar. 25, 1992 | Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 4-15-92; 8:30am;Fort Myers) |
| Mar. 03, 1992 | Order of Consolidation sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 91-7796 & 92-127) |
| Jan. 30, 1992 | (Petitioner) Motion to Consolidate w/case # 92-127 filed. |
| Jan. 29, 1992 | Letter. to WFQ from N. Hartment requesting subps. filed. |
| Jan. 17, 1992 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 03/26/92;8:30AM;Ft Myers) |
| Jan. 02, 1992 | (B. Potts) Supplement to Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Dec. 16, 1991 | (B. Potts) Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Dec. 13, 1991 | (DPR) Compliance With Order filed. |
| Dec. 06, 1991 | Initial Order issued. |
| Dec. 04, 1991 | Agency referral letter; Administrative Complaint; Election(s) of Rights filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Aug. 18, 1992 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jul. 15, 1992 | Recommended Order | Brokers acted as officer-licensee for rental managment company. Owner depleted escrow. Broker failure to reconcile or maintain account; fine, suspension, probation. |
