Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. PHILIP FORELLI, 76-001452 (1976)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 76-001452 Visitors: 6
Judges: STEPHEN F. DEAN
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Latest Update: Jun. 22, 1977
Summary: Petitioner failed to prove Respondent obtained money from clients by fraud or trick. Dismiss.
76-1452.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) DOCKET NO. 76-1452

)

PHILIP FORELLI, )

)

Respondent. )

)


RECOMMENDED ORDER


A hearing was held pursuant to notice on October 21, 1976 in the Conference Room of the Florida Real Estate Commission Offices located in the Las Olas Building, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida before Stephen F. Dean, assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.


This matter came on to be heard on the Administrative Complaint filed by the Florida Real Estate Commission against Philip Forelli alleging that he had obtained the signatures of Henry and Rose Aquinas on a contract for purchase and a deposit of $500 by trick, fraud, or misrepresentation in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes.


APPEARANCES


For Petitioner: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire

Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road

Winter Park, Florida 32789


For Respondent: Philip Forelli

Percent Triple A. Realty, Inc. 6217 Margate Boulevard Margate, Florida


FINDINGS OF FACT


  1. Philip Forelli is a registered real estate salesman.


  2. Forelli showed Henry and Rose Aquinas a house owned by the Rogers located across the street from Forelli's residence, after having the Aquinas referred to him by a mutual friend and neighbor.


  3. The Aquinas were interested in purchasing this home and selling their own home. The Aquinas desired to sell their home first before purchasing a new home.


  4. Forelli testified that he first had presented a blank MLS contract for their signatures, having made notes regarding the listing, so that the secretary could prepare the MLS papers before the weekend. However, that while this was

    being typed, the Aquinas called him and presented their offer to purchase, which he had typed. He then took both contracts to the Aquinas, delivering the previously signed MLS contract, and obtaining their signatures on the contract for purchase and deposit receipt for $500.


  5. The conflict arose because Henry Aquinas thought that the offer to purchase was contingent upon sale of his home, whereas Forelli stated that he had explained several times that such a contingent contract to purchase was not acceptable.


  6. The Aquinas also stated that they signed the contract for purchase in blank.


  7. Henry Aquinas and Rose Aquinas were unable to identify at hearing the contract for purchase as being the contract which they signed blank, although they identified their signatures. Henry Aquinas identified the listing contract as the contract which he signed in blank.


  8. The contract for purchase has no reference to any contingency provision.


    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


  9. The basis for the charge against Forelli is that he had the Aquinas sign a contract for purchase in blank and obtained a $500 deposit receipt check from them by representing to them that the papers were a listing contract in violation of 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes.


  10. This allegation is inconsistent on its face. Although elderly, the Aquinas were sufficiently sophisticated in real estate transactions to realize that one does not pay a deposit on a listing contract.


  11. Henry Aquinas identified the listing contract, Exhibit 3, as the contract which he had signed in blank. It was this contract that Forelli said had been signed in blank to allow advertisement of the Aquinas' home on the weekend. The complaint, apparently based upon Aquinas' charges to the charges Commission, alleges that Forelli represented the blank contract for purchase to be a listing contract. At hearing, the Aquinas could not identify the contract for purchase, Exhibit 1, only their signatures.


  12. The inconsistencies of the Aquinas' testimony are of such a nature that one must conclude that time has dimmed their recollection of the events.


RECOMMENDATION


Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the charges against Philip Forelli be dropped.

DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida.


STEPHEN F. DEAN

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675


COPIES FURNISHED:


Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road

Winter Park, Florida 32789


Philip Forelli

Percent Triple A. Realty, Inc. 6217 Margate Boulevard Margate, Florida


Docket for Case No: 76-001452
Issue Date Proceedings
Jun. 22, 1977 Final Order filed.
Oct. 29, 1976 Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 76-001452
Issue Date Document Summary
Jan. 25, 1977 Agency Final Order
Oct. 29, 1976 Recommended Order Petitioner failed to prove Respondent obtained money from clients by fraud or trick. Dismiss.
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer