STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 77-1799
) P.D. NO. 3078
JOEL L. STEINER, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held before Michael R.N. McDonnell, Hearing Officer for the Division of Administrative Hearings, at 8:30 a.m., on June 19, 1978, at 717 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Third Floor, Coral Gables, Florida.
Petitioner was represented by Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire, Florida Real Estate Commission, 400 West Robinson Street, Orlando, Florida 32801; Respondent was represented by Stephen J. Avracb, Esquire, 420 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida 33139.
Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission (hereafter FREC), seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline Respondent, Joel L. Steiner (hereafter Steiner), for alleged violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, the Florida Real Estate License Law. It is alleged that Steiner was, while registered as a real estate salesman, involved in an "advance fee" real estate operation in which Steiner misrepresented to prospective clients that:
the property could be sold for several times the purchase price.
the property would be advertised nation- wide and in foreign countries.
the Company had foreign buyers wanting to purchase United States property listed with the Company.
It is further alleged that Steiner knew that no bona fide effort would be made to sell any of the properties listed with his company, First Allstate Realty Corporation (hereafter FAR) and that, therefore, Steiner conspired with FAR to engage in dishonest dealings.
Finally, it is alleged that, because of the alleged misrepresentations and the alleged conspiracy, Steiner is guilty of dishonest and untruthful conduct and that, therefore, money, property, transactions and rights of investors or those with whom he may sustain a confidential relation may not safely be entrusted to him.
FINDINGS OF FACT
From December 12, 1975, to June, 1976, Steiner was a registered real estate salesman in the employ of FAR, a registered corporate broker, located in Dade County, Florida. During that period of time, FAR was engaged in an enterprise whereby advanced fee listings were obtained from Florida property owners. Salesmen known as "fronters" or "qualifiers" were employed to place calls to Florida property owners where names and phone numbers had been provided to the salesmen by FAR. The prospects were asked if they cared to list their real estate with FAR in anticipation of resale. It was explained that there would be a refundable fee to be paid by the property owner for the listing. The refund was to occur upon sale of the property. If the prospect was interested, then certain literature was mailed out to them.
Other salesmen were employed as "drivers" who would make the second contact of the prospect who indicated an interest in listing his property. The driver would secure a signed listing agreement along with a check for $375.00 which constituted the refundable listing fee.
Steiner, although a salesman and not a broker, was the person responsible for running the operations of the FAR. A Mr. Lawrence Mann was employed as a figure-head broker for FAR and named as its president. Mann's only duties were to insure that all salesmen employed were properly licensed with the Real Estate Commission. Steiner hired and fired salesmen, sometimes took over difficult listing cases, provided the preplanned sales pitch for the salesmen and generally supervised the over-all operation. Steiner had a monitor in his office so that he could listen in on telephone calls being made to prospective clients.
There was no evidence that any of the listings obtained by FAR were ever resold. There were, however, three parcels of land in negotiation for sale when the operations of FAR were terminated in June, 1976. There was to be a division separate and apart from the "fronters" and "drivers" to do the actual selling of the property. However, Steiner would set the listing price for the property after receiving a description of the property from the salesman.
The listings were advertised in the Fort Lauderdale area but there was no evidence to establish whether or not other advertising occurred.
There was a total absence of evidence and, hence, a failure of proof as to the allegations of misrepresentations by Steiner. FREC introduced no evidence to show that Steiner represented that the property could be sold for several times the purchase price, that it would be advertised nationwide and in foreign countries or that the company had foreign buyers wanting to purchase United States property listed with the company. There was no evidence introduced to show that Steiner either made the representations or knew them to be false. There was no evidence introduced to show that Steiner knew that no bona fide effort would be made to sell the property listed. There was no evidence of any nature introduced by FREC to show that Steiner was dishonest or untruthful.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded that FREC has failed to establish that Steiner violated Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. It is, accordingly,
RECOMMENDED that no action be taken to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline Steiner's license or Steiner's right to practice thereunder.
DONE and ENTERED this 5 day of July, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida.
MICHAEL R. N. MCDONNELL
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
(904) 488-9675
COPIES FURNISHED:
Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission
400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Stephen J. Avrach, Esquire
420 Lincoln Road
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Issue Date | Proceedings |
---|---|
Aug. 24, 1978 | Final Order filed. |
Jul. 05, 1978 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
Issue Date | Document | Summary |
---|---|---|
Aug. 17, 1978 | Agency Final Order | |
Jul. 05, 1978 | Recommended Order | First Allstate Realty Corporation case involving advance fees with no intention of selling the land involved. No proof Respondent was involved in the scam. |