STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 79-677

) PD No. 3439

HARRY T. VAUGHT, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice an administrative hearing was held before Delphene C. Strickland, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Bearings, on July 12, 1979, beginning at 2:00 o'clock p.m. in Room 220 of the Manatee County Courthouse, 1115 Manatee Avenue in Bradenton, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire

State Board of Real Estate

400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802

For Respondent: Jerome Pratt, Esquire

701 Eight Avenue Post Office Box 67

Palmetto, Florida 33561 ISSUE

Whether the real estate license, #0091434, held by the Respondent, Harry T. Vaught, should be revoked or suspended, or whether the Respondent should be otherwise disciplined.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Respondent, Harry T. Vaught, is a registered real estate broker doing business at the principal address of 410 Cortez Road West, Room 409, First Commercial Bank Building, Bradenton, Florida 33507.

   
   

2. On or about January 25, 1979, an administrative complaint was filed by the Petitioner Commission against Respondent alleging that Respondent has been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction involving certain described real property.

3. Respondent Vaught had been interested in personally buying the property involved in this hearing for a long period of time, inasmuch as he owned nearby property. He and other realtors had had listings on the subject property over a period of years.

   
   

4. In September of 1977, Respondent Vaught was contacted by Kings III, Inc. broker Don Zimmerman, seeking information on properties Respondent had listed for sale. Thereafter, Respondent drove to the subject acreage with Mr. Zimmerman and C. Anita Lioce, a registered real estate salesman in the employ of Kings III, Inc. and viewed the subject property Respondent Vaught told the other realtors that the asking price for said property was $2,200.00 per acre.

   
   

5. Shortly after their return from the trip to view the subject property, Zimmerman told Lioce to call Roy Amerson about the property Respondent had shown them.

   
   

6. Subsequently, Lioce told Respondent Vaught that she had a prospective client who was interested in buying the subject property and requested the legal description and other such information necessary for writing a contract. Thereupon, Respondent advised Lioce that he himself was interested in purchasing said property and had a contract to buy it from the owner, Ms. Mamie Ezell, President of Gillette Fruit Company, the corporate owner of the subject property.

   
   

7. Subsequently, Lioce was showing Mr. Amerson another piece of property, when he again inquired about the subject property. Lioce told Amerson that she would investigate to see if there were a contract on the property, and told him that if there were she could write a "back-up" contract which would be valid if there were a contract and the sale were not closed pursuant thereto. This conversation with Amerson probably took place in the month of November, 1977.

   
   

8. Previously thereto, in September of 1977, Respondent Vaught had gone to see Ms. Ezell, President of Gillette Fruit Company, about the subject property and offered to buy said property for $1,790.00 per acre. The attorney for Gillette Fruit Company was contacted by Ms. Ezell and was requested to draw a contract between Respondent Vaught and Gillette Fruit Company for the sale of the subject property.

   
   

9. A Contract for the Sale of Real Estate was drawn dated October 22, 1977, between Respondent Vaught and Gillette Fruit Company, which was signed by the three officers of Gillette Fruit Company and the Respondent. The attorney for the corporation required the signatures of the other stockholders of the corporation in addition to that of the President, Ms. Ezell, for the reason that the purchase price was low. The contract called for a closing date of December 15, 1977.

   
   

10. At the designated time of December 15, 1977, in the office of the attorney for Gillette Fruit Company and in the presence of the attorney for Respondent Vaught, the son of Ms. Ezell showed the assembled group a "back-up" contract to purchase dated the previous day, December 14, 1977, in which Roy Amerson had agreed with Kings III, Inc. to purchase the subject property for a price of $2,150.00 per acre. Neither the attorney for Gillette Fruit Company nor Respondent Vaught knew of this contract prior to the closing. An altercation arose between Ms. Ezell's son and Respondent, and the attorney for Gillette Fruit Company thereupon called off the closing.

11. Respondent Vaught knew that Roy Amerson was interested in purchasing the subject property, but no deposit had been made by Amerson, and no contract had been signed by him prior to the offer made by Respondent in September of 1977 to buy the subject property or prior to the contract signed in October of 1977.

    
    

12. Subsequent to this hearing, Petitioner decided not to submit a proposed recommended order or memorandum of law. Respondent's attorney by telephone orally requested a postponement of the issuance of this Recommended Order for the reason that he intended to avail himself of the statutory right to submit a proposed recommended order. No proposed recommended order was submitted.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

13. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties to this action pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.

    
    

14. Section 475.25 Grounds for revocation or suspension. provides:

    
    

    1. The registration of a registrant may be suspended for a period not exceeding 10 years, or until compliance with a lawful order imposed in the final order of suspension, or both, upon a finding of facts showing that the registrant has:

       1. Been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction, in this state or any other state, nation, or territory; . . .

          
          

15. Insufficient evidence has been presented to show a violation of the foregoing statute. Respondent Vaught had no knowledge of the "back-up" contract entered into on the day prior to the date of closing. There is insufficient evidence as to whether Respondent Vaught in fact disclosed to the seller of the subject property the interest of the prospective buyer, or whether Respondent had reason to believe said prospective buyer would pay a higher price for the subject property than Respondent himself had contracted to pay.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that this case be dismissed.

DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of September7 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Frederick H. Wilson, Esquire State Board of Real Estate

400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802

Jerome Pratt, Esquire 701 Eighth Avenue Post Office Box 67

Palmetto, Florida 33561

Docket for Case No: 79-000677

Orders for Case No: 79-000677