STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF REAL ESTATE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 81-222
)
WILBUR LEWIS HALLOCK, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to Notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Donald R. Alexander, held a public hearing in the above matter on April 7, 1981, in Orlando, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: John Huskins, Esquire
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Wilbur Lewis Hallock, pro se
Post Office Box 1574 Orlando, Florida 32802
BACKGROUND
By Administrative Complaint dated January 5, 1981, the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, charged Respondent, Wilbur Lewis Hallock, with having violated Sections 475.25(1)(b) and 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, thereby warranting disciplinary action against his real estate broker-salesman license. In summary form, it is contended that (1) Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(b) by inducing the owners of a home to sign a warranty deed conveying title to Respondent without him truthfully disclosing to the owners the nature of the document being signed, and (2) Respondent violated Section 475.42(l)(j) by recording the aforesaid deed without the knowledge or consent of the owners.
Respondent disputed the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint and requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On January 22, 1981, the Department forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings and requested that a Hearing Officer be assigned to conduct a hearing. By Notice dated February 26,1981, the final hearing was scheduled for April 7, 1981, in Orlando, Florida.
At the final hearing, Petitioner called James A. and Jeanie R. Lockwood, Barbara E. Boehmer and Harvey Campbell as its witnesses, and offered Petitioner's Exhibits 1-3, each of which was received in evidence. Respondent testified on his own behalf and also called Samuel W. Harris, O. C. Halyard,
Jr., Samuel C. Meiner, John Claphand, Margaret M. Norman, Pamela Long, Prudence Drolet, Charles E. Kimmig, Sr., Jack King and Lloyd C. Peeples as its witnesses and offered Respondent's Exhibits 1-4, each of which was received into evidence.
The transcript of hearing was filed on May 5, 1981. The parties were given the opportunity to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; however, none were filed.
The issue herein is whether Respondent's real estate license should be revoked or suspended or whether he should be otherwise disciplined for the alleged violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Based on the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent, Wilbur Lewis Hallock, at all times relevant thereto, was a licensed real estate broker-salesman having been issued license number 0035549 by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, in 1971. He also has the designation of a Graduate of the Realtors Institute (GRI), having successfully completed its requirements. At the time the events herein occurred, Hallock was a salesman for Don Asher and Associates in Orlando, Florida.
On or about August 8, 1980, Respondent, through reading the Orlando Sentinel Star, became aware of a mortgage foreclosure proceeding by Winter Park Federal Savings and Loan Association 1/ pending against James A. and Jeanie Lockwood, husband and wife, who owned a home located at 4813 and 4815 Basswood Lane, Orlando, Florida. 2/ Hallock had been told to vacate his apartment, and was in the process of finding a new home. He was "looking for a bargain" and believed he found one when he read of the Lockwoods' plight. The Lockwoods were separated at that time and only James Lockwood lived in the house on Basswood Lane. Hallock telephoned James Lockwood on Friday evening, August 8, 1980, and told him he was aware of the foreclosure proceeding and wished to meet with him to discuss a possible sale or way to avoid foreclosure proceedings. Lockwood, who was in the process of moving to Winter Haven and wished to immediately sell the property, was receptive and invited Respondent to meet with him that evening. Respondent and a lady friend (Mrs. Florence Harrison) then visited James that night. Hallock introduced himself, and showed two cards to prove his identity. Hallock made clear he did not represent his employer, Don Asher and Associates, but was simply representing himself. Although conflicting stories as to what happened during and after this first meeting were given by the various witnesses, the undersigned finds the following to be the more credible version of the sequence of events. Upon meeting Lockwood, Hallock proceeded to discuss the various alternatives available to Lockwood. These included selling the home to Hallock's brother, who lived in Miami, allowing Hallock himself to purchase the house, or simply letting the lending institution foreclose.
Because the mortgage payments were in arrears and a foreclosure proceeding in progress, Lockwood offered to give the house to Hallock if he would bring the payments current. Hallock, who knew consideration for a real estate transaction was required, declined the offer and instead offered James "a minimum of $50 equity." No total purchase price was discussed since the balances on the first mortgage, and a second mortgage held by Freedom Federal Savings and Loan of Tampa, were unknown. Neither was the agreement reduced to writing. James also
wished to avoid paying a commission on the sale of the house that might be due since another realtor, Area One West, Inc., held a listing. However, Hallock advised James that because Jeanie Lockwood had not signed the agreement, the listing realtor would have "no claim whatsoever." Hallock also told James that his wife needed to concur in their agreement.
That same evening, Hallock telephoned Jeanie Lockwood, who resided in an apartment in Orlando. He told her he had just talked with her husband concerning a possible sale of their house, and wished to discuss the matter with her that evening. She agreed, and subsequently met Hallock and Mrs. Harrison later that evening. Also present was Jeanie's neighbor, Carol Gordon, who had been asked by Jeanie to sit in on the discussions. Hallock identified himself to the ladies, told them that he had become aware of the foreclosure proceeding by reading a newspaper, and had discussed a possible sale with the husband. He briefly described the same alternatives available to her as he had with James. When asked by Hallock whether she wished to keep the house or move into it, Jeanie stated she did not. No purchase price or equity payment was discussed that evening. However, Hallock requested Jeanie to call the two lending institutions on the following Monday morning to authorize him to ascertain the balances owed on the mortgages. He also advised her that the listing then held on the property by the other realtor was not valid because Jeanie had failed to sign the listing agreement.
Hallock called James early the next morning (Saturday) and asked to meet with him. James was moving his possessions out of the home that day and told Hallock to come over right away. Upon arriving at the home, Hallock told James he had a deed prepared that conveyed the property to him and wished to have James sign it that day before he moved to Winter Haven. However, he indicated he would not record it or pay any consideration until the mortgage balances were ascertained, the chain of title checked, and final confirmation received from the Lockwoods. James agreed to meet Hallock at 10:00 a.m. that morning to sign the deed. Hallock then telephoned Jeanie and asked to meet her that morning. When they met, Hallock explained he wished her to sign the deed that day so he would not have to interrupt her work schedule during the following week. Hallock told her to meet James and himself at Wescott Realty at 10:00 a.m. to sign the papers. He also told her that "the least you will get is
$100 for the house."
At approximately 10:00 a.m. that morning, the Lockwoods and Hallock met at Wescott Realty in Orlando. There they executed a warranty deed conveying the property in question from the Lockwoods to Hallock (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). It was notarized by Barbara Boehmer, an employee of Wescott. Also present was Mary Black, another employee of Wescott. Prior to their signing the document, the Lockwoods were asked by Hallock if they were of legal age, were husband and wife, were under duress or threat to sign, or were subject to the influence of drugs or alcohol. Although the signing was done in a rather hasty fashion, there was no effort by Respondent to cover or conceal any portion of the document. The word "deed" was not mentioned at any time during the transaction, nor were the Lockwoods verbally advised at that time as to the nature of the document being signed. Neither was any money or other consideration exchanged.
On Monday, August 11, 1980, Jeanie Lockwood called Margaret M. Norman at Winter Park Federal Savings and Loan to request the balance on the mortgage held by that institution. Mrs. Norman advised Jeanie to make the request in writing; Jeanie then prepared a letter requesting that the institution give Hallock "any information he requires regarding the foreclosure on our house at 4815 Basswood Lane." (Respondent's Exhibit 2).
Hallock telephoned Jeanie on Monday evening and told her he would give her $65 equity instead of $50.00. She concurred with this amount. He also told her he was in the process of having the title checked and would not record the deed unless the title was clear.
On Tuesday morning, Hallock telephoned Mrs. Norman to ascertain the balance on the mortgage held by Winter Park Federal Savings and Loan. Upon receiving preliminary information concerning the mortgage, Hallock called James in Winter Haven and advised him the wife had accepted the $65 equity offer on Monday night. The husband complained he wanted an amount closer to $100; Respondent said he would "split the difference" and upped the equity payoff to
$75. The husband then gave his concurrence.
At 11:43 a.m. on August 12, 1980, Hallock recorded the warranty deed signed by the Lockwoods in the Orange County Courthouse and paid $232 for documentary stamps affixed to the deed (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). He later requested and obtained from the Department of Revenue a partial refund of the stamp tax after he determined the stamp tax paid exceeded the amount actually required. After recording the deed he obtained a cashier's check in the amount of $75 and mailed it to James in Winter Haven. However, James never cashed the check and returned it to Hallock.
On that same Tuesday, Jeanie called Area One West, Inc., the listing realtor, to let them know she had received foreclosure papers on the second mortgage. A salesperson told Jeanie that she had a prospective buyer for the house, and suggested they view the property that afternoon. Thereafter, two representatives of Area One West, the prospective buyer and Jeanie all met at 4815 Basswood Lane. Upon reaching the premises, they found the realtor's sign and multilock in the carport, the front door unlocked, and Hallock's car in the driveway. Inside was Hallock showing the house to a prospective buyer. Jeanie told Hallock she now had a buyer and would not sell the house for $65. Hallock told her he had bought the home, already recorded the deed she had previously signed on Saturday, and had mailed James a check for $75. Jeanie then accused Hallock of being "in cahoots" with James.
On August 14, 1980, Respondent telephoned James Lockwood in Winter Haven to inquire about a lawnmower, edger and books that James had left in his house. James told Hallock to keep his books but stated he wished to keep the lawnmower and edger. During the next day or two, James came and took the lawnmower, drapes and oven racks from the house. Thereafter, Hallock called James and asked if he would swap the edger for the missing oven racks; James agreed. Hallock ultimately changed the locks on the house on Saturday, August 16, 1980.
James Lockwood is a 29-year-old stockholder employed by Merrill Lynch in Winter Haven, Florida. Prior to his present employment, he worked for an Orlando automobile dealership. His wife is a secretary with the State of Florida. Although their formal education was not disclosed, James did attend college for an undisclosed period of time. Jeanie described her husband as being as honest and truthful "as the next person" but acknowledged he sometimes lied.
The listing agreement with Area One West, Inc., was signed by James Lockwood and Carol Lockwood on July 3, 1980 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). 3/ Carol is his second wife. Jeanie did not sign the agreement. The house was originally listed for $56,900 on the agreement but that figure was marked
through and replaced with a figure of $49,900. Hallock purchased the house for approximately $39,600.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties thereto pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Section 475.25, Florida Statutes, provides that the Department of Professional Regulation may suspend or revoke a license, impose an administrative fine not to exceed $1,000, or issue a reprimand if it finds a licensee has been guilty of any one of the acts enumerated therein. As is pertinent here, disciplinary action may be taken against a licensee if he has:
(1)(a) Violated any provision of s.475.42 or of s. 455.227(1);
(b) Been guilty of fraud, misrepresenta- tion, 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 . . . .
Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides that:
(j) No broker or salesman shall place, or cause to be placed, upon the public records of any county, any . . . deed which
purports to affect the title of, or encumber, any real property if the same is known to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording whereof has not been authorized by the owner of the property, maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce the payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person, or for any unlawful purpose.
In Count I of the Complaint, Respondent is charged with having failed "to disclose and to advise owners-Lockwood of the nature of the document placed before them for their signatures," and to have induced them to sign a warranty deed which they believed to be 'authorization' for the release of mortgage data to Respondent." These actions, contend the Department, constitute fraud, concealment, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device or breach of trust, all of which fall within the purview of Section 475.25(1)(b), supra.
Count II alleges that Respondent is guilty of "placing upon the land records the stated warranty deed without the knowledge and consent of the Lockwoods, whereby Lockwoods' title in the stated premises was affected." Such action, it is charged, constitutes a violation of Section 475.42(1)(j), supra.
In disciplinary proceedings against a licensee, it is incumbent upon the Department to support its charges with competent evidence, direct or circumstantial. See, for example, Fitzpatrick v. City of Miami Beach, 328 So.2d
578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Further, the Department is required to "offer proof commensurate with the potential penalty." Henderson Signs v. Florida Department of Transportation, So.2d )Fla. 1st DCA op. filed 5/4/81). Here, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of guilty against Respondent as to the violations for which he is charged.
The essential elements that the Department must prove to substantiate its claim in Count I is that (a) Hallock failed to disclose the nature of the document that the Lockwoods signed, and (b) that he induced them to sign this document by trickery, false pretenses or the like.
Conflicting testimony in material respects as to what actually occurred was given by the Lockwoods, Hallock and witness Boehmer. In finding the version offered by Hallock and Boehmer to be the more credible, and the sequence of events to more likely have occurred, the undersigned has taken into consideration the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the fact that the Lockwoods are now in civil litigation with Hallock to recover their home, Jeanie's acknowledgment that her husband "sometimes" lied, that the Lockwoods are not an illiterate couple with no understanding of real estate transactions and the obligations incurred in signing legal documents, inconsistencies in the testimony of the Lockwoods, and the Lockwoods' inability to recall many aspects of the transaction while vividly recalling certain others.
Obviously, the Lockwoods were anxious to sell their home, having two mortgages on the property, and being far in arrears on at least one of them. Further, they wished to avoid foreclosure proceedings on their credit record. Adding to their desire for an immediate sale was the imminent move of James from Orlando to Winter Haven to a different job, and the pending separation and dissolution of the marriage of the couple. Hallock, who admitted he was "looking for a bargain" and knew the couple was "over the barrel," took advantage of the situation and bought the house for minimal consideration and assumption of the two existing mortgages. Although there is some dispute over the fair market value of the house, there is no doubt his purchase price (39,600) was a bargain. However, James had offered to give the house away for a mere assumption of the mortgages, but Hallock wished to keep it legal and offered $65 equity as consideration. Although she later changed her mind, the wife was also willing to accept this offer. Both James and Jeanie were advised by Hallock that the instrument they were to sign at Wescott Realty on Saturday, August 9, 1980, was a deed. There was no effort by Hallock to conceal the true nature of the document from the Lockwoods nor did he attempt to cover or hide the document when they actually signed the deed. James claimed that when he signed the document Hallock placed another paper over the upper one-third of the document; Jeanie claimed Hallock covered the top portion of the document she signed with his hands; however, Barbara Boehmer, a notary public who witnessed the signatures, and who had no interest in the outcome of this proceeding, testified that the document "was exposed completely" and that the concealment the Lockwoods described did not occur.
Jeanie's story that she was tricked into signing the deed and believed that she was actually signing a mortgage data release form does not square with her later actions. On Monday, August 11, 1980, pursuant to Hallock's earlier instructions, she telephoned Winter Park Federal Savings and Loan Association to authorize a release of information concerning the mortgage held by that institution. Upon being advised by Mrs. Norman that a written authorization
from her was required, she wrote a letter requesting that the institute "give Mr. Jim Hallock any information he requires regarding the foreclosure of our house at 4815 Basswood Lane." (Respondent's Exhibit 2). Had Jeanie really believed she had just signed the same type of authorization two days earlier, it is highly unlikely that she would have repeated the process that Monday morning or failed to have disclosed this fact to Mrs. Norman.
On Tuesday afternoon, August 12, 1980, armed with the knowledge that a prospective buyer might offer $50,000 for the home, Jeanie had a change of heart and wished to renege on the agreement with Hallock. At this point, she indicated to others she had been tricked. It is not clear when James changed his mind on selling the house, but he did advise Hallock on Thursday that he was seeking the advice of a lawyer. They are now in civil litigation. It should be noted that in the same conversation with Hallock on Thursday, he offered to give Hallock certain personal possessions that he left in the home, lending further support to the fact that he considered the home already sold.
Hallock recorded the deed at 11:43 a.m., Tuesday, August 12, 1980 (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). He did so after determining the outstanding balance on the first mortgage on the property, and after a title search had been completed. This was in accordance with what he had earlier told the Lockwoods before they signed the deed. He had also advised them that he would not record the deed without their final confirmation. This was obtained from Jeanie by telephone on Monday evening (August 11) and from James by telephone on Tuesday morning (August 12).
The above facts establish that Hallock disclosed to the Lockwoods the nature of the document being signed, and that such signing was not induced through trickery, false pretenses or the like. In reaching this conclusion, the Hearing Officer has also given consideration to the age, education and experience of the Lockwoods and has rejected the notion that they were illiterate or otherwise incapable of determining the nature and consequences of their acts. The evidence further discloses that Hallock recorded the deed only after obtaining final confirmation from the Lockwoods concerning the sale of the home, thereby complying with their earlier understanding. Having failed to establish the necessary quantum of proof to ascribe guilt to the conduct of Respondent, the charges lodged against Respondent should be dismissed.
The Department has contended that the cases of Sellars v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 380 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) and McKnight v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 202 So.2d 199 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1967) are controlling to the factual situation herein, for even if Hallock was acting on his own behalf and not in the capacity of a real estate salesman, he may still be held accountable for illegal or dishonest acts. However, these cases do not apply for they simply hold that a licensee may be disciplined for the dishonest conduct of business affairs for his own account. Here there has been no showing by the Department that Hallock has been adjudged guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude as was present in McKnight, supra, or that there was fraudulent and dishonest dealing in the transaction as there was in Sellars, supra.
To be sure, Hallock's actions in this affair were less than commendable. The transaction was spawned by Hallock's efforts to find "a bargain," and reached fruition upon finding a couple in peril with the banks and susceptible to his spiel. Although the transaction was consummated in relative haste, there was no showing that it was done in the unlawful manner contended by the Department, or that minimum disclosures were not made so as to constitute a
dishonest or fraudulent act. If other illegal conduct was present, it was not set forth in the Administrative Complaint, nor proven at the hearing.
By letter dated May 1, 1981, Hallock seeks to make a post-hearing filing that includes (1) the typed questions and answers from an "interview" with one Mary Black conducted by Hallock on April 10, 1981, (2) copies of summaries of three interviews conducted by Investigator Charles Kimmig of the Department, (3) what purports to be a copy of page 24 from interrogatories propounded by an unknown party apparently to Jeanie Lockwood in a pending matter in circuit court, (4) a copy of a computer printout showing prices paid for homes during the last two years in the subdivision where the Lockwoods' home is located, (5) a copy of a receipt from Park Federal Savings and Loan Association given to Hallock showing payment of $4,953.34 to the institution, and (6) a letter from a couple who apparently live on Basswood Land and who claim they intend to sell their property on May 15, 1981. Petitioner has filed a response wherein an objection to the receipt of all items is made. However, items (4) and (5) above are merely copies that are being substituted for original documents already received into evidence as Respondent's Exhibits 3 and 4 (TR 133, 165). Therefore, the objection to the inclusion of these items is hereby denied. The objection to the remainder of the items is well-taken and should be sustained.
Post-hearing filings are impermissible unless leave to do so has been granted by the Hearing Officer, and opposing counsel has an opportunity to review the data and question its relevance and authenticity. There being no permission to late-file items (1)-(3) and (6), and no opportunity for opposing counsel to examine them, their inclusion in the record is hereby denied. Respondent was authorized to take the deposition of Mary Black after the final hearing if he desired to do so, and to make that a part of this record (TR 194). However, the 4-page document filed by Hallock does not comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which have been adopted for use by Rule 28-5.208, Florida Administrative Code, and as such, cannot be made a part of this record.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the complaint against Respondent Wilbur Lewis Hallock be
DISMISSED.
DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DONALD R. ALEXANDER
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1981.
ENDNOTES
1/ Winter Park Federal Savings and Loan Association has subsequently changed its name to Park Federal Savings and Loan Association.
2/ When the Lockwoods purchased their home, the street address was 4813 Basswood Land. However, they subsequently changed the house number to 4815; hence the reference to two street numbers in the Administrative Complaint.
3/ To add to the confusing situation, James and Jeanie Lockwood had a common- law marriage in the State of Alabama. Believing the marriage was not recognized or valid in Florida, James married Carol Lockwood without obtaining a divorce from Jeanie. Therefore, the listing agreement noted Jeanie as his "ex-wife," and reflected his second wife's signature on the agreement. James and Jeanie are apparently now in the process of legally dissolving their marriage.
COPIES FURNISHED:
John Huskins, Esquire
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Wilbur Lewis Hallock Post Office box 1574 Orlando, Florida 32802
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF REAL ESTATE
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. DOAH NO. 81-222
0007163
WILBUR LEWIS HALLOK,
A/K/A "Jim Hallock,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
This Cause came to be heard by the board of Real Estate on July 21, 1981, for the purpose of issuing a Final Order in the above Cited Case. A formal hearing on April 7, 1981 resulted in the rendering of a recommended order from the Division of Administrative Hearings, Donald Alexander, Hearing Officer on June 3, 1981.
The said recommended order is rejected as to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation. The Board of Real Estate rejects the Findings of Fact and states that said Findings were not based upon competent substantial evidence and said determination is based upon a review of the complete record. The Board of Real Estate accepts the facts and legal conclusions as stated in Department of Professional Regulation Exceptions and supportive memorandum and Administrative Complaint. Said Administrative Complaint is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A and said Exceptions and memorandum are attached hereto and made a part of hereof as Exhibit B.
THEREFORE based upon said exhibits and a complete review of the entire record including a transcript of the April 7, 1981 hearing the Board of Real Estate contends that the *
* NOTE: The remaining paragraph text as filed with this Division is unreadable and therefore not a part of this ACCESS document.
DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of July, 1981, in Orlando, Florida.
Virginia Bishop, Chairman Board of Real Estate
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to John Huskins, Department of Professional Regulation,
130 N. Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 and Wilbur Lewis Hallock, P.
O. Box 1574, Orlando, Florida 32802, this 3rd day of August, 1981.
C. B. Stafford
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Aug. 24, 1992 | Final Order filed. |
| Jun. 03, 1981 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jul. 21, 1981 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 03, 1981 | Recommended Order | Charge that realtor violated statute not sustained. |
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. RICHARD ANGLICKIS AND AMERICAN HERITAGE REALTY, 81-000222 (1981)
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. JOYCE A. CHANDLER, 81-000222 (1981)
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. TERRY L. BAKER AND TERRY L. BAKER AND ASSOCIATES, 81-000222 (1981)
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. DIANE M. KLEIN, 81-000222 (1981)
