Griffith, requested a hearing on the denial of his application for a license as a real estate salesperson by the Florida Board of Real Estate, Respondent. On February 25, 1981 the case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer and the scheduling of a final hearing. That hearing was noticed for and held on May 29, 1981.
At the hearing Petitioner presented himself as his witness and offered Petitioner's Exhibit A which was received without objection into evidence. Respondent presented no witnesses but offered Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 which were received without objection into evidence. At the beginning of the hearing on the request of the Hearing Officer, the Board of Real Estate (Board) stipulated that the sole grounds for the denial of a license to Mr. Griffith were his convictions in 1943 and 1951 of breaking and entering and of larceny of a motor vehicle respectively and also for his failure to disclose on the application form his arrest for disorderly conduct.
At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were informed of their right to submit proposed findings of fact and proposed orders. Section 120.57(1)(b)4. Florida Statutes. Neither party indicated a desire to make such submissions.
Has Mr. Griffith demonstrated that he is honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character, and has a good reputation for fair dealing as required by Section 475.17, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980)?
On October 29, 1980 Mr. Griffith filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson with the Florida Board of Real Estate. Question #6 of the application asks:
Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled?
Mr. Griffith responded, "See Attached Inclosed (sic) Document".
That document was a full and complete pardon which stated: Whereas, At a meeting this day held at the
Capitol, in the City of Tallahassee, at which
were present His Excellency, HAYDON BURNS Governor of said State, TOM ADAMS, Secretary of State, EARL FAIRCLOTH, Attorney General, Comptroller, and DOYLE CONNER Commissioner of Agriculture, of said State, who under the Constitution of said State, have full power to remit fines and forfeitures, commute punishments, and grant pardons after convictions, it was determined that
CHARLES B. GRIFFITH,
also known as CHARLES BAILEY GRIFFIS,
who was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record, Duval County, Florida, February Term 1943, of Breaking and Entering and Petit Larceny (2 cases) and Breaking and Entering and Grand Larceny (2 cases), and sentenced to a total of 8 years in the State Prison, and who was convicted at the August 1951 Term of said Court of the offense of Larceny of Motor Vehicle and sentenced to a term of 2 years in the State Prison, should now, upon showing made, be granted a pardon; it being shown to the Board that he is living in a law abiding manner, and that the Florida Parole Commission
recommended that he be granted a pardon.
Therefore, Be it Known, That the said CHARLES
B. GRIFFITH, also known as CHARLES BAILEY GRIFFIS, be, and he is hereby granted a full and complete pardon on the above offenses, thereby restoring to him full and complete civil rights.
In Testimony Thereof, We have at the Capitol in Tallahassee, hereunto set our hands, this 23rd day of June, A.D., 1966. [signatures]
Mr. Griffith was convicted of the crimes indicated on the pardon and he was pardoned as indicated by the document he submitted in support of his application.
At the time Mr. Griffith answered question #6 he did not remember being arrested on July 25, 1971 for disorderly conduct. He also did not remember the disposition of the charge which was a $52.00 fine for violating a Jacksonville, Florida city ordinance. As Mr. Griffith now remembers the incident which resulted in his fine, it arose out of a family argument. His memory is corroborated by a notation made on the docket sheet concerning his arrest.
Mr. Griffith's testimony about forgetting his arrest for disorderly conduct is accepted as credible.
Mr. Griffith now owns a motel called the "Seabreeze Court" in St. Augustine, Florida. As the owner-operator of the motel he is entrusted with responsibility for the possessions of his motel guests. There has never been a complaint about lost or stolen property from either guests in his present motel or from guests in the motel which he formerly owned. Mr. Griffith has been engaged in numerous real estate transactions on his own behalf during the last two decades. In addition to his present motel he previously owned another motel and has owned an apartment building complex. In all of his transactions he has kept his commitments. He has never been in default on any loan or obligation and he has never had suit filed against him.
In order to protect his family (particularly his wife) and friends from knowledge about his old convictions, which knowledge could come from cross- examination at the final hearing, Mr. Griffith did not request them to appear and give testimony about his good character.
By letter dated January 22, 1981 the Board stated its intention to deny Mr. Griffith a real estate license because "the specific reason for the Board's action is based on your answer to question six of the licensing application and your criminal record according to the appropriate law enforcement agency."
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this case. Sections 120.57(1) and 120.65, Florida Statutes.
The requirements for licensure by the Board of Real Estate are set out in Section 475.17, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980) which provides in pertinent part:
An applicant for licensure who is a natural person shall be 18 years of age, a bona fide resident of the state, honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character and shall have a good reputation for fair dealing. An applicant for an active broker's license or a salesman's license shall be competent and qualified to make real estate transactions and conduct negotiations therefor with safety to investors and to those with whom he may undertake a relationship of trust and confidence. If the applicant has been denied registration or a license or has been disbarred, or his registration of license to practice or conduct any regulated profession, business, or vocation has been revoked or suspended, by this or any other state, any nation, possession, or district of the United States, or any court or lawful agency thereof, because of any conduct or practices which would have warranted a like result under this chapter, or if the applicant has been guilty of conduct or practices in this state or elsewhere which would have been grounds for revoking or suspending his license under this
chapter had the applicant then been registered, the applicant shall be deemed not to be qualified, unless, because of lapse of time
and subsequent good conduct and reputation, or other reason deemed sufficient, it shall appear to the board that the interest of the public and investors will not likely be endangered by the granting of registration.
Grounds for revoking or suspending of a license which are referred to above are provided in Section 475.25, Florida Statutes (1979) which include:
Been found guilty, regardless of whether adjudication was withheld, of crime against the laws of this state or any other state or of the United States, which crime directly relates to the activities of a licensed broker or salesman or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing. Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979).
These grounds further include:
Obtained a license by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment; or if the licensee is confined in any state or federal prison or mental institution or if, through mental disease or deterioration, the licensee
can no longer safely be entrusted to deal with the public or in a confidential capacity; Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1979).
The rules of the Board further require that an applicant is "required to disclose whether he has been arrested or convicted of a crime, or if any criminal or civil proceedings is (sic) pending against him, or if any judgment or decree has been rendered against him in a case wherein the pleadings charged him with fraudulent or dishonest dealings," 21V-2.27(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code.
Mr. Griffith did not disclose his arrest for disorderly conduct when he filled his application for licensure with the Board. He did disclose, however, his more serious convictions of breaking and entering, petty larceny and larceny of a motor vehicle. He honestly forgot about the disorderly conduct conviction at the time he completed his application. It was not shown that he intended to conceal it. For this reason he can not be found guilty of fraud, concealment or misrepresentation in obtaining a license or in disclosing his prior arrests. Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1979); Section 21V-2.27 (2)(c), Florida Administrative Code.
The crimes for which Mr. Griffith were pardoned would ordinarily be disqualifying for licensure. They involved moral turpitude and dishonest dealings. Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979). The receipt of a full pardon for these crimes and the restoration of Mr. Griffith's civil rights does not prevent consideration of those wrongs here by the Board. Page v. Watson,
140 Fla. 536, 192 So.205 (1938); Englander v. Florida Board of Real Estate Commission, 228 So.2d 415 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1969). In Englander an applicant for a real estate license was denied registration because in 1959 he was convicted of forgery. He was pardoned in 1965. In his petition for a writ of ceriorari he argued that the Commission in denying his license could not consider his forgery conviction because he was pardoned. The Court disagreed, but held that his conviction was only evidence of his character in 1959 and he was entitled to a hearing before the Commission to demonstrate his present character. That decision controls here.
Since his convictions in 1943 and 1951, Mr. Griffith has become a respectable small businessman. He presently owns and operates a motel. In his numerous real estate dealings involving bank loans, property sales, and a Small Business Administration loan he has never defaulted once. He has adequately demonstrated that he meets the character requirements in Section 475.17, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980). The debilitating effects of his old convictions have been erased by the "lapse of time and subsequent good conduct" as provided in that section.
At the final hearing the Board argued that Mr. Griffith had not adequately demonstrated good character because he relied solely on his own testimony for that point. Had the Board produced evidence tending to show a lack of good character in Mr. Griffith, there might be some merit to its argument on the weight of the evidence. Here its argument is of no significance because the Board presented nothing against Mr. Griffith's own testimony about his present character. There is no requirement that his testimony be independently corroborated before it can be accepted in this proceeding.
