STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )

REGULATION, FLORIDA REAL )

ESTATE COMMISSION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 82-1672

)

ANN K. CROASDELL, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This matter came on for hearing on September 29 and November 16, 1982,1 in Orlando, Florida, before the Division of Administrative Hearings and its duly appointed Hearing Officer, R.T. Carpenter. The parties were represented by:

For Petitioner: John G. DeLancett, Esquire

Post Office Box 6171-C Orlando, Florida 32853

For Petitioner: Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire

602 East Central Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32801

This matter arose on Petitioner's Administrative Complaint charging Respondent with professional misconduct as a real estate broker in violation of Subsection 475.25(1), Florida Statutes (F.S.). The parties submitted proposed findings of fact which have been incorporated herein to the extent they are relevant and consistent with the evidence.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Respondent, Ann K. Croasdell, was a registered real estate broker at all times material hereto. She has been issued License No. 0141344.

   
   

2. In 1977 or 1978, Respondent met William Young at a neighborhood barbecue. About a year after this initial meeting, Young attended a real estate school owned and operated by Respondent. At that time a business relationship developed between them which lasted until approximately September, 1980.

   
   

3. In 1980, Bruce Rhodes, then an investigator with the Maitland Police Department, was assigned a case wherein residences up for sale were being burglarized. There were no signs of forcible entry to these homes and each one had a multi-lock box used by realtors to show the homes. Thus, the person who was burglarizing the homes was referred to as the "multi-lock burglar".

   
   

4. During the course of the investigation, evidence was obtained which pointed to William Young as the multi-lock burglar. The evidence consisted of

statements from various witnesses. Subsequently, a search warrant was issued and served on William Young's apartment. Young was eventually arrested and pled guilty to grand theft in the second degree and other unrelated charges. He is currently serving a seven and a half year prison sentence at Lawty Correctional Institute, Lawty, Florida.

5.. During the investigation into Young's activities, Respondent was interviewed by the Maitland Police Department on several occasions. The first such interview took place on November 13, 1980, at the Maitland Police Department and was conducted by Sergeant Walter Steeb and Investigator Bruce Rhodes. The Respondent was not under arrest nor was she compelled to appear, but came voluntarily at the request of the Maitland Police Department. At the initial interview, the Respondent acknowledged accompanying Young to residences with multi-locks that were for sale, but stated she did not see Young take anything.

1. On December 1, 1980, the Respondent again appeared at the Maitland Police Department at their request. She again appeared voluntarily and was not under subpoena, under arrest or charged as a suspect. At this December 1, 1980, interview, Respondent gave three separate statements to Investigator Bruce Rhodes of the Maitland Police Department. These statements and her subsequent statements differ substantially from the information she gave to the Maitland Police Department on November 13, 1980.

   
   

2. Two of the three December 1, 1980, statements concern the return of property. One statement acknowledged the returning of a set of golf clubs to Officer Rhodes on Thursday, November 20, 1980. In this statement, Respondent stated that while she was with William Young, he entered the garage of a house in Sweetwater and came out with a man's set and a Woman's set of golf clubs which he placed in the trunk of her car.

   
   

3. Respondent admitted, both at a prior deposition and at the final hearing, that she knew these golf clubs were stolen. At the deposition, she stated she intended to keep the set of woman's golf clubs, knowing they were stolen.

   
   

4. The circumstances surrounding the taking of the golf clubs corroborates the fact that the Respondent knew these clubs were stolen. On the day in question, the Respondent and William Young were out looking at homes and pulled up in the driveway of a house that was for sale. The house had no multi-lock, but Young gained entrance through an open side door to a garage. He entered the garage and removed a man's and a woman's set of golf clubs, which he placed in Respondent's car. Respondent did not go into the garage with Young, but remained in the car. She did, however, get out of the car to open the trunk for Young to put in the two sets of golf clubs.

   
   

5. In addition to the facts surrounding the golf clubs, Respondent has also admitted, on several occasions, to having taken two sets of yellow towels from a home in Wekiva. These admissions came in the form of the December 1, 1980, statement made to Bruce Rhodes, and subsequently, at a deposition taken on August 17, 1981, in the case of State of Florida v. William Young. At her deposition of August 17, 1981, Respondent explained how she entered the house with a multi-lock key and took the towel sets which consisted of two towels, two hand towels and two washcloths. Additionally, in response to the question as to whether she stole the two sets of towels, she answered "yes," that she did.

6. Respondent did not alert the authorities to these burglaries, nor did she attempt to turn in the stolen golf clubs or towels. Her only excuse for her activities was a claimed fear of William Young. Although Respondent established that Young was abusive to women, there was no indication that she or a member of her family was in any real danger. Rather, she participated with Young as a willing accomplice.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

7. Section 475.25, F.S., provides in part:

   
   

   1. The board may deny an application for licensure or renewal, may suspend a license for a period not exceeding 10 years, may revoke a license, may impose an administrative fine not to exceed $1,000 for each count or separate offense, or may issue a reprimand, if it finds that the licensee or applicant has:

      1. Violated any provision of s. 475.42 or of s. 455.227(1);

      2. Been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, 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 or any other state, nation, or territory; has violated a duty imposed upon him by law or by

         the terms of a listing contract, written, oral, express, or implied, in a real estate transaction; has aided, assisted, or conspired with any other person engaged in any such misconduct and in furtherance thereof; or has formed an intent, design, or scheme to engage in any such misconduct and has committed an overt act in furtherance of such intent, design, or scheme. It shall be immaterial to the guilt of the licensee that the victim or intended victim of the misconduct has

         sustained no damage or loss; that the damage or loss has been settled and paid after discovery of the misconduct; or that such victim or intended victim was a customer or a person in confidential relation with the licensee, or was an identified member of the general public; . . .

         
         

8. Respondent's theft of the golf clubs and towels were acts of dishonesty facilitated by her status as a real estate professional. As such, these thefts constituted breaches of trust in violation of the above provisions. Additionally, Respondent conspired with another person to engage in misconduct in further violation of these provisions.

   
   

9. The objection to Petitioner's Exhibit 21 (Respondent's deposition taken August 17, 1981) is overruled. Respondent was advised of her rights at the outset of that proceeding and the possible action against her real estate license as a result of any statement she might make.

10. In mitigation, Respondent called a character witness and introduced various letters attesting to her honesty and service in the real estate profession. While this evidence did not rebut any evidence against her, it can be considered in determining the appropriate penalty.

RECOMMENDATION

From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED:

That Petitioner enter a final order suspending Respondent's real estate broker's license for a period of five years. 2/

DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida.

R.T. CARPENTER 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 21st day of March, 1983.

ENDNOTES

1/ Case No. 82-1673 involving the same parties was also heard on these dates.

2/ This recommended suspension is intended to run concurrently with that recommended in Case No. 82-1673.

COPIES FURNISHED:

John G. DeLancett, Esquire Post Office Box 6171-C Orlando, Florida 32853

Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire 602 East Central Blvd.

Orlando, Florida 32801

William M. Furlow, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission

Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900

Orlando, Florida 32802

Fred Roche, Secretary

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 82-001672

Orders for Case No: 82-001672