STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )

REGULATION, FLORIDA REAL )

ESTATE COMMISSION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 83-1991

)

DOROTHY B. MAZE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This matter came on for hearing in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on January 11, 1984, before the Division of Administrative Hearings and its duly appointed Hearing Officer, R. T. Carpenter. The parties were represented by:

For Petitioner: Fred Langford, Esquire

Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900

Orlando, Florida 32802 No Appearance for Respondent.

This matter arose on Petitioner's administrative complaint alleging violations of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Specifically, Respondent is charged with assisting a buyer of her property in obtaining a mortgage loan from a lending institution through misrepresentation, and failing to disclose her ownership interest to this buyer. The factual allegations were not proven, and dismissal of the administrative complaint is recommended.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is a registered real estate salesman in Florida, and was so licensed at all times pertinent to this proceeding. On January 17, 1974, Mr. and Mrs. Harvey Kaliff contracted with Respondent to lease, with option to buy, a house located at 5220 Southwest 6th Street in Plantation, Florida. The Kaliffs made a $3,000 deposit and contracted to pay $450 per month rent. The period of the lease was March 1, 1974, through September 30, 1975. The purchase price specified by the option was $63,900.

   
   

2. In early 1976, Respondent told the Kaliffs that she needed some money out of the house and that they should obtain a mortgage loan. By this time, the Kaliffs knew Respondent was the owner of the property. Initially, they believed a Mr. and Mrs. Norman owned the house. There was no evidence that the Normans did not initially own the house or that Respondent otherwise misrepresented her status to the Kaliffs.

3. The Kaliffs believed that their $3,000 deposit plus rent payments would be treated as a down payment on a new contract executed February 15, 1976. The new contract (Ex.4) specified a total price of $65,000, consisting of a $13,000 down payment and $52,000 to be obtained on the mortgage loan.

   
   

4. The Kaliffs signed the mortgage loan agreement with the Hollywood Federal Savings and Loan on April 21, 1976. There were no discussions with the lender as to whether or not the $13,000 down payment had been made, nor was there any evidence of misrepresentation to the lender.

   
   

5. The Kaliffs claimed they had a verbal agreement with Respondent that their approximately two years of rent payments plus the $3,000 original deposit would satisfy the $13,000 down payment on the 1976 contract. Respondent apparently disclaimed such verbal agreement. Subsequently, she brought a civil suit against the Kaliffs and obtained a judgment for $13,000 plus interest and costs.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

6. Subsection 475.25(1), Florida Statutes, provides in part: Discipline.--

   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:

      
      

      (b) 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 conduct 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;

7. Respondent is charged under the above provisions with failing to disclose an ownership interest in the property she sold to the Kaliffs, and with fraudulently misrepresenting to the lender that the $13,000 deposit, or down payment, had been made when it had not. There was no evidence to support either of these charges and they should be dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is

RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint.

DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida.

R. T. CARPENTER

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 6th day of March, 1984.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional

Regulation

Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802

Dorothy B. Maze

7404 N. W. 5th Street

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33317

Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional

Regulation

Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802

Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional

Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 83-001991

Orders for Case No: 83-001991