STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

EUGENE F. STEFFEY )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 84-0628

)

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )

REGULATION, FLORIDA REAL )

ESTATE COMMISSION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This matter came on for hearing in Panama City, Florida, before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Robert T. Benton, II, on May 23, 1984. The Division of Administrative Hearings received the transcript of proceedings on June 5, 1984. The parties were represented by counsel:

For Respondent: Robert B. Patterson, Esquire

17208 West Hutchison Road

Panama City Beach, Florida 32407

For Respondent: Ralph Armstead, Esquire

Assistant Attorney General Room 212, 400 W. Robinson

Orlando, Florida 32801

By letter dated January 25, 1984, counsel for respondent advised petitioner that respondent proposed to deny his application for licensure as a real estate salesman "based on the action taken by the Virginia Real Estate Commission." Joint Exhibit No. 1.

Petitioner filed a proposed order and respondent filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. These have been considered in preparation of the recommended order and proposed findings of fact and have been adopted, in substance, except where unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner is disqualified to hold a real estate salesman's license in Florida on account of the alleged revocation of a Virginia real estate license?

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner Eugene Frank Steffey was at one time licensed as a real estate broker in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. The seventy- year-old father of four, he has had significant experience in real estate transactions.

   
   

2. Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman in Florida which respondent received on November 1, 1983. Joint Exhibit No. 2. By his answer to a question on the form, he advised respondent of a problem he had had in Virginia with the licensing authorities there.

   
   

3. At hearing, he elaborated.*(See end) He was "a pivotal person" (T. 14) in syndicates holding land around Dulles Airport aggregating some $10,000,000 in value "as of 1970 prices," (T. 13) when somebody filed a complaint about him with the Virginia Real Estate Commission.

   
   

   [W]hen they investigated me, the only thing they could find was wrong was what's in this consent order. (T. 13)

   
   

   Petitioner signed the consent order without advice of counsel. He testified that "there is just no way I would have signed this if I had had an attorney (T.

   13) but that he "couldn't get an attorney and at the same time protect the interests of these numerous other parties." (T.14)

   
   

4. The consent order, No. 75-76-8, dated June 7, 1976, revokes Mr. Steffey's Virginia broker's license and denies him the "right to hold a license as a real estate broker or salesman in Virginia," and recites allegations, which are neither admitted nor denied in the document, that

   
   

   On or about March 16, 1970 Eugene F. Steffey, as Trustee and non-concurring beneficiary, entered into a "Land Trust Agreement" on the letterhead of "E. F. Steffey & Sons, Inc." with Gilbert F. Pascal arid other beneficiaries whereby the beneficiaries agreed to convey to Steffey two parcels of real property located in Loudoun County, Virginia; Parcel

   A containing approximately seventy five (75) acres, and Parcel B. containing approximately ninety nine (99) acres, all known as the "Route 15 Property."

   
   

   The purpose of the Trust was to acquire and hold the property for investment, including the incidental power to maintain and conserve the property and to collect and distribute any income therefrom.

   
   

   The agreement provided for Steffey to receive an annual management fee of $100.

   
   

   On Parcel A the Trust assumed a First Deed of Trust of $25,000 due and payable December 16, 1971.

   Without the knowledge of the other trustees, Steffey executed promissory notes in the aggregate amount of $25,000 secured by a Deed of Trust encumbering Parcel A, dated April 20, 1971, and with the proceeds from said notes satisfied the approximately

   $12,500 due on the Deed of Trust assumed on Parcel A and converted the remaining $12,500 to his own use.

   
   

   On or about April 1, 1975, without the knowledge of the other beneficiaries, Steffey leased Parcels A and B to Virginia Beef Corporation for an annual rent of $1,000. By check dated

   March 28, 1975 Virginia Beef Corporation paid to Steffey $1,000 which Steffey converted to his own use.

   
   

   Joint Exhibit No. 3.

   
   

   Mr. Steffey testified, without contradiction, that "nobody lost money and there was no other involvements." (T. 14)

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

5. The pertinent statute provides that applicants for licensure are to be "honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character and....reputation for fair dealing." Section 475.17(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1983). The statute specifically disqualifies any applicant whose "license to practice any

   regulated profession....has been revoked....by this or any other state....because of any conduct....which would have warranted a like result under [Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (1983)]....unless, because of lapse of time and subsequent good conduct and reputation, or other reason deemed sufficient" Section 475.17(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), the Florida Real Estate Commission is persuaded that licensure would not endanger investors and the public.

   
   

6. In Florida, no less than in Virginia, a broker's failure to contest allegations that he unlawfully appropriated to his own use moneys passing through his bands in a real estate transaction would-warrant revocation of his license. See Section 475.25(1)(d) Florida Statutes (1983). Petitioner can only qualify for licensure in Florida, therefore, on a showing, first, of good moral character and, second, of a sufficient reason to overlook the Virginia revocation. Petitioner did not prove these matters up or undertake to do so.

   
   

7. Instead, petitioner contends that his license revocation in Virginia should not be deemed disqualifying, inasmuch as he signed the consent order without having consulted counsel. Petitioner offers no authority for the proposition that the Virginia revocation should be ignored because he agreed to it after deciding not to consult a lawyer for the stated reason of "protect[ing] the interest of....numerous other parties." (T. 14) Nor has the hearing officer discovered such authority.

It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED:

That respondent deny petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman.

DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida.

ROBERT T. BENTON II

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th of July, 1984.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Robert B. Patterson, Esquire 17208 West Hutchison Road

Panama City Beach, Florida 32407

Ralph Armstead, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Room 212, 400 W. Robinson

Orlando, Florida 32801

Harold Huff, Director Department of Professional Regulation

Division of Real Estate

400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801

Docket for Case No: 84-000628

Orders for Case No: 84-000628