STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ANN K. CROASDELL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 87-2614

) DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, FLORIDA REAL ) ESTATE COMMISSION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Final Hearing in the above-styled action was held on October 27, 1987, in Orlando, Florida, before Mary Clark, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

The parties were represented as follows:

For Petitioner: Ann K. Croasdell, pro se

2409 Antilles Drive

Winter Park, Florida 32801

For Respondent: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire

Department of Legal Affairs

400 West Robinson Street, Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32801

BACKGROUND

Petitioner, Ann K. Croasdell, initiated this proceeding on June 3, 1987, with her request for a formal hearing on her qualification for licensure as a real estate salesperson. At a May, 1987 meeting, the Florida Real Estate Commission had vote to deny her application.

Ms. Croasdell's evidence at final hearing consisted of her own testimony, her application file with letters of reference and commendation, and the transcript of the Commission's May 19, 1987 proceedings.

Respondent's evidence was elicited through cross examination of Ms.

Croasdell and by the introduction of final orders and appellate opinions in two prior proceedings involving Ms. Croasdell.

After a transcript was filed, Respondent submitted proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and a Recommendation. The proposed findings have been incorporated herein, along with additional findings derived from the evidence.

ISSUE

The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Ann Croasdell is qualified for licensure as a real estate salesperson. More specifically, since her license was previously disciplined, the question is whether,"... because of lapse of time and subsequent good conduct and reputation, or other reason deemed sufficient... " it appears the interest of the public and investors will not be endangered by the granting of registration.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On or about April 29, 1987, Ann Croasdell filed her application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. She revealed in response to question #14 that her Florida broker's license had been revoked in March, 1984.

   
   

2. Ms. Croasdell's broker's license was disciplined in two cases, heard on the same day, before the Florida Real Estate Commission.

   
   

3. In case no. 0021233, DOAH no. 82-1673, she was charged with, and found guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and Section 475.25(1)(b) F.S. On April 19, 1983, the Commission adopted the DOAH Hearing Officer's Recommended Order and suspended Ms. Croasdell's broker's license for three years.

   
   

4. In case no. 0020990, DOAH no. 82-1672, Ms. Croasdell was charged with and found guilty of dishonesty, breach of trust and conspiring with another person engaged in such conduct, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and Section 475.25(1)(b) F.S. On April 19, 1983, the Commission adopted the DOAH Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, except as to penalty, and revoked her real estate broker's license.

   
   

5. In both cases the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the orders Per Curiam, and issued its mandates on March 9, 1984.

   
   

6. Ms. Croasdell's disciplinary actions arose out of dealings with William Young, later known as the "multi-lock burglar."

   
   

7. In DOAH case #82-1672, it was found that Ms. Croasdell was a willing accomplice with Young in a series of burglaries in which access was gained through use of the multi-lock boxes used by realtors to show homes for sale. Golf clubs and towels were stolen. Ms. Croasdell assisted in the investigation leading to young's conviction and she was never arrested nor charged with a criminal violation.

   
   

8. In DOAH case #82-1673, the Hearing Officer found Ms. Croasdell made application, and obtained a second mortgage loan in her own name on property that she had previously conveyed to William Young. She misrepresented to the mortgage company the true owner of the property.

   
   

9. Ms. Croasdell is a reformed alcoholic. She characterizes herself as an alcoholic drinker between 1974 and March 1984. She now participates actively in Alcoholics Anonymous, attends meetings several days a week and sponsors other women alcoholics. She works with the AA Hot Line and a halfway house for women alcoholics.

10. She is employed part-time teaching real-estate related courses at a technical school. She is also attending college, with some support in the form of tuition and books from the Florida Division of vocational Rehabilitation.

    
    

11. Respondent presented no evidence to controvert Ms. Croasdell's credible testimony of her complete rehabilitation. She freely admits her wrongdoing in the referenced disciplinary cases. She attributes the wrongs to a fear of William Young and to her alcoholism. During the proceedings before the Commission in 1982 and 1983, she did not admit her alcoholism as she was still in the throes of the disease.

    
    

12. Ms. Croasdell's evidence is corroborated in approximately seventeen letters of reference and commendation from her counsellors, former students, employers and business associates.

    
    

13. Ann Croasdell held her real estate license between 1978 and 1984. Prior to that, she was employed by various state agencies, including five years with the Florida Real Estate Commission as an administrative assistant and acting and assistant director. With her license she opened a real estate school and built an active business. Her real love is teaching real estate students. She believes she has a gift for this vocation and can make a contribution to the profession.

    
    

14. Ms. Croasdell is 47 years old, divorced, with three children. Her account of her life before and after the activities leading to the loss of her license lends credence to the theory that her behavior was an aberration peculiar to her relationship with Young and to the final stages of her alcoholism.

    
    

15. The Commission's letter of intended denial is not in evidence; however, at the brief proceeding before the Commission in May, 1987, the unanimous vote of the members was based upon the expressed concern that insufficient time had passed. While the discipline in one case (#82-1673) was a three-year suspension, the Board rejected the Hearing Officer's recommendation for a five year suspension in case #82-1672, in favor of revocation.

    
    

16. According to the findings in the disciplinary cases, the wrongful conduct took place primarily in 1979 and 1980. The Appellate Court mandates were issued in 1984, and Ms. Croasdell has been un-licensed for almost four years. Additional time would serve no purpose other than further assurance that a relapse will not occur.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

17. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to subsections 120.57(1) and 120.60(2) F.S.

    
    

18. Section 475.17 F.S., governing the qualifications for practice in the real estate profession provides in pertinent part:

    
    

    (1)(a) An application for licensure who is a natural person shall be 18 years of age, a bonafide resident of the state, honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character and shall have a good reputation for fair dealing. ... If the applicant... has been disbarred, or his registration or licensure

    to practice or conduct any regulated profession, business, or vacation has been revoked or suspended, ... 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 appears to the commission that the interest of the public and investors will not likely be endangered by the granting of registration.

    
    

19. Ann Croasdell has proven, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that her rehabilitation is complete.

    
    

20. The determination of whether sufficient time has lapsed since the license revocation is an ultimate finding, requiring the consideration of factual circumstances and the application of agency policy. Smart v. Board of Real Estate 421 So.2nd 22, 23 (Fla. App. 1st DCA 1982); Aquino v. Department of professional Regulation and Board of Real Estate, 430 So.2nd 598 (Fla. App. 4th DCA 1983).

    
    

21. The Hearing Officer, in recommending a five year suspension, and the Commission, in imposing revocation in the prior disciplinary cases, each acted on the factual circumstances as they appeared at that time: the violations were serious and the breach of trust was substantial. The factual circumstances now are different, and it is not sufficient to simply refer back to the earlier proceeding and conclude that the five years' suspension recommendation is an immutable minimum lapse of time.

    
    

22. Arguably, the determination of an appropriate lapse of time might involve the consideration of a punitive or disciplinary interest as well as the interest of rehabilitation. Here, though, the past services of Ann Croasdell to the public and to the profession and her potential for greater contributions eclipse those punitive interests.

    
    

23. Based on the foregoing, and on the acknowledgement that as a salesperson, Ms. Croasdell will be acting only under the direction, control or management of a licensed broker, it is concluded that the interest of the public and investors will not likely be endangered by the granting of her registration.

RECOMMENDATION

It is, hereby Recommended:

That the Commission enter its Final Order granting the application of Ann Croasdell for licensure as a real estate salesperson.

DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of December in Tallahassee, Florida.

MARY CLARK

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 23rd day of December, 1987.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212

400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801

Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation

400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802

William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Docket for Case No: 87-002614

Orders for Case No: 87-002614