STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-3328

)

MARTHA M. BUSTILLO and VIRMAR )

INVESTMENTS, INC., )

)

Respondents. )

) DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-3329

)

MARTHA M. BUSTILLO and VIRMAR )

INVESTMENTS, INC., )

)

Respondents. )

) DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-3330

)

OLGA VENEDICTO, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to Notice, this cause was heard by Linda M. Rigot, the assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on September 27, 1993, in Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire

Department of Business and Professional Regulation

Division of Real Estate

400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32802-1900

For Respondents: Ofer M. Amir, Esquire

Amir & Associates, P.A.

8751 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 500

Plantation, Florida 33324 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaints filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner filed two Administrative Complaints against Respondents Martha

1. Bustillo and Virmar Investments, Inc., and one Administrative Complaint against Olga Venedicto based upon the same factual allegations, and all three Respondents timely requested a formal hearing regarding the allegations contained within those Administrative Complaints. These causes were thereafter transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the formal proceedings. The Joint Request for Consolidated Final Hearing filed June 30, 1993, was granted on July 2, 1993.

   
   

   During the final hearing Petitioner voluntarily dismissed Counts IX, X, and XV-XXVI of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 93-3328; Counts IX and X of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 93-3329; and Counts II and III of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 93- 3330.

   
   

   Petitioner presented the testimony of Thomas F. Sevilla, Rita Benitez, Carlos M. Benitez, Gladys Diaz, Hector F. Sehweret, and Ileana Hernandez.

   Additionally, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1-13, 16, 17, 22, and 23 were admitted in evidence. Respondents appeared only through their attorney and offered no evidence on their behalf except for Respondents' Exhibit numbered 1 which was admitted.

   
   

   Petitioner and Respondents filed post-hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders. A specific ruling on each proposed finding of fact can be found in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

   
   

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. Respondent Martha M. Bustillo is a real estate broker licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0401092. At all times material hereto, she has been the qualifying broker for Respondent Virmar Investments, Inc.

      
      

   2. Respondent Virmar Investments, Inc., is a real estate brokerage corporation licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0237551.

      
      

   3. At no time material hereto has Respondent Olga Venedicto been licensed in the State of Florida as either a real estate broker or as a real estate salesperson.

      
      

   4. In July of 1992 Thomas F. Sevilla contacted Virmar Investments, looking for a house to buy. Olga Venedicto took his phone call and told him that she would help him. Sevilla went to Venedicto's "office" at Virmar Investment and

      began working with her. Venedicto gave Sevilla her business card which represented that she is the vice president of Virmar Investments, Inc., and carries the notation "registered real estate brokers." In addition to giving him her card which carried her name, Virmar's name, and the word "brokers" in the plural form rather than the singular form, Venedicto specifically told Sevilla that she was a broker.

      
      

   5. Venedicto and Bustillo took Sevilla to see a house which he decided to buy. He gave Venedicto his check for $2,000 as a deposit and instructed her and Bustillo to make an offer on that house. Venedicto told him she would put the money in Virmar's escrow account. Instead, the money was deposited in Virmar's operating account.

      
      

   6. Sevilla did not buy that house, and Venedicto and Bustillo took him to see a second house. Sevilla decided not to make an offer on that house and asked Venedicto to refund his money.

      
      

   7. It took a month before Sevilla received a check from Venedicto. Although the check was marked "deposit return," the check was not written from Virmar's account but rather was a check from a Mega Group Corp. for only $1,675. When Sevilla attempted to cash that check, it was dishonored three times, with the notation "N. S. F." Finally, the check was honored by the bank.

      
      

   8. Sevilla had expected to receive his entire $2,000 deposit. Neither Venedicto nor Bustillo had ever told him in advance that they would keep part of his money. Although Respondents' attorney during the final hearing implied that his clients may have kept part of Sevilla's money to pay for a survey and credit report, Sevilla had not agreed in advance to pay for a credit report, and no evidence was offered as to what house Sevilla might have purchased a survey on or for what reason. Further, neither Venedicto nor Bustillo gave him a copy of any survey or credit report nor was he ever shown one or advised that either would be obtained. When Sevilla inquired as to why he was reimbursed the lesser amount, only then did Venedicto tell him that Respondents were keeping part of his money for a credit report.

      
      

   9. Respondents Bustillo and Virmar authorized and assisted Venedicto in her performance of acts and services requiring licensure as a salesperson relative to the transaction with Sevilla.

      
      

   10. Rita and Carlos Benitez listed their house for sale with Pedro Realty. Gladys Diaz was the listing agent at Pedro Realty.

       
       

   11. Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto brought Carlos Martinez and his wife to look at the Benitez house. Gladys Diaz was present at the time.

       
       

   12. Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto subsequently came to Diaz' office and presented to Diaz and Carlos Benitez an offer on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Martinez. Respondent Venedicto represented herself to be a realtor and Respondent Bustillo to be Venedicto's partner and broker. Respondent Venedicto discussed the contract and price with Diaz and Benitez while Respondent Bustillo observed Venedicto's presentation. The offer had previously been signed on behalf of Respondent Virmar by Respondent Venedicto who represented to Diaz that the signature on the offer was that of Respondent Venedicto.

       
       

   13. Mr. Benitez signed the document, and Diaz then took the offer to Mrs. Benitez to obtain her signature. Mrs. Benitez also signed the offer, thereby completing the contract.

   14. Thereafter, delays ensued because Mr. and Mrs. Martinez were not in a financial position to be able to purchase the home. Respondent Venedicto contacted Mrs. Benitez and attempted to re-negotiate the contract. During those negotiations which were not successful, Respondent Venedicto represented herself to Mrs. Benitez as being a licensed real estate agent. In response to Mrs. Benitez' inquiries, Respondent Venedicto gave Benitez her business card carrying the names of Venedicto and Virmar and the notation "registered real estate brokers."

       
       

   15. As to the portion of the transaction involving Mrs. Benitez, all of her contact with the three Respondents in this cause was with Respondent Venedicto. Venedicto gave Benitez advice regarding proceeding with the sale and handled the negotiations.

       
       

   16. Prior to September 24, 1992, Hector F. Sehweret, an investigator for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, requested that Respondents Bustillo and Virmar produce certain records for inspection by him. He spoke with Respondent Bustillo on a number of occasions to no avail. He offered to give her time to gather the records if necessary, but she never did.

       
       

   17. On September 24, 1992, he served Respondent Bustillo with a subpoena for those records. She still failed to produce them. Thereafter, she would not return his phone calls, and when he came to the office of Virmar Investments, Respondent Bustillo would hide from him.

       
       

   18. Neither Respondent Bustillo nor Respondent Virmar have ever produced the records subpoenaed. Further, no explanation has been given for the failure of Respondents Bustillo and Virmar to produce their records. Although the attorney for Respondents implied during the final hearing that the records may have been destroyed by Hurricane Andrew, there is no evidence to support that implication; rather, the evidence is uncontroverted that the building housing the real estate office of Respondents Virmar and Bustillo was not damaged by Hurricane Andrew.

       
       

   19. Ileana Hernandez is a realtor and a mortgage broker licensed in the State of Florida. She met Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto during a real estate transaction.

       
       

   20. In November of 1991 Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto contacted Hernandez regarding obtaining money in exchange for a second mortgage on certain real property.

       
       

   21. At the time, Respondents did not tell Hernandez the identity of the owner of the property, but Hernandez was given the address of the property and was advised that the market value of the property was approximately $79,000.

       
       

   22. Hernandez was subsequently advised that Respondent Venedicto (a/k/a Olga Bichara) was the owner of the property. It was agreed that Respondent Venedicto would execute and record the promissory note and mortgage in the amount of $15,500. Hernandez, who knew that Respondent Bustillo was the president of Terra Title, gave her a personal check payable to Terra Title in the amount of $15,000 on November 26, 1991.

       
       

   23. Respondent Venedicto, who had promised Hernandez that the promissory note and second mortgage would be recorded, never recorded those documents. Further, Respondents never delivered the original copy of the promissory note

       and mortgage to Hernandez despite her repeated demands. Hernandez later discovered that Respondent Venedicto was not the sole owner of the property which she had attempted to mortgage but jointly owned the property with her son. Accordingly, Respondent Venedicto's signature would not be sufficient to perfect a mortgage on the property. Hernandez also discovered that the mortgage, represented by Bustillo and Venedicto to be a second mortgage, was not. There were already two mortgages on the property. Had Hernandez known the true ownership and the true encumbrances on the property, she would not have loaned Venedicto the $15,000 because that raised the total amount of mortgages on the property to be in excess of the value of the property.

       
       

   24. Three checks which were subsequently written by Respondent Bustillo from the operating accounts of Respondent Virmar and of Mega Group Corp. were dishonored by the bank with the notation "N. S. F." As a result of those checks, Hernandez obtained default final judgments against Respondent Virmar and against Mega Group Corp., which final judgments are still unsatisfied.

       
       

   25. Prior to that time, however, Respondents Venedicto and Bustillo approached Hernandez regarding their need to borrow $35,000 to be re-paid in 30 days in conjunction with some real estate development in which Respondents Venedicto and Bustillo were involved. Respondent Venedicto and Respondent Bustillo each individually represented that Hernandez would have her money back in 30 days. Respondent Bustillo told Hernandez that Respondent Venedicto was in business with Bustillo and was selling real estate in Mexico. Bustillo asked Hernandez to make the check payable to Bustillo's company Terra Title.

       
       

   26. Hernandez went to the offices of Respondent Virmar and handed her personal check made payable to Terra Title to Respondent Venedicto.

       
       

   27. When the 30 days had passed with no payments to Hernandez, she went to Virmar Investments and made Respondent Venedicto sign a promissory note for

       $35,000.

       
       

   28. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, Hernandez had recovered only $15,000 of the $35,000 loan made to Respondent Venedicto and had recovered only the principal amount of the money supposed to have been secured by a second mortgage on real property. Hernandez is still owed $20,000 in principal alone.

       
       

       CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

       
       

   29. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and the subject matter hereof. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

       
       

   30. Section 475.25(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Florida Real Estate Commission to take disciplinary action against licensees, which action can include licensure suspension or revocation, the imposition of an administrative fine, and the issuance of a reprimand for violating the prohibitions contained in that statute.

       
       

   31. Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 93-3328 charge Respondents Bustillo and Virmar Investments with having committed 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 violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in their dealings with Ileana Hernandez as to the alleged second

       mortgage. Petitioner has met its burden of proof as to those allegations. Respondents Bustillo and Venedicto obtained money from Hernandez in exchange for an alleged second mortgage on certain real property. Bustillo did not tell Hernandez that Respondent Venedicto a/k/a Olga Bichara was the owner of the property along with Venedicto's son. Accordingly, the documents executed by only one of the two owners were defective, and Bustillo's failure to record those documents resulted in Hernandez not obtaining the perfected mortgage on the property which Bustillo had represented Hernandez would have. Bustillo did not disclose to Hernandez that Venedicto was also obtaining an additional mortgage from a third party and that the sum of all mortgages exceeded the value of the real property. Respondents Bustillo and Virmar Investments subsequently wrote checks in conjunction with the promissory note and mortgage, which checks were dishonored by the bank since Virmar's account did not have sufficient funds in it. Hernandez obtained a default final judgment against Respondent Virmar, which judgment remains unsatisfied.

       
       

   32. Counts III and IV of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 93-3328 charge Respondents Bustillo and Virmar with failing to account or deliver to Hernandez upon demand any personal property such as money, a mortgage, or other documents or thing of value, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Despite her repeated demands, neither Respondent Bustillo nor Respondent Virmar Investments delivered to Hernandez the original copy of the promissory note and mortgage executed by Respondent Venedicto a/k/a Bichara. Similarly, the mortgage payments made by Bustillo and Virmar Investments were by dishonored checks, and the lawsuit filed by Hernandez against Virmar Investments resulted in a judgment by default. Petitioner has proved Respondents Bustillo and Virmar Investments guilty as charged in Counts III and IV.

       
       

   33. Counts V and VI of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 93-3328 charge Respondents Bustillo and Virmar with committing 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 violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as to the $35,000 loan from Ileana Hernandez. Petitioner has met its burden as to Counts V and VI. Respondent Bustillo falsely represented to Ileana Hernandez that the $35,000 loan would be re-paid in 30 days. The transaction occurred at the offices of Respondent Virmar, completing the impression that Hernandez was dealing with fellow licensees deserving of trust.

       
       

   34. Counts VII and VIII of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 93-3328 charge Respondents Bustillo and Virmar, respectively, with violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, and false pretenses regarding the Benitez sale to Martinez. In conjunction therewith, Counts XI and XII charge Respondents Bustillo and Virmar Investments, respectively, with having employed a person as a salesperson who is not the holder of a valid and current license, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(c), and, therefore, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Section 475.25(1)(e) prohibits licensees from violating the provisions of Chapter 475. Section 475.42(1)(c) prohibits a broker from employing any person as a salesperson who is not the holder of a valid and current license as a salesperson. Respondents Bustillo and Virmar Investments permitted Respondent Venedicto to show to prospective buyers real property which was for sale, permitted Respondent Venedicto to sign the purchase and sale agreement on behalf of Virmar Investments, permitted Respondent Venedicto to present the offer to the sellers in Bustillo's presence, permitted Respondent Venedicto to represent that she was licensed and to hand out a business card

       written in such a way as to be deceptive regarding her licensure status, and permitted Respondent Venedicto to re-negotiate the contract between the sellers Benitez and the buyers Martinez. Petitioner has proven Respondents Bustillo and Virmar guilty of employing an unlicensed person as a salesperson in violation of Section 475.42(1)(c) and, therefore, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. By their misrepresentation of Venedicto's licensure status, Respondents Bustillo and Virmar Investments also violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.

       
       

   35. Counts XIII and XIV of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 93-3328 charge Respondents Bustillo and Virmar Investments, respectively, with failing to make their escrow account records available to the Petitioner or its authorized representative for inspection, in violation of Rule 21V- 14.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, and, therefore, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. That Rule, now re-numbered as Rule 61J2- 14.012(1), requires that such books and accounts be subject to inspection by Petitioner or Petitioner's representative at all reasonable times during regular business hours. Respondents Bustillo and Virmar Investments refused to make available to investigator Sehweret their escrow account records. Respondents told him they were not available, and he offered to allow them additional time to gather them. Still no records were made available. He served a subpoena for those records after which Respondent Bustillo refused to return his phone calls and when he came to the office of Virmar Investments thereafter, Respondent Bustillo hid from him. Petitioner has met its burden of proving Respondents guilty of violating that Rule and, therefore, Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, which prohibits violating the provisions of any Rule.

       
       

   36. Petitioner dismissed Counts IX, X, and XV-XXVI of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 93-3328 during the final hearing in this cause.

       
       

   37. The Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 93-3329 charges in Counts I and II that Respondents Bustillo and Virmar Investments are guilty of misrepresentation, concealment, dishonest dealing, and breach of trust in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in their dealings with Thomas Sevilla. They obtained from Sevilla a check for $2,000 as a deposit on the purchase of a house. Sevilla's cancelled check shows that the money was deposited by Bustillo and Virmar in Virmar's operating account rather than Virmar's trust account. When Sevilla asked for the return of his deposit money, Bustillo and Virmar deducted charges never authorized by Sevilla in advance. With no proof that such charges had ever been incurred, Sevilla was given a check from a company other than Virmar, which check was dishonored when presented to the bank for payment. Petitioner has met its burden of proof as to Counts I and II.

       
       

   38. Counts III and IV of that Administrative Complaint allege that Respondents Bustillo and Virmar are guilty of having failed to account or deliver a deposit, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes. Respondents Bustillo and Virmar are guilty as alleged. Sevilla testified that it took him over a month to obtain the return of his deposit and then only part of it was returned. Further, it took additional time to receive the money since the check given to him was written on an account without sufficient funds in it. Counts V and VI of that Administrative Complaint allege that Respondents Bustillo and Virmar, respectively, failed to immediately upon receipt place a deposit in escrow, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. The copies of the cancelled checks admitted in evidence reflect that Sevilla's deposit monies were not deposited into Virmar's escrow account but rather were deposited into its operating account. The portion of the deposit which was

       eventually returned to Sevilla came from a different company. Petitioner has met its burden.

       
       

   39. Counts VII and VIII allege that Bustillo and Virmar Investments are guilty of employing an unlicensed person as a salesperson relative to the transaction with Thomas Sevilla, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(c) and, therefore, Section 475.25(1)(e) and Section 475.25(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Since Petitioner offered no proof that Respondent Venedicto received a commission, fee, or other compensation as a result of her real estate activities, Petitioner has failed to prove a violation of Section 475.25(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Petitioner has, however, proven that Respondents Bustillo and Virmar violated Section 475.25(1)(e) by violating Section 475.42(1)(c) by employing Venedicto to engage in the activities of a salesperson although she had no license to do so.

       
       

   40. During the final hearing Petitioner voluntarily dismissed Counts IX and X of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 93-3329.

       
       

   41. Count I of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 93-3330 alleges that Respondent Olga Venedicto violated Section 475.42(1)(a) and, therefore, Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, involving the sale of the Benitez home to Mr. and Mrs. Martinez. Petitioner has proven that Respondent Venedicto operated as a broker or salesperson while unlicensed during that transaction by showing the Benitez home to Mr. and Mrs. Martinez, by drafting and signing the purchase offer as the broker involved, by presenting the offer to the listing agent Gladys Diaz and to Carlos Benitez, by specifically representing herself to be a realtor both verbally and by virtue of her deceptive business card, and by giving advice to the parties and handling the negotiations between them. By violating Section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Respondent Venedicto also violated Section 475.25(1)(e) which prohibits violating any of the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes.

       
       

   42. During the final hearing Petitioner voluntarily dismissed Counts II and III of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 93-3330.

       
       

   43. Disciplinary guidelines for the Florida Real Estate Commission are found in Rule 61J2-24.001, Florida Administrative Code. Those statutory provisions which Respondents Bustillo and Virmar Investments have violated, as set forth in this Recommended Order, carry penalties up to revocation. There is no evidence in this cause which would mitigate against imposing the highest penalty on Bustillo and Virmar. Rather, their method of operating as real estate brokers evinces a reckless disregard for the law and the public. Respondents Bustillo and Virmar neglected the duties placed upon them in a flagrant manner, through their own activities and through their use of unlicensed personnel. They have placed deposit monies, not in their trust account, but in their operating account or in the accounts of other corporations. They have withheld returning deposit monies to those clearly entitled and have deducted undisclosed and unauthorized charges. They have written checks when they have had insufficient funds to cover those checks.

       They have misrepresented the ownership of real property and have failed to record mortgage documents so that mortgage liens can be perfected. They have obtained monies from persons under false pretenses. Finally, they have refused to allow Petitioner to inspect their escrow account records, and Respondent Bustillo has even refused to return Petitioner's investigator's telephone calls and has hidden when he has come to the office of Respondent Virmar Investments. Any penalty less than revocation of the licenses of Respondent Bustillo and

       Respondent Virmar would be insufficient to protect the public from their dishonest dealings.

       
       

   44. As to Respondent Olga Venedicto, Petitioner seeks an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. Section 455.228(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes the imposition of an administrative penalty not to exceed $5,000 per incident. As with Respondents Bustillo and Virmar Investments, no mitigating evidence was offered regarding an administrative fine to be imposed against Respondent Venedicto. On the other hand, her willful disregard of the licensing laws is apparent. Additionally, her dishonest scheme to extract monies from Ileana Hernandez by executing defective mortgages when she was not the only owner of the real estate involved cannot be condoned. The highest administrative fine should be imposed.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking the license of

Respondent Martha M. Bustillo, revoking the license of Respondent Virmar

Investments, Inc., and requiring Respondent Olga Venedicto to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $5,000 within 30 days from the entry of the Final Order.

DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida.

LINDA M. RIGOT

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1994.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

DOAH CASE NO. 93-3328, 93-3329, and 93-3330

1. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-18, 20-29, and 31-33 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order.

2. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony.

3. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 19 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause.

4. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 30 has been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein.

1. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 18, 25, 26, 28, 37, 42, 49-52, 55, 57, 62, 63, 69, 71, and 73 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order.

2. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 6, 11-17, 19-22, 30- 36, 43, 46-48, 53, 54, 56, 58, 60, 67 and 68 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony.

3. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 10, 23, 29, 61, 64, 65, 70, 72, and 75 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause.

4. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 24, 27, 38-41, 44, and 45 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein.

5. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 59, 66, 74, and 76-78 are rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and

Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate

400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32802-1900

Ofer M. Amir, Esquire Amir & Associates, P.A.

8751 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 500

Plantation, Florida 33324

Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Business and Professional

Regulation

Division of Real Estate

400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900

Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional

Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 93-003328

Orders for Case No: 93-003328