The Issue Whether the Respondents' real estate licenses in Florida should be disciplined based upon the charge that the Respondents are guilty of failing to maintain the required entrance sign on or about the entrance to the principal office in violation of Subsection 475.22, Florida Statutes and Rule 21V-10.024, Florida Administrative Code and are therefore in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondents' real estate licenses in Florida should be disciplined based upon the charge that Respondents are guilty of failing to register a branch office in violation of Subsection 475.24, Florida Statutes, and Rule 21V-10.023, Florida Administrative Code, and therefore are in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondents' real estate licenses in Florida should be disciplined based upon the charge that the Respondent Max S. Long, Jr., is guilty of failing to be a signatory on all escrow accounts in violation of Rule 21V-14.010, Florida Administrative Code and therefore is in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondents' real estate licenses in Florida should be disciplined based upon the charge that the Respondents' are guilty of failing to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondents' real estate licenses in Florida should be disciplined based upon the charge that Respondents' are guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in any business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Max S. Long, Jr. was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license numbers 0253744, 0253742, and 0258199 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker for Stonegate Realty, Inc., 2325 Ulmerton Road, Clearwater, Florida 34620 and Queens Harbour Realty, Inc., 711 San Pablo Road North, Jacksonville, Florida 32225. Respondent Long has been a licensed salesperson since 1974 and a licensed broker since 1978. The Respondent Stonegate Property Management Corporation was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0240617 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was at the address of 2325 Ulmerton Road, Clearwater, Florida 34620. The Respondent Stonegate Realty, Inc. was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0182660 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last licensed issued was at the address of 2325 Ulmerton Road, Clearwater, Florida 24620. The Respondent Queens Harbour Realty, Inc., is now and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0257554 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was at the address of 711 San Pablo Road North, Jacksonville, Florida 32225. On or about October 17, 1989, DPR investigator Marjorie G. Maye (hereinafter Maye) conducted an inspection and audit of Respondents' offices and escrow accounts in Clearwater. Maye discovered that the Respondents did not display an office entrance sign for the corporations. Since the inspection Respondents have erected the proper sign which has been displayed continuously since that date. Respondents were operating an unregistered branch office located at 13280 Broadhurst Loop S.W., Ft. Myers, Florida. Respondents did not register the office because the salesperson was an employee of the developer and sold only property at that project. Since the inspection Respondents have properly registered the branch office. At the time of the inspection and audit Respondent Long was not a signatory on Respondents' escrow accounts. Since the inspection, Respondent Long has been added as a signatory to the escrow accounts. At the time of the audit Respondents' escrow account titled Queens Harbour Realty - Escrow account number 0089798317 maintained at C & S Bank of Pinellas County on September 30, 1989, had a current liability of $54,010.66, a reconciled bank balance of $8,537.99 thus indicating a shortage of approximately $45,472.67. Ultimately, the Respondents reduced the shortage to zero and the accounts balanced. At the time of the inspection and audit, Ed Perry, CPA, was employed by Respondent Queens Harbour in the accounting department and was in charge of the Queens Harbour Realty - Escrow account which was maintained out of Clearwater, Florida. George Patterson and Ed Perry, CPAs, and other individuals were signatories on this escrow account. The escrow accounts were used for deposits on real estate sales and leases. The funds were disbursed at sale or upon termination of the lease. Some of the funds received by Respondents were not required to be held in escrow. Eventually the deposits from several projects were placed in the escrow accounts. Disbursements were made from the escrow accounts even though the funds were not required to be deposited in the escrow account. This resulted in confusion as to the exact amounts of funds required to be maintained in the escrow accounts and which funds were available for distribution. Shortages in the escrow accounts were a result of intercompany loans and disbursements, as well as, from the co-mingling of funds. These were made at the direction of George Patterson. On or about October 13, 1989, Ed Perry, CPA and George Patterson, supervisor of the accounting department, signed a $6,000.00 check from Respondents' escrow account which was used for the purchase of a vehicle for Queens Harbour Yacht and Country Club. When this error was discovered the $6,000.00 was re-deposited to the escrow account. Respondent Long, became the broker for Stonegate Realty at the request of his cousin, Fred Bullard, the President of the Bullard Group, and a majority shareholder in Queens Harbour Realty, Inc. He was not aware of and did not sign any of the checks representing the inter-company loans or for the purchase of the vehicle. He derived no benefit from these loans. Respondent Max S. Long, Jr. understood at all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint that an escrow account is one used to hold funds belonging to third parties and that he, as the real estate broker, acted in a fiduciary capacity to those third parties. Respondent Long relied completely on the corporation's in-house accountants to properly prepare the accounting for the escrow funds. Since the DPR investigation, there have been no shortages in the escrow account, monthly reconciliation reports are prepared and signed by Respondent Long, and the escrow accounts are routinely reviewed by Respondent Long. Respondent Long has had no prior disciplinary proceedings before the Commission.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the evidence of the record, including the contents of the several exhibits received into evidence, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondents be found guilty of having violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (e) and (k), Florida Statutes, (1989), as charged in the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondents shall jointly pay a penalty of $500 and that Respondent Long's real estate licenses be suspended for a period of one year, followed by a one year period of probation upon such conditions as the Florida Real Estate Commission shall reasonably impose. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, Respondents' proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42. Rejected as irrelevant: 9, 13, 40. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kelli Hanley Crabb, Esquire Post Office Box 4110 St. Petersburg, Florida 33743 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack L. McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1973, Mr. and Mrs. Delmar D. Carter purchased the Buccaneer Motel and Woodside Apartments [the motel] from C.E.K., Inc., whom respondents represented in the sale. Respondents agreed to accept less from C.E.K., Inc., as their commission on the sale, that they might have otherwise, because the Carters agreed to give respondents the exclusive right to resell the motel for a period of five years. Two years after they purchased the motel, the Carters asked O.B. Linkous to try to sell the motel, but the Carters sell held the motel when the resale agreement expired in late 1978. One of the obligations assumed by the Carters in exchange for the motel was secured by a mortgage that C.E.K., Inc., had executed in favor of O.B. Linkous Realty, Inc., on December 14, 1972. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. This assumed obligation required the Carters to make certain monthly payments to the corporate respondent including a payment of $862.19 on January 1, 1979. Under the mortgage agreement, the entire principal (originally $88,247.93) would become due if a "default continue for a space of 30 days." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. On January 25, 1979, Mr. Carter delivered to Mr. Linkous a check in the amount of $862.19, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, as payment of the amount due on January 1, 1979. When he handed the check to respondent Linkous, Mr. Carter told him that the funds in the account on which the check was drawn were insufficient for the drawee to pay the check, but that he would deposit sufficient funds on the following day. Respondent Linkous answered that he saw no problem since he intended to deposit the check in his own account in another bank and assumed it would be at least a day before the check was presented to the drawee. On the following day, Mr. Carter deposited $865.96 in the account on which the check was drawn. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. On January 31, 1979, the balance in the account was $1,000.32. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Instead of depositing the check, respondent Linkous took the check, on the same day he received it, to the Flagship First National Bank of Ormond Beach, on which it was drawn, and persuaded a teller there to stamp it so as to indicate that it had been dishonored because sufficient funds were not on deposit. On February 7, 1979, a mortgage foreclosure complaint was filed against the Carters and C.E.K., Inc., (as holder of a junior mortgage), in which respondents' attorney alleged that the Carters had "defaulted under the note and mortgage by failing to pay the payment due January 1, 1979, and all subsequent payments." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The Carters retained counsel who filed an answer and counterclaim in which it was alleged, inter alia, that Linkous "deliberately with premeditated design, deceived and tricked [the Carters]." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. After these pleadings had been filed, the Carters agreed to respondents' counsel's suggestion that they grant the corporate respondent the exclusive right to sell the motel for another five-year period in exchange for an end to the litigation, and executed an agreement to that effect. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. The parties stipulated that both respondents hold real estate licenses issued by petitioner.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondents' licenses for a period of five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 10th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Ralph Fetner, Jr., Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Hadley, Esquire 827 Deltona Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against the registration of Cindy Realty of Hernando, Inc., and William Colello as real estate brokers. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Stephen C. Booth, Esquire 1604 U.S. Highway 19, North New Port Richey, Florida 33552
Findings Of Fact Respondent Pinkerton has been a registered real estate broker since May 19, 1976, before which he was a real estate salesman registered with Strout Realty, Inc. On October 29, 1975, respondent entered into an agreement with Transamerica Homes Company (Transamerica) to sell at auction five mobile homes belonging to Transamerica. On November 15, 1975, respondent acted as auctioneer at an auction at which all five mobile homes were sold. After receiving some of the proceeds of the sale, Transamerica's agents asked respondent to remit an additional seven thousand six hundred eighty dollars ($7,680.00). Respondent told Robert P. Wold, Transamerica's authorized representative in Florida, that he did not have that much money because he had borne expenses in connection with the auction that Transamerica should have paid. After telling Transamerica's agents that he did not have sufficient funds to cover such a check, respondent nonetheless drew and mailed a check in the amount of seven thousand six hundred eighty dollars ($7,680.00), in the belief that Mr. Wold wanted him to write the check even though the funds to cover it were not on deposit. When the check was presented to the American Bank of Lakeland, on which it was drawn, petitioner had four thousand nine hundred fifty-three dollars and fifty-three cents ($4,953.53) on deposit, and the bank dishonored the check. After the check was returned for insufficient funds, Mr. William S. Hagar telephoned respondent on behalf of Transamerica to discuss the matter. Respondent said he would send another check in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) within a week, which he did. Another week passed; another telephone call transpired between Mr. Hagar and respondent; and respondent sent a second check in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00). Both of the checks respondent had drawn for two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) were paid upon presentment. On March 13, 1976, respondent wrote Mr. Hagar a letter in which he stated: At this point, due to the many problems involved in the Auction of the Mobile Homes on the 15th of November, 1975 at Skyview Waters in Lakeland, I feel I am entitled to additional compensation. First of all, it is almost unheard of in an auction of this kind for less than 20 percent commission. I was assured [sic] by Mr. Robert Wold of his assistance in preparing the sale. He and Mr. Paul Harris were supposed to provide the arrangements for financing. They did absolutely nothing. They were supposed to assist prospects in locating lots and people to handle moving, setups, driveways and other improvements. By our agreement my only obligation was to be to supervise and provide auctioneer voice. I think you are quite aware that the entire operation was left for me to do at about 1/4 the commission I should have been paid plus the fact that I was forced to split the meager commission I earned with two other people. So, I ended up with less than $1000 gross commission on a sale that should have netted me at least $10,000. On March 16, 1976, Mr. Hagar replied, sending a copy of his letter to the Florida Real Estate Commission: This letter acknowledges receipt of your truly [sic] amazing letter of March 12, 1976. I have reviewed the Auction Agreement which you executed, a copy attached for your information and edification. The language is clear, unambiguous and the obligations of both parties are stated plainly. We have honored our obligations completely and we expect you to honor yours. Paragraph 2) stated you will be ". . . solely responsible in setting up and conducting the auction sale without interference from anyone. . ." Paragraph 3) states you ". . . shall retain Four percent of the bid price received, as commission . . ." for your services. Lastly, Paragraph 6) states there are ". . . no oral representations, agreements or understandings between either of the parties. . . ". * * * We have been patient and forbearing in allowing you the opportunity to make restitution without resorting to the full remedies available under the law to us . . . I assure you that unless we receive your certified check in the amount of $2,680 by March 24, 1976, we shall exercise each and every remedy so available. On March 26, 1976, Mr. Hagar, not having heard from respondent, engaged Florida counsel who eventually succeeded in obtaining a default judgment against respondent in the amount of two thousand six hundred eighty dollars ($2,680.00) plus costs. This judgment had not been satisfied at the time of the hearing in the present proceeding. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which is attached as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 APPENDIX Paragraph one of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that the evidence did not establish when respondent became associated with Strout Realty, Inc. Respondent's letter of March 12, 1976, to Mr. Hagar was written on Strout Realty, Inc. stationery, however. Paragraph two of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that the check was for only a part of Transamerica's claimed share of the sale proceeds. Respondent did in fact know that he had insufficient funds to cover the check, a fact of which he made no secret. Paragraph three of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. Paragraph four of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. George W. Pinkerton 2833 East Highway 92 Lakeland, Florida 33801 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-2292 GEORGE W. PINKERTON, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, the respondents Russell T. Gorgone and Russ Gorgone, Inc., were registered Florida real estate brokers. On July 11, 1972, an exclusive listing agreement was entered into between Russ Gorgone, Inc., as broker, and Jack Vollhoffer, as owner of the subject property, for the purpose of securing a purchaser for Vollhoffer's duplex located at 4252 and 4254 Armeda Avenue, Ft. Myers. The terms of this agreement included that the buyer would arrange financing, that the property was to be sold for $27,500.00 if conventional financing were used or for $29,500.00 if VA or FHA financing were used; and that Vollhoffer would pay Russ Gorgone, Inc. a fee of six percent of the sales price if a purchaser were procured. (Exhibit 1) Russ Gorgone, Inc. procured a purchaser for the subject property - one Chester Lee Phillips. Russ Gorgone, Inc. prepared a deposit receipt on August 3, 1972, showing a purchase price of $29,100.00, closing costs to be paid by the seller, Mr. Vollhoffer. (Exhibit 3) At first, Mr. Vollhoffer would not accept this offer because he wanted to receive $25,500.00 as his net-net-net proceeds of the sale. Mr. Russell T. Gorgone went to Lee County Title Company and asked for an estimate of the closing costs and was assured by said title company that they would not exceed $3,600.00. He thus made the determination that the property could be purchased for $29,100.00 and Vollhoffer would still receive $25,500.00 as net-net-net proceeds from the sale. On August 4, 1972, Russell T. Gorgone wrote the Vollhoffers a letter on Russ Gorgone, Inc. stationary, stating the offer of $29,100.00, requesting the Vollhoffers to accept it with the agreement that they would receive a total of $25,500.00 as the net-net-net proceeds as the result of the sale. It was further stated that Gorgone's sales fee and other closing expenses would be absorbed out of the $3,600.00 difference between the purchase price and the proceeds to the Vollhoffers. Mr. Vollhoffer accepted the offer of Mr. Phillips, on the basis of this August 4, 1972, letter. (Exhibit 2) Based upon Russell T. Gorgone's conversations with a Mr. Cohen of the Lee County Title Company, he (Mr. Gorgone) did not believe that the closing costs would exceed $3,600.00 and believed, in fact, that they would be less than that amount. He fully intended, at the time of executing the August 4th letter, that the Vollhoffers would receive $25,500.00 as a result of the sale. At the time of the closing on September 8, 1972, there was much discussion, primarily between Gorgone and the title agent, Cohen, regarding the closing statement. (Exhibits 4 and A) Mr. Gorgone testified that he was upset with Cohen over some of the figures charged to Vollhoffer and that he (Gorgone) still intended and felt that Vollhoffer should receive net-net-net proceeds of $25,500.00. He further stated that Cohen explained the changes in the closing costs to Vollhoffer. Vollhoffer testified that nobody explained the discrepancies to him and that he did not pay much attention to these discussions because it was not his business what the closing costs were and he was not concerned with them. His only concern was receiving his $25,500.00. While Vollhoffer testified that Gorgone did not tell him he did not have to close at the price discussed, he stated that he understood that he did not have to sell. Mr. Gorgone testified that he gave Vollhoffer the option of not signing the contract. Vollhoffer did sign the closing statement, which gave him net-net-net proceeds of $24,943.49. Mr. Vollhoffer testified that he signed because Mr. Gorgone had become hostile with him and because Gorgone had other property to sell for him and he therefore did not wish to antagonize him. Mr. Gorgone testified that he did not become hostile or abusive toward Vollhoffer at the closing and Mr. Phillips, the purchaser, testified that he did not observe Gorgone becoming hostile toward anyone. Phillips also testified that Vollhoffer did not, at the time of the closing, appear to be unhappy with the transaction. Some time after the closing, Mr. Vollhoffer made demand upon Mr. Gorgone for the difference between $25,500.00 and $24,943.49. Mr. Gorgone denied owing Vollhoffer anything.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the information against the respondents be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 7th day of November, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick W. Jones, Esquire 299 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Allan M. Parvey, Esquire GOLDBERG, RUBINSTEIN & BUCKLEY, P.A. Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 ===============================================================
