Findings Of Fact On January 23, 1984, the Secretary of the Department of professional Regulation (hereinafter "Department") signed an Administrative Complaint, count one of which alleges, in pertinent part: Respondents in their capacity as real estate brokers employed Doris H. Swanton as a real estate broker and office manager from approximately October 20, 1980 to April 18, 1982. On or about April 8, 1982 to the present, Doris H. Swanton has made numerous and repeated demands upon Respondents for the payment of a share of the compensation received by Respondent and earned by Doris H. Swanton while in the employ of the Respondents in the amount totalling approximately $7,815.52 involving a number of brokerage transactions. A copy of a list reflecting the transactions, dates and amounts owing is attached as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Since April 8, 1982, Respondents have failed, refused and neglected to give a reasonable accounting or to pay Doris H. Swanton the $7,815.52 or any part thereof notwithstanding the demands for same made upon Respondents by Doris H. Swanton, the person entitled to said money. That by reason of the foregoing, Respondents are guilty of having failed to account and deliver a share of a real estate commission and other compensation to Doris H. Swanton in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The Administrative Complaint signed on January 23, 1984, does not contain an allegation that there has been a judicial determination that Respondents are not entitled to retain the property claimed by Doris H. Swanton. On February 22, 1984, the Respondents served an Answer and Written Defenses in which the Respondents, inter alia, admit the first of the paragraphs quoted in finding number 1, above, and deny the other three paragraphs quoted above. The Respondents' Answer and Written Defenses also sets forth a detailed itemization of Respondents' reasons for contending that Doris H. Swanton is not entitled to the full amount of a single one of the twelve commissions she claims are due her from the Respondents. ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES The thesis of the Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents is that a broker cannot be disciplined for failure to account for and deliver non-escrowed property until there has been a judicial determination that the broker is not entitled to retain the property in dispute. The case of Golub v. Department of Professional Regulation, F.R.E.C., 9 FLW 460 (Fla. 5th DCA, Feb. 23, 1984), appears to be exactly on point. There a majority of the court concluded: Once there is a judicial determination that a broker is not entitled to retain non-escrowed property then this statute [475.25(1)(d)] is authority to discipline the broker for a failure to account and deliver the property to any person, including a salesman, who is entitled to its prossession. Corollary to the quoted language from Golub is the conclusion that until there is a judicial determination that a broker is not entitled to retain non- escrowed property, the statute does not authorize discipline of a broker for failure toe account and deliver the property. In other words, when the property in dispute is non-escrowed property, a judicial determination that a broker is not entitled to retain the property is an indispensable prerequisite to the establishment of a violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, on the basis of a failure to account for or deliver such property. Accordingly, until a court determines that the Respondents in this case are not entitled to retain the property in dispute in this case, it cannot be established that Respondents have violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. And inasmuch as the Administrative Complaint fails to allege that there has been any such judicial determination, the Administrative Complaint is fatally deficient.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Analysis of the Issues, and Conclusions of Law, I recommend that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a Final Order in this case dismissing the Administrative Complaint without prejudice to the refiling of an Administrative Complaint against these Respondents if and when a court determines that the Respondents are not entitled to the property claimed by Doris H. Swanton. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 3rd day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert W. Lee, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 G. Michael Keenan, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Mr. Harold R. Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
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. /
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter its final order directing Capitol Rental and Realty, Inc. and Lawrence D. Van Ore cease and desist from using non-registrants as real estate salesmen and further from failing to use the full name of the registrant and the term "Broker" or "Realtor" within its classified advertisements. The Hearing Officer further recommends that the registration of the registrant be suspended until the corporate broker and associate broker Lawrence D. Van Ore have complied with said order of the Commission. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John Gough, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Don Scarlet, Esquire 801 Magnolia - Suite 317 Orlando, Florida 32803
Findings Of Fact Robert Hartnett was at all times pertinent to this complaint a registered real estate broker. Bill Dew and Dave Allman sought to lease a specific piece of real property for business purposes. In this regard they contacted William Hartnett, who had previously leased a piece of real property which included the specific piece of property Messrs. Dew and Allman desired to lease. Messrs. Allman and Dew entered into an agreement to sublease a portion of the Hartnett leasehold. A contract was prepared by William Hartnett and delivered by Robert Hartnett to Dew and Allman, who executed the contract. Although there is conflicting testimony, the testimony of Robert Hartnett is accepted as the more accurate explanation of his role in the transaction. Robert Hartnett had no interest in William Hartnett's business venture or in the leasehold, and did not appear or function as a real estate broker in this transaction. The owner of the property, Mr. Grossinger, testified he agreed to lease the property to William Hartnett. Hartnett was permitted to occupy the premises and paid rent. William Hartnett prepared a written lease which was not signed by the owner, Mr. Grossinger. Grossinger terminated the agreement when Hartnett subleased the premises to Allman and Dew without notifying him and instituted legal action to evict William Hartnett. Under the circumstances, there was an oral lease between Hartnett and Grossinger. Messrs. Dew and Allman made arrangements with contractors to make modifications to the subleased premises, and the modifications were begun. These modifications were in part the cause for the owner terminating the lease with William Hartnett. Messrs. Dew and Allman or their agents did have occupancy of the premises.
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 Respondent Robert Hartnett. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Louis M. Jepeway, Esquire 619 Dade Federal Building 101 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131
Findings Of Fact Respondent Eugene Lay was registered as a business opportunity broker on March 15, 1982 by the Board of Real Estate (now the Florida Real Estate Commission). His registration was effective from January 5, 1982 until January 1, 1984. He was issued registration number 1800461. On February 12, 1982 Mr. Lay received $3,750 from Christopher Orthodox on a contract for the purchase of a business known as Personal Valet Services, Inc. The $3,750 were to be held in trust by Mr. Lay until the closing of the business purchase transaction. Mr. Lay did not put the money in a trust account but instead spent the money for his own personal business. When it later appeared to Mr. Orthodox that the transaction was not going to close, he demanded the return of his $3,750 deposit. Mr. Lay failed to return it to him and Mr. Orthodox was not able to purchase the business. His $3,750 has never been returned. On February 27, 1982 Mr. Lay obtained from Mr. Orthodox and Loretta Orthodox an additional $9,000 as a deposit to be held in trust pending their obtaining a Small Business Administration loan to purchase a business known as Starlight Creations, Inc. The purchase contract was conditioned upon the ability of the Orthodoxes to secure the loan for $121,500. They were unable to obtain the loan. When it appeared that the purchase transaction would not close, Mr. Orthodox demanded the return of his $9,000. Mr. Lay did not return the money because he had spent it for his own personal business. Subsequent to the Orthodoxes initial demand for the return of their money, Mr. Lay's wife returned $1,000 to them in cash. No further repayments have been made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Eugene Lay for lack of jurisdiction. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida, MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON 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 29 day of February, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Prior to the commencement of hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation of fact, a copy of which is attached and constitutes the findings of fact in this hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take action to cause Holdridge's name to be placed on the list of active brokers and to have current registration papers issued. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 2nd day of May, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Michael E. Crane, Esquire 521 Landmark Building Naples, Florida 33940 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact John M. Stroud is a registered real estate saleman holding registration number 0172065 issued the Florida Real Estate Commission. On December 17, 1976, John M. Stroud was arrested for burglary and committed to the custody of the sheriff of Brevard County for the offense of burglary. On December 15, 1976, Stroud had his completed application notarized by R. Jack Simpson. Stroud's application was initially received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 5, 1977, and was returned to Stroud because he had not enclosed the fee required. It was resubmitted with the fee and received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 14, 1977.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer RECOMMENDS: That the registration of John M. Stroud be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of December, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: David T. Young, Esquire 1197 So. U.S. Highway 1 P.O. Box 563 Rockledge, Florida 32955 Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789
Findings Of Fact Documents introduced into evidence revealed that the Respondent Jeremiah C. Clarke is a registered real estate broker and Clarke Real Estate is an entity registered as a partnership broker and authorized to act as such with the Commission. On or about September 15, 1975, Jerry Kent, a salesman with Respondent, Clark Real Estate, obtained an oral open listing from Esther Braverman on a condominium unit denominated as "Apartment B-804, 1111 Crandon Boulevard, Key Biscayne, Florida." Pursuant thereto, salesman Kent showed the condominium unit to Jacques Benoist and Jeanine Benoist, his wife, who executed a deposit receipt contract to purchase a condominium unit on September 27, 1975. Esther Braverman, the seller, executed the contract during October of 1975. The deposit receipt contract provided for a $10,000 earnest money deposit to be held in the escrow account of the law firm of Snider, Young, Barrett, and Tannenbaum, P.A., attorneys for seller Braverman. Said deposit was made on September 27, 1975, by delivering a check to attorney Bruce L. Hollander, a member of the firm, who deposited the deposit in the firm's escrow account. (See Commission's Exhibit No. 9). The deposit receipt contract also obligated the seller, Esther Braverman, to pay Respondent Jeremiah C. Clark a commission of $7,875. Specifically, the contract provides that "I, or we, agree to pay to the above assigned broker a commission for finding the above signed purchaser for the above described property, the sum of $7,875 . . . ." Closing took place on January 19, 1976, at the offices of Washington Federal Savings and Loan Association, Miami Beach, Florida, from whom the Benoists had obtained financing for the purchase. At the closing on January 19, 1976, Esther Braverman signed and delivered a warranty deed made out to Jacques Benoist and Janine Benoist, transferring the property to the Bravermans. The warranty deed was recorded with the clerk of the Dade County Circuit Court by the lending institution, Washington Federal Savings and Loan Association. (See Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2) At the closing, Jeremiah Clark was given a check representing the commission to Clarke Real Estate in the amount of $7,875. Thereafter, Jerry Clarke was requested by the lending institution to hold the funds in escrow until the bank dispursed the mortgage proceeds. He was then told that the mortgage proceeds would be paid within the following week. Respondent Clarke agreed, pursuant to a request from the seller's attorney, Bruce Hollander, to hold the commission check until January 27, 1976, without depositing same. Mr. Clarke held the commission check until January 29, 1976, as agree. On that day, he dispursed the proceeds to salesman Jerry Kent and the balance was credited to Clarke Real Estate. The mortgage funds were never disbursed because the lending institution could not obtain a quit-claim deed from the seller, Esther Braverman's former husband and therefore in the lending institution's opinion, the defect was not discovered until after the closing. On May 6, 1976, attorney Hollander acting for his law firm and the seller sent Respondent Jeremiah C. Clarke and Respondent Clarke Real Estate a letter stating that the mortgage proceeds had not been disbursed by the lending institution and requested a demand for the commission check. The Commission takes the position that the closing which occurred on January 19, was an escrow closing and that the Respondent Jeremiah Clarke was not authorized to disburse the proceeds from the commission check until notification that the mortgage proceeds were disbursed by the lending Institution. The Respondents, on the other hand, took the position that their only obligation was to find a purchaser who was ready, willing and able to complete the transaction, which acts were consummated by their salesman, Jerry Kent. Based on my examination of the document introduced herein, and the testimony adduced during the hearing, the undersigned concludes that the Respondent's position that it was entitled to receive the commission monies here in dispute has merit. Although the Commission takes the position that an escrow closing occurred, an escrow has been defined as a written instrument which by its term imports a legal obligation and which is deposited by the grantor, promisor, or obligor, or his agent with a stranger or third party to be kept by the depository until the performance of a condition or a happening of a certain event and then to be delivered over to the grantee, promisee, or obligee. It cannot be seriously contended herein that the Respondent Clarke was acting as an escrow for himself when consideration is given to the above definition of an escrow. See Love v. Brown Development Company, 131 So. 144. It is further essential to an escrow that delivery of the instrument be to a stranger or to a third person, that is, to one who is not a party to the instrument, or a person so free from any personal or legal identity with the parties to the instrument as to leave them free to discharge his duty as a depository to both parties without involving a breach of duty to either. For example, a deed delivered to a grantee cannot be regarded as held in escrow. Here, Respondent Clarke was in no way acting for anyone other than himself or as agent for his salesman, Jerry Kent, both of whom had a direct stake in the commission proceeds. Additionally, upon examination of the deposit receipt contract, the broker became entitled to the commission proceeds when the buyer (purchaser) was found. Additionally, and as an aside, it was noted that the lending institution in fact recorded its mortgage the day following the closing This would lead any examiner of the public records to believe that the lending institution was satisfied with the title as conveyed on the closing date. It was further noted that the Respondents had no indication that there was a problem with the title until approximately five months following the closing. Finally, the undersigned received a letter from attorney Lipcon dated August 1, 1975, advising that the civil case which was pending before the Dade County Circuit Court involving similar issues as posed herein before the commission had been fully and finally settled. There was a stipulation for dismissal signed by attorneys for each of the parties including the attorney for the firm that made the complaint against the Respondents stating in essence that the monies paid to Respondent Clarke and which was retained by him as full and final settlement of his brokerage commission were to be retained by Respondent Clarke as final payment of his commission in connection of the sale of the subject condominium. For all of these reasons, I shall recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as found above, it is hereby recommended that the complaints filed herein be dismissed in their entirety. Recommended this 23rd day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation was at all times material to this proceeding a corporation registered as a real estate broker with the Commission, with its principal business address at 240 North Washington Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, 33577. Irving Z. Mann was at all times material to this proceeding a real estate broker registered with the Commission, and the holder of two registration certificates: one as an individual broker with an office at 2197 Princeton Street, Sarasota, Florida 33577; and the other license as president and active broker of I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation. Stanley M. Robbins was at all times material to this proceeding a registered real estate salesman in the employ of I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation. At all times material to this proceeding Fritz K. Grolock was a registered real estate salesman, and from April 12, 1972, to February 2, 1976, he was registered with the Commission as a real estate salesman in the employ of I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation. From February 2, 1976, to November 29, 1976, Mr. Grolock was registered with the Commission as a real estate salesman in the employ of I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. At all times material to this proceeding Irving Z. Mann was president, and Stanley M. Robbins was vice president, assistant secretary, treasurer and general sales manager of I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation which was the owner and developer of the Palma Sola Harbor condominium development in Sarasota County, Florida. On or before February 4, 1976, Mr. Grolock and Mr. Robbins had agreed that Mr. Grolock would receive for his services as a real estate salesman for I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. a three percent commission based upon the sales price of individual condominium units sold at Palma Sola Harbor. Commissions were to be paid to Mr.Grolock at the end of the month in which the sale of each such unit was consummated. Mr. Robbins explained to Mr. Grolock at the time of this agreement that I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. was short of cash, and that should Grolock make any sales, he might have to wait for some indefinite period of time to receive his commission. Mr. Grolock indicated his willingness at the time to proceed on that basis. No testimony was adduced, and no documentary evidence was offered to establish that Mr. Grolock was employed by I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., at any time material to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint. During the course of his employment as a real estate salesman with I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc. Mr. Grolock solicited and obtained a real property sales contract between Elmer C. Sutter and Ruth W. Sutter, as purchasers, and I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., as seller, for a condominium unit in the Palma Sola Harbor project. The purchase price of the unit was $26,450, and the evidence established that Mr.Grolock is due, and has not been paid, a commission of $793.50 for that sale. During the course of his employment as a real estate salesman with I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc., Mr. Grolock solicited and obtained a real property sales contract between Martin G. Tepatti and Dorothy L. Tepatti, as purchasers, and I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., as seller, for a condominium unit in the Palma Sola Harbor project. The purchase price of the unit was $37,450, and the evidence established that Mr. Grolock is due, and has not been paid, a commission of $1,123.50 for that sale. During the course of his employment as a real estate salesman with I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., Mr. Grolock solicited and obtained real property sales contract (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) dated April 29, 1976, between Donald F. Brown and Barbara S. Brown, as purchasers, and I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc. as seller, for a condominium unit in the Palma Sola Harbor project. The purchase price of the unit was $37,450, and the evidence established that Mr. Grolock is due, and has not been paid, a real estate commission of $1,123.50 for that sale. Mr. Grolock did not attend the closing of any of the three transactions referenced above and described in the Administrative Complaint. However, the only evidence of record establishes that these transactions resulted in "negative closings" that is, after deductions of amounts due on the pre-existing construction mortgage, charges for documentary stamp taxes, tax pro-rations and the like, no funds remained for disbursement to I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc. for payment to Mr. Grolock as a commission. Neither Mr. Mann, Mr. Robbins, I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, nor I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. received any funds at the closing of these transactions. Some time after the closings of the three transactions described in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Grolock spoke with Mr. Robbins concerning non- payment of his commissions. Mr. Robbins explained t6hat the three transactions had resulted in "negative closings," but that if Mr. Grolock would be patient he would be paid his commissions in due course. Mr. Robbins discussed the commissions once or twice thereafter with Mr. Grolock, each time explaining that the company was short of money but that Mr. Grolock would be paid eventually. Because of poor market conditions in the condominium industry, I.Z. Mann Realty & Associates experienced financial problems which ultimately resulted in the company's insolvency. The company eventually voluntarily relinquished its assets to creditors, or had its interest in those assets foreclosed, and at the present time is no longer actively engaged in business. By letters to Mr. Robbins dated December 7, 1976, and January 19, 1977, (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) Mr. Grolock demanded that some arrangements be made for payment of his past due commissions. When he received no reply to these letters, Mr. Grolock sent a letter (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) to Mr. Mann dated April 25, 1977, listing the transactions which resulted in $3,040.50 being owed to him for real estate commissions. Shortly after receiving this letter, Mr. Mann telephoned Mr. Grolock, on May 5, 1977, and told him ". . . the company had been inactive for a long time, but that I would see to it that he would get paid eventually. Just give us a chance to get some money to do it." (Transcript, p. 63). Mr. Grolock agreed at that time to wait for payment of his commissions. Some time after his May 5, 1977, telephone conversation with Mr. Mann, Mr. Grolock filed a complaint with the Commission ". . . [b]ecause I found no other recourse. . . [t]o obtain my commission . . . ." (Transcript, p. 26).
