Findings Of Fact Respondent Ray T. Kline is and at all times material to the charges in this action was a registered real estate broker holding License No. 0048253. Respondent Vincent Tomasino is and at all times material to the charges in this action was a licensed real estate salesman holding License No. 0353215. Respondent Krishnalall D. Persaud is and all times material to the charges in this action was a licensed real estate salesman holding License No. 0336161. At the time of the hearing the Respondent Persaud had obtained his broker's license. In December, 1980, the Respondents Tomasino and Persaud were employed as salesmen, selling time-share units at Vistana Development. During December they discussed and agreed upon a business plan for marketing time-share units. As a part of that plan-they agreed to form Intercontinental Marketing Services, Ltd. (hereafter referred to as IMS) a corporation which would be used to market time-share condominiums and other real estate. Subsequent to that time they did in fact incorporate on May 4, 1981, as a Delaware corporation and formed another Delaware corporation to handle travel and tour business. The incorporators of these corporations were the Respondents Tomasino and Persaud who were also officers and directors of both corporations. Sometime between December, 1980 and March, 1981 Persuad introduced Respondent Ray Kline to Respondent Tomasino. They discussed Ray Kline becoming the registered broker for IMS. After some discussion, Ray Kline did in fact agree to become the broker for IMS. On January 19, 1981, Respondent Tomasino and Respondent Persaud opened a general corporate account for IMS at the Atlantic Bank of Orlando. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 6) The account required two signatures for all checks and the two persons allowed to sign were Respondents Tomasino and Persaud. This account was not set up as an escrow or trust account and was not used a's an escrow or trust account during the operating life of IMS. At no time was the Respondent Ray T. Kline a signator on this account. In early 1931 the Respondents Persaud and Tomasino began negotiating with the Highlands County Title and Guaranty Land Company (hereafter referred to as Highlands County Title) to become its representative in the Orlando area. Highlands County Title is a subsidiary of Sun-N-Lake Estates which is the owner and developer of Lakeside Villas located near Sebring, Florida. A verbal agreement was reached between Highlands County Title and IMS whereby IMS would market time-share units in Lakeside Villas in the Orlando area. This verbal agreement was later reduced to writing. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 11) On or about March 3, 1981, IMS and Respondent Ray T. Kline entered into a written agreement whereby Ray T. Kline agreed to act as the real estate broker for IMS. (See Respondent Kline's Exhibit 3) Highlands County Title and Sun-N- Lake Estates required a broker be designated for all its sales representatives. Under the written agreement Mr. Kline agreed generally to act as broker and to not interfere with any of the marketing projects of IMS. IMS was to provide Respondent Kline with an office, secretarial assistance, a phone, and real estate leads acquired through IMS advertising. The contract required Kline to maintain an escrow account for his real estate transactions and to pay twenty- five percent of all commissions earned by him on real estate transactions other than his on personal business. There was no requirement in the contract that Ray T. Kline open or maintain an escrow account for real estate transactions handled by IMS. On March 3, 1981, Ray T. Kline changed his broker address to 1121 South Cimarron Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida, the offices of IMS. At the time Mr. Kline moved his license to the IMS office he did not register or reflect a trade name under which he was doing business as a broker. On March 5, 1981, Vincent Tomasino and Krishnalall Persaud placed their salesman licenses with Ray T. Kline as an individual broker employer at 1121 Cimarron Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida. IMS was not registered or qualified with the Board of Real Estate or the Department of Professional Regulation by the Respondents. On March 16, 1981, a written agreement was entered into between IMS and Highlands County Title. The agreement showed Ray T. Kline as broker for IMS and was signed by Vincent Tomasino as director of IMS and Ray T. Kline, Jr. as broker. On March 18, 1981, a supplement to that written agreement was entered into between Ray T. Kline, IMS, and Highlands County Title whereby Highlands County Title agreed to pay advance draws against commissions to IMS. This supplement to the original agreement was signed by Ray T. Kline on behalf of IMS. Mr. Dennis Grage had met and become acquainted with Vincent Tomasino when Mr. Tomasino was selling time-share units at Vistana. In early March, 1981, Vincent Tomasino contacted Mr. Grage to see if he was interested in purchasing time-share units in Lakeside Villas. Shortly after the initial contact Mr. Tomasino took Mr. Grage's wife, Barbara, together with Richard and Benita Drapeau (Mrs. Grage's sister and her husband) on a tour of Lakeside Villas. After the tour Mr. Tomasino and Mr. Grage met regarding the purchase of a unit in Lakeside Villas. Mr. Grage explained to Mr. Tomasino that he could not afford the $600 down payment. Mr. Tomasino then told Mr. Grage that if he would get the Drapeaus and the Brownings to buy a time-share unit in Lakeside Villas, he would pay $500 of the down-payment on a time-share unit for Mr. Grage. After the tour Mr. and Mrs. Drapeau decided to buy four time-share units in Lakeside Villas. However, after returning to their home in New Hampshire they decided to buy only two time- share units and so informed Vincent Tomasino. The Drapeaus then sent two deposit checks of $400 each dated March 30, 1981 and April 11, 1981 to Vincent Tomasino. These checks were made payable to Vincent Tomasino pursuant to his instructions. These two checks were deposits on two time-share units at Lakeside Villas. The March 30, 1981 check was deposited in the IMS corporate account on April 7, 1981. The April 11, 1981 check was endorsed by Vincent Tomasino and forwarded to Sun-N-Lake Estates where it was deposited in the Sun-N-Lake Estates attorney's escrow account. The $400 from the March 30, 1981 deposit check was never forwarded by IMS or Vincent Tomasino to Sun-N-Lake Estates. Pursuant to the agreement with Vincent Tomasino regarding the down payment on a time-share unit, Dennis Grage forwarded a $100 deposit to Mr. Tomasino. The balance of the $600 deposit called for in the contract was to be paid by Vincent Tomasino. Mr. Grage also contacted John and Helen Browning. In March, 1981, Dennis Grage contacted John and Helen Browning at their home in Michigan. He discussed with them the possibility of purchasing a time-share unit at Lakeside Villas. During this conversation the Brownings authorized Mr. Grage to place a $100 deposit on two units for them. By letter dated March 9, 1981, Vincent Tomasino acknowledged on behalf of IMS the receipt of the deposit placed by Dennis Grage for the Brownings. The Brownings then asked for more information regarding the time- share units and inquired of Mr. Tomasino as to whom the deposit check should be made payable. They were advised by Mr. Tomasino to make the check payable to IMS. On March 20, 1981, the Brownings sent a $1,000 deposit check to Vincent Tomasino payable to IMS. By letter dated March 23, 1981, Vincent Tomasino acknowledged receipt of the $1,000 deposit and also forwarded two time-share purchase agreements to the Brownings for their signatures. Each of the contracts called for a $500 deposit. On April 7, 1981, the Brownings executed the two purchase agreements and returned them to Vincent Tomasino. The Brownings' $1,000 deposit check was deposited into the IMS corporate account at the Atlantic Bank on or about March 24, 1981. On May 18, 1981, Vincent Tomasino wrote a check to Sun-N-Lake Estates in the amount of $1,000 for the Brownings' deposit. The check was received and deposited for collection by Sun-N-Lake Estates but before it could be paid Vincent Tomasino placed a stop-payment order on the check. The stop-payment order was placed because there were insufficient funds in the account to cover the $1,000 check. The $1,000 deposit was never forwarded to Sun-N-Lake Estates by IMS for Vincent Tomasino. In May, 1981, Vincent Tomasino removed Krishnalall Persuad as a signator on the IMS account at the Atlantic Bank. This occurred primarily as a result of a disagreement over a $1,200 deposit made by Mr. Persaud to an account other than the IMS account. Also during May, 1981, Vincent Tomasino changed the locks on the doors at the IMS offices at 1121 South Cimarron Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida, and did not give Mr. Persaud a key. Prior to May, 1981, the checking account at Atlantic Bank had been controlled by both Mr. Persaud and Mr. Tomasino. From January to May, 1981, checks written on the IMS account were signed and approved by both Tomasino and Persaud. Respondent Persaud knew or reasonably should have known that money being received from purchasers was being deposited in the corporate account. After May, 1981, only Vincent Tomasino signed checks on the IMS account. In June, 1981, the relationship between Mr. Persuad and Mr. Tomasino terminated. Also in June, 1981, the IMS account became overdrawn and in August, 1981, the Atlantic Bank closed the account. Between January and June, 1981, Vincent Tomasino received approximately $7,000 in draws from IMS and Mr. Persaud received approximately $4,900 in draws from IMS. Ray T. Kline received no funds from IMS. When interviewed by a DPR investigator Mr. Persaud denied having received any funds from IMS during its operation. Between January and June, 1981, Vincent Tomasino was the person in charge of the IMS finances. Ray Kline had no control over and did not participate in the finances of IMS. The bookkeeping was done by the office manager and the checkbook was kept by Mr. Tomasino. During this period salesmen were hired and supervised by Tomasino and Persaud, but were not supervised by Respondent Kline. IMS also purchased a tour bus during this period which was used by Mr. Persaud to take potential buyers on tours of Lakeside Villas. Once these tours began, Mr. Persaud was in the office less than he had been the first couple of months of operation. Once there were no more funds in the corporate account the Respondent Tomasino essentially walked away from the corporation and paid only a few small debts. By letter dated June 23, 1981, Vincent Tomasino notified Sun-N-Lake Estates that IMS would no longer sell time- share units at Lakeside Villas. In November, 1981, the relationship between IMS and Sun-N-Lake Estates was formally terminated. Prior to termination, IMS had received advances of $9,000 in excess of commissions due and earned and no reimbursement of those excess funds has been made to Sun-N-Lake Estates. In approximately September, 1981, the Drapeaus as a result of financial problems sent a letter to Sun-N-Lake Estates requesting a refund of their $800 deposit. Sun-N-Lake Estates refunded the $400 which was in escrow and informed the Drapeaus that Sun-N-Lake Estates had never received the other $400 deposit. Robert Wright of Sun-N-Lake Estates was contacted by the Drapeaus. He then contacted Vincent Tomasino who told him that he would speak with Ray Kline and Krishnalall Persaud about the Drapeau problem. Mr. Wright was never contacted again by Mr. Tomasino. Dennis Grage, after learning that the Drapeau's $400 deposit had not been placed in escrow also contacted Vincent Tomasino. He demanded the return of the $400 deposit and Mr. Tomasino stated that someone had run off with the money and that he was trying to get it back. After several unsuccessful contacts with Mr. Tomasino, Mr. Grage contacted Ray Kline. Mr. Kline said he was checking on the problem, but at the time of the formal hearing the Drapeau deposit had not been refunded. Dennis Grage also informed the Brownings of the problems the Drapeaus were encountering. The Brownings then contacted Sun-N-Lake Estates and spoke with Robert Wright who informed them that Sun-N-Lake Estates had never received their $1,000 deposit. Mr. Tomasino informed him that IMS was bankrupt and had no money and that it wasn't his problem. Mr. Browning then contacted Ray Kline who denied any personal responsibility and stated that Tomasino had taken the money and was responsible for its return. Mr. Browning then made demand upon Krishnalall Persaud for the $1,000 deposit and Mr. Persaud denied being an officer or director of IMS and also stated that he had no responsibility to the Brownings. During August and September, 1981, Robert Wright repeatedly discussed the Drapeau and Browning deposits with Respondents Persaud and Kline. On each occasion they denied any responsibility for those deposits. Until contacted by the Brownings and Drapeaus, Ray Kline and Krishnalall Persaud had no knowledge of the deposits of these people and how they were being received. Ray Kline, after being contacted was aware that these deposits were funds that should have been placed in escrow upon receipt by IMS and Tomasino. Neither Tomasino, Kline, nor Persaud attempted to provide an accounting to the Drapeaus or Brownings and the Respondents made no attempt to return their deposits. For at least a two week period in the Spring of 1981, Ray Kline also opened and operated a branch office for IMS at a condominium development. At no time was this branch office registered as required by statute. From the beginning of the relationship between Ray Kline and IMS, by agreement, Kline's involvement was to be very limited. Kline never opened an escrow account for IMS and did not supervise the sales personnel. Ray Kline had little or no involvement in the day-to-day operation of IMS. At no time was IMS registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission or the Department of Professional Regulation. At some point in time in the Spring of 1981, the Respondents discussed opening an escrow account but decided to not open such an account until they had earned commissions. From January through May, 1981, Respondents Tomasino and Persuad hired and supervised salesmen and controlled the operations of IMS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the license of Vincent Tomasino be revoked and that an administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500) be imposed upon him; That the license of Ray T. Kline be suspended for a period of two (2) years and an administrative fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000) be imposed upon him; and That the license of Krishnalall Persaud be suspended for a period of two (2) years and an administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500) be imposed upon him. It is further RECOMMENDED that upon a showing by the Respondents to the Commission prior to entry of the final order that restitution has been made to Mr. and Mrs. Drapeau and Mr. and Mrs. Browning, the fines of Respondents Tomasino, Kline and Persaud be reduced to two hundred fifty dollars ($250), five hundred dollars ($500), and two hundred fifty dollars ($250), respectively. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 22nd day of September, 1983.
The Issue The issues in this case are as follow: Did Respondent violate Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by representing to Laverne Hahn that he would rent his house to her if she sold her house, representing to Ms. Hahn that he would deliver certain papers to her attorney, and representing to Ms. Hahn that the closing on her house would not occur until after February 15, 1981? Did Respondent violate Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by failing to deliver survey, abstract and title insurance policy documents to Ms. Hahn or her attorney?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Allan R. Heuton, held real estate salesman license #0313305 Assued by the Board of Real Estate (now Florida Real Estate Commission). At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was registered as a salesman with Hugh Anderson Real Estate, Inc., at 2631 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339. Respondent listed with his employer, Hugh Anderson Real Estate, Inc., Laverne Hahn's offer to sell her residence and advised Ms. Hahn at that time that upon the sale of her residence she could rent his residence for a period of six months at the rate of $300 per month. In reliance on Respondent's statement, Ms. Hahn proceeded to sell her residence and made no other arrangements for a place to live, expecting to move into Respondent's house upon closing as per their agreement. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Pages 5 and 8.) Respondent testified to the events surrounding the transaction which gave rise to the Administrative Complaint. The Board presented the deposition of Ms. Hahn taken in Lakeland, Florida. Respondent admitted that he had advised Ms. Hahn it was not unusual to have closings delayed 60 days, and did offer and stood ready to rent his house to Ms. Hahn. Respondent testified that he did not recall picking up any documents from Ms. Hahn, but that had he done so it was his normal business practice to immediately deliver the documents to the attorney handling the closing. Ms. Hahn's deposition reflects that she could not locate the Respondent although she attempted to contact him through his broker's office. This was the reason she could not rent his house. Respondent testified that Ms. Hahn never asked to rent his house. Respondent testified that on January 14, 1981, the day after his birthday, he was suddenly taken ill and had to have emergency surgery in the early morning hours of that day. Respondent's testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Sheilah Kirk, who testified that she visited Respondent in the hospital on January 14 or 15, 1981, and that he was recovering from surgery at that time. Respondent testified that he was hospitalized for more than one week. Respondent testified that he was visited by the manager of the brokerage office for which he worked. It is hardly credible that Ms. Hahn could not find a man who was sick in a hospital for more than one week and whose whereabouts were known to his brokerage office. Wherefore, the Hearing Officer disregards the deponent's testimony and accepts the Respondent's testimony as the more credible concerning the rental of his house Ms. Hahn's deposition reflects that Respondent told her she would not have to move out until February of 1981. Respondent admits he told Ms. Hahn that closings were frequently delayed 60 days or more. The contract for sale originally provided for closing on December 29, 1980, a time which was changed to January 15, 1981, by persons unknown on a date unknown. The contract was signed by Ms. Hahn, who is presumed to have known its terms. Notwithstanding Respondent's statements as to delayed closings, Ms. Hahn had no basis for using such statement as a basis for planning in light of the contract which she signed. Again, Respondent's testimony is deemed to be more credible in light of the closing date provided in the contract for sale. A further conflict exists between Ms. Hahn's deposition and Respondent's testimony regarding the allegation that Respondent picked up certain documents from her but failed to deliver them. Respondent's statement that he had no recollection of the events, but that his regular practice was to deliver such documents immediately, and that since the time in question he has not discovered any such documents in his papers, is deemed credible.
Recommendation Having found that the allegations against the Respondent, Allan R. Heuton, were not proven, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 22nd day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Allan R. Heuton 6891 Forrest Street Hollywood, Florida 33024 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, George N. Sullivan, held real-estate license number 0128470 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission. His current address is 22 East Spruce Street, Orlando, Florida. At one time, respondent also held a registered general contractor's license and operated a construction firm under the name of George N. Sullivan, Inc. in Vero Beach, Florida. On or about December 7, 1979, George N. Sullivan, Inc. and Vero Fore, Incorporated entered into a construction agreement wherein Sullivan agreed to construct a residence at Lot 27, Unit III, the Moorings of Vero Beach, in Indian River County for a price of $155,628. The difference between this price and the price of $171,688 alleged in the administrative complaint is due to "extras" agreed upon by the parties to be added to the project. Sullivan began construction on the residence but abandoned the project before it was completed. When he left the job he had been paid all sums due under the agreement except one final $18,000 draw. Vero Fore later discovered that approximately $66,000 in unpaid bills were left by Sullivan. It also learned that Sullivan had obtained releases from three material suppliers by issuing worthless checks in the amounts of $5,849, $2,883.48, $1,913.14, $4,988.92 and $3,847.23. To date, Vero Fore has not been repaid by Sullivan. Sullivan was later adjudged guilty of passing worthless checks by the circuit court of Indian River County on July 8, 1981 and was sentenced to eighteen months probation and required to make restitution to the subcontractors. The official records of Indian River County reflect that Sullivan was found to be in violation of probation on March 23, 1983 for failure to make restitution. It is unknown what, if any, penalties were imposed upon him for this violation, or if restitution has ever been made. On or about September 5, 1980, Sullivan entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. James L. Cain to remodel their residence located at 2075 DeLeon Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida. The agreed upon price was $46,900. The Cains paid Sullivan $46890, or 10 percent, as a downpayment for the work on September 8, 1980. Sullivan sent three men to the Cains' house a few days later to build a platform. No other work was ever done. Sullivan did not pay the three workmen and the Cains were forced to pay them $788 to obtain a release of liens. To date, they have never been reimbursed by respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent George N. Sullivan be found guilty as charged in Counts I, III, and IV and that Count II be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent's real estate sales license be suspended for a period of ten years with the condition that said license be reinstated after a period of three years if respondent can demonstrate that restitution to the three material suppliers, Vero Fore, Inc. and the Cains has been made. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Lee Printy, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. George N. Sullivan 22 East Spruce Street Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Although the parties to this case stipulated that the contract between the LaPointes and the Crowes was a valid contract for the purchase and sale of real estate, a genuine dispute arose between the LaPointes and the Crowes in that regard. Respondents became involved in this matter by showing the Crowes' property to the LaPointes on or before May 9, 1983, and thereby becoming a "co-operating broker'. with Deltona's Marco Island Realty Co. under an Exclusive Right To Sell agreement between Deltona and the Crowes dated January 13, 1983. Under the Exclusive Right To Sell, the Crowes agreed to pay Deltona a fee of 6% of the sales price for brokerage services and agreed, if a buyer failed to close a sales contract and forfeited a deposit to the Crowes, that Deltona could retain one- half of the deposit, but not exceeding the total amount of Deltona's fee, as compensation. The Exclusive Right To Sell also provided that Deltona was responsible to promptly pay any cooperating broker who sells the property for his services as soon as possible after receipt by Deltona of its real estate broker fee as provided in the Exclusive Right To Sell. By May 10, 1983, the LaPointes had made an offer to buy the property and the Crowes, by May 10, 1983, telegram to Deltona, agreed to sell the property for "$165,000, $500 in escrow with balance of $15,500 additional deposit after acceptance with balance at closing . . . sales commission $8,650. On May 11, 1983, Respondent Mary S. Davey, signed the sales contract for the LaPointes' purchase of the Crowes' property as "Agent (authorized by Buyer)." The sales contract also recited: "Buyer acknowledges that Marco Beach Enterprises, Inc/Deltona Marco Island Realty is the procuring real estate broker(s) in this transaction, and that the Broker is the agent for the Seller, and is being paid by the Seller." Respondent. Davey notified the LaPointes of the requirement for a $500 initial deposit and submitted the signed sales contract for the Crowes' signature. By letter dated May 12, 1983, Respondents confirmed "that the total commission to be paid on the sale of the [Crowes'] property is $8,650.00." It also confirmed: said commission is to be split 50/50 between MARCO BEACH ENTERPRISES, INC. and Deltona's Marco Island Realty." Also on May 12, 1983, the LaPointes sent Respondents a check for the $500 initial deposit with a note asking for a complete inventory of the contents of the condominium the LaPointes had inspected and a list of renters. The Crowes signed the Sales Contract on May 16, 1983. By May 24, 1983, Respondents still had not complied with the request for a complete inventory of the condominium's furnishings and for a list of renters. On that date, Respondents sent the LaPointes a copy of the signed Sales Contract with a letter requesting them to sign the Sales Contract under Respondent Davey's signature. Before they arrived, the LaPointes' May 25, 1983, letter to Respondents crossed in the mail. It requested that Respondents put something in the contract concerning pro-ration of water bills and taxes and payment of a water damage bill by the Crowes. The LaPointes repeated their request for an accurate inventory of the furnishings of the condominium and stated that they were placing their trust in Respondents to represent the LaPointes' interests. Some time between the LaPointes' receipt of Respondents' May 24 letter with a copy of the Sales Contract and June 13, 1893, the LaPointes decided to ask for cancellation of the purchase. The LaPointes cited circumstances involving their financing and their disappointment that Respondents had not furnished an inventory of the furnishings. By June 16, 1983, Respondents had responded to the request for cancellation, vigorously contending that a valid and binding contract existed between the LaPointes and the Crowes. By June 24, 1983, the Crowes, through an attorney, echoed their agreement with the position taken by the Respondents that there was a valid and binding contract. By letter dated June 29, 1983, from the LaPointes attorney, the LaPointes questioned the validity of the contract, saying that Respondent Davey had no authority to sign the Sales Contract on behalf of the LaPointes, who never did sign. The Respondents got a copy of this June 29 letter. On July 11, 1983, the LaPointes, through a Florida attorney, demanded of Respondents that their deposit be, returned. Respondents tried to extricate themselves by referring the LaPointes to the Crowes' attorney. The Crowes and the LaPointes remained at a stalemate until after May 7, 1984, when the Crowes sold their property to another purchaser for $162,500. Thereafter, by about June 19, 1984, the LaPointes, the Crowes and Deltona had negotiated their proposed resolution of the matter by disbursement of $3,000.00 to the Crowes and $13,500.00, plus all accrued interest, to the LaPointes. Respondents had not been included in any of these negotiations, and they refused to sign the agreement. As stipulated by the parties to this case, the matter remains unresolved. The Florida Real Estate Commission Handbook states in pertinent part: "But, what are the rights of the seller and the broker? In the absence of a specific agreement or custom, when a purchaser refuses to sign a contract after the offer has been accepted, the broker is only entitled to the agreed or usual commission percentage of the deposit. Where the purchaser refuses to go through with a contract by which he is bound and which can be enforced against him by the seller, the broker may, in the absence of a contract or custom, appropriate the deposit up to the amount of the earned commission."
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 that has been filed by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, against Respondents, Mary S.·Davey and Marco Beach Enterprises, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 7 day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7 day of August, 1986. APPENDIX The following are rulings on proposed findings of fact to the extent required by Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985): Paragraphs 1 through 6 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as substantially factually accurate and are incorporated in the Findings Of Fact to the extent necessary. Paragraphs 8 and 10 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact would be included in paragraph 1 above except that they are unnecessary. Paragraph 7 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact is rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Paragraph 9 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and/or Findings Of Fact. It ignores the Exclusive Right To Sell which must be read together with the Sales Contract. Respondents submitted no proposed findings of fact designated as such or in a form which entitles them to specific rulings. However, their proposed findings of fact were carefully considered. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Hartmann, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Arthur V. Woodward, Esquire 940 North Collier Blvd. P. O. Box 1 Marco Island, Florida 33937 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a real estate broker should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the amended administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Yolanda Jean Ramsey, was a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0012364 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). When the events herein occurred, respondent operated a real estate firm under the name of Ramsey Realty located at 19940 Gulf Boulevard, Indian Shores, Florida. Her husband, Drew Ramsey, was a condominium developer but he was not a licensed realtor. Sandra A. Hawley (Hawley) was a licensed salesperson for Ramsey Realty from April 1981 until she was terminated by respondent on January 6, 1982. She was employed by respondent pursuant to an oral agreement and was to receive a 3% commission on all closed sales. This description of Hawley's compensation arrangement was not contradicted by respondent. Drew Ramsey was then developing several condominium projects in Pinellas County, and Hawley's sales activities were focused on the sale of those condominiums through Ramsey Realty. Hawley was described by respondent as being the best salesperson in the firm. From April 1981 through December 1981, Hawley recalled that her W-2 statement reflected $76,000 in commissions actually received. By the time she was terminated, Hawley represented that she had either closed on units or had firm contracts on other units to earn an additional $279,000 in commissions. Although respondent did not agree she owed Hawley any money due to various setoffs, the $279,000 figure was not credibly contradicted, particularly since respondent's records relating to those sales were allegedly destroyed or lost by respondent at about the time certain civil litigation was begun by Hawley. On January 6, 1982, respondent was terminated by respondent for cause. According to respondent, Hawley was delinquent in making payments to her husband for several condominium units Hawley had bought for investment purposes, and on one occasion, Hawley had not turned over to Ramsey Realty a deposit on a resale of a unit. She was also accused of bouncing checks. After she left Ramsey Realty, Hawley made demand for commissions still owed. Between January and June 1982 she was paid approximately $40,000 by respondent but received nothing after that. She eventually sued respondent in circuit court for the unpaid commissions and obtained a final judgment against respondent on December 10, 1987 for $76,000 plus interest, or a total of $118,618.88. To date, Hawley has been unable to obtain payment of the judgment. At hearing respondent acknowledged that a judgment pertaining to Hawley's unpaid commissions was entered against her and that no appeal of that judgment was taken. According to Ramsey, she has refused to pay Hawley based upon her attorney's advice. Respondent's principal defense against paying the commissions is that Hawley allegedly owes her and her husband substantial amounts of money which offset the earned commissions. Testimony at hearing revealed that these matters have been the subject of extensive and lengthy civil litigation between Hawley and the Ramseys. Hawley represented that she has prevailed in all court actions, and this was not contradicted by respondent. However, none of the judgments and mandates (if an appeal was taken) were made a part of this record. The principal offset relates to a lease-purchase agreement entered into by Hawley and her son, James Monette, Jr., and Drew Ramsey in June 1981 whereby Hawley and her son agreed to lease, with an option to purchase, a restaurant/bar known as The End Zone located on Dale Mabry Avenue in Tampa, Florida. On June 18, 1981 Hawley and her son executed a promissory note in the amount of $170,000 payable to Drew Ramsey and to be secured "by an assignment of commissions of even date herewith". The note also provided that "certain commissions earned by Sandra A. Hawley as a real estate salesperson for Ramsey Realty ... shall be applied as prepayments on account hereof." This was confirmed in a letter sent by Hawley to respondent on June 18, 1981. The letter authorized Ramsey to "pay one-half of all commissions which I have earned or will earn from working as a real estate person for Ramsey Realty to Drew Ramsey on account of the indebtedness under the Note until it is paid in full." The letter further provided that if Drew felt "insecure" about the note, Yolanda was authorized to "assign such greater percentage of (her) commissions to Drew Ramsey on account of the indebtedness until it is paid in full." Hawley admitted signing the promissory note but pointed out that she had earned enough commissions to easily pay off the note. She contended that the transaction was a ploy to allow Ramsey to retain all of her commissions and thereby deprive her of adequate capital to successfully operate the restaurant. Hawley further asserted that the transaction was later declared null and void in one of the civil actions between the parties because of certain fraudulent representations made by Drew in inducing her to enter into the agreement. However, the final judgment, which is the best evidence of the outcome of the suit, is not of record. On October 1, 1981, an agreement and promissory note was executed by Hawley wherein she promised to pay Drew Ramsey and his partner, George Karpay, $58,162.90 plus 18% interest for monthly payments owed Ramsey and Karpay on five condominium units Hawley had previously purchased from them. The note was secured by Hawley's commissions earned at Ramsey Realty. Hawley acknowledged that the signature on the documents was her own but contended that the documents had been altered after she signed them. On October 1, 1981, Hawley also executed an assignment of commissions whereby she agreed to authorize Ramsey Realty to disburse all commissions earned to Drew Ramsey and Karpay until the promissory note described in finding of fact 9 was satisfied. Again, Hawley acknowledged that the signature appeared to be her own but she contended the document was altered after it was signed. According to respondent, the commissions earned by Hawley were not held in the firm's escrow account. Instead, while Hawley was still an employee, such moneys were disbursed by the title company at closing directly to Ramsey Realty, and then Ramsey wrote a check to Hawley as commission compensation. After Hawley was terminated, the manner in which Ramsey received Hawley's earned commissions and their subsequent disposition are not of record. However, respondent represented, without contradiction, that they were not held in the firm's escrow account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating subsection 475.25(1)(d) and that her broker's license be suspended for three years. The other charge should be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 14th day of December, 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (hereafter Department), is a state governmental licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute complaints concerning violations of the real estate licensure laws of the State of Florida. The Respondent Melvin M. Lewis is now and was at all material times a licensed real estate broker in Florida holding license number 0052222. The Respondent Melvin M. Lewis' last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. The Respondent Faye F. Lewis is now and was at all material times a licensed real estate salesman in Florida holding license number 0052101. The Respondent F. Lewis' last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. The Respondent Larry B. Lewis is now and was at all material times a licensed real estate salesman in Florida holding license number 0052189. The Respondent L. Lewis' last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Registered Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. The Respondent Cindy L. Morales is now and was at all material times a licensed real estate salesman in Florida holding license number 0123347. The Respondent Morales' last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. The Respondent Melvin M. Lewis Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., is now and was at all material times a corporation registered as a real estate broker in Florida holding license number 0243694. The Respondent corporation last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. At all material times, the Respondent M. Lewis was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer for the corporate broker, Melvin M. Lewis Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc. The Respondents M. Lewis, F. Lewis, L. Lewis and Morales, from May 4, 1977 to September 9, 1979, as sellers individually and/or in concert as owners, officers and directors of various corporations, including South Florida Property, Inc., and West Dade Acres, Inc., solicited and obtained through telephone and mail, 58 purchasers who entered into agreements for deed for one and one-fourth acre lots located within a sixty-acre parcel of land in Section 21, Range 37, Township 54, Dade County, Florida. On September 24, 1979, the Respondent Melvin M. Lewis, acting on behalf of South Florida Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation, entered into a deposit receipt contract, as purchasers with InterAmerican Services, Inc., by Lester Gottlieb, as sellers, for the purchase of 60 acres, more or less, more particularly described as: The N.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 of the N. 1/2 of the S.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 Section 21, Township 54, Range 37E, Dade County, Florida. The total purchase price of the parcel of land was $120,000.00. The purchase price was to be paid by a down payment of $1,520.00 and a first priority purchase money mortgage and note of $118,479.80. From May 4, 1977, to September 24, 1979, the Respondents had no ownership interest in the above described 60- acre parcel of land. The purchase and sale closed on April 22, 1982, as evidenced by a warranty deed wherein title to the 60-acre parcel more particularly described as: The N.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 of the N. 1/2 of the S.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 Section 21, Township 54, S., Range 37 E. lying and being in Dade County, Florida. was transferred to South Florida Properties, Inc., by Lester Gottlieb, President. The subject land lies in the East Everglades moratorium area and is subject to Dade County Ordinance 81-121 which is highly restrictive to owners of parcels or lots of land less than 40 acres. It is approximately ten miles west of Krome Avenue and is underwater on the average of nine months a year. As a result of its isolated location, it is accessible only by airboat. A building moratorium was enacted for the subject land in September, 1981, and is still in effect with no significant change planned for the reasonably foreseeable future. Upon discovering the increased restrictions on the 60-acre parcel, the Respondents demanded of InterAmerican Services, Inc., a refund of their purchase price. As a result, Respondents delivered a Quit Claim Deed dated October, 1982, from South Florida Properties, Inc., executed by Melvin Lewis, President. InterAmerican Services, Inc., delivered a satisfaction of mortgage to South Florida Properties, Inc. on December 7, 1982, which was executed by Lester Gottlieb, President. Although Respondents had on December 7, 1982, no ownership interest in the real property described in Paragraph 12 supra, they continued to collect payments from purchasers of the 1 1/4 acre lots. Respondents attempted to, and were successful in, having some of the purchasers of the 1 1/4 acre lots in the area described in Paragraph 12, supra, agree to exchange their "lots" for lots in a parcel of land more particularly described as portions of Sections 32, 33, 34, of range 37, township 55, Dade County, Florida, that was owned by Respondent Cindy Morales' company, West Dade Acres, Inc. These lots which were sold for approximately $7,500 each, were accessible only by airboat, were near the Everglades National Park and were incapable of being actually surveyed because of their isolated location. Several purchasers, in particular, Chester Herringshaw and Edward Gruber, refused to exchange their original "lots" and continued making payments to South Florida Properties, Inc. Respondent Cindy Morales deposited into the bank account of West Dade Acres, Inc., one or more of the payments made by Chester Herringshaw and/or Edward Gruber without authority or consent by them to do so. Respondents Cindy Morales and Melvin M. Lewis have failed to refund to Edward Gruber the money he paid for the purchase of real property and have failed to provide Edward Gruber clear title to the real property sold to him. To induce purchasers to enter into one or more of the 58 agreements for deed, the Respondents orally represented the 1 1/4 acre lots as valuable property, that the value would greatly increase in the near future, that the property was suited for residential and other purposes and that the purchase of the property was a good investment. The subdivisions established by the Respondents through corporations they controlled existed only on paper and were formed as part of a telephone sales operation to sell essentially worthless land to unsophisticated out-of- state buyers who believed they were purchasing potentially valuable land for investment and/or retirement purposes. The various corporations which were formed and dissolved by the Respondents, including South Florida Properties, Inc., and West Dade Acres, Inc., were attempts by the Respondents to shield themselves from liability for their fraudulent land sales activities. The Respondents collected the initial deposits and monthly payments in accordance with the agreements for deed, but the Respondents failed and refused to deliver warranty deeds as promised upon the full payment of the purchase price. The Respondents attempted to obtain the exchange of property agreements without fully and truthfully advising the agreement for deed purchasers of the quality of any of the property they were buying or exchanging. The Respondents allowed South Florida Properties, Inc., to become defunct without furnishing good and marketable warranty deeds as promised, and without returning the money received, or otherwise accounting for the money received to the various and numerous agreement for deed purchasers, notwithstanding the purchasers' demands made upon Respondents for accounting and delivery of the money paid. At the request of Respondent Larry Lewis, Randy Landes agreed to sign a document as President of Miami Kendall Estates, Inc. From that point on, Randy Landes did nothing else with or for the company and had no idea of what business Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., transacted. On November 15, 1982, Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., issued a warranty deed to Vernon Mead granting a parcel of real property to the grantee. Persons unknown executed the warranty deed by forging Randy Landes' name which forgery was witnessed by Respondents Faye Lewis and Cindy Morales and acknowledged by Respondent Melvin Lewis as a notary public. On September 24, 1982, the Respondent Larry B. Lewis unlawfully and feloniously committed an aggravated battery upon Carlos O'Toole by touching or striking Carlos O'Toole against his will by shooting him with a deadly weapon, to wit, a revolver, in violation of Subsection 784.045(1)(b), Florida Statutes. On December 8, 1982, Respondent Larry B. Lewis was convicted of a felony and adjudication was withheld. He was on probation for a period of ten years beginning December 8, 1982, by the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Dade County, Florida. Respondent Larry B. Lewis failed to inform the Florida Real Estate Commission in writing within thirty days after pleading guilty or nolo contendere to, or being convicted or found guilty of, any felony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the real estate license of all Respondents be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of September, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH 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 11th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX Case No. 86-3941 Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order Paragraphs 1-29, 31 - accepted as modified. Paragraph 30 - rejected; it was not established what felony the Respondent Lewis was convicted of. Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order Paragraph 8 - Rejected. The evidence established that the corporations which the Respondents established and controlled sold the various properties. Paragraphs 9-13 - Accepted. Paragraph 14 - Accepted. Although sales were made prior to 1981, the land in question was essentially worthless when purchased. Paragraph 15 - Rejected. The moratoriums, vested rights provision offers virtually no protection to owners of the property. Paragraphs 16-17 - Rejected. The Respondents merely traded one set of undevelopable property for another. Paragraphs 18-19 - Rejected. Irrelevant. Paragraphs 20-21 - Rejected. Neither Mr. Herringshaw nor Mr. Gruber agreed to exchange their property. Paragraph 22 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 23 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 24 - Accepted. Paragraph 25 - Rejected. The corporations were formed by the Respondents to receive monies for these fraudulent land schemes. Paragraph 26 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 27 - Rejected. See No. 25. Paragraphs 28-30 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 31-38 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 39-42 - Accepted. Paragraphs 43-46 - Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Tallahassee, Florida 32802 Herman T. Isis, Esquire ISIS & AHRENS, P.A. Post Office Box 144567 Coral Gables, Florida 33114-4567 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
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 Respondent Sheldon Greene & Associates, Inc., is a corporate real estate broker having been issued license number 0133685. The Respondent Sheldon Greene is the licensed real estate broker of record for Sheldon Greene & Associates, Inc., and holds license number 0033812. Henry Berman, a registered real estate salesman was employed as an associate by the Respondents between July 10, 1980 and July 2, 1982. Shortly after commencing his employment, Berman entered into a written agreement with the Respondents which set forth the division of real estate commissions earned by Berman and the firm on future sales. The agreement covered three distinct categories and included: When Berman listed and sold property entirely by his efforts, the commission split would be 60 percent to Berman and 40 percent to the firm; When Berman either had the listing or the buyer and the firm had the other, the commission split would be 50 percent to Berman and 50 percent to the firm; When Berman listed and sold property and the firm was involved in the sale through participation in negotiations, preparation of the submittal and the like, the commission split would be 50 percent to Berman and 50 percent to the firm. During the period of Berman's employment by the Respondents, a Memorandum was circulated among all of the salespersons of Associates covering the division of commissions earned by Associates in situations in which more than one salesperson employed by Associates was involved in a single transaction. Berman was furnished a copy of this Memorandum and was aware of its contents. While in the employ of Respondents, Berman obtained a verbal open listing from Seymour Deutsch to sell the Metropole Hotel at 635 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. Thereafter, on or about November 4, 1980, Berman procured a written sales contract for the purchase of the Metropole Hotel by Andres Herrada upon terms and conditions satisfactory to Deutsch. The sales contract between Deutsch and Herrada failed to provide, however, for the amount of the commission payable to Associates as compensation for its services as the broker in the transaction. Following unsuccessful negotiations between Greene and Deutsch, Associates commenced suit against Deutsch in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, Case No. 81-5133, claiming a commission in the amount of $40,000 based upon the verbal agreement of Berman and Deutsch, which action resulted in the entry of a Final Judgment in favor of Associates and against Deutsch in the amount of $40,000 plus interest. As a result of a post-judgment settlement entered into under threat of an appeal by Deutsch, Associates agreed to accept the sum of $25,000 in cash and the sum of $17,455.28 plus interest at the rate of 14 percent per annum in 35 monthly installments of $596.59 each, commencing on July 15, 1982 and ending on May 15, 1985. Prior to instituting suit against Deutsch, Associates, through its President, Greene, entered into a verbal agreement for the purpose of rearranging the terms of the letter agreement dated July 14, 1980, for the purpose of imposing upon Associates the obligation of bearing all legal fees and litigation expenses in the event the outcome of the suit against Deutsch were unsuccessful. In consideration thereof, Berman agreed that in the event of a successful outcome (i.e., a judgment in the amount of $40,000), Associates would be entitled to retain 75 percent and Berman only 25 percent of the net commission after deducting legal fees and litigation expenses. During the pendency of the litigation involving Deutsch, on or about October 16, 1981, Berman obtained a written exclusive listing from Herrada authorizing Associates to sell the Metropole Hotel once again. Pursuant to this listing, Berman procured a written contract on behalf of Donald Mitchell to purchase the Metropole Hotel subject, however, to certain contingencies, primarily, the sale by Mitchell of another property as part of a multi-party, multi-property, tax-free exchange. Thereafter, Berman failed to participate further in performing the duties normally incumbent upon a real estate salesman between the date of contract and date of closing. During this period, it became necessary for Bernard Bastacky, another salesman employed by Associates, to perform those duties normally incumbent upon Berman in such transaction, which services proved to be instrumental in bringing the transaction to a successful conclusion. In addition, Greene, personally performed services in the preparation of the listing brochure and with respect to subsequent negotiations between the parties which led to substantial modifications in the terms of the original sales contract procured by Berman. On or about April 30, 1982, the sale from Herrada to Mitchell was closed. On or about May 15, 1982, Associates received its share of the commission from the Herrada/Mitchell sale in the approximate amount of $27,000. Thereafter, Greene asked Berman and Bastacky to meet, personally, for the purpose of reaching an amicable arrangement as to the division of the salesman's share of the commission. When Berman and Bastacky were unable to resolve their dispute, Greene deposited their share in an interest-bearing account to await a resolution of the dispute between them. Shortly thereafter, the $25,000 portion of the commission earned from the Deutsch/Herrada transaction became available as a result of the entry of the Final Judgment and post-judgment Stipulation between Associates and Deutsch, and Associates began to receive the monthly installments of the deferred portion of the commission. These sums were initially deposited to the Associates operating account from which were disbursed legal fees and litigation expenses totaling approximately $12,400. When efforts to resolve Berman's proper share of the Deutsch/Herrada commission failed, Berman instituted suit against Associates in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Case No. 82-15570, claiming 60 percent of the commissions received by Associates on each of the two sales of the Metropole Hotel. In its Answer, Associates alleged that Berman was entitled to 25 percent of the Deutsch/Herrada commission in accordance with the verbal agreement between Greene and Berman, and to 25 percent of the Herrada/Mitchell commission, based upon the involvements of Greene and Bastacky in that transaction. Associates has deposited the disputed portions of each of the commissions in controversy in special interest-bearing accounts pending a resolution of the pending civil action and has listed the amount of Berman's claim as a liability on its books. In reliance upon his attorney's advice and interpretation of the statute under which Respondents have been charged in these proceedings, Respondents did not seek to obtain a disbursement order from the Florida Real Estate Commission as to the funds in dispute between Berman and the Respondents. The civil action instituted by Berman against Associates is still pending and has not yet been scheduled for trial. Berman acknowledges that he instructed his attorney to allow that action to become temporarily inactive while the administrative action was prosecuted in hopes that it would compel Associates to enter into a favorable settlement in his favor. All issues in dispute between Associates and Berman are capable of being finally resolved in the pending civil action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondents. DONE and ENTERED this day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH 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 26th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Donald M. Klein, Esquire KLINE MOORE & KLEIN, P.A. 407 Lincoln Road Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent Shankar S. Agarwal is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0312860. The last license issued was as a broker. Respondent Super Realty, Inc., is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate corporation in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0231630. The last license issued was as a broker located in Hollywood, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent Shankar S. Agarwal was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer for Respondent Super Realty, Inc. Respondents advertised for sale by newspaper advertisement a VA repossessed property being a four unit apartment building in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In April, 1985, Warren and Judith Fieldhouse responded to Respondents' ad, and Respondent Agarwal arranged to meet the Fieldhouses at the property. At the property, the Fieldhouses informed Respondents that they wished to purchase a property as an investment and required that any property purchased by them result in income to them as opposed to resulting in a loss for them. Respondent Agarwal specifically represented to the Fieldhouses that the rental character of the neighborhood had been assessed by the Respondents, that Respondents were qualified to appraise the rental character, and that each unit could be rented for $300 or more per month. Respondent Agarwal further represented that the rent for the property would therefore exceed its expenses. The Fieldhouses decided that they wished to purchase the property based upon Respondents' representations. Respondent Agarwal required the Fieldhouses to give him a check for $1,000 a while still at the property before he would return with them to the office of Super Realty, Inc., to draft a purchase contract. Respondent Agarwal and the Fieldhouses went to Super Realty, Inc., where a purchase contract was drafted by Respondent Agarwal and signed by the Fieldhouses. Respondent Agarwal refused to give to the Fieldhouses a copy of that contract. Respondent Agarwal further advised the Fieldhouses that they were to obtain the required liability insurance on the property from his insurance agency and that they were not to use their own insurance agency. The Fieldhouses refused to comply with Agarwal's direction to them. Changes were subsequently made by Respondents to the Fieldhouses' purchase contract. Although those changes were approved telephonically by the Fieldhouses, Respondents never obtained the Fieldhouses signatures approving the changes in the contract. A closing was scheduled by Respondents at the office of Super Realty, Inc., on May 22, 1985. The Fieldhouses inspected the property just before the closing and found that the property's "as is" condition on the day of closing was worse than its "as is" condition on the day that they first saw it and entered into the contract for the purchase and sale of the property. Appliances were missing, and damage was done to the structure. The Fieldhouses objected to the condition of the property on the date of closing. Yet, the closing began. Respondent Agarwal began handing the Fieldhouses individual documents to sign. When he handed them a required financial disclosure statement, the Fieldhouses realized that the mortgage plus insurance and taxes payments would exceed the rental income which Respondents had represented could be projected from the units, that the amount of payments and other representations initially made by the Respondents were not incorporated into the closing documents, and the rental income for the property would not exceed the property's monthly expenses. The Fieldhouses refused to continue with the closing. They demanded copies of the documents that they had signed, but Respondents refused to give them copies of those documents. They demanded a refund from Respondents of their $1,000 deposit, but Respondents refused to refund their money to them. Although the Fieldhouses had signed a note and mortgage on the property before they refused to continue forward with the closing, they gave Respondents no monies toward the purchase of the property to increase the $1,000 earnest money deposit to the required down payment for the property. Respondents knew that the Fieldhouses did not pay the required cash to close on the property, the additional consideration required under the contracts. After the closing, the Fieldhouses made additional demands on Respondent for the return of their $1,000. Respondents refused to return that money to them and further refused to discuss the matter with them further. Respondents submitted the Fieldhouse closing documents to the Veterans Administration claiming a sales commission due to the Respondents in the amount of $5,740, even though Respondents knew that the sales transaction had never closed. Since the Veterans Administration had experienced difficulties with Respondents' complying with their rules and regulations on previous occasions, the VA took the position that the Respondents were not entitled to a commission since no sale had taken place and that the Respondents should refund to the Fieldhouses their $1,000. Respondents sued the Veterans Administration for a sales commission. At the time that Respondents sued for a commission, they knew that they were entitled to no commission since there was no sale. When the Veterans Administration filed an Answer to Respondents' Complaint indicating that it intended to fully defend Respondents' false claim, Respondents voluntarily dismissed their litigation against the Veterans Administration. The VA now has possession of the Fieldhouses' $1,000 deposit which it intends to return to the Fieldhouses. Although Mr. Fieldhouse was a licensed real estate salesman during the time period material hereto, he had not actively worked as a real estate salesman. Therefore, the Fieldhouses relied upon the Respondents as licensees to responsively perform the sales transaction and further relied upon Respondents' representations regarding the property's income and expenses. Respondents never advised the Florida Real Estate Commission that demands had been made for the return of the $1,000 which Respondents held in escrow until such time as they voluntarily forwarded the money to the Veterans Administration despite the Fieldhouses' demands for its return to them.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Counts V and VI of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondents guilty of the remaining allegations in the Administrative Complaint, and revoking Respondents' real estate broker licenses. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of April 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 21st day of April, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Shankar S. Agarwal 6912 Stirling Road Hollywood, Florida 33024 Super Realty, Inc. c/o Shankar S. Agarwal 6912 Stirling Road Hollywood, Florida 33024 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
