Findings Of Fact During times material to the allegations of the administrative complaints filed herein, the Respondents were registered real estate salesmen in the employ of Theodore Dorwin, a registered real estate broker, and at all times material herein, Darwin was the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc. Raymond Lewis, a salesman employed by Dorwin during the period December, 1975 through mid February, 1976, as a real estate salesman, was initially employed by Florida Landowners Service Bureau. During mid February, 1976, he testified that the name Florida Landowners Service Bureau was changed to Intermart, Inc., and that approximately during this period, he left the employ of Intermart, Inc. He testified that the offices were situated on northwest 79th Street, which consisted of a large room containing six cubicles where salesmen manned the telephones in the cubicles during the hours of approximately 6:00PM through 10:30PM during week days and during the early afternoon and evening hours on weekends. Salesmen were given lead cards which were apparently compiled from the county tax rolls from which a list was given containing out of state landowners. Employees, based on a "pitch" card called out of state land owners to determine their interest in selling their property. He described the procedure as a "front" when an out of state landowner was called to determine interest in selling their land. The "close" procedure was a method whereby those property owners who had displayed some interest in selling their properties were mailed a packet of materials which, among other things, contained a listing agreement. Salespersons were compensated approximately $100 to $125 for each listing secured by an executed listing agreement which in most instances represented approximately one third of the listing fee. During the course of a normal day, salesmen would contact approximately thirty landowners and they would be given estimates of the prospective selling price of their land based on the location of the property and the length of time that the owner had held it. The testimony of Lewis, which is representative of that given by later witnesses including Jeffrey Barker, August Graser, David Cotton and Henry Halar (all salesmen employed by Dorwin) reveals that property owners were called to determine their interest and if interest was noted, follow-up calls would be made after a packet of materials was sent to interested landowners. After a listing arrangement was obtained, salesmen were compensated by payment of an amount representing approximately one-third of the listing fee. In the case of a listing fee obtained by two or more salespersons, the fee (commission) was divided according to the number of salespersons instrumental in obtaining the listing. Each salesman who testified indicated that they made no guarantee that a sale would be consummated within a definite period nor were they familiar, in any particulars, with the brokerage efforts to sell the properties of owners who listed their property with Intermart. Theodore Dorwin, the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc., was subpoenaed and testified that he had no copies of the records which were subpoenaed showing the operations of Intermart, Inc. In this regard, Raymond Lewis also testified that he had no corporate records respecting Intermart. Both witnesses testified that all corporate records of Intermart had been subpoenaed and were in the custody of the Attorney General for more than one year. Dorwin refused to give any testimony respecting the operational workings of Intermart, Inc., based on fifth amendment self incrimination grounds. The Commission's counsel took the position during the course of the hearing that Mr. Dorwin had waived any and all fifth amendment rights or privileges by virtue of having personally testified in a similar matter before the Florida Real Estate Commission in a proceeding undertaken to revoke or suspend his license as a real estate broker. Having voluntarily taken the stand in that proceeding, the Commission concludes that he is not now entitled to any fifth amendment protections. As evidence of Mr. Dorwin's having voluntarily taken the stand in the prior proceeding, excerpts of the testimony from that proceeding was introduced into evidence. (See FREC Exhibit number 8). Having considered the legal authorities and the arguments of counsel, the undersigned is of the opinion that testimony given by a party in a separate proceeding to which the Respondents were not party to and of which the Respondents had no notice of cannot serve in lieu of evidence on which findings of fact can be based to substantiate allegations pending in the instant case. To do so, would possibly leave open the door for highly prejudicial and damaging testimony to which the Respondents here had no opportunity to rebut, cross examine or otherwise explain, all of which is inherently destructive of their basic rights, fairness and fundamental due process. The cases of Hargis v. FREC 174 So.2d 419 and Vann, 85 So.2d 133 are not deemed inapposite to the conclusion reached here. The fact that the State's Attorney General is currently conducting an investigation into the operations of Intermart makes clear that the possibility of criminal action or other sanctions exist (e.g. tax problems). For these reasons, I conclude that Dorwin's testimony in a prior proceeding, amounts to no waiver of his constitutional privilege. For these reasons, exhibit number 8 will not be considered as evidence herein. Having so concluded, the record is barren of any evidence, hearsay or otherwise, which would tend to establish in a competent and substantial manner, that the Respondents herein had engaged in conduct alleged as violative of Chapter 475.25, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaints filed herein be dismissed in their entirety. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the exhibits received into evidence, I make the following: The Defendant is a real estate salesman registered with the Commission and currently holds registration certificate number 0151729 (non-active). Defendant applied for registration as a real estate salesman by execution of a sworn application with the Commission on March 4, 1975 and was issued an initial registration certificate as such effective September 29, 1975. In response to the question as to whether or not she had ever been arrested for the commission of any offense against the laws of this state, she responded that "in 26years of living, I could honestly say I had (sic) never been arrested, either justly or unjustly." (See Commission's Exhibit #1). Exhibits introduced and received during the course of the hearing clearly reveal that the Defendant was arrested on January 21, 1975 and charged with engaging in the unlawful practice of massage for a fee or gratuity without a certificate or registration in violation of Section 480.02(1), Florida Statutes; and for the unlawful receipt of a fee for touching or offering to touch the sexual parts of another for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire. Officer White, a police officer for Broward County was called and credibly testified that the Defendant, Sharon Lee (Blackburn) Jarvis is the same Sharon Lee Blackburn that was arrested on January 21, 1975, and stated that the charges were nolle prosequi because of the Defendant's cooperation with the police on other related charges. Michael H. White, a police officer with the City of Ft. Lauderdale, was called and testified that he arrested the Defendant on June 13, 1975 and charged her (Defendant) for the offense of "indecent assault upon a child". On June 2, 1976 the Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendre to the above offense and was placed on probation for a period of six years. (See Commission's Composite Exhibit #5) Although Defendant complained that she was not served with copies of the administrative complaint and notice of hearing, evidence reveals that such was mailed to her at her last known address. It was noted that the complaint and notice of hearing which was mailed by the Commission was returned as "undeliverable". These documents were mailed to Defendant at her last known address. A registrant is required to immediately notify the Commission of address changes. (Chapter 475.23, Florida Statutes, and Rule 21V-9.01, F.A.C.) This the Defendant failed to do. As an aside, evidence reveals that Defendant received a copy of the notice of hearing sent by the undersigned. Accordingly, Defendant lacks standing to now complain that she did not receive notice of the proceedings herein. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, I make the following:
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: 1. That the Defendant's registration with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Respondent is duly registered as a real estate salesman and as a broker by Florida Real Estate Commission. On his application for registration as a salesman, in answer to question 9 on the application as to whether he had ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation, he answered "yes" and completed the "If yes, state details in full" part of the question with "traffic citation (speeding) 1970." On his application for registration as a broker some 16 months later he answered Question 9 "no". Exhibit 2, a certified copy of the court of record of Broward County, shows that on April 28, 1970, Respondent pleaded nolo contendere to the offense of attempted bookmaking and was fined $50. When questioned by the investigator for the Florida Real Estate Commission prior to the filing of this information, Respondent admitted that he had been arrested in California in 1960 and 1961 on charges of suspicion of assault and a traffic offense involving driving while under the influence of intoxicants. Testifying in his own behalf Respondent acknowledged that he had inadvertently failed to include those arrests on his application, and that in so doing he had no intention to conceal those arrests. The arrests for suspicion of assault involved a marital dispute with his former wife and those charges were dismissed. On the DWI charge he was fined $150. The breathalizer test he had taken was borderline and he was advised by the Public Defender that if he pleaded guilty he would be fined $150 as a first offender and if he employed the services of a lawyer to contest the charge the attorney's fee would be at least $250. He pleaded guilty to the charge. The attempted bookmaking arrest occurred while he was working in a bar in Deerfield Beach. The police suspected this bar was involved in bookmaking. Fetters had worked there only a week or two when two undercover agents, who had patronized the bar on a daily basis for several days, asked him to place a bet for them. He told them he had no information on how to place a bet, but after they insisted he took their money and made a call to someone he knew in Miami. The undercover agents then identified themselves and arrested him. Respondent holds a Cosmetology license in California, and an insurance salesman's license. He is currently working for Nichols' Realty in Boca Raton. His broker, Roy Nichols, has known Respondent for about three years and Respondent's reputation in the community is excellent. He has found Respondent's conduct exemplary both as a real estate salesman and as a family man.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Richard C. Lightner, was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0408120. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker, with a home address of 1221 Duval Street, Key West, Florida 32040. Respondent, or a representative on his behalf, did not appear at the hearing to refute or otherwise contest the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: The Department enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's Real Estate brokers license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 4th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Raymond O. Bodiford, Esquire 515 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE Petitioner vs. Case No. 0154510 DOAH No. 87-3668 RICHARD C. LIGHTNER III Respondent /
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1982, 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 24th day of November, 1982.
Findings Of Fact The Defendant was at all times material herein registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman. On May 3, 1974, the Acting State Attorney filed before the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida an Amended Information charging the Defendant with the offenses of the sale of unregistered securities and the sale of unregistered securities without being registered as a dealer or salesman in violation of Florida Statutes 517.02(1), 517.07, and 517.12(1). On October 11, 1973, the Defendant entered a plea of N0L0 CONTENDERE to both offenses and Judge Humes T. Lasher, Circuit Judge in and for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, entered an order withholding adjudication of guilt and placed the Defendant on probation for a period of two years. See Commission's Exhibits 1 and 2. Counsel for the Commission takes the position that the Defendant's entry of a NOLO CONTENDERE plea amounts to an admission and therefore a violation of Chapter475.25(1)(a) and (e), Florida Statutes. The Defendant contrary to the position taken by the Commission, avers that no such inference should be deduced from his entry of a NOLO CONTENDERE plea. He further contends that the plea was entered only because of his wife's mental condition and the extreme hardships brought about by above cited charges, and further that he had never been found guilty or the convicted of any crime in this or any other state. In mitigation, the Defendant testified to his honorary and exemplary military service. Chapter 475,25 sets forth grounds for revocation or suspension of a registrant's license with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Subsection 1(a) thereof provides in pertinent part that a registrant's license may be suspended based upon a finding of fact showing that the registrant has: (a) Been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises etc. in this state or any other state, nation or territory. . . or (e) Been guilty of a crime against the laws of this state or any other state or of the United States involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent or dishonest dealing; and the record of a conviction certified or authenticated in such form as to be admissible in evidence under the laws of this state, shall be admissible as prime facie evidence of such guilt. On April 30, 1975, Defendant, through his attorney, filed a Motion to Terminate Probation, Adjudicating Petitioner Not Guilty and Set Him Free, which was denied by Judge Lasher on May 12, 1975. In denying said motion to terminate probation, the Judge stated that the Defendant had failed to abide by the rules set forth by the Parole and Probate Commission. No further evidence was presented respecting this motion and/or its disposition. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. The burden of proving that a licensed real estate salesman has violated the Real Estate Licensing Law lies with the Florida Real Estate Commission or its representative. State ex rel Vining v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 281 So.2d 487 (Florida 1973). Insufficient evidence was offered at the hearing to establish that the Defendant based on the allegations contained in Counts 1 and II of the Administrative Complaint filed herein, has engaged in conduct violative of Florida Statutes 475.25(1)(a) and (e). The conduct here alleged and claimed to be violative of the above cited statutes if proven, must rest on a showing that the Defendant has "been guilty of a crime. . ." From the evidence here presented, there was no such showing but rather there was only a showing that an order was entered withholding adjudication of guilt. In view thereof, and since there was no showing that the Defendant has "been guilty of a crime" as set forth in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, insufficient evidence was offered to establish the allegations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William B. Seidel, Esquire Justice Building 524 South Andrews Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Findings Of Fact Joseph Pine is a registered real estate salesman holding license certificate number 0131432 and was so registered on December 6, 1976. Joseph Pine entered a plea of guilty to the possession of a controlled substance, cannabis, over five (5) grams. The court withheld adjudication and placed Pine on supervised probation for three (3) years because Pine was living in Quba, Netherlands Antilles. The possession of a controlled substance, cannabis, is a violation of Section 893.13(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes. This is a felony of the third degree.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends the case be dismissed and no action be taken. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of November, 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 7th day of November, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Harry L. Garber, Esquire Garber & Buoniconti, P.A. 1040 City National Bank Building 25 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found; At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, M. Emaline Jones was a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida, license number, 0045290, and an associate with Crown Real Estate, Inc., (Crown) now known as Daniel Crapps Agency, Inc. (Crapps). On January 20, 1987, John W. Hearne and his wife, Wilhemina Hearne (Hearne) went to the office of First Florida Realty and Auction (First), and met with Jackie Taylor and Jack Endfinger. On that same day, Endfinger showed Hearne the property owned by Sandra Sherman that was listed in the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) with Crapps as the listing agency. On January 21, 1987, a contract for the purchase of the Sherman property at a purchase price of $52,900.00 was executed by Hearne with an addendum requiring owner financing attached. Endfinger, as agent for Hearne with authority to deliver the contract, delivered the contract with the addendum attached to Respondent at Crapps around 4:00 p.m. On January 21, 1987, another contract for the purchase of the Sherman property at a purchase price of $45,000.00 was executed by Al and Shirley Williams and submitted to the Respondent by another associate of Crapps. On January 21, 1987, Respondent reviewed both con- tracts with Katrina Blalock, Office Manager for Crapps. Both contracts along with an expense settlement statement for each contract were presented to, and reviewed with, Sherman by both Blalock and Respondent on January 21, 1987. Both contracts were rejected by Sherman. The Williams contract was rejected mainly due to price. The Hearne contract was rejected due to price and the requirement of owner financing. Sherman authorized Respondent to make a counteroffer with a pur- chase price of $55,000.00 to Williams only. Respondent had no authority from Sherman to make, or accept, a counteroffer to, or from, Hearne. Because of her and her late husband's relationship with Williams, Sherman wanted Williams to have the property if they could come to terms. Upon being advised by Respondent of Sherman's rejection of the Hearne contract, Endfinger contacted Hearne and a counteroffer with a purchase price of $55,000.00 and third (3rd) party financing was executed by Hearne. There is insufficient evidence to establish whether Endfinger verbally advised Respondent of this contract or its terms prior to Sherman entering into a contract for sale with Williams. The contract was never physically delivered to Respondent or anyone else at Crapps at anytime. Either on January 21 or January 22, 1987, Williams, after reviewing Sherman's counteroffer of $55,000.00, made an offer of $52,000.00 which was accepted by Sherman. A contract with the new terms was executed on January 23, 1987, but Williams was unable to fulfill the contract and Hearne eventually purchased the Sherman property for $52,500.00. Subsequent to Sherman and Williams reaching an agree- ment on the property, Endfinger called Respondent, and upon being told of the agreement, told Respondent that Hearne would have given $55,000.00, but did not elaborate on the terms of the second contract executed by Hearne.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order DISMISSING the Administrative Complaint filed herein. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 13th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3993 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Respondent in this case. Petitioner failed to timely submit any posthearing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact were set out in eight (8) unnumbered paragraphs which for purposes of this Appendix I have numbered 1 through 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 5 and 6 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. The first sentence of paragraph 4 is rejected as not being material or relevant. The balance of paragraph 4 is adopted in Finding of Fact 8. The last sentence of paragraph 5 is rejected as not being material or relevant. The balance of paragraph 5 is adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 and 10 but clarified. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 William J. Haley, Esquire Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029
Findings Of Fact Upon the consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0118115. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent's license as a real estate salesman was in an inactive status. Respondent was not employed by Kenneth Ray Wagner (Wagner), Ken Wagner Realty or Computer Real Estate Sales, Inc. at any time relevant to this proceeding. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Hernando County Board of Relators. On about July 8, 1985, Elizabeth L. Tucker (Tucker), a licensed real estate salesman in the employ of Ken Wagner Realty, with Kenneth Ray Wagner (Wagner) acting as qualifying broker, obtained a listing agreement from Horace and Sibyl Gordey (Gordeys) as owners to sell certain residential property at an asking price of $48,000.00 in cash, or terms of $5,000.00 down with balance in wrap-around mortgages. After the Gordeys listed the property for sale, Respondent made an offer to purchase the property for $44,000.00. Terms to be: $5,000.00 down, $3,000.00 of which would be in the form of a promissory note with the balance of the down payment in cash, and with Respondent assuming two (2) existing mortgages in the total sum of approximately $39,000.00, with closing to be on October 22, 1985. After receiving the Respondent's offer, the Gordeys requested that Tucker offer the subject property to Ed and Joy Kimball (Kimballs), the tenants in possession, for the purchase price of $44,000.00, consisting of $5,000.00 down plus the Kimballs assuming the payment of the existing mortgages of approximately $39,000.00. Tucker advised the Gordeys not to make this offer to the Kimballs but to make the original offer of $48,000.00 and let the Kimballs make a counteroffer. The Gordeys rejected this advice. Tucker did not make the offer as instructed by the Gordeys but, as instructed by Wagner, made the $48,000.00 offer which was rejected by the Kimballs. Upon being advised by Tucker that the Kimballs had rejected their offer (thinking that it was the $44,000.00 offer that had been rejected), the Gordeys entered into a contract for the sale of the property with the Respondent. The contract entered into between the Gordeys and the Respondent was an amended version of the Respondent's original offer. The contract was a six (6) months lease with option to purchase, providing for lease payments of $300.00 per month that were not to apply toward the purchase price. The purchase price being $44,000.00, with a $5,000.00 down payment and Respondent assuming the payment of the two (2) existing mortgages in the approximate amount of $39,000.00. The down payment was represented by two (2) promissory notes made payable to the Gordeys for the total amount of $5,000.00, due and payable on March 22, 1986, at closing. Respondent was neither involved in obtaining the listing agreement from the Gordey's nor had any knowledge of any conversations between Tucker and the Gordeys or Tucker and Wagner concerning the listing agreement or the offer to be made to the Kimballs by Tucker, prior to entering into the contract for lease and purchase of the Gordeys' property. The contract for the sale of the property did not close on March 22, 1986 as anticipated, or at any time subsequent to that date. The failure of the contract to close was due to a misunderstanding of a poorly drafted contract by both parties. The misunderstanding of the contract by the parties, Respondent's failure to timely pay rent, the return of the two (2) checks by the bank for insufficient funds given to the Gordeys by Respondent, and Respondent's refusal to vacate the premises after notice to vacate was served on December 24, 1985 by the Gordeys resulted in civil litigation being filed and a judgment being entered against Respondent to vacate the premises, and later a monetary award of $4,800.45 plus costs of $322.50 which the parties had agreed upon prior to the entry of the final judgment. The final judgment merged all claims, including both the Gordeys' and the Respondent's. Before the final judgment was entered, the Respondent had paid into the registry of the court the sum of $1,800.45 which was applied against the judgment. This final judgment has not been satisfied by the Respondent. Although Wagner visited the premises from time to time, only the Respondent and her son resided in the premises. There is no evidence that Respondent entered into the transaction with any dishonest or illicit intent, or with the desire to misrepresent any material fact to the Gordeys. There is no evidence that Respondent intended to defraud the Gordeys when she gave them the checks on insufficient funds, or when she failed to timely pay the rent. There was a legitimate disagreement under the contract.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the demeanor and candor of the witnesses, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order DISMISSING the Administrative Complaint filed herein as it pertains to the Respondent, Vicki Lynne Burke. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 17th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-5435 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 with the exception of the date of August, 1985 which is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7 with the exception of the amount of $41,808.88 which is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 10.. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8 with the exception of the closing date which is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 but clarified to show Respondent rather than Respondents. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 but clarified to show that only Respondent, Vicki Lynne Burke refused to vacate since Wagner was not residing on the premises. 18-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 but clarified. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Respondent did not have a paragraph numbered 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 7-8. Rejected as not being a Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6 but clarified. 10-11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as being immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 16-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Vicki Lynne Burke, Pro Se 9039 Selph Road Lakeland, Florida 33809 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
