The Issue Whether Respondents committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Raymond Mangicapra is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida. He holds license number 0326800. FUGI is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. It holds registration number 0245691. At all times material to the instant case prior to March 5, 1992, Mangicapra was the broker of record for FUGI. On March 5, 1992, he resigned as FUGI's broker of record and its president. Approximately five months later he returned to FUGI in the capacity of a licensed broker-salesman The Angulo Transaction On or about April 26 1991, Jose Angulo, his wife Martha Salazar Angulo, and their son Carlos Angulo, signed a written contract (hereinafter referred to as the "Angulo contract") to purchase from Lofts Development Corp. (hereinafter referred to as "LDC"), for $98,300.00, real property located in the Willow Wood subdivision in Palm Beach County upon which a residence was to be constructed. FUGI, through its then broker of record, Mangicapra, negotiated the sale for LDC. Mangicapra was also a part-owner of LDC and its qualifying agent. His partner was Vincent Ferri. Ferri, on behalf of LDC, signed the Angulo contract on May 2, 1991. Article II, Section C. of the Angulo contract provided, in part, as follows: Use of Mortgage Loan: Time to Make Application: Purchaser intends to pay for a portion of the Purchase Price by obtaining a permanent mortgage loan ("Mortgage Loan"). Purchaser agrees to make application(s) for such Mortgage Loan from a bona fide lending institution approved by Seller ("Mortgagee") in the amount of [$96,050.00], at applicable interest rates. Purchaser agrees to make application for such Mortgage Loan within five (5) days from execution of this Contract by Purchaser. Purchaser agrees to promptly execute all necessary documents, disclose all information within fourteen (14) days of request and pay all costs as and when requested of it by Mortgagee and/or Seller in conjunction with such application and take all other measures to aid in being approved for a Mortgage Loan, including the making of further applications for a Mortgage Loan. Failure to Obtain Mortgage Loan: Purchaser agrees that in the event Purchaser fails to qualify for such Mortgage Loan or fails to qualify for a Mortgage Loan sufficient in an amount to enable Purchaser to close after duly and promptly complying with all requests of the Mortgagee and/or Seller, Purchaser shall notify Seller of this fact, in writing, whereupon Seller may request that Purchaser make further applications for a Mortgage Loan. In the event that Purchaser fails to qualify for a Mortgage Loan with any Mortgagee after duly and promptly complying with all requests of the Mortgagee and/or the Seller, as provided above, then Seller shall, at its sole discretion, either (a) give a Mortgage Loan to Purchaser at applicable interest rates at the time such Mortgage Loan is closed for the Full Amount; or (b) transfer or otherwise assign a Mortgage Loan obtained by Seller at applicable interest rates at the time such Mortgage Loan is obtained for the Full Amount which Purchaser agrees to assume at closing in lieu of any other Mortgage Loan and for which Purchaser shall reimburse Seller for all loan closing costs, title insurance premiums and escrow balances existing at closing relative to such assumed Mortgage Loan; (c) in the instance where Purchaser is approved for a Mortgage Loan in an amount less than the Full Amount, unless otherwise prohibited by reason of government or lender regulations, take a purchase money second mortgage from Purchaser at applicable interest rates for a term not to exceed five (5) years and Purchaser shall pay all closing costs in connection with such purchase money second mortgage; or (d) return any monies paid hereunder less a sum for engineering and other expenses reasonably incurred in effecting and processing this Contract whereupon this Contract shall be terminated and the parties hereto shall be relieved of all further rights and obligations hereunder. Default by Purchaser: In the event Seller ascertains that Purchaser has failed to qualify for a Mortgage Loan due to Purchaser's failure to duly or promptly comply with all requests of the Mortgagee and/or Seller or due to failure on the part of Purchaser to supply accurate information, then any such event shall constitute default by Purchaser hereunder, entitling Seller to retain all sums paid hereunder as set forth in accordance with Article VI hereof. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Article II to the contrary or notwithstanding a subsequent mortgage disapproval by a Mortgagee, Purchaser specifically agrees that once a mortgage approval is obtained by Purchaser from one Mortgagee, the deposit monies paid by the Purchaser to Seller shall no longer be refundable. . . . Article III, Section D. of the Angulo contract provided, in part, as follows: Subject to the following provisions of this Paragraph, the estimated date of completion for the residence shall be on or about 120 days from mtg approv. . . . . In the event said Residence shall not be completed two (2) years from the date of this Contract as aforesaid, Purchaser shall have the option to cancel this Contract by giving written notice to Seller ("Cancellation Notice") within 5 days after two (2) years from the date of this Contract ("Cancellation Period") and upon such cancellation Seller shall refund to Purchaser his deposit made hereunder. Upon such Refund, all parties to this Contract shall be fully discharged and relieved from the terms and obligations hereof. Liability of Seller is limited to the Refund and in no event shall Seller be liable to Purchaser for any damages which Purchaser may sustain. In the event Purchaser does not send the Cancellation Notice within the Cancellation Period, this Contract shall remain in full force and effect and Purchaser shall not have the right to cancel this Contract unless Seller is otherwise in default of this Contract. Seller shall not be obliged to make, provide or compensate for any accommodations to Purchaser as a result of delayed completion nor shall Seller be liable for any expenses or inconveniences to Purchaser which may directly or indirectly arise from delay of delivery of possession. Article VI, Section A. of the Angulo contract addressed the subject of "Purchaser's Default." It provided, in part, as follows: If Purchaser shall fail to cure such default within such seven (7) day period, Seller shall, and does hereby have the unrestricted option to (1) consider Purchaser in default under this Contract, (2) retain all sums paid to it, whether held in escrow or otherwise, hereunder as agreed upon and liqu[id]ated damages and in full settlement of any claim for damages, and (3) terminate all rights of Purchaser under this Contract. . . . Article VII of the Angulo contract addressed the subject of "Deposit Money." It provided as follows: Seller shall at its option have the right to use the deposit money for any purposes as it deems necessary. Article VIII, Section B. of the Angulo contract provided as follows: Purchaser represents and warrants that this sale of the Property pursuant to this Contract was made by Seller's personnel and Purchaser agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Seller against any claims of real estate brokers for commissions relating to this sale. Article VIII, Section C. of the Angulo contract provided as follows: This Contract may not be assigned, sold or transferred by Purchaser without the prior written consent thereto by Seller, which consent may be withheld in Seller's sole discretion. There was no comparable provision in the contract restricting LDC's right to assign. Article VIII, Section E. of the Angulo contract provided as follows: This Contract shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, legal representatives, successors and, as permitted hereunder, assigns. Addendum E to the Angulo contract, which was signed by the Angulos on April 26, 1991, and by Ferri on May 2, 1991, provided, in part, as follows: The purchaser(s) of a one or two family residential dwelling unit has the right to have all deposit fund[s] (up to 10 percent of the purchase price) deposited in an interest bearing escrow account. This right may be waived in writing by the purchaser(s). Purchaser(s) hereby waive their right to have all deposit funds (up to 10 percent of purchase price) deposited in an interest bearing escrow account. . . . First Union Group, Inc., is the agent for the Seller(s) and will be paid for his services by the Seller(s). . . . The Angulos' initial deposit was a check, which they gave to Mangicapra, made out to FUGI in the amount of $500.00. In conjunction with making this payment, they signed a Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement, which provided, in part, as follows: It is specifically understood that this Earnest Money deposit is to be held in First Union Group, Inc's (hereinafter First Union Group) trust account. Upon acceptance of said reservation/contract between [the Angulos] (buyer) and Lofts Development Corp. (seller), and upon clearance of said deposit, buyer agrees that First Union Group may automatically transfer to seller said Earnest Money and said Earnest Money shall be treated as purchasers['] initial investment deposit. Purchaser agrees that once said reservation/contract between buyer and seller named above is accepted by seller, and there is in effect a purchase agreement, any and all future deposits due per said purchase agreement shall be made payable directly [to] seller. If any future deposits are inadvertently made payable to First Union Group, buyer hereby gives First Union Group the right and authorization to transfer said deposit money to seller. Any deviation to the above must be in writing from buyer at the time of the reservation/contract. . . . The "automatic transfer" of deposit monies from the real estate broker holding these monies to the seller/builder, like that authorized by this signed Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement, was the accepted practice in the area. Mangicapra deposited the $500.00 check he had been given by the Angulos in FUGI's interest-bearing money market escrow account at Capital Bank in Delray Beach, Florida. The deposit was noted on the Angulos's ledger card. Respondents did not have the written permission of all interested parties to place the Angulos' deposit monies in such an interest-bearing account. Respondents received three other earnest money deposits from the Angulos: a check, dated May 30, 1991, payable to FUGI in the amount of $700.00 (hereinafter referred to as the "May 30 check"); a check, dated June 30, 1991, payable to FUGI in the amount of $700.00 (hereinafter referred to as the "June 30 check"); and a check, dated July 30, 1991, payable to FUGI in the amount of $600.00 (hereinafter referred to as the "July 30 check"). The June 30 and July 30 checks were deposited in FUGI's interest- bearing money market escrow account at Capital Bank and the deposits were noted on the Angulos' ledger card. The May 30 check, however, was inadvertently deposited in FUGI's general operating account at Capital Bank, instead of its escrow account, as a result of a bookkeeping error. On or about August 8, 1991, Respondents wrote a check (hereinafter referred to as "check #1395") transferring $4,800.00 from its Capital Bank escrow account to LDC. The $4,800.00 represented escrow funds being held by Respondents in connection with six different transactions. It included $1,800.00 of the $2,500.00 in earnest money deposits that Respondents had received from the Angulos. The transfer of this $1,800.00 to LDC was in accordance with the Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement signed by the Angulos. Upon receiving check #1395, Ferri endorsed it back to FUGI to compensate FUGI for services it had provided LDC and for expenses FUGI had incurred in conjunction with the performance of these services. The endorsed check was deposited in FUGI's interest-bearing money market account at Capital Bank. On or about November 1, 1991, Donna Archer, who was then an employee of FUGI, sent a Verification of Escrow Deposit to Paragon Mortgage Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "PMC"), from whom the Angulos were attempting to obtain a mortgage loan. Archer provided the following erroneous information in this Verification of Escrow Deposit: As Escrow Agent in the [Angulo] transaction, we are now holding the following amount in our escrow account for the above captioned transaction: $2,500.00------- total held in escrow. On or about December 26, 1991, PMC sent the Angulos the following letter advising them that their application for a mortgage loan had been conditionally approved: We are please[d] to inform you that your application for a FHA mortgage in the amount of 95,750.00 has been approved. The following items are contingencies on the loan and must be met prior to closing. Provide independent documentation of YTD income for Martha (i.e. copy of ledger signed by accountant of employer) Amendment of contract to reflect the following, contract to remain current through closing Hazard insurance policy for at least the loan amount Survey with flood certification [C]lear soil treatment guaranty Clear final inspection Proof of 10 year HOW warranty or 2/10 [h]ome buyers warranty At the time this conditional loan commitment was made, the master appraisal of the property was about to expire. Accordingly, an extension of the deadline was sought by PMC. By written agreement, dated April 26, 1992, and signed by Ferri and Jules Minker, the president of Contemporary Community Concepts Corp. (hereinafter referred to as "Contemporary"), LDC, which no longer wished to construct homes in the Willow Wood subdivision, assigned the Angulo contract to Contemporary: In consideration of the sum of $10.00 Ten Dollars lawful money of the United States, I, Vincent A. Ferri, President of Lofts Development Corporation, hereby assign without reservation or limitation and free of encumbrance, the purchase contract between Jose Antonio and Martha Salazar Angulo, his wife and Lofts Development Corporation, dated April 26, 1991 to Contemporary Community Concepts Corporation. The deposit monies indicated and due under the contract in the approximate amount of $1800.00 Eighteen Hundred Dollars, are not transferred by this agreement and remain with Lofts Development Corporation. In fact, the "deposit monies indicated and due under the contract," amounted to $2,500.00, although only $1,800.00 of that amount had been transferred to LDC. In May of 1992, upon attempting to contact Mangicapra to find out why LDC had not yet begun to work on their house, the Angulos discovered that FUGI had closed the office out of which it had been conducting its business. The Angulos brought the matter to the attention of Sharon Couglin of PMC. Couglin wrote a letter to an official at HUD to apprise the agency of the situation. A copy of the letter was sent to the Florida Real Estate Commission. Notwithstanding the Angulos' beliefs to the contrary, FUGI was still in business. It had simply moved to another location in Boynton Beach. (Mangicapra was not at this time, however, associated with FUGI in any way.) Minker contacted FUGI and the Angulos and advised them that the Angulo contract had been assigned to Contemporary. In his discussions with the Angulos, Minker told them that they would be given credit for the earnest money deposits that they had made. The Angulos, in turn, indicated that they wanted Contemporary to proceed with the construction of the house LDC had agreed to build for them. In accordance with the Angulos' stated desires, Contemporary proceeded with the construction of the house. As the house neared completion, the Angulos learned that the conditional mortgage loan commitment they had received was no longer valid because the master appraisal had expired. They thereupon tried to contact FUGI to explore their options. This time they were successful in their efforts to get in touch with a FUGI representative. They spoke with Denise Preziosi, who had replaced Mangicapra as FUGI's broker of record. The Angulos asked Preziosi if they could obtain a refund of their deposit monies in the event they decided that they did not want to go through with their purchase of the house. Preziosi indicated that she did not know the answer to the question and that, in any event, FUGI no longer held any of the Angulos' deposit monies. At the time she made this statement, Preziosi was under the mistaken impression that FUGI had transferred all of these monies to LDC. On or about November 25, 1992, Preziosi sent a letter to Minker, the body of which read, in part, as follows: I am in receipt of a copy of the "Agreement" between Contemporary Community Concepts Corporation and Lofts Development Corporation which Patti faxed to me yesterday. In reading this Agreement, I noticed that the amount stated as a credit to the Angulos is $1800 rather than the $2500 they did in fact pay to Lofts. I understand that you did not nor will not receive any money from Lofts but that you agreed to accept the assignment of the contract and would give them credit for their deposit. In this regard, please amend your records to reflect a credit of $2,500 as deposit monies rather than $1,800. The Angulos made their final color selections for the house in mid- December, 1992. Thereafter Minker obtained a certificate of occupancy for the house. Although Carlos Angulo, in Minker's office, signed a document prepared by Minker agreeing "to complete loan processing for a new loan and to close on [the house] when funds are made available as a result of this application, but not to exceed 60 days," 1/ when Carlos took this document home and presented it to his parents for their signature, they refused to sign it. The Angulos did not "complete loan processing for a new loan." The Angulos have not been refunded any of the $2,500.00 in earnest money deposits they have made, nor have they received any of the interest earned on these deposits. It has not been shown, however, that the Angulos are now, or were at any time previous hereto, entitled to such a refund under the provisions of their contract with LDC. The White-Hunt Transaction On or about May 3, 1990, Stacey White-Hunt signed a written contract (hereinafter referred to as the "White-Hunt contract") to purchase from LDC, for $97,000.00, real property located in the Delray Garden Estates subdivision in Palm Beach County upon which a residence was to be constructed. FUGI, through its then broker of record, Mangicapra, negotiated the sale for LDC. Ferri, on behalf of LDC, signed the White-Hunt contract on May 9, 1990. The White-Hunt contract contained provisions identical in all material respects to Article II, Section C., Article III, Section D., Article VI, Section A., Article VII, and Article VIII, Sections B., C. 2/ and E. of the Angulo contract, as well as Addendum E to the Angulo contract. (These contractual provisions are set out above.) White-Hunt's initial deposit was a check, which she gave to Mangicapra, made out to FUGI in the amount of $500.00. In conjunction with making this payment, she signed a Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement, which was identical in all material respects to the Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement signed by the Angulos. Respondents received one other earnest money deposit from White-Hunt. It was a check payable to FUGI in the amount of $1,000.00. The $500.00 check and the $1,000.00 check were deposited in FUGI's interest-bearing money market escrow account at Capital Bank and the deposits were noted on White-Hunt's ledger card. Respondents did not have the written permission of all interested parties to place White-Hunt's deposit monies in such an interest-bearing account. On or about May 23, 1990, Respondents wrote a check transferring $6,500.00 from its Capital Bank escrow account to LDC. The $6,500.00 represented escrow funds being held by Respondents in connection with various transactions. It included the $1,500.00 in earnest money deposits that Respondents had received from White-Hunt. The transfer of this $1,500.00 to LDC was in accordance with the Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement signed by White-Hunt. White-Hunt sought, but failed to qualify for, a conventional mortgage loan. Thereafter she applied for an FHA mortgage loan. By notice dated October 10, 1991, she was advised that her application had been denied. On February 7, 1992, the law firm representing White-Hunt sent a letter to Respondents, the body of which read as follows: Please be advised that I have been retained by Stacey Hunt with regard to the above- referenced Contract in order to secure a return of her deposit. I have enclosed herein copies of the deposit checks made payable to ERA First Union Group in the total sum of $1,500.00 which were provided to you on April 17, 1990 and May 8, 1990. Since Ms. Hunt has failed to qualify for a mortgage, in accordance with Paragraph (b)(2) of the Contract, this letter shall serve as formal demand for a return of any and all deposits placed with your company and any and all interest accrued thereon. In the event I am not in receipt of a check payable to Ms. Hunt on or before February 14, 1992, I will presume that you have converted these funds and proceed to undertake . . . any and all efforts to have the funds returned including, without limitation, contacting the Florida Real Estate Commission. Preziosi, on behalf of FUGI, responded by letter to the law firm. The body of her letter read as follows: In response to your letter of even date enclosed please find a copy of a Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer which was signed on April 17, 1990 by Stacey Hunt. You will note that this agreement states that once a contract between buyer and seller is in effect, any deposit money given to First Union Group, Inc. will be transferred to the seller and treated as the initial investment deposit. Further, all future deposits are to be made payable to the seller. If an additional deposit was received by First Union Group, Inc., it too would be transferred to the seller. In this regard, be advised that on May 23, 1990, $1,500 that was being held by First Union Group, Inc. on behalf of Ms. Hunt was transferred to Lofts Development Corp. as per this agreement. Also enclosed is a copy of the check together with a copy of the escrow cards which represented all deposits transferred via this check. Respondents have not returned any deposit monies to White-Hunt; however, as Preziosi pointed out in her letter, well before White-Hunt had requested a refund from them, Respondents had transferred these monies to LDC in accordance with the Reservation Deposit/Contract Deposit Transfer Agreement White-Hunt had signed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby recommended that the Commission enter a final order finding Mangicapra guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, III, IV, V, and XV of the Amended Administrative Complaint to the extent indicated above, suspending Mangicapra's license for a period of 120 days and fining him $3,000.00 for having committed these violations, finding FUGI guilty of the violations alleged in Counts VI, VIII, IX, X, and XX of the Amended Administrative Complaint to the extent indicated above, suspending FUGI's registration for a period of 120 days and fining it $3,000.00 for having committed these violations, and dismissing the remaining allegations set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 16th day of April, 1993.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Lori Wilk has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0349551. The last license issued was as a broker in care of Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc. At all times material hereto, Respondent Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc., has been a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0253076. At all times material hereto, Respondent Wilk has been licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer of Respondent Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc. Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert, as owner, had listed for sale certain real property with Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc./Gil Amara. Respondents obtained LPS Investments, Inc., as purchaser pursuant to a sales contract which was accepted by the seller on March 14, 1989. LPS Investments is owned by Leo and Patricia Scarola. Patricia Scarola was a former salesperson for Respondents. That Contract for Sale And Purchase of Real Property provided that a total of $500 as deposit monies was to be held in escrow by Stars and Stripes Realty. Respondent Wilk executed the portion of the Contract which acknowledged receipt of the first $100 of the deposit monies. Respondents' escrow account deposit slips reveal the first $100 was deposited into Respondents' escrow account. No proof of receipt of the additional $400 exists among the escrow account deposit slips admitted in evidence; however, Respondent Wilk's testimony is accepted that Respondents received in trust a total earnest money deposit in the sum of $500. Thereafter, LPS Investments, Inc., refused to close, alleging misrepresentation by the seller of the property. Although the property had been advertised as a "handyman special" and the Contract provided that the property was accepted in an "as is" condition, the Scarolas who never saw the property before they entered into the Contract to purchase it discovered that it would cost more to improve the property than they had guessed. They decided not to close. Rather, Pat Scarola instructed Respondents to transfer the $500 earnest money deposit to another piece of property not involving Gwendolyn Taylor- Herbert. Without the prior knowledge or consent of the seller or of the listing broker, Respondents transferred the Scarolas' earnest money deposit to another transaction for the benefit of the purchaser (LPS Investments, Inc.) and not involving the same seller. This was done without even considering whether the seller or the seller's agent might have an interest in the deposit. At no time prior to the time that the Respondents' transferred the deposit to a different property did the Respondents give the listing broker or the seller an opportunity or notice to make a demand upon the Respondents for the deposit. After the transfer, and after the contract failed to close, the seller and the seller's agent made a demand that the $500 deposit be accounted for and delivered. It was not. On June 1, 1989, Respondents obtained an offer from Herb Sider, as purchaser, for the property owned by Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert. That offer was accepted by the seller. The Contract for Sale and Purchase of Real Property provided that a total deposit of $1,000 was to be held in escrow by Stars and Stripes Realty. Respondent Wilk executed that portion of the Contract acknowledging that the first $100 of the earnest money deposit had been received by Respondents. That representation was false. Sider never gave Respondents the earnest money deposit specified in the Contract, and Respondents failed to advise anyone that the representation in the Contract was false. Although Respondent Wilk testified that she would "normally" keep $100 of Sider's money in her escrow account to be applied to the various contracts that he entered into through her, there is no evidence that there was $100 in Respondents' escrow account at the time or that it was available to be applied to this Contract. Rather, Respondent Wilk's testimony is accepted that she never received either the initial $100 or the additional $900 deposit monies from Sider for this property. Herb Sider refused to close. The seller, Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert, agreed to lower the sales price, and a modified contract was executed between Taylor-Herbert and Sider. Thereafter, Sider again refused to close. At no time did Respondents notify anyone that they did not have an earnest money deposit in escrow for the Taylor-Herbert/Sider transaction. Diane Quigley, branch manager of Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc., sent a letter dated July 11, 1989, to the Respondents transmitting release of deposit receipt forms and instructing Respondents to release the $500 earnest money deposit of LPS Investments, Inc., and the $1,000 earnest money deposit of Herb Sider to the seller Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert. Respondents ignored that demand letter. By letter dated August 25, 1989, Quigley again wrote to Respondents demanding the release of the Sider and the LPS Investments, Inc., deposits to the seller. That letter referred to the July 11th letter which Respondents had ignored and the numerous phone calls placed by Quigley to Respondents which had not been returned. On September 13, 1989, Respondents for the first time notified Petitioner of possible conflicting demands. That letter misrepresented the facts of the situation and suggested that the seller and buyer might still be able to strike a deal. On October 3, 1989, Respondents again wrote to the Florida Real Estate Commission advising that "there is now a conflicting demand" on the deposits relative to the Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert property. Respondents' letters reveal a lack of understanding of the basics of a real estate contract. Neither letter advised the Commission that Respondents did not have any of the monies in escrow at any rate. On December 27, 1988, Respondent Wilk made an offer to purchase real property from Bel-Properties, Inc., which offer provided that $100 earnest money deposit would be held in escrow by Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc., and an additional $2,050 earnest money deposit would be placed in the Stars and Stripes escrow account within 72 hours of acceptance. Respondent Wilk executed the portion of the Contract for Sale and Purchase of Real Property acknowledging that the initial $100 deposit had been received. That representation was false. The Contract which she prepared listed as the buyer "Lori Wilk, a lisenced [sic] real estate broker, and/or assigns." The offer was accepted by the seller on December 30, 1988. In connection with that offer, Respondent Wilk represented that she was the purchaser when, in fact, she was acting on behalf of the actual purchaser HBS Investments, Inc., a corporation owned, controlled, and operated by Herb Sider. Immediately upon the acceptance of Respondent Wilk's offer, she assigned the sales contract to HBS Investments, Inc. At no time did Respondent Wilk or HBS Investments, Inc., place the $2,150 earnest money deposit in the escrow account of Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc., as represented by Respondent Wilk to the seller and as required by the Contract. Further, at no time did Respondents advise the seller that they did not have an earnest money deposit in the Stars and Stripes escrow account. On November 28, 1988, Respondent "Wilk, a lisenced [sic] real estate broker, and/or assigns" made an offer to purchase real property from Darlene Farris. Farris accepted that offer on December 6, 1988. That Contract for Sale and Purchase of Real Property provided that an initial deposit of $100 had been placed in the escrow account of Stars and Stripes Realty and that an additional earnest money deposit of $1,900 would be placed in escrow within 72 hours of acceptance. Respondent Wilk executed the portion of the Contract acknowledging that she had received the initial $100 earnest money deposit. That representation was false. In fact, Respondent Wilk never placed any of the $2,000 earnest money deposit in her escrow account and never advised the seller or the seller's listing broker that no earnest money deposit had been made. On or about February 2, 1989, Respondents solicited and obtained Willy Pearson as a tenant for the Farris property. Respondents represented to Pearson that the lessor was HBS Investments, Inc. Respondent Wilk prepared a Memorandum to Enter Into a Lease acknowledging the receipt of $550 as a deposit from Pearson, although Respondent Wilk only received $250 from Pearson. When Respondent Wilk received half of the rental deposit, she gave Pearson both a receipt and immediate possession of the property. Respondents obtained the tenant without the prior knowledge and consent of Darlene Farris, owner of the property. Further Respondents did not notify Farris or Farris' broker that Respondents had rented Farris' property until sometime after Respondents had received the $250 deposit from Pearson and had given him possession of Farris' property. Neither Respondent Wilk nor HBS Investments, Inc., ever closed on the Farris property. Further, Respondent Wilk never obtained authority from Darlene Farris to obtain or place a tenant in Farris' property.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them and revoking the licenses of Respondents Lori Wilk and Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2468 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-21 and 23-28 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 22 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 2-9, 19, and 23 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents' proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 15, and 27 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 11, 12, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24, 25, 28, and 30 have been rejected as not been supported by the weight of the credible, competent evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 13, 26, and 29 have been rejected as being irrelevant to determination of the issues involved in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section - Suite N-308 Hurston Building - North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Monte K. Rassner, Esquire Rassner, Malove, Rassner, Kramer & Gold Plaza 7000, Suite 500 7000 Southwest 62nd Avenue South Miami, FL 33143 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert Watson, Jr., is a real estate broker-salesman, having been issued license Number 0093690. He resides and has his business in Jacksonville, Florida. On or about September 1, 1978, the Respondent negotiated and drafted a contract for sale of a certain piece of residential real estate, the purchaser for which was one Mr. Lacy Cole. The Respondent was Mr. Cole's broker in that transaction. The Respondent informed Mr. Cole that he would have to pay a two- hundred-dollar deposit as prospective buyer pursuant to the deposit receipt, sales contract agreement drafted by the Respondent. Mr. Cole did not pay the entire two-hundred-dollar deposit, but he did pay the Respondent sixty-five dollars. The closing was held October 20, 1978, at which time Mr. Cole's attorney directed the Respondent to pay Mr. Cole a two-hundred-dollar refund as the contract for sale provided that financing would be through the Veterans Administration and that in such a Veterans Administration sponsored transaction the buyer is precluded from paying closing costs. Mr. Cole cashed the two- hundred-dollar check in good faith and later was informed that the Respondent had stopped payment on it, which resulted in Mr. Cole having to make the check good. The Respondent has failed to recompense Lacy Cole for the sixty-five- dollar deposit he had already paid pursuant to the contract for sale drafted by the Respondent. Mr. Watson has also never repaid the two hundred dollars which Mr. Cole had to expend in order to provide payment on the two-hundred-dollar check on which the Respondent had stopped payment. In response to the Petitioner's demonstration that the Respondent had obligated Mr. Cole for a two-hundred-dollar "binder or closing costs" which he was not obligated to pay under Veterans Administration policy, the Respondent stated that he wrote the contract with the two-hundred-dollar binder with the understanding that Cole would pay a portion of it at the first of each month until it was paid and that he only received a total of sixty-five dollars from Cole. The seller agreed to sell the property to Mr. Cole anyway. The Respondent maintained that he merely told Mr. Cole at the closing that he would write him a two-hundred-dollar check and deliver it to him at closing with the understanding that Cole would deliver it back to him immediately afterward to keep from confusing the attorney." The Respondent, however, failed to refute the showing by the Petitioner that the Respondent attempted to obligate that purchaser to pay two hundred dollars in "closing costs" which he was not legally obligated to pay and for which the seller of the property was responsible in the first place. The Respondent adduced no evidence contrary to that of Petitioner which established that, after being informed by the attorney that Mr. Cole was not responsible for any deposit or closing costs, the Respondent still retained the sixty-five dollars paid him as earnest money by Mr. Cole and, further, that after stopping payment on Cole's refund check, causing Mr. Cole to incur two hundred dollars additional expense for which he was not obligated, the Respondent failed to recompense Cole. There is thus no question that the Respondent misrepresented to his client, Mr. Cole, the obligations and expenses Mr. Cole would have to incur in order to purchase the property and thus, in effect, wrongfully obtained two hundred sixty-five dollars from Mr. Cole. On or about September 16, 1978, Mrs. Joanne Wesley deposited a ten- dollar check with the Respondent as a partial deposit for a down payment on a home. On or about September 20, 1978, she deposited an additional one-hundred- dollar check with the Respondent as further deposit on the same contract for sale and purchase which the Respondent had at that time not yet drafted. The Respondent never made an appropriate deposit of the above referenced checks in his escrow account, but, instead, cashed them for his personal use. On or about October 25, 1978, the contract for sale and purchase was finally drafted by the Respondent. On approximately December 4, 1978, Mrs. Wesley deposited with the Respondent an additional check for eight hundred fifty dollars as the final installment of her deposit money with regard to the proposed purchase of the home. On December 29, 1978, Mrs. Wesley learned that she had failed to qualify for FHA financing with regard to the above-referenced contract and, after looking at another home which was not to her liking offered to her by the Respondent as a "replacement dwelling," finally requested the refund of her total deposit of nine hundred sixty dollars. The Respondent then requested Mrs. Wesley to wait until January 2, 1979, for that refund and on January 2, 1979, tendered to her four hundred dollars cash as partial reimbursement. On January 3, 1979, the Respondent tendered to her an additional three hundred dollars cash and drew and delivered to her his escrow check, post-dated to January 10, 1979, in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars. That escrow account check was returned for insufficient funds. On February 1, 1979, Mrs. Wesley's attorney made demand on the Respondent for payment of the two hundred fifty dollars outstanding, represented by the invalid check. On approximately February 3, 1979, the Respondent ultimately paid the two hundred fifty dollars due Mrs. Wesley. Thus, at that point the Respondent had refunded nine hundred fifty dollars of the nine hundred sixty dollars in deposit money due Mrs. Wesley. The entire refund had become due on December 29, 1978, when it was learned that she could not qualify for FHA financing with regard to the proposed purchase, which qualification for financing was a condition precedent to performance of the contract. In his defense the Respondent stated that he attempted to arrange the purchase of another dwelling for Mrs. Wesley upon learning that she could not qualify for financing on the subject property and that he retained her deposit money in his escrow account for that reason and ultimately repaid it to her, although after over a month's delay. The Respondent contended that he had opened the subject account as a business account when he was doing appraisal work and had not considered it to be an escrow account and "did not know when they switched it over to escrow." The Respondent did acknowledge that he had used this escrow account as his business account and commingled personal and business operating funds in it and made withdrawals from time to time for business and personal reasons. With further regard to the Cole transaction, the Respondent contended that he felt it was customary for a veteran to pay two hundred dollars closing costs and even when he learned the veteran was not obligated to pay closing costs in such a transaction, that he still felt it was "customary as earnest money" even though the seller obviously was obligated to pay closing costs. The Respondent also testified that as of the time of the hearing and for an indeterminant period of tinge before the hearing, he had terminated active practice of real estate brokerage and was mostly performing appraisal work. There is thus no question that the Respondent informed Mr. Cole that he was obligated to pay two hundred dollars "earnest money" or "closing costs" and that his actions forced Mr. Cole to incur the two-hundred-sixty-five dollar expense described above, even after the Respondent was informed by the closing attorney that the purchaser was not obligated for those expenses. There is no question with regard to the Wesley transaction that he delayed an inordinate amount of time in refunding her deposit money after the condition of financial qualification for the purchase did not occur, and, further, that he commingled these purchaser deposit funds in his escrow account with personal and business funds and used a portion of them for personal purposes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the license of Robert Watson, Jr., as a real estate broker in the State of Florida be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire 2400 Independent Square One Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robert Watson, Jr. 9527 Abedare Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32208 Frederick B. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Board of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George G. Walsh, is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0117943. Mr. Walsh is the owner of and the qualifying broker for G. G. Jerry Walsh Real Estate, located in Panama city, Florida. In May 1989, Respondent was the acting broker for Howard Bilford of Miami, Florida. Mr. Bilford owned a five acre parcel of property located in Bay County, Florida. Around May 15, 1989, Tama and Paul Russ, through Mr. Walsh's office, entered into a contract for the purchase of Mr. Bilford's property. The purchase price of the property was $15,000. The Russ' gave Mr. Walsh a $500 binder for deposit in his escrow account. The $500 was placed in Respondent's escrow account. Simultaneous with the signing of the sales contract and deposit receipt agreement, Mr. Walsh also prepared an estimated closing cost statement. On that closing cost statement, Mr. Walsh estimated that a survey of the property would cost the Russ' $450. During this meeting, Mr. Walsh explained to the Russ' that, especially if a financial institution was involved in the financing of the property, there would be certain costs which they would probably have to pay up front. Part of those costs included a survey of the property. At about the same time, the Russ' made application for a loan to a credit union located in Panama City, Florida. At the time of the loan application, the loan officers Mrs. Stokes, prepared a closing cost statement estimating the loan closing costs which the Russ' would encounter. On the credit union's closing cost statement, the cost of a survey was estimated to be $150 to $200. Since it was the credit union that required the survey, the Russ' believed that that estimate was the more accurate. The Russ' simply could not afford a $500 survey. As part of the loan application, an appraisal of the property was required. The appraisal was ordered by the credit union on May 16, 1989, and was completed on May 31, 1989. Unfortunately, the property had been vandalized by unknown persons, and the mobile home which was on the property had suffered severe and substantial damage. The appraisal indicated that the real estate was worth $10,500. With such a low appraisal, the credit union would not lend the amount necessary to purchase the property at the negotiated price. In an effort to renegotiate the property's price, Tama Russ inspected the property and prepared a list of the items which would have to be repaired to make the mobile home liveable. At the same time, the Russ' placed no trespassing signs and pulled logs across the entry to the property. The Russ' also placed padlocks on the doors to the mobile home and removed the accumulated garbage inside the mobile home in an effort to secure the property. They made no other repairs to the property. On June 1, 1990, the Russ' told the loan officer to hold the loan application. At some point during this process, both Mr. Walsh and the Russ' became aware that the survey would cost a considerable amount more than had been expected. By using a favor with Mr. Walsingham of County Wide Surveying, Mr. Walsh obtained a survey price of $500 for the Russ'. In an effort to help the Russ' close on the property, Mr. Walsh contacted Mr. Bilford to see if he would agree to pay the $500 survey cost. Mr. Bilford so agreed, contingent on the closure of the transaction, and sent Mr. Walsh a check made out to County Wide Surveying in the amount of $500. At that point, the Russ' believed that they were no longer obligated to pay for the survey since Mr. Walsh told them that Mr. Bilford was to pay for the survey. On June 3, 1989, Mr. Bilford agreed to a renegotiated price of $10,500.00 on the property. Additionally the Russ' agreed to sign a ten year promissory note for $2,000 bearing 11% interest per annum. Since there were changes in the terms of the contract, the Russ' entered into a net contract with Mr. Bilford on June 3, 1989. The new contract expired on June 30, 1989. Around June 5, 1989, the Russ' learned that their credit had been preliminarily approved. However, such preliminary approval only indicated that the Russ' had sufficient income to proceed with the more costly loan underwriting requirements of the credit union. Such preliminary approval did not indicate that the loan would be finally approved by the financial institution. The preliminary approval was communicated to Mr. Walsh by Tama Russ. Ms. Russ intended the communication to mean that they had been preliminarily approved by the financial institution. Mr. Walsh in an abundance caution contacted Mrs. Stokes, the loan officer. Mrs. Stokes advised him that the Russ' credit had been preliminarily approved. She did not tell him that the loan had been finally approved. Through a misunderstanding of what Mrs. Stokes communicated to him, Mr. Walsh ordered the survey from County Wide Realty on June 7, 1989. There was no reliable evidence presented that the credit union had authorized him to order the survey. The credit union at no time during this process ordered the survey. Mr. Walsh testified that Ms. Russ told him to order the survey. Ms. Russ denies that she gave Mr. Walsh permission to order the survey. At best this evidence goes only to demonstrate Respondent's intent with regards to the actions he undertook in this case and removes this case from a Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, violation. At some point Ms. Stokes left the employ of the credit union. On June 16, 1989, as part of her leaving, she unilaterally closed the Russ' loan application file and cancelled the loan application. Neither the Russ' nor Mr. Walsh were notified of the closure or the cancellation. The credit union's file fell into the void created between a change of employees. Because Mr. Walsh was unaware of Ms. Stokes' actions, Mr. Walsh, on July 13, 1989, after the expiration of the Russ' sales contract, contacted the credit union in order to obtain the loan closing package from the institution. The credit union had to hunt for the Russ' file. The credit union president called the Russ' about the loan and he was advised that they did not want the loan. The credit union's president then reviewed the loan file and noted that the Russ' had insufficient income to come up with the amount of the promissory note. He also thought the real estate constituted insufficient collateral for the loan. The loan application was officially denied on July 15, 1989. The Russ' were notified of the credit union's denial credit. The real estate transaction never closed. However, sometime after July 15, 1989, Mr. Walsh received the survey from County Wide. The survey indicates that the field work for the survey was completed on July 17, 1989, and that it was drawn on July 18, 1989. 1/ There was no reliable evidence which indicated any attempt had been made to cancel the survey. Sometime, after July 15, 1989, Tama Russ contacted Mr. Walsh in order to obtain the return of their $500 deposit. After many failed attempts to get the Russ' to voluntarily agree to pay for the cost of the survey, Mr. Walsh, around October, 1989, unilaterally paid the Russ' deposit to County Wide Realty. Mr. Walsh followed this course of action after speaking with some local FREC members who advised him that since FREC was swamped with deposit disputes that nothing would happen as long as he used his best judgment. The payment of the deposit to the surveyor, without prior authorization from the Ruse' violates Section 475.25(1)(d) and (k) Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the pleadings and argument of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(d) and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, issuing a letter of reprimand to Respondent with instructions to immediately replace the Russ' trust deposit and forthwith submit the matter to the commission for an escrow disbursement order and levying a $250 fine. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the portions of the Administrative Complaint alleging violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1991.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's real estate license in Florida should be disciplined because the Respondent committed fraud, misrepresentation, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondent's real estate license should be disciplined because the Respondent failed to account and deliver funds in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Joyce A. Wolford is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0313643 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker, t/a Blue Ribbon Realty, 1400 N. Semoran Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32807. As To Counts I and II Diane Ortiz was employed by Respondent Joyce Wolford to perform various duties, including operating the computer and taking messages. During her employment with Respondent, Diane Ortiz completed a contract for sale and purchase of certain real property which was signed by Jane Evers as buyer. In conjunction with the Evers contract, Ortiz did receive an earnest money deposit in the form of a cashier's check for the sum of $1000 and made payable to Blue Ribbon Realty. The earnest money deposit check given by Evers was turned over to Respondent by Ortiz. The endorsement on the Evers deposit check was Blue Ribbon Realty. The sale was contingent on Evers' assumption of the existing mortgage. The mortgagee did not approve Evers, and the transaction did not close. Evers contacted Ortiz and Respondent on several occasions and demanded return of her $1,000 deposit. Evers met personally with Respondent and demanded return of the $1,000 deposit. Evers sent a written demand for the return of the deposit by certified mail to Respondent on August 9, 1989. Despite Evers repeated demands for return of the $1000 deposit, Respondent has not returned any money to Evers. Jane Evers filed a lawsuit against Respondent Joyce Wolford in the County Court for Orange County, Florida, for the sum of $1,000 and court costs. A Final Judgment in the civil lawsuit was rendered for Jane Evers against Joyce Wolford for $1,000 principal plus $73 in court costs on March 15, 1990. Respondent has not satisfied the Final Judgment awarded to Evers or any portion thereof. As To Counts III and IV Anthony Pellegrino did enter a contract to purchase certain real property known as Lakefront Motel near Clermont, Florida. Respondent Joyce Wolford did negotiate the contract. Pellegrino did give Respondent a $5,000 earnest money deposit in the form of a cashier's check to secure the contract for purchase of Lakefront Motel. The cashier's check given as a deposit by Pellegrino was endorsed to Blue Ribbon Realty account #0880510063. The Lakefront transaction did not close, and Pellegrino demanded that Respondent return the $5,000 earnest money deposit on several occasions. Respondent has not returned the $5,000 deposit or any portion thereof to Pellegrino. The $5,000 earnest money deposit for the Lakefront contract was transferred to a mortgage company for a transaction involving a condominium that Pellegrino sought to purchase. Said condominium transaction did not close. In neither case did Respondent request the Florida Real Estate Commission to issue an escrow disbursement order. On July 2, 1990, the Florida Real Estate Commission entered a Final Order in the case of Department of Professional Regulation v. Joyce Wolford, finding Respondent guilty of failure to account and deliver a commission to a salesman and imposing a reprimand and an administrative fine of $1000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of having violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes (1989), as charged in Counts I, II, III and IV of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that Respondent's real estate license be suspended for two years, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 and, upon completion of the suspension period, placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years with such conditions as the Commission may find just and reasonable. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 8th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,1,7,18,19,20,21,22,24 (in part), 25 Rejected as cumulative or irrelevant: 7,8,23,24 (in part) Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraph 1 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: Paragraph 2,3 COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Raymond Bodiford, Esquire 47 East Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Respondent, Evon E. Brewton, is a licensed real estate broker/salesman whose license has been in an inactive (dormant) status for approximately one year. Respondent has been a resident of Bay County since approximately 1924. On March 29, 1978, Respondent assisted Mildred C. Webber, a real estate developer, in the search of property suitable for development purposes in Bay County, Florida. Such efforts led Respondent to seek out Walter 13. West, who had a parcel of property in Bay County that he desired a "quick sale". To accomplish such a sale, local T.V. advertisements were used. Respondent's efforts resulted in a contract between Mildred C. Webber and Walter B. West (Seller) for the purchase and sale of the West property for a purchase price of $115,500.00. Mr. West, the Seller, in unequivocal terms and conditions, made clear to Respondent that he was desirous of selling the property to the first purchaser who was able to tender an acceptable cash offer. Seller West also made clear to Respondent that all offers must contain a sizeable cash deposit to secure the property and which deposit he would consider forfeited provided the transaction failed to close. These conditions were made clear to Ms. Webber by Respondent and she agreed to place a $5,000.00 deposit in the form of a check which was turned over to the Seller. Mr. West accepted Ms. Webber's offer to purchase the property described as Parcel No. 1 for the price of $115,500.00. The $5,000.00 deposit check tendered by Ms. Webber was signed over to the Seller and was immediately negotiated by Mr. West. Also on March 29, 1978, Respondent secured a contract from Seller West for Ms. Webber to purchase a second parcel of property for which Ms. Webber placed a $500.00 earnest money deposit to secure the offer. Although Mr. West granted Ms. Webber two extensions of time to secure funds to finance the purchase of the two parcels of property, she was unable to secure financing to close the transaction. As a result, Seller West considered Ms. Webber's deposits to be forfeited and, accordingly, he retained the deposit monies. Real estate salesmen R. B. Ballard and J. K. Watts appeared and expressed their familiarity with the West/Webber real estate transactions. Witnesses Ballard and Watts corroborated the pertinent testimony of Respondent respecting the facts that prospective purchaser Webber understood Seller West's conditions and the resulting consequences should she be unable to secure financing to purchase the property. In this regard, testimony herein indicates that Ms. Webber, a knowledgeable real estate developers has not made any demands upon Mr. West to obtain a refund of the deposit monies, nor has any litigation been instituted by her to recover such deposit monies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings or Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the complaint allegations charging that Respondent violated Subsection 475.25(1)(a) and (i) Florida Statutes, be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Collins Building Room 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1980.
The Issue Is Respondent, Victoria D. Wiedle, guilty of failure to account for and deliver funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent Wiedle was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number BK-0646846, and was principal broker of Escarosa Realty. Respondent's license is still active. Janice Marlene Christian is a realtor associate. She was an independent contractor with Escarosa Realty from December 1998 until April 1999. Accordingly, Respondent Wiedle was Ms. Christian's registered broker during this time. Ms. Beverly Lewis is the mother-in-law of Ms. Christian's brother. Ms. Lewis came to Ms. Christian in February 1999 because she was interested in looking for and purchasing a house. On February 16, 1999, Ms. Christian facilitated an Exclusive Buyer Brokerage Agreement (the Agreement) on behalf of Escarosa Realty with Ms. Lewis. The Agreement was on a form created by Formulator, a software company. "Florida Association of Realtors" appears on the face of the document. Paragraph 6 of the Agreement reads in pertinent part: RETAINER: Upon final execution of this agreement, Buyer will pay to Broker a non- refundable retainer fee of $0 for Broker's services ("Retainer"). Accordingly, Respondent was not entitled to any money as a retainer fee for broker services pursuant to this agreement. The agreement was signed by Ms. Lewis, Ms. Christian, and Ms. Wiedle and became effective on February 16, 1999. The specified termination date of the agreement was August 17, 1999. On or about February 27, 1999, Ms. Christian tendered an offer to sellers on behalf of Ms. Lewis, for property located at 107 Poi Avenue in Santa Rosa County (subject property). Pursuant to this offer, Ms. Lewis gave a $500.00 check dated February 27, 1999, to Ms. Christian as earnest money. The check is made out as follows: "Escarosa Realty Inc. Escrow". Ms. Lewis wrote in the memo section of the check that the check was escrow money for 107 Poi Terrace. The $500.00 check was deposited in Escarosa Realty's escrow account on March 1, 1999. Respondent accounted for the $500.00 check on the March 1999 monthly reconciliation statement for Escarosa Realty. The seller of the subject property made a counter- offer for a higher price which Ms. Lewis rejected. The testimony differs as to what happened next. According to Ms. Christian, Ms. Christian spoke to Respondent sometime after Ms. Lewis rejected the counter-offer about refunding the escrow money to Ms. Lewis. According to Ms. Christian, Respondent informed her that she did not have to give the escrow money back to Ms. Lewis yet because she had the buyer broker agreement. Ms. Christian further asserts that she filled out a written request on March 16, 1999, on a form entitled "EMD Request," which means earnest money deposit request, and gave it to Respondent who again asserted that the $500.00 did not need to be returned at that time because of the buyer brokerage agreement. Ms. Christian's testimony is consistent with Ms. Lewis's. According to Ms. Lewis, she talked to Ms. Christian about getting a refund of the $500.00 shortly after she rejected the counter-offer. She and Ms. Christian discussed the EMD form. She initially agreed that Respondent could temporarily maintain the escrow funds. However, when Ms. Lewis discovered that the financing she was seeking through the rural development program would take several months, she decided she wanted the money returned. Ms. Christian ended her contract with Escarosa Realty effective April 14, 1999. Because Ms. Christian was no longer at Escarosa, Ms. Lewis contacted Respondent by telephone on or about April 21, 1999. Ms. Lewis informed Respondent about the purchase offer and rejection of the counter-offer for the subject property. According to Ms. Lewis, Respondent initially told her she would return the money to her in the mail. When she did not receive it, Ms. Lewis again called Respondent and was told that the $500.00 would not be returned because of the buyer brokerage agreement was still in place. Ms. Lewis asserts that Respondent never told her any request for a refund of the $500.00 had to be in writing. Ms. Lewis then went to the Escarosa Realty office. Ms. Weidle was not there but Elnora Alexander was there. Ms. Alexander was also a realtor associate who was an independent contractor with Escarosa Realty. Ms. Lewis explained to Ms. Alexander about the circumstances of the subject property and that she wanted her earnest money back. Ms. Alexander gave a copy of the buyer broker agreement to Ms. Lewis. After going to Escarosa Realty, Ms. Lewis had numerous other telephone conversations with Respondent about the money. Respondent denies any knowledge of the Poi Terrace failed transaction until she spoke to Ms. Lewis on the phone. She also denied ever receiving the EMD request from Ms. Christian. Respondent asserts that she repeatedly told Ms. Lewis that she would return the $500.00 if Ms. Lewis would only make a request in writing, but that Ms. Lewis refused. This assertion is not credible. It is inconceivable that after all of the efforts made by Ms. Lewis to get her $500.00 returned to her, that she would refuse to make a written request for the money. In any event, there is no dispute that Ms. Lewis made verbal requests to Respondent for the return of the escrow monies. Respondent Wiedle admits that Ms. Lewis requested the money over the telephone. Further, in an April 2, 2001 letter from Respondent to the Division of Real Estate, Respondent acknowledged that Ms. Lewis asked for a refund of the money in the beginning of May and again in early June of 1999. Clearly, if Respondent Wiedle had not previously been aware of the failed Poi Terrace transaction, she was made aware of it during the telephone conversations with Ms. Lewis. Notwithstanding Respondent's assertion that the reason she did not refund the $500.00 to Ms. Lewis was that the request was not in writing, it is clear from Respondent's testimony and from a letter she wrote to Mr. Clanton, Petitioner's investigator, that she believed the $500.00 was connected to the buyer brokerage agreement, not to any offer for purchase of property. In an undated letter from Respondent Wiedle to Mr. Clanton, Respondent wrote: Dear Mr. Clanton, This is in response to your letter dated August 17th, 1999. First Beverly A. Lewis was refunded her money on August 20, 1999 check #111. Second I would like to respond to her complaint. Beverly A. Lewis signed a Exclusive Buyer Brokerage Agreement with EscaRosa Realty, Inc. on February 16th, 1999 with it to terminate on August 17th 1999. Beverly A. Lewis knew that her deposit was a refundable deposit after the agreement is expired not before. As the Broker of this company I had no contact with Beverly Lewis until the agent Marlene Christian was asked to leave the company. If there ever was a contract for her to purchase a house then her agent Marlene Christian never informed me of nor did she ever provide any such contract. The deposit was given to me with the Exclusive Buyer Brokerage Agreement only. Nor did her agent Marlene ever fill out the EMD refund request form requesting a refund to be given to Beverly A. Lewis. However, The result would have been the same. I asked Beverly Lewis If she had changed her mind on purchasing a house she said no she was still going to buy a house but that she knew if she didn't buy her house through Marlene at her new company that Marlene would make life very hard on her. I told her I was sorry but that is the whole purpose in the contract was to secure your buyers from just going all over the place. . . .(emphasis supplied) Respondent refunded the $500.00 to Ms. Lewis on August 10, 1999. At hearing, Respondent volunteered that there was a previous complaint against her for failing to return money she held under a buyer brokerage agreement with a former client. In that instance, the Probable Cause Panel of the Florida Real Estate Commission found no probable cause but issued a letter of guidance to Respondent.1
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, the evidence of record and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding the Respondent, Victoria D. Wiedle, guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, in that she failed to deliver escrow money upon demand, imposing a fine of $1,000.00, and placing Respondent Wiedle on probation for a period of two years. As conditions of probation, Respondent should be required to attend a continuing education course which addresses appropriate handling of escrow funds and be subject to periodic inspections and interviews by a Department of Business and Professional Regulation investigator. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2002.
Findings Of Fact On May 18, 1978, the Respondents, C. H. Chapman and Chapman Realty Corporation (hereafter Respondents or Chapman) through a registered real estate salesman in the employ of the Respondents, negotiated and obtained a sales contract between Gerry and Ada Ball, as buyers or purchasers and Joseph Winston, as seller, for the sale of property located at 305 Ben Avon Drive, Tampa, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of the sales contract, the Respondents' salesman received a $1,000.00 deposit from the purchasers which was placed in the Respondents' trust account on May 5, 1978. Prior to the date of the scheduled closing, the purchasers inspected the property and requested the seller to make certain repairs and/or replacements to rectify defects which included wood borer damage, structural roof problems and an inoperable pool heater. The seller refused to make the repairs and/or replacements demanded and the offer was formally withdrawn by the purchasers on July 28, 1978, via letter to Chapman Realty requesting return of their $1,000.00 earnest money deposit. Prior to formal withdrawal of the offer, verbal demands were made by Mr. Hall upon Chapman Realty for the return of his deposit. The demand for repairs and/or replacements and withdrawal of the offer was predicated on a provision of the sales contract which provided: Buyers themselves, or at their expense may have property inspected to ensure that there are no structural, electrical or plumbing defects. If any are found, buyers have the right to withdraw their offer and have all of their earnest deposit refunded to them. Thereafter, Respondent Chapman disbursed the $1,000.00 as follows: $350.00 via check dated September 6, 1978, made payable to Robert A. Carbonell, an attorney-at-law in Florida. $500.00 via check dated January 9, 1979, made payable to purchasers Hall. $150.00 via check dated January 10, 1979, made payable to Robert A. Carbonell. Prior to any disbursal the Respondent Chapman discussed with Mr. Hall the possibility of placing the escrowed funds with the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Respondent Chapman contacted his attorney, Robert Carbonell, regarding the conflicting demands of the parties. Mr. Carbonell was introduced to Mr. Hall by the Respondent over the telephone. The Respondent met with Mr. Carbonell on a regular basis since Mr. Carbonell was employed by the Respondent to handle real estate transactions involving Chapman Realty. Respondent was never authorized by the purchasers to pay a fee to Mr. Carbonell directly from the $1,000.00 deposit held in trust. The $500.00 was paid directly by the Respondent to Attorney Carbonell from the Chapman Realty escrow account without oral or written authorization of the seller or the purchasers and in the absence of a settlement agreement between the Hall's and Mr. Winston. Although Mr. Carbonell and the Respondent Chapman believed that Mr. Carbonell was representing Mr. Hall, neither Mr. Hall nor the seller, Mr. Winston, were under the same impression. Both Mr. Hall and Mr. Winston believed that Mr. Carbonell was representing the Respondents rather than Mr. Hall. Such an impression was reasonable in light of Mr. Carbonell's regular employment by the Respondent, the absence of a written agreement between Mr. Hall and Mr. Carbonell coupled with the lack of discussion or agreement concerning fees and the potential conflicting positions which existed between the parties and the Respondents. If any fee were due to Attorney Carbonell for his efforts in securing the return of the $1,000.00 deposit, this was a matter between Mr. Carbonell and Mr. Hall. Neither Mr. Carbonell nor the Respondent Chapman discussed the amount of the fee with the Halls. Mr. Carbonell arrived at the amount he thought was reasonable, $500.00, and Respondent Chapman diverted such amount to Mr. Carbonell from the Respondent's escrow account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondents', C. H. Chapman and Chapman Realty Corporation licenses to practice real estate be suspended until restitution is made to Gerry and Ada A. Hall, as follows: $500.00 plus interest at 12 percent accrued since July 28, 1978, and Interest on $500.00 accrued at 12 percent for the period from July 28, 1973 until January 9, 1979. Respondents' licenses to be reinstated upon submission and acceptance by the Board of Real Estate of satisfactory evidence of payment. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April, 1981, 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 7th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Staff Attorney 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dale W. Vash, Esquire DIXON, LAWSON & BROWN 620 Twiggs Street Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, SA Lee was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate salesperson, having been issued license number SL-0640485 on July 15, 1996. Further, Respondent SA Lee was a real estate salesperson in association with Respondent Realty, a real estate broker corporation. At all times material hereto, Respondent SE Lee was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate broker, having been issued license number BK-0594787. Further, Respondent SE Lee was the qualifying broker and officer of Respondent Realty. At all times material hereto, Respondent Realty was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate broker corporation, having been issued license number CQ-0272573. In 1996, Brian Mulally (buyer) wanted to buy certain residential property located at 4397 Vicliff Road, West Palm Beach, Florida. Maryann Duchesne and Margaret Reppucci were the sellers of the property. Medallion Realty was the listing broker for the property. Paula Castro was the real estate salesperson representing Medallion Realty. The sellers authorized Medallion Realty and Ms. Castro to represent them, to be their agents in the sale of their property. Respondent SA Lee, as sales agent for Respondent Realty, notified the buyer that she was not representing him. The buyer knew at all times that Respondent SA Lee was not his representative in the purchase of the property. In a "Disclosure" document dated September 4, 1996, the buyer acknowledged that Respondent SA Lee was not representing him and that the sellers were compensating Respondent SA Lee.1 The sellers did not authorize Respondent SA Lee to represent them in the sale of their property and were not aware of the Disclosure document. Respondent SA Lee and Respondent Realty were not representing the sellers or the buyer. However, an inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that Respondent SA Lee and Respondent Realty were working together with Medallion Realty in the sale of the property and that Respondent SA Lee and Respondent Realty were sub-agents of Medallion Realty.2 The buyer and sellers executed a Contract for Sale and Purchase (Contract) of the property, with the buyer executing the Contract on September 30, 1996, and the sellers on October 1, 1996. The effective date of the Contract was October 1, 1996. The Contract provided, among other things, that Respondent Realty would hold deposits in escrow; that the buyer's first deposit would be $100; that the buyer's second deposit of $1,900 would be made within five days of October 1, 1996; that, within five days of October 1, 1996, the buyer would make application for a mortgage loan; that, within 15 days of October 1, 1996, the buyer would obtain a written commitment for a mortgage loan; that the closing date was October 31, 1996; and that Medallion Realty and Respondent Realty were the listing broker and cooperating broker, respectively. The buyer was to obtain the money for the second deposit from a family member. He had planned a trip around the time of the execution of the Contract, during which he would obtain the money for the second deposit. When the buyer returned from his trip, he did not have the money for the second deposit. The buyer informed Respondent SA Lee of his failure to return with the money for the second deposit. Shortly thereafter, Respondent SA Lee and Ms. Castro had a telephone conversation regarding the property. During their conversation, Respondent SA Lee informed Ms. Castro that the buyer had not made the second deposit but that he was still going to obtain the money for the second deposit. The disclosure to the sellers' agent, Ms. Castro, of the buyer's failure to remit the second deposit was before the due date for the deposit, which was on or before October 6, 1996. Ms. Castro continued to make inquiries to Respondent SA Lee as to the payment of the second deposit by the buyer. Respondent SA Lee informed Ms. Castro that she was trying to get the deposit from the buyer who was advising her (Respondent SA Lee) that he was getting the money for the deposit. Ms. Castro was continuously aware that the buyer had not remitted the second deposit to Respondent SA Lee. Respondent SA Lee and Ms. Castro wanted the real estate transaction to proceed. Respondent SA Lee's communication with the sellers was through Ms. Castro. Respondent SA Lee did not have access to a telephone number for the sellers. The sellers obtained the services of a closing agent, who was also their attorney. On or about October 11, 1996, approximately five days after the due date for the second deposit, the sellers' attorney, acting as closing agent, contacted Ms. Castro regarding the second deposit. Ms. Castro informed the sellers' attorney that she would contact Respondent SA Lee and get back with her (the sellers' attorney). On or about October 15, 1996, approximately nine days after the due date for the second deposit, the sellers' attorney, in her role as the closing agent, contacted Respondent SA Lee and requested an escrow letter regarding the second deposit. Obtaining the escrow letter would allow the beginning of the preparation of the closing documents. Respondent SA Lee informed the sellers' attorney that she would contact Ms. Castro and that Ms. Castro would in turn contact the sellers' attorney. Respondent SA Lee contacted Ms. Castro. No escrow letter was forwarded to the sellers' closing agent because no second deposit had been made by the buyer. Even without the escrow letter, the closing agent began the preparation of the closing documents. Thereafter, the sellers' attorney, acting as closing agent, contacted Respondent SA Lee several times regarding the remittance of the second deposit, but Respondent SA Lee never gave the sellers' closing agent a forthright response; Respondent SA Lee never informed the sellers' closing agent that the buyer had not remitted the second deposit.3 Respondent continued to communicate with Ms. Castro regarding the second deposit. The sellers' closing agent was not informed until around October 28 or 29, 1996, that the buyer had not remitted the second deposit. Other problems, regarding the real estate transaction, in addition to the remittance of the second deposit, erupted between the buyer and the sellers. At that time Ms. Castro allowed the sellers' attorney to step-in and handle all matters regarding the transaction. The evidence indicates that this change occurred sometime between October 15 and October 30, 1996. When the sellers' attorney began to handle all matters regarding the real estate transaction, Respondent SA Lee should have, but did not, inform the sellers' attorney that the buyer had not remitted the money for the second deposit. The second deposit was eventually remitted by the buyer on or about October 30, 1996. The buyer forwarded the money directly to the sellers' attorney per Respondent SA Lee's instructions. For several reasons, including the buyer's failure to timely remit the second deposit, the closing did not occur on October 31, 1996, as provided in the Contract. The closing on the property occurred on November 27, 1996. Sometime after the closing of the real estate transaction, Respondent SE Lee ceased to be the qualifying broker for Respondent Realty. Sharon E. Lee became the qualifying broker and officer for Respondent Realty. No evidence was presented by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Petitioner) as to Respondent SE Lee's failure to properly supervise the activities of Respondent SA Lee or Respondent Realty. No evidence was presented as to whether Respondent SA Lee or Respondent Realty had a history of disciplinary action taken against them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate enter a final order and therein: Dismiss Count III against Stephen E. Lee. Find Sherry Ann Lee guilty of Counts I and II. Find C. Mist Realty, Inc. guilty of Count IV. Impose upon Sherry Ann Lee an administrative fine of $1,000, payable under the terms and conditions deemed appropriate, and the completion of a 45-hour post-licensure course. Reprimand C. Mist Realty, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Kenneth M. Olson, Jr., is a registered real estate broker with the FREC and Active Firm Member of Olson and Associates Real Estate, Inc., a corporate broker registered with the FREC. A copy of the Administrative Complaint was forwarded to the last address of Defendants registered with the FREC by certified mail numbers 4747 and 4748 and the notice of hearing was forwarded to the same address by certified mail numbers 4613 and 4614. Accordingly the Hearing Officer had jurisdiction over the Defendants and the offenses. By contract dated September 17, 1975 (Exhibit 6) Joseph J. Pillucere contracted to purchase real property from Paul L. Nave. The contract provided, inter alia, for a $500 earnest money deposit, $9500 down payment at closing with purchaser to assume existing first mortgage of approximately $28,000; and the seller taking back a purchase money second mortgage in the amount of $17,000. Thereafter, at the time scheduled for closing, the purchaser failed to produce the additional down payment required, execute the second mortgage and assume the existing first mortgage. After receiving conflicting demands from buyer and seller for the return of the earnest money deposit Defendant requested an advisory opinion from the FREC in accordance with Section 475.25(1)(c) FS. On May 13, 1976 an advisory opinion (Exhibit 5) was given by FREC to the Defendant, with copies to both parties to the contract, advising Defendant that the earnest money deposit should-be disbursed to the seller. The deposit has been disbursed to neither party to the contract.
