Findings Of Fact Donald L. Stuart is a real estate broker registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission. He holds license number 215732 with expiration date of 3/3/77. In the renewal application received April 3, 1975 by FREC, Stuart reported his business address to be 407 S. Old Dixie Highway, Vero Beach, Florida. In early August, 1976 an investigator for FREC visited the address on South Old Dixie Highway and found a vacant house with no real estate broker's sign displayed. Inquiry in the neighborhood revealed the house had been unoccupied for a considerable period of time. By Election of Rights form submitted November 26, 1976, Stuart acknowledged receipt of the Administrative Complaint by checking Block 1 in which he acknowledged having read the explanation of rights, did not dispute the allegations made in the Administrative Complaint, and requested a hearing. Notice of Hearing was forwarded by Certified Mail, to the same address, viz. 407 S. Old Dixie Highway, Vero Beach, Florida to which the Administrative Complaint had been forwarded.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in acts and/or conduct amounting to fraud, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in a business transaction for which his real estate license should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints filed pursuant to, inter alia, Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, John Wilson Claffey, is now and was at times material hereto, a licensed real estate salesperson in Florida, having been issued licensed number 0419730. The last license issued was as a salesperson, c/o Venice Properties and Investments, Inc., 628 Cypress Avenue, Venice, Florida. During 1985, Respondent and Mary Lou Retty (Retty), while Respondent was acting as the licensed general contractor in the employ of Venice Construction Management, Inc., entered into a verbal agreement to build five commercial structures (for Retty) in Venice, Florida. The agreement provided that Respondent would charge Retty actual costs plus a supervisory fee for each building. Respondent built the first two buildings as agreed in keeping with the projections he provided Retty. However, a dispute later arose between Respondent and Retty during construction of the third building about some of the billings and other accounting practices with the end result that Retty suspected that Respondent was overcharging by falsifying invoices and purchasing materials which were used for other projects, but were charged to the building he was erecting for Retty. During 1986, Retty filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit for Sarasota County, Florida. Retty's object was to recover monies that she suspected Respondent had misappropriated and wrongfully charged to her project. On April 25, 1990 and June 28, 1990, Retty obtained two final judgments. The first judgment ordered Respondent to pay Retty $40,263.47 and the second final judgment ordered him to pay her the sum of $10,263.47 for civil theft, attorney fees and court costs. The interest rate for both judgments was 12% per annum. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1-4.) During counsel's preparation and discovery for trial, it became evident that Respondent altered several billing invoices which he sought to collect from Retty. Respondent submitted falsified invoices and charged Retty for materials that he used on other projects. Respondent unsuccessfully appealed the final judgments. To date, Respondent has not paid any of the monies he was ordered to pay in the final judgments referenced herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order finding that Respondent engaged in proscribed conduct as alleged and that his real estate license be suspended for seven (7) years. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent Claffey pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the entry of its Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 29th day of January, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Senior Attorney DPR- Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 John Wilson Claffey 312 Venice Avenue East #126 Venice, Florida 34292 Darlene F. Keller/Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Hurston Building-North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 1772 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0792
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in this case, Respondent was a Florida licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license numbered 0376339. Respondent had been employed by American Specialty Properties (ASP) for several years as an expediter prior to being assigned to Tampa, Florida. As an expediter, his duties were to take over stagnated operations of his employer and take whatever action was necessary to clear blockages and bring the operation to a successful conclusion. Respondent came to Tampa to resolve difficulties his employer, ASP, was encountering in regard to certain properties it had contracted to purchase at the Mission Bell Square shopping center being developed in Tampa by K-Mart Corporation. ASP wanted to build on the out-lots and lease the properties to various selected tenants. However, numerous legal and technical problems had come up that delayed the projects, and Respondent was to resolve those problems and get the structures erected and leased. It very soon became apparent to Respondent that his duties for ASP would not occupy all his time, so he secured the permission of Mark M. Mayers, president of ASP and Respondent's employer, to apply for a Florida real estate license and, once having secured it, to engage in outside employment to earn extra income. In furtherance of that plan, after becoming licensed as a real estate salesman, Respondent entered into an arrangement with Timothy Kerwin, president of Max Properties, Inc., in November, 1980, whereby Respondent's license would be registered with that firm, but no actual work would be done within that relationship by Respondent until some further date when Respondent was finished with his Mission Bell Square duties and room was available for him within the Max Properties organization. Kerwin says he does not recall knowing of Respondent's other employment with ASP until February, 1982, when he discovered that Respondent had been instrumental in the sale of the four out-lots at Mission Bell Square, which sale had not gone through Max Properties. He does admit, however, that Respondent may have discussed his work with ASP earlier than February, 1982, and in fact may have advised him that he, Respondent, still had work to do for ASP before he could do work for Kerwin. Kerwin did not, however, check with ASP to determine Respondent's status when he became aware of the possible conflict. When Kerwin found out about the closing of the sales on the Mission Bell Square out-lots, he questioned Respondent about them, and Respondent readily advised him that two lots had been closed and the remaining two were about to be closed. Respondent did bring about the sale of the four out-lots in question. At the time he did this, he was an employee of ASP and paid a regular salary of $2,000 per month plus expenses. A memorandum purportedly from Mr. Mayers dated March 25, 1982, to James W. Roberts, Jr., an independent real estate broker who-had done work on this property for ASP, indicates Respondent was to receive $1,250 commission for the sale of each of the four lots. However, Mr. Mayers indicated that he did not prepare the memorandum, did not sign it, and renounced it. In fact, Mr. Mayers' assistant, Tom Ferguson, in discussions with Mr. Roberts, indicated that notwithstanding the commissions mentioned in the memorandum, Respondent was paid only salary and expenses, and no commissions. I find, therefore, that Respondent did not receive any commission for these transactions nor, for that matter, at any time while he was an employee of ASP. The sale of the four lots was dictated by Respondent's employers at ASP, who, because of changed economic factors, made a business decision to dispose of the four properties rather than follow the prior plan of developing and leasing them. Respondent, in arranging the sales, was following the directions of his employers--not serving as a broker or salesman for commission. The sales were arranged through the offices of Mr. Roberts, and Respondent did not receive any commission out of these sales. He did, however, receive a bonus to his regular salary from ASP, his employer, as a reward for extricating his employer from a potentially unprofitable business arrangement. The negotiations for the sale, however, were conducted during the time Respondent's real estate license was registered with Max Properties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent in this action be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Stephen M. Crawford, Esquire Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A. Post Office Box 3433 Tampa, Florida 33601 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a real estate broker should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the amended administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Yolanda Jean Ramsey, was a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0012364 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). When the events herein occurred, respondent operated a real estate firm under the name of Ramsey Realty located at 19940 Gulf Boulevard, Indian Shores, Florida. Her husband, Drew Ramsey, was a condominium developer but he was not a licensed realtor. Sandra A. Hawley (Hawley) was a licensed salesperson for Ramsey Realty from April 1981 until she was terminated by respondent on January 6, 1982. She was employed by respondent pursuant to an oral agreement and was to receive a 3% commission on all closed sales. This description of Hawley's compensation arrangement was not contradicted by respondent. Drew Ramsey was then developing several condominium projects in Pinellas County, and Hawley's sales activities were focused on the sale of those condominiums through Ramsey Realty. Hawley was described by respondent as being the best salesperson in the firm. From April 1981 through December 1981, Hawley recalled that her W-2 statement reflected $76,000 in commissions actually received. By the time she was terminated, Hawley represented that she had either closed on units or had firm contracts on other units to earn an additional $279,000 in commissions. Although respondent did not agree she owed Hawley any money due to various setoffs, the $279,000 figure was not credibly contradicted, particularly since respondent's records relating to those sales were allegedly destroyed or lost by respondent at about the time certain civil litigation was begun by Hawley. On January 6, 1982, respondent was terminated by respondent for cause. According to respondent, Hawley was delinquent in making payments to her husband for several condominium units Hawley had bought for investment purposes, and on one occasion, Hawley had not turned over to Ramsey Realty a deposit on a resale of a unit. She was also accused of bouncing checks. After she left Ramsey Realty, Hawley made demand for commissions still owed. Between January and June 1982 she was paid approximately $40,000 by respondent but received nothing after that. She eventually sued respondent in circuit court for the unpaid commissions and obtained a final judgment against respondent on December 10, 1987 for $76,000 plus interest, or a total of $118,618.88. To date, Hawley has been unable to obtain payment of the judgment. At hearing respondent acknowledged that a judgment pertaining to Hawley's unpaid commissions was entered against her and that no appeal of that judgment was taken. According to Ramsey, she has refused to pay Hawley based upon her attorney's advice. Respondent's principal defense against paying the commissions is that Hawley allegedly owes her and her husband substantial amounts of money which offset the earned commissions. Testimony at hearing revealed that these matters have been the subject of extensive and lengthy civil litigation between Hawley and the Ramseys. Hawley represented that she has prevailed in all court actions, and this was not contradicted by respondent. However, none of the judgments and mandates (if an appeal was taken) were made a part of this record. The principal offset relates to a lease-purchase agreement entered into by Hawley and her son, James Monette, Jr., and Drew Ramsey in June 1981 whereby Hawley and her son agreed to lease, with an option to purchase, a restaurant/bar known as The End Zone located on Dale Mabry Avenue in Tampa, Florida. On June 18, 1981 Hawley and her son executed a promissory note in the amount of $170,000 payable to Drew Ramsey and to be secured "by an assignment of commissions of even date herewith". The note also provided that "certain commissions earned by Sandra A. Hawley as a real estate salesperson for Ramsey Realty ... shall be applied as prepayments on account hereof." This was confirmed in a letter sent by Hawley to respondent on June 18, 1981. The letter authorized Ramsey to "pay one-half of all commissions which I have earned or will earn from working as a real estate person for Ramsey Realty to Drew Ramsey on account of the indebtedness under the Note until it is paid in full." The letter further provided that if Drew felt "insecure" about the note, Yolanda was authorized to "assign such greater percentage of (her) commissions to Drew Ramsey on account of the indebtedness until it is paid in full." Hawley admitted signing the promissory note but pointed out that she had earned enough commissions to easily pay off the note. She contended that the transaction was a ploy to allow Ramsey to retain all of her commissions and thereby deprive her of adequate capital to successfully operate the restaurant. Hawley further asserted that the transaction was later declared null and void in one of the civil actions between the parties because of certain fraudulent representations made by Drew in inducing her to enter into the agreement. However, the final judgment, which is the best evidence of the outcome of the suit, is not of record. On October 1, 1981, an agreement and promissory note was executed by Hawley wherein she promised to pay Drew Ramsey and his partner, George Karpay, $58,162.90 plus 18% interest for monthly payments owed Ramsey and Karpay on five condominium units Hawley had previously purchased from them. The note was secured by Hawley's commissions earned at Ramsey Realty. Hawley acknowledged that the signature on the documents was her own but contended that the documents had been altered after she signed them. On October 1, 1981, Hawley also executed an assignment of commissions whereby she agreed to authorize Ramsey Realty to disburse all commissions earned to Drew Ramsey and Karpay until the promissory note described in finding of fact 9 was satisfied. Again, Hawley acknowledged that the signature appeared to be her own but she contended the document was altered after it was signed. According to respondent, the commissions earned by Hawley were not held in the firm's escrow account. Instead, while Hawley was still an employee, such moneys were disbursed by the title company at closing directly to Ramsey Realty, and then Ramsey wrote a check to Hawley as commission compensation. After Hawley was terminated, the manner in which Ramsey received Hawley's earned commissions and their subsequent disposition are not of record. However, respondent represented, without contradiction, that they were not held in the firm's escrow account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating subsection 475.25(1)(d) and that her broker's license be suspended for three years. The other charge should be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 1989.
The Issue At issue herein is whether respondents' real estate licenses should be disciplined for-the alleged violations set forth in the administrative complaint. Based upon all of the evidence, the following facts are determined:
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Juan Rios, was a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0155126 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. Respondent, Victoria R. Rios, is a licensed real estate broker-salesman having been issued license number 0331183 by petitioner. The Rios are husband and wife and presently reside at 855 80th Street, #1, Miami Beach, Florida. On December 13, 1982, Juan Rios obtained a six-month multiple listing agreement to sell a house located in Hacienda Estates at 11451 S.W. 33rd Lane, Miami, Florida. The agreement was executed by Rios "As Realtor" and by the property owner, Mercedes Garcia. At Mercedes' request, the Rios placed an initial sales price of $145,000 on the home. On December 15, a similar agreement was executed by Rios and Garcia on condominium unit 9B, Laguna Club Condominium, 10710 N. W. 7th Street, Miami, Florida. That property was also owned by Garcia. Although the agreement introduced into evidence does not contain Rios' signature, at final hearing Juan Rios acknowledged that he had executed such an agreement. The listing agreements provided that if the properties were leased during the term of the agreements, the listing realtor would receive a brokerage fee of 10% for such leasing. The agreement also provided that the realtors were not responsible for vandalism, theft or damage of any nature to the property. Garcia is a native and resident of Venezuela, where she owns a radio station. The two properties in question were previously owned by her father. When the father died, apparently sometime in 1982, Mercedes inherited the house and condominium. The Rios were friends of the father, and agreed to list and manage the properties as a favor to the deceased. Mercedes left the country after the agreements were signed, and has apparently not returned. Although she is the complainant who initiated this matter, she did not appear at final hearing. The house at 11451 S. W. 33rd Lane had been vandalized prior to the listing agreement being signed. According to documents introduced into evidence, the property has also been the subject of subsequent vandalisms, the nature and extent of which are unknown. A tenant was eventually procured by Mercedes' aunt in February, 1983 at a monthly rate of $800. The tenant, a Mrs. Ramirez, paid some $4,800 in rents and deposits before she was killed at the home in June, 1983. The Rios spent some $2,644.36 of the $4,800 on repairs to the vandalism and for general maintenance. They also retained a 10% commission for their services, or $480. That left $1,675.64 owed to Mercedes. No lease was apparently ever signed by Ramirez, or at least none was given to the Rios by the relative who procured the tenant. The home was eventually sold to Mercedes' aunt for $85,000.1 None of the rental monies were placed in the Rios' trust account. The condominium unit was rented in June, 1983. The tenant, Oscar Ruiz, had answered an advertisement run by the Rios in a local newspaper. Although Ruiz executed a lease to rent the unit at a monthly rate of $500, the Rios did not have a copy of same, and claimed none was kept in their records. According to the Rios, Ruiz continued to rent the unit through April, 1984, or for eleven months. Total monies collected by the Rios from Ruiz, including a $500 security deposit, were $6,000, of which $3,364.86 was spent for maintenance, utilities, two mortgage payments, and a $500 payment to the owner (Mercedes). An additional $40.33 was spent on a plumbing bill, and $600 was retained as a commission by the Rios. This left $2,724.53 owed to Mercedes. None of the rental monies were placed in the Rios' trust account. In the spring of 1984, Mercedes retained the services of an attorney in Miami to seek her monies due from the Rios. Up to then, she had received no income or accounting on the two properties. The attorney wrote the Rios on several occasions beginning in April 1984, asking for a copy of the lease on the condominium unit, the security deposit, an accounting of the funds, and all other documents relating to the two, properties. He received his first reply from the Rios on May 3, 1984 who advised him that they had attempted to reach Mercedes by telephone on numerous occasions but that she would never return their calls. They explained that rental proceeds had been used to repair vandalism damage and structural defects. When the attorney did not receive the satisfaction that he desired, he filed a civil action against the Rios on October 10, 1984. On October 26, 1984 the Rios sent Mercedes a letter containing an accounting on the two properties reflecting that she was owed $4,400.17 by the Rios. To pay this, they sent a $140 "official check," and a promissory note for the balance to be paid off in 40 monthly installments at 10% interest. They explained that their real estate business had closed, and due to financial problems, they were unable to pay off the monies due any sooner. They also asked that she instruct her attorney to drop the suit. Mercedes rejected this offer and has continued to pursue the civil action. It is still pending in Dade County Circuit Court. At final hearing, the Rios characterized their involvement with Mercedes as a "professional mistake," and one undertaken out of friendship for Mercedes' father. They acknowledged they did not use a trust account on the transactions and that they had used the $4,400 in rental money due Mercedes for their own use. They considered the excess rent proceeds to be compensation for other "services" performed by them on behalf of Mercedes. However, there is no evidence of any such agreement between the parties reflecting that understanding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Recommended that Juan and Victoria Rios be found guilty as charged in Counts II and III, and be found guilty of culpable negligence and breach of trust in Count I. It is further recommended that Juan Rios' license be suspended for one year and that Victoria Rios' license be suspended for three months. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1986
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated April 2, 2002, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state agency responsible for the licensing, regulation and discipline of real estate appraisal licensees in Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a Florida state-certified residential real estate appraiser. Persons holding such licenses are required by law to assure that the state is apprised of the licensee's physical address. The purpose of the law is to assure that state regulators, as well as clients who may have issues regarding appraisals performed by the licensee, are able to contact the appraiser in a timely manner. At all times material to the charges against him, Respondent registered with Petitioner the address of 5299 West 28th Avenue, Hialeah Gardens, Florida 33016 as his current address. On or about February 2, 1996, Respondent developed and communicated an appraisal report for residential property located at 28204 Southwest 43 Court, Homestead, Florida 33033 (subject property). On or about August 12, 1999, Petitioner received a complaint concerning this appraisal. In furtherance of its legal obligation to investigate such complaints, Petitioner promptly wrote to Respondent at his registered address. The letter was not returned, and thus a legal presumption arises that it was received by the person(s) residing on the premises. That person was Respondent's mother. At the time the letter was sent and received at Becerra's registered address, Becerra himself was living in Colorado. Because Becerra had never notified Petitioner of the change of address; (there is no evidence as to whether Becerra's mother did or did not forward or otherwise deal with her son's mail) the state was thwarted in its efforts to determine the bona fides of the complaint. Eventually, Becerra came back into compliance with his obligation to provide the state with an accurate address. On January 29, 2002, state investigator Brian Piper (Piper) arranged to meet Becerra at his new location, 665 West 35th Street, Hialeah, Florida, a private residence where Becerra maintained a home office. Becerra knew that the purpose of Piper's visit was to investigate the 1999 complaint regarding his appraisal of the subject property in particular, and Becerra's appraisal business in general. Under Florida law, real estate appraisers must maintain a file with all documents pertaining to an appraisal for at least five years after the date of the issuance of the appraisal, and for at least two years after final disposition of any judicial proceeding in which testimony concerning the appraisal was given, whichever period expires last. Thus, by the time Piper met with Becerra regarding the February 2, 1996 appraisal, Becerra was no longer legally obligated to have documents relating to that appraisal in his possession. He was, however, required to cooperate with Piper's investigation. Instead, he was hostile, suspicious, and secretive in his dealings with Piper. Becerra would have been within his rights to say, unambiguously, that the file concerning this appraisal, or any 1996 appraisal for that matter, had been discarded in the ordinary course of business sometime after the five-year statutory record keeping period expired. Becerra did not make such a representation. Instead, he suggested to Piper that his documents were maintained on a computer, and/or at another location. As an afterthought, he raised the possibility that the documents no longer existed. Piper asked, as he was entitled to do, questions regarding Becerra's practices regarding the development and maintenance of records concerning appraisals. Becerra refused to answer. Frustrated in his efforts to determine whether the complaint regarding the 1996 appraisal was valid, Piper sought to exercise on behalf of the state its right to conduct a spot- audit of Becerra's books and records related to pending appraisals. Observing what appeared to be appraisal request forms taped to the wall of the Becerra's office, Piper sought access to the files concerning these appraisals. Becerra refused to cooperate and demanded that Piper leave his home/office. Becerra did not then and did not at hearing claim that Piper had requested information or made demands that he was not lawfully entitled to request or make. Instead, he contended that because more than five years had elapsed between the date of the appraisal and the time the state was able to find Becerra to ask him to produce the documents, Becerra cannot be disciplined for failing to produce the documents. The evidence established that Piper and DBPR acted at all times reasonably and in accordance with their legal duty to investigate specific complaints and to, more generally, monitor the operations of state-licensed appraisers to assure that they are performing their jobs in accordance with Florida law and the public interest. The evidence further established that Becerra's failure to fulfill his statutory duty to keep the state informed of his whereabouts was the sole reason the state had been unable to directly inform Becerra of its need to review the documents, and to conduct appropriate investigations into the quality of the February 2, 1996, appraisal; and, later, into the management of his appraisal business at the time of Piper's visit to Becerra's home office on January 29, 2002. A comparison of the February 2, 1996, appraisal for the subject property with public records which were available at the time the appraisal was rendered revealed several discrepancies. For example, the appraisal reported an incorrect folio number for the subject property, an error which Becerra admits. In addition, the appraisal contained inaccurate information regarding the then-owner of the property and the square footage of the house. It also omitted reference to a previous sale, and made no mention of the fact that the subject property was located in a gated community. Transactions cited in the appraisal as comparable sales were not, in fact, comparable. The appraisal left out the impacts of Hurricane Andrew upon the property; those impacts were, at the time of the appraisal, significant. While the evidence is sufficient to establish that the appraisal was not a model of accuracy and attention to detail, the absence of Becerra's records, coupled with the fact that several pages of the appraisal were missing from the (anonymous) complaint which precipitated the investigation, render it impossible to determine whether Becerra did, in fact, fail to fulfill the minimum standards expected in an appraisal prepared by a Florida licensee. By the time the state was able to locate Becerra and conduct its investigation, the statutory period for which documents pertaining to the appraisal had expired, and it was no longer possible to determine whether Becerra had fulfilled his legal duty to maintain the file for five years. Additionally, it was no longer possible to determine whether there were credible explanations for the discrepancies and apparent errors in the appraisal of the subject property, or whether he had in fact performed the appraisal negligently. Becerra unlawfully failed and refused to cooperate with the state's reasonable inquiry into his current appraisal cases.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.624(1), Florida Statutes, by reason of his violations of Sections 475.623 and 425.626(1)(f), Florida Statutes, imposing a fine of $5,000 and permanently revoking respondent's real estate appraisal license. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 10th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Sergio A. Becerra 665 West 35th Street Hialeah, Florida 33012 Juana Carstarphen Watkins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Hurston Building, North Tower, Suite N308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Frank Gregoire, Chairman Real Estate Appraisal Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the respondents, Dorothea L. Prisament and Warricks Real Estate , Inc., should be disciplined on charges filed in a six-count Administrative Complaint, three counts for each respondent, and alleging that the respondents: (1) were culpably negligent in allowing their escrow account to have a negative balance, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989); (2) failed to maintain trust funds in a properly maintained escrow account, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1989); and (3) failed to maintain a proper office sign, in violation of F.A.C. Rule 21V-10.024 and Sections 475.25(1)(e) and 475.22, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Dorothea L. Prisament and Warricks Real Estate, Inc., are now, and were at all times material hereto, licensed as real estate brokers in the State of Florida. Dorothea L. Prisament was the active real estate broker for the corporate broker, Warricks Real Estate. On or about August 16, 1989, investigator Marjorie G. May conducted an office inspection and audit of the escrow accounts of the respondents. Ms. May also reviewed the outer office of the respondents. The entrance sign did not have the name of Dorothea L. Prisament on it; however, the sign did have Warricks Real Estate correctly identified and identified as a licensed real estate broker. Ms. May advised Ms. Prisament of the fact that Ms. Prisament's name needed to be on the sign and identified as a real estate broker. Ms. Prisament had a new sign made which fully complies with the statutes and rules. There was no evidence introduced at hearing to show that the escrow account of the respondents had a shortage in any amount; directly to the contrary, both the Department of Professional Regulation investigator and Ms. Prisament agreed that there was no shortage in the account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and in light of the fact both that the respondents' violation was a very minor and technical one which was immediately corrected and that the respondents had to undergo the costs of defense of this case and suffer the mental duress of defending this case, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing Counts I through IV of the Administrative Complaint and reprimanding the respondents for a minor and technical violation under Counts V and VI. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine A. Bamping, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire One Urban Centre, Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 Darlene F. Keller Director, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Ezell Realty, Inc., was a licensed corporate real estate broker having been issued license number 0231943 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. Respondent, Winfield Ezell, Sr., held real estate broker's license number 0309739 issued by petitioner and was the sole qualifying broker and officer of Ezell Realty, Inc. The firm is located at 1512 West Gore Street, Orlando, Florida. Grover Crawford was an acquaintance of Ezell who was interested in purchasing certain rental property on Coretta Way in Orlando, Florida. When he was unable to purchase the property Crawford told Ezell to let him know if anything else became available in that area. Ezell happened to own a rental house at 1121 Coretta Way which he had just purchased several months earlier in a foreclosure proceeding, and the two eventually began discussions concerning a possible sale. At all times relevant thereto, the house was rented to tenants, and Crawford intended the property to remain as investor-owned property rather than owner-occupied property. Ezell initially agreed to sell the property for $70,000 and the two entered into a contract on January 8, 1983, using this sales price. However, the lender's appraisal of the residence came in far below this figure, and the parties eventually agreed on a sales price of $55,450. A second contract for sale and purchaser was executed on June 22, 1983. Although the contract provided that Crawford would pay a cash deposit of $2,300 to be held in escrow by Ezell Realty, none was paid since Ezell was given $2,300 by the tenants of the house to make needed repairs to the property prior to the sale. This arrangement was agreeable with Crawford. The contract also required the seller (Ezell) to pay all closing coats. Therefore, Crawford was not required to pay any "up front" costs in order to buy the property. Under the terms of the second contract, Crawford was to obtain FHA financing on the property in the amount of $53,150. This type of financing is the most desirable from an investor standpoint since the mortgage can be easily transferred to another buyer for a small transfer fee without lender approval. After executing the first contract on January 8, 1983, Ezell and Crawford executed an "Addendum to Contract For Sale and Purchase" on the same date which provided in pertinent part: This contract is for the sole purpose of having the buyer obtain an assumable FHA mortgage for the seller and reconveying title to the seller. The seller hereby irrevocably assumes the said FHA mortgage from the buyer immediately after closing and the buyers hereby agree to that assumption. For this, Crawford was to receive $1,000. The parties agreed that this addendum would apply to the second contract executed on June 22, 1983. At the suggestion of Ezell, Crawford made application for a $53.150 FHA loan with Residential Financial Corporation (RFC) in Maitland, Florida, a lending institution which Ezell had done business with on a number of prior occasions. However, Ezell was not present at any meetings between Crawford and RFC. When Crawford applied for the mortgage, he indicated the property would be used for investment purposes and would not be owner-occupied. For some reason, RFC assumed the property would be owner-occupied and structured the-loan in that manner. Because of this, Crawford's down payment was slightly less than 5% of the value of the property with the remainder being financed by the institution. Had RFC treated the loan as an investor-loan, the down payment would have been increased to around 15%. Neither Crawford or Ezell advised RFC of the Addendum to the contract which required Crawford to reconvey the property to Ezell for $1,000 once the FHA mortgage was obtained. Had RFC known of this it would not have approved the loan. There was no competent evidence that such an agreement was illegal or violated any federal laws or contravened any real estate industry standard or ethical consideration. The loan was eventually approved, and a closing held on September 22, 1983. After closing, Crawford retained the property in his name with Ezell making all payments from the rent proceeds. This was consistent with an oral agreement between the two that such an arrangement would last for an indefinite period as long as the payments were current. When Crawford later received several notices from the lender stating that mortgage payments were in arrears, he hired an attorney and demanded that Ezell fulfill the terms of the Addendum. He also filed a complaint against Ezell with petitioner which precipitated the instant proceeding. After the closing, Ezell had intended for the tenants to assume the mortgage since they had expressed an interest in buying the property. However, such a sale never materialized. In July, 1984, the property was reconveyed to Ezell, and Ezell paid Crawford $1,000 as required by the Addendum.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be dismissed, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esq. P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Julius L. Williams, Esq. P. O. Box 2629 Orlando, FL 32802 ================================================================ =
Findings Of Fact This matter arose from the sale of a certain apartment building in Dunedin, Florida, known as Piper's Ten. This building was owned by two foreign corporations, the principals of which are represented by a Mr. Eugene Morgan of Boston, Massachusetts. Douglas S. Kennedy, Defendant, is a registered real estate salesman whose license was registered with Lockhart Realty, Inc., of Seawalls Point, Florida, the broker for which was his then wife Trude Kennedy. The Defendant and his wife were involved in domestic difficulties which eventually lead to a divorce. When the Defendant and his wife separated sometime in late 1972, he sought out his friend and business associate, Eugene Morgan, who suggested that the Defendant move to Dunedin, Florida and reside in the model apartment at Piper's Ten. The Defendant heeded the suggestion and took on the assignment as resident manager of the Piper's Ten Apartments at a final salary of approximately $1,000 per month. According to the Defendant and Mr. Morgan, his prime responsibility was seeing that Morgan and his co-investors in the property "receive a fair shake with the local people in and around Dunedin, Florida." At the time the property was registered with a real estate broker of Dunedin, Florida, whose name is Mr. Woodrow Register, and he had an exclusive listing on the sale of Piper's Ten Apartments. The initial arrangement between Morgan and the Defendant was that the Defendant would live in the apartment rent free and he would be paid an amount to defray his expenses for the management responsibility. When the Defendant became dissatisfied with this arrangement approximately 3 weeks later, he notified Mr. Morgan that he could no longer remain in Dunedin under that arrangement. This set the stage for the new arrangement referred to above whereby the Defendant was to be paid $1,000 per month payable out of the proceeds, when and if the building was sold. According to Morgan, this arrangement was to last for at least 4 to 5 months or until such time as a purchaser was located to purchase the apartment building. During April 1973, Kelly Prior Realty of Dunedin produced a proposed purchaser for the property at the purchase price of $400,000 which was the amount set by the owners who had agreed to pay a real estate commission of 5 percent. Kelly Prior Realty prepared a proposed contract of sale and purchase and submitted it to the offices of the attorney for the seller, Raymond Argyros, who after certain modifications, submitted the contract to the sellers for their approval. At the closing in May 1973, Kelly Prior, the selling broker, received a full commission of 5 percent as agreed upon by their sellers in their open listing of the property. According to attorney Argyros, the Defendant received a check for $5,000 as agreed upon between the Defendant and Morgan and according to him, the contract erroneously referred to such payment as a commission. It is this $5,000 payment which is the matter of controversy in this hearing. According to Morgan, Defendant was hired to "see if he could get Morgan and his associates a fair shake with the local people in Dunedin respecting the management of the apartment building." Originally the two story building was primarily an office space on the lower level and approximately ten apartments on the upper level. The plan was to rent the upper level as a condominium and to lease the office space on the lower level. Morgan was unable to sell the condominiums on the upper level based on the fact that prospective purchasers did not want to buy condominiums in a building approximately 50 percent comprised of office space. With this fact, Morgan and his associates made the decision to convert the lower level to apartments as well. When this was done, the Defendant saw to it that the building was properly managed and provided feedback to Morgan in order to keep him advised at all times of the situation with the apartment building. When the building was sold, Kelly Prior Realty Company received the commission of $20,000 which represented 5 percent of the total purchase price and the Defendant received $5,000 for his efforts. In this regard, the Defendant received a check drawn in the amount of $5,000 and the check bore a notation that the amount represented a commission. When the Defendant noted this, he changed the face of the check to reflect that the amount paid was intended to be an agency fee for the sale of Piper's Ten. The Defendant played no part in the drafting of the purchase and sales agreement. After the closing, the Defendant also was given the furniture from the model apartment and he thereafter departed for Puerto Rico. Trude Kennedy, the Defendant's former wife, testified that Lockhart Realty was in no way associated with the sale of Piper's Ten. Trude Kennedy had several conversations with Mr. Morgan regarding the sales and problems which he encountered with Piper's Ten. However the basis of these statements involved other businesses which she had with Morgan regarding the sale and subdivision of other properties in and around Dunedin. Mrs. Kennedy was unaware of the amount paid to the Defendent and she made no claim for such funds when the payment was disbursed. Morgan denied that the amount in any way reflected a commission but rather was payment for the services which the Defendant rendered in the general upkeep and management of the building such that he could be fully advised at all times of the progress, if any, that the local realtors were having with the sale of the apartment building. With these facts, the undersigned is of the opinion that the $5,000 sum given to Kennedy represented the amount as per the agreement he had with Morgan. There was no evidence that he participated in any way with the sale of the building other than to advise Morgan of any efforts that the other local realtors played in locating purchasers. It was noted that the check which represented payment for these services indicated that the amount originally was a commission. However, the Defendant, when noting that the designation of a commission was included on the check, immediately advised Mr. Argyros, the seller's agent, to correct that mistake by placing a designation that the amount represented was intended to be a "seller's agent" fee. This correction was made prior to the time the check was deposited and it was done with the consent of attorney Argyros. There was no evidence that the Defendant demanded such amount as a commission for his efforts as a salesman or that he showed the property to prospective purchasers as a real estate salesman. Thus it appears that the amount paid to the Defendant was an amount given him for his services as testified to by Morgan. The amount paid also appears to correspond with the arrangement as testified to by Morgan. I therefore find that the $5,000 sum paid the Defendant represented an amount for services that he rendered, not as a real estate salesman, but rather, as a property manager of the Piper's Ten Apartment building.
