Findings Of Fact The Respondent was at all material times registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker, holding registration certificates numbered 001709, and 0141291. The Respondent served as the real estate broker for an entity known as "Rent-A-Home, Inc." Rent-A-Home had an office in St. Petersburg and an office in Clearwater. A Mr. Richard Gindin was the Respondent's partner in Rent-A-Home. Gindin was not at any material time registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as either an active or non-active real estate broker or real estate salesman. During October, 1974, the Respondent took part in a real estate transaction between a Mr. and Mrs. Garrett, and a Mr. and Mrs. Churches. On October 7, 1974, the Churches signed an option to purchase certain property owned by the Garretts in Pasco County. The transaction was undertaken under the auspices of Rent-A-Home. Lena Biggan was the sales person who actually negotiated the contract. A copy of the option agreement was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The Churches delivered a cashier's check in the amount of $1,500 to the Respondent as set out in the agreement. A copy of the cashier's check was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Five Hundred dollars of the $1,500 was to be used as the real estate commission. The remainder was to be distributed to the Garretts. On the same day that the contract was executed, the Respondent deposited $1,400 of the $1,500 in his personal checking account at the Liberty National Bank of St. Petersburg (See: Petitioner's Exhibits 6,7). He retained $100. On the same day the Respondent issued checks from the same account in the amount of $1,000 to Cecil D. Garrett, in the amount of $166.63 to Lena Biggan, and in the amount of $166.63 to Richard Gindin. The check issued to Lena Biggan constituted her share of the $500 real estate commission. This check was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 9. The check issued to Gindin was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 8. There was no direct testimony that the check issued to Gindin constituted his share of the real estate commission. The circumstances of the check, however, clearly indicate that that was the intention. The check to Biggan bore No. 563. The check to Gindin was the very next check in the Respondent's checkbook, No. 564. The next check issued from the Respondent's checkbook, No. 565, was the $1,000 check to the Garretts. The check to Biggan, and the check to Gindin were in the same amount, approximately one third of $500. It is indicated on each check that it was for a "comm.". There was direct testimony from Ms. Biggan that her check was for her share of the commission on the Garrett/Churches transaction. It is evident that Gindin's check was for the same purpose. Prior to the Garrett/ Churches transaction, Gindin approached the Respondent with respect to forming "Rent-A-Home". Gindin told the Respondent that he would form a corporation, and he asked the Respondent to pay one third of the $500 legal fee which was required for forming a corporation. When the Respondent gave Gindin the check which has been received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 9, the Respondent thought that he was paying one third of the necessary attorney's fee rather than giving a commission to Gindin in connection with the Garrett/Churches transaction. In fact Gindin never used the money to form a corporation, and he kept it as if it was a real estate commission. When the Respondent delivered the check to Gindin he did in fact share a real estate commission with Gindin, a person who was not registered as a real estate broker or salesman. The Respondent thought that the check was being delivered for a legitimate purpose; however, the circumstances of the transaction were such that the Respondent should have known that Gindin was regarding the check as his share of a real estate commission. In approximately January, 1975, the Respondent disassociated himself from Rent-A-Home. Gindin has apparently left the State of Florida, and has not been seen by the Respondent since January, 1975.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, respondent, Richard M. Kessler, was a licensed real estate broker and real estate school permit holder having been issued license number 0119097 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation. Division of Real Estate (Division). Respondent, Aldo J. Papaleo, is a licensed real estate broker and real estate school instructor having been issued license number 33367 by petitioner. Kessler has operated a real estate school in Broward County Florida since 1977. When the events herein occurred, the school operated under the trade name "Investors Property Management and Read Estate, Inc." in Coral Springs, Florida. Among other things, the school is designed to offer the pre- licensing education necessary for persons desiring to become licensed as real estate salesmen. According to rules promulgated by petitioner in 1983, the course format had to have sixteen three-hour sessions with a one-hour quiz and review session at the end of each three hour block of instruction. In addition, each student had to take a three-hour examination at the end of the classroom work and achieve a grade of 70 percent or better in order to take the real estate salesman examination. Kessler offered a six week salesman pre-licensing education course beginning on March 23, 1983, which consisted of three three-hour sessions per week in the evenings. The course was offered at his offices located in Coral Springs, Florida. Jeffrey (last name unknown), who was considered an outstanding instructor, was going to teach the course, but was out of the country at that time. Needing a replacement instructor, Kessler advertised for one in the local newspaper. Papaleo, who is also known as Alan A. Parker, had just received his instructor's license that month and answered the ad. Papaleo was a college graduate, had previously taught insurance licensing courses (but not real estate) for over twenty years in New York and Connecticut, and in addition to holding a broker's license, was designated as a GRI (graduate of real estate institute) and CRS (certified residential specialist). The latter two designations are awarded to real estate licensees who take additional coursework beyond the salesman and broker level. Finding his qualifications to be satisfactory, Kessler hired Papaleo to teach the course. Before the first session, Kessler reviewed all course materials with Papaleo, and the format to be followed. The course materials included the March, 1983 Syllabus and Instructor's Guide prepared by the Florida Real Estate Commission and the FREC Handbook, and students were required to purchase an approved real estate textbook authored by C C. Curtis. Papaleo was specifically told to "conform" and "abide" by the teaching syllabus. Nine individuals enrolled in and completed Kessler's course, each paying $95.00 for the instruction and $9.00 for the Curtis textbook. At least two of the nine enrolled in the class because of its "excellent reputation" while several others were attracted by its location in Coral Springs and the evening instruction format. The complaint herein stems from four students in Papaleo's course, three of whom testified at final hearing. They characterized the instruction offered by Papaleo as "confusing," not "adequate," and insufficient to enable them to pass the final examination. They complained that Papaleo read much of the class instruction from the syllabus and textbook, that he did not encourage class participation, and did not devote a great deal of time to reviews and answering questions. They also complained that course material used in other real estate courses (for example, Bert Rogers) was better and easier to understand. Because of what they perceived to be deficiencies in the level of instruction, three of the students approached Kessler one day after much of the course had been completed. In their meeting with Kessler they complained about Papaleo's teaching techniques, and their dissatisfaction with his instruction. Kessler promised to look into it, and later spoke with Papaleo. He instructed Papaleo to explain the course material in even greater detail so that the complaining students would better comprehend the subject, and he monitored the first thirty minutes of the next session. Finding Papaleo's instruction to be "appropriate," he thought the problem had been resolved. About a week later, Mrs. Kessler received an anonymous telephone call complaining that Papaleo was not a good instructor and asking that he be "removed" from the classroom. At that point, Papaleo and Kessler mutually agreed that Papaleo should leave. The remaining week of the course was taught by Kessler's son, Scott, without any complaint from the students. After the course ended, the four students demanded that Kessler return their $95.00 tuition fee. When he refused they wrote him a letter on May 14, 1983, advising him that the course instruction by Papaleo was inadequate and that unless he refunded their fees, their "only recourse would be to register a formal complaint with the DPR." Interpreting this to be blackmail, and believing their claims to be without merit, Kessler refused their demands to refund the fees. The issuance of the administrative complaint followed. In teaching the course, Papaleo used only those materials approved by the Division. Even though some of it was read directly from the syllabus and FREC handbook, there is no evidence that this technique is prohibited by the Division. Moreover, there was no expert testimony as to what instruction is or is not "approved," or what constitutes an "adequate" level of instruction. The complaining students knowledged that they were allowed to ask questions, but that one student consumed much of the time with detailed questions that they did not understand. They also conceded that Papaleo frequently used the blackboard, and expounded on the text material by giving examples from his own personal experiences in real estate. Although the record is conflicting as to whether an appropriate amount of time was devoted to a quiz and review session after each block of instruction, it is found that Papaleo did not deviate from the Division requirements. It is further found that Papaleo did not discourage students from "class participation" as alleged in the complaint. Of the three students testifying at final hearing, two passed the end of course examination and were qualified to then take the salesman examination. In accordance with his school policy Kessler offered a free repeat of the course to any students who did not pass the final examination.
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 5th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Richard M. Kessler 9381 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, Florida 33065 Mr. Aldo J. Papaleo 259 Commercial Boulevard Lauderdale-by-the-Sea. Florida 33308 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Ann Croasdell is qualified for licensure as a real estate salesperson. More specifically, since her license was previously disciplined, the question is whether,"... because of lapse of time and subsequent good conduct and reputation, or other reason deemed sufficient... " it appears the interest of the public and investors will not be endangered by the granting of registration.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 29, 1987, Ann Croasdell filed her application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. She revealed in response to question #14 that her Florida broker's license had been revoked in March, 1984. Ms. Croasdell's broker's license was disciplined in two cases, heard on the same day, before the Florida Real Estate Commission. In case no. 0021233, DOAH no. 82-1673, she was charged with, and found guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and Section 475.25(1)(b) F.S. On April 19, 1983, the Commission adopted the DOAH Hearing Officer's Recommended Order and suspended Ms. Croasdell's broker's license for three years. In case no. 0020990, DOAH no. 82-1672, Ms. Croasdell was charged with and found guilty of dishonesty, breach of trust and conspiring with another person engaged in such conduct, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and Section 475.25(1)(b) F.S. On April 19, 1983, the Commission adopted the DOAH Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, except as to penalty, and revoked her real estate broker's license. In both cases the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the orders Per Curiam, and issued its mandates on March 9, 1984. Ms. Croasdell's disciplinary actions arose out of dealings with William Young, later known as the "multi-lock burglar." In DOAH case #82-1672, it was found that Ms. Croasdell was a willing accomplice with Young in a series of burglaries in which access was gained through use of the multi-lock boxes used by realtors to show homes for sale. Golf clubs and towels were stolen. Ms. Croasdell assisted in the investigation leading to young's conviction and she was never arrested nor charged with a criminal violation. In DOAH case #82-1673, the Hearing Officer found Ms. Croasdell made application, and obtained a second mortgage loan in her own name on property that she had previously conveyed to William Young. She misrepresented to the mortgage company the true owner of the property. Ms. Croasdell is a reformed alcoholic. She characterizes herself as an alcoholic drinker between 1974 and March 1984. She now participates actively in Alcoholics Anonymous, attends meetings several days a week and sponsors other women alcoholics. She works with the AA Hot Line and a halfway house for women alcoholics. She is employed part-time teaching real-estate related courses at a technical school. She is also attending college, with some support in the form of tuition and books from the Florida Division of vocational Rehabilitation. Respondent presented no evidence to controvert Ms. Croasdell's credible testimony of her complete rehabilitation. She freely admits her wrongdoing in the referenced disciplinary cases. She attributes the wrongs to a fear of William Young and to her alcoholism. During the proceedings before the Commission in 1982 and 1983, she did not admit her alcoholism as she was still in the throes of the disease. Ms. Croasdell's evidence is corroborated in approximately seventeen letters of reference and commendation from her counsellors, former students, employers and business associates. Ann Croasdell held her real estate license between 1978 and 1984. Prior to that, she was employed by various state agencies, including five years with the Florida Real Estate Commission as an administrative assistant and acting and assistant director. With her license she opened a real estate school and built an active business. Her real love is teaching real estate students. She believes she has a gift for this vocation and can make a contribution to the profession. Ms. Croasdell is 47 years old, divorced, with three children. Her account of her life before and after the activities leading to the loss of her license lends credence to the theory that her behavior was an aberration peculiar to her relationship with Young and to the final stages of her alcoholism. The Commission's letter of intended denial is not in evidence; however, at the brief proceeding before the Commission in May, 1987, the unanimous vote of the members was based upon the expressed concern that insufficient time had passed. While the discipline in one case (#82-1673) was a three-year suspension, the Board rejected the Hearing Officer's recommendation for a five year suspension in case #82-1672, in favor of revocation. According to the findings in the disciplinary cases, the wrongful conduct took place primarily in 1979 and 1980. The Appellate Court mandates were issued in 1984, and Ms. Croasdell has been un-licensed for almost four years. Additional time would serve no purpose other than further assurance that a relapse will not occur.
Recommendation It is, hereby Recommended: That the Commission enter its Final Order granting the application of Ann Croasdell for licensure as a real estate salesperson. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of December in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 23rd day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Joseph D. Chaitkin, operated as a broker although he had no broker's license. Whether the salesman's license #0149332 of Respondent should be suspended, or whether other disciplinary measures should be imposed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Joseph D. Chaitkin, be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Joseph D. Chaitkin 133 Allamanda Avenue Port Richie, Florida 33568
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a real estate broker should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the amended administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Yolanda Jean Ramsey, was a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0012364 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). When the events herein occurred, respondent operated a real estate firm under the name of Ramsey Realty located at 19940 Gulf Boulevard, Indian Shores, Florida. Her husband, Drew Ramsey, was a condominium developer but he was not a licensed realtor. Sandra A. Hawley (Hawley) was a licensed salesperson for Ramsey Realty from April 1981 until she was terminated by respondent on January 6, 1982. She was employed by respondent pursuant to an oral agreement and was to receive a 3% commission on all closed sales. This description of Hawley's compensation arrangement was not contradicted by respondent. Drew Ramsey was then developing several condominium projects in Pinellas County, and Hawley's sales activities were focused on the sale of those condominiums through Ramsey Realty. Hawley was described by respondent as being the best salesperson in the firm. From April 1981 through December 1981, Hawley recalled that her W-2 statement reflected $76,000 in commissions actually received. By the time she was terminated, Hawley represented that she had either closed on units or had firm contracts on other units to earn an additional $279,000 in commissions. Although respondent did not agree she owed Hawley any money due to various setoffs, the $279,000 figure was not credibly contradicted, particularly since respondent's records relating to those sales were allegedly destroyed or lost by respondent at about the time certain civil litigation was begun by Hawley. On January 6, 1982, respondent was terminated by respondent for cause. According to respondent, Hawley was delinquent in making payments to her husband for several condominium units Hawley had bought for investment purposes, and on one occasion, Hawley had not turned over to Ramsey Realty a deposit on a resale of a unit. She was also accused of bouncing checks. After she left Ramsey Realty, Hawley made demand for commissions still owed. Between January and June 1982 she was paid approximately $40,000 by respondent but received nothing after that. She eventually sued respondent in circuit court for the unpaid commissions and obtained a final judgment against respondent on December 10, 1987 for $76,000 plus interest, or a total of $118,618.88. To date, Hawley has been unable to obtain payment of the judgment. At hearing respondent acknowledged that a judgment pertaining to Hawley's unpaid commissions was entered against her and that no appeal of that judgment was taken. According to Ramsey, she has refused to pay Hawley based upon her attorney's advice. Respondent's principal defense against paying the commissions is that Hawley allegedly owes her and her husband substantial amounts of money which offset the earned commissions. Testimony at hearing revealed that these matters have been the subject of extensive and lengthy civil litigation between Hawley and the Ramseys. Hawley represented that she has prevailed in all court actions, and this was not contradicted by respondent. However, none of the judgments and mandates (if an appeal was taken) were made a part of this record. The principal offset relates to a lease-purchase agreement entered into by Hawley and her son, James Monette, Jr., and Drew Ramsey in June 1981 whereby Hawley and her son agreed to lease, with an option to purchase, a restaurant/bar known as The End Zone located on Dale Mabry Avenue in Tampa, Florida. On June 18, 1981 Hawley and her son executed a promissory note in the amount of $170,000 payable to Drew Ramsey and to be secured "by an assignment of commissions of even date herewith". The note also provided that "certain commissions earned by Sandra A. Hawley as a real estate salesperson for Ramsey Realty ... shall be applied as prepayments on account hereof." This was confirmed in a letter sent by Hawley to respondent on June 18, 1981. The letter authorized Ramsey to "pay one-half of all commissions which I have earned or will earn from working as a real estate person for Ramsey Realty to Drew Ramsey on account of the indebtedness under the Note until it is paid in full." The letter further provided that if Drew felt "insecure" about the note, Yolanda was authorized to "assign such greater percentage of (her) commissions to Drew Ramsey on account of the indebtedness until it is paid in full." Hawley admitted signing the promissory note but pointed out that she had earned enough commissions to easily pay off the note. She contended that the transaction was a ploy to allow Ramsey to retain all of her commissions and thereby deprive her of adequate capital to successfully operate the restaurant. Hawley further asserted that the transaction was later declared null and void in one of the civil actions between the parties because of certain fraudulent representations made by Drew in inducing her to enter into the agreement. However, the final judgment, which is the best evidence of the outcome of the suit, is not of record. On October 1, 1981, an agreement and promissory note was executed by Hawley wherein she promised to pay Drew Ramsey and his partner, George Karpay, $58,162.90 plus 18% interest for monthly payments owed Ramsey and Karpay on five condominium units Hawley had previously purchased from them. The note was secured by Hawley's commissions earned at Ramsey Realty. Hawley acknowledged that the signature on the documents was her own but contended that the documents had been altered after she signed them. On October 1, 1981, Hawley also executed an assignment of commissions whereby she agreed to authorize Ramsey Realty to disburse all commissions earned to Drew Ramsey and Karpay until the promissory note described in finding of fact 9 was satisfied. Again, Hawley acknowledged that the signature appeared to be her own but she contended the document was altered after it was signed. According to respondent, the commissions earned by Hawley were not held in the firm's escrow account. Instead, while Hawley was still an employee, such moneys were disbursed by the title company at closing directly to Ramsey Realty, and then Ramsey wrote a check to Hawley as commission compensation. After Hawley was terminated, the manner in which Ramsey received Hawley's earned commissions and their subsequent disposition are not of record. However, respondent represented, without contradiction, that they were not held in the firm's escrow account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating subsection 475.25(1)(d) and that her broker's license be suspended for three years. The other charge should be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Eugene Lay was registered as a business opportunity broker on March 15, 1982 by the Board of Real Estate (now the Florida Real Estate Commission). His registration was effective from January 5, 1982 until January 1, 1984. He was issued registration number 1800461. On February 12, 1982 Mr. Lay received $3,750 from Christopher Orthodox on a contract for the purchase of a business known as Personal Valet Services, Inc. The $3,750 were to be held in trust by Mr. Lay until the closing of the business purchase transaction. Mr. Lay did not put the money in a trust account but instead spent the money for his own personal business. When it later appeared to Mr. Orthodox that the transaction was not going to close, he demanded the return of his $3,750 deposit. Mr. Lay failed to return it to him and Mr. Orthodox was not able to purchase the business. His $3,750 has never been returned. On February 27, 1982 Mr. Lay obtained from Mr. Orthodox and Loretta Orthodox an additional $9,000 as a deposit to be held in trust pending their obtaining a Small Business Administration loan to purchase a business known as Starlight Creations, Inc. The purchase contract was conditioned upon the ability of the Orthodoxes to secure the loan for $121,500. They were unable to obtain the loan. When it appeared that the purchase transaction would not close, Mr. Orthodox demanded the return of his $9,000. Mr. Lay did not return the money because he had spent it for his own personal business. Subsequent to the Orthodoxes initial demand for the return of their money, Mr. Lay's wife returned $1,000 to them in cash. No further repayments have been made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Eugene Lay for lack of jurisdiction. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida, MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29 day of February, 1984.
