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 Upon consideration of the relevant oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: The petitioner is a real estate salesman registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission. In September of 1978, petitioner submitted an application to the Florida Real Estate Commission for registration as a real estate broker. By an Order dated December 4, 1978, the respondent denied the application for the reason that the applicant had not made it affirmatively appear that he possessed the necessary qualifications under F.S. 475.17. Specifically, the Commission found "That it appears to the Commission that Salesman Dunkum signed Broker Wallace W. Staff's name as a witness to Dunkum's signature on a contract offer to purchase real estate without authorization. In addition, Salesman Dunkum signed Broker Staff's name to a listing agreement without authorization." The petitioner timely requested an administrative hearing on the denial of his application and the undersigned Hearing Officer was duly designated to conduct the proceedings. The petitioner Dunkum admits that he did sign broker Staff's name as a witness to his own signature on a contract for the sale of real estate. Mr. Dunkum has been a notary public for approximately fifteen years and was aware that he should not have signed Staff's name as a witness. Petitioner was the purchaser under the contract and did in fact purchase the real estate. Thus, neither the purchaser nor the seller was harmed by the wrongdoing. The petitioner further admits that he did sign broker Staff's name to a listing agreement. He admits that he was wrong to sign Staff's name, without adding his initials or name under the signature. Petitioner believed he had the authority to sign Staff's name to listing agreements in Staff's absence. Mr. Staff testified that he never gave petitioner authority to sign his name and that all listings were to be under his signature. Mr. Staff was aware that petitioner had signed his name on documents prior to September of 1978. Nevertheless, on September 18, 1978, Mr. Staff entered into a three year independent contractor agreement with petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioner's application for registration as a real estate broker be DENIED, but that petitioner be permitted to submit another application for registration nine (9) months after the Order of the Commission dated December 4, 1978. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Rupert E. Dunkum 5900 94th Avenue Pinellas Park, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: According to the files and records of the Florida Real Estate Commission, respondent Greene F. Isaacs received his initial salesman license on April 12, 1979 and his initial broker license on April 29, 1980. He is currently a licensed broker holding license number 0308665. By an Order dated June 25, 1980, the Kentucky Real Estate Commission revoked the real estate broker's license of respondent Green F. Isaacs.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and that respondent's real estate broker's license number 0308665 be suspended for a period of one (1) year. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of July, 1982 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Gallagher, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David F. Kern, Esquire 516 Lakeview Road, Villa III Clearwater, Florida 33516 Mr. C. H. Stafford Fred Wilsen, Esquire Executive Director Real Estate Commission Real Estate Commission State Office Building P. O. Box 1900 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Orlando, Florida 32801
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 At issue is whether Respondents' committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the duty and responsibility to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Robert A. Schwartz, is now and has been at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0481297; however, due to the suspension of his license on November 3, 1994, he was not authorized to practice real estate brokerage at anytime material to this proceeding.1 Respondent, R. A. Schwartz & Associates, Inc., is not now nor has it ever been licensed as a real estate brokerage corporation in the State of Florida. Mr. Schwartz is the president and sole corporate officer, as well as the sole owner of the corporate stock. In February 1998, Helen Young telephoned Mr. Schwartz regarding a residence she owned at 358 Wooddale Drive, Wellington, Florida. At the time, Ms. Young was most likely under the impression that Mr. Schwartz was an active broker,2 and telephoned him for assistance with a tenant problem. During the course of that conversation, Ms. Young also let Mr. Schwartz know that the property was available for sale for $80,000. Thereafter, Mr. Schwartz brought the property to the attention of Craig Mattes, an acquaintance, who was also of the understanding that Mr. Schwartz was involved in the real estate business. Mr. Mattes elected to tender an offer on the property and Mr. Schwartz prepared the contract. The contract prepared by Mr. Schwartz was dated February 8, 1998, and provided for a purchase price of $80,000, with a deposit of $2,000 to be held by R. A. Schwartz & Associates, Inc.,3 an additional deposit of $6,000 within 30 days of acceptance, and a balance at closing of $72,000. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6.) The contract further provided: Seller agrees to pay to the Broker named below, at the time of closing, from the disbursements of the proceeds of the sale, compensation in the amount of (COMPLETE ONLY ONE) 5 % of gross purchase price or $ for Broker's services in effecting the sale by finding the Buyer ready, willing and able to purchase pursuant to the foregoing Contract. If Buyer fails to perform and deposit(s) is retained, 50% thereof, but not exceeding the Broker's fee above provided, shall be paid Broker as full consideration for Broker's services, including costs expended by Broker, and the balance shall be paid to Seller. If the transaction shall not close because of refusal or failure of Seller to perform, Seller shall pay the full fee to Broker on demand. In any litigation arising out of the Contract concerning the Broker's fee, the prevailing party shall recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The contract named R. A. Schwartz & Associates, Inc., as the broker, and both Mr. Mattes and Mr. Schwartz (on behalf of R. A. Schwartz & Associates, Inc.) signed the contract. Subsequently, on February 18, 1998, Mr. Schwartz faxed a copy of the contract, with addendum, and a copy of Mr. Mattes' check, to Ms. Young. The cover sheet, under the letterhead of R. A. Schwartz & Associates, Inc., provided: Ms Helen Young The Fax's are for you Thank you Bob Schwartz Please sign and return so we can start all paper work. On February 20, 1998, the Department received an inquiry from Roseann Ure, a licensee associate with Coldwell Banker, questioning the licensure status of Mr. Schwartz and the propriety of his pursuing the contract with Ms. Young. Apparently, Mr. Schwartz's licensure status was disclosed and the contract submitted by him was never accepted. However, Mr. Mattes did ultimately purchase the property, but through Coldwell Banker. During the course of the Department's investigation and at hearing, Mr. Schwartz explained his involvement as follows: SCHWARTZ claims to know MATTES through his family in the neighborhood. SCHWARTZ claimed to have been contacted by YOUNG about selling her home. SCHWARTZ stated, "I just put the buyer and seller together," and "I would receive no commission." SCHWARTZ stated he had now, "Removed himself from the transaction." On 4/10/98, SCHWARTZ was again interviewed by telephone and advised essentially as follows: He prepared the contract sent to YOUNG as an example, (1) allow the seller to either show the contract to another broker to obtain a reduced commission, (2) or shown the seller what a sales contract should look like if she decided to sell the home herself. Given the proof of record, Mr. Schwartz's explanation is inherently improbable and unworthy of belief. Rather, it is apparent that Mr. Schwartz prepared and submitted the contract to Ms. Young with the expectation that, if accepted, a commission would be paid (to him and his company), as provided by the contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in DOAH Case No. 98-3049 which finds Respondent, Robert A. Schwartz, guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(e), 475.42(1)(a), and 475.42(1)(e), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and that, as a penalty for such violations, his license be permanently revoked. It is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be rendered in DOAH Case No. 98-3783 which finds Respondent, R. A. Schwartz & Associates, Inc., guilty of violating Subsections 455.228 and 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and that, as a penalty for such violation, an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000 be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 12th day of February, 1999.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Professional Regulation's Division of Real Estate and the Florida Real Estate Commission were the state agencies in Florida responsible for the licensing of real estate professionals and the regulation of the real estate profession in this state. Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesperson under license number SL 0566467. Mr. Brennan was licensed in Florida as a salesperson in 1990, and his initial license expired on March 31, 1992. It was renewed on time and due to expire a second time on March 31, 1994. Consistent with Florida Real Estate Commission requirements, a real estate salesperson is required to complete no less than 14 hours of continuing professional education in the two years prior to license renewal. Of these, 11 hours of course work can be in a specialized area, but at least 3 of the 14 hours must consist of core law, legal information designed to update the salesperson on the changes to Commission rules and policies and changes in the law as it relates to the practice of real estate in the interim since the prior renewal. Licensees periodically are put on notice of the requirement for continuing education and what it must entail, and with or before application for renewal, must certify as to the taking, testing and passing of the required courses. If a licensee certified compliance with the continuing education requirement but, in fact, was not in compliance, that individual would be in violation of the Commission rules even if the required fees were paid. On January 27, 1994, Respondent applied for renewal of his salesperson's license which was due to expire on March 31, 1994. Along with his application for renewal, Respondent submitted his check for $68.50 made payable to the Department, and affirmed he had completed the required 14 hours of continuing education for the license period beginning April 1, 1994. The license was renewed. By letter dated June 15, 1995, Respondent was notified by Barbara Rohloff, a records supervisor for the Department, that his 1994 renewal application had been selected for audit. As a result of that audit it was determined that Respondent had completed the required 11 hours of specialty education and an additional 3 hours in "Agency: Choices, Challenges and Opportunities," also a specialty course but not approved for credit toward the required "core law" portion of the continuing education requirements. Therefore, though Respondent had completed 14 hours of continuing education as required, that 14 hours did not include the required 3 hours of core law. The 11 hours of specialty education Respondent took was course number 100 of the Realtors Institute Course and was approved by the Florida Association of Realtors. The 3 hour course was taken through the Coldwell Banker School of Real Estate in Sarasota in November 1993, and was also an approved course, but it did not meet the requirements for the 3 hour core law course. As a result of this discovery, a determination was made to charge Respondent with misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent contends he took the above-described courses in the misinformed opinion that by doing so he was meeting the Commission requirements. When he was first licensed, he was advised he must take and pass 14 hours of continuing education every two years. The 11 hour course was taken in 1991, in advance of the renewal period, upon the representation of the Century 21 instructor with whom the course was taken that was acceptable. When Respondent went to take that 11 hour course, along with his wife, also licensed as a real estate salesperson, a representative of the Sarasota Board of Realtors advised them that the 11 hour course was acceptable toward the continuing education requirements and that they would need an additional 3 hours. When the real estate brokerage with which the Brennans had placed their licenses was sold to another brokerage, Coldwell Banker, they moved their licences to the new brokerage and went to work with that firm. Coldwell Banker offered the 3 hour course which Respondent took and which has been determined not to be acceptable, and Respondent claims the representative of Coldwell Banker advised him, wrongly, it would appear, that the 3 hour course in issue would meet the Commission's requirements. Though this allegation is self- serving to the Respondent, it was not contradicted and is accepted. Respondent denies any intent to mislead or misrepresent. He gained no advantage by taking the instant 3 hour course over the required course. He saved no time or money, it would appear, and there appears to be no reason for him to have intentionally taken the wrong course or to mislead the Commission. Through all his post-audit communication with the Commission, he relates, he was never advised, in a way he understood, just what he should have done in place of what he did, until the day of the hearing when it was explained to him by Petitioner's counsel. Respondent now admits that he did not have the required hours in the correct course, but adamantly asserts he did not, at the time, know or understand what was the problem. That would appear to be the case, and it is so found. The Petitioner presented no evidence to demonstrate an intent to mislead or to misrepresent by Respondent.
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 the Respondent, Edward John Brennan. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32803-1900 Edward John Brennan 4114 Pro Am Avenue Bradenton, Florida 34203 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
