The Issue The issues presented for decision herein are whether or not Respondents are guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment and/or breach of trust in a business transaction as is more fully alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein dated February 27, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent, Perry F. Keen, is now, and was at all times material herein, a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0048813. Respondent, Perry F. Koon Agency, Inc., is a corporation licensed as a real estate broker and has been issued license number 0124199 with a business address of 212 East Noble Avenue, Williston, Florida. At all times material herein, Respondent, Perry F. Koon, was licensed and operated as a real estate broker and sole qualifying broker and officer of Respondent, Perry F. Koon Agency, Inc. In September of 1981, Respondents obtained a written open listing agreement from Gracie Williams to sell certain real estate property owned by Williams listed at Southeast Ninth Street, Williston, Florida at an asking price of $8,000 with a 10 percent brokerage commission. (Respondent's Exhibit E) The listing agreement was effective by its terms through June 30, 1982. Respondents were unable to sell the Williams property during the terms of the written listing agreement. However, Respondents continued to market Ms. Williams' property based on an oral agreement. Prior thereto, and specifically during mid-March, 1980, Ms. Gracie Williams borrowed approximately $4,779.60 from Tom and Wilma C. Bailey. Ms. Williams later became injured and was unable to make regular installment payments on the loan from the Baileys. As security for the loan from the Baileys, Ms. Williams gave a mortgage to the Baileys which encumbered the properties here in question (lot 12, block 13 in Williston, Levy County, Florida) as well as other properties owned by Ms. Williams. (Respondent's Exhibit B) The Baileys contacted Ms. Williams, by letter, regarding her past due loan payments and urged her to bring her accounts current as "We cannot continue to carry this account past due." (Respondent's Composite Exhibit H) Being unable to repay the Baileys as agreed, Ms. Williams turned to Respondent 1/ far assistance. Respondent, however, was not interested in an outright purchase of Ms. Williams' property although he agreed to purchase Ms. Williams' property by assuming her loans from the Baileys. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5) On October 26, 1982, Ms. Williams executed a quit claim deed in favor of Respondent's wife, Jettie R. Keen. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Thereafter, Respondent renegotiated the loan that he assumed from Ms. Williams in favor of the Baileys whereby the Baileys agreed to accept annual payments of $1,000 each year. During that time, Rachael Breuton as renting the subject property from Ms. Williams paying $70 per month. Respondents were able to sell the property (Williams) to Rachael Breuton for approximately $6,500 by accepting payments of $100 per month. (Respondent's Exhibit D) Respondent thereafter brought the delinquent Williams loan, in favor of the Baileys, current. Once the subject charges were brought by Ms. Williams, she contacted an attorney and filed other charges which have been settled by Respondent. Respondent, as stated earlier, was not interested in purchasing the Williams property from the outset. He merely attempted to assist Ms. Williams by taking this property and assuming the loan in favor of the Baileys to free up other properties, as well the subject property, for Ms. Williams. Respondents have deeded the subject properties back to Ms. Williams as part of this settlement agreement entered into by and between Respondents and Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams denies that she executed a deed to Respondent or, for that matter, anyone until she was paid for her property. Based on all of the documentary evidence received herein, including Respondents' testimony during the hearing, Respondents' version of the events concerning the allegations herein are credited to the extent that Respondents' version conflicts with the version adduced herein by Ms. Williams.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 1985.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's application for licensure as a yacht and ship salesman should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating yacht and ship brokers and salespersons in Florida. Section 326.003, Florida Statutes (1997). On July 28, 1998, the Division received an application for a yacht and ship salesperson's license from Richard Badolato. Question 13 on the application solicits information of the applicant's criminal history as follows: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, either pled or been found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? NOTE: This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state, or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. Your answer to this question will be checked against local and state records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. After Question 15 of the application, the following statement appears in bold type: "If your answer to question 13, 14, or 15 is Yes, attach your complete signed statement of the charges and facts, together with the dates, name and location of the court in which the proceedings were held or are pending." Mr. Badolato answered Question 13 in the affirmative, and he signed the application, thereby certifying that "the foregoing information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief." Mr. Badolato did not provide the statement of particulars which must be submitted by those answering Question 13 in the affirmative. In a letter dated July 28, 1998, the Division notified Mr. Badolato that his application was incomplete and that he should, among other things, provide a complete written explanation of his criminal history. In response to this letter, Mr. Badolato provided a signed statement in which he stated: "I was arrested and charged with possession of marj. in 1981." Mr. Badolato also provided a telephone number on the statement, indicating that he could be contacted at that number if the Division had any questions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 326.004(15), the Division issued a 90-day temporary license to Mr. Badolato, pending completion of the criminal history analysis that is done on all applicants by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The Division subsequently received a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation which revealed that Mr. Badolato had three drug-related felony convictions, as well as an arrest on June 22, 1977, which resulted in a charge of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. On August 24, 1981, Mr. Badolato was convicted in federal district court in Brunswick, Georgia, of conspiracy to smuggle marijuana; he was sentenced to ten years in prison and ordered to pay a $30,000 fine. On October 23, 1981, Mr. Badolato was convicted in federal district court in Miami, Florida, of conspiracy to distribute cocaine; he was sentenced to thirty months in prison, to run consecutively with the ten-year sentence in the Georgia case. On January 31, 1989, Mr. Badolato was convicted in federal district court in Maryland of conspiracy to distribute marijuana; he was sentenced to thirty-six months in prison, to run concurrently with any sentence imposed for a violation of parole. Mr. Badolato was released from prison in 1991 and successfully completed parole in December 1996 with respect to the 1989 conviction. In late 1997, Mr. Badolato received a letter advising him that he might be eligible for clemency. An attorney acting on behalf of Mr. Badolato filed an application for clemency with the Florida Parole Commission. Although Mr. Badolato has never seen this application, he assumes that the file developed during review of the application contains complete information regarding his criminal history.2 When the Division received the Federal Bureau of Investigation report, Peter Butler, head of the Division's general enforcement section, contacted Mr. Badolato by telephone, read to him the statement in the application quoted in paragraph 4 above, and asked him if he wanted to amend his application. Because he could not remember the exact dates of his three felony convictions, Mr. Badolato responded by referring Mr. Butler to the Clemency Board if Mr. Butler wanted to obtain further information about Mr. Badolato's criminal history. Mr. Badolato acknowledged in his testimony that he should have been more thorough in completing his application for licensure, that he was lazy and stupid for not being more forthcoming in the application, and that he did not intend to mislead the Division. He believed that, by answering "Yes" to Question 13 and admitting that he was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana in 1981, he had provided enough information to alert the Division that he had a criminal history. He also assumed that it would be very easy for the Division to obtain complete information about his background merely by running a computer check and by reviewing the information in his clemency application file. From 1991, when he was released from prison, until December 1998, Mr. Badolato was involved in the restaurant business in a managerial capacity, and, as part of his duties, he handled large sums of money. No money in his care was ever found missing, and no adverse employment actions were taken against him during this time. In addition, during the time he was on parole, Mr. Badolato periodically submitted to random drug-testing and never failed a test. The evidence presented by Mr. Badolato is not sufficient to establish that he is of good moral character. He admitted in his answer to Question 13 on the application that he had been convicted of a felony, yet he included in the statement which he filed as part of the application a vague, incomplete, misleading, and inaccurate reference to an arrest and charge of possession of marijuana in 1981.3 Furthermore, Mr. Badolato certified by his signature on the application form that the information he provided was "true and correct to the best of [his] knowledge and belief," when he was certainly fully aware that he had three separate felony convictions. Mr. Badolato presented evidence of his good employment history subsequent to his release from prison in 1991, his successful termination of probation, and his faithful payments on the $30,000 fine imposed in 1981, all of which tend to show rehabilitation and good moral character. However, Mr. Badolato's failure to include in his application complete and accurate information regarding his criminal history tends to show lack of rehabilitation and lack of good moral character. On balance, Mr. Badolato's failure to disclose in his application his complete criminal history outweighs the evidence he presented to show rehabilitation and good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, enter a final order denying Richard Badolato's application for licensure as a yacht and ship salesperson. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1999.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Department of Revenue (Respondent or Department), may levy on the Petitioner’s bank account in order to satisfy a tax liability owed to the Respondent. The Respondent asserts the Petitioner, Business Depot-Accounting and Tax Center, Inc. (Petitioner), owes the Department for delinquent sales tax, interest, and penalties.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of collecting sales and use tax owed to the State of Florida. See § 213.05, Fla. Stat. (2006). At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner was responsible for collecting and remitting to the Department sales and use tax. The return forms itemizing information for these payments require the taxpayer, Petitioner, to represent gross sales, exempt sales, as well as other data that the Department uses to compute the amount that must be remitted to the state. In this case, after extensive communications with the Petitioner, the Department determined that $10,524.20 was owed for taxes, penalties, and interest. This amount was calculated based on estimates of the delinquency. A Notice of Final Assessment dated August 28, 2006, was issued by the Department to the Petitioner that outlined the amounts claimed to be owed. On or about September 27, 2006, the Petitioner responded to the notice and, under oath, represented that the tax returns were filed. The Department took the Petitioner’s representations into consideration and re-calculated the tax liability owed by the Petitioner. Currently, the Department asserts that the Petitioner’s delinquent amount is $278.46. Accordingly, when that amount remained unpaid, the Department sought a tax warrant, gave notice of its intent to levy on the assets of the Petitioner, and provided notice that it intended to collect monies against the Petitioner’s bank account at Regent Bank. The Department issued a Notice of Freeze to the Regent Bank that instructed it not to transfer, dispose of, or return assets belonging to the Petitioner. The Department also gave notice to the Petitioner of its intent to levy on the bank account with a formal Notice of Intent to Levy. The Petitioner challenged the notice by seeking an administrative hearing. The Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not offer any evidence in support of its challenge. The Petitioner’s letter dated September 28, 2006, was not submitted within twenty days of the issuance of the Notice of Final Assessment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order sustaining the Notice of Intent to Levy against the Petitioner’s assets in the amount of $278.46 to satisfy the liability owed by the Petitioner to the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. Parrish 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 2nd day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: S. G. Ross Business Depot-Accounting & Tax Center, Inc. 4611 South University Drive, Suite 455 Davie, Florida 33328 John Mika, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 501 South Calhoun Street The Carlton Building, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 501 South Calhoun Street The Carlton Building, Room 104 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude or an immoral conduct because the State Attorney's Office filed a misdemeanor charge of possession of controlled substance, and Respondent entered and completed a pre-trial intervention program and the State Attorney nolle prosequi the criminal charge. The Board of Education is now prosecuting Respondent for possession of a controlled substance. In a possession of controlled substance charge, there shall be proof of two distinct elements. The Board of Education must prove that: (1) Respondent had knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance, and (2) Respondent had knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence in evidence deemed relevant and material, and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant and material facts are found: At all times material and pertinent hereto, Respondent, David J. Suldo, a state-certified teacher, had worked 21 years with the Osceola County School District and had been appointed Director and Coordinator of Human Relations Issues. Respondent was born and reared in Osceola County and, after attending college, returned to enter the school system. He and his wife own a five-acre homestead in Osceola County where they, along with their family, enjoyed a long and friendly relationship with many of his students and their parents in the small community of Sebring, Florida. He is currently employed by the Orange County School Board. Respondent holds a Florida Educator's Certificate No. 378761, covering the areas of Administration/Supervision and Psychology, which is valid through June 30, 2005. Currently, Respondent is employed as Dean of Sixth Grade at Westgate Middle School in the Orange County School District. Before the issue raised by the allegation in the case at bar, Respondent has never had a complaint filed against him. On the weekend of January 30, 1998, Respondent and his wife drove away in their jointly registered family car from a Seven-Eleven parking lot, in Sebring, Highlands County, Florida, and were stopped by Officer, Donald Minervino, for an expired tag. In response to the Officer's request to produce his diver's license, Respondent produced his Director of Student Services Osceola County School District identification card,1 explaining that he lost his driver's license a few days prior. Officer Minervino requested that Respondent and his wife exit the vehicle, which they did, and he requested permission to search the vehicle, which was granted. During his search, Officer Minervino found a small baggie containing a suspected controlled substance in the console of the vehicle. Officer Minervino found a small amount of illicit substance in a plastic bag and a broken pipe. Also found in the console was a St. Cloud High School, 1995-96, I.D. card of Scott Suldo, a tenth grader, who is Respondent's son. During his interrogation, Officer Minervino asked Respondent if he would like to make a statement regarding the suspected illicit substance in the baggie and the broken pipe. Respondent answered "NO," and made no statements regarding knowledge of the presence of the illicit substance or knowledge of the nature of the illicit substance recovered from the console of the family car. Officer Minervino observed two beer bottles, one of which was open, in the vehicle. Because of this traffic stop, vehicle search, interrogation of vehicle occupants, and observation of their movements and speech patterns, Officer Minervino concluded neither was intoxicated and no roadside sobriety tests were taken. The Officer issued Respondent two citations: (1) warning citation for the expired tag, and citation for having an open container (beer bottles) in the vehicle.2 Officer Minervino did not arrest Respondent on a charge of possession, but filed an Affidavit Prosecution Summary (APS) with the State Attorney's Office regarding the baggie of illicit substance and the broken pipe,3 in accord with the Osceola County Sheriff's Department's policy. On Monday following the January 30, 1998, traffic stop incident, Respondent met with Dr. Thomas L. McCarley, superintendent of the Osceola County School District, and they mulled over and discussed the situation. Dr. Thomas L. McCarley offered Respondent the opportunity to transfer to another school district pending the outcome of the ongoing investigation, specifically, the potential outcome regarding the content of the plastic bag, i.e. whether the State Attorney would or would not file criminal charges. Having considered his career opportunities, his family, and his lifetime residency in Sebring, Florida, Respondent opted to retire from the Osceola County School District and did so on or before February 13, 1998.4 Sebring, Florida, is a small community and community members of long standing know each other well. The community knew of Respondent's long association with and his position within the school system; they knew also of his traffic stop by the local police and the police finding illicit materials in Respondent's family car. The Sebring local newspaper ran, almost daily, updates and recounts of this incident over an extensive period. Respondent is of the opinion that the prolonged newspaper publicity created public pressure on the State Attorney's Office, who, months after the incident, filed misdemeanor criminal charges against Respondent. At some undetermined time before September 1998, the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Osceola County, Florida, filed a two-count misdemeanor criminal charge of Possession of Cannabis and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia against Respondent. On or about September 1, 1998, the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Osceola County, Florida, in open court filed nolle prosequi5 of the two-count misdemeanor criminal affidavit. Listed as "Exculpatory information received" was checked the statement: "Defendant completed pre- trial diversion program." Subsequent to September 1, 1998, the Orange County Superintendent of Public Schools asked Respondent to apply for employment with the Orange County School Board because there existed a need for someone with Respondent's particular expertise and training in "student issues." After completion of the Orange County School Board's application form, Respondent was interviewed by the Orange County School Board. During his interview, Respondent informed the Orange County School Board of the circumstances, from the initial traffic stop, retiring from Osceola County School District, the misdemeanor criminal charges filed against him, his retaining counsel, his entering and completing the pre-trial program, and his having taken several independent and successful drug tests since the incident to demonstrate that he was not a user of drugs. On August 5, 2002, the Orange County School Board offered Respondent a 196-day, 2000-2003 school year, professional Instructional Personnel contract of employment with the Orange County School System. Respondent accepted the Orange County School Board's offer and formally executed his employment contract on December 5, 2000. Mrs. Joy Suldo, wife of Respondent, took the vehicle in question to Circuit City for a stereo upgrade and repair then to Addison's Body Shop for minor repair work picking up the care on or about January 27, 1998. From the body shop, she took the car to the upholstery shop for a day and a one-half day. At these several service location, employees had access to the vehicle. Mrs. Suldo did not open or check the console when she returned the car home. Respondent's son also had access to the vehicle, along with his friend and fellow band members. Respondent recalled seeing several of them sitting together in the car listening to the enclosed sound car stereo. His son and his friends had unlimited access to the vehicle. Multiple accesses to the vehicle by persons other then Mr. Suldo created, not an inference of solo possession by Mr. Suldo, but rather created the burden of upon Petitioner to reinforce the inference of constructive possession by Mr. Suldo. There was no evidence was presented by Petitioner from which circumstantial constructive possession by Respondent could in inferred. At all times material to the case at bar, there was no teacher's labor union contract between teachers and the Osceola County School Board. Petitioner has offered no evidence to prove the allegation contained in its letter dated October 25, 2001, to wit: possession of a controlled substance.6 No evidence was offered to prove that Respondent knew of the illicit nature of the substance or that Respondent knew of the presence (in the vehicle) of the illicit substance. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to prove Respondent actually possessed or constructively possessed a controlled substance. Petitioner's substantial evidence failed to demonstrate that from the circumstances of this incident that Respondent is guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Education enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 29th day of January, 2003.
The Issue By Administrative Complaint dated February 20, 1991 and filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 23, 1991, the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, alleged that Respondent had obtained a real estate license by means of fraud in that Respondent had a prior criminal charge and 1976 conviction in New Jersey and had not disclosed same in his July 30, 1990 application for licensure as a real estate salesman, contrary to and in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(m) F.S.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints against real estate licensees pursuant to the laws of the state of Florida, in particular Section 20.30 F.S. and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in the state of Florida, having been issued license number 0566757 in accordance with Chapter 475, F.S. The last license issued was as a nonactive salesman, in care of 380 Mercers Fernery Road, DeLand, Florida 32720. On his July 30, 1990 application, Respondent made a sworn application for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Petitioner. Question No. 7 of the July 30 application read, in pertinent part, as follows: 7. Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? Under oath, Respondent answered "no" to the foregoing Question No. 7. Thereafter, Petitioner based this instant prosecution on a series of loose pages which purported to be a report from the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Petitioner's Exhibit B). This item is not a business record of the Petitioner, and Petitioner has shown no reason this printed hearsay should be admitted and considered. Consequently, it has not been admitted or considered. Respondent was interviewed by Petitioner's investigator. The investigator, Mr. Miller, testified concerning his interview of Respondent, but nothing in their conversation constituted an "admission of a party opponent." Nor was anything said in that conversation sufficient to supplement or explain any other testimony or exhibit. See, Section 120.58(1) F.S. Likewise, the conversation did not even support the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Respondent's testimony at formal hearing was disjointed and inconclusive but to the general effect that at some time he had been arrested in New Jersey in connection with a burglary of his dwelling and a subsequent police search thereof which produced a cache of marijuana. He denied telling a deliberate lie on his real estate application and stated he simply could not recall anything further about the New Jersey incident which he described.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the agency enter a Final Order dismissing with prejudice the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 27th day of June, 1990.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes, from Respondents, Bernard Spinrad and Marien Spinrad (Spinrads), and their counsel, related to litigation between the parties in DOAH Case No. 13-2254.
Findings Of Fact The Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 13-2254, including the Preliminary Statement, the Findings of Fact, and the Conclusions of Law contained therein, and the Department of Environmental Protection’s Consolidated Final Order in OGC Case No. 13-0858 are incorporated herein by reference as the facts underlying this Final Order.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The respondent Juan A. Vergel is the holder of Florida real estate salesman's license No. 0359274. This license was received pursuant to respondent's application for licensure dated December 8, 1980, and approved on January 28, 1981. In response to question number 6 on his application for licensure as a real estate salesman, respondent answered "No." This question read as follows: "Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking speeding, inspection or traffic signal viola tions), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled?" On or about February 5, 1975, respondent was arrested by the Public Safety Department of the Dade County Sheriff's Office on the felony charge of buying, receiving and concealing stolen property; to wit: an automobile inspection sticker. On February 24, 1975, respondent pled guilty to a reduced misdemeanor charge of buying, receiving and concealing stolen property, was adjudicated guilty and was ordered to pay a fine of $50.00 by the County Court of Dade County, Florida. At the time of this adjudication, respondent was of the impression, from discussions with his attorney, that if he maintained a record without any charges of criminal activity for a period of nine months, the arrest and conviction on the misdemeanor offense of buying, receiving and concealing stolen property would be expunged from his record. Having had no criminal charges against him after this incident, respondent assumed at the time he completed his application for a real estate license that his record had been cleared. Other than the offense described in paragraph 3 above, respondent has never had criminal charges against him. He has been employed as a computer operator with the Dade County School Board for eleven years and has had no problems in such employment.
Recommendation For the reasons stated above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the respondent Juan A. Vergel be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 23rd of October, 1981, 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 23rd day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Colodny, Esquire Colodny and Fass, P.A. 626 N.E. 124 Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Samuel Sheradsky, Esquire 606 Coconut Grove Bank Building 2701 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Board of Real Estate 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Juan A. Vergel 12510 Southwest 33rd Street Post Office Box 650971 Miami, Florida 33165 Carlos V. Stafford, Executive Director Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32789
