Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the real estate license of Keith Allen. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Allan M. Parvey, Esquire Goldberg, Rubinstein & Buckley, P.A. Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of failing to account for and deliver a share of a real estate commission, as required by Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes, and, if, so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has been a licensed real estate broker, holding license number 0314643. Petitioner does business under the name, Blue Ribbon Realty. Petitioner employs several real estate salesmen in her brokerage business. Virginia M. Poole is a licensed real estate salesman. During 1988, she was looking for a house to buy. At the time, she was working in a hotel as a cashier. While working at the hotel, Ms. Poole met Mary Asian, who was also working at the hotel. At the same time, Ms. Asian was and remains a real estate salesman working at Blue Ribbon Realty. In a period of several weeks, Ms. Asian showed Ms. Poole several houses and presented at least one offer with a small deposit. One day while driving on her own, Ms. Poole came across a house that appealed to her. At or prior to this time, Ms. Poole had placed her salesman's license with Blue Ribbon Realty. Ms. Poole negotiated a sales contract with the seller. The contract was signed by Ms. Poole and the seller on November 10, 1988. By a separate commission agreement signed the same date, the seller agreed to pay Respondent a commission equal to 3% of the sales price. The closing took place on December 14, 1988. The closing agent duly paid Respondent the sum of $2172, which represents 3% of the purchase price. Respondent cashed the check and received the proceeds thereof. Under the agreement between Ms. Poole and Respondent, Ms. Poole was to be paid one-half of all commissions that she earned for Blue Ribbon Realty. At the closing, Ms. Poole asked about her share of the commission. Refusing to pay anything to Ms. Poole, Respondent told her, "You get it any way you can." Respondent believed that Ms. Asian, not Ms. Poole, was due the salesman's share of the commission, which by agreement was one-half of the sum paid to Blue Ribbon Realty. Ms. Poole, who never listed or sold any properties for the two or three months that her license was placed with Respondent, had placed her license with another broker over ten days in advance of the December 14 closing. Under the agreement between Respondent and her salesmen, no commission was due any salesman who left Blue Ribbon Realty more than ten days prior to a closing. The reason for this policy was that much work had to be done in the ten days preceding a closing, and it was unfair to require others to perform the work while paying the salesman's share of the commission to a departed salesman. After repeated attempts to obtain payment of the $1086 due her, Ms. Poole filed a legal action against Respondent in Orange County Court. The defenses raised by Respondent apparently proved unavailing. On April 12, 1989, Ms. Poole received a final judgment in the total amount of $1197.44, including interest and costs. Although the filing date does not appear from the face of the exhibit, a Notice of Appeal was served on Ms. Poole on June 30, 1989. Subsequent attempts to recover on the judgment were unsuccessful. At this point, Ms. Poole filed a complaint with Petitioner. Respondent never requested the Florida Real Estate Commission to issue an escrow disbursement order determining who was entitled to the disputed half of the commission, never sought an adjudication of the dispute by court through interpleader or other procedure, and never submitted the matter to arbitration with the consent of the parties. The only thing that Respondent has done in this regard is to deposit the contested sum in the trust account of her attorney, apparently pending the resolution of the appeal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of failing to account or deliver a share of a commission to one of her salesmen, issuing a written reprimand, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1000. ENTERED this 23 day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23 day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Attorney Raymond O. Bodiford P.O. Box 1748 Orlando, FL 32802 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents are guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b) and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Galdo has been a licensed real estate broker for eight years and holds license number 0414542. At all material times, he served as president of Respondent Real Estate Support and Development Corporation, which is registered as a real estate broker and holds license number 0243131. All references below to "Respondent" are to Respondent Galdo only. By Contract for Sale and Purchase executed by both parties on December 5, 1989, Respondent, as trustee, agreed to sell to Ruben P. Chalarca a parcel located at 12 Sandalwood Court, Oviedo, Florida. The contract calls for a closing on or before December 28, 1989. The purchase price disclosed on the contract is "approx. 46,300.00 1000.00 cash to Mortgagee." According to the contract, payment was to include the buyer taking subject to and assuming a mortgage held by "Central Fed Mortgage Co." in the approximate principal amount of $45,300. The contract contains no information as to a brokerage commission. Blanks on the form contract concerning a commission are filled in "N/A." The only involvement of Respondent Real Estate Support and Development Corporation appears to be that Respondent provided Mr. Chalarca a business card bearing the name of Respondent, the name of Respondent Real Estate Support and Development Corporation, the company's address, and telephone numbers for Respondent and the company. However, the evidence does not establish that Respondent gave the business card to Mr. Chalarca for any purpose other than giving him the information necessary to contact Respondent. There is no evidence that Respondent held himself out as representing Real Estate Support and Development Corporation in his dealings with Mr. Chalarca. The $1000 earnest money deposit that Mr. Chalarca "paid" to Respondent was by a check that never cleared. Mr. Chalarca gave another check payable to Respondent individually. The second check was dated December 5, 1989, but was only in the amount of $400. There is another check dated December 5 payable to cash and in the amount of $150, but the record does not establish that the Chalarcas gave this sum to Respondent. Except for the $1000 earnest money check, all of the Chalarcas' checks cleared. The closing took place and Respondent Galdo, as trustee, conveyed the property by deed to Mr. Chalarca and possibly his wife. Mr. and Mrs. Chalarca are from Columbia, South America. Neither has had any significant real estate experience prior to the subject transaction with Respondent. Although Mr. Chalarca speaks and understands English reasonably well, his wife does not. Mr. Chalarca did not complete high school. Prior to or at the closing, Respondent told Mr. Chalarca to make the mortgage payments to Respondent, who would make arrangements with the mortgagee, evidently to show that the Chalarcas would be making the mortgage payments. It appear that the mortgage payments may not have been current when the Chalarcas purchased the property. Respondent admitted to Petitioner's investigator that he sent the November and December, 1989, payments to the mortgagee in January, 1990, together with a request that the mortgage be transferred to the Chalarcas. He also admitted that the bank returned the package with a demand for the January, 1990, payment. Upon receipt of the demand from the bank, Respondent told the Chalarcas that they must make the January, 1990, payment at that time. However, the record establishes that the Chalarcas gave Respondent only two checks after the closing. The first is dated April 17, 1990, and in the amount of $1600. The second check is dated May 21, 1990, and in the amount of $1000. The record does not clearly establish whether Respondent ultimately made the November and December, 1990, payments. The record clearly establishes that no one made the January, February, and March payments, although there is no evidence that the Chalarcas ever tendered these payments to Respondent. For reasons not apparent from the record, Mr. Chalarca decided to make the April, 1990, payment directly to the mortgagee. This check is dated April 7, 1990, in the amount of $1220, and payable to Transohio Savings. However, the mortgagee returned the check by letter dated May 29, 1990, because the loan was already in foreclosure. The letter gave Mr. Chalarca an address to contact "in order to stop the action." Most important, the record establishes that Respondent retained the $2600 paid to him by the April and May, 1990, checks, and the record does not establish any justification for the retention of this money by Respondent. There is no indication in the record that Respondent applied this money on behalf of the Chalarcas. To the contrary, there is some indication that no payments were made on the mortgage after late 1989. By Summary Final Judgment of Foreclosure entered November 6, 1990, Transohio Savings Bank, F.S.B. obtained a foreclosure judgment on the subject mortgage against Mr. Chalarca and his wife for the total sum of $52,613.74. The foreclosure judgment shows interest on the principal balance of $5649.24 through September 23, 1990, with an additional $15.78 per day interest from September 24, 1990, through the date of entry of the judgment. The assumed interest rate was not the statutory interest rate, which is expressly imposed upon the total due, starting from the date of the judgment. If the daily interest under the foreclosed mortgage were $15.78 daily, then unpaid interest of $5649.24 represents 358 days' interest, which would suggest that no interest payments were made after September or October, 1989. The foreclosure judgment ordered the clerk to sell the property on December 20, 1990. The Chalarcas remained in the 12 Sandalwood Court parcel until about the time of the sale.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Real Estate Support and Development Corporation, finding Roger Galdo guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), suspending his license for six months, placing him on probation for 18 months following the end of the suspension, and imposing upon him an administrative fine of $1000. ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 91-4449 Treatment of Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-3: adopted. 4: rejected as irrelevant. 5: adopted. 6: adopted except that the $1000 check was dishonored. 7: adopted. 8: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. All of the checks that the Chalarcas gave Respondent have been identified in the recommended order., which also identifies when these checks were delivered to Respondent. The evidence does not establish by the requisite standard that the Chalarcas gave Respondent the mortgage payments each month when they were due, or even that they gave Respondent funds sufficient to make the mortgage payments that fell due following the closing. 9: adopted except as the characterization of Mr. Chalarca as "suspicious." The characterization is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate standard of evidence. 10: adopted. 11: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The record does not establish Mr. Chalarca's motivation for giving Respondent the two checks totalling $2600. 12: adopted, although a substantial amount of time elapsed between the service of the foreclosure summons and the departure of the Chalarcas from the mortgaged property. 13: adopted. 14: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 15-19: rejected as recitation of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Attorney Janine B. Myrick Division of Real Estate Legal Section P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Roger Galdo 208 Madeira Avenue Orlando, FL 32825 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Dan Lee Isaacs is a real estate broker/salesman with the Petitioner, Key Realty, Inc. He seeks in this proceeding to have approved his dual licensure as a broker for Key Realty Management, Inc., as well as to retain his broker/salesman licensure with the Petitioner, Key Realty Inc. In his capacity as a broker/salesman for Key Realty Inc., he works under the supervision of Mr. Les Epperson, who is the licensed broker for that entity. Mr. Isaacs owns no stock in the corporation, Key Realty Inc. He does own stock and would be sole manager of the separate corporation known as Key Realty Management, Inc. Key Realty Management, Inc., is not affiliated in a subsidiary or other relationship with Key Realty, Inc., although there is some commonalty of ownership in that Les Epperson is a minority shareholder. The President and majority stockholder of Key Realty, Inc., Les Epperson, would have no part in the management of the operations of Key Realty Management, Inc. Mr. Isaacs desires, for personal and financial reasons, to remain active in the real estate sales field as a broker/salesman under the supervision of broker Epperson. He would, as sole manager and broker with Key Realty Management, Inc., engage in no sales activities, but rather solely in the management and supervision of various rental properties for clients of that firm. The two corporations maintain and would maintain separate accounting books and records; and, as pertinent, separate escrow and trust funds and accounts. It is to the advantage of both firms, both financially and in terms of legal liability, to maintain these escrow funds and accounts separately because of the financial and operational differences characteristic of a real estate management firm, as compared to a purely real estate sales operation as conducted by Key Realty, Inc. The Petitioner has complied with all requirements for qualification as a real estate broker pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. In October, 1980, the Petitioner applied for the above described dual licensure. The Respondent denied the application on the basis that an individual cannot be a broker and a broker/ salesman simultaneously. The principals of both corporations, Mr. Epperson and Mr. Isaacs, have submitted the affidavits and agreements pursuant to Rule 2IV-6.06, Florida Administrative Code, attesting to the absence of any conflict of interest stemming from Mr. Isaacs' licensure as a broker of the separate corporation and that both of them agree and consent to the dual registration. There is no dispute between the parties that in essence a "salesman" and a "broker/salesman" perform some of the same real estate transaction functions under the supervision of a licensed broker, for instance, the depositing with the broker of any escrow or other funds involved in a given real estate transaction for appropriate disposition and disbursement by the broker and acting in all other pertinent operative capacities under the supervision of a broker, rather than independently. The parties also did not dispute that the real basis for the "broker/salesman" designation in the licensing scheme in Florida is to allow a licensee to demonstrate to the public that a broker/salesman is clothed with additional internship, educational and experience credentials and is thus possessed of a greater degree of expertise in real estate transactions and operations than one licensed as a salesman. The Respondent however, in its argument during and subsequent to the hearing, apparently takes the position that a "broker/salesman" and a salesman perform identical functions; and, therefore, are legally to be considered as the same type of license and licensee, for purposes of establishing its legal position that since a salesman's license may not be issued to a person registered as an active broker unless the active broker's license is surrendered that neither may a person be dually licensed as both a "broker/salesman" and a broker.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is; therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Dan Lee Isaacs a license as an active real estate broker for, and on behalf of, Key Realty Management, Inc., and allowing his retention of licensure as a broker/salesman with Key Realty, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 15th day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Kirk Brown, Esquire Post Office Box 4075 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Petitioner meets the qualifications for licensure as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact On June 13, 1988, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. In responding to question 14(a) of the application, Petitioner answered that his license, as a real estate broker, had been revoked for non-payment of an administrative fine. (Respondent's exhibit 1). Petitioner attached to his application a copy of a transcript of an administrative hearing held in DOAH Case No. 84-0981. A final order was entered in that case based on a stipulation wherein Petitioner agreed to pay an administrative fine of $500 within 30 days of entry of the final order. Petitioner has not paid the administrative fine as he agreed. Petitioner admitted during hearing that he had not paid the fine and made an offer during the hearing herein to pay that fine in as much as he failed to pay it earlier since he did not have the wherewithal to pay the fine. Petitioner is now employed as a sales representative with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. 1/ Petitioner's license as a real estate broker was revoked by Respondent based on his failure to pay an administrative fine imposed in an earlier case (DOAH Case No. 86-145, Respondent's exhibit 2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman be DENIED. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this of 27th day of January, 1989. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Petitioner), is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. At all times material hereto, Robert A. Schwartz (Respondent) was a Florida licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0481297, with an address of American Real Estate Properties, Inc., 13833 Wellington Trace, West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent was initially licensed on or about May 23, 1988. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying broker and officer of American Real Estate Properties, Inc. (American Real Estate). On or about May 18, 1992, Respondent met with Ms. Renate Schuetze in West Palm Beach. 4/ Ms. Schuetze was from the State of New York and was interested in buying lots, building homes on the lots and renting the homes. Respondent had been referred to Ms. Schuetze by her friend, Ms. Mary Ann Runer. A few years ago, on behalf of Ms. Runer and using monies provided by her, Respondent had purchased a lot in West Palm Beach, overseen the contracting and construction of her home on the lot and rented out the home. All for which he charged Ms. Runer a fee. Ms. Schuetze wanted Respondent to do the same for her. On that same day, after meeting with Respondent, visiting prospective lots and model homes with him and discussing his process and procedure, Ms. Schuetze gave Respondent a check for $15,120 made payable to American Real Estate and returned to New York. Although Ms. Schuetze noted on the check that the money was for a deposit on one of the model homes, the monies were actually for a deposit of $2,000 on two certain lots ($1,000 each) and Respondent's fee of $13,000 ($6,500 per house) 5/ for performing the same service for her that he had performed for Ms. Runer. Ms. Schuetze wanted to pay Respondent his fee in advance instead of waiting until the homes had been built and rented. This was the first time that Respondent had received his fee in advance. The following day, on May 19, 1992, Respondent deposited the $15,120 into the operating account of American Real Estate which did not have an escrow account. Furthermore, Respondent had no intentions of opening an escrow account. However, the day before, on May 18, 1992, Respondent wrote two checks for $1,000 each to Miki S. Murray Realty (Murray Realty) for a deposit on two certain lots on behalf of Ms. Schuetze, leaving a balance of $13,120 from the monies given by her to Respondent. The deposits held the lots for Ms. Schuetze. On May 19, 1992, Murray Realty completed a document entitled "Reservation Deposit" for each of the lots. The document represented an acknowledgment of a deposit and the terms associated therewith. Murray Realty sold the lots and the homes to be constructed as a package deal. Each Reservation Deposit indicated, among other things, a lot deposit of $1,000 on a certain lot, the location of the lot, the purchase price of the house to be constructed on the lot, the representative for the builder/seller (Murray Realty), and the buyer who was indicated as Respondent. Also, each Reservation Deposit indicated that the deposit was an "earnest money deposit," that the contract was to be entered into on June 10, 1992, and that the deposit could be returned for any reason on or before June 10, 1992. Murray Realty required no further monies until after the signing of a contract for purchase from which construction draws would come from an account specifically setup for that purpose. This was not the first time that Respondent had entered into such a transaction with Murray Realty. Respondent used the same transaction for Ms. Runer. From on or about May 12, 1992, through on or about June 1, 1992, Respondent wrote checks from American Real Estate's operating account, totalling $10,403.01, from the remaining $13,120 given to Respondent by Ms. Schuetze. The expenditures were for Respondent's own use and benefit; none were associated with the services requested by Ms. Schuetze. On or about June 1, 1992, Respondent sent a completed contract for sale and purchase of the lots and homes and a blank buyer-broker contract, by express mail, to Ms. Schuetze for her signature. The contract for sale and purchase reflected that a "deposit" of $15,120 had been paid to American Real Estate, as seller, toward the purchase price and that the deposit was being held in "escrow." The blank buyer-broker agreement contained spaces for Respondent to insert an agreed upon fee but these were also left blank. Prior to sending these documents, Respondent had discussed the contracts with her and informed her that he was sending them to her. At the same time, on or about June 1, 1992, Ms. Schuetze wrote to Respondent requesting the return of her "deposit" of $15,120 within three days, indicating that she had decided not to sign a contract for the purchase of the homes. After she received the contracts, Ms. Schuetze returned them to Respondent unsigned. At no time prior to June 1, 1992, had Respondent presented to Ms. Schuetze for her signature a buyer-broker contract or a contract for sale and purchase. At no time pertinent hereto has Ms. Schuetze executed a buyer-broker contract or a contract for sale and purchase. Not having received a response to her letter of June 1, 1992, on or about June 8, 1992, Ms. Schuetze again made a demand by way of a letter for return of the $15,120 within three days. On or about June 11, 1992, at the request of Ms. Schuetze, Murray Realty returned her deposit of $2,000 on the two lots. At that time, Respondent had not contacted Murray Realty regarding her request, and he was unaware that Murray Realty had returned the deposit. Shortly thereafter, but also in the month of June 1992, Respondent agreed to return the $13,120, less the value of services he had already rendered, to Ms. Schuetze but requested additional time in which to so do since he had spent the money. She agreed to give Respondent additional time. On or about December 4, 1992, Respondent gave a statement to Petitioner in which he agreed to return, within 12 months, the $13,120 less 10 percent for the services that he believed that he had already rendered, leaving a balance of $11,808 to be returned. At the time of hearing on October 13, 1993, Respondent had failed to refund any of the money to Ms. Schuetze. Respondent has no history of disciplinary action.
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 Count II of the amended administrative complaint; and SUSPENDING the broker's license of Robert A. Schwartz for five years. Provided, however, that the duration of his suspension may be lessened upon the return to Ms. Schuetze of the $13,120. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of May 1994. ERROL H. POWELL 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 26th day of May 1994.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the licensure and real estate brokerage and sales practice standards embodied in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is a licensed real estate broker, licensed under that chapter. The Respondent, Keith Ellis, while engaged in the business of real estate development, entered into a contract whereby he would purchase a parcel of land adjacent to U.S. Highway 90, the "Scenic Highway," in Pensacola, Florida. That agreement was entered into in February, 1985, with the Respondent's purpose being to commence development of the property, consisting of eight residential lots, into a single-family residential subdivision. Mr. Ellis, in embarking upon his development plan, after entering into the contract for purchase of the subject lots, found that he lacked capital necessary to finance construction of certain infrastructure for the subdivision. He sought additional funding and ultimately was referred to Robert Tegenkamp as a potential investor. He entered into discussions with Mr. Tegenkamp and ultimately the two agreed that Tegenkamp would invest $25,000 in the project. In return, as consideration, Mr. Ellis agreed to repay the $25,000 investment to Tegenkamp within six months. He also agreed to pay Tegenkamp a $25,000 profit within twelve months. He prepared a written agreement to that effect, executed March 1, 1985. The Respondent also proposed to give Mr. Tegenkamp an option on one lot, Lot Number 8, in the planned subdivision, as further consideration for Tegenkamp investing the necessary capital. This option was executed February 28, 1985. The subdivision totaled eight lots, all of equal value, as established by the opinion of the Respondent himself, who is experienced in appraising real estate, and by M. Eugene Presley, a licensed M.A.I. appraiser. It was the intent of both Ellis and Tegenkamp, at the time of the signing of the agreement, that Ellis would seek to sell all the eight lots, including the lot on which Tegenkamp held an option. Both those parties also understood that Tegenkamp could not be repaid unless the lots were sold. Tegenkamp had no desire to take title to any lot in the subdivision and understood from the outset that he would be entitled to Lot 8, (or any lot), only if Ellis was otherwise unable to repay him. The Respondent arbitrarily chose to indicate Lot 8 on the option contract, but Tegenkamp had no special desire to acquire any interest in that particular lot. The true intent of the parties was simply that Tegenkamp have an option on a lot in the subdivision to secure him, in the event the debt was not repaid by Ellis. In view of the fact that the value of each lot was identical, it did not matter to Tegenkamp on which lot he had an "option," or other form of security interest. He never expected to get title to a lot and was never told that he would, by the Respondent or any other person. The Respondent has always acknowledged that he owes the money in question to Mr. Tegenkamp and that he was obligated under the "option" to convey one of the lots to Tegenkamp, if he could not repay him. Ellis borrowed the funds for acquisition of the property, and for coverage of most development costs, from the First National Bank of Escambia County. Before the agreements between Ellis and Tegenkamp were signed, he told Mr. Tegenkamp, who also did his banking business at the same bank, of the bank's involvement in financing the project. The Respondent suggested that Tegenkamp contact the loan officers involved to reveal his interest in the project. This Tegenkamp failed to do, nor did he ever record his option agreement. Consequently, the bank acquired a first priority lien on the eight lots by the execution and recording of the mortgage from Ellis to the bank, for financing the purchase, installation of the infrastructure and payment of other development costs. When Mr. Ellis obtained the $25,000 capital from Mr. Tegenkamp, he proceeded with his development plans. He negotiated a sale of all the lots in the subdivision to Ray Lemon, a general contractor. On May 10, 1985, he entered into a written sales contract with Mr. Lemon as to all eight lots. This contract required Ellis to proceed to complete all improvements, such as paving and drainage provisions, as well as to obtain approval of the plat of the subdivision by the City of Pensacola. Mr. Ellis informed Mr. Tegenkamp of this agreement with Mr. Lemon. Thereafter, on May 28, 1985, Mr. Ellis closed the loan with First National Bank of Escambia County, giving that bank a first priority mortgage lien on the entire subdivision. Shortly thereafter, the plat of the subdivision was accepted by the City of Pensacola. Most of the improvements installed by Ellis were complete by late July, 1985. Mr. Lemon then indicated to Ellis that he was having financial difficulties and needed to delay the closing of his purchase of the eight lots. If Lemon had been able to complete his planned purchase of all eight lots on time, Mr. Ellis could have paid Tegenkamp the agreed upon $50,000 and still netted about $10,000 profit himself. In any event, shortly after Ellis learned of the delayed Lemon closing, he was approached by Dr. and Mrs. Tousignant, who were interested in purchasing Lots 7 and 8. Dr. Tousignant owned a neighboring parcel of property and wanted to preserve his view of Escambia Bay by acquiring ownership of Lots 7 and 8. The Respondent obtained Mr. Lemon's approval to sell Lots 7 and 8 to the Tousignants and also informed Mr. Tegenkamp of the proposed sale to the Dr. and his wife, as Mr. Tegenkamp himself admitted. Mr. Tegenkamp approved of Ellis selling the lots in question, and on August 25, 1985, Ellis entered into a written agreement to sell Lots 7 and 8 to the Tousignants. The sale was closed on September 17, 1985, but did not produce enough money for Ellis to pay off Tegenkamp. Tegenkamp had not demanded payment at this time anyway and the final time limit for repayment had not elapsed. Thereafter, Ray Lemon encountered more financial problems and for several months was unable to close the planned purchase of the remaining six lots. Eventually, Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 were sold to Ray Lemon and K. C. Hembree. These closings took place between January and March, 1986. The sales did not produce enough funds to pay off Tegenkamp because of development expenses which had to be covered, mortgage release amounts and interest attributable to each lot, which had to be paid to the bank holding the first mortgage. The Respondent thus retained ownership of only Lots 1 and 2 by the end of March, 1986. His ownership of these two lots was subject to the first mortgage to the bank, the principal balance of which remained at approximately $20,600. That mortgage was subsequently assigned to Ray Lemon who had payed off the bank. Lemon now holds that mortgage. The Respondent has attempted, without success, to sell the remaining two lots. Because of economic conditions prevailing, the value of each of the two remaining lots declined from an estimated $59,000 in March, 1985, to about $50,000 by April, 1986. Because Ellis did not timely pay the $25,000 required by the original agreement, Mr. Tegenkamp retained an attorney to represent him in seeking repayment. Attorney Miles Davis entered into various discussions with Ellis from November, 1985 through April, 1986. In December, 1985, Ellis had proposed to Davis that he deliver to Tegenkamp a quit claim deed conveying his interest in Lot 1 to Tegenkamp. Ellis could not give a warranty deed because title was then encumbered by the above-mentioned mortgage held by Lemon, as assignee of the bank, and because of a potential claim of lien by the paving contractor for $7,000 to $8,000. The contractor since failed to pursue and perfect his claim of lien. In February, 1986, Attorney Davis wrote to Ellis expressing a willingness to accept a quit claim deed on behalf of Tegenkamp. In April, 1986, Ellis delivered the quit claim deed to Davis, conveying his interest in Lot 1 to Tegenkamp. It was recorded in the public records of Escambia County. Davis then filed a civil suit against Ellis in May, 1986, on behalf of Tegenkamp. The parties since arrived at a settlement of that litigation whereby Tegenkamp is to receive approximately $25,000 and Lot 1 will be re-conveyed to Ellis. Tegenkamp's attorney, Miles Davis, testified that Ellis never denied owing the money to his client and every indication was that the Respondent was trying to sell the property as soon as possible to pay his obligation to Tegenkamp. Mr. Tegenkamp himself testified and acknowledged that the Respondent was not trying to take advantage of him, but was simply "someone who had gotten himself into a bad deal."
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 22nd day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0228 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: The Petitioner filed no proposed findings of facts. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-41 Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Danny L. Kepner SHELL, FLEMING, DAVIS & MENGE Seventh Floor, Seville Tower Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32598 Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(b) Florida Statutes, 1/ by committing the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate and for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent is a licensed real estate broker under license number 0478560. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a broker t/a Concord Financial Realty Co. ("CFR"), 495 E. Semoran Boulevard #115, Casselberry, Florida 32708. Respondent is the sole owner of CFR. CFR carries on regular business activities that include apartment rentals and sales of real estate. On January 31, 1992, Respondent and Mr. Charles Wallman, Respondent's husband, owned all of the stock of C.L. Wallman Associates, Inc ("CWA"). 2/ Respondent's husband owned Concord Financial Services, Inc. ("CFS"). CFS was formed to sell insurance and securities. Respondent and her husband operated CFR, CWA, and CFS out of shared office space. Respondent performed bookkeeping and secretarial duties for CWA and CFS. In January, 1992, Respondent's husband (the "seller") verbally agreed ("agreed") to sell 35 percent of the stock of CFS to Mr. John Topercer (the "purchaser") for $35,000. The seller and purchaser agreed to operate the company as "partners." The sale proceeds were to be invested in the company in which the seller and purchaser were to be partners. The purchaser paid the $35,000 purchase price in five installments from January 31, 1992, through March 12, 1992. During that time, the seller agreed to sell an additional 14 percent of the stock of CFS for an additional $13,000. The purchaser paid the additional $13,000 in three installments from April 14, 1992, through May 13, 1992. In May, 1992, the purchaser and seller agreed to another stock acquisition for $20,000. The seller would merge CFS, CWA, and CFR into a new company to be known as Concord Financial Centre ("CFC"). All of the business activities carried out by the separate companies would be consolidated into CFC. The purchaser would receive 49 percent of the stock of CFC in exchange for his 49 percent stock ownership in CFS. The seller and purchaser would operate CFC as "partners" in the same manner as originally contemplated for CFS. The sale proceeds were to be invested in the company in which the seller and purchaser were to be partners. The purchaser paid $20,000 in five installments from June 2 through June 22, 1992, and tendered his stock in CFS. However, the purchaser never received any stock in CFC. CFC was never formed. The seller never tendered any stock in CFC to the purchaser. The seller used some of the sale proceeds to operate CFS. However, approximately $30,000 of the sale proceeds were misappropriated and used by Respondent and her husband for personal purposes including a down payment on a house and a car. On January 6, 1993, the purchaser filed a civil complaint against Respondent and her husband alleging fraud, recision, and mismanagement of corporate funds. On August 8, 1994, the purchaser received judgment against Respondent and her husband in the amount of $30,000. Respondent and her husband have not satisfied the judgment. Neither has paid any money toward the judgment, and the purchaser has been unable to satisfy the judgment. Respondent knew of the negotiations and business transactions between her husband and Mr. Topercer. Respondent performed the duties of bookkeeper and documented all of the payments made by Mr. Topercer. Respondent was present during some of the discussions between her husband and Mr. Topercer. Respondent agreed to the merger of CFR into CFC. Respondent participated in the misappropriation of the purchase proceeds for her own personal use. When considered in their totality, the acts committed by Respondent constitute fraud and dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(b). Those acts were repeated and continued for more than six months. The amount misappropriated by Respondent is significant. During the three and a half years since June, 1992, Respondent has made no attempt at restitution.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b) and revoking Respondent's real estate license. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY, 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 9th day of January 1996.
