Findings Of Fact Scorpio, Inc. was incorporated to do business in this State on September 18, 1973 and was registered as a corporate real estate broker on 4/8/74 with certificate to expire 3/31/75. Laverne Pariso was a registered real estate broker and Active Firm Member for Scorpio, Inc. from 4/8/74 to expiration date of license 3/31/75. Michael W. Karpan was a registered real estate salesman from 10/1/74 to 9/30/76 the expiration date of his registration and was employed by Scorpio, Inc. About the time Scorpio, Inc. was registered as a corporate broker the real estate market was not conducive to the success of housing developments and, since the registration of Scorpio, Inc. was obtained to facilitate sale of the developed property and no development was started, Scorpio, Inc. did no business of the type for which it was registered. No listings were obtained, no sales were made, and no effort was put forth to do either. An escrow account was opened with an initial $50 deposit but during the time the registration was effective no deposits were made to, or withdrawals from, this escrow account. Ardina E. Karpan, the mother of Michael W. Karpan, owns all of the stock of Scorpio, Inc. Laverne Pariso, the APM, left the employ of Scorpio, Inc. in March, 1975 but did not notify the FREC or take steps to place her registration in an inactive status. Applications were made for renewal of the broker's license of neither Pariso nor Scorpio, Inc. when due, 3/31/75. By Corporate Resolution dated February 1, 1974 Scorpio, Inc. authorized the establishment of an escrow account at the Barnett Bank of Miami. An initial deposit of $50 was made to this account on February 6, 1974. The resolution authorizes Laverne Pariso and Michael W. Karpan or Ardina Karpan to sign checks on this account and notes that two signatures are required. The resolution further provided authorized signers "are both Laverne Pariso and Michael William Karpan, Jr., both signature are required". Scorpio, Inc.'s primary business was the management of shareholder's investments and real estate holdings. In May, 1975 Michael Karpan was approached by a business associate, whose daughter was a creditor of Chandelier of the Virginia Playhouse d/b/a Track and Turf Lounge, to assist in the negotiations for the sale of the business in order to pay off the creditors and salvage his daughter's loan. The purchaser was already at hand and Karpan was selected to hold funds advanced pending the closing of the deal. After the principals had agreed on the basic price to be paid for the business an earnest money deposit of $5,000 was given by the buyer to Karpan on or about May 21, 1975 and the agreement was memorialized in a letter of May 21, 1975 from Karpan, on Scorpio, Inc. letterhead to the buyer, Walker (Exhibit 25). Nowhere on this letter is reference made to either Karpan or Scorpio, Inc. being associated with real estate sales. The $5,000 received from Walker was deposited in Scorpio, Inc's escrow account on deposit slip dated May 21, 1975 and the bank statement (Exhibit 10) shows $5,000 deposited in this account 5/30/75. No other agreement between the parties was reduced to writing and signed by the buyer and seller. At no time during the negotiations did Karpan hold himself out to be a real estate salesman or broker or indicate he expected a commission for his services if the sale was consummated. On May 29, 1975 Karpan borrowed $5,000 from the Barnett Bank and used the $5,000 in the escrow account as cash collateral for the loan. The signature of Pariso was not on any paper to authorize the withdrawal of this money from the escrow account. The loan was placed in the regular account of Scorpio, Inc. c/o Michael Karpan and one check dated 5/30/75 in the amount of $3,699 was drawn on the account payable to the Intercontinental Bank of Miami and used to make interest payment owed by the Chandelier of the Virginia Playhouse. $1,301 was delivered to the manager of Track and Turf Lounge by Karpan (Exhibit 4). Karpan contends that the buyer, Walker, authorized him to make whatever payments were necessary out of the $5,000 deposit to insure that the liquor license would not be lost or the Track and Turf Lounge be placed out of business before the deal was consummated. Following the delivery of the $5,000 to Karpan the buyer brought his attorney into the proceedings. The property on which the Track and Turf Lounge is located was owned by D. Mitchell Investments, Inc. The lease arrangements (or lack thereof depending on which witness is more credible) were such that the sale could not be consummated. By letter dated June 12, 1975 the buyer, through his attorney, demanded return of the $5,000 deposit given to Karpan. No evidence was presented as to the date the $1,301 was given to Roy O'Nan, the manager at Track and Turf. The letter evidencing such payment is dated well after the transaction had fallen through and demand for return of the $5,000 had been made. A suit was subsequently filed by Walker and a default judgment was obtained against Scorpio, Inc. after a Motion to Strike Defendant's, Scorpio, Answer because Scorpio, Inc. was delinquent in paying the annual $5.00 filing fee required of Florida corporations, was granted. At the time the transactions here being contested occurred the registration of Laverne Pariso and Scorpio, Inc. had expired. Since Karpan can only work under the supervision of a broker, his license too was not operative. Ms. Pariso renewed her license as a broker-salesman with another realty office in September, 1975 but no evidence was presented that Scorpio, Inc. ever applied for registration renewal. During the period between March and September, 1975 Ms. Pariso did no real estate work. Numerous discrepancies appeared between the testimony and documents. Although the authorization for withdrawing funds from the escrow account provided that the signature of Pariso and Michael Karpan or his mother was required the bank apparently interpreted that to require any two of the signatures and then authorized one first deposit placed in the escrow account after the initial deposit to be withdrawn with only Karpan's signature. Several witnesses alluded to Track and Turf leasing the premises which they occupied but evidence was presented that no lease payments were to be made until 1978. Certainly the inability of the "tenant" to transfer the "lease" was a major factor in the failure of the sale to transpire. The sale here involved was the sale of a business as contrasted to the sale of real property.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Real Estate Commission should discipline Respondent, Michael J. James (James), for the reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed against him by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department). Count I of the Administrative Complaint alleges that James is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretense, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1983), in connection with his handling of an escrowed real estate purchase deposit. Count II of the Administrative Complaint alleges that James failed to account and deliver the $5,000 deposit to the rightful owners in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1983). Finally, Count III of the Administrative Complaint alleges that James, while licensed as a salesman, operated as a broker or as a salesman for someone not registered as his employing broker in violation of Sections 475.42(1)(b) and 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1983).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Michael J. James (James), has been at all relevant times a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0361739. On or about November 6, 1983, James solicited and obtained two $2,500 earnest money deposits from Skarian M. Kakkanatt and K. Thomas Idiculla, as purchasers, who entered into two different sales contract offers to purchase two separate motel properties, one in Kissimmee and the other in Osceola County. The total deposits of $5,000 were placed in the escrow account of International Marketing and Manufacturing Services, Inc. (International), by its registered broker, Harold C. Jacobsen, who was also James' registered employing broker. On or about November 14, 1983, being dissatisfied with the inspection of the financial records of the two motel operations, the purchasers, sent a telegram to International and all interested parties providing notice that the two sales contract offers were cancelled under the terms of the contracts and that all monies deposited by the purchasers should be refunded. On December 8, 1983, the purchasers reiterated their demand for a refund of all deposits by letter to James. Between November 1983 and April 1984, Jacobsen became increasingly seriously ill. To a greater and greater extent, James assumed Jacobsen's responsibilities to International under the increasingly general supervision of Jacobsen. Jacobsen and James agreed that International was entitled to the deposit under the contracts as brokerage commission, rationalizing that the purchasers were not entitled to cancel the contracts because their two checks in the amount of $22,500 each for additional deposits were returned unpaid because of insufficient funds. Jacobsen and James therefore agreed to disburse the $5,000 from escrow and did so over the course of time through January 1984. The contracts negotiated by James on behalf of International for the purchase of the two motel properties clearly entitled the purchasers to inspect the financial records of the two motel operations and to cancel the contracts on or before November 15, 1983. Payment of the deposits was not a condition precedent to their entitlement to cancel. Having exercised their option to cancel, the purchasers were no longer obligated to make any deposits. The contracts having been cancelled, no brokerage commission was due to International. While Jacobsen was James' employing broker, both c James and Jacobsen worked for International. International, in turn, was wholly owned by American Paper Company, which was wholly owned by James. Under Jacobsen's employment contract with International, Jacobsen was entitled to only 2% of any broker's commission earned by James. The balance of such broker's commissions would go to International or, in effect, to James. James, therefore, had a greater pecuniary interest in the $5,000 deposit than Jacobsen. Between November 1983 and April 1984, James hoped the purchasers would not vigorously assert their rights to the $5,000 deposit. The purchasers resided in New York, and assertion of their rights was not easy. James obtained from the selling broker a waiver of any interest of the seller or the selling broker to the deposit. By April 1984, it became evident to James that the purchasers were indeed going to assert their rights to the deposit. Concerned that the escrowed deposit already had been disbursed, James decided to redeposit $5,000 in escrow, using a $5,000 broker's commission he had earned on behalf of International on another sale. By this time, Jacobsen was only coming into the office approximately once a week to sign checks and look over sales contracts and bank records. By this time, James was handling the matter of the deposit on his own, with Jacobsen's consent and trust. On May 8, 1984, James notified the Department of Professional Regulation that a dispute had arisen with the purchasers concerning the $5,000 deposit but that James would be filing an interpleader action on behalf of International according to the instructions of Jacobsen. On or about May 14, 1984, James filed against the purchasers a complaint for interpleader in the Osceola County Circuit Court on behalf of International seeking half of the $5,000 deposit. James signed the complaint and used a signature stamp to ascribe Jacobsen's signature as broker for International. Jacobsen had authorized James to use the signature stamp in his absence because of his illness. James had the $5,000 deposit transferred into the depository of the Circuit Court in and for Osceola County, Florida, when the complaint was filed. On June 11, 1984, Jacobsen died. On June 23, 1984, James filed a voluntary dismissal of the interpleader action, in part because of Jacobsen's death. The clerk of the court returned the $5,000 deposit to International on June 22, 1984. On June 25, 1984, James reopened International's escrow account at the Community National Bank in Kissimmee by depositing the 55,000 in that account. On or about July 11, 1984, James requested an escrow disbursement order from the Department of Professional Regulation regarding the disposition of the $5,000. Between June 25 and July 27, 1984, the Community National Bank deducted amounts from the escrow account to reimburse the bank for overdrafts on James' personal checking account. James complained about this, and some of the amounts were reinstated in the escrow account. However, the bank requested that James remove all accounts. On July 27, 1984, James withdrew the balance of the account and redeposited the $4,809.48 balance in International's real estate escrow account with the Barnett Bank of Kissimmee on or about August 31, 1984. However, James soon began writing checks on the account, and by September 10, 1984, the balance was down to $2,775. On September 10, 1984, James reiterated his request to the Department for an escrow disbursement order and indicated that he was scheduled to meet with one of the purchasers to resolve the deposit dispute. On September 12, 1984, the Florida Real Estate Commission advised James that it would not be issuing an escrow disbursement order. On September 24, 1984, the Department's investigator, Charles E. Kimmig, Sr., wrote James to inquire whether a settlement had been reached with the purchasers. Respondent did not reply to Kimmig's letter. By October 3, 1984, James had spent all but $298.11 of the escrow account. James never has returned to the purchasers any of the $5,000 deposit to which they are entitled.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission hold Respondent, Michael J. James, guilty of Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint in this case and revoke his real estate salesman's license, to be automatically reinstated after a one year suspension if James makes restitution to Skarian M. Kakkanatt and K. Thomas Idiculla within one year in the amount of $5,000 plus simple interest at the rate of 12% per year from November 14, 1983. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Michael J. James P. O. Box 3801 Longwood, Florida 32750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), (d), and (e), Florida Statutes, 1/ through culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction; by failing to account or deliver trust funds; and by failing to timely notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of a deposit dispute or to implement remedial action; 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 0037920. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a broker at Heath Realty, 4864 S. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida. On May 18, 1993, Mr. Anthony Rodgers and Ms. Jill Rodgers (the "buyers") entered into a contract to purchase real property from Ms. Norma A. Cash (the "seller"). The buyers entrusted Respondent with a total earnest money deposit of $1,000. The transaction failed to close. On July 8, 1993, Respondent timely notified Petitioner in writing that there were conflicting demands for the earnest money deposit and a good faith doubt regarding the deposit. However, Respondent failed to institute one of the settlement procedures described in Section 475.25(1)(d)1. until legal proceedings between the buyer and seller were amicably settled approximately seven months later. Respondent failed to institute a prescribed settlement procedure in a timely manner even though Petitioner advised Respondent in letters dated July 26, 1993, and September 9, 1993, of the action Respondent should take. On February 9, 1994, Respondent finally requested an escrow disbursement order in accordance with Section 475.25(10(d)1. The escrow deposit was paid to the seller pursuant to the agreement of the parties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d)1., but guilty of violating Section 475.42(1)(e) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-10.032. It is further recommended that the Final Order place Respondent on probation for a period of one year and, during the period of probation, require Respondent to complete courses in broker management not to exceed eight credit hours. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. 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 8th day of February 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Clyde J. Spindler, is a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0185572 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Spindler is the broker of record for a real estate firm known as Allmac Realty, 5331 Commercial Way, Spring Hill, Florida. When the events herein occurred, respondent, Robert F. McCarthy, held broker license number 0415199 issued by the Division. Respondent, Jacqulyn B. McCarthy, is a licensed real estate salesperson having been issued license number 0482611 by the Division. On January 15, 1991, the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) entered a final order suspending Robert F. McCarthy's broker license for three years, effective March 7, 1991. At that time, McCarthy operated a real estate firm known as Allmac Realty, Inc., t/a Allmac Realty, at 4040 Commercial Way, Spring Hill, Florida. The same order suspended the corporate broker's license for three years. At the time the order was entered, Jacqulyn McCarthy was a salesperson in her husband's firm. Although the suspension order was not served on McCarthy until February 21, 1991, he learned on January 15, 1991, that his license was going to be suspended. After McCarthy disclosed this fact to Spindler the same day, Spindler agreed to operate a real estate firm using the name of Allmac Realty. Thereafter, Spindler registered as a broker effective February 18, 1991, for a new firm known as Allmac Realty at 5331 Commercial Way, Spring Hill, Florida. Upon the advice of his attorney, on March 4, 1991, Robert McCarthy made application with the Division for registration as a broker-salesman with the new Allmac Realty. Because he believed that this action was legal, Robert McCarthy had no intent to circumvent the action taken by the Commission. Apparently unaware of the suspension order, the Division approved the registration effective March 6, 1991, or the day before the suspension of the broker's license became effective. Also, his wife, Jacqulyn McCarthy, placed her license with the new firm the same date. The broker of record of a firm is required to review, sign and date each monthly reconciliation statement of the firm. Robert McCarthy, who held a valid broker's license until March 1991, did so for the January and February 1991 statements. This responsibility was then given to Spindler for all subsequent statements. After receiving a complaint from the Hernando County Board of Realtors, a Division investigator, Marjorie F. May, visited Allmac Realty's office on October 7, 1991, to conduct a routine audit. As a result of her audit, May learned that Robert McCarthy was using his license with the firm even though it had been suspended since March 7, 1991. She also learned that Jacqulyn McCarthy, a salesperson, was the only signatory on the firm's escrow account while the broker of record (Spindler) was not. Rule 21V-14.010(1) requires that the broker of record be a signatory on the account. By failing to be a signatory on the account, Splinder contravened this rule. It should be noted that after being told of this omission, Spindler immediately corrected this deficiency. It should also be noted that Spindler was a signatory on two other firm accounts and was under the impression that he had properly signed for all necessary bank accounts. The audit further revealed that on August 30, 1991, a prospective tenant gave Jacqulyn McCarthy a $375.00 check as a security deposit on a rental house. Before McCarthy was able to deposit the check in the firm's escrow account, the tenant advised Jacqulyn that she was not going to rent the property and asked that the check be returned. McCarthy promptly returned the check to the client. However, during the time interval between receiving the check and the subsequent request for refund, McCarthy wrote herself a $200.00 check from the firm's operating account as her share of the commission for securing the rental. There is no evidence that any imbalance in the escrow account occurred as a result of this transaction. There is also no evidence that McCarthy violated any Division rule by failing to immediately deposit the check in the firm's escrow account since the check was returned to the client the same day that it was written. During her examination of the firm's monthly statements, May discovered that even though Spindler had signed the monthly statements, he had failed to date the same. This omission contravened a requirement in Rule 21V-14.012(2), Florida Administrative Code, that he "date the monthly statement- reconciliation". However, this was an oversight on Spindler's part and was not an intentional violation of the rule. There was no intent on the part of Robert McCarthy to circumvent Division rules or the prior order of suspension. Indeed, he acted on his counsel's advice and, after learning that his continued participation as a salesman was improper, immediately stopped all real estate activities. At that point in time, and after being notified by McCarthy, the Division also cancelled the previously issued broker-salesman registration. Spindler has been a real estate broker since 1977 and is now semi- retired. He visits Allmac's offices two or three times per week but does not actively solicit listings or sales. This is because of his practice not to compete with salespersons in his firm. However, he is advised of all decisions that must be made on behalf of the firm and is an active participant in those decisions. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Robert McCarthy was the de facto broker of the firm after Spindler registered as its broker of record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered finding Clyde J. Spindler guilty as charged in Counts VIII and IX and Jacqulyn McCarthy guilty as charged in Count VI. All other counts should be dismissed. It is further recommended that the licenses of those two respondents be placed on probation for a period of one year. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 10th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-1344 Petitioner: 1-4. Accepted in finding of fact 1. 5-6. Accepted in finding of fact 2. 7-8. Accepted in finding of fact 3. Accepted in findings of fact 3 and 8. Accepted in finding of fact 5. 10a. Accepted in finding of fact 5. 10b. Accepted in finding of fact 7. 10c. Accepted in finding of fact 6. Accepted in finding of fact 9. Accepted in finding of fact 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Mr. Clyde J. Spindler 12156 Fairway Avenue Brooksville, FL 34613 Mr. Robert F. McCarthy 5331 Commercial Way Spring Hill, FL 34606 Ms. Jacqulyn B. McCarthy 5331 Commercial Way Spring Hill, FL 34606
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George G. Walsh, is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0117943. Mr. Walsh is the owner of and the qualifying broker for G. G. Jerry Walsh Real Estate, located in Panama city, Florida. In May 1989, Respondent was the acting broker for Howard Bilford of Miami, Florida. Mr. Bilford owned a five acre parcel of property located in Bay County, Florida. Around May 15, 1989, Tama and Paul Russ, through Mr. Walsh's office, entered into a contract for the purchase of Mr. Bilford's property. The purchase price of the property was $15,000. The Russ' gave Mr. Walsh a $500 binder for deposit in his escrow account. The $500 was placed in Respondent's escrow account. Simultaneous with the signing of the sales contract and deposit receipt agreement, Mr. Walsh also prepared an estimated closing cost statement. On that closing cost statement, Mr. Walsh estimated that a survey of the property would cost the Russ' $450. During this meeting, Mr. Walsh explained to the Russ' that, especially if a financial institution was involved in the financing of the property, there would be certain costs which they would probably have to pay up front. Part of those costs included a survey of the property. At about the same time, the Russ' made application for a loan to a credit union located in Panama City, Florida. At the time of the loan application, the loan officers Mrs. Stokes, prepared a closing cost statement estimating the loan closing costs which the Russ' would encounter. On the credit union's closing cost statement, the cost of a survey was estimated to be $150 to $200. Since it was the credit union that required the survey, the Russ' believed that that estimate was the more accurate. The Russ' simply could not afford a $500 survey. As part of the loan application, an appraisal of the property was required. The appraisal was ordered by the credit union on May 16, 1989, and was completed on May 31, 1989. Unfortunately, the property had been vandalized by unknown persons, and the mobile home which was on the property had suffered severe and substantial damage. The appraisal indicated that the real estate was worth $10,500. With such a low appraisal, the credit union would not lend the amount necessary to purchase the property at the negotiated price. In an effort to renegotiate the property's price, Tama Russ inspected the property and prepared a list of the items which would have to be repaired to make the mobile home liveable. At the same time, the Russ' placed no trespassing signs and pulled logs across the entry to the property. The Russ' also placed padlocks on the doors to the mobile home and removed the accumulated garbage inside the mobile home in an effort to secure the property. They made no other repairs to the property. On June 1, 1990, the Russ' told the loan officer to hold the loan application. At some point during this process, both Mr. Walsh and the Russ' became aware that the survey would cost a considerable amount more than had been expected. By using a favor with Mr. Walsingham of County Wide Surveying, Mr. Walsh obtained a survey price of $500 for the Russ'. In an effort to help the Russ' close on the property, Mr. Walsh contacted Mr. Bilford to see if he would agree to pay the $500 survey cost. Mr. Bilford so agreed, contingent on the closure of the transaction, and sent Mr. Walsh a check made out to County Wide Surveying in the amount of $500. At that point, the Russ' believed that they were no longer obligated to pay for the survey since Mr. Walsh told them that Mr. Bilford was to pay for the survey. On June 3, 1989, Mr. Bilford agreed to a renegotiated price of $10,500.00 on the property. Additionally the Russ' agreed to sign a ten year promissory note for $2,000 bearing 11% interest per annum. Since there were changes in the terms of the contract, the Russ' entered into a net contract with Mr. Bilford on June 3, 1989. The new contract expired on June 30, 1989. Around June 5, 1989, the Russ' learned that their credit had been preliminarily approved. However, such preliminary approval only indicated that the Russ' had sufficient income to proceed with the more costly loan underwriting requirements of the credit union. Such preliminary approval did not indicate that the loan would be finally approved by the financial institution. The preliminary approval was communicated to Mr. Walsh by Tama Russ. Ms. Russ intended the communication to mean that they had been preliminarily approved by the financial institution. Mr. Walsh in an abundance caution contacted Mrs. Stokes, the loan officer. Mrs. Stokes advised him that the Russ' credit had been preliminarily approved. She did not tell him that the loan had been finally approved. Through a misunderstanding of what Mrs. Stokes communicated to him, Mr. Walsh ordered the survey from County Wide Realty on June 7, 1989. There was no reliable evidence presented that the credit union had authorized him to order the survey. The credit union at no time during this process ordered the survey. Mr. Walsh testified that Ms. Russ told him to order the survey. Ms. Russ denies that she gave Mr. Walsh permission to order the survey. At best this evidence goes only to demonstrate Respondent's intent with regards to the actions he undertook in this case and removes this case from a Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, violation. At some point Ms. Stokes left the employ of the credit union. On June 16, 1989, as part of her leaving, she unilaterally closed the Russ' loan application file and cancelled the loan application. Neither the Russ' nor Mr. Walsh were notified of the closure or the cancellation. The credit union's file fell into the void created between a change of employees. Because Mr. Walsh was unaware of Ms. Stokes' actions, Mr. Walsh, on July 13, 1989, after the expiration of the Russ' sales contract, contacted the credit union in order to obtain the loan closing package from the institution. The credit union had to hunt for the Russ' file. The credit union president called the Russ' about the loan and he was advised that they did not want the loan. The credit union's president then reviewed the loan file and noted that the Russ' had insufficient income to come up with the amount of the promissory note. He also thought the real estate constituted insufficient collateral for the loan. The loan application was officially denied on July 15, 1989. The Russ' were notified of the credit union's denial credit. The real estate transaction never closed. However, sometime after July 15, 1989, Mr. Walsh received the survey from County Wide. The survey indicates that the field work for the survey was completed on July 17, 1989, and that it was drawn on July 18, 1989. 1/ There was no reliable evidence which indicated any attempt had been made to cancel the survey. Sometime, after July 15, 1989, Tama Russ contacted Mr. Walsh in order to obtain the return of their $500 deposit. After many failed attempts to get the Russ' to voluntarily agree to pay for the cost of the survey, Mr. Walsh, around October, 1989, unilaterally paid the Russ' deposit to County Wide Realty. Mr. Walsh followed this course of action after speaking with some local FREC members who advised him that since FREC was swamped with deposit disputes that nothing would happen as long as he used his best judgment. The payment of the deposit to the surveyor, without prior authorization from the Ruse' violates Section 475.25(1)(d) and (k) Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the pleadings and argument of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(d) and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, issuing a letter of reprimand to Respondent with instructions to immediately replace the Russ' trust deposit and forthwith submit the matter to the commission for an escrow disbursement order and levying a $250 fine. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the portions of the Administrative Complaint alleging violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 29th day of January, 1991.
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 Robert & Gilman, Inc. at all times herein involved was registered as a real estate broker by the State of Florida. Delair A. Clark at all times herein involved was registered as a real estate salesman by the State of Florida. Residential property owned by William L. and Frances Crummett was listed with J.B. Steelman, Jr. real estate broker and put on Multiple Listing Service. On June 17, 1972, immediately after the For Sale sign was erected, Respondent, Delair A. Clark, presented an offer to the sellers on this property which was accepted by sellers on the same date presented (Exhibit 9). This contract provided the purchase price of $28,500 with a $300 earnest money deposit, the usual clauses in a form contract for sale and purchase, and two special clauses to wit: "A. Subject to: Buyer being reassigned to central Florida prior to June 22, 1972. In the event the assignment does not materialize by June 23, 1972 deposit will, be returned in full and contract will be null and void. B. Subject to: Buyer obtaining a 90 percent conventional loan for a period of 25 years or an FHA loan for 30 years." By telegram dated 6/20/72 (Exhibit 8) buyer confirmed re-assignment to Orlando, thus satisfying condition A in the contract. Buyers thereafter asked for earlier occupancy than originally called for. Since special arrangements would have to be made by sellers, Mr. Crummett asked for an amendment to the contract to increase the earnest money deposit to $1,000 of which $500 would be non-refundable if contract was not consummated. This amendment was duly executed by the buyers on July 15, 1972 and by the sellers. A copy thereof was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 11 which provides: "SPECIAL CLAUSE" "C. An additional deposit of $700 will be made on July 17, 1972, of which $500 will be non-refundable in the event the referenced contract is not consumated (sic)." This amendment was forwarded to the sellers by Respondent's Roberts & Gilman letter of July 17, 1972 which amendment was executed by the sellers upon receipt and mailed back to Roberts & Gilman. The July 17, 1972 letter was signed by Judy L. Rostatter of the sales processing department. A copy of the check received from the buyers was not enclosed although the letter stated it was enclosed. Prior to receipt of this amendment Crummett was advised by Richter, the buyer, that he had mailed a $700 check to Roberts & Gilman made payable to Crummett. Crummett was also advised by Respondent Clark that the check had been received. Since closing was scheduled to be held within a couple of days Crummett requested Clark to hold the check and he would endorse same at closing. Crummett never saw the original check for $700. On the day originally scheduled for the closing (circa July 18, 1972) Crummett received a telephone call from Respondent Clark to the effect that the appraisal on the property had come in some $3,000 below the asking price and inquiring if Crummett would accept $26,000 for his property. The latter advised he would not and, after some heated words, Crummett hung up. At this time it was evident to Respondent Clark and the sellers that the sale would not be consummated. Clark put a memo in the file dated July 28, 1972 saying: "Return checks of $700 + $300 in estrow (sic) to Richter. Seller advised we had no contract." A few weeks later, on August 3, 1972, after making several phone calls to Roberts & Gilman without success, Crummett had the listing broker, J.B. Steelman, write a letter (Exhibit 7) to Gilman making demand for the $500 deposit refund. By letter dated August 11, 1972 (Exhibit 6) Roberts and Gilman replied that they considered the contract had been terminated by the seller and saw no "justification by the seller to claim any escrow that has been returned to the buyer". This letter was signed "Dan T. Gilman /b.c." Several months later, in the spring of 1973, Crummett went to the office of Roberts and Gilman and obtained a photostatic copy of the check dated 7/15/72 that had been made by J.A. Richter in the amount of $700. This was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 12. At the hearing Dan G. Gilman, President of Roberts & Gilman, Inc. denied any recollection of any part of this transaction or ever having heard of the incident prior to the investigator from the FREC coming to inquire about the incident. At the time of this transaction the realtor's office was very busy with several branch offices and some 120 salesmen handling transactions in eight or ten counties in central Florida. He has no recollection of dictating Exhibit 12 or anything about the incident but his secretary at that time was Beverly Cass. It was standard practice for a broker to review every contract before trust account money was disbursed or refunded. His initial testimony that numerous people in the office had authority to sign his name to letters going out of the office was recanted when he was recalled as a witness after the close of the Commission's case. He then stated he never authorized anyone to sign his name to a document having legal implication. Clark testified that the first time he ever saw Exhibit 11, the amendment to the contract, was when shown to him by the investigator for the FREC. Likewise he claims never to have seen or received the $700 check signed by Richter. With respect to the return of the deposit to Richter, (after being shown Exhibit 13) his recollection of the cancellation of the contract was that Richter was not re-assigned to the Orlando area. This was the only contract ever handled by Clark which involved the return of an escrow deposit. He has no recollection of talking to any member of the realty firm regarding clearing the return of the escrow deposit to Richter. Exhibit 5 is a photocopy of the check by which the $300 earnest money deposit was returned to Richter. It is obvious that the contract for the sale of the residential property herein involved was amended to provide for an additional deposit from the buyers and a clause which required the buyer to forfeit one half of his deposit in the event the transaction was not consummated. It is incomprehensible that such an amendment to the contract could be made without the knowledge of the salesman or the broker. It therefore appears that the Defendants either: (1) are not telling the truth; (2) have faulty memories; (3) allowed the duties normally performed by brokers to be carried out by secretaries; or (4) operated a realty company in a slipshod manner without due regard to the duties and responsibilities imposed upon brokers and salesman by the real estate license law.
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are whether Respondents, who are licensed real estate brokers, committed acts of dishonest dealing or culpable negligence in a business transaction; failed to account for and deliver trust funds; failed to maintain trust funds in an escrow account as required; intermingled personal funds with trust funds; obstructed or hindered Petitioner's investigator in an official investigation; or committed any of these offenses, as alleged by Petitioner in its Administrative Complaint. If Petitioner proves one or more of the alleged violations, then an additional question will arise, namely whether disciplinary penalties should be imposed on Respondents, or either of them.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Marlene Montenegro Toirac ("Toirac") is a licensed real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Real Estate Commission ("Commission"). Respondent Home Center International Corp. ("HCIC") is and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission. Toirac is an officer and principal of HCIC, and at all times relevant to this case she had substantial, if not exclusive, control of the corporation. Indeed, the evidence does not establish that HCIC engaged in any conduct distinct from Toirac's in connection with the transactions at issue. Therefore, Respondents will generally be referred to collectively as "Toirac" except when a need to distinguish between them arises. Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Commission. At the Commission's direction, Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Ramirez Transaction On or about September 9, 2003, Toirac, in her individual capacity, entered into a Sale and Purchase Contract (the "Contract") with Andres Ramirez ("Ramirez"), whereby Toirac agreed to sell, and Ramirez to buy, certain real estate then owned by Toirac. The Contract called for Ramirez to make several deposits toward the purchase price. Accordingly, Ramirez tendered to Toirac a total of $14,000 in pre-closing payments. Toirac accepted these payments, which were deposited in HCIC's operating account. At some point, Toirac withdrew Ramirez's deposits from HCIC's operating account, taking the money in cash. She brought the $14,000 in cash to her attorney, Alix Montes, who agreed to hold the money in escrow pending the closing of the sale to Ramirez. Mr. Montes placed the cash in a safe located in his home. The sale to Ramirez fell through after Ramirez failed to obtain acceptable financing and exercised his right to cancel the Contract in consequence thereof. Ramirez requested that his deposits be returned. Within a short time (not more than about two weeks), Toirac gave Ramirez his money back——in cash. The parties dispute whether Toirac properly handled Ramirez's deposits. Petitioner asserts that the $14,000 should have been held in an escrow account maintained at a financial institution such as a bank or title company. Toirac responds that she complied with a "Financing and Deposit Addendum" (the "Addendum") to the Contract. The Addendum, which is part of the Contract that Petitioner offered into evidence (as Petitioner's Exhibit 4), provides in pertinent part as follows: Seller acknowledges that in the event that the Buyer is not approved for a mortgage loan or the terms and conditions of said mortgage loan are not acceptable to Seller, Seller within thirty (30) days from the date Seller receives Buyer's written request for the return of its deposit, shall refund Buyer's deposit in full. Upon Seller's refund of the deposit, this contract will terminate and all parties will be relieved from the obligations and liabilities. Buyer acknowledges that the Seller herein is a licensed Real Estate Broker in the state of Florida and That Home Center International Corp. will not be the "Escrow Agent" in this transaction nor will Home Center International Corp. or any of its affiliates, officers, directors, agents and/or employees will receive a Real Estate Brokerage fee in connection with this transaction. Buyer authorizes Home Center International Corp. to place any and all deposits herein in its operating account. Buyer further authorizes Home Center International Corp, at any time to withdraw and/or transfer Buyer's funds from the operating account. In the event a transfer of any and all funds is effected, such funds shall be held by Alix J. Montes, Esq., Attorney for the Seller. This Addendum supercedes the provisions of paragraph 2 (A)2(B)(1), 16(A)(B)(C), 17, 18, and 19 of the "As Is" Sale and Purchase Contract signed by all parties herein. (In the original, the text is written in all capital letters.) The Addendum is dated September 9, 2003, and bears the purported signatures of Ramirez and Toirac. Petitioner alleged in its Administrative Complaint that Ramirez had denied executing the Addendum. At hearing, however, Petitioner failed to offer any proof——such as Ramirez's testimony or the testimony of an expert disputing the authenticity of Ramirez's purported signature on the Addendum—— to establish this allegation. In contrast, Toirac testified that both she and Ramirez had, in fact, signed the Addendum. As a result, on this record, the undersigned is not clearly convinced that the Addendum is fraudulent. Moreover, the Addendum and Toirac's testimony, taken together, are sufficiently persuasive (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) to prevent the undersigned from being clearly convinced that Toirac mishandled Ramirez's deposits or otherwise dealt dishonestly or improperly with him. The January 2004 Audit On January 20, 2004, Tibizay Morales, who was then employed by Petitioner as an investigator, conducted an audit of Toirac's records. (The impetus for this audit was Petitioner's receipt of a complaint from Ramirez.) During the audit, Toirac reported to Ms. Morales that she no longer maintained an escrow account but instead relied upon her attorney to act as escrow agent for funds entrusted to her. Toirac also told Mr. Morales that Ramirez's deposits initially had been held in HCIC's operating account, before being handed over to Mr. Montes for safekeeping. Toirac was not able, at the time of the audit, to produce bank statements for HCIC's operating account, and apparently a listing agreement that should have been in the broker's file was not there. Toirac agreed to provide the missing documentation. By letter dated January 20, 2004, Toirac informed Ms. Morales that she would forward requested documentation within 10 days. For reasons unknown, Toirac failed to follow through with this, prompting the instant disciplinary action. The Charges In Counts I and VII, Petitioner alleges that Respondents are guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in any business transaction, either of which is a disciplinable offense under Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is that Respondents mishandled Ramirez's deposits and misled him into believing that the money would be held in trust by HCIC as an escrow agent.1 In Counts II and VIII, Petitioner charges Respondents with failing to account for and deliver trust funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is unclear. What is clear, however, is that Respondents returned Ramirez's deposit money within a reasonable time after his demand therefor. In Counts III and IX, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow account until disbursement was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. In Counts IV and X of its Administrative Complaint, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having intermingled personal funds with funds being held in escrow. Petitioner's position is that by initially depositing Ramirez's deposits in HCIC's operating account, Respondents failed to comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.008(2), and hence violated Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. In Counts V and XI, Petitioner asserts that Respondents obstructed or hindered the enforcement of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and therefore in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is that Respondents willfully interfered with Morales's investigation by failing to provide documentation as promised.2 Ultimate Factual Determinations Toirac handled Ramirez's deposit money in accordance with the unambiguous terms of the Addendum. Petitioner failed to prove that the Addendum is fraudulent. Thus, the Addendum, when considered in conjunction with Toirac's unrebutted testimony that she and Ramirez signed the instrument, is fatal to Counts I, III, IV, VII, IX, and X of the Administrative Complaint. Respondents are not guilty of the offenses charged therein. Toirac did, in fact, return Ramirez's deposit money within a reasonable time after he demanded a refund. Respondents therefore are not guilty of the offenses charged in Counts II and VII of the Administrative Complaint. When Ms. Morales interviewed Toirac in January 2004 in response to Ramirez's complaint, Toirac admitted most, if not all, of the material facts pertaining to the circumstances under which Ramirez's deposits had been held. Further, the documents that Toirac neglected to provide Ms. Morales, i.e. HCIC's bank records and a listing agreement that had gone missing, were claimed by Toirac to be corroborative of her statements to the investigator. Toirac's failure to produce such documents cost Toirac an opportunity to bolster her credibility——and enabled Petitioner to draw adverse inferences against Toirac, e.g. that the questioned listing agreement did not exist after all.3 Given these facts, the undersigned is not convinced that Respondents obstructed or hindered Petitioner's investigation. Consequently, Respondents are not guilty of the charges set forth in Counts V and VI of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondents not guilty of the offenses charged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of September, 2005.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent has violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.010(1) and section 475.25(1)(e) and (k), Florida Statutes, by failing to place immediately into escrow a security deposit of $5482; violated section 475.25(1)(u) by not being involved with the daily operations of Advantage International Realty, Inc. (AIR), by being hired to qualify AIR and receiving payment from AIR, and failing to direct, control or manage Jennifer Briceno, a sales associate employed by Respondent, while she provided real estate services to two individuals; and violated section 475.25(1)(d)1. by failing to refund $5308 upon demand by Mr. Mansour and Ms. Haddad on December 20, 2011. If so, an additional issue is the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker, holding license numbers 69234 and 3093422. He has never been disciplined. Licensed as a sales associate since 2000, Respondent served as a sales associate with three brokers. Licensed as a real estate broker in 2002, Respondent served as a broker associate with two brokers until, in August 2002, Respondent served as the broker for his first real estate brokerage. He served as a broker for two brokerages, much of the time simultaneously, from 2002-05 and 2007-09. For the last five months of 2008, Respondent worked as a broker sales associate for a third brokerage, and, from 2009-11, Respondent was registered as a sole proprietorship broker. From November 14, 2011, through January 6, 2012, Respondent served as the broker for AIR. On November 7, 2011, Respondent was listed as a director of AIR with the Department of State, Division of Corporations. AIR became licensed as a Florida real estate brokerage on November 14, 2011, holding license number 104302. Respondent was the qualifying broker of AIR from November 14, 2011, to January 6, 2012. No longer a brokerage after Respondent resigned as its qualifying broker, AIR resumed operations as a brokerage on March 1, 2012, when Jennifer Briceno served as the qualifying broker. She served in this capacity until March 4, 2013, at which point Petitioner suspended the licenses of AIR and Ms. Briceno by separate emergency orders. Ms. Briceno was first licensed as a sales associate in 2008. She served as a sales associate with an unrelated corporation in Tamarac, Florida from May 28, 2008, to October 24, 2011. Her license was inactive until November 14, 2011, on which date she became a sales associate with AIR. On February 17, 2012, she became licensed as a broker and served as a broker associate with AIR until March 1, 2012, at which time she served as its qualifying broker. As noted in paragraph four, from January 6 to March 1, 2012, AIR's brokerage license became invalid due to the lack of a qualifying broker. As noted in paragraph five, Ms. Briceno served at AIR as a sales associate from January 6, 2012, and then as a broker associate from February 17, 2012, until March 1, 2012--an eight-week period during which AIR's brokerage license was invalid due to its lack of a qualifying broker. On November 7, 2011, Respondent was listed as a director of AIR with the Department of State, Division of Corporations. At no time was Respondent ever a signatory on the operating account of AIR. Jackie and Sam Haddad and Morris Mansour are residents of Canada and friends. They decided that they wanted to enter into a lease of a residence in Fort Lauderdale for a vacation during the winter of 2011-12. They agreed that Mr. and Ms. Haddad would occupy the residence for two months, and Mr. Mansour would occupy the residence for the ensuing two months. For the sake of simplicity, they agreed that Mr. Mansour would take in his name the lease for the entire four months, which was to run from December 15, 2011, through April 15, 2012. Ms. Haddad found the subject property on the Internet and got in touch with Ms. Briceno at an unspecified point in time. At some point, Ms. Briceno sent to Mr. Mansour a blank Agreement to Enter into a Lease and asked him to complete, sign, and return the form to her with a check for the entire rent. Mr. Mansour objected to paying the entire rent and asked that he be allowed to pay half at that time and half upon occupancy. Ms. Briceno agreed. Accordingly, on November 12, 2011, Mr. Mansour wired $5500 to AIR and faxed to Ms. Briceno a completed Agreement to Enter into a Lease. AIR did not have an escrow account. Although there was a listing broker for the rental property, Ms. Briceno did not give the deposit check to her. Nor did Ms. Briceno present the funds to AIR's qualifying broker. It appears that Ms. Briceno conducted this real estate business and received the funds prior to AIR's obtaining a qualifying broker. In any event, it appears that Ms. Briceno deposited the funds in AIR's operating account. However, on November 12, 2011, Ms. Briceno faxed the signed Agreement to Enter into a Lease to a sales associate of the listing broker. The net of $5482 posted on AIR's general operating account on November 16. On the same day, AIR's bank statement shows a "counter debit" of $5010. From November 16 through the end of January 2012, this account never had sufficient funds to repay the $5500 or net $5482. After receiving the offer to lease from Ms. Briceno, the sales associate of the listing broker spoke with the owner and learned that the cost of short-term insurance precluded a lease for less than one year. By email dated December 1, the sales associate informed Ms. Briceno that the owner would not accept the offer. After not hearing from Ms. Briceno for some time, Ms. Haddad and Mr. Mansour tried to reach Ms. Briceno, but repeated calls to her business and cellphone numbers went unreturned. Mr. Mansour, who intended to occupy the subject property first, finally contacted the sales associate of the listing broker and learned that the offer had not been accepted. At some point, Darwin Briceno, Ms. Briceno's husband, became involved. By email to Ms. Mansour dated November 29, 2011, Mr. Briceno sent a release covering a refund of $5308, net wire fees and an application fee. On December 8, Ms. Haddad sent an email to someone at AIR stating that they were still waiting for their refund of $5308. Getting no response and having learned Respondent's name in the interim Ms. Haddad re- sent the December 8 email to the administrator of AIR-- attention: Respondent--and warned that they would retain counsel if they did not hear from Respondent within 24 hours. No one heard from Respondent, who cashed AIR checks on January 31 and May 1 in the amounts of $1610 and $3225, respectively. On February 24, 2012, Mr. Briceno sent Mr. Mansour an AIR check in the amount of $5308, but it bounced. The Haddads and Mr. Mansour have never recovered any of their deposit. During the investigation, Respondent admitted to Petitioner's investigator that he was not involved with the day- to-day operation of AIR, and he did not know anything about how AIR had handled the money that Mr. Mansour had sent. Respondent specifically admitted that he was a "broker for hire" at AIR, meaning that he had rented his broker's license to qualify AIR as a real estate brokerage. Respondent's lack of involvement in the business of AIR is confirmed by Karrell Brett, whom Mr. Briceno hired, on behalf of AIR, as a sales associate, as of December 9, 2011, Ms. Brett interviewed with Mr. Briceno, not Respondent. While employed by AIR, Ms. Brett did not know Respondent and believed her broker was Mr. Briceno. Although Ms. Brett decided on her own to advise her clients to deposit any escrow funds with a title company, she never received any instruction from Respondent to deposit escrow funds with a title company. Respondent never made any attempt to supervise any sales associate or other employee of AIR in the conduct of real estate business on behalf of the corporation that Respondent had qualified as a real estate brokerage. Respondent had been the qualifying broker for two days when the deposit was posted to AIR's account; he was responsible for AIR's failure to account for this money from the point of deposit forward until his resignation. Likewise, Respondent had been the qualifying broker for about six weeks when he received the latter of Ms. Haddad's emails demanding a refund of the deposit. Respondent did not ensure that AIR refunded the deposit at that time.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of Counts 2, 3, and 4, dismissing Count 1 as duplicative of Count 2, and revoking Respondent's real estate broker's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy Pico Campiglia, Esquire Your Towne Law, P.A. 5465 Lake Jessamine Drive Orlando, Florida 32839 Daniel Brackett, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 42 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darla Furst, Chair Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility to license and regulate the licensure standards of real estate brokers and salespersons in the State of Florida and with prosecuting Administrative Complaints against the licensure status of those persons for alleged violations of the various provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (1991), and the rules promulgated thereunder. The Respondent at all times material hereto was a real estate broker- salesperson operating and licensed in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0162601. The last license issued the Respondent was effective on September 30, 1991 and accorded him the status of a "non-active broker" with an address at 5622 Thomas Drive, Panama City, Florida 32408. In 1987, Barbara Jean Parmer, also known as Barbara Jean Withers (hereafter Barbara Parmer), responded to a newspaper ad and rented a residential property from the Respondent. She gave the Respondent a damage deposit of approximately $395.00. Subsequent to renting the property, she expressed an interest in buying it from the Respondent and was advised by the Respondent that she could seek financing from his lender or she could make payments directly to the Respondent; and when he was fully paid, he would transfer the deed to her and pay off the existing first mortgage. This was the first occasion she had ever attempted to purchase a home. The Respondent told Barbara Parmer that the existing mortgage balance was $29,000.00 and that to sell her the property, he wanted a $5,000.00 down payment and $12,000.00 in "rent" for a total sales price of $46,000.00. In effect, the so-called payments would be payments toward purchase of his equity in the home. On October 9, 1987, the Respondent and Barbara Parmer executed a "Receipt for Deposit-Offer to Purchase-Contract for Sale" (contract) reflecting a $5,000.00 earnest money deposit for property located at 335 Gardenia Street, Panama City, Florida. On that day, Barbara Parmer gave the Respondent check number 108 for $5,000.00 as the down payment on the house. He cashed that check on October 12, 1987. The Respondent drafted the contract at issue and did not advise Barbara Parmer to have an attorney review the document. Barbara Parmer testified that she trusted the Respondent, in effect, because he was a real estate licensee. When she signed the contract and gave the earnest money deposit or down payment, she understood that she was contracting to purchase the property from the Respondent. Sometime after signing the contract and the tendering of the earnest money deposit, Barbara Parmer (then Withers) married David Parmer. Subsequent to the signing of the contract and the payment of the earnest money deposit, the Respondent advised the Parmers that he was getting divorced. He told them he did not want his wife to gain possession of the property and so suggested that Barbara Parmer go to Sun Bank to have the property transferred into her name, in other words, by re-financing the house with Sun Bank and thus paying off the existing first mortgage and any equity still owed the Respondent. After the Respondent told the Parmers about his impending divorce, Mr. Parmer asked the Respondent to return the $5,000.00 earnest money deposit. The Respondent advised that if he sold the house, he would return the deposit, which was being held in an account drawing interest, according to the Respondent. He also represented that he would not refund any of the money expended by them for improvements because he had not requested that any of the improvements be made. He had apparently taken the position in entering the arrangement with Barbara Parmer that it was a sale of the property under a "contract for deed" arrangement whereby title would pass only after his purchase price had been paid. In any event, Barbara Parmer went to Sun Bank and was advised by Loan Officer, Cindy McNeal, that the documents entered into between Barbara Parmer and the Respondent regarding purchase of the property were legally flawed in the opinion of Ms. McNeal and that Barbara Parmer should seek an attorney's advice. Sun Bank declined to refinance the property because Mr. Parmer was then unemployed due to an accident and was only receiving income from worker's compensation and no salary. After the conversation with the representative of Sun Bank, Barbara Parmer called Great Western, the holder of the first mortgage executed by the Respondent, to inquire as to the balance due on that first mortgage. Barbara Parmer received a document from Great Western dated November 13, 1990 indicating that the balance on the mortgage was approximately $33,000.00. In 1987, when she contracted with the Respondent to purchase the property, the Respondent had told her that the balance was approximately $29,000.00. The first mortgage was apparently an adjustable rate mortgage and either the represented $29,000.00 figure was inaccurate or the mortgage was in negative amortization or both. The Respondent never advised the Parmers of any negative amortization situation. Between October 9, 1987 and March or April of 1991, Barbara Parmer paid the Respondent between $400.00 and $500.00 per month toward purchase of the property. The checks for the monthly payments were payable to Respondent Melvin J. Powell and were negotiated by Powell. At the direction of the Respondent, the payments were made at the office of Sun Spot Realty. During this time, the Respondent's licensure was located and registered with Sun Spot Realty. The variation in the monthly payment was because the Respondent advised Barbara Parmer that the monthly payment on the first mortgage held by Great Western was $200.56 and that anything she paid over that amount would go toward the $12,000.00 equity she owed the Respondent pursuant to their agreement. Some months she paid different amounts over and above the amount represented by the monthly payment on the Great Western first mortgage. The Respondent gave Barbara Parmer a ledger sheet showing the dates she made payments on the property, the amount that went to Great Western to retire the first mortgage, and the amount that went to the Respondent toward the $12,000.00 second mortgage representing his equity, as well as the amounts contributed to interest, taxes, and insurance. During the approximately three and one-half years that she lived in the house, she made improvements to the property, including but not limited to: landscaping the front and back yards, pouring a foundation, erecting a metal shed, repairing the roof, painting the interior and exterior, replacing the walls and floor in the bathroom, wallpapering and finishing the kitchen, and installing a new dishwasher and a new hot water heater. Respondent never expended any funds for upkeep of the property during the time the Parmers occupied the house. The Parmers spent at least $5,000.00 on improvements to the property they were purchasing from the Respondent. The Respondent told them then to make whatever improvements they wished because the house was theirs. The Parmers would not have spent the money on the improvements had they not believed that they were purchasing the property. After attempting to obtain financing from Sun Bank, Barbara Parmer contacted Attorney Glenn Hess, who sent a letter to Respondent's counsel regarding Barbara Parmer's concerns. Prior to seeing Attorney Hess, the Respondent had admonished Barbara Parmer not to see an attorney, that the matter could be settled amicably between them, and he threatened to sue her if she did contact an attorney about her concerns. The Respondent told Mr. Parmer that Barbara Parmer had a legal contract to purchase the property and warned against them seeking legal advice by threatening to sue them for breach of contract if they did so. Attorney Hess advised Barbara Parmer that it would be uneconomical to file a lawsuit against the Respondent. Despite demand for return of the earnest money deposit, the Respondent never returned the deposit nor did he ever compensate the Parmers for the funds they expended on improvements to the property. They vacated the property on advice of their attorney. The Respondent never gave notice to the Parmers that he was claiming any of their funds for damage to the property or for breach of contract. When they vacated the property, there was no damage to the property other than a five-inch hole in one bedroom wall. Within two months of the Parmers moving out, the Respondent rented the property to another tenant for almost $100.00 per month more than the Parmers had been paying. On the advice of Attorney Hess, the Parmers filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Bay County Board of Realtors, Inc. Thomas S. Newbauer has been a licensed real estate broker since 1973 and serves as chairman of the Professional Standards Committee (hereafter Committee) of the Bay County Board of Realtors. The Committee hears cases and renders decisions on allegations of violations of the Board of Realtors' code of ethics. In September, 1991, Mr. Newbauer served as a member of the panel appointed by the Committee in considering the complaint filed by the Parmers against Respondent. A hearing was held by the appointed panel to consider the complaint filed by the Parmers against the Respondent. The Respondent was notified of the hearing and appeared and testified. On September 30, 1991, the ethics hearing panel of the Committee filed a decision regarding the Parmer complaint against the Respondent and determined that the Respondent had violated three articles of the realtor code of ethics and further that there might be grounds for investigation by the Florida Department of Professional Regulation. On October 1, 1991, Mr. Newbauer sent a letter to the Board of Directors of the Board of Realtors informing them of the determination of the panel of the Committee. The determination by the panel that the Respondent had violated the code of ethics was upheld by the Board. Paul R. Bratton, III has been a real estate investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation for some nine years. The Respondent told Mr. Bratton that he had kept the $5,000.00 earnest money deposit because the Parmers had breached the contract.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of having violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and that his Florida real estate license be suspended for a period of one year, that he be accorded a formal written reprimand, that he complete 60 hours of post-licensure continuing education for brokers within three years from the date of the Final Order entered in this cause, and that he pay a fine of $1,000.00 to the agency within 30 days of the filing of the Final Order in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 13th day of May, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3751 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-46. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The Respondent filed no separately-stated findings of fact but rather a one-page "Proposed Recommended Order" merely stating the conclusions that the Respondent was not guilty of the charges in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint and the statutes he was charged with violating. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Janine B. Myrick, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Melvin J. Powell 2610 Dade Panama City, FL 32408 Melvin J. Powell 5622 Thomas Drive Panama City, FL 32408
