The Issue Whether Respondent failed to deliver a deposit to the person entitled to said delivery in violation of Section 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondent appeared at the hearing without legal counsel and was advised of his rights to same at his own expense. He elected to represent himself at the hearing. He was further advised as to his rights under the Administrative Procedure Act including the right to testify on his own behalf if he so desired. He indicated his understanding of his rights. It was stipulated by the parties that Joseph Sopotnick, Joseph Sopotnick, Jr., and Joe Sopotnick are one and the same person.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times under consideration in these proceedings, Respondent was a registered real estate broker (Stipulation of parties, Exhibit 2) In March 1974, Alvin K. Whittington of Marietta, Georgia, upon the recommendation of his job supervisor, who had dealt with Respondent in the past, called the Respondent on the telephone concerning the possibility of purchasing land in Florida. Although the Respondent indicated that he had none available at that time, he called Whittington later on in the day and told him that he had certain property which was for sale and inquired as to when he could come down to Florida to look it over. Whittington informed him that he did not know when he would be able to visit Florida and Respondent advised him to send a deposit in order to hold the land since there was a contractor interested in the same property. Whittington told him that he did not like the idea of placing a deposit on property that he had not seen and inquired as to whether or not he could secure a return of the deposit if, after he had seen the land he did not wish to purchase it. Respondent told him "That's no problem. You can get your deposit back". He advised him to send the deposit and that he would hold it until he came to Florida. Accordingly, Whittington sent a check for $360.00, dated March 20, 1974, to the Respondent which indicated on its face that it was a "deposit on Fla. shore lots - N.W. corner Needle Palm & 18th". The check was signed by Mrs. Whittington on a joint account with her husband. The sum of $360.00 represented 10 percent of a purchase price of $3600.00. After talking to Whittington, Respondent on March 20 wrote to the owners of the property, advised that a deposit check would be forthcoming and enclosed a standard sales contract for the sellers to execute and return to him. This was accomplished and Respondent then forwarded the contract to the Whittingtons for execution and return which they received on April 1st. Mr. Whittington thereupon called the Respondent and told him that he could not sign the contract without seeing the property. On April 12th, he and his wife went to Florida, met with the Respondent, looked over the lots in question, and informed the Respondent that he would call him the following Monday as to whether or not he wished to make the purchase. On April 15th, Whittington called the Respondent, informed him that he did not wish to purchase the property and requested return of his deposit. Respondent informed him he could not return it and that disposition of the deposit would be a matter to be determined by the seller. Thereafter, on April 19th, Respondent wrote to the Whittingtons informing them that after careful consideration, he intended to treat the matter as a forfeiture of deposit situation, and unless he heard from them to the contrary he would disburse the deposit to the seller under the terms of the contract. However, he stated in the letter that he would apply the full deposit to any purchase that the Whittingtons might thereafter wish to make. After receipt of this letter, Whittington again called the Respondent concerning the situation at which time Respondent informed him that he would try to get 1/3 of the deposit returned if Whittington would send him a letter indicating that he would accept such an amount. Nothing further was heard from the Respondent and the deposit was never refunded (Testimony of Mr. & Mrs. Whittington, Composite Exhibit 1, Exhibits 3, 4). On or about July 2, 1974, Respondent remitted 1/2 of the deposit to sellers and retained 1/2 for himself (Stipulation of parties) Respondent testified that Whittington had insisted he accept the deposit and send the contract to the seller to insure that he would be able to purchase the property, and that the proposed deal was not contingent upon the buyer's satisfaction with the property. He denied telling Whittington he could get his deposit back. He also testified that after the Whittingtons viewed the property in Florida, he asked Whittington about the contract and the latter said that he had not brought it with him but would send it within a few days. That when he thereafter called upon his return to Georgia, he informed Respondent that he did not wish to make the purchase because his wife was about to have a baby. Respondent contended at the hearing that he was never sure that Whittington wanted his deposit back, however, conceded that Composite Exhibit 1f was his letter to the sellers advising that the Whittingtons had requested the return of the deposit. Respondent asserted that it was his impression that if a deposit had been made in good faith, it was proper to consider that there was a binding contract even though the depositor had not signed a sales contract. He further indicated that if he was wrong in this respect he would return the deposit. At no time did the Respondent ever discuss the transaction with the sellers. He was unaware of the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(c), by which a registrant may seek advice from the real estate commission if he entertains, in good faith, doubt concerning his duty to account and deliver a deposit. Respondent has been in the real estate business for twelve years (Testimony of Respondent, Composite Exhibit 1f).
Recommendation That Respondent's registration as a real estate broker be suspended for a period of 60 days. That the period of suspension in excess of 30 days be vacated if the Respondent returns the $350.00 deposit to Mr. & Mrs. Alvin K. Whittington prior to the expiration of the aforesaid period of 30 days from the original date of suspension. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact By Receipt for Deposit Offer to Purchase and Contract for Sale dated April 26, 1971 Michael J. and Mary Martha Solomon deposited with David J. Watson, Respondent herein, a $5,000 earnest money deposit on a house and tract of land in Polk County. This receipt for deposit became a contract for sale when executed by the seller and contained two special clauses that were disputed at the hearing. The first is "This contract is subject to a change in county zoning. The change is from residential to rural conservation for the purpose of keeping horses." The second special clause which purportedly led to the rescission of the contract is "Seller to convey all pumps, air conditioners, and septic tank in good condition." Michael Solomon (hereafter referred to as Solomon) apparently in response to an advertisement, entered Respondent's office to inquire about the property herein involved. Solomon was interested in purchasing the house which was advertised (Exhibit #6) provided he could buy additional land which he intended to develop as lakefront lots. His father, Dr. Solomon, expected to retire soon and move to Florida, and Solomon thought the house would be suitable for his parents who would provide a substantial part of the purchase money at the time of closing. Since his father raised Arabian horses as a hobby he wanted to be sure that he would be able to keep horses on the property. Respondent Watson, being a somewhat inexperienced broker, suggested the zoning change to rural conservation, and the special clause relating to zoning change was put in the contract. Prior to executing the contract Solomon and his wife inspected the premises and, on one occasion prior to the week in which one day was set for closing, Dr. Solomon flew down from Pennsylvania to look over the property. The testimony of the buyers and others involved in this transaction is in irreconcilable conflict with respect to the details leading to rescission of the contract by the buyers. Well prior to the date set for closing Respondent, while Solomon was in his office, called the County Zoning Department to inquire about the zoning on the property involved in the contract. He then learned that the zoning of the property was R-1 (Residential) and that horses could be kept on the property for personal use so long as the stables for feeding and housing were located not less than 100-feet from the residence. This was communicated to the buyer and he accepted this explanation. An official of the County Zoning Department confirmed at the hearing that the property was so zoned and that horses could be maintained on the premises for personal use. He also stated that an administrative determination could permit horses to be raised on the premises as a business venture; however, this issue was not raised at any time by any of the parties to the contract. Although the buyers testified that they requested the Respondent (or his salesman) to obtain in writing from the county zoning officials confirmation that horses could be kept on the property, neither the broker nor the salesman recall any issue being made of the zoning provision prior to the rescission of the contract. In view of the fact that the sale price of the entire parcel would amount to some $250,000 resulting in a commission to the brokers office of approximately $20,000 it is not conceivable that he would have risked losing such a commission by failure to ask the zoning officials for written confirmation that horses could be kept on the property if the buyers had so requested. Shortly before the day set for the closing Solomon's parents arrived and inspected the house. Apparently Mrs. Solomon was not satisfied with the house so Solomon requested a formal inspection the following day. Conditions found at this inspection rest in the eye of the beholder. The buyers all testified the house had been vandalized, paint was thrown in the garage, screens had been ripped off, windows broken, the basement was flooded, the sprinkler system and the air conditioner were inoperative. Others who visited the premises acknowledged that paint had been spilled on the concrete floor of the garage when a paint can had been turned over, but none had ever seen water in the basement, there was no evidence of vandalism, and all equipment was operable. Respondent produced a bill for repairs to the air conditioner, dated prior to the preclosing inspection, which showed charges only for installing new filters. Neither the Respondent nor anyone other than the buyers recall any complaint by the buyers during this inspection. They did recall that the elder Mrs. Solomon did not like the house. The salesman could not point out the location of the septic tank but there was no evidence that it was not functioning properly. At a preclosing conference held in the office of the attorney representing both parties to this transaction the elder Solomons became quite upset regarding the cost of title insurance on the property and indicated then that they would not close as scheduled. Apparently there are only two law offices in Auburndale and one of the lawyers in Auburndale is one of the four sellers of the property. The buyers accepted the attorney in the other office as their attorney with knowledge that he was representing both parties. The evening before the date set for closing Michael Solomon called Respondent Watson to tell him that his mother hated tide house and that he would be unable, to close. Watson advised him that he would forfeit his deposit if he didn't go through with the contract as the sellers were not the type to refund any of the deposit. Clause 11 of the contract provides that the seller may elect to retain the deposit as liquidated damages if he does not choose to sue for specific performance. At the termite inspection conducted prior to closing, termite infestation was noted and treated at the expense of the seller. N indication was raised by any witness that this issue affected the of the contract. After the date set for the closing had passed, Michael Solomon never requested return of his earnest money deposit from Respondent. Approximately one year later mesdames Solomon requested Respondent Watson to return the deposit and he advised them he was unable to do so. Some six weeks after the July 15, 1971 closing date the attorney- seller demanded that Respondent disburse funds due sellers pursuant to Clause 11 of the contract and offered to file suit against ham unless he did so. Respondent contacted the attorney representing sellers and buyers in this transaction for legal advice regarding his responsibilities. He was advised to disburse the funds. He obtained authorization: from the sellers to pay for the air conditioner repairs and for some work done in the yard at the request of Solomon. By checks dated September 7, 1971 Respondent disbursed $502.45 to each of the four sellers. This represented their share of the deposit less expenses.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto John Young was registered as a real estate salesman by the Florida Real Estate Commission. On October 2, 1985 Respondent and William Kelly, D.O. entered into a contract to jointly purchase a condominium from Concord Developers Inc. (Exhibit 1). The contract provided for a down payment of $2,000 with an additional earnest money deposit of $3690 to be paid on or before November 4, 1985. Respondent and Kelly each gave the seller a check for $1000 at the signing of the contract and this $2000 was deposited in escrow with the escrow agent. Kelly met Respondent through Respondent's wife who worked in Kelly's office. At the time Kelly was looking for income tax shelters and this purchase appeared to qualify for that purpose. On November 9, 1985, Kelly made out a check payable to John Young in the amount of $1845 which represented Kelly's half of the additional $3690 earnest money deposit. This check was either cashed by Young or deposited in Young's bank account (Exhibit 2). The additional earnest money deposit was not made to the seller, as required by the contract, Exhibit 1. Young notified Bayside Federal Savings and Loan Association, who was to finance the sale, that the loan application was withdrawn, the transaction was cancelled, and two checks in the amount of $1000 each were returned to the seller by the escrow agent (Exhibit 6). The customary practice of the seller in such a situation was to return the down payment to the buyer by check drawn on the seller's account. While no witness could recall this specific transaction, the usual practice would be to return the deposit to the buyer. In this case, the deposit would normally have been returned to Young. Young acknowledged that he received the return of his $1000 deposit but not the $1000 that represented Kelley's portion of the down payment. When Kelley gave Young the check for $1845 he inquired if it was necessary for him (Kelley) to attend the closing and Young advised him it was not. When Kelley subsequently learned that the transaction did not close, he demanded the return of his money. To date he has received none of the monies he deposited to purchase this property. Evidence was presented that in December 1985, Young closed on a condominium he and his wife had contracted to purchase in this same development, and subsequently moved into this unit. While this indicates Young had the opportunity to convert Kelley's contribution to the purchase of the condominium by Young and his wife, no credible evidence was presented that he did so. The evidence that was presented regarding this transaction was that Young was able to move into that unit with a total cash outlay of less than $500. Young accounted for the $1845 check from Kelley as payment of a bet between him and Kelley on one football game. In rebuttal Kelley testified that not only did he not bet with Young on any matter, but also he has never gambled on a football game in his life. Young's testimony that a $1845 bet was made on a football game is so unbelievable that it taints all of his testimony.
Recommendation That the Real Estate license of John Young be revoked. Entered this 2nd day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 2nd day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert H. Dillinger, Esquire 5511 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Benny Isaiah, holds real estate broker's license number 0311124 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. Respondent, Greater Realty of Orlando, Ltd., Inc., is a real estate broker corporation and holds license number 0223392 also issued by petitioner. When the events herein occurred, its offices were located at 66408 International Drive, Orlando, Florida. At all times relevant hereto, Isaiah operated as the qualifying broker for Greater Realty. On or about November 2, 1982, Isaiah's wife, Dalia, a real estate salesman in respondent's fir, obtained an offer from Arthur Zimand to purchase a residence located at 9227 Bay Point Drive, Orlando, Florida, for $190,000. The residence was owned by Tran Van Don, a former Vietnamese army officer. In the contract for sale and purchase, Zimand established a closing date of February 1, 1983. He also gave respondent's firm a $2500 earnest money deposit to be held in escrow by Greater Realty which was placed in the appropriate escrow account as required by law. The contract provided that "(i)f the offer is not executed by both of the parties on (a date specified therein), the . . . deposit(s) shall be, at the option of the Buyer, returned to him and this offer shall thereafter be null and void." The above offer was presented to the seller and rejected. Thereafter, Don prepared a counter-offer on November 9, 1982, which increased the sales price to $205,000 and changed the closing date to November 30, 1982. After reviewing the counter-offer, Zimand agreed to all changes except the closing date of November 30, 1982. He could not agree to that date since he was unable to obtain sufficient funds to close the transaction until December 10, 1982. Accordingly, Zimand crossed out the closing date suggested by the seller, wrote in December 10, 1982, in its place, and initialed the change on the contract. The later closing date was unacceptable to the seller and he did not accept Zimand's counter-offer. Therefore, no contract was executed by the parties. Respondents were so notified by the seller's attorney by letter sent on November 23, 1982. The letter advised them that the seller would not accept the closing date of December 10, and that accordingly no contract between the two parties existed. On November 24, 1982, Zimand wrote respondent's wife a letter in which he withdrew his offer and requested a prompt refund of his $2500 deposit. On December 3 and 11, 1982, respectively, Zimand and Don executed a "release of deposit receipt" wherein both parties instructed respondents to disburse the deposit held in escrow to Zimand. By signing the release form, the seller acknowledged that he had no interest in the deposit monies. The document was mailed to respondents on January 11, 1983. This was followed by a letter to Isaiah from Zimand's attorney on January 25, 1983, again requesting a refund of the deposit within ten days. Despite these requests, Isaiah did not refund the deposit. On or about December 8, 1982, Isaiah withdrew the $2500 from his escrow account. The disposition of those funds is not known. Zimand later instituted a civil action against Isaiah seeking to recover his deposit. He also filed a complaint with petitioner. On May 9, 1984, or just before the matter went to trial, Isaiah returned the deposit to Zimand. This was some seventeen months after Zimand first requested a refund of his deposit. Isaiah contends there was a valid contract between Zimand and Don, and that they used a "technicality" (a dispute over closing dates) to get out of closing the transaction. Because of this, he believes he was originally entitled to keep the $2500 as a sales commission. He also contended that his wife is the person who should be involved in this proceeding rather than him since she negotiated the contract and is more familiar with the details of the contract. Finally, he asserts the dispute has no clear-cut answer, and falls within a "gray" area. As such, he was justified in his actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondents be found guilty of Counts I, II and III of the administrative complaint, that their licenses be suspended for six months, and each pay a $500 administrative fine within forty-five days after a final order is entered in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November 1984.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Robert Marriott has been a licensed real estate broker/salesman under the laws of the State of Florida, trading as Marriott Realty. In February of 1980, in his capacity as a real estate broker/salesman, Respondent obtained an offer to purchase commercial property in Miami from Orlando Villacis, a resident of Ecuador, as purchaser, for a total purchase price of $500,000. In conjunction with the offer, Villacis paid a $20,000 earnest money deposit to be held by Marriott Realty in escrow under the terms of the offer. Villacis' deposit check in the amount of $20,000 was deposited into the Marriott Realty escrow account on February 22, 1980. By March 11, 1980, Villacis' $20,000 had been withdrawn, leaving an escrow account balance of $40. This fact was never reported to Villacis. Having heard nothing definite from Respondent with regard to the offer, and because he spent most of his time out of the country, Villacis engaged the services of attorney Rafael Penalver. Prior to July 1980, Penalver contacted the Respondent and inquired as to the status of the offer. Each time, Respondent told him that the seller was still considering the offer. In July of 1980, Respondent told Penalver that the $500,000 offer had been rejected by the seller and recommended that Villacis present an offer for $570,000. Penalver prepared the offer in the amount of $570,000, again calling for a $20,000 earnest money deposit, which Penalver and Villacis assumed was still in the Marriott Realty escrow account. Receiving no response from Respondent on the second offer, Penalver attempted to contact Respondent by telephone on numerous occasions. When Penalver was successful, Respondent told him that the seller was reviewing the offer. In early September 1980, Respondent advised Penalver that the $570,000 offer had been rejected by the seller. By letter dated September 11, 1980, Penalver raised the offer to $600,000, set a deadline of September 19 for the acceptance of the offer, and directed Respondent to return the $20,000 immediately should the offer not be accepted. After September 19, having heard nothing from the Respondent, Penalver called him, at which time Respondent advised that the offer was being considered by the seller. Penalver then wrote a letter dated October 7, 1980, to Respondent demanding that Respondent deposit the $20,000 into Villacis' account. Again hearing nothing from Respondent, Penalver on numerous occasions attempted to contact him by telephone in order to again demand the immediate return of the $20,000 deposit. Being unsuccessful, Penalver wrote the Respondent on November 20, 1980, and January 22, 1981, both times demanding the return of the $20,000 earnest money deposit. After the letter of January 22, 1981, Respondent agreed to meet with Penalver in Penalver's office. On February 2, 1981, the Respondent and his wife met with Penalver. During that meeting, Respondent advised Penalver that the $20,000 was no longer available and that he and his wife had used the money to make mortgage payments and cosmetic improvements on their personal residence. Respondent challenged Penalver to sue him to get the money back. After discussing Respondent's position with Villacis, Penalver filed a civil action for return of the $20,000. In his Answer to the Complaint filed in that litigation, Respondent admitted that he had used the $20,000 deposit for mortgage payments and other personal household expenses and for payment of his IRS tax deficiency. Villacis obtained a Final Judgment in the civil action in the amount of $20,000 plus interest and costs on October 6, 1982. Respondent testified that he did not return the $20,000 earnest money deposit because, in approximately October 1980, Villacis verbally agreed to loan the $20,000 to Respondent. Villacis strongly denied making any offer of a loan to Respondent. The purported loan agreement would have occurred after Penalver had twice written Respondent regarding immediate return of the $20,000 and seven months after the $20,000 had disappeared from the escrow account. Further, after Penalver sent his November demand letter, Respondent wrote Villacis in December of 1980 asking that Villacis consider loaning Respondent the $20,000 in exchange for an unrecorded mortgage on Respondent's personal residence. Clearly, Respondent's testimony is not credible. As of the date of the formal hearing in this cause, the Final Judgment in favor of Villacis and against Respondent remained unpaid and Respondent had still not returned to Villacis the $20,000 earnest money deposit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint filed against him and revoking his license as a real estate broker/salesman. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 30th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 David I. Schlosberg, Esquire 525 North 27th Avenue, Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33125 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was first licensed as a real estate salesperson in Florida in 1997. She has been licensed continuously since that time, although she did not reside or work in Florida for one year in 1998 and 1999. Her license has never been disciplined. Having entered into a contract to purchase, as her personal residence, a townhouse in Palm Beach Gardens for $85,000, Respondent contacted a licensed mortgage broker, Gary Carlson. Respondent and Mr. Carlson had previously worked together, in their respective professions, while employed by a large residential real estate business. Respondent asked Mr. Carlson to find her a mortgage lender, and Mr. Carlson agreed to do so. Mr. Carlson obtained a mortgage loan application from Respondent and submitted it to an institutional mortgage lender that Mr. Carlson represented. At all times in this transaction, Mr. Carlson served as the agent of the mortgage lender, not Respondent. After examining the application and related information on the proposed mortgage loan, the lender directed Mr. Carlson to obtain additional information, including an affidavit to the effect that Respondent had never been known as Lea Taylor Nola and that she had never been married. Respondent disclosed to Mr. Carlson that she had been known as Lea Taylor Nola and she had been married, although she was now divorced. Mr. Carlson assured her that the requirements were unimportant and advised her to sign statements that she did not know Lea Taylor Nola and that she had never been married. Respondent did so. Upon examination of the closing documents, including the unattested statements described in this paragraph, the lender funded the mortgage loan, and Respondent purchased the townhouse. The mortgage loan remains in good standing two years later.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2004, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Jauna Watkins, Acting Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 James P. Harwood Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Richard L. Robbins Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, LLP 999 Peachtree Street, Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3996
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 475.025(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what the appropriate penalty is.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, O. Dane Streets was licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker having been issued License No. 0085710-1 for an address in Lakeland, Florida. In the Spring or early Summer of 1991, Nathan Price, a minister in Orlando, Florida, contacted Respondent to solicit Respondent's participation in representing Price's daughter, Melissa Howard, in purchasing real estate in Orlando. Price and Respondent have been business and social acquaintances for more than 10 years, and Price was helping his daughter and son-in-law in purchasing a home. The Howard's found a house they liked, Respondent obtained the listing information from the listing broker and prepared a contract for sale and purchase (Exhibit 1). As modified and accepted by all parties, this contract provided for a $1000 earnest money deposit to be held in escrow by Respondent's real estate company. In lieu of obtaining the deposit from Price or Howard, Respondent told Howard to give the earnest money deposit to the selling broker as all of the transactions were to be conducted in Orlando. The $1000 earnest money deposit was given to neither Respondent nor the listing broker, ReMax Southwest in Orlando. The failure of Respondent to follow up to insure that the earnest money deposit had been given to the listing broker in this transaction does not reach the status of fraud or dishonest dealing as Respondent had no such intent. Shortly before the August 21, 1991 closing date, Price advised Respondent that the mortgage lender was asking about the earnest money deposit. Respondent immediately obtained a cashier's check dated August 8, 1991 (Exhibit 2) in the amount of $1000 which Price presented at the closing on August 21, 1991. In his testimony, Respondent acknowledged that he erred in not obtaining the earnest money deposit or failing to check to be sure the deposit had been made with the listing broker. Since Respondent is located in Lakeland and the property being purchased is in Orlando when the closing was held, Respondent thought everything would be simplified if the deposit was held by the listing broker. When the listing broker learned that the deposit of $1000 had never been received by Respondent and placed in escrow, a complaint was made to the Florida Real Estate Commission, and these proceedings followed. Respondent has held licenses from the Florida Real Estate Commission for some 20 years, and this is the first time any charges have been brought against his license.
Recommendation It is Recommended that a Final Order be entered finding O. Dane Streets not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged. ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 21st day of January, 1992. Copies furnished to: Steven N. Johnson, Esquire Darlene F. Keller Division of Real Estate Division Director 400 W. Robinson Street Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801-1900 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801-1900 O. Dane Streets Post Office Box 6852 Jack McRay, Esquire Lakeland, FL 33807 Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether respondent's license as a real estate salesman should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on the ground that she is guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, culpable negligence, and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1) (b), Florida Statutes (1979).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the charges, respondent Margaret Perry was a licensed Florida real estate salesman holding license No. 0147966. Her business address is Key Place Realty, 513 West Vine Street, Kissimmee, Florida. (Stipulation of Parties.) I. The Offer On December 12 and 13, 1980, Perry W. Ripple, Jr., and Carol C. Ripple, his wife, signed a contract to purchase a 5-acre tract, with residence, located on Hickory Tree Road, Osceola County, Florida. The contract was prepared by respondent, who had previously shown the property to the Ripples. (Testimony of Perry, P. Ripple, C. Ripple; Joint Exhibit No. 1.) On Saturday, December 13, 1980, the contract constituted only a written offer to purchase the property since Novie P. Cleveland and Pamela A. Cleveland- -the owners of the property--had not yet accepted the offer by signing the contract. Pursuant to the contract, the offer was accompanied by a $1,000 earnest money deposit and an assignment of a certificate of deposit. (Testimony of P. Ripple, Perry.) On Saturday, December 13, 1980, when respondent received the signed offer, with earnest money deposit and certificate of deposit assignment, she mailed a copy to the American Title Insurance Company and ordered title insurance. Before mailing the contract offer to the title insurance company, she typed two dates above the contract signature lines: "December 13, 1980" as the date it was signed by the buyers; 3/ and "December 15, 1980" as the date it would be signed by the sellers (the sellers had not yet signed the contract; she inserted December 15, 1980, in anticipation of their signing on that date). She used December 15, 1980, because, under the terms of the contract, that was the last day the offer could be accepted by the sellers. (Testimony of Perry, Carlyon; P-1.) II. The Acceptance At approximately 6:00 p.m. on Sunday, December 14, 1980, respondent telephoned the sellers, Novie P. and Pamela A. Cleveland, and arranged for them to meet her at Mr. Cleveland's office and accept the offer by signing the contract. Respondent expedited the signing of the contract because the Ripples were in a hurry to close the transaction. (Testimony of N. Cleveland, P. Cleveland, Perry.) A few minutes later, the Clevelands met respondent at the designated place and signed the contract. Although they signed the contract on December 14, 1980, respondent inadvertently failed to correct the December 15, 1980, date which she had earlier placed in the contract as the date of execution by the sellers. (Testimony of Perry, N. Cleveland, P. Cleveland; Joint Exhibit No. 1.) III. Buyers' Attempt to Withdraw Offer Later on that evening--between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on December 14, 1980--Mr. Ripple telephoned respondent at her home. He questioned her about the boundaries and size of the property and, for reasons not material here, told her that he no longer wanted to buy the property, that he wanted the earnest money deposit returned. The conversation was abrupt and heated; both parties became upset with each other. The subject of whether the contract had been accepted and signed by the sellers was not mentioned. (Testimony of Perry, C. Ripple, P. Ripple.) The critical dispute in this case is the time of Mr. Ripple's telephone call to respondent. The Ripples testified it was between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m.; respondent testified it was between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. If the Ripples' testimony is accepted, then respondent presented an offer to the sellers for acceptance after the buyers had told her they wanted to withdraw the offer and not proceed with the contract; this is the essence of respondent's alleged misconduct. If respondent's testimony is accepted, the buyers did not notify her that they wanted to withdraw their offer until after the offer was accepted by the sellers; under such circumstances, her conduct was clearly proper. Respondent's testimony on the timing of the Ripples' telephone call is accepted as persuasive; (see paragraph 7 above) the Ripples' testimony concerning the time of the call is rejected. In earlier testimony, Mr. Ripple's memory of the events in question was shown to be unreliable: [Respondent's Counsel] Q: You say you signed the contract on December the 13th, on a Saturday. [Mr. Ripple] A: Yes. Q: Isn't it true that you signed the contract at the Sun Bank in St. Cloud on Friday, December 12th, on the hood of your car or Marge's car? That's possible, yes. Q: So you were mistaken when you said you signed it on Saturday. A: Yes, I was. I probably was. (Tr. 23.) More importantly, if the Ripples' testimony is correct, respondent deliberately presented an offer for acceptance which the purchasers no longer wished to make. Assuming such conduct occurred, it is inconceivable that she would inadvertently fail to correct the date on the contract to indicate that the sellers signed on December 14, 1980 (the same day the Ripples attempted to withdraw), not December 15, 1980. The events occurred close together and timing was critical. By not changing the date, she allowed the contract to incorrectly reflect that the sellers signed the contract a day later than they actually did: the time between the buyers' attempt to withdraw and the sellers' acceptance becomes greater than it was and even more difficult for her to explain. In short, her failure to correct the date of the sellers' signing of the contract is not a mistake she would have made if, as the Department alleges, she knowingly presented an offer and completed a contract against the expressed wishes of the buyers. IV. No Damage to Parties Involved On Monday, December 15, 1980, the Ripples stopped payment on their earnest money deposit check. The sellers did not pursue any legal rights or remedies they may have had against the Ripples. Eventually, the property in question was sold to another party. There is no evidence that the Ripples or Clevelands were financially harmed as a result of the events in question. (Testimony of Perry, C. Ripple, P. Ripple, N. Cleveland.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department's administrative complaint dated October 20, 1981, be dismissed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 26th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 26th day of March, 1982.
The Issue Whether the Defendants, Leon Zwick and Elias Zwick together with a broker, Roberto E. Mitrani, received $10,000 earnest money deposit for a sale of Lot 12, Block 120, Lenox Manor Subdivision, Plat Book 7, page 15, Dade County, Florida, and thereafter released $9,000 of said deposit to the seller, retaining $1,000 for personal use in violation of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes; whether said money was disbursed without proper authority; whether the co-broker, Robert E. Mitrani, was not notified of the return of $9,000 deposit money or the retention of $1,000 of the deposit money. Whether Defendants failed to maintain in an escrow account all moneys prior to the culmination of the subject transaction. Whether the licenses of one or both of the Defendants should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Defendant, Leon Zwick, and the Defendant, Elias Zwick, are registered real estate broker and real estate salesman, respectively. The Defendants in cooperation with a broker, Roberto E. Mitrani, negotiated a contract dated September 1, 1972, as broker and salesman, respectively, for the sale of Lot 12, Block 120, Lenox Manor Subdivision, Plat Book 7, page 15, as recorded in the public records of Dade County, Florida, known as Jeffrey Apartments to Marco T. Gonzalez or assigns, as the purchaser, by E. M. Bornfriend, Sara Bornfriend and Pauline Bornfriend, as sellers. The Defendants received total earnest money deposit in the amount of $10,000, but the contract time expired and the sale was not consummated. On or about October 18, 1972, the Defendant, Leon Zwick, did pay over and release $9,000 of the $10,000 earnest money deposit to Mariana De Gonzalez, as attorney in fact for Marco T. Gonzalez, and both Leon Zwick and Elias Zwick executed a mutual release for the entire $10,000 earnest money deposit. The release stated and the Defendants admitted that $1,000 was retained by the Defendants for their personal use, said release being executed without the knowledge or consent of the sellers. Mariana De Gonzalez, was represented by an attorney, Melvin J. Richard, and the sellers were represented by an attorney, Howard N. Galbut. A letter dated October 12, 1972, complaining of the transaction with the Defendants, written by Melvin J. Richard to the Florida Real Estate Commission, was delivered to the Real Estate Commission but had not been answered and a letter of October 19, 1972 was then written in which it was stated that the matter had been settled and the complaint was withdrawn. The Plaintiffs filed an Information against the Defendants on April 25, 1975. The Hearing Officer further finds; That the Defendant broker Zwick and the Defendant salesman Zwick violated the terms of the subject contract by failing to return the money on deposit at the expiration of the time designated in the contract; That the retained $1,000 was used to pay the attorney for the Defendants, Martin Limlich, upon whose advice they relied when they retained $1,000 of the $10,000 deposit they should have returned forthwith in full to the purchasers; That the Defendants are guilty of failure to maintain a proper escrow account by not keeping the $10,000 deposit in escrow as required by Chapter 475, Florida Statutes; That the testimony of the co-broker, Roberto E. Mitrani, is inconclusive; and That Defendant Leon Zwick has previously been found guilty by the Florida Real Estate Commission of conduct warranting revocation.
The Issue The issues posed for decision herein are whether or not the Respondent, Loretta Woloszyk, failed to account for or deliver a security deposit received by her, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and whether or not Respondent derivatively violated Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in that she is guilty of a breach of trust in a business transaction and, therefore, violated Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the following relevant facts are found. Loretta Woloszyk, Respondent herein, is presently registered with the Board of Real Estate as a broker/salesperson. On or about April 15, 1977, Respondent Woloszyk entered into a deposit receipt contract executed with John F. and Jeannine M. Chrest as purchasers of a house owned by Respondent Woloszyk located at 210 North G Street, Lake Worth, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of said deposit receipt contract, John E. Knowles signed as broker for receipt of a $300 cash deposit from the Chrests as purchasers. On or about April 22, 1977, the $300 deposit was placed in the escrow account of Sunshine Estates, Inc., the corporate broker by which the Respondent was employed. The deposit receipt contract was contingent upon the buyer qualifying for a Veterans Administration (VA) mortgage loan in the amount of $26,900. The relevant portion of the contract provided as follows: VA Appraisal: It is expressly agreed that, notwithstanding any other provisions of this contract, the purchaser shall not incur any penalty by forfeiture of earnest money or otherwise be obligated to complete the purchase of the property described herein, if the contract price or cost exceeds the reasonable value of the property established by the Veterans Administration. The purchaser shall, however, have the privilege and option of proceeding with the consummation of this contract without regard to the amount of the reasonable value established by the Veterans Administration. By letter dated May 25, 1977, the Chrests were notified that the subject property was appraised at $18,750, and thus was not acceptable under the minimum property appraisal standards of the Veterans Administration. With this notification, John Chrest went to the offices of Sunshine Estates, Inc., and demanded a return of his $300 earnest money deposit. John E. Knowles, as broker in receipt of the Chrests' $300 deposit, returned the $300 deposit check to Respondent Woloszyk, who deducted $200 from the Chrests' $300 deposit based on a separate rental transaction with the Chrests on the same subject property. During the hearing, John Chrest testified that he contacted Respondent for purchase of her residence situated in Lake Worth Farms. Mr. Chrest agreed during cross-examination that he initially contacted Respondent to "buy or rent Respondent's residence". He also testified that upon receipt of the VA appraisal at an amount below the agreed upon purchase price of $26,900, he agreed to pay to Respondent rent in the amount of $150 plus a $50 security deposit, which amount was deducted from the Chrests' security deposit. The FHA-VA deposit receipt contract contains a special condition entered by and between the parties (Woloszyk and the Chrests) indicating that "Buyer will pay rental of $225 per month until closing, beginning on or before May 1, 1977. Buyer will honor rental agreement for Kenneth Johnson, tenant, from April 1, 1977, to March 31, 1978, or $80 per month rent." Based thereon, and on John F. Chrest' s admission that be agreed to the rental fee which was deducted from his deposit received by Respondent Woloszyk, the administrative charges alleged are without basis. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMEND: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED in its entirety. RECOMMEND this 6th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1979 COPIES FURNISHED: John Namey, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Ms. Loretta Woloszyk 733 Husiingbird Way, Apt. #3 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408
