Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and that Respondent's real estate broker license be suspended for a period of six months. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 12th day of November, 1982.
Findings Of Fact During all times material to the Complaint Respondent Genaro O. DiDiego was licensed as a real estate broker under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. From May 1, 1976 until February 7, 1977, Mr. DiDiego did business under the trade name "Lauderdale Realty" in the Miami Beach Area. In the spring of 1976 Ms. Arlene Channing through a salesman, Anita Kandel, employed by Lauderdale Realty met the Respondent. Ms. Channing was naive about the real estate business and any related transactions. After their initial meeting the Respondent attempted to interest Ms. Channing in a variety of business ventures. Eventually she became involved in two. One was the Choice Chemical Company loan and the other was the Qualk Building purchase. On May 10, 1976, Ms. Channing loaned Mr. DiDiego $30,000.00 for his purchase of stock in the Choice Chemical Company. This loan was to be secured by a note and mortgage from Mr. DiDiego to Ms. Channing in the principal sum of $30,000.00 with interest at 10 percent until the principal was paid. The note and mortgage were due and payable within 18 months. Specifically, the security was 50 percent of the outstanding stock of Choice Chemical Corporation and also Lauderdale Realty's lots and telephone land operation. The security was to be held in escrow by Gerald S. Berkell, who at that time was counsel to Mr. DiDiego. In fact no such security was ever delivered into escrow. From the facts and circumstances of the transactions between Ms. Channing and Mr. DiDiego, it is found that Mr. DiDiego never intended to secure the $30,000.00 loan. That security was a material inducement to Ms. Channing for the loan. The principal sum of the loan, $30,000.00, was deposited into the account of Lauderdale Realty, account number 60-943-7 at County National Bank of North Miami Beach. Subsequently on April 18, 1978, Ms. Channing filed an action in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, against Mr. DiDiego for the unlawful conversion of her $30,000.00. On June 19, 1978, a final judgement by default was entered against Mr. DiDiego in the amount of $30,000.00 plus legal interest. The Qualk Building purchase concerned a building represented to Ms. Channing to cost $700,000.00. Mr. DiDiego induced her to invest $150,000.00 in the purchase of the Qualk Building. To effect the purchase, Mr. DiDiego and Ms. Channing entered into a limited partnership agreement in which Mr. DiDiego would be the general partner, investing $1,000.00 and Ms. Channing would be a limited partner, investing $150,000.00. Subsequently Ms. Channing deposited $150,000.00 into the Lauderdale Realty escrow account. Her check dated June 18, 1976, in the amount of $150,000.00 was deposited in Account number 60-944-8 for Lauderdale Realty. In fact, the total purchase price for the Qualk building was $585,000.00. The building was however encumbered by first and second mortgages totaling $535,855.90. The total amount therefore required to close was less than $33,000.00. These facts were known to Respondent but were not disclosed to Ms. Channing. From the facts and circumstances of this transaction, it is found that the facts were misrepresented to Ms. Channing for the purpose of inducing her to part with her $150,000.00. Ms. Channing never received any accounting for her investment and she subsequently brought an action in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida. On July 8, 1977, final judgment was entered against Respondent, Genaro O. DiDiego in the amount of $150,000.00 less $32,662.84, which were actually applied to the purchase price of the Qualk building, and less $9,780.00 which represents a portion of the income of the Qualk Building paid by Respondent to Ms. Channing. In entering its final judgment, the Court found that Respondent breached His fiduciary duty to Ms. Channing. This judgment has never been satisfied.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the license of Genaro O. DiDiego as a real estate broker be revoked by the Board of Real Estate, Department of Professional Regulation. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 3rd day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. B. Stafford Board Executive Director Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Genaro O. DiDiego 3745 N.E. 171st Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33160
The Issue The issue to be resolved herein concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney's fees in this proceeding. Embodied in that general issue are questions concerning whether the Petitioners are the prevailing parties; whether they meet the definition of "small business" parties, including the net worth amounts, enumerated in Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, as well as whether the disciplinary proceeding against both Petitioners was "substantially justified". See Section 57.111(3)(e) , Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with licensing and regulating the practices of real estate salesmen and brokers by the various provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Included within those duties is the duty to investigate conduct by realtors allegedly in violation of Chapter 475 and related rules and to prosecute administrative penal proceedings for which probable cause is found as a result of such investigations. At times pertinent hereto, both Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Cosyns, (then Pauline Sealey) were licensed realtors working as independent contractors for Mariner Properties, Inc. and V.I.P. Realty Inc. The complete file of the underlying proceeding DOAH Case No. 86-0140, was stipulated into evidence. That file included the Administrative Complaint filed against these Respondents and the Recommended and Final Order, which Final Order adopted the Recommended Order. The findings of fact in that Recommended Order are incorporated by reference and adopted herein. During the Petitioner's case, counsel for Petitioner voluntarily reduced the attorney's fees bills for both Petitioners such that Ms. Maxwell's bill is the total amount of $2,695.50 and Ms. Cosyns' bill is $17,200, rather than the original amounts submitted in the affidavit. Respondent acknowledged in its proposed Final Order that the fees and costs submitted by the Respondent were thus reasonable. The testimony the Petitioners presented through depositions, transcripts of which were admitted into evidence into this proceeding, was unrefuted. That testimony demonstrates that both Ms. Cosyns and Ms. Maxwell were prevailing parties in the administrative proceeding referenced herein brought by the Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation. They were individually named as Respondents in the Administrative Complaint whereby their professional licenses were subjected to possible suspension or revocation for alleged wrong doing on their part. There is no dispute that they were exonerated in that proceeding and are thus prevailing parties within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The Petitioners are also "small business parties". In that connection, they both were independently licensed Real Estate professionals during times pertinent to the underlying proceeding and were acting in the capacity of independent contractors for all the activities with which the administrative complaint was concerned. Each established that her net worth is below the limit provided by Section 57.111 as an element of the definition of "small business party". The reasonableness of the fees having been established in the manner found-above and the Petitioners having established that they meet the definitional requirements of prevailing small business parties, there remains to be determined the issue of whether the proceedings against the two Petitioners were "substantially justified", that is, whether the proceeding had a "reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by a State agency." See Section 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes. The facts concerning each Petitioner's case regarding the three counts of the Administrative Complaint relating to them are as found in the Recommended Order incorporated by reference herein. Respondent Maxwell was charged in the complaint with having worked in conjunction with an office manager, Mr. Hurbanis of V.I.P. Realty, in conspiring with him to submit a fraudulent real estate sales contract to a lending institution for purposes of financing. This allegedly involved submitting a contract to the lending institution with an inflated purchase price in order to secure one hundred percent financing, the scheme being more particularly described in that portion of the findings of fact in the Recommended Order related to Jean Maxwell. In fact, Ms. Maxwell did not work in the realty office as charged in the Administrative Complaint, but rather was employed by Mariner Properties, which may have been a related company. The contract in question, although alleged to be fraudulent was, in fact, a bona fide contract which was a legitimate part of the Real Estate transaction submitted to the bank for financing purposes, about which the bank was kept fully advised. All details of the transaction were disclosed to the lender. Maxwell was specifically charged with concealing the true contract from the lender in order to enhance the percentage of the purchase price that the bank would finance, done by allegedly inflating the purchase price in a second contract submitted to the bank. It was established in the disciplinary proceeding that no such concealment ever took place. In fact, Ms. Maxwell was purchasing a lot from her own employer, Mariner Properties. Two contracts were indeed prepared for the purchase of Lot 69, a single family lot on Sanibel Island. In fact, however, the difference of $42,875 and $49,500 in the stated purchase price, as depicted on the two contracts, was the result of continuing negotiations between Ms. Maxwell and the seller, who was also her employer. The difference in the two prices depicted on the contracts was the result of, in effect, a set-off to the benefit of Ms. Maxwell, representing certain employee discounts and real estate commission due from the employer and seller to Ms. Maxwell, the purchaser. As Petitioners' composite Exhibit 5 reflects, the lender involved, North First Bank of Ft. Myers, Florida, was fully apprised of all the details concerning this transaction at the time it was entered into and the loan commitment extended and closed. Mr. Allan Barnes, the Assistant Vice President of North First Bank revealed, in the letter contained in this exhibit in evidence, that there was no concealment or misrepresentation of the facts to his institution by Ms. Maxwell. This letter is dated April 18, 1984. The other related letter in that exhibit, of May 2, 1984 from attorney Oertel to attorney Frederick H. Wilson of the Respondent agency, thus constitutes notice to the agency well before the complaint was filed, that no concealment or misrepresentation to the lender involved had occurred and the charges were requested to be dismissed. In spite of the fact that the agency was on notice of this turn of events well before the filing of the Administrative Complaint, it proceeded to file the complaint and to prosecute it all the way up to the date of hearing, requiring Ms. Maxwell's attorney to attend the hearing to defend her interests. At the hearing, counsel for the Department acknowledged that there was no basis for prosecuting Ms. Maxwell and voluntarily dismissed the complaint as to her. The Respondent's witness, Investigator Harris, in his deposition taken September 11, 1984, acknowledged that he did not discuss any details concerning the investigation, with attorney Frederick Wilson, who prepared the complaint, nor did he confer with him by telephone or correspondence before the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the complaint was prepared solely on the basis of the investigative report. The investigative report came into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. It reveals that Mr. A. J. Davis the president of Mariner Group and Mariner Properties, who was Jean Maxwell's employer and the owner of the lot in question, signed one contract and his Executive Vice President signed the other. In spite of this, the investigative report does not reveal that the investigator conferred with either Ms. Maxwell, or the sellers concerning this transaction. He conducted a general interview of A.J. Davis concerning the alleged "problem" in his office of "double contracting," but asked him no questions and received no comment about the Jean Maxwell transaction whatever. Nor did the investigator confer with Mr. Allen Barnes or any other representative of North First Bank. If the investigation had been more complete and thorough, he would have learned from Mr. Barnes, if from no one else, that the bank had knowledge of both contracts and all details of the transaction underlying them and there had been no concealment or misrepresentation of the facts regarding the transaction by Ms. Maxwell. This information was learned by attorney Oertel as early as April 18, 1984 by Mr. Barnes' letter, referenced above, and it was communicated to the agency by Mr. Oertel on May 2, 1984. Nevertheless, the complaint was filed and prosecuted through to hearing. Therefore, the prosecution and filing of the Administrative Complaint were clearly not substantially justified. If the Department had properly investigated the matter it would have discovered the true nature of the transaction as being a completely bona fide real estate arrangement. Former Respondent, Pauline Sealy Cosyns was charged with two counts, III and V, in the Administrative Complaint at issue. One count alleged, in essence, that Ms. Sealey had engaged in a similar fraudulent contract situation regarding the sale of her residence to a Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Floyd. The evidence in that proceedings revealed no concealment of any sales contract occurred whatever with regard to the lending institution or anyone else. The facts as revealed at hearing showed Ms. Cosyns and the Floyds, through continuing negotiations after the original sales contract was entered into, amended that contract and executed a second one, in order to allow Ms. Cosyns to take back a second mortgage from the Floyds. This was necessary because Mr. Floyd, an author, was short of the necessary down payment pursuant to the terms of the original contract, because his annual royalty payment from his publishers had not been received as the time approached for closing. The second contract was executed to allow for a second mortgage in favor of the seller, Ms. Cosyns, in order to make up the amount owed by the Floyds on the purchase price agreed upon, above the first mortgage amount. The testimony and evidence in the disciplinary proceeding revealed unequivocally that the lending institution, Amerifirst Mortgage Company, was fully apprised of the situation and of the reason for the two contractual agreements. The $24,000 second mortgage in question is even depicted on the closing statement issued by that bank. There was simply no concealment and no effort to conceal any facts concerning this transaction from the lender or from anyone else. The investigation conducted was deficient because the investigator failed to discuss this transaction with the lender or with the purchasers. He discussed the matter with Ms. Sealy-Cosyns and his own deposition testimony reveals, as does his investigative report, that he did not feel that he got a complete account of the transaction from her. She testified in her deposition, taken prior to the instant proceeding, that she indeed did not disclose all facts of the transaction to him because she was concerned that he was attempting to apprehend her in some "legal impropriety". Therefore, she was reluctant to be entirely candid. The fact remains, however, that had he conducted a complete investigation by conferring with the lender and the purchasers, he would have known immediately, long before the Administrative Complaint was filed and the matter prosecuted, that there was absolutely no basis for any probable cause finding that wrong-doing had occurred in terms of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Thus, the facts concerning the prosecution as to Count III against Pauline Sealy-Cosyns, as more particularly delineated in the findings of fact in the previous Recommended Order, reveal not only that Ms. Cosyns was totally exonerated in the referenced proceeding, but that there was no substantial basis for prosecuting her as to this count at all. Concerning Count V against Ms. Cosyns, it was established through the evidence at the hearing in the disciplinary case that she was merely the listing agent and did not have any part to play in the drafting of the contract nor the presenting of it to the lender. Because there was no evidence adduced to show that she had any complicity or direct involvement in any fraudulent conduct with regard to the transaction involved in Count V of the Administrative Complaint at issue she was exonerated as to that count as well. It is noteworthy here that a statement was made by counsel for the agency, appearing at pages 20 and 21 of the transcript of the proceeding involving the Administrative Complaint, which indicates that the agency, based upon its review of certain documents regarding Counts III and V, before hearing, felt that indeed there might not be a disputed issue of material fact as to Mrs. Cosyns. The agency, although acknowledging that a review of the documents caused it to have reason to believe that it was unnecessary to proceed further against Ms. Cosyns nevertheless did not voluntarily dismiss those counts and proceeded through hearing. Be that as it may, the investigation revealed that Ms. Cosyns acknowledged that she knew that there were two contractual documents involved, but the investigation also revealed that Ms. Cosyns was only the listing agent. The selling agent was Mr. Parks. The investigation revealed through interviews with Ms. Cosyns, Mr. Parks and Mr. Hurbanis, the office Manager of V.I.P. Realty, that Ms. Cosyns, as listing agent, was merely present when the offer from the buyers was communicated to the office manager, Mr. Hurbanis, and ultimately to the sellers, the Cottrells. There was no reason for the investigator to believe that Ms. Cosyns had anything to do with the drafting of the contracts nor with the communication of them to the lending institution involved. That was done by either Mr. Parks or Mr. Hurbanis or by the buyers. The investigation (as revealed in the investigative report) does not show who communicated the contract in question to the lender. The investigation was simply incomplete. If the investigator had conferred with the buyers, the sellers and especially the lender, he could have ascertained-whether the lender was aware of all the facts concerning this transaction and whether there was any reason to believe that Ms. Cosyns had anything to do with the arrangement and the details of the transaction. It was ultimately established, by unrefuted evidence at hearing, that indeed Ms. Cosyns did not have anything to do with the transaction, nor the manner in which it was disclosed to the lender. The fact that she was aware that two contracts had been prepared did not give a reasonable basis for the investigator to conclude that she had engaged in any wrong-doing. The report of his interviews with Ms. Cosyns, Mr. Hurbanis and Mr. Parks, as well as Donna Ross, does not indicate that he had a reasonable basis to conclude that Ms. Cosyns had engaged in any fraudulent conduct with regard to the transaction, including the conveyance of a bogus contract to the lending institution involved, nor for that matter, that Mr. Hurbanis or Mr. Parks engaged in such conduct. In order to ascertain a reasonable basis for concluding whether Ms. Cosyns was involved in any wrongful conduct, he would have had to obtain more information than he did from these people or confer with the lender, the buyer or the seller, or all of these approaches, before he could have a reasonable basis to recommend to the prosecuting agency that an Administrative Complaint be filed against her concerning this transaction. In fact, he did not do so, but the Administrative Complaint was filed and prosecuted through hearing anyway, causing her to incur the above-referenced attorney's fees. It thus has not been demonstrated that there was any substantial basis for the filing and prosecution of Count V of the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cosyn. Thus she is entitled to the attorneys fees referenced above with regard to the prosecution of the Administrative Complaint in question.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's real estate salesperson license based upon the alleged violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the Final Hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0606079 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a salesperson, c/o Century 21 Action Realty, Inc., 8904 Taft Street, Hollywood, Florida 33024-4649. Respondent obtained his Florida real estate license on or about December 11, 1993. Respondent's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson (the "Application") was filed with Petitioner on or about October 14, 1993. Question 9 of the Application asked Respondent if he had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere even if adjudication was withheld. Respondent answered that question in the negative. The evidence established that Respondent's answer to Question 9 on the Application was not accurate. On April 1, 1985, Respondent pled nolo contendere to a charge of possession of cocaine. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was given a suspended sentence. At the time of Respondent's plea agreement, he was 20 years old. The circumstances surrounding his arrest, arraignment and plea indicate that Respondent did not fully understand the legal technicalities of what was taking place. Respondent entered the plea on the same day that he was arraigned and a public defender was appointed to represent him in connection with charges arising from an arrest that occurred on January 26, 1985. Respondent's arrest on January 26, 1985 took place outside a bar in Fort Lauderdale. Respondent had gone to the bar to meet some friends. While he was waiting for his friends, Respondent met an individual, S.T., with whom he was not previously acquainted. Respondent and S.T. began a conversation and talked about the possibility of going to another bar. Respondent and S.T. went to the parking lot and were sitting in S.T.'s car discussing where to go next. A police officer approached the car and observed S.T. holding a small plastic straw. According to the police report, when the police officer reached the car and asked for identification, S.T. handed the straw to Respondent and exited the car. The police officer then asked Respondent to exit the car. As Respondent was getting out of the car, the police officer saw Respondent drop the straw. The police officer picked up the straw and noticed a white powdery substance which he thought to be cocaine. He arrested Respondent and S.T. and, upon, subsequent search of the car, found a small bag containing cocaine. The amount of cocaine found is not clear from the evidence presented in this case. Because of his shock and surprise when he was arrested and the subsequent passage of time, Respondent does not remember all of the details surrounding his arrest. In particular, he does not remember S.T. handing him the straw and/or dropping it upon leaving the car. Respondent claims that he did not know that there was cocaine in the car and there is no evidence directly tying him to the cocaine. As indicated above, the case was resolved at Respondent's arraignment on April 1, 1985. Respondent does not recall all of the discussions that took place, but it was his understanding that he had not been convicted of a crime. Respondent did not understand the legal significance of the term "withheld adjudication". He was told that he was "free to go". No probation or further conditions were imposed upon him. Consequently, Respondent did not move to have the records of his criminal case sealed or expunged, even though he could have sought such an order from the court. When he was filling out the Application, Respondent believed that since no penalties had been imposed and he had not been convicted of a crime he could truthfully answer no to Question 9 on the Application. While the evidence established that Respondent did not intentionally lie on the Application, it does not appear that he took any steps to verify the accuracy of his belief before submitting the Application. Respondent first learned that there was some question regarding his criminal record when he was contacted by an investigator for Petitioner. Respondent immediately notified his supervisor at Century 21 Action Realty, where he was employed. Respondent's supervisor testified at the hearing in support of Respondent and stated that she found him to be trustworthy, honest, loyal and dependable. She indicated that she would not hesitate to hire Respondent again even after learning of his brush with the criminal justice system.
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 finding the Respondent not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 12th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 12th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6150 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Adopted in pertinent part in findings of fact 1. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 3. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 2. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 4. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 15. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in pertinent part in findings of fact 1. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 1. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 3. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 3. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 2. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 4. 8. Rejected as unnecessary. 9. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 11. 10. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 7. 11. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 7 and 8. 12. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 9. 13. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 9. 14. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 10. 15. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 10. 16. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 13. 17. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 12. 18. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 11. 19. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 5. 20. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 6. 21. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 14. Subordinate to findings of fact 14. Subordinate to findings of fact 15. Subordinate to findings of fact 16. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 16. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 16. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 17. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Theodore R. Gay Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, FL 33128 Harold M. Braxton, Esq. Suite 400, One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, FL 33156-7815
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these Findings of Fact, the Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0317497. In 1985, the Respondent operated his own real estate brokerage firm, Kline Real Estate, Inc., which acted as a marketing agent for Majestic Builders, a construction company. Both Kline Real Estate, Inc., and Majestic Builders did business in and around the Spring Hill, Hernando County, Florida, area. Majestic Builders was owned by George Orlando. In early 1985, Majestic Builders' qualifying general contractor was Stephen Cannon. In early 1985, the Respondent was contacted by the Whitmarshes of Lynchburg, Virginia, who expressed interest in having a modified version of a Majestic Builders model home built on a piece of property in Spring Hill, Florida. Eventually, the Whitmarshes selected a lot on which to have the residence built, and the Respondent brokered the purchase of the lot (from a third party) and the construction contract. Both contracts were entered into on or about April 27, 1985. Both contracts required that the Whitmarshes make a deposit, $1,000 on the lot purchase and $5,000 on the construction contract. Both deposits were made into the escrow account maintained by Kline Real Estate, Inc. The $1,000 deposit was disbursed without incident at the closing of the lot purchase on or about May 7, 1985. The construction contract between the Whitmarshes and Majestic Builders provided in connection with the deposit: DEPOSIT TO FIX HOME PRICE FOR PERIOD OF 6 MOS. [MONTHS), DURING WHICH COMMENCEMENT MAY BEGIN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTIFICATION AND INITIAL PAYMENT OF 30% OF BALANCE. SHOULD COMMENCEMENT BE AFTER 6 MOS., DEPOSIT WILL STILL APPLY BUT TO NEW PURCHASE PRICE OF MODEL AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. For the balance of the spring and summer of 1985, the Whitmarshes continued to consult with the Respondent and, primarily through the Respondent, with George Orlando regarding the modifications the Whitmarshes desired to make to the Majestic Builders model, but they were not particularly anxious to commence construction for personal, family health reasons. In addition, they understood and knew from the contract provision and from conversation with the Respondent that their $5,000 deposit was supposed to be credited to the price of the home they eventually built even if commencement was more than six months from the contract date. On or about November 11, 1985, the Respondent advised the Whitmarshes by telephone, confirmed in writing: This [is] notification, that in accordance with your contract, you are legally in default. This letter is written out of legal necessity and has no bearing on your deposit which will bw [sic] applied to the agreed upon purchase price of a Majestic Home. The default merely is to state the builder is no longer held to the prices quoted. And any changes either up or down will be reflected in the new contract price. (Emphasis added.) Notwithstanding his November 11 letter, the Respondent withdrew the Whitmarshes' $5,000 deposit from the Kline Real Estate, Inc., escrow account and deposited it in the Kline Real Estate, Inc. operating account. Of the $5,000, $1,000 was used the purchase of a building lot for Majestic Builders, and $1,500 was paid directly to George Orlando, to whom the Respondent believed the $5,000 belonged. 1/ The Respondent is unable to account for the balance of the $5,000. 2/ On or about March 21, 1986, the Respondent received a letter from Mr. Whitmarsh stating: "With this letter I authorize you to use $500 from my escrow account to obtain a new floor plan and prepare a cost estimate for my revised version of your Wind and Wildfire Model Home." The Respondent, who had had a heart attack in September, 1985, and was in the process of closing out Kline Real Estate, Inc., and getting out of the real estate business, passed the letter on to George Orlando. Orlando balked at the request, taking the position that the purpose of the $5,000 was not for use to draw up revised plans. But it is the Respondent's understanding that Orlando eventually relented and agreed not to require the Whitmarshes to pay for the revised plans with new money. It is unclear from the evidence whether revised plans ever were drawn. 3/ In approximately June or July, 1986, the Respondent closed Kline Real Estate, Inc., and got out of the real estate business. He never heard anything else from the Whitmarshes about the transaction and assumed that Orlando and the Whitmarshes had satisfactorily concluded their business dealings. But in fact in approximately early 1987, the Whitmarshes received information that Majestic Builders was not a licensed contractor. Although, on checking, they learned that Majestic Builders then had a licensed qualifying contractor, the Whitmarshes still did not feel comfortable with Orlando and Majestic Builders. In about April, 1987, the Whitmarshes decided to hire another builder and asked Orlando for the return of their deposit. Orlando refused, saying that the Respondent had the money. 4/ Nonetheless, the Whitmarshes never contacted the Respondent for the return of the deposit. Later, the Whitmarshes and Orlando became involved in another dispute arising out of the alleged improper use of Orlando's Wind and Wildfire drawings by the Whitmarshes and the builder they eventually hired, Stephen Cannon, who had been Majestic Builders' qualifying general contractor but had left to start his own construction company with the understanding that Cannon would not use any of Majestic Builders' drawings. The Respondent had no knowledge of any of these disputes between Orlando and the Whitmarshes until he was interviewed by a Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) investigator in August, 1988. The DPR had begun an investigation of Orlando on the Whitmarshes' complaint of alleged violations of the laws regulating construction contractors and learned that the dispute involved a deposit that had been held in trust by a licensed real estate broker. DPR then began an investigation of the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding the Respondent, Ronold E. Kline, guilty of violating portions of paragraph (b) and paragraphs (d) and (k) of Sections 475.25(1), Florida Statutes (1987), and suspending his license for a period of one year. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 15th day of December, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Sexsmith is a licensed real estate broker, having held License Number 0079448 at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent Bellitto is a licensed real estate salesman, having held License No. 0204206 at all times relevant to Case No. 81-2630. Respondent Select Realty, Inc., is a licensed corporate real estate broker, having held License No. 0157174 at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent Sexsmith founded Select Realty, Inc., in 1975. He was a full time realtor until his employment by the Hollywood Fire Department in 1976. Select Realty thereafter became inactive. In 1979, Respondent Sexsmith was contacted by a Mr. Jim Holmes, who was seeking to register the corporate name, Select Realty. Sexsmith agreed to permit the name Select Realty to be used by Holmes and his associates to open a real estate office at 3045 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale. Sexsmith also applied to Petitioner for certification as a director and active broker with this company. His application was granted in June, 1979, and he remained affiliated with Respondent Select Realty, Inc., in this capacity until about April, 1980. Respondent Sexsmith did not participate in Select Realty operations and received no compensation for the use of his name and broker's license. He was slated to open and manage a branch office in Hollywood, but this project failed to materialize. Petitioner produced Mr. Tom Ott and Ms. Terri Casson as witnesses. They had utilized the services of Select Realty, Inc., in December, 1979 (Ott) and February, 1980 (Casson). Both had responded to advertisements in which Select Realty offered to provide rental assistance for a $45 refundable fee. These witnesses understood money would be refunded if Select Realty did not succeed in referring them to rental property which met their specifications. Mr. Ott was referred to several properties which did not meet his requirements. He sought to have his fee or a portion thereof returned, but was refused. His demand for such return was made within the 30-day contract period (PX-11). Ms. Casson was similarly dissatisfied with the referrals and sought the return of her fee within the 30-day contract period (PX-7). However, she was unable to contact this company or its agents since the office had closed and no forwarding instructions were posted or otherwise made available to her.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Select Realty, Inc., and Gary Lee Sexsmith be found guilty as charged in Counts Three and Four of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 81-2630. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges against these Respondents and other Respondents named in DOAH Cases 81-2630 and 81-2490 be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that the corporate broker's license of Select Realty, Inc., be revoked. It is further RECOMMENDED that the broker's license of Gary Lee Sexsmith be suspended for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 18th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101, Kristin Building 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 William Grossbard, Esquire Suite 6175M 6191 Southwest 45 Street 6177 North Davie, Florida 33314 Anthony S. Paetro, Esquire Bedzow and Korn, P.A. Suite C 1125 Northeast 125 Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Lawrence J. Spiegel, Esquire Spiegel and Abramowitz Suite 380 First National Bank Building 900 West 49th Street Hialeah, Florida 33012 Mr. Gary Lee Sexsmith 321 Southwest 70t Avenue Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023 Mr. Guiseppe D. Bellitto 2635 McKinley Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Select Realty, Inc. c/o Mr. Gary Lee Sexsmith last acting Director and Trustee of Select Realty, Inc. 321 Southwest 70th Avenue Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023 Mr. Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent provided the Florida Real Estate Commission with false information in his application to take the broker's examination, in violation of Sections 475.25(1)(b)and (l), Florida Statutes, or whether he is guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, or dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device in any business transaction, in violation of Section 457.25(1)(b), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent became a licensed real estate salesperson on September 27, 1993. On this date, he placed his license with Brokers Realty of Naples, Inc. Respondent has not pursued the real estate profession as his primary business. He has not bought or sold any real estate under his license and has not put any time into it. Respondent's profession is the ministry. He as been a minister for 20 years and has been the senior pastor of Gulf Shore Community Church for five years. Respondent is a member of the Christian Missionary Alliance. In June 1993, Respondent was assigned the responsibility of forming a church in Naples. Respondent's wife was more interested than Respondent in pursuing a real estate career, and Respondent took the course with her more for moral support. While in class, they met a broker with whom they agreed they would place their salesperson's licenses. After receiving their salesperson's licenses, Respondent and his wife placed their licenses under the broker, as they had agreed. However, the broker closed her office after a couple of months. In the meantime, Respondent's wife had met David Bayer of Century 21 Old Naples Realty, Inc. (Century 21). In November 1993, she decided to place her license with Century Respondent agreed that he would do the same. Busy with starting a church, Respondent did not attend to the details of transferring his license. He believed that someone else was doing this for him, but no one did. Respondent's inattention allowed his licensing status to lapse. Unknown to Respondent at the time, his salesperson's license became invalid on November 16, 1993, for lack of an employing broker, according to Petitioner's records. Respondent's license remained invalid until March 31, 1995, when it became inactive, according to Petitioner's records. Respondent's wife later decided to pursue her broker's license. Again for moral support and to help her with preparing for the examination, Respondent agreed that he would also apply for his broker's license. In attempting to obtain the necessary paperwork to take the broker's examination, Respondent discovered in late August 1995 that Petitioner's records had not been updated to reflect the transfer of his license to Century 21. It appears that Respondent was not yet aware of the other above-described impediments to licensure. Trying to update Petitioner's records, Respondent submitted the two forms that are the subject of the present disciplinary proceeding. The first form was a Request for License or Change of Status, which Respondent faxed to Petitioner. Respondent completed the top section of this form, which is to be completed by the licensee. He signed it beside a typed-in date of December 30, 1993, which was the effective date of the transfer of his license to Century 21. Petitioner has not objected to anything in this section. The next section is to be completed by the broker/employer or nonlicensed owner/employer. At the bottom of this section are the words, "Broker or Non-Licensed Owner Sign Here:". Respondent hand-wrote Mr. Bayer's name in what he described as printing, but, on a blurry fax, could be mistaken for a signature for someone unfamiliar with Mr. Bayer's signature. Beside Mr. Bayer's name "December 30, 1993" was typed in. Petitioner has objected to Respondent's undisclosed signing of Mr. Bayer's name on this form. On September 11, 1995, Petitioner received another Request for License or Change of Status form. The bottom section of this form was signed by Mr. Bayer at the bottom in script considerably different from that of the earlier form. The top section of this form is filled out exactly as the earlier form, with Respondent's signature beside the typed-in date of "December 30, 1993." Petitioner objected to the typed-in date because it was nearly two years prior to the date that the form was filed. As to the second objection, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Respondent was trying to file paperwork with Petitioner in 1995 that was misdated so as to suggest that it was filed two years earlier. The 1993 date was the effective date of the license transfer. The form does not state "Date Signed"--only "Date." There is no place on the form to show an earlier effective date. Not only was Respondent not trying to mislead Petitioner with the date on the form, but it is almost impossible to find that the date was misleading. There is no way to conceal that the forms were filed in September 1995, not December 1993. Respondent even sent the second form certified, return receipt requested, so as to document further that the form was sent in 1995. In the absence of another place on the form to show the effective date of the transfer, Respondent's use of the date line to show the effective date was reasonable and not misleading. Thus, Respondent did not intend to mislead with this date entry, and no one could reasonably have claimed to have been misled by this date entry. Interestingly, Petitioner did not claim that Respondent's first form, which had a similar date entry, was misleading as to the date. As to the first form, Petitioner's objection is more substantial: Respondent signed Mr. Bayer's name without disclosing that he was doing so. Mr. Bayer testified that he would have signed the form in December 1993 or September 1995 because Respondent in fact had transferred his license to Century 21 in December 1993. The record does not establish that Mr. Bayer authorized Respondent to sign the form before he did so, but the record clearly established that he ratified the signature. A few days after the first form was faxed, Mr. Bayer signed a form and sent it to Petitioner. Clearly, Respondent's handling of the signature of Mr. Bayer does not rise to misrepresentation, false promises, or dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device. There was not fraudulent intent. The question is closer as to whether Respondent's handling of the signature rises to the level of making or filing a false report or record which the licensee knows to be false. Given the standard of evidence imposed upon Petitioner, there is considerable doubt whether the factual basis supporting a finding that Respondent signed as the agent of Mr. Bayer, who immediately ratified the act to eliminate any doubt as to its authorization, is sufficient to find that Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent knowingly made or filed a false report or record. However, the parties stipulated to a violation of at least one count, and the administrative law judge accepted the stipulation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order either dismissing the Administrative Complaint or finding Respondent guilty of knowingly making or filing a false record or report and issuing a notice of noncompliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven D. Fieldman, Chief Attorney Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jeanette Martinez Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur 4501 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 400 Naples, Florida 34103 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Elliott H. Nachwalter was a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0451805 by Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission. The last license issued to Mr. Nachwalter was as a salesman, c/o Expo Realty, Inc., 9445 Bird Road, #101, Miami, Florida 33165. License number 0451805 remains in involuntary inactive status. A person by the name of Elliott Nachwalter served as an officer of a Florida corporation, Liberty Metals Corporation, which was involuntarily dissolved on November 16, 1987. At the hearing, Petitioner asserted that the Elliott Nachwalter of Liberty Metals Corporation was the same Elliott Nachwalter who is the Respondent is the instant case. Petitioner further asserted that in the summer of 1988, through Liberty Metals Corporation, Respondent agreed to sell to Mrs. J. D. Morrison platinum and solicited from Mrs. J. D. Morrison checks totaling $63,000 in payment for the platinum, that the platinum was never delivered to Mrs. Morrison and that Respondent induced Mrs. Morrison into returning a check in the amount of $168,202 which was offered to Mrs. Morrison by Respondent when her account with Liberty Metals was closed. Neither Mrs. Morrison nor Respondent were present or testified at the hearing. Instead, Mrs. Morrison's assertions were delivered through the testimony of her adult son, J. Davis Morrison, Jr. Mr. Morrison holds the durable family power of attorney over the property and assets both real and personal of his father, Kirk Morrison. It was under this authority that Mr. Morrison sought to propose the testimony about his mother's dealings with Liberty Mutual. Mr. Morrison stated that his mother was aged and incompetent to testify; however, no competent evidence of her condition was offered. Further, the relationship between the power of attorney which Mr. Morrison held over his father's property and assets, and any authority over his mother's property and assets which may have been involved with Liberty Mutual was not demonstrated. Mr. Morrison overheard his mother talking on the telephone to someone she identified as "Elliot." He was also aware, through his mother, that she was engaging in dealings for platinum with a Carlos Mas who she told him was in business with Mr. Nachwalter. Mr. Mas has since died. When Mr. Morrison discovered checks of his mother made out to Liberty Metals during the summer of 1988 and saw no confirmations for the purchases, he insisted that his mother close her account with Liberty Metals. On August 23, 1988, a check was delivered to Mrs. Morrison in the amount of $168,202 drawn on Pan American Bank, N.A., and made payable to Mrs. Kirk Morrison. According to Mr. Morrison, the check was returned to the sender by his mother at the insistence of either Mr. Nachwalter or Mr. Mas. Mr. Morrison appeared to be a truly concerned son with, no doubt, the interest of his mother in mind. However, without direct testimony and other forms of competent evidence, the proof has failed to demonstrate that Respondent was involved in the proposed scheme or committed any of the acts alleged by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint filed against Elliott Nachwalter, licensed real estate salesman holding license number 0451805. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of March, 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-4524 The following represent the rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by parties. The rulings are reflected by the paragraph number of each proposed finding of fact. PETITIONER Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 1. Rejected as hearsay. Rejected as hearsay. Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as hearsay. Rejected as hearsay. Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Adopted, in part, in paragraph 6, rejected, in part, in part, as hearsay. Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. RESPONDENT Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 6. Rejected as hearsay. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 John M. McDaniel, Esquire 777 Brickell Avenue, PH-2 Miami, Florida 33131 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed real estate broker and salesman. In proceedings on January 9, 1981, in the Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in Case No. 80-8846 CF, and in the absence of the Respondent, Respondent's Counsel first indicated to the judge that he was entering a plea of no contest for the Respondent but changed that plea to one of guilty of misdemeanor trespass (Section 810.08) on the basis of the entry of an adjudication withheld. The court noted the Respondent's authorization of his Counsel to enter the plea. The court withheld adjudication and placed the Respondent on probation for six months, and assessed as a special condition of the probation $150 in court costs and restitution in the amount of $100.
Recommendation The Board has not demonstrated a violation of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by the Respondent. Therefore, the charges should be dismissed, and no disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent based upon the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ORDERED this day 4th of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 4th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. Jordan, Esquire Post Office Box 14723 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 James Curran, Esquire 200 South East Sixth Street, Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what penalty, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of real estate licensees in the State of Florida. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman, license number 0646052. On or about July 15, 1996, the Respondent completed an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson that was submitted to the Department. Such application posed several questions to be completed by the Respondent by checking boxes "Yes" or "No." Among such questions was the following: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld. This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." In addition to the foregoing, the question also advised the Respondent as follows: Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. After reviewing the foregoing question, the Respondent submitted the answer "No" on his application for licensure. The Respondent represented at hearing that prior to submitting the application he consulted an attorney. The Respondent's application for licensure also contained an affidavit wherein the Respondent, after being sworn, represented that he had carefully read the application and that all answers to same are true and correct. The answer the Respondent gave to the above-described question was not accurate. In fact, in Case No. 87-2661-CF before the Circuit Court of Alachua County, Florida, the Respondent was charged with grand theft of the amount of $4200.00, a felony. The resolution of such charge came when the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere. Thereafter the Respondent was placed on probation for a period of three years and was directed to pay court costs and restitution. The court withheld adjudication and the Respondent successfully completed all conditions of the probation. At the time of the foregoing plea the Respondent was represented by counsel, was apprised of his rights regarding the charge pending against him, had no prior convictions, and was approximately 19 years of age with satisfactory mental health. The record of the Respondent’s plea and the conditions of his probation have not been sealed nor expunged. The Respondent did not deny the factual allegations in the underlying criminal matter. That is, he has not alleged that the charge of grand theft was untrue. He has asserted that he believed the record would not appear on a background check and that, therefore, he unintentionally failed to disclose the criminal record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order revoking Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy P. Campiglia, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Thomas Payne, Esquire 3780 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33134 Herbert S. Fecker, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
