Findings Of Fact By application dated September 10, 1987, petitioner, John K. Whitaker, III, sought licensure as a real estate salesman by examination with respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). The application was received by the Division on September 14, 1987. Question six on the application requires the applicant to state whether he or she "has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld." Petitioner gave the following response: Yes. DUI and DWI 1981 and 1982. Upon further investigation by the Division, it learned that Whitaker had been arrested for a DUI in 1982 and that no arrest had occurred in 1981. However, it also learned that Whitaker had been arrested for the following incidents: March 17, 1984 - Arrest for resisting police officer with violence. April 17, 1984 - Arrest for forgery - possession of forged or altered driver's license August 31, 1984 - Burglary of a dwelling; adjudication withheld. August 31, 1984 - Grand larceny; adjudication withheld. August 31, 1984 - Arson; adjudication withheld. Armed with this new information, respondent advised petitioner by letter dated December 2, 1987 that his application had been denied. This decision was later reaffirmed by letter dated February 4, 1988 and cited respondent's "criminal record" as the basis for the agency's denial. That prompted this proceeding. Petitioner, who is now twenty-nine years old, is a December, 1982 graduate of Florida State University with a degree in economics. After graduation, he worked eight months as a stockbroker for Alan Bush Brokerage Company in West Palm Beach, Florida. In 1983 petitioner began receiving medical treatment for what he thought was depression. As a part of the treatment, he took an antidepressant drug. He later learned he had a manic-depressive condition, a more serious mental illness, and the antidepressant medication was actually aggravating this condition. Before his real illness was discovered, Whitaker experienced manic episodes which were manifested by grandiose ideas, slurred speech and extremely poor judgment. As a result, Whitaker was arrested in 1984 for the series of incidents enumerated in finding of fact 3. The first two charges were dismissed while adjudication of guilt was withheld as to the remaining three charges. For those latter charges, Whitaker was placed on five years' probation, or to and including August, 1989. Whitaker stated he did not intend to lie about these matters and did not list the 1984 arrests on his application because he thought that if a charge was dropped, or adjudication of guilt withheld, he did not have to disclose the matter. Since having his illness properly diagnosed in 1984, Whitaker has taken medication (lithium) to prevent the recurrence of the symptoms and sees a physician at least once a month. He must remain on medication for the rest of his life in order to control the illness. With the exception of one flare-up about a year ago, his condition has stabilized. After his arrests in 1984, Whitaker was hospitalized for a period of time and then moved into a halfway house. He now lives in his own apartment. He has held several jobs, including a food service job in a West Palm Beach hospital and a timeshare unit salesman for his uncle in California. Presently, he is employed in a public relations capacity for a consumer club in West Palm Beach. He eventually wants to enter the real estate business, and for this reason, desires a license. Because his mother is a broker-realtor in Palm Beach Gardens, he expects no difficulty in obtaining a real estate position. Petitioner presented the testimony of his mother, a retired business executive and a family friend who is also a real estate salesman. The mother described the nature of petitioner's illness while the retired executive recalled petitioner as having "industrious," self-motivating" and "honest" characteristics and being a terrific salesman. The family friend described petitioner's present conduct to be normal now that he had controlled his illness. Finally, a number of letters were offered by various local businessmen, including one from a professional golfer and businessman (Jack Nicklaus), a physician, a stockbroker and a financial planner. However, all letters predate petitioner's arrests and therefore are irrelevant to the issue in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of John K. Whitaker for licensure as a real estate salesman by examination be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June 1988.
Findings Of Fact Documents introduced into evidence revealed that the Respondent Jeremiah C. Clarke is a registered real estate broker and Clarke Real Estate is an entity registered as a partnership broker and authorized to act as such with the Commission. On or about September 15, 1975, Jerry Kent, a salesman with Respondent, Clark Real Estate, obtained an oral open listing from Esther Braverman on a condominium unit denominated as "Apartment B-804, 1111 Crandon Boulevard, Key Biscayne, Florida." Pursuant thereto, salesman Kent showed the condominium unit to Jacques Benoist and Jeanine Benoist, his wife, who executed a deposit receipt contract to purchase a condominium unit on September 27, 1975. Esther Braverman, the seller, executed the contract during October of 1975. The deposit receipt contract provided for a $10,000 earnest money deposit to be held in the escrow account of the law firm of Snider, Young, Barrett, and Tannenbaum, P.A., attorneys for seller Braverman. Said deposit was made on September 27, 1975, by delivering a check to attorney Bruce L. Hollander, a member of the firm, who deposited the deposit in the firm's escrow account. (See Commission's Exhibit No. 9). The deposit receipt contract also obligated the seller, Esther Braverman, to pay Respondent Jeremiah C. Clark a commission of $7,875. Specifically, the contract provides that "I, or we, agree to pay to the above assigned broker a commission for finding the above signed purchaser for the above described property, the sum of $7,875 . . . ." Closing took place on January 19, 1976, at the offices of Washington Federal Savings and Loan Association, Miami Beach, Florida, from whom the Benoists had obtained financing for the purchase. At the closing on January 19, 1976, Esther Braverman signed and delivered a warranty deed made out to Jacques Benoist and Janine Benoist, transferring the property to the Bravermans. The warranty deed was recorded with the clerk of the Dade County Circuit Court by the lending institution, Washington Federal Savings and Loan Association. (See Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2) At the closing, Jeremiah Clark was given a check representing the commission to Clarke Real Estate in the amount of $7,875. Thereafter, Jerry Clarke was requested by the lending institution to hold the funds in escrow until the bank dispursed the mortgage proceeds. He was then told that the mortgage proceeds would be paid within the following week. Respondent Clarke agreed, pursuant to a request from the seller's attorney, Bruce Hollander, to hold the commission check until January 27, 1976, without depositing same. Mr. Clarke held the commission check until January 29, 1976, as agree. On that day, he dispursed the proceeds to salesman Jerry Kent and the balance was credited to Clarke Real Estate. The mortgage funds were never disbursed because the lending institution could not obtain a quit-claim deed from the seller, Esther Braverman's former husband and therefore in the lending institution's opinion, the defect was not discovered until after the closing. On May 6, 1976, attorney Hollander acting for his law firm and the seller sent Respondent Jeremiah C. Clarke and Respondent Clarke Real Estate a letter stating that the mortgage proceeds had not been disbursed by the lending institution and requested a demand for the commission check. The Commission takes the position that the closing which occurred on January 19, was an escrow closing and that the Respondent Jeremiah Clarke was not authorized to disburse the proceeds from the commission check until notification that the mortgage proceeds were disbursed by the lending Institution. The Respondents, on the other hand, took the position that their only obligation was to find a purchaser who was ready, willing and able to complete the transaction, which acts were consummated by their salesman, Jerry Kent. Based on my examination of the document introduced herein, and the testimony adduced during the hearing, the undersigned concludes that the Respondent's position that it was entitled to receive the commission monies here in dispute has merit. Although the Commission takes the position that an escrow closing occurred, an escrow has been defined as a written instrument which by its term imports a legal obligation and which is deposited by the grantor, promisor, or obligor, or his agent with a stranger or third party to be kept by the depository until the performance of a condition or a happening of a certain event and then to be delivered over to the grantee, promisee, or obligee. It cannot be seriously contended herein that the Respondent Clarke was acting as an escrow for himself when consideration is given to the above definition of an escrow. See Love v. Brown Development Company, 131 So. 144. It is further essential to an escrow that delivery of the instrument be to a stranger or to a third person, that is, to one who is not a party to the instrument, or a person so free from any personal or legal identity with the parties to the instrument as to leave them free to discharge his duty as a depository to both parties without involving a breach of duty to either. For example, a deed delivered to a grantee cannot be regarded as held in escrow. Here, Respondent Clarke was in no way acting for anyone other than himself or as agent for his salesman, Jerry Kent, both of whom had a direct stake in the commission proceeds. Additionally, upon examination of the deposit receipt contract, the broker became entitled to the commission proceeds when the buyer (purchaser) was found. Additionally, and as an aside, it was noted that the lending institution in fact recorded its mortgage the day following the closing This would lead any examiner of the public records to believe that the lending institution was satisfied with the title as conveyed on the closing date. It was further noted that the Respondents had no indication that there was a problem with the title until approximately five months following the closing. Finally, the undersigned received a letter from attorney Lipcon dated August 1, 1975, advising that the civil case which was pending before the Dade County Circuit Court involving similar issues as posed herein before the commission had been fully and finally settled. There was a stipulation for dismissal signed by attorneys for each of the parties including the attorney for the firm that made the complaint against the Respondents stating in essence that the monies paid to Respondent Clarke and which was retained by him as full and final settlement of his brokerage commission were to be retained by Respondent Clarke as final payment of his commission in connection of the sale of the subject condominium. For all of these reasons, I shall recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as found above, it is hereby recommended that the complaints filed herein be dismissed in their entirety. Recommended this 23rd day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether the Respondents' real estate licenses in Florida should be disciplined based upon the charge that the Respondents are guilty of failing to maintain the required entrance sign on or about the entrance to the principal office in violation of Subsection 475.22, Florida Statutes and Rule 21V-10.024, Florida Administrative Code and are therefore in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondents' real estate licenses in Florida should be disciplined based upon the charge that Respondents are guilty of failing to register a branch office in violation of Subsection 475.24, Florida Statutes, and Rule 21V-10.023, Florida Administrative Code, and therefore are in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondents' real estate licenses in Florida should be disciplined based upon the charge that the Respondent Max S. Long, Jr., is guilty of failing to be a signatory on all escrow accounts in violation of Rule 21V-14.010, Florida Administrative Code and therefore is in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondents' real estate licenses in Florida should be disciplined based upon the charge that the Respondents' are guilty of failing to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondents' real estate licenses in Florida should be disciplined based upon the charge that Respondents' are guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in any business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Max S. Long, Jr. was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license numbers 0253744, 0253742, and 0258199 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker for Stonegate Realty, Inc., 2325 Ulmerton Road, Clearwater, Florida 34620 and Queens Harbour Realty, Inc., 711 San Pablo Road North, Jacksonville, Florida 32225. Respondent Long has been a licensed salesperson since 1974 and a licensed broker since 1978. The Respondent Stonegate Property Management Corporation was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0240617 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was at the address of 2325 Ulmerton Road, Clearwater, Florida 34620. The Respondent Stonegate Realty, Inc. was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0182660 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last licensed issued was at the address of 2325 Ulmerton Road, Clearwater, Florida 24620. The Respondent Queens Harbour Realty, Inc., is now and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0257554 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was at the address of 711 San Pablo Road North, Jacksonville, Florida 32225. On or about October 17, 1989, DPR investigator Marjorie G. Maye (hereinafter Maye) conducted an inspection and audit of Respondents' offices and escrow accounts in Clearwater. Maye discovered that the Respondents did not display an office entrance sign for the corporations. Since the inspection Respondents have erected the proper sign which has been displayed continuously since that date. Respondents were operating an unregistered branch office located at 13280 Broadhurst Loop S.W., Ft. Myers, Florida. Respondents did not register the office because the salesperson was an employee of the developer and sold only property at that project. Since the inspection Respondents have properly registered the branch office. At the time of the inspection and audit Respondent Long was not a signatory on Respondents' escrow accounts. Since the inspection, Respondent Long has been added as a signatory to the escrow accounts. At the time of the audit Respondents' escrow account titled Queens Harbour Realty - Escrow account number 0089798317 maintained at C & S Bank of Pinellas County on September 30, 1989, had a current liability of $54,010.66, a reconciled bank balance of $8,537.99 thus indicating a shortage of approximately $45,472.67. Ultimately, the Respondents reduced the shortage to zero and the accounts balanced. At the time of the inspection and audit, Ed Perry, CPA, was employed by Respondent Queens Harbour in the accounting department and was in charge of the Queens Harbour Realty - Escrow account which was maintained out of Clearwater, Florida. George Patterson and Ed Perry, CPAs, and other individuals were signatories on this escrow account. The escrow accounts were used for deposits on real estate sales and leases. The funds were disbursed at sale or upon termination of the lease. Some of the funds received by Respondents were not required to be held in escrow. Eventually the deposits from several projects were placed in the escrow accounts. Disbursements were made from the escrow accounts even though the funds were not required to be deposited in the escrow account. This resulted in confusion as to the exact amounts of funds required to be maintained in the escrow accounts and which funds were available for distribution. Shortages in the escrow accounts were a result of intercompany loans and disbursements, as well as, from the co-mingling of funds. These were made at the direction of George Patterson. On or about October 13, 1989, Ed Perry, CPA and George Patterson, supervisor of the accounting department, signed a $6,000.00 check from Respondents' escrow account which was used for the purchase of a vehicle for Queens Harbour Yacht and Country Club. When this error was discovered the $6,000.00 was re-deposited to the escrow account. Respondent Long, became the broker for Stonegate Realty at the request of his cousin, Fred Bullard, the President of the Bullard Group, and a majority shareholder in Queens Harbour Realty, Inc. He was not aware of and did not sign any of the checks representing the inter-company loans or for the purchase of the vehicle. He derived no benefit from these loans. Respondent Max S. Long, Jr. understood at all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint that an escrow account is one used to hold funds belonging to third parties and that he, as the real estate broker, acted in a fiduciary capacity to those third parties. Respondent Long relied completely on the corporation's in-house accountants to properly prepare the accounting for the escrow funds. Since the DPR investigation, there have been no shortages in the escrow account, monthly reconciliation reports are prepared and signed by Respondent Long, and the escrow accounts are routinely reviewed by Respondent Long. Respondent Long has had no prior disciplinary proceedings before the Commission.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the evidence of the record, including the contents of the several exhibits received into evidence, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondents be found guilty of having violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (e) and (k), Florida Statutes, (1989), as charged in the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondents shall jointly pay a penalty of $500 and that Respondent Long's real estate licenses be suspended for a period of one year, followed by a one year period of probation upon such conditions as the Florida Real Estate Commission shall reasonably impose. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, Respondents' proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42. Rejected as irrelevant: 9, 13, 40. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kelli Hanley Crabb, Esquire Post Office Box 4110 St. Petersburg, Florida 33743 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack L. McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1973, Mr. and Mrs. Delmar D. Carter purchased the Buccaneer Motel and Woodside Apartments [the motel] from C.E.K., Inc., whom respondents represented in the sale. Respondents agreed to accept less from C.E.K., Inc., as their commission on the sale, that they might have otherwise, because the Carters agreed to give respondents the exclusive right to resell the motel for a period of five years. Two years after they purchased the motel, the Carters asked O.B. Linkous to try to sell the motel, but the Carters sell held the motel when the resale agreement expired in late 1978. One of the obligations assumed by the Carters in exchange for the motel was secured by a mortgage that C.E.K., Inc., had executed in favor of O.B. Linkous Realty, Inc., on December 14, 1972. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. This assumed obligation required the Carters to make certain monthly payments to the corporate respondent including a payment of $862.19 on January 1, 1979. Under the mortgage agreement, the entire principal (originally $88,247.93) would become due if a "default continue for a space of 30 days." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. On January 25, 1979, Mr. Carter delivered to Mr. Linkous a check in the amount of $862.19, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, as payment of the amount due on January 1, 1979. When he handed the check to respondent Linkous, Mr. Carter told him that the funds in the account on which the check was drawn were insufficient for the drawee to pay the check, but that he would deposit sufficient funds on the following day. Respondent Linkous answered that he saw no problem since he intended to deposit the check in his own account in another bank and assumed it would be at least a day before the check was presented to the drawee. On the following day, Mr. Carter deposited $865.96 in the account on which the check was drawn. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. On January 31, 1979, the balance in the account was $1,000.32. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Instead of depositing the check, respondent Linkous took the check, on the same day he received it, to the Flagship First National Bank of Ormond Beach, on which it was drawn, and persuaded a teller there to stamp it so as to indicate that it had been dishonored because sufficient funds were not on deposit. On February 7, 1979, a mortgage foreclosure complaint was filed against the Carters and C.E.K., Inc., (as holder of a junior mortgage), in which respondents' attorney alleged that the Carters had "defaulted under the note and mortgage by failing to pay the payment due January 1, 1979, and all subsequent payments." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The Carters retained counsel who filed an answer and counterclaim in which it was alleged, inter alia, that Linkous "deliberately with premeditated design, deceived and tricked [the Carters]." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. After these pleadings had been filed, the Carters agreed to respondents' counsel's suggestion that they grant the corporate respondent the exclusive right to sell the motel for another five-year period in exchange for an end to the litigation, and executed an agreement to that effect. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. The parties stipulated that both respondents hold real estate licenses issued by petitioner.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondents' licenses for a period of five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 10th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Ralph Fetner, Jr., Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Hadley, Esquire 827 Deltona Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725
The Issue The issue in this case involves the administrative charge which has been placed by the Florida Real Estate Commission in the person of Harold T. Mooney, against one Claude Talmadge Bray who is registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker. The charging document which is drawn in the form of an information, says in pertinent part: COUNT ONE "(1) That the defendant did, on or about May 21, 1974, file his sworn application for registration as a real estate broker with the Florida Real Estate Commission on a form provided by said Commission. Question 16(a) of the application read as follows: 16(a) Have you served an apprenticeship as a real estate salesman with a registered real estate broker in the State of Florida for the 12 consecutive months within 5 years next prior to the date of this application? If yes, who was the registered broker and what is his business adress? The defendant answered "yes" to the first part of the above question and "Tony Vaughan - Monteverde, Florida" to the second part of such question on his said application for registration. That thereafter the application of defendant, Claude Talmadge Bray, was approved and he subsequently received his registration as a real estate broker, being initially registered as1 such with the Commission on or about September 18, 1974. That, at the time of the execution of the application as aforesaid, the defendant knew or should have known that his answers to question numbered 16(a) thereof were false and untrue in that: From September 10, 1971, to June 30, 1974, inclusive, defendant Claude Talmadge Bray was a full-time employee of Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc., a construction company with offices at 3744 North 40th Street, Tampa, Florida 33610. While the defendant did register with the Commission as a real estate salesman employed by Lester Tony Vaughan, a registered real estate broker whose last business address is registered with the Commission as Division Street, Monteverde, Florida, 32756, said registration was effected solely for the purpose of attempting to show to the Commission that the defendant wads in compliance with the apprenticeship requirements of Subsection 475.17(3), Florida Statutes; but that, in truth and fact, the defendant Claude Talmadge Bray had served no apprenticeship as required by, and within the intent and meaning of said Subsection 475.17(3), Florida Statutes, with the said Lester Tony Vaughan or any other registered real estate broker, and that the defendant, during said period of purported apprenticeship, had not handled any real estate transactions participated in any closings or received any instructions from, for or on behalf of the said Lester Tony Vaughan, Registered Broker. That by reason therof, it appears that the defendant1 Claude Talmadge Bray, does not possess the necessary qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trust worthiness and good character as required by Subsection 475.17(1), Florida Statutes; has been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretenses, dishonest dealing and trick, scheme or device, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and that the defendant obtained his registration as a real estate broker with the Florida Real Estate Commission by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation Of Subsection 475.25(2), Florida Statutes. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Information be filed and notice of the filing thereof be given to the Defendant and that proceedings be had, all in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and if the evidence warrants, the registration of Claude Talmadge Bray be revoked." The Respondent has denied the allegations set forth in the charging document, which is entitled an information, and proceeded to a hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings in the person of the undersigned, under authority of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner presented its case on the basis of oral testimony presented at the hearing and through tangible items of evidence. The Respondent elected to present evidence in the course of the hearing, and did so through the medium of oral testimony in the course of the hearing and through tangible evidence, which was the subject of a stipulation with the Petitioner. The first witness presented by the Petitioner was Ralph J. Ramer, President of Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc. Mr. Ramer was the former employer of the Respondent, and additionally was responsible for making a complaint which led to the investigation of this case by the Petitioner. This complaint was in the form of a letter from the witness, Ramer, addressed to the Petitioner and dated July 3, 1974. A copy of this letter has been received by the hearing officer as a Joint Exhibit of the Petitioner and Respondent and Is therefore made a part of the record in this cause. Mr. Ramer indicated that he had hired the Respondent on September 10, 1971, as a salesman with the witness's then existing company, and that the Respondent had been promoted to a vice president's position in 1971 or 1972 after the incorporation of the witness's company. It was further related that the Respondent was terminated from employment by the witness on June 30, 1974. During the course of the Respondent's employment with Hallmark Leisure Homes, Mr. Bray participated in a position which had as its major function the sale of construction contracts for the purpose of building homes on real estate which was held by the purchaser. In addition, when the Respondent became Vice President he made certain connections with the bank, in that he talked with the officers of the banks relative to financing. More specifically, Bray presented sales papers to banks, he followed up on proposed financing, he attended closings of loans if necessary, he took credit statements for potential purchasers, ordered surveys, ordered titles, ordered insurance, prepared deeds, prepared mortgage documents, worked with appraisers, conducted closings and he picked up certain bank draw disbursements from the lending institutions. At these closings, as aforementioned, mortgages were signed and funds were disbursed. In relation to the question of whether or not Mr. Ramer's company and, more particularly, Mr. Bray, were involved in the active sale of real estate, he said that salesman could assist a potential customer in finding land to build houses on. Ramer also indicated that the company, Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc., had bought four lots in Ocala and had built three houses on these lots. The cause for dismissal of the Respondent, according to Mr. Ramer, was for the reasons set forth in the letter of July 3, 1974, by the witness. Ramer further elaborated that he didn't know that Lester L. Vaughan had made application for professional license to the Florida Construction Licensing Board, while Vaughan was working for Ramer. Therefore, when he found out that Bray was working full-time for the witness and at the same time helping other employees to obtain a contractor's license, which was felt to not be in the best interest of the company because it would promote competition against the company through the employee of the company, Ramer dismissed the Respondent. In response to questions concerning the existence of a certain civil suit filed by the Respondent against Mr. Ramer, the witness acknowledged such a suit, but stated that he had no sense of vendetta against the Respondent. While the Respondent was employed with Hallmark Leisure Homes, the Respondent was preparing for a real estate license exam and serving an apprenticeship according to Lester Vaughan, the younger At the same time there were negotiations with the officials at Hallmark Leisure Homes, in particular, Mr. Ramer, for the purpose of qualifying the real estate broker's license of Lester T. Vaughan in establishing a branch office at the Hallmark Leisure Homes office location on North 40th Street, Tampa, Florida. Moreover, Mr. Ramer was in favor of this arrangement and it didn't appear that these negotiations to establish such an office were in any way designed to defraud the public from Vaughan the younger's observation. When the witness, Lester Vaughan, was specifically asked questions about the nature of the sales in which the Respondent participated, he stated that the sales were not the sale of real estate per se. However, he did indicate that there was a similarity in his mind to the sale of real estate and the sale of "on your lot construction contracts", and he stated this opinion from his knowledge of the function of a real estate broker, being a real estate broker himself. As a matter of fact, the witness felt that the function performed by the Respondent, Bray, was much more detailed than the function of a real estate broker in carrying out the broker's duties. Another significant comment by the witness was his statement that the contract form used by Hallmark Leisure Homes was similar to the form utilized for real estate contracts, testifying from his knowledge. In closing, the witness testified that he and the Respondent had looked for lots to be purchased to build homes on for prospective customers, but that they were never successful in achieving such an arrangement. The Petitioner placed Lester T. Vaughan on the stand, who at the time of his testimony was also charged by the Florida Real Estate Commission in Progress Docket #2671 for Hillsborough County, with an offense relating to the apprenticeship of Claude Talmadge Bray. The witness, Lester T. Vaughan, indicated that he was not working at the time of his testimony, but he had been and office worker for a citrus company. He has been a licensed real estate broker since August of 1972; however, he has never transacted any real estate sales. The witness was shown Petitioner's Exhibits "B", "C", "D", and "E" and identified those documents. Exhibit "B" is a reference statement signed by the witness upon the request for application to be a real estate broker made by Claude Talmadge Bray before the Florida Real Estate Commission. Exhibit "C" by the Petitioner is an application for a branch office registration certificate. Petitioner's Exhibit "D" is a declaration of employment for apprenticeship purposes and Petitioner's Exhibit "E" is a statement of the. applicant's employment and apprenticeship by the witness, Lester Tony Vaughan. (All these documents are copies of the originals). Lester T. Vaughan indicated that the Respondent, Bray, had not made any real estate sales while in his employ and that the figures in the affidavit which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E", were transactions mad Respondent was working with Hallmark Leisure Homes. The witness then testified that the Respondent told him that these were sales while in the employ of Hallmark Leisure Homes and further that he, the Respondent, could use those sales as a basis for stating experience in applying for a Real Estate Broker's License, even though they were not sales of real estate. Lester T. Vaughan testified that he had not talked with Mr. Ramer about locating a branch office on North 40th Street, Tampa, Florida, at the business of Hallmark Leisure Homes, but to his knowledge Mr. Ramer had never voiced any objection to such a branch office at that location. Lester T. Vaughan stated that he had never examined the contract forms or the closing statements utilized by Hallmark Leisure Homes. He had however talked with the Respondent 4 or 5 times in Tampa and several times at his, the witness's home address, about real estate related matters. At the close of the Petitioner's case, the Petitioner offered into evidence Exhibits "A" - "E", all of which have been particularly described, in the course of the findings of fact, with the exception of Exhibit "A" for identification, which is the application for registration as a real estate broker which was filed with the Florida Real Estate Commission by the Respondent, Claude Talmadge Bray. These items of evidence were admitted as evidence after examination and legal argument as will be further described in the section of this Recommended Order entitled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Respondent made certain motions at the Inception of the case directed to the sufficiency of the charging document and renewed these motions at the close of the Petitioner's case. These representations by the Respondent will be considered in the section entitled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Respondent offered witnesses in support of his position in the form of a witness to the facts contained in the allegations placed against the Respondent and certain character witnesses in his behalf. The Respondent further elected to take the stand in his own behalf. (All matters offered by the Respondent were premised on the eventuality that the Hearing Officer and/or the Florida Real Estate Commission did not agree with the Respondent's contention that the Petitioner had failed to meet its burden of proof, either in the statement of its pleadings or through presentation of its case in chief). The presentation of testimony on the facts related in this matter was a brief recall of Lester T. Vaughn for purposes of testifying about the facts surrounding the apprenticeship. In this recall Lester T. Vaughan indicated that he felt that the Respondent was a smart young man, by way of responding to a question on the necessity for close supervision of the work by the Respondent. As a follow up he indicated that the broker apprentice did not need day to day supervision. Finally, the witness stated that he felt that bray would have called him if he had needed help from the witness. When the Respondent took the stand, he testified that he is now employed with Ruby V. Williamson, a real estate broker, and that he has been so employed for 6 months as a realtor associate. A brief statement of his background prior to his present employment indicated that he had received formal education to include a bachelors degree and some graduate work, although It was not clear from the testimony that he received a graduate degree. Additionally, it was net established if the formal education had any significance in real estate work. Some of the positions held by the Respondent included work in educational television, teaching, sales positions, and eventually work with Jim Walter Corporation in home sales. While with Jim Walter he served as a branch manager of the offices in Lake City, Florida, Orlando, Florida, and Fredricksburg, Virginia, in the home construction division of that corporation. After leaving Walter Corporation he worked briefly at Allstate Homes and then started with Hallmark Leisure Homes in 1971. At the beginning of his employment with Hallmark Leisure Homes they were a partnership and later became a corporation. The Respondent stated that he started as a salesman with Hallmark Leisure Homes and was elevated to the position of vice president in that corporation at a later date. In his employment with Hallmark Leisure Homes he said that the officials at Hallmark Leisure Homes thought that real estate expertise was an advantage aid, moreover, that to locate a real estate branch office at their business address on North 40th Street, Tampa, Florida would be advantageous. His involvement with real estate licensing started with the issuance of a real estate salesman's license from the Florida Regal Estate Commission in 1971. After that time he decided to qualify for a real estate broker's license before the Florida State Real Estate Commission, and selected Lester T. Vaughan as his apprenticing broker on the basis of a suggestion made by Lester Vaughan, his coworker. For the record, Lester Vaughan is the son of Lester T. Vaughan. Hue indicated that he spoke to other realtors about the apprenticeship, in addition to conversations with Lester T. Vaughan. Two of these persons, Pearl Elliston and Clay Cordington were asked about their interpretation of the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E", relating to the numbers of real estate sales and attendance at closings of real estate sales. The Respondent stated that Mr. Cordington felt that the Respondent's experience with selling "on your own lot homes" was sufficient experience to be counted in responding to the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E". The witness felt that the reason for this response was because of the familiarity of Mr. Cordington with the work the Respondent was doing, in that the Respondent had sold Mr. Cordington two houses. The Respondent stated that Mrs. Elliston did not give him a definite answer on his inquiry. Furthermore the witness Indicated that he called the Florida Real Estate Commission office, particularly the licensing department, about what the blanks meant on the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E" and the blanks Involved with numbers of real estate sales, closings attended, and hours of instruction, and ethics and office operations etc. The witness stated that he spoke with some lady in the department that didn't seem to know what to do about that particular form. Upon the undersigned's examination of the witness on the question of whether or not he referred this matter to the superior of the lady who answered his inquiry, the witness responded that he did not. By way of elaboration on the forms, the Respondent testified that he looked at the Land Book in order to comply with the matters set forth in the forms. The witness seemed to place emphasis on the fact that when he was provided with Petitioner's Exhibit "D", he was told that this was the only necessary form to be completed as part of the requirement for becoming a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, for that reason he seemed somewhat baffled by the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E". The witness went into some detail to explain how he arrived at the figures on the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E". Put concisely, the witness testified that the basis for the figures 56 and 24 upon Petitioner's Exhibit "E" were arrived at by examining "on your lot home sales" made while employed by Hallmark Leisure Homes and closings that he attended in connection with those sales. The figure 100 hours was arrived at by estimates in discussions with Lester T. Vaughan and lecture type course attendance. Bray stated that the figures on that form, Petitioner's Exhibit "E", had been discussed with Lester T. Vaughan, Ramer and Weisiger, another official at Hallmark Leisure Homes. There are other matters which constituted Involvement with real estate sales, but none of these listings were ever consummated through a real estate sale. Moreover, these figures involving listings for Hallmark Leisure Homes and Listings by the Respondent privately were not reflected in figures on Petitioner's Exhibit "E". The Respondent seemed to, under questioning of whether the sales reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit "E" were real estate sales, be convinced at the time of hearing that the sales were not real estate sales per se, although at the time he was making the representations on Petitioner's Exhibit "E" he did not seem as convinced of that fact. Nevertheless, because of the real estate related nature of the work done for Hallmark Leisure Homes, and because in many respects the witness felt that his function was more comprehensive than that of a real estate broker, he felt that the experience with Hallmark Leisure Homes was work which was a fulfillment of the requirement for apprenticeship. Finally, the witness indicated that at the time he filled out the various forms for the Real Estate Commission that he had no intent to defraud or mislead by offering the statistics that he had set forth. Testimony was offered by one Clifford Opp, Jr., Esquire, who has known the Respondent since he was 14 years old, to the extent of being in business with the Respondent, in a restaurant venture which was unsuccessful. He further stated that he, did not feel that the Respondent would provide false information to the Real Estate Commission. Although the witness had been in a confidential relationship with Hallmark Leisure Homes, as their attorney, and therefore unable to divulge any confidences; nevertheless, stated that he didn't recall any report of the company about the Respondent's conduct. In summary, the witness felt that the Respondent was trustworthy. Wilbur J. Wells was called on behalf of the Respondent. Mr. Wells had been a coworker at Hallmark Leisure Homes, in addition to being in the same fraternity in college with the Respondent and in the restaurant business with the Respondent. Mr. Wells is now a realtor associate and has a real estate salesman's license issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. He says that the Respondent's character in terms of truth and veracity is outstanding and that the witness did not believe that the Respondent would lie to the Real Estate Commission. Ruby Williamson, the present employer of the Respondent was called. Ruby Williamson is a real estate broker, and she has known the Respondent for 6 or 7 years, and feels that the Respondent has an excellant reputation and would not lie to the Real Estate Commission. Assuming the application of the cited statutes in the complaint, from the testimony set forth in the hearing it would appear that the Respondent did not intend to defraud, misrepresent, conceal, act under false pretenses, deal dishonestly or trick, unlawfully scheme or device, in violation of Section 425.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, nor did the applicant intend to defraud, misrepresent, or conceal in violation of ss.425.25(2), Florida Statutes. Moreover, there has been insufficient showing that the Respondent lacks the necessary qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness and good character as required by ss.425.17, Florida Statutes. The facts show that the Respondent sought advise from practicing real estate brokers in Florida and the Florida Real Estate Commission before filling out Petitioner's Exhibit "E", and these facts are unrefuted. He acted upon that information about the exhibit in good faith. Considering the testimony of the relationship of the Respondent to Lester Tony Vaughan, his apprenticing broker, the Respondent was legitimately receiving counsel and acting in the employ of Lester Tony Vaughan, notwithstanding, the fact that the pursuit failed to consummate any real estate sales. The facts also Indicate that the Respondent received adequate supervision from Lester Tony Vaughan, because Florida Statutes, Chapter 475 and its rules and regulations do not require full time supervision or employment in qualifying for a real estate broker's license in Florida. The six or seven visits and conferences between Lester Tony Vaughan and the Respondent were sufficient compliance for a man in the Respondent's position considering the relationship of the sales activity he was performing for Hallmark Leisure Homes to the sale of real estate proper. Finally, certain evidential items were offered in behalf of the Respondent. The first item was the letter dated January 3, 1974, written by R. J. Ramer, President of Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc., addressed to the Florida Real Estate Commission. This letter has been received as a Joint Exhibit of the parties upon joint stipulation of the parties and has been marked as Joint Exhibit "1". A second document was offered by the Respondent in the form of a letter addressed to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Beard on the subject of Lester Vaughn's application for license. This letter was written by R. J. Ramer, President, Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc. This particular correspondence was not admitted far reasons set forth in the section entitled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent, Claude Talmadge Bray, be released from the charges brought under Progress Docket #2658, Hillsborough County, and that the Respondent go forth without penalty against his registration as a real estate broker in the State of Florida and that his certificate as broker-salesman remain in full force and effect. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: S. Ralph Fetner, Jr., Esquire (For the Commission) Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 David Luther Woodward, Esquire Rose and Woodward, Chartered 1211 The Madison Building Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondents, or either of them, for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Eglin Realty, Inc., holds a real estate broker's license, No. M14 0024352, last renewed before the hearing on April 1, 1986. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. A Florida corporation, Eglin was originally licensed in 1971, (T. 47) or, at least, has been "in business since 1971." (T. 22) Seventy-two years old at the time of hearing, Eglin's president, Leon F. Bishop, has never held a real estate license but he has developed several subdivisions (T. 50) and "was buying and selling land all of [his] life." (T. 51) In 1982, Mr. Bishop, his wife and daughter owned stock in Eglin. Of 50 shares authorized and outstanding, he owned one share; his wife owned ten; and his daughter owned the remaining 39. In July of 1982 and for some time before, respondent Jerry L. Armstrong, himself in the real estate business for 25 years, believed he was registered as the "active broker" (T. 231), for Eglin Realty, Inc., and as a qualifying real estate broker for Armstrong and Associates, Inc.; and, he was "fairly certain . . . [that he] had an individual license at that time also." (T. 234) Arguably, nobody was registered as Eglin's "active broker" in July of 1982, because Eglin's real estate broker's license expired, at least by its own terms, on March 31, 1982. Apparently through oversight, Eglin had not renewed the license. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. For four or five (T. 24) years before, however, Mr. Armstrong had indeed been registered as Eglin's qualifying broker. On December 10, 1982, Mr. Armstrong, who is now a "broker-salesman with Coldwell-Banker Deep South Realty Corporation," (T. 230) resigned as "vice president director and active real estate broker for Eglin Realty, Inc., effective December 19, 1982," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, which resignation Mr. Bishop and his wife Dorothy, then Eglin's other two officers and directors, duly accepted. Id. Only the following August, after Eglin chose Joan A. Ritteman to succeed Mr. Armstrong, did Eglin learn that its license was to have expired in March of the preceding year. On October 13, 1983, Eglin made application for "late renewal," tendering a $15 late fee in addition to the $40 renewal fee. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. With the grant of this application, Eglin has been registered with DPR as a real estate broker, Ms. Ritteman being the firm's sole qualifying broker since then. King's Lake Property When Mr. Bishop met Dr. and Mrs. William D. Permenter at a land auction in Walton County in early 1982, he gave them a business card like the one that came in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10. (T. 93) "Eglin Realty, Inc." appears in the center of the card above the phrase "Land and Farm Broker." The upper right corner bears the Realtor logo under the words "Reg. Real Estate Broker." The lower left corner reads "Leon Bishop President." The upper left corner has telephone numbers, and the remaining corner gives a mailing address. The Permenters mistook Mr. Bishop for a registered real estate broker, when he introduced himself. Some days after the auction, Mr. Bishop arranged to show one or both of the Permenters a large tract he owned, but failed to interest them in it. It occurred to him that they might be willing to invest instead in the 1,527-acre parcel that Hubert Alberton Bell and C. J. King, Jr. of Defuniak Springs owned jointly in Walton County, property which the owners had listed for sale with Angus Guinness Douglass, Jr. of Douglass Realty, Inc. Mr. Bishop may have learned of this parcel's availability from Mr. Douglass at the very auction at which he met the Permenters. Under the terms of the listing agreement, Douglass Realty was entitled to a ten percent commission if a sale of the whole parcel could be arranged, at $1,000 per acre, within 100 days of May 3, 1982. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Before showing the Permenters the land Messrs. Bell and King hoped to sell (the King's Lake property), Mr. Bishop approached Mr. Douglass, and proposed that Douglass Realty, Inc. share with Eglin any commission arising from a sale of the King's Lake property to buyers Mr. Bishop or Eglin might procure. In a letter dated July 4, 1982, and signed by respondent Armstrong, Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 3 and 11, Eglin's share of the anticipated commission was specified. The letter concluded: The undersigned [Jerry L. Armstrong] agrees by this letter to authorize Leon Bishop, as president of Eglin Realty, Inc., to personally deliver this agreement and to accept on my behalf, as the active licensed Florida real estate broker. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Douglass felt free to deal with Mr. Bishop with regard to the commission both because of Mr. Armstrong's letter and because he knew of no "real estate law that said [he] had to ask, or say, let me see his license before I talk to him." (T. 209) At no time did Mr. Douglass speak to Mr. Armstrong about the transaction. (T. 211) Agreement as to the commission split having been reached, Mr. Bishop showed the Permenters the King's Lake property, and, in early July, Dr. Permenter offered to buy it. After "Mr. Bishop told [Dr. Permenter that his offer] had been accepted," (T. 97) the transaction closed on July 28, 1982, in a lawyer's office in Defuniak Springs. Present were the lawyer, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Douglass, Mrs. Douglass, Mrs. Permenter and the principals. In exchange for a deed in favor of Dr. William Permenter and assigns, the vendors received a purchase money mortgage in the amount of $1,275,000, together with the balance of the $1,425,000 sales price, less various transaction costs, notably a $25,000 initial payment toward a brokerage commission totalling $118,587. Eglin's Exhibit No. 3. At no time before the final hearing in the present case did Dr. Permenter ever see Mr. Armstrong. (T. 97) In accordance with a revised commission agreement dated July 6, 1982, and executed by Messrs. King, Bell, Douglass and (on behalf of Eglin) Bishop, Eglin's Exhibit No. 2, and consistently with the earlier agreement between Eglin and Douglass, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, Mr. Douglass drew a $10,000 commission check in favor of Eglin, keeping $15,000 as Douglas Realty, Inc.'s share of the initial commission payment. (T. 212) Also in keeping with Eglin's Exhibit No. 2, Messrs. King and Bell each executed a promissory note in favor of Eglin in the amount of $21,682, bearing interest at ten percent, payable in three annual installments. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9. These notes represented the remainder of the commission owed Eglin. (The vendors also made and delivered notes payable to Douglass for unpaid commission owed Douglas Realty, Inc.) Sharing The Commission Mr. Bishop was Eglin's only salaried employee, (T. 50) and also sometimes borrowed money from the corporation. Although a monthly salary of $1,000 was authorized "[i]n the minutes," (T. 57) "[t]here was never no set amount of salary that [Mr. Bishop] would get," Id. from Eglin in 1982. Sometimes he drew no "money for a few months, and then . . . would get a large sum." (T. 57) "Whenever [he] wanted to get money from the corporation, [he] asked for it, and . . . got it." (T. 58) He "didn't make a request to Mr. Armstrong." (T. 61) His wife had authority to write checks against the Eglin account into which the $10,000 commission check delivered at the King's Lake property closing was deposited. (T. 62) After the deposit, Mr. Bishop asked his wife or daughter for some of the money, and Mrs. Bishop drew a check in her husband's favor for $5,000 or thereabouts on the Eglin account. The totality of the evidence makes it clear that this payment, whether characterized as salary or not, was compensation for his procuring Dr. Permenter as a buyer and otherwise facilitating the sale of the King's Lake property. For one thing, "[t]he only transaction [Eglin] had during that period of time was the King's Lake [property]." (T. 254) Mr. Bishop and Mr. Armstrong "had an agreement from the start that anything [Bishop] bought and sold would go through [E]glin Realty, due to the fact that there would be a commission there, and [Armstrong] would be entitled to some of the commission." (T. 250) Mr. Armstrong professed to believe that Mr. Bishop "was operating as an owner" (T. 236) when Messrs. King and Bell sold the King's Lake property. Mr. Armstrong also testified, falsely but under oath, that he, not Mr. Bishop, negotiated the commission sharing arrangement with Mr. Douglass, the implication being that he thereby earned a portion of the commission Eglin received. In any event, Mr. Armstrong believed himself entitled to a share of the King's Lake property commission. He directed that his share be applied against outstanding loans totaling $3,500 to $4,000 which Eglin had made to him. (T. 248) Ten Percent Dr. Permenter, who has abandoned the practice of medicine in order to devote more time to real estate development, acquired the King's Lake property planning to subdivide it and sell lots. First, he caused the property to be divided into several large tracts, some of which he conveyed into trust. One tract, dubbed King Lake Estates, was conveyed to a partnership Dr. and Mrs. Permenter entered into with each other. Much, if not all of this tract, was subdivided into lots. At some point, Mr. Bishop agreed to sell the lots, and to assist development in other ways. To that end, he and his daughter spent time in a trailer on the property. The Permenters agreed to pay Mr. Bishop ten percent of the sales price of any lot he sold. In keeping with this agreement, Mrs. Permenter wrote him several checks on behalf of the partnership. On August 29, 1983, Mr. Bishop and the Permenters executed a written agreement memorializing their arrangement, reciting that some 83 lots had already been sold under it, and conveying to Mr. Bishop "a $2500.00 life interest" in the Kings Lake Estates tract. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. A purpose of this agreement was to create a legally enforceable right in Mr. Bishop to the ten percent share of sales proceeds the Permenters were then regularly paying him as lots were sold. Mr. Bishop never had any ownership interest of any kind in any portion of the King's Lake property other than the King Lake Estates tract. When Dr. Permenter sold a Kings Lake Estates lot himself, Mr. Bishop did not receive ten percent of the proceeds. (T. 100) Notes Discounted After he began selling lots for the King Lake Estates partnership, Mr. Bishop told the Permenters he needed money, and asked if they would take the notes Messrs. King and Bell had given Eglin for the remainder of the commission, in exchange for undertaking monthly payments to Eglin. Some time remained before the next annual payments called for in the notes which King and Bell had executed in favor of Eglin when they sold the King's Lake property. The Permenters were agreeable, what with the substantial sums Dr. Permenter still owed the notes' makers. In order to transform annual payments into monthly payments, Mr. Bishop, on behalf of Eglin, endorsed the notes Messrs. King and Bell had given Eglin, in favor of Dr. and Mrs. Permenter. In return, Dr. and Mrs. Permenter executed a promissory note with specified amounts payable monthly to Eglin. It was after this had been accomplished that an investigator from the Division of Land Sales of the Florida Department of Business Regulation advised the Permenters that they were required to register their subdivision with the Department. He also informed them that Mr. Bishop was not licensed as a real estate broker, which came as a surprise to them. Apparently on the theory that the promissory notes they had received in exchange for theirs represented legally unenforceable obligations to pay real estate commissions to an unlicensed entity, Dr. and Mrs. Permenter stopped making payments on their promissory note to Eglin. When Eglin sued on the note, the Permenters filed a counter-complaint alleging that "on July 27, 1983, . . . [Eglin] was not a registered real estate broker and was not entitled to be paid fees." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. The litigation eventuated in an amended final judgment awarding Eglin the unpaid balance of the note. Eglin Realty, Inc. vs. William D. Permenter and Elizabeth A. Permenter, No. 85-718-CA (Fla. 1st Cir.; Mar. 30, 1987). An appeal was pending at the time of final hearing in these proceedings.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the post-hearing memorandum and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found: By letter dated February 18, 1983, the Florida Real Estate Commission (sometimes herein referred to as the respondent or the Commission) advised the petitioner that his application for licensure as a real estate salesman was denied based upon petitioner's answer to question 6 of the licensing application and his criminal record. On September 1, 1982, petitioner held a Mutuel Clerk's Occupational License (NOP-00455) issued by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Department of Business Regulation, State of Florida. While acting in the capacity of a mutuel clerk at Calder Race Course in Dade County, Florida, Petitioner, on September 1, 1982, cashed a winning one dollar ($1.00) trifecta ticket for the eighth race on August 28, 1982, valued at six hundred thirty-six dollars and eighty cents ($636.80) for Metro-Dade Organized Crime Bureau Detective, Jonas Sears, for a cash fee payable to Petitioner. Petitioner did not require Detective Sears to complete the necessary internal revenue service form W-2G which is required of any patron winning six hundred dollars ($600.00) or more. On October 22, 1982, petitioner entered into a consent order with the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering wherein petitioner agreed to certain findings. Based on those findings, petitioner agreed to a suspension of his pari-mutuel license for a period of seventy-five (75) days. A clerk who engages in such conduct violates Section 550.16(7), Florida Statutes and Rule Section 7E- 6.07(3)(6), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner also admitted to deducting sixty dollars and eighty cents ($60.80) as a cash fee payable to him for not requiring Detective Sears to complete the necessary Internal Revenue Service form W-2G.
Recommendation That the respondent enter a Final Order denying petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of September, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 14th day of September, 1983.
