Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Gary R. Berkson, is a licensed real estate salesman, holding license No. 034697. From September 27, 1980, until May of 1983, the Respondent as a salesman working as an independent contractor for Act Now Real Estate, Inc., a corporate broker whose active qualifying brokers and officers were Robert F. Picheny and Thelma R. Sarkas. Robert F. Picheny was subpoenaed and requested to bring with him the records of Act Now Real Estate, Inc., showing the disbursement of commissions to the Respondent. These records did not contain any entries relating to rental transactions involving the persons named in the complaint as having paid commissions to the Respondent. The only lease offered and received in evidence was between Samuel Schnur, as lessor, and lessees named Davis and Johnston. Samuel Schnur, presented as one of the Petitioner's witnesses, did not pay a rental commission to the Respondent in connection with this lease. Another lease transaction where the Respondent was alleged to have received rental commissions was between Sami Elmasri, as landlord, and Donald Bauerle, as tenant. Sami Elmasri, presented as another of the Petitioner's witnesses, testified that he paid a $300 commission, but that this was not paid to the Respondent. This commission was paid to another salesman, Wendy Corman. The final witness for the Petitioner, except for the Respondent, was Wendy Corman. She showed Mr. Elmasri's property to persons wishing to rent through a lead given by the Respondent. She was paid a $300 commission by Mr. Elmasri. The Respondent did not receive any of this commission. The Petitioner's final witness was the Respondent, who testified that he never received a commission for rental property. The only money he received in connection with rental properties was a management fee he received on some properties owned by Richard Jacobson. This fee was in payment for management services consisting of arranging for repairs to the properties such as painting it, repairs to the plumbing and the garage door, and being available to tenants with problems in the absence of the owner. These management fees continued even after the Respondent left Act Now Real Estate, Inc., until Mr. Jacobson assumed the management duties himself.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent, Gary R. Berkson, be DISMISSED. This Recommended Order entered this 13th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Robert Hartnett was at all times pertinent to this complaint a registered real estate broker. Bill Dew and Dave Allman sought to lease a specific piece of real property for business purposes. In this regard they contacted William Hartnett, who had previously leased a piece of real property which included the specific piece of property Messrs. Dew and Allman desired to lease. Messrs. Allman and Dew entered into an agreement to sublease a portion of the Hartnett leasehold. A contract was prepared by William Hartnett and delivered by Robert Hartnett to Dew and Allman, who executed the contract. Although there is conflicting testimony, the testimony of Robert Hartnett is accepted as the more accurate explanation of his role in the transaction. Robert Hartnett had no interest in William Hartnett's business venture or in the leasehold, and did not appear or function as a real estate broker in this transaction. The owner of the property, Mr. Grossinger, testified he agreed to lease the property to William Hartnett. Hartnett was permitted to occupy the premises and paid rent. William Hartnett prepared a written lease which was not signed by the owner, Mr. Grossinger. Grossinger terminated the agreement when Hartnett subleased the premises to Allman and Dew without notifying him and instituted legal action to evict William Hartnett. Under the circumstances, there was an oral lease between Hartnett and Grossinger. Messrs. Dew and Allman made arrangements with contractors to make modifications to the subleased premises, and the modifications were begun. These modifications were in part the cause for the owner terminating the lease with William Hartnett. Messrs. Dew and Allman or their agents did have occupancy of the premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against Respondent Robert Hartnett. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Louis M. Jepeway, Esquire 619 Dade Federal Building 101 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Petitioner is a state government 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 is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the state of Florida having been issued license number 0223671 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker, t/a Sunshine Express Realty, 300 S. Pine Road 262, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324. On or about November 22, 1983, an information was filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, charging Respondent with one count of insurance fraud by false or fraudulent claim in violation of Section 817.234, Florida Statutes; and two counts of grand theft in the first degree, in violation of Sections 812.014(1)(a), 812.014(1)(b), and 812.014(2)(a), Florida Statutes. On March 27, 1985, a verdict was rendered which found Respondent guilty of one count of insurance fraud by false or fraudulent claim, and two counts of grand theft in the first degree. The Court adjudged Respondent guilty of one count of insurance fraud by false or fraudulent claim in violation of Section 817.234, Florida Statutes, and two counts of grand theft in the first degree in violation of Section 812.014(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Court thereupon sentenced Respondent to a prison term of eighteen months in state prison to be followed by a term of five years of probation. The Respondent does not appear to be possessed of the mental skills necessary to be the master-mind behind a complex fraud scheme, nor has he demonstrated a tendency to be devious, shrewd, calculating, or cunning. To the contrary, the Respondent appears to be gullible and vulnerable to being taken advantage of, which tendencies may account for the circumstances which led to his conviction. The Respondent enjoys an excellent reputation in spite of his criminal convictions and probably would not be a danger to the real estate community if he were allowed to keep his license. The quality of the Respondent's reputation is reflected by the fact that in spite of his convictions, he is currently employed in another broker's real estate company and holds the positions of vice president and head of the commercial department. With the exception of the incident which led to his convictions, the Respondent appears to have demonstrated a high degree of honesty and integrity in his personal and business dealings. The Respondent has excellent teaching skills in the field of real estate and is probably one of the better technicians in the field of real estate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Pinkerton has been a registered real estate broker since May 19, 1976, before which he was a real estate salesman registered with Strout Realty, Inc. On October 29, 1975, respondent entered into an agreement with Transamerica Homes Company (Transamerica) to sell at auction five mobile homes belonging to Transamerica. On November 15, 1975, respondent acted as auctioneer at an auction at which all five mobile homes were sold. After receiving some of the proceeds of the sale, Transamerica's agents asked respondent to remit an additional seven thousand six hundred eighty dollars ($7,680.00). Respondent told Robert P. Wold, Transamerica's authorized representative in Florida, that he did not have that much money because he had borne expenses in connection with the auction that Transamerica should have paid. After telling Transamerica's agents that he did not have sufficient funds to cover such a check, respondent nonetheless drew and mailed a check in the amount of seven thousand six hundred eighty dollars ($7,680.00), in the belief that Mr. Wold wanted him to write the check even though the funds to cover it were not on deposit. When the check was presented to the American Bank of Lakeland, on which it was drawn, petitioner had four thousand nine hundred fifty-three dollars and fifty-three cents ($4,953.53) on deposit, and the bank dishonored the check. After the check was returned for insufficient funds, Mr. William S. Hagar telephoned respondent on behalf of Transamerica to discuss the matter. Respondent said he would send another check in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) within a week, which he did. Another week passed; another telephone call transpired between Mr. Hagar and respondent; and respondent sent a second check in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00). Both of the checks respondent had drawn for two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) were paid upon presentment. On March 13, 1976, respondent wrote Mr. Hagar a letter in which he stated: At this point, due to the many problems involved in the Auction of the Mobile Homes on the 15th of November, 1975 at Skyview Waters in Lakeland, I feel I am entitled to additional compensation. First of all, it is almost unheard of in an auction of this kind for less than 20 percent commission. I was assured [sic] by Mr. Robert Wold of his assistance in preparing the sale. He and Mr. Paul Harris were supposed to provide the arrangements for financing. They did absolutely nothing. They were supposed to assist prospects in locating lots and people to handle moving, setups, driveways and other improvements. By our agreement my only obligation was to be to supervise and provide auctioneer voice. I think you are quite aware that the entire operation was left for me to do at about 1/4 the commission I should have been paid plus the fact that I was forced to split the meager commission I earned with two other people. So, I ended up with less than $1000 gross commission on a sale that should have netted me at least $10,000. On March 16, 1976, Mr. Hagar replied, sending a copy of his letter to the Florida Real Estate Commission: This letter acknowledges receipt of your truly [sic] amazing letter of March 12, 1976. I have reviewed the Auction Agreement which you executed, a copy attached for your information and edification. The language is clear, unambiguous and the obligations of both parties are stated plainly. We have honored our obligations completely and we expect you to honor yours. Paragraph 2) stated you will be ". . . solely responsible in setting up and conducting the auction sale without interference from anyone. . ." Paragraph 3) states you ". . . shall retain Four percent of the bid price received, as commission . . ." for your services. Lastly, Paragraph 6) states there are ". . . no oral representations, agreements or understandings between either of the parties. . . ". * * * We have been patient and forbearing in allowing you the opportunity to make restitution without resorting to the full remedies available under the law to us . . . I assure you that unless we receive your certified check in the amount of $2,680 by March 24, 1976, we shall exercise each and every remedy so available. On March 26, 1976, Mr. Hagar, not having heard from respondent, engaged Florida counsel who eventually succeeded in obtaining a default judgment against respondent in the amount of two thousand six hundred eighty dollars ($2,680.00) plus costs. This judgment had not been satisfied at the time of the hearing in the present proceeding. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which is attached as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 APPENDIX Paragraph one of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that the evidence did not establish when respondent became associated with Strout Realty, Inc. Respondent's letter of March 12, 1976, to Mr. Hagar was written on Strout Realty, Inc. stationery, however. Paragraph two of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that the check was for only a part of Transamerica's claimed share of the sale proceeds. Respondent did in fact know that he had insufficient funds to cover the check, a fact of which he made no secret. Paragraph three of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. Paragraph four of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. George W. Pinkerton 2833 East Highway 92 Lakeland, Florida 33801 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-2292 GEORGE W. PINKERTON, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact On January 23, 1984, the Secretary of the Department of professional Regulation (hereinafter "Department") signed an Administrative Complaint, count one of which alleges, in pertinent part: Respondents in their capacity as real estate brokers employed Doris H. Swanton as a real estate broker and office manager from approximately October 20, 1980 to April 18, 1982. On or about April 8, 1982 to the present, Doris H. Swanton has made numerous and repeated demands upon Respondents for the payment of a share of the compensation received by Respondent and earned by Doris H. Swanton while in the employ of the Respondents in the amount totalling approximately $7,815.52 involving a number of brokerage transactions. A copy of a list reflecting the transactions, dates and amounts owing is attached as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Since April 8, 1982, Respondents have failed, refused and neglected to give a reasonable accounting or to pay Doris H. Swanton the $7,815.52 or any part thereof notwithstanding the demands for same made upon Respondents by Doris H. Swanton, the person entitled to said money. That by reason of the foregoing, Respondents are guilty of having failed to account and deliver a share of a real estate commission and other compensation to Doris H. Swanton in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The Administrative Complaint signed on January 23, 1984, does not contain an allegation that there has been a judicial determination that Respondents are not entitled to retain the property claimed by Doris H. Swanton. On February 22, 1984, the Respondents served an Answer and Written Defenses in which the Respondents, inter alia, admit the first of the paragraphs quoted in finding number 1, above, and deny the other three paragraphs quoted above. The Respondents' Answer and Written Defenses also sets forth a detailed itemization of Respondents' reasons for contending that Doris H. Swanton is not entitled to the full amount of a single one of the twelve commissions she claims are due her from the Respondents. ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES The thesis of the Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents is that a broker cannot be disciplined for failure to account for and deliver non-escrowed property until there has been a judicial determination that the broker is not entitled to retain the property in dispute. The case of Golub v. Department of Professional Regulation, F.R.E.C., 9 FLW 460 (Fla. 5th DCA, Feb. 23, 1984), appears to be exactly on point. There a majority of the court concluded: Once there is a judicial determination that a broker is not entitled to retain non-escrowed property then this statute [475.25(1)(d)] is authority to discipline the broker for a failure to account and deliver the property to any person, including a salesman, who is entitled to its prossession. Corollary to the quoted language from Golub is the conclusion that until there is a judicial determination that a broker is not entitled to retain non- escrowed property, the statute does not authorize discipline of a broker for failure toe account and deliver the property. In other words, when the property in dispute is non-escrowed property, a judicial determination that a broker is not entitled to retain the property is an indispensable prerequisite to the establishment of a violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, on the basis of a failure to account for or deliver such property. Accordingly, until a court determines that the Respondents in this case are not entitled to retain the property in dispute in this case, it cannot be established that Respondents have violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. And inasmuch as the Administrative Complaint fails to allege that there has been any such judicial determination, the Administrative Complaint is fatally deficient.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Analysis of the Issues, and Conclusions of Law, I recommend that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a Final Order in this case dismissing the Administrative Complaint without prejudice to the refiling of an Administrative Complaint against these Respondents if and when a court determines that the Respondents are not entitled to the property claimed by Doris H. Swanton. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 3rd day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert W. Lee, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 G. Michael Keenan, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Mr. Harold R. Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact This cause came on for consideration based upon the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. Cecil V. Cancer t/a Cancer Realty, Respondent. The Respondent has opposed the Administrative Complaint and demanded a formal hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The Florida Real Estate Commission is an agency of the State of Florida which has as its primary function the regulation of certain licensees who hold various registrations with the Petitioner. The Respondent, Cecil V. Caneer t/a Caneer Realty, holds License No. 0012862, under the authority of the Florida Real Estate Commission. This license entitles the Respondent to act as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent has been so licensed. On August 12, 1974, the Respondent entered into a management agreement with James Thomas Quinn and his wife, Phyllis J. Quinn, to manage certain property in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, located at 5639 Minocqua Street. The terms and conditions of that management agreement may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. This management agreement entitled the Respondent to receive certain brokerage fees for his services to the Quinns in leasing, collecting rents, maintaining the property, entering into service contracts, effecting certain repairs and making disbursements from the owners' proceeds and with a portion of the rents to be deposited for purposes of satisfying the mortgage payments owed on the property. In addition, the Respondent was responsible for making periodic itemized statements of receipts, expenses, charges and accruals, and to remit the net proceeds to the owners. The Quinns, through the management agreement, agreed to pay the various percentages set forth in the brokerage fee arrangement and to assume the full responsibility for the payment of expenses and obligations incurred in connection with the exercise of the Respondent's duties under the management agreement. The owners left the State of Florida at a time when the management agreement was still in force and effect. In November and December, 1976, the property was in a state of disarray, and a number of items needed to be repaired. Under the terms and conditions of the management agreement and with the written permission of Mrs. Quinn, dated December 20, 1976, the Respondent made a number of repairs to the property. The letter spoken of may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. The Respondent also made two mortgage payments in behalf of the Quinns for the months of December, 1976, and January, 1977. An itemized statement of the monies expended by the Respondent, less the security deposit of the tenants who were living in the rental property in late 1976, may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The Respondent requested the Quinns to reimburse him for the money that he had paid in making repairs and for the mortgage payments made on the property. The Quinns refused to pay the Respondent, and acting on the advice of his attorney, the Respondent filed a claim of lien against the subject real property at 5639 Minocqua Street, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, which is the property of the Quinns. The Claim of Lien may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. It sets out that the Respondent spent $220.58 for certain repairs and payments for other repairs, with the total value of materials and labor being $441.79. In fact, the $220.58 was spent for the mortgage payments on the property for the months of December, 1976, and January, 1977. The balance of the $441.79 was for the items of repairs as itemized in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, less the security deposit spoken of. At the time the lien was placed, the Respondent was also of the persuasion that the Quinns intended to sell the property. Under these facts as shown, the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, is convinced that the Respondent has violated certain laws pertaining to his licensure by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Specifically, the Petitioner feels that the act by the Respondent of placing the lien upon the public records of Duval County, Florida, against the property of the Quinns, was a utilization of a document which purports to affect the title of, or encumber, the real property of the Quinns and was for the purpose of collecting a commission or to coerce the payment of monies in violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner believes that these acts constitute a violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and finally, that for these acts the Respondent is guilty of dishonest dealing, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The lien in question does purport to affect the title of and encumber the real property of the Quinns, and it has been placed by the Respondent, a real estate broker licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission. It has been placed in the public records of Duval County, Florida. However, it was not placed for the purpose of collecting a commission or to coerce the payment of money to the Respondent. The Respondent was acting under the express authority of the management agreement and letter of instruction of December 20, 1976, from Mrs. Quinn, and pursued his legal remedies by filing the lien, when it was determined that the Quinns did not intend to reimburse him for the authorized expenditures and mortgage payments on the rental property. Likewise, there has been no showing that the Respondent is guilty of dishonest dealings in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. When the alleged violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(d) Florida Statutes, failed, the allegation under Subsection 475.25(1)(d) becomes irrelevant, due to the fact that the purpose of Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, is to implement the penalties found in Section 475.25, Florida Statutes, in the event of any violation of provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, other than Section 475.25, Florida Statutes violations.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, dismiss the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Cecil V. Caneer t/a Caneer Realty, and allow the Respondent to go forth without further necessity to answer to those allegations. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 David C. Goodman, Esquire 1387 Cassat Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent Lydon was registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman. By an administrative complaint filed on February 8, 1978, the petitioner sought to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the respondent's license and right to practice thereunder. The ground for such complaint is that respondent collected money as a salesman in connection with a real estate brokerage transaction in a name not his employer's and without the express consent of his employer. The respondent admits, and the evidence demonstrates, that in December of 1973, the respondent obtained a listing agreement for the sale of real property from Mary E. Renney, brought the seller Renney and the buyer Stephen together, prepared the contract for sale and obtained a check made payable to him in the amount of $500.00 for this transaction, which check was cashed by him. Mr. Lydon testified that he did these things as a personal favor to Mrs. Renney and that his broker knew about these transactions. No evidence was presented that respondent's broker gave his express consent to the events described herein.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent Alford R. Lydon, Sr., be found guilty of the charges contained in the administrative complaint dated February 8, 1978, and that said finding constitute the written reprimand discussed above. Respectively submitted and entered this 2nd day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Alford R. Lydon, Sr. 3301 58th Avenue North Lot 146 St. Petersburg, Florida 33714
