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 the registration of Cindy Realty of Hernando, Inc., and William Colello as real estate brokers. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Stephen C. Booth, Esquire 1604 U.S. Highway 19, North New Port Richey, Florida 33552
The Issue The issue in Count I is whether Section 475.42(1)(j) absolutely prohibits a broker or salesman from filing a lien or other encumberance against real property to collect a commission. The issue in Count II is whether the Respondents violated a lawful order of the Commission by failing to remove the motion of lis pendens contrary to Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Conclusions Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: "No real estate broker or salesman shall place, or cause to be placed, upon the public records of any county, any contract, assignment, deed, will, mortgage, lien, affidavit, or other writing which purports to affect the title of, or encumber, any real property, if the same is known to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property, maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce the payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person, or for any unlawful purpose." Clearly the Respondents placed or caused to be placed the notice of lis pendens in question. A notice of lis pendens is clearly an "other writing which purports to effect the title of, or encumber, any real property." The Florida Real Estate Commission argues that this provision is an absolute bar to the filing of any lien for the purpose of collecting a commission. The Respondents argue that this provision is not an absolute bar and there are circumstances when a broker may file a notice of lis pendens. They also assert that the notice of lis pendens falls within the exception because the Circuit Court refused to remove the notice of lis pendens upon motion of the property owner. Lastly, it is argued that the notice was filed by counsel for the Respondents in good faith on an action at law and that this mitigates their action even if there was a violation. The language of Section 475.42(1)(j) cannot be read to absolutely prohibit a broker from obtaining a lis pendens. When given this construction, it effectively denies brokers and salesmen access to the courts for redress of injury as provided in Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Section 475.42(1)(j) is a complex provision which is subject to two interpretations. One interpretation would prohibit a broker or salesman from filing an encumberance if the same were known to him to be false, void or not authorized by law; if not authorized to be upon the public records; if not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded; if the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property; if maliciously (filed); if for the purpose of collecting a commission, if to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person; or if for any other unlawful purpose. This first interpretation would consider each clause a separate limitation on filing an encumberance. The facts analyzed under this interpretation do not show any knowledge by Respondents that the lis pendens was false, void or not authorized to be filed or not on a form entitling it to be recorded. The facts do not show that Respondents filed the lis pendens maliciously, for the purpose of collecting a commission, or for the purpose of coercing payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. The nature of lis pendens would not require the owner's authorization of execution for recording. The facts show that the lis pendens was filed by Respondent's attorney in conjunction with a suit brought by the Respondents against Perrin. The record also shows that the circuit court determined that the lis pendens was recordable when it denied the motion to remove it. The notice of lis pendens was neither malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting the commission. The notice was for the purpose of perfecting the claim against the property for execution of the judgment if the Respondents prevailed in the suit. Executing on a judgment is different from collecting the commission or coercing payment. Under this interpretation the Respondents have not been shown to violate Section 475.42(1)(j). A second interpretation would read the clause, ". . . if the same is known to to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been authorized by the owner of the property. . ." as the first of two criteria to be met to establish a violation. The second criteria would consist of proof that the encumberance was recorded maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. Again the facts do not show there was knowledge by the Respondents of the falsity, or impropriety of the notice of lis pendens, as stated above. Again the facts show that the lis pendens was filed in conjunction with a law suit pending between the Respondent and the property owner, and that the court before which the action was pending refused to remove it. The file of the notice by Respondent's counsel was a legitimate method of perfecting the Respondent's claim should they prevail and obtain judgment. The facts do not indicate that the filing of the notice was malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting a commission. Under either interpretation, Respondents did not violate the statute. COUNT II The Respondents are charged in Count II with violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that the registration of a registrant may be suspended for up to two years for violation of a lawful order of the Commission. Clearly, the facts reveal that the Respondents had a substantial interest involved in the litigation with Perrin. The order, of the Florida Real Estate Commission to remove the notice of lis pendens substantially affected their rights in this litigation. Therefore, any final order directing Kay to remove the notice of lis pendens should have issued after an opportunity for hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The evidence reveals that the Florida Real Estate Commission did not notice a hearing under Section 120.57, and therefore its order cannot be "lawful." The provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d) require that registrants not violate lawful orders. The Respondents have not violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by not removing the notice of lis pendens as directed by the order of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the Respondent, Sam Kaye and Sam Kaye, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William E. Boyes, Esquire Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, P.A. Post Office Box 3466 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
The Issue Whether the license of Respondents should be revoked or suspended or other discipline imposed.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence received, the testimony elicited at the hearing, argument of counsel and memoranda submitted by the parties, I find: Respondent, Florida Coast Realty, Inc., was issued License Number 0168325 as a registered real estate broker corporation. Respondent Steven R. Myer, holds license number 0110787 as a registered real estate broker. Respondent Myer is an Active Firm Member for Respondent, Florida Coast Realty, Inc. In general, the contention of the Petitioner Commission is that the Respondents failed to pay an employee, Sam Blumner, a real estate commission due him on two occasions contrary to certain provisions in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The contentions of the Respondents are that the dispute was contractual and not within the jurisdiction of the Petitioner, that they tried to avoid an information being filed against them, and that the alleged offense's are insufficient to justify suspension or revocation. On November 1, 1976, Florida Coast Realty, Inc., by Steven R. Myer, entered into a contract agreement with Sam Blumner whereby Mr. Blumner was to receive a fee earned as a result of service performed by Mr. Blumner as a real estate salesman with Florida Coast Realty, Inc. Subsequently, on January 13, 1977, Sam Blumner was terminated as a salesman with Florida Coast Realty, Inc., and a notice of registrant change was nailed by the corporation to the Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach Board of Realtors and received by the Board on January 18, 1977. A transaction pertinent to subject hearing was entered into on or about November 11, 1976 in which Walter Ross and Sam Blumner were the "listing" salesmen for property owned by Frank S. Holsclaw and Florence Holsclaw. It was ultimately purchased by Dennis F. and Dione Dicataldo, but subsequent to the termination of the employment of Blumner by Respondents. Mr. Blumner made a claim for $297.00 which represented one-half the listing, or twelve and one-half percent of the office profit. He testified that he was listed on the office "log" as co-lister. Nothing was paid to Mr. Blumner although Mr. Walter Ross, a broker formerly associated with Respondent Florida Coast Realty, Inc. and the co-lister was paid twelve and one-half percent of the office profit. Mr. Ross estimated that he received between $250.00 and $260.00 as "half" listing commission. Mr. Blumner's name did not appear on the listing contract in the transaction because he had not yet been listed as a member of the Board, and only the name of Walter Ross was listed as "salesperson". Mr. Ross testified that he and Sam Blumner were listed together on the transaction and that he himself received half of the listing commission. A registered realtor associate who worked for Respondent, Florida Coast Realty, Inc. at the time, Dorothy E. Reagan, testified that Walter Ross and Sam Blumner were the listing salesmen on the Holsclaw-Dicataldo transaction. The Respondents did not dispute the fact that Walter Ross was paid but one-half the listing commission although they pointed out his was the only name on the written contract. No evidence was entered by the Respondent showing that the remaining one-half of the listing commission was paid by Respondents to anyone. A second transaction pertinent to this hearing was entered into on December 31, 1977 with Mr. and Mrs. Haarar as sellers, and Mr. and Mrs. Grimes as buyers. The closing was several months later and after Mr. Blumner had left the employment of Florida Coast Realty, Inc. Mr. Blumner was the salesman who first showed the purchaser the home later purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Grimes, and was the "procuring cause" of the sale. He made an offer to the seller and counter offer of the seller to the buyer. He related to the Grimes the offer of $27,000, which was the final purchase price of the home and showed these purchasers other property for sale. Mr. Blumner was not paid a commission for the sale of the home. Both Mr. Ross and Mrs. Reagan testified that Mr. Blumner was the salesman on the transaction. Mr. Jerome T. Myer of the Respondent Florida Coast Realty, Inc., stated that Mr. Blumner should have been paid, but not the full commission inasmuch as he had not done the follow-up work involved after the initial procurement of a purchaser for the property. The Respondent, Steven R. Myer and his brother Jerome T. Myer did the follow-up work on the sale of the property in the Haarar-Grimes transaction. Mr. Blumner contends that he made demands for his money both as a co- lister and a salesman, but that no money was paid him. He testified that he would have foregone his commission as a co-lister in the amount of some $260.00 had he received a commission as salesman in the Haarar-Grimes transaction, a sum of some $567.00. Mr. Blumner testified that he endeavored to talk to the Respondent Steven R. Myer about the commission but was interrupted by Jerome Myer, and that he told the Respondents he would have to seek redress through the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, if he did not receive a commission. A letter was sent to the Petitioner by Respondent Myer on April 7, 1977 requesting information as to the jurisdiction of Petitioner relative to "a dispute with one of my former associates regarding commission money". The Commission acknowledged the correspondence and Respondent Myer was informed that the Commission had received a complaint against him alleging he had failed to account or deliver a commission to a salesman, and that it was being assigned for investigation. The Respondents made little or no effort to settle the dispute prior to the hearing.
Recommendation Suspend the license of the Respondents until the commission has been paid to Sam Blumner as co-lister in the Holsclaw-Dicataldo transaction and a settlement has been made in regard to the Haarar-Grimes transaction. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Mail: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Doherty, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Steven L. Josias, Esquire P. 0. Box 23536 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, an agency of the State of Florida, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-812 Progress Docket No. 3321 FLORIDA COAST REALTY, INC., and Broward County STEVEN R. MYER, Respondents. /
The Issue Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Fred J. Will was a licensed real estate broker in the state of Florida having been issued license number 0142418, t/a Will Realty, 326 1/2 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida 32014. At all times material to this proceeding, Richard P. Pollock was a licensed real estate salesman in the state of Florida having been issued license number 0139861, c/o Fred J. Will, t/a Will Realty, 326 1/2 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida, with a last listed home address of Post Office Box 2085, Flagler Beach, Florida 32036. Either in late December 1987 or early January 1988, Pollock approached Will with the idea of opening a real estate office using Will's real estate broker's license wherein Pollock would run the office since Will was currently employed managing the self storage facility of Regency Health Care Centers, Inc. In late January 1988, Will filed a Request For License or Change of Status Form using license number 0142418 wherein he advised the Petitioner that he would be operating under Will Realty located at 326 1/2 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida. Upon opening the offices at 326 1/2 South Beach Street, Will opened an operating or business bank account and an escrow bank account for the Will Realty at the Commercial National Bank (Commercial) Only Will was authorized to write checks on the excrow account. There was insufficient evidence to show whether any funds were ever deposited in the business or escrow account at Commercial. Once the office and bank accounts were opened, Will left the daily operation of the office to Pollock and was at the office only a couple of times between the time it was opened in late January 1988 and when it was closed around April 23, 1988. The "agreement", as such, between Will and Pollock was a 50/50 "split" once the business "got going". Will did not receive any compensation from Pollock for the "use of his license". Will did not receive any money from Pollock in regard to Will Realty, personally or for deposit in either bank account at Commercial. The "agreement" was that Will would allow Pollock to "work under" his real estate broker's license. Will did not have any knowledge of the advertising being used by Pollock for Will Realty such as newspaper ads or business cards until just before the office closed in April 1988. Will did not have any knowledge of the forms being used by Pollock for Will Realty such as contracts or agreements for advance fee arrangements or receipts evidencing payment of such fee until just before the office closed in April 1988. Additionally, Will did not have any knowledge of the advance fee arrangement which Pollock may have had with prospective tenants as payment for securing rentals until just before the office closed in April 1988. Will did not have any knowledge of Pollock opening the bank accounts at Coast Federal Savings and Loan Association (Coast) in the name of Will Realty until just before the office closed in April 1988. None of the funds received by Pollock from prospective tenants while with Will Realty were deposited in the accounts at Commercial. Nor did any of the funds collected by Pollock from prospective tenants while he was with Will Realty go to Will personally. During the latter part of March 1988, Donna Elliott approached Pollock through Will Realty for the purpose of finding a home to rent. Pollock arranged for Edward R. Brown to show Elliott a home he had for rent. Elliott eventually rented this home and gave Pollock a check in the amount of $100.00 dated March 26, 1988 as a deposit on the home. On March 31, 1988 Elliott mailed Pollock another check in the amount of $1,000.00 as rent for the Brown home. The funds from these two checks were deposited in the account at Coast. Brown experienced some difficulty in getting Pollock to pay the deposit and rent collected from Elliott. However, once Will became aware of the situation he demanded that Pollock pay over the deposit and rent and, as a result of Will's effort Brown received $575.00 from Pollock. After paying Brown the $575.00 Pollock disappeared and Brown demanded the balance from Will since Pollock was working under Will's real estate broker's license. At first, Will agreed but later on advice of counsel declined to pay on the basis that it was not his responsibility. Brown filed suit and was awarded a judgment for the balance which Will paid. Around the middle of April 1988 Diane Smith approached Pollock for the purposes of renting a home. Smith paid Pollock an advance fee of $75.00 for service to be rendered by Pollock in securing her a rental home. However, before Pollock found a rental home for Smith he disappeared without returning Smith's fee. Within a short period after Smith paid the advance fee she went to the office of Will Realty only to find it closed and Pollock gone. There was no evidence that Smith made a demand on Will for the return of the advance fee paid to Pollock. After Will became aware of the situation he called Petitioner's Orlando office and was informed by Judy Smith that he should close the office immediately. Will followed this advice and closed the office sometime around April 23, 1988. As soon as Will began to receive complaints from Pollock's clients he got involved with Pollock and attempted to correct the problems but Pollock disappeared before Will could correct the situation. There was insufficient evidence to show that while Pollock was at Will Realty, any of his prospective tenants, other than Smith, specifically Catherine Vick, failed to receive reimbursement for any advance fee paid to Pollock where rentals were not obtained for the prospective tenant. Will was not directly involved with any of the transactions between Pollock and the prospective tenants and did not have any knowledge of these transactions until shortly before Pollock disappeared and Will Realty was closed.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the mitigating circumstances surrounding this case, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, Fred J. Will guilty of violating Section 475.25(1) (d) and (e), Florida Statutes, and for such violation impose an administrative fine of $500.00 and issue a reprimand. In recommending the reprimand I have taken into consideration the harshness of a suspension or revocation and feel that under the circumstances of this case that a reprimand and a fine is more appropriate. See: Webb v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 351 So.2d 71 (2 DCA Fla. 1977). It is further RECOMMENDED that Counts VI, IX and XIV of the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 22nd day of February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert W. Elton, Esquire 648 S. Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32014 Fred J. Will 2281 Carmen Daytona Beach, Florida 32119
Findings Of Fact Florida Development and Sales Corporation (FDS) at all times here involved was a registered real estate corporate broker. Lawrence F. Taylor, at all times here involved, was a registered real estate broker and an Active Firm Member for FDS and Universal Realmark, Inc. Michael W. Levine, at all times here involved, was a registered real estate salesman for Universal Realmark, Inc., corporate broker. Florida Development and Sales was a wholly owned subsidiary of Universal Realmark, Inc. The two corporations occupied the same offices, had the same corporate officers, and used the same telephone numbers. Correspondence went out from either corporation on FDS stationery, and all employees of both corporations were paid by check drawn on FDS account. FDS entered into a non-exclusive brokerage agreement on August 2, 1971 (Exhibit 5) with Lake Lucie Estates, Inc., the owner of unimproved land it desired to sell in 1 1/4 acre tracts. Pursuant to said agreement the broker advertised and sold, generally by agreement or contract for deed and generally to out-of-state buyers, these 1 1/4 acre tracts. In 1973 Universal Realmark, Inc. acquired all of the stock of FDS and accepted the obligations of FDS under supplemental agreement dated May 23, 1973 (Exhibit 6). The brokerage agreement above referred to was undisturbed. By order dated May 6, 1974 the Commissioner of Securities, State of Missouri ordered St. Lucie Estates, Inc., and FDS, their representatives, inter alia, to cease and desist the offer and/or sale in Missouri of any agreement for deed securities. Chapter 409, Laws of Missouri, contain the Missouri Uniform Securities Act. Therein security, in 409.401(1), is defined to mean any contract or bond for the sale of any interest in real estate on deferred payments or on installment plans when such real estate is not situated in this state Section 409.201 makes it unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale securities in Missouri without being registered to do so and Section 409.301 makes it unlawful for any person to offer or sell any security in Missouri unless: (1) The security is registered, or (2) The security or transaction is exempted under Section 409.402. Pursuant to these and other provisions of the securities law the cease and desist order was issued and served by certified mail on Lake Lucie Estates, Inc. and FDS. Section 409.410 of the Missouri Statutes provides that any person who has been personally served with a cease and desist order and thereafter willfully violates same shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than three year, or both. The Act further provides for personal service upon an out-of-state violator of the act by serving the commissioner who sends notice of the service to the out-of-state violator. Here the Respondents acknowledged receipt of the cease and desist order. Subsequent to the receipt of the Missouri cease and desist order Levine negotiated agreement for deeds with three purchasers in Missouri of Lake Lucie Estates, Inc. property. On one of these the purchaser's check was made payable to Lake Lucie Estates, Inc. and the checks for the other two were made payable to FDS. During his interrogation by the investigator, Levine acknowledged that he was aware of the cease and desist order at the time he negotiated the three agreements for deed. He obtained his list of people to call from the office, i.e. FDS/Universal Realmark. At the hearing Levine did not remember whether or not he was aware of the cease and desist order at the time he negotiated the Missouri contracts. He did remember receiving a commission on each sale by check drawn by FDS although he was registered as a salesman under Universal Realmark, Inc. As noted above Lake Lucie Estates had a brokerage agreement with FDS and no such agreement was ever negotiated with Universal Realmark. Lake Lucie Estates would have no objection to Universal Realmark selling its property. Respondent Taylor was the Active Firm Member of FDS and Universal Realmark. He was serving in that capacity with Universal Realmark when FDS was acquired. At the same time he operated his own real estate broker's office on Miami Beach, spending part of his time supervising the activities of each office. Taylor's initial statements to the investigator that he learned of the Missouri cease and desist order in June 1974 upon his return to the office from a stay in the hospital was repudiated at the hearing when he stated he learned of the Missouri order only a few hours before he talked to the investigator in October, 1974. Taylor also testified that he never authorized Levine to sell under his brokerage even though Taylor was the Active Firm Member of Universal Realmark and Levine was registered under the corporate broker, Universal Realmark. Taylor's main concern appeared to be to insure that the salesmen for these out-of-state land sales adhered to the script that had been prepared for them and from time to time he monitored their conversations. When he realized that the alleged violations of the real estate license law were being investigated he resigned from FDS and Universal Realmark because "they were violating my trust". When the requests for renewal of the FDS corporate broker's registration was submitted in September, 1974, Taylor signed same a Vice President of FDS and the Active Broker of the corporation.
The Issue Whether Stanley Fried is guilty of violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Stanley Fried is a registered real estate salesman. Stanley Fried was employed by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. He was paid by International Land Sales Chartered, Inc.
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 the registration of Stanley Fried as a registered real estate salesman. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire and Charles Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Ronald L. Fried, Esquire 2699 South Bayshore Drive Suite 400C Miami, Florida 33133
Findings Of Fact Respondent Gladys A. Gibbons is licensed as a real estate broker by the Florida Real Estate Commission under license number 0031192 and has been so licensed at all times material to this case. During such time she was employed as the broker for Gregoire-Gibbons, Inc. Respondent Dorothy M. Comolli is licensed as a real estate salesman under license number 00336387 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission and has been so licensed at all times material to this case. During the period in question here she was employed by Gregoire- Gibbons, Inc. and was supervised by Respondent Gladys A. Gibbons. On March 3, 1981 Ms. Dorothy Hawks listed her residential property located at 2349 Third Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, for sale with Mr. Gerald O'Conner, a real estate salesman employed by Humpe Roney, Inc., in St. Petersburg, Florida. On July 1, 1981 Respondent Dorothy Comolli called Mr. O'Conner to tell him that she had a contract on Ms. Hawks' property. The offer which Ms. Comolli presented on behalf of Ms. Hortense Willoughby was an option to purchase with a lease. When the offer was presented to Ms. Hawks she demurred about the option and counteroffered with a lease and a contract for sale which provided for closing within one year. On a document entitled Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement dated July 1, 1981 the parties negotiated the terms of the property sale. Their handwritten amendments to the form contract were later incorporated into a real estate purchase and sale agreement dated July 14, 1981 which was executed by Ms. Willoughby but never signed by Ms. Hawks. With respect to the rental portion of the transaction the first contract was a receipt for deposit and agreement to lease dated July 19, 1981 presented through Ms. Comolli with a promissory note in the amount of $500 attached as a security deposit for the last month's rent on Ms. Hawks' house. The text of the receipt recited that the lease was for a period of one year with monthly payments of $500 a month to begin on August 15, 1981. It further provided for $200 "security" plus $500 for the last month's rent in a three-month promissory note. Both the note and the receipt for deposit and agreement to lease were presented by Ms. Comolli to Carol Denker at Humpe Roney, Inc. Ms. Denker had taken over Ms. Hawks' account due to the vacation of Mr. O'Connor. In addition to these documents Ms. Comolli gave Ms. Denker $200 as an earnest money deposit on the sale of the house. Ms. Denker in turn gave Ms. Comolli a receipt for the $200 but later returned the $200 to Ms. Comolli as it is customary for the agent of the purchaser to hold the deposit. The form of the promissory note and the receipt for deposit and agreement to lease were not acceptable to Ms. Denker. She had been instructed that promissory notes witnessed by a realtor were a bad business practice and were not acceptable to Humpe Roney, Inc. Ms. Denker therefore gave Ms. Comolli a promissory note form acceptable to Humpe Roney for Ms. Willoughby to execute. Ms. Denker then attempted to contact Ms. Hawks to let her know about the promissory note but was not able to reach her. On July 21, 1981 Humpe Roney prepared on its forms, a contract for sale of real estate and a receipt for deposit and contract for lease. The record is not clear why Humpe Roney wanted the contracts rewritten. After they had been redrawn Ms. Comolli picked them up, had Ms. Willoughby sign them, and returned them to Humpe Roney for Ms. Hawks' signature. These two documents which were executed by Ms. Willoughby and Ms. Hawks finally constituted the agreement between the two parties. Neither document recites that the last month's rent would be paid by Ms. Willoughby in the form of a promissory note. The record is not clear why the final contracts as redrawn by Humpe Roney did not reflect the $500 promissory note. The deletion of any mention of the note was not at the request of either Respondent and does not appear to have been done intentionally by Humpe Roney. At no time was Ms. Hawks aware that a promissory note would be provided instead of cash for the last month's rent. Ms. Willoughby moved into the house on August 4, 1981. She stayed there for the months of August, September and October and part of November when she defaulted on the promissory note which was due on November 15, 1981. Upon her default she was evicted from the house. She is still in default on the promissory note and has no funds with which to pay it. When Ms. Hawks made a demand upon Gregoire-Gibbons for the $200 earnest money deposit plus the $500 last month's rent she received $200 and the $500 note. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Gladys A. Gibbons and Dorothy M. Comolli. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON 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 9th day of February, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker salesman in the State of Florida at all times material hereto having been issued license number 0158288 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On June 10, 1985 a Recommended Order was entered by the undersigned Hearing Officer in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85-0118 concerning Respondent, which recommended that "a Final Order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a period of two (2) years and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000)." On July 16, 1985 the Florida Real Estate Commission entered a Final Order imposing the penalty against Respondent which had been recommended by the undersigned Hearing Officer in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85-0118. The Final Order provided further that, "This Order shall be effective thirty (30) days from the date of filing, with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation." The Final Order was filed with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation on July 24, 1985. To date, Respondent has not paid the $1,000 fine imposed by the Florida Real Estate Commission in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85- 0118. Petitioner contends that Respondent was required to pay the $1,000 fine within thirty (30) days of entry of the Final Order, referenced above. Rule 21V-10.31, Florida Administrative Code, imposes a thirty-day time limit for the payment of fines imposed by the Florida Real Estate Commission from the date of imposition by order of the Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued revoking Respondent's license-number 0158288. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 24th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0989 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Hartman, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Roy Ahringer 232 Harmony Avenue Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings S. Benton, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Kirk was a registered real estate broker licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission at all times relative to the Administrative Complaint. Juneau Edwards negotiated a valid and binding contract for sale between Wilbur Davis as seller and Julius and Elizabeth Lau as buyers. The Laus paid $500 as a deposit under the contract on October 3, 1975 to Edwards. The contract, Exhibit 3, contains the following provisions: "Full purchase price $27,500, payable $27,500 in cash, of which the deposit shall apply as part and sale be held by said agent (Kirk Realty) in escrow pending closing of transaction, balance payable in the following manner: Cash at closing, contingent upon buyer se- curing first mortgage loan from Mid- State Federal Savings and Loan Association of Dunnellon, Florida. . ." The contract also contains a provision that the buyer forfeits his deposit if he fails to perform under the terms of the contract. The Laus submitted an application for a first mortgage in the amount of $21,000 on October 6, 1975, which was disapproved for that amount. Disapproval was communicated to the Laus by a letter from David L. Belcher dated October 15, 1975, Exhibit 7. The evidence reveals that the amount of the loan requested exceeded 80 percent of the appraised value of the Davis property by $34,000. Pursuant to the contingency provision of the contract, the contract was void when then loan request was disapproved. However, when the Laus met with Edwards and Kirk they advised them that the loan had not been approved in the amount requested, but did not demand the refund of their $500.00 deposit. Instead, when Kirk and Edwards suggested that Davis be advised and negotiations for a lower price for different terms be undertaken, the Laus assented to this. Arrangements were made by Kirk for such a meeting between Davis and the Laus; however, the Laus did not attend this meeting because they had become interested in a second house which they ultimately purchased. On October 23, 1975, the Laus applied for a mortgage to Mid-State to purchase another house using their initial application and changing the amount of the loan request to $17,500. This application was approved and the Laus closed on the second house. The Laus did not tell Kirk of their other negotiations on the second house and Kirk learned of the Lau's contract for the second house through Mid-State. After contracting to purchase the second house, the Laus contacted Kirk Realty requesting a refund of the $500 deposit paid on the Davis contract. Kirk visited the Laus at their new house and advised them that he considered them in default under the Davis contract. Kirk distributed the money to Davis and Kirk Realty on December 5, 1975 under the forfeiture provisions of the contract.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer, based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and considering the factors in mitigation mentioned above, would recommend that Kirk be ordered to pay Lau $500 and receive a letter of admonition. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of August, 1977. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX A The proposed findings regarding the contract and its provisions between the Laus and Davis presented in paragraph 1 of the Proposed Recommended Order are contained in paragraph 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings regarding the negotiations before and after the disapproval of the loan application between the Laus and Juneau Edwards, a/k/a Zerban, presented in paragraph 1 of the Proposed Recommended Order are contained in paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings regarding the submission of the loan application to Mid-State Federal Savings and Loan Association and its disapproval presented in paragraph 1 of the Proposed Recommended Order are contained in paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The testimony of Belcher in his deposition clearly established that it was disapproved for the amount sought. The proposed findings that the Lau-Davis contract was valid presented in paragraph 2 of the Proposed Recommendation Order is contained in paragraph 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed finding that the Laus failed to make demand for their deposit presented in paragraph 3 of the Proposed Recommended Order is contrary to the testimony and evidence which indicated that the Laus delayed in making demand for return of their deposit as found in paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order and later requested their money back after contracting to purchase the second house as found in paragraph 4 of the Recommended Order. The proposed finding that the Laus breached the contract is a legal conclusion contrary to that reached by the Hearing Officer based upon the contingency provision of the contract which made the contract contingent upon approval of the Lau's loan application. When that application was disapproved, the contact became void. Therefore, the Laus could not have breached it. The Lau's representations to Kirk that Kirk should continue negotiations with Davis does not create another contract between Davis and the Laus; however, it can and has been considered in mitigation of the impression the Laus gave Kirk regarding their continued interest in the Davis property which lead Kirk to the erroneous conclusion the Laus had breached the contract. The proposed finding that there was no violation of Section 475.25(1)(c) presented in paragraph 4 of the Proposed Recommended Order Conclusions of Law is contrary to the evidence and testimony. The Proposed Recommended Order has been fully considered by the Hearing Officer this 19th day of August, 1977. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Pierce, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Daniel Hicks, Esquire Tucker, Hicks, Blanchard, Brannen, Dirlam and Stillwell, P.A. Post Office Box 24 Ocala, Florida 32670 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, an Agency of the State of Florida Petitioner, PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 3182 MARION COUNTY vs. CASE NO. 77-685 TYREE C. KING, t/a KIRK REALTY, Respondent. /
