The Issue Whether the Respondent's real estate salesman license in Florida should be disciplined based upon the charge that his real estate broker's license in another state was revoked in April 1988.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Janikula was a licensed real estate salesman in Florida, having been issued license number 0488507 through the Division of Real Estate. Evidence presented at hearing revealed that the license was active on or before March 6, 1987. The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, by real estate salesmen licensed in Florida. The Minnesota Department of Commerce is the state agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute violations of Chapter 82, Minnesota Statutes, by real estate brokers licensed in Minnesota. On April 21, 1988, a final order of license revocation was entered by the Commissioner of Commerce, Department of Commerce, State of Minnesota, against the real estate broker's license of the Respondent Janikula which had previously been issued by that state. The license was revoked as a result of the following: On or about May 13, 1987, Respondent Janikula received $15,000.00 from Mr. Ben Hackman as earnest money in connection with Mr. Hackman's purchase of an apartment building in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which was listed for sale through the Respondent. The Respondent was the real estate broker at the time he received the earnest money, and the funds were trust funds under Minnesota law. When the transaction could not be completed, the Respondent delivered a check to Mr. Hackman for $15,000.00 on a closed checking account. The disciplinary hearing on this matter was held on March 1, 1988. On the date of hearing in Minnesota, the Respondent had not returned the $15,000.00 to Mr. Hackman. The Respondent's broker's license was revoked upon the determination that Respondent failed, within a reasonable time, to account for and remit money coming into his possession as a real estate broker to the person entitled to it. In addition, it was determined that, while licensed as a real estate broker, the Respondent converted trust funds belonging to another person that he obtained in connection with a real estate transaction. In mitigation, the Respondent presented evidence which demonstrated that between April 19, 1988, and July 8, 1988, three checks totalling $15,000.00 plus $1,350.00 in interest were received by Mr. Hackman for restitution purposes. In addition, it was called to the attention of the Hearing Officer that Respondent does not handle trust funds in his capacity as a real estate salesman in Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent Janikula guilty of the charge filed in Case No. 88-5774. That the Respondent's Florida real estate salesman's license be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Department of Professional Regulation - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Neil F. Garfield, Esquire Neil F. Garfield, P.A. Envirwood Executive Plaza, Suite 200 5950 West Oakland Park Boulevard Lauderhill, Florida 33133 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Edwin Costa held real estate salesman license number 0017520 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. Respondent currently uses his license at a real estate firm located in Ocala, Florida. On March 1, 1983, respondent was arrested on various charges relating to bookmaking. On June 27, 1984, respondent pled nolo contendere to one count of bookmaking (gambling), a third degree felony. Adjudication was withheld and Costa was placed on 18 months probation and fined $10,000. After successfully serving all conditions of his probation, and paying the fine, respondent's probation was terminated on March 25, 1985. Respondent has a number of successful business endeavors in Ocala, Florida. Despite his conviction, a cross-section of businessmen testified they would continue to do business with Costa, and had complete trust and confidence with him. His creditworthiness is still considered excellent by a local bank, and Costa has secured a substantial performance bond since his conviction. His reputation in the community is one of being a moral and honest person, and former clientele would not hesitate to use his services as a realtor.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Shirley Holland, a licensed real estate salesman, was convicted of the crime charged in the administrative complaint by entering a plea of nolo contendere in the Dade County Circuit Court, Miami, Florida, on September 30, 1975. Evidence of this plea :as admitted over the objections of counsel for the Respondent and it would be appropriate now to discuss the admissibility of those documents. There is no question that evidence of a plea of "no contest" is inadmissible in a civil proceeding to prove truth of the charge; however, the above proceeding was conducted under the authority of Chapter 120 Florida Statutes. Section 120.58(1), F.S., states: "Irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded, but all other evidence of the type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs shall be admissible, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a trial in the courts of Florida." Considering that the plea of nolo contendere is tantamount to a plea of guilt and that rules of evidence for an administrative proceeding are somewhat less stringent than those in the courts of this State, it is the opinion of the under signed Hearing Officer that, under the circumstances of this case, evidence of a plea of "no contest" or nolo contendere should be admitted to consider whether the holder of a professional license issued by the State of Florida should be disciplined. Licensing agencies of the State have an obligation to maintain high standards in a licensed occupation and should not be prevented from imposing standards of responsibility through evidence which appears to be unequivocal. Although the Respondent testified and presented other evidence of his reasons for having plead "no contest" to the charge and to the high reputation he enjoys in the community, such testimony is insufficient to rebut the conviction of the crime.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Ruth Simowitz, held real estate salesman license number 0072273 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). When the events herein occurred, she was employed by Coldwell Banker Real Estate, Inc. in North Miami Beach, Florida. She has been licensed for more than fifteen years. Respondent, Thelma A. Jordon, held real estate salesman license number 0002486 also issued by the Division. She has been licensed for some twelve years, and was a salesman for Associates Realty Corporation in Miami, Florida when the events herein occurred. David J. Alden, a native of the United Kingdom, first moved to Florida in May, 1978. He purchased a house at 14615 Southwest South River Drive in Miami, Florida. The listing agent for the sellers was Simowitz. When Alden decided to sell his house in 1981 or 1982, he chose Simowitz as his listing agent. After the listing expired some six months later, he took the house off the market for a period of time. In April, 1985, Alden again listed the property with Simowitz. Shortly before June 13, 1985, Simowitz telephoned Alden and said she had prospective buyers who wished to inspect the house. She asked if they could visit the house within the next few days. Alden agreed to this. On June 13, Jordon, who worked for a different firm, brought two prospective buyers named Nevell and Marilyn Johnson to inspect the Alden property. The Johnsons found it to their liking, and had Jordon prepare a contract with a purchase price of $95,000, conditioned upon their obtaining a conventional first mortgage in the amount of $76,000 at an interest rate of 10.5 percent. Both Jordon and Simowitz presented the offer to Alden on the morning of June 16. They told Alden he could net approximately $39,000 from the sale after subtracting out his share of the closing costs. This was confirmed in a "Seller's Estimated Net Proceeds" prepared by Jordon and given to Alden on June 18. It reflected approximate cash to seller at time of closing in the amount of $39,798. Although Alden and his wife were not happy with the price offered by the Johnsons, after mulling over the matter, they decided to accept the offer and signed the contract on June 18. After the contract was accepted, Jordon arranged an appointment for the Johnsons on June 20 with State Wide Mortgage Corporation, a mortgage brokerage firm in Hollywood, Florida. After learning from a mortgage broker named Dean Lakin that conventional loans could not be obtained at less than a 12 percent interest rate, which was in excess of that provided in the contract, Nevell Johnson decided to make application for a VA loan which he could obtain at a lower interest rate (11 1/2 percent). To do this, it was necessary that he and his wife get Alden's consent to execute a new contract with a provision that VA financing would be used. A new "Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Services" was prepared by Lakin while the Johnsons were in his office, and it reflected that the discount points ($2,280) on the VA loan would be paid by the buyers. Believing that no additional charges would be borne by Alden under the new financing, Jordon prepared a new contract which the Johnsons executed on June It contained the same purchase price, but specifically authorized VA financing. Jordon then called Simowitz, advised her of the change in financing, and suggested Simowitz make an appointment with the Aldens to discuss the change. On June 20 Simowitz telephoned Alden and said the buyer was a veteran and could obtain a lower interest rate with a VA loan. She asked if she and Jordon could meet with him and discuss the matter. Respondents and Alden met the same day. At that time, Alden said he would accept the new offer only if he could get the same net proceeds as had been previously promised and did not have to pay the discount points which he understood the seller would normally pay on a VA loan. Respondents assured him that the buyer would incur this charge. That representation was based upon the advice given Jordon by Lakin. The contract itself provided that "mortgage closing costs, including mortgage title insurance, notice documentary stamps, intangible taxes, origination fee, recording fees, closing fees, surety, etc., to be paid by BUYER." Relying upon respondents' representation, Alden executed the second contract on June 20, 1985. Alden had no further contact with Jordon after that date. Alden returned to the United Kingdom in August, 1985. Prior to leaving, Alden and his wife visited the offices of Consumer's Title Agency, Inc. (CTA), the title company handling the closing. At the request of CTA, Mrs. Alden executed several documents including a power of attorney form which gave Simowitz power of attorney "to execute any and all documents necessary to complete the sale of" Alden's home. Simowitz did not learn this until shortly before the closing. The closing took place on September 23, 1985. Both respondents attended the closing and Simowitz signed various documents on Alden's behalf. Respondents were given a settlement sheet which reflected that Alden, and not the Johnsons, would pay the points on the loan. Simowitz was surprised but did not object or otherwise attempt to rectify the matter. Jordon was also surprised but said nothing. Alden returned to Florida on October 1, 1985, and visited Simowitz's office to ask for his proceeds. She told him the title company was sending his check and it should arrive in England any day. She said nothing about him being charged for points. On October 4 Alden returned to England and found his check from the title company in the mail. Upon seeing that his proceeds were only $33,505.48, he immediately telephoned Simowitz who then told him that the buyers' attorney insisted at closing that Alden pay the points. Thereafter, Alden filed a complaint with petitioner, and contacted his Miami attorney seeking advice. After consultation, Alden's counsel made a written demand on Associates Realty Corporation and Coldwell Banker Real Estate, Inc. for approximately $4,500 in closing costs paid by Alden. After their firms received the demand, Simowitz and Jordon promptly agreed to reimburse Alden $3,927 of the $4,500 in dispute. The remainder represented termite repair charges ($575) and document preparation fees ($100) which the sellers were clearly obligated to pay under the contract. Alden accepted this amount in satisfaction of his claim and received payment from respondents on February 15, 1986. Respondents conceded they made an "honest mistake" in representing to Alden that the buyer would pay the points on a VA loan. They did so because they relied upon incorrect advice given by a mortgage broker. Although both were long-time licensees, neither was aware that federal law requires that the seller incur these charges. They contend they said nothing at closing because they desired to avoid litigation by the buyers against the Aldens which would further complicate the matter. When such advice was given to Alden on June 20 there was no intent by respondents to deceive or trick Alden into signing the contract. Neither licensees has been the subject of prior disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that both respondents be found guilty of breach of trust, concealment and culpable negligence, and they be given public reprimands and each pay a $250 administrative fine, to be paid within thirty days after date of Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Gordon W. Taylor, Esquire 14837 N.W. 7th Avenue Miami, Florida 33168 Wings A. Benton General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold H. Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to regulate the practice of real estate, pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Lynton Oliver Thomas, was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0504596 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent Thomas was as a broker-salesperson at Pagliari Realty, Inc., 323 Northeast 167 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, L T Express Realty Corp., was a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker, having been issued license number 0273473 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Thomas was licensed and operating as qualifying broker and officer of Respondent L T Express Realty Corp. The office for this corporate entity was located at 2124 Northeast 123 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. There was no evidence that Respondent Thomas operated his corporate entity from any other office. On May 7, 1995, Respondent Thomas, a licensed real estate broker, d/b/a L T Express Realty Corp., negotiated a contract for the sale of a house between Bruce and Ann McCormick (as sellers) and Marie S. Saintel and Carita Luc (as buyers). The buyers gave Respondent Thomas an earnest money deposit in the amount of $5,528.00. The transaction failed to close. The sellers, through their agent, attempted to make a demand upon Respondent Thomas for delivery of the earnest money deposit. The sellers' agent was unable to serve the demand on the Respondents because the Respondents had closed their offices and could not be located. Respondents had, or should have had, a good faith doubt as to the proper way to disburse the escrowed funds. Respondent Thomas, without authorization from the sellers, returned $3,000.00 of the original $5,528.00 deposit to the buyers. The balance of the earnest money deposit, in the amount of $2,528.00, has not been recovered from the Respondents. Rule 61J2-10.032(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides the procedure real estate brokers are required to follow when competing demands are made for funds that have been received in escrow or when a broker has a good faith doubt as to how escrowed funds should be disbursed. At no time did Respondents attempt to invoke those procedures. Kenneth G. Rehm, Petitioner's investigator, visited Respondent L T Express Realty Corp. and discovered that Respondent Thomas had abandoned his registered office. Respondent Thomas failed to notify Petitioner that he closed his real estate office at 2124 Northeast 123 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered that finds Respondents guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I-VIII of the Administrative Complaint. As a penalty for these violations, the Final Order should revoke all licenses issued by Petitioner to Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Mr. Lynton Oliver Thomas L T Express Realty Corp. 10810 Northeast Tenth Place Miami, Florida 33161 CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1997 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should grant Petitioner a real estate broker license.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Mouflouze has held real estate licenses in New Hampshire and Maine for about 28 years. He lives in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, which abuts the Maine border. It was because he lives in close proximity to Maine, that he maintained a license there, also. The Commission, pursuant to Chapter 475, regulates real estate brokers and sales associates. The Commission accomplishes this regulation through the Division of Real Estate of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Mr. Mouflouze currently holds a broker's and salesperson's license in New Hampshire. He has not experienced any disciplinary action in that state. These licenses have an expiration date of April 1, 2008. From 1982 until 2004, Mr. Mouflouze held a designated broker's license in Maine. Prior to February 19, 2004, Mr. Mouflouze failed to complete the required hours of continuing education in Maine, according to the Maine Real Estate Commission (Maine Commission). He disagreed with this conclusion. He attended a hearing before the Maine Commission and after the hearing the Maine Commission ordered him to pay a fine of $900 and to complete six hours of continuing education. Mr. Mouflouze refused to pay the fine or otherwise obey the order. As a result, the Maine Commission had another hearing in his case on August 19, 2004, based on his failure to comply with its order. As a result of that hearing, his designated broker license was revoked effective the date of the hearing. As of the date of the hearing in this case, his license in Maine had not been reinstated. Mr. Mouflouze is a person who is regarded as a highly qualified and ethical real estate broker. He is reputed to be honest and hard-working.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission deny William Peter Mouflouze's application for licensure as a real estate broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Claudel Pressa, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William Peter Mouflouze Bill Mouflouze Real Estate Post Office Box 6541 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03802-6541 Nancy B. Hogan, Chairman Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the administrative complaint dated March 20, 1991; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and disciplining real estate licensees. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent has been a real estate licensee having been issued salesman's license no. 0455312. In March, 1989, Respondent met with Thomas and Cheryl Bellaw regarding the purchase of real property. The Bellaws were interested in investment property which would enhance their retirement options. Respondent showed the Bellaws a 7.5 acre tract which he claimed could be subdivided into smaller lots and resold at a substantial profit. As an inducement to convince the Bellaws to make the purchase, the Respondent drew several plans to show how the tract could be divided, made resale projections to compute the buyers' estimated profits from the subdivision of the land, and gave the buyers sales comparables from other lots to justify the figures he presented. In truth, the tract could not be subdivided and was the subject of a county ordinance which prohibited its division. Respondent knew that the tract could not be subdivided but nevertheless encouraged the Bellaws to complete the purchase. Once the purchase was completed, the Bellaws listed the property for resale with the Respondent at a substantial increase. At no time prior to the purchase by the Bellaws or prior to the subsequent relisting, did the Respondent advise the Bellaws that the tract could not be subdivided. When the listing produced no offers, the Bellaws investigated and discovered that the tract they had purchased had been illegally subdivided earlier from a 10 acre parcel. Respondent admitted that the 10 acres had been owned by a married couple who, in the course of their divorce, quitclaimed part to the wife (the portion not sold to the Bellaws) and part to the husband (the portion purchased by the Bellaws), and that this subdivision was impermissible. The Bellaws then went to the county for relief. They sought after-the- fact permission to subdivide the 10 acre parcel so that their tract would be able to receive a building permit. That relief was denied. Consequently, the Bellaws have been unable to assure that a building permit can be issued for their property and are unable to use the tract for the purpose for which it was purchased. Respondent should have known of the county ordinance which prohibited the subdivision of the 10 acre tract as it had been enacted some seven to eight years prior to the transaction which is the subject of this case. A prudent real estate licensee checks governmental restrictions which might impair the marketability of a parcel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order revoking Respondent's real estate license. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 Hearings this 16th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is accepted but is irrelevant to the allegations of this case. Paragraphs 4 through 14 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Paul Edward Ebbert, Jr. 1000 Abernathy Lane, #206 Apopka, Florida 32703 Paul Edward Ebbert, Jr. 770 Lake Kathryn Circle Casselberry, Florida 32307 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Director Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility for regulating the real estate profession in the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent was a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0189734 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On July 16, 1991, Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Respondent which contained certain factual allegations and which charged Respondent with violating certain statutory provisions and rules regulating licensed real estate professionals in the State of Florida. The matter was assigned Case No. 9181335 by Petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Florida Division of Administrative Hearing (DOAH) for formal proceedings pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Upon being referred to DOAH, the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 91-4852. On October 31, 1991, a formal hearing was conducted by a DOAH Hearing Officer. The Respondent was represented by counsel at that formal hearing. Following the formal hearing, a Recommended Order was duly entered by the Hearing Officer which contained findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended disposition of the proceeding. The Hearing Officer found that Petitioner had proved the violations alleged against Respondent by clear and convincing evidence and recommended that Petitioner impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000. On April 3, 1992, Petitioner entered a Final Order that adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended disposition submitted by the Hearing Officer in DOAH Case 91-4852. The Final Order imposed an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000. Respondent thereafter appealed the Final Order to the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida where it was assigned Case No. 92-01033. On June 3, 1992, Petitioner entered an "Order Granting Stay" which stayed the Final Order pending the appeal. On September 21, 1992, Respondent's appeal was dismissed by order of the Third District Court of Appeal. The Final Order entered by Petitioner on April 3, 1992, was lawfully imposed, is final, and is binding on Respondent. At the time of the formal hearing conducted in this proceeding, Respondent had not paid the $1,000 administrative fine that was imposed upon her by the Final Order entered in Case No. 9181335 (DOAH Case No. 91-4852) on April 3, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(e) and of Section 475.42(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and which suspends Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson for ten years. It is further recommended that the final order provide that the suspension of Respondent's license be terminated upon her paying the $1,000.00 administrative fine that was imposed upon her by the Final Order entered in Case No. 9181335 (DOAH Case No. 91-4852). DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gary, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Cecelia M. Smile 810 Rutland Drive, Apartment 726 Lincoln, Nebraska 68512 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cherylyn Stoppler, at all times pertinent hereto, was licensed as a real estate saleswoman in the State Of Florida, holding license No. 0467803. Her last and current license was issued authorizing practice at Escambia Realty, Inc., 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. Respondent Dorothy Diane Owens, at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license No. 0380831. Respondent Escambia Realty, Inc., at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed corporate real estate brokerage holding license No. 0232503. Its address is 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, related to the licensure of real estate brokers and salesmen, the real estate professional practice standards embodied in that chapter and with prosecuting alleged violators of those standards. On April 13, 1986, Kenneth and Linda Williams, also known as Linda Brewer, requested that Cherylyn Stoppler show them rental property consisting of a single family residence located at 6853 Lake Charlene Drive in Pensacola. They had observed the Respondent corporate broker's sign on the front of that premises, advertising it for rental. Respondent Stoppler, Respondent Owens and the Escambia Realty, Inc. represented the owners of the property. Kenneth and Linda Williams examined the property and decided that they wanted to rent it. In their discussion with Cherylyn Stoppler concerning the terms of the rental arrangement, they requested that they be allowed to paint the premises and that the garage door be repaired. Respondent Stoppler agreed to this and indicated the owners would supply two gallons of paint and the prospective tenants, the Williamses, could do the painting with the owners ensuring repair of the garage door. Respondent Stoppler and the Williamses agreed to those terms and to the rental amount of $625 per month. They also agreed to pay Respondent Stoppler a $400 deposit, on behalf of the owners. Ms. Stoppler informed the Williamses that if they did not consummate the lease arrangement, upon which they had verbally agreed, the $400 would be retained and remitted over to the owners of the property. The Williamses agreed to this arrangement. The Williamses and Ms. Stoppler returned to Ms. Stoppler's office and she noted these terms on a lease agreement form with the additional term that the owner would steam clean the carpet in the house. The lease terms also provided that the premises would be used by no more than two adults and "zero" children, but the lease agreement has the "zero" stricken through indicating that that term was to be deleted. The striking of the zero on the term concerning the number of children to occupy the premises appears to have been executed with the same pen, inasmuch as the ink is the same color as the rest of Mrs. Stoppler's handwritten terms on the lease form. In any event, the Williamses were anxious to return to their home in Louisiana directly from the Respondent's office that same afternoon and to accommodate them Ms. Stoppler agreed to mail the lease form to them to be executed, urging them to send it back immediately. When they left the premises that day, Respondent Stoppler removed her firm's sign from the front of the premises and also told the Williamses that the property would be off the market as of that day, hence her admonishment to them to waste no time in returning the executed lease since the property would be off the market during the interim on the strength of the verbal agreement. The Williamses did not inform Ms. Stoppler that Mr. Williams had two children who might visit them from time to time or live with them at the premises. The Williamses returned to Louisiana and the lease was mailed to them by Ms. Stoppler. The Williamses decided not to execute the lease and to not consummate the rental arrangement. They informed Ms. Stoppler of this by phone on April 24, 1986, as well as communicating on that day with Respondent Owens. They indicated they did not desire to rent the premises and one reason given was that they felt that the two children were precluded by the lease terms from living on the premises for any period of time with them. In fact, the Williamses had never mentioned that they had any children and had sought to negotiate a reduction in the rent when they originally discussed the matter with Ms. Stoppler on the basis that only the two of them would live in the premises. The terms and conditions of the rental arrangement were those given to Ms. Stoppler by the Williamses themselves. When they conferred with Ms. Owens and Ms. Stoppler, they were again informed that the $400 would be retained and transmitted to the owners, to which they did not then object. In fact, they never did make any demand upon the Respondents for return of the $400 which was actually communicated to the Respondents. There is a letter in evidence (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) which the Respondents never received, as is shown by the certified mail receipt card and by Respondents' and Ms. Celano's testimony. The Williamses objected to consummating the lease because they contended that Ms. Stoppler had assured them that they could 1ive in the premises rent- free from the beginning of the lease, April 26, until May 1, during the time in which they would be painting the house and instead they were being charged $84 for those days. Mrs. Williams' testimony is somewhat equivocal in this regard in that she exhibited an incomplete memory regarding certain critical dates in the transaction, for example, the date she allegedly called Mrs. Stoppler to inform her of their refusal of the rental and the date she believed the lease was to commence. Mrs. Stoppler's testimony was corroborated by that of Ms. Owens, and was not refuted by the Williamses. It is accepted over that of Mrs. Williams in establishing that indeed the lease period and the rental there for was to commence on April 26. The Respondents' testimony shows that the house was off the rental market from April 13, when the verbal agreement with Ms. Williams was entered into and the sign was removed from the property and that both Respondents informed Mrs. Williams on two occasions that the $400 was not refundable but would be remitted to the owners of the property. The Respondents also established that Escambia Realty, Inc. followed a consistent policy of retaining deposit monies and remitting them to the owners without refund to prospective tenants when the tenants agreed to lease the premises after being informed that the deposit would be retained and the property taken off the market, when such tenants elect of their own volition to negate a lease or rental agreement. The Williamses additionally maintained that they did not want to consummate the lease arrangement because, in their view, the Respondents and the owners would not permit any children unrestrictedly visit or to live on the premises. That was established not to be the case. They also objected because they would not be allowed to live in the premises rent-free for several days during the time in which they were painting the premises. Additional objections involved various inconsequential technical deficiencies, such as misspellings, in the content of the lease. The employment position Mr. Williams was to have taken in the Pensacola area, and which was in large measure their reason for moving to Pensacola and renting the subject premises, failed to materialize. Ultimately, however, the Williamses moved to Pensacola and rented a different house at the lower rate of $600 per month. In short, the complaining witnesses contend that they did not want to execute the lease because of the problem of the $84 prorated rent required of them by the Respondents and the owners for the days when they thought they would live rent-free while painting the premises, because they felt that Mr. Williams' children by a previous marriage were precluded from unrestricted visits at the rental premises and because they felt that the proffered lease did not contain the proper initial date of tenancy. Thus, the Williamses breached the agreement because the Respondents refused to "correct" the lease according to the Williamses' desires. Those desires were not communicated to the Respondents until, at the very earliest, the phone conversations of April 24, 1986, some twelve days after the verbal agreement to rent the premises to the Williamses had been entered into and the $400 deposited with the Respondents on behalf of the owners. During that time, and longer, the property was taken off the rental market and the Respondents and the owners forbore the opportunity to secure other tenants. The Williamses themselves acknowledged that the letter by which they sought return of the $400 deposit was never actually received by the Respondents. Further, Ms. Williams in the telephone conversation on April 24, 1986, acknowledged that the owners were entitled to the $400 deposit. Even so, Ms. Owens waited approximately 25 days before remitting the funds over to the owners. Thus, no dispute as to the deposit was ever communicated to the Respondents, and the Respondents never misrepresented to either Mr. or Mrs. Williams the manner of disbursement of the deposit funds. It is noteworthy that Mrs. Williams is a licensed realtor herself and had some experience in similar real estate transactions. The Respondents carried out their portion of the bargain. Finally, it has been demonstrated that Respondent Owens is a well- respected real estate practitioner in the Pensacola area, having served as an officer and director of her local board of realtors and having been accorded a number of honors and certifications in connection with her professional performance as a realtor and her securing of advanced training in the field of real estate brokerage. Ms. Stoppler is relatively new to the profession, but neither she nor Ms. Owens have been shown to have ever engaged in any questionable practice or conduct in the course of their practice and neither have been shown to have been the subject of any other complaint of any nature resulting from a real estate transaction.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Respondents Cherylyn Stoppler, Dorothy Diane Owens and Escambia Realty, Inc. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3982 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Rejected as to its material import. 7-9. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 10-11. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 17-18. Accepted. 19. Rejected as to its material import. 20-21. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but rejected as to its material import. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 29-30. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 31. Accepted, but not as to its material import. 32-35. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but not to the effect that a demand for refund was made. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 39-41. Rejected. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: Specific rulings are not separately made here because Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact are inseparably entwined with legal argument and recitations of, and arguments concerning, the weight and credibility of testimony and evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Cherylyn Stoppler Dorothy Diane Owens Escambia Realty, Inc. 310 South Pace Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32501 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact In February of 1988, Petitioner took the real estate broker's examination compiled by Respondent, and otherwise complied with all applicable licensure requirements. The Petitioner received a grade of 74 on the written examination. A grade of 75 or higher is required to pass the test. Had Petitioner answered question number 62 with the answer deemed by Respondent to be correct, Petitioner's score would have been 75 and, as such, would have entitled him to licensure. Question number 62 reads as follows: The Department of Professional Regulation may withhold notification to a licensee that the licensee is being investigated IF: NOTIFICATION COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE INVESTIGATION. NOTIFICATION COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE LICENSEE. THE ACT UNDER INVESTIGATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. Possible answers to question number 62 were as follows: I only. II only. I and III only. I, II and III. The answer to question number 62 chosen by Petitioner was D. The Respondent determined the correct answer should have been C. The Respondent's examining board followed a standard procedure for conducting and grading the examination. Statistically, 58 per cent of candidates taking the examination and placing in percentile rankings 50 through 99, answered the question correctly. Of those candidates taking the examination and placing in the lower half (0-50 percentile), 33 per cent answered the question correctly. The results obtained to question number 62 from all applicants taking the examination revealed the question exceeded effective testing standards. Question number 62 and the appropriate answer to that question are taken directly from section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes. The purpose of the question is to determine if an applicant is knowledgeable of the law governing real estate broker licensees. The Respondent adopts the position that section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, mandates that Respondent shall notify a licensee of any investigation of which the licensee is the subject and authorizes withholding notification to that licensee only where such notification would be detrimental to the investigation, or where the act under investigation is a criminal offense. The Petitioner takes the position that section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, does not prohibit withholding notification of an investigation from a licensee when such notification would be detrimental to the licensee. The Petitioner bases this contention on the broad power provided the Real Estate Commission by section 475.05, Florida Statutes. The Commission has not, however, adopted any rule, regulation or bylaw supportive of Petitioner's position and the statutory mandate is clear. Further, the statute referenced by Petitioner specifically does not support an exercise of this power of the Commission if the result is a conflict with another law of the State of Florida. Section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, states Respondent "shall" notify "any person" of an investigation of that person. Under that section, discretionary authority to refrain from such notification is allowed only where there is a potential for harm to the investigation, or the matter under investigation is a criminal act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered confirming the grade of the Petitioner as previously determined. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 20th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2442 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 The Petitioner submitted a document entitled summary of hearing and consisting of seven numbered paragraphs. They are treated as follows: Rejected as unnecessary. Included in findings 5, and 7. Rejected, contrary to the weight of the evidence. 4.- 6. Rejected, contrary to evidence adduced. 7. Rejected as argument. Respondent's Proposed Findings The Respondent submitted a three page document entitled "argument" and consisting of eight unnumbered paragraphs. Numbers 1-8 have been applied to those paragraphs. They are treated as follows: 1.-5. Rejected as conclusions of law. 6. Included in findings 8, 9, and 10. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller Acting Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Phillip I. Salerno 11812 Timbers Way Boca Raton, Florida 33428 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
