Findings Of Fact Respondent Shankar S. Agarwal is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0312860. The last license issued was as a broker. Respondent Super Realty, Inc., is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate corporation in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0231630. The last license issued was as a broker located in Hollywood, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent Shankar S. Agarwal was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer for Respondent Super Realty, Inc. Respondents advertised for sale by newspaper advertisement a VA repossessed property being a four unit apartment building in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In April, 1985, Warren and Judith Fieldhouse responded to Respondents' ad, and Respondent Agarwal arranged to meet the Fieldhouses at the property. At the property, the Fieldhouses informed Respondents that they wished to purchase a property as an investment and required that any property purchased by them result in income to them as opposed to resulting in a loss for them. Respondent Agarwal specifically represented to the Fieldhouses that the rental character of the neighborhood had been assessed by the Respondents, that Respondents were qualified to appraise the rental character, and that each unit could be rented for $300 or more per month. Respondent Agarwal further represented that the rent for the property would therefore exceed its expenses. The Fieldhouses decided that they wished to purchase the property based upon Respondents' representations. Respondent Agarwal required the Fieldhouses to give him a check for $1,000 a while still at the property before he would return with them to the office of Super Realty, Inc., to draft a purchase contract. Respondent Agarwal and the Fieldhouses went to Super Realty, Inc., where a purchase contract was drafted by Respondent Agarwal and signed by the Fieldhouses. Respondent Agarwal refused to give to the Fieldhouses a copy of that contract. Respondent Agarwal further advised the Fieldhouses that they were to obtain the required liability insurance on the property from his insurance agency and that they were not to use their own insurance agency. The Fieldhouses refused to comply with Agarwal's direction to them. Changes were subsequently made by Respondents to the Fieldhouses' purchase contract. Although those changes were approved telephonically by the Fieldhouses, Respondents never obtained the Fieldhouses signatures approving the changes in the contract. A closing was scheduled by Respondents at the office of Super Realty, Inc., on May 22, 1985. The Fieldhouses inspected the property just before the closing and found that the property's "as is" condition on the day of closing was worse than its "as is" condition on the day that they first saw it and entered into the contract for the purchase and sale of the property. Appliances were missing, and damage was done to the structure. The Fieldhouses objected to the condition of the property on the date of closing. Yet, the closing began. Respondent Agarwal began handing the Fieldhouses individual documents to sign. When he handed them a required financial disclosure statement, the Fieldhouses realized that the mortgage plus insurance and taxes payments would exceed the rental income which Respondents had represented could be projected from the units, that the amount of payments and other representations initially made by the Respondents were not incorporated into the closing documents, and the rental income for the property would not exceed the property's monthly expenses. The Fieldhouses refused to continue with the closing. They demanded copies of the documents that they had signed, but Respondents refused to give them copies of those documents. They demanded a refund from Respondents of their $1,000 deposit, but Respondents refused to refund their money to them. Although the Fieldhouses had signed a note and mortgage on the property before they refused to continue forward with the closing, they gave Respondents no monies toward the purchase of the property to increase the $1,000 earnest money deposit to the required down payment for the property. Respondents knew that the Fieldhouses did not pay the required cash to close on the property, the additional consideration required under the contracts. After the closing, the Fieldhouses made additional demands on Respondent for the return of their $1,000. Respondents refused to return that money to them and further refused to discuss the matter with them further. Respondents submitted the Fieldhouse closing documents to the Veterans Administration claiming a sales commission due to the Respondents in the amount of $5,740, even though Respondents knew that the sales transaction had never closed. Since the Veterans Administration had experienced difficulties with Respondents' complying with their rules and regulations on previous occasions, the VA took the position that the Respondents were not entitled to a commission since no sale had taken place and that the Respondents should refund to the Fieldhouses their $1,000. Respondents sued the Veterans Administration for a sales commission. At the time that Respondents sued for a commission, they knew that they were entitled to no commission since there was no sale. When the Veterans Administration filed an Answer to Respondents' Complaint indicating that it intended to fully defend Respondents' false claim, Respondents voluntarily dismissed their litigation against the Veterans Administration. The VA now has possession of the Fieldhouses' $1,000 deposit which it intends to return to the Fieldhouses. Although Mr. Fieldhouse was a licensed real estate salesman during the time period material hereto, he had not actively worked as a real estate salesman. Therefore, the Fieldhouses relied upon the Respondents as licensees to responsively perform the sales transaction and further relied upon Respondents' representations regarding the property's income and expenses. Respondents never advised the Florida Real Estate Commission that demands had been made for the return of the $1,000 which Respondents held in escrow until such time as they voluntarily forwarded the money to the Veterans Administration despite the Fieldhouses' demands for its return to them.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Counts V and VI of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondents guilty of the remaining allegations in the Administrative Complaint, and revoking Respondents' real estate broker licenses. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of April 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 21st day of April, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Shankar S. Agarwal 6912 Stirling Road Hollywood, Florida 33024 Super Realty, Inc. c/o Shankar S. Agarwal 6912 Stirling Road Hollywood, Florida 33024 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
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the "formal hearing," and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since October of 2000, a licensed real estate sales associate in the State of Florida, holding license number 695252. He is currently associated with AAA Realty, Inc., a broker corporation doing business in Broward County, Florida. From March 1, 2001, through June 26, 2001, Respondent was an active real estate sales associate with Allen Real Estate, Inc. (Allen), a broker corporation doing business in St. Lucie County, Florida. From June 27, 2001, through August 13, 2001, Respondent was an active real estate sales associate with Realty Unlimited, Inc. (Unlimited), a broker corporation (affiliated with GMAC Real Estate) with offices in Port St. Lucie and Stuart, Florida. Unlimited is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, owned by Kevin Schevers, a Florida-licensed real estate broker. Gary Sprauer is a Florida-licensed real estate sales associate. He is currently associated with Unlimited. Like Respondent, Mr. Sprauer began his association with Unlimited on June 27, 2001, immediately after having worked for Allen. Respondent and Mr. Sprauer worked as "partners" at both Allen and Unlimited. They had an understanding that the commissions they each earned would be "split 50-50" between them. On February 7, 2001, Allen, through the efforts of Respondent and Mr. Sprauer, obtained an exclusive listing contract (Listing Contract) giving it, for the period of a year, the "exclusive right to sell," in a representative capacity, commercial property located at 3800 South Federal Highway that was owned by Vincent and Renee Piazza (Piazza Property). Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Listing Contract addressed the subjects of "compensation," "cooperation with other brokers," and "dispute resolution," respectively, and provided, in pertinent part as follows as follows: COMPENSATION: Seller will compensate Broker as specified below for procuring a buyer who is ready, willing, and able to purchase the Property or any interest in the Property on the terms of this Agreement or on any other terms acceptable to Seller. Seller will pay Broker as follows (plus applicable sales tax): 8% of the total purchase price or $15,000 maximum, no later than the date of closing specified in the sales contract. However closing is not a prerequisite for Broker's fee being earned. * * * (d) Broker's fee is due in the following circumstances: (1) If any interest in the Property is transferred . . . , regardless of whether the buyer is secured by Broker, Seller or any other person. * * * COOPERATION WITH OTHER BROKERS: Broker's office policy is to cooperate with all other brokers except when not in the Seller's best interest, and to offer compensation to: Buyer's agents, who represent the interest of the buyer and not the interest of Seller in a transaction, even if compensated by Seller or Broker Nonrepresentatives Transaction brokers. None of the above (if this box is checked, the Property cannot be placed in the MLS). * * * 10. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: This Agreement will be construed under Florida law. All controversies, claim and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof will be settled by first attempting mediation under the rules of the American Arbitration Association or other mediator agreed upon by the parties. . . . Shortly after they left the employ of Allen and began working for Unlimited, Respondent and Mr. Sprauer showed Nicholas Damiano the Piazza Property. Mr. Damiano thereafter made a written offer to purchase the Piazza Property, which the Piazzas accepted, in writing, on July 4, 2001. The sales price was $165,000.00. Mr. Damiano put down a $10,000.00 deposit, which, in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the contract between Mr. Damiano and the Piazzas (Sales Contract), was "held in escrow by [Unlimited]." The obligations of Unlimited, as escrow agent, were described in paragraph 6 of the Sales Contract, which provided as follows: ESCROW. Buyer and Seller authorize GMAC, Realty Unlimited Telephone: . . . Facsimile: . . . Address: . . . to receive funds and other items and, subject to clearance, disburse them in accordance with the terms of this Contract. Escrow Agent will deposit all funds received in a non- interest bearing account. If Escrow Agent receives conflicting demands or has a good faith doubt as to Escrow Agent's duties or liabilities under this Contract, he/she may hold the subject matter of the escrow until the parties mutually agree to its disbursement or until issuance of a court order or decision of arbitrator determining the parties' rights regarding the escrow or deposit the subject matter of the escrow with the clerk of the circuit court having jurisdiction over the dispute. Upon notifying the parties of such action, Escrow Agent will be released from all liability except for the duty to account for items previously delivered out of escrow. If a licensed real estate broker, Escrow Agent will comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. In any suit or arbitration in which Escrow Agent is made a party because of acting as agent hereunder or interpleads the subject matter of the escrow, Escrow Agent will recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs at all levels, with such fees and costs to be paid from the escrowed funds or equivalent and charged and awarded as court or other costs in favor of the prevailing party. The parties agree that Escrow Agent will not be liable to any person for misdelivery to Buyer or Seller of escrowed items, unless the misdelivery is due to Escrow Agent's willful breach of this Contract or gross negligence. Paragraph 12 of the Sales Contract addressed the subject of "brokers" and provided as follows: BROKERS. Neither Buyer nor Seller has utilized the services of, or for any other reason owes compensation to, a licensed real estate broker other than: Listing Broker: Allen Real Estate, Inc. who is a transaction broker and who will be compensated by x Seller _ Buyer _ both parties pursuant to x a listing agreement _ other (specify) Cooperating Broker: GMAC Realty Unlimited who is a transaction broker who will compensated by _ Buyer x Seller _ both parties pursuant to _ an MLS or other offer of compensation to a cooperating broker _ other (specify) (collectively referred to as "Broker") in connection with any act relating to the Property, included but not limited to, inquiries, introductions, consultations and negotiations resulting in this transaction. Seller and Buyer agree to indemnify and hold Broker harmless from and against losses, damages, costs and expenses of any kind, including reasonable attorneys' fees at all levels, and from liability to any person, arising from (1) compensation claimed which is inconsistent with the representation in this Paragraph, (2) enforcement action to collect a brokerage fee pursuant to Paragraph 10, (3) any duty accepted by Broker at the request of Buyer or Seller, which duty is beyond the scope of services regulated by Chapter 475, F.S., as amended, or (4) recommendations of or services provided and expenses incurred by any third party whom Broker refers, recommends or retains for or on behalf of Buyer or Seller. The Damiano/Piazza transaction was originally scheduled to close on July 25, 2001. At the request of the Piazzas, the closing was rescheduled for August 7, 2001. A few days before August 7, 2001, Mr. Sprauer asked Respondent "where the closing was going to take place" and "what title company" would be handling the matter. Respondent replied that the closing was "going to be delayed again because Mr. Damiano . . . was going to have to have some type of cancer surgery." It turned out that the closing was not "delayed again." It took place on August 7, 2001. At the closing were Mr. Damiano, the Piazzas, Respondent, and the closing agent from the title company, First American Title Insurance Company (First American).3 Neither Mr. Schevers, nor Mr. Sprauer, was in attendance. Mr. Sprauer did not even know that the closing was taking place. He was under the impression, based on what Respondent had told him, that the closing had been postponed. Had he not been misinformed, he would have attended the closing. Respondent did not contact Mr. Sprauer following the closing to let him know that, in fact, the closing had occurred. Mr. Schevers, on the other hand, was made aware that closing would be held on August 7, 2001. He was unable to attend because he had "prior commitments." It was Respondent who informed Mr. Schevers of the August 7, 2001, closing date. The morning of August 7, 2001, Respondent went to Unlimited's Stuart office and asked Mr. Schevers for the $10,000.00 Unlimited was holding in escrow in connection with the Damiano/Piazza transaction, explaining that he needed it for the closing that was going to be held later that day. Before complying with Respondent's request, Mr. Schevers contacted First American and asked that he be faxed a copy of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Settlement Statement (HUD Statement) that First American had prepared for the closing. As requested, First American faxed a copy of the HUD Statement to Mr. Schevers. Upon reviewing the document, Mr. Schevers "immediately noticed that [it indicated that] the entire commission [of $7,000.00] was going to Allen." Mr. Schevers "then proceeded to call First American" and asked why Unlimited was not "reflected on this settlement statement." Mr. Schevers was told that a First American representative "would get right on it and get back to [him]." Mr. Schevers did not wait to hear back from First American before handing an "escrow check" in the amount of $10,000.00 to Respondent. He instructed Respondent, however, to "not give anybody this check unless that statement [the HUD Statement] [was] changed and reflect[ed] [Unlimited's]" share of the commission earned from the sale of the Piazza Property. He further directed Respondent to telephone him if this change was not made. Respondent did not follow the instructions Mr. Schevers had given him. He delivered the $10,000.00 "escrow check" to the closing agent at the closing, even though the HUD Statement had not been changed to reflect Unlimited's sharing of the commission. At no time during the closing did Mr. Schevers receive a telephone call from Respondent. According to the HUD Statement that Mr. Damiano, the Piazzas, and the closing agent signed at the closing, Allen received a commission of $7,000.00 "from seller's funds at settlement." The document makes no mention of any other commission having been paid as part of the closing. On or about August 9, 2001, Respondent received a "commission check" from Allen. The check was made payable to Respondent and was in the amount of $3,000.00. Under the "DOLLARS" line on the check, the following was typed: 4200 Total Comm[4] 1200 ADVANCE[5] Typed next to "MEMO" on the bottom left hand corner of the check was "DAMIANO-PIAZZA 165,000 S&L." It has not been shown that the "commission check" Respondent received from Allen was for anything other than the commission Allen owed Respondent for services performed when Respondent was still employed by Allen. Mr. Schevers' consent to Respondent's receiving this $3,000.00 "commission check" was neither sought nor given. Less than a week after the closing, having spotted Mr. Damiano mowing grass on a vacant lot that Mr. Damiano owned, Mr. Sprauer walked up to him and asked "how his surgery [had gone]." Mr. Damiano "acted very surprised [like] he didn't know what [Mr. Sprauer] was talking about." Mr. Damiano's reaction to his inquiry led Mr. Sprauer to believe "that the closing had probably taken place." He "immediately contacted [Mr. Schevers] and asked him to check into it." Mr. Schevers subsequently learned from First American that Allen "had gotten all of the [commission] check" at the closing. Mr. Schevers then telephoned Respondent. This was the first communication he had had with Respondent since before the closing. Respondent told Mr. Schevers that "he got the check" and "he would be right over with it." Respondent, however, did not keep his promise. After his telephone conversation with Respondent, Mr. Schevers discovered that Allen "had cut [Respondent] a check and [Respondent] had gone immediately and deposited it." This discovery prompted Mr. Schevers to place another telephone call to Respondent. This telephone conversation ended with Mr. Schevers telling Respondent "he was terminated." Mr. Schevers thereafter notified Petitioner in writing that Respondent was no longer associated with Unlimited. He also filed with Petitioner a complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent had "acted inappropriately" in connection with the Damiano/Piazza transaction. Mr. Schevers had expected Unlimited to receive, for the role it played in the Damiano/Piazza transaction, "50 percent of the total commission," or $3,500.00, in accordance with the provisions of the "multiple listing service for St. Lucie County."6 He holds Respondent responsible, at least in part, for Unlimited's not receiving these monies.7 At the time of the Damiano/Piazza transaction, Unlimited had contracts with its sales associates which provided that the associates would receive "70 percent of the net" of any commission Unlimited earned as a result of the associates' efforts. Had Unlimited received a commission as a result of the Damiano/Piazza transaction, it would have "split" it with Respondent and Mr. Sprauer as required by the contracts it had with them.8
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent in the instant case in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 7th day of July, 2004.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Leonard M. Wojnar, is a licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license number 0372634. The Respondent was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Michigan from approximately 1975 until his license was revoked on or about July 2, 1982. In the fall of 1980, a Complaint was filed in Michigan against the Respondent. The Respondent appeared at a hearing in Michigan, after which this case was dismissed. On or about February 3, 1981, the Department of Licensing and Regulation in Michigan contacted the Respondent by letter, notifying him of the Department's involvement with the complaint against him. This letter was received by the Respondent. By letter dated February 9, 1981, to the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulation, the Respondent replied to the February 3, 1981 letter. On or about May 12, 1981, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulation issued a formal Complaint against the Respondent, and served it on him on approximately May 13, 1981. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the Respondent received service of this Complaint, but based upon the earlier correspondence between the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulation and the Respondent, the Respondent was on notice of a proceeding pending against him. On May 22, 1981, the Respondent completed his application for licensure in Florida. Thereafter, with the assistance of counsel in Michigan, the Respondent attended hearings and proceedings in the Michigan action against his real estate license. The Respondent's Michigan license was revoked on or about July 2, 1982. When the Respondent applied for his Florida license, he failed to disclose that a proceeding was pending against his license in Michigan, and he answered Question 15a on the Florida application in the negative. This question asks if any proceeding is pending in any state affecting any license to practice a regulated profession. The Respondent contends that the revocation of his license by the Michigan authorities is invalid, and that legal proceedings are pending in Michigan to obtain restoration of his license there. He also contends that he was not aware of any proceeding pending against him when he answered Question 15a on the Florida application.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number 0372642 held by Leonard M. Wojnar be REVOKED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this the 21st day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 21st day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101 Kristin Building 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Steven Warm, Esquire 101 North Federal Highway Boca Raton, Florida 33432 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation Old Courthouse Square Bldg. 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent's real estate broker's license should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined based upon alleged violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Peter H. Bos, Jr., is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding License Nos. BK 0225668 and 0189099. He is the registered broker for Bos Realty Company, Inc., and Sandestin Realty, Inc. Bos Realty, Inc., and Sandestin Realty, Inc., are registered real estate brokerage companies. The Respondent is also the Chairman of the Board and Vice President of Sandestin Corporation, Inc. ("Sandestin") . Sandestin is not a real estate brokerage company and does not engage in any real estate business regulated under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Sandestin is a licensed hotelier. In 1987, Sandestin ceased acting as the management company of Sandestin Resort. Sandestin Corporation instead became a company which operated a hotel. In order to obtain rooms for its hotel operation, the corporation entered into leases with various local condominium owners, including Sandestin Resort unit owners. These leases were entered into under a landlord and tenant contract and not a management contract. The landlord and tenant contract did not establish any fiduciary relationship between Sandestin Corporation, Respondent, or the landlord/unit owner. Similarly, the landlord and tenant agreement did not establish any escrow relationship between Sandestin Corporation, Respondent, or the landlord/unit owner. During this time, the leasehold agreement did contain two typographical errors. One error, committed by the law firm who drafted the agreement, placed Sandestin Realty's name over the signature block at the end of the contract. The other error was contained in an exhibit to the contract and listed Sandestin Realty in its title. All of the typographical errors were discovered and corrected by 1988. None of the errors materially effected the understanding of the parties as to who those parties were or the relationship they had. In reality none of the parties involved in the contracts containing the typographical errors noticed either fallacy. Around May 22, 1987, Margaret Irwin purchased a unit from Sandestin Realty Company, Inc. She signed a landlord and tenant agreement dated March 25, 1987, between herself, as landlord, and Sandestin Corporation, Inc., as tenant. Although Ms. Irwin was somewhat confused about the exact relationship between the parties, the contract she signed was plain on its face and unambiguous in its language that the agreement she was entering into was a leasehold agreement with her as a landlord and Sandestin Corporation as a tenant. Ms. Irwin's confusion appeared to result from assumptions that emanated from her own mind. The evidence did not establish that any representation was made either on behalf of or by Respondent that the lease agreement was other than what it purported to be. Moreover, the evidence did not establish that Ms. Irwin's confusion was caused by any actions of Respondent or any of the typographical errors which were in the agreement at the time Ms. Irwin signed it. Up until 1989, Ms. Irwin received all of the lease payments she was entitled to receive under the lease agreement. In 1989, Sandestin Corporation experienced financial difficulties. Beginning in August 1989, Sandestin Corporation, on the advice of its attorneys, did not make the agreed upon lease payments to Ms. Irwin as well as other unit owners from which it had leased units. All of the unit owners's including Ms. Irwin, were made aware of Sandestin Corporation's financial difficulties in a letter dated October, 1989. Ms. Irwin elected to terminate her lease agreement with Sandestin Corporation and demanded the back rant which was owed to her. The back rent remains unpaid to this date. In late 1989, Sandestin Corporation filed for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. That bankruptcy is ongoing today. The unit owners who elected to continue leasing their units to Sandestin Corporation have begun to receive incremental payments on the back rent owned to them by a special order of the bankruptcy court. Importantly, all of the unit owners, including Ms. Irwin, were treated as landlord/creditors of Sandestin Corporation. The money owed to these unit owners has been treated as property of Sandestin Corporation and therefore part of the bankrupt's estate. The money was not treated as property being held by Sandestin Corporation on behalf of and as fiduciary for these various unit owners. There was absolutely no clear and convincing evidence presented of any fraud, misrepresentation, scheme, trick, or device, or breach of trust on the part of Respondent. The language of the lease agreement is plain on its face and clearly establishes a landlord and tenant contract. The agreement did not establish any fiduciary or escrow relationship. Additionally, Respondent's duties in relation to Sandestin Corporation were not those which involved any real estate duties regulated by Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of violating any of the provisions of 475.25(1)(b), (d), or (k), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the pleadings and argument of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of January 1991. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 30th day of January 1991. APPENDIX The facts contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 24, 26, 26, and 30, of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, 20, 21, 22, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 16, 17, 19, and 28, of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are immaterial. The facts contained in paragraphs 23, 25, 29, and 36 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 E.C. Kitchen, Esquire Post Office Box 1854 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1854 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license number 0073256 authorizing his practice in such a capacity in the State of Florida. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the licensure and practice standards embodied in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, for realtors in the State of Florida. From approximately April 16, 1977, through November 17, 1977, the Respondent, acting in the capacity of a real estate salesman, was employed by a broker by the name of Irwin Kane and Wintex Realty Corporation of Miami, Florida. That entity with Broker Kane was involved in the advertisement, promotion and sale of parcels of unimproved land in west Texas. The Respondent's duties involved making long-distance telephone calls to prospective purchasers of that land (in Cochran County, Texas), attempting to induce them to buy one or more parcels. In the course of this telephone sales campaign, in which the Respondent participated with approximately 20 salesmen making such phone calls, the Respondent used a script prepared for him by Irwin Kane, his employing broker. The script, in general, extolled the attributes of the unimproved property in an arid region of west Texas, representing that the land possessed favorable climatic conditions, water supply and soil conditions for agricultural purposes and was near property in which oil companies were interested. The Respondent contacted a potential buyer by phone who lived in Wisconsin and attempted to persuade the buyer to purchase a parcel of the property through use of the prepared "script" given him by his broker. That potential customer apparently became suspicious of the sales method, manner or assurances given by phone and ultimately was instrumental, along with the United State Attorney, in the filing of an indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, charging the Respondent (along with his broker, principals of the corporation and other salesmen) with the use of wire communication in furtherance of a scheme to defraud potential purchasers of real estate in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. In that proceeding, the Respondent initially professed his lack of knowledge of the truth or falsity of the representations made in the prepared script his broker gave him and required him to use concerning the attributes of the west Texas land involved. Due in part to a dearth of financial resources to devote to litigation, the Respondent ultimately pled nolo contendere on November 7, 1978, to the charge involving using wire communication in a scheme to defraud. He was ultimately found guilty and was placed on probation for three years, with imposition of a sentence of imprisonment being suspended by the court. The Respondent had no part in the preparation of any written materials or "script" which he employed in making the telephone conversation and representations describing the supposed attributes of the property he was attempting to market on behalf of his employer, Broker Irwin Kane and Wintex Realty Corporation. That script was prepared by his broker or others and the Respondent read or consulted from it as he was communicating with prospective purchasers, but had no actual knowledge of its truthfulness or falsity with regard to the representations contained therein. He was shown to have made no representation or verbal communication which he knew to be false when he made it. The Respondent has been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding involving the same factual transaction in the past which culminated in a final order dismissing that administrative complaint. 1/
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and the evidence in the record, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Ed Rich, be found guilty of a violation of Section 475.25(i)(f), Florida Statutes, and that the penalty of a two (2) year suspension of licensure be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joel S. Fass, Esquire 626 Northeast 124th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Mr. Ed Rich 1950 South Ocean Drive Hallendale, Florida 33009 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether respondents' real estate licenses should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined on charges of false promises, misrepresentation, culpable negligence, and breach of trust in a business transaction.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Terry L. Baker is now and was at all times material to the charges a licensed real estate broker holding license no. 204679. (P-1) He also was president, secretary, and treasurer of respondent Terry L. Baker and Associates, Inc., a licensed real estate brokerage corporation (lic. no. 213974) located at 1418 West Edgewood Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. There are no other officers, directors, or members of this brokerage corporation; respondent owns 100 percent of the capital stock. (P-1) Respondent was, and continues to be, the active broker for this real estate brokerage corporation. (P-1) On July 21, 1982, respondent assisted in the negotiation and closing of a real estate sales transaction between Dolores B. Hawkins, as seller, and James W. and Patricia L. Dobson, as purchasers. The real estate involved was a residential lot and dwelling unit located at 7065 Bishop Hatcher Drive East, Jacksonville, Florida, and was, at the time, the subject of a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. (Testimony of Hawkins, Baker; P-2, P-6) The real estate sales contract was signed by the seller and buyers on July 21, 1982. At that time, respondent submitted a written estimate of the seller's closing costs. This estimate, signed by both respondent and the seller, showed that the seller would net $1,598.25 from the transaction. It was specifically noted that this net figure did not include an Atlantic Bank payment. This payment was a recognized obligation of the seller and was required to obtain the release of a record judgment lien held by the bank. Ms. Hawkins, the seller, understood that this payment was her obligation and was not included in the $1,598.25 figure. The written estimate also included seller's cost of approximately $2,000 for attorney's fees and back mortgage payments. The attorney's fees were related to the legal costs associated with the mortgage foreclosure proceeding. An existing mortgage balance, to be assumed by the buyers, was listed as approximately $19,000. (Testimony of Hawkins, Baker; P-3) On two separate occasions prior to closing, respondent told seller Hawkins that there had been an increase in the charge for attorney's fees associated with the mortgage foreclosure. (Testimony of Hawkins, respondent) Prior to closing, respondent loaned seller Hawkins $220 to help her pay her apartment rent. They agreed that the loan would be repaid out of the proceeds from the sale of her property. (Testimony of Hawkins, Baker; P-4) At closing on August 17, 1982, respondent presented the seller with a Seller's Closing Statement listing various charges to the seller, including the loan repayment of $220, the payment to Atlantic Bank (for release of lien) of $425, attorney's fees of $638.50, and an assumed mortgage of $19,847.51. The net amount due the seller was $675.82. The buyers paid the balance due at closing and the seller delivered the warranty deed to respondent for recording. A couple of days later, respondent, in turn, wrote a check for $675.82 and delivered it to the seller as net proceeds from the sale. Payment of respondent's commission was shared by the seller and buyers at closing. Respondent received the warranty deed at closing and the parties to the transaction expected him to have it recorded. He accepted this duty and undertook to perform it. However, he did not record the warranty deed on the public records until October 4, 1982--almost three months later--after repeated requests by the mortgage service company for a copy of the recorded deed. The delay was caused by respondent's waiting to receive a release of the Atlantic Bank lien so that he could record the two instruments at the same time. But after repeated requests for a copy of the recorded deed, he finally recorded it even though he had not yet received the release of lien. (Testimony of Baker, Hawkins, Dobson) Contrary to the Department's contention, respondent's delay in recording the deed does not constitute culpable negligence, false promises, misrepresentation, or breach of trust in a business transaction. His lack of diligence in recording the deed is, instead, an act of simple negligence. His carelessness exposed the buyers to unnecessary risk. During this delay of almost three months, the seller, while record titleholder, could have reconveyed the property or subjected it to additional encumbrances. Respondent, in delaying recordation almost three months, failed to exercise that degree of care which a reasonable man, in the same situation and with similar experience, would not have omitted. His failure to exercise due care does not, however, demonstrate willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the rights of others. The Department also charges that respondent did not have--at time of closing--the lien of Atlantic Bank satisfied. Prior to closing, the respondent- -on behalf of the seller--negotiated the outstanding debt with attorneys for Atlantic Bank: He was told that the bank would accept fifty cents on the dollar, or $425. Thereafter, respondent collected this amount as a charge to the seller at closing. (Testimony of respondent) Respondent, however, did not have an executed release of lien form, or the judgment lien satisfied, at closing. He asserts--without contradiction-- that the bank's attorney at first offered to prepare the release, but later asked respondent to do so. By the time of closing, respondent had been either unable to obtain the release from the attorney, or he had been unable to obtain and complete the form on his own. When asked why he proceeded to close the transaction although the release had not been obtained, he states that both buyers and seller consented to the closing because the property was facing foreclosure. Respondent's assertion that the parties consented to closing, in the absence of a release of lien, is unrefuted and accepted as fact. No evidence was presented that, in light of the parties' consent, closing of the transaction was improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint, and all charges contained therein, be dismissed for failure of proof. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 23rd day of September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent Bruce D. Robertson ("Respondent") was a licensed real estate broker, license #0343680, operating as a president and qualifying broker for IDC Properties ("IDC") At all times material to this case, IDC was a corporation registered as a real estate broker, license #0234614, located at 17980 San Carlos Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, Florida. By agreement dated January 16, 1990, the Respondent agreed to pay to salesperson Randy Thibault a commission of $10,362.50 upon the closing of the sale of property at "Old Pelican Bay, Inc.," to Paula E. Brown, hereinafter referred to as the "Brown transaction". On July 5, 1990, the Brown transaction closed. The Respondent received the commission funds related to the sale of the property. The Respondent subsequently issued a check in the amount of $10,362.50 payable to Mr. Thibault. When Mr. Thibault attempted to negotiate the check, he was informed that the Respondent had issued a stop payment order on the check. Mr. Thibault thereafter filed a civil complaint against the Respondent in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida Case No. 90-5851-CA. The matter was heard in a bench trial. On October 3, 1991, Mr. Thibault obtained a Final Judgement in the amount of $11, 817.42 against IDC for the sum owed plus interest. On October 28, 1991, Mr. Thibault obtained a Final Judgement in the amount of $14,551.31 against IDC for the sum owed plus interest, attorney's fees and costs. On November 4, 1991, the Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal in the matter in the Second District Court of Appeal but subsequently abandoned the appeal. At hearing, the Respondent asserted that Mr. Thibault received his commission share at the closing. The Respondent presented no credible documentary evidence to support the claim. The Respondent also asserted that Mr. Thibault misled the Respondent as to Mr. Thibault's role in the sale of other unrelated property and that the Respondent intends to take legal action against him. The Respondent presented no credible documentary evidence to support the claim. The Respondent admitted that the Final Judgement obtained by Mr. Thibault remains unsatisfied and stated that stated that he will not pay the judgement pending resolution of the unrelated matter alleged above.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order determining Bruce D. Robertson and IDC Properties, Inc., guilty of the violations set forth herein and revoking the licenses identified herein. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 19th day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6308 The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order. The Respondent did not submit a proposed recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Hurston North Tower 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Hurston North Tower 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Bruce D. Robertson IDC Properties, Inc. 17980 San Carlos Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33931
Findings Of Fact Frederick Hodgdon (Hodgdon) has held Florida real estate broker license 0206805 at all times pertinent to this case. Hodgdon is owner and qualifying broker for Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., (Pelican Realty), through which Hodgdon conducts business and which also is named as a respondent. At all times pertinent, Pelican Realty has held Florida corporate real estate broker license 0223934. July 24 through August 6, 1984, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-Daze: DO YOU KNOW ... that all Florida real estate brokers are agents for the seller and CANNOT legally propose any lower than listed prices or better terms for the benefit of the buyer? UNLESS ... the broker legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer. As a Buyer's Broker Pelican Realty CAN and DOES exactly this and a lot more! Buyers pay no fees or commissions. Call or send for our informative brochure, you will be glad you did. The real estate buyer's best bet for the best price is to have a Buyer's Broker. On February 19, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Marco Island Eagle: 1/ BUYER BEWARE! DON'T BUY REAL ESTATE ON MARCO ISLAND. ... before consulting an attorney or carefully reading Paragraph 5) and 7) of the 1985 Revision of the Sales Contract as approved by the Naples Area Board of Realtors and the Marco Island Area Board of Realtors and the Collier County Bar Association contract Revision Committee. The Contract states quote: "The Buyer has inspected the property sold by the Contract and there are no other inspections permitted or required. The property is acceptable in its AS IS condition as of date of this offer. INCREDIBLE! ... What happens to the unwitting Buyer who intends to have termite, structural and seawall inspections AFTER his offer is accepted? He just may have to buy a termite ridden house that needs a new roof and a seawall that is on the verge of collapse. Thats what! ... Taken at face value the Sales contract calls for the buyer to spend several hundred dollars for inspections BEFORE making an offer that may well be turned down. INCREDIBLE! .... Paragraph 7) states quote: "Buyer's decision to buy was based on Buyer's own investigation of the property and not upon any representation, warranty, statement or conduct of the Seller, or broker, or any of Seller's or broker's agents" (Excluding those rare occasions when the seller and his agents remain silent.) INCREDIBLE! ... The above subject sections of Paragraphs 5) and 7) of the 1985 Sales Contract in our opinion may well violate the Realtor's Code of Ethics Article 7) "to treat fairly all parties to the transaction." There is nothing Pelican Realty could say or do to better emphasize the Buyer's need to have an advocate on his side. ... As a Buyer's Broker we recommend striking out any and all terms and conditions of the Sales Contract that are prejudicial to the Buyer's best interests. ... Pelican Realty would appreciate the opportunity to discuss with any interested parties the many advantages of working with a Buyer Broker. Our services are at NO additional expense to the buyer. CALL US FOR FURTHER DETAILS. NOW!! On March 11, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-News: CASH BACK FOR THE REAL ESTATE BUYER. THAT'S INCREDIBLE! Pelican Realty GUARANTEES CASH BACK to every buyer on every sale. The bigger the sale, the bigger the cash gift to the buyer. On top of this Pelican Realty (a Buyer's Broker) goes all out to get the lowest possible price for the buyer at NO additional cost to the buyer. Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller. The thousands you SAVE already belong to you. THINK ABOUT IT! Call us for further details NOW! "WE PAY OUR BUYERS TO DO BUSINESS WITH US" There is nothing false or fraudulent about the three advertisements. However, the following statements in the advertisements are deceptive or misleading in form or content: The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that buyers pay no fees or commissions. In form, the buyer perhaps does not pay brokerage fees or commissions. But in substance, the buyer does indirectly pay his broker a brokerage fee or commission when the seller pays fees and commissions out of the proceeds of the sale. The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that a buyer's broker "legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer." Although perhaps technically correct, this representation implies separate state regulation and qualification procedures for licensure as a buyer's broker. In fact and in law, any licensed real estate broker can become a buyer's broker simply by entering into an agreement with a buyer to be the buyer's broker. The representation in the March 11, 1986, News-Sun advertisement: "Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller." Read carefully in context, this representation is true--realtors other than those representing a buyer must try to get the highest price for the seller he represents (while being open, honest and fair to the buyer). But, as written, the representation could lead one to believe that the respondents have an ability no other realtors have when, in fact and in law, any realtor or other licensed real estate broker who represents a buyer can try to get the best price for the buyer. Although respondents have offered cash rebates, no client has seen the offer or asked for a rebate. Although respondents have maintained their innocence, they changed the ads to meet the criticism of the Department of Professional Regulation.
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 (1) reprimanding respondents, Frederick Hodgdon and Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., and (2) fining them $500 each for violations of Section 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). RECOMMENDED this 21st day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 21st day of July, 1987.
The Issue Should Petitioner impose discipline against the licenses held by Respondent as a real estate broker, licenses numbers 3000807, 3000808, and 300092222, and as a real estate instructor, license number 32195, for alleged violations of Section 475.25(1)(f), (n) and (p), Florida Statutes (2004)?
Findings Of Fact Facts Alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint Uncontested by the Answer: Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is and was at all times material hereto a licensed Florida real estate broker, issued license numbers 3000807, 3000808, and 3092222, in accordance with Chapter 475 of the Florida Statutes. The last licenses issued were as a broker at AAA Realty of Florida Comm. Real Estate Properties/Investments, Inc., 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118, and at AAA Realty of Florida International Inc., 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118. Respondent is a licensed real estate instructor issued license number 32195 with AAA College of Real Estate. Additional Facts: More specifically concerning licenses issued to Respondent as a real estate broker, from January 1, 2005 through March 13, 2006, Respondent was a broker doing business as AAA Realty of Florida License No. BK3000807, a brokerage sole proprietorship located at 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118. From January 1, 2005 to March 13, 2006, Respondent was a broker, License No. BK3092222, affiliated with AAA Realty of Florida International, Inc., License No. CQ0000000, a brokerage corporation located at 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118. License No. BK3000808 expired March 31, 2004. In State of Florida vs. Fadel Fawzi Elbadramany, in the Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Volusia County, Division 41, Case No. 2001-36519CFAES, the defendant, Respondent here, was tried and found guilty by a jury of grand theft of over $20,000, an offense recognized in Subsections 812.014(1) and (2) (b), Florida Statutes. On February 11, 2005, an order of judgment was entered by Circuit Judge R. Michael Hutcheson adjudicating the defendant in that cause, Respondent, in the present case, guilty of grand theft. On that same date an order of sentence was entered against the defendant/Respondent, by which he was committed to the Department of Corrections to be imprisoned for a term of 15 years, with credit for 105 days of time served while incarcerated before the imposition of this sentence. By separate order the defendant/Respondent was required to pay certain charges, costs and fees. That order was entered on February 11, 2005. In Fadel Elbadramany, Appellant, vs. State of Florida, Appellee, in the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fifth District, July term 2006, Case No. 5D05-754 decision filed August 8, 2006, the court entered a per curium affirmance. On September 27, 2006, that court ordered "that appellant's motion for rehearing, rehearing En Banc and request to issue a written opinion filed August 22, 2006 and Appellant's Supplemental to Request to Issue a Written Opinion, filed September 18, 2006 are denied." Respondent is presently confined in Washington Correctional Institution where the final hearing was held. He is inmate number V21541. His tentative release date from his imprisonment is October 26, 2019. His confinement is in relation to the grand theft offense.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 475.25(1)(f) and (n), Florida Statutes (2004), that Respondent did not violate Section 475.25(1)(p) Florida Statutes (2004), and revoking the real estate broker licenses and real estate instructor license held by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 20th day of December, 2006.
