The Issue Should Respondent have his Florida Real Estate Broker's License disciplined by Petitioner for violating provisions within Chapter 475, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to discipline its licensees for violations of Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and associated rules. Those actions are brought through administrative complaints. Petitioner regulates Respondent's real estate practice in Florida. Respondent practices in accordance with a Florida Real Estate Broker's license, No. 0605307. At times relevant to this inquiry Respondent has not acted as an independent broker. Rather, Respondent has conducted real estate business as a broker-salesperson with McAfee Enterprise, Inc. t/a Re-Max On Park Avenue, located at 2233 Park Avenue, Suite 500, Orange Park, Florida, 32702-5567. Within the relevant time period Respondent's supervising broker at the Re- Max firm was Ann McIvey. On February 28, 1995, Respondent, as listing agent for Re-Max On Park Avenue, entered into an exclusive right of sale listing agreement with Marguerite A. Barr to sell Ms. Barr's real estate located at 6720 S. Long Meadow Circle in Jacksonville, Florida. By the terms of the listing agreement Ms. Barr agreed to pay Re-Max on Park Avenue: . . . 5 ½% of the total purchase price whether a buyer is secured by the REALTOR, the SELLER, or by any other person, or if the Property is afterwards sold within 6 months from the termination of this agreement or any extension thereof, to any person to whom the Property has been shown during the term of this Agreement. The listing agreement entered into between Respondent in behalf of Re-Max On Park Avenue and Ms. Barr also stated that: . . . in the event this Agreement is cancelled by SELLER before its expiration, or SELLER otherwise prevents performance hereunder, the SELLER agrees to pay REALTOR on demand, as liquidated damages, the brokerage fee due REALTOR as though Property had been sold, or the amount of broker's expenses, the same being bonafide, fair and reasonable as a result of an arm's length negotiation. Separate and apart from the terms set forth in the listing agreement, Ms. Barr requested, before she signed the contract, that Respondent inform her concerning her opportunity to cancel the contract at any time. Respondent answered that the contract could be cancelled by Ms. Barr before the home was sold, in which case Ms. Barr would be responsible for paying the advertising cost by Re-Max on Park Avenue. Ms. Barr was amenable to that arrangement. On May 8, 1995, Ms. Barr called to inform Respondent that she was terminating the contract to sell her home. This was followed by correspondence dated May 9, 1995, addressed to Re-Max On Park Avenue, attention to Respondent, notifying Re-Max On Park Avenue that the contract to sell the home was being cancelled. In response to the cancellation Respondent wrote the following letter to Ms. Barr: Mrs. Marguerite A. Barr 1364 Lamboll Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205-7140 Dear Meg: As you requested I have withdrawn your property located at 6720 Longmeadow Circle South from active listing for sale in the MLS and in my files. I hope you will be happy with your new arrangement and I wish you and your daughter the best. According to our contract, you agreed to reimburse me for expenses I incurred in marketing your property the event you decided to cancel prior to the expiration of said contract. A list of expenses follows: Two insertions in Homes & Land Magazine $249.21 500 Flyers to Realtors (250 twice) @ $.06 each 30.00 Total $279.21 Please forward a check in that amount to me at my office. Please remember that in the terms of our contract if anyone who has seen the property during my active term of the contract purchases the property you will still be obligated to pay the agreed upon commission to my firm. Regards, W. Wane Wier Broker-Salesman Per the request in the correspondence from Respondent to Ms. Barr, Ms. Barr contacted the Respondent and arranged to pay $50.00 a month to reimburse the costs described by the Respondent. Ms. Barr wrote three checks to the Respondent in his name, Wane Wier, without reference to Re-Max On Park Avenue. Respondent put those checks in his personal checking account. Respondent had originally taken money from his personal account to advertise the Barr property. On or about August 31, 1995, Ms. Barr sold her home on S. Long Meadow Circle to Jane Richardson. Respondent learned of the sale. Believing that the sale was a transaction that entitled Re-Max On Park Avenue to collect the 5 ½% real estate fee in accordance with the listing agreement, Respondent spoke to his supervising broker, Ms. McIvey, to ascertain the proper course for collecting the commission. Ms. McIvey advised Respondent that he should contact his attorney to see if the commission that was allegedly due Ms. McIvey and Respondent could be obtained by Respondent's counsel. Respondent took the advice of his supervising broker and contacted Thomas C. Santoro, Esquire, who was practicing at 1700 Wells Road, Suite 5, Orange Park, Florida 32073. In conversation Respondent explained to Mr. Santoro, that he believed that Ms. Barr owned the real estate commission. Respondent asked Mr. Santoro to write a letter to Ms. Barr to solicit the commission. Respondent feels confident that he told Mr. Santoro that Mr. Santoro should advise Ms. Barr to pay the commission to Re-Max On Park Avenue, given that was the normal course of events in seeking payment for commissions. To assist Mr. Santoro, Respondent left a written memorandum which among other things stated: . . . I feel that Ms. Barr has violated our listing agreement and should pay me and my company the full commission due under the terms of that agreement. Please take any steps necessary to have Ms. Barr honor our agreement, and advise me what I should do. On January 12, 1996, Mr. Santoro wrote Ms. Barr requesting payment of the commissions in the amount $3,397.50 related to the claimed balance due, after crediting Ms. Barr with $150.00 paid for advertising costs. This correspondence stated: Please be advised that you must forward a cashier's check in the amount of $3,397.50 made payable to W. Wane Wier, Re-Max On Park Avenue, within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter, which I have forwarded by certified mail as well as regular U.S. Mail. I have been instructed to proceed with appropriate action should you fail to make the payment as stated above Please Govern Yourself Accordingly. Respondent did not see the January 12, 1996, letter before it was sent to Ms. Barr. He did receive a copy of the correspondence. Respondent has no recollection of noticing that the correspondence said that the $3,397.50 should be made payable to W. Wane Weir, Re-Max On Park Avenue. In any event, Respondent did not take any action to correct the letter to reflect that the payment should be made to Re-Max On Park Avenue only. Prior to the charges set forth in the present Administrative Complaint Respondent has not been the subject of accusations about his conduct as a realtor.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Section 475.42(1)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes, dismissing the complaint for alleged violations of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, imposing a $1,000.00 fine consistent with Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61J2-24.001, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 2nd day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Christine M. Ryall, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308 Orlando, FL 32801-1772 Thomas C. Santoro, Esquire 1700 Wells Road, Suite 5 Orange Park, FL 32072 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Linda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional; Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent, George R. Gurley, was a registered real estate broker-salesman in the State of Florida operating under License No. 0034797 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission on April 1, 1979. Mr. Gurley arranged the sale of certain property on Highway 542 in Lakeland, Florida, owned by Lakeland Skyview, Inc., Durward Harrell and Charles J. Ziemba to Joseph D. De Silvestro. This sale was initially arranged in a contract executed on April 5, 1979, by Mr. De Silvestro, as buyer, and Charles J. Ziemba, individually, and Hobart H. Joost, President of Lakeland Skyview, Inc., for the seller. Sale price was to be $70,000 with a $1,000 deposit being held in escrow by R/D Parker Realty Company. A commission of 10 percent ($7,000) was called for in that portion of the contract providing for method of payment, but was not referenced in the brokerage fee portion of the contract at the bottom of the first page thereof. Respondent, Gurley, and two others were listed as witnesses. Thereafter, before this contract was closed, on May 4, 1979, Respondent arranged a resale of the property from Mr. De Silvestro to American Vault Bed Corporation with a purchase price of $90,000 of which, again, $1,000 was to be held in escrow by the R/D Parker Realty Company. This contract made no provision for any real estate commission. This second contract was witnessed as to both buyer and seller by Respondent. The property in question was originally listed with R/D Parker Realty Company on November 10, 1978, by Mr. Joost, President of Lakeland Skyview, Inc., on an exclusive right of sale contract form which was accepted by Mr. Gurley, the Respondent. Because Mr. Joost had worked with Respondent previously and was aware of his reputation, he listed the property with Respondent in preference to another real estate agent. According to Ms. Parker, who ran the real estate company, though the form indicates the listing was an exclusive, it was, in fact, not entered into the multiple listing service. Mr. De Silvestro, the individual who purchased the property in the first transaction, was himself a real estate broker-salesman who was at the time working as office manager for R/D Parker Realty Company. At the time of both transactions, it was the policy of Parker Realty that salesmen working for the company could make two transactions per year in their own names without paying any commission to Parker Realty so lone as Ms. Parker was made aware of it in advance. In the instant case, Parker Realty did not get a share of the commission, nor did Ms. Parker know about either sale at the time. She found out about them in June, 1982, after both Respondent and Mr. De Silvestro had left their association with her firm, in the summer of 1979. Both transactions were closed by mail by Stewart Title Company off Polk County during the period from late May to mid-June, 1979. The buyer's closing statement dated May 29, 1979, for the first sale to Mr. De Silvestro does not reflect a broker's commission. However, a check in the amount of $2,829.51, drawn by Stewart Title of Polk County, Inc., on its escrow account, made payable to Charles J. Ziemba and S. A. Rice, dated June 28, 1979, bears the notation "payment in full for note from George R. Gurley dated June 8, 1978, with interest in full." Both Mr. Gurley and Mr. Ziemba acknowledge that this check was a portion of the $3,500 Mr. Gurley received as commission on the sale to Mr. De Silvestro and which was paid to Mr. Ziemba in fulfillment of a prior existing debt to him. The following day, June 29, 1979, an additional check was drawn on the escrow account of Stewart Title of Polk County, Inc., payable to Randy Gurley in the amount of $670.49, which bears the notation, inter alia, "for balance of realtor's commission." Randy Curley is, in fact, Respondent. Mr. Gurley acknowledged that this figure, which, when added to the amount of the prior mentioned check totals $3,500, was his share of the real estate commission earned on the property in question to Mr. De Silvestro. The balance of the real estate commission of $7,000, in the amount of $3,500, was never paid either to Mr. Gurley or to Parker Realty. No evidence was presented to indicate where that $3,500 went, if, in fact, it was paid at all. Testimony in this area came from Karen Beck, an agent with Stewart Title, who was not, however, the closing agent for this transaction. Her testimony, based on what the actual closing agent told her, and therefore hearsay, leads her to conclude that the "parties," De Silvestro and Gurley, had indicated the commission was to be handled as it was. On June 12, 1979, Stewart Title received a check for $2,000 from R/D Parker Realty Company, which represented the $2,000 paid as deposits into Parker Realty Company's escrow account on the two sales in question. The check for $2,000 was signed by Ms. Parker's son, Richard, who was a partner in R/D Parker Realty and who had authority to execute the check in question. Mr. Parker was not present at the hearing, nor did he testify as to whether he had given Mr. Gurley authority to keep his half of the commission and not forward any of the commission to Parker Realty, the broker. Mr. Gurley at no time was an owner of the property in question, nor did he realize any profit from either sale. His sole compensation came from the commission he received from the sale of the property initially to Mr. De Silvestro. This does not fall within the permitted transactions referred to by Ms. Parker, whereby employees could make two purchases per year without paying commission. Respondent, Gurley, who has held a salesman's license since 1972 and been a broker since 1974, contends he has never, in all those years, done anything in the practice of the real estate profession which would warrant disciplinary action by the Real Estate Commission. He contends that both he and Mr. De Silvestro acted with the knowledge of the broker, R/D Parker Realty; they used office forms; used office witnesses; and the deposit monies placed on both contracts went into the office escrow account. Mr. Gurley contends that the entire transaction was open and aboveboard and that when he acted, he felt he was authorized to do this. Though he contends Ms. Parker's son, Richard, acknowledged that what Gurley was doing was appropriate, Ms. Parker indicates her son denied any knowledge of what Respondent and De Silvestro were doing. On balance, it is found that neither Gurley nor De Silvestro notified Parker Realty, in the form of Ms. Parker or Richard Parker, as to the details of the transaction. Respondent is a minister, has no criminal record, no bad debts and no difficulties with the law of any kind. He applied for a renewal of his license In April, 1982, but has had no notice of denial. The records of the State of Florida submitted pertaining to Respondent's licensure status, however, reflect his licensee as a broker was issued on January 21, 1983, and is effective until September 30, 1984. That would make his license current at the present time.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. George R. Gurley 800 East State Road 540A, #106 Lakeland, Florida 33803 Mr. Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed real estate salesman, is guilty, as charged, of fraud, misrepresentation, culpable negligence or breach of trust in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact I. At all times material to the charges, Respondent was a licensed Florida real estate salesman associated with Woodlake Realty, Inc., in Melbourne, Florida. He obtained his real estate salesman's license in 1982. On March 14, 1985, became a licensed real estate broker and now operates his own business under the name of Peter Frontiero Realty. His office is located in his residence at 3247 West New Haven Avenue, Melbourne, Florida. II. On or about April 7, 1983, while employed as a real estate salesman at Apollo Realty, Inc., Mary E. Sousa obtained a listing on a tract of land owned by John and Janet Biansco. In connection with the listing, an Exclusive Right of Sale Contract was executed. This contract contained the following legal description of the tract to be sold: Parcel of land lying in the County of Brevard in the southwest 1/4 of Sec 11, TW 28 South Range 36E more particularly described as follows: S 2/3 of the following tract: commence at SE corner of W 1/2 of Sec 11 TW 28 South Range 36E, thence along south line of said Sec 11, 589-54-14 West for 30 feet., thence north 1- 17-00E for [sic] 43 feet to the point of beginning thence south 89-54-14 west along the north R/W line Melbourne Tillman Drainage district canal #63 for 297.43 feet, thence north 1-15-49 east for 353 feet, thence north 89-54-14 east for 297.55 feet, to the west R/W line of Arizona Street; thence south 1 17-00 West along R/W line for 353.00 feet, to the point of beginning. (P-4, Admissions No. 5, 6) As so described, this tract of land measures 235.34' x 297.47' and contains approximately 1.61 acres. (Admission No. 7) Mary E. Sousa and her broker, Peter Sergis, however, incorrectly determined that the legal description described a tract of land measuring 297' x 353' feet, containing 2.4 acres. (They determined this by examining the legal description attached to the Listing Contract and relying on Mr. Biansco's representation that the tract contained 2.4 acres.) Mary E. Sousa then had the property listed in the Melbourne Multiple Listing Service (MLS) on or about April 26, 1983. The MLS listing reflected the incorrect measurements and size of the tract, as submitted by Ms. Sousa. (P-3, Admission No. 8) III. During May, 1983, Karen Dunn-Frehsee and Paul Winkler (her fiance), contacted Respondents, a real estate salesman associated with Woodlake Realty, Inc., about purchasing a home. After Respondent showed them a house they were interested in, Ms. Dunn-Frehsee and Mr. Winkler decided that what they really wanted was to buy land on which they could build a residence. They told Respondent that they would need a minimum of two acres since they had two horses: local zoning requirements required at least one acre of land per horse. (Admission No. 10, Testimony of Dunn-Frehsee) Respondent checked MLS and found the listing (containing the incorrect measurements and size) of the Biansco property. He showed the land to Ms. Dunn- Frehsee and Mr. Winkler, who liked it and decided to make an offer. (At that time, Respondent was unaware that the MLS listing erroneously described the tract to be 297' x 353', containing 2.4 acres, when in fact it was 297.47' x 235.34', containing approximately 1.61 acres.) On or about May 5, 1983, Respondent prepared a "Contract for Sale and Purchase" containing the offer of Ms. Dunn-Frehsee. After she signed it, it was presented to the Bianscos, who subsequently accepted it. (Admission No. 12, P- 1) The Contract for Sale and Purchase contained, on the attached addendum--a correct legal description of the tracts as the description was taken from the listing agreement, not the erroneous MLS listing. Prior to closing, Respondent contacted Ms. Dunn-Frehsee several times to advise her regarding efforts being made by Lawyers Title Insurance Company to locate the prior owner of the property and secure a quitclaim deed covering a 30-foot strip of land bordering Arizona Street on the east side of the property. He was still unaware of the discrepancy between dimensions of the property contained on the MLS listing and the Contract of Sale. He did not tell Ms. Dunn-Frehsee that he had personally measured the property, or that he had confirmed the accuracy of the listing information. He was concerned only with the problem of obtaining access to the property through the 30-foot strip bordering Arizona Street. Although he told Ms. Dunn-Frehsee that he thought she was getting 2.7 or 3.0 acres by virtue of the additional strip of land which was to be quitclaimed to her at no additional cost, this belief was based on his reasonable assumption that the original tract contained 2.4 acres, as represented by the listing agents (Mary Sousa and Peter Sergis of Apollo Realty) and reflected in the Multiple Listing Book. Respondent also contacted Mr. Winkler, but similarly, did not represent to him that he (Respondent) had personally measured the property or confirmed the MLS information. (Testimony of Respondent) Prior to the closing, Respondent discussed with Ms. Dunn-Frehsee the need to order a survey of the property. She then ordered a survey, which was completed a week and a half before closing. After picking it up, Respondent telephoned Ms. Dunn-Frehsee. There is conflicting testimony about the conversation which ensued. Respondent testifies that he telephoned her and asked if she would like him to deliver the survey to her house or mail it to her, or if she would like to pick it up at his office. (TR-30) Ms. Dunn- Frehsee, on the other hand, testified that Respondent telephoned her stating that he had looked the survey over and there was no reason for her to drive out to his office to pick it up, that he would bring it to the closing. (TR-48) Neither version is more plausible or believable than the other. Both Respondent and Ms. Dunn-Frehsee have a discernible bias: Respondent faces charges which could result in the revocation of his professional license; Ms. Dunn-Frehsee has sued Respondent for damages resulting from her purchase of a tract of land which was smaller than what she was led to believe. Since the burden of proof lies with the Departments, the conflicting testimony is resolved in Respondent's favor as it has not been shown with any reliable degree of certainty that Respondent told Ms. Dunn-Frehsee that he had looked the survey over and that there was no need for her to examine it before closing. Both witnesses agree, however, and it is affirmatively found that Ms. Dunn-Frehsee agreed that Respondent should bring the survey with him to the closing, which was imminent. The surveys prepared by Hugh Smith, a registered land surveyors correctly showed the property to be approximately 235.33' x 297.43', but did not indicate the size by acreage. (Admission No. 20, P-2) At closings on or about June 23, 1983, Respondent showed the survey to Ms. Dunn-Frehsee. Ms. Dunn- Frehsee questioned the measurements as not being the same as she recalled being on the MLS listing. Neither Ms. Sousa nor Respondent, both of whom were in attendance, had a copy of the MLS listing so that the measurements on the two documents were not compared. (Admission No. 22-23) Ms. Dunn-Frehsee chose to close the transaction anyway after her questions regarding the property were apparently resolved to her satisfaction by Kathleen Van Mier, the agent for Lawyers Title Insurance Company which was handling the closing. Ms. Dunn-Frehsee signed a contingency statement indicating that all contract contingencies had been satisfied and that she wished to proceed with the closing. (TR-4O-41; 77-78) Respondent was misinformed regarding the dimensions and size of the property by the listing agents, Mary Sousa and Peter Sergis of Apollo Realty, who had provided inaccurate information to the Multiple Listing Service. Respondent reasonably relied upon the listing information and the representations of the listing agents concerning the size of the property. In his discussions with Ms. Dunn-Frehsee and Mr. Winkler, he drew reasonable inferences from such (incorrect) representations. He did not intentionally mislead anyone. It has not been shown that, under the circumstances, he failed to exercise due care or that degree of care required of a licensed real estate salesman. Nor has it been shown that he violated any professional standard of care adhered to by real estate salesmen and established by qualified expert testimony at hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint, and all charges against Respondent be DISMISSED for failure of proof. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of October, 1985, 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 11th day of October, 1985.
Findings Of Fact On November 29, 1983 Petitioner filed with Respondent an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. By letter dated February 28, 1984 Respondent denied Petitioner's application as follows: The reason for the Commission's action is based on your answer to Questions 6, 7, 14 and 15 of the licensing application and/or your criminal record and disciplinary actions, and on your having unlawfully acted as a real estate salesman or real estate broker in the State of Florida. Specifically, your denial is based upon your May 1975 arrests and convictions for five counts of the sale of unregistered securities five counts of fraudulent sale of securities, five counts of grand larceny, petty larceny, ten counts of conspiracy to commit a felony, and also on disciplinary actions involving your Insurance License, Mortgage Brokers License and Securities License. In 1970 or 1971 Petitioner started Summit Investments, a conpany engaged in selling contracts for deed for developers to investors at a discount. The State of Florida determined that these contracts were mortgages and not securities, and, therefore, all persons selling them must be licensed mortgage brokers. Petitioner accordingly obtained a mortgage broker's license. In 1972 eight mortgage brokers formed S.E.I., Inc., and Petitioner became the president. Everyone selling contracts for deed for that company was licensed under the Mortgage Brokerage Act. Clinton E. Taylor, an investigator for the State of Florida Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities, as part of his regular job duties, frequented Petitioner's offices at S.E.I., Inc. to check the advertising and sales pitches being used by the persons selling what the State had classified as mortgages. Taylor monitored Petitioner's operation at Summit Investments and at S.E.I., Inc. for a number of years without receiving any consumer complaint and without finding any basis for any enforcement action against Petitioner. In 1974, a recession year, five persons to whom S.E.I. had made sales did not receive their interest income and therefore filed complaints with the State of Florida Department of Banking and Finance. In May 1975 state criminal charges were filed against Petitioner as president of S.E.I., against the developer, and against the selling broker, basically alleging that what had previously been classified as mortgages were in fact unregistered securities. After trial, Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of five counts of sale of unregistered securities; five counts of fraudulent sale of securities; five counts of petty larceny; five counts of conspiracy to commit a felony, to-wit: fraudulent sale of securities; and five counts of conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit: petty larceny. Petitioner was initially sentenced to a total of ten years of incarceration, $20,000.00 in fines, and 15 years of probation. In 1976 Petitioner plead no contest to a federal charge of mail fraud in Tampa, Florida in order to obtain a sentence which would run concurrent with that arising out of his state conviction. In 1977 Petitioner plead no contest to a charge in Palm Beach County of selling unregistered securities. Both of these charges were related to the same incidents forming the basis for the 1975 criminal charges. Based upon the conviction of Petitioner in the 1975 state case, his mortgage broker's license, his securities license, and his insurance license were revoked. By the time of the final hearing in this cause Petitioner had served 16 months in the State prison system and had been released; restitution had been made to the five people who caused the criminal charges to be filed from payment by Petitioner of the fines assessed against him; Petitioner had finished serving his amended probation period; and Petitioner's civil rights had been restored by the State of Florida. From September 1980 to November 1983 Petitioner earned his livelihood selling businesses. Be applied for a real estate license in both 1982 and 1983 and was denied both times. Petitioner seeks a real estate license in order that he can return to selling businesses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered approving Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman, subject to successful completion of the licensure examination. RECOMMENDED and ORDERED this 6th day of November, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 6th day of November, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. David R. Edstrom 5748 Northeast 16th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto Respondent O'Connor was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license lumber 0065137. Respondent Berg was a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0391098. At all pertinent times alleged in the Administrative Complaint Respondent Berg was licensed and operated as a real estate salesman in the employ of broker Respondent Edward M. O Connor. On or about February 15, 1953, Respondent Berg entered into a contract as purchaser seeking to purchase certain real property in Charlotte County, Florida, described as: Lot 26, Block 1, Charlotte Harbour Subdivision, also known as 201 Cortex Street, Charlotte County, Florida. The property was owned by Louis J. Knetter. Mr. Knetter, as seller, was represented by Emanuel Consalvo, a licensed real estate salesman or broker. This proposed contract, contrary to the allegations of Petitioner, made no mention in its terms of any $500 binder or earnest money deposit. Rather, the contract, instead of mentioning a cash deposit, had the words "commission" clearly written on the top, being Berg's pledge to pay $300 of the real estate commission he would be entitled to on the transaction to the buyer at closing. The proposed contract was tendered to Emanuel Consalvo , the seller's agent, who examined it thoroughly with his client Louis Knetter. Mr. Knetter subsequently refused to enter into that proposed contract. Respondent Berg then made a second offer to purchase the same property which was accepted by the seller. This offer was made on April 18, 1983. The contract regarding the second offer was prepared from a rough draft which Respondent Berg had handwritten. He handwrote the word "commission" precisely as on the original offer of February 15, 1983. On the final typed copy of the contract the abbreviated word "comm.," was typed into the contract to indicate (and it was Respondent Berg's intent) that the commission to be earned by Berg would be used as a down payment at closing rather than any proposal by Berg (or O'Connor) to post $500 or other amount of cash earnest money deposit upon the offering of the contract. Respondent Berg genuinely believed that anything of value could be inserted into a contract to provide consideration and could serve as sufficient consideration therefor including his offer to pay to the buyer a part of the real estate commission he would be entitled to with regard to that transaction Neither Respondents Berg nor O'Connor made any representations or statements, verbally or written, to Louis Knetter or Emanuel Consalvo to the effect that there ever was an earnest money deposit in any amount posted by the purchaser Berg, or on account at O'Connor Realty. Kevin O'Connor, the son of Respondent O'Connor, is also a licensed real estate broker who holds a degree in the field of real estate. He established that the textbook practice and indeed, the general real estate industry custom or practice in the Charlotte County area allows for anything of value to be used as consideration for a real estate contract and that a cash earnest money deposit is not necessary. He established the industry practice with regard to the posting of earnest money deposits for real estate sales contracts and demonstrated that unless a contract, by its terms, clearly indicates that an earnest money deposit has been posted, there is no basis for a seller or his agent to assume that to be the case. Kevin O'Connor, a witness for the Respondents, had personal contact with the seller's agent, Emanuel Consalvo, regarding the transaction and established that the Respondent Edward M. O'Connor was not even in his office or in the area during the time of the contract proposal or offer. Kevin O'Connor was operating the office in the Respondent Edward O'Connor's absence. Kevin 0'Connor established that the question of an earnest money deposit was never discussed with Consalvo and that neither Consalvo nor Knetter ever raised a question during the pendency of the transaction concerning the existence of an earnest money deposit. Kevin O'Connor never told Consalvo that any money was in escrow nor did Respondent Berg or Edward O'Connor. No representation was ever made to Consalvo or Knetter, singly or jointly, to the effect that any money had been placed on deposit or in escrow with regard to either of the two offers. Indeed, Mr. Consalvo acknowledged that no one at 0'Connor Realty ever told him of any money being placed in an escrow account. The transaction ultimately failed to close because the seller failed to include all the furniture with the home as required by the contract. At that juncture, the seller demanded the supposed $500 earnest money deposit to be paid him as a forfeiture on the mistaken belief that an earnest money deposit had been posted with regard to the transaction. Such was not the case however, nor was it ever represented to be the case.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the complaint filed by Petitioner against Respondents William Berg and Edward M. 0'Connor t/a O'Connor Realty, be DISMISSED in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of February, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 5th day of February, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-0180 PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented in itself. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. RESPONDENT EDWARD O'CONNOR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Accepted. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. RESPONDENT WILLIAM BERG'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Elwood P. Safron, Esquire SAFRON, RODNEY & DZUPAK 306 E. Olympia Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Jesus Hevia, Esquire WOTITZKY, WOTITZKY, WILKINS, FROHLICH & JONES 201 West Marion Avenue Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a real estate broker should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the amended administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Yolanda Jean Ramsey, was a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0012364 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). When the events herein occurred, respondent operated a real estate firm under the name of Ramsey Realty located at 19940 Gulf Boulevard, Indian Shores, Florida. Her husband, Drew Ramsey, was a condominium developer but he was not a licensed realtor. Sandra A. Hawley (Hawley) was a licensed salesperson for Ramsey Realty from April 1981 until she was terminated by respondent on January 6, 1982. She was employed by respondent pursuant to an oral agreement and was to receive a 3% commission on all closed sales. This description of Hawley's compensation arrangement was not contradicted by respondent. Drew Ramsey was then developing several condominium projects in Pinellas County, and Hawley's sales activities were focused on the sale of those condominiums through Ramsey Realty. Hawley was described by respondent as being the best salesperson in the firm. From April 1981 through December 1981, Hawley recalled that her W-2 statement reflected $76,000 in commissions actually received. By the time she was terminated, Hawley represented that she had either closed on units or had firm contracts on other units to earn an additional $279,000 in commissions. Although respondent did not agree she owed Hawley any money due to various setoffs, the $279,000 figure was not credibly contradicted, particularly since respondent's records relating to those sales were allegedly destroyed or lost by respondent at about the time certain civil litigation was begun by Hawley. On January 6, 1982, respondent was terminated by respondent for cause. According to respondent, Hawley was delinquent in making payments to her husband for several condominium units Hawley had bought for investment purposes, and on one occasion, Hawley had not turned over to Ramsey Realty a deposit on a resale of a unit. She was also accused of bouncing checks. After she left Ramsey Realty, Hawley made demand for commissions still owed. Between January and June 1982 she was paid approximately $40,000 by respondent but received nothing after that. She eventually sued respondent in circuit court for the unpaid commissions and obtained a final judgment against respondent on December 10, 1987 for $76,000 plus interest, or a total of $118,618.88. To date, Hawley has been unable to obtain payment of the judgment. At hearing respondent acknowledged that a judgment pertaining to Hawley's unpaid commissions was entered against her and that no appeal of that judgment was taken. According to Ramsey, she has refused to pay Hawley based upon her attorney's advice. Respondent's principal defense against paying the commissions is that Hawley allegedly owes her and her husband substantial amounts of money which offset the earned commissions. Testimony at hearing revealed that these matters have been the subject of extensive and lengthy civil litigation between Hawley and the Ramseys. Hawley represented that she has prevailed in all court actions, and this was not contradicted by respondent. However, none of the judgments and mandates (if an appeal was taken) were made a part of this record. The principal offset relates to a lease-purchase agreement entered into by Hawley and her son, James Monette, Jr., and Drew Ramsey in June 1981 whereby Hawley and her son agreed to lease, with an option to purchase, a restaurant/bar known as The End Zone located on Dale Mabry Avenue in Tampa, Florida. On June 18, 1981 Hawley and her son executed a promissory note in the amount of $170,000 payable to Drew Ramsey and to be secured "by an assignment of commissions of even date herewith". The note also provided that "certain commissions earned by Sandra A. Hawley as a real estate salesperson for Ramsey Realty ... shall be applied as prepayments on account hereof." This was confirmed in a letter sent by Hawley to respondent on June 18, 1981. The letter authorized Ramsey to "pay one-half of all commissions which I have earned or will earn from working as a real estate person for Ramsey Realty to Drew Ramsey on account of the indebtedness under the Note until it is paid in full." The letter further provided that if Drew felt "insecure" about the note, Yolanda was authorized to "assign such greater percentage of (her) commissions to Drew Ramsey on account of the indebtedness until it is paid in full." Hawley admitted signing the promissory note but pointed out that she had earned enough commissions to easily pay off the note. She contended that the transaction was a ploy to allow Ramsey to retain all of her commissions and thereby deprive her of adequate capital to successfully operate the restaurant. Hawley further asserted that the transaction was later declared null and void in one of the civil actions between the parties because of certain fraudulent representations made by Drew in inducing her to enter into the agreement. However, the final judgment, which is the best evidence of the outcome of the suit, is not of record. On October 1, 1981, an agreement and promissory note was executed by Hawley wherein she promised to pay Drew Ramsey and his partner, George Karpay, $58,162.90 plus 18% interest for monthly payments owed Ramsey and Karpay on five condominium units Hawley had previously purchased from them. The note was secured by Hawley's commissions earned at Ramsey Realty. Hawley acknowledged that the signature on the documents was her own but contended that the documents had been altered after she signed them. On October 1, 1981, Hawley also executed an assignment of commissions whereby she agreed to authorize Ramsey Realty to disburse all commissions earned to Drew Ramsey and Karpay until the promissory note described in finding of fact 9 was satisfied. Again, Hawley acknowledged that the signature appeared to be her own but she contended the document was altered after it was signed. According to respondent, the commissions earned by Hawley were not held in the firm's escrow account. Instead, while Hawley was still an employee, such moneys were disbursed by the title company at closing directly to Ramsey Realty, and then Ramsey wrote a check to Hawley as commission compensation. After Hawley was terminated, the manner in which Ramsey received Hawley's earned commissions and their subsequent disposition are not of record. However, respondent represented, without contradiction, that they were not held in the firm's escrow account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating subsection 475.25(1)(d) and that her broker's license be suspended for three years. The other charge should be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 14th day of December, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Jan Tomas is and was at all times pertinent hereto the holder of real estate broker registration certificate No. 0089450 from the Florida Real Estate Commission. The pleadings in this case show that on April 21, 1976, a Notice of Hearing was mailed to Jan Tomas by the Florida Real Estate Commission at two addresses; the first being Post Office Box 10887, Tampa, Florida 33609 and the second address being 364 Candler Park Drive, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30307. This Notice of Hearing was for hearing to be held on May 19, 1976, the date of the final hearing herein. This Notice was received by Jan Tomas as evidenced by the letter marked Exhibit 6 to Delphene C. Strickland, the then assigned Hearing Officer in this cause. On March 22, 1974, Jan Tomas applied for renewal of his certificate of registration as an active real estate broker. In his application he listed his business address and residence address as 417 A E Hanlon Street, Tampa, Florida 33604. Tomas was issued renewal certificate No. 099351 at the foregoing address which certificate expired September 30, 1975. By application dated February 7, 1975, Jan Tomas applied for a renewal of his active broker registration certificate setting forth his business and residence address as 105 South Hale, Tampa, Florida 33609. Pursuant to that application he was issued renewal certificate No. 207246 at the foregoing address which certificate expired September 30, 1975. At no time during 1974 or 1975 did Jan Tomas occupy the premises located at 417 A E Hanlon Street, Tampa, Florida either in a business capacity or in a residential capacity. Throughout 1974 and 1975, 105 South Hale, Tampa, Florida was a vacant lot. At no time during 1974 or 1975 did Jan Tomas maintain a business or residence at 105 South Hale, Tampa, Florida. Nor, during 1974 or 1975 did Jan Tomas maintain a business or residence at 103, 104 or 107 South Hale, Tampa, Florida.
The Issue Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined based upon the allegations that Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined based upon the allegation that Respondent is guilty of failure to account and deliver funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined based upon the allegation that Respondent is guilty of failure to maintain trust funds in a real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.005(1)(k), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Leslie L. White is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0095441 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to the Respondent was as a broker with an address of Les White Realty, 6313 Wynglow Lane, Orlando, Florida, 32818-1311. Respondent's license is currently under suspension for failing to pay a fine and failure to complete certain education courses. On or about September 28, 1993, Respondent negotiated a contract between himself, doing business as Les White Enterprises, as seller, and Charles and Greta White, as buyers, (no apparent relationship to Respondent) to purchase Lot Number 18, Whisper Ridge subdivision in Orange County, Florida and build a house thereon for the total sum of $79,000. Respondent prepared the contract, using the standard Contract for Sale and Purchase form approved by the Florida Association of Realtors and The Florida Bar. Les White Enterprises was listed as the "Seller" and Charles White and Greta White, his wife, were listed as "Buyers". The Buyers agreed to purchase Lot 18 and to have a house constructed on the site by the Seller. The Buyers agreed to seek "new financing at prevailing interest rates" in the amount of $75,550; put down a $2,000 deposit and pay an additional $1,450 at closing. The contract called for the deposit to be held in escrow by Les White Realty/Builders. The $2,000 deposit was paid in cash by the Buyers and given to Respondent. The Respondent did not place the $2,000 deposit in an escrow account contrary to the express terms of the contract. Respondent did not acknowledge receipt of the deposit in his capacity as a broker. At the time the contract was signed, the Buyers knew that the Respondent did not own or have title to Lot 18, and that the purchase price of the lot exceed the amount of the deposit. The Buyers consented to the Respondent using the funds to acquire the property. Respondent was unable to purchase Lot 18, and sought the Buyers' permission to purchase Lot 2 instead and construct a house on it in accordance with the parties' prior agreement. The Buyers reluctantly agreed. On February 18, 1994, Buyers gave Respondent a cashier's check for $1,200 for the purpose of clearing the land and beginning construction of a home for them on Lot 2. The funds were not placed in escrow. The Respondent utilized the funds received from the Buyers and acquired title to Lot 2 in his name alone on or about February 25, 1994. The Respondent cleared Lot 2 in preparation for construction, obtained building plans and applied for building permits in connection with building a house on said lot. Shortly thereafter, Respondent notified the Buyers that the private investors, who approved their loan application, had discontinued financing of the Respondent's construction loan and he was unable to construct the house. The transaction failed to close and the Buyers demanded that Respondent return the earnest money deposit. Respondent was unable to return to return the $3,200 earnest money deposit to the Buyers. Respondent filed for personal reorganization under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Throughout the course of this transaction, Buyers dealt with Respondent in his capacity as a broker/builder. In 1994 and 1995, the Florida Real Estate Commission found Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(b) and (1)(d)1., Florida Statutes on three occasions. Following the third offense, Respondent's license was suspended for six months and it is presently under suspension for failure to pay his administrative fines and complete other requirements of probation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue and file a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (d)1., and (k), Florida Statutes; and guilty of having been found guilty for a second time (or more) of misconduct that warrants suspension, in violation of subsection 475.25.(1)(o), Florida Statutes; it is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's licensed be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Gillis and Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Nelye Bunch, is a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0315615. The Respondent, AA Real Estate, Inc., of Kissimmee, is a licensed corporate real estate broker, having been issued license number 0214153. In December of 1980, Grace Makuch, a licensed real estate salesperson, entered into an employment agreement with the Respondents, whereby Grace Makuch became employed as a real estate salesperson in the brokerage office of the Respondents. Pursuant to this employment, Grace Makuch and the Respondents entered into an oral agreement in which Grace Makuch would be compensated by receiving 60 percent of the selling broker's commission on every real estate sale she brought into the office. On or about March 6, 1981, Grace Makuch negotiated a contract for the sale of real property on Nova Road in Osceola County, Florida, between Earl Croft and his wife, as sellers, and Larry Henninger, as buyer, for $96,200. This transaction closed in April of 1981. The Respondents received the real estate commission due, in the amount of $4,810, and paid Grace Makuch $1,154.40. Under the employment agreement, Grace Makuch should have been paid $2,886. Demand for the balance due of $1,731.60 has been made by Grace Makuch and her attorney, but nothing further has been paid by the Respondents. In February of 1981, Grace Makuch negotiated a contract for the sale of real property on Donegan Avenue in Kissimmee, Florida, between Michael F. Sweeney, Trustee, as seller, and Dominick Tattoli and his wife, as buyers, for $115,000. This transaction closed in May of 1981. The Respondents received the real estate commission due, in the amount of $5,000 and tendered to Grace Makuch a check for $250. Under the employment agreement, Grace Makuch should have been paid $3,000; thus, she refused to accept the check for $250. Demand for the full amount of her share of the commission on this transaction in the amount of $3,000 has been made by Grace Makuch and her attorney, but nothing has been paid by the Respondents.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number 0315615 held by Nelye Bunch, be revoked. It is further RECOMMENDED that license number 0214153 held by AA Real Estate, Inc., of Kissimmee, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 8 day of October, 1982, 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 8 day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida Richard H. Hyatt, Esquire 918 North Main Street Kissimmee, Florida 32741
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
