The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, a licensed Florida real estate sales associate, violated provisions of Subsections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d)1., 475.25(1)(e), 475.42(1)(b), and 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (the Department), is the state agency responsible for licensing and monitoring real estate sales associates within the state. It is charged also with the duty to prosecute administrative complaints for violations of the law by real estate sales associates. Respondent, Caroline Mohan (Ms. Mohan), is a licensed real estate sales associate who holds License No. 3087231. She was registered as a sales associate with Coral Shores Realty (Coral Shores) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, from September 12, 2005, to March 28, 2008. At all times relevant to the charges against her, Ms. Mohan was the Coral Shores sales associate who was the listing agent for Anthony Mannarino, the seller of property located at 10530 Versailles Boulevard, Wellington, Florida (the "subject property"). At closing, Coral Shores was to have received at 2.5 percent commission and pay a portion of the commission to Ms. Mohan. Dawn Campbell and Garth Smith (the buyers) entered into a Residential Sale and Purchase Contract (the Contract) to purchase the subject property from Mr. Mannarino. Pursuant to the contract, the buyers were to deposit $10,000 in an escrow account in two $5,000 installments. The Contract was signed on or about March 12, 2007. The transactions took place electronically and Mr. Smith sent Ms. Mohan a photocopy of a $5,000 check that he was supposed to have deposited, under the terms of the contract, in the account of Closings Unlimited Title Company (Closings Unlimited), but he never sent the check to Closings Unlimited. The seller asked Ms. Mohan to have the buyer use a different escrow agent, Southeast Land Title (Southeast), and so the buyer wired $5,000.00 to Southeast, but the Contract was not amended to reflect the name of the new escrow agent. A $5,000 deposit was sent to Southeast by the buyers, but they never paid the $5,000 balance due on the deposit. Mr. Smith testified the he could not make the second payment because he gave $5,000 in cash to an employee to deposit in his account so that he could make a wire transfer, but the employee took the money. On April 3, 2007, Southeast faxed a notice to Coral Shores, with an attached letter to the buyers, informing them of its intention to respond to a demand (presumably by the seller) to release the $5,000 held in escrow related to the subject property. As a result of a complaint filed by Dorothy Hoyt, a representative of Southeast, the matter was investigated and an Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Ms. Mohan personally received funds, fraudulently failed to account for those funds, and acted, without the proper license, as a broker by accepting the deposit. The Department's investigator testified that he was never able to determine if the escrow deposit was deposited at any bank, lending institution or with Dorothy Hoyt of Southeast Land Title of Boca Raton. He "believe[s] there was a wire for one deposit made, but [he] did not receive confirmation of that." Regarding his conversations with Ms. Hoyt, the investigator reported "she did state that . . . she had received - eventually received $5,000.00 and was still waiting [for] another $5,000.00 in order to have the full $10,000.00 deposit." In his report, the Department's investigator claimed that Respondent was terminated from employment by her Coral Shores broker, Ronald Cika, as a result of her misconduct in handling transactions related to the subject property. That claim was contradicted by Mr. Cika and by Ms. Mohan. Their testimony was supported by the contents of e-mails between his office and Respondent that show that she became inactive as a realtor while traveling overseas with an offer to reactivate with the same broker upon her return. Mr. Cika testified that he is aware of a lawsuit filed by Dawn Campbell related to a different address on the same street, 10526 Versailles Boulevard, but that he is not aware of any issues related to 10530 Versailles Boulevard, the subject property. Jannet Rodriguez, owner of Closings Unlimited, testified that she was never contacted and never opened a file to serve as either an escrow or closing agent for the subject property at 10530 Versailles Boulevard. She, too, is involved only in issues related to 10526 Versailles Boulevard.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, dismissing the complaint against Respondent, Caroline Mohan. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Shaughnessy is a licensed real estate broker in Florida, holding license number 0079279 at all material times. He has been a real estate broker for 18 years. Respondents Conifer Consulting Group, Inc. and Conifer Realty Group, Inc. are corporations registered as real estate brokers, holding license numbers 0271201 and 0271202, respectively. In January 1992, Mr. Shaughnessy answered a want ad seeking a sales manager for single-family and condominium sales for Respondent Conifer Consulting Group, Inc. Mr. Shaughnessy received an interview with Scott Spence, the minority owner of both Conifer corporations. Following a successful interview, Mr. Shaughnessy interviewed with Bruce Houran, the majority owner of the Conifer corporations. Mr. Spence was the marketing director of the Conifer corporations. A civil engineer, Mr. Houran had provided the money for the businesses and relied on Mr. Spence's expertise in a wide variety of business matters, including the real estate operations. Following a successful interview with Mr. Houran, Mr. Shaughnessy had a final interview with Mr. Spence and Mr. Houran. At the conclusion of the third interview, the three men agreed that Mr. Shaughnessy would join the Conifer corporations as a sales manager, devoting his efforts to managing the sole salesperson working for the Conifer corporations at Bocilla Island Club in Bokeelia. In return for his efforts, the Conifer corporations agreed to pay Mr. Shaughnessy the sum of $350 weekly plus certain expenses. During the course of the interviews, Mr. Shaughnessy mentioned that he was a licensed real estate broker. The Conifer corporations were employing Ms. McClaran as their registered broker, but she had in reality only lent her license to the Conifer corporations in return for a portion of the sales and rental commissions. Following the interviews, and outside the presence of Mr. Shaughnessy, Mr. Houran expressed interest to Mr. Spence in replacing Ms. McClaran with Mr. Shaughnessy. Pursuant to this plan, Mr. Houran sent a letter to Ms. McClaran, with a copy to Mr. Spence but not Mr. Shaughnessy, terminating her employment with the Conifer corporations. The letter states that they have hired Mr. Shaughnessy as a "sales manager with a Broker's license" and adds that he will be providing his license to the Conifer corporations. Pursuant to the employment contract with Ms. McClaran, the letter gives her 90 days' notice, and she continued to earn commissions on sales contracts executed during that time. Unfortunately, no one told Mr. Shaughnessy that he was the new broker for the Conifer groups. Ms. McClaran's name continued to appear on the door to the real estate offices, even after the 90 days had expired. The Conifer corporations never had business cards printed up showing Mr. Shaughnessy as the broker, nor did Mr. Shaughnessy or anyone else hold Mr. Shaughnessy out as the broker for the companies. In late October 1992, the Conifer real estate salesperson contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission to inquire as to the status of her pending application to become a broker. She learned that the Conifer corporations were no longer properly licensed, as their license had expired in March 1992. The salesperson contacted Mr. Houran and told him about what she had learned. Mr. Houran called Mr. Shaughnessy and informed him of the licensing situation. Mr. Shaughnessy immediately began the process of placing his broker's license with Conifer Realty Group, Inc. (Mr. Houran decided not to continue to involve Conifer Consulting Group, Inc. in real estate activities.) Mr. Houran appointed Mr. Shaughnessy as an officer of Conifer Realty Group, Inc. on October 23, 1994. On November 4, 1992, Mr. Shaughnessy filed with Petitioner a Request for Change of Status to effect the necessary change. Only when Mr. Shaughnessy filed the paperwork with Petitioner did his rate of compensation change. His old pay rate of $350 weekly was replaced by a new arrangement in which he received an equity interest in future developments created by either Conifer corporation. In late October or early November 1992, Mr. Shaughnessy also began the process of creating an escrow account for Conifer Realty Group, Inc. Previously, all escrow monies had been deposited in the general operating account of the corporation. No one performed monthly reconciliations of escrow monies, although no monies were ever lost. Working as quickly as possible to transfer sales and rental escrow monies into the new account, Mr. Shaughnessy received the first bank statement for the account around December 6, 1992, performed the required reconciliation, and determined that the escrow account was in good order and balanced. By the time of an inspection from one of Petitioner's investigators on December 4, 1992, there was no sign on the door of the real estate office at Bocilla Island Club. However, at that time, neither Conifer corporation had any relationship with the developer of the units, nor was either Conifer corporation conducting business of any sort out of this office. The salesperson who had discovered the problem had resigned, had formed a new company, had assumed Conifer's responsibilities for sales and rentals, and was using the old office at the Bocilla Island Club. Until the time of the filing with Petitioner in November, Mr. Shaughnessy was never aware, nor could he have reasonably been aware, that his broker's license was to be used to qualify the Conifer corporations. Communications had broken down between Mr. Houran and Mr. Spence or Mr. Spence and Mr. Shaughnessy. In any event, Mr. Shaughnessy never agreed to place his license with either Conifer corporation until October 1992. At all material times during which Mr. Shaughnessy's broker's license was placed with the Conifer corporations, the escrow account was maintained and properly reconciled. There is no evidence that the signage was improper at anytime, except possibly in connection with the real estate office operated by the former salesperson. However, the Conifer corporations are liable for the substantial period of time during which they operated without an escrow account. Although no money was lost or unaccounted for, management's casual attitude toward serious legal responsibilities is manifest in the sloppy way that the Conifer companies handled the transition between brokers and the improper relationship that they earlier maintained with Ms. McClaran. As a result of her involvement in the matter, Ms. McClaran, who was an inexperienced broker and personal friend of Mr. Spence, had her broker's license suspended for 90 days. It is a matter of some mitigation that Mr. Spence is no longer involved with either Conifer corporation and that Mr. Houran reasonably expected that his noninvesting co-owner would provide something of value to the companies--namely, his expertise in real estate matters, including licensing. The absence of injury to the public, although irrelevant to the issue of liability, is another factor in mitigation, as is the quick action taken by the corporations, through Mr. Shaughnessy and at Mr. Houran's direction, to correct the situation as soon as it was brought to their attention.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against William P. Shaughnessy; finding Conifer Realty Group, Inc. and Conifer Consulting Group, Inc. guilty of failing to maintain an escrow account and operating as a broker without holding a valid and current license as a broker; imposing an administrative fine of $4000 against the Conifer companies, jointly and severally; and issuing a reprimand against both companies. ENTERED on April 20, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on April 20, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 10-12: adopted or adopted in substance. 13: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and subordinate except for fact that there was no escrow account, which is adopted. 14-15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16: to the extent of implication that the office was that of a Respondent, rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-8 and 10: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: the state of mind of Respondents, as well as their degree of culpability, has been addressed in the recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Steven W. Johnson BPR, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street N308 Orlando, Florida 32802 Leonard P. Reina Forsyth, Brugger 600 Fifth Avenue, South #210 Naples, Florida 33940
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state governmental licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints filed pursuant to the laws of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. (Official recognition taken of Section 20.30, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes). Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate salesman in Florida having been issued license No. 0199126 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued Respondent was as a non-active salesman with a home address of 6312 Balboa Lane, Apollo Beach, Florida 33570. During times material, Respondent was the owner and sole stockholder of Computer Real Estate Sales, Inc. During times material, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman in association with Computer Real Estate Sales, Inc. located at 600 West Jefferson Street, Brooksville, Florida 33512. During early March, 1986, Respondent caused to be ordered a termite treatment to be performed in March, 1986 on property owned by Richard E. Atkinson (Atkinson) located at 21476 Chadfield Street in Brooksville. The subject property treated for termites was being managed by Respondent through his company, Computer Real Estate, Inc. Respondent was previously the owner of that property as well as four other rental properties that he sold to Atkinson. Respondent caused the property management account of Atkinson to be debited by the sum of $380.00 to pay for the termite treatment performed by Bray's Pest Control (Bray's). (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Respondent failed to pay the $380.00 to Bray's for the termite treatment nor did he later credit Atkinson's property management account when he failed to pay Bray's for the termite treatment. To collect payment for the termite treatment, Bray's was forced to file a civil complaint against Respondent in county court, Hernando County. On February 25, 1987, a final judgment was entered against Respondent in the amount of $391.40 plus costs of $36.00 and interest computed at the rate of 12% from March, 1986 until paid. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5). Subsequent to entry of the judgment and despite Bray's efforts to collect the award, Respondent failed and refused to satisfy the final judgment until an initial payment was made on March 5, 1989 and the balance due was paid on July 13, 1989. Respondent's contention at hearing that he was simply stockholder and not liable for the obligations of Computer Real Estate Sales, Inc., was rejected based on a review of pleadings filed which indicated that he was sole stockholder during times material and that several contractors relied upon his representation, as owner of Computer Real Estate Services, Inc., to make payments for debts and obligations incurred by that company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is RECOMMENDED: The Petitioner enter a final order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 payable to the Florida Real Estate Commission within 30 days of the entry of the final order herein or Respondent's real estate license shall be revoked. In the event that Respondent pays the above referred $1,000.00 fine to Petitioner within 30 days of entry of the final order herein, Respondent's real estate license No. 019916 be placed on probation for a period of (1) one year. 2/ DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 5th day of December, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Charles Vincent Suter (Suter), is a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0502107 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed as a salesman for Tom Roderick Realty, 2440 Palm Ridge Road, Sanibel, Florida. He has been licensed as a salesman since September 1987. Through a mutual friend, Mary Jane Briney, Suter was introduced in 1988 to Norma Winkler, a resident of Indianapolis, Indiana, who occasionally visited Sanibel Island near Fort Myers on vacation during the winter months. Winkler was interested in renting a three bedroom condominium on the beach in January and February 1989. Briney recommended to Winkler that she rent a unit at an apartment/condominium complex known as Janthinia located on Sanibel Island and that she use respondent as her rental agent. Relying on Briney's recommendation, Winkler agreed to rent the unit and telephoned Suter in September 1988 and requested that he make reservations for her. Although Suter did not normally handle rental transactions, he agreed to assist Winkler and thereafter made reservations with Executive Services, Inc. (ESI), a corporation which managed various units in the Sanibel area including Janthinia. On September 21, 1988, Suter sent Winkler a letter confirming her reservations for Unit 2A at Janthinia with an arrival date of January 26, 1989 and a departure date of February 23, 1989. The total rent, including tax, was $7,091.23. Suter also advised Winkler that she needed to furnish a 10% deposit, or $709.12, within ten days to secure the reservation. On September 30, 1989, Winkler sent a check in the amount of $709.23 made payable to Tom Roderick Realty. The check was deposited into the firm's escrow account the same day. On October 4, 1989, the realty company issued a check in the same amount to ESI as a reservation deposit for Winkler. After the deposit was forwarded to the real estate firm, Winkler changed her date of arrival in Florida from January 26 to January 20 but kept her date of departure the same. On December 9, 1989, ESI confirmed Winkler's reservation for those dates and sent a 10% commission to the realty company. The rental fee was shown as $8,395.42 less the deposit, or a total amount still due of $7,686.30. On January 30, 1989, Suter was paid $352.75 as his share of the commission. Approximately a week before her scheduled arrival, Suter telephoned Winkler and advised her the total amount due was $8,686.30, or $1,000 more than was reflected on ESI's statement. However, Winkler had requested that Suter furnish her with a VCR, liquor, piano and other items so Suter estimated the total bill would be approximately $1,000 greater than the rent still due. On January 20, 1989, Winkler, her sister, niece and a neighbor flew from Indianapolis to Fort Myers. They were met at the airport by Suter and two mutual friends. That same morning, and before Winkler arrived, Suter received by mail Winkler's check in the amount of $8,686.30. When Suter received Winkler's check, he immediately deposited it in his own checking account and not the firm's account. The check was made out to Suter, and not the realty firm, since Winkler had suggested that she make it out in that manner. Upon depositing the check, Suter immediately asked the bank to verify if it was good, and after receiving assurances that it was, he went across the street and wrote a $7,686.30 check to ESI to pay for Winkler's rent. When Winkler, Suter and other members of the group reached Janthinia, Suter advised Winkler that he owed her a refund. Winkler told him not to worry, that she would settle up later. She then had Suter purchase a quantity of liquor and obtain a VCR for her apartment. During one of the social gatherings attended by Winkler and Suter a few weeks later, the two had a falling out. At that point, Winkler telephoned Suter's broker and told him she was due money from Suter. On February 7, the broker confronted Suter around 4:00 p.m. regarding Winkler's allegation. Suter readily acknowledged that Winkler still had money due and that he would immediately pay her. He also acknowledged that the money had been placed in his own bank account rather than the broker's escrow account. Although Suter volunteered to hand carry a check to Winkler that afternoon, she insisted he pay it to the broker who would then write her a check. Suter did so within the hour and Winkler later received a check for $1,000 from the real estate firm. The broker then made an inquiry with the Division concerning Suter's actions, and upon advice from a Division attorney, filed a complaint against Suter. Winkler was described by a longtime friend as a 1,dangerous person", a "troublemaker", and someone who had caused problems for many persons over the years with various types of accusations, most of which were unfounded. Suter denied that he knew it was unlawful to deposit the rent check in his personal account since he considered the transaction as a favor for a friend. He blamed the entire episode on Winkler who became mad at him for paying too much attention to a young widow, and not Winkler, at a dinner party in early February 1989. There was no intent on the part of Suter to use the deposited funds in an illicit manner or to defraud his broker and Winkler. Even so, Winkler's check should have been deposited in the broker's escrow account. There is no evidence that Suter has ever been disciplined by the Division on any prior occasion. Further, Suter's initial reluctance to give a statement to an investigator was founded on the valid reason that he first wished to consult an attorney.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as charged in Counts II, III, and IV of the administrative complaint and that Count I be dismissed with prejudice. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent be given a $500 fine to be paid within thirty days from date of order. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner: 1-3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 5-6. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. Partially adopted in findings of fact 6 and 8. 9-10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 11. Rejected as being unnecessary. 12-13. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. 14. Partially adopted in findings of fact 7 and 8. 15-16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. 17-18. Partially adopted in finding of fact 12. 19-21. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. Respondent: 1-2. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. Partially adopted in findings of fact 2 and 3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. Partially adopted in findings of fact 5 and 6. 8-9. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 10-11. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. Partially adopted in finding of fact 9. 14-15. Rejected as being unnecessary. 16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. Note - Where findings have been partially used, the remainder has been rejected as being cumulative, unnecessary, subordinate, irrelevant or not supported by the more credible and persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Jerrold S. Stern, Esquire P. O. Box 112 Sanibel, FL 33957 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Darlene Keller, Executive Director Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Testimony elicited during the course of the hearing established that beginning in April of 1975, Respondent Clark showed prospective tenants various condominiums that were either for sale or lease and that he received commissions for the annual rentals of the apartments in which he was successful in renting. (See for example Commission's Exhibits 8, 9 and 10, offered and received into evidence without objection). On or about May 3, 1975, John Gill, a broker that had been associated with Dale W. Johnson Realty Corporation as a broker was notified by letter that his association with Johnson Realty Corporation was terminated as of the effective date of that letter. He was further advised to return all keys etc. to the front office and that the Commission would be notified by mail on May 5, 1975, that his association was terminated. (See Commission's Exhibit #6, received into evidence). Documents received into evidence established that Respondent Clark was associated with Global Properties Inc., of North Palm Beach at least during the period of September, 1974 through March, 1976, which of course are the same periods during which he was associated with Dale W. Johnson Realty Inc. At no time did Respondent Clark notify the Commission that he was associated with Dale W. Johnson Realty Corporation as either a broker or a salesman. Edwin J. Nelson, a broker associated with the firm Global Property Sales, Inc., testified that Respondent Clark was employed by Global as a salesman and was so employed during times material to the allegations in the administrative complaint filed herein. He testified further that while there were meetings wherein brokers and salesmen advised other brokers and those in charge at Global of their brokerage activities, Respondent Clark never advised that he had any activities with Kingman Acres, which was the condominium development in which evidence reveals that Respondent Clark showed prospective tenants condominiums for lease and/or sale. He testified that while at times there are co-brokerage agreements with various realty corporations, there was never any co-brokerage agreement with Dale W. Johnson Realty, Inc. Additionally, he testified that he had no knowledge of Respondent Clark's association in any manner with Kingman Acres or Dale W. Johnson Realty, Inc. Respondent Clark testified that he was hired by Dale W. Johnson to research the feasibility of establishing a sales program to sell condominiums at Kingman Acres and that should a feasible program develop, an agreement would be entered between the parties to set up an office to sell condominium units to prospects. He testified that the study was undertaken based on the sagging sales at Kingman Acres. An examination of the notations on checks introduced into evidence revealed that Respondent Clark was paid commissions for securing options and leases from prospective purchasers who executed options to purchase and lease agreements. Respondent Clark's explanation that notations on checks issued him represented amounts that were commissions from rentals of apartments were simply bookkeeping entries is regarded as unpersuasive and his testimony in that respect is therefore discredited. Based on his admission that he showed condominiums to persons interested in the sale and lease of such, I find that the checks were payments for commissions as noted thereon. Respecting a letter dated April 1, 1975, which in essence stated that Respondent Clark was authorized by his broker Edwin J. Nelson, of Global Property Sales, Inc., to research the feasibility of establishing a sales program at Kingman Acres is disputed by Nelson's own testimony that he had no knowledge whatsoever of Respondent Clark's association with Dale W. Johnson Realty, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law I recommend: That the registration of Dale W. Johnson be suspended for one year. That the registration of Respondent Robert V. Clark be suspended for one year. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of January, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert V. Clark Dale W. Johnson Realtek Real Estate Inc. Miles Grant Realty Corporation 1620 U.S. 1 5111 Southeast Miles Grant Road Jupiter, Florida 33458 Stuart, Florida 33494 Dave Womack, Esquire Stephen C. Frasier, Esquire Post Office Box 3009 310 Denver Avenue Tequesta, Florida Post Office Box 2210 Stuart, Florida Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, An Agency of the State of Florida, Petitioner, PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 2827 MARTIN COUNTY vs. DOAH CASE NO. 76-1584 DALE W. JOHNSON and ROBERT V. CLARK, Respondents. /
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in this case, Respondent was a Florida licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license numbered 0376339. Respondent had been employed by American Specialty Properties (ASP) for several years as an expediter prior to being assigned to Tampa, Florida. As an expediter, his duties were to take over stagnated operations of his employer and take whatever action was necessary to clear blockages and bring the operation to a successful conclusion. Respondent came to Tampa to resolve difficulties his employer, ASP, was encountering in regard to certain properties it had contracted to purchase at the Mission Bell Square shopping center being developed in Tampa by K-Mart Corporation. ASP wanted to build on the out-lots and lease the properties to various selected tenants. However, numerous legal and technical problems had come up that delayed the projects, and Respondent was to resolve those problems and get the structures erected and leased. It very soon became apparent to Respondent that his duties for ASP would not occupy all his time, so he secured the permission of Mark M. Mayers, president of ASP and Respondent's employer, to apply for a Florida real estate license and, once having secured it, to engage in outside employment to earn extra income. In furtherance of that plan, after becoming licensed as a real estate salesman, Respondent entered into an arrangement with Timothy Kerwin, president of Max Properties, Inc., in November, 1980, whereby Respondent's license would be registered with that firm, but no actual work would be done within that relationship by Respondent until some further date when Respondent was finished with his Mission Bell Square duties and room was available for him within the Max Properties organization. Kerwin says he does not recall knowing of Respondent's other employment with ASP until February, 1982, when he discovered that Respondent had been instrumental in the sale of the four out-lots at Mission Bell Square, which sale had not gone through Max Properties. He does admit, however, that Respondent may have discussed his work with ASP earlier than February, 1982, and in fact may have advised him that he, Respondent, still had work to do for ASP before he could do work for Kerwin. Kerwin did not, however, check with ASP to determine Respondent's status when he became aware of the possible conflict. When Kerwin found out about the closing of the sales on the Mission Bell Square out-lots, he questioned Respondent about them, and Respondent readily advised him that two lots had been closed and the remaining two were about to be closed. Respondent did bring about the sale of the four out-lots in question. At the time he did this, he was an employee of ASP and paid a regular salary of $2,000 per month plus expenses. A memorandum purportedly from Mr. Mayers dated March 25, 1982, to James W. Roberts, Jr., an independent real estate broker who-had done work on this property for ASP, indicates Respondent was to receive $1,250 commission for the sale of each of the four lots. However, Mr. Mayers indicated that he did not prepare the memorandum, did not sign it, and renounced it. In fact, Mr. Mayers' assistant, Tom Ferguson, in discussions with Mr. Roberts, indicated that notwithstanding the commissions mentioned in the memorandum, Respondent was paid only salary and expenses, and no commissions. I find, therefore, that Respondent did not receive any commission for these transactions nor, for that matter, at any time while he was an employee of ASP. The sale of the four lots was dictated by Respondent's employers at ASP, who, because of changed economic factors, made a business decision to dispose of the four properties rather than follow the prior plan of developing and leasing them. Respondent, in arranging the sales, was following the directions of his employers--not serving as a broker or salesman for commission. The sales were arranged through the offices of Mr. Roberts, and Respondent did not receive any commission out of these sales. He did, however, receive a bonus to his regular salary from ASP, his employer, as a reward for extricating his employer from a potentially unprofitable business arrangement. The negotiations for the sale, however, were conducted during the time Respondent's real estate license was registered with Max Properties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent in this action be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Stephen M. Crawford, Esquire Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A. Post Office Box 3433 Tampa, Florida 33601 William M. Furlow, Esquire 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 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether the Respondent's Florida real estate license should be disciplined because the Respondent was guilty of false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondent is guilty of operating Bellwether Developments, Inc. as a broker, without holding a valid license as a broker in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondent is guilty of failure to account or deliver a share of a commission in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. The Respondent, Joseph C. McAuliffe, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida. He was issued license number 0260690 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license was issued as a broker percentBellwether Realty, 526-A Emmett Street, Kissimmee, Florida 34741. On January 9, 1990, and August 9, 1990, Respondent in his own capacity and as the chairman and secretary of Bellwether Development, Inc. (not licensed) entered into written contracts to sell four lots to Jerry P. and Kimberly M. Wray. Pursuant to addendum II of the contracts and the agreement dated January 25, 1990, the Respondent agreed to resell the lots within one year at minimum prices of $16,000; provide the buyers with reimbursement for the total closing cost of $689.08 on three lots; and reimburse the buyers for the monthly payments and any other ordinary and necessary expenses related to the lots. Additionally, if no sale were made by Bellwether, the Respondents agreed to buy back the lots and to provide the buyers a 25 percent return on their investment. The Respondent breached the contracts and the January 25, 1990 agreement by failing to sell the lots or repurchase the lots in accordance with the written agreement. Afterward the buyers lost title to the lots as a result of actions in foreclosure. On February 26, 1992, the buyers filed a civil complaint against the Respondent and Bellwether Development, Inc. based, inter alia, on breach of contract, fraud, constructive fraud, and misrepresentation. On July 14, 1993, the Circuit Court in St. Lucie County entered a judgment against the Respondent individually and as an officer of Bellwether Development, Inc. for damages of $67,542.70. The Respondent has failed to satisfy the $67,542.70 judgment or to otherwise pay the money claimed by the buyers, and said debt remains outstanding. Beginning October, 1987 through January, 1989, the Respondent registered Bellwether Realty, Inc., Bellwether Management, Inc. and Bellwether Development, Inc. with the Secretary of State. On October 14, 1987, and on January 18, 1989, Respondent registered Bellwether Realty, Inc. and Bellwether Management, Inc. with the Petitioner. According to Petitioner's official records Respondent maintained a licensed office located at 526A Emmett Street, Kissimmee, F lorida for Bellwether Realty, Inc. and a licensed office located at 200 Albany Avenue, Stuart, Florida for Bellwether Management, Inc. On or about October 9, 1992, the Secretary of State involuntarily dissolved Bellwether Realty, Inc. and Bellwether Development, Inc. for failure to file an annual report. The Respondent was an officer of both corporations. The Respondent operated Bellwether Development, Inc. as a brokerage without a valid license. In late 1990, Annkarol Cemer was employed through Bellwether Realty, Inc. to solicit and negotiate sales contracts. On August 31, 1990, the Respondent, in dissolving that relationship, agreed to pay Annkarol Cemer $4,647.50 in real estate sales commission and $1,000 vacation pay by December 31, 1990. After December 31, 1990, Annkarol Cemer demanded the payment of the $4,647.50 in commissions owed and $1,000 in vacation pay. Respondent received and kept those commissions and refused to share the commission with Cemer. On February 25, 1993, Cemer obtained a Final Judgment in the County Court of St. Lucie County, Florida in the amount of $6,422.60 against Respondent individually and Bellwether. Said judgment remains outstanding.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the evidence of the record, including the contents of the several exhibits received into evidence, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of violating the aforementioned statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and that his real estate license be suspended for two years. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent McAuliffe be fined $1,000.00, payable within 30 days of the entry of a final order, and such other and further conditions as the Commission deems just and reasonable. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 15th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-17. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Florida Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Joseph C. McAuliffe, Jr. 3846 S.W. Savoy Drive Palm City, Florida 33990 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0702
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents' real estate licenses should be disciplined on the ground that Respondents violated a rule and various provisions within Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: When the events herein occurred, Respondents, Tracy Anne Hardman and Ruby Joyce Litton, were licensed as a real estate salesperson and broker, respectively, having been issued license numbers 0458811 and 0424762 by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Litton served as the qualifying broker/owner of Respondent, Carrabelle Realty, Inc., a corporation registered as a real estate broker and located at 104 West Highway 98, Carrabelle, Florida. The corporation holds license number 1008111, also issued by the Division. On December 14, 1995, Thomas E. Gavers, who resides in East Troy, Wisconsin, executed a contract offering to purchase a vacant lot on U. S. Highway 98 in Franklin County, Florida, from John M. Brannen for the price of $22,000.00. After a counteroffer was made by Brannen raising the price to $25,000.00, the contract was accepted by Gavers on January 6, 1996. It can be inferred from the evidence that Gavers was an experienced investor since he also owned "quite a bit of other property" in the county. The contract called for Gavers to pay $500.00 as an earnest money deposit, to be held in escrow by Respondents. The contract further provided that the transaction "shall be closed on or before Feb. 15, 1996, unless extended by adding an addendum to the contract." A special condition added by Gavers provided that the "contract [is] contingent on [the] lot being buildable and [the buyer] obtaining [a] permit to fill [the] lot and build [a] driveway." Finally, paragraph 17 of the contract provided in part that if the buyer "fails to perform any covenants of this contract within the time specified, all deposits shall be forfeited." Hardman was the seller's agent in the transaction. At some point in the process, but probably when the contract was signed, Gavers sent Hardman a note which asked her to "[c]heck to see if lot is buildable & permit is okayed to fill lot & build driveway before spending monies to [sic] survey & title ins." Although paragraph 16 of the contract clearly provided that this responsibility fell upon the buyer, Hardman undertook the process of assisting Gavers since he was then residing in Wisconsin, and her only means of communicating with him was by telephone or mail. In doing so, Hardman made clear that she would assist the buyer as much as possible, but it was the buyer's responsibility to actually secure the permits. Because of time constraints in attempting to secure the information necessary to satisfy the special condition, it was necessary for Gavers to extend the closing date to March 15, 1996. This was accomplished by an addendum to the contract executed by the parties around February 14, 1996. After expending a considerable amount of time and effort in assisting Gavers, Hardman eventually obtained most of the information pertaining to requirements for filling and building on the lot. She learned, however, that a permit would be required from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to fill the lot. Before that federal agency would even inspect the lot to see if it was permittable, it was necessary that the lot be surveyed. Based on the foregoing advice, Hardman ordered a survey for a cost of $150.00. The survey was performed on or about February 7, 1996. Although Respondents paid for the survey when it was performed, they were ultimately reimbursed for this expense from Gavers' deposit. Hardman did not advise Gavers in writing that a survey was being ordered; however, Litton believed that Gavers was notified of such action by telephone, and this assertion has been accepted. This testimony is especially credible since Gavers had just authorized Hardman to spend $85.00 to file a septic tank permit application with the County. In addition, notwithstanding the instructions in his note that Hardman was not to spend any money until a permit was actually obtained, Gavers subsequently told Hardman to "proceed" and "keep going" in her efforts to help him obtain a permit. Therefore, Hardman was not culpably negligent in ordering the survey, and she did not breach her trust in the transaction by doing so. After the property was inspected by the federal agency, Hardman learned that it would be necessary for Gavers to personally fill out a portion of the application for a permit showing the type of filling and construction he desired and to return it with a filing fee to the agency's Jacksonville office. Gavers obtained the necessary documentation for Gavers to complete, and she filled in a portion of the form. The packet was then mailed to Gavers on a date not of record, but probably before March 15, 1996, with instructions that he needed to complete the application in order to obtain a permit. Gavers claims that he "wasn't aware of" receiving it, but his testimony is not found to be credible. He declined to complete the application, which would have satisfied his contingency request and allowed the contract to close. From that point on, he also stopped communicating with Respondents. The time for closing the contract expired on March 15, 1996. Although Gavers had probably breached the contract by that date by failing to make any reasonable effort to satisfy the contingency, as required by paragraph 16 of the contract, he telephoned Hardman on an undisclosed date and asked that she obtain another extension of time. The seller agreed to a second extension, and a second addendum to the contract was eventually prepared and executed by the seller on April 29, 1996, which extended the closing date to May 31, 1996. The addendum was then faxed to Gavers for his signature. Although Gavers acknowledged receiving the document, he says he did not receive it "until it was about ran [sic] out," he did not want to make a decision on purchasing the property "that quick," and in any event, it was the realtors' responsibility, and not his, to obtain the permits. He declined to respond in any fashion to Respondents. During this same time period, Litton and Hardman repeatedly attempted to contact Gavers by telephone and mail, and in March, April, and May they left "numerous" telephone messages with Gavers' daughter at his Wisconsin home. Although Gavers says he returned every telephone call, his testimony is not deemed to be credible, and it is found that he failed to return any calls. He also claimed that he visited Florida sometime that spring and spoke to Hardman, and that she was pressuring him into making a decision. However, Respondents established that Gavers never returned to Florida to speak with them after the process began, and their testimony has been accepted on this issue. By this time, the seller's property had been tied up for many months, and Brannen had another buyer ready to purchase the property for $10,000.00 more than Gavers had offered. After hearing nothing from Gavers for months, despite continued efforts to contact him, in August 1996 Litton mailed Gavers a Release From Sales Contract, which provided that Gavers would "be released from Contract For Sale, dated 12-14-95," and that he understood that he would "forfeit any earnest money deposit [he] had given." Gavers acknowledged receiving this document, but like the other messages and packets of documents, he declined to respond in any fashion. According to Gavers, he had been "patiently" waiting for a return of his deposit, and that after receiving the release, he immediately filed a complaint with the Real Estate Commission (Commission) seeking a return of his money. However, it was established that his complaint was not filed until almost two years later. In addition, the evidence shows that Gavers never once requested that Respondents return his money or even hinted to them that he thought he was entitled to a refund. Gavers insisted that he "cooperated" with Respondents and "did everything [he] could" to assist Hardman in securing the information necessary to satisfy the contingency in the contract. This assertion has been rejected as not being credible. To the contrary, Gavers refused to even communicate with Respondents, and he failed to take even minimal action to satisfy his responsibility under the contract. On the reasonable belief that Gavers was not making a claim on his deposit, and that he had failed to fulfill his obligation under the contract, on September 13, 1998, Litton issued checks in the amount of $172.73 to Hardman and herself from Gavers' deposit. A part of that was used to reimburse Respondents for the expenses incurred in having a survey performed. The remaining part of the deposit, $172.74, was issued to the seller on October 21, 1996. In making this disbursement, there was no intent on the part of Litton and Carrabelle Realty, Inc. to trick or deceive the buyer, breach their trust in the transaction, or otherwise commit an unlawful act. Gavers never made a demand for his deposit at any point in the process, and he had failed to make a reasonable effort to satisfy the contingency. Under these circumstances, there was no reasonable doubt in Litton's mind, nor should she have had one, as to who was entitled to the $500.00 deposit, and she was not confronted with conflicting demands for the money. Therefore, she was under no obligation to send Gavers a letter by certified mail requesting that he respond within a date certain or that his deposit would be forfeited. Likewise, there was no responsibility on Litton to request a disbursement order from the Commission. After Gavers defaulted on the contract, Brannen sold his lot to another buyer. The new owner satisfied all requirements necessary to build on the lot, and he thereafter built a driveway on the lot and constructed a new dwelling. It is clear, then, that the lot was "buildable," and a permit could be obtained "to fill [the] lot and build [a] driveway," which would have satisfied the contingencies in Gavers' contract. Respondents have never been the subject of prior disciplinary action. In addition, Hardman and Litton are associated with a small real estate firm in a small community, and the imposition of an administrative fine would create a financial hardship. Finally, throughout this process, Respondents acted in good faith; they cooperated with the Division; and they expended considerable time and effort in attempting to assist a buyer who refused to return calls, acknowledge mail, or fill out the necessary documentation that was required to obtain a permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint, with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: James Kimbler, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Ghunise Coaxum, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Tracy Ann Hardman 865 CC Land Road Eastpoint, Florida 32328 Ruby J. Litton Post Office Box 490 Carrabelle, Florida 32322 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Marinatown Realty, Inc., is a corporate real estate broker, holding license number 0208680 and located at 3440 Marinatown Lane, Northwest, North Fort Myers, Florida. Marinatown Realty is a wholly owned subsidiary of Seago Group, Inc., a publicly held land development and rental corporation whose president is Thomas P. Hoolihan. In late 1977, Hoolihan met L. E. Hutchinson, the complainant in this case, through another broker for whom Hutchinson at the time was employed. In December, 1977, Hoolihan and Hutchinson discussed the marketing of two condominium projects being developed by Hoolihan and reached an oral agreement whereby Hutchinson would be paid $18,000 in salary with a 1 1/2 percent commission on all sales. When the condominium units were completed and mostly sold, the parties' employment agreement was revised in late December, 1979. Under the new agreement, Hutchinson was to receive $30,000 a year salary, commissions on the remaining condominium units that had not yet closed and any commissions on outside property listings neither owned nor controlled by Seago. In return for the $30,000 guarantee, Hutchinson was to forego commissions on future properties owned or controlled by Seago Group, Inc. During the period from 1977-1978 when Hutchinson was receiving $18,000 plus a 1 1/2 percent commission, sales were handled through Lee Hutchinson Realty, Inc., which held license number 0182945. In early 1979, Marinatown Realty was incorporated to market Seago's real estate inventory, to identify and list outside properties and to act as a management agent for purposes of renting condominium units previously sold in recent projects. When Marinatown Realty was formed, the complainant became its active broker. While employed as the broker for Marinatown and receiving $30,000 a year as a salaried employee, Hutchinson held two other broker's licenses, one as L. E. Hutchinson Realty, Inc., and another as L. E. Hutchinson. In January, 1980, Hoolihan agreed to pay a $15,000 bonus to Hutchinson in lieu of a salary increase. Since at that time sales were minimal, Hoolihan decided to pay the bonus in installments as sales occurred. Because Hutchinson left in May, 1980, he received only $10,000 of the bonus which represented moneys previously paid. On April 23, 1980, Hutchinson and Chuck Bundschu, a licensed real estate broker, negotiated and obtained a sales contract between Hancock Harbor Properties, Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Seago Group, Inc., seller, and Frank Hoffer, buyer and licensed real estate broker, in which Hoffer offered to purchase approximately 3.16 acres of unimproved acreage for $500,000. Thomas P. Hoolihan, general partner of Hancock Harbor, executed the contract on behalf of the partnership. Prior to presenting the contract to Hoolihan, Bundschu, Hoffer and Hutchinson decided on a 30 percent, 40 percent 30 percent respective co- brokerage split on the $50,000 commission due on the sale of the Hancock Harbor Property. The co-brokerage fee split was typed on the bottom of the contract submitted to Hoolihan and was signed by the three brokers. The commission due to Hutchinson was made payable to L. E. Hutchinson Realty, Inc. On April 25, 1980, the contract with the original co-brokerage split was presented to Hoolihan who refused to agree to its co-brokerage split provision. In the presence of Hutchinson, Hoolihan informed Bundschu and Hoffer that he would not pay a commission to Hutchinson because he was a salaried employee of the Seago Group and not entitled to a commission on the sale of this property. Accordingly, the co-brokerage fee provision of the executed contract was never signed by the seller, Thomas P. Hoolihan. Instead, on April 25, 1980, Bundschu, Hoffer and Hoolihan agreed to a split of $20,000 to Hoffer and $15,000 to Bundschu in lieu of the split specified on the bottom of the contract. At the closing on July 18, 1980, which was held at Coastland Title Company, a closing statement was prepared which shows that real estate commissions were disbursed to Chuck Bundschu Realty, Inc. ($15,000), Marinatown Realty, Inc., ($15,000) and Hoffer's firm, Landco, Inc., ($20,000). The checks were written and disbursed following a conversation between an official of Coastland Title Company and Hoolihan in which Hoolihan informed the official that Hutchinson was a Seago employee and he would not agree to pay a $15,000 commission to him under such circumstances. On July 18, 1980, a check for $15,000 was issued by Coastland Title Company to Marinatown Realty, Inc. The $15,000 represented Hutchinson's share of the co-brokerage agreement. When received on July 18, 1980, by Billie Robinette, the broker for Marinatown Realty, the check was signed over by her to Seago Group, Inc., since in her opinion it did not represent commissions earned by Marinatown Realty. The oral agreement between Hutchinson and Hoolihan was to terminate at the end of April, 1980, or approximately five days after the Hoffer contract was presented. Hoolihan offered to renew the contract without a provision for a guaranteed salary because Marinatown Realty had been consistently losing money since its incorporation. On May 6, 1980, Hoolihan received a letter of resignation from Hutchinson and concluded that his offer had been rejected. In early May, 1980, Hoolihan received a call from Ms. Robinette, who had been employed as Hutchinson's secretary, regarding filling the open brokerage position at Marinatown Realty, Inc. Hoolihan discovered from Ms. Robinette that Hutchinson had paid himself 50 percent of the commissions due Marinatown Realty, Inc., for the management of condominium rentals. After examining the check stubs from Marinatown's bank account, Hoolihan took personal possession of all the books and records of the company and had the office locks changed. When he examined the books and records of the realty company, Hoolihan realized that his assumption that Hutchinson Realty, Inc., became inactive when Marinatown Realty, Inc. was formed in January, 1979, was erroneous and that Hutchinson had operated his own realty company, L. E. Hutchinson Realty, Inc., while employed by Marinatown Realty, Inc. Although he held multiple licenses, Hutchinson denied that a conflict ever existed between his duties to Marinatown Realty, Inc., and his own company, L. E. Hutchinson Realty, Inc. When questioned during the final hearing regarding how he decided where to list properties while he was the broker for both companies, the following exchange occurred between Hutchinson and counsel for Marinatown Realty, Inc.: Q Let me ask you, Mr. Hutchinson, how would it be decided when you were to go out and list property as to whether or not that property would be listed under Marinatown Realty or L. E. Hutchinson Realty, Inc.? Who would make that determination? A I would. Q Solely on your own? A I had no contract with anyone. I had nothing in writing to direct me where to place any business. Q So this would be solely your decision as to how you would list the property? Either Marinatown Realty or L. E. Hutchinson Realty? A If I secured the listing it was my dis- cretion as to where I listed the real estate. I had the choice of one of two companies. * * * Q If you were to list property in my hypo- thetical with Marinatown Realty, is it not a fact that they would receive, and being Marinatown Realty, would receive one half of the commission and you, as the broker, would receive the other half? A That was what I did. Q So it would certainly be beneficial to Seago to have you list as much property as you could with Marinatown Realty because they, in fact, owned the stock with Marinatown Realty, is that not true? A Yes, sir. Q When you would list property with L. E. Hutchinson Realty, Inc., would you do this with the full knowledge, consent and permission of Marinatown Realty, Inc.? A Yes, sir. Q How would you say that you gave full consent when you just testified that it was solely up to you as to how you would list property? A If I solely decided, I give my consent. I don't have anybody else to answer to. (T. pp. 108-110) During the period that Hutchinson was a broker for Marinatown Realty and L. E. Hutchinson Realty, Hutchinson believed his primary duty was toward his own company as illustrated by the following exchange between counsel for Respondent and the complainant: Q It's a fair statement to say that you, as a broker for Marinatown Realty, Inc. didn't make a whole lot of money for Marinatown Realty, did you? A I didn't run the P & L statement. Q I'm asking you as being the broker. You didn't make a lot of money for Marinatown Realty, Inc., did you? A I made as much money for them as I did for the responsibility. Q Well, did L. E. Hutchinson Realty, Inc. make a lot of money during that period of time? MR. FERNANDEZ: Objection as to relevancy, this whole line of questioning. MR. NEEL: Your Honor, it isn't. It's germaine. HEARING OFFICER: Objection overruled. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, the question? Q Did L. E. Hutchinson Realty, Inc. make a lot of money during this period of time? A That's relative. Q In comparison to what money Marinatown Realty made? A Yes, sir, because L. E. Hutchinson Realty had a thirty thousand retainer that was coming in up until April 30th. Q From Seago? A Certainly. Q So L. E. Hutchinson Realty, Inc. made a lot more money than Marinatown Realty, Inc., didn't they? A That's the way its supposed to work. Q And, again, it was at your sole dis- cretion as to how you would list the properties; under which principal. A Yes, but I asked for a specific con- tract and never got it. (T. pp. 124-125) The Administrative Complaint in this case was filed on July 22, 1981. The preliminary investigative report compiled by Robert Corno, DPR Investigator, was filed on September 24, 1981 and the final investigative report was filed on September 30, 1981. The following is a synopsis of the investigator's findings and recommendation: That the COMPLAINANT [Hutchinson] worked for the SUBJECT [Hoolihan] and their contractual agreement was verbal. COMPLAINANT was paid on a salary/commission basis by companies of which SUBJECT is Chief Officer. That the COMPLAINANT filed civil action suit against SUBJECT in this case and it was dismissed with prejudice. That prior investigation by the DPR re- commended that no action be taken against the SUBJECT in this case. That two weeks after this investigation was undertaken, an Administrative Com- plaint was being filed by the DPR against the SUBJECT. That the existing BROKER for MARINATOWN REALTY, INC. was not involved in this case, and that since the time of the above referenced transaction, the SUBJECT has acquired his BROKER'S license #020462 which had no effect in this case. That conflicting statements by inter- viewers, namely former and present em- ployees and other agents involved in this case revealed that there is a reasonable doubt for probable cause against the SUBJECT. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) As noted by Investigator Corno, this was the second time Marinatown Realty had been investigated in relation to this case. In both instances a recommendation that no action be taken against the Respondent was apparently made. At the final hearing on December 1, 1981, counsel for the Department saw the complete investigative report, including the investigator's recommendation of a lack of probable cause, for the first time. Count II of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Hutchinson is entitled to compensation for services rendered on the following sales contracts: Seago Group, Inc. as seller, to Michael T. and Judith Marchiando as buyers, Seago Group, Inc. as seller, to John E. and Charlotte A. Ferguson as buyers, and Seago Group, Inc. as sellers, to Kenneth J. Dawson as buyer. In regard to the first transaction, the Marchiandos were personal friends of the son-in-law of Seago's major shareholder, Mr. R. Berti. Hutchinson's role in this transaction was limited to preparing the contract and mailing it to the Marchiandos for signature. Hutchinson had no part in selling this property and never met the Marchiandos. The sale of the Ferguson's arose in a manner similar to the Marchiandos. Mr. Ferguson is the manager of a Detroit company owned by Mr. Berti. Similarly, Mr. Dawson works for Mr. Berti in Detroit as an accountant. These sales were made by Mr. Berti and Hutchinson furnished administrative assistance by completing the contracts and sending them to these individuals for signature. Under the terms of the agreement between Hoolihan and Hutchinson, a commission was not due on these properties to Hutchinson since these were not outside listings and his agreement with Hoolihan did not contemplate that commissions be paid in such situations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against Marinatown Realty, Inc. be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Xavier J. Fernandez, Esquire NUCKOLLS JOHNSON & FERNANDEZ Suite 10, 2710 Cleveland Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 James A. Neel, Esquire 3440 Marinatown Lane, N.W. Fort Myers, Florida 33903 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
