The Issue The legal issues are: Whether the Respondent violated Section 475.624(2), Florida Statutes, by culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction; Whether the Respondent violated Section 475.624(14), Florida Statutes, by violating standards for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal or other provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice; Whether the Respondent violated Section 475.624(15), Florida Statutes, by having failed to exercise reasonable diligence in the developing or preparing an appraisal.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state agency charged with regulation of real estate appraisers. Respondent is a licensed state-certified general real estate appraiser holding license number 0479378 issued by the Petitioner. Her most recent business address is 416 Oleander Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118-4034. In July 1991, Neil A. Braley and Charlene J. Johnson engaged Lawrence Johnson and Associates, Inc. to make an appraisal of a business and real property located at 729 Broadway, Daytona Beach, Florida. Mr. Braley specifically asked for an investment value on the property for the purpose of dissolving the partnership which operated the business to be appraised. TX-74, line 10. Harold Rose, the owner and president of Lawrence Johnson and Associates, Inc., (hereafter "Johnson Associates") contracted with the Respondent to "work up the numbers for an income approach of what the business, land, and improvements which belonged to the partnership." The Respondent was charged to work up what that partnership had invested in that property; business, land, and improvements. See TX-75, line 16. Johnson Associates prepared the appraisal and Rose reviewed the finished product. Because of the demands for completion by Braley, Rose did not carefully review the appraisal, which was the first one prepared by the Respondent. Rose failed to catch the fact that the appraisal stated that it was based on "market value" rather than investment value. Braley received the appraisal, and was pleased, thanking Rose for the job. See TX 80, line 10. The appraisal states under the "Assumptions and Limiting Conditions" that "no right is given to publish this report, or any part of it, without written consent of the maker." No request for release of the appraisal was ever received by Rose. The appraisal which the Respondent worked up, and which she signed, states that the fair market value of the subject property is $570,000. It should have stated that the investment value of the business was $570,000. In December 1991, Raymond H. Heffington and Mark A. Carper did another appraisal of 729 Broadway and determined that the fair market value of the real property was $220,000. At the time of the appraisal, the business was in the process of closing out. In Heffington's opinion, Respondent's appraisal was deficient in required analysis, documentation, and presentation based upon the Respondent's reliance on the income approach for the basis of her evaluation of the real property. TX-28, line 22. Clifford E. Fisher, an expert in real estate appraisal, opined that the Respondent's appraisal report did not make it clear what interests were being appraised, and went beyond appraising the fee simple interest, i.e., appraised more than the real property. Fisher stated that both failings were a violation of uniform standards. The Respondent admitted that she failed to catch the statement in the appraisal report, which she signed, that stated that it was an appraisal of the fair market value.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be fined $500. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 23rd day of May, 1994. APPENDIX CASE NO. 93-3987 Both parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected, and why: Petitioner's Findings Action Taken Paragraphs 1-9 Adopted. Respondent's Findings Action Taken/Why Paragraph 1 First portion adopted; second portion irrelevant. Paragraph 2 First portion irrelevant; second portion adopted; lending institution's losses are irrelevant because the report on its face should have only been provided upon written permission of the report's maker. Paragraph 3 Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Arthur M. Ossinsky, Esquire 500 North Oleander Avenue Daytona Beach, FL 32118 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Testimony established that during late December, 1975, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., a Florida corporation, filed application with the Commission, seeking registration as a corporate real estate broker. That application revealed that Respondent Frank Viruet was to become the Active Firm ember Broker, and Vice President of the company; that Carol Bauman was to become Secretary-Treasurer and that Lee Klein was to become President and Director of the company. Testimony reveals that Carol Bauman is the wife of the Respondent Bernard Bauman; that Lee Klein is the sister of Carol Bauman and that Jeffrey Bauman is the son of Bernard Bauman. Subsequent to the filing of the above referenced corporate application for registration, the name was changed to Noble Realty Corporation and shortly thereafter to Deed Realty, Inc., and that at each such change, new application for corporate registration was filed with the Commission. Evidence also revealed that the officers and Active Firm Member Broker remained as stated and therefore for all legal purposes, the above corporate entities are one and the same. Turning to the complaint allegations in Count One, according to the certificates of the Commission's Chairman, dated December 3, which was offered in evidence by Petitioner and admitted without objection, during the period of November 1, 1975 through the date of said certificate (December 3, 1976), which covers the material dates of the complaint herein, no registration was issued to or held by the above three named corporations. This was further confirmed by testimony of Bernard Bauman who was to have become a salesman associated with the above entities and by Frank Viruet, the broker, who was to have become the Active Firm Member Broker for the above entities. Approximately December 2, 1975, Land Re-Sales Service, Inc., entered a written lease for office premises known as Room 212, Nankin Building, which is located at 16499 N.E. 19th Avenue, North Miami Beach, covering the period January 1, through December 31, 1976. (A copy of the lease was entered into evidence by stipulation of the parties.) The unrebutted testimony of Petitioner Reagan was that he observed, during his investigation of this cause, a building directory on the ground floor entrance to the Nankin Building displaying the name Noble Realty Inc., and a similar display on the building directory on the second floor. Petitioner's witness, Peter King, representative for Southern Bell Telephone Company testified that based on records received, three phones were installed in said room 212, Nankin Building on December 27, 1975, in the name of Land Re-Sale Service, Inc. and that from January 2, 1976 through January 16, 1976, approximately 575 calls were made from the above phones during evening hours to out-of-state numbers. Bernard Bauman and Jeffrey Bauman admitted to having made phone calls to out-of-state numbers for purposes of soliciting real estate sales listings, but both were unable to recall nor did they have records to substantiate how many calls they made. Bernard Bauman testified that approximately four listings were obtained with an advance fee of $375.00 for each listing. He further testified that upon being advised by the investigator with the Commission that the operation was in violation of the licensing law, by reason that no registration had been issued to the applicant company and that all who were engaging in real estate activities for said company were in violation of the licensing law. Thereafter the premises were closed and as best as can be told, all real estate activities ceased. This was further confirmed by Petitioner Reagan. The evidence respecting Count two of the administrative complaint established as stated above that Respondents Bernard and Jeffrey H. Bauman solicited real estate listings with representations to property owners that the listings would in fact be published and disseminated to brokers nationwide. However, both Baumans admitted that their listings were never published or otherwise disseminated to brokers. According to Bernard Bauman's testimony, no monies received were ever returned. There was no evidence to show that Respondent Bernard Bauman knew at the time of soliciting that no bona fide effort would be made to sell properties so listed with Noble Realty Corporation.
Recommendation Based on the above findings and conclusions of law, it is therefore recommended that the registration of Bernard Bauman be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact In September of 1976, Mr. and Mrs. Robert B. Kenney went to 8521 Madonna Place in Sarasota, Florida, in response to a newspaper advertisement. There they found respondent, who showed them through the house at that address, saying she was a friend of the owners who were offering it for sale. Respondent told the Kenneys that she was a registered real estate salesperson employed by Marjorie McCrory Real Estate, and gave them her card. But she said there would be no commission on any sale, because the owners were her friends and had helped her with babysitting. On October 2, 1976, the Kenneys entered into a written agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Robert C. Tritschler, owners of the house respondent had shown them. By this con tract, which was received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit No. 3, the Kenneys agreed to buy the house in the event that they were able to sell their mobile home within thirty days' time and in the event that they were able to obtain financing for 80 percent of the agreed purchase price. The Kenneys were unable to obtain such financing and were also unable to sell their mobile home within thirty days of the signing of the contract. On October 5, 1976, the Kenneys drew a check to respondent's order in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), on which was written "Earnest Money-Escrow." The check was delivered to respondent. On October 6 1976, respondent endorsed the check arid deposited it in a savings account. Afterwards, she showed the Kenneys her newly acquired pass book, on which was written "Sherry Gayer, Escrow Account for Robert L. Kenney." After the Kenneys' efforts to meet the conditions of the contract proved unavailing, they demanded the return of the money they had given respondent. Her refusal resulted in litigation which was settled when the Kenneys agreed to accept five hundred dollars ($500.00), plus the interest that had accrued on the entire one thousand dollars ($1 000.00) while it had been on deposit in respondent`s account. The other five hundred dollars ($500.00) went to the Tritschlers, in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for sixty (60) days. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Joseph A. Doherty, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Ms. Sherry L. Gayer 2116-59th Street Sarasota, Florida 33580
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should grant Petitioner a real estate broker license.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Mouflouze has held real estate licenses in New Hampshire and Maine for about 28 years. He lives in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, which abuts the Maine border. It was because he lives in close proximity to Maine, that he maintained a license there, also. The Commission, pursuant to Chapter 475, regulates real estate brokers and sales associates. The Commission accomplishes this regulation through the Division of Real Estate of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Mr. Mouflouze currently holds a broker's and salesperson's license in New Hampshire. He has not experienced any disciplinary action in that state. These licenses have an expiration date of April 1, 2008. From 1982 until 2004, Mr. Mouflouze held a designated broker's license in Maine. Prior to February 19, 2004, Mr. Mouflouze failed to complete the required hours of continuing education in Maine, according to the Maine Real Estate Commission (Maine Commission). He disagreed with this conclusion. He attended a hearing before the Maine Commission and after the hearing the Maine Commission ordered him to pay a fine of $900 and to complete six hours of continuing education. Mr. Mouflouze refused to pay the fine or otherwise obey the order. As a result, the Maine Commission had another hearing in his case on August 19, 2004, based on his failure to comply with its order. As a result of that hearing, his designated broker license was revoked effective the date of the hearing. As of the date of the hearing in this case, his license in Maine had not been reinstated. Mr. Mouflouze is a person who is regarded as a highly qualified and ethical real estate broker. He is reputed to be honest and hard-working.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission deny William Peter Mouflouze's application for licensure as a real estate broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Claudel Pressa, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William Peter Mouflouze Bill Mouflouze Real Estate Post Office Box 6541 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03802-6541 Nancy B. Hogan, Chairman Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was licensed as a real estate broker by the Florida Real Estate Commission. In May 1988, he was working as a broker-salesman with G.V. Stewart, Inc., a corporate real estate broker whose active broker is G.V. Stewart. On April 20, 1989, Respondent submitted a Contract for Sale and Purchase to the University of South Florida Credit Union who was attempting to sell a house at 2412 Elm Street in Tampa, Florida, which the seller had acquired in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. This offer reflected a purchase price of $25,000 with a deposit of $100 (Exhibit 2). The president of the seller rejected the offer by striking out the $25,000 and $100 figures and made a counter offer to sell the property for $29,000 with a $2000 deposit (Exhibit 2). On May 9, 1989, Respondent submitted a new contract for sale and purchase for this same property which offer reflected an offering price of $27,000 with a deposit of $2000 held in escrow by G.V. Stewart (Exhibit 3). This offer, as did Exhibit 2, bore what purported to be the signature of William P. Murphy as buyer and G. Stewart as escrow agent. In fact, neither Murphy nor Stewart signed either Exhibit 2 or Exhibit 3, and neither was aware the offers had been made at the time they were submitted to the seller. This offer was accepted by the seller. This property was an open listing with no brokerage firm having an exclusive agreement with the owner to sell the property. Stewart's firm had been notified by the seller that the property was for sale. Respondent had worked with Stewart for upwards of ten years and had frequently signed Stewart's name on contracts, which practice was condoned by Stewart. Respondent had sold several parcels of property to Murphy, an attorney in Tampa, on contracts signed by him in the name of Murphy, which signatures were subsequently ratified by Murphy. Respondent considers Murphy to be a Class A customer for whom he obtained a deposit only after the offer was accepted by the seller and Murphy confirmed a desire to purchase. Respondent has followed this procedure in selling property to Murphy for a considerable period of time and saw nothing wrong with this practice. At present, Respondent is the active broker at his own real estate firm.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that William H. McCoy's license as a real estate broker be suspended for one year. However, if before the expiration of the year's suspension Respondent can prove, to the satisfaction of the Real Estate Commission, that he fully understands the duty owed by a broker to the seller and the elements of a valid contract, the remaining portion of the suspension be set aside. ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: John Alexander, Esquire Kenneth E. Easley 400 West Robinson Street General Counsel Orlando, Florida 32802 Department of Professional Regulation William H. McCoy 1940 North Monroe Street 4002 South Pocahontas Avenue Suite 60 Suite 106 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Tampa Florida 33610 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Petitioner), is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. At all times material hereto, Robert A. Schwartz (Respondent) was a Florida licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0481297, with an address of American Real Estate Properties, Inc., 13833 Wellington Trace, West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent was initially licensed on or about May 23, 1988. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying broker and officer of American Real Estate Properties, Inc. (American Real Estate). On or about May 18, 1992, Respondent met with Ms. Renate Schuetze in West Palm Beach. 4/ Ms. Schuetze was from the State of New York and was interested in buying lots, building homes on the lots and renting the homes. Respondent had been referred to Ms. Schuetze by her friend, Ms. Mary Ann Runer. A few years ago, on behalf of Ms. Runer and using monies provided by her, Respondent had purchased a lot in West Palm Beach, overseen the contracting and construction of her home on the lot and rented out the home. All for which he charged Ms. Runer a fee. Ms. Schuetze wanted Respondent to do the same for her. On that same day, after meeting with Respondent, visiting prospective lots and model homes with him and discussing his process and procedure, Ms. Schuetze gave Respondent a check for $15,120 made payable to American Real Estate and returned to New York. Although Ms. Schuetze noted on the check that the money was for a deposit on one of the model homes, the monies were actually for a deposit of $2,000 on two certain lots ($1,000 each) and Respondent's fee of $13,000 ($6,500 per house) 5/ for performing the same service for her that he had performed for Ms. Runer. Ms. Schuetze wanted to pay Respondent his fee in advance instead of waiting until the homes had been built and rented. This was the first time that Respondent had received his fee in advance. The following day, on May 19, 1992, Respondent deposited the $15,120 into the operating account of American Real Estate which did not have an escrow account. Furthermore, Respondent had no intentions of opening an escrow account. However, the day before, on May 18, 1992, Respondent wrote two checks for $1,000 each to Miki S. Murray Realty (Murray Realty) for a deposit on two certain lots on behalf of Ms. Schuetze, leaving a balance of $13,120 from the monies given by her to Respondent. The deposits held the lots for Ms. Schuetze. On May 19, 1992, Murray Realty completed a document entitled "Reservation Deposit" for each of the lots. The document represented an acknowledgment of a deposit and the terms associated therewith. Murray Realty sold the lots and the homes to be constructed as a package deal. Each Reservation Deposit indicated, among other things, a lot deposit of $1,000 on a certain lot, the location of the lot, the purchase price of the house to be constructed on the lot, the representative for the builder/seller (Murray Realty), and the buyer who was indicated as Respondent. Also, each Reservation Deposit indicated that the deposit was an "earnest money deposit," that the contract was to be entered into on June 10, 1992, and that the deposit could be returned for any reason on or before June 10, 1992. Murray Realty required no further monies until after the signing of a contract for purchase from which construction draws would come from an account specifically setup for that purpose. This was not the first time that Respondent had entered into such a transaction with Murray Realty. Respondent used the same transaction for Ms. Runer. From on or about May 12, 1992, through on or about June 1, 1992, Respondent wrote checks from American Real Estate's operating account, totalling $10,403.01, from the remaining $13,120 given to Respondent by Ms. Schuetze. The expenditures were for Respondent's own use and benefit; none were associated with the services requested by Ms. Schuetze. On or about June 1, 1992, Respondent sent a completed contract for sale and purchase of the lots and homes and a blank buyer-broker contract, by express mail, to Ms. Schuetze for her signature. The contract for sale and purchase reflected that a "deposit" of $15,120 had been paid to American Real Estate, as seller, toward the purchase price and that the deposit was being held in "escrow." The blank buyer-broker agreement contained spaces for Respondent to insert an agreed upon fee but these were also left blank. Prior to sending these documents, Respondent had discussed the contracts with her and informed her that he was sending them to her. At the same time, on or about June 1, 1992, Ms. Schuetze wrote to Respondent requesting the return of her "deposit" of $15,120 within three days, indicating that she had decided not to sign a contract for the purchase of the homes. After she received the contracts, Ms. Schuetze returned them to Respondent unsigned. At no time prior to June 1, 1992, had Respondent presented to Ms. Schuetze for her signature a buyer-broker contract or a contract for sale and purchase. At no time pertinent hereto has Ms. Schuetze executed a buyer-broker contract or a contract for sale and purchase. Not having received a response to her letter of June 1, 1992, on or about June 8, 1992, Ms. Schuetze again made a demand by way of a letter for return of the $15,120 within three days. On or about June 11, 1992, at the request of Ms. Schuetze, Murray Realty returned her deposit of $2,000 on the two lots. At that time, Respondent had not contacted Murray Realty regarding her request, and he was unaware that Murray Realty had returned the deposit. Shortly thereafter, but also in the month of June 1992, Respondent agreed to return the $13,120, less the value of services he had already rendered, to Ms. Schuetze but requested additional time in which to so do since he had spent the money. She agreed to give Respondent additional time. On or about December 4, 1992, Respondent gave a statement to Petitioner in which he agreed to return, within 12 months, the $13,120 less 10 percent for the services that he believed that he had already rendered, leaving a balance of $11,808 to be returned. At the time of hearing on October 13, 1993, Respondent had failed to refund any of the money to Ms. Schuetze. Respondent has no history of disciplinary action.
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 Count II of the amended administrative complaint; and SUSPENDING the broker's license of Robert A. Schwartz for five years. Provided, however, that the duration of his suspension may be lessened upon the return to Ms. Schuetze of the $13,120. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of May 1994. ERROL H. POWELL 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 26th day of May 1994.
Findings Of Fact Dan Lee Isaacs is a real estate broker/salesman with the Petitioner, Key Realty, Inc. He seeks in this proceeding to have approved his dual licensure as a broker for Key Realty Management, Inc., as well as to retain his broker/salesman licensure with the Petitioner, Key Realty Inc. In his capacity as a broker/salesman for Key Realty Inc., he works under the supervision of Mr. Les Epperson, who is the licensed broker for that entity. Mr. Isaacs owns no stock in the corporation, Key Realty Inc. He does own stock and would be sole manager of the separate corporation known as Key Realty Management, Inc. Key Realty Management, Inc., is not affiliated in a subsidiary or other relationship with Key Realty, Inc., although there is some commonalty of ownership in that Les Epperson is a minority shareholder. The President and majority stockholder of Key Realty, Inc., Les Epperson, would have no part in the management of the operations of Key Realty Management, Inc. Mr. Isaacs desires, for personal and financial reasons, to remain active in the real estate sales field as a broker/salesman under the supervision of broker Epperson. He would, as sole manager and broker with Key Realty Management, Inc., engage in no sales activities, but rather solely in the management and supervision of various rental properties for clients of that firm. The two corporations maintain and would maintain separate accounting books and records; and, as pertinent, separate escrow and trust funds and accounts. It is to the advantage of both firms, both financially and in terms of legal liability, to maintain these escrow funds and accounts separately because of the financial and operational differences characteristic of a real estate management firm, as compared to a purely real estate sales operation as conducted by Key Realty, Inc. The Petitioner has complied with all requirements for qualification as a real estate broker pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. In October, 1980, the Petitioner applied for the above described dual licensure. The Respondent denied the application on the basis that an individual cannot be a broker and a broker/ salesman simultaneously. The principals of both corporations, Mr. Epperson and Mr. Isaacs, have submitted the affidavits and agreements pursuant to Rule 2IV-6.06, Florida Administrative Code, attesting to the absence of any conflict of interest stemming from Mr. Isaacs' licensure as a broker of the separate corporation and that both of them agree and consent to the dual registration. There is no dispute between the parties that in essence a "salesman" and a "broker/salesman" perform some of the same real estate transaction functions under the supervision of a licensed broker, for instance, the depositing with the broker of any escrow or other funds involved in a given real estate transaction for appropriate disposition and disbursement by the broker and acting in all other pertinent operative capacities under the supervision of a broker, rather than independently. The parties also did not dispute that the real basis for the "broker/salesman" designation in the licensing scheme in Florida is to allow a licensee to demonstrate to the public that a broker/salesman is clothed with additional internship, educational and experience credentials and is thus possessed of a greater degree of expertise in real estate transactions and operations than one licensed as a salesman. The Respondent however, in its argument during and subsequent to the hearing, apparently takes the position that a "broker/salesman" and a salesman perform identical functions; and, therefore, are legally to be considered as the same type of license and licensee, for purposes of establishing its legal position that since a salesman's license may not be issued to a person registered as an active broker unless the active broker's license is surrendered that neither may a person be dually licensed as both a "broker/salesman" and a broker.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is; therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Dan Lee Isaacs a license as an active real estate broker for, and on behalf of, Key Realty Management, Inc., and allowing his retention of licensure as a broker/salesman with Key Realty, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Kirk Brown, Esquire Post Office Box 4075 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the respondents, Dorothea L. Prisament and Warricks Real Estate , Inc., should be disciplined on charges filed in a six-count Administrative Complaint, three counts for each respondent, and alleging that the respondents: (1) were culpably negligent in allowing their escrow account to have a negative balance, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989); (2) failed to maintain trust funds in a properly maintained escrow account, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1989); and (3) failed to maintain a proper office sign, in violation of F.A.C. Rule 21V-10.024 and Sections 475.25(1)(e) and 475.22, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Dorothea L. Prisament and Warricks Real Estate, Inc., are now, and were at all times material hereto, licensed as real estate brokers in the State of Florida. Dorothea L. Prisament was the active real estate broker for the corporate broker, Warricks Real Estate. On or about August 16, 1989, investigator Marjorie G. May conducted an office inspection and audit of the escrow accounts of the respondents. Ms. May also reviewed the outer office of the respondents. The entrance sign did not have the name of Dorothea L. Prisament on it; however, the sign did have Warricks Real Estate correctly identified and identified as a licensed real estate broker. Ms. May advised Ms. Prisament of the fact that Ms. Prisament's name needed to be on the sign and identified as a real estate broker. Ms. Prisament had a new sign made which fully complies with the statutes and rules. There was no evidence introduced at hearing to show that the escrow account of the respondents had a shortage in any amount; directly to the contrary, both the Department of Professional Regulation investigator and Ms. Prisament agreed that there was no shortage in the account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and in light of the fact both that the respondents' violation was a very minor and technical one which was immediately corrected and that the respondents had to undergo the costs of defense of this case and suffer the mental duress of defending this case, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing Counts I through IV of the Administrative Complaint and reprimanding the respondents for a minor and technical violation under Counts V and VI. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine A. Bamping, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire One Urban Centre, Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 Darlene F. Keller Director, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
