Findings Of Fact Scorpio, Inc. was incorporated to do business in this State on September 18, 1973 and was registered as a corporate real estate broker on 4/8/74 with certificate to expire 3/31/75. Laverne Pariso was a registered real estate broker and Active Firm Member for Scorpio, Inc. from 4/8/74 to expiration date of license 3/31/75. Michael W. Karpan was a registered real estate salesman from 10/1/74 to 9/30/76 the expiration date of his registration and was employed by Scorpio, Inc. About the time Scorpio, Inc. was registered as a corporate broker the real estate market was not conducive to the success of housing developments and, since the registration of Scorpio, Inc. was obtained to facilitate sale of the developed property and no development was started, Scorpio, Inc. did no business of the type for which it was registered. No listings were obtained, no sales were made, and no effort was put forth to do either. An escrow account was opened with an initial $50 deposit but during the time the registration was effective no deposits were made to, or withdrawals from, this escrow account. Ardina E. Karpan, the mother of Michael W. Karpan, owns all of the stock of Scorpio, Inc. Laverne Pariso, the APM, left the employ of Scorpio, Inc. in March, 1975 but did not notify the FREC or take steps to place her registration in an inactive status. Applications were made for renewal of the broker's license of neither Pariso nor Scorpio, Inc. when due, 3/31/75. By Corporate Resolution dated February 1, 1974 Scorpio, Inc. authorized the establishment of an escrow account at the Barnett Bank of Miami. An initial deposit of $50 was made to this account on February 6, 1974. The resolution authorizes Laverne Pariso and Michael W. Karpan or Ardina Karpan to sign checks on this account and notes that two signatures are required. The resolution further provided authorized signers "are both Laverne Pariso and Michael William Karpan, Jr., both signature are required". Scorpio, Inc.'s primary business was the management of shareholder's investments and real estate holdings. In May, 1975 Michael Karpan was approached by a business associate, whose daughter was a creditor of Chandelier of the Virginia Playhouse d/b/a Track and Turf Lounge, to assist in the negotiations for the sale of the business in order to pay off the creditors and salvage his daughter's loan. The purchaser was already at hand and Karpan was selected to hold funds advanced pending the closing of the deal. After the principals had agreed on the basic price to be paid for the business an earnest money deposit of $5,000 was given by the buyer to Karpan on or about May 21, 1975 and the agreement was memorialized in a letter of May 21, 1975 from Karpan, on Scorpio, Inc. letterhead to the buyer, Walker (Exhibit 25). Nowhere on this letter is reference made to either Karpan or Scorpio, Inc. being associated with real estate sales. The $5,000 received from Walker was deposited in Scorpio, Inc's escrow account on deposit slip dated May 21, 1975 and the bank statement (Exhibit 10) shows $5,000 deposited in this account 5/30/75. No other agreement between the parties was reduced to writing and signed by the buyer and seller. At no time during the negotiations did Karpan hold himself out to be a real estate salesman or broker or indicate he expected a commission for his services if the sale was consummated. On May 29, 1975 Karpan borrowed $5,000 from the Barnett Bank and used the $5,000 in the escrow account as cash collateral for the loan. The signature of Pariso was not on any paper to authorize the withdrawal of this money from the escrow account. The loan was placed in the regular account of Scorpio, Inc. c/o Michael Karpan and one check dated 5/30/75 in the amount of $3,699 was drawn on the account payable to the Intercontinental Bank of Miami and used to make interest payment owed by the Chandelier of the Virginia Playhouse. $1,301 was delivered to the manager of Track and Turf Lounge by Karpan (Exhibit 4). Karpan contends that the buyer, Walker, authorized him to make whatever payments were necessary out of the $5,000 deposit to insure that the liquor license would not be lost or the Track and Turf Lounge be placed out of business before the deal was consummated. Following the delivery of the $5,000 to Karpan the buyer brought his attorney into the proceedings. The property on which the Track and Turf Lounge is located was owned by D. Mitchell Investments, Inc. The lease arrangements (or lack thereof depending on which witness is more credible) were such that the sale could not be consummated. By letter dated June 12, 1975 the buyer, through his attorney, demanded return of the $5,000 deposit given to Karpan. No evidence was presented as to the date the $1,301 was given to Roy O'Nan, the manager at Track and Turf. The letter evidencing such payment is dated well after the transaction had fallen through and demand for return of the $5,000 had been made. A suit was subsequently filed by Walker and a default judgment was obtained against Scorpio, Inc. after a Motion to Strike Defendant's, Scorpio, Answer because Scorpio, Inc. was delinquent in paying the annual $5.00 filing fee required of Florida corporations, was granted. At the time the transactions here being contested occurred the registration of Laverne Pariso and Scorpio, Inc. had expired. Since Karpan can only work under the supervision of a broker, his license too was not operative. Ms. Pariso renewed her license as a broker-salesman with another realty office in September, 1975 but no evidence was presented that Scorpio, Inc. ever applied for registration renewal. During the period between March and September, 1975 Ms. Pariso did no real estate work. Numerous discrepancies appeared between the testimony and documents. Although the authorization for withdrawing funds from the escrow account provided that the signature of Pariso and Michael Karpan or his mother was required the bank apparently interpreted that to require any two of the signatures and then authorized one first deposit placed in the escrow account after the initial deposit to be withdrawn with only Karpan's signature. Several witnesses alluded to Track and Turf leasing the premises which they occupied but evidence was presented that no lease payments were to be made until 1978. Certainly the inability of the "tenant" to transfer the "lease" was a major factor in the failure of the sale to transpire. The sale here involved was the sale of a business as contrasted to the sale of real property.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Albert E. Pastorini, is a registered real estate salesman and works out of the office of Elanor Hollis, a registered real estate broker trading under the name of Hollis Real Estate. Under the stationary of Hollis Real Estate, the Respondent Pastorini offered eleven separate parcels of realty to Palm Beach County as offerings under their $50 million parks and recreation land acquisition program. One of those parcels was designated, for purposes of this hearing, as the Schine property. Schine Enterprises, Inc. is a landowner in Palm Beach County with ocean front properties. Mr. Howard P. Miller is an employee of Schine Enterprises and is also a registered real estate broker. Mr. Miller testified that he has had contact with the Respondent, Pastorini, for quite some time and has on repeated occasions told him that the Schine property was not available for sale and that no listings were available. Mr. Miller testified he learned early in 1975 that the 27 acre Schine property had been offered to the county for consideration under the bond program. Miller testified that he learned this property had been offered by Pastorini but that he had never given Mr. Pastorini authorization to do so. Miller also testified that some time in April, 1975, Ms. Hollis and Mr. Pastorini came to his office at his request and he informed Mr. Pastorini in no uncertain terms that he had no authorization to list the property. Mr. Pastorini, according to Mr. Miller, stated that Mr. Miller had given him a verbal listing which Miller denied. When the county began reviewing the offerings of property, they became aware that some of these offerings had not been authorized by the owners and so they therefore by letter, requested all brokers and salesmen that had submitted offerings to demonstrate proper authorization from the owners or else the county would purge these offerings from their list of available properties. Of the eleven offerings that Pastorini submitted to the county, he was able only to produce two authorizations; one for thirty days and the other for an open listing. No evidence was presented regarding any activities on behalf of Elanor Hollis, the other Respondent.
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(b) Florida Statutes, 1/ by committing the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate and for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent is a licensed real estate broker under license number 0478560. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a broker t/a Concord Financial Realty Co. ("CFR"), 495 E. Semoran Boulevard #115, Casselberry, Florida 32708. Respondent is the sole owner of CFR. CFR carries on regular business activities that include apartment rentals and sales of real estate. On January 31, 1992, Respondent and Mr. Charles Wallman, Respondent's husband, owned all of the stock of C.L. Wallman Associates, Inc ("CWA"). 2/ Respondent's husband owned Concord Financial Services, Inc. ("CFS"). CFS was formed to sell insurance and securities. Respondent and her husband operated CFR, CWA, and CFS out of shared office space. Respondent performed bookkeeping and secretarial duties for CWA and CFS. In January, 1992, Respondent's husband (the "seller") verbally agreed ("agreed") to sell 35 percent of the stock of CFS to Mr. John Topercer (the "purchaser") for $35,000. The seller and purchaser agreed to operate the company as "partners." The sale proceeds were to be invested in the company in which the seller and purchaser were to be partners. The purchaser paid the $35,000 purchase price in five installments from January 31, 1992, through March 12, 1992. During that time, the seller agreed to sell an additional 14 percent of the stock of CFS for an additional $13,000. The purchaser paid the additional $13,000 in three installments from April 14, 1992, through May 13, 1992. In May, 1992, the purchaser and seller agreed to another stock acquisition for $20,000. The seller would merge CFS, CWA, and CFR into a new company to be known as Concord Financial Centre ("CFC"). All of the business activities carried out by the separate companies would be consolidated into CFC. The purchaser would receive 49 percent of the stock of CFC in exchange for his 49 percent stock ownership in CFS. The seller and purchaser would operate CFC as "partners" in the same manner as originally contemplated for CFS. The sale proceeds were to be invested in the company in which the seller and purchaser were to be partners. The purchaser paid $20,000 in five installments from June 2 through June 22, 1992, and tendered his stock in CFS. However, the purchaser never received any stock in CFC. CFC was never formed. The seller never tendered any stock in CFC to the purchaser. The seller used some of the sale proceeds to operate CFS. However, approximately $30,000 of the sale proceeds were misappropriated and used by Respondent and her husband for personal purposes including a down payment on a house and a car. On January 6, 1993, the purchaser filed a civil complaint against Respondent and her husband alleging fraud, recision, and mismanagement of corporate funds. On August 8, 1994, the purchaser received judgment against Respondent and her husband in the amount of $30,000. Respondent and her husband have not satisfied the judgment. Neither has paid any money toward the judgment, and the purchaser has been unable to satisfy the judgment. Respondent knew of the negotiations and business transactions between her husband and Mr. Topercer. Respondent performed the duties of bookkeeper and documented all of the payments made by Mr. Topercer. Respondent was present during some of the discussions between her husband and Mr. Topercer. Respondent agreed to the merger of CFR into CFC. Respondent participated in the misappropriation of the purchase proceeds for her own personal use. When considered in their totality, the acts committed by Respondent constitute fraud and dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(b). Those acts were repeated and continued for more than six months. The amount misappropriated by Respondent is significant. During the three and a half years since June, 1992, Respondent has made no attempt at restitution.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b) and revoking Respondent's real estate license. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY, 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 9th day of January 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, David J. Zachem, is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license number 0194936. The last license issued was as a broker c/o Sunstate Tax Consultants, Inc., 220 East Madison Street #512, Tampa, Florida, Respondent, during times material, was licensed as a broker/salesperson with Gary Levone Hall, t/a Gary L. Hall & Associates, 243 Timberland Avenue, Longwood, Florida. On or about July 24, 1991, the Resolution Management Associates, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, engaged Henry Mazas, the principal of H.R. Mazas & Associates, an accounting firm to perform an appraisal of real property located in Seminole, Florida (called Seminole Landing) which was owned or controlled by the Federal Resolution Trust Corporation, the federally affiliated agency which is selling off failed savings and loan associations financed or mortgaged properties. While Respondent was licensed as a broker/salesperson with Hall, Mazas engaged Respondent to assist in the appraisal of the Seminole Landing property. Respondent assisted Mazas by doing what is commonly referred to in the trade as the "leg work" such as visually inspecting the property, reviewing public records, compiling comparables and other raw data which was utilized by Mazas in completing his appraisal. Respondent signed on the appraisal letter evidencing his assistance as a consultant who assisted Mazas in completing his appraisal. C.W. Marlow, contracts manager of Resolution Management Associates, received a bill from Mazas for the appraisal service in the amount of $4,830.00, which amount was paid to Mazas on or about October 29, 1991. Mazas deposited the check into his account and thereafter paid Respondent $2,321.11 via a check dated November 5, 1991. On November 8, 1991, Respondent and his wife, Patricia Zachem, endorsed the check for payment. At the time that Respondent assisted Mazas in compiling the raw data to complete his appraisal, Mazas was unaware of Respondent's affiliation with Gary Hall. Respondent signed off on the appraisal to fully disclose to everyone concerned that he consulted with Mazas in compiling the raw data for the appraisal. Gary L. Hall, is a licensed real estate broker since approximately 1982. Hall has known Respondent since 1988. They are friends who assist and consult with each other primarily about political activities. Respondent placed his license with Hall as a matter of convenience and was never active in either buying, leasing or selling real property to the public. Respondent and Hall had no agreement respecting the splitting of fees that Respondent would earn for commissions that he received. According to Hall, Respondent "would have been able to keep the entire commissions that he receive for any work that he performed." Hall knew that Respondent was active in preparing appraisals when he became affiliated with his agency. Respondent is the holder of a real estate salesman's license since 1978 and a broker since 1979. Respondent while licensed as a broker, joined the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Office. Respondent has been employed in two county property appraiser's offices (Broward and Pinellas counties). Respondent was a senior deputy in Broward County with his employment commencing sometime in 1981. He was so employed until January 1989 when he was employed by Pinellas County. In Pinellas County, Respondent was the chief deputy and the chief appraiser. Since 1980, Respondent has principally been a "mass appraiser" while working in Broward and Pinellas counties. Respondent is the qualifier for Sunstate Tax Consultants, which he is the president. Respondent is a Certified Florida Evaluator (CFE). To be qualified as a CFE, one must have worked in a property appraiser's office in the mass appraisal element for a period in excess of two years and have successfully passed four appraisal courses which are designated courses. Specifically, these courses are income to evaluation, the mechanical application of appraisals, appraisal assessment jurisdiction and vacant land. After successfully completing these courses, the property appraiser for whom the applicant is employed writes a letter of recommendation to the certification committee of the Department of Revenue. That committee reviews the applicant's qualifications and either grant or deny the CFE certificate. Respondent primarily placed his real estate license with Hall such that he could qualify as an expert in the numerous petitions filed with the Value Adjustment Board where the evaluation of properties are subject to litigation. Those appraisers who have an active broker license is an indication that they are fully qualified in the appraisal and real estate business. Respondent, as stated, never engaged in the typical brokerage business of buying, selling, leasing or renting property to the public. Specifically, Respondent's understanding with Hall was that if he engaged in any business that was governed by Petitioner, Hall would be notified. Respondent was never engaged to conduct an appraisal or to act as an appraiser for Mazas or the Resolution Management Associates. Respondent would have so advised Hall had he been involved in such a relationship or any activity that was governed by Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Eugene Davidson, an ad valorem tax consultant. was tendered and received as an expert appraiser. Davidson was one of three founders that founded the National Society of Fee Appraisers more than 35 years ago. Davidson holds a senior designation as an ASA member. Davidson is a member of the Institute of Real Estate Management and hold the designation as a certified property manager (CPM). Davidson is certified with Florida as a general real estate appraiser. Davidson was a professor at the University of Miami, the University of Florida and in the Bahamas (Nassau and Freeport). Davidson knows Respondent as a person on high morals and integrity and who is knowledgeable in real e stte and appraisinng. Davidson has known Respondent more than twelve years. An appraisal is the act or process of estimating value, or an opinion of value. Consulting is the act or process of providing information, analysis of real estate data and recommendations or conclusions on diversified problems in real estate other than estimating value. Respondent's engagement, to compile raw data, was as a consultant. He was not engaged, nor did he offer an opinion of value or an estimate of value. It is normal industry practice for consultants to sign appraisals when they provide or otherwise furnish significant information to the appraiser and, in doing so, complies with standard 2-3 of Chapter 475, Part II. See Sections 475.611 and 475.624, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Counts I-IV of the Administrative Complaint filed herein. 1/ DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of March, 1993, 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 31st day of March, 1993.
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are: (1) whether Respondents, who are licensed real estate brokers, failed within a reasonable time to satisfy a civil judgment relating to a real estate commission; (2) whether Respondents failed to maintain trust funds in an escrow account as required; and (3) whether disciplinary penalties should be imposed on Respondents, or either of them, if Petitioner proves one or more of the violations charged in its Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Marlene Montenegro Toirac ("Toirac") is a licensed real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Real Estate Commission ("Commission"). Respondent Home Center International Corp. ("HCIC") is and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission. Toirac is an officer and principal of HCIC, and at all times relevant to this case she had substantial, if not exclusive, control of the corporation. Indeed, the evidence does not establish that HCIC engaged in any conduct distinct from Toirac's in connection with the transactions at issue. Therefore, Respondents will generally be referred to collectively as "Toirac" except when a need to distinguish between them arises. Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Commission. At the Commission's direction, Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Veloso Judgment Toirac and Elena Veloso ("Veloso") did business together and wound up as opponents in court. Veloso got the better of Toirac, obtaining, on June 5, 2001, a judgment in the amount of $4,437.60 against her and HCIC from the Dade County Court. The judgment liquidated a real estate commission that Veloso claimed the defendants owed her. On June 12, 2001, Toirac filed a Motion to Set Aside Final Judgment, wherein she asked the county court to (a) vacate its judgment in favor of Veloso, on the ground that the defendants had not been served with process and (b) consolidate Veloso's county-court proceeding with an action then pending in circuit court, which Toirac had brought against Veloso.1 As of the final hearing in this case, Toirac's motion, after four years, had not been heard or decided. As of the final hearing in this case, Toirac had not satisfied the judgment in favor of Veloso. The Escrow Account Shortfall On January 24, 2002, Tibizay Morales, who was then employed by Petitioner as an investigator, conducted an audit of Toirac's records. (The impetus for this audit was Petitioner's receipt, on or about June 20, 2001, of a complaint from Veloso.) Pursuant to the audit, Ms. Morales determined that the balance in Toirac's escrow account was $4,961.05. Ms. Morales determined further that Toirac's trust liability, i.e. the total amount of money that she should have been holding in escrow on her clients' behalf, was $12,242.00. Thus, there existed a shortfall of $7,280.95 in Toirac's escrow account. Toirac was not able, at the time of the audit, to explain the shortfall. A few weeks later, however, by letter dated February 13, 2002, Toirac informed Ms. Morales that the shortfall had been caused by the issuance, "in error," of a check in the amount of $7,345.00, which was drawn on HCIC's escrow account and payable (evidently) to HCIC; HCIC had deposited the funds into its operating account, thereby creating, according to Toirac, an "overage" of $7,345.00 in the latter. To correct the problem, Toirac had arranged for the transfer of $7,345.00 from HCIC's operating account to its escrow account, which was accomplished on or about February 1, 2002. The Charges In counts I and IV, Petitioner charges Respondents with failing to account for and deliver trust funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes.2 Petitioner's position is that Respondents failed within a reasonable time to satisfy the county-court judgment in favor of Veloso. In counts III and V, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow account until disbursement was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is that the escrow account shortfall identified on January 24, 2002, is proof that funds held in escrow had been disbursed without proper authorization. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no dispute (for Toirac admitted at final hearing) that the judgment debt owed by Respondents to Veloso relates to a real estate commission. It is also undisputed that, as of the final hearing, the county-court judgment had not been satisfied. The undersigned determines that Respondents have failed to satisfy the civil judgment in Veloso's favor within a reasonable time.3 Therefore, the undersigned finds Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes.4 It is determined that the erroneous transfer, via check, of funds from HCIC's escrow account to its operating account constituted an unauthorized disbursement of funds entrusted to Toirac by others who had dealt with her as a broker. While this might have resulted from the simple mistake of an incompetent bookkeeper, as Toirac maintains, nevertheless the disbursement was unauthorized and substantial——amounting to approximately 60 percent of Toirac's total trust liability. Therefore, the undersigned finds Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has established the charges set forth in counts I, III, IV, and V of its Administrative Complaint, by clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order that: (a) finds Respondents guilty as charged in counts I, III, IV, and V of the Administrative Complaint; (b) suspends Respondents' respective real estate licenses for 90 days; and (c) imposes an administrative fine of $2,500 against Respondents, jointly and severally; and (d) places Respondents on probation for a period of at least 3 years, subject to such lawful conditions as the Commission may specify. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of September, 2005.
The Issue Whether the Respondent should be disciplined upon a charge that he operated as a salesman for any person not registered as his broker in violation of Section 475.42(2)(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and whether Respondent should be disciplined based upon a charge that he collected money in connection with any real estate brokerage transaction without the express consent of his employer and not in the name of his employer in violation of Section 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating and disciplining real estate salespersons. The Respondent is and was at all times material to this complaint a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida having been issued license no. 0593108. The Respondent's current license was issued as a voluntary inactive with an address of 1421 Daytona Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida 32117. In mid-1994, the Respondent was employed by Donal E. Harrigan, d/b/a Donal E. Harrigan Company (hereinafter Harrigan). The Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesperson with Harrigan, and was engaged in the selling of timeshares. While employed with Harrigan, the Respondent and his wife talked with Fadel Elbadramany, the broker and owner of AAA Realty. Initially the Respondent and his wife talked with Elbadramany about the purchase of commercial real estate; however, Elbadramany solicited both of them as real estate salespersons with his company. The Respondent's then wife was eventually employed by Elbadramany as a salesperson. The Respondent discussed employment with Elbadramany; however, Elbadramany would not discuss the nature and scope of his business until the Respondent had signed an employment agreement containing a non-competition clause and DBPR Form 400.5. The Respondent was interested in selling commercial property, but did not want to cease selling timeshares. He discussed this with Elbadramany who advised him that he could do both. Pursuant to this discussion, the Respondent filled out a DBPR Form 400.5 checking at the top of said form under Section A, "Multiple Licenses." Nothing was checked on the form indicating a change of employment or broker. The Respondent signed the form in blank and left it with Elbadramany. Fadel Elbadramany was called to testify. Elbadramany testified that he employed the Respondent, that the Respondent obtained list of prospects from his office, that the Respondent never sold any real estate for him, and that he had observed the Respondent engaging in the sale of real estate which was not listed with his brokerage. Brenda Groves, the ex-wife of the Respondent, was called to testify. Brenda Groves was employed by AAA Realty and Elbadramany. During her employment, a conflict arose which resulted in litigation between Brenda Groves and Elbadramany over the anti-competitive clause contained in the employment contract. Brenda Grove testified that Elbadramany threatened to get her and to get her husband. Ms. Grove testified regarding the employment of her ex-husband. The Respondent was not employed by AAA Realty. Ms. Groves testimony is considered very credible. There was a conflict in the testimony between Elbadramany and the Respondent concerning who filled out and completed the DBPR Form 400.5. The most credible evidence is that it was completed by Elbadramany and filed with the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. The form as filled out, requests only multiple licensure. The request for multiple licensure is consistent with the Respondent's intent to continue to sell timeshares for Harrigan and commercial property for Elbadramany. However, prior to commencing employment with Elbadramany, but after filling out the form, the Respondent determined that he did not want to be employed by Elbadramany. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to the Respondent, the Division of Real Estate received the DBPR Form 400.5 and, because the Respondent is not a broker, did not issue him a multiple license. Instead, the Division of Real Estate shifted the Respondent's registration as real estate salesperson from Harrigan to AAA Realty. Although the Respondent's registration had been changed from AAA to Harrigan, the Respondent continued to be employed by Harrigan and to work actively in Harrigan's business selling timeshares. The testimony of the Respondent and that of Elbadramany was that he did not do any work for AAA Realty. There is no evidence in this proceeding that the Respondent received a copy of the licensing change or was made aware of this change prior to March 10, 1995. On March 10, 1995, the Respondent was interviewed by an investigator of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. At this time the Respondent became aware that his registration was with AAA Realty. As a result of this interview, the Respondent contacted the Department and discussed with them how to correct the status of his registration. In order to accomplish that in accordance with the instruction he received, the Respondent filed out a DBPR Form 400.5 registering with Harrigan by whom he had been continuously employed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Real Estate enter its final order dismissing the administrative complaint against the Respondent Gary Allen Groves. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 15th day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Gary Allen Groves 1500 Beville Road, Suite 606-182 Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, in which the Petitioner, Florida Home Finders Realty, Inc. ("Realty, Inc."), seeks an award of costs and attorney's fees incurred in its successful defense of an administrative disciplinary proceeding. The disputed issues in this case are whether the case is moot, whether the person acting on behalf of the Petitioner is authorized to do so, and whether circumstances exist that would make an award of costs and attorney's fees unjust.
Findings Of Fact Realty, Inc., the Petitioner in this proceeding, was one of numerous Respondents in a multi-count Administrative Complaint filed by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation in September of 1995. Two of the other Respondents named in the same Administrative Complaint were Ian R. Law and Benjamin Schiff. Most, if not all, of the other Respondents in that multi-count Administrative Complaint resolved the charges against them without resort to proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Ian R. Law and Benjamin Schiff both disputed the charges in the Administrative Complaint and requested an evidentiary hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Ian R. Law and Benjamin Schiff retained the services of the law firm of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., to represent them in their defense against the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Messrs. Law and Schiff were represented by Mark Herron, Esquire, and Chris Haughee, Esquire, of the previously mentioned law firm. Simultaneous with the filing of the Administrative Complaint described above, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation issued an emergency suspension order. The effect of the emergency suspension order was to suspend the real estate broker licenses of Messrs. Law and Schiff and to suspend the corporate real estate broker registration of Realty, Inc. Immediately following the filing of the Administrative Complaint and the emergency suspension order, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed a petition in circuit court seeking to place Realty, Inc., and a related corporation into receivership. The petition was granted, and Realty, Inc., and the related corporation were placed in receivership. Receivers were appointed to operate Realty, Inc., and the related corporation, and to take possession of the assets of Realty, Inc., and the related corporation. As of the date of the final hearing in this case, the receivership was still in effect, although the assets of Realty, Inc., and the assets of the related corporation had been sold. The receivers were able to conduct the business affairs of both Realty, Inc., and the related corporation without either corporation being registered as a real estate broker. Accordingly, it was of no importance to the receivers that Realty, Inc.'s, real estate broker registration had been suspended by emergency order or that such registration might be revoked as a result of the Administrative Complaint.4 Therefore, the receivers took no action to challenge the emergency suspension order or to defend Realty, Inc., against the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Specifically, the receivers did not file any response to the Administrative Complaint and did not request an evidentiary hearing on the charges against Realty, Inc. In June of 1996, counsel for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed a motion with the Florida Real Estate Commission seeking entry of a final order against Realty, Inc., on the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Grounds for the motion were that there were no disputed issues of material fact, because Realty, Inc., had failed to respond to the service of the Administrative Complaint and had failed to request a hearing on the charges in the Administrative Complaint. The receivers of Realty, Inc., did not oppose the motion, because they were not concerned about the disposition of the charges in the Administrative Complaint. The Department's motion was, however, opposed by Ian Law and Benjamin Schiff. Messrs. Law and Schiff, through their legal counsel, Mark Herron, Esquire, filed a response in which they argued that the motion should be denied on the grounds that a final order revoking the registration of Realty, Inc., would have an adverse impact on the substantial interests of Messrs. Law and Schiff. In this regard they directed attention to Section 475.31(1), Florida Statutes, which reads as follows: An order revoking or suspending the license of a broker shall automatically cancel the licenses of all sales persons registered with the broker, and, if a partnership or corporation, of all members, officers, and directors thereof, while the license of the broker is inoperative or until new employment or connection is secured. Based on the above-quoted statutory provision, Messrs. Law and Schiff argued that, in order to protect their own interests, they were entitled to litigate the issue of whether Realty, Inc., was guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Messrs. Law and Schiff also argued that it would be a violation of their personal due process rights if they were deprived of an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Realty, Inc., was guilty of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint. By order dated June 18, 1996, the Florida Real Estate Commission denied the relief requested in the Department's motion and directed that the charges against Realty, Inc., be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.5 Since the issuance of the order placing Realty, Inc., in receivership (the order was issued October 6, 1995, nunc pro tunc to September 28, 1995), Messrs. Law and Schiff have not had any authority to take any action on behalf of Realty, Inc. That authority has been, and continues to be, vested solely in the receivers appointed to manage the affairs of Realty, Inc., and in the circuit judge who entered the receivership order. Neither the circuit judge nor the receivers ever retained legal counsel to represent Realty, Inc., in the underlying administrative proceedings from which this case arises. Neither the circuit judge nor the receivers ever authorized anyone else to retain legal counsel to represent Realty, Inc., in the underlying administrative proceedings from which this case arises. Specifically, neither the circuit judge nor the receivers ever retained or authorized anyone else to retain the law firm of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., to represent Realty, Inc., in the underlying administrative proceedings. Similarly, neither the circuit judge nor the receivers have authorized either the law firm of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., or Benjamin Schiff, Esquire, to file the instant proceeding on behalf of Realty, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Frederick Hodgdon (Hodgdon) has held Florida real estate broker license 0206805 at all times pertinent to this case. Hodgdon is owner and qualifying broker for Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., (Pelican Realty), through which Hodgdon conducts business and which also is named as a respondent. At all times pertinent, Pelican Realty has held Florida corporate real estate broker license 0223934. July 24 through August 6, 1984, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-Daze: DO YOU KNOW ... that all Florida real estate brokers are agents for the seller and CANNOT legally propose any lower than listed prices or better terms for the benefit of the buyer? UNLESS ... the broker legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer. As a Buyer's Broker Pelican Realty CAN and DOES exactly this and a lot more! Buyers pay no fees or commissions. Call or send for our informative brochure, you will be glad you did. The real estate buyer's best bet for the best price is to have a Buyer's Broker. On February 19, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Marco Island Eagle: 1/ BUYER BEWARE! DON'T BUY REAL ESTATE ON MARCO ISLAND. ... before consulting an attorney or carefully reading Paragraph 5) and 7) of the 1985 Revision of the Sales Contract as approved by the Naples Area Board of Realtors and the Marco Island Area Board of Realtors and the Collier County Bar Association contract Revision Committee. The Contract states quote: "The Buyer has inspected the property sold by the Contract and there are no other inspections permitted or required. The property is acceptable in its AS IS condition as of date of this offer. INCREDIBLE! ... What happens to the unwitting Buyer who intends to have termite, structural and seawall inspections AFTER his offer is accepted? He just may have to buy a termite ridden house that needs a new roof and a seawall that is on the verge of collapse. Thats what! ... Taken at face value the Sales contract calls for the buyer to spend several hundred dollars for inspections BEFORE making an offer that may well be turned down. INCREDIBLE! .... Paragraph 7) states quote: "Buyer's decision to buy was based on Buyer's own investigation of the property and not upon any representation, warranty, statement or conduct of the Seller, or broker, or any of Seller's or broker's agents" (Excluding those rare occasions when the seller and his agents remain silent.) INCREDIBLE! ... The above subject sections of Paragraphs 5) and 7) of the 1985 Sales Contract in our opinion may well violate the Realtor's Code of Ethics Article 7) "to treat fairly all parties to the transaction." There is nothing Pelican Realty could say or do to better emphasize the Buyer's need to have an advocate on his side. ... As a Buyer's Broker we recommend striking out any and all terms and conditions of the Sales Contract that are prejudicial to the Buyer's best interests. ... Pelican Realty would appreciate the opportunity to discuss with any interested parties the many advantages of working with a Buyer Broker. Our services are at NO additional expense to the buyer. CALL US FOR FURTHER DETAILS. NOW!! On March 11, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-News: CASH BACK FOR THE REAL ESTATE BUYER. THAT'S INCREDIBLE! Pelican Realty GUARANTEES CASH BACK to every buyer on every sale. The bigger the sale, the bigger the cash gift to the buyer. On top of this Pelican Realty (a Buyer's Broker) goes all out to get the lowest possible price for the buyer at NO additional cost to the buyer. Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller. The thousands you SAVE already belong to you. THINK ABOUT IT! Call us for further details NOW! "WE PAY OUR BUYERS TO DO BUSINESS WITH US" There is nothing false or fraudulent about the three advertisements. However, the following statements in the advertisements are deceptive or misleading in form or content: The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that buyers pay no fees or commissions. In form, the buyer perhaps does not pay brokerage fees or commissions. But in substance, the buyer does indirectly pay his broker a brokerage fee or commission when the seller pays fees and commissions out of the proceeds of the sale. The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that a buyer's broker "legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer." Although perhaps technically correct, this representation implies separate state regulation and qualification procedures for licensure as a buyer's broker. In fact and in law, any licensed real estate broker can become a buyer's broker simply by entering into an agreement with a buyer to be the buyer's broker. The representation in the March 11, 1986, News-Sun advertisement: "Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller." Read carefully in context, this representation is true--realtors other than those representing a buyer must try to get the highest price for the seller he represents (while being open, honest and fair to the buyer). But, as written, the representation could lead one to believe that the respondents have an ability no other realtors have when, in fact and in law, any realtor or other licensed real estate broker who represents a buyer can try to get the best price for the buyer. Although respondents have offered cash rebates, no client has seen the offer or asked for a rebate. Although respondents have maintained their innocence, they changed the ads to meet the criticism of the Department of Professional Regulation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order (1) reprimanding respondents, Frederick Hodgdon and Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., and (2) fining them $500 each for violations of Section 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). RECOMMENDED this 21st day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1987.
