The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of issuing checks from his escrow account without sufficient funds so as to constitute culpable negligence, breach of trust, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; failing to reconcile escrow accounts, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e) and (k), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61J2-14.012, Florida Administrative Code; employing an unlicensed person, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(c), Florida Statutes; failing to maintain business records, in violation of Section 475.5015, Florida Statutes; and violating a lawful order of the Florida Real Estate Commission by failing to pay a citation within the required time, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. If Respondent is guilty of any of these allegations, an additional issue is the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent became a licensed real estate salesperson in 1987. The following year, he became a licensed real estate broker, and he has remained a broker continuously since that time. From September 30, 1996, through January 30, 2000, Respondent was the qualifying broker of Express Realty and Investments, Inc. (Express Realty). At no time relevant to this case was Novellete Faye Hanse a Florida-licensed real estate broker or real estate salesperson. At all relevant times, Ms. Hanse was the office manager of Express Realty. Respondent formed Express Realty in 1995. Respondent was the sole director and president. Ms. Hanse's son was an officer of Express Realty from the time of its formation. Respondent met Ms. Hanse in 1991. She informed Respondent that she was a licensed mortgage broker. Respondent and Ms. Hanse agreed in late 1991 to form a joint real estate/mortgage broker operation in a single office. However, when Hurricane Andrew struck in 1992, Respondent, who has been a licensed general contractor since 1978, engaged exclusively in construction until 1995. Respondent formed Express Realty to pursue the prior plan of a joint real estate/mortgage broker operation. The two businesses occupied an office building owned by Ms. Hanse, who did not charge Respondent's business any rent. The address was 6306 Pembroke Road in Miramar. Express Realty served as an escrow agent in a contract dated May 9, 1999, for the sale and purchase of real property located at 6360 Southwest 23rd Street in Miramar. In this capacity, Express Realty, held various funds in escrow for the closing. For the closing, Express Realty issued two checks payable to the closing agent, totaling $19,169.08, and drawn on its escrow account. The checks, which are dated July 15, 1999, and signed by Ms. Hanse, bear the name, "Express Realty & Investments, Inc. Escrow Account" and bear the address 6306 Pembroke Road in Miramar. The bank failed to pay these checks due to insufficient funds. After receiving a complaint that Express Realty had failed to produce these escrow funds at the closing, Petitioner's investigator conducted an audit of Respondent's escrow account. At the audit, which took place the day prior to the day scheduled, the investigator found Ms. Hanse, but not Respondent, at the Express Realty office. Despite repeated requests on and after the day of the office visit, the investigator could not obtain relevant records from Ms. Hanse or Respondent concerning the real estate transaction for which Express Realty had issued escrow checks with insufficient funds. On August 23, 1999, the Florida Real Estate Commission issued a citation to Respondent at 6306 Pembroke Road in Miramar. The citation was served on Respondent within one week of the date of issuance. The $100-citation was for the failure to give the required disclosure or notice in a real estate transaction. The citation gave Respondent 30 days to contest the citation or 60 days to pay the citation. After the deadline, the investigator contacted Respondent and asked him about the citation. Respondent stated that he had forgotten about it. When Respondent still failed to pay the citation, the investigator called again, and Respondent stated that he had mailed the money, but it had been returned due to a faulty address. Respondent paid the citation approximately four months after it had been served on him. Shortly after Respondent belatedly paid the citation, Petitioner received another complaint concerning a contract for the sale and purchase of real property located at 850 Southwest 9th Avenue in Hallandale. In this transaction, Ms. Hanse represented herself to be a licensed real estate broker, showed the property to prospects, and accepted $5000 in escrow on behalf of Express Realty. In July 2000, Petitioner's investigator conducted an audit of Express Realty's escrow account. Again, the investigator was unable to find any documents by which he could undertake an independent reconciliation of the account or otherwise document the role of Express Realty in the subject transaction. At the hearing, Respondent claimed that he was unaware that Ms. Hanse had been conducting real estate business without his authority in the name of Express Realty. Although he admitted that she was an employee of Express Realty, he disclaimed any knowledge that she had removed him from the escrow account and otherwise taken over the management of the real estate broker company. However, Respondent could not explain why, after his claimed discovery of these misdeeds in the summer of 1999, he did nothing to prevent Ms. Hanse from continuing to use Express Realty as the means by which to conduct unlicensed real estate activities, as she did a few months later. Under the circumstances, Petitioner proved that Respondent was at all times aware that Ms. Hanse was conducting unlicensed real estate activities through Express Realty.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I-IV and VI of the Amended Administrative Complaint, imposing a $5000 administrative fine, and suspending his license for three years; provided, however, if Respondent fails to pay the fine in full within 180 days of the final order, his license shall be revoked without further notice. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 9th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Hisey, Deputy Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Dean Saunders, Chairperson Florida Real Estate Commission Division of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Juana Carstarphen Watkins Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Wayne Wagie 11900 North Bayshore Drive, Unit No. 5 Miami, Florida 33181
Findings Of Fact William J. Francis, Respondent, is now, and was at all times alleged in the Administrative Complaint, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having license No. 0388666. Respondent, V R Business Brokers of Lakeland, Inc., is currently, and was at all times alleged in the Administrative Complaint, a real estate broker corporation, having been issued license No. 0224405. At all times alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent Francis was licensed and operating as a real estate broker and sole qualifying broker and officer of Respondent, V R Business Brokers of Lakeland, Inc. Respondent, via Theresa Rosalie Francis, a broker/salesman and wife of Respondent, employed by V R Business Brokers, obtained from Joyce Houser a listing agreement (Exhibit 1) to sell a restaurant called "Bac O' The Mall at a price of $43,000. This listing agreement provided a minimum commission of $6,000 to the broker. Subsequent to obtaining the listing agreement, another employee of V R Business Brokers, James Rice, a real estate salesman, obtained a written offer to purchase "Bac O' The Mall" on January 13, 1983 (Exhibit 2). This offer was made by Robert Stevens and Richard Destin to purchase the business for $30,000, with a $500 deposit and an additional $1,500 down payment when the seller accepted the offer and the balance of $28,000 at closing. Joyce Houser was advised the offer had been received and was requested to come down to Respondent's office to have it presented. Mrs. Houser went to the office of Respondent and was quite upset with the disparity in asking price and the offer. Salesman Rice, who had obtained the offer, urged Mrs. Houser to accept the contract immediately because the business had been losing money and a better offer might not be forthcoming. Mrs. Houser refused this offer and contacted her brother, a real estate broker, who helped her prepare a counteroffer. Prior to this offer being submitted, Mrs. Houser had become unhappy with her dealings with V R Business Brokers due to salesmen bringing clients in at inopportune times to show the business and for failing to maintain secrecy with respect to her employees of the fact that the business was for sale. A prior offer had also been obtained on which Mrs. Houser felt she had been pressured by Respondent to accept; and she had directed all negotiations to be made through her brother, Charles Whitten. The buyers accepted the counteroffer (Exhibit 7) When the counteroffer was accepted, Whitten reminded Respondent that the additional $1,500 was due. When the buyers did not appear the following day with the additional deposit, Respondent, who had agreed to hold the buyers' personal check for $500 to be replaced with a cashier's check for $2,000, apparently became suspicious of the buyers' ability to pay and called the bank on which the check had been written to find out if sufficient funds were on deposit to cover the check. When advised that there were insufficient funds to cover the check, Respondent sent the check to his escrow agent to have the check sent to the bank where, in fact, it was subsequently dishonored. Respondent never advised Mrs. Houser or Charles Whitten that the $500 check bounced or that the buyers had failed to deposit the additional $1,500 required by the contract until after the scheduled date of closing. A few days before the February 15, 1983, scheduled closing date Respondent or his salesman contacted Whitten to solicit Mrs. Houser to finance part of the purchase price. She declined to do so. At the time the initial contract was submitted by Destin and Stevens, Respondent knew these buyers were unemployed engineers and soon thereafter learned they were attempting to borrow the money to finance the deal, and that the banks would not lend them the money they needed. Nevertheless, Respondent attempted to induce the seller to finance the sale of the business when he knew, or should have known, the buyers to be sufficiently poor credit risks they could not obtain financing. When February 15, 1983, passed without the scheduled closing taking place by reason of default on the port of the buyers, Mrs. Houser, on February 18, 1983, wrote to Respondent (Exhibit 5) requesting the earnest money deposit as liquidated damages and a release from the listing agreement which she had been promised. In response thereto, Respondent, by letter dated February 24, 1983 (Exhibit 6), advised Mrs. Houser that the buyers' $500 check was no good and that they had failed to put up the additional $1,500 required by the contract. He agreed to cancel the listing agreement `as soon as this matter is resolved." Mrs. Houser then reported the entire transaction to the Florida Real Estate Commission and these proceedings followed their investigation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is now and was at all times material to this action a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0064475. Respondent operated his own real estate brokerage firm under his license. The firm was located in Niceville, Florida. In addition to his real estate brokerage business Respondent maintained and managed his personal real estate investments. Several of these personal investments included rental property which Respondent would later sell. One such piece of property was located at 104 Perdido Circle, Niceville, Florida, and is the property involved in this action. Prior to July 6, 1985, the Respondent, as seller and not as a broker, advertised for sale the Perdido property. Sometime around July 6, 1985, Robert L. Mitchell and June F. Mitchell looked at the Perdido property. Frank Ray, a salesman for John Brooks Realty, an unrelated real estate firm showed the property to the Mitchells. They liked the property and wanted to buy it. Frank Ray made arrangements for himself and the Mitchells to meet with Respondent in order to discuss the terms of the potential purchase contract. They met on July 6, 1985. The meeting lasted approximately an hour to an hour and a half. During the lengthy meeting Respondent went over the purchase terms contained in the contract of sale. The Mitchells main concern was to have immediate occupancy of the house. Special terms were developed for renting the property. At some point during the meeting the down payment came under discussion. Originally, the Mitchells had planned on a $1500 down payment which was acceptable to Respondent. However, as the meeting progressed the Mitchells decided they would like to reduce the amount of the down payment. Respondent informed the Mitchells that the only way he could decrease the $1500 down payment was to make the money a non-refundable option payment. Respondent then marked out the $1500 down payment figure contained in the purchase contract and inserted a $1200 figure. Respondent concurrently added the language "option payment" next to the $1200 figure. The remainder of the contract was discussed and the Mitchells signed the amended document. The Mitchells then wrote a check to Respondent, personally, in the amount of $1200. The note section of the check the Mitchells wrote contained the language "house down payment." The exact discussion on the down payment/option is not clear. What is clear from the evidence is that neither party had a meeting of the minds over what the $1200 check was. The Mitchells being very inexperienced in real estate thought it was a down payment. Although it is doubtful the Mitchells understood the legal meaning of the term "down payment." Respondent thought it was a non- refundable option payment. Absolutely no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of Respondent was demonstrated. Likewise, there was no evidence that Respondent in any way used his knowledge or expertise in the real estate market improperly. The final result of the negotiations was that the Mitchells had entered into what on its face purports to be a rental contract with an option to buy. However, since there was no meeting of the minds over the option, the option was eventually unenforceable. Since there was no meeting of the minds regarding the $1200 the money was not properly escrowable property. In essence the $1200 was neither a down payment nor an option payment. This lack of escrowability is borne out by the sales contract which calls for another escrow agent. 1/ The Mitchells took possession of the property for approximately three months. The Mitchells failed to obtain financing. The contract was conditioned upon the Mitchells obtaining financing, and the transaction failed to close. A dispute arose between the parties concerning the down payment/option money. When the dispute could not be resolved by the parties, the Mitchells filed a lawsuit against Nevin H. Nordal demanding a refund of the $1200 "house down payment." As a result of the Mitchell's lawsuit the County Court, in Okaloosa County, Florida, Summary Claims Division, by Amended Final Judgment dated January 20, 1987, awarded the sum of $1,028,87. The judgment figure is the balance of the $1200 after deduction of a counterclaim of $171.13 for cleaning the house after the Mitchells evacuated the property. Additionally, the Respondent was required to pay costs in the sum of $57 for a total of $1,087.87 due the Mitchells. The judgment amount is bearing interest at a rate of 12 percent per annum. The County Court judgment contains no findings of fact as to the Judge's reasoning on the judgment award. The Mitchells have repeatedly demanded of the Respondent that he pay the judgment. He has repeatedly refused to pay the judgment. Respondent did account to the Mitchells for the money when he told them he had deposited the check and had spent the funds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint failed against Respondent, Nevin H. Nordal, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1989.
Findings Of Fact In 1974 and up through the present time, Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker. During 1974, she operated under the name "World Wide Real Estate Center." Realty, Inc., is a corporate real estate broker licensed by the State of Florida, and Respondent is presently employed by Realty, Inc. On or about May 1, 1974, Respondent, while registered and operating as a real estate broker in the name of World Wide Real Estate Center presented a seminar in St. Petersburg, at which time she lectured and discussed real estate matters, specifically the purchase of real property located in Costa Rica. At that seminar, Respondent introduced Otho "Skip" Thomas as her associate and, together with him, made the presentation concerning Costa Rica and the availability of real property for purchase in Costa Rica. William E. Hoyer, Janice Hoyer, and Norma L. Johnson attended the seminar, since they had travel arrangements made for a vacation in Costa Rica in June. The Hoyers and the Johnsons knew Thomas as a former travel agent who had arranged several vacation trips for a travel group of which the Hoyers and the Johnsons were members. They knew that Thomas had sold his travel agency prior to the time they attended the seminar conducted by Respondent and Thomas. Since Thomas was describing real property and the prices of available property in Costa Rica and answering questions from the audience at the seminar, the Hoyers and the Johnsons assumed he had become a licensed real estate salesman after giving up the travel agency business. At all times, Respondent knew that Thomas was not a licensed real estate broker or a licensed real estate salesman. Since the Hoyers and the Johnsons were interested in purchasing real property in Costa Rica, between the time of the seminar and their departure for Costa Rica, they went to the office of World Wide Real Estate Center. Thomas met with them and discussed in more detail both property descriptions and sale prices of property available in Costa Rica. He gave them a business card from World Wide Real Estate Center containing both Respondent's name and Thomas's name. He arranged to meet them in Costa Rica. Respondent was not present at this meeting at World Wide Real Estate Center. After the Hoyers and the Johnsons arrived in Costa Rica for their vacation, they met with Respondent and Thomas in a hotel room to further discuss available real estate. Thomas ran the meeting and went through a file box he had, reciting specific pieces of property available and their purchase prices. Thomas then returned to St. Petersburg, Florida, and Respondent, together with a Costa Rican, Carlos Salizar, began showing property to the Hoyers and to the Johnsons. As a result, the Hoyers selected a piece of property to purchase, but the Johnsons found two pieces of property they were interested in purchasing, although they could only purchase one of those two properties. Respondent took the Hoyers and the Johnsons to an attorney's office in Costa Rica. Both the Hoyers and the Johnsons signed documents, probably powers of attorney whereby the lawyer would negotiate and purchase the property the Hoyers wanted and also whichever parcel the Johnsons decided they wanted. Since the Hoyers had made their decision, they gave to the lawyer a check for $4,000 to be used by him as a down payment. After they left the lawyer's office, Respondent told them to stop payment on that check and to instead wait until they had returned to St. Petersburg and then give a check for $4,000 made payable to World Wide Real Estate Center to Thomas. She also told the Johnsons to give Thomas a check for $4,000 made payable to World Wide Real Estate Center after they had returned to St. Petersburg and decided which parcel they wished to purchase. Respondent told the Hoyers and the Johnsons to deal with Thomas because he was handling the business affairs in St. Petersburg for her while she was in Costa Rica. She did not tell them to make the check payable only to the escrow account of World Wide Real Estate Center, nor did she tell them that Thomas was an authorized signature on the general account of World Wide Real Estate Center, but not on the escrow account of World Wide Real Estate Center. The Hoyers returned to St. Petersburg and stopped payment on the check for $4,000 which they had left with the attorney selected by Respondent. On July 22, 1974, the Hoyers gave Thomas a cashier's check in the amount of $4,000 payable to World Wide Real Estate. Thomas deposited that check into the general operating account of World Wide Real Estate Center. The Hoyers delivered the funds to Thomas pursuant to the express instructions of Respondent given to the Hoyers while they were still in Costa Rica. After the Johnsons returned to St. Petersburg, Thomas began contacting them to obtain their decision as to which piece of property they wished to purchase. When they decided, Thomas met with Norma Johnson on July 24, 1974. Mrs. Johnson gave him two checks in the total amount of $4,000 payable to World Wide Realty and obtained from Thomas a receipt for the funds. Thomas deposited the checks into the general operating account of World Wide Real Estate Center. The Johnsons delivered the funds to Thomas pursuant to the express instructions of Respondent given to the Johnsons while they were still in Costa Rica. Since the Johnsons and the Hoyers heard nothing regarding the status of the purchase of the property on their behalf, they began contacting Thomas in St. Petersburg and Respondent in Costa Rica. They were advised that the property was being surveyed or that real estate transactions in Costa Rica were normally slow. In September, Respondent returned from Costa Rica. She discovered that Thomas had left town after withdrawing the funds in the general operating account of World Wide Real Estate Center. The funds withdrawn by Thomas included the Johnsons' $4,000 and the Hoyers' $4,000. Respondent did not notify either the Hoyers or the Johnsons that their funds had been stolen by Thomas until December, 1974, when she met with them at the Johnsons' home. She then advised them that the police were unable to locate Thomas and that, if necessary, she would use her own funds to purchase the property for them. Both the Johnsons and the Hoyers told her they wanted the property or their money back. Hearing nothing further from Respondent, the Hoyers and the Johnsons retained an attorney, who wrote to Respondent on March 20, 1975, demanding immediate return of his clients' moneys. Hearing nothing further from Respondent, in May, 1975, the Johnsons and the Hoyers each filed a civil action against Respondent demanding return of their money. Both lawsuits were consolidated for trial. On December 18, 1975, a final judgment was entered against Respondent, doing business as World Wide Real Estate Center, and in favor of the Johnsons in the amount of $4,000 plus interest. On December 23, 1975, final judgment was entered against Respondent, doing business as World Wide Real Estate Center, and in favor of the Hoyers in the amount of $4,000 plus interest. Respondent failed to pay either final judgment. She was deposed in aid of execution in order to locate assets to collect on the final judgments. On February 1, 1978, Respondent filed for bankruptcy in order to discharge the judgments of the Hoyers and the Johnsons. Respondent admitted that was the only reason she went through bankruptcy. The Discharge of Bankrupt was entered on May 4, 1978. Respondent has never returned to the Hoyers or the Johnsons their moneys, despite the demand therefor made on her by them at the December, 1974, meeting at the Johnsons' home; despite the demand made on her by their attorney on March 20, 1975; despite the demand made on her by the filing of the civil actions in May, 1975; despite the demand made on her by the entry of the final judgments in December, 1975; and despite the demand made on her by the taking of her deposition in aid of execution. In spite of her knowledge that Thomas was not a licensed real estate salesman or broker, Respondent represented Thomas to be her agent and a licensed real estate salesperson. By the time of the formal hearing in this cause, Respondent's husband, Karl Landes, had become a licensed real estate broker. He and Respondent are employed by corporate broker Landes Realty, Inc. The sole stockholders of Realty, Inc., are Respondent and her husband.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered finding Respondent Mary E. Landes guilty of the allegations contained within the Amended Administrative Complaint, revoking her license as a real estate broker, and revoking the license of Landes Realty, Inc., during such period of revocation. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark P. Kelly, Esquire Freeman & Lopez, P.A. Suite 410, Metropolitan Bank Bldg. 4600 West Cypress Avenue Tampa, Florida 33607 Barry J. McCaughey, Esquire McCaughey, Knaust & Evans, P.A. 3151 Third Avenue, North Suite 400W St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 William M. Furlow, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant herein Edward T. Dreyer (Dreyer) was a registered real estate salesman, Donald E. Robeson was a registered real estate broker, and Dreyer Real Estate, Inc. was a registered corporate broker. During the period between January 23, 1975 and September 30, 1975 Dreyer received earnest money down payments from purchasers Rodriques for $875 on 1/23/75, the Beria Baptist Church for $2650 on 2/13/75, Vinoya for $800 on 3/12/75, Berger for $1700 on 5/14/75, and Behrendt for $800 on 9/30/75. Checks payable to Dreyer Real Estate, Inc. from Behrendt and Rodriques were converted to cashier's checks payable to Dreyer Real Estate, Inc. and the Behrendt payment was deposited in Dreyer Real Estate, Inc. account at First Citrus Bank of Indian River County, Vero Beach. Behrendt's check (Exhibit 5) contained the notation "Deposit on Trust Malabar for E 1/2 of N 1/4 of Lot 11, 2T 295 R 37E." None of these down payments were deposited in Dreyer Real Estate, Inc.'s Trust Account. (Exhibit 14) Dreyer Real Estate, Inc. Operating Account (Exhibit 15) shows a deposit of $2100 on 2/14/75, and $1400 on 5/22/75. None of the buyers in the above transactions authorized Dreyer to use the down payments although Behrendt, whose check contained the notation that it was to be deposited in trust, told Dreyer, when he gave him the check, that he (Dreyer) was the first one to be paid and felt by this comment he had given Dreyer tacit approval to use the money. All of these buyers expected their deposit to be returned if the transaction did not go through. On December 9, 1975, after Dreyer became aware that he was under investigation, he prepared affidavits that the parties to the above transactions had allowed Dreyer Real Estate, Inc. to utilize the down payment or interim funds pending final disposition of the matter. These affidavits (Exhibits 2, 4, 8, 11, and 13) were executed by the buyers and sellers except for Exhibits 11 and 13 which Anderson refused to sign. In July or August, 1975 Dreyer, who had a listing on property adjacent to property owned by Paul De Furia told De Furia that he would pay him $250 if he found a purchaser for the property Dreyer had listed. Subsequent thereto De Furia introduced Dreyer to one Trofibio who purchased the property in August, 1975. Although De Furia demanded his "finders fee" Dreyer never paid De Furia. On December 9, 1974 Dreyer executed a promissory note to a Mrs. Rice to evidence a loan from her of $1500. This note has not been paid. Respondent Robeson is President and Active Firm Member of Dreyer Real Estate, Inc. He has been a broker since August, 1973 when he commenced so serving for Respondent, Dreyer Real Estate, Inc. He comes to the office almost every day, usually for a short time in the afternoon, and is generally aware of the transactions here involved. During the time these transactions occurred the office was being moved and/or renovated and money for the improvements was needed. Dreyer told Robeson that the parties to these transactions had authorized the firm to use the deposits before the transactions closed and he (Robeson) did not question the statement. Robeson owns one share of the 60 shares outstanding in Dreyer Real Estate, Inc. Presumably the remaining shares are held by Dreyer. Robeson paid little attention to the contracts or other transactions that occurred in the office and received 5 percent of the commissions earned by the office unless he was the salesman in which case he received the usual salesman's commission of 50 percent. In 1973 Dreyer's license as a real estate broker was revoked. The grounds for revocation of this license were not presented at the hearing. Dreyer testified that he felt the only mistake he made in the transactions here involved was that he did not get authorizations from the parties to use the earnest money deposits at the time the contracts were executed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. David B.C. Yeomans, Jr., is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0163386. During times material, Respondent was the qualifying broker for G & A Realty and Investments, Inc., a corporation licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. 1/ From approximately April 1985 to December 1985, Respondent Yeomans was the president and qualifying broker for G & A. Wilfredo Gonzalez, a licensed real estate salesman and Alberto Aranda were each 50 percent shareholders of G & A. Wilfredo Gonzalez, while licensed as a real estate salesman in the employ of G & A, solicited and obtained a client, Alfredo Susi, who made an offer to purchase a commercial property in Dade County, Florida. In connection with the offer, Alfredo Susi entrusted a $10,000 earnest money deposit with Wilfredo Gonzalez to be held in trust in G & A's escrow account. The seller rejected Susi's offer to purchase whereupon Alfredo Susi made demands upon Gonzalez for return of the earnest money deposit. Wilfredo Gonzalez attempted to return the earnest money deposit entrusted by Susi via check dated November 18, 1985 drawn on G & A's escrow account. Upon presentation of the subject check by Susi, it was returned unpaid due to non-sufficient funds. Alfredo Susi has been unable to obtain a refund of the deposit submitted to Gonzalez. Wilfredo Gonzalez used the deposit presented by Susi and did not apprise Respondent Yeomans of what or how he intended to dispose of Susi's deposit. Alfredo Susi had no dealing with Respondent Yeomans and in fact testified and it is found herein, that Susi's dealings in this transaction, were exclusively with Wilfredo Gonzalez. Tony Figueredo, a former salesman with G & A, is familiar with the brokerage acts and services performed by Respondent Yeomans and Wilfredo Gonzalez. During his employment with G & A, Figueredo had no dealing with Respondent Yeonans and in fact gave all escrow monies to Wilfredo Gonzalez. Carolyn Miller, the president and broker for Rite Way, Realtors, an area brokerage entity, is familiar with the customs and practices in the Dade County area brokerage operations. Ms. Miller considered it a broker's responsibility to supervise all salesman and to review escrow deposits and corresponding accounts approximately bimonthly. Theodore J. Pappas, Board Chairman for Keyes Realtors, a major real estate brokerage entity in Dade County, also considered it the broker's responsibility to place escrow accounts into the care and custody of a secretary and not the salesman. Mr. Pappas considered that in order to insure that funds were not misappropriated, checks and balances and intensive training programs would have to be installed to minimize the risk of misappropriation of escrow deposits. Mr. Pappas conceded however that it was difficult to protect against dishonest salesman. Respondent Yeomans has been a salesman for approximately eleven years and during that time, he has been a broker for ten of those eleven years. During approximately mid 1984, Respondent Yeomans entered into a six (6) month agreement with G & A to be the qualifying broker and to attempt to sell a large tract of land listed by Context Realty in Marion County (Ocala). When Respondent agreed to become the qualifying broker for G & A Respondent was a signator to the escrow account for G & A Realty. Sometime subsequent to Respondent qualifying as broker for G & A, Wilfredo Gonzalez changed the escrow account and Respondent Yeomans was unfamiliar with that fact. Respondent Yeomans first became aware of Susi's complaint during late 1985 or early 1986. Respondent Yeomans was not a signator on the escrow account where Wilfredo Gonzalez placed the escrow deposit entrusted by Alfredo Susi. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9) During approximately November, 1986, Respondent Yeomans made it known to the officers at G & A that he was withdrawing his license from G & A and attempted to get G & A's officers to effect the change. When this did not occur by December, 1986, Respondent Yeomans effectuated the change himself and terminated his affiliation with G & A. During the time when Respondent was the qualifying agent for G & A, there were approximately four employees and little activity to review in the way of overseeing real estate salespersons. During this period, Respondent Yeomans reviewed the escrow account for G & A that he was aware of. During the time that Respondent Yeomans was qualifying broker for G & A, he was primarily involved in the undeveloped acreage owned by Context Realty and other REO listed property of G & A. During the period when Respondent Yeomans was qualifying agent for G & A, Wilfredo Gonzalez spent approximately 95 percent of his time managing rental property that he (Gonzalez) owned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 9th day of June, 1987.
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are whether Respondents, who are licensed real estate brokers, committed acts of dishonest dealing or culpable negligence in a business transaction; failed to account for and deliver trust funds; failed to maintain trust funds in an escrow account as required; intermingled personal funds with trust funds; obstructed or hindered Petitioner's investigator in an official investigation; or committed any of these offenses, as alleged by Petitioner in its Administrative Complaint. If Petitioner proves one or more of the alleged violations, then an additional question will arise, namely whether disciplinary penalties should be imposed on Respondents, or either of them.
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 Ramirez Transaction On or about September 9, 2003, Toirac, in her individual capacity, entered into a Sale and Purchase Contract (the "Contract") with Andres Ramirez ("Ramirez"), whereby Toirac agreed to sell, and Ramirez to buy, certain real estate then owned by Toirac. The Contract called for Ramirez to make several deposits toward the purchase price. Accordingly, Ramirez tendered to Toirac a total of $14,000 in pre-closing payments. Toirac accepted these payments, which were deposited in HCIC's operating account. At some point, Toirac withdrew Ramirez's deposits from HCIC's operating account, taking the money in cash. She brought the $14,000 in cash to her attorney, Alix Montes, who agreed to hold the money in escrow pending the closing of the sale to Ramirez. Mr. Montes placed the cash in a safe located in his home. The sale to Ramirez fell through after Ramirez failed to obtain acceptable financing and exercised his right to cancel the Contract in consequence thereof. Ramirez requested that his deposits be returned. Within a short time (not more than about two weeks), Toirac gave Ramirez his money back——in cash. The parties dispute whether Toirac properly handled Ramirez's deposits. Petitioner asserts that the $14,000 should have been held in an escrow account maintained at a financial institution such as a bank or title company. Toirac responds that she complied with a "Financing and Deposit Addendum" (the "Addendum") to the Contract. The Addendum, which is part of the Contract that Petitioner offered into evidence (as Petitioner's Exhibit 4), provides in pertinent part as follows: Seller acknowledges that in the event that the Buyer is not approved for a mortgage loan or the terms and conditions of said mortgage loan are not acceptable to Seller, Seller within thirty (30) days from the date Seller receives Buyer's written request for the return of its deposit, shall refund Buyer's deposit in full. Upon Seller's refund of the deposit, this contract will terminate and all parties will be relieved from the obligations and liabilities. Buyer acknowledges that the Seller herein is a licensed Real Estate Broker in the state of Florida and That Home Center International Corp. will not be the "Escrow Agent" in this transaction nor will Home Center International Corp. or any of its affiliates, officers, directors, agents and/or employees will receive a Real Estate Brokerage fee in connection with this transaction. Buyer authorizes Home Center International Corp. to place any and all deposits herein in its operating account. Buyer further authorizes Home Center International Corp, at any time to withdraw and/or transfer Buyer's funds from the operating account. In the event a transfer of any and all funds is effected, such funds shall be held by Alix J. Montes, Esq., Attorney for the Seller. This Addendum supercedes the provisions of paragraph 2 (A)2(B)(1), 16(A)(B)(C), 17, 18, and 19 of the "As Is" Sale and Purchase Contract signed by all parties herein. (In the original, the text is written in all capital letters.) The Addendum is dated September 9, 2003, and bears the purported signatures of Ramirez and Toirac. Petitioner alleged in its Administrative Complaint that Ramirez had denied executing the Addendum. At hearing, however, Petitioner failed to offer any proof——such as Ramirez's testimony or the testimony of an expert disputing the authenticity of Ramirez's purported signature on the Addendum—— to establish this allegation. In contrast, Toirac testified that both she and Ramirez had, in fact, signed the Addendum. As a result, on this record, the undersigned is not clearly convinced that the Addendum is fraudulent. Moreover, the Addendum and Toirac's testimony, taken together, are sufficiently persuasive (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) to prevent the undersigned from being clearly convinced that Toirac mishandled Ramirez's deposits or otherwise dealt dishonestly or improperly with him. The January 2004 Audit On January 20, 2004, 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 of a complaint from Ramirez.) During the audit, Toirac reported to Ms. Morales that she no longer maintained an escrow account but instead relied upon her attorney to act as escrow agent for funds entrusted to her. Toirac also told Mr. Morales that Ramirez's deposits initially had been held in HCIC's operating account, before being handed over to Mr. Montes for safekeeping. Toirac was not able, at the time of the audit, to produce bank statements for HCIC's operating account, and apparently a listing agreement that should have been in the broker's file was not there. Toirac agreed to provide the missing documentation. By letter dated January 20, 2004, Toirac informed Ms. Morales that she would forward requested documentation within 10 days. For reasons unknown, Toirac failed to follow through with this, prompting the instant disciplinary action. The Charges In Counts I and VII, Petitioner alleges that Respondents are guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in any business transaction, either of which is a disciplinable offense under Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is that Respondents mishandled Ramirez's deposits and misled him into believing that the money would be held in trust by HCIC as an escrow agent.1 In Counts II and VIII, Petitioner charges Respondents with failing to account for and deliver trust funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is unclear. What is clear, however, is that Respondents returned Ramirez's deposit money within a reasonable time after his demand therefor. In Counts III and IX, 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. In Counts IV and X of its Administrative Complaint, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having intermingled personal funds with funds being held in escrow. Petitioner's position is that by initially depositing Ramirez's deposits in HCIC's operating account, Respondents failed to comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.008(2), and hence violated Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. In Counts V and XI, Petitioner asserts that Respondents obstructed or hindered the enforcement of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and therefore in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is that Respondents willfully interfered with Morales's investigation by failing to provide documentation as promised.2 Ultimate Factual Determinations Toirac handled Ramirez's deposit money in accordance with the unambiguous terms of the Addendum. Petitioner failed to prove that the Addendum is fraudulent. Thus, the Addendum, when considered in conjunction with Toirac's unrebutted testimony that she and Ramirez signed the instrument, is fatal to Counts I, III, IV, VII, IX, and X of the Administrative Complaint. Respondents are not guilty of the offenses charged therein. Toirac did, in fact, return Ramirez's deposit money within a reasonable time after he demanded a refund. Respondents therefore are not guilty of the offenses charged in Counts II and VII of the Administrative Complaint. When Ms. Morales interviewed Toirac in January 2004 in response to Ramirez's complaint, Toirac admitted most, if not all, of the material facts pertaining to the circumstances under which Ramirez's deposits had been held. Further, the documents that Toirac neglected to provide Ms. Morales, i.e. HCIC's bank records and a listing agreement that had gone missing, were claimed by Toirac to be corroborative of her statements to the investigator. Toirac's failure to produce such documents cost Toirac an opportunity to bolster her credibility——and enabled Petitioner to draw adverse inferences against Toirac, e.g. that the questioned listing agreement did not exist after all.3 Given these facts, the undersigned is not convinced that Respondents obstructed or hindered Petitioner's investigation. Consequently, Respondents are not guilty of the charges set forth in Counts V and VI of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondents not guilty of the offenses charged in the Administrative Complaint. 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.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Rodney G. Green, held real estate broker license number 0113068 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Respondent, Charter Realty, Inc. (Charter), is a corporation licensed as a broker and is the holder of license number 0224926 also issued by Petitioner. When the events herein occurred, Green was the sole qualifying broker and officer of Charter Realty, Inc. The offices of Charter are located at 800 Westwood Square, Suite C, Oviedo, Florida. Respondent Green is also the owner of Rodney G. Green, Inc., a building and development company. Its office is located in the same building as Charter, where they share a common reception area. Each entity has a separate telephone number. Around June, 1984, Rodney Green was attempting to sell seven commercial lots known as Green's Commercial Addition to Oviedo located in Oviedo, Florida. Green was the owner of the seven lots. He had a large For Sale sign on the property which carried the name and telephone number of both Charter and Rodney G. Green, Inc. Green had an understanding with associates in his real estate office that if a prospective buyer called on the Charter telephone line concerning the lots, he would give a sales commission to the associate who answered the call if a sale materialized. Otherwise, he intended to sell the lots through his development company and not through the real estate firm. Hassan Soltani, an electrical engineer, wished to buy a commercially zoned lot in Oviedo on which to construct a building for his newly formed corporation, Bio-Med Engineering, Inc. After seeing Green's property, he telephoned the offices of Charter Realty, Inc. Green's wife answered the call, advised him that Green personally owned the property, that Charter was not involved in the transaction, and that it would be sold by Rodney G. Green, Inc. rather than Charter. She referred him to Green who reiterated this same advice to Soltani. On or about June 21, 1985, Soltani executed a contract to purchase Lot 7 of Green's Commercial Addition. The contract provided for a $35,000 sales price, a $1,750 deposit, and a closing date of July 27, 1984. When he executed the contract, Soltani advised Green that the lot would be purchased by a partnership made up of Soltani, Claire M. Marachel and John T. Tobin, Jr., the latter two employees at Soltani's firm. Soltani also told Green that the partnership had $20,000 cash counting the $1,750 deposit, and would obtain the remaining $15,000 prior to closing by selling a $20,000 stock certificate held by Marachel. Based on this representation, Green did not provide any contingency clauses in the contract for borrower financing. The only contingency clause was one requiring Green to "fill Northeast corner of lot to within one foot of existing grade." It is noted that Green accepted the Soltani offer over that of another buyer because no financing would be required on the Soltani contract. About a week before closing, Soltani telephoned Green to inquire when the lot would be filled. Green thereafter had the lot filled in accordance with the contract. On July 27, the date of closing, Soltani advised Green that Marachel had had difficulty in getting the stock certificate transferred to her from the stock broker, and they needed an extension of time to close on the contract. Green did not wish to extend the closing date because he had a closing on other property across the street and needed cash immediately. Soltani offered to increase the cash deposit to $20,000 which could be used by Green to close on the other property in return for an extension of the closing date to August 15, 1984. Soltani also agreed to seek bank financing from a local bank recommended by Green. Green accepted these terms and all parties executed an amendment to the contract extending the closing date to August 15, 1984. Soltani also gave Green an additional $18,250 as deposit on the land. The deposit was placed in the bank account of Rodney G. Green, Inc. and was temporarily used by Green to close on the other property. There was still no contingency clause in the contract for buyers' financing. In early August, Green made Soltani and his partners an appointment with a loan officer at a local bank. The loan officer agreed to loan Soltani $15,000 conditioned upon all three partners filing financial statements and a partnership agreement, and Marachel liquidating her stock and purchasing a $20,000 certificate of deposit at Barnett. When the August 15 deadline was not met, Green orally agreed to another extension of time on the closing date since Soltani continued to express an interest in purchasing the property. Around the first September, Soltani told Green he was not going to furnish the bank with the requested documents and asked if Green would provide owner financing on the $15,000 balance. Green responded he could not. At a later date, Soltani called Green's office twice requesting to talk to Green and to obtain a refund of his deposit. Green's wife answered both times and told Soltani he would have to speak to Green. Green attempted to return the calls but was unsuccessful in reaching Soltani. Soltani then sent Green a letter on October 4, 1984 demanding a return of his deposit no later than October 11, 1984. He also filed a complaint with Petitioner on or about October 18, 1984. Before Green could respond to the letter, an investigator from Petitioner's office visited Green for the purpose of auditing his escrow account. The investigator found that the $20,000 deposit was not in Charter's escrow account and advised Green to place it in the account at once. Green did so on October 23, 1984, and two days later refunded the entire deposit to Soltani, Marachel and Tobin. He did so to avoid "problems" with Petitioner, but considered Soltani to have breached the contract by failing to close on the specified closing date. The instant disciplinary action was instituted a few months later.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint herein be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esq. P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Margaret A. Wharton, Esq. P. O. Box 1172 Oviedo, FL 32765
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Steven Hall, at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed real estate salesman and broker. Upon February 15, 1984, he became licensed as a broker. The Respondent was registered with and employed by J. Arnold Ausley Realty from March 31, 1983 to February 15, 1984. J. Arnold Ausley was a licensed real estate broker and operated as Ausley Properties during times pertinent hereto. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure and practice of realtors in the State of Florida and enforcing the practice standards for realtors embodied in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On February 4, 1984, the Respondent, in his capacity as a licensed salesman for Ausley Properties, arranged a contract between Champak Bhoja and Kishor Patel, as purchasers of a certain piece of real estate owned by one John D. Gilbert. In connection with that contract the Respondent obtained a $2,000 check as a deposit from Mr. Patel. At Mr. Patel's request the Respondent held this check without negotiating it awaiting Patel's instruction that sufficient funds were on deposit to honor the check. The Respondent waited four weeks and received no such instructions from Mr. Patel. The Respondent therefore contacted Patel, who was in Nebraska at the time, to tell him that he felt legally obligated to deposit the check. The check was deposited and was returned for insufficient funds. On March 19, 1984, Mr. Patel gave the Respondent a replacement check in the amount of $2,000. Mr. Hall asked Mr. Patel to make the check out to him since he had in the meantime become a broker and wanted credit for this transaction in his own business. He also informed Mr. Patel that he would need to use the money for his own personal expenses, in the nature of a "loan." Mr. Patel, however, made the check out to the "Ausley Properties Escrow Account." The Respondent and Mr. Patel had been involved in other business ventures together during the course of which Mr. Patel had already lent the Respondent, on different occasions, a total of approximately $4,000. This course of dealing was continued in the present instance, from the Respondent's viewpoint, when the Respondent informed Mr. Patel that he needed the $2,000 for personal expense purposes and would pay it back as a loan. He believed Mr. Patel assented to that arrangement at the time. The sales contract at issue ultimately failed to be consummated due to Mr. Pate1 and Mr. Bhoja not meeting the required contingency regarding debt financing. Approximately fifteen days after the contract's closing date passed, Mr. Patel made a demand upon the Respondent for the return of the $2,000 deposit. The Respondent failed to return it at that time but assured Mr. Patel that he would repay the money and needed more time to obtain the necessary funds. The Respondent had not deposited the check in the Ausley Properties Escrow Account because such an account did not exist, although the Respondent had urged Mr. Ausley on a number of occasions to set up such an account. The Respondent rather cashed the $2,000 check and used the proceeds for his own benefit, as he had informed Patel he would do. He used the money to meet certain operating expenses and personal expenses, being in severe financial straits at the time. Pate1 knew he was experiencing financial difficulties and had lent him the previously mentioned $4,000 to help him with operating expenses and personal expenses during the pendency of the closing of their various other real estate ventures. The Respondent informed Patel he would use the subject $2,000 for similar purposes, however, the record does not clearly reflect that Patel consented to this, as opposed to his intent that the money be placed in an account as his deposit of consideration for the contract. His testimony to this latter effect is borne out by the fact that in spite of the Respondent's request that the check be made out to him personally, instead Patel made it out to the "Ausley Properties Escrow Account." That account did not exist but the method of drafting the check reveals his intent that the money was to be used as a deposit. In any event the Respondent made no misrepresentation to Mr. Patel as to what he intended to do with the money, but at the same time he did not deposit it in an appropriate account to be held as a deposit toward the purchase of the property involved in the sales contract. Patel made numerous demands for the money and each time Respondent acknowledged this and the other debt to Patel and promised to pay. He ultimately began paying back a small portion of the indebtedness to each of his creditors starting out at a rate of $10 per month. Ultimately, the Respondent paid the entire $2,000 predicated on receipt of his 1985 income tax return.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Petitioner finding that the Respondent has violated Section 475.25(1)(b),(d,)(e) and (k) only to the extent delineated in the above conclusions of law and that his real estate broker's license be subjected to a six months suspension. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Steven R. Hall 8880 Old Kings Hwy., Apt. 30-W Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Michael Sheahan, Esquire Two South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings Slocum Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Rea1 Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected, although the evidence establishes that Patel intended the funds to be escrowed. Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected as not comporting with the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact:* Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted, but irrelevant to the charges. Accepted Accepted Accepted as to the first sentence only. The second sentence concerning Patel's response is not clearly supported by record evidence. Accepted Accepted Accepted * Although Respondent is proposed findings are accepted, some are inculpatory, some are not material and some support the conclusion that no fraudulent conduct was committed.
