Findings Of Fact Respondent-licensee Edison Realty, Inc., was during all times material herein a corporate registered real estate broker and Respondent-licensees, Richard G. Gibbs and Shirley Puhala were registered real estate brokers with the Commission and were operating and registered as active brokers with the official capacity of President and Secretary-Treasurer respectively of Respondent- licensee, Edison Realty, Inc. See Commission's Composite Exhibit #1. Pursuant to a trust agreement dated June 21, 1971, Respondent-licensee, Richard G. Gibbs, as trustee, and Walter Johnson, as beneficiary, entered Into a trust arrangement for certain properties known as Orange River Ranchettes located In Lee County, Florida. (A copy of the trust agreement is attached to the administrative complaint filed herein as exhibit "A".) Testimony adduced during the course of the hearing revealed that approximately 300 acres were purchased which the parties subdivided into 5 acre ranchettes. Pursuant to sale of the ranchettes, approximately $200,000 to $215,000 was received and invested as trust funds. At the end of calendar year 1975, Respondent-licensee, Richard G. Gibbs, obtained without the consent or permission of the remaining trustees, approximately $127,486.74 in exchange for two promissory notes executed and delivered by Respondent Gibbs, as President of Edison Realty, Inc. (A copy of the promissory notes are attached to the administrative complaint as exhibit "B"). Although the above promissory notes are now due with Interest, Respondent Gibbs refuses to pay despite demands from the trustees. Evidence reveals further that Edison Realty, Inc., received during the course of conducting its real estate brokerage business, during the period of approximately April 23, 1976 thru March 31, 1977, escrow deposits entrusted totaling approximately $37,720.00 and an examination of its escrow account maintained at First National Bank in Ft. Myers, Florida, reveals a closing balance of $5,419.76. Evidence reveals further that Edison Realty, Inc., In the course of conducting its real estate brokerage business is In charge of the management of real property known as Parklane Village Trust, Tamiami City Trust, Union Trust, Kenwood Trust, Pindel Trust, Sancarlo Trust, Broadway Trust and Captain's Quarter. For its management responsibilities, Edison received and was entrusted with funds totaling $19,625.28 and an examination of its escrow account respecting the above trust reflects closing balance of only $5,419.76. Evidence reveals further that Respondent-licensee Richard G. Gibbs, was the only person authorized to and made withdrawals from the above trust account and that as of March 31, 1977, he converted approximately $51,932.52 to his own use or to that of some other person other than the true owner or person entitled thereto. H. Freeman Bigelow, Norma Jane Morris, Allen Higgens, Hubert R. Foster, Boyd Strasbaugh, Lorelei Jane Irons, Harriet Ann Houck were all former licensed and registered salespersons with the Commission and employed by the Respondent- licensee, Edison Realty, Inc. During the course of their employment with Edison Realty, Inc., they received as payment of their share of commissions earned, checks which were returned to them for insufficient funds. Despite repeated requests by them for their share of commissions earned, Respondent-licensee, Edison Realty, Inc. and Richard G. Gibbs, as President, has failed to honor their demands. No evidence was introduced to establish that Respondent-licensee, Shirley Puhala, by any means engaged in or assisted Respondent Gibbs in the withdrawal, conversion or other appropriations for his own use of monies entrusted to him individually or in his official capacity as a trustee or President of Respondent-licensee, Edison Realty, Inc. To the contrary, it appears that Mrs. Puhala was most cooperative in assisting the Commission's investigator in his investigation of this matter. Pursuant to the emergency suspension hearing before the Commission, Carol Arnold who is presently the President of Edison Realty, Inc., entered an arrangement with Attorney C. Michael Jackson to wind up the corporate affairs of Edison Realty, Inc. The Commission directed them to refrain from engaging in any new corporate business or activity. They were further advised to establish a trust fund for monies received to be disbursed to creditors.
Recommendation Based In the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, recommended as follows: That the Respondent-licensee, Edison Realty, Inc., registration with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a registered real estate corporate broker be revoked. That the Respondent-licensee, Richard G. Gibbs, registration with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker be revoked. That the complaint allegations filed herein respecting the Respondent- licensee, Shirley Puhala, be dismissed and that the suspension of her registration be vacated. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of July, 1977, In Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 C. Michael Jackson, Esquire Post Office Drawer 790 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 Ms. Shirley Puhala c/o Edison Realty, Inc. 2373 West First Street Ft. Myers, Florida 33901
The Issue Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined based upon the allegations that Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined based upon the allegation that Respondent is guilty of failure to account and deliver funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined based upon the allegation that Respondent is guilty of failure to maintain trust funds in a real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.005(1)(k), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Leslie L. White is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0095441 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to the Respondent was as a broker with an address of Les White Realty, 6313 Wynglow Lane, Orlando, Florida, 32818-1311. Respondent's license is currently under suspension for failing to pay a fine and failure to complete certain education courses. On or about September 28, 1993, Respondent negotiated a contract between himself, doing business as Les White Enterprises, as seller, and Charles and Greta White, as buyers, (no apparent relationship to Respondent) to purchase Lot Number 18, Whisper Ridge subdivision in Orange County, Florida and build a house thereon for the total sum of $79,000. Respondent prepared the contract, using the standard Contract for Sale and Purchase form approved by the Florida Association of Realtors and The Florida Bar. Les White Enterprises was listed as the "Seller" and Charles White and Greta White, his wife, were listed as "Buyers". The Buyers agreed to purchase Lot 18 and to have a house constructed on the site by the Seller. The Buyers agreed to seek "new financing at prevailing interest rates" in the amount of $75,550; put down a $2,000 deposit and pay an additional $1,450 at closing. The contract called for the deposit to be held in escrow by Les White Realty/Builders. The $2,000 deposit was paid in cash by the Buyers and given to Respondent. The Respondent did not place the $2,000 deposit in an escrow account contrary to the express terms of the contract. Respondent did not acknowledge receipt of the deposit in his capacity as a broker. At the time the contract was signed, the Buyers knew that the Respondent did not own or have title to Lot 18, and that the purchase price of the lot exceed the amount of the deposit. The Buyers consented to the Respondent using the funds to acquire the property. Respondent was unable to purchase Lot 18, and sought the Buyers' permission to purchase Lot 2 instead and construct a house on it in accordance with the parties' prior agreement. The Buyers reluctantly agreed. On February 18, 1994, Buyers gave Respondent a cashier's check for $1,200 for the purpose of clearing the land and beginning construction of a home for them on Lot 2. The funds were not placed in escrow. The Respondent utilized the funds received from the Buyers and acquired title to Lot 2 in his name alone on or about February 25, 1994. The Respondent cleared Lot 2 in preparation for construction, obtained building plans and applied for building permits in connection with building a house on said lot. Shortly thereafter, Respondent notified the Buyers that the private investors, who approved their loan application, had discontinued financing of the Respondent's construction loan and he was unable to construct the house. The transaction failed to close and the Buyers demanded that Respondent return the earnest money deposit. Respondent was unable to return to return the $3,200 earnest money deposit to the Buyers. Respondent filed for personal reorganization under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Throughout the course of this transaction, Buyers dealt with Respondent in his capacity as a broker/builder. In 1994 and 1995, the Florida Real Estate Commission found Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(b) and (1)(d)1., Florida Statutes on three occasions. Following the third offense, Respondent's license was suspended for six months and it is presently under suspension for failure to pay his administrative fines and complete other requirements of probation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue and file a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (d)1., and (k), Florida Statutes; and guilty of having been found guilty for a second time (or more) of misconduct that warrants suspension, in violation of subsection 475.25.(1)(o), Florida Statutes; it is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's licensed be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Gillis and Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether Carleen Chalk Lund, an active broker in Lund Realty, Inc. , a licensed corporate broker, failed to account or deliver to Daisy and Kenneth Parnell money in the form of a deposit which had come into her hands and which was not her property or which she was not in law or equity entitled to retain, under the circumstances, and at the time which was agreed upon or which was required by law or, in the absence of an agreed upon time, upon demand of the Parnells, who were entitled to such an accounting or delivery.
Findings Of Fact Carleen Chalk Lund and Norman Wayne Lund are registered real estate brokers holding current registration from the Florida Real Estate Commission and are active brokers in Lund Realty, Inc., a corporate broker registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission. On or about January 4, 1975, Daisy and Kenneth Parnell, the buyers, signed an offer to purchase the following real property from David and Wilma Hammer: East 184.5 ft. of NW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Sec 6, Twp. 26 S, Range 29 E, N Osceola County. Said offer was accepted by the sellers. Subsequently, the buyers sent a telegraphic money order in the amount of $2,200 to Lund Realty, Inc. Therefore said money was deposited in the escrow account of Lund Realty, Inc. $2,000 as deposit on the Hammer's property and $200 to be used for closing costs. The following provisions of the Contract for Purchase between the buyers and the sellers are specifically noted and referenced: In accordance with provisions of paragraph 4, the contract was to be closed and the deed delivered on or before January 31, 1975. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6, the seller was to convey title to the aforesaid property to the buyer by agreement for deed. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7, the costs, if any, of preparation of closing documents and closing fee shall be borne equally by the seller and buyer. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 9, all closing costs were to be divided equally between the buyer and seller including title insurance. In accordance with paragraph G of said standards, if the buyer failed to perform any of the covenants of the contract within the time specified, the deposit paid by the buyer might be retained by or for the account of the seller as consideration for the execution of the contract and in full settlement of any claims for camages and all parties would be relieved of all obligations under the contract and each party would execute a separate release of the other at that time. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph P of the standards, in the event that the buyer failed to perform and the aforesaid deposit was retained, the amount of the deposit was to have been divided equally between the realtor and the seller provided that the amount to be retained and received by the realtor would not exceed the full amount of the commission and that any excess would be paid to the seller. In accordance with the provisions of the paragraph "Commission to Realtor", the seller acknowledged the employment of Lund Realty, Inc. and agreed to pay Lund Realty a commission in accordance with the commission agreement. On January 25, 1975, copies of the articles of agreement, closing statement, and title insurance cost disclosure were sent by Chelsea Title and Guaranty Company to Mrs. Daisy Parnell at 88 North Pasack Road, Spring Valley, New York, 10977. The letter accompanying the aforementioned documents indicated that the sellers had executed the closing papers on that date. Said letter further indicated that as soon as the papers were signed by the recipient, that Dee A Burttram, manager of Chelsea Title and Guaranty Company, would record the articles of agreement and insure title to property. These papers were net signed and returned to Chelsea Title, and on February 14, 1975 a subsequent letter was addressed from Dee A. Burttram to airs. Daisy Parnell at the aforestated address indicating that Chelsea Title had not received the documents forwarded to Mrs. Parnell and offering further information if they had not been completed. See Composite Exhibit 10. Between January 25 and February 28, 1975 efforts were made by Lund Realty, Inc. to contact airs. Daisy Parnell without success. On February 28, 1975 it was determined that Frank Townsend, Attorney at Law practicing in Kissimmee, had been engaged by Sidney Schwartz, Attorney at Law practicing in New York, to review the contract entered into by Mrs. Daisy Parnell. According to his testimony, Frank Townsend recommended to Schwartz that Mrs. Parnell not go through with the contract until certain discrepancies in the contract were clarified. The discrepancies involved were the conflict between the provision of paragraph 2 stating that $8,000 purchase money note and mortgage to the seller while paragraph 6 indicated that the seller would convey title by an agreement for deed; the lack of a scribner's statement note on the papers to be filed with the Court; and a discrepancy between the amount of monthly payment as stated in the Contract for Sale and Purchase and the Agreement for Deed. However, by his letter of March 5, 1975 to Mrs. Daisy Parnell, Townsend refers only to problems involving the use of the Agreement for Deed which he concluded was not a problem if the sellers insisted on that form of conveyance, and the fact that the Agreement for Deed is unacceptable because it is unrecordable (an apparent reference to the fact that a scribner's notation was not made on the Agreement for Deed). By his letter of April 3, 1975 to Mr. Sidney Schwartz, Mr. Townsend indicates that he had completed all back ground work on the transaction and had advised Mr. Murray W. Over street, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Hammer three weeks prior that he (Townsend) was ready to provide a note and mortgage in exchange for a Warranty Deed and had requested that Overstreet arrange a closing date. Mr. Townsend closes indicating that he had again contacted Mr. Overstreet reminding him that the Parnells wished to close. Several things are apparent from Townsend's letters of March 5 and April 3, 1975. It is apparent from the letter to Mrs. Parnell from Townsend dated March 5, 1975 that substantial concern existed on the part of Schwartz that the use of an Agreement for Deed in the transaction would provide to Mrs. Parnell less protection than she would have in a situation in which a note and mortgage was used. However, as stated above, Townsend pointed out that the use of an Agreement for Deed under the Florida Law would afford Mrs. Parnell the same protection as a mortgage. It is also clear from the April 3 letter that all problems related to the Parnell-Hammer transaction had been resolved, that they were ready to close but insisted upon a note and mortgage in exchange for a warranty deed, and their position had bean communicated to counsel for the Hammers. The demand for the use of a note and mortgage by the Parnells is contrary to the provisions of the Contract for Sale and Purchase between these parties entered into on January 4, 1975 and as of April 3, 1975 was the only reason for the Parnell's refusing to close. On April 3, 1975, Mr. Murray Overstreet attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Hammer, advised Frank N. Townsend, attorney for Mrs. Parnell, that the Hammers considered their Contract for Sale and Purchase with Mrs. Parnell to be null and void because the transaction was to be closed on or before January 31, 1975 and that as of April 3, 1975 the matter had not been completed. Mr. Overstreet further advised that his clients made no claim on the deposit made to Lund Realty and that said deposit might be returned to the buyers. A copy of this letter was sent to Lund Realty, Inc. Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph G of the Contract for Sale and Purchase referenced above, upon default of the buyer, the deposit paid by the buyer could be retained by or for the account of the sellers as consideration for the execution of the contract and in full settlement of any claims for damage. Under the provisions of paragraph P of said contract, said deposit would be divided equally between the realtor and seller; provided, however, that the amount retained or received by the realtor was not to exceed the full amount of the commission, in this instance $600. On April 4, 1975 in response to the copy of the letter from Overstreet to Townsend in which the Hammers declared the Contract for Purchase and Sale null and void, Lund Realty, Inc. wrote Frank Townsend advising him that the expenses for sales commission, cancellation fee, and termite inspection should be considered before any escrow funds were disbursed and requesting that Lund Realty be advised as to how Mrs. Parnell would like to handle the charges. Clearly, Lund Realty considered the Parnells to be in default and asserted a claim for commission. No evidence was received regarding any response from Townsend to the letter of Lund Realty, Inc. dated April 4, 1975. On May 14, 1975 Lund Realty wrote Mrs. Daisy Parnell sending her a check in the amount of $1,466, the amount of her deposit less expenses incurred by her for sales commission, cancellation fee, termite inspection, and insurance. The amounts of each of the expenses and copies of statements were enclosed. Although the check in question was retained by Mrs. Parnell, Lund Realty received a letter from Sidney Schwartz dated May 23, 1975 which states in pertinent part as follows: "I am led to believe that the seller in the proposed transaction did not perfect title and waived and/or released its interest in the contract. If this be so, the entire down pay ment of Mrs. Parnell must be returned to her imme- diately. Please inquire into this matter. You no doubt are aware that Mrs. Parnell has retained Florida counsel, namely, Frank N. Townsend, Esquire, Post Office Box 847, Kissimmee, Florida. This is further to advise that in the event there has been a wrongful retention of any of Mrs. Parnell's funds, complaints shall be lodged with all appropriate authorities including licen- sing authorities in the State of Florida." The next contact between the parties was a letter to Lund Realty from Frank Townsend dated June 19, 1975. In that letter, Mr. Townsend stated as follows: "This confirms our request in accordance with Mr. Overstreet's letter wherein no demand is made for any funds on behalf of the Hammers, the return of all funds deposited with you by the Parnells is specifically requested." A second follow-up letter was addressed to Lund Realty on July 14,1975 requesting a response to the aforementioned letter of June 19, 1975. It is clear that the basis for demand of return of the deposit receipt in its entirety was based on the statements in Overstreet's letter to Townsend dated April 3, 1975, that the Hammers made no claim to the deposit to Lund Realty, Inc. This position of the Hammers was subsequently clarified by Mr. Hammer in his letter of August 12 (Exhibit 7) and by Mr. Overstreet, who at the hearing, testified that the Hammers never intended to waive the amount of the commission and the cost. Lund Realty was entitled to its commission and the Hammers would have had a cause of action against the Parnells under the contract for the entire amount of the deposit. However, the existence of a dispute over claims to all or portions of the escrow funds developed slowly, and was based on whether the Hammers waived their rights to all or any portion of the escrow funds. In September 1975 Lund Realty requested an advisory opinion of the Florida Real Estate Commission regarding its duties. The conclusion of that advisory opinion was that disbursement should be made to the Parnells, and that the claims that Lund, Chelsea Title and any other individuals should be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. The advisory opinion was silent, however, on Hammer's subsequent claim for the commission and cost from the deposit. As of the date of hearing, the $2,200 was on deposit in the escrow account of Lund Realty, Inc.
Recommendation The position and actions of the various individuals should also be considered in this case in arriving at a penalty because none of the parties have completely "clean hands." The Parnells precipitated the breach by insistence on a note and mortgage; the Hammers have made no attempt to clarify the situation by paying the commission and cost; and the attorneys kept Lund Realty completely in the dark about what was transpiring. The Lunds are the only ones involved in the transaction who have tried to carry out their obligation. Further, they also are the only ones who stand to lose financially without seeking judicial relief. While they have held the money, it has remained in escrow since the dispute arose. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and other factors bearing on the case, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Florida Real Estate Commission place Carleen Chalk Lund on probation for one year. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of January 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Carleen Chalk Lund 612 West Vine Street Kissimmee, Florida 32741
The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondent's guilty of failing to return an earnest money deposit upon demand, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and of failing to comply with the directives of this statute when conflicting demands were made upon him concerning escrowed property. By Administrative Complaint issued on September 2, 1981, the Petitioner seeks to revoke or suspend the Respondent's real estate license, or otherwise discipline him, for alleged violations of Section 475.25(1)(b) and Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner presented two witnesses in support of the Administrative Complaint, together with eleven exhibits which were received in evidence. The Respondent testified in his own behalf, along with one other witness, and introduced two exhibits which were received in evidence.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and exhibits in evidence, the stipulations of the parties, and the observed candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the following are found as facts: The Respondent, Robert W. Browning, is a licensed real estate broker, having been issued License No. 0112998. The Respondent has a 25 percent interest in a Florida Partnership known as WTBS. The remaining partners are Orian P. Wells, John S. Thompson, and Luther W. Strickland. The Partnership WTBS purchased many acres of land in Dixie County, Florida from Georgia- Pacific, platted this land into lots, and offered these lots for sale. The Respondent was the registered real estate broker responsible for sales of property for the Partnership WTBS, and he was the person who had the authority to sign all closing documents in connection with transactions on behalf of the partnership. Dale Herring a licensed salesman working for the Respondent, conducted sales of the Dixie County parcels while acting under the brokerage license of the Respondent. Dale Herring negotiated a contract dated December 13, 1980, in which Robert and Frances Harburg agreed to purchase approxi- mately 14 acres of the Dixie County property. Mr. Harburg wrote a check for $2,850, payable to the Respondent, and gave the check to Dale Herring as a deposit on the property described in the contract. The Respondent placed this deposit check in his escrow account. The Respondent signed the Purchase and Sale Agreement with the Harburgs on behalf of the Partnership WTBS, as Seller, on December 16, 1980. This purchase and Sale Agreement contained the following pertinent provisions: Closing was to take place December 29, 1980. Graded-road access would be completed within four weeks of the contract. Conveyance of the property was to be by warranty deed. Seller would pay for stamps on the deed, title insurance, survey, and real estate commission. Paragraph 10 of this Agreement states: "If the Seller fails to perform any of the covenants of this contract, the [deposit] paid by the Buyer, at the option of the Buyer, shall be returned to the Buyer on demand. The closing was to take place by mail. When the Harburgs did not receive their closing docu- ments on the date set for closing, they telephoned the Respondent's real estate office. The Respondent did not return their call. The Harburgs received the closing documents January 5, 1981. The documents received conflicted with the Purchase and Sale Agreement by indicating: Conveyance was to be by contract for deed rather than by warranty deed. The Purchaser could not transfer the property without approval of the Seller. If the Seller could not give clear title to the property for any reason, the purchase price could be refunded with no interest. The contract for deed provided for a five day default period. The contract for deed required the buyer to pay certain monies to Georgia-pacific in the event of a release request. The contract for deed required the Buyer to pay for stamps on the deed. After reviewing the submitted closing documents, Mr. Harburg sent a letter to the Respondent dated January 7, 1981, requesting the return of his earnest money deposit because the closing documents submitted were in conflict with the sales contract. The purpose of this letter was to put the Respondent on notice of the Harburg's dissatisfaction with the submitted documents. The Respondent did not reply to Mr. Harburg's letter of January 7, 1981. The Harburgs visited the subject property on January 19, 1981, and found that there had been no material progress made on completion of the graded access road as required by the Purchase and Sale Agreement. On January 20, 1981, Mr. Harburg sent a second letter to Mr. Browning, requesting the return of his earnest money deposit because: The closing papers were received seven days late. The closing papers were in conflict with the Purchase and Sale Agreement. The graded access road was not completed. Upon receiving no reply from the Respondent, the Harburgs retained Richard Oehler, Esquire, to recover their earnest money deposit. Mr. Oehler wrote to the Respondent on February 6, 1981, demanding the return of this deposit within ten days. The Respondent replied to Mr. Oehler on February 10, 1981, agreeing to return the deposit upon resale of the subject property. The Respondent indicated that this would be within 30 days. Mr. Oehler wrote the Respondent on February 12, 1982, advising that the Harburgs would not wait 30 days, and that if the deposit was not returned immediately the Harburgs would file suit to recover the deposit. Mr. Oehler talked with the Respondent on February 9, 1981, March 13, 1981, March 30, 1981, and April 6, 1981, without success in securing return of the deposit. The Harburgs filed suit seeking return of the deposit in September, 1981. In mid-1981, the Respondent withdrew the deposit money from his escrow account, and deposited it into the escrow account of the attorney who represented both himself as broker and WTBS as Seller of the subject property. The Respondent neither offered to rectify the conflict in the closing documents, nor did he advise the Harburgs of any dispute between them and the Seller, WTBS, con- cerning their right to the earnest money deposit. The Respondent failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission concerning the dispute between the Buyer and Seller as to their rights to the earnest money deposit. The lawsuit filed by the Harburgs in September, 1981, was dismissed upon the return of their earnest money by the Respondent in February, 1982.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Robert W. Browning, be found guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and that his license be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 1st day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James S. Quincey, Esquire Post Office Box 1090 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Allen C. D. Scott, Esquire 12 North University Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation - Legal Section Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carlos B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32501 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the charges, the Respondent Joyce A. Chandler, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0348072. Respondent's license was suspended for a period of one year pursuant to a Final Order of the Florida Real Estate Commission on August 4, 1983, which became effective September 3, 1983. To date, the Respondent has failed to take steps necessary to reactivate her license and she remains in a suspended status. Gerald and Mary Anne Jennings were the owners of a home located at 15413 S.W. 105th Avenue, Miami, Florida. There was a first mortgage on the home held by Stockton, Whatley and Davin. In the early part of 1981, the Jennings were experiencing financial difficulties and in an effort to help pay off debts secured a second mortgage in the amount of $15,000.00 from Davide and Associates, Inc. This mortgage from Davide and Associates, Inc., was a wrap-around mortgage making the total obligation (Stockton, Whatley and Davin plus Davide) approximately $44,000.00. In August of 1981, Davide and Associates, Inc. sold the wrap-around mortgage to Mr. and Mrs. Leon Shiff. In January of 1983, the Jennings made a decision to sell their home as they were having difficulty making payments to Shiff. The Jennings contacted Mr. Shiff and informed them of their decision, and Mr. Shiff attempted to secure prospective purchasers for them. On or about January 30, 1983, the Respondent Chandler made an offer to purchase the Jennings home, which offer was rejected by the Jennings. On or about February 2, 1983, the Respondent made a second offer to purchase the Jennings home which offer was accepted. The terms of this February 2, 1983 contract provided that the Respondent was to give sufficient funds to the Jennings to catch up on all mortgage arrearages, tender to the Jennings approximately $4,000.00 in cash, and the Jennings were to take back a third mortgage in the amount of $4,000.00. Respondent, in turn, was to assume the Stockton, Whatley and Davin mortgage and agreed to pay off the Shiff mortgage within 90 days. The Jennings desired to return to West Virginia immediately. Therefore, the Respondent promised and represented to the Jennings that she would secure tenants to occupy the residence while she attempted to obtain the necessary financing and to close the transaction and would use the proceeds from the rental money to make all mortgage payments. On or about February 22, 1983, the Respondent and the Jennings signed yet a third contract. Said contract has not been produced and the location of it is unknown. On this same date, the Respondent had the Jennings sign, in blank, a Warranty Deed. The Respondent represented to the Jennings that the Warranty Deed was nothing more than a Power of Attorney which enabled the Respondent to rent the house and use the rental money to make the mortgage payments while the Respondent sought the financing per the terms of the contract. Based on the Respondent's representations and promises, the Jennings vacated the residence and stopped making mortgage payments. Thereafter, the Respondent secured a Mr. and Mrs. Hill as tenants for the property. Mr. and Mrs. Hill came to the Respondent as tenants from Prudential Life Insurance Company. Mr. and Mrs. Hill had recently experienced damage to their home due to a fire and the Respondent secured rental property for the Hills on behalf of Prudential. In regards to this matter, Prudential paid via a double party check made payable to Robert Hill and Princess International, Inc. $1,950.00. The Respondent goes by the name of P. J. Chandler, Princess Chandler, Princess international and Princess International, Inc. These tenants remained in the Jennings' home for approximately two months. The Respondent made no mortgage payments to either Stockton, Whatley and Davin or to Mr. Shiff for the period of February 1983 to August 1983. Further, the last mortgage payment made was for the January payment delivered to Mr. Shiff by Mrs. Jennings. In order to keep the first mortgage in good standing with Stockton, Whatley and Davin, Mr. Shiff took it upon himself to make these mortgage payments although he was receiving no mortgage payments on the wrap-around from Mr. & Mrs. Jennings or the Respondent. In June of 1983, Mr. Shiff enlisted the aid of Herman Isis, attorney at law, to begin foreclosure proceedings on the residence. In August of 1983, the residence was sold to Shiff at the foreclosure sale. Thereafter, a certificate of title was received by Mr. Shiff in regards to said foreclosure purchase. The Jennings received only $3,248.00 from the Respondent as opposed to the approximate $8,000.00 contract amount. The transaction never closed as promised by the Respondent. Finally, the Respondent failed to make the necessary mortgage payments as represented and promised by her to the Jennings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent Joyce A. Chandler's license as a real estate broker be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH 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 22nd day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Graves, Esquire 315 S.E. Seventh Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact In 1983 the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Solicitor's License and the Respondent continued to act as a Mortgage Solicitor until July 15, 1984. That on July 15, 1984, the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Broker's License holding license No. HB15055. That in August 1984 and August 1985 the Mortgage Broker's License of the Respondent was renewed by the Department of Banking and Finance. That from 1983 until the present date, the Respondent has processed approximately five hundred (500) mortgage loan applications with an approximate value of $50,000,000.00. That to the knowledge of the Respondent, no complaints have been made to the Department of Banking and Finance concerning any activities of the Respondent conducted in his capacity as a Mortgage Solicitor or Mortgage Broker. That during the period of time the Respondent has held his Mortgage Solicitor's and Mortgage Broker's Licenses, the activities conducted by the Respondent pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 494, have been his sole means of financial support for himself and his family. That on June 29, 1983, the Florida Real Estate Commission suspended the Respondent's Real Estate Broker's License for a period of five (5) years. Copies of the Stipulation and Final Order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, evidencing said suspension are attached hereto as Exhibits "1" and "2" respectively; conformed copies of said Exhibits were attached to the Petitioner's Request For Judicial Notice filed in this cause and dated April 24, 1986. Christensen's Stipulation which was confirmed by the Final Order of the Florida Real Estate Commission recites that Christensen was "served with the Administrative Complaint, copy attached," charging Christensen with violating certain provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and admits that the Administrative Complaint contains no disputed issues of material fact. But the Administrative Complaint itself apparently is not attached to the Stipulation approved by the Florida Real Estate Commission. It is not attached to the Stipulation filed in this case and is not found anywhere in the evidentiary or official record of this case. The Stipulation filed by the parties in this case does not state whether the suspension of Christensen's real estate broker license was based on fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, enter a final order dismissing the Amended Notice Of Intention To Suspend Or Revoke And Administrative Charges And Complaint against Respondent, Terry E. Christensen, in this case. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 10th day of June, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: John B. Root, III Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gorham Rutter, Jr., Esquire Gorham Rutter, Jr., P.A. 338 N. Magnolia Avenue, Suite D Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 EXHIBIT 1 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, Petitioner vs. CASE No. 86-0328 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent. / S T I P U L A T I O N The Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, by and through its undersigned counsel, and the Respondent, TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, hereby stipulate and agree as to the following facts upon which the parties respectfully request the Hearing Officer herein to render his decision: In 1983 the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Solicitor's License and the Respondent continued to act as a Mortgage solicitor until July 15, 1984. That on July 15, 1984, the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Broker's License holding license No. HB15055. That in August, 1984 and August, 1985 the Mortgage Broker's License of the Respondent was renewed by the DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE. That from 1983 until the present date, the Respondent has processed approximately five hundred (500) mortgage loan applications with an approximate value of $50,000,000.00. That to the knowledge of the Respondent, no complaints have been made to the DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE concerning any activities of the Respondent conducted in his capacity as a Mortgage Solicitor or Mortgage Broker. That during the period of time the Respondent has held his Mortgage Solicitor's and Mortgage Broker's Licenses, the activities conducted by the Respondent pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 494, have been his sole means of financial support for himself and his family. That on June 29, 1983, the Florida Real Estate Commission suspended the Respondent's Real Estate Broker's License for a period of five (5) years. Copies of the Stipulation and Final Order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, evidencing said suspension are attached hereto as Exhibits "1" and "2" respectively; conformed copies of said Exhibits were attached to the Petitioner's Request for Judicial Notice filed in this cause and dated April 24, 1986. The parties respectfully request the Hearing Officer to render his decision in this matter based upon the foregoing stipulated facts and in lieu of an evidentiary hearing. DATED this 13th day of May, 1986. JOHN B. ROOT, III, ESQUIRE GORHAM RUTTER, JR., ESQUIRE Office of the Comptroller GORHAM RUTTER, JR., P.A. 400 W. Robinson St., Suite 501 338 N. Magnolia Ave., Suite D Orlando, Florida 32801 Orlando, Florida 32801 ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT Telephone: (305) 423-5116 Telephone: (305) 841-7667 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent EXHIBIT 1 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0024293 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent. / DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Petitioner, CASE NO. 0021931 vs. TEC REALTY, INC. AND TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent. / S T I P U L A T I O N Terry E. Christensen; TEC Realty, Inc. and Terry E. Christensen, (Respondents), and Department of Professional Regulation, (Department), hereby stipulate and agree to the issuance of a Final Order by the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC), adopting and incorporating the provisions of this Stipulation in reference to the above-styled case. STIPULATED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondent Terry E. Christensen is now a broker-salesman, but at times material herein was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0174505. Respondent TEC Realty, Inc. was at times material herein a licensed corporate real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0212593. Its registration is now in "limbo". Respondents admit that they are subject to the provisions of Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of the Department and of the FREC. Respondents admit that they have been served with the Administrative Complaint, copy attached, which charges the Respondents with having violated certain provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, (and the rules enacted pursuant thereto). Respondents admit that the Administrative Complaint contains no disputed issues of material fact. Respondents admit that the stipulated facts contained in the Administrative Complaint support a finding of the Real Estate Practice Act. STIPULATED DISPOSITION Respondents shall not in the future violate Chapters 455 or 475, Florida Statutes, or the rules enacted pursuant thereto. The licenses of Respondents and of each of them, shall be suspended for five (5) years; and Respondents shall pay a total fine of $500 which fine shall be paid by cashier's check or money order made payable to the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Final Order. The action taken as reflected in the Final Order shall be published in the FREC News and Report Quarterly. It is expressly understood that this Stipulation is subject to the approval of the Department and of the FREC, and this Stipulation has no force and effect until a Final Order has been issued and filed. This Stipulation is executed by the Respondents for the purpose of avoiding further administrative action with respect to this cause. In this regard, Respondents authorize the FREC to review and examine all investigative file materials concerning Respondents prior to or in conjunction with the consideration of this Stipulation. Furthermore, should this Stipulation not be approved by the FREC, it is agreed that presentation to and consideration of this Stipulation and other documents and matters by the FREC shall not unfairly or unlawfully prejudice the Department, the FREC or any of its members from further participation, consideration or resolution of these proceedings. Respondents and the Department fully understand that this Stipulation and resulting Final Order adopting and incorporating the provisions of this Stipulation shall in no way preclude any other disciplinary proceedings by the Department or the FREC against the Respondent for acts or omissions not specifically set forth in the attached Administrative Complaint. Respondents expressly waive all notice requirements and right to seek judicial review of or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity and enforcement of this Stipulation and resulting Final Order of the FREC adopting and incorporating this Stipulation. SIGNED this day of , 1983. (filed document undated) SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED Respondents before me this 9th Terry E. Christensen, individually, day of June, 1983. and as broker and officer of TEC Realty, Inc. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission Expires June 26, 1986 Bonded Thru Troy Fain Insurance, Inc. Approved this 21st day of June, 1983. John Huskins, Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street, 308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 (305) 423-6134 Approved this 13th Fred Roche, Secretary day of June, 1983. Department of Professional Regulation JH/dm 6/6/83 EXHIBIT 2 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0024293 DOAH NO. 83-346 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN and TEC REALTY INC. CASE NO. 0021931 DOAH NO. 83-345 Respondents /
Findings Of Fact Defendant Jo Tricoli Realty, Inc. was a registered real estate corporate broker, holding Certificate No. 0089973 until August 18, 1976, at which time its Articles of Incorporation were amended to change the name of the business to Tricoli Realty, Inc.; Josephine L. Tricoli is a registered real estate broker, Certificate No. 0089966; Defendant Anthony F. Tricoli is a registered real estate broker, Certificate No. 0089956; and Defendant Phyllis B. Ludwigsen is a registered real estate salesman with Certificate No. 0114963. The Defendant's address registered with the Commission is 1550 West 84th Street, Hialeah, Florida, 33014. At all times material hereto, Defendants Josephine L. Tricoli and Anthony F. Tricoli were brokers and active firm members of Tricoli Realty, and Defendant Phyllis B. Ludwigsen was an active salesman employed with the same firm. On September 25, 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Hartley Kroul viewed an apartment at 15416 Sharpecroft Drive, Miami Lakes, with Defendant Phyllis Ludwigsen of Tricoli Realty, the broker in the transaction. Thereafter, a lease was prepared by Defendant Ludwigsen, based upon instructions from the owner of the property. The lease was prepared on a form furnished by Tricoli Realty, was prepared in a branch office of Tricoli Realty, was witnessed by Defendant Ludwigsen and the manager of the branch office of Tricoli Realty, and was signed by the parties on September 25, 1975. A clause typed into the lease provides that the first and last months rent, together with a security deposit of $450, for a total of $1,350, was to be held in escrow by Tricoli Realty, and Tricoli Realty did, in fact, receive a check for $1,350 for Kroul in accordance wit this clause of the lease agreement. The lease was for a one-year term, and expired on September 26, 1976. Notwithstanding the provision of the lease concerning the escrow deposit, within two or three days after September 25, 1975, Defendant Tricoli Realty , by a check signed by Defendant Anthony Tricoli, disbursed $900 of the escrow monies to the lessor-property owner. The additional $450 was retained by Tricoli Realty as a commission. Defendant Anthony Tricoli did not review the terms of the lease before disbursing the $900, although the lease was located in a branch office of Tricoli Realty, and could easily have been examined prior to disbursement. The Krouls vacated the premises after the expiration of the lease and thereafter sought refund of the security deposit from Tricoli Realty. A demand for a refund of the security deposit was made upon Defendant Anthony Tricoli, but he refused to refund the security deposit and advised the Krouls to seek the refund from the property owner. Thereafter, the property owner returned $290 of the security deposit to Tricoli Realty, claiming certain expenses incurred after vacating the premises. Tricoli Realty then attempted to refund the $290 to the Krouls, who refused to accept that offer in settlement of their claim for the entire security deposit. The Krouls eventually resorted to a court of competent jurisdiction for refund of their security deposit, where the issue of civil liability was ultimately resolved. The Krouls never authorized Tricoli Realty, Josephine L. Tricoli, Anthony F. Tricoli, Phyllis B. Ludwigsen, or any other representative or employee of Tricoli Realty to disburse $900 of the escrow money to the property owner prior to the expiration of the lease. No testimony was offered that Defendant Josephine L. Tricoli was in any way involved in, or had any knowledge of, the Kroul transaction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission dismissing the Complaint against Defendant Josephine L. Tricoli. That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission dismissing Count 3 of the Complaint against Defendant Anthony F. Tricoli. That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission suspending the registration of Defendant Phyllis B. Ludwigsen for a period of three months. That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission suspending the registration of Defendant Tricoli Realty, Inc. for a period of six months. That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission suspending the registration of Defendant Anthony F. Tricoli for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 15rd day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building MAIL: Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Pearl R. Ferer, Esquire 304 Concord Building 66 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130
