The Issue Whether Respondent's license should be revoked as set forth in the Notice of Intent to Revoke License.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating yacht salesmen and brokers. Such authority includes the discipline of yacht salesman as set forth in Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent has been licensed as a yacht salesman in the State of Florida. Respondent first applied for licensure in June of 1994. This license request was granted and Respondent was issued a license for the two-year period 1994-1996. In June of 1996, Respondent applied to renew the license. This license request was also granted and Respondent was issued a yacht salesman's license for the period 1996-1998. On or about April 28, 1997, Respondent was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, a federal violation, and a felony. As a result, Respondent was sentenced and incarcerated. In July of 1998, Respondent applied to the Department to renew the yacht salesman's license. Based upon the information submitted to Petitioner at the time he sought renewal, the Department had no direct information of the felony conviction. In telephone conversations with the Department staff, Respondent did not disclose he had been incarcerated, was living in a halfway house as part of his sentence, and was a convicted felon. In August of 1998, a third party advised the Department that Respondent had the felony conviction. Thereafter, upon such notice, Petitioner took action to seek revocation of Respondent's license. The license renewal for 1998 filed by Respondent was executed on July 7, 1998. Technically, his license expired on June 14, 1998, but he was afforded a grace period within which to process the renewal. To this end the Department attempted to accommodate the renewal applicant. On the license renewal card Respondent submitted conflicting answers. To question (3) which read: Have you been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere, since initial licensure? Respondent answered "Y." To question (4) which read: Has any judgment or decree of a court been entered against you or is there now pending any case in this or any other state, in which you were charged with any fraudulent or dishonest dealing? Respondent answered "N." An undated letter from Respondent accompanied the renewal card which referred to a prior correspondence with the Department of June 6, 1996, as the explanation for question (4). As to question (3), the letter stated: "a conviction was made on 4/28/98 in the U.S. District Court Southern Florida." Respondent's answer to question (4) was false. Moreover, the manner in which Respondent answered the two questions did not disclose that Respondent had been convicted of a felony or conspiracy to commit wire fraud. More telling of Respondent's attempt to mislead the Department, however, is his failure to disclose any of the foregoing circumstances during telephone conversations with staff seeking to assist him to renew the license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order revoking Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 29th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip Nowick, Director Florida Land Sales, Condos, Mobile Homes Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Scott K. Edmonds, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Tracy J. Sumner, Esquire Tracy J. Sumner, P.A. 1330 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ralph B. Snyder, Jr. ("Respondent"), is a licensed broker having been issued license No. 0082998. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying broker for Home Hunters V, Inc., at 2829 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent had employed Greg Howle as "office manager" at the above-mentioned location. Mr. Howle was at no time licensed as a broker or salesman by the Florida Real Estate Commission. On January 29, 1982, William Konwinski visited Respondent's office looking for an apartment to rent for the month of February, 1982. During his visit, Konwinski spoke with Ilana Frank, an office employee of Respondent who was licensed as a salesperson by the Florida Real Estate Commission. During his conference with Ms. Frank, Konwinski signed a rental agreement and gave Ms. Frank $60 as payment for rental services. That contract contained the following clause: If the rental information provided under this contract is not current or accurate in any material aspect, you may demand within 30 days of this contract date a return of your full fee paid. If you do not obtain a rental you are entitled to receive a return of 75 percent of the fee paid, if you make demand within 30 days of this contract date. The contract also contained the clause which provided that ". . . [n]o refunds are made during 30 day period when vacancies can be provided in the area and price range of tenants as indicated in above agreement." In the rental agreement, Mr. Konwinski indicated that he sought a one- bedroom furnished efficiency apartment that would accept pets. After executing the contract and paying the rental fee, Mr. Konwinski was given the names and addresses of two prospective rentals. Mr. Konwinski took the rental listings and within the next two or three days checked the listings and found that one did not accept pets. Konwinski failed to keep an appointment to meet with the landlord at the second property. Thereafter, Mr. Konwinski returned to Respondent's office and spoke again with Ilama Frank concerning available rentals. Ms. Frank apparently checked for additional listings but could locate none that met with Mr. Konwinski's specifications. However, Ms. Frank penciled in on the agreement between Home Hunters V, Inc., and Mr. Konwinski that he would be returned $30 of his $60 fee should Home Hunters V, Inc., be unable to find an apartment for him by January 31, 1982. Gregory Howle, the office manager, signed this addendum to the contract on behalf of Home Hunters V, Inc. On at least two separate occasions thereafter Mr. Konwinski returned to Respondent's office seeking a refund of his deposit, each time speaking to Mr. Howle, the office manager. Howle first told Konwinski that his refund check was in the mail, but later explained that Respondent had instructed him to make no refund. Konwinski never obtained a rental unit through Respondent, but did ultimately receive a partial refund. There is no credible evidence of record in this proceeding to establish that Respondent at any time shared real estate commissions with Gregory Howle. Although there are checks which were introduced into evidence made payable from Home Hunters V, Inc., to Mr. Howle, the record in this cause is devoid of any showing as to what the salary structure between Respondent and Mr. Howle was, or for specifically what services Mr. Howle was compensated. Further, other than speaking with Mr. Konwinski on his initial visit to Respondent's office and obtaining his signature on the rental agreement, referring him then to a licensed salesperson, and again speaking with Mr. Konwinski concerning a refund of his fee, there is no credible evidence of record to establish any other activities engaged in by Mr. Howle while employed by Respondent.
The Issue Should Petitioner impose discipline against the licenses held by Respondent as a real estate broker, licenses numbers 3000807, 3000808, and 300092222, and as a real estate instructor, license number 32195, for alleged violations of Section 475.25(1)(f), (n) and (p), Florida Statutes (2004)?
Findings Of Fact Facts Alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint Uncontested by the Answer: 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 and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is and was at all times material hereto a licensed Florida real estate broker, issued license numbers 3000807, 3000808, and 3092222, in accordance with Chapter 475 of the Florida Statutes. The last licenses issued were as a broker at AAA Realty of Florida Comm. Real Estate Properties/Investments, Inc., 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118, and at AAA Realty of Florida International Inc., 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118. Respondent is a licensed real estate instructor issued license number 32195 with AAA College of Real Estate. Additional Facts: More specifically concerning licenses issued to Respondent as a real estate broker, from January 1, 2005 through March 13, 2006, Respondent was a broker doing business as AAA Realty of Florida License No. BK3000807, a brokerage sole proprietorship located at 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118. From January 1, 2005 to March 13, 2006, Respondent was a broker, License No. BK3092222, affiliated with AAA Realty of Florida International, Inc., License No. CQ0000000, a brokerage corporation located at 132 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118. License No. BK3000808 expired March 31, 2004. In State of Florida vs. Fadel Fawzi Elbadramany, in the Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Volusia County, Division 41, Case No. 2001-36519CFAES, the defendant, Respondent here, was tried and found guilty by a jury of grand theft of over $20,000, an offense recognized in Subsections 812.014(1) and (2) (b), Florida Statutes. On February 11, 2005, an order of judgment was entered by Circuit Judge R. Michael Hutcheson adjudicating the defendant in that cause, Respondent, in the present case, guilty of grand theft. On that same date an order of sentence was entered against the defendant/Respondent, by which he was committed to the Department of Corrections to be imprisoned for a term of 15 years, with credit for 105 days of time served while incarcerated before the imposition of this sentence. By separate order the defendant/Respondent was required to pay certain charges, costs and fees. That order was entered on February 11, 2005. In Fadel Elbadramany, Appellant, vs. State of Florida, Appellee, in the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fifth District, July term 2006, Case No. 5D05-754 decision filed August 8, 2006, the court entered a per curium affirmance. On September 27, 2006, that court ordered "that appellant's motion for rehearing, rehearing En Banc and request to issue a written opinion filed August 22, 2006 and Appellant's Supplemental to Request to Issue a Written Opinion, filed September 18, 2006 are denied." Respondent is presently confined in Washington Correctional Institution where the final hearing was held. He is inmate number V21541. His tentative release date from his imprisonment is October 26, 2019. His confinement is in relation to the grand theft offense.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 475.25(1)(f) and (n), Florida Statutes (2004), that Respondent did not violate Section 475.25(1)(p) Florida Statutes (2004), and revoking the real estate broker licenses and real estate instructor license held by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 20th day of December, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Ray T. Kline is and at all times material to the charges in this action was a registered real estate broker holding License No. 0048253. Respondent Vincent Tomasino is and at all times material to the charges in this action was a licensed real estate salesman holding License No. 0353215. Respondent Krishnalall D. Persaud is and all times material to the charges in this action was a licensed real estate salesman holding License No. 0336161. At the time of the hearing the Respondent Persaud had obtained his broker's license. In December, 1980, the Respondents Tomasino and Persaud were employed as salesmen, selling time-share units at Vistana Development. During December they discussed and agreed upon a business plan for marketing time-share units. As a part of that plan-they agreed to form Intercontinental Marketing Services, Ltd. (hereafter referred to as IMS) a corporation which would be used to market time-share condominiums and other real estate. Subsequent to that time they did in fact incorporate on May 4, 1981, as a Delaware corporation and formed another Delaware corporation to handle travel and tour business. The incorporators of these corporations were the Respondents Tomasino and Persaud who were also officers and directors of both corporations. Sometime between December, 1980 and March, 1981 Persuad introduced Respondent Ray Kline to Respondent Tomasino. They discussed Ray Kline becoming the registered broker for IMS. After some discussion, Ray Kline did in fact agree to become the broker for IMS. On January 19, 1981, Respondent Tomasino and Respondent Persaud opened a general corporate account for IMS at the Atlantic Bank of Orlando. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 6) The account required two signatures for all checks and the two persons allowed to sign were Respondents Tomasino and Persaud. This account was not set up as an escrow or trust account and was not used a's an escrow or trust account during the operating life of IMS. At no time was the Respondent Ray T. Kline a signator on this account. In early 1931 the Respondents Persaud and Tomasino began negotiating with the Highlands County Title and Guaranty Land Company (hereafter referred to as Highlands County Title) to become its representative in the Orlando area. Highlands County Title is a subsidiary of Sun-N-Lake Estates which is the owner and developer of Lakeside Villas located near Sebring, Florida. A verbal agreement was reached between Highlands County Title and IMS whereby IMS would market time-share units in Lakeside Villas in the Orlando area. This verbal agreement was later reduced to writing. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 11) On or about March 3, 1981, IMS and Respondent Ray T. Kline entered into a written agreement whereby Ray T. Kline agreed to act as the real estate broker for IMS. (See Respondent Kline's Exhibit 3) Highlands County Title and Sun-N- Lake Estates required a broker be designated for all its sales representatives. Under the written agreement Mr. Kline agreed generally to act as broker and to not interfere with any of the marketing projects of IMS. IMS was to provide Respondent Kline with an office, secretarial assistance, a phone, and real estate leads acquired through IMS advertising. The contract required Kline to maintain an escrow account for his real estate transactions and to pay twenty- five percent of all commissions earned by him on real estate transactions other than his on personal business. There was no requirement in the contract that Ray T. Kline open or maintain an escrow account for real estate transactions handled by IMS. On March 3, 1981, Ray T. Kline changed his broker address to 1121 South Cimarron Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida, the offices of IMS. At the time Mr. Kline moved his license to the IMS office he did not register or reflect a trade name under which he was doing business as a broker. On March 5, 1981, Vincent Tomasino and Krishnalall Persaud placed their salesman licenses with Ray T. Kline as an individual broker employer at 1121 Cimarron Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida. IMS was not registered or qualified with the Board of Real Estate or the Department of Professional Regulation by the Respondents. On March 16, 1981, a written agreement was entered into between IMS and Highlands County Title. The agreement showed Ray T. Kline as broker for IMS and was signed by Vincent Tomasino as director of IMS and Ray T. Kline, Jr. as broker. On March 18, 1981, a supplement to that written agreement was entered into between Ray T. Kline, IMS, and Highlands County Title whereby Highlands County Title agreed to pay advance draws against commissions to IMS. This supplement to the original agreement was signed by Ray T. Kline on behalf of IMS. Mr. Dennis Grage had met and become acquainted with Vincent Tomasino when Mr. Tomasino was selling time-share units at Vistana. In early March, 1981, Vincent Tomasino contacted Mr. Grage to see if he was interested in purchasing time-share units in Lakeside Villas. Shortly after the initial contact Mr. Tomasino took Mr. Grage's wife, Barbara, together with Richard and Benita Drapeau (Mrs. Grage's sister and her husband) on a tour of Lakeside Villas. After the tour Mr. Tomasino and Mr. Grage met regarding the purchase of a unit in Lakeside Villas. Mr. Grage explained to Mr. Tomasino that he could not afford the $600 down payment. Mr. Tomasino then told Mr. Grage that if he would get the Drapeaus and the Brownings to buy a time-share unit in Lakeside Villas, he would pay $500 of the down-payment on a time-share unit for Mr. Grage. After the tour Mr. and Mrs. Drapeau decided to buy four time-share units in Lakeside Villas. However, after returning to their home in New Hampshire they decided to buy only two time- share units and so informed Vincent Tomasino. The Drapeaus then sent two deposit checks of $400 each dated March 30, 1981 and April 11, 1981 to Vincent Tomasino. These checks were made payable to Vincent Tomasino pursuant to his instructions. These two checks were deposits on two time-share units at Lakeside Villas. The March 30, 1981 check was deposited in the IMS corporate account on April 7, 1981. The April 11, 1981 check was endorsed by Vincent Tomasino and forwarded to Sun-N-Lake Estates where it was deposited in the Sun-N-Lake Estates attorney's escrow account. The $400 from the March 30, 1981 deposit check was never forwarded by IMS or Vincent Tomasino to Sun-N-Lake Estates. Pursuant to the agreement with Vincent Tomasino regarding the down payment on a time-share unit, Dennis Grage forwarded a $100 deposit to Mr. Tomasino. The balance of the $600 deposit called for in the contract was to be paid by Vincent Tomasino. Mr. Grage also contacted John and Helen Browning. In March, 1981, Dennis Grage contacted John and Helen Browning at their home in Michigan. He discussed with them the possibility of purchasing a time-share unit at Lakeside Villas. During this conversation the Brownings authorized Mr. Grage to place a $100 deposit on two units for them. By letter dated March 9, 1981, Vincent Tomasino acknowledged on behalf of IMS the receipt of the deposit placed by Dennis Grage for the Brownings. The Brownings then asked for more information regarding the time- share units and inquired of Mr. Tomasino as to whom the deposit check should be made payable. They were advised by Mr. Tomasino to make the check payable to IMS. On March 20, 1981, the Brownings sent a $1,000 deposit check to Vincent Tomasino payable to IMS. By letter dated March 23, 1981, Vincent Tomasino acknowledged receipt of the $1,000 deposit and also forwarded two time-share purchase agreements to the Brownings for their signatures. Each of the contracts called for a $500 deposit. On April 7, 1981, the Brownings executed the two purchase agreements and returned them to Vincent Tomasino. The Brownings' $1,000 deposit check was deposited into the IMS corporate account at the Atlantic Bank on or about March 24, 1981. On May 18, 1981, Vincent Tomasino wrote a check to Sun-N-Lake Estates in the amount of $1,000 for the Brownings' deposit. The check was received and deposited for collection by Sun-N-Lake Estates but before it could be paid Vincent Tomasino placed a stop-payment order on the check. The stop-payment order was placed because there were insufficient funds in the account to cover the $1,000 check. The $1,000 deposit was never forwarded to Sun-N-Lake Estates by IMS for Vincent Tomasino. In May, 1981, Vincent Tomasino removed Krishnalall Persuad as a signator on the IMS account at the Atlantic Bank. This occurred primarily as a result of a disagreement over a $1,200 deposit made by Mr. Persaud to an account other than the IMS account. Also during May, 1981, Vincent Tomasino changed the locks on the doors at the IMS offices at 1121 South Cimarron Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida, and did not give Mr. Persaud a key. Prior to May, 1981, the checking account at Atlantic Bank had been controlled by both Mr. Persaud and Mr. Tomasino. From January to May, 1981, checks written on the IMS account were signed and approved by both Tomasino and Persaud. Respondent Persaud knew or reasonably should have known that money being received from purchasers was being deposited in the corporate account. After May, 1981, only Vincent Tomasino signed checks on the IMS account. In June, 1981, the relationship between Mr. Persuad and Mr. Tomasino terminated. Also in June, 1981, the IMS account became overdrawn and in August, 1981, the Atlantic Bank closed the account. Between January and June, 1981, Vincent Tomasino received approximately $7,000 in draws from IMS and Mr. Persaud received approximately $4,900 in draws from IMS. Ray T. Kline received no funds from IMS. When interviewed by a DPR investigator Mr. Persaud denied having received any funds from IMS during its operation. Between January and June, 1981, Vincent Tomasino was the person in charge of the IMS finances. Ray Kline had no control over and did not participate in the finances of IMS. The bookkeeping was done by the office manager and the checkbook was kept by Mr. Tomasino. During this period salesmen were hired and supervised by Tomasino and Persaud, but were not supervised by Respondent Kline. IMS also purchased a tour bus during this period which was used by Mr. Persaud to take potential buyers on tours of Lakeside Villas. Once these tours began, Mr. Persaud was in the office less than he had been the first couple of months of operation. Once there were no more funds in the corporate account the Respondent Tomasino essentially walked away from the corporation and paid only a few small debts. By letter dated June 23, 1981, Vincent Tomasino notified Sun-N-Lake Estates that IMS would no longer sell time- share units at Lakeside Villas. In November, 1981, the relationship between IMS and Sun-N-Lake Estates was formally terminated. Prior to termination, IMS had received advances of $9,000 in excess of commissions due and earned and no reimbursement of those excess funds has been made to Sun-N-Lake Estates. In approximately September, 1981, the Drapeaus as a result of financial problems sent a letter to Sun-N-Lake Estates requesting a refund of their $800 deposit. Sun-N-Lake Estates refunded the $400 which was in escrow and informed the Drapeaus that Sun-N-Lake Estates had never received the other $400 deposit. Robert Wright of Sun-N-Lake Estates was contacted by the Drapeaus. He then contacted Vincent Tomasino who told him that he would speak with Ray Kline and Krishnalall Persaud about the Drapeau problem. Mr. Wright was never contacted again by Mr. Tomasino. Dennis Grage, after learning that the Drapeau's $400 deposit had not been placed in escrow also contacted Vincent Tomasino. He demanded the return of the $400 deposit and Mr. Tomasino stated that someone had run off with the money and that he was trying to get it back. After several unsuccessful contacts with Mr. Tomasino, Mr. Grage contacted Ray Kline. Mr. Kline said he was checking on the problem, but at the time of the formal hearing the Drapeau deposit had not been refunded. Dennis Grage also informed the Brownings of the problems the Drapeaus were encountering. The Brownings then contacted Sun-N-Lake Estates and spoke with Robert Wright who informed them that Sun-N-Lake Estates had never received their $1,000 deposit. Mr. Tomasino informed him that IMS was bankrupt and had no money and that it wasn't his problem. Mr. Browning then contacted Ray Kline who denied any personal responsibility and stated that Tomasino had taken the money and was responsible for its return. Mr. Browning then made demand upon Krishnalall Persaud for the $1,000 deposit and Mr. Persaud denied being an officer or director of IMS and also stated that he had no responsibility to the Brownings. During August and September, 1981, Robert Wright repeatedly discussed the Drapeau and Browning deposits with Respondents Persaud and Kline. On each occasion they denied any responsibility for those deposits. Until contacted by the Brownings and Drapeaus, Ray Kline and Krishnalall Persaud had no knowledge of the deposits of these people and how they were being received. Ray Kline, after being contacted was aware that these deposits were funds that should have been placed in escrow upon receipt by IMS and Tomasino. Neither Tomasino, Kline, nor Persaud attempted to provide an accounting to the Drapeaus or Brownings and the Respondents made no attempt to return their deposits. For at least a two week period in the Spring of 1981, Ray Kline also opened and operated a branch office for IMS at a condominium development. At no time was this branch office registered as required by statute. From the beginning of the relationship between Ray Kline and IMS, by agreement, Kline's involvement was to be very limited. Kline never opened an escrow account for IMS and did not supervise the sales personnel. Ray Kline had little or no involvement in the day-to-day operation of IMS. At no time was IMS registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission or the Department of Professional Regulation. At some point in time in the Spring of 1981, the Respondents discussed opening an escrow account but decided to not open such an account until they had earned commissions. From January through May, 1981, Respondents Tomasino and Persuad hired and supervised salesmen and controlled the operations of IMS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the license of Vincent Tomasino be revoked and that an administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500) be imposed upon him; That the license of Ray T. Kline be suspended for a period of two (2) years and an administrative fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000) be imposed upon him; and That the license of Krishnalall Persaud be suspended for a period of two (2) years and an administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500) be imposed upon him. It is further RECOMMENDED that upon a showing by the Respondents to the Commission prior to entry of the final order that restitution has been made to Mr. and Mrs. Drapeau and Mr. and Mrs. Browning, the fines of Respondents Tomasino, Kline and Persaud be reduced to two hundred fifty dollars ($250), five hundred dollars ($500), and two hundred fifty dollars ($250), respectively. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Harry A. Bayly, Jr., a real estate salesman, obtained a listing for the Sails Motel in 1975, while he was employed by respondent Donald M. Mlinarich, a real estate broker. Mr. Perz, at that time co-owner with his wife of the Sails Motel, showed Mr. Bayly a piece of paper on which he had written figures which he claimed represented gross income earned and expenses incurred on account of the Sails Motel. At the same time, Mr. Perz told Mr. Bayly that the figures on the piece of paper did not agree with federal income tax returns, or with state sales tax returns which Mr. Perz had filed. Mr. Perz told Mr. Bayly that income from the motel was understated on the tax returns, but that the figures he alleged were accurate could be substantiated by examining the motel's registration slips. The discrepancy between the gross income figure reported for tax purposes for 1974 and the gross income figure Mr. Perz gave Mr. Bayly for 1974 was twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00). Mr. Bayly did not tell Mr. Mlinarich about the double bookkeeping at the Sails Motel. Mr. Charles George was also a real estate salesman in Mr. Mlinarich's office. Mr. George procured a purchaser for the Sails Motel, one Anton K. P. Loetschert, who signed a duly witnessed agreement to buy the motel. Before the transaction closed, however, Mr. Loetschert appeared at the Sails Motel, accompanied by an accountant, and asked to see the motel's books. Learning for the first time of the dual bookkeeping, Mr. Loetschert indicated his unwillingness to go through with the purchase. Even though the deal fell through, the broker's office obtained five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) in satisfaction of its claim for commission on the sale. Mr. Mlinarich caused half of this sum to be paid to Mr. George, in accordance with a standing agreement between Mr. Mlinarich and each of his employees. Under the same standing agreement, Mr. Bayly, because he had secured the listing, had presented Mr. Loetschert's offer, and had otherwise assisted in the transaction, was entitled to one fifth of any commission, or one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). By letter dated September 23, 1975, Mr. Bayly demanded this sum, but Mr. Mlinarich refused payment at that time, on the advice of counsel. In addition to the circumstances surrounding the Sails Motel transaction, Mr. Mlinarich related the following facts to his lawyer which were proven to be true at the hearing: On at least two occasions, Mr. Bayly added provisions to listing contracts of which he did not inform Mr. Mlinarich, so that Mr. Mlinarich was lead to believe and did believe that the property owners involved had agreed to pay a broker's fee if the property were sold within 180 days of listing, while in actuality the owners contractual obligations were subject to termination earlier, and were in fact terminated early. Mr. Bayly accomplished this by writing additional contract clauses in his own hand on the sellers' copies of the contracts, while taking care that his handwriting did not appear on the realtor's carbon copies. Mr. Mlinarich and the other salesmen in his office advertised the properties and took other steps in the mistaken belief that the property owners were legally bound for the full 180 days. Mr. Mlinarich's lawyer advised him that he had a claim against Mr. Bayly for damages in excess of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and told Mr. Mlinarich he need not pay Mr. Bayly his share of the commission settlement, for that reason. Shortly after Mr. Mlinarich learned that Mr. Loetschert wanted his earnest money back, he advised Mr. George Illi, an investigator for the Florida Real Estate Commission, of the details of the Sails Motel transaction. Mr. Mlinarich kept Mr. Illi posted as matters developed, through and including the time of the dispute between over payment of the one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Altogether, Mr. Mlinarich spoke to Mr. Illi, on the telephone and in person, between five and ten times. He kept Mr. Illi fully apprised of every detail, including his lawyer's advice to pay Bayly. When the administrative complaint was filed against Mr. Mlinarich, he caused Mr. Bayly to be paid one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) in full satisfaction of Mr. Bayly's claim.
Recommendation It is strongly recommended that no disciplinary action be taken against respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles E. Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Emerson L. Parker, Esquire 3835 Central Avenue Post Office Box 15339 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed real estate salesman, is guilty, as charged, of fraud, misrepresentation, culpable negligence or breach of trust in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact I. At all times material to the charges, Respondent was a licensed Florida real estate salesman associated with Woodlake Realty, Inc., in Melbourne, Florida. He obtained his real estate salesman's license in 1982. On March 14, 1985, became a licensed real estate broker and now operates his own business under the name of Peter Frontiero Realty. His office is located in his residence at 3247 West New Haven Avenue, Melbourne, Florida. II. On or about April 7, 1983, while employed as a real estate salesman at Apollo Realty, Inc., Mary E. Sousa obtained a listing on a tract of land owned by John and Janet Biansco. In connection with the listing, an Exclusive Right of Sale Contract was executed. This contract contained the following legal description of the tract to be sold: Parcel of land lying in the County of Brevard in the southwest 1/4 of Sec 11, TW 28 South Range 36E more particularly described as follows: S 2/3 of the following tract: commence at SE corner of W 1/2 of Sec 11 TW 28 South Range 36E, thence along south line of said Sec 11, 589-54-14 West for 30 feet., thence north 1- 17-00E for [sic] 43 feet to the point of beginning thence south 89-54-14 west along the north R/W line Melbourne Tillman Drainage district canal #63 for 297.43 feet, thence north 1-15-49 east for 353 feet, thence north 89-54-14 east for 297.55 feet, to the west R/W line of Arizona Street; thence south 1 17-00 West along R/W line for 353.00 feet, to the point of beginning. (P-4, Admissions No. 5, 6) As so described, this tract of land measures 235.34' x 297.47' and contains approximately 1.61 acres. (Admission No. 7) Mary E. Sousa and her broker, Peter Sergis, however, incorrectly determined that the legal description described a tract of land measuring 297' x 353' feet, containing 2.4 acres. (They determined this by examining the legal description attached to the Listing Contract and relying on Mr. Biansco's representation that the tract contained 2.4 acres.) Mary E. Sousa then had the property listed in the Melbourne Multiple Listing Service (MLS) on or about April 26, 1983. The MLS listing reflected the incorrect measurements and size of the tract, as submitted by Ms. Sousa. (P-3, Admission No. 8) III. During May, 1983, Karen Dunn-Frehsee and Paul Winkler (her fiance), contacted Respondents, a real estate salesman associated with Woodlake Realty, Inc., about purchasing a home. After Respondent showed them a house they were interested in, Ms. Dunn-Frehsee and Mr. Winkler decided that what they really wanted was to buy land on which they could build a residence. They told Respondent that they would need a minimum of two acres since they had two horses: local zoning requirements required at least one acre of land per horse. (Admission No. 10, Testimony of Dunn-Frehsee) Respondent checked MLS and found the listing (containing the incorrect measurements and size) of the Biansco property. He showed the land to Ms. Dunn- Frehsee and Mr. Winkler, who liked it and decided to make an offer. (At that time, Respondent was unaware that the MLS listing erroneously described the tract to be 297' x 353', containing 2.4 acres, when in fact it was 297.47' x 235.34', containing approximately 1.61 acres.) On or about May 5, 1983, Respondent prepared a "Contract for Sale and Purchase" containing the offer of Ms. Dunn-Frehsee. After she signed it, it was presented to the Bianscos, who subsequently accepted it. (Admission No. 12, P- 1) The Contract for Sale and Purchase contained, on the attached addendum--a correct legal description of the tracts as the description was taken from the listing agreement, not the erroneous MLS listing. Prior to closing, Respondent contacted Ms. Dunn-Frehsee several times to advise her regarding efforts being made by Lawyers Title Insurance Company to locate the prior owner of the property and secure a quitclaim deed covering a 30-foot strip of land bordering Arizona Street on the east side of the property. He was still unaware of the discrepancy between dimensions of the property contained on the MLS listing and the Contract of Sale. He did not tell Ms. Dunn-Frehsee that he had personally measured the property, or that he had confirmed the accuracy of the listing information. He was concerned only with the problem of obtaining access to the property through the 30-foot strip bordering Arizona Street. Although he told Ms. Dunn-Frehsee that he thought she was getting 2.7 or 3.0 acres by virtue of the additional strip of land which was to be quitclaimed to her at no additional cost, this belief was based on his reasonable assumption that the original tract contained 2.4 acres, as represented by the listing agents (Mary Sousa and Peter Sergis of Apollo Realty) and reflected in the Multiple Listing Book. Respondent also contacted Mr. Winkler, but similarly, did not represent to him that he (Respondent) had personally measured the property or confirmed the MLS information. (Testimony of Respondent) Prior to the closing, Respondent discussed with Ms. Dunn-Frehsee the need to order a survey of the property. She then ordered a survey, which was completed a week and a half before closing. After picking it up, Respondent telephoned Ms. Dunn-Frehsee. There is conflicting testimony about the conversation which ensued. Respondent testifies that he telephoned her and asked if she would like him to deliver the survey to her house or mail it to her, or if she would like to pick it up at his office. (TR-30) Ms. Dunn- Frehsee, on the other hand, testified that Respondent telephoned her stating that he had looked the survey over and there was no reason for her to drive out to his office to pick it up, that he would bring it to the closing. (TR-48) Neither version is more plausible or believable than the other. Both Respondent and Ms. Dunn-Frehsee have a discernible bias: Respondent faces charges which could result in the revocation of his professional license; Ms. Dunn-Frehsee has sued Respondent for damages resulting from her purchase of a tract of land which was smaller than what she was led to believe. Since the burden of proof lies with the Departments, the conflicting testimony is resolved in Respondent's favor as it has not been shown with any reliable degree of certainty that Respondent told Ms. Dunn-Frehsee that he had looked the survey over and that there was no need for her to examine it before closing. Both witnesses agree, however, and it is affirmatively found that Ms. Dunn-Frehsee agreed that Respondent should bring the survey with him to the closing, which was imminent. The surveys prepared by Hugh Smith, a registered land surveyors correctly showed the property to be approximately 235.33' x 297.43', but did not indicate the size by acreage. (Admission No. 20, P-2) At closings on or about June 23, 1983, Respondent showed the survey to Ms. Dunn-Frehsee. Ms. Dunn- Frehsee questioned the measurements as not being the same as she recalled being on the MLS listing. Neither Ms. Sousa nor Respondent, both of whom were in attendance, had a copy of the MLS listing so that the measurements on the two documents were not compared. (Admission No. 22-23) Ms. Dunn-Frehsee chose to close the transaction anyway after her questions regarding the property were apparently resolved to her satisfaction by Kathleen Van Mier, the agent for Lawyers Title Insurance Company which was handling the closing. Ms. Dunn-Frehsee signed a contingency statement indicating that all contract contingencies had been satisfied and that she wished to proceed with the closing. (TR-4O-41; 77-78) Respondent was misinformed regarding the dimensions and size of the property by the listing agents, Mary Sousa and Peter Sergis of Apollo Realty, who had provided inaccurate information to the Multiple Listing Service. Respondent reasonably relied upon the listing information and the representations of the listing agents concerning the size of the property. In his discussions with Ms. Dunn-Frehsee and Mr. Winkler, he drew reasonable inferences from such (incorrect) representations. He did not intentionally mislead anyone. It has not been shown that, under the circumstances, he failed to exercise due care or that degree of care required of a licensed real estate salesman. Nor has it been shown that he violated any professional standard of care adhered to by real estate salesmen and established by qualified expert testimony at hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint, and all charges against Respondent be DISMISSED for failure of proof. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 11th day of October, 1985.
The Issue Should Respondent have his Florida Real Estate Broker's License disciplined by Petitioner for violating provisions within Chapter 475, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to discipline its licensees for violations of Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and associated rules. Those actions are brought through administrative complaints. Petitioner regulates Respondent's real estate practice in Florida. Respondent practices in accordance with a Florida Real Estate Broker's license, No. 0605307. At times relevant to this inquiry Respondent has not acted as an independent broker. Rather, Respondent has conducted real estate business as a broker-salesperson with McAfee Enterprise, Inc. t/a Re-Max On Park Avenue, located at 2233 Park Avenue, Suite 500, Orange Park, Florida, 32702-5567. Within the relevant time period Respondent's supervising broker at the Re- Max firm was Ann McIvey. On February 28, 1995, Respondent, as listing agent for Re-Max On Park Avenue, entered into an exclusive right of sale listing agreement with Marguerite A. Barr to sell Ms. Barr's real estate located at 6720 S. Long Meadow Circle in Jacksonville, Florida. By the terms of the listing agreement Ms. Barr agreed to pay Re-Max on Park Avenue: . . . 5 ½% of the total purchase price whether a buyer is secured by the REALTOR, the SELLER, or by any other person, or if the Property is afterwards sold within 6 months from the termination of this agreement or any extension thereof, to any person to whom the Property has been shown during the term of this Agreement. The listing agreement entered into between Respondent in behalf of Re-Max On Park Avenue and Ms. Barr also stated that: . . . in the event this Agreement is cancelled by SELLER before its expiration, or SELLER otherwise prevents performance hereunder, the SELLER agrees to pay REALTOR on demand, as liquidated damages, the brokerage fee due REALTOR as though Property had been sold, or the amount of broker's expenses, the same being bonafide, fair and reasonable as a result of an arm's length negotiation. Separate and apart from the terms set forth in the listing agreement, Ms. Barr requested, before she signed the contract, that Respondent inform her concerning her opportunity to cancel the contract at any time. Respondent answered that the contract could be cancelled by Ms. Barr before the home was sold, in which case Ms. Barr would be responsible for paying the advertising cost by Re-Max on Park Avenue. Ms. Barr was amenable to that arrangement. On May 8, 1995, Ms. Barr called to inform Respondent that she was terminating the contract to sell her home. This was followed by correspondence dated May 9, 1995, addressed to Re-Max On Park Avenue, attention to Respondent, notifying Re-Max On Park Avenue that the contract to sell the home was being cancelled. In response to the cancellation Respondent wrote the following letter to Ms. Barr: Mrs. Marguerite A. Barr 1364 Lamboll Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205-7140 Dear Meg: As you requested I have withdrawn your property located at 6720 Longmeadow Circle South from active listing for sale in the MLS and in my files. I hope you will be happy with your new arrangement and I wish you and your daughter the best. According to our contract, you agreed to reimburse me for expenses I incurred in marketing your property the event you decided to cancel prior to the expiration of said contract. A list of expenses follows: Two insertions in Homes & Land Magazine $249.21 500 Flyers to Realtors (250 twice) @ $.06 each 30.00 Total $279.21 Please forward a check in that amount to me at my office. Please remember that in the terms of our contract if anyone who has seen the property during my active term of the contract purchases the property you will still be obligated to pay the agreed upon commission to my firm. Regards, W. Wane Wier Broker-Salesman Per the request in the correspondence from Respondent to Ms. Barr, Ms. Barr contacted the Respondent and arranged to pay $50.00 a month to reimburse the costs described by the Respondent. Ms. Barr wrote three checks to the Respondent in his name, Wane Wier, without reference to Re-Max On Park Avenue. Respondent put those checks in his personal checking account. Respondent had originally taken money from his personal account to advertise the Barr property. On or about August 31, 1995, Ms. Barr sold her home on S. Long Meadow Circle to Jane Richardson. Respondent learned of the sale. Believing that the sale was a transaction that entitled Re-Max On Park Avenue to collect the 5 ½% real estate fee in accordance with the listing agreement, Respondent spoke to his supervising broker, Ms. McIvey, to ascertain the proper course for collecting the commission. Ms. McIvey advised Respondent that he should contact his attorney to see if the commission that was allegedly due Ms. McIvey and Respondent could be obtained by Respondent's counsel. Respondent took the advice of his supervising broker and contacted Thomas C. Santoro, Esquire, who was practicing at 1700 Wells Road, Suite 5, Orange Park, Florida 32073. In conversation Respondent explained to Mr. Santoro, that he believed that Ms. Barr owned the real estate commission. Respondent asked Mr. Santoro to write a letter to Ms. Barr to solicit the commission. Respondent feels confident that he told Mr. Santoro that Mr. Santoro should advise Ms. Barr to pay the commission to Re-Max On Park Avenue, given that was the normal course of events in seeking payment for commissions. To assist Mr. Santoro, Respondent left a written memorandum which among other things stated: . . . I feel that Ms. Barr has violated our listing agreement and should pay me and my company the full commission due under the terms of that agreement. Please take any steps necessary to have Ms. Barr honor our agreement, and advise me what I should do. On January 12, 1996, Mr. Santoro wrote Ms. Barr requesting payment of the commissions in the amount $3,397.50 related to the claimed balance due, after crediting Ms. Barr with $150.00 paid for advertising costs. This correspondence stated: Please be advised that you must forward a cashier's check in the amount of $3,397.50 made payable to W. Wane Wier, Re-Max On Park Avenue, within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter, which I have forwarded by certified mail as well as regular U.S. Mail. I have been instructed to proceed with appropriate action should you fail to make the payment as stated above Please Govern Yourself Accordingly. Respondent did not see the January 12, 1996, letter before it was sent to Ms. Barr. He did receive a copy of the correspondence. Respondent has no recollection of noticing that the correspondence said that the $3,397.50 should be made payable to W. Wane Weir, Re-Max On Park Avenue. In any event, Respondent did not take any action to correct the letter to reflect that the payment should be made to Re-Max On Park Avenue only. Prior to the charges set forth in the present Administrative Complaint Respondent has not been the subject of accusations about his conduct as a realtor.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Section 475.42(1)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes, dismissing the complaint for alleged violations of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, imposing a $1,000.00 fine consistent with Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61J2-24.001, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Christine M. Ryall, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308 Orlando, FL 32801-1772 Thomas C. Santoro, Esquire 1700 Wells Road, Suite 5 Orange Park, FL 32072 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Linda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional; Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Notice to Show Cause and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating yacht and ship brokers and salespersons pursuant to Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed yacht broker.1 She is the yacht broker for Yachting Consultants, Inc. in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In April 1999, Respondent was the listing broker of record regarding the sale of a 43-foot Pilgrim yacht. The selling broker was Mark Lipkus, a licensed yacht broker. John Pribik, a licensed salesperson, was Respondent's representative in the sale of the Pilgrim yacht. Mr. Pribik was under the supervision and control of Respondent and Respondent was responsible for his actions. Respondent had a buyer for the Pilgrim yacht, and the closing for the sale of the yacht was scheduled for April 13, 1999. The buyer was financing the purchase of the yacht. In a sale situation, a buyer and a seller have different responsibilities. The seller is responsible for providing all of the documents needed for a sale. The buyer is responsible for providing the funds for a sale. In the sale of the Pilgrim yacht, the responsibilities of the Seller and the Buyer did not change. There is a commission from the sale of a yacht, which is paid by the seller and, in accordance with standard industry practice, paid at closing. By standard industry practice, the commission split is 70/30, but can differ upon agreement. Mr. Lipkus received a down payment of $15,000.00 from the Buyer and placed the down payment in his escrow account. Mr. Lipkus was of the mistaken belief that the commission was payable by the Buyer, not the Seller. No co-broker agreement was entered into between Respondent or Mr. Pribik and Mr. Lipkus regarding commission. There was no discussion regarding the split of the commission between them. On a prior sale involving Mr. Pribik and Mr. Lipkus, the commission split was 60/40. Mr. Pribik and Respondent assumed the commission split of the sale of the Pilgrim yacht would again be 60/40. Considering the prior sale, it was not unreasonable for Respondent and Mr. Pribik to assume a 60/40 split of the commission. Mr. Lipkus assumed the commission split would be 70/30. A power of attorney had been prepared by the Seller who was unavailable for closing due to being in a remote area in the Philippine Islands. Mr. Pribik provided the power of attorney to the documenting agent who reviewed the power of attorney and found it to be satisfactory. The mortgage broker received a copy of the power of attorney prior to closing and forward a copy to the lending institution. The lending institution notified the mortgage broker at some point before closing that the power of attorney was unacceptable. In turn, the mortgage broker contacted the documenting agent regarding the unacceptability of the power of attorney and informed the documenting agent that a new power of attorney was required before closing could take place. Mr. Pribik was notified by the mortgage broker that a new power of attorney was required. The responsibility to obtain the new power of attorney was the responsibility of the listing broker, who was Respondent via Mr. Pribik. As far as Mr. Pribik was concerned, with the time remaining before closing2 and with the Seller being in the Philippine Islands, he believed that it was virtually impossible to obtain a new power of attorney by the time of closing. The mortgage broker, taking the position that he should do whatever he could to effectuate a closing, encouraged Mr. Pribik to attempt to contact the Seller. Complying, Mr. Pribik was able to make telephonic contact with the Seller and Mr. Pribik and the mortgage broker spoke with the Seller, who agreed to provide a new power of attorney. Based on the verbal assurance by the Seller to provide the new power of attorney, the lending institution agreed to proceed with the closing, which was re- scheduled for April 14, 1999. A new power of attorney was faxed to the Seller, and the Seller executed it and faxed it back. According to industry standard, all commissions are paid at closing when a seller receives the funds. Also, according to industry standard, closing is not delayed until a commission is paid. Mr. Lipkus mistakenly believed that the commission was paid by a buyer, coming out of a buyer's deposit. As a result, he expected to take the commission out of the Buyer's down payment, which was held in Mr. Lipkus' escrow account. After obtaining his commission, Mr. Lipkus was going to forward the remaining monies. On April 13, 1999, the original date for the closing, the closing could not take place because the financing from the lending institution was not available, based upon the absence of a new power of attorney. Also, Mr. Lipkus had not made arrangements for the deposit monies to be at closing or forwarded a settlement statement to closing, which were both needed for the closing. Respondent contacted Mr. Lipkus by fax regarding the commission monies and the settlement statement, demanding both items in order for closing to take place. The evidence is not clear and convincing as to whether Respondent demanded the monies held by Mr. Lipkus prior to closing or whether Respondent was threatening to delay the closing unless she had the monies prior to closing. The evidence suggests that Respondent was demanding the monies to be in place at closing. Additionally, on the original closing date, closing was to take place at the office of the mortgage broker. Mr. Pribik, the Buyer, and the mortgage broker were present for the closing. Mr. Lipkus did not intend to attend, and did not attend, the closing. Since the commission monies were not available at closing, Mr. Pribik telephoned Mr. Lipkus and demanded that the commission monies be available and, told him that if not made available, the closing could not take place. In Mr. Pribik's opinion, the monies were needed for closing. The evidence is not clear and convincing as to whether Mr. Pribik demanded the monies held by Mr. Lipkus prior to closing or whether Mr. Pribik was threatening to delay the closing if he did not have the monies prior to closing. The evidence suggests that Mr. Pribik was demanding the monies to be in place at closing. Furthermore, for the first time, Mr. Pribik and Mr. Lipkus, during the telephone conversation, became aware of their disagreement as to the proper commission split, whether 60/40 or 70/30. Believing that Mr. Pribik would prevent a timely closing, Mr. Lipkus agreed to Mr. Pribik's split of 60/40. Closing occurred on April 14, 1999. The necessary documents and finances were present. At the final hearing, Respondent expressed with sincerity that, if she did anything wrong, she wanted to know exactly what it was, so that she would not engage in the same conduct again. Furthermore, Respondent expressed the frustration that, prior to hearing, no one had explicitly told her what she had done wrong and that, at hearing, she continued to be unsure what she had done wrong because she had not been explicitly told what she had done wrong. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, enter a final order: Finding that Giovanna Gallottini did not violate Rule 61B-60.008(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Not sustaining the Notice to Show Cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 6th day of February, 2001.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed yacht broker, committed the offenses set forth in the Notice to Show Cause dated June 20, 1994, and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility to administer and to enforce the Florida Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act, Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has been a licensed Yacht and Ship Broker pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. Respondent resides in and has his principal place of business in Martin County, Florida. Respondent's corporation, Rampage of Stuart, Inc., has been licensed by Petitioner at all times pertinent to this proceeding. The parties stipulated that Respondent's corporation was, at times pertinent to this proceeding, doing business as Stuart Cay Marina, a fictitious name that had not been registered with the Petitioner. The parties stipulated that Respondent was guilty of violating the provisions of Section 326.004(2), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice to Show Cause dated June 20, 1994. The parties also stipulated that the appropriate penalty for this violation is an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00. James Withers began working for Respondent at Stuart Cay Marina in January 1994. At the time he began working at Stuart Cay Marina, Mr. Withers was not licensed under the Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act. Respondent knew or should have known that Mr. Withers was not licensed when he first became employed at Stuart Cay Marina. On January 27, 1994, Mr. Withers attended an educational seminar sponsored by Petitioner where the attendees received instruction as to the requirements for licensure as a salesman or a broker under the Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act. The successful applicant must submit a completed application form, a completed fingerprint card, the proper application fee, and a surety bond. The Petitioner's processing of the application includes having the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) run a fingerprint check on the applicant. The attendees of the educational seminar were told that the application fee had increased from $538.00 to $539.00 as of December 20, 1993, due to a $1.00 increase in the fee charged by the FBI to process fingerprint cards. Mr. Withers and the Respondent knew, or should have known, that Mr. Withers could not act as a salesman until after his license had been issued. In late January 1994, Mr. Withers applied for licensure as a salesman pursuant to the Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act. Because the application form used by Mr. Withers reflected the old application fee, Mr. Withers submitted a check in the amount of $538.00 with his application and fingerprint card. There was no evidence as to where Mr. Withers had obtained this application form. Mr. Wither's application package was received by Petitioner's Finance and Accounting Office on February 4, 1994. The check for the application was deposited and the application forwarded for further processing. On February 7, 1995, Mr. Withers was advised by mail that his application was deficient since the application fee was short by $1.00. This letter, from the Petitioner's Yacht and Ship Section, advised Mr. Withers that the $1.00 was needed to continue the application process. Mr. Withers forwarded his $1.00 check, dated February 9, 1994, to the Petitioner to correct this deficiency. This check was received and deposited by Petitioner's Finance and Accounting Office, which is located in the John's Building in Tallahassee, on February 17, 1994. The Finance and Accounting Office released the application package for further processing on February 18, 1994. From the Finance and Accounting Office, the application package went to the Division Director's Office located in the Warren Building in Tallahassee. From that office the application package was sent to the Yacht and Ship Section located in the Bloxham Building in Tallahassee, where it was received February 21, 1994. Licenses are not completely processed until after the Yacht and Ship Section receives notification that the entire application fee has been paid. Processing of Mr. Withers' application was completed by the Yacht and Ship Section and his license was issued on February 21, 1994. Mr. Withers and the Respondent knew, or should have known, that Mr. Withers had not received his license from the Petitioner as of February 18, 1994. 1/ There was no evidence that either man had reason to believe as of February 18, 1994, that the license had been issued and was being forwarded by mail. Both men correctly believed that Mr. Withers had substantially complied with the licensure requirements as of February 18, 1994, and that the license would be issued at some juncture since the only deficiency had been corrected. Mr. Withers represented Respondent at the Sixth Annual Miami Brokerage Yacht Show on February 18, 1994, where he acted as a salesman within the meaning of the Yacht and Ship Brokers's Act. Respondent permitted Mr. Withers to use his company name at this show. On Friday, February 18, 1994, James Courchaine and Peter Butler, in their official capacities as employees of the Petitioner, located Mr. Withers at the boat show and inquired as to whether he was licensed. Mr. Withers told them that he had completed his application package and was merely waiting to receive his license in the mail. Mr. Butler thereafter called his office in Tallahassee and learned that Mr. Withers' check for $1.00 may have been received, but that the application had not been received by the Yacht and Ship Section and that the license had not been issued. Mr. Butler informed Mr. Withers that the earliest his license could be issued was Monday, February 21, 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the findings and conclusions contained herein, that imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 against Respondent for the violation of Section 326.004(2), Florida Statutes, and that imposes an additional administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 against Respondent for the violation of Section 326.06(2)(e)7, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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 8th day of January 1996.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a Florida-certified general real estate appraiser, holding license number RZ 2678 and doing business as Easthill Valuation and Consulting (Easthill). He has been doing real estate appraisal work since 1986. Respondent also holds a Florida real estate broker license. HBK Investments (HBK) is a hedge fund headquartered in Dallas, Texas. On June 23, 2006, HBK entered into a written agreement with Easthill in which Easthill agreed, for a $7,500.00 fee, to appraise for HBK the value of the remaining unsold inventory of an uncompleted high-rise, residential condominium project being developed by WCI Communities, Inc., on a barrier island in Pompano Beach, Florida (Ocean Side Project). The agreement did not specify, nor did HBK indicate at any time during the negotiations leading to the agreement, that time was of the essence in completing the appraisal. The agreement2 read, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * The purpose of this appraisal/consultation is to estimate the market value of the fee simple estate reflecting the unsold inventory in the subject property. The report is intended to be used in making internal management decisions related to potential investment by [HBK] related to specific properties, interests, direct investments and/or securities issued by WCI. The assignment is to be a limited appraisal in a summary report format in conformance with, and subject to, the Standards of Professional Practice and Code of Ethics of the Appraisal Institute and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) developed by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. The scope of [Easthill's] assignment is to evaluate the subject property based upon the estimated remaining inventory as of the date of value for the current development based upon information obtained by the appraiser through market research and analysis. [HBK] hereby acknowledges that the subject property is owned, controlled and in the process of development by WCI. [HBK] understands and agrees that [Easthill] will receive information for the report from third party sources and that [Easthill] bears no responsibility (and shall not be liable) for the accuracy or completeness (or lack thereof) of such information. [HBK] understands that despite [Easthill's] best efforts to obtain accurate direct data pertinent to the analysis, such as but not limited to the number of sold and/or unsold units, actual transaction prices, actual or proposed development costs, current price schedules, documents pertaining to the declaration and proposed operation of the condominium development, may not be available. [Easthill] will incorporate market derived information in an effort to estimate these variables in the analysis. [HBK] acknowledges that market derived estimates may vary considerably from the actual amounts expended by WCI and can therefore reflect diverged value indicators which reflect a higher degree of subjectivity versus an analysis performed had the actual information been made available. * * * [Easthill's] fee for this assignment will be $7,500.00 and requires a 50% retainer payment prior to commencement of work with the balance due upon delivery of the report. [Easthill] will provide one bound hard copy and one electronic copy of the report via email in PDF format. The report will be completed and delivered to [HBK} within approximately four (4) to six (6) weeks from receipt of this fully executed engagement letter, the retainer fee and any additional relevant information provided by [HBK]. In the event the assignment is canceled prior to completion, an invoice will be prepared reflecting the percentage of work completed as of that date. Any credits to [HBK] will be promptly returned or any remaining balances to the appraiser will be indicated on the invoice. * * * HBK made the "50% retainer payment" by check dated July 6, 2006. The check (in the amount of $3,750.00) was deposited in Respondent's account at BankAtlantic on July 11, 2006. Thereafter, Respondent began work on the appraisal. Matthew Luth of HBK attempted to contact Respondent by telephone to inquire about the status of the appraisal after four to six weeks had gone by and he had not heard anything from Respondent. Mr. Luth was unsuccessful in his efforts to speak with Respondent, but he did leave "voice mail" messages. Mr. Luth also sent Respondent three e-mails (on August 8, 2006, August 25, 2006, and September 8, 2006) requesting an update on the appraisal. Respondent received neither Mr. Luth's "voice mail" messages, nor the e-mails Mr. Luth had sent. Jon Mosle, HBK's General Counsel, subsequently sent the following letter, dated September 26, 2006, to Respondent: I am the General Counsel for HBK Investments L.P. On June 23, 2006, HBK engaged your company to perform an appraisal related to the Pompano Beach condominium development to be known as Oceans Side. A copy of our signed engagement letter is attached. Promptly after signing the engagement letter, HBK paid the initial $3,750 payment for your services (via our check #2611, which cleared our bank on July 11, 2006). The engagement letter stated that your appraisal would be completed and delivered within approximately four to six weeks, a time frame now long passed. To date, we have seen no evidence of any work on your part. Matt Luth (the business person at HBK, who is responsible for this project) and myself have now tried to contact you numerous times and you have chosen not to return our calls or to provide any update regarding the project. From this information, I can only conclude that you are attempting to steal our retainer. Please be assured that we will not simply stand by and let this happen. If you do not call Matt Luth in the next three days to discuss this matter, we will immediately file a complaint with the State of Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. We will then investigate the process for reporting this as a criminal matter to the appropriate authorities. Respondent received Mr. Mosle's letter on October 14, 2006.3 Within a day or two of receiving the letter, Respondent contacted HBK and spoke with Mr. Luth. Respondent apologetically told Mr. Luth that "the report had been delayed," but he "was finishing the assignment and would have it to [HBK] within about a week." Mr. Luth said "that would be fine." The next day, however, Respondent received a telephone call from Mr. Luth, who told him that HBK was "canceling the assignment" because it "no longer needed the report." At the time of HBK's "cancel[lation of] the assignment," Respondent "had completed just about everything there was to complete except for actually writing the narrative report." He had obtained information about the Ocean Side Project, as well 14 other, comparable projects in the area, through public records reviews, on-site visits, and discussions with project staff. The information gathering process had not proceeded as quickly as Respondent had planned inasmuch as it had turned out that project staff were not always accessible at the times it was convenient for Respondent to meet with them. Respondent spent a total of approximately 60 hours collecting and analyzing data for the appraisal. Although the percentage of work that Respondent had completed was greater than the percentage (50%) of the "consultant's fee" he had been paid, Respondent did not ask HBK to pay him any additional monies (notwithstanding that his agreement with HBK authorized the making of such a request). But for HBK's "cancel[lation of] the assignment," Respondent would have delivered the "limited appraisal in summary report format" that he had agreed to provide to HBK.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 20th day of February, 2008.
