Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker salesman in the State of Florida at all times material hereto having been issued license number 0158288 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On June 10, 1985 a Recommended Order was entered by the undersigned Hearing Officer in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85-0118 concerning Respondent, which recommended that "a Final Order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a period of two (2) years and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000)." On July 16, 1985 the Florida Real Estate Commission entered a Final Order imposing the penalty against Respondent which had been recommended by the undersigned Hearing Officer in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85-0118. The Final Order provided further that, "This Order shall be effective thirty (30) days from the date of filing, with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation." The Final Order was filed with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation on July 24, 1985. To date, Respondent has not paid the $1,000 fine imposed by the Florida Real Estate Commission in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85- 0118. Petitioner contends that Respondent was required to pay the $1,000 fine within thirty (30) days of entry of the Final Order, referenced above. Rule 21V-10.31, Florida Administrative Code, imposes a thirty-day time limit for the payment of fines imposed by the Florida Real Estate Commission from the date of imposition by order of the Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued revoking Respondent's license-number 0158288. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 24th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0989 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Hartman, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Roy Ahringer 232 Harmony Avenue Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings S. Benton, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Wallace Adams was a registered real estate salesman with Continental Marketing Services from November, 1975, until May, 1976. The depositions of Robert Cline, Donald Brawdy and Jean Sue Brawdy were received into the record without objection. The depositions of the Brawdys reflect that they received a telephone call from an individual identifying himself as Wallace or Wally Adams. The deposition of Robert Cline reflects that he received a call from an individual whom Cline identified only as Mr. Adams. The deponents indicated that the caller stated he represented Continental Marketing Services, a real estate sales organization. The caller represented that Continental Marketing Services desired to list property which they owned in Florida and Arizona for sale. The caller represented that their property would be advertised nationally and internationally, and that foreign buyers were interested in purchasing such property. Cline indicated that he was called in approximately November of 1975, and the Brawdys indicated that they were first contacted in February of 1976. The caller suggested the potential sales prices of the property to be listed, and the deponents eventually entered into a listing contract with Continental Marketing Services, paying advance listing fees ranging from $350 to $1,125. None of the deponents indicated that they ever met the Respondent, Wallace E. Adams.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against the registration of Wallace E. Adams as a registered real estate salesman. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Grimes, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Wallace E. Adams c/o Dory Auerbach 456 NE 29th Street Miami, Florida 33137
Findings Of Fact During times material to the allegations of the administrative complaints filed herein, the Respondents were registered real estate salesmen in the employ of Theodore Dorwin, a registered real estate broker, and at all times material herein, Darwin was the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc. Raymond Lewis, a salesman employed by Dorwin during the period December, 1975 through mid February, 1976, as a real estate salesman, was initially employed by Florida Landowners Service Bureau. During mid February, 1976, he testified that the name Florida Landowners Service Bureau was changed to Intermart, Inc., and that approximately during this period, he left the employ of Intermart, Inc. He testified that the offices were situated on northwest 79th Street, which consisted of a large room containing six cubicles where salesmen manned the telephones in the cubicles during the hours of approximately 6:00PM through 10:30PM during week days and during the early afternoon and evening hours on weekends. Salesmen were given lead cards which were apparently compiled from the county tax rolls from which a list was given containing out of state landowners. Employees, based on a "pitch" card called out of state land owners to determine their interest in selling their property. He described the procedure as a "front" when an out of state landowner was called to determine interest in selling their land. The "close" procedure was a method whereby those property owners who had displayed some interest in selling their properties were mailed a packet of materials which, among other things, contained a listing agreement. Salespersons were compensated approximately $100 to $125 for each listing secured by an executed listing agreement which in most instances represented approximately one third of the listing fee. During the course of a normal day, salesmen would contact approximately thirty landowners and they would be given estimates of the prospective selling price of their land based on the location of the property and the length of time that the owner had held it. The testimony of Lewis, which is representative of that given by later witnesses including Jeffrey Barker, August Graser, David Cotton and Henry Halar (all salesmen employed by Dorwin) reveals that property owners were called to determine their interest and if interest was noted, follow-up calls would be made after a packet of materials was sent to interested landowners. After a listing arrangement was obtained, salesmen were compensated by payment of an amount representing approximately one-third of the listing fee. In the case of a listing fee obtained by two or more salespersons, the fee (commission) was divided according to the number of salespersons instrumental in obtaining the listing. Each salesman who testified indicated that they made no guarantee that a sale would be consummated within a definite period nor were they familiar, in any particulars, with the brokerage efforts to sell the properties of owners who listed their property with Intermart. Theodore Dorwin, the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc., was subpoenaed and testified that he had no copies of the records which were subpoenaed showing the operations of Intermart, Inc. In this regard, Raymond Lewis also testified that he had no corporate records respecting Intermart. Both witnesses testified that all corporate records of Intermart had been subpoenaed and were in the custody of the Attorney General for more than one year. Dorwin refused to give any testimony respecting the operational workings of Intermart, Inc., based on fifth amendment self incrimination grounds. The Commission's counsel took the position during the course of the hearing that Mr. Dorwin had waived any and all fifth amendment rights or privileges by virtue of having personally testified in a similar matter before the Florida Real Estate Commission in a proceeding undertaken to revoke or suspend his license as a real estate broker. Having voluntarily taken the stand in that proceeding, the Commission concludes that he is not now entitled to any fifth amendment protections. As evidence of Mr. Dorwin's having voluntarily taken the stand in the prior proceeding, excerpts of the testimony from that proceeding was introduced into evidence. (See FREC Exhibit number 8). Having considered the legal authorities and the arguments of counsel, the undersigned is of the opinion that testimony given by a party in a separate proceeding to which the Respondents were not party to and of which the Respondents had no notice of cannot serve in lieu of evidence on which findings of fact can be based to substantiate allegations pending in the instant case. To do so, would possibly leave open the door for highly prejudicial and damaging testimony to which the Respondents here had no opportunity to rebut, cross examine or otherwise explain, all of which is inherently destructive of their basic rights, fairness and fundamental due process. The cases of Hargis v. FREC 174 So.2d 419 and Vann, 85 So.2d 133 are not deemed inapposite to the conclusion reached here. The fact that the State's Attorney General is currently conducting an investigation into the operations of Intermart makes clear that the possibility of criminal action or other sanctions exist (e.g. tax problems). For these reasons, I conclude that Dorwin's testimony in a prior proceeding, amounts to no waiver of his constitutional privilege. For these reasons, exhibit number 8 will not be considered as evidence herein. Having so concluded, the record is barren of any evidence, hearsay or otherwise, which would tend to establish in a competent and substantial manner, that the Respondents herein had engaged in conduct alleged as violative of Chapter 475.25, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaints filed herein be dismissed in their entirety. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether the license of the Defendant should be suspended or revoked.
Findings Of Fact Defendant Robert M. Trombley holds real estate broker's license No. 0090046. An Information was filed against Defendant charging him with sharing a commission or paying a fee or other compensation to a person not properly registered as a real estate broker or salesman under the laws of this state for the referral of real estate business, clients, prospects or customers in violation of Subsections 475.25(1) and 475.01(2), Florida Statutes. Mary M. Morritt, a real estate broker with Realty Unlimited, was involved in a real estate transaction with Defendant for the purchase of 37 acres of property in Brevard County in the summer of 1972. Several times she met with others and the purhaser's agent, Percy Buzaglo, in order to draw a contract. Mrs. Morritt suggested at a meeting in the office of Tom Griffith, Esquire, that the real estate commission be renegotiated and divided equally amoung the three brokers involved in the sale. She received no response to her suggestion although on a previous occasion Defendant had understood from a remark of Defendant that another broker was involved in the purchase. Mrs Morritt received a commission for the sale although she did not attend the closing. She never saw the unknown so-designated broker she had understood would share the commission and saw no evidence of an agreement or payment of real estate commission to him. At the time of the hearing the witness did not know the names of all of the principals. Mr. Ray M. Teboe, a registered real estate broker with Realty Unlimited, testified that there was a commission split in April 1973 for the sale of the subject property 50 percent to Defendant and 50 percent to Realty Unlimited which in turn was divided with The Keyes Company. Mr. Teboe understood from Mrs. Morritt that Defendant had another broker working with him. Mr. Teboe understood that Defendant was afraid of getting into trouble with, he understood, the Florida Real Estate Commission. Mr. Teboe was at some of the meetings concerning the transaction with Defendant and Defendant mentioned that he had to pay his wife alimony. Relevancy of this statement not established. The main witness for the Plaintiff refused to testify upon the grounds that his testimony might tend to incriminate him. The Hearing Officer further finds: The Plaintiff Florida Real Estate Commission presented evidence and testimony by witnesses with innuendo that Defendant as a cooperating real estate broker did share a real estate commission in violation of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, but did not present sufficient competent evidence to establish its position that the Defendant did in fact violate the statute.
Recommendation Dismiss the Information. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of February, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Louis B. Guttmann, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 David T. Price, Esquire Price, Bryne & Case 2810 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, William J. Windsor, should have his real estate license no. 0158593 revoked or suspended, or otherwise subject to discipline, for the answers given to question six in the application of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, for registration as a real estate salesman filed with the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, which answer allegedly caused the Respondent, William J. Windsor, to obtain his registration by means of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment, in violation of 475.25(2), F.S.; and further for allegedly failing to fully and accurately answer inquires pertinent to his qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, good character and good reputation for fair dealing as propounded, and is required by 475.17 and 475.18, F.S. and would therefore be guilty of violations of 475.25(1)(d), F.S. Whether or not the Respondent, William J. Windsor, should have his real estate license no. 0158593 revoked or suspended, or otherwise subject to discipline, for the answers given to question 15(a) in the application of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, for registration as a real estate salesman filed with the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, which answer allegedly caused the Respondent, William J. Windsor, to obtain his registration by means of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment, in violation of 475.25(2), F.S.; and further for allegedly failing to fully and accurately answer inquires pertinent to his qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, good character and good reputation for fair dealing as propounded, and is required by and 475.18, F.S. and would therefore be guilty of violations of 475.25(1)(d) , F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, William J. Windsor, is now and at all times material to the complaint was a registered real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission and is and was so operating and registered in the employ of Watson Corporation of Jacksonville, 6206 Atlantic Boulevard, Jacksonville Florida. The application of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, for registration as a real estate salesman was subscribed and sworn to on January 14, 1976, and filed with the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 15, 1976. The Florida Real Estate Commission approved the application for William J. Windsor to become a real estate salesman on February 3, 1976. The application for registration as a real estate salesman contained within it a question no. 6 which provides as follows: "6. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation, including traffic offences (but not parking, speeding, inspection or signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled?" The Respondent, William J. Windsor, answered this question no.6 in the negative by placing the word "no" in the space provided. At the time of the execution of this application, the Respondent, William J. Windsor, knew or should have known that his answer to question six was false and untrue since he had failed to disclose and explain certain charges and arrests. The first matter was an arrest on September 11, 1973, by the Sheriff's office of St. Johns County, Florida under dockets no. 73-626, 73-626A and 73- 626B, three charges of the offense of "issuing a worthless check". The Respondent, William J. Windsor, also failed to reveal an arrest of October l8, 1973, by the Sheriff's office, St. Johns County, Florida, case no. 121992, on a charge of "contempt of court". The Respondent, William J. Windsor, did not reveal an arrest on October 19, 1973, by the Sheriff's Office, Polk County, Florida, on charges of "embezzlement-misapplication of funds, making false reports and furnishing false statements". The Respondent, William J. Windsor, failed to reveal in his answer to question six, that an order was entered which withheld the adjudication of guilt and placed the Respondent, William J. Windsor, on probation for a period of five (5) years', and an order of restitution after he had entered a plea of nolle contendre to the offense of misapplication of funds (five counts), case no. CF-73-2357, Circuit Court, Florida, May 1, 1974, in the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County. This plea was entered as an agent, officer, an employee of Mar-Bil Enterprises, Inc. The probation that was received was modified by orders of the committing court and a copy of those orders, whose contents are admitted as fact, may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits #1 & #2. In the subject application for registration as a real estate salesman, William J. Windsor, the Respondent, answered a question no. 15(a) which question provided as follows: "15(a). Has any license, registration, or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation or vocation been revoked, annulled or suspended in this or any other state, province, district, territory, procession or nation, upon grounds of fraudulent or dishonest dealing or violations of law, or is any proceeding now pending?" The Respondent, William J. Windsor, answered this question 15(a) with the word "no", inserted in the place provided for response. At the time the Respondent, William J. Windsor, gave the answer to question 15(a), he knew or should have known that the answer was false and untrue since he had failed to reveal, disclose and fully explain the revocation of his contractor's license (RG- 00l2898) on January 8, 1975, by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Respondent-licensee, William J. Windsor, having pled guilty to eleven (11) charges of violation of 468.112, F.S., at a formal hearing held on December 20, 1974, Hillsborough County Courthouse, Tampa, Florida. A copy of the notice of revocation of the Respondents license held with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, is Petitioner's Exhibit #3, admitted into evidence and accepted as fact. The date of this letter of notification is January 29, 1975. The Respondent, William J. Windsor, tried to explain his failure to answer questions 6 and 15(a) above, by stating that he had made numerous inquires of the Florida Real Estate Commission about the possibility of being granted a real estate salesman's license in view of his plea of nolle contendre and probation for the aforementioned offenses. The summary of the contact with the Florida Real Estate Commission, put concisely, would be that the Real Estate Commission did not foreclose the possibility of the Respondent being granted a real estate salesman's license; however, no one in the Florida Real Estate Commission office indicated that the Respondent would not be required to answer questions 6 and 15(a) completely. Respondent's Exhibit #1 is a copy of a letter of May 30, 1975, from the probation officer of the Respondent, addressed to the Florida Real Estate Commission This letter concerns the possibility of Respondent, William J. Windsor, obtaining a real estate salesman's license, and is a part of the contact which the Respondent had with the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation It is recommended that the registration of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, as a real estate salesman, license no. 0158593, be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William J. Windsor c/o Warson Corporation of Jacksonville 6206 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida Joseph C. Black, Esquire 1106 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact The Defendants are registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as brokers. The Defendant Mershon is the President of the Defendant Orlando Metro Realty, Inc. During May, 1971, the Defendant Mershon, acting as a real estate broker, negotiated a sale of land from Carolina Caribbean Corporation to Edye Lynn. The property is located in North Carolina, and the contract for sale was signed in an airplane between North Carolina and Florida. For reasons that are not relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Lynn became disenchanted with the transaction. The Defendant Mershon agreed to assist her in finding a purchaser. On January 23, 1972, Charles Schiller Martin, signed a contract to purchase Ms. Lynn's property. The Defendants acted as brokers in securing the purchaser. The contract was signed in North Carolina. The contract was received in evidence, and is marked as Exhibit number 1 to each of the four depositions. Mr. Martin deposited the sum of $500 with the Defendant when he signed the contract. A copy of the cancelled check from Mr. Martin to the Defendants was received in evidence and is marked as Exhibit number 2 to each of the depositions. Ms. Lynn accepted Mr. Martin's offer. Mr. Martin submitted the contract to his attorney, George W. English III. On March 7, 1972 Mr. English wrote to Henry J. Prominski, an attorney who represented Ms. Lynn, requesting that several items respecting the property be forwarded to him. This letter was received in evidence and is marked as Exhibit number 5 to each of the depositions. On March 22, 1972, Mr. English wrote to Mr. Prominski informing him that Mr. Martin wished to cancel the contract to purchase. A copy of this letter was received in evidence, and is marked as Exhibit number 3 to each of the depositions. Mr. English advised Mr. Martin that marketable title could not be delivered, primarily because there were deed restrictions applying to the property which were not mentioned in the contract for sale. Assessments for water, sewer, and road grading were cited by Mr. English as particularly onerous. The March 22 letter was followed on April 25, 1972, with another letter. This letter was received in evidence, and is identified as Exhibit number 4 to each of the depositions. Mr. English never made any direct demand upon Mr. Mershon for return of the $500 deposit to Mr. Martin. He did make a demand upon Mr. Prominski. It is Mr. English's legal opinion that the seller could not deliver marketable title to the buyer. Mr. Prominski, representing the seller, is of the opinion that marketable title was available to be delivered to the buyer. Mr. Prominski stated that his client did not default in her obligations under the contract. Mr. Mershon opted to construe the purchase contract between Mr. Martin and Ms. Lynn as breeched by Mr. Martin. He forwarded $250 of the deposit to Ms. Lynn and retained $250 for himself. He explained his action in this regard in a letter to Mr. Prominski dated September 13, 1972. This letter was received in evidence, and is marked as Defendants' Exhibit number 1. This arrangement was apparently satisfactory to Ms. Lynn, and Mr. Prominski communicated Ms. Lynn's approval through a letter dated October 11, 1972. This letter was received in evidence, and is marked as Exhibit number 8 to each of the depositions. Approximately three weeks prior to the time that Mr. Martin signed the contract to purchase the Lynn property, Mr. Mershon delivered copies of various reports to Mr. Martin, including the restrictions that would apply to the property, and the contract to purchase from Carolina Caribbean Corporation which had been executed by Ms. Lynn. At approximately the time that Mr. Martin signed the contract, Mr. Mershon advised him that title insurance was available. The Defendants acted as brokers in many transactions in the development in which the property involved in this case is located. They had obtained title insurance on many similar lots. Only in this case was there any objection to title. Prior to his distributing $250 of the $500 deposit to Ms. Lynn and his retaining the remaining $250, Mr. Mershon consulted with attorneys for Carolina Caribbean Corporation who advised him that the Martins had defaulted in their obligations. Mr. Mershon personally spent approximately $1,000.00 in transporting Mr. Martin from Florida to North Carolina. Defendants did not seek the advice of the Florida Real Estate Commision respecting the disposition of the deposit monies, did not submit the issue to arbitration, did not interplead the parties, and did not otherwise seek an adjudication in a proper court. No evidence was offered with respect to standards for determining the marketability of real property in North Carolina. No evidence was offered respecting the marketability of title to the land in this case, other than the opinions of Attorney English, Attorney Prominski, and Defendant Mershon.
Findings Of Fact The Defendant was at all times material herein registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman. On May 3, 1974, the Acting State Attorney filed before the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida an Amended Information charging the Defendant with the offenses of the sale of unregistered securities and the sale of unregistered securities without being registered as a dealer or salesman in violation of Florida Statutes 517.02(1), 517.07, and 517.12(1). On October 11, 1973, the Defendant entered a plea of N0L0 CONTENDERE to both offenses and Judge Humes T. Lasher, Circuit Judge in and for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, entered an order withholding adjudication of guilt and placed the Defendant on probation for a period of two years. See Commission's Exhibits 1 and 2. Counsel for the Commission takes the position that the Defendant's entry of a NOLO CONTENDERE plea amounts to an admission and therefore a violation of Chapter475.25(1)(a) and (e), Florida Statutes. The Defendant contrary to the position taken by the Commission, avers that no such inference should be deduced from his entry of a NOLO CONTENDERE plea. He further contends that the plea was entered only because of his wife's mental condition and the extreme hardships brought about by above cited charges, and further that he had never been found guilty or the convicted of any crime in this or any other state. In mitigation, the Defendant testified to his honorary and exemplary military service. Chapter 475,25 sets forth grounds for revocation or suspension of a registrant's license with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Subsection 1(a) thereof provides in pertinent part that a registrant's license may be suspended based upon a finding of fact showing that the registrant has: (a) Been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises etc. in this state or any other state, nation or territory. . . or (e) Been guilty of a crime against the laws of this state or any other state or of the United States involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent or dishonest dealing; and the record of a conviction certified or authenticated in such form as to be admissible in evidence under the laws of this state, shall be admissible as prime facie evidence of such guilt. On April 30, 1975, Defendant, through his attorney, filed a Motion to Terminate Probation, Adjudicating Petitioner Not Guilty and Set Him Free, which was denied by Judge Lasher on May 12, 1975. In denying said motion to terminate probation, the Judge stated that the Defendant had failed to abide by the rules set forth by the Parole and Probate Commission. No further evidence was presented respecting this motion and/or its disposition. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. The burden of proving that a licensed real estate salesman has violated the Real Estate Licensing Law lies with the Florida Real Estate Commission or its representative. State ex rel Vining v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 281 So.2d 487 (Florida 1973). Insufficient evidence was offered at the hearing to establish that the Defendant based on the allegations contained in Counts 1 and II of the Administrative Complaint filed herein, has engaged in conduct violative of Florida Statutes 475.25(1)(a) and (e). The conduct here alleged and claimed to be violative of the above cited statutes if proven, must rest on a showing that the Defendant has "been guilty of a crime. . ." From the evidence here presented, there was no such showing but rather there was only a showing that an order was entered withholding adjudication of guilt. In view thereof, and since there was no showing that the Defendant has "been guilty of a crime" as set forth in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, insufficient evidence was offered to establish the allegations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William B. Seidel, Esquire Justice Building 524 South Andrews Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue The issue in Count I is whether Section 475.42(1)(j) absolutely prohibits a broker or salesman from filing a lien or other encumberance against real property to collect a commission. The issue in Count II is whether the Respondents violated a lawful order of the Commission by failing to remove the motion of lis pendens contrary to Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Conclusions Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: "No real estate broker or salesman shall place, or cause to be placed, upon the public records of any county, any contract, assignment, deed, will, mortgage, lien, affidavit, or other writing which purports to affect the title of, or encumber, any real property, if the same is known to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property, maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce the payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person, or for any unlawful purpose." Clearly the Respondents placed or caused to be placed the notice of lis pendens in question. A notice of lis pendens is clearly an "other writing which purports to effect the title of, or encumber, any real property." The Florida Real Estate Commission argues that this provision is an absolute bar to the filing of any lien for the purpose of collecting a commission. The Respondents argue that this provision is not an absolute bar and there are circumstances when a broker may file a notice of lis pendens. They also assert that the notice of lis pendens falls within the exception because the Circuit Court refused to remove the notice of lis pendens upon motion of the property owner. Lastly, it is argued that the notice was filed by counsel for the Respondents in good faith on an action at law and that this mitigates their action even if there was a violation. The language of Section 475.42(1)(j) cannot be read to absolutely prohibit a broker from obtaining a lis pendens. When given this construction, it effectively denies brokers and salesmen access to the courts for redress of injury as provided in Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Section 475.42(1)(j) is a complex provision which is subject to two interpretations. One interpretation would prohibit a broker or salesman from filing an encumberance if the same were known to him to be false, void or not authorized by law; if not authorized to be upon the public records; if not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded; if the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property; if maliciously (filed); if for the purpose of collecting a commission, if to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person; or if for any other unlawful purpose. This first interpretation would consider each clause a separate limitation on filing an encumberance. The facts analyzed under this interpretation do not show any knowledge by Respondents that the lis pendens was false, void or not authorized to be filed or not on a form entitling it to be recorded. The facts do not show that Respondents filed the lis pendens maliciously, for the purpose of collecting a commission, or for the purpose of coercing payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. The nature of lis pendens would not require the owner's authorization of execution for recording. The facts show that the lis pendens was filed by Respondent's attorney in conjunction with a suit brought by the Respondents against Perrin. The record also shows that the circuit court determined that the lis pendens was recordable when it denied the motion to remove it. The notice of lis pendens was neither malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting the commission. The notice was for the purpose of perfecting the claim against the property for execution of the judgment if the Respondents prevailed in the suit. Executing on a judgment is different from collecting the commission or coercing payment. Under this interpretation the Respondents have not been shown to violate Section 475.42(1)(j). A second interpretation would read the clause, ". . . if the same is known to to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been authorized by the owner of the property. . ." as the first of two criteria to be met to establish a violation. The second criteria would consist of proof that the encumberance was recorded maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. Again the facts do not show there was knowledge by the Respondents of the falsity, or impropriety of the notice of lis pendens, as stated above. Again the facts show that the lis pendens was filed in conjunction with a law suit pending between the Respondent and the property owner, and that the court before which the action was pending refused to remove it. The file of the notice by Respondent's counsel was a legitimate method of perfecting the Respondent's claim should they prevail and obtain judgment. The facts do not indicate that the filing of the notice was malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting a commission. Under either interpretation, Respondents did not violate the statute. COUNT II The Respondents are charged in Count II with violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that the registration of a registrant may be suspended for up to two years for violation of a lawful order of the Commission. Clearly, the facts reveal that the Respondents had a substantial interest involved in the litigation with Perrin. The order, of the Florida Real Estate Commission to remove the notice of lis pendens substantially affected their rights in this litigation. Therefore, any final order directing Kay to remove the notice of lis pendens should have issued after an opportunity for hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The evidence reveals that the Florida Real Estate Commission did not notice a hearing under Section 120.57, and therefore its order cannot be "lawful." The provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d) require that registrants not violate lawful orders. The Respondents have not violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by not removing the notice of lis pendens as directed by the order of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the Respondent, Sam Kaye and Sam Kaye, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September 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: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William E. Boyes, Esquire Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, P.A. Post Office Box 3466 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
The Issue Whether respondent placed an unpermitted sign alongside U.S. 29 0.7 miles south of U.S. 90 in Escambia County in violation of Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact At the time and place appointed for the hearing, neither party appeared or adduced any evidence. The hearing officer was later apprised that the parties had reached at least an oral agreement settling the dispute.
