Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the charges against her, the Respondent, Phyllis F. Bell, was a licensed real estate salesperson holding license number 0005529 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission. Prior to the formal hearing, the Respondent attempted to unilaterally surrender her license, which was not accepted by the Petitioner. The Respondent's last known address is 895 Indiana Avenue South, Englewood, Florida 33533. Notice of hearing and all correspondence regarding these proceedings was mailed to the Respondent at that address, and none of these items were returned to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Respondent received notice of this proceeding as required by law, and although she requested a continuance, she did not show good cause for continuance of the proceeding. At the commencement of the hearing, the Respondent's motion was denied, and the Petitioner was so advised and permitted to present its case. On October 17, 1979, the Respondent entered into an option-purchase agreement with Eugene Turner, Sr., which agreement granted the Respondent an option to purchase real property known and referred to by the parties as the Van Buren Estate located on Boca Grande Island, Florida. The Respondent occupied this property and lived in one of several dwellings thereon until her option and several extensions thereto had expired. During said time, the Respondent attempted to sell her option at a profit. While living on the property, the Respondent incurred utility and telephone bills in the amount of approximately $5,600 which she was obligated to pay under the terms of the option agreement. After her last extension had expired, Respondent vacated the property, and, although she has acknowledged the debts, she has not paid them.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent, Phyllis F. Bell, not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, take no action against the Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 14th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Ms. Phyllis F. Bell 895 Indiana Avenue, South Englewood, Florida 33533 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, G. Steven Pfeiffer, held a public hearing in this case on January 11, 1978, in Cocoa, Florida. The following appearances were entered: Charles E. Felix, Orlando, Florida, for the Plaintiff, Florida Real Estate Commission; and Kenneth A. Studstill, Titusville, Florida, for the Defendants, Thomas L. Pittman and Pittman Real Estate, Inc. The Florida Real Estate Commission issued an Administrative Complaint against the Defendants on August 23, 1977. On September 12, 1977, the Defendants filed an election of rights form which constituted a petition for hearing. In accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1)(b)(3), the Commission requested that a hearing officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings be assigned to conduct the hearing. The final hearing was scheduled by notices dated October 19, 1977 and November 2, 1977. At the final hearing the Commission called Gary W. Brandt, a registered real estate salesman, as its only witness. The Defendants called Virginia Laver, a former employee of Defendant Pittman Real Estate, Inc., and the Defendant Thomas L. Pittman. Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1-3, and Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2 were offered into evidence and were received. There were conflicts in the testimony of certain of the witnesses. In resolving these conflicts due regard has been given to the credibility of the witnesses as evidenced in part by the demeanor of the witnesses at the hearing, and in part by the extent to which the witnesses' testimony has been corroborated by other evidence.
The Issue Whether Hellender violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Hellender is a registered real estate broker holding license number 0038269 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Hellender had a listing for the sale of real property owned by Horace E. and Margaret C. Young. An offer to lease with option to purchase was made by Richard W. and Diane B. Milligan through their realtor, Susan Seligman, who was in contact with Seligman several times November 26 concerning the availability of the property and terms of the lease-purchase agreement. Both the Youngs and the Milligans did not live in the Orlando area where the two realtors and property were located. Susan Seligman, a broker-salesperson, presented Ralph E. Hellender with a Contract for Sale and Purchase when she met with Hellender between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. on the evening of November 26, 1976. This offer, which was received into evidence as Exhibit 1, expired at 12:00 noon on November 27. Hellender took the contract and indicated that he would communicate the offer to the Youngs. Susan Seligman did not accompany Hellender to communicate the offer as is the general custom, because she needed to pick up her children from a football game that evening. Mrs. Ingrid Hellender, a broker salesperson, received a call later on the evening of November 26, 1976, from Susan Seligman. The general topic of the call was the fact that the contract which Seligman had given Mr. Hellender earlier that evening provided for conventional financing of the purchase, and Seligman had second thoughts about the Milligans' desires on financing. She requested that she be given the opportunity to check with the Milligans to determine whether they intended to use conventional or FHA financing. At this point a conflict developed in the testimony of Mrs. Seligman and Mrs. Hellender regarding whether Mrs. Seligman requested that Mr. Hellender hold the contract or whether Mrs. Seligman requested that he present the offer with reservations concerning the nature of the financing. In any event, Mrs. Hellender advised her husband to hold the contract. Similarly, a conflict exists in Mr. Hellender's and Mrs. Seligman's testimony concerning whether Hellender said that the offer has been accepted by the Youngs. Mrs. Seligman stated that Mr. Hellender advised her on November 27, 1976, that the Youngs had accepted the offer. Hellender stated that he did not present the offer and therefore there was no basis for him to communicate an acceptance to Mrs. Seligman and did not communicate an acceptance to her. It should be particularly noted that Mrs. Seligman stated that on November 27 she had Mr. Hellender agreed that the Milligans should execute a new contract on Hellender's forms when the Milligans were to be in Orlando on December 1, 1976. It is also noted that Mrs. Seligman did not request telegraphic confirmation of the acceptance by the Youngs of the offer which she initially submitted to Mr. Hellender, although telegraphic confirmation is the generally accepted practice when dealing with an out-of-city seller and was not standard practice in the real estate firm with which Mrs. Seligman worked. The Hearing Officer discounts the testimony of Mrs. Seligman that Hellender told her the Youngs had accepted the offer because she did not request written confirmation of the acceptance, and because Mrs. Seligman stated that a second written offer was to be prepared on December 1, 1976. All the realtors who testified stated that it was the custom to obtain telegraphic confirmation of an offer from an out-of-town seller. Mr. Seligman, the broker for Mrs. Seligman's company, stated this was the general procedure for his company. Although the record is unclear whether Mrs. Seligman talked with Mr. Hellender before noon or after noon, she was aware the offer expired at noon November 27 and she did not press for written confirmation of acceptance before noon. Instead, she agreed to the preparation of a second offer is totally contrary and repugnant to any theory of acceptance of the first offer. Therefore, the Hearing Officer finds that there was no acceptance of the first offer communicated by Hellender to Mrs. Seligman. Mrs. Seligman may have formed the opinion that there was an acceptance because Mr. Hellender agreed to the terms presented in the first offer, but her agreement to a second offer to be prepared is in fact and law inconsistent with any assertion that the first offer was accepted. Mrs. Seligman stated, that it is clear from the actions of Mr. Hellender, that they expected a second contract to be presented in behalf of the Milligans. This explains his call to Mrs. Seligman advising her on December 5 that there was activity of the property. It also explains why December 6 he did accept a second offer on the property which was presented by Joe Deligna which he and Delinga communicated to the Youngs together as is the general custom after no offer was presented by the Milligans on December 1. Lastly, it explains why Hellender contacted Mrs. Seligman immediately after the Youngs had accepted the offer by the Maccagnanos and confirmed it telegraphically.
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 Ralph E. Hellender. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of March, 1978. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esq. 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mark A. Koteen, Esq. Post Office Box 3431 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact On October 3, 1975, Respondent filed an application with Petitioner for registration as a real estate broker (Stipulation, Petitioner's Exhibit 2). That said application contained therein Question 8 which is set forth in paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint and to which Respondent answered "No." (Stipulation, Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) That thereafter the application was approved and the Respondent subsequently received his registration as a real estate broker and has been continuously registered the Petitioner as a broker since December 22, 1975 (Stipulation.) That at the time of the execution of the application, as aforesaid, Respondent'S answer to Question 8 was incorrect in that he failed to reveal, disclose and fully explain a Complaint filed against him on August 6, 1973, in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for Pinellas County, by one Kenneth Beard, an individual, which complaint alleges false representations on the part of the Respondent in a business transaction. A judgment of the aforesaid Circuit Court in the above-mentioned action was in the process of appeal at the time Respondent filed his application for registration as a real estate broker (stipulation.) Respondent testified at the hearing substantially as follows: After the civil action had been filed against him, he sought the advice of counsel who informed him that the complaint therein was defective as a matter of law. He was therefore of the opinion that there was not a viable suit against him at the time he filled out his application, and thus was not attempting to mislead or hide any facts from the Petitioner. He also felt that, since he had not, in fact, committed any fraud or misrepresented any matters to the purchaser of the business in question, a negative answer on the question in the application was justified. However, upon reflection at the hearing, he conceded that, probably he had misread the question and misconstrued its meaning. Respondent's good reputation for truth and veracity in the community and in his business dealings was attested to by past officials of the Clearwater, Largo, Dunedin Board of Realtors (Testimony of Merhige, Blanton).
Recommendation That the Complaint against Respondent, William D. Folz, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick W. Jones Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Richard B. Moritz, Esquire 801 West Bay Drive Suite 704 Largo, Florida 33540
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the state of Florida, in particular Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the state of Florida having been issued license number 0223671 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker, t/a Sunshine Express Realty, 300 S. Pine Road 262, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324. On or about November 22, 1983, an information was filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, charging Respondent with one count of insurance fraud by false or fraudulent claim in violation of Section 817.234, Florida Statutes; and two counts of grand theft in the first degree, in violation of Sections 812.014(1)(a), 812.014(1)(b), and 812.014(2)(a), Florida Statutes. On March 27, 1985, a verdict was rendered which found Respondent guilty of one count of insurance fraud by false or fraudulent claim, and two counts of grand theft in the first degree. The Court adjudged Respondent guilty of one count of insurance fraud by false or fraudulent claim in violation of Section 817.234, Florida Statutes, and two counts of grand theft in the first degree in violation of Section 812.014(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Court thereupon sentenced Respondent to a prison term of eighteen months in state prison to be followed by a term of five years of probation. The Respondent does not appear to be possessed of the mental skills necessary to be the master-mind behind a complex fraud scheme, nor has he demonstrated a tendency to be devious, shrewd, calculating, or cunning. To the contrary, the Respondent appears to be gullible and vulnerable to being taken advantage of, which tendencies may account for the circumstances which led to his conviction. The Respondent enjoys an excellent reputation in spite of his criminal convictions and probably would not be a danger to the real estate community if he were allowed to keep his license. The quality of the Respondent's reputation is reflected by the fact that in spite of his convictions, he is currently employed in another broker's real estate company and holds the positions of vice president and head of the commercial department. With the exception of the incident which led to his convictions, the Respondent appears to have demonstrated a high degree of honesty and integrity in his personal and business dealings. The Respondent has excellent teaching skills in the field of real estate and is probably one of the better technicians in the field of real estate.
The Issue By Administrative Complaint filed 10 February 1978 the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the registration of William D. Folz, Respondent, as a real estate salesman. As grounds therefor it is alleged in Count I that Respondent placed a "For Sale by Owner" sign on a tract of land he did not own and was thereby guilty of misrepresentation in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) Florida Statutes and guilty of operating as a broker while registered as a real estate salesman in violation of Section 475.42(1)(b) Florida Statutes. In Count II it is alleged that Respondent was previously found guilty of obtaining his registration by means of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment in violation of Section 475.25(2) Florida Statutes and, therefore, his registration may be revoked pursuant to Section 475.15(3) Florida Statutes. Three witnesses were called by Petitioner, one witness was called by Respondent and 10 exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact At all times here involved William D. Folz was registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman associated with Roger Bouchard Realty, Inc. Following receipt of a complaint investigators from FREC in November 1977 checked vacant property in Tarpon Springs, Florida and found thereon a For Sale By Owner sign with a telephone number listed to Respondent's home. One of these investigators, testifying from notes made the week before the hearing, testified that he dialed the telephone number on the sign and talked to a person identifying himself as Folz who said he was the owner of the property. The following day this investigator met Respondent in the Real Estate office and at this time Respondent denied ownership of the property but admitted ownership of the sign. Respondent at this meeting claimed to be a friend of the owner and formerly an officer in the company owning the property; however, at the time he did not know if he was still an officer in the company. This witness had little, if any, independent recollection of the events to which he testified and no effort was made to refresh his recollection by use of material recorded by the witness at or about the time of the incident. His testimony, therefore, is entitled to little weight. The property on which Respondent had placed the sign in question was owned by Melvin McKnight, and wife, and it had been listed by Respondent and placed in Multiple Listing Service (MLS). McKnight is an investor who has had several transactions involving Florida real estate in which Respondent has acted as his agent. He had given the listing of the property here involved to Respondent and had authorized Respondent to place the sign bearing Respondent's telephone number on this property. If specific authorization had not been granted, McKnight ratified those acts of Respondent subsequent to their occurrence. Respondent had represented McKnight at closings and had delivered deeds executed by McKnight at those closings for some five years prior to the incident here involved. Subsequent to the termination of the listing agreement with Respondent and his broker, Roger Bouchard Realty, Inc., the property was sold through the efforts of another real estate office and no commission was paid to Respondent or Bouchard. By Final Order filed June 8, 1976 (Exhibit 8) the FREC revoked Respondent's registration as a real estate broker for a violation of Section 475.25(2) Florida Statutes. By Order entered 22 July 1976 following Motion for Reconsideration of Final Order the Commission granted leave to Folz to file application for registration as a real estate salesman and by letter dated December 5, 1976 (Exhibit 10) the FREC advised Respondent that his petition for reinstatement as a broker had been denied and he was ordered to serve twelve months active registration before becoming eligible to apply for reinstatement without having to take the broker's examination. Section 475.25(3) authorizes the FREC to revoke the registration of a registrant when the registrant is found guilty of a second violation of Section 475.25(1), Florida Statutes. Section 475.25(2) provides a basis for revocation of a registration independent of Section 475.25(3).
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that Respondent be issued a written reprimand for violation of Section 475.42(1)(b) Florida Statutes and Rule 21V-6.04 Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1978. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Mail: Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Doherty, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. William D. Folz c/o Roger Brouchard Realty, Inc. 301 South Missouri Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516
Findings Of Fact The Respondent has been a registered real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission from February 17, 1967, until the present. The Respondent was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Middle District of Florida and charged with devising and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud certain named persons and entities by use of the mails and further charged with the commission of an overt act in furtherance of said scheme. U.S. v. Hawk, Case No. 68-47-ORL CR, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. On October 11, 1968, the Respondent pled guilty to the offense of devising a scheme to defraud others and executing said scheme by use of the United States Mail and by telephone in violation of Title 18, Section 1341, U.S.C. The Respondent was sentenced to four years' imprisonment upon his plea of guilty. He served 17 months of his sentence before being paroled, which parole ended in October, 1972. The charge to which the Respondent pled guilty and was found guilty did not, in any manner, involve the sale of real property. Since his conviction and release from prison, the Respondent has worked as a real estate salesman. The Florida Real Estate Commission has shown no complaint lodged against Mr. Hawk regarding his registration as a real estate salesman from February 17, 1967, until the present, other than the complaint and allegations presently being considered. There has been no showing that Nelson F. Hawk engaged in any conduct warranting suspension of his registration as a real estate salesman other than that conviction heretofore referred to in 1968. Nelson F. Hawk is guilty of a crime against the laws of the United States involving fraudulent dealing as evidenced by the certificate of Wesley R. Thies, Clerk, United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The Issue The Information filed by the Florida Real Estate Commission against the Respondent charged him with two separate counts of violations of Chapter 475, The first count charged that he had sold real estate within the state of Florida and held himself out as being entitled to operate as a real estate broker or salesman. The count further charges that the Respondent did not reveal this to the Florida Real Estate Commission when he filed his application to be licensed within the state. Therefore, the Commission states Respondent obtained his registration as a salesman by means of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment in violation of Section.475.25(2), F.S. Count Two alleges that the Respondent answered in the negative to Question 14 of said application "Have you filed any application for registration as a broker or salesman in this state which was not granted?" In fact, Count Two alleges that the Respondent had filed an application previously to the one which was eventually granted and had therefore not truthfully answered the above question.
Findings Of Fact The evidence in this case failed to sustain either of these charges. As to the first count, the main witness called by the Florida Real Estate Commission, Annette Frances Brewer, could not identify the Respondent as being an individual who showed her real property and attempted to sell her a condominium unit. As for Count Two, there was no showing that the Respondent's misstatement on said applications was intentional or done for purposes of deception.
Recommendation It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against the Respondent, Frank David Camp. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. KENNETH G. OERTEL, Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Wilson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Bruce A. Koebe, Esquire 2170 N.E. Dixie Highway Rick Carroll Building Jensen Beach, Florida 33457 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, An Agency of the State of Florida, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 2566 MARTIN COUNTY FRANK DAVID CAMP, DOAH CASE NO. 76-1035 Defendant. /
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
Recommendation The Hearing Officer having found factually that the Respondents did not violate the provisions of Chapter 475 Florida Statutes, as charged, recommends that no action be taken against the registration of any of the Respondents. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of June, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Spencer Fox, Esquire Suite 107, 9065 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33176
