Findings Of Fact Respondent Robert Cousins was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesman, from October 30, 1974, to January 22, 1975; and again from February 19, 1975, to September 7, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex has a regular telephone lone and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salesperson had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc., was in business. As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, In the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc. began operations, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc. had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records. During January of 1975, while associated with International Land Brokers, Inc., respondent was given the name of Patricia Marie CONVILLE, whom he telephoned. Respondent asked Ms. CONVILLE whether she wanted to list a lot she owned In Port St. Lucie with International Land Brokers, Inc. He told her that International Land Brokers, Inc. "would assess the value of the land and publish it in a catalog . . . [and] attempt to sell [her] land," Exhibit No. 23, pp. 4-5, in exchange for a listing fee of two hundred dollars ($200.00), which would be deducted from a ten percent commission, in the event of sale. When Ms. Conville said she could only afford a listing fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00), respondent agreed to accept that amount, with the understanding she would pay the rest later. Respondent told Ms. Conville that he "didn't know how great the chances were someone would want to come in and buy undeveloped piece of land, so he) actually made no guarantee that the land would be sold." Exhibit No. 23, p. 9. Ms. Conville executed a listing agreement she received in the mail, which she then sent back to International Land Brokers, Inc., together with her personal check for one hundred dollars ($100.00). Later she received "the proof of a page in their catalogue," exhibit no. 23, p. 9, in which was printed a description of the property she had listed, and a price for the property. No prospective purchasers ever inquired of her with respect to the property.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building, Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire and Mr. Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road WINTER Park, Florida 32789 Mr. I. Richard Jacobs, Esquire 300 Roberts Building 29 W. Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130
The Issue Whether Respondent's license issued by Petitioner should be revoked or suspended, or the licensee be otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Sections 475.25(1) (a) and 475.25(3) Florida Statutes as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. This case was consolidated for hearing with that of other respondents by Order of the undersigned Hearing Officer dated August 8, 1977. The consolidated cases heard on November 7, 1977 are as follows: Case No. 77-1269, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. John Glorian and General American Realty Corporation Case No. 77-1275, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. James Henkel Case No. 77-1277, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. Alfred Landin Case No. 77-1278, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. Joseph Macko The evidence in this case consisted solely of the testimony of the Respondents in the above listed four cases, and Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1 withdrawn) which consisted of certain written material furnished to prospective clients by the Florida Landowners Service Bureau, including a listing and brokerage agreement sample form. Petitioner sought to elicit the testimony of Kenneth Kasha and Theodore Dorwin, but both of these prospective witnesses invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and declined to testify in this case. After inquiring into the basis of their claims, the Hearing Officer permitted the same and they were excused from the hearing. Both individuals based their claims on the fact that they are currently under criminal investigation by state law enforcement authorities with respect to their prior activities as real estate brokers in advance fee transactions. Although Petitioner contended that Dorwin had waived his privilege by testifying in prior administrative proceedings brought by the Florida Real Estate Commission which led to the revocation of his broker's license, and that Kasha also had waived his privilege by testifying in an administrative proceeding brought by the Florida Division of Land Sales and Condominiums concerning advance fee sales, it was determined by the Hearing Officer that any such waivers did not extend to the instant proceeding. Petitioner then sought to introduce into evidence the prior testimony of Dorwin and Kasha in the aforementioned administrative proceedings, but such admission was not permitted by the Hearing Officer because the Respondents herein had not been afforded an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses at the time they gave such testimony. Respondent James Henkel appeared at the hearing after it had commenced unaccompanied by legal counsel. The Hearing Officer advised him of his rights in the administrative hearing. Respondent Henkel is a registered non-active real estate sales percentian, and was at all times alleged in the Administrative Complaint, a registered salesman in the employ of General American Realty Corporation, a registered corporate broker (Petitioner's Exhibit 4).
Findings Of Fact General American Realty Corporation was first registered by Petitioner as a corporate broker in 1970. In 1972 John Glorian became the president of the firm and active broker. He was hired by Richard T. Halfpenny who was the owner and principal stockholder at the time. Alfred Landin, a registered real estate salesman, joined the firm in February, 1975. At that time, General American was in the business of selling acreage property in Florida. In the summer of 1975, Glorian recommended to Halfpenny that the firm become involved in the "advance fee" business. Such transactions in the trade involved the telephone solicitation of out-of-state landowners to list their land in Florida for sale with a Florida broker for a prescribed fee which would become part of any sales commission if and when the particular property was sold. Halfpenny expressed no objections to the idea and Glorian thereafter contacted Theodore Dorwin who was then associated with Florida Landowners Service Bureau in Miami. Kenneth Kasha was the President of that firm which was involved in the advance fee business. Glorian introduced Dorwin to the firm's salesmen, who included Joseph Macko, James H. Henkel, and Landin. Dorwin instructed these personnel in the method of soliciting prospective clients and provided an outline of the information that was to be given to those individuals called by the salesmen. He told the General American personnel that once the property was listed with Florida Landowners Service Bureau, it would be advertised in newspapers and catalogs, and that bona fide efforts would be made by his organization to sell the property. (Testimony of Glorian, Landin, Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 5-6). General American commenced its advance fee operation approximately August, 1975. The procedure followed was for a salesman to call an out-of-state landowner picked from a computer print-out list and inquire if he would be interested in selling his property at a higher price than he had paid for it. This was termed a "front" call and the salesman was termed as "fronter". If the prospect expressed interest in listing his property, his name was provided to Florida Landowners Service Bureau who then mailed literature to the property owner describing the efforts that would be made by that organization to sell his property. Also enclosed with this material was a listing and brokerage agreement. This agreement provided that the owner of the property would pay a prescribed listing fee to Florida Landowners Service Bureau which would be credited against a ten percent commission due that firm upon sale of the property. In return, Florida Landowners Service Bureau agreed to include the property in its "listing directory" for a one-year period, direct its efforts to bring about a sale of the property, advertise the property as deemed advisable in magazines or other mediums of merit, and to make an "earnest effort" to, sell the property. The accompanying literature explained that the listing fee was necessary in order to defray administrative costs of estimating the value of the property, merchandising, advertising, brochuring, and cataloging the information. The material also stated that advertising would be placed in various foreign countries and cities of the United States. In addition, it stated that Florida Landowners Service Bureau would "analyze" the property, comparing it to adjacent property to arrive at a price based on recent sales of neighboring property, and also review the status of development and zoning in the immediate area of the property to' assist in recommending a correct selling price for approval by the owner. During the course of their calls to prospects, Macko, Henkel, and Landin advised them that the property would be advertised internationally and in the United States, and that bona fide efforts would be made by Florida Landowner "service Bureau to sell the property. All salesmen represented themselves to be salesmen for that organization. Henkel told prospects that foreign investors were buying Florida property; however, in fact, he was unaware as to whether any property had ever been sold by Florida Landowners Service Bureau and never inquired in this respect. Henkel and Landin had observed copies of the literature sent to prospects in the General American office, but Macko had only seen the listing agreement. After the promotional literature was sent to a prospect, the General American salesmen made what were called "drive" calls to answer any questions and to urge that the property be listed. After making these calls, the salesmen had no further contact with the property owner. The listing fee initially was $250 and was later raised to $350. The salesman received approximately one third of the fee. Glorian was paid several hundred dollars a month by General American, but received no portion of the listing fees. He was in the office once or twice a week to supervise the activities of the salesmen who made their telephone calls during the evening hours. Halfpenny was seldom there and did not take an active part in the advance fee operation. None of the salesmen or Glorian were aware that any of the property listed with Florida Landowners Service Bureau was ever sold and none of them ever saw any advertising, although Land in saw a catalog of listings at one time. Although Macko customarily recommended a listing price of the property to prospects based on the general rise in value of land since the date of purchase, Henkel merely accepted the price desired by the property owners. General American terminated its advance fee business in early 1976 after being advised that Petitioner was conducting investigations into the advance fee business (Testimony of Macko, Landin, Henkel Glorian). All of the Respondents in these cases testified at the hearing that they had made no false representations to prospects during the course of their telephone conversations and otherwise denied any wrongdoing.
Recommendation That the charges against Respondent James Henkel be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Louis Guttman, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 James Henkel c/o Dory Auerbach 456 Northeast 29th Street Miami, Florida 33137
Findings Of Fact Evidence reveals that during late December, 1975, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., a Florida Corporation, filed application with the Florida Real Estate Commission seeking registration as a corporate real estate broker. Said application revealed that Defendant, Frank Viruet, was to become the Active Firm Member Broker, and Vice president of the Company; that Carol Bauman was to become Secretary-Treasurer and Director of the company; and that Lee Klien was to become president and Director of the company. The application also revealed that Carol Bauman is the wife of the Defendant Bernard Bauman (Progress Docket #2357); that Lee Klien is the sister of Carol Bauman; and that Defendant Jeffrey Bauman (Progress Docket #2858) is the son of Bernard Bauman. Subsequent to filing the above corporate application For registration, the name was changed to Noble Realty Corporation and shortly thereafter to Deed Realty, Inc. and that at each such change, new application For corporate registration was filed with the Commission. Further, the stated offices and Active Firm Member Broker remained the same. Thus, For all legal purposes, the above corporate entities are one and the same. As to Count One of the complaint, according to the certificate of the Commission's Chairman, dated December 3, 1976, (which was offered and received into evidence without objections), during the period November 1, 1975 through the date of said certificate, no registration was issued to or held by either of the three corporations above referred to. This was confirmed by testimony of Bernard Bauman who was to have become a salesman associated with the above entities and by Frank Viruet the broker, who was to have become the Active Firm Member Broker For the above entities. Approximately December 2, 1975, evidence reveals that Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., entered a written lease For office premises known as Room 212, Nankin Building, which is located at 16499 N.E. 19th Avenue, North Miami Beach, For the period January 1 through December 31, 1976. (A copy of the lease was entered into evidence by stipulation). The unrebutted testimony by Plaintiff Reagan was that he observed during his investigation of this cause, a building directory on the ground floor entrance to the Nankin Building displaying the name Noble Realty, Inc., Room 212 (2nd Floor). A similar display on the building directory appeared on the second floor. Plaintiff's witness, Peter King, a representative of and For Southern Bell Telephone Company, testified that on December 27, 1975, three phones were installed in said room 212 of the Nankin Building in the name of Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., and that from January 1 through January 16, 1976, approximately 575 phone calls were made from such phones during evening hours to out-of-state numbers. Jeffrey Bauman and Bernard Bauman admitted to having made phone calls to out-of-state numbers For purposes of soliciting real estate sales listings, but did not recall nor introduce records as to how many calls were in fact made. Jeffrey Bauman testified that Frank Viruet had also made phone calls from the stated phones but did not state whether they were solicitations. On this point, Frank Viruet denied making solicitation calls although he admitted using the phone For other purposes. Bernard Bauman testified that approximately four listings were obtained with an advance fee of $375.00 For each listing received. He further testified that upon being advised, by the investigator with the Commission, that the operation was in violation of the licensing law by reason that no registration had been issued to the applicant company, and that all who were engaged in real estate activities For said company were in violation of the licensing law, the premises were closed and all real estate activities ceased. This was confirmed by nominal Plaintiff Reagan. Frank Viruet denied having knowledge of real estate activities being conducted by the Baumans. He further denied knowledge that office space in Room 212 of the Nankin Building was occupied by Land Re- Sale Service, Inc. and used by the Bauman's. He admitted to signing the application For registration which was submitted to the Commission as the corporate Active Firm Member Broker to be. As to Count Two, evidence established as stated above, that defendants Jeffrey and Bernard Bauman had solicited real estate sales listings with representations to property owners that the listings would in fact be published and disseminated to brokers nationwide. However, the Baumans, admitted by their own testimony that their listings were never published or otherwise disseminated to brokers either intrastate or nationwide. Bernard Bauman testified that no money was ever returned to senders. There was no evidence received to show that Defendant Frank Viruet knew that no bona fide efFort would be made to sell the property so listed with Noble Realty Corporation; nor that Viruet was aware that solicitations were being made. As to Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that the acts and doings set out in Counts One and Two establish a course of conduct by defendants upon which revocation of their registration should issue.
The Issue Whether Abbey Lane is guilty of violating the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(a) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Abbey Lane is a registered real estate salesman. Abbey Lane worked for International Land Services Chartered, Inc., from January to March, 1976. He earned $25 per day while working Saturdays and Sundays and earned $20 to $30 when a person who he had contacted subscribed to services of International Land Services Chartered, Inc. Lane described his duties as a "fronter", or a person whose job it was to establish initial contact with a prospect. His job was not to sell the services of International Land Services Chartered, Inc., but to determine whether the individual who he contacted was interested in those services. He gave the names of those from whom he received a positive response to Sam Lerner, a manager in the office during the weekends. These prospects were then contacted by individuals working during the week called "closers". Lane left International Land Services Chartered, Inc. when he read about the problems with advance fees in the newspapers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no actions against the registration of Abbey Lane as a registered real estate salesman. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Abbey Lane 3800 S. Ocean Drive, Apt. 1004 Hollywood, Florida 33019
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Mitchell was a licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license number 0364014 through the Division of Real Estate. The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute charges of violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, by real estate salesman who are licensed in Florida. In December 1982, while on vacation in Fort Lauderdale, Mr. Fernando Canepa accepted an invitation to take a complimentary tour of Lehigh Acres from a representative of Lehigh Corporation. Lehigh Corporation is owner of a large residential development within the community of Lehigh Acres, Florida. The community is in an undeveloped area of Lee County, Florida. A predecessor development company of Lehigh Corporation began development of Lehigh Acres as a planned community, in the early 1950's. By August 31, 1979, approximately 110,047 out of 129,000 lots had been sold within the community by the developers. The purpose of the complimentary tour, which includes a trip to the Everglades, a tour of Lehigh Acres, a promotional film and a free lunch is to sell real estate lots in this isolated and independent community. Mr. Fernando Canepa was aware of the tour's purpose when he accepted the invitation. Mr. Canepa had heard of Lehigh Corporation in Venezuela, his country of residence during 1982. As he was interested in purchasing real property in the United States, he had made the decision to visit the residential development for the possible purchase of property prior to leaving Venezuela on his vacation. A close friend of Mr. Canepa who resides in Peru, had also discussed a purchase of real estate in the United States with Mr. Canepa prior to his vacation. Mr. Ricardo Sahurie verbally authorized Mr. Canepa to seek out property in Lehigh Acre for him if Mr. Canepa believed that a purchase in that community would be a good idea. The two friends agreed that if land purchases were made, the two lots would have to be next to each other. During his tour of Lehigh Acres on January 5, 1983, Mr. Canepa was introduced to the Respondent. The Respondent was the real estate salesman assigned by Lehigh Corporation to handle lot sales within the development to members of that particular tour group. When Mr. Canepa spoke with the Respondent about a lot purchase, he was concerned about two matters: the market value of the lots and the security of his investment. Mr. Canepa was informed by the Respondent that the price for each of the two lots he wanted to purchase were $12,499.00 and $11,999.00, respectively. The prices were non-negotiable as the market value placed upon each lot was determined by the lot control department within Lehigh Corporation. Prior to the signing of Agreements for Deed on a lot for himself and a lot for Mr. Sahurie, Mr. Canepa was given the opportunity to read the Public Offering Statement on the development which had been prepared by Lehigh Corporation. On page two of the statement, potential buyers were advised of many of the inherent risks involved in a land purchase. Potential buyers were warned that land values may not increase, and that resale of lots within Lehigh Acres may be difficult or impossible. As part of the sales transaction, the Respondent was required to contemporaneously certify that he made no representations to Mr. Canepa which were contrary to the information contained in the Public Offering Statement. Mr. Canepa was given a copy of this certification, along with specific instructions to notify the Office of Interstate Land Sale Registration and the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums if representations were made to him which are contrary to those in the statement. In addition, Mr. Canepa was given seven days to cancel the Agreement for Deed signed by him on January 5, 1983. Mr. Canepa chose to continue with the purchase of the lot he selected, and recommendations were made to his friend Mr. Sahurie to continue with his purchase. The two purchasers agreed between themselves to hold onto the lots for a few years for speculation purposes. A decision to build upon the lots or to sell them could be made at a later date. This plan had been discussed with the Respondent, who had voiced his approval of the plan prior to the purchase of the lots by Mr. Canepa. The Respondent discussed the recent growth in the Southwest Florida region, and the recent increases in lot valuations when Mr. Canepa informed him of his intentions. These discussions reaffirmed Mr. Canepa's confidence in his decision to purchase the lots in the development, in spite of reminders by the Respondent that future land values are unforeseeable. On September 15, 1987, Mr. Canepa returned to Lehigh Acres and learned that the lots had not increased in value. Model home plans were obtained from Lehigh Corporation, and a resale agent was contacted to assist Mr. Canepa and Mr. Sahurie in their future plans for the property. During discussions with the real estate agent, Mr. Canepa was informed that the lots could be resold for a price between $2,500.00 to $3,000.00. When the agent was asked how much Mr. Canepa could have purchased a resale for in 1983, Mr. Canepa was told that he could have purchased a resale lot for around $2,000.00. The price requested by Lehigh Corporation for each lot is based upon a number of factors such as the costs of advertising, engineering, and development, as well as the cost of the land itself. Lehigh Acres has been a development project since 1952. During some of the earlier phases of the project, lots were sold for $500.00. Purchasers of land from the earlier phase are able to resell their vacant lots at a profit for price within the $2,000.00 price range. As an individual lot owner's expenses and motivations are different than the development corporation's expenses and motivations, lots could be obtained for less money from many individual lot owners in 1983 through 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent Mitchell not guilty of the charges filed in Case No. 88-4690, and that these charges be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4690 The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #8, and #13. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4 and #6. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8 and #9. Rejected. See HO #11. Rejected. Improper summary. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #9 and #10. Rejected. Argumentative and irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #12. Accepted. See HO #12. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Closing argument. Conclusionary. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 John C. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Murray Alter violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(a), and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Murray Alter is a registered real estate salesman. Alter was employed by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. from 1974 to 1976 and received commission payments during that time from International Land Sales Chartered, Inc. Alter was a listing representative or "closer". Alter identified a letter signed by him to William Carey Hansard and stated that he (Alter) sent people he had contacted such letters. Hansard testified that Alter stated to him that Hansard's property could be sold easily. Hansard did not attribute any other representations to Alter and indicated that he had talked mostly with other salesmen. Hansard said Alter told him the primary means of selling the property would be by advertisement in a catalogue sent by International Land Services Chartered, Inc., to U.S. and foreign brokers. The deponents indicated that they had been contacted by a person who identified himself as Murray Alter. The McKays stated that the person identifying himself as Alter did not represent to them that International Land Services Chartered, Inc., had made other sales of property or that the company had ready buyers. They stated that the person identifying himself as Alter stated that their property would be easy to sell because there was a boom in Florida real estate. The McKays stated that the person who identified himself as Alter represented that International Land Services Chartered, Inc., would advertise their property in a catalogue which would be sent to U.S. and foreign brokers. Icard stated the person who identified himself as Alter contacted him, but did not represent that International Land Services Chartered, Inc. had made other sales or that the property could be sold immediately, or that the property could be sold at several times its price. Alter denied making any false representations to any of the persons whom he contacted. Alter explained his duties with International Land Services Chartered, Inc.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends to the Florida Real Estate Commission that no action be taken against the registration of Murray Alter as a real estate salesman. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of March, 1978, Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel Oliver, Esquire Charles Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Ronald L. Fried, Esquire 2699 S. Bayshore Drive Suite 400C Miami, Florida 33133 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION Petitioner, PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 2770 DADE COUNTY vs. DOAH CASE NO. 77-197 MURRAY ALTER, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Respondent Sheila Traub was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson, from June 3, 1975, to September 9, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex had a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salesperson had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc., was in business. As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc., began operation, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc., had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire Mr. Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Ms. Sheila Traub c/o Dan Barrie 8975 Northeast 6th Avenue Miami Shores, Florida 33153
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
Findings Of Fact Respondent Zelda Fogel was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson, from April 7, 1975, to September 5, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex has a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salespersons had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc. was in business. As a general rule, a week after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc. a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc. began operations, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc. had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records. In the latter part of August of 1975, Morton Finkelstein telephoned Marc A. Rouslin at his home in Providence, Rhode Island, on behalf of International Land Brokers, Inc. He encouraged Mr. Rouslin to list certain Florida real estate with International Land Brokers, Inc., and to pay an advance listing fee of two hundred eighty-five dollars ($285.00), which was to be applied against the commission of ten percent, in the event of sale. Mr. Finkelstein caused various materials to be mailed to Mr. Rouslin, including a listing agreement. After they went over the agreement item by item on the telephone, Mr. Rouslin mailed the agreement, together with his check, to Mr. Finkelstein. Subsequently, Mr. Rouslin received a proof of what purported to be a page in a catalogue on which appeared a description of the property he had listed. Although Mr. Rouslin made his decision to list his property with International Land Brokers, Inc. on the basis of Mr. Finkelstein's representations, he spoke to respondent over the telephone on one occasion and she told him that International Land Brokers Inc. was "going to do a background searching to get a comparable selling price for today's market." Exhibit No. 22, p. 12.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire and Mr. Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. I. Richard Jacobs, Esquire 300 Roberts Building 28 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130
