Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission suspend the license of Gracia Wittmack, t/a Leeside Realty, for a period of one (1) year. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX The Respondent, Gracia Wittmack, t/a Leeside Realty, filed a Proposed Recommended Order in this case. This Proposed Recommended Order has been considered and the following findings are made regarding its contents: The findings of paragraphs 1, 3(1)(2) and 4 of the Proposed Recommended Order are included in the Hearing Officer's statement of the case in the Recommended Order. The findings of paragraph 2 of the Proposed Recommended Order is paragraph 1 of the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order. The findings of paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in the Proposed Recommended Order are contained in paragraph 2 of the Recommended Order. That portion of paragraph 21 of the Proposed Recommended Order which states that no evidence was introduced refuting Wittmack's and Markowski's testimony regarding deposit of the funds is irrelevant in light of the affirmative finding of paragraph 2 of the Recommended Order that the $500 was deposited to Wittmack's escrow account. The findings of paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the Proposed Recommended Order are contained in paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The findings of paragraphs 15, 16 and 18 of the Proposed Recommended Order are contained in paragraph 4 of the Recommended Order. The findings of paragraphs 17, 19 and 20 of the Proposed Recommended Order are contrary to the testimony of the Bertzels who knew that the contract contained a no zoning contingency clause. Although Markowski stated he didn't realize the clause had been deleted, he recognized the contract date September 13 1976 as a binding contract. Further, no misunderstanding of the parties would be a basis for releasing Wittmack from her fiduciary duties after demand was made for the funds. The findings of paragraph 22 of the Proposed Recommended Order are irrelevant in light of the findings of paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 regarding the deposit of the $500 to and its removal from Wittmack's escrow account. The findings of paragraph 23 of the Proposed Recommended Order are contained in paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The findings of paragraph 24 of the Proposed Recommended Order are rejected in light of the findings contained in paragraph 3 and 6 of the Recommended Order. The findings of paragraph 25 of the Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being relevant in light of the Hearing Officer's findings that regardless of what escrow account the funds were deposited, they were removed and were not delivered to the Bertzels. The findings of paragraph 26 of the Proposed Recommended Order are contained in paragraphs 3 and 6, and paragraph 7 above, which find that the funds were held in escrow. The name of the account and its location is irrelevant. The record, Exhibit 8, reflects at least a $500 balance at all times in that account until the account was closed. The records of the opening of the Dadeland account were not introduced. But for the Respondent's admission that she removed the money and credited Tri-Sailing's account and the collaborative testimony of Markowski that this occurred, there would be no evidence of the alleged violation of removing the escrowed funds. The findings of paragraph 27 of the Proposed Recommended Order are contained in paragraph 7 of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Alan J. Kluger, Esquire Myers, Kaplan, Levinson & Kenin Brickell Executive Tower 1428 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, I make the following: The Defendant, Leroy Wilson, is a registered real estate broker with the Commission and during January 1, 1975 to November 5, 1975, Defendant was registered as trading as Overpass Real Estate. On April 27, 1975, Defendant was the owner of residential property located at 291 N.W. 29th Terrace, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. On April 28, 2/ Robert English and his wife Mazie English in response to a "for sale" sign posted at 291 N.W. 29th Terrace, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, went to the real estate brokerage office maintained by the Defendant at room 201 Romark Building, 3521 West Broward Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Defendant and Mr. and Mrs. English discussed and negotiated a deposit receipt contract dated April 28, 1975, between the Englishes as purchasers and Defendant as seller for the purchase and sale of property owned by Defendant located at 291 N.W. 29th Terrace. Mrs. English testified that they put up an earnest money deposit of $300 acknowledged by Defendant, however, Defendant executed the deposit receipt contract reflecting an earnest money deposit of $600. (See FREC Exhibit number 2). Mrs. English testified that part of the terms of the contract was that she would apply for a mortgage loan but when it was determined that her daughter who was to participate with her in the purchase, was not able to stay with her, she and her husband decided not to apply for a mortgage loan. She explained to Defendant and he agreed to return the $300 deposit that she had submitted along with the deposit receipt contract. When the Englishes demanded the return of their deposit, Defendant advised them that "it was the law that the deposit must be kept for 6 weeks, and thereafter, he would have to keep the deposit another ten days." After the expiration of the six week period, the Englishes called the Defendant's office and was advised that he no longer lived there and other efforts by the Englishes to contact the Defendant were fruitless. Thereafter on or about August 20, 1975, the Englishes filed a complaint with the Commission. Approximately two days after the Commission initiated its investigation, the Defendant returned the $300 deposit to the Englishes. (See FREC Exhibit number 3). N.B. Wolf an employee of Gulf Atlantic Mortgage Brokers testified that she was familiar with the document received into evidence as Exhibit number 2 which is the deposit receipt contract entered into by the Defendant and the Englishes. She testified that she did not recall ever having taken a credit application for the Englishes to apply for a mortgage loan. Roy E. Conner, the operations officer for Plantation First National Bank testified that he caused to be gathered the bank records as they relate to the escrow account maintained by the Defendant at that bank. An examination of those bank records revealed that the Defendant's escrow bank account maintained at Plantation First National Bank had a shortage of $5 as of September 16 and that on August 14, his escrow bank account showed a balance of $65 when it should have reflected a balance of $300 in earnest money deposits. See FREC Exhibit number 4 received into evidence. Pruyn investigated Defendant's brokerage office on September 16, at 2951 N.W. Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Based on an official inspection, Pruyn noted a number of inadequacies in that there were no letterheads, no desks, no chairs, no business mail, no diary of witnesses or any official sign as required and set forth in Commission Rule 21V-10.07 and 10.09, Florida Administrative Code and Section 475.22, Florida Statutes. See FREC Exhibit number 5 received into evidence. As previously stated, the Defendant did not appear at the hearing nor did he have a representative present to present any defense to the charges made by the Commission in the administrative complaint.
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Robert William Snyder, obtained his registration as a real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation of subsection 475.25(2), Florida Statutes, and operated as a real estate salesman without being a holder of a valid current registration certificate at the time of operating as such, in violation of subsection 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and for these violations whether the real estate license of Robert William Snyder should be suspended and/or revoked. Whether or not the Respondent, Robert William Snyder, has been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealings, trick, scheme or device, or breach of trust in a business transaction as stated in the Information in violation of subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and for these violations the real estate license of Robert William Snyder should be suspended for such a violation.
Findings Of Fact On February 9, 1972, the Respondent made application to be registered as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida. (See Petitioner's Exhibit no. 1). The Respondent was subsequently registered a real estate salesman in the State of Florida, and was so registered on March 11, 1975, when he was given a notice of the Information in this cause, as indicated by Petitioner's Exhibit no. 2. On the date of the hearing in this cause, Respondent was still registered as a real estate salesman with the State of Florida. It would appear that the initial registration certificate became effective on June 1972. When responding to Paragraph 18(a) and 18(b) of the application for registration, which is Petitioner's Exhibit no. 1, the Respondent answered those questions in the negative. The statement of questions 18(a) and 18(b) in the application were as follows: "18(a) Have you in this state operated, attempted to operate, or held yourself out as being entitled to operate, as a real estate broker, within one year next prior to the filing of this applica- tion? 18(b) Have you in this state operated, attempted to operate, or held yourself out as being entitled to operate, as a real estate salesman, within one year next prior to the filing of this application, without being the holder of a valid current registration certificate authorizing you to do so?" Prior to the answers to the questions in the form as stated above, discussions of a purchase of real estate in the State Florida had been entered into between the Respondent and his mother, Eleanor C. Russell. The first of these conversations had occurred while returning to the northeastern United States from a vacation trip to Florida. The exact location of that initial discussion is not known; however, the conversation took place in the Fall of 1971. During 1971 Mrs. Russell lived with the Respondent and his wife for a period of six to eight weeks. During that time frame Mrs. Russell entered into a contract for construction, with the Lake Placid Construction Company, Inc.. The terms of this contract are found in Petitioner's Exhibit no. 8. The date of the contract was November 27, 1971. The contract indicated that Lot 2, Block 153, in Unit 12 Placid Lakes, Highland County, Florida, was the contemplated real estate site upon which a duplex home was to be built. The contract was signed by Mrs. Russell and witnessed by Betty Jane Snyder, the Respondent's wife. The contract was subject to financing being obtained. Respondent appeared in the contract as Robert Snyder, a Connecticut broker. The purchase that was considered was a joint venture between the Respondent and his mother, Eleanor C. Russell. The contract was signed by Mrs. Russell because of certain tax advantages, according to the Respondent, and also because the Respondent was not financially able to get a mortgage in his name solely. When an application for mortgage money was applied for in the name of Eleanor C. Russell, this request was turned down. It was turned down based upon the age of the applicant and the Respondent was required to be a co-signer with his mother for the mortgage commitment to go through. On February 29, 1972, the Respondent signed an agreement for deed on the same parcel of land as shown in the contract which is Petitioner's Exhibit no. 1. The terms of the agreement for deed are found in Respondent's Exhibit no. 1. This agreement for deed was supported by a cash down payment from the Respondent, and was signed solely by the Respondent. Eleanor C. Russell had put up money in the amount of $14,000.00 for the purchase of the real estate indicated in the contract of November 27, 1971. The amounts of the checks can be found as part of the attachment to Petitioner's Exhibit no. 3. The purchase of the property was to be effectuated with $14,000 to be paid by Eleanor C. Russell to William Snyder, to be given to the Lake Placid Holding Company, and by funds which the Respondent expected to derive from the sale of the property which he was going to purchase with his mother. The funds were commissions for the sale of the lot according to the contract with the Lake Placid Holding Company, which is Petitioner's Exhibit 9, and also, funds as a commission for the sale of the building itself, which is in accordance with the contract, Petitioner's Exhibit no. 9. The contract was never consummated due to a disagreement between the Respondent and his mother. The $14,000 which the mother had paid to the Respondent has never been reimbursed to the mother and a judgment has been rendered in favor of Eleanor C. Russell, in the amount of $14,000.00. (See Petitioner's Exhibit no. 6). The formal negotiations for the sale of the contract for the benefit of the Respondent and his mother, Eleanor C. Russell, occurred in the State of Florida, as it pertains to the contract which she signed, Petitioner's Exhibit The contracts with the bank for financing, and the agreement for deed, Respondent's Exhibit no. 8, signed by the Respondent were in Florida. On the subject of the commissions which the Respondent intended to claim, he intended to claim those commissions as a Connecticut broker, although the sale would have occurred in Florida. The rationale for claiming the commissions, was that the Respondent was entitled to those commissions for the sale of the property to himself, in the same fashion that he would be entitled to the commissions for sales of property to a client in the State of Connecticut, acting as a Connecticut real estate broker. An indication of the Respondent's perception of his status is supported by the words "Connecticut Broker," found on the aforementioned checks signed by Eleanor C. Russell, the contract signed by Mrs. Russell and the agreement for deed signed by the Respondent. The money which was given to the Respondent by his mother as a part of the purchase of the real estate and home, has been spent by the Respondent for debts and for furniture, none of these items for the benefit of the mother, Eleanor C. Russell.
Recommendation It is recommended that the real estate registration certificate of Robert William Snyder, the Respondent, to be a real estate salesman in the State of Florida be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Robert William Snyder 2078 Sunset Point Road, Apt. 82 Woodlake Condominiums Clearwater, Florida 33515
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, both respondents held real estate broker's licenses. The corporate license is No. 0222663 and the individual license is No. 0159888. The individual respondent has been the only owner of the corporate respondent and the only broker the corporation has ever employed. At one time Angela Lewis worked for Broker Jim, Inc. as a licensed real estate salesperson. On October 6, 1981, it was she who signed, on the broker's behalf, a listing agreement with Laverne Lockhart and Faith Willis, the sisters who jointly owned the house at 1535 NW 116th Street in Miami, Florida (the house) . Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Kenneth G. Wilson, who wanted to buy the house, had $5000 available. The house was encumbered with a mortgage in the approximate amount of $33,000 and the sisters eventually agreed to take $44,000 for the property. On the form contract signed by both owners and Mr. Wilson, and dated November 25, 1981, under the heading "Terms and conditions of Sale:", the following was typewritten: 1,000 as mentioned above. Purchaser agrees to make an additional deposit in the amount $4,000 before closing. Purchaser agrees to assume an existing first mortgage in the Approx. amount $33,000, payab[l]e $340.00 P.I.T.I at 10.5 percent per annum in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein. Purchaser to obtain a P.M. 2nd mort[g]age in the amount of $6,000 at 18 percent per annum payable Approx. $152.37 for a period of 5 yrs. Balance of purchase price to be paid in cash or cashier check at time of closing. Property being purchased in its present as is condition. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Elsewhere on the printed form appears the following: When this contract is executed by the purchaser and the seller and the sale is not closed due to any default or failure on the part of the purchaser, the seller, at his option, may seek to enforce this contract, or else the seller may direct the holder of the deposit to pay the broker his brokerage fee not to exceed one-half of the deposit and to pay the balance of the deposit to the seller as consideration for execution of this agreement, and the holder of the deposit shall be held harmless by all parties for disbursement in accordance with this agreement. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Ms. Lewis prepared the form contract. Mr. Muhammad, as he is now known, read it over and approved it. In retrospect, he believes this was a mistake, because the contract fails clearly to reflect the parties' understanding that the offer was contingent on Mr. Wilson's ability to borrow $6,000, to be secured by a second mortgage on the house. A deposit ticket dated November 25, 1981, accompanied Mr. Wilson's check for $1000 when respondents deposited it to their escrow account. The bank credited the escrow account on December 1, 1981. Neither Mr. Wilson's efforts to obtain a loan, nor those of respondents on his behalf, availed, and word reached Ms. Lockhart that the transaction was doomed for want of sufficient purchase money. Over the phone, Ms. Lockhart told Helen Jackson, respondents' secretary, that she wanted a "refund" of the deposit. A lawyer Ms. Lockhart consulted communicated a similar demand to respondent Muhammad personally. Respondents gave Ms. Lockhart no money and no accounting. The money stayed in respondents' escrow account until it was used on Mr. Wilson's behalf in the purchase of another house respondents had listed.
The Issue The Administrative Complaint alleges Respondents violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by committing certain acts which were fraudulent or were misrepresentations or concealed material facts. The issues are whether the Respondents committed the acts alleged and, if so, did their conduct constitute a violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Both parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. To the extent that the findings herein differ from the findings proposed, it is because the proposed findings were not relevant or material to the issues, were not based upon the most credible evidence, or were not findings of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Norman D. Rathbun and Dianna A. Stolpman, are real estate brokers having been issued license numbers 0072024 and 0085366 respectively. The last known address of Respondents is c/o Mark Realty, Inc., 130 Fifth Avenue, Indialantic, Florida. Respondents are now and were at all times alleged herein licensed real estate brokers in the State of Florida. In February of 1980, Rathbun discussed with Gene Myers at Myers' behest a financial arrangement by which Myers, who had been trying to sell a house which he and his wife owned and were leasing, could obtain immediate cash to go to California. On February 4, 1980, they entered into a written agreement which provided in general terms that the Respondents would give the Myers $5,000 in cash, would assume financial responsibility for the three mortgage payments on the house, would manage the rental of the property, and would attempt to sell the house for which Respondents would receive a $3,000 commission and split the proceeds of the sale of the house with the Myers less the moneys the Respondents had expended. Upon discovering an outstanding judgment against the property of over $1,000, the Respondents prepared an amended agreement which provided that they would give the Myers $4,000 in cash and pay the outstanding judgment. This amendment was executed on February 8, 1980, at which time the Myers executed a warranty deed conveying the property to the Respondents. All of the parties were aware of their mutual obligations and the benefits they were to obtain from the agreement, and the Myers executed the warranty deed with a full understanding that they were conveying their right in the property to the Respondents subject to the terms of this agreement. Although conflicting testimony was received about whether the deed would be recorded by the Respondents, the documents and actions of the parties show the Myers were aware that the deed was in exchange for the cash and promises they received and that it would be recorded if necessary to secure the Respondents' interests (i.e., if the Myers were killed in an automobile accident) although the Respondents did not anticipate filing the deed. In early May of 1980, the Myers, who were living in California, determined they wanted to return to Florida. Gene Myers called Rathbun and asked if they could get the house back. Rathbun consulted Stolpman and, as a result, a letter was sent to the Myers on or about May 2, 1980, setting forth the terms under which the Myers could have the house back. The Myers did not comply with the terms of this letter until September 5, 1980, when they tendered the money to the Respondents. Upon tendering the money in return for rescinding their previous agreement, the Respondents reconveyed the property. Before the agreement was rescinded, Respondents continued to deal with the property as its owners limited only by the written agreement. The Myers had no legal right prior to September 5, 1980, to direct the Respondents to return the house to the Myers' possession or to cease their efforts to sell the property. The Respondents did all the things which they were required to do under the agreement and at all times met their obligations under the agreement. On or about May 10, 1980, when the Myers had returned to Florida, Gene Myers told Rathbun that he did not want the house sold, and that he could cut off the Respondents' rights by conveying the property to a relative. On May 12, 1980, in response to Myers' comment about cutting off their rights in the property, the Respondents filed the deed executed by the Myers conveying the property to the Respondents. On June 30, 1980, the Myers filed a claim of financial interest in the property with the local circuit court clerk. No evidence exists that the Respondents were served with this claim. Respondents continued their efforts to sell the property and on July 1, 1980, obtained a contract for sale on the property for a price that was within the limits established under their agreement with the Myers. Closing on the contract was to be on Friday August 1, 1980. On July 21, 1980, through their attorney, the Myers filed suit against the Respondents, who were served with the suit and a lis pendens on July 24, 1980. On July 25, 1980, Respondents met with their attorney, who called the Myers' attorney. Arrangements were made to meet on August 4, 1980, to discuss resolution of the suit. Between July 25 and August 1, 1980, Respondents did not notify the buyers or the buyers' agent that a suit was pending regarding the property. On or about July 31, 1980, the Myers reoccupied the house and on August 1, 1980, advised the buyers that they were the owners, not the Respondents. The buyers, their attorney and their real estate agent attended the scheduled closing. Rathbun arrived late, at which time the pending litigation and the Myers' claims were being discussed. Rathbun advised the group that he and his attorney were already scheduled to meet with the Myers and their attorney the following Monday, and that he felt the matter could be resolved. On August 2, 1980, the buyers elected to withdraw their offer. On August 4, the Respondents and the Myers reached a tentative agreement for the Myers' continued possession of the property. This resulted in a written agreement dated September 5, 1980. The terms of this agreement were substantially the same as the terms stated in the letter to Myers of May 2, 1980.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission dismiss the allegations of the Administrative Complaint against the Respondents. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1982, 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 21st day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John G. DeLancett, Esquire 801 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite 402 Post Office Box 6171-C Orlando, Florida 32803 Michael Krasny, Esquire 416 South Babcock Street Post Office Box 1376 Melbourne, Florida 32901 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. ,Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Streets Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the registration of Thompson be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Pierce, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Calvin Dawson Thompson Route 1, Box 1075 Oviedo, Florida 32765 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Carleen Chalk Lund, an active broker in Lund Realty, Inc. , a licensed corporate broker, failed to account or deliver to Daisy and Kenneth Parnell money in the form of a deposit which had come into her hands and which was not her property or which she was not in law or equity entitled to retain, under the circumstances, and at the time which was agreed upon or which was required by law or, in the absence of an agreed upon time, upon demand of the Parnells, who were entitled to such an accounting or delivery.
Findings Of Fact Carleen Chalk Lund and Norman Wayne Lund are registered real estate brokers holding current registration from the Florida Real Estate Commission and are active brokers in Lund Realty, Inc., a corporate broker registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission. On or about January 4, 1975, Daisy and Kenneth Parnell, the buyers, signed an offer to purchase the following real property from David and Wilma Hammer: East 184.5 ft. of NW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Sec 6, Twp. 26 S, Range 29 E, N Osceola County. Said offer was accepted by the sellers. Subsequently, the buyers sent a telegraphic money order in the amount of $2,200 to Lund Realty, Inc. Therefore said money was deposited in the escrow account of Lund Realty, Inc. $2,000 as deposit on the Hammer's property and $200 to be used for closing costs. The following provisions of the Contract for Purchase between the buyers and the sellers are specifically noted and referenced: In accordance with provisions of paragraph 4, the contract was to be closed and the deed delivered on or before January 31, 1975. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6, the seller was to convey title to the aforesaid property to the buyer by agreement for deed. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7, the costs, if any, of preparation of closing documents and closing fee shall be borne equally by the seller and buyer. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 9, all closing costs were to be divided equally between the buyer and seller including title insurance. In accordance with paragraph G of said standards, if the buyer failed to perform any of the covenants of the contract within the time specified, the deposit paid by the buyer might be retained by or for the account of the seller as consideration for the execution of the contract and in full settlement of any claims for camages and all parties would be relieved of all obligations under the contract and each party would execute a separate release of the other at that time. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph P of the standards, in the event that the buyer failed to perform and the aforesaid deposit was retained, the amount of the deposit was to have been divided equally between the realtor and the seller provided that the amount to be retained and received by the realtor would not exceed the full amount of the commission and that any excess would be paid to the seller. In accordance with the provisions of the paragraph "Commission to Realtor", the seller acknowledged the employment of Lund Realty, Inc. and agreed to pay Lund Realty a commission in accordance with the commission agreement. On January 25, 1975, copies of the articles of agreement, closing statement, and title insurance cost disclosure were sent by Chelsea Title and Guaranty Company to Mrs. Daisy Parnell at 88 North Pasack Road, Spring Valley, New York, 10977. The letter accompanying the aforementioned documents indicated that the sellers had executed the closing papers on that date. Said letter further indicated that as soon as the papers were signed by the recipient, that Dee A Burttram, manager of Chelsea Title and Guaranty Company, would record the articles of agreement and insure title to property. These papers were net signed and returned to Chelsea Title, and on February 14, 1975 a subsequent letter was addressed from Dee A. Burttram to airs. Daisy Parnell at the aforestated address indicating that Chelsea Title had not received the documents forwarded to Mrs. Parnell and offering further information if they had not been completed. See Composite Exhibit 10. Between January 25 and February 28, 1975 efforts were made by Lund Realty, Inc. to contact airs. Daisy Parnell without success. On February 28, 1975 it was determined that Frank Townsend, Attorney at Law practicing in Kissimmee, had been engaged by Sidney Schwartz, Attorney at Law practicing in New York, to review the contract entered into by Mrs. Daisy Parnell. According to his testimony, Frank Townsend recommended to Schwartz that Mrs. Parnell not go through with the contract until certain discrepancies in the contract were clarified. The discrepancies involved were the conflict between the provision of paragraph 2 stating that $8,000 purchase money note and mortgage to the seller while paragraph 6 indicated that the seller would convey title by an agreement for deed; the lack of a scribner's statement note on the papers to be filed with the Court; and a discrepancy between the amount of monthly payment as stated in the Contract for Sale and Purchase and the Agreement for Deed. However, by his letter of March 5, 1975 to Mrs. Daisy Parnell, Townsend refers only to problems involving the use of the Agreement for Deed which he concluded was not a problem if the sellers insisted on that form of conveyance, and the fact that the Agreement for Deed is unacceptable because it is unrecordable (an apparent reference to the fact that a scribner's notation was not made on the Agreement for Deed). By his letter of April 3, 1975 to Mr. Sidney Schwartz, Mr. Townsend indicates that he had completed all back ground work on the transaction and had advised Mr. Murray W. Over street, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Hammer three weeks prior that he (Townsend) was ready to provide a note and mortgage in exchange for a Warranty Deed and had requested that Overstreet arrange a closing date. Mr. Townsend closes indicating that he had again contacted Mr. Overstreet reminding him that the Parnells wished to close. Several things are apparent from Townsend's letters of March 5 and April 3, 1975. It is apparent from the letter to Mrs. Parnell from Townsend dated March 5, 1975 that substantial concern existed on the part of Schwartz that the use of an Agreement for Deed in the transaction would provide to Mrs. Parnell less protection than she would have in a situation in which a note and mortgage was used. However, as stated above, Townsend pointed out that the use of an Agreement for Deed under the Florida Law would afford Mrs. Parnell the same protection as a mortgage. It is also clear from the April 3 letter that all problems related to the Parnell-Hammer transaction had been resolved, that they were ready to close but insisted upon a note and mortgage in exchange for a warranty deed, and their position had bean communicated to counsel for the Hammers. The demand for the use of a note and mortgage by the Parnells is contrary to the provisions of the Contract for Sale and Purchase between these parties entered into on January 4, 1975 and as of April 3, 1975 was the only reason for the Parnell's refusing to close. On April 3, 1975, Mr. Murray Overstreet attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Hammer, advised Frank N. Townsend, attorney for Mrs. Parnell, that the Hammers considered their Contract for Sale and Purchase with Mrs. Parnell to be null and void because the transaction was to be closed on or before January 31, 1975 and that as of April 3, 1975 the matter had not been completed. Mr. Overstreet further advised that his clients made no claim on the deposit made to Lund Realty and that said deposit might be returned to the buyers. A copy of this letter was sent to Lund Realty, Inc. Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph G of the Contract for Sale and Purchase referenced above, upon default of the buyer, the deposit paid by the buyer could be retained by or for the account of the sellers as consideration for the execution of the contract and in full settlement of any claims for damage. Under the provisions of paragraph P of said contract, said deposit would be divided equally between the realtor and seller; provided, however, that the amount retained or received by the realtor was not to exceed the full amount of the commission, in this instance $600. On April 4, 1975 in response to the copy of the letter from Overstreet to Townsend in which the Hammers declared the Contract for Purchase and Sale null and void, Lund Realty, Inc. wrote Frank Townsend advising him that the expenses for sales commission, cancellation fee, and termite inspection should be considered before any escrow funds were disbursed and requesting that Lund Realty be advised as to how Mrs. Parnell would like to handle the charges. Clearly, Lund Realty considered the Parnells to be in default and asserted a claim for commission. No evidence was received regarding any response from Townsend to the letter of Lund Realty, Inc. dated April 4, 1975. On May 14, 1975 Lund Realty wrote Mrs. Daisy Parnell sending her a check in the amount of $1,466, the amount of her deposit less expenses incurred by her for sales commission, cancellation fee, termite inspection, and insurance. The amounts of each of the expenses and copies of statements were enclosed. Although the check in question was retained by Mrs. Parnell, Lund Realty received a letter from Sidney Schwartz dated May 23, 1975 which states in pertinent part as follows: "I am led to believe that the seller in the proposed transaction did not perfect title and waived and/or released its interest in the contract. If this be so, the entire down pay ment of Mrs. Parnell must be returned to her imme- diately. Please inquire into this matter. You no doubt are aware that Mrs. Parnell has retained Florida counsel, namely, Frank N. Townsend, Esquire, Post Office Box 847, Kissimmee, Florida. This is further to advise that in the event there has been a wrongful retention of any of Mrs. Parnell's funds, complaints shall be lodged with all appropriate authorities including licen- sing authorities in the State of Florida." The next contact between the parties was a letter to Lund Realty from Frank Townsend dated June 19, 1975. In that letter, Mr. Townsend stated as follows: "This confirms our request in accordance with Mr. Overstreet's letter wherein no demand is made for any funds on behalf of the Hammers, the return of all funds deposited with you by the Parnells is specifically requested." A second follow-up letter was addressed to Lund Realty on July 14,1975 requesting a response to the aforementioned letter of June 19, 1975. It is clear that the basis for demand of return of the deposit receipt in its entirety was based on the statements in Overstreet's letter to Townsend dated April 3, 1975, that the Hammers made no claim to the deposit to Lund Realty, Inc. This position of the Hammers was subsequently clarified by Mr. Hammer in his letter of August 12 (Exhibit 7) and by Mr. Overstreet, who at the hearing, testified that the Hammers never intended to waive the amount of the commission and the cost. Lund Realty was entitled to its commission and the Hammers would have had a cause of action against the Parnells under the contract for the entire amount of the deposit. However, the existence of a dispute over claims to all or portions of the escrow funds developed slowly, and was based on whether the Hammers waived their rights to all or any portion of the escrow funds. In September 1975 Lund Realty requested an advisory opinion of the Florida Real Estate Commission regarding its duties. The conclusion of that advisory opinion was that disbursement should be made to the Parnells, and that the claims that Lund, Chelsea Title and any other individuals should be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. The advisory opinion was silent, however, on Hammer's subsequent claim for the commission and cost from the deposit. As of the date of hearing, the $2,200 was on deposit in the escrow account of Lund Realty, Inc.
Recommendation The position and actions of the various individuals should also be considered in this case in arriving at a penalty because none of the parties have completely "clean hands." The Parnells precipitated the breach by insistence on a note and mortgage; the Hammers have made no attempt to clarify the situation by paying the commission and cost; and the attorneys kept Lund Realty completely in the dark about what was transpiring. The Lunds are the only ones involved in the transaction who have tried to carry out their obligation. Further, they also are the only ones who stand to lose financially without seeking judicial relief. While they have held the money, it has remained in escrow since the dispute arose. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and other factors bearing on the case, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Florida Real Estate Commission place Carleen Chalk Lund on probation for one year. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of January 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Carleen Chalk Lund 612 West Vine Street Kissimmee, Florida 32741
