Findings Of Fact Respondent Charlene Touby was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson from May 23, 1975, to September 30, 1975; and again from November 17, 1975, to April 15, 1976. 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. By the time respondent began her second period of employment with International Land Brokers, Inc., Walter J. Pankz had joined the firm as a broker. 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.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of August, 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. Charles A. Finkel, Esquire 801 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard Hallandale, Florida 33009
Findings Of Fact Respondent Judy Simons was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson, from July 28, 1975, to August 20, 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 WATTS 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 salesperson, 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, as 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 even 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 complied from county tax records.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Louis B. Guttman, III, Esquire Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Judy Simons c/o Harry Kern 2121 North Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue Whether Charles La Guardia violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(a) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Charles La Guardia is a registered real estate salesman. La Guardia was employed by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. in late 1974 and drew commissions from the company only in that year. La Guardia ceased to work with International Land Services Chartered, Inc. in December, 1974, when he moved to California. La Guardia's duties at International Land Services, Inc. were to contact people by phone and to attempt to sell them the services of International Land Services Chartered, Inc. La Guardia represented that Florida land was appreciating in value, that foreign investors were buying Florida land, and that upon payment of a fee, International Land Services Chartered, Inc. would list an individual's land in a brochure which would be sent to brokers in the United States and in foreign countries. The depositions presented in behalf of the Florida Real Estate Commission indicate that someone calling themself La Guardia contacted the deponents. The person represented that Florida land was appreciating in value, that foreign investors were buying Florida land, that their land could be sold at a profit, and that International Land Services Chartered, Inc. would list their property in a brochure and send it to brokers in the United States and overseas. The deponents, the Karavangelos and Theo Miles, sent money to International Land Services Chartered, Inc. where their property was listed in a brochure prepared by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. and sent to at least one broker in Georgia, because Miles received a copy of his listing from a Georgia realtor. See Miles deposition, Page 11. The Karavangelos also received a copy of one of their listings with International Land Services Chartered, Inc. Theo Miles stated specifically that he set the price for this parcel of land. See Miles deposition, Page 6. The Karavangelos also stated that they had set the price for their land based upon suggestions of the value of land generally expressed to them by the person who called them. Mr. Karavangelos stated that the person identifying himself as La Guardia gave him "a high sales talk like which all real estate brokers do." Evidence was received from various witnesses at the hearing that brochures were prepared by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. and were mailed by the company to real estate brokers in the United States and in foreign countries.
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 Charles La Guardia 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 Oliver, Esquire Charles Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Charles La Guardia 936 Bambi Drive Destin, Florida 32541 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-205 PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 2956 CHARLES LAGUARDIA, DADE COUNTY Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Respondent Larry Webman was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson, from October 25, 1974, to November 24, 1974. 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 administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 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. Larry N. Webman c/o K.K.W., Inc. 143 North East 79th Street Miami, Florida 33138
Findings Of Fact Immediately before going to work for International Land Brokers, Inc., respondent was employed as a factory worker. Earlier, he had worked as a real estate salesman, including two stretches with Property Resale Services, Inc. During respondent's original employment by Property Resale Service, Inc., he telephoned nonresident landowners and tried to persuade them to list their property for sale with Property Resale Service, Inc. Landowners who listed their property paid Property Resale Service, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, if any, in the event of sale. Respondent left the employ of Property Resale Service, Inc., because he "didn't think that they were in the business to actually sell properties." (R80) He later returned to Property Resale Service, Inc., but only after "[t]hey opened up a new . . . operation, calling people up, trying to sell property . . ." (R83). Respondent was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesman, from November 17, 1975, until May of 1976. At International Land Brokers, Inc., respondent worked from six to ten weekday evenings and sometimes Saturdays and Sundays as well. The floor of the "one and only office" (R89) occupied by International Land Brokers, Inc., measured 15 to 25 feet by 35 to 50 feet. The office was partitioned into 12 cubicles, each with a desk and a telephone. Respondent and other real estate salespersons sat at the desks and telephoned out-of-state landowners, working from a list of names they had been given. On the telephone, respondent identified himself as a real estate salesman and encouraged landowners to list their property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. After making initial telephone contact with a prospect who showed interest, respondent and the other salespersons noted interested prospects' names and addresses on slips of paper. Clerical personnel mailed packets of promotional material to these persons the next working day. The materials in these packets speak of "extensive advertising and sales promotions" conducted by International Land Brokers, Inc., in its purported efforts to sell property listed with it. Respondent was familiar with these materials because samples were posted on the walls of the cubicles respondent and other salespersons used when telephoning. After allowing time for the packet to reach its destination, salespersons followed up by making another telephone call to answer 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. Landowners who agreed to list their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee, which was to be substracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When respondent began working for International Land Brokers, Inc., the advance listing fee was two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00). During his employment, the advance listing fee climbed to two hundred eighty-five dollars ($285.00), and then to three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00). Whenever International Land Brokers, Inc., received an advance listing fee of three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00), respondent received one hundred twenty dollars ($120.00), if he was the salesperson who made the initial telephone call and persuaded the owner to list his property. A salesperson making initial telephone contact with a prospect was known as a "fronter;" and a salesperson who called afterwards to obtain the listing was known as a "driver." Although respondent "never got any fronters commissions," (R100), he successfully solicited between 35 and 50 listings. Walter J. Pankz, a real estate broker and president of International Land Brokers, Inc., supervised respondent and the other salespersons, and monitored some of their conversations with prospects "to make sure that there wasn't heavy overdo." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, p.33. Respondent called Mrs. Joan Stevenson of Danvers, Massachusetts, two or three times before he succeeded in persuading her to mail a check to International Land Brokers, Inc., which she did on January 31, 1976. In the course of these telephone conversations, respondent told Mrs. Stevenson that properties in the vicinity of hers were generally being sold within four to six months of their listing, even though respondent knew that this was untrue. Respondent told Mrs. Stevenson that her "property is good property and that if he had to hold onto it any more than six months he wouldn't even bother taking a listing on it." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, p. 11. Respondent inquired of Walter J. Pankz whether any of the property being listed with International Land Brokers, Inc., was being sold. Pankz answered that "we were working at a few going back in December, January" and that he personally "was working on transactions of reselling solicited properties" (Pankz's efforts resulted in the sale of exactly two parcels of real estate.) One night respondent noticed "cases of catalogs all over the place," (R108), but he does not know if they were ever mailed. Respondent testified that he thought these people were making a pretty earnest effort in trying to get the pro- perty sold, and especially when they started talking about opening up another phone operation to sell these properties . . . [T]hey kept talking about it and talking about it, but it never did materialize. On or about January 4, 1976, respondent saw a news report to the effect that petitioner "was cracking down on the advance-fee business." (R103) As early as December of 1975, respondent had heard of action by the authorities to discourage advance fee real estate operations. Although he was told by "the attorney for International Land Brokers" (R104) that "everything was above- board," (R105) respondent had ample reason to know that International Land Brokers, Inc., had no good faith "operation" for selling properties listed with it. Respondent is now employed as a real estate salesman in Tallahassee and has earned the respect of the real estate broker who employs him.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's real estate salesman's license. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of September, 1977. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttman, III, Esq. Mr. Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esq. Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Robert J. Vossler, Esq. 110 North Magnolia Drive Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether C. Fullerton and Landscaping Co., Inc., is indebted to Other Side Sod, LLC, for the purchase of sod and pallets; and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida Limited Liability Corporation located in Arcadia, Florida, and at all times relevant hereto was a producer of agricultural products, as defined by section 604.15(9), Florida Statutes. Petitioner is also a “dealer in agricultural products” within the meaning of section 604.15(2). Respondent, during all times relevant hereto, was a “dealer in agricultural products,” within the meaning of section 604.15(2). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Great American served as surety for Respondent. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a customer of Other Side Sod. Respondent purchased sod from Petitioner and thereafter resold and installed the sod to Respondent’s customers. Petitioner sold sod to its customers on wooden pallets. An integral part of each transaction involved the pallets. There are 10 invoices in dispute which cover the period October 14, 2016, through February 10, 2017. For the underlying transactions that relate to the invoices in question, the following language is contained on each field/delivery ticket: Terms of Sale: Payment due upon receipt. All payment[s] applied to pallet balance first. Interest at the rate of 1 1/2% per month will be charged on unpaid invoice amounts after 14 days. Invoices will be charged $0.02 per square foot additional after 30 days. Purchaser agrees to pay all costs of collection, including attorney fees, in [the] event it is necessary to institute suit for collection. Venue will be in DeSoto County, Florida. All Sales F.O.B. Shipping Point. On or about October 14, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47293, which showed a balance due of $462 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 83,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($1,664). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $124.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($1,664 x 7.50 percent). On or about October 23, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47378, which showed a balance due of $224 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 70,400 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($1,408). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $105.60 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($1,408 x 7.50 percent). On or about October 24, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47420, which showed a balance due of $280 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 16,000 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($320). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $24 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($320 x 7.50 percent). On or about November 13, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47549, which showed a balance due of $1,526 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 103,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($2,064). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $154.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($2,064 x 7.50 percent). On or about December 6, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47755, which showed a balance due of $434 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 30,400 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($608). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $45.60 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($608 x 7.50 percent). On or about January 8, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48093, which showed a balance due of $1,256 for 12,800 units of Bahia sod, $224 for a pallet deposit, and $72 for sales tax. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 12,800 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($256). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $19.20 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($256 x 7.50 percent). On or about December 13, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48166, which showed a balance due of $343 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 163,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($3,264). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $244.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($3,264 x 7.50 percent). On or about January 29, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48285, which showed a balance due of $3,000 for 40,000 units of Bahia sod, $308 for a pallet deposit, and $225 for sales tax (total = $3,533). On February 3, 2017, Respondent submitted to Petitioner partial payment in the amount of $3,210.50, which left an unpaid balance of $322.50. The balance remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 40,000 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($800). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $60 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($800 x 7.50 percent). On or about January 31, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48301, which showed a balance due of $390 for 5,200 units of Bahia sod, $91 for a pallet deposit, and $29.25 for sales tax (total = $510.25). On February 15, 2017, Respondent submitted to Petitioner partial payment in the amount of $468.33, which left an unpaid balance of $41.92.1/ The balance remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 5,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($104). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $7.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($104 x 7.50 percent). On or about February 10, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48409, which showed a balance due of $390 for 5,200 units of Bahia sod, $21 for a pallet deposit, and $29.25 for sales tax (total = $440.25). On February 15, 2017, Respondent submitted to Petitioner partial payment in the amount of $398.33, which left an unpaid balance of $41.92. The balance remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 5,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($104). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $7.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($104 x 7.50 percent).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order approving the claim of Other Side Sod, LLC, against C. Fullerton and Landscaping Co., Inc., in the amount of $4,981.34. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 2017.
The Issue Whether Eli Paris is guilty of violation at Section 475.25(1)(a) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Eli Paris is a registered real estate salesman. Eli Paris was employed by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. He was paid by International Land Sales Chartered Inc.
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 Eli Paris, 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 Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Charles Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Eli Paris (Represented himself) 7917 West Drive North Bay Village Miami, Florida 33141 ================================================================= AGENCY MEMORANDUM ================================================================= TO: Renata Hendrick, Registration Supervisor FROM: Manuel E. Oliver, Staff Attorney RE: JD 78-018 (PD2772) - FREC vs. Richard H. White JD 78-020 (PD2963) - FREC vs. Eli Paris CASE NO. 77-211 JD 78-021 (PD2783) - FREC vs. Marian Malt Please be advised that the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, rendered its opinion in the above cases, on July 17, 1979, unholding the Board's Final Order revoking these licensees' licenses. The DCA's order became effective on September 26, 1979, after the above named exhausted their appellate remedies.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Anderson Creelman was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson, from May 29, 1975, to September 15, 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. One of the salespersons, Jean Martinez, persuaded Charlene M. Gardner of Rhode Island to list property with International Land Brokers, Inc., and told Mrs. Gardner that respondent would be trying to sell the property.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 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. Anderson Creelman c/o Investment Properties Corp. of America 3550 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondents for alleged violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(a), (c), (d), and (i), F.S., Section 475.25(3), F.S., and Rules 21V-10.07 and 21V-12.06, F.A.C., as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, dated September 29, 1977. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the Petitioner announced that Respondent Walter L. Medlin is no longer registered with the Real Estate Commission, and that therefore he should be dismissed as a party Respondent. The request was granted by the Hearing Officer. Walter L. Medlin, as authorized representative of International Land and Investment Corporation, and Donna L. Allen, were advised of their rights in an administrative proceeding and they acknowledged that they understood the same.
Findings Of Fact Respondent International Land and Investment Corporation, Kissimmee, Florida, is registered with Petitioner as a corporate real estate broker and was so registered during the year 1975. At that time, Walter L. Medlin was registered with Petitioner as a real estate broker and also as president and active firm member of International Land and Investment Corporation. Respondent Thomas F. Wells, Kissimmee, Florida, is registered with Petitioner as a real estate broker and was so registered in 1975. Respondent Donna L. Allen, is registered with Petitioner as a real estate salesman and was so registered in 1975 with the firm of International Land and Investment Corporation. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2-4) During the month of August, 1975, Mrs. Mildred E. Bartlett, then residing in Hialeah, Florida, and her son, John B. Pate, visited Kissimmee, Florida, to make inquiries concerning the purchase of residential property in the area. At the time, Mrs. Bartlett was attempting to sell her residence in South Florida and was financially unable to purchase another residence until a sale had been effected. (Testimony of Bartlett, Pate) Respondent Wells showed Mrs. Bartlett and her son Lots 10 and 12 of a platted subdivision in Osceola County known as Neptune Shores. The two lots had homes constructed thereon which were approximately 75 percent completed. Prior to 1973, Wells and Medlin had purchased the property comprising the Neptune Shores Subdivision, and Wells had dedicated the plat of same on May 15, 1973, as the owner thereof. Lots 10 and 12 were thereafter sold to one Art Raska, who constructed the unfinished homes thereon, but thereafter defaulted on a mortgage on the property. The mortgage was foreclosed by the First Merritt Mortgage Corporation, Merritt Island, Florida, who thereby became the owner of a portion of the subdivision, including Lots 7, 10, and 12. International Land and Investment Corporation purchased a number of the lots at that time. At no time during Mrs. Bartlett's discussions with Wells and Medlin did they reveal their past and present interests in the Neptune Shores Subdivision, although she was furnished a copy of the plat. (Testimony of Bartlett, Pate, Raines, Medlin, Petitioner's Exhibit 5) Mrs. Bartlett expressed interest to Wells in purchasing Lots 10 and 12 as homes for herself and son, but told him that she would have no money to purchase the property until she sold her present house, and that therefore any purchase agreement would have to be contingent upon such a sale. Wells told her that he would check into the matter and ascertain the selling price. After returning home, Mrs. Bartlett received a telephone call from Wells during which he informed her that he would need $1,500.00 as earnest money in order that he could tell the mortgage company that he had an interested party and was holding money in his escrow account. On or about September 9, Wells wrote to her and enclosed an unsigned option contract between First Merritt Mortgage Corporation and herself which recited that for a consideration of $2,000.00 the purchaser could purchase Lots 10 and 12 for an additional sum of $44,000.00 on or before January 15, 1976. It further provided as follows: Seller will agree to cooperate with purchasers efforts to complete construction. This contract will be null and void and deposit returned if purchaser is unable to obtain the necessary permits by October 10, 1975. Evidence of a Certificate of Occupancy granted by Osceola County on either Lot 10 or Lot 12 shall extend the option period until March 1, 1976. The letter accompanying the proposed option agreement stated: "Please sign these if everything is in order and make the checks out to Thomas F. Wells, Broker, so I can deposit to an escrow account rather than have the mortgage company hold your money." The letter further stated that a "Judge owned Lots 14 and 15 for which he had paid $9,600.00 each, and that the price of Lot 11 would be $8,000.00. Although Mrs. Bartlett and her son contemplated completion of construction on the two houses which they intended to use for future residences, they had no intention of performing such work until they had purchased the property. After receipt of the option agreement, Mrs. Bartlett informed Wells that she did not want an option contract whereby she could lose her deposit if she were unable to purchase the property, but wished to have a contract of purchase and sale contingent upon the sale of her present residence. Wells told her that he would send her another contract with different wording, but did not do so. (Testimony of Bartlett, Pate, Petitioner's Exhibit 6, Respondent's Exhibit 1) During succeeding weeks, Wells urged Mrs. Bartlett to have the unfinished homes completed in order that she could qualify for a mortgage loan on Lost 10 and 12. Although she discussed this possibility with Wells, she ascertained through discussions with local financial consultants that this would be impossible due to her financial situation and that of her son. On September 21, 19975, Mrs. Bartlett and her son met with Wells and Medlin in Kissimmee. At the meeting, Mrs. Bartlett gave Medlin $200.00 for an option to purchase Lots 8, 9, and 11 in the Neptune Shores Subdivision for $6,600.00, $7,400.00 and $7,700.00, respectively, from International Land Investment Corporation by various dates in 1976. The option agreement, which was dated September 21, 1975, reflected a typewritten signature for Mrs. Bartlett, but she did not sign the same after being informed by Medlin that it was unnecessary for her to sign it. He scratched out her name on the contract and signed it himself as president of the corporation. The document was witnessed by Wells and Pate. Mrs. Bartlett was told by Medlin that he would hold the three lots in reserve for her in the event she wished to purchase them at a later date. Mrs. Bartlett had brought with her the proposed option contract previously sent to her by Wells, which provided for a $2,000.00 payment for the option to purchase Lots 10 and 12. She did not sign the contract, but gave him a check for $1,500.00 which Wells put in his escrow account on September 22. Mrs. Bartlett believed that this money was protected since it was to be placed in escrow; however, she acknowledged the fact that the $200.00 which she had given as an option on the other lots was an acceptable risk and that she did not mind losing that amount if the larger purchase of Lots 10 and 12 was not successful. Wells and Medlin both testified that Mrs. Bartlett was well aware that she was also risking the $1,500.00 and that she was concerned only about her ability to protect herself from being compelled to purchase the property in the event her present home did not sell or if she was unable to obtain mortgage financing on the new purchase. It is found from the evidence that their testimony is not credible in this respect. (Testimony of Bartlett, Pate, Medlin, Wells, Respondent's Exhibit 2) Medlin had previously contacted an official of the First Merritt Mortgage Corporation, but learned that it was not interested in taking Lots 10 and 12 off the market for an option agreement. He then negotiated a contract of sale and purchase of Lots 7, 10, and 12 from First Merritt Mortgage Corporation for a total price of $46,000.00 with an earnest money deposit of $4,000.00. It provided for closing on or before January 15, 1976. The contract was dated September 19, 195 and executed on that date by D. L. Allen on behalf of International Land and Investment Corporation. It was witnessed by Wells and Medlin. On September 23, 1975, it was executed by First Merritt Mortgage Corporation. The corporation also required that Medlin agree to guarantee performance by the buyer and he therefore signed the agreement in an individual capacity. The contract provided that no real estate commission would be paid on the transaction. Mrs. Bartlett was not informed at the September 21st meeting that these contract negotiations were pending. In late September, Wells told Mrs. Bartlett that the mortgage company wanted more earnest money and that an additional $2,500.00 would be necessary for this purpose. Mrs. Bartlett gave him a check for that amount, but later depleted her account before it cleared the bank because Wells had not provided her with a purchase contract. Wells showed Mrs. Bartlett a proposed option agreement D. L. Allen and herself which provided for a payment of $4,000.00 for the right to purchase Lots 10 and 12 on or before January 15, 1976, for the total sum of $46,000.00. It further provided as follows: "As a part of the consideration for the Seller having executed this Option: the Buyer agrees to diligently pursue the completion of the houses located on said property. All repairs or improvements will be made at no cost to the Seller and will provide the Seller with Lien Waiver at the completion of each improvement. All repairs or improvements will become the property of the Seller in the event this transaction is not completed." There was no signature block on the agreement for the purported purchaser of the option. Mrs. Bartlett had been told by Wells and Medlin at the September 21st meeting that "Mr." Allen was a "big investor" who would guarantee her commitments. In fact, Allen was Respondent Donna L. Allen who was then employed by International Land and Investment Corporation. On September 30, Wells wrote a check in the amount of $4,000.00 to Walter F. Medlin, Trustee, and on the same date Medlin wrote a check to First Merritt Mortgage Company in a like amount. Medlin's check was erroneously dated October 30, 1975. On October 3rd, the option contract was signed by D. C. Allen, and mailed to Mrs. Bartlett by Wells. On October 6, Wells' bank notified him that Mrs. Bartlett's check for $2,500.00 had been returned for insufficient funds. After various telephone conversations and a visit by Wells to Mrs. Bartlett's home, another check for $2,500.00 was sent to Wells on October 21, which he had converted to a cashier's check on October 24. The $2,500.00 represented funds that had been borrowed by Pate and given to his mother to transmit to Wells. Both Bartlett and Pate were under the impression that the additional payment would be placed in Wells' escrow account and retained until a sales contract was executed. (Testimony of Bartlett, Pate, wells, Medlin, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) In November, 1975, Mrs. Bartlett telephoned Wells and told him that she wanted a return of her money. Wells told her that he would have to consult with D. L. Allen because he had turned the money over to that individual in payment of the option that had been taken on the property. Thereafter, Allen executed an "amendment" to the agreement which was prepared by Medlin and witnessed by Medlin and Wells. The document stated in part that if the "buyer," on or before November 25, 1975, could not provide sufficient evidence as to the availability of funds to close the transaction on or before January 15, 1976, the option would terminate and funds paid by the buyer to Allen would be refunded out of proceeds of closing upon the sale of the property by Allen to a third party. By letter of November 21, 1975, Allen wrote to Bartlett referring to the option amendment and stating in part: "In view of your recent conversation with Mr. Tom Wells in which you indicated that you had no intention of accepting that Ammendment [sic] and considering that I have not received a copy of the Ammendment [sic] signed by you indicating your acceptance, I am hereby cancelling my offer to ammend [sic] the original Option. I also wish to remind you that in the event that you do not exercise that Option and comply with each and every part of that agreement there will be 'no liability to refund the money paid therefor.'" By a mailgram sent on November 24, 1975, Bartlett advised Wells that he had until November 28 to return the $4,000.00 being held in escrow which she had requested in a November 20 telephone conversation, or she would report the matter to the district attorney's office and the Real Estate Commission. Wells responded with a letter which stated that her deposit on the option contract was given to the seller as consideration for executing the option, and that he was willing to "make every effort I can to negociate [sic] the matter with Allen. Negociations [sic] seemed to be the only possible course of action for recovery of your money." On November 26, 1975, Allen wrote to Bartlett wherein she stated that since Bartlett had executed the option agreement whereby she had agreed to "deligently [sic] pursue" the completion of the houses located on the property, she had breached the terms of the option contract. It further stated that since she had made demands for reimbursement of the $4,000.00 payment, that such action could only be interpreted as abandonment of the agreement, and that she (Allen) therefore declared the option contract null and void and was retaining the $4,000.00 as partial consideration for having executed the agreement. This letter was also prepared by Medlin for Allen's signature. (Testimony of Bartlett, Wells, Medlin, Kimmig, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Wells and Medlin had previously agreed that they would split a 10 percent commission on any sale of Lots 10 and 12. After executing the purchase agreement on the property with First Merritt Mortgage Corporation, it was agreed between Wells and Medlin that Wells would receive $1,000.00 as a real estate commission. Allen had originally funded the $4,000.00 deposit to be made on the property by Medlin. Medlin had told her that she would receive Lot 7 if the deal was completed; however, he intended to give her only an "interest" in the lot. She received her original $4,000.00 back in October, 1975, when she signed the option agreement. The reasonable market value of Lot 7 was $6,000.00 to $8,000.00. The purported purchase of the property by International Land and Investment Corporation was not consummated on or before January 15, 1976, and the $4,000.00 was forfeited. Mrs. Bartlett never received return of the $4,000.00 which she had transmitted to Wells. (Testimony of Bartlett, Wells, Medlin, Raines, Kimmig)
Recommendation That the registration of International Land and Investment Corporation as a corporate real estate broker be suspended for a period of two years, pursuant to Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. That the registration of Thomas F. Wells as a real estate broker be suspended for a period of two years pursuant to subsections 475.25(1)(a), (c) and (i), Florida Statutes. That the registration of Donna L. Allen as a real estate salesman be suspended for a period of six months, pursuant to Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. Thomas C. Oldham Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: S. Ralph Fetner, Jr. Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 International Land and Investment Corporation Walter L. Medlin Post Office Box 2252 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frank G. Finkbeiner, Esquire 341 N. Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Donna L. Allen c/o Monarch Realty of Osceola Inc. 521 Vince Street Kissimmee, Florida 32741
Findings Of Fact Respondent was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc. as a real estate salesman, from May 29, 1975, to September 15, 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. 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 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 administrative complain be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway 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. Richard I. Kroop, Esquire 420 Lincoln Road Suite 512 Miami Beach, Florida 33139
