The Issue The issue in this case involves the administrative charge which has been placed by the Florida Real Estate Commission in the person of Harold T. Mooney, against one Claude Talmadge Bray who is registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker. The charging document which is drawn in the form of an information, says in pertinent part: COUNT ONE "(1) That the defendant did, on or about May 21, 1974, file his sworn application for registration as a real estate broker with the Florida Real Estate Commission on a form provided by said Commission. Question 16(a) of the application read as follows: 16(a) Have you served an apprenticeship as a real estate salesman with a registered real estate broker in the State of Florida for the 12 consecutive months within 5 years next prior to the date of this application? If yes, who was the registered broker and what is his business adress? The defendant answered "yes" to the first part of the above question and "Tony Vaughan - Monteverde, Florida" to the second part of such question on his said application for registration. That thereafter the application of defendant, Claude Talmadge Bray, was approved and he subsequently received his registration as a real estate broker, being initially registered as1 such with the Commission on or about September 18, 1974. That, at the time of the execution of the application as aforesaid, the defendant knew or should have known that his answers to question numbered 16(a) thereof were false and untrue in that: From September 10, 1971, to June 30, 1974, inclusive, defendant Claude Talmadge Bray was a full-time employee of Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc., a construction company with offices at 3744 North 40th Street, Tampa, Florida 33610. While the defendant did register with the Commission as a real estate salesman employed by Lester Tony Vaughan, a registered real estate broker whose last business address is registered with the Commission as Division Street, Monteverde, Florida, 32756, said registration was effected solely for the purpose of attempting to show to the Commission that the defendant wads in compliance with the apprenticeship requirements of Subsection 475.17(3), Florida Statutes; but that, in truth and fact, the defendant Claude Talmadge Bray had served no apprenticeship as required by, and within the intent and meaning of said Subsection 475.17(3), Florida Statutes, with the said Lester Tony Vaughan or any other registered real estate broker, and that the defendant, during said period of purported apprenticeship, had not handled any real estate transactions participated in any closings or received any instructions from, for or on behalf of the said Lester Tony Vaughan, Registered Broker. That by reason therof, it appears that the defendant1 Claude Talmadge Bray, does not possess the necessary qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trust worthiness and good character as required by Subsection 475.17(1), Florida Statutes; has been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretenses, dishonest dealing and trick, scheme or device, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and that the defendant obtained his registration as a real estate broker with the Florida Real Estate Commission by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation Of Subsection 475.25(2), Florida Statutes. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Information be filed and notice of the filing thereof be given to the Defendant and that proceedings be had, all in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and if the evidence warrants, the registration of Claude Talmadge Bray be revoked." The Respondent has denied the allegations set forth in the charging document, which is entitled an information, and proceeded to a hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings in the person of the undersigned, under authority of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner presented its case on the basis of oral testimony presented at the hearing and through tangible items of evidence. The Respondent elected to present evidence in the course of the hearing, and did so through the medium of oral testimony in the course of the hearing and through tangible evidence, which was the subject of a stipulation with the Petitioner. The first witness presented by the Petitioner was Ralph J. Ramer, President of Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc. Mr. Ramer was the former employer of the Respondent, and additionally was responsible for making a complaint which led to the investigation of this case by the Petitioner. This complaint was in the form of a letter from the witness, Ramer, addressed to the Petitioner and dated July 3, 1974. A copy of this letter has been received by the hearing officer as a Joint Exhibit of the Petitioner and Respondent and Is therefore made a part of the record in this cause. Mr. Ramer indicated that he had hired the Respondent on September 10, 1971, as a salesman with the witness's then existing company, and that the Respondent had been promoted to a vice president's position in 1971 or 1972 after the incorporation of the witness's company. It was further related that the Respondent was terminated from employment by the witness on June 30, 1974. During the course of the Respondent's employment with Hallmark Leisure Homes, Mr. Bray participated in a position which had as its major function the sale of construction contracts for the purpose of building homes on real estate which was held by the purchaser. In addition, when the Respondent became Vice President he made certain connections with the bank, in that he talked with the officers of the banks relative to financing. More specifically, Bray presented sales papers to banks, he followed up on proposed financing, he attended closings of loans if necessary, he took credit statements for potential purchasers, ordered surveys, ordered titles, ordered insurance, prepared deeds, prepared mortgage documents, worked with appraisers, conducted closings and he picked up certain bank draw disbursements from the lending institutions. At these closings, as aforementioned, mortgages were signed and funds were disbursed. In relation to the question of whether or not Mr. Ramer's company and, more particularly, Mr. Bray, were involved in the active sale of real estate, he said that salesman could assist a potential customer in finding land to build houses on. Ramer also indicated that the company, Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc., had bought four lots in Ocala and had built three houses on these lots. The cause for dismissal of the Respondent, according to Mr. Ramer, was for the reasons set forth in the letter of July 3, 1974, by the witness. Ramer further elaborated that he didn't know that Lester L. Vaughan had made application for professional license to the Florida Construction Licensing Board, while Vaughan was working for Ramer. Therefore, when he found out that Bray was working full-time for the witness and at the same time helping other employees to obtain a contractor's license, which was felt to not be in the best interest of the company because it would promote competition against the company through the employee of the company, Ramer dismissed the Respondent. In response to questions concerning the existence of a certain civil suit filed by the Respondent against Mr. Ramer, the witness acknowledged such a suit, but stated that he had no sense of vendetta against the Respondent. While the Respondent was employed with Hallmark Leisure Homes, the Respondent was preparing for a real estate license exam and serving an apprenticeship according to Lester Vaughan, the younger At the same time there were negotiations with the officials at Hallmark Leisure Homes, in particular, Mr. Ramer, for the purpose of qualifying the real estate broker's license of Lester T. Vaughan in establishing a branch office at the Hallmark Leisure Homes office location on North 40th Street, Tampa, Florida. Moreover, Mr. Ramer was in favor of this arrangement and it didn't appear that these negotiations to establish such an office were in any way designed to defraud the public from Vaughan the younger's observation. When the witness, Lester Vaughan, was specifically asked questions about the nature of the sales in which the Respondent participated, he stated that the sales were not the sale of real estate per se. However, he did indicate that there was a similarity in his mind to the sale of real estate and the sale of "on your lot construction contracts", and he stated this opinion from his knowledge of the function of a real estate broker, being a real estate broker himself. As a matter of fact, the witness felt that the function performed by the Respondent, Bray, was much more detailed than the function of a real estate broker in carrying out the broker's duties. Another significant comment by the witness was his statement that the contract form used by Hallmark Leisure Homes was similar to the form utilized for real estate contracts, testifying from his knowledge. In closing, the witness testified that he and the Respondent had looked for lots to be purchased to build homes on for prospective customers, but that they were never successful in achieving such an arrangement. The Petitioner placed Lester T. Vaughan on the stand, who at the time of his testimony was also charged by the Florida Real Estate Commission in Progress Docket #2671 for Hillsborough County, with an offense relating to the apprenticeship of Claude Talmadge Bray. The witness, Lester T. Vaughan, indicated that he was not working at the time of his testimony, but he had been and office worker for a citrus company. He has been a licensed real estate broker since August of 1972; however, he has never transacted any real estate sales. The witness was shown Petitioner's Exhibits "B", "C", "D", and "E" and identified those documents. Exhibit "B" is a reference statement signed by the witness upon the request for application to be a real estate broker made by Claude Talmadge Bray before the Florida Real Estate Commission. Exhibit "C" by the Petitioner is an application for a branch office registration certificate. Petitioner's Exhibit "D" is a declaration of employment for apprenticeship purposes and Petitioner's Exhibit "E" is a statement of the. applicant's employment and apprenticeship by the witness, Lester Tony Vaughan. (All these documents are copies of the originals). Lester T. Vaughan indicated that the Respondent, Bray, had not made any real estate sales while in his employ and that the figures in the affidavit which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E", were transactions mad Respondent was working with Hallmark Leisure Homes. The witness then testified that the Respondent told him that these were sales while in the employ of Hallmark Leisure Homes and further that he, the Respondent, could use those sales as a basis for stating experience in applying for a Real Estate Broker's License, even though they were not sales of real estate. Lester T. Vaughan testified that he had not talked with Mr. Ramer about locating a branch office on North 40th Street, Tampa, Florida, at the business of Hallmark Leisure Homes, but to his knowledge Mr. Ramer had never voiced any objection to such a branch office at that location. Lester T. Vaughan stated that he had never examined the contract forms or the closing statements utilized by Hallmark Leisure Homes. He had however talked with the Respondent 4 or 5 times in Tampa and several times at his, the witness's home address, about real estate related matters. At the close of the Petitioner's case, the Petitioner offered into evidence Exhibits "A" - "E", all of which have been particularly described, in the course of the findings of fact, with the exception of Exhibit "A" for identification, which is the application for registration as a real estate broker which was filed with the Florida Real Estate Commission by the Respondent, Claude Talmadge Bray. These items of evidence were admitted as evidence after examination and legal argument as will be further described in the section of this Recommended Order entitled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Respondent made certain motions at the Inception of the case directed to the sufficiency of the charging document and renewed these motions at the close of the Petitioner's case. These representations by the Respondent will be considered in the section entitled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Respondent offered witnesses in support of his position in the form of a witness to the facts contained in the allegations placed against the Respondent and certain character witnesses in his behalf. The Respondent further elected to take the stand in his own behalf. (All matters offered by the Respondent were premised on the eventuality that the Hearing Officer and/or the Florida Real Estate Commission did not agree with the Respondent's contention that the Petitioner had failed to meet its burden of proof, either in the statement of its pleadings or through presentation of its case in chief). The presentation of testimony on the facts related in this matter was a brief recall of Lester T. Vaughn for purposes of testifying about the facts surrounding the apprenticeship. In this recall Lester T. Vaughan indicated that he felt that the Respondent was a smart young man, by way of responding to a question on the necessity for close supervision of the work by the Respondent. As a follow up he indicated that the broker apprentice did not need day to day supervision. Finally, the witness stated that he felt that bray would have called him if he had needed help from the witness. When the Respondent took the stand, he testified that he is now employed with Ruby V. Williamson, a real estate broker, and that he has been so employed for 6 months as a realtor associate. A brief statement of his background prior to his present employment indicated that he had received formal education to include a bachelors degree and some graduate work, although It was not clear from the testimony that he received a graduate degree. Additionally, it was net established if the formal education had any significance in real estate work. Some of the positions held by the Respondent included work in educational television, teaching, sales positions, and eventually work with Jim Walter Corporation in home sales. While with Jim Walter he served as a branch manager of the offices in Lake City, Florida, Orlando, Florida, and Fredricksburg, Virginia, in the home construction division of that corporation. After leaving Walter Corporation he worked briefly at Allstate Homes and then started with Hallmark Leisure Homes in 1971. At the beginning of his employment with Hallmark Leisure Homes they were a partnership and later became a corporation. The Respondent stated that he started as a salesman with Hallmark Leisure Homes and was elevated to the position of vice president in that corporation at a later date. In his employment with Hallmark Leisure Homes he said that the officials at Hallmark Leisure Homes thought that real estate expertise was an advantage aid, moreover, that to locate a real estate branch office at their business address on North 40th Street, Tampa, Florida would be advantageous. His involvement with real estate licensing started with the issuance of a real estate salesman's license from the Florida Regal Estate Commission in 1971. After that time he decided to qualify for a real estate broker's license before the Florida State Real Estate Commission, and selected Lester T. Vaughan as his apprenticing broker on the basis of a suggestion made by Lester Vaughan, his coworker. For the record, Lester Vaughan is the son of Lester T. Vaughan. Hue indicated that he spoke to other realtors about the apprenticeship, in addition to conversations with Lester T. Vaughan. Two of these persons, Pearl Elliston and Clay Cordington were asked about their interpretation of the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E", relating to the numbers of real estate sales and attendance at closings of real estate sales. The Respondent stated that Mr. Cordington felt that the Respondent's experience with selling "on your own lot homes" was sufficient experience to be counted in responding to the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E". The witness felt that the reason for this response was because of the familiarity of Mr. Cordington with the work the Respondent was doing, in that the Respondent had sold Mr. Cordington two houses. The Respondent stated that Mrs. Elliston did not give him a definite answer on his inquiry. Furthermore the witness Indicated that he called the Florida Real Estate Commission office, particularly the licensing department, about what the blanks meant on the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E" and the blanks Involved with numbers of real estate sales, closings attended, and hours of instruction, and ethics and office operations etc. The witness stated that he spoke with some lady in the department that didn't seem to know what to do about that particular form. Upon the undersigned's examination of the witness on the question of whether or not he referred this matter to the superior of the lady who answered his inquiry, the witness responded that he did not. By way of elaboration on the forms, the Respondent testified that he looked at the Land Book in order to comply with the matters set forth in the forms. The witness seemed to place emphasis on the fact that when he was provided with Petitioner's Exhibit "D", he was told that this was the only necessary form to be completed as part of the requirement for becoming a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, for that reason he seemed somewhat baffled by the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E". The witness went into some detail to explain how he arrived at the figures on the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E". Put concisely, the witness testified that the basis for the figures 56 and 24 upon Petitioner's Exhibit "E" were arrived at by examining "on your lot home sales" made while employed by Hallmark Leisure Homes and closings that he attended in connection with those sales. The figure 100 hours was arrived at by estimates in discussions with Lester T. Vaughan and lecture type course attendance. Bray stated that the figures on that form, Petitioner's Exhibit "E", had been discussed with Lester T. Vaughan, Ramer and Weisiger, another official at Hallmark Leisure Homes. There are other matters which constituted Involvement with real estate sales, but none of these listings were ever consummated through a real estate sale. Moreover, these figures involving listings for Hallmark Leisure Homes and Listings by the Respondent privately were not reflected in figures on Petitioner's Exhibit "E". The Respondent seemed to, under questioning of whether the sales reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit "E" were real estate sales, be convinced at the time of hearing that the sales were not real estate sales per se, although at the time he was making the representations on Petitioner's Exhibit "E" he did not seem as convinced of that fact. Nevertheless, because of the real estate related nature of the work done for Hallmark Leisure Homes, and because in many respects the witness felt that his function was more comprehensive than that of a real estate broker, he felt that the experience with Hallmark Leisure Homes was work which was a fulfillment of the requirement for apprenticeship. Finally, the witness indicated that at the time he filled out the various forms for the Real Estate Commission that he had no intent to defraud or mislead by offering the statistics that he had set forth. Testimony was offered by one Clifford Opp, Jr., Esquire, who has known the Respondent since he was 14 years old, to the extent of being in business with the Respondent, in a restaurant venture which was unsuccessful. He further stated that he, did not feel that the Respondent would provide false information to the Real Estate Commission. Although the witness had been in a confidential relationship with Hallmark Leisure Homes, as their attorney, and therefore unable to divulge any confidences; nevertheless, stated that he didn't recall any report of the company about the Respondent's conduct. In summary, the witness felt that the Respondent was trustworthy. Wilbur J. Wells was called on behalf of the Respondent. Mr. Wells had been a coworker at Hallmark Leisure Homes, in addition to being in the same fraternity in college with the Respondent and in the restaurant business with the Respondent. Mr. Wells is now a realtor associate and has a real estate salesman's license issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. He says that the Respondent's character in terms of truth and veracity is outstanding and that the witness did not believe that the Respondent would lie to the Real Estate Commission. Ruby Williamson, the present employer of the Respondent was called. Ruby Williamson is a real estate broker, and she has known the Respondent for 6 or 7 years, and feels that the Respondent has an excellant reputation and would not lie to the Real Estate Commission. Assuming the application of the cited statutes in the complaint, from the testimony set forth in the hearing it would appear that the Respondent did not intend to defraud, misrepresent, conceal, act under false pretenses, deal dishonestly or trick, unlawfully scheme or device, in violation of Section 425.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, nor did the applicant intend to defraud, misrepresent, or conceal in violation of ss.425.25(2), Florida Statutes. Moreover, there has been insufficient showing that the Respondent lacks the necessary qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness and good character as required by ss.425.17, Florida Statutes. The facts show that the Respondent sought advise from practicing real estate brokers in Florida and the Florida Real Estate Commission before filling out Petitioner's Exhibit "E", and these facts are unrefuted. He acted upon that information about the exhibit in good faith. Considering the testimony of the relationship of the Respondent to Lester Tony Vaughan, his apprenticing broker, the Respondent was legitimately receiving counsel and acting in the employ of Lester Tony Vaughan, notwithstanding, the fact that the pursuit failed to consummate any real estate sales. The facts also Indicate that the Respondent received adequate supervision from Lester Tony Vaughan, because Florida Statutes, Chapter 475 and its rules and regulations do not require full time supervision or employment in qualifying for a real estate broker's license in Florida. The six or seven visits and conferences between Lester Tony Vaughan and the Respondent were sufficient compliance for a man in the Respondent's position considering the relationship of the sales activity he was performing for Hallmark Leisure Homes to the sale of real estate proper. Finally, certain evidential items were offered in behalf of the Respondent. The first item was the letter dated January 3, 1974, written by R. J. Ramer, President of Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc., addressed to the Florida Real Estate Commission. This letter has been received as a Joint Exhibit of the parties upon joint stipulation of the parties and has been marked as Joint Exhibit "1". A second document was offered by the Respondent in the form of a letter addressed to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Beard on the subject of Lester Vaughn's application for license. This letter was written by R. J. Ramer, President, Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc. This particular correspondence was not admitted far reasons set forth in the section entitled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent, Claude Talmadge Bray, be released from the charges brought under Progress Docket #2658, Hillsborough County, and that the Respondent go forth without penalty against his registration as a real estate broker in the State of Florida and that his certificate as broker-salesman remain in full force and effect. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 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: S. Ralph Fetner, Jr., Esquire (For the Commission) Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 David Luther Woodward, Esquire Rose and Woodward, Chartered 1211 The Madison Building Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact During times material to the allegations of the administrative complaints filed herein, the Respondents were registered real estate salesmen in the employ of Theodore Dorwin, a registered real estate broker, and at all times material herein, Darwin was the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc. Raymond Lewis, a salesman employed by Dorwin during the period December, 1975 through mid February, 1976, as a real estate salesman, was initially employed by Florida Landowners Service Bureau. During mid February, 1976, he testified that the name Florida Landowners Service Bureau was changed to Intermart, Inc., and that approximately during this period, he left the employ of Intermart, Inc. He testified that the offices were situated on northwest 79th Street, which consisted of a large room containing six cubicles where salesmen manned the telephones in the cubicles during the hours of approximately 6:00PM through 10:30PM during week days and during the early afternoon and evening hours on weekends. Salesmen were given lead cards which were apparently compiled from the county tax rolls from which a list was given containing out of state landowners. Employees, based on a "pitch" card called out of state land owners to determine their interest in selling their property. He described the procedure as a "front" when an out of state landowner was called to determine interest in selling their land. The "close" procedure was a method whereby those property owners who had displayed some interest in selling their properties were mailed a packet of materials which, among other things, contained a listing agreement. Salespersons were compensated approximately $100 to $125 for each listing secured by an executed listing agreement which in most instances represented approximately one third of the listing fee. During the course of a normal day, salesmen would contact approximately thirty landowners and they would be given estimates of the prospective selling price of their land based on the location of the property and the length of time that the owner had held it. The testimony of Lewis, which is representative of that given by later witnesses including Jeffrey Barker, August Graser, David Cotton and Henry Halar (all salesmen employed by Dorwin) reveals that property owners were called to determine their interest and if interest was noted, follow-up calls would be made after a packet of materials was sent to interested landowners. After a listing arrangement was obtained, salesmen were compensated by payment of an amount representing approximately one-third of the listing fee. In the case of a listing fee obtained by two or more salespersons, the fee (commission) was divided according to the number of salespersons instrumental in obtaining the listing. Each salesman who testified indicated that they made no guarantee that a sale would be consummated within a definite period nor were they familiar, in any particulars, with the brokerage efforts to sell the properties of owners who listed their property with Intermart. Theodore Dorwin, the active firm member broker for Intermart, Inc., was subpoenaed and testified that he had no copies of the records which were subpoenaed showing the operations of Intermart, Inc. In this regard, Raymond Lewis also testified that he had no corporate records respecting Intermart. Both witnesses testified that all corporate records of Intermart had been subpoenaed and were in the custody of the Attorney General for more than one year. Dorwin refused to give any testimony respecting the operational workings of Intermart, Inc., based on fifth amendment self incrimination grounds. The Commission's counsel took the position during the course of the hearing that Mr. Dorwin had waived any and all fifth amendment rights or privileges by virtue of having personally testified in a similar matter before the Florida Real Estate Commission in a proceeding undertaken to revoke or suspend his license as a real estate broker. Having voluntarily taken the stand in that proceeding, the Commission concludes that he is not now entitled to any fifth amendment protections. As evidence of Mr. Dorwin's having voluntarily taken the stand in the prior proceeding, excerpts of the testimony from that proceeding was introduced into evidence. (See FREC Exhibit number 8). Having considered the legal authorities and the arguments of counsel, the undersigned is of the opinion that testimony given by a party in a separate proceeding to which the Respondents were not party to and of which the Respondents had no notice of cannot serve in lieu of evidence on which findings of fact can be based to substantiate allegations pending in the instant case. To do so, would possibly leave open the door for highly prejudicial and damaging testimony to which the Respondents here had no opportunity to rebut, cross examine or otherwise explain, all of which is inherently destructive of their basic rights, fairness and fundamental due process. The cases of Hargis v. FREC 174 So.2d 419 and Vann, 85 So.2d 133 are not deemed inapposite to the conclusion reached here. The fact that the State's Attorney General is currently conducting an investigation into the operations of Intermart makes clear that the possibility of criminal action or other sanctions exist (e.g. tax problems). For these reasons, I conclude that Dorwin's testimony in a prior proceeding, amounts to no waiver of his constitutional privilege. For these reasons, exhibit number 8 will not be considered as evidence herein. Having so concluded, the record is barren of any evidence, hearsay or otherwise, which would tend to establish in a competent and substantial manner, that the Respondents herein had engaged in conduct alleged as violative of Chapter 475.25, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaints filed herein be dismissed in their entirety. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact This cause came on for consideration based upon the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. Cecil V. Cancer t/a Cancer Realty, Respondent. The Respondent has opposed the Administrative Complaint and demanded a formal hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The Florida Real Estate Commission is an agency of the State of Florida which has as its primary function the regulation of certain licensees who hold various registrations with the Petitioner. The Respondent, Cecil V. Caneer t/a Caneer Realty, holds License No. 0012862, under the authority of the Florida Real Estate Commission. This license entitles the Respondent to act as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent has been so licensed. On August 12, 1974, the Respondent entered into a management agreement with James Thomas Quinn and his wife, Phyllis J. Quinn, to manage certain property in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, located at 5639 Minocqua Street. The terms and conditions of that management agreement may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. This management agreement entitled the Respondent to receive certain brokerage fees for his services to the Quinns in leasing, collecting rents, maintaining the property, entering into service contracts, effecting certain repairs and making disbursements from the owners' proceeds and with a portion of the rents to be deposited for purposes of satisfying the mortgage payments owed on the property. In addition, the Respondent was responsible for making periodic itemized statements of receipts, expenses, charges and accruals, and to remit the net proceeds to the owners. The Quinns, through the management agreement, agreed to pay the various percentages set forth in the brokerage fee arrangement and to assume the full responsibility for the payment of expenses and obligations incurred in connection with the exercise of the Respondent's duties under the management agreement. The owners left the State of Florida at a time when the management agreement was still in force and effect. In November and December, 1976, the property was in a state of disarray, and a number of items needed to be repaired. Under the terms and conditions of the management agreement and with the written permission of Mrs. Quinn, dated December 20, 1976, the Respondent made a number of repairs to the property. The letter spoken of may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. The Respondent also made two mortgage payments in behalf of the Quinns for the months of December, 1976, and January, 1977. An itemized statement of the monies expended by the Respondent, less the security deposit of the tenants who were living in the rental property in late 1976, may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The Respondent requested the Quinns to reimburse him for the money that he had paid in making repairs and for the mortgage payments made on the property. The Quinns refused to pay the Respondent, and acting on the advice of his attorney, the Respondent filed a claim of lien against the subject real property at 5639 Minocqua Street, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, which is the property of the Quinns. The Claim of Lien may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. It sets out that the Respondent spent $220.58 for certain repairs and payments for other repairs, with the total value of materials and labor being $441.79. In fact, the $220.58 was spent for the mortgage payments on the property for the months of December, 1976, and January, 1977. The balance of the $441.79 was for the items of repairs as itemized in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, less the security deposit spoken of. At the time the lien was placed, the Respondent was also of the persuasion that the Quinns intended to sell the property. Under these facts as shown, the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, is convinced that the Respondent has violated certain laws pertaining to his licensure by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Specifically, the Petitioner feels that the act by the Respondent of placing the lien upon the public records of Duval County, Florida, against the property of the Quinns, was a utilization of a document which purports to affect the title of, or encumber, the real property of the Quinns and was for the purpose of collecting a commission or to coerce the payment of monies in violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner believes that these acts constitute a violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and finally, that for these acts the Respondent is guilty of dishonest dealing, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The lien in question does purport to affect the title of and encumber the real property of the Quinns, and it has been placed by the Respondent, a real estate broker licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission. It has been placed in the public records of Duval County, Florida. However, it was not placed for the purpose of collecting a commission or to coerce the payment of money to the Respondent. The Respondent was acting under the express authority of the management agreement and letter of instruction of December 20, 1976, from Mrs. Quinn, and pursued his legal remedies by filing the lien, when it was determined that the Quinns did not intend to reimburse him for the authorized expenditures and mortgage payments on the rental property. Likewise, there has been no showing that the Respondent is guilty of dishonest dealings in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. When the alleged violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(d) Florida Statutes, failed, the allegation under Subsection 475.25(1)(d) becomes irrelevant, due to the fact that the purpose of Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, is to implement the penalties found in Section 475.25, Florida Statutes, in the event of any violation of provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, other than Section 475.25, Florida Statutes violations.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, dismiss the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Cecil V. Caneer t/a Caneer Realty, and allow the Respondent to go forth without further necessity to answer to those allegations. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 David C. Goodman, Esquire 1387 Cassat Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205
The Issue The issue in Count I is whether Section 475.42(1)(j) absolutely prohibits a broker or salesman from filing a lien or other encumberance against real property to collect a commission. The issue in Count II is whether the Respondents violated a lawful order of the Commission by failing to remove the motion of lis pendens contrary to Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Conclusions Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: "No real estate broker or salesman shall place, or cause to be placed, upon the public records of any county, any contract, assignment, deed, will, mortgage, lien, affidavit, or other writing which purports to affect the title of, or encumber, any real property, if the same is known to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property, maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce the payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person, or for any unlawful purpose." Clearly the Respondents placed or caused to be placed the notice of lis pendens in question. A notice of lis pendens is clearly an "other writing which purports to effect the title of, or encumber, any real property." The Florida Real Estate Commission argues that this provision is an absolute bar to the filing of any lien for the purpose of collecting a commission. The Respondents argue that this provision is not an absolute bar and there are circumstances when a broker may file a notice of lis pendens. They also assert that the notice of lis pendens falls within the exception because the Circuit Court refused to remove the notice of lis pendens upon motion of the property owner. Lastly, it is argued that the notice was filed by counsel for the Respondents in good faith on an action at law and that this mitigates their action even if there was a violation. The language of Section 475.42(1)(j) cannot be read to absolutely prohibit a broker from obtaining a lis pendens. When given this construction, it effectively denies brokers and salesmen access to the courts for redress of injury as provided in Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Section 475.42(1)(j) is a complex provision which is subject to two interpretations. One interpretation would prohibit a broker or salesman from filing an encumberance if the same were known to him to be false, void or not authorized by law; if not authorized to be upon the public records; if not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded; if the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property; if maliciously (filed); if for the purpose of collecting a commission, if to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person; or if for any other unlawful purpose. This first interpretation would consider each clause a separate limitation on filing an encumberance. The facts analyzed under this interpretation do not show any knowledge by Respondents that the lis pendens was false, void or not authorized to be filed or not on a form entitling it to be recorded. The facts do not show that Respondents filed the lis pendens maliciously, for the purpose of collecting a commission, or for the purpose of coercing payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. The nature of lis pendens would not require the owner's authorization of execution for recording. The facts show that the lis pendens was filed by Respondent's attorney in conjunction with a suit brought by the Respondents against Perrin. The record also shows that the circuit court determined that the lis pendens was recordable when it denied the motion to remove it. The notice of lis pendens was neither malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting the commission. The notice was for the purpose of perfecting the claim against the property for execution of the judgment if the Respondents prevailed in the suit. Executing on a judgment is different from collecting the commission or coercing payment. Under this interpretation the Respondents have not been shown to violate Section 475.42(1)(j). A second interpretation would read the clause, ". . . if the same is known to to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been authorized by the owner of the property. . ." as the first of two criteria to be met to establish a violation. The second criteria would consist of proof that the encumberance was recorded maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. Again the facts do not show there was knowledge by the Respondents of the falsity, or impropriety of the notice of lis pendens, as stated above. Again the facts show that the lis pendens was filed in conjunction with a law suit pending between the Respondent and the property owner, and that the court before which the action was pending refused to remove it. The file of the notice by Respondent's counsel was a legitimate method of perfecting the Respondent's claim should they prevail and obtain judgment. The facts do not indicate that the filing of the notice was malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting a commission. Under either interpretation, Respondents did not violate the statute. COUNT II The Respondents are charged in Count II with violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that the registration of a registrant may be suspended for up to two years for violation of a lawful order of the Commission. Clearly, the facts reveal that the Respondents had a substantial interest involved in the litigation with Perrin. The order, of the Florida Real Estate Commission to remove the notice of lis pendens substantially affected their rights in this litigation. Therefore, any final order directing Kay to remove the notice of lis pendens should have issued after an opportunity for hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The evidence reveals that the Florida Real Estate Commission did not notice a hearing under Section 120.57, and therefore its order cannot be "lawful." The provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d) require that registrants not violate lawful orders. The Respondents have not violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by not removing the notice of lis pendens as directed by the order of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the Respondent, Sam Kaye and Sam Kaye, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William E. Boyes, Esquire Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, P.A. Post Office Box 3466 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent Lydon was registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman. By an administrative complaint filed on February 8, 1978, the petitioner sought to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the respondent's license and right to practice thereunder. The ground for such complaint is that respondent collected money as a salesman in connection with a real estate brokerage transaction in a name not his employer's and without the express consent of his employer. The respondent admits, and the evidence demonstrates, that in December of 1973, the respondent obtained a listing agreement for the sale of real property from Mary E. Renney, brought the seller Renney and the buyer Stephen together, prepared the contract for sale and obtained a check made payable to him in the amount of $500.00 for this transaction, which check was cashed by him. Mr. Lydon testified that he did these things as a personal favor to Mrs. Renney and that his broker knew about these transactions. No evidence was presented that respondent's broker gave his express consent to the events described herein.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent Alford R. Lydon, Sr., be found guilty of the charges contained in the administrative complaint dated February 8, 1978, and that said finding constitute the written reprimand discussed above. Respectively submitted and entered this 2nd day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Alford R. Lydon, Sr. 3301 58th Avenue North Lot 146 St. Petersburg, Florida 33714
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was at all material times registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker, holding registration certificates numbered 001709, and 0141291. The Respondent served as the real estate broker for an entity known as "Rent-A-Home, Inc." Rent-A-Home had an office in St. Petersburg and an office in Clearwater. A Mr. Richard Gindin was the Respondent's partner in Rent-A-Home. Gindin was not at any material time registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as either an active or non-active real estate broker or real estate salesman. During October, 1974, the Respondent took part in a real estate transaction between a Mr. and Mrs. Garrett, and a Mr. and Mrs. Churches. On October 7, 1974, the Churches signed an option to purchase certain property owned by the Garretts in Pasco County. The transaction was undertaken under the auspices of Rent-A-Home. Lena Biggan was the sales person who actually negotiated the contract. A copy of the option agreement was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The Churches delivered a cashier's check in the amount of $1,500 to the Respondent as set out in the agreement. A copy of the cashier's check was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Five Hundred dollars of the $1,500 was to be used as the real estate commission. The remainder was to be distributed to the Garretts. On the same day that the contract was executed, the Respondent deposited $1,400 of the $1,500 in his personal checking account at the Liberty National Bank of St. Petersburg (See: Petitioner's Exhibits 6,7). He retained $100. On the same day the Respondent issued checks from the same account in the amount of $1,000 to Cecil D. Garrett, in the amount of $166.63 to Lena Biggan, and in the amount of $166.63 to Richard Gindin. The check issued to Lena Biggan constituted her share of the $500 real estate commission. This check was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 9. The check issued to Gindin was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 8. There was no direct testimony that the check issued to Gindin constituted his share of the real estate commission. The circumstances of the check, however, clearly indicate that that was the intention. The check to Biggan bore No. 563. The check to Gindin was the very next check in the Respondent's checkbook, No. 564. The next check issued from the Respondent's checkbook, No. 565, was the $1,000 check to the Garretts. The check to Biggan, and the check to Gindin were in the same amount, approximately one third of $500. It is indicated on each check that it was for a "comm.". There was direct testimony from Ms. Biggan that her check was for her share of the commission on the Garrett/Churches transaction. It is evident that Gindin's check was for the same purpose. Prior to the Garrett/ Churches transaction, Gindin approached the Respondent with respect to forming "Rent-A-Home". Gindin told the Respondent that he would form a corporation, and he asked the Respondent to pay one third of the $500 legal fee which was required for forming a corporation. When the Respondent gave Gindin the check which has been received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 9, the Respondent thought that he was paying one third of the necessary attorney's fee rather than giving a commission to Gindin in connection with the Garrett/Churches transaction. In fact Gindin never used the money to form a corporation, and he kept it as if it was a real estate commission. When the Respondent delivered the check to Gindin he did in fact share a real estate commission with Gindin, a person who was not registered as a real estate broker or salesman. The Respondent thought that the check was being delivered for a legitimate purpose; however, the circumstances of the transaction were such that the Respondent should have known that Gindin was regarding the check as his share of a real estate commission. In approximately January, 1975, the Respondent disassociated himself from Rent-A-Home. Gindin has apparently left the State of Florida, and has not been seen by the Respondent since January, 1975.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the relevant oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following pertinent facts are found: Respondent Charles Shane was formerly employed by IREC, Inc. (International Real Estate Consultants). His assigned duties were administrative in nature and included the performance of research and field work pertaining to appraisals. It was not one of his assigned duties to procure appraisals and his salary was not contingent upon the appraisals performed by IREC, Inc. By application dated January 22, 1973, respondent Shane applied to the Florida Real Estate Commission for registration as a real estate salesman. By certificate number 0117007, Shane was registered as a real estate salesman effective December 20, 1973. He is presently registered as a non-active salesman. By letter dated January 9, 1973, on IREC stationary, respondent Shane, signing as Vice President, wrote a letter to John R. Vereen stating that, upon acceptance by Vereen, IREC would conduct a market value appraisal of certain property for a compensation of $2,500.00. This letter bears the handwritten notation "cancelled with no liability 3/5/73." On March 5, 1973, respondent Shane, again signing as Vice President of IREC on IREC stationary, wrote a letter to Mr. Vereen stating "I will conduct a market value appraisal. . ." of the same property as that described in the January 9th letter for a compensation of $2,500.00. The checks in payment of this amount were made payable to respondent Shane individually and not to IREC, Inc. As indicated by Exhibits 6,7,10,11,12 and 13, appraisal reports were submitted to various entities on dates ranging from December 29, 1971, through March 20, 1973. The cover letters are each signed by respondent Shane as Vice- President and by one other person as "M.A.I. Consultant." These reports contain several pages concerning the qualifications of the appraiser. Respondent Shane's qualifications are included. Mr. Edward Waronker, who co-signed five of the six reports listed above, did not write or prepare the reports. It was Waronker's duty as an independent appraiser for IREC to inspect the property and review the appraisal reports prepared. A letter on IREC stationary dated July 23, 1974, from respondent Shane makes reference to a June 19, 1973, appraisal report. In such letter, Mr. Shane states "I have reviewed the referenced appraisal, which was conducted under my direction as of June 19, 1973." As noted above, respondent Shane did not appear at the hearing and therefore no evidence was offered in his behalf. A "petition for mitigation" was filed with the Real Estate Commission stating that respondent did not sign the appraisal reports with any intention of holding himself out as an appraiser or salesman. In summary, said petition states that respondent Shane signed these documents as the person of the corporation and not as a real estate appraiser or broker and that, had he been fully informed of the Florida real estate law, "he would not have continued in the manner that he did." Respondent Richard W. King has been registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission since 1957 and, prior to the instant complaint, has never been cited for a violation of the statutes, rules or regulations governing brokers or salesmen. Respondent King was employed with IREC, Inc. in June of 1973. According to the testimony, the registration of IREC and King was not approved by the Real Estate Commission until October of 1973. From the time that respondent King went to work with IREC, he had effective control and supervision of all appraisals performed by IREC. To King's knowledge, respondent Shane was never involved in the decision-making process surrounding appraisal work, and did not sign appraisal reports after June of 1973.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recite above, it is recommended that: the registration of respondent Charles Shane be suspended for a period of three (3) months; and the charges relating to respondent Richard King be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of September, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION THOMAS M. MURRAY, Petitioner, vs. PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 2709 DADE COUNTY CHARLES SHANE, IREC, INC., CASE NO. 76-844 and RICHARD W. KING, Respondents. /
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, George N. Sullivan, held real-estate license number 0128470 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission. His current address is 22 East Spruce Street, Orlando, Florida. At one time, respondent also held a registered general contractor's license and operated a construction firm under the name of George N. Sullivan, Inc. in Vero Beach, Florida. On or about December 7, 1979, George N. Sullivan, Inc. and Vero Fore, Incorporated entered into a construction agreement wherein Sullivan agreed to construct a residence at Lot 27, Unit III, the Moorings of Vero Beach, in Indian River County for a price of $155,628. The difference between this price and the price of $171,688 alleged in the administrative complaint is due to "extras" agreed upon by the parties to be added to the project. Sullivan began construction on the residence but abandoned the project before it was completed. When he left the job he had been paid all sums due under the agreement except one final $18,000 draw. Vero Fore later discovered that approximately $66,000 in unpaid bills were left by Sullivan. It also learned that Sullivan had obtained releases from three material suppliers by issuing worthless checks in the amounts of $5,849, $2,883.48, $1,913.14, $4,988.92 and $3,847.23. To date, Vero Fore has not been repaid by Sullivan. Sullivan was later adjudged guilty of passing worthless checks by the circuit court of Indian River County on July 8, 1981 and was sentenced to eighteen months probation and required to make restitution to the subcontractors. The official records of Indian River County reflect that Sullivan was found to be in violation of probation on March 23, 1983 for failure to make restitution. It is unknown what, if any, penalties were imposed upon him for this violation, or if restitution has ever been made. On or about September 5, 1980, Sullivan entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. James L. Cain to remodel their residence located at 2075 DeLeon Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida. The agreed upon price was $46,900. The Cains paid Sullivan $46890, or 10 percent, as a downpayment for the work on September 8, 1980. Sullivan sent three men to the Cains' house a few days later to build a platform. No other work was ever done. Sullivan did not pay the three workmen and the Cains were forced to pay them $788 to obtain a release of liens. To date, they have never been reimbursed by respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent George N. Sullivan be found guilty as charged in Counts I, III, and IV and that Count II be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent's real estate sales license be suspended for a period of ten years with the condition that said license be reinstated after a period of three years if respondent can demonstrate that restitution to the three material suppliers, Vero Fore, Inc. and the Cains has been made. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 10th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Lee Printy, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. George N. Sullivan 22 East Spruce Street Orlando, Florida 32802
