Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Mitchell was a licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license number 0364014 through the Division of Real Estate. The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute charges of violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, by real estate salesman who are licensed in Florida. In December 1982, while on vacation in Fort Lauderdale, Mr. Fernando Canepa accepted an invitation to take a complimentary tour of Lehigh Acres from a representative of Lehigh Corporation. Lehigh Corporation is owner of a large residential development within the community of Lehigh Acres, Florida. The community is in an undeveloped area of Lee County, Florida. A predecessor development company of Lehigh Corporation began development of Lehigh Acres as a planned community, in the early 1950's. By August 31, 1979, approximately 110,047 out of 129,000 lots had been sold within the community by the developers. The purpose of the complimentary tour, which includes a trip to the Everglades, a tour of Lehigh Acres, a promotional film and a free lunch is to sell real estate lots in this isolated and independent community. Mr. Fernando Canepa was aware of the tour's purpose when he accepted the invitation. Mr. Canepa had heard of Lehigh Corporation in Venezuela, his country of residence during 1982. As he was interested in purchasing real property in the United States, he had made the decision to visit the residential development for the possible purchase of property prior to leaving Venezuela on his vacation. A close friend of Mr. Canepa who resides in Peru, had also discussed a purchase of real estate in the United States with Mr. Canepa prior to his vacation. Mr. Ricardo Sahurie verbally authorized Mr. Canepa to seek out property in Lehigh Acre for him if Mr. Canepa believed that a purchase in that community would be a good idea. The two friends agreed that if land purchases were made, the two lots would have to be next to each other. During his tour of Lehigh Acres on January 5, 1983, Mr. Canepa was introduced to the Respondent. The Respondent was the real estate salesman assigned by Lehigh Corporation to handle lot sales within the development to members of that particular tour group. When Mr. Canepa spoke with the Respondent about a lot purchase, he was concerned about two matters: the market value of the lots and the security of his investment. Mr. Canepa was informed by the Respondent that the price for each of the two lots he wanted to purchase were $12,499.00 and $11,999.00, respectively. The prices were non-negotiable as the market value placed upon each lot was determined by the lot control department within Lehigh Corporation. Prior to the signing of Agreements for Deed on a lot for himself and a lot for Mr. Sahurie, Mr. Canepa was given the opportunity to read the Public Offering Statement on the development which had been prepared by Lehigh Corporation. On page two of the statement, potential buyers were advised of many of the inherent risks involved in a land purchase. Potential buyers were warned that land values may not increase, and that resale of lots within Lehigh Acres may be difficult or impossible. As part of the sales transaction, the Respondent was required to contemporaneously certify that he made no representations to Mr. Canepa which were contrary to the information contained in the Public Offering Statement. Mr. Canepa was given a copy of this certification, along with specific instructions to notify the Office of Interstate Land Sale Registration and the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums if representations were made to him which are contrary to those in the statement. In addition, Mr. Canepa was given seven days to cancel the Agreement for Deed signed by him on January 5, 1983. Mr. Canepa chose to continue with the purchase of the lot he selected, and recommendations were made to his friend Mr. Sahurie to continue with his purchase. The two purchasers agreed between themselves to hold onto the lots for a few years for speculation purposes. A decision to build upon the lots or to sell them could be made at a later date. This plan had been discussed with the Respondent, who had voiced his approval of the plan prior to the purchase of the lots by Mr. Canepa. The Respondent discussed the recent growth in the Southwest Florida region, and the recent increases in lot valuations when Mr. Canepa informed him of his intentions. These discussions reaffirmed Mr. Canepa's confidence in his decision to purchase the lots in the development, in spite of reminders by the Respondent that future land values are unforeseeable. On September 15, 1987, Mr. Canepa returned to Lehigh Acres and learned that the lots had not increased in value. Model home plans were obtained from Lehigh Corporation, and a resale agent was contacted to assist Mr. Canepa and Mr. Sahurie in their future plans for the property. During discussions with the real estate agent, Mr. Canepa was informed that the lots could be resold for a price between $2,500.00 to $3,000.00. When the agent was asked how much Mr. Canepa could have purchased a resale for in 1983, Mr. Canepa was told that he could have purchased a resale lot for around $2,000.00. The price requested by Lehigh Corporation for each lot is based upon a number of factors such as the costs of advertising, engineering, and development, as well as the cost of the land itself. Lehigh Acres has been a development project since 1952. During some of the earlier phases of the project, lots were sold for $500.00. Purchasers of land from the earlier phase are able to resell their vacant lots at a profit for price within the $2,000.00 price range. As an individual lot owner's expenses and motivations are different than the development corporation's expenses and motivations, lots could be obtained for less money from many individual lot owners in 1983 through 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent Mitchell not guilty of the charges filed in Case No. 88-4690, and that these charges be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4690 The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #8, and #13. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4 and #6. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8 and #9. Rejected. See HO #11. Rejected. Improper summary. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #9 and #10. Rejected. Argumentative and irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #12. Accepted. See HO #12. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Closing argument. Conclusionary. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 John C. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, G. Steven Pfeiffer, held a public hearing in this case on January 11, 1978, in Cocoa, Florida. The following appearances were entered: Charles E. Felix, Orlando, Florida, for the Plaintiff, Florida Real Estate Commission; and Kenneth A. Studstill, Titusville, Florida, for the Defendants, Thomas L. Pittman and Pittman Real Estate, Inc. The Florida Real Estate Commission issued an Administrative Complaint against the Defendants on August 23, 1977. On September 12, 1977, the Defendants filed an election of rights form which constituted a petition for hearing. In accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1)(b)(3), the Commission requested that a hearing officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings be assigned to conduct the hearing. The final hearing was scheduled by notices dated October 19, 1977 and November 2, 1977. At the final hearing the Commission called Gary W. Brandt, a registered real estate salesman, as its only witness. The Defendants called Virginia Laver, a former employee of Defendant Pittman Real Estate, Inc., and the Defendant Thomas L. Pittman. Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1-3, and Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2 were offered into evidence and were received. There were conflicts in the testimony of certain of the witnesses. In resolving these conflicts due regard has been given to the credibility of the witnesses as evidenced in part by the demeanor of the witnesses at the hearing, and in part by the extent to which the witnesses' testimony has been corroborated by other evidence.
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.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's real estate broker license should be disciplined based upon the alleged violations of Sections 475.25(1)(b),(c),(d)1. and (e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Bernard L. Covington is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0178235 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license was issued as a broker at 4383 U.S. Hwy. 1, Edgewater, Florida 34141. On September 6, 1990, Terra Mar Village's prospectus to sell proprietary leases in mobile home lots was approved by the Florida Department of Business Regulation. Included in said prospectus is a form Contract for Purchase and Installation of a Cooperative Unit and Manufactured Home at Terra Mar Village for use when lot was to be sold in said Village. On July 25, 1992, Respondent, through the actions of his agent, Alvin D. Booten, solicited and obtained a purchase agreement between sellers, Terra Mar Village Association, and buyers, Jack W. Miller and Jacqueline Miller for Lot 132 in Terra Mar Village. Respondent's agent represent that the buyers were purchasing a mobile home lot in fee simple at the Village. In actuality, they were only purchasing a proprietary lease in the lot. Al Booten, an unlicensed agent, was employed by Terra Mar Village, LTD. as a sales representative. In the course of his employment, he promised the Millers a deed to the property. They relied on his representations, and they put down their deposit on the lot. Booten never advised the Millers they were buying into a cooperative association. Respondent failed to use the approved Contract for Purchase agreement form contained in the prospectus approved in September 1990 by the Department in its dealings with the Millers. The Respondent failed to disclose prior to the closing that the buyers were purchasing only a proprietary lease in the lot. On January 14, 1993, the transaction closed with Respondent acting on behalf of Terra Mar Village, LTD. and Terra Mar Village Association, Inc. After closing, the buyers received the Prospectus and title policy. Upon examining their title insurance policy, they learned that they had purchased a proprietary lease, not a fee simple interest in the lot as has been represented to them by Booten. The mobile home park has gone into foreclosure and the ownership interest of the Millers, among others, in their lots have been put in jeopardy. The Millers had relied on the representations of the Respondent as a licensed broker in their decision to purchase a lot in Terra Mar Village. Respondent committed a breach of trust by failing to disclose that the lot being sold was by proprietary lease. On April 1 and May 10, 1993, buyer Reginald B. Randolph gave Respondent's unlicensed agent, Al Booten, two checks totalling $45,000 for the purchase of a mobile home and lot at Terra Mar Village. On May 10, 1993, Respondent closed the transaction without the knowledge or consent of the buyer. However, Respondent failed to have the title to the property recorded. Randolph was misled by the Respondent's agent Booten, who told Randolph and his wife that they could buy a lot on a canal in the Village. When the Randolphs discovered they had been deceived and demanded their money back, the Respondent refused to refund it. They also discovered the money was not being held in escrow. The Randolphs believed Al Booten was a licensed real estate salesperson because he claimed he was selling the lot. There were many problems associated with the park. The source of potable water at the park was not approved and a moratorium was placed on it by Volusia County. Later, Terra Mar Village, LTD. filed for bankruptcy, but it was denied. The Respondent seeks to blame the "recession" and the water problems for the difficulties he encountered with the Millers and Randolphs. However, Respondent collected their downpayments and misappropriated the funds after allowing them to be misled by his agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: The Florida Real Estate Commission issue and file a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (d)1 and (e), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint. The Final Order should further direct that all of Respondent's real estate licenses, registrations, certificates and permits, be suspended for a period of two (2) years and that he pay an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-14 Respondent's proposals. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Florida Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Bernard L. Covington, pro se 1034 Old South Lane Apopka, Florida 32702 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esquire Acting General Counsel Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Northwood Centre 1940 N Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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 Florida Real Estate Commission is a licensing and regulatory agency charged with the duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and their implementing rules. Respondent Louis Diabo is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker holding license number 0146400. The last license issued was as a broker in limbo with a home address of Post Office Box 2386, Marathon, Florida 33050. On or about July 13, 1988, Ms. Diabo solicited and obtained a one (1) year exclusive right to sell agreement from Anthony and Milagros P. Bonachea, as owners, to sell vacant land located in the Florida Keys, further described as Lot 11, Block 16, Coco Plum Beach Subdivision. On or about March 13, 1989, Ms. Diabo solicited and obtained a contract for sale and purchase of Lot 11, Block 16, Coco Plum Beach Subdivision, between Duane W. Lewis and Helen F. Lewis, as buyers, and Anthony and Milagros P. Bonachea, as sellers, for a total price of $34,900. Ms. Diabo drafted the contract for sale and purchase. In its paragraph VII, "Restrictions, Easements, Limitations," the buyer accepted title subject to zoning, restrictions, prohibitions and other requirements imposed by governmental authority, but Ms. Diabo added that nothing would prevent use of the property for the purpose of "single family" housing. As a real estate professional and as the listing agent Ms. Diabo was aware that she was under a duty and an obligation to know the correct zoning, restrictions, prohibitions and other requirements imposed by governmental authorities on the property she listed for sale. She also knew that there was uncertainty about whether county development regulations under consideration might require the buyer to obtain transferrable development rights from other property owners in the Keys to build on the vacant lot being sold to Dwayne and Helen Lewis. Ms. Diabo owed Mr. and Mrs. Lewis a duty and they reasonably expected Ms. Diabo to inform them about governmental restrictions that might limit the use of the real property as a single family homesite. The transaction closed on or about April 7, 1989. Subsequent to closing, Mr. & Mrs. Lewis learned that they would have to purchase from $9,000 to $18,000 worth of transferable development rights (TDRs) in order to build on the vacant lot they bought through Ms. Diabo. Ms. Diabo had not explained to Mr. and Mrs. Lewis that they might be required to buy transferable development rights from another landowner to build on their lot, but there is no proof that such restrictions were effective at the time she dealt with the Lewises. There is no evidence in the record showing when the requirement to obtain transferrable development rights went into effect. As a consequence, it is not possible to determine whether Ms. Diabo failed to disclose to Mr. and Mrs. Lewis a zoning or use restriction in effect at the time of their purchase while she had asked Mr. Lewis to check on the zoning with the county building official, this did not relieve her of her own duty to investigate under Paragraph VII of the contract, and tell the purchasers of any limitations on building a single family home on the property. Petitioner failed to demonstrate, however, that any restrictions existed as of the time of the closing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued and filed by the Florida Real Estate dismissing the Administrative Complaint DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-6140 All but proposed paragraph 12 have been accepted and used, with appropriate editing, in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Louise Diabo, pro se 3015 Seville Street Apartment 14 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact In 1983 the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Solicitor's License and the Respondent continued to act as a Mortgage Solicitor until July 15, 1984. That on July 15, 1984, the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Broker's License holding license No. HB15055. That in August 1984 and August 1985 the Mortgage Broker's License of the Respondent was renewed by the Department of Banking and Finance. That from 1983 until the present date, the Respondent has processed approximately five hundred (500) mortgage loan applications with an approximate value of $50,000,000.00. That to the knowledge of the Respondent, no complaints have been made to the Department of Banking and Finance concerning any activities of the Respondent conducted in his capacity as a Mortgage Solicitor or Mortgage Broker. That during the period of time the Respondent has held his Mortgage Solicitor's and Mortgage Broker's Licenses, the activities conducted by the Respondent pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 494, have been his sole means of financial support for himself and his family. That on June 29, 1983, the Florida Real Estate Commission suspended the Respondent's Real Estate Broker's License for a period of five (5) years. Copies of the Stipulation and Final Order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, evidencing said suspension are attached hereto as Exhibits "1" and "2" respectively; conformed copies of said Exhibits were attached to the Petitioner's Request For Judicial Notice filed in this cause and dated April 24, 1986. Christensen's Stipulation which was confirmed by the Final Order of the Florida Real Estate Commission recites that Christensen was "served with the Administrative Complaint, copy attached," charging Christensen with violating certain provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and admits that the Administrative Complaint contains no disputed issues of material fact. But the Administrative Complaint itself apparently is not attached to the Stipulation approved by the Florida Real Estate Commission. It is not attached to the Stipulation filed in this case and is not found anywhere in the evidentiary or official record of this case. The Stipulation filed by the parties in this case does not state whether the suspension of Christensen's real estate broker license was based on fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, enter a final order dismissing the Amended Notice Of Intention To Suspend Or Revoke And Administrative Charges And Complaint against Respondent, Terry E. Christensen, in this case. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 June, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: John B. Root, III Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gorham Rutter, Jr., Esquire Gorham Rutter, Jr., P.A. 338 N. Magnolia Avenue, Suite D Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 EXHIBIT 1 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, Petitioner vs. CASE No. 86-0328 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent. / S T I P U L A T I O N The Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, by and through its undersigned counsel, and the Respondent, TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, hereby stipulate and agree as to the following facts upon which the parties respectfully request the Hearing Officer herein to render his decision: In 1983 the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Solicitor's License and the Respondent continued to act as a Mortgage solicitor until July 15, 1984. That on July 15, 1984, the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Broker's License holding license No. HB15055. That in August, 1984 and August, 1985 the Mortgage Broker's License of the Respondent was renewed by the DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE. That from 1983 until the present date, the Respondent has processed approximately five hundred (500) mortgage loan applications with an approximate value of $50,000,000.00. That to the knowledge of the Respondent, no complaints have been made to the DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE concerning any activities of the Respondent conducted in his capacity as a Mortgage Solicitor or Mortgage Broker. That during the period of time the Respondent has held his Mortgage Solicitor's and Mortgage Broker's Licenses, the activities conducted by the Respondent pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 494, have been his sole means of financial support for himself and his family. That on June 29, 1983, the Florida Real Estate Commission suspended the Respondent's Real Estate Broker's License for a period of five (5) years. Copies of the Stipulation and Final Order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, evidencing said suspension are attached hereto as Exhibits "1" and "2" respectively; conformed copies of said Exhibits were attached to the Petitioner's Request for Judicial Notice filed in this cause and dated April 24, 1986. The parties respectfully request the Hearing Officer to render his decision in this matter based upon the foregoing stipulated facts and in lieu of an evidentiary hearing. DATED this 13th day of May, 1986. JOHN B. ROOT, III, ESQUIRE GORHAM RUTTER, JR., ESQUIRE Office of the Comptroller GORHAM RUTTER, JR., P.A. 400 W. Robinson St., Suite 501 338 N. Magnolia Ave., Suite D Orlando, Florida 32801 Orlando, Florida 32801 ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT Telephone: (305) 423-5116 Telephone: (305) 841-7667 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent EXHIBIT 1 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0024293 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent. / DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Petitioner, CASE NO. 0021931 vs. TEC REALTY, INC. AND TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent. / S T I P U L A T I O N Terry E. Christensen; TEC Realty, Inc. and Terry E. Christensen, (Respondents), and Department of Professional Regulation, (Department), hereby stipulate and agree to the issuance of a Final Order by the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC), adopting and incorporating the provisions of this Stipulation in reference to the above-styled case. STIPULATED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondent Terry E. Christensen is now a broker-salesman, but at times material herein was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0174505. Respondent TEC Realty, Inc. was at times material herein a licensed corporate real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0212593. Its registration is now in "limbo". Respondents admit that they are subject to the provisions of Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of the Department and of the FREC. Respondents admit that they have been served with the Administrative Complaint, copy attached, which charges the Respondents with having violated certain provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, (and the rules enacted pursuant thereto). Respondents admit that the Administrative Complaint contains no disputed issues of material fact. Respondents admit that the stipulated facts contained in the Administrative Complaint support a finding of the Real Estate Practice Act. STIPULATED DISPOSITION Respondents shall not in the future violate Chapters 455 or 475, Florida Statutes, or the rules enacted pursuant thereto. The licenses of Respondents and of each of them, shall be suspended for five (5) years; and Respondents shall pay a total fine of $500 which fine shall be paid by cashier's check or money order made payable to the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Final Order. The action taken as reflected in the Final Order shall be published in the FREC News and Report Quarterly. It is expressly understood that this Stipulation is subject to the approval of the Department and of the FREC, and this Stipulation has no force and effect until a Final Order has been issued and filed. This Stipulation is executed by the Respondents for the purpose of avoiding further administrative action with respect to this cause. In this regard, Respondents authorize the FREC to review and examine all investigative file materials concerning Respondents prior to or in conjunction with the consideration of this Stipulation. Furthermore, should this Stipulation not be approved by the FREC, it is agreed that presentation to and consideration of this Stipulation and other documents and matters by the FREC shall not unfairly or unlawfully prejudice the Department, the FREC or any of its members from further participation, consideration or resolution of these proceedings. Respondents and the Department fully understand that this Stipulation and resulting Final Order adopting and incorporating the provisions of this Stipulation shall in no way preclude any other disciplinary proceedings by the Department or the FREC against the Respondent for acts or omissions not specifically set forth in the attached Administrative Complaint. Respondents expressly waive all notice requirements and right to seek judicial review of or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity and enforcement of this Stipulation and resulting Final Order of the FREC adopting and incorporating this Stipulation. SIGNED this day of , 1983. (filed document undated) SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED Respondents before me this 9th Terry E. Christensen, individually, day of June, 1983. and as broker and officer of TEC Realty, Inc. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission Expires June 26, 1986 Bonded Thru Troy Fain Insurance, Inc. Approved this 21st day of June, 1983. John Huskins, Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street, 308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 (305) 423-6134 Approved this 13th Fred Roche, Secretary day of June, 1983. Department of Professional Regulation JH/dm 6/6/83 EXHIBIT 2 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0024293 DOAH NO. 83-346 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN and TEC REALTY INC. CASE NO. 0021931 DOAH NO. 83-345 Respondents /
