Findings Of Fact The claim imposed by the Department of Revenue stems from an audit conducted by Mr. George Thomas Lloyd, Jr., an employee of the Department of Revenue. Mr. Lloyd examined the books of the corporation and the receipts for items purchased and compiled a ledger of particular items which, in Mr. Lloyd's opinion, were not parts of the ship and upon which a use tax was due. At the hearing on this case this ledger was introduced as Joint Exhibit No. 1. It is a composite exhibit consisting of 157 pages. This ledger reflects purchases in the amount of $1,953,426.13 upon which the Department of Revenue claims tax is due. The total tax claimed by the Department of Revenue is $72,630.19 for taxes, penalties, and interest through February 16, 1976. The Petitioner is a Norwegian corporation with principal offices located in Oslo, Norway, and an office in Miami at Biscayne Boulevard. Petitioner owns three cruise vessels of Norwegian ownership and registration which sail out of the port of Miami, Florida to ports in the Caribbean. These cruises last several days. The parties have agreed that the Petitioner is in the exclusive business of transporting passengers and goods in foreign commerce. Mr. Lloyd, who conducted the audit above mentioned, testified that he prepared Joint Exhibit No. 1 by evaluating the items described in the corporation's records and used his own independent judgment in a determination as to whether those items were, or were not, parts of a vessel. If he determined they in fact were not parts of the vessel, he concluded that a use tax was owed to the State on the purchase price of those items. Mr. Lloyd stated that his determination as to whether a particular item was indeed a part of a ship was based on his independent judgment which was largely a question of whether the item was physically attached to the vessel. The individual items are far too numerous to describe in any detail herein, but they range from napkins, stirrers, postage meters, paper products, grinding wheels, coffee pots, towels, party favors, games, sandpaper, repairs to a shotgun, movie rentals, hardware items, batteries, flowers, bug spray. The items in question were delivered to Petitioner's warehouse on Dodge Island, Miami, Florida for lading on board one of Petitioner's three cruise vessels. The cruise vessels tie up next to the warehouse where the goods are stored and from time to time these goods are brought aboard each of the vessels. The items in question are all used aboard each vessel during the vessels' passenger cruises. The only time the cruise vessels spend within the territorial limits of Florida are for a period of time on Saturday of each week for the purpose of embarking and disembarking passengers for each weekly cruise. These articles, somewhat above described, are all used in connection with the ship's operation which is the conduct of weekly pleasure cruises from Miami to the Caribbean. The question of whether a particular item is a part of a vessel is one of definition and common sense. The auditor, Mr. Lloyd, appeared to accept a definition similar to what one would use in determining whether or not an item was a fixture in regard to realty. However, there are all types of vessels and it appears to this Hearing Officer that what may be a part of one type of vessel would have no function on another. There is really no relationship between what may be considered a part of real estate and what may be considered a part of a ship. There also appears to be no logic behind a definition which limits "parts of a ship" to those items which are physically attached to the vessel. Most would agree that pumps are parts of a ship; even though they may not be attached and can be easily removed, they are necessary in keeping a vessel afloat. Similarly, a compass and other navigational equipment may be removed, but that would hardly make them any less a part of a ship. As the Petitioner points out in its Memorandum, the most logical approach to a finding as what is truly a part of a vessel must ultimately hinge on the nature of the vessel, and a broad definition of seaworthiness. What are clearly parts of some ships have no purpose on others. A cargo freighter would need hoists and cranes which are not required on a tug. Each type of vessel uses equipment suited to that ship's purpose and type of cargo. While a tanker may be in the business of transporting oil, a very specialized cargo, a cruise ship is in business of transporting people and catering to their needs and entertainment. Therefore the equipment of a cruise ship would appear more frivolous to those accustomed to ships transporting basic raw materials. Both vessels, however, are in the shipping business. Since the parts of a ship must be defined as those items which serve a useful purpose to the operation of the ship, the decision then depends not on the nature of the item, but of the vessel. An oil tanker might conceivably have equipment or parts which are so specialized that they could serve no other useful purpose except aboard that type of vessel. The cruise ships in question in this case, however, use equipment which are apparently commonplace and equally useful on land as on sea. What items may properly be considered parts of a cruise ship depend on how those items relate to the operation of the vessel. While the equipment of an oil tanker would hardly be expected to be directed toward mirth; likewise, it is unreasonable for the equipment of a cruise ship to be limited to the bare necessities of a spartan voyage. As the testimony on behalf of Petitioner indicated, all the items listed on Joint Exhibit No. 1 do serve a purpose aboard the vessel and all items were purchased for use aboard the company's three vessels. It is therefore concluded that all the items listed on that schedule are in fact parts of the vessels owned by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has raised several other issues in its defense to tax assessment of the Department of Revenue. Among other things the Petitioner claims that the items in question are not stored for use in Florida. The facts above indicated that the items were purchased by the corporation and no sales or use tax has yet been paid upon them. The items are stored at the Dodge Island Warehouse owned by the Petitioner and are from time to time placed aboard vessels operated by the Petitioner corporation. From the facts presented at this hearing, the ships only spend several hours in the port of Miami each Saturday of every week. The items, therefore, are principally used while the vessels in question are on the high seas or in foreign ports. Except for this period of time on each Saturday when the vessels are in port, these items are used while the vessels are in engaged in foreign commerce.
Recommendation For reasons that the items in question are parts of the vessels and that they are used and consumed outside the state of Florida the tax assessed by the Department of Revenue should be disallowed. ENTERED this 20th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. KENNETH G. OERTEL, Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel G. LaPorte, Esquire 150 Southeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 E. Wilson Crump II, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Division, Northwood Mall Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Ed Straughn, Executive Director Department of Revenue Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE KLOSTERS REDERI A/S, d/b/a NORWEGIAN CARIBBEAN LINES, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-428 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Mr. Harry A. Bayly, Jr., a real estate salesman, obtained a listing for the Sails Motel in 1975, while he was employed by respondent Donald M. Mlinarich, a real estate broker. Mr. Perz, at that time co-owner with his wife of the Sails Motel, showed Mr. Bayly a piece of paper on which he had written figures which he claimed represented gross income earned and expenses incurred on account of the Sails Motel. At the same time, Mr. Perz told Mr. Bayly that the figures on the piece of paper did not agree with federal income tax returns, or with state sales tax returns which Mr. Perz had filed. Mr. Perz told Mr. Bayly that income from the motel was understated on the tax returns, but that the figures he alleged were accurate could be substantiated by examining the motel's registration slips. The discrepancy between the gross income figure reported for tax purposes for 1974 and the gross income figure Mr. Perz gave Mr. Bayly for 1974 was twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00). Mr. Bayly did not tell Mr. Mlinarich about the double bookkeeping at the Sails Motel. Mr. Charles George was also a real estate salesman in Mr. Mlinarich's office. Mr. George procured a purchaser for the Sails Motel, one Anton K. P. Loetschert, who signed a duly witnessed agreement to buy the motel. Before the transaction closed, however, Mr. Loetschert appeared at the Sails Motel, accompanied by an accountant, and asked to see the motel's books. Learning for the first time of the dual bookkeeping, Mr. Loetschert indicated his unwillingness to go through with the purchase. Even though the deal fell through, the broker's office obtained five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) in satisfaction of its claim for commission on the sale. Mr. Mlinarich caused half of this sum to be paid to Mr. George, in accordance with a standing agreement between Mr. Mlinarich and each of his employees. Under the same standing agreement, Mr. Bayly, because he had secured the listing, had presented Mr. Loetschert's offer, and had otherwise assisted in the transaction, was entitled to one fifth of any commission, or one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). By letter dated September 23, 1975, Mr. Bayly demanded this sum, but Mr. Mlinarich refused payment at that time, on the advice of counsel. In addition to the circumstances surrounding the Sails Motel transaction, Mr. Mlinarich related the following facts to his lawyer which were proven to be true at the hearing: On at least two occasions, Mr. Bayly added provisions to listing contracts of which he did not inform Mr. Mlinarich, so that Mr. Mlinarich was lead to believe and did believe that the property owners involved had agreed to pay a broker's fee if the property were sold within 180 days of listing, while in actuality the owners contractual obligations were subject to termination earlier, and were in fact terminated early. Mr. Bayly accomplished this by writing additional contract clauses in his own hand on the sellers' copies of the contracts, while taking care that his handwriting did not appear on the realtor's carbon copies. Mr. Mlinarich and the other salesmen in his office advertised the properties and took other steps in the mistaken belief that the property owners were legally bound for the full 180 days. Mr. Mlinarich's lawyer advised him that he had a claim against Mr. Bayly for damages in excess of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and told Mr. Mlinarich he need not pay Mr. Bayly his share of the commission settlement, for that reason. Shortly after Mr. Mlinarich learned that Mr. Loetschert wanted his earnest money back, he advised Mr. George Illi, an investigator for the Florida Real Estate Commission, of the details of the Sails Motel transaction. Mr. Mlinarich kept Mr. Illi posted as matters developed, through and including the time of the dispute between over payment of the one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Altogether, Mr. Mlinarich spoke to Mr. Illi, on the telephone and in person, between five and ten times. He kept Mr. Illi fully apprised of every detail, including his lawyer's advice to pay Bayly. When the administrative complaint was filed against Mr. Mlinarich, he caused Mr. Bayly to be paid one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) in full satisfaction of Mr. Bayly's claim.
Recommendation It is strongly recommended that no disciplinary action be taken against respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles E. Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Emerson L. Parker, Esquire 3835 Central Avenue Post Office Box 15339 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 326.004(1), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Amended Notice to Show Cause, by acting as a broker or sales person, without a license, on two occasions.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and documentary evidence, the following facts are determined, as follows: Joseph Daniel Judson, Respondent, has never been licensed as a yacht and ship broker or sales person in the state of Florida. Respondent was informed in 1999 of the general requirements for being a yacht and ship broker and/or sales person in the state of Florida, and the need to obtain a license. Stephen D. Silver and Vicky A. Silver purchased a Pacemaker motor yacht (Hull ID No. 509484) on May 5, 1998, from Kenneth Thompson and Jeannette Myers in Brevard County, Florida. The Pacemaker motor yacht is over 32 feet in length and weighs less than 300 gross tons. Respondent listed the Pacemaker motor yacht for sale on his website during the summer of 2000. Respondent indicated that he had recently purchased the Pacemaker motor yacht on his website. Respondent sought to broker the yacht to a perspective buyer. The Pacemaker motor yacht listed on Respondent's website was the same Pacemaker motor yacht which was stored at the Banana River Marina in Brevard County, Florida, and was owned by Mr. and Mrs. Silver at that time. Respondent is not and has not been the owner of the Pacemaker motor yacht in question. Douglas Jeran, II, is the current owner of the yacht. He purchased the yacht directly from Mr. and Mrs. Silver. Dr. James H. Southard, Jr., first came into contact with Respondent via Respondent's internet website. Respondent sold a 41-foot 1949 Chris Craft (Hull ID No. C41015), held in his name, to Dr. Southard using a Texas Bill of Sale and Certificate of Title on April 14, 2000. Dr. Southard paid Respondent the full $10,000 purchase price for the Chris Craft. The Chris Craft is in excess of 32 feet in length and weighs less than 300 gross tons. Dr. Southard did not receive the title to the Chris Craft from Respondent until January 2001. Dr. Southard was a naïve yacht purchaser and was unaware that Respondent had not provided him with all the needed documents at the time of the sale. Respondent continued to use the title to Dr. Southard's Chris Craft as security in order to purchase another yacht, after Respondent had sold the yacht to Dr. Southard. Respondent did not inform Dr. Southard that the legal title to the Chris Craft was being used as security in another yacht transaction. Dr. Southard never conveyed any interest in the Chris Craft back to Respondent. Months after Respondent transported the Chris Craft to the Banana River Marina in Brevard County, Florida, Dr. Southard called to inquire whether Respondent had brought his Chris Craft to the marina and had it under repair. Respondent indicated to Dr. Southard that he had invested a "substantial" amount of money to refurbish the Chris Craft, purchased from Respondent for $10,000. However, the estimated value of the Chris Craft months after delivery to the marina was still approximately $10,000. Respondent charged Dr. Southard $10,000 for used diesel engines although he only paid $2,500 for them. Respondent initiated the search for the diesel engines and insisted on handling any repair work needed to make the vessel seaworthy. Respondent charged Dr. Southard a substantially inflated amount for repairs that he allegedly made to the diesel engines. Respondent told Dr. Southard that the Chris Craft was going to be placed in the water during the week of July 18, 2000. The Chris Craft was never returned to the water by Respondent. When the rusted diesel engines were recovered from the Banana River Marina, they were found partially disassembled and exposed to the elements due to sitting in the rain. Neither the boat nor the diesel engines were in a seaworthy condition when recovered. Leaving the Chris Craft out of the water for years without constant maintenance has rendered it virtually valueless. Dr. Southard lost his investment of $30,000 on the Chris Craft in his dealings with Respondent. Respondent operates an internet business when he seeks to buy and sell yachts. Respondent listed the Chris Craft owned by Dr. Southard on his website for sale, after April 14, 2000, when he was no longer the owner of the vessel. In addition, Dr. Southard's Chris Craft had a for sale sign posted on it, indicating a sale price of $50,000, and listing Respondent's phone number.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: That Respondent be found guilty of two counts of acting as a broker or sales person of yachts without a license under the Florida Yacht and Ship Broker's Act. That a civil penalty be imposed on Respondent in the amount of $10,000 for the unlicensed brokering of the Pacemaker motor yacht and an additional $10,000 for the unlicensed brokering of the Chris Craft for a total fine of $20,000. That a cease and desist order be issued and that the Secretary impose such other and reasonable provisions as is necessary. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Janet Gray Department of Business and Professional Regulation 5080 Coconut Creek Parkway, Suite B Margate, Florida 33063-3942 Joseph Daniel Judson a/k/a Dan Judson Post Office Box 146 Hallandale, Florida 33008 Michael Martinez, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ross Fleetwood, Division Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Peter P. Sedler, at all times material to the complaint, has been licensed as a real estate broker, holding license 0079017. He was last licensed as a broker c/o Marshall & Sedler, Inc., 7771 St. Andrews, Lake Worth, Florida 33467. Marshall & Sedler, Inc., at all times relevant to the complaint, had been registered as a Florida real estate broker, holding license 0250511, its last licensed address was 7771 St. Andrews, Lake Worth, Florida 33467. Peter P. Sedler was the qualifying broker and officer for Marshall & Sedler, Inc. On about July 3, 1987, Tom Teixeira was employed as a salesman by Cartier Realty, of 11852 42nd Road North, Royal Palm Beach, Florida. Cartier Realty had solicited, through a direct mailing, listings for property in the Royal Palm Beach area. Ms. Mary Myers, an older woman of about 70 years of age, responded to the advertisement, and gave Mr. Teixeira an open listing for real property which she owned. While Mr. Teixeira placed a Cartier Realty "For Sale" sign on the property, the sign was somehow removed shortly thereafter, and no party dealing with Ms. Myers during the months of July, August and September of 1987 would have been placed on notice that Cartier Realty had any listing on the property. Mr. Sedler had nothing to do with the disappearance of the sign. Ms. Myers had originally acquired the property from her daughter. Long before Ms. Myers gave a listing to Cartier Realty, William Kemp and his wife Gina DiPace Kemp had told Ms. Myers that they were interested in purchasing the property, which is adjacent to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Kemp. When Mr. and Mrs. Kemp first contacted Ms. Myers, she had wanted to keep the property, in the belief that she might eventually convey it back to her daughter. Mr. Teixeira brought to Ms. Myers an offer from David R. and Maureen C. Rose to purchase the land for $11,900. Ms. Myers did not accept that offer, but the Roses accepted Ms. Myers' counteroffer on July 24, 1987, to sell it for $12,300. The sale was contingent upon the buyers obtaining financing; they applied for a loan, and ordered both an appraisal and a survey. The closing was to be held by September 1, 1987. (Contract, paragraph VI.) The closing date passed, without the buyers obtaining the necessary financing, so the contract was no longer effective. On about September 8, 1987, Mr. Teixeira attempted to contact Ms. Myers. He had obtained no written extension of the contract but hoped the sale might yet close. Ms. Myers told Teixeira that she was still willing to sell the property to Mr. and Mrs. Rose. In the meantime, Mr. and Mrs. Kemp became aware that Ms. Myers wanted to sell the property, because they noticed Mr. and Mrs. Rose coming to look at the land, and had engaged them in conversation. Ms. Kemp then contacted Ms. Myers to remind her that they were still willing to purchase the property, and also to say that they would offer more than the current offer on the property. On about September 11, 1987, Ms. Kemp contacted Cartier Realty to say that she also wished to make an offer on the Myers' lot. For a reason which was never adequately explained at the hearing, Teixeira, who should have been working on behalf of the seller, refused to take the offer, even though it was for a higher price. After this rebuff by Teixeira, Ms. Kemp contacted Marshall & Sedler, Inc., in order to try to find a broker who would convey their offer to Ms. Myers and spoke with Patricia Marshall, Ms. Marshall referred her to her partner, Peter Sedler. The Kemps told Sedler that Ms. Myers had told them that she had received a $9,000 offer on the lot. Why Ms. Myers told the Kemps that the Rose offer was $9,000 is not clear, for the actual offer had been $12,300, but Sedler did not know this. There was no listing of the lot in the local board of realtors multiple listing service book, and Mr. Sedler found the address of Ms. Myers through the public records. Mr. Sedler knew from his conversations with Ms. Kemp that Cartier Realty had some involvement with an offer on the property. He called Cartier Realty and tried to speak with the broker handling the matter. He spoke with a man named Tom, who he thought was a brother of the owner of Cartier Realty, Pete Cartier. Mr. Sedler actually talked with Tom Teixeira. Sedler believed he was dealt with rudely by Teixeira, who had hung up on him. Sedler then called Pete Cartier directly to find out whether there was an outstanding contract on the property, and Cartier told Sedler that he would call Sedler back. When Cartier called Sedler, Cartier warned Sedler that he should stay out of the deal. Mr. Sedler became suspicious about Cartier Realty's failure to bring a higher offer to the attention of the seller, and on September 16, 1987, filed a complaint against Tom Cartier with the Lake Worth Board of Realtors. Mr. Sedler then traveled to Pompano Beach to meet with Ms. Myers at her home, and brought with him a contract for sale and purchase of the property, already signed by the Kemps and dated September 14, 1987. While at the door, Ms. Myers asked Peter Sedler if he was "Tom." Ms. Myers knew that she had been dealing with a "Tom" at Cartier Realty, but all her dealings were on the phone, and she did not know what Tom Teixeira looked like. Sedler replied "Yes, but you can call me Pete." Sedler merely intended the comment as humor. At that time Sedler gave Ms. Myers his pink business card and specifically identified himself as Pete Sedler of Marshall & Sedler, Inc. Mr. Sedler asked Ms. Myers if she had any paperwork, such as the prior contract for the sale of the lot which had expired on September 1, 1987, but she did not. While Sedler was with Ms. Myers, she agreed to sell the property to the Kemps for $12,500 and signed the Kemp contract. The Kemps had put the purchase price of $12,500 into the Marshall & Sedler escrow account. Three days later, on September 18, 1987, Mr. Sedler, in the company of his wife Bonnie, presented a post-dated check to Ms. Myers in the amount of $11,020, the net amount due to Ms. Myers for the lot, based on the purchase price of $12,500. When they met this second time he introduced himself again as Pete Sedler and offered Ms. Myers his card for a second time. The post-dated check was conditioned by an endorsement making it good upon a determination that the title to the lot was good. A quit claim deed to Mr. and Mrs. Kemp was executed by Ms. Myers and witnessed by Bonnie Sedler. The post-dated check was given to Ms. Myers because she was about to leave on vacation. The check was given as a sort of security for good title, in return for the quit claim deed which closed the transaction. Mr. Sedler had structured the transaction in this way because he was concerned that someone at Cartier Realty might also attempt to purchase the property from Ms. Myers on behalf of one of their clients. At that time, Mr. Sedler held the reasonable belief that no other party had a subsisting contract to purchase the property from Ms. Myers. Sedler had no reason to believe the Roses would or could pay more for the property than the Kemps offered. Ms. Myers knew that Tom Teixeira from the Cartier realty firm represented a distinct business entity from Marshall & Sedler or Pete Sedler. After a title search showed that Ms. Myers had clear title to the property, the check which Mr. Sedler had given to Ms. Myers on September 18, 1987, with the restrictive endorsement was replaced. Later Mr. and Mrs. Rose tried to close their purchase, but found they could not. Ms. Myers had failed to inform them of the sale she made to the Kemps through Mr. Sedler. Mr. Teixeira, in retribution, filed an ethics complaint about Mr. Sedler with the West Palm Beach Board of Realtors.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint against Peter P. Sedler and Marshall & Sedler, Inc., be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 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 14th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6183 Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: 1. Rejected as unnecessary. 2 and 3. Adopted in Finding 1. 4 - 6. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 3. Implicit in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. Implicit in Finding 6. This does not mean that the contract subsisted, however. Rejected. Ms. Myers was willing to sell the property to Mr. and Mrs. Rose after the contract expired, but she was not under any obligation to do so. Adopted in Finding 7. Rejected, because there was no pending contract. Teixeira never obtained a written extension of the closing date and Ms. Myers was free to sell elsewhere. Rejected. No one could have truthfully told Sedler there was a pending contract. None existed. Rejected, because Mr. Sedler had no reason to believe that there was a subsisting contract for the sale of the property; there was none. Admission number 20 is not to the contrary. Adopted in Findings 10 and 11. Rejected. See, Findings 9 and 10. Rejected as unpersuasive. Rejected as cumulative to Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 11. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Frank W. Weathers, Esquire Frank W. Weathers, P.A. Post Office Box 3967 Lantana, Florida 33465-3967 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact On May 29, 1977, petitioner Artur Zoelfel entered into a written agreement to buy the yacht Superior Queen from H-E-R Leasing Corporation "for the total sum of $125,000.00 (one hundred, twenty-five thousand dollars)." Petitioners' exhibit No. 1. H-E-R Leasing Corporation is not a licensed or registered dealer in Florida. An addendum to the contract, dated May 30, 1977, was signed by Artur Zoelfel but was not signed by anybody on behalf of H-E-R Leasing Corporation. Petitioners' exhibit No. 2. On June 16, 1977, an assistant secretary for maritime affairs in the United States Department of Commerce entered an order, No. MA-15079, approving the sale of the Superior Queen to "Artur Zolfel, a West German citizen, and the transfer of said vessel to Federal Republic of Germany registry and flag . . . upon the condition that there shall be no liens or encumbrances recorded against such vessel . . . at the time of its transfer . . ." Petitioners' exhibit No. 2. On June 27, 1977, an anonymous telephone caller told Bernard Frank Fox, respondent DOR's area supervisor in Broward County, that petitioner had bought the Superior Queen. As the result of investigation by other employees of respondent DOR, Mr. Fox concluded that this information was correct and set in motion events that culminated, on June 30, 1977, in a levy on the Superior Queen by the Broward County sheriff's office. At that time, respondent DOR claimed that fifty-two hundred dollars ($5,200.00) in tax was owed, on the assumption that the Zoelfels had paid the asking price for the Superior Queen, which had purportedly been one hundred thirty thousand dollars ($130,000.00). After the levy, one Paul C. Mueller approached Mr. Fox on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Zoelfel and represented to Mr. Fox that petitioners had purchased the Superior Queen for one hundred twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($112,500.00). On that basis respondent DOR accepted forty-five hundred dollars ($4,500.00) in satisfaction of its claim for tax, and the sheriff released the Superior Queen. As reflected by the bill of lading, petitioners exhibit No. 4, on August 2, 1977, petitioner Artur Zoelfel caused the Superior Queen to be loaded onto a freighter, M/S Finn Enso, in Tampa, Florida, bound for Hamburg, West Germany. Neither of the petitioners is a licensed exporter.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the notice of assessment be upheld. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Thomas E. Hunt, Esquire Suite 302, Building 2 3020 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Mr. Cecil L. Davis, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact In June 1986, Petitioner purchased a 55 Ft. Ocean Yacht Super Sport from South Jersey Yacht Sales for $577,055 and took delivery in New Jersey. Although Petitioner is not a dealer, a dealer's license was used to purchase this vessel and Petitioner paid no sales tax to New Jersey on this sale. The boat was named "SEABURY", entered Florida waters in November 1986 and remained for 105 days, proceeded to Bahama Islands February 22, 1987 and returned to Florida April 7, 1987, and remained in Florida for 31 additional days before returning north. From bridge logs maintained by bridge tenders over the Intracoastal Waterway and docking receipts at Bahia Mar and other berthing spaces it was concluded the vessel was used in Florida. Respondent established a prima facie case that the M/V SEABURY entered Florida waters within 6 months of its purchase in New Jersey and was used in this state. No evidence to rebut this prima facie case was presented by Petitioner.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed five violations of the Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act, including the following counts: 1) failing to have the license of each salesperson in his employ prominently displayed in his principal place of business; 2) failing to place deposits received from clients pursuant to transactions involving yachts into a broker's trust account; 3) allowing a person licensed only as a salesperson to act as a broker and to use the broker's name to evade the provisions of the Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act; 4) failing to deposit funds into the broker's trust account within three working days of receipt of funds pursuant to a purchase contract by a salesperson licensed under him; 5) allowing a salesperson licensed under him to carry out acts which if committed by the broker would place him in violation of the Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act and the rules thereunder, such as violating the Notary Public Law, failing to exercise due professional care in the performance of brokerage services, and making substantial and intentional misrepresentations with respect to transactions involving yachts, as alleged in the Amended Notice to Show Cause, in violation of the Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act, Chapter 326, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility to administer and enforce the Florida Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act, Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. The purpose of the Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act is to protect the consumer. A yacht broker is an individual who, in expectation of compensation, sells used boats in excess of 32-feet in length for other persons. In order to obtain a license to act as a yacht broker, an individual must submit an application, undergo a background check for moral character, submit a surety bond, and demonstrate to the Division that he has a trust account to place funds received in pending yacht transactions. Before being able to independently perform yacht brokering services as a yacht broker, an individual must spend two consecutive years as a yacht salesperson in a mentorship working under a broker. At all times relevant to this action, Respondent held a license with Petitioner to operate as a yacht broker. Respondent continues to be licensed as a yacht broker. In late 1995 and early 1996, Respondent operated his yacht brokerage business, Greg and Associates, from two locations. His main office was located in Rockledge, Florida, and a branch office was located in Sarasota, Florida. No brokers were present at the Sarasota location. Respondent operated the Sarasota branch office from his main office in Rockledge, Florida. He never visited the Sarasota branch office. Respondent viewed his relationship to the Sarasota branch office as an "escrow agent." Bullock, a salesman, had complete autonomy to run the Sarasota branch office. Respondent met Bullock only once, and he never met any of the other salesmen who operated out of the branch office. Respondent had only a commission arrangement with Bullock. Respondent sent checks for all commissions to Bullock, who deposited them in Bullock's company, Friar Tuck, Inc's., Barnett Bank business account. Respondent allowed Bullock to hire the other salesmen, to determine a commission arrangement with the other salesmen, and to disburse commissions to the other salesmen. Respondent did not know the commission arrangement with most of the salesmen in the branch office. On April 16, 1996, Respondent was interviewed in his office about some complaints that had been received concerning the operation of his Sarasota branch office. Among the salesmen working under Respondent's broker's license in his Rockledge office at that time were Darrell Lawson and Mark Salmuller. Respondent did not have the licenses of either of these two salesmen displayed. Both men were listed as active employees by Respondent. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent maintained a broker's trust account, entitled Greg and Associates, d/b/a Yacht Brokerage USA, in the Rockledge branch of the Barnett Bank. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Chester Bullock, a yacht salesperson working for Respondent in Respondent's Sarasota branch office, maintained a business checking account entitled Friar Tuck, Inc., d/b/a Yachtmasters, in a Sarasota branch of the Barnett Bank. Bullock was listed as president of the company and was identified as a signatory on the account. This was not a proper broker's trust account, as Bullock, being a yacht salesman, could not have established such an account. In July 1995, Chester Bullock and Jeff Webb, salesmen in the Sarasota branch office, took an offer and received a $1,000.00 deposit from David and Cynthia Cislo, on a 1979 34-foot Marine Trade Trawler. Respondent's salesmen did not deliver the deposit to Respondent's trust account within three days of its receipt. The funds were deposited in Bullock's business checking account at the Sarasota branch of the Barnett Bank. Sometime later, the money was redeposited in Respondent's trust account. Bullock notarized the vessel bill of sale at the time of the closing, and received a commission on the sale. In November 1995, Bullock took an offer and received a $5,350.00 deposit from a Louisiana client, Charles Cosgrove, on a 1964 38-foot Chris-Craft Commander yacht. Respondent's salesman did not deliver the deposit to Respondent's trust account within three days of its receipt. On November 27, 1995, Bullock and Jeff Webber, Respondent's salespeople, acted as listing broker and salesperson, respectively, on the lease-purchase of the 1964 38-foot Christ Craft Commander by Cosgrove. Respondent never signed the brokerage sales record, which is the closing statement given to the lease-purchaser, Cosgrove, and was never identified as broker of record on any of the sales documents. Instead, the purchase-sale agreement lists Bullock as the broker, and the closing statement lists Bullock as the broker. Bullock acted as the notary public for the lease-purchase agreement. In January 1996, Bullock and Harold Raines, yacht salesmen in the Sarasota branch office, took an offer and received a $1,700.00 deposit from a client, Michael Hill, on a 1973, 53-foot Huckins yacht. The letterhead of the draft purchase and sales agreement, which stated "Yachtmasters" and a phone number for the Sarasota area, further indicated that Hill's offer was made through yacht salesmen at the Sarasota branch office. Respondent's salesmen did not deliver the $1,700.00 deposit to Respondent's trust account within three days of its receipt. Instead of delivering the $1,700.00 deposit to Respondent for deposit in Respondent's Rockledge broker's trust account, the check was delivered to Friar Tuck, Inc's., Sarasota account. Hill's deposit, which was supposed to be held in a trust account, intermingled with the other business funds of Bullock's account. Hill requested and received an oral extension from Bullock on his closing date to purchase the yacht. About a month later, Bullock notified Hill that the yacht was sold to another party. It was only after Hill threatened to sue Respondent, the responsible broker, and after Hill filed a complaint with Petitioner that Respondent refunded Hill his deposit. The Yacht and Ship Brokers' Act does not permit licensed salespeople to perform certain acts. It requires the employing broker to do them. An employing broker, a broker who holds the license of his salesperson, must make all trust account deposits and withdrawals of monies involved in a transaction brokered by the salesman. An employing broker is required to supervise the yacht transactions brokered by his salespeople and to sign closing statements, which itemize all charges and credits of the transaction for the client. Respondent minimized his own involvement in his Sarasota branch office and permitted his salesman, Bullock, to operate it. This enabled Bullock to sign as the broker a closing statement of the sale of a yacht, which is an action that should have been performed only by a broker. During the same time period that Respondent granted Bullock autonomy to supervise the Sarasota branch office, Bullock operated another business from the same location, Sarasota Marine and Maintenance Services, which did boat surveys and cleaned boats. Bullock was the president of Sarasota Marine and Maintenance Services. In early 1996, Wittman, a Colorado resident at that time, telephoned Bullock about the 1988, 34-foot Wellcraft Grandsport in the magazine advertisement placed by Bullock. Bullock sent Wittman a videotape of the yacht. After reviewing the videotape, Wittman did not think that it was the same yacht advertised in the magazine. Bullock admitted that the yacht in the videotape was not the same yacht advertised in the magazine, but claimed that it was a sister ship. Based upon Bullock's assurances that the sister yacht was in good condition and the results of a survey done by Bullock's company stating that the yacht was in good condition, Wittman purchased the yacht. Bullock acted as both the listing broker and the selling broker in the sale of the 1988, 34-foot Wellcraft Grandsport yacht to Boyd Wittman, the purchaser. Notwithstandng the fact that he was representing the seller, Bullock did not obtain the written consent of Wittman, the purchaser. Wittman wanted a registered surveyor to do a survey of the condition of the yacht, because Wittman lived out-of-state and wanted to avoid spending money to fly to Florida to inspect it. Bullock arranged for his own company, Sarasota Marine and Maintenance Services, to perform the survey. The survey was signed by Ernest Shaffer, who was identified as a Certified Marine Surveyor and Consultant with the Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors, the National Association of Marine Surveyors, and the National Marine Investigators. Ernest Shaffer was someone that Bullock hired to wash boats. He was not a certified surveyor, as he was held to be. When the yacht was delivered to Wittman in Colorado, he was shocked by the poor condition of the yacht. The interior, the cockpit, the exterior, the bilge, and the mufflers were all in poor condition. Wittman was expecting a yacht that he could take someone out on a lake with, and it was not in good enough condition. Wittman had to pay another $15,000 to $20,000 to repair the yacht to improve it to good condition. Repairs included replacing all of the interior of the cabin, replacing the port windshield, putting new mufflers in, fixing a transmission leak, fixing the air-conditioning, rebuilding the water pumps so that the engines cooled properly, and replacing the dry-rot wood on the main deck on the cockpit. In sum, Wittman purchased the yacht for $38,000, spent another $15,000 to $20,000 in repairs, and eventually sold it for $37,000. Bullock also quoted to Wittman a fee for shipping the yacht from Florida to Colorado for $1,500. Wittman thought the price was reasonable. When the yacht was finally shipped, it cost Wittman approximately $3,800, which he paid, because he had already bought the yacht and had to finish the transaction. Bullock acted as both the listing broker and the selling broker in the sale of a 1973, 34-foot Nautiline yacht to Ernest C. Shaffer, the purchaser. Bullock arranged for his company, Sarasota Marine and Maintenance Services, to perform the survey. The survey was signed by Ted Williams, who was identified as a Certified Marine Surveyor and Consultant with the Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors (SAMS), the National Association of Marine Surveyors (NAMS), and the National Marine Investigators. Neither Bullock, Ernest Shaffer, nor Ted Williams, his employees who signed the surveys of the yachts described above, was certified with NAMS or SAMS, two marine surveys accreditation associations. In the case of a 1973, 53-foot Huckins yacht, Bullock tried to sell the boat three times and took three simultaneous contacts on the same vessel. He took a contract from Michael Hill, a prospective purchaser, extended the closing date for Hill to March 6, 1996, and simultaneously had contracts for the same boat with the prospective purchasers Sam Bankester and Steven Kenneally, with the closing dates of February 29, 1996, and March 2, 1996, respectively. Ultimately, Steven Kenneally purchased the yacht. The terms of the contracts did not provide for simultaneous contracts on the same vessel. The prospective purchaser who did not come up with the money first lost out on the opportunity to purchase the yacht. In addition, the Hills, the prospective purchasers, had a difficult time obtaining their earnest money back from Bullock. In January of 1996, Raines, Respondent's salesman, showed Chris June, a North Carolina resident, a 1970, 42-foot Trojan Sea Voyager yacht named "Fantasia." June liked the 42- foot Trojan Sea Voyager and entered into a contract to purchase it through Raines and Bullock. Bullock recommended a surveyor, John Pomeroy, in St. Petersburg, Florida, to complete the survey. Pomeroy was, in fact, not certified with NAMS or SAMS. Bullock told June that the boat was in very good condition and that it was a great value. During the survey, June noticed that wood on the yacht was separating in the bow, and asked Bullock and Pomeroy about it. They explained that this was "wet/dry expansion" which occurs in yachts that sit for a long time and can easily be fixed with some screws and caulking. "Wet/dry expansion" causes wood in wooden yachts to start separating, according to Bullock and Pomeroy, due to the wet wood below the waterline and the dry wood above the waterline. The survey disclosed no substantial problems with the yacht. Relying on the statements of Bullock and Pomeroy, June purchased the "Fantasia" for $22,000, with money loaned to him by a relative. A month after purchasing his yacht, June was informed that his boat was sinking while moored at the dock. June had to hire a marine recovery company to recover the yacht, just before it was about to go completely under water. The yacht took on water in an area near the stern that was not well checked-out, where a basketball-sized wad of putty holding the corner together came loose. As the estimate to repair the boat was more than three times what the boat was worth, June sold it to a salvage yard for $2,500. However, the salvage yard defaulted on that payment. June has been making accelerated payments on his loan, and has the loan down to approximately $19,000. He made a claim against Respondent's surety bond and settled the action for a small amount from the bonding company. Respondent attended two all-day workshops hosted by the Petitioner's Section of General Regulation, which cover in detail how to display a license, to display trust accounts, to display broker's duties and responsibilities, and to display branch offices. Respondent was exposed to the statutes and rules which were violated. Respondent took a cavalier attitude towards following the requirements of the Act. On February 15, 1996, Petitioner entered a Final Order against Respondent in Docket No. YS95397, imposing a fine of $1,500 for Respondent's violation of the Act. Respondent used the name "Yachtmasters" for his Sarasota branch office without having a license issued in that name in violation of Florida law. In the case DBPR v. Chester C. Bullock, Docket No. YS97172 (December 11, 1998), the Petitioner charged Chester Bullock, a registered salesman, with five violations: Charge 1 - The Respondent acted as a broker when he was licensed only as a salesman. Charge 2 - The Respondent made substantial and intentional misrepresentations with respect to transactions involving yachts upon which people have relied. Charge 3 - The Respondent violated other laws governing transactions involving yachts, specifically, he violated Chapter 117, Florida Statutes, by notarizing signatures on documents in which he had a financial interest. Charge 4 - The Respondent failed to immediately deliver deposits received from clients for the purchase of yachts to the broker under whom he was licensed as a salesman. Charge 5 - The Respondent failed to exercise due professional care in the performance of brokerage services, such as recommending his own company as a surveyor to a client and representing it as being an accredited surveyor company, when it was not. Bullock was found guilty on all charges and assessed a civil penalty of $45,000 in that case and had his yacht salesperson's license revoked. The Petitioner has proven each of the violations by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent's explanations for his conduct is not credible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes enter a final order which: Finds Respondent guilty of the charges set forth in Counts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Amended Notice to Show Cause. Respondent's broker's license is hereby revoked. The Division impose a civil penalty of $40,500, which is $500 for Count 1 and $10,000 each for Count 2, 3, 4, and 5. The Respondent shall immediately cease and desist from any violations of Chapter 326, Florida Statutes, and the administrative rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: William Oglo, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Gregory Linnemeyer 613 Rockledge Drive Rockledge, Florida 32955 Philip Nowick, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, Mobile Homes Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, Section of General Regulation has violated Section 120.535 F.S. by adoption of a policy which meets the definition of a "rule" under Section 120.52(16) F.S., without complying with the rulemaking procedures established by Section 120.54 F.S.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner originally applied and was licensed as a yacht and ship salesman in June, 1992. To be a salesman, one must be associated with a licensed broker who prominently displays the salesman's license. On April 15, 1994, Petitioner contacted Respondent agency by telephone to discuss renewal of his salesman's license issued June 3, 1992 and due to expire under its own terms on June 3, 1994. At that time, Kathy Forrester told Petitioner that his file reflected that his license had been "cancelled" effective March 10, 1993 due to a letter received on or about March 1, 1993 from Petitioner's employing broker, Frank Stanzel. Mr. Stanzel's letter showed that he was relocating his business from Miami to Ft. Lauderdale and that he wanted his two salesmen's licenses transferred to the new location. He enclosed with his letter the two salesmen's licenses for agency action, as required by agency rules. Mr. Stanzel further reported that Petitioner had left his employ on October 19, 1992, taking his license with him, so Mr. Stanzel could not return Petitioner's license to the agency. On March 22, 1993, five months after Mr. Stanzel heard the last of Petitioner and approximately three weeks after he notified the agency of Petitioner's leaving his employ, Mr. Stanzel's broker's license expired. Under the terms of the agency rules, Mr. Stanzel was required to apply for a new license. He applied. His broker's license was not renewed retroactively, and his new license became effective August 30, 1993. For approximately five months, from March 22, 1993 to August 30, 1993, Mr. Stanzel was not a licensed Florida broker. Neither Mr. Stanzel nor the Respondent agency notified Petitioner of this fact nor did anyone notify Petitioner at that time that his salesman's license was deemed "cancelled" during the broker's lapse. After finding out for the first time on April 15, 1994 that the agency presumed his salesman's license "cancelled" by Mr. Stanzel's notification that Petitioner had taken his salesman's license and left Mr. Stanzel's employ, Petitioner and his father prevailed upon Mr. Stanzel to execute an affidavit dated May 19, 1994 to the effect that Mr. Stanzel had misunderstood, now believed Petitioner had been diligently working at yacht sales after October 19, 1992, and wanted Petitioner's salesman's license reinstated. The affidavit was submitted to the agency. Although Ms. Forrester had misgivings about the affidavit, the agency reinstated Petitioner's salesman's license effective April 29, 1994, after receiving the affidavit (TR 25-28). The reinstated license still had the original expiration date of June 3, 1994. The agency did not reinstate Petitioner's salesman's license retroactive to October 19, 1992 when Petitioner went into construction work fulltime, to the date of Mr. Stanzel's original broker's license expiration, or to the date of Mr. Stanzel's new broker's license. Petitioner accepted his salesman's license as reinstated. Petitioner did not renew his salesman's license on June 3, 1994, so it expired by its own terms. On July 21, 1994, Petitioner filed an application to be licensed as a yacht and ship broker, together with the required bond, fee, and fingerprints. On August 2, 1994, Peter Butler, Head of the Section of Yacht and Ship Brokers, wrote Petitioner a deficiency notice, explaining that the agency regarded Petitioner's salesman's license "cancelled" during the lapse of his employing broker's license. The agency has no rule which specifically states that when an employing broker's license expires, his salesmen's licenses are automatically cancelled. The language employed in the deficiency notice was, "any salesman licenses held by [the employing broker] were considered cancelled (sic) for that period of time [the period while the employing broker's license was expired/lapsed] because they did not have an actively licensed broker holding their license." [Bracketed material added for clarity.] This language is the focus of this proceeding. The deficiency notice did not refer to the prior "cancellation" of Petitioner's salesman's license based on Mr. Stanzel's March 1, 1993 notice that Petitioner had left his employ effective October 19, 1992. The deficiency notice cited Section 326.004(8) F.S. [1993] which provides: Licensing.- (8) A person may not be licensed as a broker unless he has been a salesman for at least 2 consecutive years, and may not be licensed as a broker after October 1, 1990, unless he has been licensed as a salesman for at least 2 consecutive years. Bob Badger, an agency investigator, submitted a report to Mr. Butler dated September 1, 1994 expressing his opinion that even with Mr. Stanzel's after-the-fact affidavit, Petitioner's salesman's license would have been interrupted by the fact that he had no licensed broker holding his salesman's license during Mr. Stanzel's broker's license lapse of five months. He further concluded that Petitioner's salesman's license was "suspended" for a short period for not renewing his salesman's license bond. After review of the investigation report, on September 19, 1994, the agency issued its Intent to Reject Petitioner's broker's application pursuant to Rule 61B-60.002(6) F.A.C. alluding to the deficiency notice and citing Section 326.004(8) F.S., for Petitioner's failure to complete two consecutive years as a salesman. Section 326.004(14)(a) and (b) F.S. and rules enacted thereunder clearly place on the broker the responsibility of maintaining and displaying the broker's and salesmen's licenses as well as providing for a suspension of a salesman's license when a broker is no longer associated with the selling entity. Typically, salesmen turn in their licenses through the original broker for cancellation by the agency and receive new ones when they move from one broker's oversight to another's. Salesmen who are employed by one broker also switch their salesman's licenses to another active broker whenever the first broker disassociates from a yacht sales company and moves to another company, quits, retires, or lets his broker's license lapse. Due to the common dynamics of the employment situation whereby salesmen are under the active supervision of their employing broker in the company office, they usually know immediately when a broker's license is in jeopardy or the broker is not on the scene and supervising them. This knowledge is facilitated by the statutes and rules requiring that all licenses be prominently displayed in the business location. Anybody can look at anybody else's license on the office wall and tell when it is due to expire. If licensees are in compliance with the statutes and rules, no active salesman has to rely on notification from the agency with regard to the status of his own or his broker's license. In the present case, Petitioner removed himself from all contact with Mr. Stanzel as of October 19, 1992. Therefore, he did not know what was occurring in the office or with any licenses. All agency witnesses testified substantially to the effect that since they have been employed with the agency and so far as they could determine since its inception, agency personnel have relied on Sections 326.002(3), 326.004(8), 326.004(14)(a) and (b) F.S. and Rules 61B-60.005 and 61B-60.008(1)(b) and (c) F.A.C. to preclude licensing someone who has not been actively supervised by a Florida licensed employing broker for two consecutive years. More specifically, agency personnel have always applied Sections 326.004(14)(a) and (b) to place on the broker the responsibility of maintaining and displaying the broker's and salesman's licenses as well as providing for a suspension of the salesman's license when his broker is no longer associated with the sales entity. The agency has always interpreted the word "broker" as used in Chapter 326 F.S. and Chapter 61B-60 F.A.C. to mean "Florida licensed broker." See also, Section 326.002(1) and 326.004(1) F.S. and Rule 61B-60.001(1)(g) F.A.C. These interpretations are in accord with the clear language of the applicable statutes and rules. Petitioner unsuccessfully attempted to show that he had received treatment different than others similarly situated.
The Issue The issue presented herein is whether or not the names Miami Yacht Sales, Inc. and Miami Yacht Brokerage, Inc. are deceptively similar.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witness and his demeanor while testifing, documentary evidence received, pleadings and responses, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. On 0ctober 7, 1977, Respondent, Division of Corporations, issued Charter number F40099 permitting the use of the corporate name Miami Yacht Sales, Inc. to the Petitioner in reliance on Chapter 607, Florida Statutes. On January 3, 1984, Respondent, Division of Corporations, issued Charter number 087231 permitting, the `use of the corporate name Miami Yacht Brokerage, Inc. to the Respondent in reliance on Chapter 607, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is engaged in the business of selling new and used boats and yachts. Petitioner conducts its business at 2122 N. River Drive, Miami, Florida. Petitioner, through its president, Larry Stevens, related one incidence of a telephone communique from Merrill Stevens Brokerage, a competitor which was seeking information respecting one of Respondent, Miami Yacht Brokerage, Inc., salesmen. Mr. Stevens also related at least one instance wherein a supplier misdelivered a package which was destined for the Respondent's business, end Petitioner rerouted that package to Respondent. Petitioner, through Mr. Stevens, generally alluded to "confusion, client-wise" which he believed would continue as soon as Respondent, Miami Yacht Brokerage, Inc., was able to get an advertisement in the Yellow Pages of the Miami telephone directory. Petitioner pointed to no specific acts of confusion or other deceptive practices by Respondent, Miami Yacht Brokerage, Inc.. example, Petitioner did not substantiate that any of its customers went to the Respondent's business and had to ultimately be directed to Petitioner's business. Likewise, Petitioner did not allege or otherwise claim that the name Miami Yacht Brokerage, Inc. was selected by Respondent based on an attempt to deceive or otherwise defraud the consuming public. As stated herein, Respondent, Miami Yacht Brokerage, Inc., did not appear at the hearing herein although it was properly noticed by copy of a notice of hearing filed May 28, 1984 scheduling this matter for hearing on June 28, 1984. However, the evidence reveals that Respondent, Miami Yacht Brokerage, Inc., is also engaged in the business of selling new and used boats and yachts and its business is situated approximately four miles from Petitioner's business site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is therefore recommended that the petition of Miami Yacht Sales, Inc., seeking to forbid the use by the Respondent of the name Miami Yacht Brokerage, Inc., be DENIED. Recommencded this 13th day of November, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 13th day of November, 1984.
