The Issue Whether respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, whether respondent's license should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the charges, Reynold Diaz was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having license number 0379909. The respondent was registered under the trade name of "Progressive Developers" from August 20, 1983 to July 25, 1986. Respondent, in his capacity as a real estate broker, managed four rental units owned by John H. Stephen located at 3405-3407 Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Mr. Stephen initially met Mr. Diaz when Mr. Stephen purchased the rental properties from him in 1984, and Mr. Stephen retained respondent to manage the properties at a fee of ten percent of the monies collected. At the end of April, 1985, respondent rented one of the units owned by Mr. Stephen to Ms. Roslyn Thompson. During the course of Ms. Thompson's tenancy, the respondent received from Ms. Thompson a total of $630.00, which represented two months rent and a security deposit of $180.00. None of this money was returned to Ms. Thompson and none of it was delivered to Mr. Stephen by respondent. When Mr. Stephen inquired about the rental money from the unit, in June or July of 1985, Mr. Diaz advised Mr. Stephen that the tenant had not paid her rent for a couple of months. Thereafter, Mr. Stephen went to the rental unit to talk to Ms. Thompson about her payments. Ms. Thompson advised Mr. Stephen that she had paid her rent and produced receipts for the $630.00 which she had paid to respondent. Mr. Stephen terminated respondent's services in June of 1985. In September of 1985 Mr. Stephen met with Mr. Diaz in an attempt to obtain an accounting of the monies received by respondent from Mr. Stephen's tenants. Although respondent had provided monthly statements and payments to Mr. Stephen throughout 1984, respondent stopped providing statements in 1985. Thus, Mr. Stephen had not received a statement in April, May, or June of 1985. When Mr. Stephen met with respondent in September, respondent failed to provide a full accounting of the money he had received from Mr. Stephen's tenants and failed to deliver the money he had received. However, subsequent to the meeting, Mr. Stephen did receive from respondent the amount he was owed on two of the rental units. However, respondent failed to deliver the money he had received from Ms. Thompson. Respondent contends that of the $630.00 he received from Ms. Thompson, he paid Mr. Stephen $225.00 in September and then paid the $405.00 balance in two installments. However, the evidence does not support this contention, and I accept Mr. Stephen's testimony that he never received any rent payments on the Thompson unit. Further, although the evidence does show that respondent paid Mr. Stephen $405.00 in two checks, these payments were for the money owed on the other rental units. Mr. Diaz has failed to account for or deliver to Mr. Stephen the $630.00 received from Ms. Thompson. Respondent, in his capacity as a real estate broker, also managed rental property owned by Sandra K. Nelson located at 1208 East Chelsea Street, Tampa, Florida. Ms. Nelson first met Mr. Diaz when she purchased the rental property, and she retained respondent to manage the property at a fee of ten percent of the monies collected. In August of 1984, the respondent rented the Nelson property to Joseph Ira Pasco. At the time of renting the unit, the respondent received from Mr. Pasco a security deposit of $325.00. However, Mr. Diaz advised Ms. Nelson that Mr. Pasco had not paid his security deposit, and withheld $275.00 from a rental payment to hold as a security deposit. Subsequently, after Ms. Nelson started eviction proceedings, she discovered that Mr. Pasco had a receipt signed by Mr. Diaz for a $325.00 security deposit. However, despite Ms. Nelson's demands, the respondent failed to deliver to Ms. Nelson the $325.00 security deposit or any portion thereof. Further, the security deposit was not returned to Mr. Pasco. However, respondent did ultimately deliver to Ms. Nelson the $275.00 that he had retained from the rental payment. Respondent maintained an escrow account at the Hay Gulf Federal Credit Union from August 8, 1984 until November 26, 1984, when the account was closed. When petitioner's investigator, Leo Huddleston, requested of the respondent all documentation associated with the Stephen and Nelson transactions, respondent produced the carbon copies of three deposit slips and twenty checks drawn on the Bay Gulf account. The documents covered only the months of September and October of 1984, and none of the documents appear to be connected to the Stephen and Nelson transactions. The respondent failed to produce his real estate brokerage escrow account statements, his business records, leases, contracts or other documentation required to be kept by the respondent and produced to the petitioner upon request. At no time did respondent place or maintain the $325.00 security deposit on the Nelson property in an escrow or trust account. Further, since respondent's escrow account was closed at the times respondent collected the rent money and deposit from Ms. Thompson, it is apparent that none of the $630.00 was placed in an escrow or trust account. Respondent admitted that he did not properly handle the funds received from the Nelson and Stephen properties, stating that he managed the properties on the basis of friendship rather than a professional basis. However, he did admit retaining ten percent of all the money collected. From August 20, 1983, until July 25, 1986, the respondent was registered with the Real Estate Commission under the trade name "Progressive Developers." However, at various times during this period, the respondent transacted business both as "Progressive Real Estate Developers" and "Progressive Real Estate Developers, Inc." These names were not registered with the Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order suspending respondent's license for a period of two (2) years and imposing an administrative fine of $1,150 to be assessed as follows: Counts I and VI, $200 for each count; Counts II and VII, $200 for each count; Counts III and VIII, $100 for each count; Count IV, $100; and Count V, $50. Respectfully submitted and entered this 9th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3775 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in paragraph 1. Accepted in paragraph 2. Accepted in paragraph 3. Accepted in paragraphs 5 and 6. Accepted in paragraph 7. 6-7. Accepted in paragraph 8. Accepted generally in paragraphs 6 and 8. Accepted in paragraph 10. Accepted in paragraph 9. Accepted in paragraph 11. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted that respondent managed Mr. Stephen's property. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant; further, the evidence established that Mr. Stephen first met Mr. Diaz when Mr. Stephen purchased the subject property from Mr. Diaz and retained him to manage it. Third sentence accepted in paragraph 10. Fourth sentence rejected as to the money received from Ms. Thompson, but accepted that money was delivered to Mr. Stephen in paragraph 6. Last sentence rejected as not a finding of fact. Accepted that $275 was paid to Ms. Nelson in paragraph 8; however, reject by contrary finding that the $275 payment was partial payment on the $325 security deposit. Reject, for lack of any evidence that improper name registration was computer error. Remainder rejected as not findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esquire Harold Huff, Executive DPR - Division of Real Estate Director 400 West Robinson Street DPR - Division of Real Estate Orlando, Florida 32802 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Reynold Diaz 7908 N. Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, allegedly committed by real estate brokers and brokerages who are licensed in Florida. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Ursoleo was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0090870 through the Division of Real Estate. Respondent Jewell was a corporation registered as a real estate broker, having been issued license number 0258744. Both licenses were issued to the following address: 1154 Estero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, Florida 33931. Respondent Ursoleo was the active broker for Respondent Jewell, and held the office of president within the corporation. On July 10 and 11, 1989, the Respondents' accounting records were reviewed in a random, routine audit conducted by the Division of Real Estate as part of its regulatory functions. During the review, the investigator reported that financial shortages existed in two accounts kept by the corporate broker in a fiduciary capacity. A deficiency of $4,569.81 was allegedly located in the rental escrow account, and a deficiency of $1,218.83, was allegedly located in the Bigelow Shopping Center management account. The Rental Escrow Account The rental escrow account is an account that contains monies held in a fiduciary capacity by the real estate broker on behalf of a number of separate clients who own rental property in Lee County, Florida. Respondent Jewell, through its qualifying broker and corporate officer Respondent Ursoleo, manages these properties for a commission or management fee. As part of the management duties, the Respondents collect rents, maintain the property, and render periodic accountings to the clients regarding the rents collected, property repair and maintenance expenses, and other financial matters involving the properties. Each client has an independent agreement with Respondent Jewell regarding how his property is handled and how his escrow account funds are to be managed. However, the primary purpose of each account is to deduct expenses from the rents deposited prior to disbursing the balance of the rents to the property owners. Mr. James Alexander owns twenty-eight rental units which he co-manages with the Respondents. Between $8,000.00 to $9,000.00 from these properties are deposited into Respondents' rental escrow account each month. Due to a twenty- year business relationship regarding these properties, Mr. Alexander allows the Respondents to use his escrowed funds for whatever personal or business use is desired by the Respondents. Mr. Alexander is aware that some of his escrowed funds have been used for Respondent Ursoleo's personal business, real estate brokerage bills, and to advance other rental property owners the necessary funds for property maintenance and repairs. The only conditions placed upon the Respondents' use of the money for purposes beyond the needs of Mr. Alexander's properties are as follows: 1) Monthly accountings to Mr. Alexander of the amount of money due to him must be correct; and 2) The money used for the other purposes must be replaced in one month's time in order to be available for disbursement to Mr. Alexander. During the time period between June and July 1989, $13,145.26 of Mr. Alexander's funds were in the escrow account and were available for use by the Respondents. Mr. James Hall, an attorney in Indiana, is president of San Carlos Lodge, Inc., the owner of a mobile home park in Lee County, Florida. This park has been managed by the Respondents for thirteen years. Because the lot rents within the park are due at various times, and because some renters pay in advance, the Respondents' rental escrow account always contains funds belonging to San Carlos Lodge, Inc. In June and July 1989, $4,675.53 remained in the rental escrow account on behalf of the corporation after the monthly accountings and rental disbursements were made by the Respondents to Mr. Hall. Pursuant to its escrow agrement, San Carlos, Inc. allowed the Respondents to use the money as Respondent Ursoleo saw fit, without reservation. The only restrictions placed upon the use of the funds were: 1) Monies received on behalf of the corporation must be acknowledged as corporate funds; and 2) Funds removed must be returned to the rental escrow account within a one-month period for disbursement purposes. Between April and July 1989, Frank Helmerich owed the rental escrow account $5,756.28 for advances made from the account in order to manage and maintain his rental properties. All of these funds were not repaid within the one-month period required by the Respondents' clients, Mr. Alexander and San Carlos Lodge, Inc. Some repayment was made with rents collected on behalf of Mr. Helmerich, but the exact amount of timely reimbursement was not presented at hearing. The Respondents' rental escrow account records do not reflect that the funds advanced to Mr. Helmerich for rental property management expenses were removed from the funds earmarked for Mr. Alexander's escrow or San Carlos Lodge, Inc.'s escrow. In addition, the account records do not show that the funds specifically removed from either account were replaced with Respondent's Ursoleo's personal funds in the amount of $5,000.00, or with rental funds received on behalf of Mr. Helmerich. Under the escrow agreement between Mr. Helmerich and the Respondents, rental income could be used to repay any and all rental property expenses. Bigelow Shopping Center Management Account The account maintained by Respondents Jewell and Ursoleo, as agent for Bigelow Shopping Center, is an operating account for the business of managing, renting, maintaining and preserving the shopping center on behalf of its owner, the Huntingburg Corporation. Mr. Olinger, an officer and shareholder of the corporation who is a banker by profession, testified that the "deficiency" in the checking account occurred because two checks from the same shopping center tenant bounced. As the funds were never received by the corporation, they were never escrowed. A review of the mathematical calculations on page 4 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 reveal that the investigator for the Division of Real Estate consistently made the same mathematical errors when she calculated the sum of the funds held in escrow in the Bigelow Shopping Center account. The entries on line 3 and line 13 in the "Total in Escrow" column in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, are negative numbers because the two checks bounced. If the investigator insisted upon adding these two numbers, which totaled $1,444.50, into the "Total in Escrow" column, she should have also subtracted them out because they were negative numbers. Instead of $11,311.50, the total escrow on the front page of the Management Account Inspection relating to the Bigelow Shopping Center bank account for July 11, 1989, should have been $9,867.00. The actual bank balance for the Bigelow Shopping Center reported by the bank to the investigator on July 11, 1989, was $10,886.37. The total of outstanding checks was $793.70. When the outstanding checks are subtracted from the reported bank balance, the difference is $10,092.67. As the escrowed amount of funds was $9,867.00, and the actual bank balance after the deduction of outstanding checks was $10,092.67, there was no deficiency in this account. Mitigation Once the deficiency was located in the rental escrow account maintained by Respondent Jewell, the Respondent Ursoleo immediately transferred $5,000.00 of his personal funds into the account on July 11, 1989. The Respondents have revamped the bookkeeping procedures within the brokerage offices. The individual escrow agreements with Mr. Alexander and San Carlos Lodge, Inc. are no longer used by the Respondents to make short term loans to other clients who also own rental property in Lee County, such as Mr. Helmerich. The Respondents have reviewed the Department's rules relating to the maintenance of escrow accounts, and are prepared to comply with the law in the narrowest, strictest sense. Mr. Alexander and San Carlos Lodge, Inc., did not incur any actual monetary harm as a result of the temporary deficiency of funds in the rental escrow account. The clients were never in fear that the funds would not be returned to them upon demand. The Respondents' accountings to these clients have always been accurate. The Respondents have a long-standing reputation for honesty and reliability in their business dealings that involve financial entrustments. The Respondent Ursoleo has been an active Florida realtor for thirty- seven years. There was no evidence presented of a prior disciplinary history.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is recommended: That Respondent Ursoleo be found guilty of having violated Rule 21V- 14.012, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count IX of the Administrative Complaint. That Respondent Ursoleo be issued a written reprimand and be fined $500.00. That all other charges filed against Respondent Ursoleo in the Administrative Complaint filed October 18, 1989, be dismissed. That Respondent Jewell be found guilty of having violated Rule 21V- 14.012, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count X of the Administrative Complaint. That Respondent Jewell be issued a written reprimand and be fined $500.00. That all other charges filed against Respondent Jewell in the Administrative Complaint filed October 18, 1989, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-6378 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected finding that all of the funds in the rental escrow account were security deposits. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted, except for the date of transfer. See HO #15. Rejected. See HO #13. Reject conclusion. See HO #13 and #14. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Se HO #5 thru HO #9. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Improper argument and improper conclusion. Reject the first sentence. Contrary to the exhibits and Respondent Ursoleo's testimony that a general account existed. Accept the second sentence. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accept Respondent Ursoleo was not aware of a shortage in the rental escrow account. Accept that the money was immediately replaced. See HO #15. Reject that the prior office manager was solely responsible for the deficiency. The proof provided at hearing demonstrated that the book- keeper may have failed to deposit the $862.50. Rejected. Legal argument as opposed to factual finding. Rejected. Legal argument as opposed to factual finding. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Legal argument. All legal arguments were considered in the Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Leslie T. Arenholz, Esquire 19110 San Carlos Boulevard Post Office Box 2656 Fort Myers Beach, Florida 33932 Darlene F. Keller, Executive 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, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Respondent violated the real estate licensing law, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to account and deliver a deposit; failing to maintain a deposit in a real estate brokerage escrow account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized; and/or being guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, and/or breach of trust in a business transaction.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0360741. The last license issued was as a broker, c/o Consolidated American Realty Services, Inc., in Tampa, Florida. From June 6, 1983, through June 25, 1984, Respondent was licensed and operating as a real estate broker under the trade name, "Benjamin Realty," in Tampa, Florida. For sometime prior to June 2, 1984, Eileen Cumbie attempted to sell a lot owned by her located at 1102 26th Avenue, Tampa, Florida. On June 2, 1984, the Respondent contacted Ms. Cumbie and informed her that he had a client interested in purchasing the property. Ms. Cumbie informed the Respondent that as long as she netted a certain amount, she would be willing to sell the property. Ms. Cumbie allowed the Respondent to put together a contract for the sale of the lot. In connection therewith, the Respondent prepared a sales contract with Danilo Castellanos, as purchaser, and Eileen W. Cumbie, as seller, for the purchase and sale of the property. Pursuant to the purchase and sales agreement, the Respondent received in trust from Mr. Castellanos a $500 earnest money deposit via check dated June 2, 1984. On June 5, 1984, the Respondent deposited the check into his real estate brokerage account maintained at the Central Bank of Tampa, 2307 W. Rennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Mr. Castellanos entered into the contract for the benefit of his son and daughter-in-law who resided in New Jersey but were planning to relocate to the Tampa area. Mr. Castellanos' daughter-in-law went to look at the lot on June 10, 1984 and decided that she did not like the area in which it was located. The closing of the transaction was set for June 15, 1984. On approximately June 13, 1984, Mr. Castellanos' daughter- in-law informed the Respondent that they were no longer interested in purchasing the property. Ms. Cumbie was out of town during the time of the scheduled closing, but had prepared and signed all of the paperwork in advance. When she returned after June 15, 1984, she called Respondent to find out how the closing went. The Respondent informed her that the buyers failed to go through with the transaction. The contract provided in part as follows: ". . . If the buyer fails to perform this contract within the time specified herein, time being of the essence of this agreement, the deposit made by the buyer shall be disposed of in the following manner: To the Broker an amount equal to his earned commission, but not to exceed 1/2 of the deposit which shall discharge the sellers obligation to him for that service; remainder to the seller to be credited to him against his damages accrued by reason of the breach of contract. " After the transaction failed to close, Ms. Cumbie requested that Respondent give a portion of the deposit to her. The Respondent told Ms. Cumbie that he would give her the entire deposit because she had paid for the survey and a few other items to facilitate the closing of the transaction. Over the next several months, the Respondent, on several occasions, promised to deliver a check to Ms. Cumbie. However, the Respondent never delivered any such check to Ms. Cumbie. Because the Respondent failed to provide Ms. Cumbie with a share of the earnest money deposit, she initiated a civil action in the County Court of Hillsborough County. On October 15, 1985, Ms. Cumbie was awarded a final judgment in the amount of $250 against Respondent for her share of the forfeited earnest money deposit. As of the date of the final hearing, the Respondent had not satisfied the judgment and Ms. Cumbie had not received any proceeds from the forfeited earnest money deposit. Shortly after the transaction failed to close, the purchasers requested that the Respondent return the earnest money deposit to them. However, the Respondent informed them that they were not entitled to the return of the earnest money deposit. The earnest money deposit was never returned to the purchasers. On July 31, 1984, the balance in Respondent's escrow account was $568.83. However, on September 1, 1984, the balance in the Petitioner's escrow account fell to S18.83. From October 31, 1984 to January 1, 1986, the balance in the Petitioner's escrow account remained $3.83.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the registration of Fortunato Benjamin- Pabon as a real estate broker be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fortunato Benjamin-Pabon 2729 N. Ridgewood Avenue, #1 Tampa, Florida 33602 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues presented herein are whether or not the Respondent, Maria M. Drummond Mulgrave, failed to account and deliver monies received in a trust or escrow bank account monies received as a deposit for realty in a real estate transaction in violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and by reason thereof, Respondent engaged in acts and/or conduct amounting to fraud, is representation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. During times material herein, Respondent, Maria M. Drummond Mulgrave, was a licensed real estate salesperson and has been issued license number 0396817. Respondent's last issued license was as a salesperson and she worked through the entity, Welsh International Realty, Inc., 4684 NW 183 Street, Miami, Florida 33155. Respondent, in her capacity as a salesperson, on January 31, 1984, was the selling agent who executed a purchase, sales contract and receipt for deposit for purchasers Michael A. and Marjorie Bucknor for a residence situated at 240 NW 203 Terrace, Miami, Florida. The seller of that property was Equitable Relocation Management Corporation (Equitable). Equitable executed the sales contraction February 7, 1984. On January 31, 1984, Respondent Mulgrave received in trust a $1,000 earnest money deposit which was held in an escrow account by her broker, Welsh International Realty, Inc. In connection with the January 31, 1984 sales contract, the purchasers were to tender to the Respondent an additional $6,500 deposit within 5 days of acceptance by the seller or, in this case, on February 12, 1984, inasmuch as Equitable approved and executed the sales contract on February 7, 1984. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2) 3/ Petitioner has alleged that the listing agency, Associates Realty Company (Associates), requested from the Respondent on March 11 and March 19, 1984, an escrow letter verifying that the additional escrow deposits had, in fact, been made. It is also alleged that the Respondent verbally assured Associates that the entire deposit of $7,500 was in escrow and that the sale would close, but Respondent did not then provide Associates the promised escrow letter. It is also alleged that Associates relied upon Respondent's statements that the deposit was in escrow and that it was not until approximately April 17, 1984 that Respondent admitted to Associates Realty that only $1,000 was in escrow. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) As stated, Respondent Oswald S. Welsh entered into a stipulated settlement and is no longer a Respondent in these proceedings. Sometime following the execution of the sales/deposit receipt contract by the Bucknors and the sellers, Equitable Relocation Management Corporation, by its agent Claire Smith, Respondent Mulgrave left the Miami area and gave the pending sales contracts to her sponsoring broker, Oswald S. Welsh. Marcia Mize was, during times material herein, the processing supervisor for the listing agency, Associates Realty. Once Ms. Mize began processing the Bucknor contract, she commenced making inquiries from Welsh International Realty, Inc. trying to get the needed verifications of income, etc. to the mortgage company such that the purchasers could be processed and a commitment letter issued. Ms. Mize made several oral requests of Welsh International Realty for verification of the escrow deposits from approximately February 7, 1984 through March 9, 1984. On March 17, 1984, Ms. Mize learned (from Respondent) that Welsh Realty only had $1,000 in escrow. Oswald S. Welsh, the broker for Welsh International Realty, Inc., by letter dated January 31, 1984, advised Associates Realty that Welsh was holding $1,000 in escrow from the Bucknors toward the purchase of the subject property. Marcia Mize was unsure if Respondent Mulgrave advised her that she had the additional $6,500 in deposits. Ms. Mize testified that she spoke with several secretaries employed by Welsh International Realty but she was unable to verify that she determined that it was Respondent Mulgrave who advised that the additional $6,500 deposit was in escrow with Welsh International Realty, Inc. Respondent Mulgrave later determined that the Bucknors were having marital and financial problems and, as a result, were unable to close on the transaction as agreed in the purchase/sales contract. Respondent Mulgrave denies that she, at any time, advised Marcia Mize of Associates Realty that she had the $6,500 which represented the balance of the remainder of the downpayment by the Bucknors in the purchase of the residence from Equitable. Respondent Mulgrave turned this transaction over to her sponsoring broker, Oswald S. Welsh when she had to leave the Miami area to attend to some pending family business. The Bucknors did not give Welsh International Realty, Inc. the remaining $6,500 escrow deposit which represented the remainder of their downpayment toward the purchase of the subject residence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the administrative complaint filed herein against Respondent, Maria M. Drummond Mulgrave, be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1985, 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 18th day of September, 1985.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Respondent, Naomi N. Radcliff, is licensed in Florida as a real estate broker (license No. 0369173) and has been at all times material to the Administrative Complaint. On December 2, 1987, Respondent submitted a Request for License or Change of Status form which sought to cancel the license. Thereafter, the Department reclassified Respondent as an inactive broker. In July, 1986, Randy Mangold and his wife entered into a contract to purchase real property located in Indian River Estates. Naomi Radcliff was the real estate agent who handled the transaction on behalf of the Mangolds. The Mangolds' contract provided for occupancy prior to closing with a security deposit for the rental in the amount of $1500. This amount was paid to Respondent. At closing the $1500 security deposit was to be applied to the buyers' closing costs. The Mangolds rented the home for a year and attempted to obtain financing for the purchase. When their mortgage application was denied, they elected to vacate the property. After they vacated the property, the Mangolds requested the return of the $1500 security deposit. Demands were made on Respondent who refused to return the deposit despite the fact that the Mangolds had fully paid all rents owed and had left the house in good condition. Finally, the Mangolds sued Respondent in the St. Lucie County Court and obtained a judgment for the $1500 security deposit. Respondent has not satisfied the judgment. At one point Respondent did give the Mangolds a check for $500 which was returned due to insufficient funds in the account. In December, 1986, Respondent acted as a rental agent for Walter Zielinski, an out-of-state owner. Mr. Zielinski owned two houses in Port St. Lucie, one of which was located at 941 Fenway. In early December, 1986, Respondent advised Mr. Zielinski that the tenants had left the home at 941 Fenway and that the unit was in fairly good condition. Sometime later in the month, Mr. Zielinski discovered the house was empty but that it had been damaged. There were holes in the wall in the utility room approximately two feet in diameter. The flooring in the utility room and kitchen was ripped up. There was a hole in the wall in the master bedroom. More important to Mr. Zielinski, the house was unsecured because the garage door latch was broken and the house was accessible through the garage. After discovering the unit was at risk for additional damage, Mr. Zielinski attempted to contact Respondent but numerous calls to Respondent, her place of work, and to a former employer proved to be unsuccessful. Finally, Mr. Zielinski obtained another real estate agent to represent the 941 Fenway home. The new agent, Cathy Prince, attempted to obtain from Respondent the keys, the security deposit, and the rent money belonging to Mr. Zielinski. In January, 1987, Mr. Zielinski came to Florida from Illinois to take care of the rental problems. Mr. Zielinski incurred expenses totalling $876.74 to repair the damages to 941 Fenway. Also, Mr. Zielinski wanted to collect the rents owed by Respondent for his other property and have the security deposit for the second property transferred to the new agent. Respondent issued a personal check for the security deposit which was returned for insufficient funds. A second personal check paid to Mr. Zielinski for the rent owed was accepted and cleared. According to Mr. Zielinski, Respondent did not maintain an office where he could find her during the latter part of December, 1986 through January, 1987. In March, 1987, the security deposit for Mr. Zielinski's second rental was paid to the new agent. The check was issued by Respondent's mother. Respondent never personally returned any calls to the new agent. In June, 1986, Alyssa and Jeffrey Maloy entered into a contract to purchase a house. Respondent handled the real estate transaction for the Maloys. The closing was to be December 9 or 10, 1986. Respondent held monies that were required to complete the Maloy closing. Respondent attended the closing but the check tendered to the closing agent, Chelsea Title, was drawn on an trust account which had been closed. The closing agent discovered the problem and requested sufficient funds. Respondent left the closing and returned some hours later with new checks drawn on another account. After checking with the bank, it was again discovered that the funds in the account were insufficient to cover the amount needed for closing. Finally, some days later the Respondent's brother delivered a certified check to cover the amount needed to close the Maloy transaction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order suspending the Respondent's real estate broker's license for a period of five years. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4631 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1-3 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 4, with the exception of the date referenced (November, 1986) the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected a hearsay evidence unsupported by direct evidence of any source. The first sentence of paragraph 6 is accepted. The second sentence calls for speculation based on facts not in the record and is, therefore, rejected. Paragraphs 7-11 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 12, the first four sentences are accepted; with regard to the balance, the Respondent's brother did deliver funds to allow the Maloy transaction to close however the source of the funds is speculation based upon hearsay unsupported by the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Naomi N. Radcliff 1420 Seaway Drive Fort Pierce, Florida 33482
The Issue Whether or not Respondents' registration as real estate brokers should be suspended for an alleged violation of Section 475.25(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On or about the middle of March, 1974, Anne Land, a saleswoman for Respondent real estate brokers, met one Timothy B. Howe who had responded to an advertisement in the newspaper concerning the purchase or lease of a home at 185 West Sunrise Avenue, Coral Gable, Florida. After viewing the premises, Mr. Howe decided to lease the property and his attorney prepared a lease in the total sum of $7,200 for one years rent. This proposal was submitted to the owner of the house, Mrs. Joanne Kealy, but upon the advice of counsel, she declined the proposal. Several days later, Howe decided to purchase the home. He signed a standard sales contract, dated March 26, 1974, which provided for a total purchase price of $72,500.00, payable under the following terms: "The sum of $1,800.00 by check hereby deposited in escrow with Magruder Realty, Inc., as escrow agent, in part payment of the purchase price and as a security deposit for the faithful performance of this contract by Purchaser, and the remainder of the purchase price shall be paid as follows: Upon acceptance of this contract the purchaser to deposit with Magruder Realty, Inc., an additional $5,400.00. Purchaser to assume existing mortgage for approx. $38,816.00 with Coral Gables Federal Svgs and Loan Association and the seller to give to the purchaser a second mortgage for balance of approx. $26,500.00 at 8 1/2 percent for 12 years or less with no pre-paid clause penalty..." The contract was signed by Land as witness and also in behalf of the seller and also as an escrow agent of Magruder Realty, Inc. The document was not acknowledged before a notary public (testimony of Lands Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Land contacted the owner who was out of state at the time and asked her to indicate her acceptance of the offer by telegram. The owner did so on March 29, 1974. The evidence is conflicting as to the circumstances surrounding the disposition of the deposit check for $1,800.00. Land testified that she gave the check to Joseph P. Magruder on March 26 or 27 as was her practice in handling deposits, but said nothing about holding the check. Mr. Magruder, on the other hand, testified that at the time she gave him the check, she said Mr. Howe desired the check be held until the total down payment of $7,200.00 was received from a trust account, and that he therefore put the check in the transaction folder and gave the folder back to her to retain. His statement of the reason for not depositing the check in an escrow account immediately is supported by subsequent events and by the fact that the check was not actually deposited until a subsequent date, which was contrary to his normal office practice (testimony of Land, Magruder, O'Brien; Exhibit 2). Subsequent conversations between Land and Howe during the latter part of March and early April were to the effect that Howe's mother was sending funds for the balance of the down payment. On April 4, Land talked to Howe by telephone and he asked for the escrow account number of Magruder Realty, Inc., in order that his mother could send the additional $5,400.00 and/or $7,200.00. Land asked Respondent O'Brien, who was in the office at the time, for the firm's escrow account number and passed it on to Howe. On the same day, Land went on vacation in North Carolina and did not return to the office until April 15th. At that time, Magruder informed her that the additional funds had not been received from Howe and that although he had tried to reach him on the telephone he had been unsuccessful. Because of the difficulty in reaching Howe as to payment of the balance of the down payment, Magruder deposited the $1,800.00 check in his escrow bank account on April 17, 1974. It was not honored by the Howe's bank because Cristina I. Howe, his wife, had issued a stop payment order on the check on April 15. On March 26, 1974, the date the check was drawn, the Howe bank account was overdrawn by 26 (testimony of Land, Magruder, O'Brien, Garcia; Petitioner's Exhibits 2 & 6; Respondent's Exhibit 1). Although Respondents claimed that the Florida Real Estate Commission had disposed of the instant allegation by its letter of censure dated February 10, 1975, which referenced file CD15240, it was determined by the Hearing Officer that this letter involved other transactions and not the one under consideration at the hearing (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5).
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Richard Shindler has been a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0395044. The last license issued was as a salesman with Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. At all times material hereto, Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., has been a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0223589. At all times material hereto, Mark H. Adler was licensed and operated as the qualifying broker and officer of Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. Adler's license is currently under suspension by agreement with Petitioner as a result of the activities complained of in the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause. At no time has Respondent Shindler been a director or officer of Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. At all times material hereto, Respondent Shindler has been the sales manager for Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. As the sales manager, Respondent Shindler sometimes helped other salesmen structure financing and helped them with other problems. Respondent Shindler was not responsible for the collection of funds from individual salesmen. Each individual salesman was responsible for collecting funds from any real estate transaction and giving those funds to Respondent Global's bookkeeper for deposit. As sales manager, Shindler was a signatory on the escrow account in order to make disbursements for small transactions mainly involving rental properties. In addition, Respondent Shindler was responsible for the hiring and firing of office personnel. However, he had no control over the contracts of other salesmen. On March 13, 1989, Respondent Shindler, as a private purchaser, made two purchase offers for two pieces of property owned by the same sellers. The purchase offers were for $115,000 and $80,000, respectively, and required that Respondent Shindler place $6,000 and $5,000, respectively, into Respondent Global's escrow account as a deposit on the purchase of the properties. Respondent Global and real estate broker Jay Hirsch were to receive commissions on the sale of the properties. Those offers to purchase disclosed in writing that Respondent Shindler was also a licensed real estate salesman. Although both offers to purchase were accepted by the sellers, the transactions involving the purchase of these properties did not close due to Respondent Shindler's inability to obtain financing, which was a contingency of the contracts. In October, 1989, demands for the release of the escrowed monies were made by the sellers and by the sellers' broker Jay Hirsch. They made demand upon Respondent Global's attorney. Additionally, Jay Hirsch made demand on Mark Adler by telephone and then by demand letter to Adler, who, as the qualifying broker for Respondent Global, was responsible for the release of the escrowed funds. Subsequent to the demands made by the sellers and their broker, Respondent Global filed a complaint for interpleader. The escrowed deposits were eventually disbursed pursuant to a settlement among the parties claiming an interest in the escrowed deposits. In March, 1990, Petitioner began an investigation of the Respondents and Adler. Investigators Castro and Rehm both participated in the investigation. Investigator Castro believed Respondent Shindler to be the office manager of Respondent Global. During the initial interview with Respondent Shindler, he produced records which indicated that a deposit of $14,265.69 had been made on January 13, 1989, into Respondent Global's escrow account. This check had been given by Respondent Shindler to Global's bookkeeper for deposit. This deposit represented proceeds from the sale of property owned by Respondent Shindler's brother Paul, and was placed in escrow in anticipation of the offers to purchase made by Respondent Shindler on the two properties involved in this cause. Investigator Rehm examined the escrow account bank records and determined that for a two-month period the escrow account balance had dropped below the minimum $11,000 balance required by the two contracts in question herein alone. Initially, Respondent Shindler advised the investigators that the bank where the escrow account was maintained had represented that it had debited the escrow account as a result of a lien placed on that account by the Internal Revenue Service. Upon further investigation, Respondent Shindler advised the investigators that the bank itself had withdrawn $3,200 from Global's escrow account to cover a shortage in Respondent Global's operating account. At all times material hereto, both Adler and Respondent Shindler were signatories on the escrow account. As part of its investigation, Petitioner served a subpoena on Maria Aguerra, Respondent Global's bookkeeper, requesting from Adler, or Respondent Shindler, or the custodian of records for Respondent Global Real Estate, all contracts, leases, agreements, monthly bank statements, deposit slips, and cancelled checks for all accounts for the period of January 1, 1989, through March 22, 1990. Some of the requested documents were initially unavailable because they had previously been sent to the Florida Real Estate Commission. Although Adler testified that he was initially unaware that a subpoena had been served, he was given a 30-day extension to produce the records when he met with investigators Castro and Rehm on May 1, 1990. Although Adler had both the responsibility for and control over the records of Respondent Global, he was not fully familiar with the records, and the bookkeeping was in disarray. At all times material hereto, Adler, as the broker for Respondent Global, was responsible for operating the Global office, for overseeing Global's escrow account, for reviewing contracts, and for being aware of the day-to-day events in the Global office. In addition, as the broker, Adler was required to be an officer of the corporation, to be a signatory on the escrow account, to have prepared and to sign the monthly escrow account reconciliations, and to respond to Petitioner if there were complaints or requests for production of documents. Adler, as the broker for Respondent Global, did not reconcile and sign escrow account statements on a monthly basis since he was not aware of the requirement that he do so. However, Adler did testify that he was aware of his responsibility for escrowed funds. At no time did Respondent Shindler have the responsibility to maintain Global's escrow account or to reconcile the escrow account on a monthly basis. At no time did Respondent Shindler represent that he was the broker for Respondent Global or that he was a broker. Respondent Shindler did not state to investigator Rehm that he was acting as the broker for Global or that Adler had simply lent Adler's license to Shindler to use. At no time did Adler and Respondent Shindler enter into an agreement whereby Shindler would act as the broker for Global using Adler's broker's license, and Adler was never paid any monies for any use of his broker's license. Adler testified that his involvement with Global's business had declined as he had pursued his growing interest in performing appraisals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered: Dismissing Counts II, III, VII, VIII, and IX of the Administrative Complaint filed herein; Finding Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., guilty of the allegations contained in Count V of the Administrative Complaint; and Ordering Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., to pay a fine in the amount of $500 by a date certain. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of March, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 20th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4522 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-5, 7-9, 11-12c, 13, 14, and 16 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 15, and 17 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 12d has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-22 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The transcript of proceedings, together with Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 3, 5, and 8-14 and Respondents' Exhibit numbered 1 which were admitted in evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate - Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Suite 400 - One Datran Center Miami, Florida 33156 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondents' Florida licenses as real estate broker, salesperson and brokerage corporation, respectively, should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation of the real estate profession and the licensing of real estate professionals. Respondents Frank E. Smith, Elaine M Smith, and Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc., were licensed real estate professionals, a broker, a sales person, and a brokerage corporation respectively. Respondent Frank E. Smith was the qualifying broker for Respondent, Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc.. On or about July 23, 1991, the Respondents and Carolyn Chaple entered into a management agreement whereby Respondent agreed to rent and manage Ms. Chaple's residence located in Tampa. The terms of the management agreement signed by Ms. Chaple and Ms. Smith called for the company to render a monthly statement of receipts, charges and disbursements, and to remit the net proceeds each month to Ms. Chaple whose address was listed in the agreement as P.O. Box 12003, Brooksville, Florida 34601. For performing this service, Respondents were to receive a commission of 8% of the monthly gross receipts. The agreement also called for the Respondents to: ... hire, discharge and pay all engineers, janitors and other employees; to make or cause to be made all ordinary repairs and replacements necessary to preserve the premises in its present condition and for the operating efficiency thereof and all alterations required to comply with lease requirements, and to do decorating on the premises; to negotiate contracts for nonrecurring items not exceeding $100.00 and to enter into agreements for all necessary repairs, maintenance, minor alterations and utility services; and to purchase supplies and pay all bills. An amendment to the agreement, initialed by Ms. Chaple only, made the provision subject to a lease agreement purportedly attached but which was not offered into evidence. Ms. Chaple contends that lease provided she would be responsible only for those repairs costing in excess of $250.00 and which she had approved. This added provision was not, however, initialed by Respondents and, therefore, never became a binding part of the management agreement, regardless of what Ms. Chaple intended. Ms. Smith asserts that if Ms. Chaple had insisted on that change, she would not have entered into the agreement. It is found, therefore, that there was no agreement limiting Ms. Chaple's liability for repairs. Pursuant to the management agreement, Respondents solicited and obtained tenants for Ms. Chaple's property. Respondent admittedly did not send a copy of the first lease to Ms. Chaple, but the tenancy was short lived and terminated when the tenant moved out owing rent. Ms. Chaple claims the Respondents did not advise her of this situation. Instead, she claims, she heard of it from neighbors. However, on December 30, 1991, Respondents obtained another lessee for the property at a rental of $600.00 per month for 12 months. Respondents' fee was %8 of that ($48.00) resulting in a net monthly rental to Ms. Chaple, exclusive of repair expenses if any, of $552.00 per month. Ms. Chaple claims that though she repeatedly asked for a copy of the management agreement she had signed, she never got one. When she began to ask for accountings, she says she got some but not all. By the same token, she claims she did not get all the receipts relating to the repair work done on her property. Between December 4, 1991 and August 16, 1992, Ms. Chaple wrote several detailed letters to the Respondents requesting information on the status of the first tenancy and efforts being made to receive compensation, and detailed explanations for expenditures made and charged to her on the account statements that were sent. She also complained of the lateness of the statements, of the Respondents' notice of intended termination of the agreement, and an explanation of large expense charged almost every month. Respondents claim they furnished Ms. Chaple a copy of the management agreement on at least 3 separate occasions by mailing a copy to her Brooksville address, that address listed for her in the agreement. Ms. Chaple, however, was living in Houston, Texas during all this period and requested the use of the Brooksville address, apparently her father's post office box. Respondents also claim they sent Ms. Chaple a monthly statement of account along with her net rent check each month. Every check sent was cashed by Ms. Chaple indicating she received them. There is no explanation as to why she did not also receive the account statements. In light of Ms. Chaple's moves, and the use of an intermediary to transmit mail, it cannot be said Respondents did not send the agreements. This is not to say Ms. Chaple did receive them all, merely that the Respondents dispatched them to her. Ms. Chaple also claimed she never got a copy of a lease from the Respondents. Respondent, Elaine Smith, admits this indicating she did not send copies of leases to owners as a matter of practice. It is noted that Ms. Chaple repeatedly requested itemized explanations for the major expenditures deducted from the rent each month and characterized on the account statement solely as "maintenance." The management agreement obliging the owner to pay for such expenditures as a deduction from rent is silent on the need on the Respondents to explain such deductions. The agreement obliges the agent to "render a monthly statement of receipts, disbursements and charges and to remit each month the net proceeds to the [owner]." While it may be true the monthly statement of accounting showing "maintenance" might be acceptable evidence to the Internal Revenue Service, when, as here, such expenses are relatively large and frequent, it is not at all unusual or unreasonable for the owner to request and expect to receive an explanation of those deductions. To be sure, Respondents did send some receipts as requested, but it is clear they did not do so in all cases. Clearly the mere use of the word, "maintenance" does not constitute a sufficient showing of "disbursements" or "charges" as are called for in the agreement. This is so especially in light of the fact Respondents also operated a maintenance company through which they contracted for almost all maintenance and repair work except air conditioning. The charge to the owners was cost plus 10%. Ms. Chaple ultimately filed a complaint with the Division which, on March 18, 1992, sent its investigator, J.L. Graham, to the Respondents' office. As a part of her investigations, Ms. Graham did an audit of the Respondents' escrow accounts maintained at the Sun Bank in Tampa. She discovered that Respondents maintained a security escrow account which had a shortage of $5,780.00 and a rental escrow account which had a shortage of $4,261.31. Respondents admit a shortage had existed ever since the business was purchased in 1986 and claim that due to the shrinking inventory of properties they managed, the need to pay $500.00 a month on the purchase price, and $1,300.00 a month on obligated rent, they did not have sufficient income from operations to reimburse the accounts the amount of the shortages. There is no evidence that Respondents misappropriated any of the funds represented by the shortages and it is accepted they did not cause or increase either shortage. However, it is equally true they did nothing to eradicate or reduce either, routinely drawing their lawful commissions which were placed in the company's operating account and used to pay routine expenses. In any event, within 2 days of Ms. Graham's inspection, Respondents borrowed the money to reimburse the escrow accounts for the amount of the shortages in full. Ms. Graham also found that Respondents failed to prepare and sign written monthly reconciliations of the escrow accounts and had no supporting documentation for the accounts other than the check register, leases and the management agreements. Respondents' books were primarily kept in a computer and the information in support of the escrow accounts was not being kept in a manner readily accessible to the Division's representatives. Mr. Smith admits he did not do the required reconciliations, claiming that between the computer records and the bank statements, he knew what was going on. This is insufficient to satisfy the Division's requirements. Mr. Smith contends that immediately after the audit, he began doing the required reconciliations and would be willing to furnish them to the Division on a repeated basis if necessary. Respondents also failed to prepare and furnish to the tenants of clients' properties the required disclosure of agency relationship, notifying the tenants in writing that they, Respondents, represented the respective landlords, not them. Respondents asserted they made it clear to each tenant that they did not own the units being rented, but this does not meet the rule or statutory requirement. Review of the corporation records also revealed that Mrs. Smith, a licensed salesperson, was listed as an officer of the brokerage corporation. Respondents admit this but claim they did not know it was improper and that their accountant failed to so advise them. Gennie Amick has known and been friends with Respondents for more than 7 years. She has used their services in the past as managers of property she then owned and both her son and her daughter do so at the present time. They have had absolutely no complaints about the Respondents' management. Ms. Amick knows Mrs. Smith very well and considers her to be a very honorable person. Respondent's integrity has never been questioned, to the best of Amick's knowledge, and she goes out of her way to help her clients, doing more than her contract requires of her. Mr. Smith is also an honorable person. Because of Ms. Amick's trust in the Respondents, she loaned them $6,000.00 when she learned of their difficulties with the Division and this loan was repaid when Respondents thereafter mortgaged their home. Respondents have owned Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc. since they bought it in 1986, paying $20,000.00 for the business. They put $1,500.00 down and agreed to pay the balance off at $500.00 per month. They also agreed with the seller to rent his office for $1,300.00 per month. It was these commitments, and the shrinking of the client list, which prevented them from making up the shortages in the escrow accounts. Mr. Smith has been in the real estate business, both in Florida and elsewhere, since 1967. He has been licensed as a broker since 1988 and he and his wife have operated Sunshine, which does not handle sales, only property management, since 1986. It is their livelihood. He became the qualifying broker for the firm in 1988. Neither he nor Mrs. Smith has been the subject of a complaint before now. At no time did either Respondent intend to break any rules or to unlawfully profit by their improper actions. They claim any infractions are as a result of ignorance rather than design and so it would appear. Their relationship with Ms. Chaple was less than an acceptable business relationship, yet Ms. Chaple did not make a good witness. It appeared she had her own agenda to follow and her memory of facts seemed selective. She appears to be difficult to deal with and it is reasonable to believe that much of the difficulty she had with the Respondents was as a result of her own attitude and approach.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered placing all Respondents' licenses on probation for a period of 1 year under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Division and imposing an administrative file of $500.00 upon each Respondent Smith for a total fine of $1,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 18th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3898 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the word, solicited. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein, Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein 5. Accepted to the extent that the evidence shows the agree-ment and accountings were sent to the best evidence available to the Respondents. 6. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law, 7. & 8. More a comment on the state of the evidence, than a Finding of Fact. 9. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. - 14. Accepted. Rejected as implying the disclosures made satisfied the rule requirements. Accepted. & 18. Accepted as to what Respondent's did and that no harm to the public or any client resulted, but rejected to the extent public benefit is asserted. 19. & 20. Accepted but relevant only to the quantum of punishment to be imposed. 21. - 23. Accepted. 24. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire DPR, Division of Real Estate Hurston Building - N308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Sheldon L. Wind, Esquire 110 E. Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33504 Jack McRay General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated January 19, 1989; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing stipulation filed by the parties, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and disciplining real estate licensees. The Respondent, Charles P. Grimes, is, and has been at all times material to the allegations of the administrative complaint, licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, license number 0034301. In November, 1980, a contract for sale and purchase of real estate was drafted between Dorothy Langham Scott, seller, and Phillip Crawford, buyer. The contract, which was subsequently executed by both parties, provided that a deposit in the amount of $18,500 was to be held in escrow by Respondent. A separate brokerage agreement between Respondent and the seller, executed November 30, 1980, provided that Respondent would receive a brokerage fee of ten percent of the total gross sales price. The brokerage agreement specified that "should the buyer default and not close the transaction in accordance with the Contract, the Broker shall not be entitled to any commission." The agreement further provided that Respondent would "use reasonable diligence and his best efforts to see that the transaction is closed in accordance with the executed Contract." The contract described in paragraph 3 did not close. Subsequently, the seller sued Respondent in the Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, Case no. 82-1974 CA (L) 01 B. On August 13, 1985, an amended final judgment was entered which provided, in part: The facts adduced at trial indicate that Crawford and Scott entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of certain real property, located in Putnam County and that for no apparent reason Crawford defaulted on the contract. The evidence is clear and convincing and unrefuted. Crawford has admitted several letters which he says were communicated to the attorney for Scott. However, the substantial weight of the evidence will not support his repudiation of the contract. Accordingly, it is clear that as between Scott and Grimes, the real estate agent who was allegedly holding the deposit under the provisions of the deposit receipt contract, Scott is entitled to a judgment for $18,500.00, plus its costs and attorney's fees. John L. Burns, an attorney who represented the seller, Scott, during the contract negotiations in November, 1980- January, 1981, received a letter from Respondent on December 12, 1980. That letter, dated December 5, 1980, provided: "I have enclosed the signed contract and have received the deposit check from Dr. Crawford." On or about January 29, 1981, Mr. Burns received a letter from Respondent which indicated that the contract would close in March, 1981. Respondent did not advise the seller that the deposit on the Crawford/Scott contract was not in escrow. Respondent erroneously assumed that a deposit from the buyer (which had been deposited on another contract for sale and purchase) could be applied to the contract. That deposit, in the amount of $20,000.00, was not transferred and was not used to satisfy the amended judgment entered in Scott's favor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00, suspending his license for a period of 60 days, and placing the Respondent on probation for a period of two years. It is recommended that the Respondent be found not guilty of the other alleged violations. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 89-2517 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 5, it is accepted that on or about November 30, 1980, Respondent was attempting to procure the contract described; however, the exact date the parties executed the contract is not known. The contract was ultimately executed by both parties but did not close. Consequently, the proposed fact, as written, is not supported by the record. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 8, it is accepted that the contract did not close and that a court of competent jurisdiction determined that the deposit should be awarded the seller; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as outside the scope of this record. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 12 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Glenn M. Blake Blake & Torres, P.A. 200 South Indian River Drive Suite 101 Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
