The Issue Whether the Petitioner meets the qualifications for licensure pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 2, 1987, in Pinellas County, Florida, the Petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea to a charge of exposure of sexual organs, a violation of Section 800.03, Florida Statutes. On or about August 17, 1987, the Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. In response to a question involving prior criminal violations, the Petitioner informed the Respondent of the past violation and his nolo contendere plea. On January 5, 1988, through its legal advisor, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that his application for a real estate license was denied because of the nolo contendere plea to the indecent exposure charge. The Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing. During the administrative hearing, the Petitioner testified that on the date of the alleged criminal violation, he stopped on his way to shopping mall to relieve himself in a public restroom located in Freedom Lake Park. While in the restroom, he was approached by a man who strongly implied he wanted to see the Petitioner's sexual organs. At first, the Petitioner did not respond to the request. He then told the man "no" and went to use the urinal. The other man identified himself as a police officer and placed the Petitioner under arrest for exposure of sexual organs. Once charged with the offense, the Petitioner had to decide whether to contest the charge by requesting a trial or to enter into a plea bargain agreement. The Petitioner was a high school guidance counselor at the time of the arrest. Because of his employment, he was concerned about the notoriety a trial involving sexual misconduct would bring and its damage to his career. He was also concerned about the effects of a trial upon him and his family. The terms of the plea agreement were that if he were to enter a nolo contendere plea, adjudication of guilt would be withheld by the court. He would be fined $150.00, required to seek counseling, and be placed on six months of supervised probation. Upon advice of counsel, the Petitioner chose to enter the plea, and accept the plea bargain agreement.
Findings Of Fact Prior to the hearing, counsel for the parties orally stipulated that the allegations set forth in the administrative complaint filed against the Respondent on October 1, 1980, were true and correct. The purpose of the hearing was to present testimony explaining the circumstances surrounding the Respondent's guilty plea to one count of income tax evasion and attesting to the good character and reputation of the Respondent within the South Florida community where he and his family presently reside. In 1975, the Respondent was part owner and treasurer of Blanchard Associates, a small company located in Portland, Maine, which dealt in fire apparatus and supplies. In the spring of 1975, the company was audited by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and a number of discrepancies were found during the course of a continuing three year audit. One of the discrepancies involved the failure to report as income the sale of two used fire trucks worth approximately $4,700.00 each. The audit resulted in an eight count information being filed on January 17, 1979, in the Southern District of Maine charging both the Respondent and his partner, Shirley T. Hamel, with two counts and the Corporation, Blanchard Associates, with four counts of income tax evasion. On January 19, 1979, the Respondent pled guilty to one count of income tax evasion for the year 1973 and was placed on probation for two years and ordered to pay a fine of $5,000.00 and any interest and penalties found to be due. Additionally, a 30-day jail sentence was imposed. The Respondent voluntarily advised the Florida Real Estate Commission and his broker of his conviction, which action resulted in the filing of the administrative complaint. No administrative complaint or criminal indictment or information has been filed against the Respondent regarding any misconduct occurring as a real estate salesman. The Respondent enjoys an excellent reputation in the Ft. Myers area and has been a successful salesman since moving to Florida in January, 1977. While residing in Portland, the Respondent was involved in numerous civic activities including serving on the South Portland School Board, the Portland City Council and the Maine School District Commission.
Findings Of Fact Notice of this proceeding was provided Compton by registered mail return receipt requested at the last address provided the Florida Real Estate Commission by Compton and also at the forwarding address obtained by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Compton was arrested for failure to appear in court to answer a traffic citation, in the City of Hollywood, Florida. Compton was also arrested for possession of cannabis and found to be not guilty in the City Court of Pompano Beach. Compton was also named in an information charging him with burglary in California. He was placed on 5 years probation and proceedings were suspended by the Superior Court, Los Angelos County, California. These records were provided the Florida Real Estate Commission from the clerks of the courts named above. Investigator Freeman testified that because of Compton's vigorous denials, a second check of Compton's arrest records based upon fingerprint identification was made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which confirmed by fingerprint comparison that the records of arrests were those of the individual who applied for registration to the Florida Real Estate Commission as Ray F. Compton. Ray F. Compton concealed on his application for registration the fact that he had been arrested in Florida for failure to appear in Court, possession of cannabis and in California for burglary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the registration of Ray F. Compton be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Ray F. Compton 9134 Boyer Lane Mentor, Ohio 44060
The Issue Whether Petitioner has demonstrated that he is honest, truthful, trustworthy, of good character and has a good reputation for fair dealing as required by Section 475.17(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, a consideration of the post-hearing memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. On February 13, 1982, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Commission. Petitioner, prior to moving to Florida, was employed as a deputy sheriff for the Los Angeles County (California) Sheriff's Department for approximately seven (7) years. He was honorably discharged from the Sheriff's Department. By letter dated April 27, 1982, the Commission denied Petitioner's application, stating therein that the specific reasons for its (the Commission's) actions were based on his answer to question number six (6) of the licensing application. The application form for licensure as a real estate salesman includes a question number six (.6), which inquires: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any munici- pality, state or nation, including traffic offenses . . . without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? The Petitioner responded "yes" to the inquiry. The question goes on to request: "If yes, state details, including the outcome in full." In response to this inquiry, Petitioner submitted the following: "Possession of a counterfeit substance, not found guilty, terms of probation, expunged record." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, a certified copy of judgment and sentence, shows that Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the charge of sale of counterfeit controlled substance, Section 817.563, Florida Statutes, and on February 12, 1982, was sentenced to five (5) years of probation with the Florida Department of Corrections. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. Petitioner is presently serving the five (5) years of probation. (Tr. pp. 15-16) Petitioner acknowledges that the court informed him as to the charges against him in open court. (Tr. p. 26) Petitioner claims that he pled no contest to possession of a counterfeit controlled substance. Finally, Petitioner admitted that the arrest record for sale of a counterfeit controlled substance was not expunged. (Tr. p. 22) Petitioner has appealed the order of court on constitutional grounds and stated his belief that expungement will be granted upon satisfactory completion of his probationary term. At present however, his record relative to that charge has not been expunged.
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 denying Dwayne Lee Hill's application for a real estate license pursuant to Subsection 475.17(1), Florida Statutes. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of October, 1982, 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 19th day of October, 1982.
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, William J. Windsor, should have his real estate license no. 0158593 revoked or suspended, or otherwise subject to discipline, for the answers given to question six in the application of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, for registration as a real estate salesman filed with the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, which answer allegedly caused the Respondent, William J. Windsor, to obtain his registration by means of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment, in violation of 475.25(2), F.S.; and further for allegedly failing to fully and accurately answer inquires pertinent to his qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, good character and good reputation for fair dealing as propounded, and is required by 475.17 and 475.18, F.S. and would therefore be guilty of violations of 475.25(1)(d), F.S. Whether or not the Respondent, William J. Windsor, should have his real estate license no. 0158593 revoked or suspended, or otherwise subject to discipline, for the answers given to question 15(a) in the application of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, for registration as a real estate salesman filed with the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, which answer allegedly caused the Respondent, William J. Windsor, to obtain his registration by means of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment, in violation of 475.25(2), F.S.; and further for allegedly failing to fully and accurately answer inquires pertinent to his qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, good character and good reputation for fair dealing as propounded, and is required by and 475.18, F.S. and would therefore be guilty of violations of 475.25(1)(d) , F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, William J. Windsor, is now and at all times material to the complaint was a registered real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission and is and was so operating and registered in the employ of Watson Corporation of Jacksonville, 6206 Atlantic Boulevard, Jacksonville Florida. The application of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, for registration as a real estate salesman was subscribed and sworn to on January 14, 1976, and filed with the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 15, 1976. The Florida Real Estate Commission approved the application for William J. Windsor to become a real estate salesman on February 3, 1976. The application for registration as a real estate salesman contained within it a question no. 6 which provides as follows: "6. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation, including traffic offences (but not parking, speeding, inspection or signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled?" The Respondent, William J. Windsor, answered this question no.6 in the negative by placing the word "no" in the space provided. At the time of the execution of this application, the Respondent, William J. Windsor, knew or should have known that his answer to question six was false and untrue since he had failed to disclose and explain certain charges and arrests. The first matter was an arrest on September 11, 1973, by the Sheriff's office of St. Johns County, Florida under dockets no. 73-626, 73-626A and 73- 626B, three charges of the offense of "issuing a worthless check". The Respondent, William J. Windsor, also failed to reveal an arrest of October l8, 1973, by the Sheriff's office, St. Johns County, Florida, case no. 121992, on a charge of "contempt of court". The Respondent, William J. Windsor, did not reveal an arrest on October 19, 1973, by the Sheriff's Office, Polk County, Florida, on charges of "embezzlement-misapplication of funds, making false reports and furnishing false statements". The Respondent, William J. Windsor, failed to reveal in his answer to question six, that an order was entered which withheld the adjudication of guilt and placed the Respondent, William J. Windsor, on probation for a period of five (5) years', and an order of restitution after he had entered a plea of nolle contendre to the offense of misapplication of funds (five counts), case no. CF-73-2357, Circuit Court, Florida, May 1, 1974, in the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County. This plea was entered as an agent, officer, an employee of Mar-Bil Enterprises, Inc. The probation that was received was modified by orders of the committing court and a copy of those orders, whose contents are admitted as fact, may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits #1 & #2. In the subject application for registration as a real estate salesman, William J. Windsor, the Respondent, answered a question no. 15(a) which question provided as follows: "15(a). Has any license, registration, or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation or vocation been revoked, annulled or suspended in this or any other state, province, district, territory, procession or nation, upon grounds of fraudulent or dishonest dealing or violations of law, or is any proceeding now pending?" The Respondent, William J. Windsor, answered this question 15(a) with the word "no", inserted in the place provided for response. At the time the Respondent, William J. Windsor, gave the answer to question 15(a), he knew or should have known that the answer was false and untrue since he had failed to reveal, disclose and fully explain the revocation of his contractor's license (RG- 00l2898) on January 8, 1975, by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Respondent-licensee, William J. Windsor, having pled guilty to eleven (11) charges of violation of 468.112, F.S., at a formal hearing held on December 20, 1974, Hillsborough County Courthouse, Tampa, Florida. A copy of the notice of revocation of the Respondents license held with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, is Petitioner's Exhibit #3, admitted into evidence and accepted as fact. The date of this letter of notification is January 29, 1975. The Respondent, William J. Windsor, tried to explain his failure to answer questions 6 and 15(a) above, by stating that he had made numerous inquires of the Florida Real Estate Commission about the possibility of being granted a real estate salesman's license in view of his plea of nolle contendre and probation for the aforementioned offenses. The summary of the contact with the Florida Real Estate Commission, put concisely, would be that the Real Estate Commission did not foreclose the possibility of the Respondent being granted a real estate salesman's license; however, no one in the Florida Real Estate Commission office indicated that the Respondent would not be required to answer questions 6 and 15(a) completely. Respondent's Exhibit #1 is a copy of a letter of May 30, 1975, from the probation officer of the Respondent, addressed to the Florida Real Estate Commission This letter concerns the possibility of Respondent, William J. Windsor, obtaining a real estate salesman's license, and is a part of the contact which the Respondent had with the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation It is recommended that the registration of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, as a real estate salesman, license no. 0158593, be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William J. Windsor c/o Warson Corporation of Jacksonville 6206 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida Joseph C. Black, Esquire 1106 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact While in Puerto Rico, in 1971, the Respondent was charged with violation of Article 29, Drug and Narcotics Law, which charges were brought in the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, Court of Aguadilla. These case numbers were information numbers, G-71-54 and G-71-55. These charges were made on March 9, 1971 for alleged offenses which were committed on February 16, 1971. The information which shows these case numbers can be found in Petitioner's Exhibit "D", admitted into evidence. On March 10, 1971, the Respondent was found guilty of the offenses charged in cases G-71-54 and G-71-55. The record shows that in case no. G-71-54, the Respondent was convicted by a judgement entered on March 10, 1971. On April 14, 1971, in case number G-71-54 and case number G-71-55 the Superior Court, of Puerto Rico, Court of Aguadilla, sentenced the Respondent to a term of five to eight years in prison by confinement at hard labor, which sentences were suspended. By such suspension, the Respondent was committed to the legal custody of the court until the expiration of the maximum term of the sentence under certain general conditions for the Respondent's conduct, and was given a special condition that he contact the Florida Parole and Probation Commission, District Office, at Room 180, Courthouse, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The judgement in case number G-71-54 and the conditions of sentence may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit "F", admitted into evidence. The judgement in case number G-71-55 may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit "E" admitted into evidence. On September 16, 1973, the Respondent completed an application for registration as a real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission, which application was completed under oath. Within that application for registration is found a question number "9". This question reads as follows: "9. Have you ever been arrested for or charged with the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses, without regard to whether sentence has been passed or served, or whether the verdict or judgement has been reversed or set aside or not, or pardon or parole granted?" to which the Respondent replied, "yes". Question nine further stated, "if yes state details in full", to which the Respondent replied, "(see attached statement)". The attachment spoken of is found in the Petitioner's Exhibit "C", and this attachment sets forth the Respondent's explanation of his answer to the initial part of question nine. Subsequent to the completion of the form the Respondent was registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman, from February 21, 1974 through March 31, 1975. From May 8, 1975, up to, and including March 31, 1975, the Respondent has been accepted as a registrant, non-active real estate salesman.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent be released from accountability under the charge found in the subject administrative complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Charles Lawrence Ross 3789 Southwest 41st Street Hollywood, Florida 33023
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the state of Florida, in particular Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. 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 0223671 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker, t/a Sunshine Express Realty, 300 S. Pine Road 262, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324. On or about November 22, 1983, an information was filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, charging Respondent with one count of insurance fraud by false or fraudulent claim in violation of Section 817.234, Florida Statutes; and two counts of grand theft in the first degree, in violation of Sections 812.014(1)(a), 812.014(1)(b), and 812.014(2)(a), Florida Statutes. On March 27, 1985, a verdict was rendered which found Respondent guilty of one count of insurance fraud by false or fraudulent claim, and two counts of grand theft in the first degree. The Court adjudged Respondent guilty of one count of insurance fraud by false or fraudulent claim in violation of Section 817.234, Florida Statutes, and two counts of grand theft in the first degree in violation of Section 812.014(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Court thereupon sentenced Respondent to a prison term of eighteen months in state prison to be followed by a term of five years of probation. The Respondent does not appear to be possessed of the mental skills necessary to be the master-mind behind a complex fraud scheme, nor has he demonstrated a tendency to be devious, shrewd, calculating, or cunning. To the contrary, the Respondent appears to be gullible and vulnerable to being taken advantage of, which tendencies may account for the circumstances which led to his conviction. The Respondent enjoys an excellent reputation in spite of his criminal convictions and probably would not be a danger to the real estate community if he were allowed to keep his license. The quality of the Respondent's reputation is reflected by the fact that in spite of his convictions, he is currently employed in another broker's real estate company and holds the positions of vice president and head of the commercial department. With the exception of the incident which led to his convictions, the Respondent appears to have demonstrated a high degree of honesty and integrity in his personal and business dealings. The Respondent has excellent teaching skills in the field of real estate and is probably one of the better technicians in the field of real estate.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's plea of guilty to the crime of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute is to a crime that involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing, as required by Section 475.25(f), Florida Statutes, before the Commission may lawfully deny his licensing application. Whether Petitioner is now deemed qualified to hold a real estate licence because of the lapse of time since his conviction and his subsequent good conduct and reputation, pursuant to Section 475.17(1)(a), Florida Statutes Whether the Florida Real Estate Commission violated Section 120.59(1), Florida Statutes and Rule 28-5.405, Florida Administrative Code, in not approving or denying Petitioner's application within 90 days.
Findings Of Fact By application dated July 26, 1988, Petitioner applied to Respondent for a Florida real estate salesman's license. Petitioner disclosed on the application, in response to question six, that he had been convicted of the crime of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in March, 1986. A subsequent criminal records check revealed that Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the felony charge of possession with intent to distribute approximately seven ounces of cocaine, a controlled substance, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida-Orlando on March 24, 1986. He was sentenced to three (3) years imprisonment to be followed by a special parole term of three (3) years. Petitioner served twelve (12) months imprisonment and on April 6, 1987, he was released on parole. He is presently serving the remainder of his imprisonment on parole which is scheduled to be completed on April 4, 1989. This is to be followed by the three year special parole under the supervision of the United States Probation and Parole Office. Petitioner has not been arrested for any other crime or violated any other condition of his release during the period of his parole. Petitioner testified that he recognized that his involvement in the drug business was a "big mistake" and that his arrest, conviction and imprisonment has convinced him that he will not be involved in this type of activity again. Petitioner's two character witnesses both testified that they knew him before and after his arrest and conviction. They knew him to be an excellent salesman, hard worker and trustworthy. They believed Petitioner would be an asset to the real estate profession. Petitioner's application for a Florida real estate salesman's license was filed with the Commission on July 27, 1988. The letter rejecting his application was dated October 31, 1988, which was more than 90 days after the filing of Petition's application. The only other indication of action by the Commission on Petitioner's application, within 90 days of filing, was a hand written entry on Petitioner's finger print card which stated: "Denied 10/19/88." (Respondent's Ex 1) There is no indication in the record that this notation was authorized agency action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving Petitioner's application for a real estate salesman's license and permitting him to sit for the real estate examination as provided for in Section 475.175, Florida Statutes (1987). DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: MANUEL E. OLIVER Assistant Attorney General Florida Department of legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 HOWARD MARKS, ESQUIRE 369 North New York Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32790 DARLENE F. KELLER Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 KENNETH E. EASLEY General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner here, Kenneth G. Bray, on May 31, 1983, filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman in Florida with the Florida Real Estate Commission on its application form, which was received by the Commission on June 9, 1983. Received that same date was the addendum to the real estate salesman's application, signed by Petitioner, which, according to the form itself, is to be answered instead of Question 6 on the basic application form. Petitioner answered Question 6 on both forms. Question 6 on the basic application form states: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation includ- ing traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? If yes, state details including the outcome in full. In answer to that question, Petitioner replied: D.W.I. Daytona Beach (Fined) 1982 1968 N.Y. Drugs, poss. larceny & sale (turned over to military) On the addendum filed the same date, the question asked is somewhat different, reading: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? To this question, Petitioner answered with the same information as contained in the answer to Question 6 on the basic application form. A printout of Petitioner's Florida arrest record by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement dated June 29, 1983, reflects that Petitioner was arrested by officers of the Daytona Beach Police Department on November 28, 1982, for: Driving under the influence of liquor Possession of under 20 grams of marijuana Resisting an arresting officer without violence. Petitioner indicates all three offenses were part of the same incident and arrest, that he was fined for the offense of driving under the influence of liquor, and that the remaining two charges were dropped. Respondent offered no evidence to rebut this contention, and it is, therefore, found as fact that Petitioner was not convicted of either the marijuana offense or of resisting arrest. Petitioner admits these latter two allegations were not listed on either form at Question 6 because they were all a part of the same arrest and he was not convicted of either. Further, these two omitted offenses were less serious than those he did list, such as the 1960 drug offense when he was a 21- year-old military member and the DUI. At the time the applications were submitted, he was under some problem to get them in because of an impending test date, and he omitted those two offenses. Thereafter, he telephonically contacted a representative of Respondent Real Estate Commission in Orlando, a lady named Ruth (Clayton), to whom he explained his omissions. According to Petitioner, she told him to write a letter to the Commission outlining the offenses he omitted, and he contends he did so. He does not have a copy of his letter, however, nor was a copy offered by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the above, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, if otherwise qualified, be issued a license as a real estate salesman in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 3rd day of February, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph Armstead, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Kenneth G. Bray 2617 South Atlantic Avenue Daytona Beach Shores, Florida 32018
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that Richard E. Ebner was registered as a real estate salesman on March 8, 1974 and has been so registered since that date having been issued license No. 0126254, that said license was applied for by Ebner, who prepared the application, which was jointly stipulated to be received into evidence as Exhibit 1. The parties further stipulated to the fact that Exhibit 1 contains question 9, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint in paragraph 2, and question 19, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint in paragraph 6, and that Ebner had answered question 9, "Yes. . . Midsdemeanor - Marijuana possession 1971," and question 19, "No." The parties further stipulated to the admission into evidence of Exhibit 2, Court Records of Arrest dated September 25, 1970; Exhibit 3, Court Records of Information dated September 29, 1970; and Exhibit 6, Court Records, Order of Incompetency. It was stipulated that an Order of Nolle Prosequi had been entered regarding the charges upon which the arrest, Exhibit 3, were based. The Commission offered Exhibit 4, a letter of Sheriff Collier dated January 12, 1974; and Exhibit 5, a judgment in Case No. 676 dated August 17, 1971, which were received into evidence. Thereafter on the basis of the stipulation and admission of Exhibits 5 and 6, the Commission rested its case. The Respondent then moved for dismissal of the charges because the charges were insufficient because the Commission failed to show if these matters had been disclosed the license would have been denied. The Hearing Officer denied the motion. The Respondent called his father and mother to testify. Richard Ebner had had in 1970 a drug problem and had been addicted to heroin. His parents searched the state for a hospital to treat their son. Having found a hospital, they went to the County Judge and explained their fears that their son might not stay in the hospital. Without a hearing, the Judge entered the Order of Incompetency, Exhibit 6. Thereafter, their son had gone to the hospital and remained there voluntarily. They both testified that their son, Richard Ebner, had no knowledge of the Judge's Order, and that they themselves were unaware of the nature of the order beyond the fact that they had been told it was sufficient to require their son to remain in the hospital if he tried to leave. The Board subsequently presented rebuttal testimony on the issue of incompetency that Richard Ebner's counsel had interposed an insanity plea to the 1971 arrest based upon the Order of Incompetency, see Exhibit 9. The Court refused this defense. Richard Ebner testified that he had known about the insanity defense his attorney had presented to his 1971 arrest, but that he had had no knowledge in 1971 that he had been declared incompetent by any Court or when he filled out the application. The Commission's investigator indicated that the Court's record indicated only the Order of Incompetency and no further pleadings. The Hearing Officer finds that Richard Ebner had no knowledge of the Order, Exhibit 6, adjudging him incompetent. Regarding question 9, the Commission's Exhibits 2 and 3 revealed that Ebner had been arrested in 1970 for obtaining or attempting to obtain a barbiturate or central nervous system stimulant by fraud, misrepresentation, deceit or subterfuge, or by forgery or alteration of a prescription, and uttering any false or forged prescription. As stated above, it was stipulated that these charges were dropped. The Commission's Exhibits 4 and 5 reveal that Ebner was arrested on March 30, 1971 for (1) possession if marijuana and (2) possession of marijuana paraphernalia. The charge relating to possession of paraphernalia was dropped, and Ebner was tried on possession of marijuana on June 28, 1971, found guilty and sentenced to six (6) months in the county jail. He served his sentence and was released January 12, 1972. Regarding the offense, the Respondent, Ebner, had stated on his application in response to question 9, "Misdemeanor - Marijuana possession in 1971." Richard Ebner is currently working for his father and brother in their family business and actively engaged in underwater salvage and repair as a hard hat (deep sea) diver. He works as long as 3 - 10 hours under water, and has performed such responsible work as maintenance of underwater cameras at a nuclear power plant. He testified that he no longer uses narcotic drugs and that to do so would jeopardize his life in his occupation as a diver. The Respondent appeared relaxed and confident on the witness stand and answered questions put to him by the attorneys and Hearing Officer forthrightly and without hesitation. He admitted his addiction to drugs, stated that he had overcome this, that he had not tried to conceal his 1970 arrest but thought that because the charges had been dropped by this state that there was no need to report it. He similarly stated that he had responded to question 9 regarding the 1971 arrest, conviction and sentencing.
