Findings Of Fact During all times material to the Complaint Respondent Genaro O. DiDiego was licensed as a real estate broker under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. From May 1, 1976 until February 7, 1977, Mr. DiDiego did business under the trade name "Lauderdale Realty" in the Miami Beach Area. In the spring of 1976 Ms. Arlene Channing through a salesman, Anita Kandel, employed by Lauderdale Realty met the Respondent. Ms. Channing was naive about the real estate business and any related transactions. After their initial meeting the Respondent attempted to interest Ms. Channing in a variety of business ventures. Eventually she became involved in two. One was the Choice Chemical Company loan and the other was the Qualk Building purchase. On May 10, 1976, Ms. Channing loaned Mr. DiDiego $30,000.00 for his purchase of stock in the Choice Chemical Company. This loan was to be secured by a note and mortgage from Mr. DiDiego to Ms. Channing in the principal sum of $30,000.00 with interest at 10 percent until the principal was paid. The note and mortgage were due and payable within 18 months. Specifically, the security was 50 percent of the outstanding stock of Choice Chemical Corporation and also Lauderdale Realty's lots and telephone land operation. The security was to be held in escrow by Gerald S. Berkell, who at that time was counsel to Mr. DiDiego. In fact no such security was ever delivered into escrow. From the facts and circumstances of the transactions between Ms. Channing and Mr. DiDiego, it is found that Mr. DiDiego never intended to secure the $30,000.00 loan. That security was a material inducement to Ms. Channing for the loan. The principal sum of the loan, $30,000.00, was deposited into the account of Lauderdale Realty, account number 60-943-7 at County National Bank of North Miami Beach. Subsequently on April 18, 1978, Ms. Channing filed an action in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, against Mr. DiDiego for the unlawful conversion of her $30,000.00. On June 19, 1978, a final judgement by default was entered against Mr. DiDiego in the amount of $30,000.00 plus legal interest. The Qualk Building purchase concerned a building represented to Ms. Channing to cost $700,000.00. Mr. DiDiego induced her to invest $150,000.00 in the purchase of the Qualk Building. To effect the purchase, Mr. DiDiego and Ms. Channing entered into a limited partnership agreement in which Mr. DiDiego would be the general partner, investing $1,000.00 and Ms. Channing would be a limited partner, investing $150,000.00. Subsequently Ms. Channing deposited $150,000.00 into the Lauderdale Realty escrow account. Her check dated June 18, 1976, in the amount of $150,000.00 was deposited in Account number 60-944-8 for Lauderdale Realty. In fact, the total purchase price for the Qualk building was $585,000.00. The building was however encumbered by first and second mortgages totaling $535,855.90. The total amount therefore required to close was less than $33,000.00. These facts were known to Respondent but were not disclosed to Ms. Channing. From the facts and circumstances of this transaction, it is found that the facts were misrepresented to Ms. Channing for the purpose of inducing her to part with her $150,000.00. Ms. Channing never received any accounting for her investment and she subsequently brought an action in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida. On July 8, 1977, final judgment was entered against Respondent, Genaro O. DiDiego in the amount of $150,000.00 less $32,662.84, which were actually applied to the purchase price of the Qualk building, and less $9,780.00 which represents a portion of the income of the Qualk Building paid by Respondent to Ms. Channing. In entering its final judgment, the Court found that Respondent breached His fiduciary duty to Ms. Channing. This judgment has never been satisfied.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the license of Genaro O. DiDiego as a real estate broker be revoked by the Board of Real Estate, Department of Professional Regulation. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. B. Stafford Board Executive Director Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Genaro O. DiDiego 3745 N.E. 171st Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33160
Findings Of Fact Respondents were licensed real estate brokers at all times relevant to this proceeding. Robert M. Hall, Respondent LaRossa's nephew, gave LaRossa an $18,000 bank draft around January 1, 1982, toward purchase of an apartment building. LaRossa was to acquire the property in partnership with Hall. The deal fell through and Hall sought return of his $18,000. However, Respondents had not placed the funds in a trust or escrow account but had diverted them to other uses. As a result, LaRossa was not able to return the funds on demand by Hall. Hall then accepted LaRossa's promissory note to be discharged by June 2, 1982. However, when the debt remained unpaid, Hall filed a civil suit in Dade County and obtained a judgment for $22,145 on March 23, 1983. LaRossa finally paid this amount plus interest to the satisfaction of Hall on May 1, 1984. Hall, who was the complaining witness in this proceeding, stated that he "had no trust arrangement" with LaRossa in his letter acknowledging receipt of the funds. However, Hall had turned over the $18,000 to LaRossa with an expectation of investment or return and was distressed at LaRossa's failure to return the funds on demand. Although Hall and LaRossa are related and planned to enter a joint business venture, Hall relied on LaRossa to arrange the purchase of the commercial property in his capacity as a broker. There was no legitimate reason for Respondents to divert Hall's deposit, which was held by them in a trust capacity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending the real estate brokers licenses held by Respondents for a period of 90 days. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 14th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred A. Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 3202 Monroe Gelb, Esquire GELB and SPATZ 3400 Southwest 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33145 Mr. Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate brokers and holds license No. 0002997. On May 7, 1979, Respondent acted in the capacity of a real estate broker in the transaction of the sale of a parcel of real property located in Polk County, Florida. The purchaser in that transaction was Margaret Rhoden, and the seller was June Davis, who was represented in the transaction by a relative, Henry Goodwin. On May 7, 1979, Margaret Rhoden entered into a Contract for Sale of Rea1 Estate for the purchase of a piece of property Frostproof, Florida, from June Davis. The full purchase price of the property was $3,500, which Ms. Rhoden paid to Respondent in cash on May 7, 1979, and obtained a receipt from Respondent for that amount. At the time the contract was entered into, Ms. Rhoden was advised that a deed should be forthcoming from the seller within two to four weeks. A date of June 20, 1979, was established to close the transaction, subject to a 120-day curative period should any cloud on the title be discovered. The contract between the parties provided that should any such cloud appear of record, the seller would have a period of 120 days after receipt of written notice prior to the date set for closing in which to attempt to cure the defect. The contract further provided that if title defects were not cleared within the l20-day period, the deposit would be returned to the buyer, or, at the buyer's option, the transaction should be closed in the same manner as if no defect had been found. A warranty deed purporting to transfer the property from the seller to the buyer was executed on June 7, 1979, and a title binder was issued on that same date. The title binder indicated an outstanding mortgage on a larger piece of property of which the parcel purchased by Ms. Rhoden was only a part. When efforts to clear this cloud on the title took longer than expected, Ms. Rhoden asked, and was granted, permission by the seller's agent to commence construction on the improvements on the property notwithstanding the fact that she knew that a cloud remained on the title to the lot, and the transaction had not been closed. Construction was not completed on the improvements because Ms. Rhoden ran out of cash during the course of construction. She moved into the dwelling while it was still in a partially completed condition and, on September 8, 1979, with the permission of the seller's agent, received a loan of $3,000 from the $3,500 deposit she had placed with Respondent, Ms. Rhoden executed a promissory note dated September 8, 1979, in which she agreed to repay the $3,000 loan when clear title to the property was issued. Ms. Rhoden used the proceeds of this loan to make additional improvements on the property. On October 26, 1979, Respondent received both the warranty deed dated June 7, 1979, and the title binder issued on that date from the attorney for the seller. When approached by Ms. Rhoden, Respondent agreed to lend her the deed and title binder to attempt to obtain additional financing to complete construction on her home. The clear inference from the record in this proceeding is that there was never any understanding between Respondent and Ms. Rhoden that this deed could be recorded at this or any other juncture in this transaction. In fact, the contract entered into between the buyer and seller clearly called for the payment of the full purchase price of the property at closing, and the note subsequently executed by Ms. Rhoden conditioned the issuance of a warranty deed to her on the payment of the $3,000 face value of the note. Ms. Rhoden was unsuccessful in obtaining additional financing to complete construction on her home, probably due to the fact that when she sought that financing the outstanding mortgage on the property had still not been satisfied. When Respondent advised the seller's attorney that he had loaned the warranty deed to Ms. Rhoden for the purposes outlined above, he was advised that there was nothing to keep Ms. Rhoden from recording the deed, at which point Respondent apparently determined that it would be prudent for him to retrieve the deed from Ms. Rhoden's possession. Ms. Rhoden had her mother return the deed to Respondent in February of 1980. According to the testimony of both Ms. Rhoden and her mother, they felt the purpose for the returning of the deed was to have it recorded. Respondent denies any such understanding. In resolving this conflict in testimony, the clear inference from the circumstances involved in this transaction, including the wording of the contract of sale and the note executed by Ms. Rhoden, supports a finding that all of the parties to this transaction either knew, or should have known, that the recording of the deed at this juncture in the transaction would have been improper. Although the outstanding mortgage had been satisfied in January of 1980, Ms. Rhoden had not Performed her obligation under the contract of sale by paying the full purchase price. When Respondent had recovered the deed from Ms. Rhoden, he was advised by the attorney for the seller not to record the deed until he had received payment from Ms. Rhoden in accordance with the contract and the promissory note. As indicated above, the outstanding mortgage on the property was satisfied in January of 1980. On February 6, 1980, Respondent Prepared a closing statement reflecting the purchase price of the property as $3,500. From this amount he deducted a total of $478 for state documentary stamps, title insurance, Preparing the deed, and amount of real estate commission leaving a the apparently forwarded the note from Ms. Rhoden for $3,000, together with the $22.00 cash balance remaining from her initial $3,500 deposit to the seller along with the deed which the seller had earlier executed. Ms. Rhoden apparently never made or tendered payment of the $3,000 note, the transaction never closed, and at the time of final hearing in this cause an eviction action was apparently pending between the seller and Ms. Rhoden. Paragraph seven of the contract of sale executed between the seller and Ms. Rhoden Provides as follows: If Buyer fails to perform this contract, the deposit this day paid by Buyer as aforesaid shall be retained by or for the account of Seller as consideration for the execution of this agreement and in full settlement of any claims for damages.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondents for alleged violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(a) (1977), 475.25(1)(b) (1979), 475.25(1)(c) (1977), and 475.25(1)(d) (1979), Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, dated May 1, 1980. At the commencement of the hearing, Counsel for Respondent Marie Bonello announced that his client, who was present, was ill and 78 years of age and unable to testify, and moved to continue the hearing. The continuance was denied, but the parties agreed to allow her Counsel to file a deposition subsequent to the hearing and to hold the case open until her deposition could be filed. By letter dated August 13, 1980 Counsel for Marie Bonello stated that he anticipated a restitution settlement with complaining witness Marlene Jacobs and requested further delay in closing the case. Counsel for Respondent Gloria Campione agreed to the delay by letter dated September 25, 1980. On October 8, 1980 Counsel for Petitioner requested that a recommended order be entered, and on October 31, 1980 notified the Hearing Officer that a transcript would be ordered and a proposed recommended order would be filed by Petitioner. A transcript was filed December 8, 1980. No deposition, proposed orders, or memorandum showing restitution were filed by the parties subsequent to the hearing except Counsel for Respondent Campione filed a legal memorandum and a proposed recommended order, which were considered in the rendition of this order.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Marie Bonello was registered with Petitioner as a real estate salesperson and also as President and Treasurer of Bonne Realty Corporation and was so registered during the time pertinent to this hearing in the year 1978 (Petitioner's Exhibit 23). Respondent Bonne Realty Corporation was licensed under Corporate Certificate No. 0196358-6 by the Florida Real Estate Commission to transact real estate business and was so registered during the time pertinent to this hearing. Respondent Gloria Campione is registered as a real estate salesperson and was so registered In 1978 and at all times material to this case was either employed by or was working with Respondent Bonello and the Respondent Bonne Realty Corporation. In May of 1978 one Marlene Jacobs contacted Gloria Campione, a salesperson in Archer Real Estate, Inc., in regard to the purchase of a home in Broward County, Florida. Ms. Campione showed Ms. Jacobs several homes in the area and on or about June 9, 1978 showed her some substantially completed model homes in the Deer Run subdivision. On June 11, 1978 a Deposit Receipt and Contract for Sale and Purchase was drawn for Lot 155 of the Deer Run project on which a residence was to be constructed for Ms. Jacobs and Ms. Jacobs made an initial deposit of $1,000 (Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 9; Transcript, page 74). Archer Real Estate, Inc. and Bonne Realty Corporation were indicated as Brokers and Marlene Jacobs as the buyer. That evening Respondent Campione and another salesperson, Shannon Brisbon, who had a contract with a buyer for the same Lot Number 155, Deer Run, had a meeting with the builder/owner of the subdivision (Respondent's Exhibit 2). The builders, Frank Sepe and Lou Gonzalez, decided to accept the contract negotiated by salesperson Brisbon rather than the contract between Ms. Jacobs and Respondent Campione because Ms. Brisbon's clients would have more money to pay on the property at closing. Respondent Campione later notified Ms. Jacobs that Lot 155 was not available to her but a similar house could be built on a similar lot. Shortly thereafter Ms. Jacobs met with Respondent Campione, Ms. Bonello, and the builders and modified the original contract in ink to reflect a change in lots. Ms. Jacobs paid the balance of the deposit for a total of $5,000 and gave it to Respondent Campione. No construction was commenced. In September of 1978 Respondent Bonello contacted Ms. Jacobs and said she desperately needed money at once and wanted Ms. Jacobs to write two checks prior to the closing of the real estate transaction. Ms. Jacobs, without notifying Respondent Campione, drew two checks dated September 8, 1978, one to Respondent Marie Bonello in the amount of $3,478.03 and one to Mr. and Mrs. Wm. Maki in the amount of $5,521.97. No receipt was given for those checks. In October of 1978 Ms. Campione learned that Ms. Jacobs had drawn the two checks in the total amount of $9,000 and had given one to Respondent Bonello and one to the Makis, whom she was informed held a mortgage on a shopping center owned or partially owned by Respondent Bonello. Respondent Campione was alarmed, fearing her client Ms. Jacobs would lose the unsecured money, and forthwith procured a promissory note and a new building contract dated October 4, 1978 from Respondent Bonello reflecting the receipt of the original $5,000 deposit plus the $9,000 in the two unsecured checks. The promissory note and contract were signed by Respondent Bonello upon the insistence of Respondent Campione. The contract showed a total of $14,000 deposit to be used for construction (Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 4 and 7). Still no construction was started. Respondent Bonello did not deny the allegations in the complaint either at the hearing or by deposition. The evidence and the testimony of Ms. Jacobs and Respondent Campione show that Respondent Bonello was a party in her capacity as President and Treasurer of the broker Bonne Realty Corporation, as a principal on a promissory note drawn to secure monies deposited by the buyer in furtherance of a real estate transaction and was a witness on many documents pertaining to the proposed real estate sale. It is the finding of the Hearing Officer that Respondent Bonello participated in all transactions pertaining to the proposed sale of a lot on which a house was to have been constructed for the buyer Ms. Marlene Jacobs. Money was obtained from the buyer by Respondent Bonello and was not to be used and was not used for construction of Ms. Jacob's home as she was led to believe. It is the further finding that Respondent Bonello signed a promissory note to Marlene Jacobs to secure the monies she had obtained from the buyer but only at the request of Respondent Campione. In November, 1978, when it appeared that no house was to be built, Ms. Jacobs discovered that Respondent Bonello had not only contracted to sell her lot to other persons but had used the deposit money in the shopping center Respondent Bonello was constructing for herself (Transcript, page 25). Ms. Jacobs has demanded the $14,000 she paid to Respondents Bonello, Campione and Bonne Realty Corporation, but no money has been received and Ms. Jacobs has been forced to seek recompense through the courts (Petitioner's Exhibits 14 and 15). After Respondent Campione had first showed the property in Deer Run to her client, Ms. Jacobs, and had negotiated the contract offer between Marlene Jacobs, buyer and Archer Real Estate, Inc. aid Bonne Realty Corporation, Co- Brokers and Frank Sepe as Seller Respondent Campione moved her license and worked exclusively with Respondent Marie Bonello. Archer Real Estate, Inc. is not involved in this case. At the hearing evidence was entered indicating that Bonne Realty (corporation was in existence and licensed at the time the foregoing complaint was filed and at the time of the subject transaction. Respondent Marie Bonello was listed as the President, Treasurer and 50 percent shareholder and broker for the corporation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent Marie Bonello guilty of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and suspending her for a period of two (2) years; That a final order be entered suspending the registration of Bonne Realty Corporation for two (2) years and until compliance with a lawful order imposed in the final order of suspension; That a final order be entered dismissing the complaint against Respondent Gloria Campione. DONE ad ORDERED this 19th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alan J. Werksman, Esquire Suite 404, Interstate Plaza 1499 West Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Robert M. Arlen, Esquire 2700 North East 14th Causeway Pompano Beach, Florida 33062
Findings Of Fact Respondent Santaniello holds real estate broker license number 0186475, and was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. Santaniello is the active broker for Respondent, Sunair Realty Corporation, which holds license number 0213030. Mr. Don M. and Mrs. Agnes C. Long own two lots in Port Charlotte which they purchased as investments. By letter dated June 8, 1981, Respondents forwarded a "Deposit Receipt and Contract for Sale and Purchase" on each of these lots to the Longs. The documents established that Anni Czapliski was the buyer at a purchase price of $1200 per lot. Respondent Sunair Realty Corporation was to receive the greater of $120 or ten percent of the felling price for "professional services." The letter and documents were signed by Respondent Santaniello. Anni Czapliski was Bernard Santaniello's mother-in-law at the time of the proposed sale. This relationship was not disclosed by Respondents and was not known to the Longs at the time they were invited to contract with Respondents for sale of the lots. The Longs rejected the proposed arrangement for reasons not-relevant here.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), and fining each $500. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert J. Norton, Esquire Suite 408 First National Bank Building Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Mr. C.B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R.T. CARPENTER 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 16th day of April.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent John V. Nink, Jr., was registered as a real estate broker (Exhibit 1). Exhibit 1 contains no license record for Respondents Leslie M. Nink and Greater Bay Realty, Inc. In Contract for Sale and Purchase executed April 22, 1985 (Exhibit 2), Sprinkle and Anders (sellers) agreed to sell a tract of land to Tampa Technology, Inc. (TTI) for $270,000 with $7500 down payment held by Greater Bay Realty and the contract was witnessed by John V. Nink. This contract was subject to six conditions shown on "Addendum A" to the contract, the only significant one being condition 6 which provides the contract is subject to buyer receiving approval for change in zoning to allow the construction of 56 units on the site. TTI is owned by Donald P. Fisher and John M. Cherry who have been partners in numerous real estate developments in the Hillsborough County area for more than 10 years. Fisher holds a license as a real estate broker and signed Exhibit 2 as President of TTI. Both of these complaining witnesses have been involved in the purchase and development of numerous tracts of land and are fully aware of the obligations of real estate contracts. Although denied by Fisher, Respondent provided Fisher with a copy of the deed admitted into evidence as Exhibit 6. Respondent had obtained an option to purchase this tract of land but was unable to finance the property on his own. To assist in the financing, he entered into an agreement with Sprinkle and Anders whereby they would provide financing and receive 75 percent interest in the property. Under the terms of this agreement, the property was deeded to Nink and simultaneously a deed from Nink to Sprinkle, Anders and Nink was executed. This is the deed admitted into evidence as Exhibit 6 and which was provided to Fisher when Exhibit 2 was executed. When TTI applied to the county for rezoning they learned only 52 units would be approved for building on the site to be purchased in Exhibit 2. At this time the contract was voidable by the buyer but they did not desire to void the contract. Instead, they proceeded with the rezoning and attempted to raise the acquisition and development financing needed to consummate the purchase and commence construction. Some six months after first approaching the zoning authorities, TTI was successful in getting this property rezoned to authorize construction of 52 dwellings on this property. TTI's owners requested the contract remain in effect to give them additional time to locate financing. By these acts, TTI waived the contract provision that the property be rezoned to authorize construction of 56 dwellings. The principals in TTI have had numerous business relations with Leslie Nink over the past 10 years. They were aware that the Ninks were minority owners of the property for which TTI contracted to purchase and they continued to pursue the acquisition of this property until in early 1987 they concluded that they were unable to raise the necessary financing. On February 19, 1987, TTI sent a letter to John Nink requesting refund of the $7500 escrow deposit, and on March 10, 1987, a similar letter was sent to Leslie Nink (Exhibit 5). Upon receipt of Exhibit 5, John Nink contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission to request adjudication of the escrow deposit of $7500 to determine if the seller or buyer was entitled to the deposit.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device in a real estate transaction in violation of Section 475.25, Florida Statutes. Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked or suspended or whether Respondent should be otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered real estate salesperson who holds License No. 0099812. She was employed as a "listing solicitor" by World Wide Property Services, Inc. (World Wide), a registered real estate broker (now dissolved), from March 10, 1976 through July 1, 1976, soliciting listings for real estate in Florida. The solicitation was by telephone nationwide, except Florida. Seymour L. Rottman was President of World Wide, and Lee Small was Vice President of the corporation during the time Respondent was employed. The purpose of World Wide was to secure listings of and purchasers for various Florida properties. Mr. Rottman was a subpoenaed witness for Petitioner at the subject hearing. During Respondent's period of employment, he and Mr. Small were in charge of hiring salesmen for the corporation and hired Respondent. Respondent was employed to obtain listings by telephone from property owners who lived out of state but owned Florida property. The procedure followed was for a salesman to call an out-of-state land owner picked from a list of prospects and inquire if he or she would be interested in selling their property at a higher price than it had been purchased for. This was termed a "front" call, and the salesman was termed as a "fronter". If the prospect expressed interest in listing the property, his or her name was provided to World Wide, who then mailed literature to the property owner describing the efforts that would be made by that organization to sell the property. Enclosed with this material was a listing and brokerage agreement. This agreement provided that the owner of the property would pay a prescribed listing fee to World Wide, which would be credited against a 10% commission due that firm upon sale of the property. In return, the corporation agreed to include the property in its "listing directory" for a one-year period, directs its efforts to bring about a sale of the property, advertise the property, as deemed advisable, in magazines or other mediums of merit, and to make an "earnest effort" to sell the property. The accompanying literature explained that the listing fee was necessary in order to defray administrative costs of estimating the value of the property, merchandising, advertising, brochuring and cataloging the information. The material also stated that advertising would be placed in various foreign countries and cities of the United States. In addition, it stated that the property would be "analyzed", comparing it to adjacent property to arrive at a price based on recent sales of neighboring property and also review the status of development and zoning in the immediate area of the property to assist in recommending a correct selling price for approval of the owner. During the course of the calls to prospects, Respondent advised them that the property would be advertised internationally and in the United States and that bona fide efforts would be made to sell the property. She represented herself as a salesman for that organization. After the promotional literature was sent to the prospect, the salesmen, including Respondent, made what was called a "drive" call to answer any questions and to urge that the property be listed. After making these calls, Respondent had no further contact with the property owner. The listing fee was $325.00. The salesmen received approximately one-third of the fee, about $100.00 per listing. The salesmen, including Respondent, telephoned the prospects and then read from the script entitled "front" and "drive". The instructions from the broker was to stay within the script, but Respondent was not monitored at all times. During the course of operation of less than a year, World Wide secured about 200 listings and grossed approximately $80,000.00 to $90,000.00 in the "advance fee" listing, but no sales were made. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing, as noticed for March 8, 1976, at 1:00 p.m. Her hearing was continued until March 9, 1976, at 1:30 p.m., to give her an additional period of time in which to appear, but Respondent failed to appear. She did not dispute the charged filed by Petitioner in its administrative complaint. Petitioner contends that while a salesperson for World Wide, Respondent solicited and obtained listings by telephone from property owners and that as an inducement to list the property, she falsely represented that the property could be sold for a price far in excess of its purchase price, that a bona fide effort would be made to sell the property, and that it would be listed nationally and internationally and that the company had foreign investors wanting to purchase United States property.
Recommendation Reprimand the Respondent in writing. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 Kimberly Zimmerman 449 N.W. 8th Street Apt. 1 Miami, FL 33136
Findings Of Fact Evidence reveals that during late December, 1975, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., a Florida Corporation, filed application with the Florida Real Estate Commission seeking registration as a corporate real estate broker. Said application revealed that Defendant, Frank Viruet, was to become the Active Firm Member Broker, and Vice president of the Company; that Carol Bauman was to become Secretary-Treasurer and Director of the company; and that Lee Klien was to become president and Director of the company. The application also revealed that Carol Bauman is the wife of the Defendant Bernard Bauman (Progress Docket #2357); that Lee Klien is the sister of Carol Bauman; and that Defendant Jeffrey Bauman (Progress Docket #2858) is the son of Bernard Bauman. Subsequent to filing the above corporate application For registration, the name was changed to Noble Realty Corporation and shortly thereafter to Deed Realty, Inc. and that at each such change, new application For corporate registration was filed with the Commission. Further, the stated offices and Active Firm Member Broker remained the same. Thus, For all legal purposes, the above corporate entities are one and the same. As to Count One of the complaint, according to the certificate of the Commission's Chairman, dated December 3, 1976, (which was offered and received into evidence without objections), during the period November 1, 1975 through the date of said certificate, no registration was issued to or held by either of the three corporations above referred to. This was confirmed by testimony of Bernard Bauman who was to have become a salesman associated with the above entities and by Frank Viruet the broker, who was to have become the Active Firm Member Broker For the above entities. Approximately December 2, 1975, evidence reveals that Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., entered a written lease For office premises known as Room 212, Nankin Building, which is located at 16499 N.E. 19th Avenue, North Miami Beach, For the period January 1 through December 31, 1976. (A copy of the lease was entered into evidence by stipulation). The unrebutted testimony by Plaintiff Reagan was that he observed during his investigation of this cause, a building directory on the ground floor entrance to the Nankin Building displaying the name Noble Realty, Inc., Room 212 (2nd Floor). A similar display on the building directory appeared on the second floor. Plaintiff's witness, Peter King, a representative of and For Southern Bell Telephone Company, testified that on December 27, 1975, three phones were installed in said room 212 of the Nankin Building in the name of Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., and that from January 1 through January 16, 1976, approximately 575 phone calls were made from such phones during evening hours to out-of-state numbers. Jeffrey Bauman and Bernard Bauman admitted to having made phone calls to out-of-state numbers For purposes of soliciting real estate sales listings, but did not recall nor introduce records as to how many calls were in fact made. Jeffrey Bauman testified that Frank Viruet had also made phone calls from the stated phones but did not state whether they were solicitations. On this point, Frank Viruet denied making solicitation calls although he admitted using the phone For other purposes. Bernard Bauman testified that approximately four listings were obtained with an advance fee of $375.00 For each listing received. He further testified that upon being advised, by the investigator with the Commission, that the operation was in violation of the licensing law by reason that no registration had been issued to the applicant company, and that all who were engaged in real estate activities For said company were in violation of the licensing law, the premises were closed and all real estate activities ceased. This was confirmed by nominal Plaintiff Reagan. Frank Viruet denied having knowledge of real estate activities being conducted by the Baumans. He further denied knowledge that office space in Room 212 of the Nankin Building was occupied by Land Re- Sale Service, Inc. and used by the Bauman's. He admitted to signing the application For registration which was submitted to the Commission as the corporate Active Firm Member Broker to be. As to Count Two, evidence established as stated above, that defendants Jeffrey and Bernard Bauman had solicited real estate sales listings with representations to property owners that the listings would in fact be published and disseminated to brokers nationwide. However, the Baumans, admitted by their own testimony that their listings were never published or otherwise disseminated to brokers either intrastate or nationwide. Bernard Bauman testified that no money was ever returned to senders. There was no evidence received to show that Defendant Frank Viruet knew that no bona fide efFort would be made to sell the property so listed with Noble Realty Corporation; nor that Viruet was aware that solicitations were being made. As to Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that the acts and doings set out in Counts One and Two establish a course of conduct by defendants upon which revocation of their registration should issue.
The Issue Whether Defendants breached an oral contract with their employer. Whether the Defendants, both of whom were registered salesmen employed by Rivas Realty, Inc., conducted themselves in such a manner that the sellers of a certain parcel of real estate suffered a loss of a substantial profit from their property. Whether the licenses of the Defendants should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Defendants Victor Hugo Hernandez and Elisa Hernandez, husband and wife, were registered real estate salesmen employed by Rivas Realty, Inc., a corporate broker, with offices located at 2341 N.W. 7th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. Defendants were employed by Rivas Realty, Inc., a corporate broker, under an oral employment agreement whereby real estate transactions entered into by them or either of them as registered salesmen or personally or jointly for their own account were to be handled through said broker's office; that all details of any such real estate transaction were to be available in open files in said office; that they were to identify themselves as salesmen for Rivas Realty, Inc. On or about December 20, 1973, Defendant Victor Hugo Hernandez individually and for the benefit of himself and his wife jointly contracted to buy the residence at 526 E. 44th Street, Hialeah, Florida, from Frank J. Crawford, Jr., and Alexis Jo Crawford, his wife, for the sum of approximately $27,000. The transaction closed on or about January 3, 1974, and conveyance by warranty deed was made by the Crawford to Paul G. Block, Trustee. The property was soon resold. The Real Estate Commission contends: That the Defendants represented themselves as individuals desiring to purchase the home from the Crawfords for their son; That the Defendants had no intention of purchasing said property for the son and in fact, soon thereafter resold the property at a substantial profit to themselves; The Defendants through their misrepresentation defrauded the Crawfords of a substantial profit; They did not inform the Crawfords that they were in fact salesmen for Rivas Realty, Inc.; That the Defendants violated the oral agreement they had with the employer, Rivas Realty, Inc., when they failed to process the purchase and the resale of the Crawford property through the Rivas Realty, Inc.; That the Defendants are guilty of misrepresentation, concealment, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device and breach of trust in a business transaction, all in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes; That the registrations of Victor Hugo Hernandez and Elisa Hernandez should be suspended or revoked. The Defendants contend: That at the time of the sale and the purchase of the home from the Crawfords they had secured permission from the Rivas Realty, Inc. to purchase a home for their son; That the employer, Mr. Anthony Rivas, had given permission to the Defendants, as long time and effective salesmen, to purchase the property inasmuch as it was for the benefit of the son; That the son did not want the property after it was bought and therefore the property was immediately placed for sale; That the Defendants shortly after the purchase and sale of the property in question did in fact buy for their son a home in another location; That they in no way planned to trick the Crawfords into the sale of their home by not representing themselves as real estate agents; That in fact they did so represent themselves as real estate agents and placed the sign of Rivas Realty, Inc. in front of the Crawford home before the resale; That it was generally understood by the owners and among the long time employees of Rivas Realty, Inc. that they could at times buy and sale for their own personal benefit properties that members of their family might desire without processing the sale through the business office of Rivas Realty, Inc. or dividing the profit with the corporation. That they did not breach the oral contract between themselves and the employer. The Hearing Officer finds: That the Defendants, Victor Hugo Hernandez and Elisa Hernandez, bought the home of Mr. and Mrs. Crawford under circumstances which tended to deceive the purchasers but without actual misrepresentation; That there was no showing of an actual loss by the Crawfords; That the oral agreement between the Defendant salesmen and the employer, the Rivas Realty, Inc., was at times waived by the owner, Mr. Rivas or his brother, as special favors to their salesmen; That the Defendants acted under a waiver of the oral agreement between themselves and the Rivas Realty, Inc. when they purchased and resold the home of Mr. and Mrs. Crawford, or their acts were approved or condoned by the employer; That the evidence received and the testimony taken do not show that the Defendants, Victor Hugo Hernandez and Elisa Hernandez, breached the fiduciary relationship with their employer, Rivas Realty, Inc.; That the evidence received and the testimony taken do not prove the Defendants to have been guilty of misrepresentation, concealment, dishonest dealing, trick, schemes or device and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Testimony established that during late December, 1975, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., a Florida corporation, filed application with the Commission, seeking registration as a corporate real estate broker. That application revealed that Respondent Frank Viruet was to become the Active Firm ember Broker, and Vice President of the company; that Carol Bauman was to become Secretary-Treasurer and that Lee Klein was to become President and Director of the company. Testimony reveals that Carol Bauman is the wife of the Respondent Bernard Bauman; that Lee Klein is the sister of Carol Bauman and that Jeffrey Bauman is the son of Bernard Bauman. Subsequent to the filing of the above referenced corporate application for registration, the name was changed to Noble Realty Corporation and shortly thereafter to Deed Realty, Inc., and that at each such change, new application for corporate registration was filed with the Commission. Evidence also revealed that the officers and Active Firm Member Broker remained as stated and therefore for all legal purposes, the above corporate entities are one and the same. Turning to the complaint allegations in Count One, according to the certificates of the Commission's Chairman, dated December 3, which was offered in evidence by Petitioner and admitted without objection, during the period of November 1, 1975 through the date of said certificate (December 3, 1976), which covers the material dates of the complaint herein, no registration was issued to or held by the above three named corporations. This was further confirmed by testimony of Bernard Bauman who was to have become a salesman associated with the above entities and by Frank Viruet, the broker, who was to have become the Active Firm Member Broker for the above entities. Approximately December 2, 1975, Land Re-Sales Service, Inc., entered a written lease for office premises known as Room 212, Nankin Building, which is located at 16499 N.E. 19th Avenue, North Miami Beach, covering the period January 1, through December 31, 1976. (A copy of the lease was entered into evidence by stipulation of the parties.) The unrebutted testimony of Petitioner Reagan was that he observed, during his investigation of this cause, a building directory on the ground floor entrance to the Nankin Building displaying the name Noble Realty Inc., and a similar display on the building directory on the second floor. Petitioner's witness, Peter King, representative for Southern Bell Telephone Company testified that based on records received, three phones were installed in said room 212, Nankin Building on December 27, 1975, in the name of Land Re-Sale Service, Inc. and that from January 2, 1976 through January 16, 1976, approximately 575 calls were made from the above phones during evening hours to out-of-state numbers. Bernard Bauman and Jeffrey Bauman admitted to having made phone calls to out-of-state numbers for purposes of soliciting real estate sales listings, but both were unable to recall nor did they have records to substantiate how many calls they made. Bernard Bauman testified that approximately four listings were obtained with an advance fee of $375.00 for each listing. He further testified that upon being advised by the investigator with the Commission that the operation was in violation of the licensing law, by reason that no registration had been issued to the applicant company and that all who were engaging in real estate activities for said company were in violation of the licensing law. Thereafter the premises were closed and as best as can be told, all real estate activities ceased. This was further confirmed by Petitioner Reagan. The evidence respecting Count two of the administrative complaint established as stated above that Respondents Bernard and Jeffrey H. Bauman solicited real estate listings with representations to property owners that the listings would in fact be published and disseminated to brokers nationwide. However, both Baumans admitted that their listings were never published or otherwise disseminated to brokers. According to Bernard Bauman's testimony, no monies received were ever returned. There was no evidence to show that Respondent Bernard Bauman knew at the time of soliciting that no bona fide effort would be made to sell properties so listed with Noble Realty Corporation.
Recommendation Based on the above findings and conclusions of law, it is therefore recommended that the registration of Bernard Bauman be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
