Findings Of Fact Respondent, Richard C. Lightner, was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0408120. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker, with a home address of 1221 Duval Street, Key West, Florida 32040. Respondent, or a representative on his behalf, did not appear at the hearing to refute or otherwise contest the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: The Department enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's Real Estate brokers license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of July, 1988, 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 4th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Raymond O. Bodiford, Esquire 515 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE Petitioner vs. Case No. 0154510 DOAH No. 87-3668 RICHARD C. LIGHTNER III Respondent /
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, George N. Sullivan, held real-estate license number 0128470 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission. His current address is 22 East Spruce Street, Orlando, Florida. At one time, respondent also held a registered general contractor's license and operated a construction firm under the name of George N. Sullivan, Inc. in Vero Beach, Florida. On or about December 7, 1979, George N. Sullivan, Inc. and Vero Fore, Incorporated entered into a construction agreement wherein Sullivan agreed to construct a residence at Lot 27, Unit III, the Moorings of Vero Beach, in Indian River County for a price of $155,628. The difference between this price and the price of $171,688 alleged in the administrative complaint is due to "extras" agreed upon by the parties to be added to the project. Sullivan began construction on the residence but abandoned the project before it was completed. When he left the job he had been paid all sums due under the agreement except one final $18,000 draw. Vero Fore later discovered that approximately $66,000 in unpaid bills were left by Sullivan. It also learned that Sullivan had obtained releases from three material suppliers by issuing worthless checks in the amounts of $5,849, $2,883.48, $1,913.14, $4,988.92 and $3,847.23. To date, Vero Fore has not been repaid by Sullivan. Sullivan was later adjudged guilty of passing worthless checks by the circuit court of Indian River County on July 8, 1981 and was sentenced to eighteen months probation and required to make restitution to the subcontractors. The official records of Indian River County reflect that Sullivan was found to be in violation of probation on March 23, 1983 for failure to make restitution. It is unknown what, if any, penalties were imposed upon him for this violation, or if restitution has ever been made. On or about September 5, 1980, Sullivan entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. James L. Cain to remodel their residence located at 2075 DeLeon Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida. The agreed upon price was $46,900. The Cains paid Sullivan $46890, or 10 percent, as a downpayment for the work on September 8, 1980. Sullivan sent three men to the Cains' house a few days later to build a platform. No other work was ever done. Sullivan did not pay the three workmen and the Cains were forced to pay them $788 to obtain a release of liens. To date, they have never been reimbursed by respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent George N. Sullivan be found guilty as charged in Counts I, III, and IV and that Count II be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent's real estate sales license be suspended for a period of ten years with the condition that said license be reinstated after a period of three years if respondent can demonstrate that restitution to the three material suppliers, Vero Fore, Inc. and the Cains has been made. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Lee Printy, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. George N. Sullivan 22 East Spruce Street Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, G. Steven Pfeiffer, held a public hearing in this case on January 11, 1978, in Cocoa, Florida. The following appearances were entered: Charles E. Felix, Orlando, Florida, for the Plaintiff, Florida Real Estate Commission; and Kenneth A. Studstill, Titusville, Florida, for the Defendants, Thomas L. Pittman and Pittman Real Estate, Inc. The Florida Real Estate Commission issued an Administrative Complaint against the Defendants on August 23, 1977. On September 12, 1977, the Defendants filed an election of rights form which constituted a petition for hearing. In accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1)(b)(3), the Commission requested that a hearing officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings be assigned to conduct the hearing. The final hearing was scheduled by notices dated October 19, 1977 and November 2, 1977. At the final hearing the Commission called Gary W. Brandt, a registered real estate salesman, as its only witness. The Defendants called Virginia Laver, a former employee of Defendant Pittman Real Estate, Inc., and the Defendant Thomas L. Pittman. Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1-3, and Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2 were offered into evidence and were received. There were conflicts in the testimony of certain of the witnesses. In resolving these conflicts due regard has been given to the credibility of the witnesses as evidenced in part by the demeanor of the witnesses at the hearing, and in part by the extent to which the witnesses' testimony has been corroborated by other evidence.
Findings Of Fact On January 23, 1984, the Secretary of the Department of professional Regulation (hereinafter "Department") signed an Administrative Complaint, count one of which alleges, in pertinent part: Respondents in their capacity as real estate brokers employed Doris H. Swanton as a real estate broker and office manager from approximately October 20, 1980 to April 18, 1982. On or about April 8, 1982 to the present, Doris H. Swanton has made numerous and repeated demands upon Respondents for the payment of a share of the compensation received by Respondent and earned by Doris H. Swanton while in the employ of the Respondents in the amount totalling approximately $7,815.52 involving a number of brokerage transactions. A copy of a list reflecting the transactions, dates and amounts owing is attached as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Since April 8, 1982, Respondents have failed, refused and neglected to give a reasonable accounting or to pay Doris H. Swanton the $7,815.52 or any part thereof notwithstanding the demands for same made upon Respondents by Doris H. Swanton, the person entitled to said money. That by reason of the foregoing, Respondents are guilty of having failed to account and deliver a share of a real estate commission and other compensation to Doris H. Swanton in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The Administrative Complaint signed on January 23, 1984, does not contain an allegation that there has been a judicial determination that Respondents are not entitled to retain the property claimed by Doris H. Swanton. On February 22, 1984, the Respondents served an Answer and Written Defenses in which the Respondents, inter alia, admit the first of the paragraphs quoted in finding number 1, above, and deny the other three paragraphs quoted above. The Respondents' Answer and Written Defenses also sets forth a detailed itemization of Respondents' reasons for contending that Doris H. Swanton is not entitled to the full amount of a single one of the twelve commissions she claims are due her from the Respondents. ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES The thesis of the Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents is that a broker cannot be disciplined for failure to account for and deliver non-escrowed property until there has been a judicial determination that the broker is not entitled to retain the property in dispute. The case of Golub v. Department of Professional Regulation, F.R.E.C., 9 FLW 460 (Fla. 5th DCA, Feb. 23, 1984), appears to be exactly on point. There a majority of the court concluded: Once there is a judicial determination that a broker is not entitled to retain non-escrowed property then this statute [475.25(1)(d)] is authority to discipline the broker for a failure to account and deliver the property to any person, including a salesman, who is entitled to its prossession. Corollary to the quoted language from Golub is the conclusion that until there is a judicial determination that a broker is not entitled to retain non- escrowed property, the statute does not authorize discipline of a broker for failure toe account and deliver the property. In other words, when the property in dispute is non-escrowed property, a judicial determination that a broker is not entitled to retain the property is an indispensable prerequisite to the establishment of a violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, on the basis of a failure to account for or deliver such property. Accordingly, until a court determines that the Respondents in this case are not entitled to retain the property in dispute in this case, it cannot be established that Respondents have violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. And inasmuch as the Administrative Complaint fails to allege that there has been any such judicial determination, the Administrative Complaint is fatally deficient.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Analysis of the Issues, and Conclusions of Law, I recommend that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a Final Order in this case dismissing the Administrative Complaint without prejudice to the refiling of an Administrative Complaint against these Respondents if and when a court determines that the Respondents are not entitled to the property claimed by Doris H. Swanton. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. 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 3rd day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert W. Lee, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 G. Michael Keenan, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Mr. Harold R. Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Respondent Lynde1 Gale Goodwin is a licensed real estate broker with license number 0032681 Respondent Florida Appraisal Department, Inc., is a corporation licensed as a broker having been issued license number 0233195. Goodwin's last license was issued as a broker c/o Florida Appraisal Department, Inc., at 2990 North Federal Highway, Ft Lauderdale, Florida 33306 which is the business address of Florida Appraisal Department, Inc. Respondent Goodwin was operating as a real estate broker and as sole qualifying broker and officer of Florida Appraisal Department, Inc., at all times material hereto. On or about March 21, l984 an appraisal on certain real property owned by Robert and Martha Silva, located at 633 Lime Lane, Marathon, Florida was completed and submitted to Government Employees Corporation on behalf of Respondents by Charles Stange, an associate of Respondent Goodwin. At the time Stange held a real estate salesman's license, was receiving training from Goodwin on appraising and was also investing in Florida Appraisa1 Department, Inc. Stange bad been assigned the Silva appraisal by Respondent Goodwin, who accompanied him on a trip to Marathon to inspect the property and to locate comparable properties on which to base the appraisal. When they arrived in Marathon, Stange initially dropped Goodwin off so he could take care of some other business, and Stange proceeded to the Silva property, entered the house, drew a sketch. took picture6 and also attempted to locate three comparables. After completing his business, Goodwin joined Stange and assisted with the measurement of the Silva property. When they returned to their offices at Florida Appraisal Department, Inc , Stange prepared a draft of the appraisal report on the Silva property. When Respondent Goodwin reviewed this draft, he noted a problem with two of the comparables and instructed Stange to get two more comparables since the ones he had chosen were not suitable. Stange objected to having to locate two more comparables because it meant having to make another trip to Marathon. He did not return to Marathon, but redrafted the appraisal using falsified comparables. The addresses he used included what was, in fact, a trailer park and a non-existent address. He also showed the source of these comparables as "Realtron" which is a computerized multiple listing service that does not even serve Marathon. The falsified appraisal was submitted to Government Employees Corporation on or about March 21, 1984 over Respondent Goodwin's signature, and based thereon a loan was approved. Respondent Goodwin does not remember signing the Silva appraisal and disputes the signature appearing thereon as being his. However, after weighing all the evidence and demeanor of the witnesses, it appears that Stange simply changed the information on two of the Silva comparables to satisfy Goodwin's concerns, and presented the redrafted appraisal to Goodwin who assumed, but did not check, that Stange had return d to Marathon to obtain the corrected comparable data. Goodwin thereupon signed the Silva appraisal and it was submitted to Government Employees Corporation. Stange and Goodwin split a $150 fee for this appraisal. Respondent Goodwin does not routinely follow up on appraisal he has assigned to others to perform even though some of those appraisals are sent out over his signature. He has no way of knowing if an appraisal is overdue, other than by the person who ordered it calling to ask about the status. Florida Appraisal Department, Inc., does over 1,000 appraisals a year and employs seven licensees and two clericals. The Silva appraisal report misrepresented that the subject property had been analyzed with reference to single family residential property in the area that had been sold in the last six (6) months. It further misrepresented two of the comparables, one of which was non-existent and the other of which was a trailer park. Finally, the appraisal misrepresented the source of the comparables by indicating "Realtron" which in fact does not serve the Marathon area. Government Employees Corporation required Respondent Goodwin's signature to appear on all appraisals it ordered from Florida Appraisa1 Department, Inc.
The Issue The issues in this case are as follow: Did Respondent violate Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by representing to Laverne Hahn that he would rent his house to her if she sold her house, representing to Ms. Hahn that he would deliver certain papers to her attorney, and representing to Ms. Hahn that the closing on her house would not occur until after February 15, 1981? Did Respondent violate Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by failing to deliver survey, abstract and title insurance policy documents to Ms. Hahn or her attorney?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Allan R. Heuton, held real estate salesman license #0313305 Assued by the Board of Real Estate (now Florida Real Estate Commission). At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was registered as a salesman with Hugh Anderson Real Estate, Inc., at 2631 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339. Respondent listed with his employer, Hugh Anderson Real Estate, Inc., Laverne Hahn's offer to sell her residence and advised Ms. Hahn at that time that upon the sale of her residence she could rent his residence for a period of six months at the rate of $300 per month. In reliance on Respondent's statement, Ms. Hahn proceeded to sell her residence and made no other arrangements for a place to live, expecting to move into Respondent's house upon closing as per their agreement. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Pages 5 and 8.) Respondent testified to the events surrounding the transaction which gave rise to the Administrative Complaint. The Board presented the deposition of Ms. Hahn taken in Lakeland, Florida. Respondent admitted that he had advised Ms. Hahn it was not unusual to have closings delayed 60 days, and did offer and stood ready to rent his house to Ms. Hahn. Respondent testified that he did not recall picking up any documents from Ms. Hahn, but that had he done so it was his normal business practice to immediately deliver the documents to the attorney handling the closing. Ms. Hahn's deposition reflects that she could not locate the Respondent although she attempted to contact him through his broker's office. This was the reason she could not rent his house. Respondent testified that Ms. Hahn never asked to rent his house. Respondent testified that on January 14, 1981, the day after his birthday, he was suddenly taken ill and had to have emergency surgery in the early morning hours of that day. Respondent's testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Sheilah Kirk, who testified that she visited Respondent in the hospital on January 14 or 15, 1981, and that he was recovering from surgery at that time. Respondent testified that he was hospitalized for more than one week. Respondent testified that he was visited by the manager of the brokerage office for which he worked. It is hardly credible that Ms. Hahn could not find a man who was sick in a hospital for more than one week and whose whereabouts were known to his brokerage office. Wherefore, the Hearing Officer disregards the deponent's testimony and accepts the Respondent's testimony as the more credible concerning the rental of his house Ms. Hahn's deposition reflects that Respondent told her she would not have to move out until February of 1981. Respondent admits he told Ms. Hahn that closings were frequently delayed 60 days or more. The contract for sale originally provided for closing on December 29, 1980, a time which was changed to January 15, 1981, by persons unknown on a date unknown. The contract was signed by Ms. Hahn, who is presumed to have known its terms. Notwithstanding Respondent's statements as to delayed closings, Ms. Hahn had no basis for using such statement as a basis for planning in light of the contract which she signed. Again, Respondent's testimony is deemed to be more credible in light of the closing date provided in the contract for sale. A further conflict exists between Ms. Hahn's deposition and Respondent's testimony regarding the allegation that Respondent picked up certain documents from her but failed to deliver them. Respondent's statement that he had no recollection of the events, but that his regular practice was to deliver such documents immediately, and that since the time in question he has not discovered any such documents in his papers, is deemed credible.
Recommendation Having found that the allegations against the Respondent, Allan R. Heuton, were not proven, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 22nd day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Allan R. Heuton 6891 Forrest Street Hollywood, Florida 33024 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Ann Croasdell is qualified for licensure as a real estate salesperson. More specifically, since her license was previously disciplined, the question is whether,"... because of lapse of time and subsequent good conduct and reputation, or other reason deemed sufficient... " it appears the interest of the public and investors will not be endangered by the granting of registration.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 29, 1987, Ann Croasdell filed her application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. She revealed in response to question #14 that her Florida broker's license had been revoked in March, 1984. Ms. Croasdell's broker's license was disciplined in two cases, heard on the same day, before the Florida Real Estate Commission. In case no. 0021233, DOAH no. 82-1673, she was charged with, and found guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and Section 475.25(1)(b) F.S. On April 19, 1983, the Commission adopted the DOAH Hearing Officer's Recommended Order and suspended Ms. Croasdell's broker's license for three years. In case no. 0020990, DOAH no. 82-1672, Ms. Croasdell was charged with and found guilty of dishonesty, breach of trust and conspiring with another person engaged in such conduct, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and Section 475.25(1)(b) F.S. On April 19, 1983, the Commission adopted the DOAH Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, except as to penalty, and revoked her real estate broker's license. In both cases the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the orders Per Curiam, and issued its mandates on March 9, 1984. Ms. Croasdell's disciplinary actions arose out of dealings with William Young, later known as the "multi-lock burglar." In DOAH case #82-1672, it was found that Ms. Croasdell was a willing accomplice with Young in a series of burglaries in which access was gained through use of the multi-lock boxes used by realtors to show homes for sale. Golf clubs and towels were stolen. Ms. Croasdell assisted in the investigation leading to young's conviction and she was never arrested nor charged with a criminal violation. In DOAH case #82-1673, the Hearing Officer found Ms. Croasdell made application, and obtained a second mortgage loan in her own name on property that she had previously conveyed to William Young. She misrepresented to the mortgage company the true owner of the property. Ms. Croasdell is a reformed alcoholic. She characterizes herself as an alcoholic drinker between 1974 and March 1984. She now participates actively in Alcoholics Anonymous, attends meetings several days a week and sponsors other women alcoholics. She works with the AA Hot Line and a halfway house for women alcoholics. She is employed part-time teaching real-estate related courses at a technical school. She is also attending college, with some support in the form of tuition and books from the Florida Division of vocational Rehabilitation. Respondent presented no evidence to controvert Ms. Croasdell's credible testimony of her complete rehabilitation. She freely admits her wrongdoing in the referenced disciplinary cases. She attributes the wrongs to a fear of William Young and to her alcoholism. During the proceedings before the Commission in 1982 and 1983, she did not admit her alcoholism as she was still in the throes of the disease. Ms. Croasdell's evidence is corroborated in approximately seventeen letters of reference and commendation from her counsellors, former students, employers and business associates. Ann Croasdell held her real estate license between 1978 and 1984. Prior to that, she was employed by various state agencies, including five years with the Florida Real Estate Commission as an administrative assistant and acting and assistant director. With her license she opened a real estate school and built an active business. Her real love is teaching real estate students. She believes she has a gift for this vocation and can make a contribution to the profession. Ms. Croasdell is 47 years old, divorced, with three children. Her account of her life before and after the activities leading to the loss of her license lends credence to the theory that her behavior was an aberration peculiar to her relationship with Young and to the final stages of her alcoholism. The Commission's letter of intended denial is not in evidence; however, at the brief proceeding before the Commission in May, 1987, the unanimous vote of the members was based upon the expressed concern that insufficient time had passed. While the discipline in one case (#82-1673) was a three-year suspension, the Board rejected the Hearing Officer's recommendation for a five year suspension in case #82-1672, in favor of revocation. According to the findings in the disciplinary cases, the wrongful conduct took place primarily in 1979 and 1980. The Appellate Court mandates were issued in 1984, and Ms. Croasdell has been un-licensed for almost four years. Additional time would serve no purpose other than further assurance that a relapse will not occur.
Recommendation It is, hereby Recommended: That the Commission enter its Final Order granting the application of Ann Croasdell for licensure as a real estate salesperson. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of December in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 23rd day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 W. 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 32399-0750
The Issue The issue in Count I is whether Section 475.42(1)(j) absolutely prohibits a broker or salesman from filing a lien or other encumberance against real property to collect a commission. The issue in Count II is whether the Respondents violated a lawful order of the Commission by failing to remove the motion of lis pendens contrary to Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Conclusions Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: "No real estate broker or salesman shall place, or cause to be placed, upon the public records of any county, any contract, assignment, deed, will, mortgage, lien, affidavit, or other writing which purports to affect the title of, or encumber, any real property, if the same is known to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property, maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce the payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person, or for any unlawful purpose." Clearly the Respondents placed or caused to be placed the notice of lis pendens in question. A notice of lis pendens is clearly an "other writing which purports to effect the title of, or encumber, any real property." The Florida Real Estate Commission argues that this provision is an absolute bar to the filing of any lien for the purpose of collecting a commission. The Respondents argue that this provision is not an absolute bar and there are circumstances when a broker may file a notice of lis pendens. They also assert that the notice of lis pendens falls within the exception because the Circuit Court refused to remove the notice of lis pendens upon motion of the property owner. Lastly, it is argued that the notice was filed by counsel for the Respondents in good faith on an action at law and that this mitigates their action even if there was a violation. The language of Section 475.42(1)(j) cannot be read to absolutely prohibit a broker from obtaining a lis pendens. When given this construction, it effectively denies brokers and salesmen access to the courts for redress of injury as provided in Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Section 475.42(1)(j) is a complex provision which is subject to two interpretations. One interpretation would prohibit a broker or salesman from filing an encumberance if the same were known to him to be false, void or not authorized by law; if not authorized to be upon the public records; if not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded; if the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property; if maliciously (filed); if for the purpose of collecting a commission, if to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person; or if for any other unlawful purpose. This first interpretation would consider each clause a separate limitation on filing an encumberance. The facts analyzed under this interpretation do not show any knowledge by Respondents that the lis pendens was false, void or not authorized to be filed or not on a form entitling it to be recorded. The facts do not show that Respondents filed the lis pendens maliciously, for the purpose of collecting a commission, or for the purpose of coercing payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. The nature of lis pendens would not require the owner's authorization of execution for recording. The facts show that the lis pendens was filed by Respondent's attorney in conjunction with a suit brought by the Respondents against Perrin. The record also shows that the circuit court determined that the lis pendens was recordable when it denied the motion to remove it. The notice of lis pendens was neither malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting the commission. The notice was for the purpose of perfecting the claim against the property for execution of the judgment if the Respondents prevailed in the suit. Executing on a judgment is different from collecting the commission or coercing payment. Under this interpretation the Respondents have not been shown to violate Section 475.42(1)(j). A second interpretation would read the clause, ". . . if the same is known to to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been authorized by the owner of the property. . ." as the first of two criteria to be met to establish a violation. The second criteria would consist of proof that the encumberance was recorded maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. Again the facts do not show there was knowledge by the Respondents of the falsity, or impropriety of the notice of lis pendens, as stated above. Again the facts show that the lis pendens was filed in conjunction with a law suit pending between the Respondent and the property owner, and that the court before which the action was pending refused to remove it. The file of the notice by Respondent's counsel was a legitimate method of perfecting the Respondent's claim should they prevail and obtain judgment. The facts do not indicate that the filing of the notice was malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting a commission. Under either interpretation, Respondents did not violate the statute. COUNT II The Respondents are charged in Count II with violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that the registration of a registrant may be suspended for up to two years for violation of a lawful order of the Commission. Clearly, the facts reveal that the Respondents had a substantial interest involved in the litigation with Perrin. The order, of the Florida Real Estate Commission to remove the notice of lis pendens substantially affected their rights in this litigation. Therefore, any final order directing Kay to remove the notice of lis pendens should have issued after an opportunity for hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The evidence reveals that the Florida Real Estate Commission did not notice a hearing under Section 120.57, and therefore its order cannot be "lawful." The provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d) require that registrants not violate lawful orders. The Respondents have not violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by not removing the notice of lis pendens as directed by the order of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the Respondent, Sam Kaye and Sam Kaye, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William E. Boyes, Esquire Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, P.A. Post Office Box 3466 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
