The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Respondents Wilson and Son Sales, Inc. (Wilson), and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, as surety, are indebted to Petitioner for certain Florida-grown agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a producer of several vegetable crops in Hardee County. Wilson is a dealer in agricultural products. More specifically, Wilson operates an agricultural broker business in Plant City. Wilson’s surety is Ohio Casualty Insurance Company. Although Wilson has written contracts with some producers, Wilson does not have written contracts with all producers. In the absence of a contract, the terms of Wilson’s broker services are almost always the same; that is, Wilson gets a commission of 10 percent on the sale of the produce and $.35 per box for palletizing and pre-cooling the produce, in return for which Wilson makes a reasonable and good faith effort to sell Petitioner’s produce for the best price. Petitioner contacted Wilson in January 2007, about bringing flat beans to Wilson to sell. Wilson expressed interest and informed Petitioner about Wilson’s standards terms as described above. These terms were agreeable to Petitioner and he brought the beans to Wilson later that month. Although Petitioner and Wilson had no written contract, the parties’ mutual understanding of the terms of their agreement created an enforceable oral contract. Wilson sold Petitioner’s beans and no dispute arose from this first transaction. The parties’ subsequent transactions for other produce were undertaken pursuant to the same oral contract terms. Because Wilson works on a commission basis, it is generally in Wilson’s self-interest to sell growers’ produce for the best price. Petitioner contacted Robert Wilson, Wilson’s owner, by telephone in February 2007, and informed Wilson of his plans to grow wax beans and “hard squash.” It was not stated in the record whether all three varieties of hard squash later grown by Petitioner, butternut squash, acorn squash, and spaghetti squash, were discussed by Petitioner and Robert Wilson during their February 2007 telephone conversation. A major dispute in the case was whether the parties’ February discussion about hard squash created some obligation on the part of Wilson beyond the oral contract terms described above. Petitioner claims that Wilson encouraged him to plant the squash and that Petitioner would not have planted the squash otherwise. Petitioner never made clear, however, what additional obligation was created by Robert Wilson’s encouragement beyond the obligation to accept delivery of and make good faith efforts to sell Petitioner’s squash at the best price. Petitioner did not use the word “guarantee,” but his claim seems to be that Wilson became obligated to guarantee that the squash would be sold for a price close to the price published in the Columbia (South Carolina) Market Report, a periodic publication of produce prices. Such an obligation on the part of a broker is contrary to the general practice in the trade. Petitioner’s evidence was insufficient to prove more than that Robert Wilson thought he could sell Petitioner’s squash and had a genuine interest in acting as broker for Petitioner’s squash. The evidence was insufficient to prove the existence of a contractual guarantee that Wilson would obtain a certain price for Petitioner’s hard squash or do more than was promised with regard to the beans that Wilson had sold for Petitioner; that is, to try to sell the produce for the best price. When Petitioner’s wax beans were picked in late April, he brought them to Wilson to sell. No dispute arose regarding the sale of the wax beans. Petitioner brought squash to Wilson in five deliveries between May 12 and May 29, 2007. Petitioner said that on one of these deliveries, he had to leave the boxed squash in the parking lot of Wilson’s facility because there was so much cantaloupe that had been delivered ahead of him. Petitioner says he was told by a Wilson employee that the squash would not be put in the cooler. Petitioner thinks Wilson was more interested in moving the cantaloupe than the hard squash. Petitioner thinks his squash was not put in the cooler or was put in too late. Wilson denies that Petitioner’s squash was not put into the cooler or was put in late. Robert Wilson claims that he made many calls in an effort to sell Petitioner’s squash, but he could not find interested buyers for all of the squash because (1) the demand for hard squash dried up, (2) some of Petitioner’s squash was of low quality, and (3) the squash began to spoil. Petitioner denied these allegations. Petitioner received invoices and other paperwork from Wilson showing that Wilson sold Petitioner’s first delivery of 490 boxes of acorn squash for $10.18 per box. It sold Petitioner’s second delivery of 519 boxes of acorn squash for $2.08 per box. For Petitioner’s third delivery of 110 boxes of acorn squash and 240 boxes of spaghetti squash, Wilson “dumped” the acorn squash by giving it to away for free to the Society of St. Andrews food bank, and sold the spaghetti squash for $5.15 per box. Wilson sold petitioner’s fourth delivery of 279 boxes of butternut squash for $.55 per box.1 Competent substantial evidence in the record established that it is a regular occurrence for agricultural products awaiting sale to decay and become unsellable, and for the broker to dump the products in a landfill or give the products to a charitable organization and then provide the grower a receipt for tax deduction purposes. It was undisputed that Wilson did not notify Petitioner before disposing of his squash. Petitioner claims he should have been notified by Wilson if the squash was beginning to spoil. However, Petitioner did not prove that prior notification was a term of their oral contract. Petitioner claims further that the federal Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act required Wilson to notify Petitioner before dumping the squash and to have the squash inspected to determine whether, in fact, it was spoiled. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, this federal law is not applicable. Competent substantial evidence in the record established that the market for agricultural products fluctuates and, at times, can fluctuate rapidly. For hard squash, which is normally prepared in an oven, the market demand can drop dramatically due to the onset of warm weather simply because people tend not to cook hard squash dishes in warm weather. Petitioner’s squash was being marketed in May, which means the beginning of warm weather for most areas of the United States. This fact supports Wilson’s claim that the demand for hard squash had been good, but fell rapidly just at the time Wilson was trying to sell Petitioner’s squash. The problem with the claims made by Petitioner in this case is simply one of insufficient proof. It is not enough for Petitioner to offer theories about what he thinks happened or to raise questions which are not fully answered. Petitioner had no proof that his squash was not put in Wilson’s cooler, that his squash did not begin to decay, that the demand for hard squash did not fall rapidly, that Wilson did not make reasonable efforts to sell the squash, that Wilson had willing buyers for Petitioner’s squash at a better price, or that Wilson sold squash from other growers at a better price. Petitioner’s evidence for his claims consisted primarily of market price reports that he contends show the approximate price Wilson should have gotten for the hard squash. Market price reports have some relevance to the issues in this case, but competent evidence was presented that the prices quoted in the publications are not always reliable to indicate the price a grower can expect to get on any given day, because there are factors that cause the published market price to be an inflated price (and applicable to the highest grade of produce) and because the market price can change rapidly with a change in demand for the product. The oral contract between Petitioner and Wilson required Wilson to try to get the best price for Petitioner’s squash, not some particular price appearing in a particular market price report. Petitioner did not show that Wilson got a better price for hard squash of equal quality, or that other brokers in the area got a better price for hard squash of equal quality at the times relevant to this case. Petitioner’s evidence was insufficient to prove that Wilson did not make a reasonable and good faith effort to sell Petitioner’s squash at the best price.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s amended claim. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 2008.
The Issue As stipulated by the parties and as reflected in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated September 28, 1992 the issues for resolution are whether Respondent misrepresented property for sale at auction or made false promises concerning the use, value or condition of such property; whether this conduct demonstrates bad faith or dishonesty; whether Respondent failed to appropriately conduct and maintain control of the auction; and whether the Respondent used false bidders, cappers or shills. (Joint Prehearing Statement filed 9/28/92) If those violations occurred, an appropriate penalty must be determined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ronald Ray Kool, Sr., (Kool) has been licensed continually as an auctioneer in the State of Florida since approximately 1988, having been issued license number AU 0000510. He is the registered owner of the business, A-Plus Auctions, which is issued license number AB 0000071. On July 9, 1990, Respondent contracted with Dr. Florence Alexander for the conduct of an auction at the Ebon Center, in Titusville, Florida. The contract was renegotiated, and a subsequent written contract was entered between the parties on July 26, 1990, for the auction to be held on July 28, 1990. The latter contract provided that the auction was a reserve auction, that is, minimum bids were provided by Dr. Alexander for the items offered for sale. Prior to the auction, on July 27, 1990, some items originally included in the list for the auction were sold by Ebon Galleries, and numerous other items were substituted. This was satisfactory to Kool as the potential commission on the substitute items was considerably larger. This transaction constituted an oral amendment by the parties. As advertised, the auction commenced at 10:00 a.m., July 28, 1990 at the Ebon Center in Titusville. The goods for sale were on display and available for inspection by the bidders prior to, and during the auction in a large warehouse area where the auction was being held. The items were mostly oriental pots, vases, lamps, ceramic figures, mugs, frames, and other decorator pieces and bric-a-brac. There were approximately 200-250 bidders. As they entered the auction area all bidders were given a perforated card to fill out. The lower portion included their name, address, phone number and assigned bidder identification number. This was detached and given to the auction clerk. The top portion was retained by the bidder and included the assigned bidder number and this text: EVERYTHING MUST BE PAID IN FULL ON THE DAY OF THE AUCTION regardless of when it is picked up. Everything will be sold "as is, where is", with no guarantees of any kind, regardless of statement of condition made from the auction block. Buyers shall rely entirely on their own inspection and information Every effort is made to "guard" merchandise throughout the auction; however, the bidder becomes solely responsible for all items purchased by him immediately following his winning bid. Therefore, he is advised to further guard his items at his own discretion. The Bidder is responsible for knowing which items he is bidding on. If he is unsure, he should inquire or not bid. When you become the winning bidder at auction you have effected a contract and will be expected to pay for items in which you were evidenced to be the successful bidder. Auctioneer will not honor "mistakes". The Auctioneer reserves the right to accept bids in any increment he feels is in the best interest of his client, the seller. The Auctioneer reserves the right to reject the bidding of any person whose conduct, auctions, or adverse comments he feels are not in the best interest of the seller. (Petitioner's Ex. #14, deposition of Kool, ex. 6 to deposition) At the commencement of the auction Kool announced various ground rules or terms of the auction, including the fact that this was not an absolute auction, that bidders had an obligation to inspect merchandise because they were responsible for what they bought and that there was a ten percent buyer's premium on the sales. "Buyer's premium" is a surcharge on the bid price, which surcharge is received by the auctioneer, along with his commission from the seller. Kool also introduced his employees and informed the gathered bidders that he and his employees would bid if they wished and the bidders would know when employees were bidding. Kool and his employees were assigned bidder numbers 502 through 509. The male employees wore gray slacks and gray shirts with "A-Plus Auctions" embroidered on the shirts. The women employees wore blue dresses with "A-Plus Auctions" inscribed. The employees were up front working behind the table and in front of the auctioneer. When they bid, they raised their hands like anyone else. Max Algase and Herbert Michaels arrived at the auction just as the introduction was being completed. Max Algase was assigned bidder number 569 and received the card described above. Max Algase describes himself as a "liquidator"; he buys and sells merchandise, including entire stores or chains of stores and occasionally attends auctions. Herbert Michaels is a good friend and sometimes business associate of Algase. Michaels is on disability retirement from Zayre's Department Stores, where he was merchandise manager for twenty years and was responsible for twenty-eight stores' apparel, comprising $85 million in sales. At some point during the auction, Shirley Thompson (now Shirley Thompson Effron) sat down next to the two men and introduced herself. The three individuals decided to form a partnership, each putting up a third for the purchases at the auction, and then reselling the items later in a shop that they would open for that purpose. Algase considered the venture "a lark" rather than a serious business deal. (Transcript, p. 51) So many purchases were made by bidder number 569 (Algase, or Liquidators III, the ad hoc partnership) that during the course of the auction, the computer program utilized by Kool ran out of data space for that number, and another number, 626, was assigned. During the auction the seller, Dr. Alexander obtained bidder number 604 and she purchased three items. When Kool recognized her as a purchaser, he turned the auction block over to another auctioneer and confronted Dr. Alexander, telling her that it was inappropriate for her to bid. The items she had purchased were put back up for sale. Towards the end of the auction, Dr. Alexander approached Kool and asked about placing some racks of clothing up for sale. He agreed, reluctantly, because clothing sales are time-consuming, and the racks of clothes were wheeled out to the warehouse floor. The clothes were in two categories, one group was a large number of heavy woolen items, coats, capes, jackets, suits and the like; the other, smaller group was mostly lightweight dresses, bathing suits and similar items. Kool announced the clothes would be placed for sale and invited the bidders to go look at them. About five or ten minutes later bidding started on the items, "bidders choice". That means the individual who bid highest would get the first choice of the multiple items. The reserve, or lowest bid acceptable, was $75.00 each. After ten or fifteen minutes, only a few items had been sold and Kool told Dr. Alexander to remove them from the floor. She and her father wheeled the racks back into the front showroom of the building. One of the participants interested in the clothing was Herbert Michaels. He inspected the racks, felt and touched the clothing and convinced Algase that the items were well worth $35.00 a piece. The partners bought the woolen items for $35.00 each, and the lighter items at $10.00 each. All three partners have a different version of how the sale took place. Herbert Michaels claims that Kool, while off the auction block, negotiated the sale with Max Algase and Shirley Thompson Effron; Max Algase claims that after the woolen items were offered at "bidders choice", they were offered from the block at "bidder take all", and he won the bid at $35.00 apiece. Shirley Thompson Effron claims that after the clothing was removed from the floor, Dr. Alexander approached their group and negotiated the sale with Max Algase. The latter version is consistent with Kool's testimony and that of his other witnesses and is credited. The latter version is also consistent with a tally sheet identified by Kool as a paper brought to him by Dr. Alexander approving the transaction. (Petitioner's Ex. 14, Kool deposition, exhibit 6 to the deposition) During the clothing deal, Algase, Herbert Michaels and Shirley Thompson Effron went to the showroom while Kool's employees counted the items. There were 550 woolen items and 88 lighter items, with a total cost of $19,250.00 for the former and $880.00 for the latter. The counts are reflected on the tally sheet given to Kool. Algase paid for these and other items purchased at the auction with a check. Later, he made arrangements with Mrs. Kool to substitute cash and he did so on Tuesday of the following week, when he had all of the clothing loaded into large trucks for removal from the Ebon Center. The Liquidators III venture was not successful. Few of the items were resold as they had hoped. The relationship between Shirley Thompson Effron and Max Algase deteriorated and he is suing her husband's corporation. On November 7, 1990, Shirley Thompson Effron, as secretary of the partnership, and at the insistence of Max Algase, sent a letter to Ron Kool complaining that they bargained for, and bought, coats, but that more than half of the items were dresses, suits or skirts. The letter demanded "full restitution immediately". (Petitioner's Ex. 11) In March 1991, Algase complained to the Department of Professional Regulation, and Investigator Bobby Hunter conducted interviews and gathered documents, including the records maintained by A-Plus Auctions for the July 1990 auction. Those records reflect the bidder number 500 for many items, with a "0" final settlement price. That is a number assigned by Mrs. Kool, a licensed auctioneer and the business manager for the company, to account for items which were offered for sale but did not reach the minimum bid set by the seller, Dr. Alexander. Bidder numbers assigned to A-Plus employees show purchases of several items, mostly small, less than $10.00, the largest amount being $40.00. The records also reflect that the 550 woolen items bought by Algase and his partners are described as "coats" on the final settlement printout. This description was assigned by an employee of A-Plus Auctions when the items were offered for sale. There is no credible evidence that Kool described the items from the auction block as only coats. Rather, he described woolen clothing, including alpaca coats from Central or South America. Herbert Michaels conceded that he knew the items were not all coats before the sale was made because he had inspected the racks on the floor. He found capes as well as coats, and tops to ensembles. (Transcript, p. 34) Several expert auctioneers testified on behalf of the parties, one on behalf of Petitioner and two for the Respondent, with a combined experience of 62 years in auctioneering. Their opinions did not vary substantially. They expressed concern with the fact that the owner, Dr. Alexander, managed to bid on several lots, but they agreed that Kool handled the problem properly after he discovered it. They also agreed that side deals like the one involving the clothing deprive the general public of an opportunity to participate, but they are not illegal so long as records are kept and funds, including the commission, are disbursed and accounted for. The experts described the practice, more common in the past than now, of "dropping on the house number". An auctioneer can falsely raise bids by acknowledging a phony bid. If the phony bid is not raised, the auctioneer is stuck with it and announces the sale to a "house number", not associated with any real bidder, but in the words of R. L. Huntsinger, bid by "Mr. Wall", "Mr. Floor", "Mr. Ceiling", etc. The appearance of the number 500 without a bidder identified, in Kool's records of the auction, raised the suspicion that this illegal practice was used. Respondent and his witnesses adequately explained why the number was used, however, to account for items that did not reach the reserve minimum bid. Even Petitioner's expert conceded that he could not say that the practice was used in this case. (Transcript, p. 180) Petitioner's expert also opined that any errors committed by Respondent were due to lack of knowledge and not because of an intent to defraud the public or the seller. (Transcript, p. 193) The weight of evidence, taking into consideration the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, fails to support a finding that Respondent Kool committed the violations alleged. He did not misrepresent the property being sold. The clothing was described as such, and not as only "coats". The complainants, sophisticated and experienced business people, had an opportunity to inspect the items and knew what they were buying. There is no evidence of bad faith or dishonesty and the evidence presented by Respondent effectively forecloses a finding that he used or permitted the use of false bidders. Although Max Algase was not required to re-register when he was assigned a subsequent number, the records produced at hearing confirm the testimony of Mrs. Kool that Algase was bidder number 626. The auction on July 28, 1990 was an all-day affair with a high volume of goods to be moved. As principal auctioneer, Kool was in charge and maintained control. He hired experienced, competent employees and utilized only licensed auctioneers in calling the bids. Certain tasks were appropriately delegated to his wife, also a licensed auctioneer. Recordkeeping was thorough and substantially accurate. While Respondent regrets that the seller, Dr. Alexander, was given a bidder number and managed to bid, her participation, as concluded below, is not prohibited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding no violation by Respondent and dismissing the amended administrative complaint. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 24th day of May, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3112 The following are specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Rejected as irrelevant. Included in paragraph 3. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 4. Rejected as irrelevant (see paragraph 3.) Rejected as irrelevant. Included in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 8. 12.-14. Rejected as unnecessary. The clothing was not described at auction as only coats. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. (see 12-14, above) Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 11. 18.-19. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejected as unnecessary, but addressed by implication in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 13. and 14. Addressed in paragraph 21, but the implication of illegality is rejected as contrary to the law and rules. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 30.-31. Rejected as irrelevant, and contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 17. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and a misstatement of the expert's testimony. The witness was responding to a hypothetical question. 34.-35. Adopted in paragraph 6. 36. Addressed in paragraphs 21. and 26. 37.-44. Rejected as unnecessary. 45. Adopted in paragraph 10. 46.-50. Rejected as immaterial. 51. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. "Control" also means delegation to competent staff. See Rule 21BB-5.001(2), F.A.C. 52.-55. Rejected as irrelevant. These proposed facts do not relate to any alleged violation of statute or rule. Respondent's Proposed Facts 1.-3. Adopted in paragraph 1. 4. Adopted in paragraph 2. 5.-6. Adopted in paragraph 4. 7. Adopted in paragraph 5. 8. Adopted in paragraph 7. 9. Adopted in paragraph 2. and 6. 10. Adopted in paragraph 4. 11. Adopted in paragraph 5. 12. Adopted in paragraph 6. 13. Adopted in paragraph 19. 14. Adopted in paragraph 10. 15. Adopted in paragraph 11. 16. Adopted in paragraph 8. 17. Adopted in paragraph 15. 18. Adopted in paragraph 12. 19. Adopted in paragraph 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 26. Rejected as unnecessary; included by implication in paragraph 24. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Cammarata, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Joseph E. Miniclier, Esquire 1970 Michigan Avenue Building E Cocoa, Florida 32924-8248 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Suzanne Lee, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Auctioneers 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The facts surrounding the events here involved were not in dispute. Ann Ford Realty Office obtained a listing on the property here under consideration and published information relative to this property in Multiple Listing Service (MLS)(Exhibit 3). Price, legal description, zoning, etc. were included but soil type, elevation, fill req'd and piling req'd blocks were left blank. Two contracts were actually negotiated on the sale of this property. Only the second contract, on which conditions had been added regarding the cost of providing foundation grouting, was introduced into evidence. Floyd Worthen, a salesman with Defendants, obtained an offer from the buyer to purchase this commercial property. The buyer intended to use the property to erect a warehouse. Previous potential buyers of this property had withdrawn when they discovered the soil conditions were bad for building purposes. This information was known to the listing broker but not to the selling broker, defendant herein. At the time the offer to purchase (Exhibit 1) was submitted to the seller the buyer was aware that soil conditions were not good but was led to believe that only additional grouting would be required in the foundation. Nevertheless he engaged the services of an engineer to make soil tests on the property. The offer provided that the buyer would put up an additional deposit of $1950 upon acceptance of the offer by the seller. When accepted by the seller on October 28, 1975, the offer ripened into a contract and buyer was advised by the Defendant that the additional deposit was now due. Defendant was advised that the additional deposit could be picked up on October 29. Buyer's check for $1950 was picked up by Worthen en route home on October 29 after the banks were closed. This check was delivered to the Defendants the following morning. Early on the morning of October 30, 1975, the buyer learned from his engineer that the soil conditions of the property were much worse than he had been led to believe and that piling would be required to support the proposed warehouse. He immediately called Defendant to inquire if his check had been deposited and when advised that it had not (because the banks were not yet open) he advised Defendants of the bad soil report, and requested the return of his check. The salesman and the Defendant broker, Delor, discussed the request of the buyer and decided that the equities of the situation required them to return the buyer's check. They also properly concluded that the buyer could stop payment on the check and that by refusing to return the check to him, they would probably lose him as a potential client in the future. Accordingly, they advised the buyer that his check would not be deposited and would be returned to him. The listing broker was advised after the decision was made to return the buyer's check. It further appears that the listing broker's complaint led to the charges considered at this hearing, but no charges have been brought against the listing broker for failure to disclose material facts when listing the property.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a real estate broker, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 16, 2010, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state 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 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed in the State of Florida as a real estate broker, having been issued license BK-575099. Respondent is registered as a sole proprietor broker, trading as Atlantic Auction Realty. On February 21, 2008, Respondent, acting through his company, entered into a contract (auction contract) with David Mover to auction a townhouse owned by Mr. Mover located at 8626 S.W. 94th Street, Miami, Florida (the subject property). Mr. Mover had been trying to sell the subject property for approximately two years. In March 2007, Mr. Mover became unable to make the mortgage payments on the subject property. On February 21, 2008, the Circuit Court in and for Dade County, Florida, entered a Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure (Judgment of Foreclosure) against the subject property in favor of Washington Mutual Bank, the holder of the first mortgage. The amount of the judgment was $245,727.25. The Judgment of Foreclosure ordered that the property be sold at public sale on April 24, 2008. At the time of the auction, there was a second mortgage on the subject property owned by a trust. The approximate amount of the second mortgage was $120,000.00. The trust was a defendant in the foreclosure proceedings. Prior to the auction conducted by Respondent, the trustee of the trust indicated a possible willingness on the part of the trust to accept less than the balance owed on the second mortgage if the property were sold by private auction, as opposed to the public auction ordered by the Judgment of Foreclosure. However, the subject auction occurred prior to the trustee’s making a commitment to take less than the balance owed on the second mortgage. The price listed on the auction contract was $350,000.00. The minimum amount Mr. Mover wanted for the townhouse was $370,000.00, which would have been sufficient to satisfy the Judgment of Foreclosure and the second mortgage. Mr. Mover never agreed to accept less than $370,000.00 for the subject property.2 Mr. Mover understood that the $350,000.00 figure was a starting point for the auction.3 This was not an absolute auction. Mr. Mover had the right to refuse a bid less than $350,000.00. The auction contract contained the following provision in paragraph 3: 3. 10% BUYER’S PREMIUM will be added to the Buyer’s Bid and be the Auctioneer’s total commission. The auction contract provided that the auction would be on March 20, 2008. Respondent prepared a flyer that announced the terms of the auction. Prospective bidders were notified by the flyer that a 10% deposit would be required the day of the sale and that there would be a buyer’s premium of 10% of the bid. Prospective bidders were required to have a cashier’s check in the amount of $10,000.00. The “Auction Terms and Conditions” included the following provisions: Bidder Registration. The auction is open to the public and your attendance is welcomed. To register, you must display a cashier’s check in the amount as set forth in each property description. Upon being declared the top bidder, the cashier’s check will be applied as a partial deposit, and the deposit must be increased to equal (10%) [sic] of each contract price. Please be advised there are no exceptions. . . . Contract and Deposit. Bids may not be retracted once accepted by the auctioneer. Upon being declared top bidder, the cashier’s check will be applied as a partial deposit. . . . The auction was conducted in the driveway of the subject property. Mr. Mover waited in the upper area of the subject property during the auction. Mr. Gordon opened the bidding at the base bid (the bid amount prior to tacking on the buyer’s premium) of $285,000.00, but agreed to up the base bid to $300,000.00 when Respondent agreed to reduce the buyer’s premium to $10,000.00 from 10% of the base bid amount ($28,500.00 for a base bid of $285,000.00 or $30,000.00 for a base bid of $300,000.00). Respondent went upstairs and wrote down the amount of the bid and told Mr. Mover that he would reduce the buyer’s premium to $10,000.00 if Mr. Mover would accept that price. Mr. Mover refused to accept that bid. Mr. Mover believed that the auction had failed to sell the property. After talking with Mr. Mover, Respondent concluded the auction by declaring Mr. Gordon, bidding on behalf of himself and his wife, the winning bidder at the auction. Mr. Gordon’s base bid was in the amount of $300,000.00 plus a buyer’s premium in the amount of $10,000.00, bringing the total bid to $310,000.00. After being declared the winning bidder, Mr. Gordon gave to the Respondent the $10,000.00 cashier’s check he had brought to the auction. Mr. Gordon signed a document styled “Contract for Sale and Purchase at Auction” (Purchase Contract), which reflected a total selling price of $310,000.00 (this figure included the buyer’s premium) and a requirement that the closing date be on or before April 19, 2008. The Purchase Contract contained the following provision relating to the Buyer’s Premium: 8. BUYER’S PREMIUM – WHEN EARNED: it is understood and agreed by the Seller and the Buyer that the Buyer’s Premium is paid to the Auctioneer at the time of the Auction Sale and is the sole property of the Auctioneer, and he is entitled to this money as his fee at the time of said payment. Respondent told Mr. Gordon that he would cash the check Mr. Gordon gave to him on March 20, 2008, after Mr. and Mrs. Gordon had an executed contract signed by both parties. Respondent cashed Mr. Gordon’s check on March 21, 2008. Respondent never presented the Purchase Contract to Mr. Mover, and the transaction never closed. The Gordons were unable to secure financing because they had no contract. Mr. Gordon has made repeated demands for the return of the proceeds from the check he gave to Respondent. Respondent has refused those demands.4 Respondent was aware of the foreclosure proceeding before he conducted the auction. Respondent did not disclose the foreclosure proceeding to Mr. Gordon prior to the auction. After the auction, Mr. Mover filed for bankruptcy. Mr. Gordon filed no claim in that proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Division of Real Estate find Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint. For the violation found in Count I, it is recommended that the final order impose against Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 and that it revoke his broker’s license. For the violation found in Count II, it is recommended that the final order impose an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00 and that it revoke his broker’s license. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 2010
Findings Of Fact In February, 1974 Respondent was a registered real estate salesman working for John R. Finn, a registered real estate broker who operated a branch office at Lake Panasoffkee, Florida. Sam R. Perroni, the father of Respondent, was the office manager of this branch office and a registered real estate salesman. Sam Perroni obtained an open listing on a parcel of land with a house trailer affixed thereto from Eugene Bays, President of Bays Construction Company, the owner of the property. Bays agreed to pay the usual commission of 6 percent if the property was sold through the effort of Finn Realty. The list price of the property was $12,500. Mrs. Dorothy B. Johnson was shown the property by Respondent and thereafter the property was shown to her and her husband Joseph P. Johnson. Following this visit to the property the Johnsons inquired of Respondent if seller would take $12,000, to which he replied he didn't think so. Johnson then offered to pay Respondent $250 if he could persuade the seller to sell the property for $12,000. Respondent then called Eugene Bays in the Johnsons' presence to advise Bays that he had an offer of $12,000 for the property and asked if Bays would accept. When Bays called back to advise he would accept the offer, the contract was prepared by Sam Perroni, executed by the Johnsons, and delivered to the seller for acceptance on Monday, February 25. Receipt for Johnson's earnest money deposit of $250 was dated February 23, 1974 as was the contract. When Respondent told Sam Perroni of Johnson's offer he also advised him Johnson had offered him a bonus of $250. Sam Perroni advised Respondent that this bonus offer should be reported to the seller, and that he, Sam Perroni, would take care of it. The executed contract was returned to Perroni on February 26, 1974 by C. V. Watson, an officer in Bays Construction Company. At this time Perroni says he advised Watson of the bonus offer, but Watson recalls no mention of any such deal. Bays was never advised and would not have sold the property for $12,000 if he had known of the bonus offer. Sam Perroni told Respondent that the sellers had been made aware of the bonus offer. On March 2, 1974, while having dinner at Sam Perroni's, Johnson delivered to Respondent a check (Exhibit 6) for the $250 bonus agreed upon. On the day of the closing when Johnson indicated he was a little short of cash for closing costs, Sam Perroni gave him a check for $60 drawn on Finn Realty. Joseph Finn accepted the contract as the broker in this transaction and was never made aware of the bonus. Of the $720 commission on the sale, $360 went to Respondent. He also retained the $250 bonus. Upon advising Sam Perroni of the offer and acceptance Respondent was not further involved in the property or the closing. Sam Perroni assisted the purchaser in securing a $4,000 purchase money mortgage on the property and in correcting the deed to the property. He considers the services performed on behalf of the purchaser merited the bonus. Some time later Johnson, who thought he had purchased a 10' x 60' trailer learned the trailer was only 55' in length and complained to the Real Estate Commission. During the course of the inquiry on this complaint Johnson "mentioned" the bonus and the charges herein involved resulted.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Mark S. Henderson (hereinafter "Henderson") has been a real estate salesman licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0441662. At all times material hereto, Respondent Auction World of West Florida, Inc., (hereinafter "Auction World") has been a corporate real estate broker registered in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0238372. Respondent Henderson is a real estate salesman/auctioneer employed by Auction World. He moved to Florida in October, 1984, and became a licensed real estate salesman in Florida in February, 1985, some 8 months prior to the transaction forming the basis for the Administrative Complaint. John and Joanne Henneberry signed a listing for the auction/sale of their home with Auction World through Henderson. The Henneberrys are both educated people who had prior experience in buying and selling real estate. The October 1, 1985 listing signed by the Henneberrys provided that it was a 30-day listings provided for a seven percent commission, provided for the Henneberrys to pay advertising costs not to exceed $750, and provided specifically that the $750 would not be considered as an advance fee. The listing further provided for an accounting to be made within 30 days. The Henneberrys gave Auction World a check for $750. The Henneberrys' best friend is Ralph Marciano, a real estate broker. He sold his home through Auction World and referred the Henneberrys to Auction World. The Henneberrys purchased a home through Marciano and throughout the transactions involved here consulted Marciano about how to proceed. Auction World was engaged primarily to sell the Henneberrys' home in Lehigh Acres, and Marciano was involved in the purchase or offers to purchase their new home. Pursuant to the listings advertising for the auction was published by Auction World. The auction was held on October 19, 1985, but no sale resulted from the contract negotiated through the auction. Auction World continued to work on behalf of the Henneberrys pursuant to an oral extension. Johan Ruhe and his wife were advised by Henderson of the availability of the Henneberrys' home in Lehigh Acres. Johan Ruhe is a retired real estate broker who now works for Lee County as its Director of Land Management. In December, 1984, an offer of $66,000 was made by the Ruhes to the Henneberrys through Auction World, but this offer was not accepted. On January 2 or 3, 1985, the Ruhes made an offer on the Henneberrys' home in the amount of $68,000. The offer provided for no down payment; included the range, refrigerator, dishwasher, washer, dryer, curtains and draperies to be included in the sale price; and called for financing over 30 years at an 11 percent fixed rate of interest. It further required that financing be obtained for 80 to 95 percent of the purchase price. This offer was accepted by the Henneberrys, and all parties considered this to be a binding legal contract. The original listing had called for a 7 percent commission, but when the $68,000 contract was signed, the Henneberrys negotiated Auction World from a 7 percent commission down to a $3,000 commission. The Ruhes filed a loan application with B. F. Saul Mortgage Company (hereinafter "B. F. Saul") based upon the $68,000 contract. B. F. Saul has an office in Fort Myers, Florida, which was opened on May 2, 1983, by Robert W. Prange (hereinafter "Prange") who at all times relevant to this action was a vice-president of B. F. Saul and branch manager of the local office. On January 11, 1986, the Henneberrys made an offer to purchase a home from the Jamilles, which was contingent on the Henneberrys closing with the Ruhes. Prior to signing the contract with the Ruhes, the Henneberrys discussed the contract with their best friend, real estate broker Marciano who made changes to the contract and discussed with the Henneberrys the fact that there was no deposit provided in reference to that contract. After the Henneberrys signed the contract to purchase a home from the Jamilles, the Jamilles' broker indicated to the Henneberrys that the Jamilles would like the Henneberrys' contract with the Ruhes to have a provision for a deposit. During this period of time, the Henneberrys were in direct contact with Prange at B. F. Saul, and Prange indicated to them that there was no problem with the Ruhe contract and loan application. After the Jamilles' broker contacted the Henneberrys and asked for a contract showing an escrow deposit on the Henneberry home, the Henneberrys contacted Henderson at Auction World and asked him to draw a new contract to show that a down payment had been made. Henderson prepared a new contract, and the Ruhes signed it. The new contract showed a deposit of $3,600, a purchase price increase of $3,600, and a commission increase of $3,600. In order to show the deposit requested by the Henneberrys, Auction World "gifted" by letter the $3,600 to the Ruhes. The contract was then presented to the Henneberrys. In fact, the Ruhes were not paying $3,600 more to purchase the home for which they already had a contract. Since the new agreement increased the commission by $3,600, Auction World by letter was giving back that sum to the Ruhes so that everything actually stayed the same but an escrow was shown as requested by the Henneberrys. The Henneberrys signed the new contract. At the time that they signed, they knew that the Ruhes were not paying the $3,600 additional purchase price. About the same time that the Henneberrys were requesting that the contract be redrawn to reflect a down payment from the Ruhes, Prange at B. F. Saul became concerned as to whether the Ruhes had sufficient cash available to them to consummate the transaction. When the second contract was taken by Henderson to Prange, Prange suggested that a change be made in it from a fixed interest rate to a variable interest rate so that the Ruhes could qualify for the loan. Prange then "whited out" the listing of personal property that appeared in the contract, suggesting that the deletion of the personal property would reflect an increased value in the price of the real estate. Although Prange was an officer of B. F. Saul, he was on a commission basis. He was not only the loan officer on the Henneberrys/Ruhes transaction, he was also the loan officer on the Henneberrys/Jamilles transaction. Accordingly, he knew that a successful consummation of the Ruhe transaction would ensure him of receiving two commissions but that a lack of success on the Ruhe transaction would automatically defeat the Jamille transaction. Prange knew that there was no escrow of $3,600 as reflected by the second contract Henderson presented to him. Yet, he requested Henderson to execute a "Verification of Earnest Money" form, which stated that an earnest money deposit had been received in the amount of $3,600 to be held toward the down payment and/or closing costs on the Henneberrys home. The form did not represent that the money was held in escrow, nor did it differentiate between whether that money was the down payment toward the purchase or whether that money was to be used toward closing costs. Henderson signed the verification that the $3,600 deposit was being held by Auction World because he believed the gift to the Ruhes was the same as having the deposit since it was Auction World's $3,600. Additionally, the buyer, the seller, and the loan officer were aware of the contents and reasons for the series of contracts, and the gift was evident from the series of contracts involved. Henderson prepared another contract. He also prepared an addendum to that contract containing an agreement on the purchase of the personal property since he believed the personal property had to be mentioned somewhere in order to protect both the buyer and the seller. The addendum was signed on or about February 13, 1985. The newest contract also provided for the seller to pay the closing costs. When the addendum was presented to the Henneberrys they insisted that an additional provision be added to the addendum that would guarantee that the buyer would pay the Henneberrys $4,000 toward the closing costs prior to the closing. Therefore, at the Henneberrys' request, language was added to the addendum to provide that $4,000 would be paid to the Henneberrys 72 hours prior to the closing by either Auction World or by the Ruhes. Despite the efforts of Henderson and Prange to successfully structure the Henneberry/Ruhe transaction, the Ruhes were not able to obtain approval on their loan application, and the Henneberry/Ruhe sale was not consummated. The listing agreement for the auction of the Henneberry home required that the Henneberrys pay $750 to Auction World to pay for the costs of advertising the auction. The listing contract specifically provided that the $750 did not represent an advance fee but simply represented costs of advertising. Since the statutes regulating the real estate profession do not define what constitutes an advance fee, Henderson consulted an attorney regarding the desire to obtain advertising costs in advance. The listing form used and the method of handling the Henneberrys' $750 was in compliance with the recommendation to Auction World and Henderson by that attorney. The legal advice given to them was that none of the $750 should be used on any overhead or internal expenses but rather the $750 must all be spent on independent outside advertising. Since the listing agreement specified that the $750 was not an advance fee, and since Henderson and Auction World followed the procedure recommended to them by an attorney, all parties believed that the funds were not an advance fee. The listing called for an accounting within 30 days, and an oral accounting was provided at that time. The Henneberrys did not request a further accounting until February 27 or 28, 1985. A written accounting was provided by March 11, 1985. No evidence was offered to show that any of the $750 was kept other than in a trust or escrow account at Auction World, and no evidence was offered to indicate that any of it was misused. In fact, the advertising expenses on the Henneberry home exceeded $750, and Auction World bore the extra expense.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents Henderson and Auction World not guilty of the allegations contained within Counts I, III, and V, and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against them. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0602 Respondents Henderson and Auction World's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 30, 35, 36, and 38 have been rejected as not constituting findings or fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law or argument of counsel. Respondents Henderson and Auction World's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 6, and 7 have been rejected as being immaterial to the issues under consideration herein. Respondents Henderson and Auction World's proposed findings of fact numbered 3-5, 8-29, 31-34, 37, and 39-42 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 E. G. Couse Esquire Post Office Drawer 1647 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensure and regulation of real estate brokers and salespersons in the State of Florida pursuant to chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this action, Respondent was licensed a real estate sales associate in the State of Florida. On November 18, 2010, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, which reads in pertinent part: On or about October 5, 2007, Respondent prepared a sales purchase contract on behalf of Anne Vincent (Buyer) and Donald Gilchrest (Seller) for a property known as 6521 SW 9th Street, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023 for $250,000. Respondent represented in the sales and purchase contract for the Subject Property that a $2,000 deposit was held in escrow by Title Sense Inc. Respondent communicated to the Sellers that he had received a check in the amount of $2,000 from the Buyer. * * * 10. Respondent failed to place with Respondent's registered employer any funds entrusted to Respondent by the Buyer for the Subject Property. * * * 12. Respondent failed to deliver a copy of the sales and purchase contract to Respondent's Broker, Edgar Rhenals. Based upon the foregoing, Petitioner alleged that Respondent violated section 475.25 (1)(b), (1)(e), and (1)(k), Florida Statutes, as well as Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.009. As discussed in the preliminary statement of this Recommended Order, Petitioner's sole witness at the final hearing was Ms. Krystal Cordo, an investigator employed with the Division of Real Estate. Other than Ms. Cordo's description of statements made by Respondent during the investigation——in which Respondent denied all wrongdoing——Ms. Cordo's testimony and investigative report consisted entirely of hearsay, with no applicable hearsay exceptions. In light of the complete absence of incriminating non-hearsay evidence, Petitioner properly conceded that Respondent's guilt could not be established in connection with any of the charges.2 Accordingly, the undersigned finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of Counts I, II, and III of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate and for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent is a licensed real estate sales person under license number 0466167. Respondent's real estate license was invalid during the dates at issue in this proceeding. The license expired on September 30, 1993, and was activated on February 1, 1994. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a voluntary inactive sales person at 171C Springwood Boulevard, Longwood, Florida. On October 28, 1993, Mr. Frank Canty, terminated Respondent from employment at Frank G. Canty Realty ("Canty"). Mr. Canty notified Respondent of the termination by telephone on or about the same day and immediately filed the form required to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission (the "Commission") of Respondent's change in status. 2/ Mr. Robert Sirianni and Respondent are long time friends. Mr. Sirianni is the broker and owner for Bay Hill Realty, Inc ("Bay Hill"). Mr. Sirianni hired Respondent as a real estate sales person for Bay Hill on November 22, 1993. Mr. Sirianni signed the completed form required to notify the Commission that Respondent had placed his license with Bay Hill. Mr. Sirianni gave the completed form to Respondent to hand deliver to the Commission. However, Respondent failed to deliver the form to the Commission. On November 22, 1993, Respondent showed a condominium to prospective buyers. Respondent represented that he was an employee of Canty. Respondent delivered a written offer of $36,000 to Watson Realty Corporation ("Watson"), the listing office. Respondent used his Canty business card in the transaction. A representative of Watson contacted Mr. Canty to discuss some problems in the transaction. Mr. Canty informed the representative that Respondent was terminated from Canty on October 28, 1993. Watson caused a new contract to be executed between the buyers and sellers showing Watson Realty as the listing and selling office. The transaction closed on the new contract. On December 13, 1993, Mr. Sirianni faxed a memorandum to Watson claiming the sales commission purportedly earned by Respondent. Mr. Sirianni withdrew the demand after learning of the facts and circumstances surrounding the matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order: finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.42(1)(b); authorizing the issuance of a written reprimand; placing Respondent on probation for one year; and imposing a fine of $1,000 to be paid in accordance with this Recommended Order. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 9th day of May 1995.
