The Issue Whether Respondent's license issued by Petitioner should be revoked or suspended, or the licensee be otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Sections 475.25(1)(a) and 475.25(3) Florida Statutes as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. This case was consolidated for hearing with that of other respondents by Order of the undersigned Hearing Officer dated August 8, 1977. The consolidated cases heard on November 7, 1977 are as follows: Case No. 77-1269, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. John Glorian and General American Realty Corporation Case No. 77-1275, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. James Henkel Case No. 77-1277, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. Alfred Landin Case No. 77-1278, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. Joseph Macko The evidence in this case consisted solely of the testimony of the Respondents in the above listed four cases, and Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1 withdrawn) which consisted of certain written material furnished to prospective clients by the Florida Landowners Service Bureau, including a listing and brokerage agreement sample form. Petitioner sought to elicit the testimony of Kenneth Kasha and Theodore Dorwin, but both of these prospective witnesses invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and declined to testify in this case. After inquiring into the basis of their claims, the Hearing Officer permitted the same and they were excused from the hearing. Both individuals based their claims on the fact that they are currently under criminal investigation by state law enforcement authorities with respect to their prior activities as real estate brokers in advance fee transactions. Although Petitioner contended that Dorwin had waived his privilege by testifying in prior administrative proceedings brought by the Florida Real Estate Commission which led to the revocation of his broker's license, and that Kasha also had waived his privilege by testifying in am administrative proceeding brought by the Florida Division of Land Sales and Condominiums concerning advance fee sales, it was determined by the Hearing Officer that any such waivers did not extend to the instant proceeding. Petitioner then sought to introduce into evidence the prior testimony of Dorwin and Kasha in the aforementioned administrative proceedings, but such admission was not permitted by the Hearing Officer because the Respondents herein had not been afforded an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses at the time they gave such testimony. Respondent Joseph Macko appeared at the hearing unaccompanied by legal counsel. The Hearing Officer advised him of his rights in the administrative hearing. Respondent is now a registered non-active real estate salesman, and was at all times alleged in the Administrative Complaint, a registered salesman in the employ of General American Realty Corporation, a registered corporate broker (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3).
Findings Of Fact General American Realty Corporation was first registered by petitioner as a corporate broker in 1970. In 1972 John Glorian became the president of the firm and active broker. He was hired by Richard T. Halfpenny who was the owner and principal stockholder at the time. Alfred Landin, a registered real estate salesman, joined the firm in February, 1975. At that time, General American was in the business of selling acreage property in Florida. In the summer of 1975, Glorian recommended to Halfpenny that the firm become involved in the "advance fee" business. Such transactions in the trade involved the telephone solicitation of out-of-state landowners to list their land in Florida for sale with a Florida broker for a prescribed fee which would become part of any sales commission if and when the particular property was sold. Halfpenny expressed no objections to the idea and Glorian thereafter contacted Theodore Dorwin who was then associated with Florida Landowners Service Bureau in Miami. Kenneth Kasha was the president of that firm which was involved in the advance fee business. Glorian introduced Dorwin to the firm's salesmen, who included Joseph Macko, James H. Henkel, and Landin. Dorwin instructed these personnel in the method of soliciting prospective clients and provided an outline of the information that was to be given to those individuals called by the salesmen. He told the General American personnel that once the property was listed with Florida Landowners Service Bureau, it would be advertised in newspapers and catalogs, and that bona fide efforts would be made by his organization to sell the property. (Testimony of Glorian, Landin, Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 5-6). General American commenced its advance fee operation approximately August, 1975. The procedure followed was for a salesman to call an out-of-state landowner picked from a computer print-out list and inquire if he would be interested in selling his property at a higher price than he had paid for it. This was termed a "front" call and the salesman was termed as "fronter". If the prospect expressed interest in listing his property, his name was provided to Florida Landowners Service Bureau who then mailed literature to the property owner describing the efforts that would be made by that organization to sell his property. Also enclosed with this material was a listing and brokerage agreement. This agreement provided that the owner of the property would pay a prescribed listing fee to Florida Landowners Service Bureau which would be credited against a ten percent commission due that firm upon sale of the property. In return, Florida Landowners Service Bureau agreed to include the property in its "listing directory" for a one-year period, direct its efforts to bring about a sale of the property, advertise the property as deemed advisable in magazines or other mediums of merit, and to make an "earnest effort" to sell the property. The accompanying literature explained that the listing fee was necessary in order to defray administrative costs of estimating the value of the property, merchandising, advertising, brochuring, and cataloging the information. The material also stated that advertising would be placed in various foreign countries and cities of the United States. In addition, it stated that Florida Landowners Service Bureau would "analyze" the property, comparing it to adjacent property to arrive at a price based on recent sales of neighboring property, and also review the status of development and zoning in the immediate area of the property to assist in recommending a correct selling price for approval by the owner. During the course of their calls to prospects, Macko, Henkel, and Landin advised them that the property would be advertised internationally and in the United States, and that bona fide efforts would be made by Florida Landowners Service Bureau to sell the property. All salesmen represented themselves to be salesmen for that organization. Henkel told prospects that foreign investors were buying Florida property; however, in fact, he was unaware as to whether any property had ever been sold by Florida Landowners Service Bureau and never inquiried in this respect. Henkel and Landin had observed copies of the literature sent to prospects in the General American office, but Macko had only seen the listing agreement. After the promotional literature was sent to a prospect, the General American salesmen made what were called "drive" calls to answer any questions and to urge that the property be listed. After making these calls, the salesmen had no further contact with the property owner. The listing fee initially was $250 and was later raised to $350. The salesman received approximately one third of the fee. Glorian was paid several hundred dollars a month by General American, but received no portion of the listing fees. He was in the office once or twice a week to supervise the activities of the salesmen who made their telephone calls during the evening hours. Halfpenny was seldom there and did not take an active part in the advance fee operation. None of the salesmen or Glorian were aware that any of the property listed with Florida Landowners Service Bureau was ever sold and none of them ever saw any advertising, although Land in saw a catalog of listings at one time. Although Macko customarily recommended a listing price of the property to prospects based on the general rise in value of land since the date of purchase, Henkel merely accepted the price desired by the property owners. General American terminated its advance fee business in early 1976 after being advised that petitioner was conducting investigations into the advance fee business (Testimony of Macko, Landin, Henkel, Glorian). All of the Respondents in these cases testified at the hearing that they had made no false representations to prospects during the course of their telephone conversations and otherwise denied any wrongdoing.
Recommendation That the charges against Respondent Joseph M. Macko be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J.R. Parkinson and Louis Guttman, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Joseph M. Macko 13990 Northeast 6th Ave. Miami, Florida 33161
Findings Of Fact Mollie Lee Warrington received due and proper notice of the hearing. Mollie Lee Warrington is and was a registered real estate salesman and at the time here in question was employed by Happy Home Hunters, Inc. a real estate broker corporation. The Florida Real Estate Commission also introduced into evidence Exhibit D, a Business Information Form sent to Happy Home Hunters, Inc. by the Better Business Bureau of South Florida, signed "Mollie Lee Warrington, Treasurer," and a letter signed "Lee Warrington" to Mr. Smathers of the Better Business Bureau of South Florida, both dated April 25, 1974. - John Correia, Vice President of the Better Business Bureau of South Florida, testified that the business records of the Better Business Bureau of South Florida, to include the Business Information Form (Exhibit D), were not available to the public, but that the information contained on the Business Information Form was provided to members of the public contacting the Better Business Bureau. Specifically, Mr. Correia indicated that members of the public who contacted the Better Business Bureau would generally be referred to the individual who had provided the information contained on the Business Information Form, which in the case of Happy Hone Hunters, Inc. would be Mollie L. Warrington. The record does not reveal any specific instance in which Mollie Warrington's corporate status was provided to the public. The records does not clearly indicate whether the corporate officers as stated in the Business Information Form would be provided to members of the public. See Transcript, p. Mr. Correia did not identify the signature of Mollie Warrington on the documents and no testimony was received that the Respondent had in fact signed and sent to the Better Business Bureau either the letter or the form. The Commission failed to prove that the Respondent sent or signed the form. Further, assuming the Respondent did sign and transmit the document, there is no evidence that the information contained relating to her corporate status was given to the public by the Better Business Bureau of South Florida. Edgar M. Greene, Jr., investigator for the Florida Real Estate Commission, testified that he had served a subpoena duces tecun upon Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company and Mr. P. M. King and pursuant to such subpoena received the documents marked and received into evidence as Exhibit F, Mr., Greene had no knowledge of the source of the information contained in the records, The Hearing Officer having reviewed the records (Exhibit F) finds that they do not indicate the source of the data contained therein. There is no evidence in the record that the Respondent was responsible for the representation made to the telephone company that she was a corporate officer. The Commission's position regarding the law applicable to the charges is that the Respondent held out to the public that she was a corporate officer, that corporate officers by law must be real estate brokers, therefore, the Respondent held out to the public that she was a real estate broker. See Commission Counsel's representation on p. 7 of the transcript. In reaching this interpretation of the statutes, the Commission has rea the provisions of Section 475.01(3) which defines any person who is an officer of a corporate broker as operating as a real estate broker back into the provisions of Section 475.01(2) which defines a real estate salesman or broker as anyone who advertises or holds out to the public that they are engage in the business of selling, renting, etc. real estate. Beyond the fact that these statutes involve penal sanctions and must be strictly construed, the basic premise of this interpretation is in error. Section 475.01(2) is a general definition of both salesman and broker. All the acts enumerated in Section 475.01(2) can legally be performed by either a salesman or broker except those acts enumerated in Section 475.01(3) which may only be performed by brokers. Section 475.01(3) does not concern itself with holding out to the public, but declares that corporate officers of corporate brokers operate as brokers. The record is clear that Respondent was not an officer of the corporation. See p. 85 of the transcript. Additional evidence was received at hearing that the Respondent's acts and business policies were free from direction, control or management of another person; however, violation of this specific provision of Subsection (3) of Section 475.01 is not charged in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint limits itself specifically to the instances of the Respondent holding herself out as an officer of the corporation. While it may be argued that the niceties of pleadings do not apply to administrative proceedings, the case law clearly provides that facts in the Complaint shall be alleged in concise, simple language and shall be deemed to afford notice of the charge, if a person of ordinary understanding may reasonably be enabled to present his defense. Both the Information and Answer shall be aided and deemed amended by the proof if the opposite party shall be afforded full opportunity to meet and defend against or rebut such proof. See Thorn vs. Real Estate Commission, 146 So.2nd 907 at page 909. Under the facts of Thorn above, where the Respondent had been charged with conspiracy and found to be guilty of aiding and abetting, the court stated: "The variance in the charge in the Information and the guilty findings of the Commission, was not material since all of the facts surrounding the transaction were the same and the findings were that the acts were done by way of aiding and assisting, rather than in furtherance of a conspiracy." Unlike Thorn, in the instant case there is a substantial difference between alleging that a person has held herself out to the public to be the officer of a corporate broker and alleging that a person's business policies and acts were free from direction, control or management of another person. while it has been argued that alleging the Respondent was operating as a real estate broker as defined in Section 475.01(3), Florida Statutes, would constitute sufficient notice, the Hearing Officer having considered the acts alleged in the Complaint to have been committed by the Respondent and the provisions of Subsection (3) of Section 475.01, finds as a matter of law that the general allegation contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint is insufficient to put the Respondent on notice of the charges. A person of ordinary understanding would not reasonably be able to prepare a defense, and meet and defend against or rebut proof of such broad allegations, but would be led solely to defend against the charges of being a corporate officer. Because the Administrative Complaint did not adequately state the factual allegations upon which the Commission presented evidence regarding the Respondent's alleged unsupervised business activities, the Complaint fails to meet the minimum due process requirements of notice to which the Respondent is entitled under Chapter 475 and 120, Florida Statutes, and the Florida and United States Constitutions. See Wood vs. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Aviation, etc. 325 So.2nd 24. Based on the foregoing conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer has not considered the evidence and testimony presented with regard to the Commission's contention that her unsupervised activities in behalf of Happy Home Hunters, Inc., and would recommend that the Commission also disregard said testimony and evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing conclusions of law and findings of fact, the Bearing Officer recommends that the Respondent's registration as a real estate salesman not be revoked or suspended. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of April, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mollie Lee Warrington 990 Northeast 89th Terrace Miami, Florida 33138
The Issue Whether Respondent's license issued by Petitioner should be revoked or suspended, or the licensee be otherwise disciplined, for alleged violation of Sections 475.25(1)(a) and 475.25(3) Florida Statutes as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. This case was consolidated for hearing with that of other respondents by Order of the undersigned Hearing Officer dated August 8, 1977. The consolidated cases heard on November 7, 1977 are as follows: Case No. 77-1269, Florid Real Estate Commission vs. John Glorian and General American Realty Corporation Case No. 77-1275, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. James Henkel Case No. 77-1277, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. Alfred Landin Case No. 77-1278, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. Joseph Macko The evidence in this case consisted solely of the testimony of the Respondents in the above listed four cases, and Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1 withdrawn) which consisted of certain written material furnished to prospective clients by the Florida Landowners Service Bureau, including a listing and brokerage agreement sample form. Petitioner sought to elicit the testimony of Kenneth Kasha and Theodore Dorwin, but both of these prospective witnesses invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and declined to testify in this case. After inquiring into the basis of their claims, the Hearing Officer permitted the same and they were excused from the hearing. Both individuals based their claims on the fact that they are currently under criminal investigation by state law enforcement authorities with respect to their prior activities as real estate brokers in advance fee transactions. Although Petitioner contended that Dorwin had waived his privilege by testifying in prior administrative proceedings brought by the Florida Real Estate Commission which led to the revocation of his broker's license, and that Kasha also had waived his privilege by testifying in an administrative proceeding brought by the Florida Division of Land Sales and Condominiums concerning advance fee sales, it was determined by the Hearing Officer that any such waivers did not extend to the instant proceeding. Petitioner then sought to introduce into evidence the prior testimony of Dorwin and Kasha in the aforementioned administrative proceedings, but such admission was not permitted by the Hearing Officer because the Respondents herein had not been afforded an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses at the time they gave such testimony. Respondent Alfred Landin is now a registered real estate salesman and was at all times alleged in the Administrative Complaint, a registered salesman in the employ of General American Realty Corporation, a registered corporate broker (Petitioner's Exhibit 7).
Findings Of Fact General American Realty Corporation was first registered by Petitioner as a corporate broker in 1970. In 1972 John Glorian became the president of the firm and active broker. He was hired by Richard T. Halfpenny who was the owner and principal stockholder at the time. Alfred Landin, a registered real estate salesman, joined the firm in February, 1975. At that time, General American was in the business of selling acreage property in Florida. In the summer of 1975, Glorian recommended to Halfpenny that the firm become involved in the "advance fee" business. Such transactions in the trade involved the telephone solicitation of out-of-state landowners to list their land in Florida for sale with a Florida broker for a prescribed fee which would become part of any sales commission if and when the particular property was sold. Halfpenny expressed no objections to the idea and Glorian thereafter contacted Theodore Dorwim who was then associated with Florida Landowners Service Bureau in Miami. Kenneth Kasha was the President of that firm which was involved in the advance fee business. Glorian introduced Dorwin to the firm's salesmen, who included Joseph Macko, James R. Henkel, and Landin. Dorwin instructed these personnel in the method of soliciting prospective clients and provided an outline of the information that was to be given to those individuals called by the salesmen. He told the General American personnel that once the property was listed with Florida Landowners Service Bureau, it would be advertised in newspapers and catalogs, and that bona fide efforts would be made by his organization to sell the property. (Testimony of Glorian, Landin, Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 5-6). General American commenced its advance fee operation approximately August, 1975. The procedure followed was for a salesman to call an out-of-state landowner picked from a computer print-out list and inquire if he would be interested in selling his property at a higher price than he had paid for its. This was termed a "front" call and the salesman was termed as "fronter". If the prospect expressed interest in listing his property, his name was provided to Florida Landowners Service Bureau who then mailed literature to the property owner describing the efforts that would be made by that organization to sell his property. Also enclosed with this material was a listing and brokerage agreement. This agreement provided that the owner of the property would pay a prescribed listing fee to Florida Landowners Service Bureau which would be credited against a ten percent commission due that firm upon sale of the property. In return, Florida Landowners Service Bureau agreed to include the property in its "listing directory" for a one-year period, direct its efforts to bring about a sale of the property, advertise the property as deemed advisable in magazines or other mediums of merit, and to make an "earnest effort" to ,sell the property. The accompanying literature explained that the listing fee was necessary in order to defray administrative costs of estimating the value of the property, merchandising, advertising, brochuring, and cataloging the information. The material also stated that advertising would be placed in various foreign countries and cities of the United States. In addition, it stated that Florida Landowners Service Bureau would "analyze" the property, comparing it to adjacent property to arrive at a price based on recent sales of neighboring property, and also review the status of development and zoning in the immediate area of the property to assist in recommending a correct selling price for approval by the owner. During the course of their calls to prospects, Macko, Henkel, and Landin advised them that thee property would be advertised internationally and in the United States, and that bona fide efforts would be made by Florida Landowners Service Bureau to sell the property. All salesmen represented themselves to be salesmen for that organization. Henkel told prospects that foreign investors were buying Florida property; however, In fact, he was unaware as to whether any property had ever been sold by Florida Landowners Service Bureau and never inquired in this respect. Henkel and Landin had observed copies of the literature sent to prospects in the General American office, but Macko had only seen the listing agreement. After the promotional literature was sent to a prospect, the General American salesmen made what were called "drive" calls to answer any questions and to urge that the property be listed. After making these calls, the salesmen had no further contact with the property owner. The listing fee initially was $250 and was later raised to $350. The salesman received approximately one third of the fee. Glorian was paid several hundred dollars a month by General American, but received no portion of the listing fees. He was in the office once or twice a week to supervise the activities of the salesmen who made their telephone calls during the evening hours. Halfpenny was seldom there and did not take an active part in the advance fee operation. None of the salesmen or Glorian were aware that any of the property listed with Florida Landowners Service Bureau was ever sold and none of them ever saw any advertising, although Land in saw a catalog of listings at one time. Although Macko customarily recommended a listing price of the property to prospects based on the general rise in value of land since the date of purchase, Henkel merely accepted the price desired by the property owners. General American terminated its advance fee business in early 1976 after being advised that Petitioner was conducting investigations into the advance fee business (Testimony of Macko, Landin, Henkel, Glorian). All of the Respondents in these cases testified at the hearing that they had made no false representations to prospects during the course of their telephone conversations and otherwise denied any wrongdoing.
Recommendation That the charges against Respondent Alfred Landin be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire and Louis Guttman, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Stanley M. Ersoff, Esquire 1439 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33135
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Habitat Corporation is a corporate real estate broker holding license number 0217261, with a registered business address of 3835 North Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309. The Respondent James S. Shenkenberger is the qualifying broker for the corporate licensee, and holds license number 0079972. Prior to January 2, 1981, Shenkenberger was qualifying broker for American Overseas Investment Corporation, then a licensed Florida corporate real estate broker operating in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On January 2, 1981, Shenkenberger placed the real estate license of American Overseas Investment Corporation on inactive status, and obtained an active license for the Habitat Corporation. From July of 1977, Shenkenberger had an oral agreement with Florida Hendry Land, Inc., to act as a broker in selling property belonging to Florida Hendry Land, Inc. The terms of this agreement were that Shenkenberger was to be paid on a commission basis, and that he would present sales agreements for the approval of Joe Hendry, the owner of the corporation. When a sales contract was complete, then Florida Hendry would issue the Warranty Deed and order the title insurance. In early 1980, Irvin Adams, pursuant to a newspaper advertisement advertising land for $800 an acre, contacted Jim Shenkenberger and arranged to meet with him. On February 9, 1980, Adams flew to Florida from Pennsylvania and was shown Florida Hendry land by Shenkenberger. On this date, Adams decided to purchase lots four and five for a total purchase price of $64,000. Shenkenberger told Adams that if he made all the payments within one year, the purchase price would be reduced by 10 percent. As a down payment, Adams gave Shenkenberger a check for $14,000, payable to the order of American Overseas Investment Corp., and $2,000 in cash. At no time was Adams presented with a sales contract for Lots four and five. Adams returned to Pennsylvania, and contacted Shenkenberger several times during 1980 when he became worried that he had not received any requests for further payments. Shenkenberger informed Adams that the land was tied up, that Mr. Hendry had an obligation to the State of Florida, and that the land had been put up as a bond. In December of 1980, Shenkenberger contacted Adams and told him that the property was clear. On January 10, 1981, Adams flew to Florida a second time. He met with Shenkenberger, and again viewed the Hendry property. Adams decided to change the property he was purchasing to tract 18. Adams gave Shenkenberger a check payable to the order of American Overseas Investment Corp. in the amount of $12,800, and Shenkenberger gave him a receipt reflecting that Adams had paid in full for tract 18. At no time was Adams presented with a sales contract for tract 18. On this same date, Shenkenberger showed Adams three more Hendry tracts, and Adams gave Shenkenberger a down payment for Lots six, seven and ten in the amount of $11,900. Shenkenberger made out and signed the offers to purchase the three lots in the presence of Adams, but did not give them to Adams to sign. Adams never received a receipt for deposit or a sales contract on any of the three lots. Polly Hodge, who operated Florida Hendry Land, Inc. on a day-to-day basis, was first informed in March of 1980 that Irvin Adams might be interested in purchasing certain of their properties. The first money received by Florida Hendry Land, Inc., relating to sale of property to Irvin Adams, was by a $300 check from Shenkenberger dated January 15, 1981. Shenkenberger represented that the funds were a binder for the purchase by Adams of tracts six, seven and ten. Florida Hendry Land, Inc., never received a written offer to purchase the properties. After Florida Hendry received the binder, Polly Hodge asked Shenkenberger on several occasions about the status of the sale to Adams. Shenkenberger repeatedly advised her only that Adams would be coming to Florida in the near future. After Adams returned to Pennsylvania from his trip to Florida in January of 1981, he contacted Shenkenberger and advised him that he wished to purchase one lot in full rather than Lots six, seven, and ten. On January 26, 1981, he sent Shenkenberger a check in the amount of $14,650 for payment in full of tract ten of the Hendry property. At no time did Adams receive a deposit receipt for this payment, nor did he receive a sales contract. When Adams became concerned because he had not received deeds to the two properties, he contacted Shenkenberger, and was told that the Hendry Land Office was slow in preparing the deeds. On February 26, 1981, Adams visited the offices of Florida Hendry Land, Inc., and spoke briefly with Polly Hodge. Adams informed her that he wished to purchase tract ten only, and was not pursuing the purchase of tracts six and seven. Later, Adams met with Shenkenberger, and again inquired about the deeds. Shenkenberger assured him that he would have the deeds shortly. On February 27, 1981, Shenkenberger wrote a check to Florida Hendry Land in the amount of $23,895 which, together with the binder of $300, was the full purchase price of tract ten less Shenkenberger's 10 percent commission, and the deed was sent for recordation. Polly Hodge also gave Shenkenberger the Warranty Deed to tract 18 after Shenkenberger represented to her that he would be closing the property on the weekend, and would then deliver the purchase money to her. After the Warranty Deed was given to Shenkenberger, Polly Hodge inquired several times as to the progress of the transaction, but Shenkenberger repeatedly told her that Adams had not arrived to close. After returning to Pennsylvania, Adams was contacted by Shenkenberger on or about March 12, 1981. Shenkenberger told Adams that he had talked to J.B. Hendry and that Hendry did not feel that he had gotten enough money from Adams for tract 18. Shenkenberger told Adams that he would give Adams his money back for tract 18 or that Adams would have to pay him an additional $3,600. In response, Adams sent Shenkenberger a check payable to the order of American Overseas Investment Corporation in the amount of $3,600. Adams received the recorded deed for tract 10 on March 14, 1981, and received the recorded deed for tract 18 on April 11, 1981. In total, Adams paid American Overseas Investment Corporation $32,400 for tract 18 and $26,500 for tract 10. Florida Hendry Land, Inc., received no monies from either Irvin Adams or James Shenkenberger for the purchase by Adams of tract 18. At the time tract 18, consisting of 40 acres, was conveyed to Adams, the purchase price was $72,000 less 10 per cent because it was a cash purchase. Florida Hendry Land, Inc., was entitled to $64,800 less 10 per cent for Shenkenberger's real estate commission, for a total amount due to Florida Hendry Land of $58,320. Shenkenberger was aware of the purchase price for tract 18 from his long business relationship with Florida Hendry Land, Inc., and from plat maps given to him by Hodge that showed lot prices. In 1980 and 1981, Florida Hendry Land processed sales on a "walk-in" basis, processing and completing a conveyance while the purchasers waited in the office. Florida Hendry had no problems with any governmental agencies, nor was there any other impediment, which prohibited them from conveying their properties. The checks on the account of Irvin Adams were made payable to the order of American Overseas Investment Corporation at the specific instruction of Shenkenberger. On February 11, 1980, Shenkenberger opened a bank account for American Overseas Investment Corporation in what was then the First Bank of Oakland Park, Oakland Park, Florida. This account was not an escrow account or trust account. On January 12, 1981, after American Overseas Investment Corporation had been placed on inactive status, Shenkenberger deposited two checks in the amounts of $12,800 and $11,900 in this account. On February 2, 1981, Shenkenberger deposited the check for $14,650 drawn by Adams into this account. On March 12, 1981, Shenkenberger deposited the check for $3,600 given by Adams into this account. Although Shenkenberger received payment in full for tract 10 shortly after January 26, 1981, he did not deliver the payment to Florida Hendry Land until February 27, 1981. The payments made by Adams to American Overseas Investment Corporation for the purchase of tract 18 were converted to Shenkenberger's own use. In August, 1981, when Florida Hendry Land, Inc., became aware that Shenkenberger had recorded the deed for tract 18, and that the property had in fact been conveyed to Irvin Adams, they attempted to get payment for this tract from Shenkenberger, but were unsuccessful. Thereafter, Florida Hendry filed suit against Shenkenberger and Irvin Adams. Irvin Adams employed the services of an attorney to defend him in the action which was still pending on the date of the final hearing in this case. During the course of the investigation of this matter by the Department of Professional Regulation, a Subpoena Duces Tecum was served on Shenkenberger, as President of American Overseas Investment Corporation, on January 25, 1982. This subpoena requested Shenkenberger to produce all listings, contracts to purchase, binder deposits, deposits of checks and/or monies into bank accounts, receipts, closing statements, and correspondence involving all real estate transactions between Florida Hendry Land, Inc., and Irvin Adams. The Respondent failed to honor the Department's subpoena, and never delivered the requested documents for examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the licenses of the Respondents, James S. Shenkenberger, and the Habitat Corporation, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Owen L. Luckey, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 865 La Belle, Florida 33935 William M. Furlow, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent Kenneth Kasha was licensed by the Petitioner as a registered real estate broker. During that time period he was licensed to trade as Florida Landowners Service Bureau. At present he is the holder of certificate number 0046189, in the position of registered real estate broker. The particulars of his license may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit 4, admitted into evidence. In the years 1975 and 1976, one of the enterprises that Kenneth Kasha was involved in was the solicitation of real estate listings from out-of-state land owners who owned land in the State of Florida. This solicitation led to an agreement with some of those owners to list their property through various publications which Kasha contracted for, with the expectation that his company would make a bona fide effort to sell the property. The general description of the arrangement between Kasha, operating as Florida Landowners Services Bureau, and his owner/clients, was to have the owner pay a fee of $250 to $300 to have their property listed by Kenneth Kasha, trading as Florida Landowners Services Bureau. Kenneth Kasha solicited the owners by phone personally and through real estate salesmen who were involved in the solicitation. Kenneth Kasha's statement of his participation may be found in the deposition which is part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 8, the deposition being admitted into evidence. This deposition is a part of the record of the proceedings of the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums v. Kenneth Kasha d/b/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau. The deposition was taken on March 26, 1976. In that deposition Kasha was asked if he solicited for the type of listing which is the subject of this case and if he made this solicitation via the telephone. At page 39 of that deposition he states that he did and indicates that the principal place of business of Florida Landowners Service Bureau at the time of the deposition was at 561 NE 79th Street and was the place solicitations were made from. A more complete description of the techniques involved in a solicitation is given by the witness, Alfred Landin. Alfred Landin testified in the proceedings by the Petitioner against Kenneth Kasha t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau. Mr. Landin correctly stated that he worked for the General American Realty Corporation as a real estate salesman from January, 1975 through February, 1976. His testimony established that he began to make the form of solicitation in behalf of the Florida Landowners Service Bureau in August, 1975. His participation was by agreement between the General American Realty Corporation and the Florida Landowners Service Bureau to have certain salesmen employed by General American Realty Corporation make phone solicitations for Florida Landowners Service Bureau. Those employees of General American Realty Corporation were then paid by their corporation, who had been paid by Florida Landowners Service Bureau under an agreement between that business and the General American Realty Corporation. Alfred Landin took approximately 75 to 100 listings for the Florida Landowners Service Bureau for which he charged the owner $250 to $300 for each listing. He in turn received 30 percent to 40 percent of the listing amount as his payment. He did not receive real estate commissions following any sale of the property which was listed with Florida Landowners Service Bureau. In fact, no commissions have been received, because no property has been sold under the listing agreements, at least as of the date of the Kasha deposition of March 26, 1976. In that deposition he states that none of the property listed by Florida Landowners Service Bureau had been sold. Moreover, Alfred Landin's testimony established that the salesmen who were the contact people for the solicitation for the listings were paid on the basis of obtaining the listings, in opposition to being paid commissions for selling' the property. When Landin would call a prospective owner to solicit the listing, which will now be referred to as "advance fee" listings, he did it based upon a list of prospective clients made available in the office of General American Realty Corporation. He would tell the potential "advance fee" client that the property that they listed with the Florida Landowners Service Bureau would be advertised within and without the United States. He did not indicate which form of media advertising would be utilized. Landin was unaware of the steps which Florida Landowners Service Bureau would specifically take to bring about the sale of the listed properties, because the arrangement with General American Realty Corporation was not to consummate the sale of the property through General American Realty Corporation's salesman. Landin did tell the owners that Florida Landowners Service Bureau would be responsible for advertising the properties for the purpose of sale. Furthermore, the indication was that a bona fide effort would be made to sell the property. The contact which Landin had with the out-of-state owners, in terms of the dialogue, was not by any particular script. It would be designed according to the nature of the property of the person being solicited. In the course of the conversation the property owner would submit his price and that information and other information would be forwarded to Florida Landowners Service Bureau. At all times when a prospective customer was called Landin introduced himself by name and his connection with Florida Landowners Service Bureau. The usual technique was to make an original contact call and then a follow-up call. Although a second individual working for Florida Landowners Service Bureau normally made the follow-up, call, Landin at times would make those calls. On those occasions, between the time of the initial call and the follow-up call, certain materials would be mailed to the prospective purchaser of a listing agreement. Landin identified three forms which are numbered 1, 2, and 3 and are part of the Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence. They are the mailouts. (The Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence is constituted of certain information pertaining to the listing of the Florida Landowners Service Bureau's "advance fee" property through the media National Multiple Listing, Inc.) In a follow-up call there would be discussion about the meaning of the listing and brokerage agreement which is number 3 in the group of documents. Landin established that in these follow-up conversations the purpose of the listing fee was brought out and the owner was told that the listing fee would be used to compensate for the costs involved of the listing; for example advertising. The three documents in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 are the crux of the contractual agreement between Florida Landowners Service Bureau, the company of Kenneth Kasha, and his "advance fee" listing clients. The three documents in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 are the same in their form as those documents appended to the Kenneth Kasha deposition of March 26, 1976, which has been mentioned before. In that deposition Kasha admits that those three documents were mailed out to the "advance fee" listing clients. The three documents are available for review either in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 or the attachments to the admitted portion of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, which is the Kasha deposition. The significant portions of those exhibits, in terms of the factual allegations against the Respondent, begin with Paragraph 3 of the document number 1 which states, "your property legals are checked thoroughly." In his deposition of March 26, 1976 Kasha indicated that what actually occurred was that Florida Landowners Service Bureau would receive a copy of the client's deed or agreement for deed and verify this with the developer to see if it indicates on the developer's books or records that the individual actually owned a specific piece of property in question. Kasha stated that his company did not check with the title company, but did check the tax records of various counties to see whether or not the individuals owned the particular piece of property set forth in their deeds. Continuing the examination of document 1, the next sentence in Paragraph 3 states, "an ad is constructed for your property(s) and published in our brochures and catalog which is distributed to several thousand brokers and investors NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY." The advertising that was done by Kenneth Kasha t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau, which was established in the course of the hearing is constituted of several media approaches. One of those approaches was found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence which is a copy of a magazine February, 1976, the magazine being a publication of the International Federation of Real Estate Brokers which has membership in 39 countries. It can be seen, the advertisement is an ad which allows the purchase of a catalog for the price of $4.00 or free to the members of the International Real Estate Federation. A copy of this form of catalog is the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12 admitted into evidence. This catalog lists multiple properties by the owner's name, the owner's asking price, and a rough description of the location in terms of the municipality if any, county, and state, subdivision or development if applicable and a rough description of the size of the parcel. The catalog would not allow the prospective purchaser to specifically locate the property. At best it would allow the location of the development or sub-division. A second form of advertising which the Respondent utilized in the time period in question was listing with the National Multiple Listing, Inc. Those listings were also multiple listings on a single page of the type previously discussed in describing the catalog. Access to those listings was based upon Kasha's purchase of circulation and it reached as many as 2,500 plus distributees in various areas of the United States. (The number assigned to the individual properties advertised by National Multiple Listing, Inc. corresponds to some of the invoices found in the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 11, which invoices were paid by Kenneth Kasha to have the listings published. There is a further correlation between those numbers and the numbers affixed to the certificates issued by National Multiple Listing, Inc. to the Respondent verifying the circulation of the listings. Those certificates are found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 12 admitted into evidence.) A compilation of those payments from Kenneth Kasha, as the owner of Florida Landowners Service Bureau, to the National Multiple Listing, Inc. for the period of June, 1975 through June, 1976 may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. The total cost for advertising in that time period was $3,583.82. Kasha also advertised his catalog in the Miami Herald, the Chicago Tribune and one German paper, entitled, Blick. This advertising was in the period of late 1975 and early 1976. The advertising is established through the Respondent's Exhibit No. 12A and a portion of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 which is the deposition and attachments of Kenneth Kasha taken March 26, 1976. 14 The fourth paragraph of document 1 states in its initial sentence. "In order for us to successfully merchandize and receive the highest offer for your property(s) considerable expense is involved because a great deal of time is put forth on your behalf and many of the property(s) are being offered for sale sight unseen. Therefore, we must constantly furnish prospective purchasers with factual updated information re: your listing(s). Your fee helps to defray expenses of estimating value, merchandizing, advertising, brochuring and cataloging this information here and abroad." The extent of advertising and brochuring has previously been discussed. The estimate of value is based upon the individual's price and the Florida Landowners Service Bureau does not concern itself with zoning and development in trying to get the price established. This conclusion is premised on Mr. Kasha's testimony of March 26, 1976 before the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums. Therefore, by Mr. Kasha's opinion there was no expense to be defrayed in estimating value. The only other merchandizing that was done other than that discussed in the advertising techniques may be found in the description by Robert Wandler who worked for Kenneth Kasha and was involved with Florida Landowners Service Bureau as a real estate salesman. The period of his employment is not established through Mr. Wandler's testimony, but it appears to be within the time frame of the Administrative Complaint and the other testimony given. Mr. Wandler stated that he tried to sell the property listed through the "advance fee" process by contacting hotels and hotel clerks who had connection with Columbian businessmen. This area of contact was in South Florida. His reasons for contacting the Columbians was due to the fact that he speaks Spanish fluently. He occasionally showed the brochures to the persons contacted, but none of those persons were interested in purchasing the property. He specifically made reference to Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12 as being the type of brochure or catalog that he showed. He also testified that on several occasions Arabian and Lebanese people in the South Florida area were contacted and seminars were held to discuss the catalog. The Arabian and Lebanese business persons did not purchase any property and did not negotiate with any of the owners for the right to purchase the property. Document No. 2, which is a document entitled, Important Facts, is found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11. In that document is a question which asks "(Q) Will you help me establish a correct selling price for my property? (A) Yes. While we do not appraise property, Florida Landowners Service Bureau will analyze your property comparing your property to adjacent property, to arrive at a price based on recent sales of neighboring property. The price must meet with your approval. From the testimony in Kenneth Kasha's appearance before the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums it is clear that Florida Landowners Service Bureau did not analyze the property by comparing the property to adjacent property to arrive at a price. They merely relied on the owner's price. One of the other questions in Document No. 2 asks the following: "(Q) How will Florida Landowners Service Bureau sell my property? (A) Review status of development and zoning in the immediate area of your property to recommend the correct selling price for you. List your property in our directory, which is distributed by mail to real estate brokers throughout the world." Kenneth Kasha in the aforementioned deposition stated that 95 percent of the time they did not document the development and zoning to set a price as the ad indicated they would do. In Document No. 3, which is a copy of the listing and brokerage agreement, one of the statements of consideration between the parties is that Florida Landowners Service Bureau as the part of their consideration will: "(b) Contemporaneously with appearance of said listing in the directory, you agree to direct the efforts of your organization to bring about the sale of my property". This should be read in pari materia with the following provision in that Document No. 3 which states: "(c) To advertise said property as you deem advisable in newspapers, magazines, or other mediums of merit". A view of the facts that were established on the question of promoting the sale of the property through advertising or other methods, demonstrates that the Florida Landowners Service Bureau in the person of Kenneth Kasha was not living up to this agreement to bring about a sale in a bone fide fashion. This leads to a consideration of the question of whether the efforts which were taken by Kenneth Kasha t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau were so fraudulent or deficient that they constitute violations of the provisions of Chapter 475, F.S. that are alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The general contention of the Administrative Complaint in Count I is that the solicitation of the property owners was a scheme to fraudulently secure money through the "advance fee" for reason that no bone fide effort was made to sell the property listed with Kenneth Kasha, t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau. As indicated before there was no bone fide effort made to sell the property. More particularly, in terms of stating grounds for action against the Respondent's license, the course of conduct by the Respondent personally and through his company, Florida Landowners Service Bureau, demonstrates that he is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device and breach of trust in a business transaction in this state and has violated the duty imposed upon him by law or the terms of listing contract in a real estate transaction; and has formed an intent, design, or scheme to engage in said misconduct and has committed overt acts in furtherance of such intent, design or scheme, all in violation of 475.25(1)(a) F.S. The course of conduct by Kenneth Kasha personally and trading as Florida Landowners Service Bureau shows him to be guilty of conduct or practices which show that he is dishonest and untruthful to the extent that the money, property, transactions and rights of investors or those with whom he may sustain a confidential relation, may not be safely entrusted to him, as set forth in 475.25(3) F.S.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts in this cause, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, revoke the real estate broker's license, certificate number 0046189, held by the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Kasha P.O. Box 611238 North Miami, Florida 33161 Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire and Louis Guttmann, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 ================================================================= AGENCY MEMORANDUM ================================================================= Orlando, Florida June 15, 1979 MEMORANDUM TO: Renata Hendrick, Registration Supervisor FROM: Fred Langford, Staff Attorney RE: Revocation of Kenneth Kasha - PD No. 3014 004618904 DOAH Case No. 77-1299 Attached please find a copy of the Final Order, Mandate and Order from the Third DCA concerning Kenneth Kasha. The effective date of revocation is December 21, 1978. /FL:bam Attachments* Fred Langford Staff Attorney * NOTE: Attachments noted are unavailable at the division and therefore not a part of this ACCESS document.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Gladys A. Gibbons is licensed as a real estate broker by the Florida Real Estate Commission under license number 0031192 and has been so licensed at all times material to this case. During such time she was employed as the broker for Gregoire-Gibbons, Inc. Respondent Dorothy M. Comolli is licensed as a real estate salesman under license number 00336387 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission and has been so licensed at all times material to this case. During the period in question here she was employed by Gregoire- Gibbons, Inc. and was supervised by Respondent Gladys A. Gibbons. On March 3, 1981 Ms. Dorothy Hawks listed her residential property located at 2349 Third Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, for sale with Mr. Gerald O'Conner, a real estate salesman employed by Humpe Roney, Inc., in St. Petersburg, Florida. On July 1, 1981 Respondent Dorothy Comolli called Mr. O'Conner to tell him that she had a contract on Ms. Hawks' property. The offer which Ms. Comolli presented on behalf of Ms. Hortense Willoughby was an option to purchase with a lease. When the offer was presented to Ms. Hawks she demurred about the option and counteroffered with a lease and a contract for sale which provided for closing within one year. On a document entitled Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement dated July 1, 1981 the parties negotiated the terms of the property sale. Their handwritten amendments to the form contract were later incorporated into a real estate purchase and sale agreement dated July 14, 1981 which was executed by Ms. Willoughby but never signed by Ms. Hawks. With respect to the rental portion of the transaction the first contract was a receipt for deposit and agreement to lease dated July 19, 1981 presented through Ms. Comolli with a promissory note in the amount of $500 attached as a security deposit for the last month's rent on Ms. Hawks' house. The text of the receipt recited that the lease was for a period of one year with monthly payments of $500 a month to begin on August 15, 1981. It further provided for $200 "security" plus $500 for the last month's rent in a three-month promissory note. Both the note and the receipt for deposit and agreement to lease were presented by Ms. Comolli to Carol Denker at Humpe Roney, Inc. Ms. Denker had taken over Ms. Hawks' account due to the vacation of Mr. O'Connor. In addition to these documents Ms. Comolli gave Ms. Denker $200 as an earnest money deposit on the sale of the house. Ms. Denker in turn gave Ms. Comolli a receipt for the $200 but later returned the $200 to Ms. Comolli as it is customary for the agent of the purchaser to hold the deposit. The form of the promissory note and the receipt for deposit and agreement to lease were not acceptable to Ms. Denker. She had been instructed that promissory notes witnessed by a realtor were a bad business practice and were not acceptable to Humpe Roney, Inc. Ms. Denker therefore gave Ms. Comolli a promissory note form acceptable to Humpe Roney for Ms. Willoughby to execute. Ms. Denker then attempted to contact Ms. Hawks to let her know about the promissory note but was not able to reach her. On July 21, 1981 Humpe Roney prepared on its forms, a contract for sale of real estate and a receipt for deposit and contract for lease. The record is not clear why Humpe Roney wanted the contracts rewritten. After they had been redrawn Ms. Comolli picked them up, had Ms. Willoughby sign them, and returned them to Humpe Roney for Ms. Hawks' signature. These two documents which were executed by Ms. Willoughby and Ms. Hawks finally constituted the agreement between the two parties. Neither document recites that the last month's rent would be paid by Ms. Willoughby in the form of a promissory note. The record is not clear why the final contracts as redrawn by Humpe Roney did not reflect the $500 promissory note. The deletion of any mention of the note was not at the request of either Respondent and does not appear to have been done intentionally by Humpe Roney. At no time was Ms. Hawks aware that a promissory note would be provided instead of cash for the last month's rent. Ms. Willoughby moved into the house on August 4, 1981. She stayed there for the months of August, September and October and part of November when she defaulted on the promissory note which was due on November 15, 1981. Upon her default she was evicted from the house. She is still in default on the promissory note and has no funds with which to pay it. When Ms. Hawks made a demand upon Gregoire-Gibbons for the $200 earnest money deposit plus the $500 last month's rent she received $200 and the $500 note. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Gladys A. Gibbons and Dorothy M. Comolli. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON 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 9th day of February, 1984.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license issued by Petitioner should be revoked or suspended, or the licensee be otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Sections 475.25(1) (a) and 475.25(3) Florida Statutes as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. This case was consolidated for hearing with that of other respondents by Order of the undersigned Hearing Officer dated August 8, 1977. The consolidated cases heard on November 7, 1977 are as follows: Case No. 77-1269, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. John Glorian and General American Realty Corporation Case No. 77-1275, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. James Henkel Case No. 77-1277, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. Alfred Landin Case No. 77-1278, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. Joseph Macko The evidence in this case consisted solely of the testimony of the Respondents in the above listed four cases, and Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1 withdrawn) which consisted of certain written material furnished to prospective clients by the Florida Landowners Service Bureau, including a listing and brokerage agreement sample form. Petitioner sought to elicit the testimony of Kenneth Kasha and Theodore Dorwin, but both of these prospective witnesses invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and declined to testify in this case. After inquiring into the basis of their claims, the Hearing Officer permitted the same and they were excused from the hearing. Both individuals based their claims on the fact that they are currently under criminal investigation by state law enforcement authorities with respect to their prior activities as real estate brokers in advance fee transactions. Although Petitioner contended that Dorwin had waived his privilege by testifying in prior administrative proceedings brought by the Florida Real Estate Commission which led to the revocation of his broker's license, and that Kasha also had waived his privilege by testifying in an administrative proceeding brought by the Florida Division of Land Sales and Condominiums concerning advance fee sales, it was determined by the Hearing Officer that any such waivers did not extend to the instant proceeding. Petitioner then sought to introduce into evidence the prior testimony of Dorwin and Kasha in the aforementioned administrative proceedings, but such admission was not permitted by the Hearing Officer because the Respondents herein had not been afforded an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses at the time they gave such testimony. Respondent James Henkel appeared at the hearing after it had commenced unaccompanied by legal counsel. The Hearing Officer advised him of his rights in the administrative hearing. Respondent Henkel is a registered non-active real estate sales percentian, and was at all times alleged in the Administrative Complaint, a registered salesman in the employ of General American Realty Corporation, a registered corporate broker (Petitioner's Exhibit 4).
Findings Of Fact General American Realty Corporation was first registered by Petitioner as a corporate broker in 1970. In 1972 John Glorian became the president of the firm and active broker. He was hired by Richard T. Halfpenny who was the owner and principal stockholder at the time. Alfred Landin, a registered real estate salesman, joined the firm in February, 1975. At that time, General American was in the business of selling acreage property in Florida. In the summer of 1975, Glorian recommended to Halfpenny that the firm become involved in the "advance fee" business. Such transactions in the trade involved the telephone solicitation of out-of-state landowners to list their land in Florida for sale with a Florida broker for a prescribed fee which would become part of any sales commission if and when the particular property was sold. Halfpenny expressed no objections to the idea and Glorian thereafter contacted Theodore Dorwin who was then associated with Florida Landowners Service Bureau in Miami. Kenneth Kasha was the President of that firm which was involved in the advance fee business. Glorian introduced Dorwin to the firm's salesmen, who included Joseph Macko, James H. Henkel, and Landin. Dorwin instructed these personnel in the method of soliciting prospective clients and provided an outline of the information that was to be given to those individuals called by the salesmen. He told the General American personnel that once the property was listed with Florida Landowners Service Bureau, it would be advertised in newspapers and catalogs, and that bona fide efforts would be made by his organization to sell the property. (Testimony of Glorian, Landin, Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 5-6). General American commenced its advance fee operation approximately August, 1975. The procedure followed was for a salesman to call an out-of-state landowner picked from a computer print-out list and inquire if he would be interested in selling his property at a higher price than he had paid for it. This was termed a "front" call and the salesman was termed as "fronter". If the prospect expressed interest in listing his property, his name was provided to Florida Landowners Service Bureau who then mailed literature to the property owner describing the efforts that would be made by that organization to sell his property. Also enclosed with this material was a listing and brokerage agreement. This agreement provided that the owner of the property would pay a prescribed listing fee to Florida Landowners Service Bureau which would be credited against a ten percent commission due that firm upon sale of the property. In return, Florida Landowners Service Bureau agreed to include the property in its "listing directory" for a one-year period, direct its efforts to bring about a sale of the property, advertise the property as deemed advisable in magazines or other mediums of merit, and to make an "earnest effort" to, sell the property. The accompanying literature explained that the listing fee was necessary in order to defray administrative costs of estimating the value of the property, merchandising, advertising, brochuring, and cataloging the information. The material also stated that advertising would be placed in various foreign countries and cities of the United States. In addition, it stated that Florida Landowners Service Bureau would "analyze" the property, comparing it to adjacent property to arrive at a price based on recent sales of neighboring property, and also review the status of development and zoning in the immediate area of the property to' assist in recommending a correct selling price for approval by the owner. During the course of their calls to prospects, Macko, Henkel, and Landin advised them that the property would be advertised internationally and in the United States, and that bona fide efforts would be made by Florida Landowner "service Bureau to sell the property. All salesmen represented themselves to be salesmen for that organization. Henkel told prospects that foreign investors were buying Florida property; however, in fact, he was unaware as to whether any property had ever been sold by Florida Landowners Service Bureau and never inquired in this respect. Henkel and Landin had observed copies of the literature sent to prospects in the General American office, but Macko had only seen the listing agreement. After the promotional literature was sent to a prospect, the General American salesmen made what were called "drive" calls to answer any questions and to urge that the property be listed. After making these calls, the salesmen had no further contact with the property owner. The listing fee initially was $250 and was later raised to $350. The salesman received approximately one third of the fee. Glorian was paid several hundred dollars a month by General American, but received no portion of the listing fees. He was in the office once or twice a week to supervise the activities of the salesmen who made their telephone calls during the evening hours. Halfpenny was seldom there and did not take an active part in the advance fee operation. None of the salesmen or Glorian were aware that any of the property listed with Florida Landowners Service Bureau was ever sold and none of them ever saw any advertising, although Land in saw a catalog of listings at one time. Although Macko customarily recommended a listing price of the property to prospects based on the general rise in value of land since the date of purchase, Henkel merely accepted the price desired by the property owners. General American terminated its advance fee business in early 1976 after being advised that Petitioner was conducting investigations into the advance fee business (Testimony of Macko, Landin, Henkel Glorian). All of the Respondents in these cases testified at the hearing that they had made no false representations to prospects during the course of their telephone conversations and otherwise denied any wrongdoing.
Recommendation That the charges against Respondent James Henkel be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Louis Guttman, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 James Henkel c/o Dory Auerbach 456 Northeast 29th Street Miami, Florida 33137
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, Respondent Steven M. Frank, held real estate salesman license number 0186888 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission. He has held a salesman license since February 28, 1978. In September, 1980, Respondent began working as a salesman for Independent Realty Associates, Inc. located at 6281 Pembroke Road, Hollywood, Florida. Alistair D. Monro was active broker and president of the firm. Monro also operated a construction firm and mortgage brokerage business at the same address. At approximately the time when Frank began his tenure with Independent, Monro entered into a non-exclusive agreement with Paul Uber to sell houses and lots in University Park, a housing project in Miramar, Florida which had been purchased by Uber from a bank in foreclosure proceedings. There were no written office procedures setting forth instructions on how contracts and deposits were to be handled. However, Frank had been orally advised by Monro to turn over all contracts and checks to Monro, or in his absence, to a newly hired office manager. There was no night depository arrangement in the office. He had also been instructed that any contracts received on University Park property could only be presented by Monro. In fact, Frank did not know Uber's address or telephone number, and had never seen or met him. An open house was held at University Park on the weekend of September 13 and 14, 1980. Frank volunteered to work at one of the six model homes in the project. Around 3:00 p.m. on Sunday, September 14, Elizabeth and Victoria Woerner executed a contract for sale and purchase in which they offered to purchase the home located at Lot 4, Block 4 in University Park for $75,000. Elizabeth Woerner gave Frank a check in the amount of $100 to be held in escrow as earnest money. The contract called for approval by the seller no later than Wednesday, September 17. At 4:00 p.m. that afternoon, Frank closed the model home and returned with the check and contract to his office. Because Monro had been absent from his office the entire weekend, Frank attempted to give the check to the office manager, Dolly Stogner. However, she would not accept the check and contract since the contract had to be presented by Monro. The following morning (Monday) Frank returned to the office and could not find Monro. He then attempted to give Monro's secretary the check and contract. She refused since the contract was not executed by the seller. He left a message for Monro with the secretary and continued to hold the contract and check. That evening he received a telephone message from Elizabeth Woerner. He was unable to reach her that evening but telephoned her the next morning. After learning she wished to withdraw her offer, he told her he would check with his broker to see how deposits were returned. Thereafter, he attempted to see Monro that day (Tuesday) but again found him absent from the office. He left a message with the office manager for Monro to call him. The call was never returned. On Wednesday, Monro received a telephone call from Elizabeth Woerner concerning her check. When Frank returned to the office that day, he was fired for failing to immediately turn over the check and contract to the broker. The $100 deposit was later returned to the Woerners. Less than a week later, Monro wrote the Department and recommended that Frank's license be suspended or revoked. He advised the Department that Frank was guilty of "failure to turn in the deposit to the broker", "failure to present an offer on the property", and "culpable negligence". He also stated that Frank was "not of a caliber that would make him an asset to the Real Estate Profession." As a result of this letter, a disciplinary proceeding against Frank was begun. The property in question eventually sold for $112,500 in November, 1980. Monro acknowledged that the Woerners' $75,000 offer was so low that it would not have been accepted. He also acknowledged that another offer had been made on the property on September 14 and was pending when the Woerners' contract was signed. Monro did not present the Woerner's contract to Uber, presumably because the Woerners wished to withdraw their offer. No monetary harm was suffered by the seller or the Woerners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against Steven M. Frank be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1982, 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 29th day of July, 1982.
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
