The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint? him? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a Florida-licensed real estate salesperson. He holds license number 0186760. From October 1, 1991, through September 30, 1993, Respondent's license was inactive. His address of record during this period was 290 174th Street L11, North Miami Beach, Florida 33160. On October 1, 1993, Respondent's license became involuntarily inactive due to non-renewal, and it remained in involuntary inactive status through August 11, 1996. Respondent's address of record during this period remained 290 174th Street L11, North Miami Beach, Florida 33160. On June 1, 1995, after having successfully completed a license reactivation course at the Gold Coast School of Real Estate,1 Respondent went to The Keyes Company to apply for a position as a sales associate. The Keyes Company is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, a corporation registered in Florida as a real estate broker. During his visit to The Keyes Company, Respondent completed (with the assistance of a Keyes Company secretary) and signed various forms, including a Department-issued "Request for License or Change of Status" form (400.5 Form). The 400.5 Form contained three sections: Section A, the "action requested" section; Section B, which was to be "completed by [the] licensee applying for [the] change"; and Section C, which was to be "completed by [the] broker/employer if the applicant [was] requesting active salesperson or broker-salesperson status." On the reverse side of the 400.5 Form were instructions, which indicated, among other things, that if the licensee was seeking to renew his or her license, the 400.5 Form had to "be accompanied by the required fee." In Sections A and B of the 400.5 Form, Respondent indicated, among other things, that he was seeking to renew his license and gain active status and that his "residence address" was 2182 Northeast 186th Terrace, North Miami Beach, Florida 33179. Although there was a box on the top of the form that he could have checked to reflect that this was a "change [of] residence address," he failed to do so. After completing Sections A and B, Respondent signed and dated the partially completed 400.5 Form. The secretary who assisted Respondent in filling out the 400.5 Form (Secretary) told Respondent that The Keyes Company would complete Section C of the form and then mail it to the Department for processing. She further advised Respondent that she would let him know in a few days "exactly how much [he] would have to pay" the Department to obtain the "[c]hange of [s]tatus" he was requesting. Three or four days later, the Secretary contacted Respondent and informed him that he had to pay a $90.00 fee to the Department. Respondent relied upon the information that the Secretary had given him regarding the amount of the fee he had to pay. He made no effort to contact the Department to verify the accuracy of the information. On June 5, 1995, Respondent wrote a $90.00 check, payable to the Department, and left it with the Secretary for her to mail, along with the completed 400.5 Form, to the Department. The Keyes Company's payroll clerk, Rosa Miguelena, thereafter contacted the Department by telephone to confirm that $90.00 was the amount that Respondent had to pay. The person with whom she spoke told her that the total fee for late renewing a license was $90.00 ($65.00 for the renewal and a $25.00 late fee). The completed 400.5 Form (Section C of which had been filled in and signed on June 9, 1995, by Ray Shaw, a Vice President of The Keyes Company) and the $90.00 check, as well a copy of Respondent's reactivation course completion certificate, were subsequently sent to the Department. The check was deposited by the Department on June 19, 1995. The $90.00 was insufficient to cover the amount necessary to renew and activate Respondent's license for the upcoming two-year renewal cycle commencing October 1, 1995.2 Accordingly, on or about June 23, 1995, the Department sent, by United States Mail, a letter to Respondent, which read as follows: We are returning the attached for the following reasons: (X) Request not accompanied by the total fee of $153.00. You need to send additional $63.00 in order for us to process your renewal. (X) To be credited for the fee accepted, THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RETURNED TO THE DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE. PLEASE RETURN ALL OF THE ATTACHED, ALONG WITH A COPY OF THIS LETTER. The letter was mailed to the address (2182 Northeast 186th Terrace, North Miami Beach, Florida 33179) that Respondent had indicated, on the 400.5 Form, was his "residence address." At the time the letter was mailed, Respondent still resided at this address. Nonetheless, Respondent never received the letter in the mail. This is not the only time that mail addressed to Respondent at 2182 Northeast 186th Terrace, North Miami Beach, Florida 33179 has not been delivered to him by the United States Postal Service. It has been a recurring problem. Had Respondent received the letter, he would have taken the additional steps needed to renew and activate his license. Not having heard anything from either the Department or The Keyes Company regarding the matter, he erroneously assumed that his license had been renewed and activated, and he acted accordingly. On or about January 18, 1996, Respondent, acting in his capacity as a Keyes Company sales associate, procured Vito Verzura as a buyer for real property located in Dade County, Florida that was owned by Jack Poulas (Property). On or about February 1, 1996, The Keyes Company issued to Respondent a check in the amount of $676.00 as commission for his role in the Vito Verzura/Jack Pulos transaction. On or about June 25, 1996, Respondent, acting in his capacity as a Keyes Company sales associate, procured listing agreements with Vito Verzura regarding the Property. The listing agreements provided that the listing agent(s) would be paid 10% of the sales price. In late June or early July of 1996, after speaking with a Keyes Company secretary who questioned whether he was associated with the company, Respondent telephoned the Department to inquire whether his license was active. The Department representative with whom he spoke advised him that the Department's records revealed that his license had never been activated. Respondent then contacted The Keyes Company to discuss the matter. He expressed his desire to have his license activated as soon as possible. The Keyes Company told Respondent that he needed to pay the Department an additional $125.00. On or about July 9, 1996, Respondent wrote a check in the amount of $125.00, payable to the Department, which he gave to The Keyes Company to deliver to the Department. On that same date, he also signed (but did not date) another Department-issued "Request for License or Change of Status Form." The check, along with the signed form (Section C of which was left blank), were subsequently sent to the Department. The Department received these items on or about August 12, 1996. It deposited the check on August 14, 1996. Because Section C of the "Request for License or Change of Status Form" was left blank, the Department changed the status of Respondent's licensure, effective August 12, 1996, to voluntary inactive rather than to active. The Department sent Respondent a letter informing him of the change. The letter contained the following "explanation": The Division of Real Estate computer records do not reflect you to be in the employ of a licensed real estate broker, a registered broker corporation or broker partnership, or an unlicensed owner developer at this time. Please have the attached form 400.5 completed by both you and your employer and returned in the enclosed envelope if your license status should be shown as active. On February 27, 1997, the Department received from Respondent a completed "Request for License or Change of Status Form," which reflected that he was employed by Gerard International Realty, a duly registered broker. After receiving this form, the Department activated Respondent's license. At no time prior to February 27, 1997, did Respondent hold a valid and current active real estate salesperson license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint and disciplining him therefor by reprimanding him and fining him $750.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 1999.
The Issue Whether the Respondent should be disciplined upon a charge that he operated as a salesman for any person not registered as his broker in violation of Section 475.42(2)(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and whether Respondent should be disciplined based upon a charge that he collected money in connection with any real estate brokerage transaction without the express consent of his employer and not in the name of his employer in violation of Section 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating and disciplining real estate salespersons. The Respondent is and was at all times material to this complaint a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida having been issued license no. 0593108. The Respondent's current license was issued as a voluntary inactive with an address of 1421 Daytona Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida 32117. In mid-1994, the Respondent was employed by Donal E. Harrigan, d/b/a Donal E. Harrigan Company (hereinafter Harrigan). The Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesperson with Harrigan, and was engaged in the selling of timeshares. While employed with Harrigan, the Respondent and his wife talked with Fadel Elbadramany, the broker and owner of AAA Realty. Initially the Respondent and his wife talked with Elbadramany about the purchase of commercial real estate; however, Elbadramany solicited both of them as real estate salespersons with his company. The Respondent's then wife was eventually employed by Elbadramany as a salesperson. The Respondent discussed employment with Elbadramany; however, Elbadramany would not discuss the nature and scope of his business until the Respondent had signed an employment agreement containing a non-competition clause and DBPR Form 400.5. The Respondent was interested in selling commercial property, but did not want to cease selling timeshares. He discussed this with Elbadramany who advised him that he could do both. Pursuant to this discussion, the Respondent filled out a DBPR Form 400.5 checking at the top of said form under Section A, "Multiple Licenses." Nothing was checked on the form indicating a change of employment or broker. The Respondent signed the form in blank and left it with Elbadramany. Fadel Elbadramany was called to testify. Elbadramany testified that he employed the Respondent, that the Respondent obtained list of prospects from his office, that the Respondent never sold any real estate for him, and that he had observed the Respondent engaging in the sale of real estate which was not listed with his brokerage. Brenda Groves, the ex-wife of the Respondent, was called to testify. Brenda Groves was employed by AAA Realty and Elbadramany. During her employment, a conflict arose which resulted in litigation between Brenda Groves and Elbadramany over the anti-competitive clause contained in the employment contract. Brenda Grove testified that Elbadramany threatened to get her and to get her husband. Ms. Grove testified regarding the employment of her ex-husband. The Respondent was not employed by AAA Realty. Ms. Groves testimony is considered very credible. There was a conflict in the testimony between Elbadramany and the Respondent concerning who filled out and completed the DBPR Form 400.5. The most credible evidence is that it was completed by Elbadramany and filed with the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. The form as filled out, requests only multiple licensure. The request for multiple licensure is consistent with the Respondent's intent to continue to sell timeshares for Harrigan and commercial property for Elbadramany. However, prior to commencing employment with Elbadramany, but after filling out the form, the Respondent determined that he did not want to be employed by Elbadramany. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to the Respondent, the Division of Real Estate received the DBPR Form 400.5 and, because the Respondent is not a broker, did not issue him a multiple license. Instead, the Division of Real Estate shifted the Respondent's registration as real estate salesperson from Harrigan to AAA Realty. Although the Respondent's registration had been changed from AAA to Harrigan, the Respondent continued to be employed by Harrigan and to work actively in Harrigan's business selling timeshares. The testimony of the Respondent and that of Elbadramany was that he did not do any work for AAA Realty. There is no evidence in this proceeding that the Respondent received a copy of the licensing change or was made aware of this change prior to March 10, 1995. On March 10, 1995, the Respondent was interviewed by an investigator of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. At this time the Respondent became aware that his registration was with AAA Realty. As a result of this interview, the Respondent contacted the Department and discussed with them how to correct the status of his registration. In order to accomplish that in accordance with the instruction he received, the Respondent filed out a DBPR Form 400.5 registering with Harrigan by whom he had been continuously employed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Real Estate enter its final order dismissing the administrative complaint against the Respondent Gary Allen Groves. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Gary Allen Groves 1500 Beville Road, Suite 606-182 Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Frederick Hodgdon (Hodgdon) has held Florida real estate broker license 0206805 at all times pertinent to this case. Hodgdon is owner and qualifying broker for Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., (Pelican Realty), through which Hodgdon conducts business and which also is named as a respondent. At all times pertinent, Pelican Realty has held Florida corporate real estate broker license 0223934. July 24 through August 6, 1984, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-Daze: DO YOU KNOW ... that all Florida real estate brokers are agents for the seller and CANNOT legally propose any lower than listed prices or better terms for the benefit of the buyer? UNLESS ... the broker legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer. As a Buyer's Broker Pelican Realty CAN and DOES exactly this and a lot more! Buyers pay no fees or commissions. Call or send for our informative brochure, you will be glad you did. The real estate buyer's best bet for the best price is to have a Buyer's Broker. On February 19, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Marco Island Eagle: 1/ BUYER BEWARE! DON'T BUY REAL ESTATE ON MARCO ISLAND. ... before consulting an attorney or carefully reading Paragraph 5) and 7) of the 1985 Revision of the Sales Contract as approved by the Naples Area Board of Realtors and the Marco Island Area Board of Realtors and the Collier County Bar Association contract Revision Committee. The Contract states quote: "The Buyer has inspected the property sold by the Contract and there are no other inspections permitted or required. The property is acceptable in its AS IS condition as of date of this offer. INCREDIBLE! ... What happens to the unwitting Buyer who intends to have termite, structural and seawall inspections AFTER his offer is accepted? He just may have to buy a termite ridden house that needs a new roof and a seawall that is on the verge of collapse. Thats what! ... Taken at face value the Sales contract calls for the buyer to spend several hundred dollars for inspections BEFORE making an offer that may well be turned down. INCREDIBLE! .... Paragraph 7) states quote: "Buyer's decision to buy was based on Buyer's own investigation of the property and not upon any representation, warranty, statement or conduct of the Seller, or broker, or any of Seller's or broker's agents" (Excluding those rare occasions when the seller and his agents remain silent.) INCREDIBLE! ... The above subject sections of Paragraphs 5) and 7) of the 1985 Sales Contract in our opinion may well violate the Realtor's Code of Ethics Article 7) "to treat fairly all parties to the transaction." There is nothing Pelican Realty could say or do to better emphasize the Buyer's need to have an advocate on his side. ... As a Buyer's Broker we recommend striking out any and all terms and conditions of the Sales Contract that are prejudicial to the Buyer's best interests. ... Pelican Realty would appreciate the opportunity to discuss with any interested parties the many advantages of working with a Buyer Broker. Our services are at NO additional expense to the buyer. CALL US FOR FURTHER DETAILS. NOW!! On March 11, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-News: CASH BACK FOR THE REAL ESTATE BUYER. THAT'S INCREDIBLE! Pelican Realty GUARANTEES CASH BACK to every buyer on every sale. The bigger the sale, the bigger the cash gift to the buyer. On top of this Pelican Realty (a Buyer's Broker) goes all out to get the lowest possible price for the buyer at NO additional cost to the buyer. Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller. The thousands you SAVE already belong to you. THINK ABOUT IT! Call us for further details NOW! "WE PAY OUR BUYERS TO DO BUSINESS WITH US" There is nothing false or fraudulent about the three advertisements. However, the following statements in the advertisements are deceptive or misleading in form or content: The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that buyers pay no fees or commissions. In form, the buyer perhaps does not pay brokerage fees or commissions. But in substance, the buyer does indirectly pay his broker a brokerage fee or commission when the seller pays fees and commissions out of the proceeds of the sale. The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that a buyer's broker "legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer." Although perhaps technically correct, this representation implies separate state regulation and qualification procedures for licensure as a buyer's broker. In fact and in law, any licensed real estate broker can become a buyer's broker simply by entering into an agreement with a buyer to be the buyer's broker. The representation in the March 11, 1986, News-Sun advertisement: "Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller." Read carefully in context, this representation is true--realtors other than those representing a buyer must try to get the highest price for the seller he represents (while being open, honest and fair to the buyer). But, as written, the representation could lead one to believe that the respondents have an ability no other realtors have when, in fact and in law, any realtor or other licensed real estate broker who represents a buyer can try to get the best price for the buyer. Although respondents have offered cash rebates, no client has seen the offer or asked for a rebate. Although respondents have maintained their innocence, they changed the ads to meet the criticism of the Department of Professional Regulation.
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 (1) reprimanding respondents, Frederick Hodgdon and Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., and (2) fining them $500 each for violations of Section 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). RECOMMENDED this 21st day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 21st day of July, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Case No. 80-767 Count I In 1976, Ms. Kay E. Davis bought a house from Home America Realty, Inc., and Home America, Inc. at 11700 North 58 Street, Tampa, Florida, the Respondent's principal place of business. On or about May 26, 1976, the Respondent offered to Ms. Davis a color television set in exchange for sending Respondent a referral who would purchase a home. Ms. Davis was and is not registered as a real estate broker or salesman in Florida or any other state. Subsequent to the closing of the purchase by Ms. Davis, one of her friends, Brenda Kelly, purchased a home from the Respondent. Ms. Davis believed that she was responsible for the referral and contacted the Respondent's office concerning the color television. After the closing and over a period of several months, Ms. Davis called Home America to complain about problems with her house. In response to her complaints, the exterior of the house was cleaned and a check for $110.00 was sent to her in settlement of a claim concerning carpeting. During this period of time, a check for $200.00 was sent to Ms. Davis following a telephone conversation between Ms. Davis and the Respondent's secretary. Ms. Davis never received a color television from the Respondent or spoke to him directly about the $200.00 in lieu of a color television set. The $200.00 was not knowingly paid by the Respondent as a referral fee; rather, it was an attempt on the Respondent's part to settle the ongoing problems involving Ms. Davis' home. Count II Prior to the hearing, counsel for the Respondent moved that Count II be dismissed, based upon a letter he received on May 19, 1980, from counsel for the Board of Real Estate informing him that on May 19, 1980, following an investigation the Board dismissed this part of its complaint (CD 18645) against the Respondent. Ruling was reserved on this Motion and the Respondent presented testimony and evidence on this Count. Counsel for Respondent was never informed by the Board that Count II of the complaint was not in fact dismissed as represented in the May 19, 1980, letter until October 23, 1980, the day of the formal hearing. Case No. 80-1225 On November 21, 1977 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Caplano purchased a home at 4611 East Seneca Drive, Tampa, Florida, from Respondents Home America Realty, Inc. and Bekiempis through their salesman, Robert Knisley. At the time Mr. Knisley first showed the Caplanos the property, the site was under construction, unsodded and survey markers were not in place. Although a chain link fence was visible on the east side of the property, it would have been difficult to determine the legal boundary lines because of the condition of the site. The visible fence was 10 feet beyond and parallel to the actual property line. The lot purchased by the Gaplanos was 60 feet in width. The lot directly behind the Gaplanos was 70 feet wide. The Caplanos were furnished with an accurate survey of the property either five days after the contract was signed or at the closing. At the closing, the Caplanos understood that they were purchasing a sixty foot lot and never believed or were told that their lot was 70 feet wide. Prior to closing, the lot was sodded beyond the boundary lines to include easements on both sides of the street and the 10 feet up to the fence line. It was the customary practice of Home America, Inc. , to sod beyond property lines after the completion of construction of a lot to improve the appearance of a neighborhood. Such action was not intended to mislead purchasers as to the location of their property lines. The misunderstanding between the Caplanos and Mr. Knisley arose not out of any attempt by Mr. Knisley to misrepresent or mislead, but rather out of Mr. Knisley's erroneous and unintentional attempt to locate the property lines and survey markers. Case No. 80-789 On or about November 10, 1976, the Respondent contracted with Ronald Faber for the sale of a house and lot located at Lot 1, Allbright Shores Subdivision. At the time Ronald Faber worked for the Respondent as comptroller of Home America, Inc. This house was purchased using conventional financing since the specifications of the house and lot did not meet the requirements of VA financing and, thus, such financing could not be arranged. The contract for purchase of the house called for a down payment of $4,600.00 or 10 percent of the purchase price. A portion of this amount was paid in cash by Mr. Faber and the remainder was paid by way of an employee discount to Mr. Faber as evidenced by the exchange between Mr. Faber and Home America, Inc. of checks for $3,000.00. Mr. Faber received from his employment with Respondent salary income and additional income from managing apartments. Thus, his income was capable of varying during the year and was not calculated as straight salary. The evidence is inconclusive as to what Mr. Faber's actual income was for the year in question. The statement of salary made by the Respondent to the financing bank was substantially correct based upon his interpretation of Mr. Faber's salary and was not intended to mislead the bank. The testimony is contradictory concerning whether the Respondent agreed to pave the road in front of the Faber home beyond that which was already in place. However, no competent testimony or evidence was presented that the Respondent supplied any information to the bank's appraiser concerning the paving of the road. Mr. Faber executed a note and mortgage in favor of Home America, Inc., encumbering the property on November 24, 1976. There is conflicting testimony as to whether the affidavit furnished the bank which stated that no outstanding unrecorded contract for sale, deed, conveyance, or mortgage affecting title existed on the property, was executed by the Respondent on November 24 or November 29. The note and mortgage were delivered to Respondent after the affidavit was executed. The Respondent believed at the time the affidavit was executed that he held a promissory note which was not a valid lien on the property until the mortgage and note were signed and delivered to him.
Findings Of Fact Jan Tomas is and was at all times pertinent hereto the holder of real estate broker registration certificate No. 0089450 from the Florida Real Estate Commission. The pleadings in this case show that on April 21, 1976, a Notice of Hearing was mailed to Jan Tomas by the Florida Real Estate Commission at two addresses; the first being Post Office Box 10887, Tampa, Florida 33609 and the second address being 364 Candler Park Drive, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30307. This Notice of Hearing was for hearing to be held on May 19, 1976, the date of the final hearing herein. This Notice was received by Jan Tomas as evidenced by the letter marked Exhibit 6 to Delphene C. Strickland, the then assigned Hearing Officer in this cause. On March 22, 1974, Jan Tomas applied for renewal of his certificate of registration as an active real estate broker. In his application he listed his business address and residence address as 417 A E Hanlon Street, Tampa, Florida 33604. Tomas was issued renewal certificate No. 099351 at the foregoing address which certificate expired September 30, 1975. By application dated February 7, 1975, Jan Tomas applied for a renewal of his active broker registration certificate setting forth his business and residence address as 105 South Hale, Tampa, Florida 33609. Pursuant to that application he was issued renewal certificate No. 207246 at the foregoing address which certificate expired September 30, 1975. At no time during 1974 or 1975 did Jan Tomas occupy the premises located at 417 A E Hanlon Street, Tampa, Florida either in a business capacity or in a residential capacity. Throughout 1974 and 1975, 105 South Hale, Tampa, Florida was a vacant lot. At no time during 1974 or 1975 did Jan Tomas maintain a business or residence at 105 South Hale, Tampa, Florida. Nor, during 1974 or 1975 did Jan Tomas maintain a business or residence at 103, 104 or 107 South Hale, Tampa, Florida.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the respondents, Dorothea L. Prisament and Warricks Real Estate , Inc., should be disciplined on charges filed in a six-count Administrative Complaint, three counts for each respondent, and alleging that the respondents: (1) were culpably negligent in allowing their escrow account to have a negative balance, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989); (2) failed to maintain trust funds in a properly maintained escrow account, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1989); and (3) failed to maintain a proper office sign, in violation of F.A.C. Rule 21V-10.024 and Sections 475.25(1)(e) and 475.22, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Dorothea L. Prisament and Warricks Real Estate, Inc., are now, and were at all times material hereto, licensed as real estate brokers in the State of Florida. Dorothea L. Prisament was the active real estate broker for the corporate broker, Warricks Real Estate. On or about August 16, 1989, investigator Marjorie G. May conducted an office inspection and audit of the escrow accounts of the respondents. Ms. May also reviewed the outer office of the respondents. The entrance sign did not have the name of Dorothea L. Prisament on it; however, the sign did have Warricks Real Estate correctly identified and identified as a licensed real estate broker. Ms. May advised Ms. Prisament of the fact that Ms. Prisament's name needed to be on the sign and identified as a real estate broker. Ms. Prisament had a new sign made which fully complies with the statutes and rules. There was no evidence introduced at hearing to show that the escrow account of the respondents had a shortage in any amount; directly to the contrary, both the Department of Professional Regulation investigator and Ms. Prisament agreed that there was no shortage in the account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and in light of the fact both that the respondents' violation was a very minor and technical one which was immediately corrected and that the respondents had to undergo the costs of defense of this case and suffer the mental duress of defending this case, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing Counts I through IV of the Administrative Complaint and reprimanding the respondents for a minor and technical violation under Counts V and VI. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine A. Bamping, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire One Urban Centre, Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 Darlene F. Keller Director, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Pasquale A. Verona (Verona), is a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0389728 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). He is the qualifying broker and an officer of respondent, P. A. Verona and Associates, Inc., which holds broker's license number 0251674. The real estate firm is located at 3828 Seago Lane, Fort Myers, Florida. In May 1988 Donna Jean and Barry C. Minnich were shopping for a residential lot in Carillon Woods, a subdivision in Fort Myers, Florida. After seeing a lot advertised by Verona s firm, Donna Jean telephoned Verona's office and made an appointment to inspect the lot on May 13, 1988. After inspecting the lot, Donna Jean decided to purchase the same and, on the same date, she and Verona orally agreed upon a purchase price of $49,000 with a closing date of May 25, 1988. Verona desired to close on that date since he had a previously planned trip to California with his family beginning on May 26, 1988. The oral agreement was reduced to a written contract and executed by the parties on May 13, 1988. At Verona's request, and at the same time the contract was executed, an addendum was prepared by the Minnichs' attorney which provided, in part, that a $54,000 sales price would be used but that at closing Verona would refund $5,000 to the Minnichs. This refund was to be taken out of Verona's real estate commission and rebated to the buyers. Thus, the net sales price was still $49,000 as originally agreed to by the parties. As earnest money, the Minnichs gave Verona $5,000 which was deposited into Verona' s trust account. The Minnichs immediately made application for a loan with John E. Smith, a vice-president of a local C & S bank. On May 18, 1988 they placed an order for a title commitment with Southwest Title, Inc., a Fort Myers title company designated by the parties to prepare the title insurance and handle the closing. The title company was placed on notice that the contract called for a May 25 closing date. According to Mary Jane Kalpin, a Southwest Title, Inc. employee who worked on this transaction, there were unsatisfied water and sewer assessments on the lot owed by Verona to the City of Fort Myers. However, she said this was not unusual and happened quite frequently in subdivisions such as Carillon Woods. As it turned out, however, the city employee who oversaw these assessments was on vacation the week prior to the May 25 closing date, and Kalpin could not obtain payoff figures from any other city employee. In addition, Kalpin needed Verona to furnish her with a certificate of good standing on the property. 1/ He did not do so by May 25. Therefore, she was unable to prepare a closing package by the contract closing date. On May 23, 1988, C & S issued a loan commitment to the Minnichs. In the meantime, Kalpin had completed her title search and on May 23 she spoke with Verona who advised her the deal must close by May 25. When she responded she could not get payoff figures from the City by that date, Verona told her it was a "dead deal". On or about May 24, Donna Jean spoke with Verona and, after being told of the problems encountered by the title company, reiterated her desire to buy the lot. She requested that Verona extend the time for closing so that the missing items could be obtained. Although Verona denies that he gave such an extension, and nothing was reduced to writing, it is found that Verona orally agreed to an extension of time prior to leaving for California. This is supported by the fact that, after returning from California, Verona's wife delivered a certificate of good standing to the title company on June 9, and the title company representative was under the impression a closing would be held at 1:00 p.m. the same date. However, at Verona's insistence, the closing did not take place. On June 15, Verona sent the Minnichs a letter with a check in the amount of $5,000 which represented the deposit on the property. In his letter, Verona stated that he "realize(d) that the delay in the closing on Lot #6, Carillon Woods is not being caused by anything you have done" and that those things occurred whenever "we place a transaction in the hands of another". He added that he had received another offer in the amount of $58,000 from another party and if the Minnichs were willing to pay a "net figure of $56,000", he would give them the opportunity to purchase the lot. The Minnichs chose not to cash the check but instead advised Verona they intended to seek legal advice on their rights under the original contract. Donna Jean deposited the check around June 22 but learned the next day that Verona had stopped payment on the check. On June 24, 1988 Verona again wrote the Minnichs and advised them to reconsider their threat to take legal action since he had "never lost a real estate dispute". He also advised them that, pursuant to the contract, he was claiming the $5,000 as liquidated damages due to their failure to close by May Finally, he pointed out that the original contract "was terminated on June 15 by letter". On an undisclosed date, but prior to September 1988, Donna Jean spoke with Verona by telephone and requested a refund of her deposit. Her request was denied. The Minnichs then filed a complaint with the Division. On September 2, 1988 Verona advised the Division there was a dispute concerning the deposit and requested the issuance of a disbursement order. On January 11, 1989, the Division, through its counsel, wrote Verona and advised him that, because of disputed facts a disbursement order could not be issued, and he must immediately seek arbitration or file an interpleader action in circuit court. Choosing to utilize arbitration, Verona contacted the Miami office of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) on February 15, 1989 and requested a "package" from which an agreement to arbitrate could be prepared. After receiving a package of documents, Verona sent an agreement with a letter to the Minnichs on February 24, 1989. They did not respond to his offer to arbitrate. On March 6 he sent a follow-up letter again requesting the Minnichs to arbitrate. On March 9 Verona learned that AAA would not arbitrate the dispute. As of that date, Verona was aware of the fact that his only remaining alternative was to file an interpleader action in circuit court. On March 23, 1989 the Division, through its counsel, sent a second letter to Verona advising him that he had apparently ignored the earlier letter and that he must immediately take action to resolve the dispute. On May 5, 1989 Verona sent his attorney, George Knott, a check in the amount of $5,000 with a request that Knott "handle the interplea (sic) action as to the disposition of $5,000 previously held in my real estate firm's escrow account". The suit was eventually filed by Knott in circuit court on September 8, 1989. The suit requested that Verona be awarded the $5,000 deposit plus "damages" and attorney's fees. When asked at hearing why the suit had not been filed earlier, Verona responded that, once the matter was turned over to his attorney, he had no control over the actions of his attorney. He also acknowledged that he has never instructed his attorney to attempt to resolve the matter as quickly as possible. As of the date of hearing (June 20, 1990), the matter was still pending in circuit court. There is no evidence that Verona did not maintain the $5,000 deposit in his firm's escrow account until the money was turned over to his attorney on May 5, 1990. There is also no evidence that respondents have ever been disciplined by the Division.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondents be found guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes (1987) and Rule 21V-10.032, Florida Administrative Code (1987), and that their brokers' licenses be suspended for six months and thereafter be placed on one year's probation. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts were found: Respondent, Robert E. Zimmerly (Zimmerly) is a licensed real estate broker having been issued license No. 0127833, with last known address of 500 Hinson Avenue, Haines City, Florida and at all times pertinent to these proceedings was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate broker. Respondent, Haines City Realty, Inc. (Haines City) is a licensed corporate real estate broker having been issued registration No. 0146307, with its last known business address of 500 Hinson Avenue, Haines City, Florida and at all times pertinent to these proceedings was licensed by the State of Florida as a corporate real estate broker. Haines City's license is currently in an inactive status. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Zimmerly was the sole broker, of and for Haines City, and was its President. Several weeks prior to April 23, 1981, the date N. B. Willoughby (Willoughby) signed the first offer to purchase the property (offer), Zimmerly along with Barbara Costello (Costello) and Chancellor I. Hannon (Hannon) showed the property described as "Lots 230 and 233 of the Lucerne Park Fruit Association Subdivision, P1at Book 3, Page 67, Public Records of Polk County, Florida" (property), consisting of approximately 20 acres and contiguous to the city limits of Winter Haven, Florida to Willoughby, a prospective buyer, along with Ray Workman (Workman), Willoughby's associate. Costello at the time was a sales person for American Realty of Haines City, now known as American Realty of Polk County, Inc., (American Realty). Zimmerly was representing Haines City. Hannon was representing Ridge Holding Association, Inc., (seller) the owner of the property. The property had originally been listed with Haines City but presently was considered as being listed with American Realty. Subsequent to having seen the property, Willoughby instructed Zimmerly to prepare an offer to purchase, with a purchase price of $70,000, subject to the condition, among others, that the seller would obtain a special exception for a mobile home park. A deposit check for $500 was submitted along with the offer. Costello submitted the offer to Hannon for seller. Sometime around April 25, 1981, Hannon notified Costello that the seller had rejected Willoughby's offer because of the condition concerning a special exception for mobile home park. Within a day, Costello notified Zimmerly of the rejection. Zimmerly requested rejection in writing which Hannon did not furnish until May 11, 1981 due to his involvement in personal matters. Willoughby was not notified of seller's rejection of his first offer until around May 11, 1981. On April 27, 1981, after a verbal notification by Costello of rejection of Willoughby's offer, Zimmerly prepared and submitted an offer to purchase (Ridge offer) from Ridge Crest, Ltd., Agent, (This was apparently meant to be Ridge Crest Villas, Ltd.) signed by Bob Zimmerly, a general and limited partner, to seller, with a purchase price of $72,000, subject to the condition, among others, that seller furnish a letter requesting a special exception for mobile homes park. The Ridge offer was submitted to Hannon for the seller and was accepted by seller on May 5, 1981. On May 18, 1981 Willoughby submitted his second offer to purchase (second offer), with deposit, to seller through Zimmerly. The second offer was identical to the first offer except for the deletion of the condition requiring a special exception for mobile home park. Zimmerly did not advise Willoughby at this time, or at any other time material to the transaction, that Zimmerly was involved in an attempted purchase of the property through Ridge Crest Villas, Ltd. even though the Ridge offer had been accepted on May 5, 1981. Although the Ridge offer indicated a closing date of May 15, 1981, the transaction did not close for reasons not clear in the record, until May 27, 1981. The warranty deed and the mortgage deed executed on day of closing shows Ridge Crest Villas, Ltd. as the Grantee and Mortgagor, respectively. The deposits submitted with both of Willoughby's offers were timely refunded by Zimmerly. Willoughby was notified by Hannon after the closing that his second offer was rejected. On November 6, 1980, a limited partnership known as Ridge Crest Villas Ltd., was filed with the Secretary of State. The record is not clear, but apparently this limited partnership was involuntarily dissolved for failure to file an annual report and on October 14, 1981, an identical limited partnership, with the same name was filed with the Secretary of State. Both limited partnerships listed Robert E. Zimmerly as a general partner with 5 percent interest and listed Robert E. Zimmerly and Dolores J. Zimmerly as limited partners with 45 percent and 50 percent interests, respectively. Respondent Zimmerly's testimony was that: (1) he wanted a written (firm) rejection before notifying Willoughby because of previous dealings with Willoughby; (2) it is not uncommon to use limited partnerships in real estate transactions because of the availability of tax advantages when using a limited partnership; (3) he was acting for Jones and Destefano when he made the offer and purchased the property in the name of the limited partnership; (4) he intended for Jones and Destefano to own the property through the limited partnership and took a promissory note for the down payment; (5) he did not advise Willoughby of his involvement in the purchase of the property, other than in general terms "that some fellows from up north are interested" (Destefano is "from up North") because he had been taught in real estate schools, and it was his policy, not to discuss one prospective buyer's offer with another prospective buyer; and (6) it is common practice to have a "backup" offer as with Willoughby's second offer because you are never sure if a particular transaction will close. Mainly, this testimony went unrebutted by the petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of a violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes 1981) For such violation, considering the mitigating circumstances surrounding the violation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a letter of Reprimand and impose an administrative fine of $1,000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 10th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite 308 P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Arthur C. Fulmer, Esquire P.O. Drawer J Lakeland, Florida 33802 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
