The Issue Whether Respondent, Jason Dwight Walker, prepared a preconstruction appraisal report that was in violation of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), and thus section 475.624(4), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J1-9.001, as alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the sanctions to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency of the State of Florida having authority, among its other duties and responsibilities, to regulate the practice of real estate. The Division of Real Estate is a legislatively-created division of the Department. The Board is established within the Division of Real Estate and is vested with the authority to administer chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes, and to enforce the provisions thereof. Respondent holds a license as a state-certified residential real estate appraiser, No. RD 3588. On or about June 20, 2012, Respondent contracted to perform a preconstruction appraisal report for a residential home (the Proposed Home) to be constructed at 14682 Northwest Pea Ridge Road, Bristol, Florida. The prospective owners were Thomas Ryan Cherry and Jessica Rogers Cherry (the Owners). The Proposed Home’s internal area was to be 3,458 square feet in size. The issue that forms the basis for the Administrative Complaint is the amount of that area that was to be built-out as the Gross Living Area (GLA) of the home. Petitioner has alleged that Respondent failed to consider the entire eight-page construction contract that governed the construction of the Proposed Home. As will be discussed in greater detail herein, the contract between the building contractor, Stephen Newman, and the Owners consisted of four numbered pages, the fourth page of which contained only a statutorily-required notice regarding construction defect claim procedures and the signature blocks. The contract also included a separately styled, numbered, and signed five-page Description of Materials. Page five of the Description of Materials included a provision that “[s]econd story will be framed and left unfinished. Owner to complete at future date. One 36” exterior door to be installed at head of stairs.” Respondent was retained to perform a preconstruction appraisal by the appraisal management company, StreetLinks Lender Solutions (StreetLinks), which was acting as the agent for First Federal Bank of Florida (Lender). The Lender was the client for the appraisal, but Respondent’s selection was performed at the sole discretion of StreetLinks. The appraisal agreement prohibited Respondent from contacting the Lender prior to delivery of the final appraisal report, or from attempting to obtain value or loan information from the Owners. Thus, of the parties to financing, StreetLinks was the sole allowable point of contact. The only plausible inference is that the information provided to Respondent in aid of the appraisal was provided by StreetLinks, or at StreetLinks’ direction. Respondent was provided with the first three pages of the contract. The Contract provided that the Proposed Home was to be constructed “from Owner provided plans,” that “[t]he owner provided plans and Builder’s Description of Materials are part of this contract,” and that “[o]wner agrees to not inhabit the dwelling until all construction is complete, certificate of occupancy is obtained, and all funds to builder have been paid.” Respondent included the construction contract provided to him in his work file. Respondent was provided with two floor plan sheets that depicted the two-story home at issue in its fully built-out and completed form. The floor plans included the layout of the Proposed Home, and general depictions of fixtures, counters and cabinets, lighting, fans and wiring. Respondent included the floor plan sheets in his work file. In order to confirm the nature of the building to be constructed, Respondent called the contractor, Mr. Newman, and had a conversation with him that lasted approximately 30 minutes. Mr. Newman testified that he provided Respondent with the dimensions of the second floor and the location of the various rooms, information that Respondent sought in order to confirm information contained in the floor plans. Respondent made an accurate sketch of the configuration of the second floor based on his conversation with Mr. Newman. Furthermore, access to the attic was described on Respondent’s specification sheet notes as “scuttle,” and not “stairs,” information that could only have been gathered from either Mr. Newman or the floor plans. Mr. Newman did not have a firm recollection of whether he provided Respondent with information regarding the materials, appliances, and finishes to be used in the Proposed Home. Nonetheless, a preponderance of the evidence, including Respondent’s testimony and contemporaneous notes of the conversation, indicates that Mr. Newman provided Respondent with that information, though the evidence also suggests that Mr. Newman understated the high quality of some of the finishes. At no time during the conversation did Mr. Newman indicate that the second floor was not going to be finished as depicted in the plans, and would instead be considered “attic space.” Mr. Newman denied that he had any responsibility to advise Respondent that it was not his intent to build-out the second floor in accordance with his described configuration, despite the fact that floor plans depicting a completed second floor were sent to the Owners under his signature, and were thereafter provided to Respondent. It is simply not credible that such would not have been disclosed over the course of a lengthy and in-depth conversation under the excuse that “it’s not my job to,” unless there was an intent to convince Respondent that the Proposed Home would be built in accordance with the plans. Respondent included specification sheet notes and his second floor sketch from his conversation with Mr. Newman in his work file. Using the plans, contract, and other information as to the property independently obtained by Respondent, and taking into account the information received from Mr. Newman, Respondent developed and communicated an appraisal report, No. 7393A, with an effective date of June 29, 2012. The appraised value of the Proposed Home was $250,000. That amount was consistent with and supported by properties of a size comparable to a 3,458 square foot home in the area. The house was constructed in accordance with the contract and Description of Materials. The second floor was framed and floored, and plumbing was stubbed out, but it was not finished so as to be considered GLA. The house as constructed contained a GLA of 2,014 square feet.1/ However, due to the very high quality (and expense) of cabinets, flooring, and fixtures, the cost of construction of the 2,014 square foot GLA home was $232,645, an amount very close to the $250,000 appraised (and financed) value. It is surprisingly (or not so surprisingly) serendipitous that the cost of the smaller home was so close to the appraised value of the larger home. It seems more than a happy coincidence that the Owners and the contractor had sufficient financing to account for the luxurious finishes. Respondent was not retained to do the draw inspections or the final inspection. Thus, he could not have known that the home as constructed was not consistent with the plans provided to him by StreetLinks, or with the description of the Proposed Home as discussed with Mr. Newman. On or about June 14, 2013, the Lender filed a complaint with the Division of Real Estate alleging misfeasance in the preparation of the appraisal.2/ The documents submitted to the Division with the complaint did not include the two floor plan sheets that had been provided to Respondent, but did include the contract signature page and the Description of Materials that had not been provided to Respondent. By letter dated August 14, 2013, the Lender, through its counsel, advised Respondent that it believed Respondent to have negligently prepared the appraisal, with the negligent act being Respondent’s failure to recognize that the second floor of the home was to remain unfinished. The letter provided, in part, that: Via the appraisal, you represented that you reviewed the construction contract between the builder and the Property owner. I have attached a copy of that contract for your ease of reference as Exhibit “B” hereto. However, the construction contract clearly indicates that the second story of the home would be left unfinished. Your appraisal failed to recognize this fact and now the home, as built, is nowhere near your appraised value. The letter did not include Exhibit “B.” Respondent kept the letter and other communication with the Lender in his work file. On September 4, 2013, Respondent sent an email to the Lender’s counsel, asking that “Exhibit B” of the Lender’s letter be provided to him. In response, the letter with all of the exhibits was sent to Respondent by email that same day. Exhibit “A” of the Lender’s letter consisted of a Certificate of Compliance from the Lender’s agent, StreetLinks, and a complete copy of Respondent’s appraisal report. Exhibit “B” of the Lender’s letter included the same three-page construction contract that was contained in Respondent’s work file. It contained the same letter from Mr. Newman to the property owners. Finally, it contained floor plans for the home but, surprisingly (or not so surprisingly), it included only the floor plan sheet for the first floor of the Proposed Home. The Lender’s Exhibit “B” did not include the floor plan for the second floor of the Proposed Home that had been originally provided to Respondent by or on behalf of its agent, StreetLinks. Exhibit “B” of the Lender’s letter to Respondent did not include the Description of Materials with the provision that the second story of the home would be left unfinished. At the hearing, Petitioner offered what was represented to be the complete contract as an exhibit. The contract offered was four pages and, but for the statutorily required notice regarding construction defect claim procedures and the signature blocks, was identical to the contract in Respondent’s workfile. The exhibit also included the separately styled and signed Description of Materials. As set forth herein, the Description of Materials was not provided to Respondent by or at the direction of StreetLinks, or otherwise. In analyzing the issues in this case, the undersigned paid close attention to the opinion of Petitioner’s expert witness, Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers opined that Respondent should have engaged in greater inquiry that would have revealed that the second floor was to remain unfinished, and as a result the GLA was stated, melodramatically, to be “tragically overstated.” In his testimony, and his report which was received in evidence, Mr. Rogers noted that Mr. Newman’s cover letter to the Owners referenced a description of materials, estimate, and legal description. He noted that “it is actually atypical for the owner or lender to supply all of the information about the subject property the appraiser will need to produce credible assignment results.” In instances of insufficient documentation, Mr. Rogers testified that among the options for dealing with that occurrence is for the appraiser “to go find that documentation and complete the assignment.” Mr. Rogers believed that Respondent should have made “a request to the lender” for the referenced materials, apparently being unaware that the terms of Respondent’s engagement with StreetLinks prohibited such contact. He further opined that Respondent’s communication with Mr. Newman “was insufficient . . . to an accurate description of the proposed home,” and that “[e]xpansion of the conversation with the builder . . . was necessary.” How he was able to determine the sufficiency of a conversation to which he was not privy was not explained, and his opinion in that regard is given no weight. Based on the totality of the evidence in this case, Respondent obtained information that was reasonably calculated to identify the relevant characteristics of the subject property. The contract, the complete floor plans for the first and second floors of the home, and the lengthy conversation with the builder were sources that were objectively reasonable and reliable, and consistent with USPAP and the Department’s statutory and regulatory authority. Mr. Rogers acknowledged that complete floor plans are an appropriate source for information regarding the characteristics of an appraised property. However, he discounted Respondent’s reliance on such floor plans in this case. His explanation for doing so was not compelling or persuasive, and is not accepted. Rather, the information used by Respondent, as described herein, was sufficient to identify the extent and character of the proposed improvements.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Real Estate Appraisal Board, enter a final order dismissing the First Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2016.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Ezell Realty, Inc., was a licensed corporate real estate broker having been issued license number 0231943 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. Respondent, Winfield Ezell, Sr., held real estate broker's license number 0309739 issued by petitioner and was the sole qualifying broker and officer of Ezell Realty, Inc. The firm is located at 1512 West Gore Street, Orlando, Florida. Grover Crawford was an acquaintance of Ezell who was interested in purchasing certain rental property on Coretta Way in Orlando, Florida. When he was unable to purchase the property Crawford told Ezell to let him know if anything else became available in that area. Ezell happened to own a rental house at 1121 Coretta Way which he had just purchased several months earlier in a foreclosure proceeding, and the two eventually began discussions concerning a possible sale. At all times relevant thereto, the house was rented to tenants, and Crawford intended the property to remain as investor-owned property rather than owner-occupied property. Ezell initially agreed to sell the property for $70,000 and the two entered into a contract on January 8, 1983, using this sales price. However, the lender's appraisal of the residence came in far below this figure, and the parties eventually agreed on a sales price of $55,450. A second contract for sale and purchaser was executed on June 22, 1983. Although the contract provided that Crawford would pay a cash deposit of $2,300 to be held in escrow by Ezell Realty, none was paid since Ezell was given $2,300 by the tenants of the house to make needed repairs to the property prior to the sale. This arrangement was agreeable with Crawford. The contract also required the seller (Ezell) to pay all closing coats. Therefore, Crawford was not required to pay any "up front" costs in order to buy the property. Under the terms of the second contract, Crawford was to obtain FHA financing on the property in the amount of $53,150. This type of financing is the most desirable from an investor standpoint since the mortgage can be easily transferred to another buyer for a small transfer fee without lender approval. After executing the first contract on January 8, 1983, Ezell and Crawford executed an "Addendum to Contract For Sale and Purchase" on the same date which provided in pertinent part: This contract is for the sole purpose of having the buyer obtain an assumable FHA mortgage for the seller and reconveying title to the seller. The seller hereby irrevocably assumes the said FHA mortgage from the buyer immediately after closing and the buyers hereby agree to that assumption. For this, Crawford was to receive $1,000. The parties agreed that this addendum would apply to the second contract executed on June 22, 1983. At the suggestion of Ezell, Crawford made application for a $53.150 FHA loan with Residential Financial Corporation (RFC) in Maitland, Florida, a lending institution which Ezell had done business with on a number of prior occasions. However, Ezell was not present at any meetings between Crawford and RFC. When Crawford applied for the mortgage, he indicated the property would be used for investment purposes and would not be owner-occupied. For some reason, RFC assumed the property would be owner-occupied and structured the-loan in that manner. Because of this, Crawford's down payment was slightly less than 5% of the value of the property with the remainder being financed by the institution. Had RFC treated the loan as an investor-loan, the down payment would have been increased to around 15%. Neither Crawford or Ezell advised RFC of the Addendum to the contract which required Crawford to reconvey the property to Ezell for $1,000 once the FHA mortgage was obtained. Had RFC known of this it would not have approved the loan. There was no competent evidence that such an agreement was illegal or violated any federal laws or contravened any real estate industry standard or ethical consideration. The loan was eventually approved, and a closing held on September 22, 1983. After closing, Crawford retained the property in his name with Ezell making all payments from the rent proceeds. This was consistent with an oral agreement between the two that such an arrangement would last for an indefinite period as long as the payments were current. When Crawford later received several notices from the lender stating that mortgage payments were in arrears, he hired an attorney and demanded that Ezell fulfill the terms of the Addendum. He also filed a complaint against Ezell with petitioner which precipitated the instant proceeding. After the closing, Ezell had intended for the tenants to assume the mortgage since they had expressed an interest in buying the property. However, such a sale never materialized. In July, 1984, the property was reconveyed to Ezell, and Ezell paid Crawford $1,000 as required by the Addendum.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be dismissed, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esq. P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Julius L. Williams, Esq. P. O. Box 2629 Orlando, FL 32802 ================================================================ =
Findings Of Fact Scorpio, Inc. was incorporated to do business in this State on September 18, 1973 and was registered as a corporate real estate broker on 4/8/74 with certificate to expire 3/31/75. Laverne Pariso was a registered real estate broker and Active Firm Member for Scorpio, Inc. from 4/8/74 to expiration date of license 3/31/75. Michael W. Karpan was a registered real estate salesman from 10/1/74 to 9/30/76 the expiration date of his registration and was employed by Scorpio, Inc. About the time Scorpio, Inc. was registered as a corporate broker the real estate market was not conducive to the success of housing developments and, since the registration of Scorpio, Inc. was obtained to facilitate sale of the developed property and no development was started, Scorpio, Inc. did no business of the type for which it was registered. No listings were obtained, no sales were made, and no effort was put forth to do either. An escrow account was opened with an initial $50 deposit but during the time the registration was effective no deposits were made to, or withdrawals from, this escrow account. Ardina E. Karpan, the mother of Michael W. Karpan, owns all of the stock of Scorpio, Inc. Laverne Pariso, the APM, left the employ of Scorpio, Inc. in March, 1975 but did not notify the FREC or take steps to place her registration in an inactive status. Applications were made for renewal of the broker's license of neither Pariso nor Scorpio, Inc. when due, 3/31/75. By Corporate Resolution dated February 1, 1974 Scorpio, Inc. authorized the establishment of an escrow account at the Barnett Bank of Miami. An initial deposit of $50 was made to this account on February 6, 1974. The resolution authorizes Laverne Pariso and Michael W. Karpan or Ardina Karpan to sign checks on this account and notes that two signatures are required. The resolution further provided authorized signers "are both Laverne Pariso and Michael William Karpan, Jr., both signature are required". Scorpio, Inc.'s primary business was the management of shareholder's investments and real estate holdings. In May, 1975 Michael Karpan was approached by a business associate, whose daughter was a creditor of Chandelier of the Virginia Playhouse d/b/a Track and Turf Lounge, to assist in the negotiations for the sale of the business in order to pay off the creditors and salvage his daughter's loan. The purchaser was already at hand and Karpan was selected to hold funds advanced pending the closing of the deal. After the principals had agreed on the basic price to be paid for the business an earnest money deposit of $5,000 was given by the buyer to Karpan on or about May 21, 1975 and the agreement was memorialized in a letter of May 21, 1975 from Karpan, on Scorpio, Inc. letterhead to the buyer, Walker (Exhibit 25). Nowhere on this letter is reference made to either Karpan or Scorpio, Inc. being associated with real estate sales. The $5,000 received from Walker was deposited in Scorpio, Inc's escrow account on deposit slip dated May 21, 1975 and the bank statement (Exhibit 10) shows $5,000 deposited in this account 5/30/75. No other agreement between the parties was reduced to writing and signed by the buyer and seller. At no time during the negotiations did Karpan hold himself out to be a real estate salesman or broker or indicate he expected a commission for his services if the sale was consummated. On May 29, 1975 Karpan borrowed $5,000 from the Barnett Bank and used the $5,000 in the escrow account as cash collateral for the loan. The signature of Pariso was not on any paper to authorize the withdrawal of this money from the escrow account. The loan was placed in the regular account of Scorpio, Inc. c/o Michael Karpan and one check dated 5/30/75 in the amount of $3,699 was drawn on the account payable to the Intercontinental Bank of Miami and used to make interest payment owed by the Chandelier of the Virginia Playhouse. $1,301 was delivered to the manager of Track and Turf Lounge by Karpan (Exhibit 4). Karpan contends that the buyer, Walker, authorized him to make whatever payments were necessary out of the $5,000 deposit to insure that the liquor license would not be lost or the Track and Turf Lounge be placed out of business before the deal was consummated. Following the delivery of the $5,000 to Karpan the buyer brought his attorney into the proceedings. The property on which the Track and Turf Lounge is located was owned by D. Mitchell Investments, Inc. The lease arrangements (or lack thereof depending on which witness is more credible) were such that the sale could not be consummated. By letter dated June 12, 1975 the buyer, through his attorney, demanded return of the $5,000 deposit given to Karpan. No evidence was presented as to the date the $1,301 was given to Roy O'Nan, the manager at Track and Turf. The letter evidencing such payment is dated well after the transaction had fallen through and demand for return of the $5,000 had been made. A suit was subsequently filed by Walker and a default judgment was obtained against Scorpio, Inc. after a Motion to Strike Defendant's, Scorpio, Answer because Scorpio, Inc. was delinquent in paying the annual $5.00 filing fee required of Florida corporations, was granted. At the time the transactions here being contested occurred the registration of Laverne Pariso and Scorpio, Inc. had expired. Since Karpan can only work under the supervision of a broker, his license too was not operative. Ms. Pariso renewed her license as a broker-salesman with another realty office in September, 1975 but no evidence was presented that Scorpio, Inc. ever applied for registration renewal. During the period between March and September, 1975 Ms. Pariso did no real estate work. Numerous discrepancies appeared between the testimony and documents. Although the authorization for withdrawing funds from the escrow account provided that the signature of Pariso and Michael Karpan or his mother was required the bank apparently interpreted that to require any two of the signatures and then authorized one first deposit placed in the escrow account after the initial deposit to be withdrawn with only Karpan's signature. Several witnesses alluded to Track and Turf leasing the premises which they occupied but evidence was presented that no lease payments were to be made until 1978. Certainly the inability of the "tenant" to transfer the "lease" was a major factor in the failure of the sale to transpire. The sale here involved was the sale of a business as contrasted to the sale of real property.
Findings Of Fact Dan Lee Isaacs is a real estate broker/salesman with the Petitioner, Key Realty, Inc. He seeks in this proceeding to have approved his dual licensure as a broker for Key Realty Management, Inc., as well as to retain his broker/salesman licensure with the Petitioner, Key Realty Inc. In his capacity as a broker/salesman for Key Realty Inc., he works under the supervision of Mr. Les Epperson, who is the licensed broker for that entity. Mr. Isaacs owns no stock in the corporation, Key Realty Inc. He does own stock and would be sole manager of the separate corporation known as Key Realty Management, Inc. Key Realty Management, Inc., is not affiliated in a subsidiary or other relationship with Key Realty, Inc., although there is some commonalty of ownership in that Les Epperson is a minority shareholder. The President and majority stockholder of Key Realty, Inc., Les Epperson, would have no part in the management of the operations of Key Realty Management, Inc. Mr. Isaacs desires, for personal and financial reasons, to remain active in the real estate sales field as a broker/salesman under the supervision of broker Epperson. He would, as sole manager and broker with Key Realty Management, Inc., engage in no sales activities, but rather solely in the management and supervision of various rental properties for clients of that firm. The two corporations maintain and would maintain separate accounting books and records; and, as pertinent, separate escrow and trust funds and accounts. It is to the advantage of both firms, both financially and in terms of legal liability, to maintain these escrow funds and accounts separately because of the financial and operational differences characteristic of a real estate management firm, as compared to a purely real estate sales operation as conducted by Key Realty, Inc. The Petitioner has complied with all requirements for qualification as a real estate broker pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. In October, 1980, the Petitioner applied for the above described dual licensure. The Respondent denied the application on the basis that an individual cannot be a broker and a broker/ salesman simultaneously. The principals of both corporations, Mr. Epperson and Mr. Isaacs, have submitted the affidavits and agreements pursuant to Rule 2IV-6.06, Florida Administrative Code, attesting to the absence of any conflict of interest stemming from Mr. Isaacs' licensure as a broker of the separate corporation and that both of them agree and consent to the dual registration. There is no dispute between the parties that in essence a "salesman" and a "broker/salesman" perform some of the same real estate transaction functions under the supervision of a licensed broker, for instance, the depositing with the broker of any escrow or other funds involved in a given real estate transaction for appropriate disposition and disbursement by the broker and acting in all other pertinent operative capacities under the supervision of a broker, rather than independently. The parties also did not dispute that the real basis for the "broker/salesman" designation in the licensing scheme in Florida is to allow a licensee to demonstrate to the public that a broker/salesman is clothed with additional internship, educational and experience credentials and is thus possessed of a greater degree of expertise in real estate transactions and operations than one licensed as a salesman. The Respondent however, in its argument during and subsequent to the hearing, apparently takes the position that a "broker/salesman" and a salesman perform identical functions; and, therefore, are legally to be considered as the same type of license and licensee, for purposes of establishing its legal position that since a salesman's license may not be issued to a person registered as an active broker unless the active broker's license is surrendered that neither may a person be dually licensed as both a "broker/salesman" and a broker.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is; therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Dan Lee Isaacs a license as an active real estate broker for, and on behalf of, Key Realty Management, Inc., and allowing his retention of licensure as a broker/salesman with Key Realty, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 15th day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Kirk Brown, Esquire Post Office Box 4075 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges in the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of March, 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 1st day of March, 1982.
The Issue Did Frederick Anthony III, Inc., employ persons who were not licensed? Did Benjamin Foster have knowledge that these individuals were employed? Was Benjamin Foster responsible for the employment of unlicensed individuals? Was Benjamin Foster liable for Anthony John Bascone's actions as a real estate salesman? Did Benjamin Foster violate Sections 475.42(1)(c) and 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Notice of the formal hearing was given to all parties as required by the statutes and rules. Benjamin C. Foster is a real estate broker holding License No. 0151634 issued by the Board of Real Estate. Frederick Anthony III, Inc. (FA III), is a Florida corporate real estate broker holding License No. 0215470 issued by the Board. Foster was the active firm member of the corporation. Donald McDonald and Delores McDonald were employed by FA III. While so employed, both of these persons engaged in the sale of real estate. Neither Delores McDonald nor Donald McDonald were licensed at the times in question. Foster agreed to be the active firm member for FA III because Anthony John Bascone and Frederick Hall, a real estate salesman, wanted to start a brokerage firm. Bascone and Hall had business connections with whom Foster wanted to affiliate, and Foster concluded that his function as active firm member with FA III would lead to business opportunities for FA III and for Foster's other real estate business. Bascone and Hall were corporate officers of FA III and managed the day-to-day activities of the office. They hired Donald and Delores McDonald as salespersons. Foster never met Delores McDonald and did not employ her. Foster met with Donald McDonald, Delores McDonald's husband, who said he was selling real estate at that time. Foster sent Donald McDonald to Bascone and Hall to be interviewed. Under Foster's agreement with Bascone and Hall, they would make the initial hiring determinations for their sales personnel and Foster would process the personnel as salespersons affiliated with the company. According to Foster's agreement with Bascone, Bascone would not engage in real estate sales until after he was license. Bascone was seeking a brokerage license, and it was their intent that Bascone would become the active firm member. The allegations involving Bascone's acting as a real estate professional were based on a transaction which was undisclosed to Hall or Foster until after the fact. This transaction involved the payment of a commission directly to Bascone by the seller which was unreported to Foster or Hall. Foster did not exercise close supervision over the activities of FA III.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the license of Benjamin C. Foster be suspended for three months, and that the license of Frederick Anthony III, Inc., be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of March, 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 3rd day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Xavier J. Fernandez, Esquire 2701 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 10 Post Office Box 729 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Mr. Benjamin C. Foster 5354 Emily Drive, Southwest Fort Myers, Florida 33908 Frederick Anthony III, Inc. 3920 Orange Grove Boulevard North Fort Myers, Florida 33903 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Board of Real Estate 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
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the real estate license of Keith Allen. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Allan M. Parvey, Esquire Goldberg, Rubinstein & Buckley, P.A. Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
The Issue Whether the application of the Respondent, Robert A. Whittemore, III, for registration should have been denied.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert A. Whittemore, III, filed an application for registration as a real estate salesman with the Petitioner Commission on April 18, 1978. The application was denied, and Respondent by letter requested an administrative hearing to "prove that I do meet with the qualifications" for licensure. Respondent was sent notice of hearing on two (2) occasions by mail, and the notices were not returned. He did not appear to testify and sent no representative to testify in his behalf. Respondent had been licensed as a real estate broker in New York, New York, which license expired on October 31, 1973. The application submitted by Repondent showed that he was convicted of conspiracy in the third degree by the Supreme Court in the State of New York on August 19, 1976, and of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree on December 5, 1976, and sentenced on June 16, 1976. Thereafter a certificate of relief from disabilities on his real estate license was issued by a justice of the Supreme Court, State of New York, on October 20, 1977. Said certificate was submitted by Respondent at the time of his application for registration. No memorandum of law was submitted by either party involved in this administrative hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Respondent's application for registration be denied. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of August, 1979. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Robert A. Whittemore, III 5501 North Ocean Boulevard Ocean Ridge Palm Beach, Florida 33435
