Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of investigating and processing applications for licensure of real estate salesmen in the State of Florida. On February 20, 1989, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent seeking licensure in the State of Florida as a real estate salesman. Question 7 of the application form required Petitioner to disclose whether he had ever been convicted of a crime, had been found guilty of a crime, or had entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a crime. The question explicitly applied to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (except parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether the applicant had been placed on probation, had had adjudication withheld, had been paroled, or had been pardoned. Petitioner disclosed the following violations of law in his handwritten response to Question 7: In 1985, attempted possession of cocaine less than 1 gram for which he received 60 days probation; In 1985, disorderly intoxication for which he received three months probation; In 1985, speeding for which he received a fine; In 1985, vandalism for which no disposition was shown; In 1986, violation of probation for which no disposition was shown, and In 1986, possession of a stolen automobile tag for which he received two years probation. Petitioner failed to disclose the following violations of law in his response to question 7: In 1977, sexual battery for which he was placed on five years probation; In 1980, violation of probation; and In 1980, driving under the influence of alcohol for which he received six months probation and a fine of $100. Petitioner knew that he had committed the undisclosed offenses and he knew that he had not listed the undisclosed offenses in response to question 7. Petitioner could not justify his failure to list the undisclosed violations in his response to question 7. Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application was based on the violations of law disclosed by Petitioner, on the violations of law Petitioner failed to disclose, and on the failure of Petitioner to disclose violations of law. Following the denial of his application, Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing. This proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order which denies Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3180 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact contained in the Proposed Recommended Order submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact of paragraphs 1-3 are accepted. The proposed findings of fact of paragraph 4 that the charge of sexual battery was reduced to attempted sexual battery is rejected because there was no evidence that the charge was reduced. The remaining proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are accepted. The proposed findings in paragraph 5 are rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of paragraph 6 are accepted as part of the Preliminary Statement of the Recommended Order, but they are rejected as findings of fact as being unnecessary to the result reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack P. Hardin 722 Fernwood Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 32801 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 212, 400 West Robinson Orlando, Florida 33405 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Did the Respondent obtain licensure by fraud or misrepresentation contrary to Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Carl D. Hill, submitted an application for licensure to become a real estate salesperson on June 22, 1981. See Exhibit "A", a true and correct copy of the Respondent's application. Respondent admits he executed the original application in the line designated for the signature of the applicant. Said application was received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on June 26, 1981, and was approved on July 24, 1981. Based upon said application, Respondent was issued license number 0372160 as a real estate salesman. In response to question number six in the referenced application, Respondent replied "no" to the question of whether he had ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled. On June 7, 1980, Respondent was arrested by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office and charged with trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine, delivery of cocaine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. See Exhibit "B". On May 12, 1981, Respondent pleaded guilty to the crime of delivery of cocaine. Upon accepting such plea, the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County imposed a sentence of five years' probation and withheld adjudication.
Recommendation Having found that the Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the license of Respondent as a real estate salesperson be revoked. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of December, 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 6th day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: David P. Rankin, Esquire 4600 West Cypress, Suite 410 Tampa, Florida 33607 Jack W. Crooks, Esquire 4202 West Waters Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Samuel R. Shorstein, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William M. Furlow, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Respondent Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc., is a registered corporate real estate broker holding license number C00213882. Respondents Richard S. Testut, A. C. Kibler and Beatrix Meyer-Burghagen are registered real estate brokers holding licenses numbered 0180949, 0047414 and 0145168, respectively, and these individuals are officers of Respondent Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc. In addition, Beatrix Meyer-Burghagen holds a license to operate real estate school named Florida Real Estate Clinics, Inc., which is also a Respondent herein. In support of the allegations in its Administrative Complaint the Petitioner presented testimony and evidence from five witnesses. The first, Stephen E. Thomas, Jr., is an officer of Respondent, Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc., and he is also an officer of Florida Real Estate Council, Inc. Neither Mr. Thomas nor Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., hold any real estate licenses, and they are not parties to this proceeding. Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., was formed to offer licensed salespeople an opportunity to belong to their own association. During the month of April, 1980, this organization sponsored a series of public meetings to which inactive licensees were invited by means of a flier which was mailed to approximately 21,000 of them in South Florida. The purpose of these meetings was to inform inactive real estate salespeople concerning the status of their licenses after June of 1980. Generally, these fliers conveyed the impression that inactive licenses had been placed in jeopardy by a change in the real estate law, and the information conveyed at the public meetings reiterated the existence of an apparent threat to these licenses. Two other witness presented by the petitioner established the content of one of the public meetings held by Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., in April of 1980. The remaining two witnesses were presented to clarify the actual changes that were made in the real estate law on July 1, 1980. There was no truth or substance to the information conveyed to over 21,000 inactive licensees concerning the status of these licenses as a result of statutory changes made in 1980. However, this information was not established to be more than an inaccurate lay interpretation of the Florida Statutes by Stephen E. Thomas, Jr., or by Florida Real Estate Council, Inc. In summary, the Petitioner's evidence fails to prove a conspiracy among the Respondents as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Except for the fact that Stephen E. Thomas, Jr., is an officer of both Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., and Respondent Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc., insufficient evidence was presented to establish a connection between these corporations. Any false and misleading statements or information disseminated at the public meetings and by flier was the action of Mr. Thomas, individually, and/or Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., neither of whom are subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Real Estate, and neither of whom are parties to this proceeding. The evidence does not support a finding that any of the Respondents conspired together for the purpose of distributing false information to real estate license holders, as alleged. Nor was there substantial, competent evidence that the Respondents, or any of them received financial benefit either from the flier or the public meetings. Finally, based upon the testimony of Petitioner's witness, Stephen E. Thomas, Jr., and evidence from the only Respondent who testified, Richard S. Testut, Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc., attempted to operate a real estate brokerage business beginning on July 1, 1980. The initiation on July 2, 1980, of the investigation which resulted in the filing of the administrative Complaint under consideration here adversely affected its employees, as well as potential employees, to such an extent that no sales or commissions could be earned. However, this company did have a staff, listings, sales meetings, literature, and advertised to recruit salespeople. Thus, the Petitioner's contention that this corporation neither actively employed any licensees, or performed any brokerage services, was not proven.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed in this case be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 18 day of February, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 18 day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alan H. Konigsburg, Esquire 1700 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 202 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mr. Richard S. Testut 4180 Coral Springs Drive Coral Springs, Florida 33035
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: Phillip S. Wong is a convicted felon. On December 6, 1982, after entering a plea of guilty, he was adjudicated guilty of one count of each of the following crimes: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill, in violation of Section 784.021(1)(a), Florida Statutes; false imprisonment, in violation of Section 787.02, Florida Statutes; burglary of a dwelling during which an assault was made, in violation of Section 810.02, Florida Statutes; conspiracy to commit a felony, to wit: trafficking in cocaine, in violation of Sections 777.04 and 893.135, Florida Statutes; trafficking in cocaine, in violation of Section 893.135, Florida Statutes; and possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statues. For these offenses, all of which were committed in August of 1982, Wong received five 1/ separate three-year sentences of imprisonment that ran concurrently with one another. As a prisoner, Wong's conduct was exemplary. Accordingly, in May, 1984, he was placed in a work release program. He completed serving his sentence in September, 1985. Since his return to the community, Wong has married and become a father. To help support his family, he works as a chef in a French restaurant, a position he has held for the past four and a half years. Wong is now a dedicated family man concerned about the welfare of his wife and their two and a half year old child. This concern has prompted him to seek a career in real estate so that he will be better able to provide for his family.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure to practice as a real estate salesman, without prejudice to Petitioner filing a subsequent application when he is able to show that his rehabilitation is sufficiently complete to entitle him to such licensure. See Karl v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 229 So.2d 610, 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)(Commission may not preclude an applicant whose application has been denied because of a prior felony conviction from reapplying for licensure and showing subsequent rehabilitation). DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 10th day of April, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Richard C. Lightner, was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0408120. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker, with a home address of 1221 Duval Street, Key West, Florida 32040. Respondent, or a representative on his behalf, did not appear at the hearing to refute or otherwise contest the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: The Department enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's Real Estate brokers license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Raymond O. Bodiford, Esquire 515 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE Petitioner vs. Case No. 0154510 DOAH No. 87-3668 RICHARD C. LIGHTNER III Respondent /
Findings Of Fact By Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed in this cause on March 7, 1980, counsel for Petitioner and Respondent stipulated, among other things, that: Petitioner seeks relief from an Order of the Board of Real Estate dated 16th day of October, 1979, denying the granting of a real estate salesman's license to the Applicant- Petitioner pursuant to 475.17 Florida Statutes [sic]. Respondent seeks to uphold said Order pursuant to Section 475.17 Florida Statutes. Petitioner seeks to show rehabilitation and qualification because of lapse of time and subsequent good conduct and reputation and that the interest of the public and investors will not [sic] likely be endangered by the granting of registration. Respondent seeks to show that change has not taken place and that the Petitioner is not qualified. (e) The Counsel for the parties hereto stipulate that Constance B. Mastellone a/k/a Connie B. Martin was a registrant of the Florida Real Estate Commission and that said registration was revoked and that she subsequently appealed to the Board of Real Estate for registration and that said registration was denied in the Order dated the 16th day of October, 1979. In addition, counsel for the respective parties stipulated into the record in this proceeding a certified copy of a Final Judgment dated January 4, 1977 in Case No. 74-36190, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Dade County, wherein Diane Zeppo was the Plaintiff and Petitioner, who was at that time a registered Florida real estate broker, was the defendant. In entering a judgment against Petitioner in the amount of $4,000 for compensatory damages and $6,000 for punitive damages, the Circuit Court found that Petitioner, in her capacity as a real estate broker: . . .represented to the plaintiff that she would get the highest and best price that she could for [plaintiff's] property and to expedite such a sale, the plaintiff executed a deed to said property with a blank grantee, and delivered it to the defendant for the sole purpose of implementing and expediting a subsequent sale to be agreed upon, that instead of attempting to obtain the highest and best price for the plaintiff, the defendant, in derogation of her duties and responsibilities as a Real Estate Broker, intentionally deceived the plaintiff into believing that the highest price available was $26,500.00 when in fact the defendant had contracted for a sale of said property for a sale price of $33,000.00, that the defendant in breach of the trust and confidence reposed in her by the plaintiff and in breach of the trust agreement whereby the blank grantee deed, Plaintiff's Exhibit 17, was delivered to her in trust, did voluntarily insert therein her own name and used said deed in an attempt to transfer the title to said property from her client, the plaintiff, to herself, the broker, and in conjunction with so doing, the defendant did cause the plaintiff's tenants to vacate the property and did thereby interrupt the rental income which the plaintiff was receiving from said property in the amount of $275.00 per month, which was last received by her for the month of April, 1974; that the plaintiff has received no rental income from said property from said date to the present, caused solely and only by reason of the fraudulent, willful, and intentionally wrongful actions of the defendant-broker, CONSTANCE B. MASTELLONE, that the deed wherein DIANE ZEPPO is the named grantor, CONNIE B. MARTIN is the named, wrongfully inserted grantee dated the 2nd Day of April, 1974, whereby the above described property was purportedly transferred as recorded in Official Records Book 5756 Page 1504 is void and of no effect, and the plaintiff was entitled to continue to receive said rental income and would so have received said rental income, but for the wrongful actions of the defendant. . . It appears from the record in this proceeding that Petitioner was initially licensed as a real estate salesperson in the State of Florida in 1969 or 1970. At some time thereafter, which date does not appear in this record, she was apparently registered as a real estate broker. Subsequently, in December, 1978, Petitioner received a notice from the Florida Real Estate Commission that her real estate broker's license had been revoked. Revocation proceedings before the Florida Real Estate Commission had apparently been ongoing since 1974. No part of the record before the Florida Real Estate Commission leading to the revocation of Petitioner's real estate broker's license was made a part of the record in the instant proceeding. In fact, it is impossible to tell from the record in this case either the factual or legal basis for the Florida Real Estate Commission's revocation of Petitioner's real estate broker's license. Despite the recitations contained in the Final Judgment against Petitioner in Zeppo v. Mastellone, a portion of which is quoted above, no factual testimony was elicited in this proceeding that in any way connected the facts at issue in that case with the revocation of Petitioner's real estate broker's license. Each of the witnesses called by Petitioner uniformly testified as to their high estimate of her reputation for honesty and trustworthiness and to her knowledge of the real estate profession. However, none of these witnesses, whose acquaintance with Petitioner varied from periods of one to ten years, indicated that they had any knowledge of the fact's leading to the revocation of Petitioner's real estate broker's license, or to the facts giving rise to entry of the final judgment in Zeppo v. Mastellone. Additionally, these witnesses' acquaintanceships with Petitioner relate primarily to that period of time predating the revocation of her real estate broker's licenses, and those few witnesses having any contact with her subsequent to the revocation of her license indicated that that contact was either minimal, or was in the context of social rather than business matters. In her own direct testimony, Petitioner did not address herself to the facts giving rise to the revocation of her broker's license, nor did she attempt to explain the factual situation involved in Zeppo v. Mastellone. Although Petitioner indicated that she felt that she had rehabilitated herself sufficiently to be licensed as a real estate salesperson, she gave no testimony as to any affirmative steps taken by her since the revocation of her license as evidence of that rehabilitation.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Keith T. Loggins, on August 13, 1982, under oath, signed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman of the Florida Real Estate Commission. This application was filed with the Florida Real Estate Commission on September 1, 1982. Question 6 on that form states: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? to which he answered, "No." This answer was false. Petitioner was arrested by the Orange County Sheriff's Office on November 14, 1972, on a charge of grand larceny in connection with a burglary and breaking and entering. Pursuant to a plea of guilty, he was placed on probation for five years. On May 23, 1974, Petitioner was arrested by the Osceola County Sheriff's Office on a charge of embezzlement, but was not tried, and the case was dropped. Petitioner denies any knowledge of possible grounds for this arrest. In May, 1975, Petitioner was convicted of a probation violation, and his probation was modified to include four months' confinement in county jail, and five months later, he was arrested for grand theft by fraud on insufficient fund check, convicted of grand larceny, and sentenced to serve five years in Florida State Prison. Thereafter, on August 6, 1975, Petitioner was convicted upon his pleas of guilty in Circuit Court for Orange County, Florida, on two separate cases involving obtaining property by worthless check written in March, 1975, one a felony count and one a misdemeanor count. He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on the felony and one year on the misdemeanor, the terms to run concurrently. On September 29, 1975, he was placed on probation for seven years to start upon his release from prison, which took place on August 1, 1978. His probation, which should have run to the end of July, 1985, was, however, terminated, and Petitioner was discharged on October 20, 1982, almost three years early because of the recommendations of his probation officer, Connie Reed, with the approval of her supervisor, Mr. Charles L. Steen. Since his release from prison in August, 1978, Petitioner has held numerous jobs ranging from that of a laborer to that of assistant manager of a motel. In each instance, he left the position of his own volition to improve his income or working hours. He has never been fired nor have there ever been any complaints about his work. He has held positions of trust and of responsibility and in several cases has had the requirement to handle, unsupervised, substantial sums of money. No shortages were discovered. In his last two positions, Petitioner has been a salesperson of time- sharing resort condominiums, as a salaried employee of the developer. He is very cautious in his approach and delivery to prospects because of the close scrutiny given this type of operation. Both his current and a prior supervisor indicate he has performed his duties satisfactorily, and they have not received any complaints about the Petitioner. Petitioner was quite frank about his past when interviewing for the positions and in no sense tried to hide his criminal record. In both jobs, Petitioner has handled funds of the company, and there has not been any indication of trouble or shortage. Petitioner wants the license to sell real estate because it would open the door for him to a much greater earning potential. In his current job, for example, he has earned $600 in the month he has been there. Had he had a salesman's license and been on a commission basis, his earnings would have been much higher. Additionally, receiving the license would give him a certain amount of status and an ego boost, especially after the way he started his adult life. Both Ms. Reed and Mr. Steen, his former probation officials, feel Petitioner has been fully rehabilitated entirely through his own motivation and effort. His early offenses were when he was a young man and influenced by the use of drugs which he no longer uses. Since his release from probation he has had only two traffic citations, one for failing to stop at a stop sign, and one for failing to yield the right-of-way, resulting in an accident. When Petitioner's application for a license was first denied, he requested an informal hearing before the Commission, at which time he told the members he knew when he filled out the application form if he answered accurately, there was no way he would get his license. He now admits that answering falsely was the wrong thing to do. He understood the question, and his answer was what he intended to say and not an error. He answered falsely because the most recent arrest was seven years old, and his current life-style is completely different than his life-style then. His prior arrests and convictions in a moral sense, he feels, have no bearing on his present life, and he felt he had paid his debts to society. He now realizes that his answer to Question 6 should have been accurate and to falsify was a mistake.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner be denied licensure as a real estate salesman. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 19th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard H. Hyatt, Esquire 918 North Main Street Kissimmee, Florida 32741 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street Room 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the relevant oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: The petitioner is a real estate salesman registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission. In September of 1978, petitioner submitted an application to the Florida Real Estate Commission for registration as a real estate broker. By an Order dated December 4, 1978, the respondent denied the application for the reason that the applicant had not made it affirmatively appear that he possessed the necessary qualifications under F.S. 475.17. Specifically, the Commission found "That it appears to the Commission that Salesman Dunkum signed Broker Wallace W. Staff's name as a witness to Dunkum's signature on a contract offer to purchase real estate without authorization. In addition, Salesman Dunkum signed Broker Staff's name to a listing agreement without authorization." The petitioner timely requested an administrative hearing on the denial of his application and the undersigned Hearing Officer was duly designated to conduct the proceedings. The petitioner Dunkum admits that he did sign broker Staff's name as a witness to his own signature on a contract for the sale of real estate. Mr. Dunkum has been a notary public for approximately fifteen years and was aware that he should not have signed Staff's name as a witness. Petitioner was the purchaser under the contract and did in fact purchase the real estate. Thus, neither the purchaser nor the seller was harmed by the wrongdoing. The petitioner further admits that he did sign broker Staff's name to a listing agreement. He admits that he was wrong to sign Staff's name, without adding his initials or name under the signature. Petitioner believed he had the authority to sign Staff's name to listing agreements in Staff's absence. Mr. Staff testified that he never gave petitioner authority to sign his name and that all listings were to be under his signature. Mr. Staff was aware that petitioner had signed his name on documents prior to September of 1978. Nevertheless, on September 18, 1978, Mr. Staff entered into a three year independent contractor agreement with petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioner's application for registration as a real estate broker be DENIED, but that petitioner be permitted to submit another application for registration nine (9) months after the Order of the Commission dated December 4, 1978. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Rupert E. Dunkum 5900 94th Avenue Pinellas Park, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact John M. Stroud is a registered real estate saleman holding registration number 0172065 issued the Florida Real Estate Commission. On December 17, 1976, John M. Stroud was arrested for burglary and committed to the custody of the sheriff of Brevard County for the offense of burglary. On December 15, 1976, Stroud had his completed application notarized by R. Jack Simpson. Stroud's application was initially received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 5, 1977, and was returned to Stroud because he had not enclosed the fee required. It was resubmitted with the fee and received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 14, 1977.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer RECOMMENDS: That the registration of John M. Stroud be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of December, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: David T. Young, Esquire 1197 So. U.S. Highway 1 P.O. Box 563 Rockledge, Florida 32955 Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789
