Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against the registration of Cindy Realty of Hernando, Inc., and William Colello as real estate brokers. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Stephen C. Booth, Esquire 1604 U.S. Highway 19, North New Port Richey, Florida 33552
The Issue Whether Respondent Banta is guilty of dishonest dealing, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in a business transaction, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, (1993). Whether Respondent is guilty of operating as a real estate broker without a valid and current license, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1993). Whether Respondent is guilty of failing to provide written agency disclosure to a party in a real property transaction, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(q) and (1)(e), Florida Statutes (1993) and Rule 61J2-10.033, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0165881. As of March 31, 1992, the Respondent failed to renew his real estate broker’s license, for the 2-year period of April 1, 1992 to March 31, 1994. Renewal would have consisted of completing the required continuing education, paying the required fee, and sending the required form to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. The Respondent’s license was delinquent after March 31, 1992. As of March 31, 1994, the Respondent had not renewed his broker’s license and his license remained delinquent. On May 9, 1994, the Respondent renewed his license, in order to make a claim for a commission. As of March 31, 1996, the Respondent failed to renew his license again. His license was delinquent after March 31, 1996, and was delinquent as of the hearing date. The Respondent operated as a real estate broker during the period of approximately February 1993 through May 1994, specifically including a period when his license was delinquent as “involuntary inactive.” Sam Morrow is a licensed real estate broker and is a real estate developer and home builder. Effective February 10, 1993, Respondent entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement with Florida’s Preferred Homes, Inc. (FPH), a company in which Morrow is a principal. Respondent was originally retained on a fixed salary basis for an indefinite term to assist in finishing a number of low-income housing tax credit apartment applications for tax credits. At the request of Morrow, Respondent assumed other duties. Respondent represented FPH, and other business entities of which Morrow was the principal, in other business dealing from February 10, 1993 through May 24, 1994, when Respondent was terminated. The Respondent received a fixed salary throughout the period of his association with Morrow with the promise of additional undefined compensation in the future. For the purposes of this matter, Respondent was an employee of FPH and was supervised by Morrow. Respondent’s association with Morrow was not an exclusive employment agreement. During this same period in February 1993, Morrow became engaged in a transaction involving affordable housing. The transaction involved the purchase of land, by a purchasing entity, the Community Housing Trust, Inc., a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, from the seller, Rouse Road Corporation. After this purchase the property was to be transferred to another corporation, of which Morrow was to be the principal along with another business partner, and affordable housing units would be constructed upon the land and then sold to the public. The structure of the purchasing and developing entities was complex, involving various public and private entities, including Orange County. Morrow was a principal and the overall coordinator of the entire project which came to be known as the Oak Grove Circle project. There was no specific agreement for the Respondent to receive any particular additional compensation for the Respondent’s services in the affordable housing project. Respondent was familiar with the property that the Rouse Road Corporation had for sale and brought it to the attention of Community Housing Trust, as a prospective purchaser. This particular property was suitable for purchase and development as an affordable housing project. Respondent facilitated the purchase and prepared the contract for sale and purchase which was executed by the parties: Community Housing Trust, as purchaser, and Rouse Road Corporation, as seller. The contract was executed on March 5, 1993 for the property later known as the Oak Grove Circle property. Respondent represented neither the purchaser nor the seller in the transaction. He considered himself a transactional broker. The contract indicates on its face that Respondent, J. Scott Banta, is the real estate broker in the transaction. The contract called for the payment of a 10% commission to the Respondent. Respondent was not at any time prior to or during the purchase and sale transaction, either an agent, employee, independent contractor or representative of the seller, Rouse Road Corporation. Respondent was not at any time prior to or during the purchase and sale transaction, either an agent, employee, independent contractor or representative of the purchaser, Community Housing Trust, Inc. In September 1993, Morrow formed a Florida corporation known as FPH Venture 2, Inc. He was the sole incorporator. During this period in the fall of 1993, certain negotiations took place regarding the structure and goals of FPH Venture 2, Inc. The principals of the firm were to be Sam Morrow and Long Farms North. All of the prospective partners agreed that because of the need for cash equity, the real estate commission on the Oak Grove Circle property would remain in the FPH Venture 2 proposed project. For this consideration Respondent expected to be a principal also. The goals for the FPH Venture 2 project were set out in some detail in a memorandum developed by the prospective venturers and typed by Respondent. Respondent was included as one of the principals. The goals memorandum provides that the 10% commission payable to Respondent on the Oak Grove Circle purchase and sale would be assigned by Respondent to FPH Venture 2 “for cash flow and total profit benefits.” Respondent’s understanding of the proposed FPH Venture 2 project was that he was to receive a one-third ownership participation in FPH Venture 2, Inc., which was to have included the proposed Oak Grove Circle project and another proposed project in Lakeland, Florida, in exchange for the prospective commission. The terms of Respondent’s proposed participation in FPH Venture 2 were never reduced to any form of written agreement. Nor was Respondent ever made a principal in the company or issued any stock, or otherwise given anything to evidence his interest in the proposed venture. The closing of the purchase and sale of the property, later known as the Oak Grove Circle property, as anticipated by the contract for sale and purchase, was consummated on May 19, 1994. James L. Bishop, vice-president of Community Housing Trust, Inc., executed the settlement statement which provided for payment of $28,000 real estate commission to J. Scott Banta from the seller’s proceeds of closing. The commission check was delivered to Respondent at the closing without objection. On the day after closing of the Oak Grove Circle purchase and sale, May 20, 1994, Respondent gave Morrow a memorandum suggesting a procedure for payment of the $28,000 commission into FPH Venture 2, Inc. On May 24, 1994, the matter culminated in a conversation between Respondent Banta and Morrow. Respondent requested Morrow reduce their agreement regarding his proposed participation in FPH Venture 2, Inc., to writing. Morrow refused to do so, and at 4:45 p.m. on the same day, terminated Respondent’s employment, stopped payment on Respondent’s consulting fee check for the prior week and changed the locks on his office with Respondent’s personal property still inside. Respondent has retained the commission from the sale of the Oak Grove Circle property. Morrow’s account of this business relationship with Respondent and the agreed disposition of the proceeds of the commission is not credible.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(e) and (1)(q) and be found not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1993). It is further recommended that Respondent be fined the sum of $1,000 and that his license be suspended for a period of three months, subject to reinstatement upon such reasonable conditions as the Florida Real Estate Commission shall require. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of January, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven D. Fieldman, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building - North Tower, Suite N308 Orlando, Florida 32801 Allen C.D. Scott, II, Esquire Scott & Scott, P.A. 99 Orange Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building - North Tower, Suite N308 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether recording a claim of lien by a registered real estate broker for the purpose of collecting a commission pursuant to an exclusive listing contract violated the provision of Section 475.42(1)(j)?
Findings Of Fact Robert F. Tully is a registered real estate broker holding Certificate #0090289 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Robert F. Tully, on April 24, 1975, entered into a 30 day exclusive listing contract with James and Joyce Deede to find a purchaser for their residence located at 4150 Rector Road, Cocoa Beach, Florida. This contract was to continue in effect after the end of the 30 day period but could then be terminated on 10 day written notice. The Deedes were unable to produce any evidence of having given 10 day written notice and the Respondent and his agents denied having received written notice of cancellation of the contract. On August 21, 1975, Mr. DeVaughn Bird, a registered real estate broker, personally contacted the Deedes to inquire about selling their house for them. At that time the property had a Tully "FOR SALE" located on it, but Bird did not contact Tully or his associate sales personnel. The Deedes advised Bird that the exclusive sales contract with Tully was no longer valid and gave Bird an open listing. On August 23 and 24, 1975, Bird showed the subject property to Richard and Diane McClure at which time the Tully sign was still located on the property. A contract for sale and purchase was negotiated by Bird between the Deedes and McClures, and a closing date set. Because of difficulties, the closing was delayed and a new contract executed on October 15, 1975 for a November 7, 1975 closing. Following the execution of the initial contract, Bird put his own "SOLD" on the property. Tully became aware of the sale by Bird, and contacted Bird advising him of the existence of his exclusive listing contract, and his expectation to participate in the commission. Bird informed Tully that he would not share a commission and that Tully would have to look to the Deedes for any commission due him. The Deedes refused to acknowledge Tully's claim for any commission or share thereof. At this point, Tully sought the advice of his attorney. Tully's attorney advised him that Tully's contract was in full force and on the basis of the attorney's opinion law applicable to the situation, Tully was entitled to file an equitable lien against the property. Tully, based on his attorney's advice, authorized his attorney to negotiate a settlement if possible; and, if that failed, to file an equitable lien on the property. Negotiations were unsuccessful and on October 30, 1975, just prior to closing, Tully's attorney filed a claim of lien for real estate commission in the amount of $3,314.50 with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Brevard County, Florida, and this was recorded in OR Book 1570 at Page 349 of the official records of that county. Copies of, the claim of lien were also served on the closing agent for the sale of the property. The Deedes, as a result of the claim of lien, directed the closing agent to pay Tully one half the amount claimed, or $1,175.00, when Bird agreed to drop his commission from 7 percent to 5 percent of the selling price of $47,000. Having received payment of $1,175.00, Tully had the claim of lien immediately satisfied, which satisfaction may be found in OR Book 1572 at Page 115 of the Public Records of Brevard County.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Florida Real Estate Commission direct Robert F. Tully to repay the $1,175.00 to the Deedes within 30 days, said period to be extended if the Deedes cannot be located, or face immediate suspension for 30 days; further, said repayment shall not act as a bar to any action by Robert F. Tully against the Deedes based on his contract with them. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of March, 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: Edward L. Stahley, Esquire Goshorn, Stahley & Miller Post Office Box 1446 Cocoa, Florida 32922 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789
Findings Of Fact Respondent Sheldon Greene & Associates, Inc., is a corporate real estate broker having been issued license number 0133685. The Respondent Sheldon Greene is the licensed real estate broker of record for Sheldon Greene & Associates, Inc., and holds license number 0033812. Henry Berman, a registered real estate salesman was employed as an associate by the Respondents between July 10, 1980 and July 2, 1982. Shortly after commencing his employment, Berman entered into a written agreement with the Respondents which set forth the division of real estate commissions earned by Berman and the firm on future sales. The agreement covered three distinct categories and included: When Berman listed and sold property entirely by his efforts, the commission split would be 60 percent to Berman and 40 percent to the firm; When Berman either had the listing or the buyer and the firm had the other, the commission split would be 50 percent to Berman and 50 percent to the firm; When Berman listed and sold property and the firm was involved in the sale through participation in negotiations, preparation of the submittal and the like, the commission split would be 50 percent to Berman and 50 percent to the firm. During the period of Berman's employment by the Respondents, a Memorandum was circulated among all of the salespersons of Associates covering the division of commissions earned by Associates in situations in which more than one salesperson employed by Associates was involved in a single transaction. Berman was furnished a copy of this Memorandum and was aware of its contents. While in the employ of Respondents, Berman obtained a verbal open listing from Seymour Deutsch to sell the Metropole Hotel at 635 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. Thereafter, on or about November 4, 1980, Berman procured a written sales contract for the purchase of the Metropole Hotel by Andres Herrada upon terms and conditions satisfactory to Deutsch. The sales contract between Deutsch and Herrada failed to provide, however, for the amount of the commission payable to Associates as compensation for its services as the broker in the transaction. Following unsuccessful negotiations between Greene and Deutsch, Associates commenced suit against Deutsch in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, Case No. 81-5133, claiming a commission in the amount of $40,000 based upon the verbal agreement of Berman and Deutsch, which action resulted in the entry of a Final Judgment in favor of Associates and against Deutsch in the amount of $40,000 plus interest. As a result of a post-judgment settlement entered into under threat of an appeal by Deutsch, Associates agreed to accept the sum of $25,000 in cash and the sum of $17,455.28 plus interest at the rate of 14 percent per annum in 35 monthly installments of $596.59 each, commencing on July 15, 1982 and ending on May 15, 1985. Prior to instituting suit against Deutsch, Associates, through its President, Greene, entered into a verbal agreement for the purpose of rearranging the terms of the letter agreement dated July 14, 1980, for the purpose of imposing upon Associates the obligation of bearing all legal fees and litigation expenses in the event the outcome of the suit against Deutsch were unsuccessful. In consideration thereof, Berman agreed that in the event of a successful outcome (i.e., a judgment in the amount of $40,000), Associates would be entitled to retain 75 percent and Berman only 25 percent of the net commission after deducting legal fees and litigation expenses. During the pendency of the litigation involving Deutsch, on or about October 16, 1981, Berman obtained a written exclusive listing from Herrada authorizing Associates to sell the Metropole Hotel once again. Pursuant to this listing, Berman procured a written contract on behalf of Donald Mitchell to purchase the Metropole Hotel subject, however, to certain contingencies, primarily, the sale by Mitchell of another property as part of a multi-party, multi-property, tax-free exchange. Thereafter, Berman failed to participate further in performing the duties normally incumbent upon a real estate salesman between the date of contract and date of closing. During this period, it became necessary for Bernard Bastacky, another salesman employed by Associates, to perform those duties normally incumbent upon Berman in such transaction, which services proved to be instrumental in bringing the transaction to a successful conclusion. In addition, Greene, personally performed services in the preparation of the listing brochure and with respect to subsequent negotiations between the parties which led to substantial modifications in the terms of the original sales contract procured by Berman. On or about April 30, 1982, the sale from Herrada to Mitchell was closed. On or about May 15, 1982, Associates received its share of the commission from the Herrada/Mitchell sale in the approximate amount of $27,000. Thereafter, Greene asked Berman and Bastacky to meet, personally, for the purpose of reaching an amicable arrangement as to the division of the salesman's share of the commission. When Berman and Bastacky were unable to resolve their dispute, Greene deposited their share in an interest-bearing account to await a resolution of the dispute between them. Shortly thereafter, the $25,000 portion of the commission earned from the Deutsch/Herrada transaction became available as a result of the entry of the Final Judgment and post-judgment Stipulation between Associates and Deutsch, and Associates began to receive the monthly installments of the deferred portion of the commission. These sums were initially deposited to the Associates operating account from which were disbursed legal fees and litigation expenses totaling approximately $12,400. When efforts to resolve Berman's proper share of the Deutsch/Herrada commission failed, Berman instituted suit against Associates in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Case No. 82-15570, claiming 60 percent of the commissions received by Associates on each of the two sales of the Metropole Hotel. In its Answer, Associates alleged that Berman was entitled to 25 percent of the Deutsch/Herrada commission in accordance with the verbal agreement between Greene and Berman, and to 25 percent of the Herrada/Mitchell commission, based upon the involvements of Greene and Bastacky in that transaction. Associates has deposited the disputed portions of each of the commissions in controversy in special interest-bearing accounts pending a resolution of the pending civil action and has listed the amount of Berman's claim as a liability on its books. In reliance upon his attorney's advice and interpretation of the statute under which Respondents have been charged in these proceedings, Respondents did not seek to obtain a disbursement order from the Florida Real Estate Commission as to the funds in dispute between Berman and the Respondents. The civil action instituted by Berman against Associates is still pending and has not yet been scheduled for trial. Berman acknowledges that he instructed his attorney to allow that action to become temporarily inactive while the administrative action was prosecuted in hopes that it would compel Associates to enter into a favorable settlement in his favor. All issues in dispute between Associates and Berman are capable of being finally resolved in the pending civil action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondents. DONE and ENTERED this day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH 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 26th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Donald M. Klein, Esquire KLINE MOORE & KLEIN, P.A. 407 Lincoln Road Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Habitat Corporation is a corporate real estate broker holding license number 0217261, with a registered business address of 3835 North Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309. The Respondent James S. Shenkenberger is the qualifying broker for the corporate licensee, and holds license number 0079972. Prior to January 2, 1981, Shenkenberger was qualifying broker for American Overseas Investment Corporation, then a licensed Florida corporate real estate broker operating in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On January 2, 1981, Shenkenberger placed the real estate license of American Overseas Investment Corporation on inactive status, and obtained an active license for the Habitat Corporation. From July of 1977, Shenkenberger had an oral agreement with Florida Hendry Land, Inc., to act as a broker in selling property belonging to Florida Hendry Land, Inc. The terms of this agreement were that Shenkenberger was to be paid on a commission basis, and that he would present sales agreements for the approval of Joe Hendry, the owner of the corporation. When a sales contract was complete, then Florida Hendry would issue the Warranty Deed and order the title insurance. In early 1980, Irvin Adams, pursuant to a newspaper advertisement advertising land for $800 an acre, contacted Jim Shenkenberger and arranged to meet with him. On February 9, 1980, Adams flew to Florida from Pennsylvania and was shown Florida Hendry land by Shenkenberger. On this date, Adams decided to purchase lots four and five for a total purchase price of $64,000. Shenkenberger told Adams that if he made all the payments within one year, the purchase price would be reduced by 10 percent. As a down payment, Adams gave Shenkenberger a check for $14,000, payable to the order of American Overseas Investment Corp., and $2,000 in cash. At no time was Adams presented with a sales contract for Lots four and five. Adams returned to Pennsylvania, and contacted Shenkenberger several times during 1980 when he became worried that he had not received any requests for further payments. Shenkenberger informed Adams that the land was tied up, that Mr. Hendry had an obligation to the State of Florida, and that the land had been put up as a bond. In December of 1980, Shenkenberger contacted Adams and told him that the property was clear. On January 10, 1981, Adams flew to Florida a second time. He met with Shenkenberger, and again viewed the Hendry property. Adams decided to change the property he was purchasing to tract 18. Adams gave Shenkenberger a check payable to the order of American Overseas Investment Corp. in the amount of $12,800, and Shenkenberger gave him a receipt reflecting that Adams had paid in full for tract 18. At no time was Adams presented with a sales contract for tract 18. On this same date, Shenkenberger showed Adams three more Hendry tracts, and Adams gave Shenkenberger a down payment for Lots six, seven and ten in the amount of $11,900. Shenkenberger made out and signed the offers to purchase the three lots in the presence of Adams, but did not give them to Adams to sign. Adams never received a receipt for deposit or a sales contract on any of the three lots. Polly Hodge, who operated Florida Hendry Land, Inc. on a day-to-day basis, was first informed in March of 1980 that Irvin Adams might be interested in purchasing certain of their properties. The first money received by Florida Hendry Land, Inc., relating to sale of property to Irvin Adams, was by a $300 check from Shenkenberger dated January 15, 1981. Shenkenberger represented that the funds were a binder for the purchase by Adams of tracts six, seven and ten. Florida Hendry Land, Inc., never received a written offer to purchase the properties. After Florida Hendry received the binder, Polly Hodge asked Shenkenberger on several occasions about the status of the sale to Adams. Shenkenberger repeatedly advised her only that Adams would be coming to Florida in the near future. After Adams returned to Pennsylvania from his trip to Florida in January of 1981, he contacted Shenkenberger and advised him that he wished to purchase one lot in full rather than Lots six, seven, and ten. On January 26, 1981, he sent Shenkenberger a check in the amount of $14,650 for payment in full of tract ten of the Hendry property. At no time did Adams receive a deposit receipt for this payment, nor did he receive a sales contract. When Adams became concerned because he had not received deeds to the two properties, he contacted Shenkenberger, and was told that the Hendry Land Office was slow in preparing the deeds. On February 26, 1981, Adams visited the offices of Florida Hendry Land, Inc., and spoke briefly with Polly Hodge. Adams informed her that he wished to purchase tract ten only, and was not pursuing the purchase of tracts six and seven. Later, Adams met with Shenkenberger, and again inquired about the deeds. Shenkenberger assured him that he would have the deeds shortly. On February 27, 1981, Shenkenberger wrote a check to Florida Hendry Land in the amount of $23,895 which, together with the binder of $300, was the full purchase price of tract ten less Shenkenberger's 10 percent commission, and the deed was sent for recordation. Polly Hodge also gave Shenkenberger the Warranty Deed to tract 18 after Shenkenberger represented to her that he would be closing the property on the weekend, and would then deliver the purchase money to her. After the Warranty Deed was given to Shenkenberger, Polly Hodge inquired several times as to the progress of the transaction, but Shenkenberger repeatedly told her that Adams had not arrived to close. After returning to Pennsylvania, Adams was contacted by Shenkenberger on or about March 12, 1981. Shenkenberger told Adams that he had talked to J.B. Hendry and that Hendry did not feel that he had gotten enough money from Adams for tract 18. Shenkenberger told Adams that he would give Adams his money back for tract 18 or that Adams would have to pay him an additional $3,600. In response, Adams sent Shenkenberger a check payable to the order of American Overseas Investment Corporation in the amount of $3,600. Adams received the recorded deed for tract 10 on March 14, 1981, and received the recorded deed for tract 18 on April 11, 1981. In total, Adams paid American Overseas Investment Corporation $32,400 for tract 18 and $26,500 for tract 10. Florida Hendry Land, Inc., received no monies from either Irvin Adams or James Shenkenberger for the purchase by Adams of tract 18. At the time tract 18, consisting of 40 acres, was conveyed to Adams, the purchase price was $72,000 less 10 per cent because it was a cash purchase. Florida Hendry Land, Inc., was entitled to $64,800 less 10 per cent for Shenkenberger's real estate commission, for a total amount due to Florida Hendry Land of $58,320. Shenkenberger was aware of the purchase price for tract 18 from his long business relationship with Florida Hendry Land, Inc., and from plat maps given to him by Hodge that showed lot prices. In 1980 and 1981, Florida Hendry Land processed sales on a "walk-in" basis, processing and completing a conveyance while the purchasers waited in the office. Florida Hendry had no problems with any governmental agencies, nor was there any other impediment, which prohibited them from conveying their properties. The checks on the account of Irvin Adams were made payable to the order of American Overseas Investment Corporation at the specific instruction of Shenkenberger. On February 11, 1980, Shenkenberger opened a bank account for American Overseas Investment Corporation in what was then the First Bank of Oakland Park, Oakland Park, Florida. This account was not an escrow account or trust account. On January 12, 1981, after American Overseas Investment Corporation had been placed on inactive status, Shenkenberger deposited two checks in the amounts of $12,800 and $11,900 in this account. On February 2, 1981, Shenkenberger deposited the check for $14,650 drawn by Adams into this account. On March 12, 1981, Shenkenberger deposited the check for $3,600 given by Adams into this account. Although Shenkenberger received payment in full for tract 10 shortly after January 26, 1981, he did not deliver the payment to Florida Hendry Land until February 27, 1981. The payments made by Adams to American Overseas Investment Corporation for the purchase of tract 18 were converted to Shenkenberger's own use. In August, 1981, when Florida Hendry Land, Inc., became aware that Shenkenberger had recorded the deed for tract 18, and that the property had in fact been conveyed to Irvin Adams, they attempted to get payment for this tract from Shenkenberger, but were unsuccessful. Thereafter, Florida Hendry filed suit against Shenkenberger and Irvin Adams. Irvin Adams employed the services of an attorney to defend him in the action which was still pending on the date of the final hearing in this case. During the course of the investigation of this matter by the Department of Professional Regulation, a Subpoena Duces Tecum was served on Shenkenberger, as President of American Overseas Investment Corporation, on January 25, 1982. This subpoena requested Shenkenberger to produce all listings, contracts to purchase, binder deposits, deposits of checks and/or monies into bank accounts, receipts, closing statements, and correspondence involving all real estate transactions between Florida Hendry Land, Inc., and Irvin Adams. The Respondent failed to honor the Department's subpoena, and never delivered the requested documents for examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the licenses of the Respondents, James S. Shenkenberger, and the Habitat Corporation, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Owen L. Luckey, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 865 La Belle, Florida 33935 William M. Furlow, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Mitchell was a licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license number 0364014 through the Division of Real Estate. The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute charges of violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, by real estate salesman who are licensed in Florida. In December 1982, while on vacation in Fort Lauderdale, Mr. Fernando Canepa accepted an invitation to take a complimentary tour of Lehigh Acres from a representative of Lehigh Corporation. Lehigh Corporation is owner of a large residential development within the community of Lehigh Acres, Florida. The community is in an undeveloped area of Lee County, Florida. A predecessor development company of Lehigh Corporation began development of Lehigh Acres as a planned community, in the early 1950's. By August 31, 1979, approximately 110,047 out of 129,000 lots had been sold within the community by the developers. The purpose of the complimentary tour, which includes a trip to the Everglades, a tour of Lehigh Acres, a promotional film and a free lunch is to sell real estate lots in this isolated and independent community. Mr. Fernando Canepa was aware of the tour's purpose when he accepted the invitation. Mr. Canepa had heard of Lehigh Corporation in Venezuela, his country of residence during 1982. As he was interested in purchasing real property in the United States, he had made the decision to visit the residential development for the possible purchase of property prior to leaving Venezuela on his vacation. A close friend of Mr. Canepa who resides in Peru, had also discussed a purchase of real estate in the United States with Mr. Canepa prior to his vacation. Mr. Ricardo Sahurie verbally authorized Mr. Canepa to seek out property in Lehigh Acre for him if Mr. Canepa believed that a purchase in that community would be a good idea. The two friends agreed that if land purchases were made, the two lots would have to be next to each other. During his tour of Lehigh Acres on January 5, 1983, Mr. Canepa was introduced to the Respondent. The Respondent was the real estate salesman assigned by Lehigh Corporation to handle lot sales within the development to members of that particular tour group. When Mr. Canepa spoke with the Respondent about a lot purchase, he was concerned about two matters: the market value of the lots and the security of his investment. Mr. Canepa was informed by the Respondent that the price for each of the two lots he wanted to purchase were $12,499.00 and $11,999.00, respectively. The prices were non-negotiable as the market value placed upon each lot was determined by the lot control department within Lehigh Corporation. Prior to the signing of Agreements for Deed on a lot for himself and a lot for Mr. Sahurie, Mr. Canepa was given the opportunity to read the Public Offering Statement on the development which had been prepared by Lehigh Corporation. On page two of the statement, potential buyers were advised of many of the inherent risks involved in a land purchase. Potential buyers were warned that land values may not increase, and that resale of lots within Lehigh Acres may be difficult or impossible. As part of the sales transaction, the Respondent was required to contemporaneously certify that he made no representations to Mr. Canepa which were contrary to the information contained in the Public Offering Statement. Mr. Canepa was given a copy of this certification, along with specific instructions to notify the Office of Interstate Land Sale Registration and the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums if representations were made to him which are contrary to those in the statement. In addition, Mr. Canepa was given seven days to cancel the Agreement for Deed signed by him on January 5, 1983. Mr. Canepa chose to continue with the purchase of the lot he selected, and recommendations were made to his friend Mr. Sahurie to continue with his purchase. The two purchasers agreed between themselves to hold onto the lots for a few years for speculation purposes. A decision to build upon the lots or to sell them could be made at a later date. This plan had been discussed with the Respondent, who had voiced his approval of the plan prior to the purchase of the lots by Mr. Canepa. The Respondent discussed the recent growth in the Southwest Florida region, and the recent increases in lot valuations when Mr. Canepa informed him of his intentions. These discussions reaffirmed Mr. Canepa's confidence in his decision to purchase the lots in the development, in spite of reminders by the Respondent that future land values are unforeseeable. On September 15, 1987, Mr. Canepa returned to Lehigh Acres and learned that the lots had not increased in value. Model home plans were obtained from Lehigh Corporation, and a resale agent was contacted to assist Mr. Canepa and Mr. Sahurie in their future plans for the property. During discussions with the real estate agent, Mr. Canepa was informed that the lots could be resold for a price between $2,500.00 to $3,000.00. When the agent was asked how much Mr. Canepa could have purchased a resale for in 1983, Mr. Canepa was told that he could have purchased a resale lot for around $2,000.00. The price requested by Lehigh Corporation for each lot is based upon a number of factors such as the costs of advertising, engineering, and development, as well as the cost of the land itself. Lehigh Acres has been a development project since 1952. During some of the earlier phases of the project, lots were sold for $500.00. Purchasers of land from the earlier phase are able to resell their vacant lots at a profit for price within the $2,000.00 price range. As an individual lot owner's expenses and motivations are different than the development corporation's expenses and motivations, lots could be obtained for less money from many individual lot owners in 1983 through 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent Mitchell not guilty of the charges filed in Case No. 88-4690, and that these charges be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 8th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4690 The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #8, and #13. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4 and #6. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8 and #9. Rejected. See HO #11. Rejected. Improper summary. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #9 and #10. Rejected. Argumentative and irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #12. Accepted. See HO #12. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Closing argument. Conclusionary. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 John C. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 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 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondents, or either of them, for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Eglin Realty, Inc., holds a real estate broker's license, No. M14 0024352, last renewed before the hearing on April 1, 1986. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. A Florida corporation, Eglin was originally licensed in 1971, (T. 47) or, at least, has been "in business since 1971." (T. 22) Seventy-two years old at the time of hearing, Eglin's president, Leon F. Bishop, has never held a real estate license but he has developed several subdivisions (T. 50) and "was buying and selling land all of [his] life." (T. 51) In 1982, Mr. Bishop, his wife and daughter owned stock in Eglin. Of 50 shares authorized and outstanding, he owned one share; his wife owned ten; and his daughter owned the remaining 39. In July of 1982 and for some time before, respondent Jerry L. Armstrong, himself in the real estate business for 25 years, believed he was registered as the "active broker" (T. 231), for Eglin Realty, Inc., and as a qualifying real estate broker for Armstrong and Associates, Inc.; and, he was "fairly certain . . . [that he] had an individual license at that time also." (T. 234) Arguably, nobody was registered as Eglin's "active broker" in July of 1982, because Eglin's real estate broker's license expired, at least by its own terms, on March 31, 1982. Apparently through oversight, Eglin had not renewed the license. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. For four or five (T. 24) years before, however, Mr. Armstrong had indeed been registered as Eglin's qualifying broker. On December 10, 1982, Mr. Armstrong, who is now a "broker-salesman with Coldwell-Banker Deep South Realty Corporation," (T. 230) resigned as "vice president director and active real estate broker for Eglin Realty, Inc., effective December 19, 1982," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, which resignation Mr. Bishop and his wife Dorothy, then Eglin's other two officers and directors, duly accepted. Id. Only the following August, after Eglin chose Joan A. Ritteman to succeed Mr. Armstrong, did Eglin learn that its license was to have expired in March of the preceding year. On October 13, 1983, Eglin made application for "late renewal," tendering a $15 late fee in addition to the $40 renewal fee. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. With the grant of this application, Eglin has been registered with DPR as a real estate broker, Ms. Ritteman being the firm's sole qualifying broker since then. King's Lake Property When Mr. Bishop met Dr. and Mrs. William D. Permenter at a land auction in Walton County in early 1982, he gave them a business card like the one that came in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10. (T. 93) "Eglin Realty, Inc." appears in the center of the card above the phrase "Land and Farm Broker." The upper right corner bears the Realtor logo under the words "Reg. Real Estate Broker." The lower left corner reads "Leon Bishop President." The upper left corner has telephone numbers, and the remaining corner gives a mailing address. The Permenters mistook Mr. Bishop for a registered real estate broker, when he introduced himself. Some days after the auction, Mr. Bishop arranged to show one or both of the Permenters a large tract he owned, but failed to interest them in it. It occurred to him that they might be willing to invest instead in the 1,527-acre parcel that Hubert Alberton Bell and C. J. King, Jr. of Defuniak Springs owned jointly in Walton County, property which the owners had listed for sale with Angus Guinness Douglass, Jr. of Douglass Realty, Inc. Mr. Bishop may have learned of this parcel's availability from Mr. Douglass at the very auction at which he met the Permenters. Under the terms of the listing agreement, Douglass Realty was entitled to a ten percent commission if a sale of the whole parcel could be arranged, at $1,000 per acre, within 100 days of May 3, 1982. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Before showing the Permenters the land Messrs. Bell and King hoped to sell (the King's Lake property), Mr. Bishop approached Mr. Douglass, and proposed that Douglass Realty, Inc. share with Eglin any commission arising from a sale of the King's Lake property to buyers Mr. Bishop or Eglin might procure. In a letter dated July 4, 1982, and signed by respondent Armstrong, Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 3 and 11, Eglin's share of the anticipated commission was specified. The letter concluded: The undersigned [Jerry L. Armstrong] agrees by this letter to authorize Leon Bishop, as president of Eglin Realty, Inc., to personally deliver this agreement and to accept on my behalf, as the active licensed Florida real estate broker. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Douglass felt free to deal with Mr. Bishop with regard to the commission both because of Mr. Armstrong's letter and because he knew of no "real estate law that said [he] had to ask, or say, let me see his license before I talk to him." (T. 209) At no time did Mr. Douglass speak to Mr. Armstrong about the transaction. (T. 211) Agreement as to the commission split having been reached, Mr. Bishop showed the Permenters the King's Lake property, and, in early July, Dr. Permenter offered to buy it. After "Mr. Bishop told [Dr. Permenter that his offer] had been accepted," (T. 97) the transaction closed on July 28, 1982, in a lawyer's office in Defuniak Springs. Present were the lawyer, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Douglass, Mrs. Douglass, Mrs. Permenter and the principals. In exchange for a deed in favor of Dr. William Permenter and assigns, the vendors received a purchase money mortgage in the amount of $1,275,000, together with the balance of the $1,425,000 sales price, less various transaction costs, notably a $25,000 initial payment toward a brokerage commission totalling $118,587. Eglin's Exhibit No. 3. At no time before the final hearing in the present case did Dr. Permenter ever see Mr. Armstrong. (T. 97) In accordance with a revised commission agreement dated July 6, 1982, and executed by Messrs. King, Bell, Douglass and (on behalf of Eglin) Bishop, Eglin's Exhibit No. 2, and consistently with the earlier agreement between Eglin and Douglass, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, Mr. Douglass drew a $10,000 commission check in favor of Eglin, keeping $15,000 as Douglas Realty, Inc.'s share of the initial commission payment. (T. 212) Also in keeping with Eglin's Exhibit No. 2, Messrs. King and Bell each executed a promissory note in favor of Eglin in the amount of $21,682, bearing interest at ten percent, payable in three annual installments. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9. These notes represented the remainder of the commission owed Eglin. (The vendors also made and delivered notes payable to Douglass for unpaid commission owed Douglas Realty, Inc.) Sharing The Commission Mr. Bishop was Eglin's only salaried employee, (T. 50) and also sometimes borrowed money from the corporation. Although a monthly salary of $1,000 was authorized "[i]n the minutes," (T. 57) "[t]here was never no set amount of salary that [Mr. Bishop] would get," Id. from Eglin in 1982. Sometimes he drew no "money for a few months, and then . . . would get a large sum." (T. 57) "Whenever [he] wanted to get money from the corporation, [he] asked for it, and . . . got it." (T. 58) He "didn't make a request to Mr. Armstrong." (T. 61) His wife had authority to write checks against the Eglin account into which the $10,000 commission check delivered at the King's Lake property closing was deposited. (T. 62) After the deposit, Mr. Bishop asked his wife or daughter for some of the money, and Mrs. Bishop drew a check in her husband's favor for $5,000 or thereabouts on the Eglin account. The totality of the evidence makes it clear that this payment, whether characterized as salary or not, was compensation for his procuring Dr. Permenter as a buyer and otherwise facilitating the sale of the King's Lake property. For one thing, "[t]he only transaction [Eglin] had during that period of time was the King's Lake [property]." (T. 254) Mr. Bishop and Mr. Armstrong "had an agreement from the start that anything [Bishop] bought and sold would go through [E]glin Realty, due to the fact that there would be a commission there, and [Armstrong] would be entitled to some of the commission." (T. 250) Mr. Armstrong professed to believe that Mr. Bishop "was operating as an owner" (T. 236) when Messrs. King and Bell sold the King's Lake property. Mr. Armstrong also testified, falsely but under oath, that he, not Mr. Bishop, negotiated the commission sharing arrangement with Mr. Douglass, the implication being that he thereby earned a portion of the commission Eglin received. In any event, Mr. Armstrong believed himself entitled to a share of the King's Lake property commission. He directed that his share be applied against outstanding loans totaling $3,500 to $4,000 which Eglin had made to him. (T. 248) Ten Percent Dr. Permenter, who has abandoned the practice of medicine in order to devote more time to real estate development, acquired the King's Lake property planning to subdivide it and sell lots. First, he caused the property to be divided into several large tracts, some of which he conveyed into trust. One tract, dubbed King Lake Estates, was conveyed to a partnership Dr. and Mrs. Permenter entered into with each other. Much, if not all of this tract, was subdivided into lots. At some point, Mr. Bishop agreed to sell the lots, and to assist development in other ways. To that end, he and his daughter spent time in a trailer on the property. The Permenters agreed to pay Mr. Bishop ten percent of the sales price of any lot he sold. In keeping with this agreement, Mrs. Permenter wrote him several checks on behalf of the partnership. On August 29, 1983, Mr. Bishop and the Permenters executed a written agreement memorializing their arrangement, reciting that some 83 lots had already been sold under it, and conveying to Mr. Bishop "a $2500.00 life interest" in the Kings Lake Estates tract. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. A purpose of this agreement was to create a legally enforceable right in Mr. Bishop to the ten percent share of sales proceeds the Permenters were then regularly paying him as lots were sold. Mr. Bishop never had any ownership interest of any kind in any portion of the King's Lake property other than the King Lake Estates tract. When Dr. Permenter sold a Kings Lake Estates lot himself, Mr. Bishop did not receive ten percent of the proceeds. (T. 100) Notes Discounted After he began selling lots for the King Lake Estates partnership, Mr. Bishop told the Permenters he needed money, and asked if they would take the notes Messrs. King and Bell had given Eglin for the remainder of the commission, in exchange for undertaking monthly payments to Eglin. Some time remained before the next annual payments called for in the notes which King and Bell had executed in favor of Eglin when they sold the King's Lake property. The Permenters were agreeable, what with the substantial sums Dr. Permenter still owed the notes' makers. In order to transform annual payments into monthly payments, Mr. Bishop, on behalf of Eglin, endorsed the notes Messrs. King and Bell had given Eglin, in favor of Dr. and Mrs. Permenter. In return, Dr. and Mrs. Permenter executed a promissory note with specified amounts payable monthly to Eglin. It was after this had been accomplished that an investigator from the Division of Land Sales of the Florida Department of Business Regulation advised the Permenters that they were required to register their subdivision with the Department. He also informed them that Mr. Bishop was not licensed as a real estate broker, which came as a surprise to them. Apparently on the theory that the promissory notes they had received in exchange for theirs represented legally unenforceable obligations to pay real estate commissions to an unlicensed entity, Dr. and Mrs. Permenter stopped making payments on their promissory note to Eglin. When Eglin sued on the note, the Permenters filed a counter-complaint alleging that "on July 27, 1983, . . . [Eglin] was not a registered real estate broker and was not entitled to be paid fees." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. The litigation eventuated in an amended final judgment awarding Eglin the unpaid balance of the note. Eglin Realty, Inc. vs. William D. Permenter and Elizabeth A. Permenter, No. 85-718-CA (Fla. 1st Cir.; Mar. 30, 1987). An appeal was pending at the time of final hearing in these proceedings.
