The Issue Whether Richard H. White violated Section 475.25 (1)(a), and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Richard H. White is a registered real estate salesman. White was employed by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. for over one year as a listing representative or closer. He received commissions for his work from International Land Sales Chartered, Inc. The testimony and depositions introduced by the Florida Real Estate Commission against White indicate that the deponents and witness were called by an individual who identified himself as Ed or Bill White or Mr. White, an employee of International Land Services Chartered, Inc. This caller represented that International Land Services Chartered, Inc. could sell the individuals' property in Florida, that the sales of real property in Florida were booming, that there were foreign investors interested in purchasing Florida real estate, and that International Land Services Chartered, Inc. would advertise their property for sale in a catalogue which was distributed to real estate brokers in the United States and overseas. The caller further represented that International Land Services Chartered, Inc. would sell the property through its advertising effort. No evidence was introduced that any of these representations were false. There were no representations made by the caller that the caller had made sales, that there were prospects already interested in the individuals' property, or that the property was worth a given price based upon similar sales by the caller. White testified that he had seen the catalogue prepared by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. and that to the best of his knowledge, these were distributed to brokers in the United States and overseas. There is evidence in the record to support the fact that International Land Services Chartered, Inc. prepared listings and distributed them to brokers. There is no evidence in the record that International Land Services Chartered, Inc. did not produce such a catalogue. Mr. White stated that Mr. Shackett, the broker for International Land Services Chartered, Inc., told him that there had been sales, but discouraged White's further inquiry by telling him that he had been hired to obtain listings and was not entitled to any commission from sales and that matters relating to sales was none of his business. White's testimony was supported by the testimony of others who received similar responses from Mr. Shackett. The testimony of White and others was uncontroverted. The only evidence that Richard White was the caller who contacted the witnesses called against him, was the caller's use of the last name White and the testimony of Richard White that he was the only person named White working for the company.
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 Richard H. White as a real estate salesman. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel Oliver, Esquire Charles Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Ronald L. Fried, Esquire 2699 S. Bayshore Drive Suite 400C Miami, Florida 33133
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are two-fold. First it must be determined whether Infiniti Realty, LLC (Infiniti) is guilty of having employed persons as sales associates who do not hold a valid and current licenses as sales associates. Secondly, it must be determined whether those individual sales persons, the Respondents in this case, operated as sales associates for any person or entity not registered as their employing broker, in violation of Subsections 475.42(1)(b)and (e), Florida Statutes (2002) and, derivatively, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2002). If the violations or any of them are proven, it must be determined what if any penalty should be imposed on the Respondents' real estate licensure.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the statutory provisions pertaining to real estate licensure and to persons and entities holding real estate licensure and practicing the profession of real estate in Florida both as sales persons and brokers, in accordance with Chapters 455, and 475, Florida Statutes (2002), and rules promulgated thereunder. The Respondent, Infiniti was, at all times pertinent hereto, a real estate corporate brokerage licensed in Florida holding license number CQ1015795. The other named Respondents, at all times pertinent hereto, have been real estate sales persons licensed in the State of Florida. Infiniti is located at 511 North Oceanshore Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida 32136. The Respondents all practice their profession in Flagler Beach, Florida. The broker for Infiniti is Ms. Carolyn Cass-Lamore. The owner, a licensed sales person, is Mr. Sean O'Neill, who organized the new real estate brokerage known as Infiniti Realty, LLC in late 2002. Most of the staff, including the Respondents in question, had formerly been employed as sales persons at Connie Boyle Realty, located in the Flagler Beach area. The Respondents became increasingly dissatisfied with their practice and with business and working conditions at Connie Boyle Realty, because they felt that the business was not being properly operated. Consequently, they elected to leave Connie Boyle Realty and form their own firm, with Mr. O'Neill as owner and Ms. Cass-Lamore as the licensed broker. With this in mind, the Respondents all executed "forms 2050," which provide for a change of employer registration for sales persons and/or the means by which sales persons inform and record with the Petitioner agency their change of employment from one broker to another broker or brokerage. These forms were completed after consultation between Ms. Cass-Lamore and Mr. O'Neill on Friday, December 27, 2002. The Respondents Mr. O'Neill and Ms. Cass-Lamore had to act quickly to change the registration with the Department because a newspaper advertisement announcing the advent and operation of Infiniti Realty was published, or they learned that it was to be published, one or two weeks before they had requested it to be published. Consequently, they had to act hurriedly to inform Ms. Boyle that they were leaving the employ of her firm and to also file their appropriate change of registration forms with the Real Estate Commission (Commission), because they would have to get into business sooner than they had originally planned with the new firm. In any event, the change of registration forms were completed on December 27, 2002. Mr. O'Neill was to file the forms with the Real Estate Commission. Consequently, on that day, Ms. Cass-Lamore faxed the forms for all the Respondents to Mr. O'Neill in Philadelphia. He, in turn, dispatched the forms to the Petitioner agency by Federal Express from Philadelphia, for overnight delivery, to be received by the Commission on December 30, 2002, in order to comply with the statute regarding changes of registration and changes of employing brokers. This fact is supported by Mr. O'Neill's testimony and that of Ms. Cass-Lamore, as well as evidence of the transaction obtained by Mr. O'Neill and submitted in the form of Petitioner's Exhibit Nine, in evidence. The relevant documents for change of registration were also sent by fax to the local Board of Realtors for Flagler Beach. The Commission registered Infiniti as a corporation and Ms. Cass-Lamore as the broker, but for some reason did not immediately register the above-named Respondents, Ms. Mulligan, Ms. Turner, Ms. McDaniel, Mr. Steven Thomas, and Mr. O'Neill as being employed by the broker and corporation. In early January 2003, however, approximately January 4th, Mr. Thomas, one of the Respondents looked for his registration status on the Agency's website and, at that point, observed that he and the other Respondents had indeed been registered as being employed as sales agents with Infiniti. All the Respondents were thus notified that their status was active and legal at that point, in order to practice with Infiniti. For unknown reasons at a later time the registrations of the Respondents were either deleted from or not completed in the records of the Agency and Infiniti and the other Respondents were required to resubmit the form 2050. As result of contact with the Petitioner's investigator, this fact and the apparent lapse of registration (after registration had been originally recorded for the Respondents with Infiniti) resulted in charges being filed against the Respondents for practicing with a new broker without being properly registered as such. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the Respondents genuinely believed that they were properly licensed. They exercised due diligence in filing the required documents to establish that their licenses were transferred or were to be transferred to Infiniti. Mr. O'Neill timely dispatched the required transfer documents to the Commission by Federal Express, overnight delivery, and it is most likely given the facts and circumstances proven, that the documents were received by the Commission. This is especially the case, given Mr. Thomas' testimony that in the first week of January he inquired of the Commission's website and observed that all of the Respondents were recorded thereon as having active licenses with Infiniti at that point. Sometime later, for unknown reasons, their names were apparently deleted from the Agency's record as being active licensee with Infiniti. The testimony of Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Thomas is accepted as credible in this regard. It is thus determined that the Respondents, due to efforts of Mr. O'Neill and Ms. Cass-Lamore, timely and reasonably exercised diligence in filing the required licensure transfer documents with the Real Estate Commission and the Respondents' names were recorded as having been transferred as to their licensure to the Infiniti brokerage. If their names were then deleted from the Agency's records sometime later, requiring them to be re-entered, effective February 11, 2003, it can only be presumed to have occurred through some ministerial error or omission. It may be, as Ms. Mulligan, in her testimony, opined, that only a portion of the licensure information was originally entered in the Commission's computer file and that the entirety of it was either mis-placed or entered much later.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and argument of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding that the Respondents are not guilty of the statutory violations charged and that the administrative complaint be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfonso Santana, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-801 Orlando, Florida 32802 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire 100 South Bumby Avenue, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32803 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Juana Watkins, Acting Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-802 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Herbert Goldman is a registered real estate broker holding license number 0032343 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Herbert Goldman maintains an office at the Robertson Building, Ocala, Florida, consisting of at least one closed room, wherein negotiations and closings of real estate transactions of others may be conducted and carried on with privacy and where the books, records, and files pertaining to the real estate transactions of Herbert Goldman are maintained. On the entry way to the Robertson Building, Ocala, Florida, there is a Building Directory and on this directory, there appears "Goldman, Herbert, Realtor, Room 214." See Exhibit 4. On the second floor of the Robertson Building, Ocala, Florida, in Room 214, Herbert Goldman maintains the office described above outside of which is a sign stating the following: "Herbert Goldman, Registered Real Estate Broker." It was admitted that the second floor of the Robertson Building is generally closed to public and that the Robertson Building is owned by the Estate of Mr. Herbert Goldman's deceased father. By direct contact with Herbert Goldman or his brother, an attorney who maintains an office on the first floor of the Robertson Building with access directly to the street, authorized persons may gain access to Herbert Goldman's office. Herbert Goldman engages in an active real estate brokerage primarily consisting of site location for shopping centers and similar developments for clients throughout the United States. Herbert Goldman does not solicit nor desire to participate in a general real estate practice. Goldman makes no pretense that he maintains an office in Room 214 of the Robertson Building, which is at all times staffed and which is an office in the conventional sense. However, Goldman does maintain an active brokerage practice visiting clients in various portions of Florida and in other states in the course of his brokerage business. Due to the nature of transactions which Goldman is involved in, all of the closings are conducted in the business offices of the firms with which he does business or of their attorneys. The foregoing Findings of Fact are substantially identical to the general proposed findings submitted by Goldman.
Recommendation At hearing, the forthrightness of Mr. Goldman was evident, and it was clear that he did not desire to be uncooperative with the Commission or to flaunt its rules. His concern was that to maintain an accessible office would create more problems than it would solve. He felt that such an office would appear to be closed and "inactive", and to avoid this problem he would have to hire office staff to advise people he did not handle general real estate. This would be an unnecessary expense for him and would possibly create misunderstandings. It was, therefore, simpler to maintain his office where it has been for many years, from where, although inaccessible to the public, he centers his brokerage activity. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that no disciplinary actions be taken. In view of Goldman's general cooperativeness and the fact that he is not totally pleased with the security of his office, it might be useful and beneficial for the Commission to examine with Goldman alternatives which would be acceptable to all concerned and would result in office accommodations which re more conventional and secure but which would not prevent a confusing picture to the public. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of July, 1977, at Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Pierce, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mary B. Steddom, Esquire O'Neill & Steddom Post Office Box 253 Ocala, Florida 32670 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, An Agency of the State of Florida, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 3123 MARION COUNTY HERBERT GOLDMAN, DOAH CASE NO. 77-443 Defendant. /
Findings Of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 2-4. Rejected as Conclusions of Law and not Finding of Facts. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 6. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence in that Hardage, for Respondent Benchmark, arranged the joint venture which culminated in the sale. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 9-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law and not a Finding of Fact.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the allegations against the Respondent, David W. Stuart, and the allegations of a violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, against Respondent, Benchmark Brokers of Destin, Inc., be dismissed, but that the license of Benchmark Brokers of Destin, Inc., be suspended for a period of 90 days for the violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 David L. Selty, Esquirer Executive Park, Building H, Suite 3 11 Racetrack Road, NE Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Harold Huff, Exec. Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all Proposed Findings Of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Albert E. Pastorini, is a registered real estate salesman and works out of the office of Elanor Hollis, a registered real estate broker trading under the name of Hollis Real Estate. Under the stationary of Hollis Real Estate, the Respondent Pastorini offered eleven separate parcels of realty to Palm Beach County as offerings under their $50 million parks and recreation land acquisition program. One of those parcels was designated, for purposes of this hearing, as the Schine property. Schine Enterprises, Inc. is a landowner in Palm Beach County with ocean front properties. Mr. Howard P. Miller is an employee of Schine Enterprises and is also a registered real estate broker. Mr. Miller testified that he has had contact with the Respondent, Pastorini, for quite some time and has on repeated occasions told him that the Schine property was not available for sale and that no listings were available. Mr. Miller testified he learned early in 1975 that the 27 acre Schine property had been offered to the county for consideration under the bond program. Miller testified that he learned this property had been offered by Pastorini but that he had never given Mr. Pastorini authorization to do so. Miller also testified that some time in April, 1975, Ms. Hollis and Mr. Pastorini came to his office at his request and he informed Mr. Pastorini in no uncertain terms that he had no authorization to list the property. Mr. Pastorini, according to Mr. Miller, stated that Mr. Miller had given him a verbal listing which Miller denied. When the county began reviewing the offerings of property, they became aware that some of these offerings had not been authorized by the owners and so they therefore by letter, requested all brokers and salesmen that had submitted offerings to demonstrate proper authorization from the owners or else the county would purge these offerings from their list of available properties. Of the eleven offerings that Pastorini submitted to the county, he was able only to produce two authorizations; one for thirty days and the other for an open listing. No evidence was presented regarding any activities on behalf of Elanor Hollis, the other Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Frederick Hodgdon (Hodgdon) has held Florida real estate broker license 0206805 at all times pertinent to this case. Hodgdon is owner and qualifying broker for Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., (Pelican Realty), through which Hodgdon conducts business and which also is named as a respondent. At all times pertinent, Pelican Realty has held Florida corporate real estate broker license 0223934. July 24 through August 6, 1984, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-Daze: DO YOU KNOW ... that all Florida real estate brokers are agents for the seller and CANNOT legally propose any lower than listed prices or better terms for the benefit of the buyer? UNLESS ... the broker legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer. As a Buyer's Broker Pelican Realty CAN and DOES exactly this and a lot more! Buyers pay no fees or commissions. Call or send for our informative brochure, you will be glad you did. The real estate buyer's best bet for the best price is to have a Buyer's Broker. On February 19, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Marco Island Eagle: 1/ BUYER BEWARE! DON'T BUY REAL ESTATE ON MARCO ISLAND. ... before consulting an attorney or carefully reading Paragraph 5) and 7) of the 1985 Revision of the Sales Contract as approved by the Naples Area Board of Realtors and the Marco Island Area Board of Realtors and the Collier County Bar Association contract Revision Committee. The Contract states quote: "The Buyer has inspected the property sold by the Contract and there are no other inspections permitted or required. The property is acceptable in its AS IS condition as of date of this offer. INCREDIBLE! ... What happens to the unwitting Buyer who intends to have termite, structural and seawall inspections AFTER his offer is accepted? He just may have to buy a termite ridden house that needs a new roof and a seawall that is on the verge of collapse. Thats what! ... Taken at face value the Sales contract calls for the buyer to spend several hundred dollars for inspections BEFORE making an offer that may well be turned down. INCREDIBLE! .... Paragraph 7) states quote: "Buyer's decision to buy was based on Buyer's own investigation of the property and not upon any representation, warranty, statement or conduct of the Seller, or broker, or any of Seller's or broker's agents" (Excluding those rare occasions when the seller and his agents remain silent.) INCREDIBLE! ... The above subject sections of Paragraphs 5) and 7) of the 1985 Sales Contract in our opinion may well violate the Realtor's Code of Ethics Article 7) "to treat fairly all parties to the transaction." There is nothing Pelican Realty could say or do to better emphasize the Buyer's need to have an advocate on his side. ... As a Buyer's Broker we recommend striking out any and all terms and conditions of the Sales Contract that are prejudicial to the Buyer's best interests. ... Pelican Realty would appreciate the opportunity to discuss with any interested parties the many advantages of working with a Buyer Broker. Our services are at NO additional expense to the buyer. CALL US FOR FURTHER DETAILS. NOW!! On March 11, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-News: CASH BACK FOR THE REAL ESTATE BUYER. THAT'S INCREDIBLE! Pelican Realty GUARANTEES CASH BACK to every buyer on every sale. The bigger the sale, the bigger the cash gift to the buyer. On top of this Pelican Realty (a Buyer's Broker) goes all out to get the lowest possible price for the buyer at NO additional cost to the buyer. Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller. The thousands you SAVE already belong to you. THINK ABOUT IT! Call us for further details NOW! "WE PAY OUR BUYERS TO DO BUSINESS WITH US" There is nothing false or fraudulent about the three advertisements. However, the following statements in the advertisements are deceptive or misleading in form or content: The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that buyers pay no fees or commissions. In form, the buyer perhaps does not pay brokerage fees or commissions. But in substance, the buyer does indirectly pay his broker a brokerage fee or commission when the seller pays fees and commissions out of the proceeds of the sale. The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that a buyer's broker "legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer." Although perhaps technically correct, this representation implies separate state regulation and qualification procedures for licensure as a buyer's broker. In fact and in law, any licensed real estate broker can become a buyer's broker simply by entering into an agreement with a buyer to be the buyer's broker. The representation in the March 11, 1986, News-Sun advertisement: "Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller." Read carefully in context, this representation is true--realtors other than those representing a buyer must try to get the highest price for the seller he represents (while being open, honest and fair to the buyer). But, as written, the representation could lead one to believe that the respondents have an ability no other realtors have when, in fact and in law, any realtor or other licensed real estate broker who represents a buyer can try to get the best price for the buyer. Although respondents have offered cash rebates, no client has seen the offer or asked for a rebate. Although respondents have maintained their innocence, they changed the ads to meet the criticism of the Department of Professional Regulation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order (1) reprimanding respondents, Frederick Hodgdon and Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., and (2) fining them $500 each for violations of Section 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). RECOMMENDED this 21st day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Donald E. Swagler is now and was at all times material a licensed real estate broker or broker/salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0139756, in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At all times alleged in the Administrative Complaint, respondent Donald Swagler was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker for and an officer of respondent Swagler Realty, Inc., which is now and was at all times material a corporation licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0169035, in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material, Fern Z. Taylor was a licensed real estate broker with an office in Bonita Springs, approximately a twenty-minute drive south from the offices of Swagler Realty Company in Ft. Myers. On April 10, 1980, Andrew W. Kuchmaner was working part-time as a licensed real estate salesman in the employ (as that term is defined in Section 475.01(2), Florida Statutes) of Swagler Realty Company. Kuchmaner was a new salesman and had not yet had occasion to present a buyer's purchase offer to a client seller. During the early months of 1980, Kuchmaner was also working in the employ of, and receiving a salary from, Jim Walter Homes Company. Philip R. and Susan B. Workman first met Kuchmaner in January or February 1980 while visiting a Jim Walter's Homes sales office in Ft. Myers where he was working in his capacity as a Jim Walter Homes salesman. Kuchmaner advised the Workmans to find and purchase a lot for the Jim Walter home they had selected, and then they could purchase the Jim Walter home. Jim Walter Homes Company requires lot ownership prior to building one of their homes. Prior to selecting a lot, the Workmans had already decided on the Jim Walter home they were going to purchase, and Kuchmaner was going to do the paperwork for Jim Walter. Throughout the first quarter of 1980, the Workmans searched for a lot on which to construct their home in the Bonita Springs area of southern Lee County. During their search, the Workmans came upon a vacant lot with a sign saying it was for sale by Fern Z. Taylor. Upon seeing her real estate for sale sign, the Workmans went to Fern Taylor's office to inquire about the property and seek her assistance in their purchase of a lot in the Bonita Springs area. Fern Taylor advised the Workmans that, in addition to the lot they had already seen bearing her sign, she had Dust that morning listed and had for sale another lot in the Bonita Springs area which they would be interested in seeing. Earlier that same morning, Taylor took a long distance telephone call from a Charles A. Bennett, a resident of Arizona. Bennett said he had a lot he wanted to sell and gave Taylor the price ($7,000) and a description--Lot 20, Block E, Rosemary Park No. 2, in Bonita Springs. Bennett had not seen the property in some time and gave no landmarks or street address for Taylor's guidance. Back in 1925, Rosemary Park No. 2 was subdivided into eight blocks of 24 140' x 50' lots each and two larger blocks containing 16 larger 162' x 300' lots each. One of the smaller lots bore the legal description: "Lot 20, Block E of Rosemary Park No. 2 according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 6 at Page 30, of the Public Records of Lee County. This is the lot Bennett owned and was trying to sell. It is located on First Street. In 1926, Rosemary Park No. 2 was re-subdivided. The two larger blocks of the prior subdivision were re-subdivided into eight blocks of 24 140' x 50' lots each. Unfortunately, in a stroke of singular lack of vision, the new blocks and lots were designated with the same letters and numbers already assigned to the smaller blocks and lots in the original 1925 subdivision. As a result, there is another lot in Rosemary Park No. 2 designated as Lot 20, Block E: Lot 20, Block E, Rosemary Park, resubdivision of the East 1/2 of No. 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 32, in the Public Records of Lee County, Florida. This other Lot 20, Block E, is owned by the Fyfes of Maine and is on Fifth Street. Taylor, who was quite busy, quickly checked a plat book in her office to locate the lot and the tax rolls to attempt far to verify Bennett's ownership and left to put her sign on the lot she thought Bennett owned and was trying to sell. Through a combination of the confusing legal description, the incomplete description and paucity of information Bennett gave Taylor, and Taylor's admitted negligence, Taylor put her for sale sign on the Fyfes' lot on Fifth Street instead of on Bennett's lot on First Street. Taylor had no listing agreement with the Fyfes, and the Fyfes' property was not for sale. Fern Taylor drew a map for the Workmans providing them with directions to this purportedly newly listed lot on which she had placed her "For Sale" sign. In reliance on Fern Taylor's map and representations as to her listing agreement, the Workmans drove to the Fifth Street lot and viewed the property as well as Fern Taylor's "For Sale" sign. Approximately one week after seeing the Fifth Street lot, the Workmans summoned Andrew Kuchmaner to Bonita Springs to view the lot and give them his opinion as to how the Jim Walter home they had previously selected would sit on the lot. The Workmans had their minds pretty well made up that they wanted to purchase the Fifth Street lot before summoning Kuchmaner. Kuchmaner never took the Workmans to any property but, upon their request, traveled to Bonita Springs to meet them and was thereupon shown the Fifth Street lot. While viewing the Fifth Street lot, Kuchmaner advised the Workmans that the Jim Walter's home they had selected would sit nicely on that lot. He also told the Workmans for the first time that he had a real estate license and would be glad to help them out with placing an offer for the lot on their behalf. The Workmans used Kuchmaner to make their $6,000 offer on the lot to save time because it was late in the afternoon and they lived in North Ft. Myers. When Fern Taylor first met Kuchmaner, he had been represented to her by the Workmans as a Jim Walter salesman. Kuchmaner went to Taylor's office and requested she prepare the contract because he would have to go all the way back to Ft. Myers to write it up. Taylor provided Kuchmaner with the legal description "Lot 20, Block E, Rosemary Park #2" and advised him he would have to write his own contract. Kuchmaner also proposed to Taylor that they not tell Swagler or Swagler Realty about the sale so they could divide Swagler's quarter of the 10 percent commission ($150 of the total $600 commission). Taylor refused and told Swagler what had happened. Swagler had an angry confrontation with Kuchmaner and was about to fire him, but Kuchmaner begged for a second chance and promised not to try to cut Swagler out of a commission again. Swagler relented and kept Kuchmaner on as a salesman. Kuchmaner filled out a contract on a Swagler Realty form and brought it to Donald Swagler for his review. He advised Swagler that he had gotten the legal description from Fern Taylor and had been to see the property. Swagler generally does not sell property in the Bonita Springs area and is not familiar with the area. He relied on Taylor to provide an accurate legal description of the property being sold. Kuchmaner hand delivered the contract offering to purchase the Bennett parcel to Taylor. Taylor checked the contract before she sent it to Bennett to see that the legal was the same that she had, and it was. She also checked it again when it was sent back from Bennett. Fern Taylor had received and checked the contract, title insurance binder, seller's closing statement and a copy of the warranty deed from Bennett to Workman prior to the closing The Workmans had the property they thought they were purchasing surveyed by William R. Allen, a registered and licensed land surveyor. He received the request to survey the property from Susan Workman. Over the phone, she advised Mr. Allen she had purchased a lot in Rosemary Park, Specifically lot far 20, block E. Mr. Allen informed Mrs. Workman that there are two Block E's in Rosemary Park and that they should be careful. He inquired as to which street she had purchased property on and was told, "We're on Fifth Street." Allen surveyed the Fifth Street lot and certified his survery, using the actual legal description of the Fifth Street (Fyfes') lot. Allen never saw any document with the legal description of the Bennett lot. Fern Taylor did not know that the Workmans had ordered a survey and did not see a copy of the survey until well after the closing. Although she attended the closing, she saw no discrepancies among the documents cursorily reviewed at the closing. Neither did the Workmans or the closing agent. The evidence was not clear whether there was a copy of the survey among the documents at the closing. The lender (Jim Walter Homes) and the title insurance company got a copy of the survey before closing. Neither of their professionals noticed that the legal description on the survey (the Fyfe lot) did not match the legal description on the deed and other documents (the Bennett lot). When a real estate broker has placed his sign ("For Sale") on a parcel of property, it is a reasonable conclusion that he is authorized to sell that parcel. It is customary for a broker to rely on the listing broker to provide a correct legal description for the property they have listed. At no time before the closing did Swagler or Kuchmaner have reason to suspect that the Workmans were purchasing a parcel of property different from the parcel they believed they were purchasing. Neither Swagler nor Kuchmaner were at the closing of the Workmans' purchase. But their presence would not have made any difference. It is not the real estate broker's or salesman's lob to scrutinize the documents being signed to make sure the legal descriptions on all the documents match (unless he has reason to believe the legal descriptions might be wrong.) He has the right to rely on the other professionals--the listing broker (especially since Fern Taylor was familiar with the Bonita Springs area and Swagler was not), the lender's attorney, the title company, the closing agent and, if any, the surveyor and the buyer's attorney. Fern Taylor and perhaps others were culpably negligent. Swagler and Kuchmaner were not. What happened to the Workmans is not their fault.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against respondents, Donald E. Swagler and Swagler Realty Company, in this case. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of February, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3502 These rulings on proposed findings of fact are made in compliance with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated. 5. Rejected as contrary to facts found. (Kuchmaner did not "solicit" or "obtain" them.) 6.-14. Accepted and incorporated. 15. Rejected as contrary to facts found. (Taylor's "investigation" or "attempt" to ascertain the legal description was deficiently and negligently performed.) 16.-17. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as incomplete ("compare the deed" with what?); second sentence, rejected because it was not proved Taylor had access to a copy of the survey before the closing. Rejected as unnecessary and potentially misleading. (A Final Judgment was entered; Taylor paid the portion against her; the other defendants have not paid the portions against them.) Rejected. Swagler Realty Company was a defendant in the case; Donald E. Swagler was not. 21.-24. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proved whether they "failed," "refused" or "neglected." (The fact is that neither has paid the Workmans any money in satisfaction of the portion of the Final Judgment against Swagler Realty Company.) Accepted but unnecessary. B. Respondents' Proposed Findings Of Fact. 1. Accepted but unnecessary. 2.-10. Accepted and incorporated. 11. Accepted but unnecessary. 12.-23. Accepted and incorporated. 24.-28. Accepted and incorporated. 29. Accepted but unnecessary. 30.-36. Accepted but cumulative. 37.-42. Accepted and incorporated, along with additional findings. 43. Accepted but unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Fl 32802 J. Michael Hussey, Esquire 3443 Hancock Bridge Parkway Suite 501 North Ft. Myers, Fl 33903 Van B. Poole Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32301 Wings S. Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32301 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Fl 32802
