Recommendation It is recommended that the Administrative Complaint as filed against James E. Annen, for purposes of revocation or suspension of his real estate brokers license no. 0001875 be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 J. C. Adderly, Esquire Adderly, Aloia & Dudley Post Office Box 535 Cape Coral, Florida 33904
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondents for alleged violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(a) (1977), 475.25(1)(b) (1979), 475.25(1)(c) (1977), and 475.25(1)(d) (1979), Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, dated May 1, 1980. At the commencement of the hearing, Counsel for Respondent Marie Bonello announced that his client, who was present, was ill and 78 years of age and unable to testify, and moved to continue the hearing. The continuance was denied, but the parties agreed to allow her Counsel to file a deposition subsequent to the hearing and to hold the case open until her deposition could be filed. By letter dated August 13, 1980 Counsel for Marie Bonello stated that he anticipated a restitution settlement with complaining witness Marlene Jacobs and requested further delay in closing the case. Counsel for Respondent Gloria Campione agreed to the delay by letter dated September 25, 1980. On October 8, 1980 Counsel for Petitioner requested that a recommended order be entered, and on October 31, 1980 notified the Hearing Officer that a transcript would be ordered and a proposed recommended order would be filed by Petitioner. A transcript was filed December 8, 1980. No deposition, proposed orders, or memorandum showing restitution were filed by the parties subsequent to the hearing except Counsel for Respondent Campione filed a legal memorandum and a proposed recommended order, which were considered in the rendition of this order.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Marie Bonello was registered with Petitioner as a real estate salesperson and also as President and Treasurer of Bonne Realty Corporation and was so registered during the time pertinent to this hearing in the year 1978 (Petitioner's Exhibit 23). Respondent Bonne Realty Corporation was licensed under Corporate Certificate No. 0196358-6 by the Florida Real Estate Commission to transact real estate business and was so registered during the time pertinent to this hearing. Respondent Gloria Campione is registered as a real estate salesperson and was so registered In 1978 and at all times material to this case was either employed by or was working with Respondent Bonello and the Respondent Bonne Realty Corporation. In May of 1978 one Marlene Jacobs contacted Gloria Campione, a salesperson in Archer Real Estate, Inc., in regard to the purchase of a home in Broward County, Florida. Ms. Campione showed Ms. Jacobs several homes in the area and on or about June 9, 1978 showed her some substantially completed model homes in the Deer Run subdivision. On June 11, 1978 a Deposit Receipt and Contract for Sale and Purchase was drawn for Lot 155 of the Deer Run project on which a residence was to be constructed for Ms. Jacobs and Ms. Jacobs made an initial deposit of $1,000 (Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 9; Transcript, page 74). Archer Real Estate, Inc. and Bonne Realty Corporation were indicated as Brokers and Marlene Jacobs as the buyer. That evening Respondent Campione and another salesperson, Shannon Brisbon, who had a contract with a buyer for the same Lot Number 155, Deer Run, had a meeting with the builder/owner of the subdivision (Respondent's Exhibit 2). The builders, Frank Sepe and Lou Gonzalez, decided to accept the contract negotiated by salesperson Brisbon rather than the contract between Ms. Jacobs and Respondent Campione because Ms. Brisbon's clients would have more money to pay on the property at closing. Respondent Campione later notified Ms. Jacobs that Lot 155 was not available to her but a similar house could be built on a similar lot. Shortly thereafter Ms. Jacobs met with Respondent Campione, Ms. Bonello, and the builders and modified the original contract in ink to reflect a change in lots. Ms. Jacobs paid the balance of the deposit for a total of $5,000 and gave it to Respondent Campione. No construction was commenced. In September of 1978 Respondent Bonello contacted Ms. Jacobs and said she desperately needed money at once and wanted Ms. Jacobs to write two checks prior to the closing of the real estate transaction. Ms. Jacobs, without notifying Respondent Campione, drew two checks dated September 8, 1978, one to Respondent Marie Bonello in the amount of $3,478.03 and one to Mr. and Mrs. Wm. Maki in the amount of $5,521.97. No receipt was given for those checks. In October of 1978 Ms. Campione learned that Ms. Jacobs had drawn the two checks in the total amount of $9,000 and had given one to Respondent Bonello and one to the Makis, whom she was informed held a mortgage on a shopping center owned or partially owned by Respondent Bonello. Respondent Campione was alarmed, fearing her client Ms. Jacobs would lose the unsecured money, and forthwith procured a promissory note and a new building contract dated October 4, 1978 from Respondent Bonello reflecting the receipt of the original $5,000 deposit plus the $9,000 in the two unsecured checks. The promissory note and contract were signed by Respondent Bonello upon the insistence of Respondent Campione. The contract showed a total of $14,000 deposit to be used for construction (Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 4 and 7). Still no construction was started. Respondent Bonello did not deny the allegations in the complaint either at the hearing or by deposition. The evidence and the testimony of Ms. Jacobs and Respondent Campione show that Respondent Bonello was a party in her capacity as President and Treasurer of the broker Bonne Realty Corporation, as a principal on a promissory note drawn to secure monies deposited by the buyer in furtherance of a real estate transaction and was a witness on many documents pertaining to the proposed real estate sale. It is the finding of the Hearing Officer that Respondent Bonello participated in all transactions pertaining to the proposed sale of a lot on which a house was to have been constructed for the buyer Ms. Marlene Jacobs. Money was obtained from the buyer by Respondent Bonello and was not to be used and was not used for construction of Ms. Jacob's home as she was led to believe. It is the further finding that Respondent Bonello signed a promissory note to Marlene Jacobs to secure the monies she had obtained from the buyer but only at the request of Respondent Campione. In November, 1978, when it appeared that no house was to be built, Ms. Jacobs discovered that Respondent Bonello had not only contracted to sell her lot to other persons but had used the deposit money in the shopping center Respondent Bonello was constructing for herself (Transcript, page 25). Ms. Jacobs has demanded the $14,000 she paid to Respondents Bonello, Campione and Bonne Realty Corporation, but no money has been received and Ms. Jacobs has been forced to seek recompense through the courts (Petitioner's Exhibits 14 and 15). After Respondent Campione had first showed the property in Deer Run to her client, Ms. Jacobs, and had negotiated the contract offer between Marlene Jacobs, buyer and Archer Real Estate, Inc. aid Bonne Realty Corporation, Co- Brokers and Frank Sepe as Seller Respondent Campione moved her license and worked exclusively with Respondent Marie Bonello. Archer Real Estate, Inc. is not involved in this case. At the hearing evidence was entered indicating that Bonne Realty (corporation was in existence and licensed at the time the foregoing complaint was filed and at the time of the subject transaction. Respondent Marie Bonello was listed as the President, Treasurer and 50 percent shareholder and broker for the corporation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent Marie Bonello guilty of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and suspending her for a period of two (2) years; That a final order be entered suspending the registration of Bonne Realty Corporation for two (2) years and until compliance with a lawful order imposed in the final order of suspension; That a final order be entered dismissing the complaint against Respondent Gloria Campione. DONE ad ORDERED this 19th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alan J. Werksman, Esquire Suite 404, Interstate Plaza 1499 West Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Robert M. Arlen, Esquire 2700 North East 14th Causeway Pompano Beach, Florida 33062
The Issue The issues in the case are whether Respondent's real estate broker's license had been revoked when he applied for a mortgage broker's license and whether Respondent falsely answered certain questions on his application for a mortgage broker's license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is currently licensed as a mortgage broker in the State of Florida. He holds license number HA 056265422-5P. He had been licensed continuously since August 5, 1986. Respondent previously has been licensed as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida. By Administrative Complaint filed March 1, 1985, the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, alleged, among other things, that Respondent was guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, and breach of trust, among other things, in connection with an improper disbursement from an escrow account. Following a hearing on January 17, 1986, a Recommended Order entered April 18, 1986, found that Respondent was, as to the above-described allegations, guilty "at least of culpable negligence and breach of trust" and recommended that Respondent's license be suspended for one year. After a hearing on June 17, 1986, the Division of Real Estate entered a Final Order June 30, 1986, effective 30 days thereafter, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Recommended Order, but revoking rather than suspending Respondent's license. By Application for Registration as a Mortgage Broker signed by Respondent on March 22, 1986, Respondent applied for a mortgage broker's license (March Application). The application was filed on March 25, 1986. Question 19 of the March Application asks: Has any judgement or decree of a court or other judicial, administrative or quasi-judicial tribunal been entered against you, or is any such case pending in this or any other state, province, district, territory, possession or nation, in which you were charged in the petition, complaint, declaration, answer, counterclaim or other pleading with any fraudulent or dishonest dealing? (If your answer is in the affirmative, attach complete signed notarized statement of the charges and facts, together with the name and location of the court in which the proceedings were had or are pending.) Respondent answered this question, "no." By Application for Registration as a Mortgage Broker signed by Respondent on July 1, 1986, Respondent applied for a mortgage solicitor's license (July Application). The application was filed on July 9, 1986, and approved by Petitioner on July 31, 1986. Question 16 on the July Application asks whether the applicant is currently licensed in any state as a real estate broker or salesman. Respondent answered this question, "no." Question 17 on the July Application asks: "Has your license of any kind ever been denied, suspended or revoked?" The question then asks for a complete signed statement of the charges and facts in full detail. Respondent answered Question 17, "no." On July 28, 1986, Respondent sent a notarized letter to Petitioner concerning the July Application. In the letter, he elaborated upon the circumstances surrounding the answer to an unrelated question, but did not elaborate upon the above-described answers Respondent did not answer accurately Question 19 on the March Application. Over a year earlier, Respondent had been charged with fraudulent dealing. Respondent had no basis for omitting this item from the application because, even though he had not received the recommended order, the case obviously was still pending at the time of submitting the March Application. Respondent's incorrect answer was an intentional attempt to conceal from Petitioner the license-revocation proceeding. Although Respondent's answer to Question 16 on the July Application may have been accurate because he had relinquished his license, his answer to Question 17 was inaccurate. Respondent testified that he understood that the Final Order, which had just been issued, had not yet taken effect, so that his license had not yet been revoked. However, without further elaboration, the answer to Question 17 was incomplete and misleading, regardless of Respondent's understanding of the technical status of his license. Respondent knew that his answer was incomplete and would mislead Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, enter a Final Order revoking the mortgage broker's license of Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 26th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4380 Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-7 Adopted or adopted in substance. 8 Rejected as irrelevant. 9-29 Adopted or adopted in substance. 30-32 Rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. 33-34 Rejected as legal argument. 35-36 Adopted. 37-38 and 40 Rejected as legal argument. 39 and 41-42 Adopted or adopted in substance. Rejected as legal argument. Rejected as irrelevant. 45-50 Rejected as recitation of testimony. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7 Adopted or adopted in substance. 8 Rejected as irrelevant. 9-13 Adopted. 14 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 15-21 Adopted or adopted in substance. 22-23 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 24-29 Adopted or adopted in substance. 30-31 Rejected as recitation of testimony. Adopted in substance. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 34-38 Rejected as irrelevant. 39 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. James 258 East Altamonte Drive Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Elise M. Greenbaum Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 501 Orlando, FL 32801 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Charles L. Stutts General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Karen Kay Colucci, whose license No. is 0062107,is a registered real estate salesman in the State of Florida. The Respondent is employed by Magnolia Homes, Inc., 300 Embassy Boulevard, Port Richey, Florida. The owner of the business is David Lukacher. On May 20, 1976, Harvey Thompson and his wife Mary Thompson looked at model homes built by Magnolia Homes, Inc. They were assisted by a registered real estate salesman for Magnolia Homes, Inc., Patrick D. DePianto. Mr. and Mrs. Thompson told the real estate salesman that they wanted to build a house but wanted to sell their own house first. Mr. and Mrs. Thompson found a lot and model home they desired and then proceeded to Mr. DePianto's office to make a deposit. The office in which the transaction took place is a large room in which several people worked for the builder including the Respondent Karen Kay Colucci who is the sales manager. Mr. DePianto's desk and work area was in rather close proximity to Mrs. Colucci's desk and work area. Mrs. Colucci was not involved in the assistance to the Thompsons in locating a lot and model home and was not directly involved with Mr. DePianto and Mr. and Mrs. Thompson at the time the transaction under consideration took place. At the time of making the deposit Mr. and Mrs. Thompson asked Mr. DePianto if they could get their deposit back if they did not sell their home. Mr. DePianto called over to Mrs. Colucci and asked if a refund could be made if the Thompsons could not sell their house and, satisfied with the answer, assured the purchasers that there would be no problem. A check was written out for five hundred ($500) dollars and handed to Mr. DePianto and a receipt was written out by Mr. DePianto and handed to the Thompsons. There was no representation on the receipt written by Mr. DePianto concerning the refundability of the deposit. The Thompsons did not request that the representation be included on the receipt. Mr. and Mrs. Thompson left the office feeling that there would be no problem obtaining a refund of the deposit if they could not sell their home , although they were confident that the sale of their home was imminent. Thereafter the expected sale of Mr. and Mrs. Thompson's home was not consummated and the Thompsons asked Mr. DePianto for a refund of the deposit. Mr. DePianto asked for the request to be in letter form and Mr. Thompson complied. Thereafter he was advised by Mr. DePianto that the builder, Mr. David Lukacher, would not return the deposit but would hold the $500 until they were able to buy one of their homes and credit that amount to the purchaser. Mr. Thompson requested Mr. DePianto to put the discussion in letter form which Mr. DePianto did. Mr. Thompson wrote Mr. Lukacher a letter and called him on the telephone requesting that the deposit be refunded but no refund was forthcoming. Approximately six months later Mr. DePianto sent Mr. and Mrs. Thompson a check for $250, half of the deposit, plus 7 months of interest at 6 per cent per annum. The remainder of the deposit has not been returned to Mr. and Mrs. Thompson and Mr. Lukacher retains the $250, having previously sent $250 of the $500 deposit to Mr. DePianto. Petitioner Florida Real Estate Commission contends: that the Respondent Karen Kay Colucci knowingly misrepresented to the Thompson's that there would be no problem obtaining a refund of the $500 deposit if the Thompson's could not sell their home; that such representation means the Respondent is guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, false pretences, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in a business transaction and that therefore her license should be suspended. Respondent contends that she was doing other work at the time the subject transaction took place and that she had no involvement with the transaction between Mr. DePianto and the Thompsons. Respondent further contends that in reply to the question posed to her by Mr. DePianto in the busy office that a refund could be made providing Mr. Lukacher, the builder, approved it. The hearing Officer further finds: There is no consistent testimony by the witnesses as to exactly what was said in reference to a refund at the time Mr. and Mrs. Thompson were seated at the desk of Mr. DePianto. There is no consistent testimony as to what exactly Mr. DePianto asked the Respondent or what her answer was. Mr. and Mrs. Thompson failed to request that the receipt reflect that the deposit was conditional and would be returned if the Thompson's could not sell their home. Mr. DePianto did not make the receipt a conditional receipt. Mr. David Lukacher, the builder, refused to refund the deposit to the Thompsons, kept $250 of it, and sent Mr. DePianto the salesman, $250. Mr. DePianto refunded his share of the deposit plus interest to the Thompsons.
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth A. Meer, Esquire Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Karen Kay Colucci Magnolia Homes, Inc. 300 Embassy Boulevard Port Richey, Florida 33568
The Issue Whether the real estate license of Loran V. Carlton should be suspended or revoked.
Findings Of Fact Loran V. Carlton is a registered real estate broker who holds License No. 0013194. Mr. Carlton was employed as a registered real estate salesman in the employ of broker George H. Inman doing business as Inman Realty Company in the years 1973 and 1974 and at the time the subject business transaction took place. On September 11, 1972, Respondent Loran V. Carlton entered into an agreement to lease certain property owned by R. Vance Barden, located in Jefferson County, Florida, which is the property involved in subject real estate transaction. The lease contained an option to purchase property which is the subject of this hearing. Mr. Joseph F. Carrin, a real estate appraiser, appraised the subject property at the request of Respondent Carlton for the Barden estate and submitted an appraisal report dated May 22, 1973. August 10, 1973 Carlton drafted a contract receipt between Virgil R. Norris and Brian T. Hayes, trustee to purchase the subject property for $135,000. It was executed September 1973. A contract was entered into by Carlton dated the 14th day of August, 1973, to purchase said property from Henry Henriquez, as executor of the estate of R. Vance Barden, deceased, for a total cash price of $55,000. On or about August 15, 1973, the executor of the estate of R. Vance Barden petitioned the Court for an. Order of Sale of the subject property based on the exercise of the option contained in the contract between the testator Barden and Respondent Carlton dated September 11, 1972. Carlton purchased said property on August 20, 1973 from Henry Henriquez, as executor of the estate of R. Vance Barden, deceased, for a total cash price of $55,000. By an instrument dated August 1973, Carlton and his wife mortgaged subject property to the Farmer's and Merchant's Bank of Monticello. On or about September 12th or 13th, 1973, Loran V. Carlton and Lucille V. Carlton entered a trust agreement to convey the said property to Brian T. Hayes as trustee. By deed dated September 12, 1973, Carlton and his wife conveyed subject property to Brian T. Hayes, trustee. A title binder on the subject property was sent to Virgil R. Norris on February 12, 1974, which referred to the mortgage of August 1973 between the Carltons and the bank. A Purchase Agreement Extension and Receipt between Mr. Norris and Thomas G. Ellis and Mr. Hayes was executed April 12, 1974. Inman Realty Company was paid a commission of $6,750.00 on April 12, 1975, a portion of which commission was paid Respondent Carlton as salesman for Inman Realty Company. On May 1, 1974 the trustee sent the satisfaction of the mortgage to Mr. Norris. In August or September of 1973 Carlton and Ellis had discussed the purchase of subject property. There has not been a final closing of the transaction as of the date of this hearing. Mr. Virgil R. Norris died November 16, 1975. On April 1, 1976 the Florida Real Estate Commission filed an Administrative Complaint seeking to "revoke or suspend or otherwise discipline" the Respondent Loran V. Carlton for the reason that the Respondent "failed to disclose to Virgil R. Norris or Thomas G. Ellis, Jr. the facts concerning Carlton's personal interest in the subject property," and further charging "that by reason of the foregoing, the Respondent, Loran V. Carlton, is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device, or breach of trust in a business transaction in this state in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes."
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of January, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Room 530 Carlton Building Division of Administrative Hearings Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Louis B. Guttmann III, Esquire Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Stanley Bruce Powell, Esquire 317 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact While working as a real estate salesperson in Deanna Duncan's office in the fall of 1976, respondent quarreled with Ms. Duncan about, among other things, their relative shares of real estate commissions. Respondent, who has been a real estate salesperson off and on since 1967, decided to leave Ms. Duncan's employ; and telephoned various brokers, including, eventually, Dean Downs, for whom she had worked from 1969 to 1971. Mr. Downs, who testified that he did not take respondent's abilities as a real estate salesperson seriously, was preoccupied with a development project on the east coast called Shoreham by the Sea and with his efforts to secure refinancing of a tract of land in Maitland, when respondent contacted him. He agreed to sign the appropriate papers to effect a transfer of respondent's certificate to his office, but he told respondent that he would be out of town most of the time and unable to supervise her. Respondent and Mr. Downs agreed orally that respondent could keep all commissions earned by the office as a result of respondent's efforts; and that respondent would pass on to Mr. Downs any leads she came across for sales of nonresidential properties, without expecting a share of any resulting commissions. During their association, respondent did pass on three such leads, none of which panned out. Respondent's affiliation with Mr. Downs began officially on December 1, 1976. Even before then, respondent had shown Mr. and Mrs. Thomas L. Oyler a house on Lake Catherine Drive in Maitland. On December 9, 1976, the Oylers made an offer, accompanied by a deposit check in the amount of $500.00 drawn in favor of Dean Downs' escrow account. In talking to Mr. Downs about this, respondent learned that there was no escrow account. Mr. Downs told her to look up a Mr. Green at the Southeast National Bank, who would help her open up an escrow account on which she would be authorized to sign. Respondent did open such an account and in it she deposited the Oylers' earnest money. On July 14, 1977, the transaction closed and respondent ended up with a check for the selling broker's commission drawn to Dean Downs' order in the amount of $2,208.00. Petitioner's exhibit No. 4. Respondent endorsed Dean Downs' name, then her own, deposited part of the proceeds of the check in her personal account, and took the difference in cash. Soon after starting with Mr. Downs, respondent caused business cards to be printed which read "DEAN DOWNS, BROKER/ MARGARET W. ROGERS, ASSOCIATE" and bore an address and telephone number. The Oylers understood that respondent was employed by Mr. Downs, at the time they made their offer. George D. Willmer's real estate firm obtained an exclusive listing for a house at 3232 South Fern Creek Avenue in Orlando. Respondent came into his office on January 12, 1977, saying she knew people who were interested in buying this house. Respondent told Mr. Willmer that she worked for Mr. Downs but that she "pretty well had a free hand . . . (T. 19) After Mr. Willmer typed in blanks on a form contract, respondent took it to Mr. and Mrs. James M. Kelley who signed it the same day. Mr. Kelley understood that respondent worked for Dean Downs. The transaction closed on February 25, 1977, and respondent received a check drawn in favor of Dean Downs Realty in the amount of $1,099.25. Petitioner's exhibit No. 9. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Downs dropped by respondent's house on an unrelated matter and, at respondent's request, endorsed the commission check. Subsequently, respondent also endorsed it, and deposited it in her personal account. In June of 1977, respondent herself expressed an interest in buying a piece of property on Pennsylvania Avenue in Winter Park. P. H. Davis, the real estate broker with whom the property was listed, first thought that respondent "was just a buyer" (T. 57), but later agreed to split his commission with Dean Downs Realty. The transaction closed on July 14, 1977, at which time respondent received a commission check drawn in favor of Dean Down Realty in the amount of $788.00. Petitioner's exhibit No. 11. Respondent endorsed this check "Dean Downs Realty," made another endorsement, then deposited the check in an account she controlled. In December of 1976 or January of 1977, respondent discussed renewal fees for her salesperson's certificate with Sylvia Garcia, at the time an employee of petitioner. As a result of this conversation, respondent got the mistaken impression that she need not renew her certificate for some two years after the conversation. Although petitioner sent respondent a certificate, in care of Dean Downs, indicating the need to renew, Mr. Downs never gave the notice to respondent. Respondent did not renew her certificate, which expired by its own terms on March 31, 1977.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's certificate for ten (10) days. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON,II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 H. Jay Stevens, Esquire 47 East Robinson Street, Suite 224 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether Defendants breached an oral contract with their employer. Whether the Defendants, both of whom were registered salesmen employed by Rivas Realty, Inc., conducted themselves in such a manner that the sellers of a certain parcel of real estate suffered a loss of a substantial profit from their property. Whether the licenses of the Defendants should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Defendants Victor Hugo Hernandez and Elisa Hernandez, husband and wife, were registered real estate salesmen employed by Rivas Realty, Inc., a corporate broker, with offices located at 2341 N.W. 7th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. Defendants were employed by Rivas Realty, Inc., a corporate broker, under an oral employment agreement whereby real estate transactions entered into by them or either of them as registered salesmen or personally or jointly for their own account were to be handled through said broker's office; that all details of any such real estate transaction were to be available in open files in said office; that they were to identify themselves as salesmen for Rivas Realty, Inc. On or about December 20, 1973, Defendant Victor Hugo Hernandez individually and for the benefit of himself and his wife jointly contracted to buy the residence at 526 E. 44th Street, Hialeah, Florida, from Frank J. Crawford, Jr., and Alexis Jo Crawford, his wife, for the sum of approximately $27,000. The transaction closed on or about January 3, 1974, and conveyance by warranty deed was made by the Crawford to Paul G. Block, Trustee. The property was soon resold. The Real Estate Commission contends: That the Defendants represented themselves as individuals desiring to purchase the home from the Crawfords for their son; That the Defendants had no intention of purchasing said property for the son and in fact, soon thereafter resold the property at a substantial profit to themselves; The Defendants through their misrepresentation defrauded the Crawfords of a substantial profit; They did not inform the Crawfords that they were in fact salesmen for Rivas Realty, Inc.; That the Defendants violated the oral agreement they had with the employer, Rivas Realty, Inc., when they failed to process the purchase and the resale of the Crawford property through the Rivas Realty, Inc.; That the Defendants are guilty of misrepresentation, concealment, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device and breach of trust in a business transaction, all in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes; That the registrations of Victor Hugo Hernandez and Elisa Hernandez should be suspended or revoked. The Defendants contend: That at the time of the sale and the purchase of the home from the Crawfords they had secured permission from the Rivas Realty, Inc. to purchase a home for their son; That the employer, Mr. Anthony Rivas, had given permission to the Defendants, as long time and effective salesmen, to purchase the property inasmuch as it was for the benefit of the son; That the son did not want the property after it was bought and therefore the property was immediately placed for sale; That the Defendants shortly after the purchase and sale of the property in question did in fact buy for their son a home in another location; That they in no way planned to trick the Crawfords into the sale of their home by not representing themselves as real estate agents; That in fact they did so represent themselves as real estate agents and placed the sign of Rivas Realty, Inc. in front of the Crawford home before the resale; That it was generally understood by the owners and among the long time employees of Rivas Realty, Inc. that they could at times buy and sale for their own personal benefit properties that members of their family might desire without processing the sale through the business office of Rivas Realty, Inc. or dividing the profit with the corporation. That they did not breach the oral contract between themselves and the employer. The Hearing Officer finds: That the Defendants, Victor Hugo Hernandez and Elisa Hernandez, bought the home of Mr. and Mrs. Crawford under circumstances which tended to deceive the purchasers but without actual misrepresentation; That there was no showing of an actual loss by the Crawfords; That the oral agreement between the Defendant salesmen and the employer, the Rivas Realty, Inc., was at times waived by the owner, Mr. Rivas or his brother, as special favors to their salesmen; That the Defendants acted under a waiver of the oral agreement between themselves and the Rivas Realty, Inc. when they purchased and resold the home of Mr. and Mrs. Crawford, or their acts were approved or condoned by the employer; That the evidence received and the testimony taken do not show that the Defendants, Victor Hugo Hernandez and Elisa Hernandez, breached the fiduciary relationship with their employer, Rivas Realty, Inc.; That the evidence received and the testimony taken do not prove the Defendants to have been guilty of misrepresentation, concealment, dishonest dealing, trick, schemes or device and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate brokers and holds license No. 0002997. On May 7, 1979, Respondent acted in the capacity of a real estate broker in the transaction of the sale of a parcel of real property located in Polk County, Florida. The purchaser in that transaction was Margaret Rhoden, and the seller was June Davis, who was represented in the transaction by a relative, Henry Goodwin. On May 7, 1979, Margaret Rhoden entered into a Contract for Sale of Rea1 Estate for the purchase of a piece of property Frostproof, Florida, from June Davis. The full purchase price of the property was $3,500, which Ms. Rhoden paid to Respondent in cash on May 7, 1979, and obtained a receipt from Respondent for that amount. At the time the contract was entered into, Ms. Rhoden was advised that a deed should be forthcoming from the seller within two to four weeks. A date of June 20, 1979, was established to close the transaction, subject to a 120-day curative period should any cloud on the title be discovered. The contract between the parties provided that should any such cloud appear of record, the seller would have a period of 120 days after receipt of written notice prior to the date set for closing in which to attempt to cure the defect. The contract further provided that if title defects were not cleared within the l20-day period, the deposit would be returned to the buyer, or, at the buyer's option, the transaction should be closed in the same manner as if no defect had been found. A warranty deed purporting to transfer the property from the seller to the buyer was executed on June 7, 1979, and a title binder was issued on that same date. The title binder indicated an outstanding mortgage on a larger piece of property of which the parcel purchased by Ms. Rhoden was only a part. When efforts to clear this cloud on the title took longer than expected, Ms. Rhoden asked, and was granted, permission by the seller's agent to commence construction on the improvements on the property notwithstanding the fact that she knew that a cloud remained on the title to the lot, and the transaction had not been closed. Construction was not completed on the improvements because Ms. Rhoden ran out of cash during the course of construction. She moved into the dwelling while it was still in a partially completed condition and, on September 8, 1979, with the permission of the seller's agent, received a loan of $3,000 from the $3,500 deposit she had placed with Respondent, Ms. Rhoden executed a promissory note dated September 8, 1979, in which she agreed to repay the $3,000 loan when clear title to the property was issued. Ms. Rhoden used the proceeds of this loan to make additional improvements on the property. On October 26, 1979, Respondent received both the warranty deed dated June 7, 1979, and the title binder issued on that date from the attorney for the seller. When approached by Ms. Rhoden, Respondent agreed to lend her the deed and title binder to attempt to obtain additional financing to complete construction on her home. The clear inference from the record in this proceeding is that there was never any understanding between Respondent and Ms. Rhoden that this deed could be recorded at this or any other juncture in this transaction. In fact, the contract entered into between the buyer and seller clearly called for the payment of the full purchase price of the property at closing, and the note subsequently executed by Ms. Rhoden conditioned the issuance of a warranty deed to her on the payment of the $3,000 face value of the note. Ms. Rhoden was unsuccessful in obtaining additional financing to complete construction on her home, probably due to the fact that when she sought that financing the outstanding mortgage on the property had still not been satisfied. When Respondent advised the seller's attorney that he had loaned the warranty deed to Ms. Rhoden for the purposes outlined above, he was advised that there was nothing to keep Ms. Rhoden from recording the deed, at which point Respondent apparently determined that it would be prudent for him to retrieve the deed from Ms. Rhoden's possession. Ms. Rhoden had her mother return the deed to Respondent in February of 1980. According to the testimony of both Ms. Rhoden and her mother, they felt the purpose for the returning of the deed was to have it recorded. Respondent denies any such understanding. In resolving this conflict in testimony, the clear inference from the circumstances involved in this transaction, including the wording of the contract of sale and the note executed by Ms. Rhoden, supports a finding that all of the parties to this transaction either knew, or should have known, that the recording of the deed at this juncture in the transaction would have been improper. Although the outstanding mortgage had been satisfied in January of 1980, Ms. Rhoden had not Performed her obligation under the contract of sale by paying the full purchase price. When Respondent had recovered the deed from Ms. Rhoden, he was advised by the attorney for the seller not to record the deed until he had received payment from Ms. Rhoden in accordance with the contract and the promissory note. As indicated above, the outstanding mortgage on the property was satisfied in January of 1980. On February 6, 1980, Respondent Prepared a closing statement reflecting the purchase price of the property as $3,500. From this amount he deducted a total of $478 for state documentary stamps, title insurance, Preparing the deed, and amount of real estate commission leaving a the apparently forwarded the note from Ms. Rhoden for $3,000, together with the $22.00 cash balance remaining from her initial $3,500 deposit to the seller along with the deed which the seller had earlier executed. Ms. Rhoden apparently never made or tendered payment of the $3,000 note, the transaction never closed, and at the time of final hearing in this cause an eviction action was apparently pending between the seller and Ms. Rhoden. Paragraph seven of the contract of sale executed between the seller and Ms. Rhoden Provides as follows: If Buyer fails to perform this contract, the deposit this day paid by Buyer as aforesaid shall be retained by or for the account of Seller as consideration for the execution of this agreement and in full settlement of any claims for damages.
Findings Of Fact On October 3, 1975, Respondent filed an application with Petitioner for registration as a real estate broker (Stipulation, Petitioner's Exhibit 2). That said application contained therein Question 8 which is set forth in paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint and to which Respondent answered "No." (Stipulation, Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) That thereafter the application was approved and the Respondent subsequently received his registration as a real estate broker and has been continuously registered the Petitioner as a broker since December 22, 1975 (Stipulation.) That at the time of the execution of the application, as aforesaid, Respondent'S answer to Question 8 was incorrect in that he failed to reveal, disclose and fully explain a Complaint filed against him on August 6, 1973, in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for Pinellas County, by one Kenneth Beard, an individual, which complaint alleges false representations on the part of the Respondent in a business transaction. A judgment of the aforesaid Circuit Court in the above-mentioned action was in the process of appeal at the time Respondent filed his application for registration as a real estate broker (stipulation.) Respondent testified at the hearing substantially as follows: After the civil action had been filed against him, he sought the advice of counsel who informed him that the complaint therein was defective as a matter of law. He was therefore of the opinion that there was not a viable suit against him at the time he filled out his application, and thus was not attempting to mislead or hide any facts from the Petitioner. He also felt that, since he had not, in fact, committed any fraud or misrepresented any matters to the purchaser of the business in question, a negative answer on the question in the application was justified. However, upon reflection at the hearing, he conceded that, probably he had misread the question and misconstrued its meaning. Respondent's good reputation for truth and veracity in the community and in his business dealings was attested to by past officials of the Clearwater, Largo, Dunedin Board of Realtors (Testimony of Merhige, Blanton).
Recommendation That the Complaint against Respondent, William D. Folz, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick W. Jones Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Richard B. Moritz, Esquire 801 West Bay Drive Suite 704 Largo, Florida 33540
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's registration as a real estate salesperson, without prejudice to the filing of a proper application. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 s. Grace Fararo Mazon Rt. 1, Box 40 R-5 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Ms. Grace F. Mazon c/o Marguerite L. Rhea 816 North West 13th Street Gainesville, Florida 32601
