The Issue The issue in this cause is whether the Respondent's real estate license should be suspended, permanently revoked, or otherwise disciplined based upon alleged violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Since 1977, the Respondent has been a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0167049. The last license issued to the Respondent was as a salesperson for Tony Bucci Realty, Inc., 2216 East Olive Road, #108, Pensacola, Florida 32514. On November 2, 1983, a criminal information was filed in the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Florida, charging the Respondent as follows: Between February 1978 and May 1978, at and in Escambia County, Florida and Orange County, Florida: did unlawfully agree, conspire, combine, or confederate with another person or persons, to wit: Kenneth Massoud, to commit a criminal offense, to wit: counterfeiting of United States Currency. The charge constituted a criminal violation of Section 831.18, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 777.04(3), Florida Statutes, (conspiracy). At the time, counterfeiting was a felony and conspiracy to counterfeit was a misdemeanor. On January 12, 1984, the Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charge of conspiracy to commit counterfeiting, a violation of Section 777.04(3), Florida Statutes, a first degree misdemeanor, and was adjudged guilty and sentenced to six months in the county jail. The Respondent denied that he was guilty of the charges contained in the information or the charge to which he pled. On or about June 28, 1985, the Florida Bar filed a complaint against the Respondent seeking to disbar him for his conduct in the counterfeiting case. Additionally, the Respondent was charged with trust account irregularities related to his practice of law. The Respondent was found to have violated disciplinary rules relating to trust accounting procedures, the accounting of clients' interest shortages. Likewise, he was guilty of the charge of conspiracy to counterfeit. The Supreme Court of Florida found that the referee's findings of fact and recommendations of guilt were amply supported. Based on these findings, on October 2, 1996, the Respondent was disbarred from the practice of law in Florida. However, the Respondent testified that he is eligible to apply for re On June 13, 1990, an information was filed charging the Respondent with one count of possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis, in violation of Subsection 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes, a third degree felony, and one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, deliver or manufacture, in violation of Subsection 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes, punishable as a third degree felony. On October 2, 1990, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance without a prescription and possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell or deliver. The court withheld adjudication and placed the Respondent on supervised probation for two years. At no time material hereto did the Respondent notify the Florida Real Estate Commission in writing of having entered a nolo contendere plea to a felony or to a misdemeanor. Respondent did not notify the Commission because he misunderstood his obligation to do so since he had not pled guilty nor been convicted of a felony. To his credit, he has not been subject to discipline or sanction by the Florida Real Estate Commission since his initial licensure. Finally, it is likely that the loss of his real estate sales license will leave Respondent in a more destitute position than his already extremely low income status renders him since Respondent's main income is from his employment as a licensed real estate salesperson.
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 finding the Respondent: Guilty of having been convicted or found guilty, regardless of adjudication, of a crime which directly relates to the activities of a licensed real estate salesperson or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count I; Guilty of a course of conduct or practices which shows that the Respondent is so incompetent, negligent, dishonest, or untruthful that the money, property, transactions, and rights of investors, or those with whom he may sustain a confidential relation, may not safely be entrusted to him, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(o), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count II; Guilty of not having informed the Florida Real Estate Commission in writing within thirty (30) days of having pled guilty or having been convicted of a felony and, therefore, is in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count III; and Guilty of having had another state agency suspend the license or registration of, or impose a penalty against it, as set forth in Subsection 475.455(2), Florida Statutes, and, therefore, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count IV. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Final Order should further order all of the Respondent's real estate licenses, registration, certificates, and permits be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER 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 21st day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3843 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The facts contained in paragraphs numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 11 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 4, 6, 7, 10 and 12 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 9 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted, except for the last sentence, which is rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esq. Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Eric Eggen, Esq. Suite 347, Blount Building 3 West Garden Street Pensacola, FL 32501 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Brian H. Morgenstern, holds and at all times material hereto held, Florida Real Estate Salesman's License No. 0320190. From February 4, 1983 to December 2, 1983, Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesman in the employ of E & I Realty, Inc. Mr. Ira Messinger was the qualifying broker for E & I Realty, Inc. On July 12, 1983, Respondent, purporting to act on behalf of E & I Realty, Inc., solicited and obtained a two-year lease agreement between Craig Brass, lessor, and James Joss, lessee, for condominium unit No. 705, Towers of Oceanview, 400 Leslie Drive, Hallandale, Florida. Pursuant to the express terms of the lease agreement, the lessee agreed to pay a monthly rental of $450.00 for the first year, and a monthly rental of $475.00 for the second year. In consideration for securing the lease agreement, Dr. Brass agreed to pay a broker's fee of $925.00, representing one month's rent for the first and second year of the term. Respondent delivered an E & I Realty receipt to Dr. Brass evidencing the receipt of the first month's rent, the last month's rent, and a security deposit, for a total sum of $1,375.00. From this $1,375.00 the receipt evidenced a deduction of $925.00 as a broker's fee, and delivery of the balance of $450.00 to Dr. Brass. There is disagreement between the parties whether the Respondent actually received $1,375.00 from Mr. Joss. Respondent insists that Mr. Joss, an acquaintance, could only raise $450.00 so be and Mr. Messinger "agreed" to forego receipt of the broker's fee of $925.00 and, in effect, loan such sum to Mr. Joss. There is, however, no promissory note or other memoranda to commemorate such an agreement. Mr. Messinger insists that his office made no such agreement, that he had no knowledge of the transaction, and that no monies were ever received by his office. Dr. Brass testified to a conversation on a speaker phone between Mr. Joss and the Respondent wherein the Respondent admitted receiving the funds. Further, Kenneth Rehm, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, personally interviewed Respondent and the Respondent admitted he had collected the full $1,375.00 and that be had retained $925.00 as a broker's fee. Respondent further insists that his version of the incident is given credence by the commission structure he had with Mr. Messinger. Under their agreement, Respondent was to receive 90 percent of any commission earned on business he produced. Therefore, Respondent argues, it would be "foolish" for him to risk his license for $92.50 (10 percent of the $925.00 commission). While Respondent's argument appears at first blush to have merit, the value of money is relative. On February 23, 1984, Respondent entered into a written agreement with Dr. Brass to pay him $350.00 within 17 days in consideration of which Dr. Brass would not file any complaints with anyone, including the Department of Professional Regulation. Respondent did not have the funds necessary to pay Dr. Brass, and in point of fact has never paid Dr. Brass. If Respondent did not have $350.00 to circumvent these proceedings, then $92.00 may well have been of import to him. The clear and consistent testimony of Dr. Brass, Ira Messinger, and Kenneth Rehm, Respondent's conflicting statements and testimony together with his demeanor, render Respondent's testimony inherently improbable and unworthy of belief. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer finds that the Respondent did in fact receive $1,375.00 from Mr. Joss, that he delivered $450.00 to Dr. Brass, and retained $925.00 for his own use and benefit without the knowledge or consent of his registered broker.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: Phillip S. Wong is a convicted felon. On December 6, 1982, after entering a plea of guilty, he was adjudicated guilty of one count of each of the following crimes: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill, in violation of Section 784.021(1)(a), Florida Statutes; false imprisonment, in violation of Section 787.02, Florida Statutes; burglary of a dwelling during which an assault was made, in violation of Section 810.02, Florida Statutes; conspiracy to commit a felony, to wit: trafficking in cocaine, in violation of Sections 777.04 and 893.135, Florida Statutes; trafficking in cocaine, in violation of Section 893.135, Florida Statutes; and possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statues. For these offenses, all of which were committed in August of 1982, Wong received five 1/ separate three-year sentences of imprisonment that ran concurrently with one another. As a prisoner, Wong's conduct was exemplary. Accordingly, in May, 1984, he was placed in a work release program. He completed serving his sentence in September, 1985. Since his return to the community, Wong has married and become a father. To help support his family, he works as a chef in a French restaurant, a position he has held for the past four and a half years. Wong is now a dedicated family man concerned about the welfare of his wife and their two and a half year old child. This concern has prompted him to seek a career in real estate so that he will be better able to provide for his family.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure to practice as a real estate salesman, without prejudice to Petitioner filing a subsequent application when he is able to show that his rehabilitation is sufficiently complete to entitle him to such licensure. See Karl v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 229 So.2d 610, 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)(Commission may not preclude an applicant whose application has been denied because of a prior felony conviction from reapplying for licensure and showing subsequent rehabilitation). DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 1989.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of obtaining his real estate salesperson's license by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Seeking to become a licensed real estate salesperson, Respondent submitted to Petitioner an application on December 16, 1996. One of the questions on the application form asks: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? . . . [Bold] If you answered "Yes," attach the details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. [End Bold] Respondent checked "yes," but failed to attach the details or otherwise describe them on the form. As alleged, Respondent pleaded no contest to driving under the influence in July 1991, and he was adjudicated guilty. He was placed on supervised probation for one year and lost his driving privileges for six months. As alleged, Respondent pleaded no contest to the traffic misdemeanor of reckless driving and misdemeanor possession of under 20 grams of marijuana in June 1995. He was adjudicated guilty of reckless driving, and adjudication was withheld as to possession of marijuana. He was fined $630 and court costs for reckless driving. In completing the application, Respondent realized that he would have to supply the details of the criminal offenses, of which he admitted when he checked the "yes" box. However, he set aside the application for a week or two, and, when he picked it up again to finish, he forgot about the need to attach a supplement. He thus sent it in incomplete and with a personal attestation that it was complete. Despite the obvious omission from the application, Petitioner issued Respondent a real estate salesperson's license without requesting further information concerning the criminal offenses. Respondent took the licensing examination on February 17, 1997. Passing the examination, he received his license shortly after it was issued on March 24, 1997. The next contact between the parties was when Respondent received a letter, dated February 25, 1998, from Petitioner noting that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement had informed Petitioner of an arrest for the latter criminal offenses. The letter states: "To clear any ambiguity regarding your 'YES' response to the relevant application question, we request additional information." The letter also requests an explanation regarding Respondent's failure to disclose this information on his application form. The letter concludes that Respondent's application would be held in abeyance until receipt of the requested information. By letter dated March 9, 1998, Respondent explained the circumstances surrounding the latter offenses, saying that he had not disclosed the information on the original application due to embarrassment. The letter does not mention the earlier criminal offense of driving under the influence. Respondent testified at the hearing that he claimed embarrassment because he did not think that it would sound as good to say that he had forgotten about the need to add the supplement to his application. This testimony is credited. It is impossible to infer an affirmative misrepresentation or attempt to conceal in the initial application. Respondent disclosed a criminal offense, and it was abundantly clear on the face of the short application form that he had failed to describe the disclosure, as requested to do so. Perhaps Petitioner's employees missed the box checked "yes" or, finding it, forgot to follow up on the matter. Clearly, though, Respondent sufficiently disclosed the matter to preclude a finding, on these facts, of any misrepresentation or intent to conceal. Respondent's March 9 response to the February 25 letter is a different matter. Although the February 25 letter focuses its inquiry upon the latter criminal offenses and does not request a comprehensive response to the question of criminal offenses, Respondent could have also mentioned the earlier offense. This would have negated any inference whatsoever of an affirmative misrepresentation or intent to conceal in the application or at this later stage. However, even considering the shortcoming of the February 25 response, the facts still do not support the finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent intentionally concealed the criminal offenses in his application. As to the omission from the February 25 letter as a basis for discipline in itself, the Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with anything arising directly out of the contents of his February 25 letter. Likewise, Petitioner's proposed recommended order does not even mention Respondent's February 25 response.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Ghunise Coaxum, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Warren Keith Babb, pro se 2310 Southwest 53rd Street Cape Coral, Florida 33914 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James Kimbler, Acting Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
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 respondent's license as a real estate broker should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined because respondent entered a plea of guilty to the offense of unlawful compensation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and was at all times pertinent to this proceeding a licensed real estate broker with the State of Florida, holding license number 0166810. On June 18, 1982, an information was filed in the circuit court charging that between the dates of December 10, 1980 and December 1, 1981, the respondent "did corruptly request, solicit, accept or agree to accept money not authorized by law for past, present, or future performance, to wit: by sending business to Don's Alignment Shop, which said ALBERT RONALD HURLBERT did represent as having been within his official discretion in violation of a public duty or in performance of a public duty, in violation of Section 838.016, Florida Statutes." On July 16, 1982, the respondent appeared before Judge Thomas Oakley and entered a plea of guilty to the offense of unlawful compensation as charged in the information. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and respondent was placed on probation for a period of four years. Respondent was given an early release from probation on August 30, 1984.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter an order finding that the respondent has been convicted or found guilty of a crime which involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing and revoking the respondent's real estate license. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 27th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Albert R. Hurlbert c/o Hurlbert Realty 8117 Lakeland Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Howard Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802
Findings Of Fact Charles E. Richmond applied for registration as a real estate salesman in 1971, filing his application dated December 23, 1971, and received by the agency on December 30, 1971, said application being received as Exhibit 1. In 1974, Richmond applied for registration as a broker-salesman filing an application with the agency, said application being introduced as Exhibit 2. The charges in the Administrative Complaint relate to alleged fraud and concealment in these applications. The basis for the charges contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Complaint was that Richmond's 1974 application apparently indicates a traffic violation received in 1971, which had not been reported in the 1971 application. The Hearing Officer finds that regarding the allegations, there were seven days remaining in 1971 after the preparation of Richmond's application within which time Richmond could have received the ticket referred to in the 1974 application. However, more importantly, the 1974 application indicates on its face some doubt, in the applicant's mind regarding the year in which the ticket was received. Richmond qualified his response in the 1974 registration relative to the date the first ticket was received. The Florida Real Estate Commission has not presented any evidence to factually resolve the question. The Hearing Officer finds there is no conflict between the 1971 and 1974 application, no proof of any evasion regarding the tickets, and certainly no proof of the actual failure to reveal a traffic offense on the 1971 application. Paragraphs 8(a) and 9 charge that in 1974 Richmond concealed the fact of his arrest and plea to contributing to the delinquency of a minor in 1972. The Florida Real Estate Commission alleges that said concealment shows that Richmond lacks the necessary qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness and good character required by Section 475.17(1), Florida Statutes, and that Richmond obtained both his registrations as a salesman and as a broker-salesman by means of fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment in violation of Subsection 475.25(2), Florida Statutes. Regarding the contention that Richmond received his 1971 registration a salesman by fraud and misrepresentation, there is no evidence that Richmond falsified any portion of his 1971 application. The arrest and plea to contributing to the delinquency of a minor did not occur until 1972, and the question of the traffic violation was dealt with above. Concerning concealment on the 1974 application, the Florida Real Estate Commission introduced Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 which show Richmond's registration as a salesman and broker-salesman and his arrest and plea to an offense against the laws of Florida. Richmond testified that his arrest had been upon the complaint of a co-worker of his when he attempted to assist the co-worker's daughter, who had graduated from high school and who was working full time, move our of her parents' home into an apartment. Richmond stated that he had felt he was not guilty of any wrong doing but had entered a plea on the advise of Counsel and upon his representation that this would not become a matter of record. Richmond stated he knew that he had been arrested and had pled guilty to the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, but felt that to report this on his application would record an incident which he felt was not of record. Richmond further indicated that he felt this was damaging to his reputation in the community, which apparently from the testimony of his employer, Earlene Cooper Usry, was good. Richmond stated his concern specifically with regard to the effect knowledge of this incident would have on his activity as president of the local Little League, with which he had been associated approximately seven years.
Recommendation Wherefore, the Hearing Officer recommends that Richmond's registration as a broker-salesman be revoked with the observation that Richmond, although he did conceal information, did so for understandable reasons, and that some consideration should be given to allowing Richmond to be reinstated after a period of six months. Further, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken regarding Richmond's salesman's license, the Florida Real Estate Commission having failed to allege any statutory basis for revocation or suspension thereof. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of December, 1975. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Doherty, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Richard A. Langford, Esquire Post Office Box 868 Bartow, Florida 33830
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent was the holder of Florida real estate license number 0201688. The last license issued was as a nonactive broker with a home address of 2281 Euclid Avenues Fort Myers, Florida. On December 10, 1986, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the offense of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud in Case No. 861034CF in the Circuit Court of Lee County, Florida. The crime did not involve any business dealings in which the Respondent was acting as a real estate salesman or broker. The Respondent did not notify the Petitioner in writing of his plea within the thirty-day period because he believed he had entered a plea to a misdemeanor, which was exempt from the reporting requirement of 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes. A letter from his attorney before the plea was entered reflected an intent to enter a plea to a misdemeanor, subject to acceptance by the court. On July 15, 1987, in Case No. 86-1790CF in the Circuit Court of Lee County, Florida, the Respondent entered nolo contendere pleas to uttering a forged instrument in Counts I, III, V, VII, IX, XI, and XIII and grand theft in Counts II, VI, VIII, X, XII, and XIV. These charges involved personal business affairs and did not involve misconduct by the Respondent as a real estate salesman or broker. The Respondent notified the Florida Real Estate Commission of his adjudication of guilt for the grand thefts and the utterings of forged instruments in Case No. 86-1790CF by letter dated August 7, 1987. There are no specific findings of mitigating or aggravating circumstances as none were presented during the hearing of this case.
Findings Of Fact Ciccarelli and Moreau are registrants with the Florida Real Estate Commission (Board of Real Estate), both holding registrations as saleswomen. Ciccarelli and Moreau were the real estate salespersons who handled the transaction for the sale of a residence between Dessie Wilson, the seller, and Carl Dudley, the buyer. Darlene Becker, Wilson's daughter, also owned an interest in the property but was not an actual party to the negotiations between Wilson and Dudley as mediated by Ciccarelli and Moreau. Ciccarelli and Moreau presented to Wilson the contract for sale and purchase containing Dudley's initial offer signed July 13, 1978. A copy of this contract was introduced as Exhibit 7. Wilson made a counter offer by interlineating and initialing certain terms in the contract on July 14, 1978, as indicated by her signature and date on Exhibit 2. Dudley had returned to Fort Myers, Florida, where he was living, and Ciccarelli and Moreau communicated Wilson's counter offer to him by telephone July 18, 1978. Dudley made a counter-counter offer in which he accepted the cash terms proposed by Wilson but included the cement table and benches described in Paragraph 1(c) of the contract in the purchase. The table and benches had been stricken and initialed by Wilson in her offer. Ciccarelli and Moreau annotated the contract to reflect the inclusion of these items in the sale by adding "OK for cement table and benches" to Paragraph 1(c). This contract was not initialed by Dudley before presentation to Wilson because Dudley was in Fort Myers. See Exhibit 9. Ciccarelli and Moreau presented the contract, Exhibit 9, to Wilson, who accepted the terms orally. Ciccarelli and Moreau then sent the contract to Dudley by the letter dated July 18, 1978, Exhibit 4. This letter advised Dudley to initial the contract's changes to include the cement table and benches. Dudley did so and returned the contract to Ciccarelli and Moreau, who then presented the contract to Wilson's daughter, Darlene Becker. Becker executed the contract, Exhibit 9, after it was returned. The transaction closed afterward, and a conveyance of the property and payment were exchanged. The closing was attended by Dudley and Wilson, and no objection to the terms of the contract was raised by either party. After closing a controversy arose between Wilson and Dudley concerning the transfer of the cement table and benches. Wilson returned to Dudley the table and benches which she had removed. Paragraph X of the general provisions of the contract provides that the buyer may request personal property be conveyed by absolute bill of sale.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the licenses of Ciccarelli and Moreau. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 1001, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harvey R. Klein, Esquire 333 North West Third Avenue Ocala, Florida 32670
The Issue Whether Dorothy M. Azar answered Question 6 on her application incorrectly with the intent to obtain her license by fraud, misrepresentation or concealment.
Findings Of Fact Dorothy M. Azar is a registered real estate saleswoman holding License No. 0164341 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Azar applied for licensure initially on June 7, 1976. See Exhibit 1, pages 1 and 2. Azar subsequently reapplied on August 24, 1976. This application was stamped received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on August 27, 1976. Azar was arrested on June 9, 1976 pursuant to the Information filed by Robert Eagan, State Attorney, Ninth Judicial Circuit, State of Florida, which charged Azar with a violation of Florida Statute 812.021 and alleged that she took, sold or carried away property; to wit: clothing, the property of Robert Kleinmann as custodian and of a value of more than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) with the intent to permanently deprive Kleinmann of the clothing. This criminal information was received as Exhibit 2. When Azar completed her second application on August 25, 1976, no action had been taken on the criminal charges pending against her. On or about this date, according to her testimony, she went from Lehigh Acres, Florida, to the Florida Real Estate Commission Offices in Winter Park, Florida, to review the examination which she had taken and failed in July. While there, she filled out her second application, pages 3 and 4 of Exhibit 1. According to her testimony, Azar was very rushed because her review appointment was for only one hour and she had arrived late. She stated that prior to her review she was given an application to fill out and that she did not even read the questions but copied her answers from her first application. She further testified that she had at first copied her old address in Orlando on the second application, correcting it to her new address in Lehigh Acres in the margin of the application. See page 3, Exhibit 1. On September 8, 1976, the Florida Real Estate Commission made a check of any arrests of Azar as indicated by the annotation on the second application under Question 6. On November 30, 1976, Azar entered a plea of no contest to the charge of attempted grand larceny and adjudication was withheld. See the Court Minutes, Exhibit 3, and the testimony of Azar. On November 15, 1976, the Florida Real Estate Commission issued Azar her license as a registered real estate saleswoman. The answers to Questions 4 and 5 on the second application filed by Azar differ slightly from the answers given to those questions on her first application. Although Azar testified that she did not read the questions on the second application but recopied her answers from her first application, the fact that the entries on the second application to Questions 4 and 5 differ from those on the first application indicates that Azar at least read the two questions preceding Question 6. This fact and the content of Question 6 lead to the conclusion that Azar did read Question 6. Further, an arrest on a charge of Grand Larceny within the preceding ninety days would be sufficiently memorable for Azar to recall when prompted by reading Question 6. Having determined, that Azar did in fact read Question 6 and would have remembered her arrest, one must conclude that Azar knowingly did not correctly answer Question 6 and therefore intended to conceal her arrest.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer, based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission revoke the registration of Dorothy N. Azar as a registered real estate salesman with leave for Azar to immediately refile her application. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of August, 1977, 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: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 E. G. Couse, Esquire 2069 First Street, Suite 202 Post Office Drawer 1686 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
