Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the law of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Respondent Gustavo Mejido is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0059653 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued said Respondent as a broker was for the address of the offices of G.M. Realty, Inc. Respondent, G.M. Realty, Inc., is now and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0208962 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was at the address of 715 S.W. 73rd Avenue, Miami, Florida. Respondent Gustavo Mejido was at all times pertinent hereto the qualifying broker for Respondent G.M. Realty, Inc. On August 30, 1990, Hector Sehwerert, an investigator employed by Petitioner, conducted an office inspection and audit of the office account and of the escrow/trust account maintained by Respondents. The audit reflected that there was a shortage in the escrow/trust account in the amount of $1,006.68. Respondents' sales escrow/trust liability was $88,220.00 while the balance of the escrow/trust account was $87,213.32. Respondents were unable to immediately explain the cause of the shortage, but on the same day the shortage was detected, Respondent Mejido caused the shortage in the escrow/trust account to be corrected. He caused the sum of $1,006.68 to be transferred from Respondent G.M. Realty's operating account to its escrow/trust account. The undisputed testimony at the formal hearing was that the discrepancy was caused by a clerical mistake. Respondents failed to reconcile its escrow/trust account for the month of July 1990, and for subsequent months as required by the rules of the Florida Real Estate Commission. While Respondents had utilized its own system of reconciling its books for 14 years without having any other difficulty, this system was defective because the reconciliation did not include a determination of the total amount of escrow liability. Respondents have agreed to use the reconciliation method recommended by the Petitioner in the future. The licenses of Respondents have not been previously disciplined.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which finds that Respondents have violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(e) and (k), Florida Statutes, and which issues a letter of reprimand to said Respondents for such violations. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of May, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 16th day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Florida Department of Professional Regulation Real Estate - Legal Section Hurston Building - North Tower Suite N-308 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Armando E. Lacasa, Esquire 3191 Coral Way Third Floor Miami, Florida 33145 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-0376 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-6a. are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6b. are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached or as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 7 are rejected as being contrary to the finding that the month audited was July 1990, not August 1990. The remaining proposed findings are rejected as being the recitation of testimony or as being subordinate to the findings made. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. 1. The proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondents are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to facts set forth in paragraphs 1-8, below. Stipulated Facts The Petitioner is the Division of Real Estate of the Department of Professional Regulation. As such, Petitioner acts as the licensing and regulatory agency for real estate broker licensees. The Respondent is Harriet M. Arndt, holder, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, of license number 0002216 issued by Petitioner. Her address of record is One South Ocean Boulevard, Suite 322, Boca Raton, Florida 33431. On January 28, 1987, Respondent received in trust an earnest money deposit in the amount of $39,000 from a buyer for a piece of property listed with another realtor, Merrill Lynch Realty, Inc. At closing of the sales transaction on February 25, 1987, Respondent delivered a check drawn on her trust account in the amount of $15,600 and made payable to Merrill Lynch Realty, Inc. This payment represented payment of one half of the $31,200 real estate brokerage commission. The check was subsequently returned to Merrill Lynch Realty, Inc. due to "non-sufficient funds." On March 27, 1987, Respondent delivered a cashier's check in the amount of $15,600 to Merrill Lynch Realty, Inc., to replace the February 25, 1987, check. The Respondent's real estate brokerage trust account was overdrawn from January 8, 1987 through March 4, 1987, by amounts ranging from $12,991.39 to $14,306.53 on various days during that period. The Respondent failed to maintain the $39,500 earnest money deposit in her trust account from February 2, 1987 until February 25, 1987, because the trust account's daily balance was less than that amount during that period. The Respondent subsequently failed to maintain the $15,660 due to Merrill Lynch Realty Inc., in the trust account from February 25, 1987, through March 25, 1987, because the trust account's daily balance was less than $15,600. From March 19, 1987, through October 29, 1987, Petitioner's investigator requested Respondent to produce for inspection and copying those books and papers relating to Respondent's trust account which are maintained in connection with Respondent's real estate activities. The Respondent failed to make the requested trust account books and records available at any time. Other Facts The Respondent offered mitigating testimony establishing that she was initially licensed in 1978 and has never been censured by Petitioner for any professional violations. She is 57 years of age and her real estate license is her sole source of support. Further, Respondent has borrowed money from her children to make up the deficit in her trust account. The testimony of Respondent also established that she was introduced to a gentleman named Robert H. Lajoie by another realtor in December of 1986. Subsequently, on or about December 8, 1986, Respondent entered into a nefarious arrangement with Lajoie. Under terms of the arrangement, Lajoie gave Respondent a check for $25,500 as a deposit to purchase a property listed with Respondent. In turn, Respondent gave Lajoie back a cash deposit of $10,000 from her trust fund in connection with a contract between the two of them whereby Respondent was to purchase a property of Lajoie's. The closing of the sale of Lajoie's property to Respondent would not take place until May, 1987. Lajoie returned to his native Canada shortly after receiving the $10,000 cash payment from Respondent and died. Shortly thereafter, payment on Lajoie's $25,500 check to Respondent was stopped. The Respondent is not sure whether this action was taken by Lajoie prior to his death or by his estate subsequent to that event. It is Respondent's contention that the loss of the $10,000 cash deposit to Lajoie resulted in a negative net balance in her trust account and eventually all of her financial difficulties in this case. The Respondent was sent an overdraft notice by her bank on January 8, 1987, stating that her trust account was overdrawn by $13,500 and that a check for $25,500 had been returned. Subsequent overdraft notices dated January 13, 1987 and January 21, 1987, were received by Respondent noting the rejection of two of Respondent's checks; one in the amount of $294.90 and the other in the amount of $34.35. The notice of January 13, 1987, indicated a hold on the account in the amount of $2,862.94 against the account's balance of $3,006.19. The January 21, 1987, notice continued this hold on the account's balance of $2,891.45. The Respondent related a series of personal matters at hearing that had prevented her from keeping appointments with Petitioner's investigators to inspect her records. She agreed to make access to those records immediately available.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the offenses charged in the administrative complaint, imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 and suspending her license for a period of six months. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 22nd day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1472 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2. Included in finding 1. 3-8. Included in findings 3-8 respectively. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1. Included in finding 2. 2-5. Included finding 10. Included in finding 3. Included in finding 4, 5, and 10. Included in finding 8 and 12. 9-10. Rejected. 11. Included in finding 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert E. Gordon, Esquire 2601 Tenth Avenue North Suite 314 Lake Worth, Florida 33461-3197 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller, Acting Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Is Respondent, Peter H. Myers, guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent Myers is a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number BK-0646846. Ocean Village Sales & Rentals, Inc. (Ocean Village) is a real estate broker corporation and Respondent is the qualifying broker for said corporation. Background Petitioner and Respondent were involved in earlier disciplinary cases in 1998 and 1999. On or about December 7, 1999, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a Stipulation which resolved DBPR Case Nos. 98-81236 and 99-80423. The Stipulation placed Respondent on probation for a period of one year from the effective date of the Final Order of the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC), which adopted the stipulation and was issued on or about January 19, 2000. The Stipulation read in pertinent part as follows: Respondent agrees not to hold or maintain any escrow, trust or real estate related escrow or trust funds for the one(1) year probationary period. Respondent is permitted to be a signatory on the operating and payroll accounts for his brokerage firm only. Respondent shall place all escrow, trust or real estate related funds with a title company, attorney, or other proper depository as permitted under Chapter 475, Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code r. 61J2. Respondent further agrees not to be a signatory on any escrow, trust or real estate related account with the exception of the operating and payroll accounts for his brokerage firm for the one (1) year probationary period. In compliance with the terms of the stipulation, Respondent placed his escrow account with Joseph Roth, a certified public accountant and licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida. In the Stipulation, Respondent admitted to, among other things, failure to prepare the required written monthly escrow statement reconciliations in violation of Rule 61J2-14.012(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, and, therefore, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Escrow accounts audit Gail Hand is an Investigation Specialist II with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (the department). She has approximately 16 years of regulatory and investigative experience with the department. When she started working with the department, she conducted from 20 to 30 trust account audits per month. She routinely conducts audits and inspections of the records of real estate brokers. When reviewing escrow accounts, Ms. Hand's review of escrow accounts has two components. First, she reviews the bank statement reconciliations which compares the statement balance to the checkbook balance. Next she reviews a comparison of the bank statement reconciliations with the broker's total trust liability. The broker's total trust liability is the total of all the money that the broker is holding in his trust or escrow account. On or about January 26, 2001, Ms. Hand conducted an office inspection and escrow account audit of Respondent's business, Ocean Village. Respondent and his daughter were present. During this inspection and audit, Ms. Hand requested to inspect financial documents of the company. Respondent and his daughter provided all documents requested and were very cooperative during the course of the audit. Ms. Hand inspected the November and December 2000 bank reconciliation statements from the escrow trust account of Ocean Village and determined that they were properly prepared. However, Ms. Hand determined that the determination of the broker's trust liability was not properly prepared in that she could not identify the broker's total trust liability from a review of the documents provided by Respondent. The calculations in Respondent's financial records included broker's money, bank fees, and negative owner balances. According to Ms. Hand, the reconciled checkbook to bank statement balance should be compared to a balance that does not include broker's money, bank fees or negative owner balances. Because of this, she could not identify the total broker's trust liability. She normally does not have trouble identifying a broker's total trust liability when conducting an audit. During the audit, Respondent could not identify the total broker's trust liability. Respondent deferred to his accountant, Mr. Roth. Ms. Hand did not discuss the financial documents which she reviewed as part of the audit with Mr. Roth because, "Mr. Myers was responsible." License renewal Respondent's renewal fees for his corporate registration and his individual broker's license became due in March 1999. Respondent renewed his corporate registration in March 1999 but failed to renew his individual broker's license. Respondent did not renew his individual broker's license until February 2001. At that time, he paid for the time period in which he was in arrears and for another 24 months in the future, as well as a late fee or penalty. Respondent continued to conduct real estate transactions during the period of time that his individual broker's license was in involuntary inactive status.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, the evidence of record and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding the Respondent, Peter H. Myers, guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(e) and (o), and 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $2,500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 4th day of September, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaints are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact R. Granger Bruner is and at all material times has been licensed as a real estate broker, Florida license number 0010871. CASE NO. 90-2462 On or about September 9, 1989, Mr. Bruner obtained a contract from Alabama resident Earl W. Reed in which Mr. Reed offered to purchase certain property from owner Gary Salter. 1/ Mr. Reed, by his check, deposited with Mr. Bruner the sum of $1,000, as an earnest money deposit in connection with Mr. Reed's offer to purchase Mr. Salter's property. Mr. Bruner erroneously deposited Mr. Reed's earnest money deposit check into the Granger Bruner Realty operating account at People's National Bank of Niceville. Mr. Bruner's escrow account, where the earnest money deposit should have been held, was at the local Barnett Bank in the name of Granger Bruner Realty Trust Account. On or about September 14, 1989, the listing agent for Mr. Salter contacted Mr. Bruner's office and informed Mr. Bruner that Mr. Salter had withdrawn the property from the market. By letter dated September 21, 1989, Mr. Bruner notified Mr. Reed that the property had been withdrawn from the market and that the earnest money deposit was being returned. Enclosed with the letter was People's National Bank of Niceville check #509 drawn on the operating account of Granger Bruner Realty in the amount of $1,000 payable to Earl Reed. The letter and check were mailed to Mr. Reed at his address in Alabama. Mr. Reed apparently did not receive the letter or check, and became concerned about the return of his deposit money. The administrative complaint alleges that Mr. Reed continued to demand return of the deposit. Although the Department introduced a copy of Mr. Reed's complaint, Mr. Reed did not testify. The evidence does not establish that Mr. Reed made repeated demands on Mr. Bruner for return of the deposit. The complaint further alleges, but the evidence does not establish, that the September 21, 1989 check was not mailed until September 28, 1989. On September 30, 1989, Mr. Reed met in Crestview with Mr. Bruner and demanded the return of his earnest money deposit. Mr. Bruner issued check #2924 in the amount of $1,000 from Mr. Bruner's wife's personal account payable to Earl Reed. Mr. Bruner subsequently had a stop-payment order issued against the first check to Mr. Reed. CASE NO. 90-2463 Prior to October 6, 1989, Elaine Brantley, an auditor/investigator for the Department contacted Mr. Bruner and made an appointment to perform a routine audit on Mr. Bruner's accounts. Prior to October 6, 1989, Mr. Bruner was aware that his escrow account was short. On that date, Mr. Bruner deposited approximately $1,400 into his escrow account to cover the shortage. The deposit resulted in an overage in the account. Upon Ms. Brantley's arrival, Mr. Bruner informed her that the escrow account was short, that he'd gotten behind in bookkeeping, and that his secretary was depositing additional funds into the escrow account. Ms. Brantley had Mr. Bruner telephone the bookkeeping department at Barnett Bank. With Mr. Bruner's approval, Ms. Brantley asked for and obtained the balance of the escrow account by telephone from a bank employee. 2/ Mr. Bruner then informed Ms. Brantley that escrow account liabilities totaled $1,727.38. Ms. Brantley reviewed the account's check ledger and determined that the escrow account was indeed short. During the audit, Ms. Brantley noted an escrow account check #453 dated 7/25/89 in the amount of $500 made payable to Mr. Bruner. Ms. Brantley stated that Mr. Bruner said that he had disbursed the funds to himself to cover a mortgage payment he made to a third party identified as Ms. Penner. At hearing, Mr. Bruner testified that he had used his escrow account to cash a $400 check for another person, and that check #453 was drafted to recover his personal funds from the account. He stated that the check was written in error and that the transaction was not handled correctly. He admitted that he did not know the balance of the escrow account at the time the check was written. The recorded checkbook balance at the time was $340.19. At the time of the audit, Ms. Brantley also noted check #487 dated 9/26/89 in the amount of $500 to Ms. Penner. The evidence establishes that check #487 was Mr. Bruner's personal mortgage payment to Ms. Penner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order suspending the licensure of R. Granger Bruner for a period of 90 days, and imposing a total fine of $2,000, including $1,000 pursuant to Rule 2IV-24.001(3)(1), Florida Administrative Code, and $1,000 pursuant to Rule 21V-24.001(3)(c) and (f), Florida Administrative Code. It is further recommended that R. Granger Bruner be required to successfully complete a course of education related to management of operating and escrow trust accounts and be required to file escrow account status reports with the Commission at such intervals as the Commission deems appropriate. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-2462 The Petitioner did not file a proposed recommended order. The Respondent filed a "Proposed Order" which sets forth proposed findings of fact. The proposed findings are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: "Proposed Order" Accepted as to failure to prove exact amount of escrow account shortage. Rejected as to whether a shortage existed, contrary to evidence. Rejected. The testimony at hearing that certain deposits were not received is contrary to information provided to auditor and was not credited. Although the testimony related to the escrow account balance was unsupported hearsay, the auditor's testimony related to deposits and liabilities was based upon admissions by the Respondent. See Section 90.803(18), Florida Statutes. Rejected, conclusion of law. Rejected, not supported by weight of evidence. 8-9. Rejected, unnecessary. 10. Rejected, immaterial. 11-12. Rejected, unnecessary. "Finding of Fact" The Respondent also filed a separate statement entitled "Finding of Fact" which includes additional proposed findings of fact. The proposed findings are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Hurston North Tower 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Bart O. Moore, Esquire Moore, Kessler & Moore 102 Bayshore Drive Niceville, Florida 32578 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Hurston North Tower 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Armando Clemente is licensed as a real estate broker, and has held license 315166 at the times pertinent to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Amigo Realty, Inc., was a corporation licensed as a real estate broker, and held license 229372. The Respondents' business address was 2728 Davie Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Clemente was the sole qualifying broker for Amigo Realty, Inc. In 1989, Mr. Clemente solicited and obtained the exclusive right to sell a residence located at 2840 Southwest Eighth Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It was owned by Louise McNally, a widow who had recently obtained the property through foreclosure. The property was located in an undesirable neighborhood, and in need of cleanup and substantial repair and renovation before it could be sold or leased. Ultimately Mr. Clemente agreed with Ms. McNally that Clemente would repair the house and then try to sell it, or buy it himself. Mr. Clemente contacted an old friend of his, Candido Proenza, about the property. Both Mr. Clemente and Mr. Proenza are Cuban. Mr. Proenza agreed to undertake the renovations and repair of the property through his own labor, while Mr. Clemente was to find a buyer for the property. They agreed that Mr. Clemente would initially pay for the materials used in the repair and renovation, and the parties were to split the net profit equally after Mr. Clemente was repaid for materials from the sale proceeds. Mr. Clemente prepared a deposit receipt and contract for the sale and purchase of the property between himself and Mr. Proenza as buyers and Ms. McNally as the seller. The purchase price was $30,000 and the contract shows that a deposit of $500 had been made toward the purchase price and that the closing was to take place as soon as possible. The special clauses contained in the contract state house is being bought "as is" with not [sic] guarantee or insurance for anything in the house or on property. Buyers guarranty [sic] that they will fix the property under safe and living conditions. Seller does not have to pay any additional money to attorneys or real estate office. Buyers will pay 7% commission on $30,000, at closing to Century 21 Amigo Realty, Inc. and if the house is for sale after repairs have been done it has to be listed with Century 21 Amigo Realty, Inc. or its assigns. (Exhibit B). Although the contract shows on its first page that the deposit of $500 was to be held in trust by Century 21 Amigo Realty, Inc., the line on the final page of the contract which is meant to be signed by the broker to acknowledge the receipt of the deposit is not signed. The contract does bear the signature of both Mr. Clemente and Mr. Proenza as buyers and Ms. McNally as the seller. As will be explained more fully below, on January 10, 1990, Mr. Clemente executed a statement on the letterhead of Amigo Realty in his capacity as a real estate broker stating that Amigo Realty had received in its escrow account the sum of $5,000 towards the purchase price of the property, $2,000 having been received on November 6, 1989, and $3,000 received on December 7, 1989. See, Finding 9. None of these statements were true. The repairs were more expensive than anticipated. While the repairs and renovations to the property were being carried out, Mr. Clemente and Mr. Proenza began to have disputes about such matters as the color of the kitchen cabinets, which required repainting them. During the work Mr. Proenza hurt his back, and it was necessary to have work performed by others. The cost of the renovations also was increased by custom work done for a potential buyer who later was unable to qualify to purchase the property. Mr. Clemente had marital difficulties and while the renovation project was going on, Mr. Clemente separated from his wife. With the agreement of Mr. Proenza, Mr. Clemente moved into the partially renovated house. The divorce caused a financial strain on Mr. Clemente, who ultimately was forced to close down his real estate business, Amigo Realty. Mr. Proenza was as eager as Mr. Clemente to obtain his share of the profit from the renovation and Mr. Clemente needed a place to live because of his divorce. They decided that Mr. Clemente would apply for a mortgage and purchase the house himself. Mr. Clemente made application for a mortgage to the Continental Trust Mortgage Company, with which he had done business in the past. In his loan application which was executed on November 22, 1989, Mr. Clemente represented that a cash deposit towards the purchase price was being held by Amigo Realty in the amount of $3,000, not $500. He later signed a statement on January 10, 1990, certifying that Amigo Realty then held $5,000 towards the purchase price, which consisted of $2,000 deposited on November 6, 1989, and $3,000 on December 7, 1989. The inconsistency between this statement and the loan application is not explained in the statement, but neither are correct. There were never any moneys placed in the trust account by Mr. Clemente as a down payment for his purchase of the property. I do not find credible the testimony of Mr. Clemente that he was unable to recall the figure on the mortgage loan application for the amount in the Amigo Realty trust account, and reject Mr. Clemente's contention that the $3,000 figure was one inserted by Gonzalez on the application so that there would be something in the space. I also reject the argument that because Mr. Clemente was under emotional stress arrising out of his divorce during January, he did not understand the significance or appreciate the consequences of the statement he signed on January 10, 1990, that a total of $5,000 was held in the trust account of Amigo Realty towards the purchase of the property. That statement was given to the mortgage company for its use in determining whether to grant the mortgage loan. Mr. Gonzalez may not have testified directly that the representation that $5,000 was on deposit in Amigo Realty was material to the mortgage company in determining whether to grant the mortgage loan to Mr. Clemente. It is obvious that the mortgage company was sufficiently concerned to seek a certification from Amigo Realty about the monies on deposit as a follow- up to the mortgage application which Mr. Clemente submitted on November 22, 1989. It is reasonable to infer from this fact that Mr. Clemente's certification as the broker for Amigo Realty that it held $5,000 on deposit was a material representation made in connection with the loan application Mr. Clemente had made. That representation was made in the course of Mr. Clemente's activities as a broker, and the representation was false. When the sale of the McNally home was closed on February 2, 1990, only Mr. Proenza received title, which he took as trustee. A handwritten trust agreement says that Mr. Proenza will hold title solely for the use of Mr. Clemente, and will convey the property to Clemente when told to do so by Clemente. Exhibit H, page 4. The trust agreement says nothing about payment by Mr. Proenza of any fees, commissions, discount points or other charges for the benefit of Mr. Clemente. Ms. McNally received $28,423.70, which included the $500 which the contract had reflected as a deposit in the Amigo Realty trust account, but which had not been paid. No broker's commission was paid to Amigo or to Clemente and Ms. McNally had no basis for a complaint about the amount she ultimately received when the contract closed. Shortly after the closing of the sale of the house from Ms. McNally to Mr. Proenza, another transaction closed which passed title from Mr. Proenza, as trustee, to Mr. Clemente individually. Mr. Clemente purchased the renovated house for a gross price of $65,000. In this transaction, Amigo Realty received a commission of $3,250 which was deducted from the proceeds payable to Mr. Proenza (Exhibit E, line 703) as was an additional $2,996.42 loan discount fee of 4.5% of the mortgage amount which was paid to Continental Trust Mortgage, (Id., line 802), plus other miscellaneous charges. These charges had the effect of reducing the amount due to Mr. Proenza as seller by $9,802.80, (Id., line 1400) leaving cash due to him of $55,092.92 (Id., line 603). After deducting the $28,423.70 which Proenza had paid to Ms. McNally to acquire title to the property (Exhibit J), the net sales proceeds were $26,669.22. Mr. Proenza then paid Amigo Realty $13,160.58 for the materials Mr. Clemente had purchased for use in the renovations. This left a "profit" of $13,508.64. If the amount were divided equally between Proenza and Clemente each would have received $6,754.32. Mr. Proenza actually paid Clemente $6,348.14, which would appear to be $406.18 less than Clemente was entitled to receive if that amount were divided in two. Mr. Clemente is only "shorted" if one accepts that Amigo Realty was due a 5% commission from Proenza on the sale from Proenza, as trustee, to Mr. Clemente individually, and that Mr. Proenza was responsible for paying the 4.5% loan discount to Mr. Clemente's mortgage lender, Continental Trust Mortgage. The Trust Agreement signed by Mr. Proenza contains no such provisions. The Department has alleged in paragraph 11 of its Administrative Complaint that Proenza believes Clemente took advantage of his labor and that Proenza was short changed, and did not receive a fair share of the profit. Mr. Proenza's has limited fluency in English. He believes that he was entitled to $13,000 not $7,000. Without payments of the $3,250 commission Proenza paid to Amigo Realty and the $2,996.42 loan discount Proenza paid to Continental Mortgage Company for Mr. Clemente's mortgage loan Mr. Proenza would have been left with $6,246.46 more than the $6,160.50 he received, an amount much closer to the $13,000 Proenza believes he should have cleared when the sales of the house from Ms. McNally to him and then from him to Mr. Clemente had closed. Mr. Proenza's testimony that Mr. Clemente asked him to "lend" Amigo Realty money which Mr. Proenza had expected to receive, becomes understandable. Mr. Clemente manipulated the closing documents to charge Mr. Proenza $6,246.42 as (1) a real estate commission and (2) to pay the loan discount points on Mr. Clemente's mortgage, when he had no agreement from Mr. Proenza that Mr. Proenza should do so. The settlement statement which was used for the closing of the transaction from Mr. Proenza to Mr. Clemente is on a U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development form which, at first, is quite difficult to understand. It provided a means by which Mr. Clemente was able to defraud the relatively unsophisticated Mr. Proenza. At the closing of the sale from Proenza to Clemente, Clemente also had to come up with money to replace the $5,000 he had represented to the mortgage company was already in the Amigo Realty escrow account. The title company would not accept Mr. Clemente's personal check, so he wrote a check on the Amigo Realty escrow account for the $1,750 shortage. Mr. Clemente deposited this amount into the Amigo Realty escrow account at a drive through teller window at a Fort Lauderdale bank on his way to the closing, but it was after 2:00 p.m. on Friday and the bank records reflected that the check was not credited to the account until the following Tuesday, February 6th. Mr. Clemente had no basis for drawing check #278 on the escrow account of Amigo Realty for $1,750 when he did so. He knew or should have known that the $1,750 had not actually been credited to the Amigo Realty escrow account. On May 2, 1990, the Amigo Realty escrow/trust account was audited. The audit showed and Mr. Clemente acknowledged that Mr. Clemente had never put the $500 earnest money deposit in his escrow/trust account toward the purchase of the McNally property, he had never put the $5,000 deposit in his escrow account which he had represented to his mortgage lender was on deposit in that account. The statement which he gave to his mortgage lender on January 10, 1990, certifying that there was $5,000 in the Amigo Realty trust account was fraudulent. No other shortages were found in the Amigo Realty escrow/trust account. The Respondents have previously been disciplined and paid a fine of $200 for culpable negligence for breach of trust, pursuant to a stipulation executed in April of 1989. Mr. Clemente contends that that stipulation was a plea of convenience which he entered into because the fine was nominal and would have cost him a great deal more than that amount to clear himself of wrongdoing at a formal hearing. Mr. Clemente is a member in good standing of the Fort Lauderdale Board of Realtors. He has not been the subject of any complaints other than the one which Mr. Proenza has filed with the Department. He no longer works as a broker, but now is a sales associate working under the supervision of broker Mike De Rosa.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that both Armando Clemente and Amigo Realty be found guilty of having violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (d), and (f), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint. It is also recommended that Mr. Clemente be fined $1,500; that his license be suspended for two years. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 27th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: 1. Rejected as unnecessary. 2 - 4. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3, except for the last sentence which is rejected. I cannot understand how a promise to pay 10% interest was involved in this transaction. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Findings 6 and 9. Adopted in Findings 12, 13 and 17. 11a. Adopted in Finding 18. 11b. Adopted in Finding 9. 11c. Adopted in Finding 18. 12. Adopted in Findings 18 and 19. Rulings on findings proposed by the Respondent: Adopted in Finding 1. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings 2 - 4. Adopted in Findings 4 - 6. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 8. 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Rejected, see, Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Findings 13 and 14, but see, Findings 15 - 17. Discussed in Finding 18. Adopted in Finding 19. Adopted in Finding 20. Adopted in Finding 21. Rejected, Mr. Proenza was injured financially. It is by no means clear that the mortgage company was uninjured. The evidence is not convincing that there was more equity in the house, as renovated, than the amount of the loan although that fact is not pivotal here. These facts are evaluated in the assessment of the penalty. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Karen Coolman Amlong, Esquire AMLONG & AMLONG, P.A. 101 Northeast Third Avenue Suite 203 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-6053
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondent's licenses as a real estate broker should be disciplined because of the matters set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations of misconduct in the Administrative Complaint, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, was the state agency charged with the responsibility for the licensing and regulation of the real estate profession in this state. The Respondent, Richard L. Bohner, was licensed as a real estate broker in Florida operating, with his wife, Kirsten, Bohner Real Estate, located at 205 E. Osceola Street in Stuart, Florida. On October 1, 1989, Mr. Bohner as owner/lessor, entered into separate rental agreements with Trudy Dohm and Thelma Reynolds, with Bohner Real Estate identified as agent, for the lease for 12 months each of apartments number 105 and 204, respectively, at 1674 S.E. St. Lucie Blvd. in Stuart, Florida, for a monthly rental of $350.00 each. Each lease provided for the placement of a security deposit and last month's rental in advance; those sums, according to the terms of the lease, to be held by the agent, Bohner Real Estate, in a non- interest bearing escrow account at the Florida National Bank in Stuart. In actuality, the sums above-mentioned were, in each case, deposited into an account at the First National Bank and Trust Company in Stuart. This account, number 8000030400, was held in the name of Richard L. Bohner or Kirsten L. Bohner, Trust account. This account was an interest bearing account and, over the time in question, also received several large deposits of funds by or on behalf of the Respondent, Richard L. Bohner which were his personal funds and not funds received as a part of or in conjunction with his activities as a real estate broker or those of Bohner Real Estate. For the most part, the funds placed in that account were Bohner's personal funds and security deposits and last month's rent on apartments in the building owned as a personal investment by Mr. and Mrs. Bohner. On February 20, 1990, Sharon Thayer, an investigator for the Department, in the normal course of business, went to the Respondent's real estate office, unannounced as was her prerogative, and asked to speak with Mr. Bohner. He was not present at the time and she asked Mrs. Bohner, who was present, to produce the Respondent's books for the brokerage's escrow account, which she did. In the course of their conversation, Mrs. Bohner identified herself as being in partnership with the Respondent and admitted to assisting him in the maintenance of the escrow account. When Ms. Thayer asked for the backup documents for the escrow account, these were produced. Ms. Bohner also provided Ms. Thayer with copies of the bank account she maintained. On inquiry, Mrs. Bohner said the deposits thereon were, in the main, representative of rental and security deposits from tenants on leases which Bohner Real Estate managed. Ms. Thayer asked about the large deposits made on May 3, June 7, and July 7, 1989. These were for $104,542.50, $50,000.00, and $4.600.00 respectively. In response, Mrs. Bohner indicated these were personal monies which came from personal sources and funds which had been put in that account because that's where they would get the most interest. They were not escrow funds related to the real estate brokerage. Ms. Thayer made an appointment to return to the brokerage office on February 23, 1990 to speak with Respondent. When she did so, Mr. Bohner accounted for the trust liability of $6,885.00 which existed on that date. This sum was verified with the bank by phone. The trust account had an overage of somewhat more than $881.00 which Respondent explained as accrued interest not removed from the account. Mr. Bohner admitted at hearing that he earned interest on the security and rental deposits he held in that account and used that earned interest to offset the low rentals he charged his tenants. He asserted, and there was no evidence to rebut this assertion, that the only security and rental deposits placed in that account were from tenants in the apartment building he and his wife owned personally. Neither he nor Bohner Real Estate managed or served as rental agent for any rental properties owned by others. It is so found. Ms. Thayer pointed out, and it is accepted as fact, that a broker is required to reconcile his trust account on a monthly basis and file a monthly reconciliation form which accounts for overages and shortages. Respondent admits he had not completed or filed these reconciliations because neither he nor Bohner Real Estate has a trust or escrow account into which client funds are deposited. He manages no property from which rents would be collected other than his own, and when he takes a deposit on a sale or transfer, a separate trust account is opened for that particular transaction with any interest earned going to the buyer. Petitioner showed, through the testimony of Ms. Casale, the bank records custodian, that the largest deposit in issue, that one in excess of $100,000.00, was the result of the maturity of a certificate of deposit that was transferred to the account in question. Respondent did not endorse the check for deposit or sign any deposit document. He submitted a letter from the bank chairman to support his thesis that he was not a party to the transfer, but the letter, admitted over objection by counsel for Petitioner, indicates the deposit was made by the bank's investment counselor who handled the transaction consistent with telephone instructions given her by the Respondent. This is a collateral matter, however. When Ms. Thayer completed her audit, she prepared and filed a report on which she indicated, inter alia, that the office met inspection standards and that the property management escrow/trust account was satisfactory. She noted an overage of $889.31 in the account and that it was an interest bearing account although the leases state it would be non-interest bearing. No deadline was given for the correction of this item. Mrs. Bohner admits that when she gave the apartment security escrow account to Ms. Thayer at her request and described it as a trust account, she was not thinking. In fact, and it is so found, neither Respondent nor Bohner Real Estate have a trust account for the business and have not had one for several years. She reiterates Mr. Bohner's assertion that the only money usually kept in the account referenced by Ms. Casale and referred to by Ms. Thayer, is money received as security deposits and last month's rental from tenants in their own building. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case dismissing all allegations of misconduct by Respondents as outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 1st day of April, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 1st day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein,. Balance is not Finding of Fact but lore legal conclusion. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENTS: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 401 NW Second Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Richard L. Bohner Bohner Teal Estate 205 East Osceola Street Stuart, Florida 34994 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 - 1900
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a State government agency charged with licensing and regulating the practice of real estate sales and brokerage in the State of Florida. Its authority under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, includes the duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints against licensees who have allegedly violated the various provisions of Chapter 475 enumerated above. The Respondent, Key Realty Management, Inc., is and was at all times material hereto a corporation licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued License Number 0222667 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent Dan Lee Issacs is an officer of and qualifying broker for the Respondent, Key Realty Management, Inc., and holds License Number 0203152. On or about September 26, 1985, Richard A. Cook, an investigator employed by the Petitioner, conducted a routine audit of the Respondents' real property rental management trust account numbered 1201145156 maintained at Barnett Bank at 315 South Calhoun Street, Tallahassee, Florida. The audit consumed about one and one-half days. The audit revealed that as of September 26, 1985, the Respondents had received in trust from their tenants, in their capacity as real estate brokers, damage and security deposits in the amount of approximately $76,566.46. The balance of record in that account at the time of the audit was only $44,232.30. Approximately $32,334.16 were thus unaccounted for. The Petitioner's investigator, Mr. Cook, admitted in his testimony that there was no basis for him to believe that the subject funds unaccounted for had been diverted to the Respondents' own use, embezzled or otherwise improperly employed. He also acknowledged that there was no evidence of intentional misconduct in these particulars. Mr. Cook further conceded in his testimony that this prosecution stems from an increased emphasis by his agency on enforcing the requirements, concerning accounting for escrow monies, expressed in the statutory provisions pled in the Administrative Complaint in the last two years. His testimony reveals that the motivation for this prosecution, at least in part, results from that policy change. No other witness was presented by the Petitioner. The Respondent presented the testimony of Gary Erdman, an accountant and computer consultant. The witness was in charge of the Respondents' accounting, records keeping and management and computer programming. He designed their computer system, which kept up with their rental property management records, receipts and disbursements. During November 1984 to January 1985, the Respondents' business was in the process of converting to a new computer management, data storage and processing system. They were a very busy firm, with a large number of clients and properties which they managed. They thus ran out of space on their old computer system. Mr. Erdman was unable to transfer all the old data and program of the firm to the new system and had to re-program the new system. Some information was lost and never was entered in the new system. Additionally, on July 16, 1985, a problem of an accidental nature, possibly due to lightning, damaged the hard computer data storage disk of the firm and some data, which contained the record of receipts and disbursements regarding the missing $32,334.16, was lost. There was no soft disk or other backup system for this data, so it was irretrievably lost. Mr. Erdman had to start trying to reconstruct the lost data at the same time he was having to keep up, on a day-to-day basis, with his records keeping and accounting responsibilities. The reconstruction process, therefore, took a substantial period of time. Through this witness, the Respondents introduced their Exhibit 1, which was the claim or notice of loss to their insurance carrier as probative of and corroborative of Mr. Erdman's testimony regarding the July 16, 1985 accidental data loss. From that point it took two months after July 16, 1985, to learn from the manufacturer of the hard disk how much of the data had been lost. The Respondents had sent the hard disk to that manufacturer for repair and damage assessment. July and August of every year is the busiest time in the Respondents' rental management business. Possibly because of this they were unaware of the accounting problem regarding the $32,334.16 until it was discovered by Mr. Cook. The Respondents were very cooperative with Mr. Cook and apparently were unaware of the problem until he discovered it. They immediately transferred funds to cover the deficit in the subject escrow account so that no client or entity entitled to the funds therein suffered any loss. No misrepresentation was made to any client, person or entity entitled to any funds in their escrow account concerning the use, location, depository or entitlement to any escrow funds. The Respondents have now corrected the problem with their computer system and have also voluntarily changed their accounting procedures and deposit procedures so that not only loss and damage security deposits, but also rental income itself goes directly to their trust account first, before any disbursement to the landlords entitled to net rentals above the Respondents' fees and costs. Formerly, everything was deposited initially in the Respondents' operating account and then withdrawn and deposited in the escrow account, as to the security and loss and damage deposit receipts. Under the new system, however, they are able to more readily track every monetary receipt and more readily and properly account for it. This change was voluntarily made only a week or two after Mr. Cook's first visit wherein he alerted them to the problem. Additionally, Respondents' Exhibit 2 reflects that apparently there was an excess of $50,000 in the subject bank account as evidenced by a bank reconciliation record contained in that exhibit, which Mr. Cook had not seen at the time of his investigation and prior to the hearing. Thus, the subject $32,334.16 may be somewhat overstated. Further, it was established with this exhibit that, as of October 23, 1985, one month after Mr. Cook's inspection, the subject trust account had a balance of $73,973.56. It was shown by the Respondent that at the time of Mr. Cook's inspection the office staff was overloaded and that transfers to the trust account were running behind schedule. Some of the deficit was merely due to non-timely deposits to the trust account, rather than funds being mistakenly placed in a different account or used for other purposes by mistake, it not having been established that any intentional wrong-doing occurred concerning the trust account and escrow account violations charged. In any event, it has been established that the Respondents' new computer system of accounting and record management has alleviated the problem discovered by Mr. Cook. The Respondents have never encountered such a problem with their deposits either before or after this instance as of the time of hearing. It was established by the Respondent, Dan Issacs, who testified, that neither he nor his firm was co-mingling rental income with funds required to be retained in their trust account but rather were simply unaware of the apparent requirement that rental receipts must first be deposited in the trust account. In any event, it was established conclusively that no funds were diverted for the Respondents' own use or benefit and that all monies are now properly on deposit and are otherwise accounted for and were within a matter of several weeks after the audit and inspection. Additionally, all computer-retained records are now subjected to back-up record keeping at the present time.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against Dan Lee Issacs and Key Realty Management, Inc. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 13th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2911 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Rejected as irrelevant. 3-5. Accepted. Accepted, except as to specific amounts which are found in the Recommended Order. Accepted, but not dispositive. Rejected as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Elwin R. Thrasher, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 4351 Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the violations alleged and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating real estate licensees. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Harold E. Hicks, was licensed as a real estate broker, license number 0136248. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Mr. Hicks was the qualifying broker for the Respondent corporation, Service First Realty, Inc. (the corporation), whose address is 9715 N. W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33147. The Respondent corporation holds license number 0223295. Mr. Hicks was responsible for the day-to-day business operations of the corporation. Mr. Hicks was responsible for the financial records kept and maintained by the corporation. All financial records at issue in this proceedings were in the name of the corporation. In 1996, an investigator employed by the Petitioner, Kenneth G. Rehm, attempted to conduct an audit of the Respondents' financial records. This audit was in response to a complaint not at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Rehm went to the Respondents' place of business and asked for the financial records for all real estate accounts. Mr. Hicks provided the investigator with records which established a negative escrow bank balance of $761.00. Moreover, there was no monthly reconciliation for the escrow account. Based upon the bookkeeping method used, the Respondents' records did not show how much money was being held in trust for individual clients. Respondents pooled money for different rental properties into one escrow account without establishing that they maintained accurate ledger balances per client. When Mr. Rehm was unable to reconcile the accounts, he elected to offer Respondents additional time to gather the records and to prepare for a complete audit. Such audit was assigned to Petitioner's investigator, Roberto Castro. Mr. Castro attempted to complete the follow-up audit of Respondents' financial records on February 13, 1996. Once again, the audit was hampered due to the lack of escrow account records. Based upon the records that were provided by Respondents, Mr. Castro computed that Respondents had $3,922.45 in outstanding checks from the rental distribution trust account but only $2,241.58 in the account. This calculation resulted in a shortage of $1,680.87. Mr. Castro also determined that Respondents were not completing monthly escrow account reconciliations in accordance with the rule promulgated by the Florida Real Estate Commission. On May 3, 1996, Respondents were served with a subpoena to provide Mr. Castro with all escrow records from February 1995 to February 1996. Respondents did not respond to the subpoena. As of the date of hearing, Respondents have not shown monthly escrow account reconciliations in accordance with the rule promulgated by the Florida Real Estate Commission.
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 finding the Respondents guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b), (e), and (k), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00. It is further recommended that the Commission suspend Respondents' licenses until the Respondent Hicks has completed a seven-hour course in real estate escrow management and that such suspension be followed by a probationary period with monitoring of the Respondents' financial records to assure compliance with all Commission rules. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Harold E. Hicks, pro se Service First Realty, Inc. 9715 Northwest 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147
The Issue Should Respondent's license as an insurance agent in the State of Florida be disciplined for the alleged violation of certain provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory authority to administer the disciplinary provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. Respondent, at all times material to the dates and occurrences referenced in the Administrative Complaint, was licensed as an insurance agent in the State of Florida. Respondent is also currently licensed in the State of Florida as a life and life and health insurance agent. During the late 1990's, Respondent became a selling agent for an entity known as Alliance Trust, which later merged with Chemical Trust, and is now known as Chemical Trust. Respondent first learned of Chemical Trust through Jim Hicks of West Shore Agency of Michigan. Jim Hicks provided Respondent with selling and marketing materials for the investments, which were marketed as "guaranteed contracts" (Guaranteed Contract marketing materials). Respondent gave the Guaranteed Contract marketing materials to Imogene Skipper, Edward Dandignac, Dorothy Dandignac, Theodore Dostal, Alice Lowe, Robert Marsh, Julia Marsh, Raymond Grossman and Mildred Grossman and had each of them sign a compliance verification form to that effect. The Guaranteed Contract marketing materials contained a six-page U.S. Guarantee Corporation (U.S.G.C.) Balance Sheet, dated July 13, 1999, which listed several financial representations, including U.S.G.C.'s Accounts Receivable, Real Estate, Partnerships, Total Assets, Liabilities, Net Equities, Total Net Liabilities and Net Equity, Certificates of Deposit, and various accounting representations. Respondent did not have a background in financials. However, he made no effort to verify the accuracy of U.S.G.C's financial statements in order to protect his customers' investments. U.S.G.C. did not have the financial wherewithal to guarantee investors' investments. The Guaranteed Contract marketing materials listed several members of its "Staff," including Barry Goldwater, Jr. (Vice President/Director); Kenneth R. Pinckard (Executive Director/Vice President); Stephen M. Hammer (Chief Financial Officer); Kenneth Turner (Vice President/Comptroller); etc. Respondent did not verify that any of these individuals was actually on the staff of U.S.G.C. The Guaranteed Contract marketing materials asserted that U.S.G.C. had provided financial support to various charitable organizations, including Compassion International, St. Mary's Food Bank, World Missions, Salvation Army, Food for the Poor, Tennessee, US, etc. Respondent made no attempt to verify these representations. The Guaranteed Contract marketing materials, in the "Explanation of the Trust" section, falsely states, "This is a Trust and has satellite offices throughout the USA. This Trust has been providing clients steady streams of interest and the return of their principal since its inception." Respondent made no effort to verify which, if any, of these clients existed or if the clients were being provided steady streams of interest and return of their principal. The Guaranteed Contract marketing materials, in the Explanation of the Trust section, falsely states, "Profits are made by the Trust by buying and selling financial instruments and physical properties. The US Government sells Investment Grade Paper Backed by Treasury Notes on a daily basis and the Trust has Buyers purchasing large blocks at discounts. " Respondent did not know what Investment Grade Paper Backed by Treasury Notes was, and made no attempt to determine what this term implied. The Guaranteed Contract marketing materials, in the "Explanation of the Trust" section, falsely states: "The Trust also buys distressed properties with plans already drawn for conversion and then sell at a profit immediately. The Bonding Company approves all investments. This insures the integrity of each investment and its guarantee. There is in excess of SIX Billion Dollars security on the investor's investment." Respondent made no effort to verify these financial representations in order to protect his clients. Respondent made no effort to determine if U.S.G.C. was authorized to transact insurance in the State of Florida. Respondent, after reviewing the Guaranteed Contract marketing materials, considered U.S.G.C. to be a legitimate corporation. However, Respondent made no effort to determine if U.S.G.C. was a legitimate corporation, notwithstanding his testimony to the contrary, which lacks credibility. At all times material hereto, U.S.G.C. was not licensed as an insurance company or a bonding company, and, although a registered corporation in the State of Nevada, it was not a registered corporation in the State of Florida. Respondent received a document from Clifton Wilkinson, Trustee for Alliance Trust dated August 1, 1999, which stated: "News and Information Regarding Misinformation and Opinions of Some State Agencies Concerning the Nature of Alliance Trust and Similar Entities. They are exempt from State Securities Laws." Therefore, sometime around August 1, 1999, Respondent was made aware that some state agencies took the position that the investments (Guaranteed Contracts) being offered by Alliance Trust (n/k/a Chemical Trust) were securities and were not exempt from state securities laws and regulations. Respondent did not seek advice from the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of regulating securities as to whether the State of Florida considered these investments to be securities and subject to securities regulations. Likewise, Respondent did not seek any legal advice from an independent counsel as to whether these investments were in fact securities and subject to state securities regulations. Respondent made no independent inquiry into whether these investments were in fact securities and subject to securities laws and regulations, but relied solely on information received from Chemical Trust and two other agents for Chemical Trust in coming to the conclusion that these investments were not securities and not subject to securities laws and regulations. Respondent did not personally invest in the Chemical Trust investments. However, he did tell Edward Dandignac and Theodore Dostal that he had personally invested in Chemical Trust investments. Respondent earned a commission from the sale of the Chemical Trust investments. Respondent's commission from the sale of Chemical Trust investments constituted properties involved in Virgil Womack's violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h), and were subject to forfeiture pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1). Respondent made a payment of $63,302.29, through his attorney to the Receiver on June 18, 2001. Chemical Trust's investment product (Guaranteed Contract) was an investment contract and thereby a security as defined under Subsection 517.021(19)(q), Florida Statutes. As a security, the Guaranteed Contract was required to be registered in the State of Florida under Section 517.07, Florida Statutes, unless it was exempt from registration under Section 517.051 or 517.061, Florida Statutes. The Guaranteed Contract was neither an exempt security under Section 517.051, Florida Statutes nor an exempt transaction under Section 517.061, Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Guaranteed Contract was required to be registered in the State of Florida. An individual must be licensed in the State of Florida in order to sell or offer securities in the State of Florida. Respondent was neither licensed to sell nor to offer securities in the State of Florida. The monies paid to Chemical Trust for the investments were deposited in the personal bank accounts of Virgil Womack, Clifton Wilkinson, Lewey Cato, and Alvin Tang, the principals of Chemical Trust, and used for their personal benefit and to promote the fraudulent scheme. The Florida Department of Banking and Finance had information concerning previous securities violations by Virgil Womack and Clifton Wilkinson. Womack committed securities violations in Georgia in 1997, and Wilkinson committed securities violations in North Dakota, Iowa, Kansas, and Illinois in June 1999. This information was contained in the National Association of Securities Dealers Regulation Central Registration Depository (NASDAQ CRD) database that was accessible to the public in general, and to the Respondent specifically, through the Florida Department of Banking and Finance through telephonic communication. Imogene Skipper, age 74, of Dover, Florida, is a retired school custodian. Skipper worked as a custodian for 19 years. Skipper met Respondent in 1997 when he came to her home as a representative of Remington Estate Services, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, to assist her in setting up a revocable living trust. The trust agreement would allow her to plan an orderly distribution of her assets without having to go through probate. In 1999, Respondent persuaded Skipper to liquidate the existing annuities with American Investors and transfer the funds to Chemical Trust. In doing so, Skipper suffered $1,665.49 in surrender charges for policy number 303313 and $1,171.25 for policy number 303467. Respondent told Skipper that Chemical Trust would reimburse her these surrender charges. Skipper purchased these annuities when her children were young. The annuities were funded by a $5.00 deduction from Skipper's weekly paycheck. Skipper was reluctant to transfer her annuity funds to Chemical Trust. However, Respondent kept reminding her that the 10 per cent return on her investment was good. Also, Skipper considered Respondent to be an honest, decent, and well respected man. Skipper invested $17,820.00 in Chemical Trust through Respondent. This figure represented two checks, each written to Chemical Trust by Skipper, in the amount of $8,910.00 each. In return Chemical Trust issued two Guaranteed Contracts in the amount of $10,158.00 each for a total of $20,316.00. The difference in amount of the two contracts ($20,316.00) and the amount of Skipper's checks ($17,820.00) was $2,496.00, which was supposed to reimburse Skipper for the surrender fees on her annuities. However, the surrender fees were $2,836.74, which resulted in Skipper not being reimbursed for surrender fees in the amount of $340.74. Respondent supplied Skipper with documents explaining the Chemical Trust investments. Respondent had Skipper sign a compliance verification stating that Respondent had fully explained and delivered documentation concerning the Guaranteed Contracts. The Cover Page of the Guaranteed Contract marketing material had "Chemical Trust" in bold print. At the bottom of the same page, the language "A Guaranteed Contract" appeared along with Respondent's name, address, and telephone number. The second page was entitled "Explanation of the Trust." The third page was titled "CHEMICAL TRUST" and consisted of information concerning "QUALIFICATIONS," "FINANCIAL STRENGTH," and "BOND PROVIDER." This page contains certain terms such as: (a) "After funds have cleared, you will receive your Contract and Surety Bond"; (b) "With over $725 million in assets to protect clients, Chemical Trust is dedicated to provide you the safety, liquidity, and protection you expect in today's uncertain environment"; (c) "U.S. Guarantee Corporation's financial statement is in excess of 2.4 billion dollars"; and "Please note: Due to confidentially U.S. Guarantee Corporation and Fidelity National will be unable to provide any information to you without the consent of the Trust. ***If you wish to contact either of these it must be coordinated by Chemical Trust." (Emphasis furnished) After her funds cleared, Skipper was provided a "Certificate of Grantor" for each investment. The first page had a bold CHEMICAL TRUST" logo and was identified as a "Certificate of Grantor." Among the terms were: (a) "SIMPLE INTEREST AT THE FIXED RATE OF 10 PERCENT PER ANNUM"; and (b) THIS PRINCIPAL AMOUNT IS SECURED BY A SURETY BOND ISSUED BY U.S. GUARANTEE CORPORATION." The guarantee of ten percent per annum interest was higher than the amount Skipper was receiving on the annuities that she had liquidated. The second page had the U.S. Guarantee Corporation logo at the top and was titled "Payment Surety Bond" with Chemical Trust as Principal, U.S. Guarantee Corporation, as Surety, and Imogene R. Skipper, as Trustee. Skipper identified the guarantee of ten percent interest and her full trust in Respondent as the factors that influenced her decision to make the Chemical Trust investments. Skipper lost her entire investment with Chemical Trust. Edward Dandignac, age 70, of Inverness, Florida, is a retired Boar's Head provision carrier. Dorothy Dandignac is the spouse of Edward Dandignac. Dorothy Dandignac, age 67, of Inverness, Florida, is a retired housewife. The Dandignacs first had contact with Respondent when he came to their home to set up a revocable living trust in April 1998. Several months after setting up the irrevocable living trust, Edward Dandignac told Respondent that he was having problems with his Oppenheimer funds, Fidelity funds, and other funds. Respondent advised Edward Dandignac that he would probably do better with an investment in some annuity. Subsequently, Respondent sold Edward Dandignac an annuity with Bradford Life and an annuity with United Life. Later, Respondent approached Edward Dandignac concerning Chemical Trust and reviewed the Chemical Trust documents with Edward Dandignac and explained to him that he could make a better return, up to ten percent. Respondent also advised Edward Dandignac that Chemical Trust would cover the surrender charges. Respondent went through the Guaranteed Contract marketing materials with Edward Dandignac. As to the integrity of Chemical Trust and U.S. Guarantee Corporation, Respondent advised Edward Dandignac the companies were "backed" and "protected." Based on Respondent's representations and the Guaranteed Contract marketing materials, Edward Dandignac determined that an investment with Chemical Trust would be secured and guaranteed. Subsequently, Edward Dandignac decided to invest part of his and his wife's life savings in Chemical Trust through Respondent. Edward Dandignac liquidated one of his annuities and had the funds transferred to Chemical Trust. Respondent advised Edward Dandignac that he had personally invested in Chemical Trust. Because Respondent had worked with the Dandignacs in getting them the annuities, which were making better money than their stock, and the fact that Respondent had also invested in Chemical Trust, the Dandignacs trusted Respondent in regard to their investment in Chemical Trust. One of the business cards given to the Dandignacs by Respondent listed "Insurance," "Estate Plans," and "Investments" as the areas in which he was involved. Edward Dandignac identified the Guaranteed Contract marketing material as being similar to the documents given to him by Respondent. This material was the same as the Guaranteed Contract marketing material provided to Skipper by Respondent. The Dandignacs expected a return on their investment with Chemical Trust but instead lost $25,444.89. Theodore Dostal, age 74, of Port Richey, Florida, first had contact with Respondent in October 1997, when Respondent delivered a revocable living trust to him through Senior Estates Services. Shortly thereafter, Respondent and Dostal discussed other investments. Between October 28, 1997, and July 27, 1998, Dostal transferred varying amounts from his revocable living trust to purchase three different annuities from Respondent with Bradford Life. Subsequently, Respondent furnished Dostal the Guaranteed Contract marketing materials identical to those provided to Skipper by Respondent. Based on the Guaranteed Contract marketing materials and Dostal discussions with, and his trust in Respondent, Dostal invested in Chemical Trust. Dostal's investment in Chemical Trust involved the purchase of: a Certificate of Grantor dated September 24, 1999, in the amount of $17,327.00; (2) a Certificate of Grantor dated September 28, 1999, in the amount $92,010.00; (3) a Certificate of Grantor dated October 11, 1999, in the amount of $10,000.00 and; (4) a Certificate of Grantor dated November 10, 1999, in the amount of $37,120.00. Each Certificate of Grantor was issued by Chemical Trust and was backed by a Payment Surety Bond backed by U.S. Guarantee Corporation Other than the terms specific to Dostal, the Certificate of Grantor and the Payment Surety Bond referenced above are the same as those issued to Skipper. Of the monies he invested with Chemical Trust, Dostal lost $56,000.00. Respondent told Dostal that he had personally invested in Chemical Trust Alice Lowe, an elderly lady, is a retired office manager. Lowe currently lives in Orlando, Florida. Lowe purchased an annuity product from Respondent in April 1998. Subsequently, Lowe liquidated her annuity and at the suggestion of Respondent invested $39,914.95 in the Chemical Trust investments, which she lost plus the surrender charges in the amount of $4,350.73 for a total loss of $44,229.85. Lowe could not recall receiving the Guaranteed Contract marketing materials. However, she did recognize her signature on the verification form which confirms that she received the Guaranteed Contract marketing materials. As such, the documents she received would have contained the same terms as the documents received by Skipper. The ten percent interest per annum was a factor in Lowe's decision to invest in Chemical Trust investment along with her confidence in Respondent. Robert Marsh, an elderly man, is a retired mechanic, and is married to Julia Marsh. Currently, the Marshes live in Bradenton, Florida. The Marshes became acquainted with Respondent about May 2, 1998, when Respondent delivered a revocable living trust to them through Remington Estate Services. After this initial contact, the Marshes' interaction with Respondent consisted of Respondent's stopping by a few times, talking to Respondent on the telephone, and discussing investments with Respondent. During all visits with Respondent, both Robert Marsh and Julia Marsh were present. Likewise, the Marshes discussed all financial matters jointly before making a final decision concerning financial matters. The Marshes had an existing annuity that was earning interest at the rate of 2.37 or 3.00 percent, which they were not pleased with. Subsequently, the Marshes transferred some of the money from the existing annuity to purchase an annuity with Respondent. Afterwards, Respondent visited with the Marshes every two to three months. During this time, Respondent discussed Chemical Trust investments with the Marshes and advised them that Chemical Trust was a "good company" that the company "had been around a long time" and "the investments" were a "good deal." The Marshes transferred, through Respondent, their funds from two annuities and an IRA to Chemical Trust. The Marshes invested over $23,000.00 in Chemical Trust investments. Originally the Marshes lost all of their investment. However, they recouped all but $2,300.00 through the efforts of the U.S. Government. The $2,300.00 was surrender charges for early withdrawal of their annuities. Based on Respondent's representations, the Marshes expected to be reimbursed for surrender charges, receive ten percent interest per annum, the principal amount to be secured by a surety bond, and to receive a $700.00 bonus. The Marshes were provided Chemical Trust's Guaranteed Contract marketing materials from Respondent, which was identical (contained the same terms) to the Guaranteed Contract marketing material provided to Skipper. Mildred Grossman, age 79, of Debary, Florida, is a retired secretary. Raymond Grossman, age 80, also of Debary, Florida, is the spouse of Mildred Grossman. Raymond Grossman is retired Methodist minister. The Grossmans became acquainted with Respondent when he came to their home to deliver a revocable living trust as a representative of Remington Estate Services, Inc. After his initial contact with the Grossmans, Respondent visited them every one to three months to check on their needs. Because the Grossmans were seriously considering the possibility that one of them would be going into a nursing home or some type of assisted living facility, Respondent encouraged the Grossmans to purchase annuities. Consequently, the Grossmans cashed in their life insurance policies and their certificates of deposit and purchased annuities from Respondent through American Investors. After they purchased the annuities, the Grossmans were still concerned as to whether they could afford potential retirement home expenses. The Grossmans discussed their concerns with Respondent, and he advised them that they could get a better return on their investment if they switched to Chemical Trust investment. Respondent represented to the Grossmans that their principal investment was protected by a surety payment bond issued by U.S. Guarantee Corporation, that they would receive a guaranteed ten percent interest per annum return for seven years, and that they would be reimbursed for surrender charges incurred when they transferred their funds to Chemical Trust. The Grossmans lost approximately $36,900.00 from their investment with Chemical Trust through Respondent. This amount constituted their life savings, leaving them about $2,000.00 in the bank. Respondent strongly suggested that the Grossmans invest in Chemical Trust. In fact, one of strongest motivating factors for the Grossmans' decision to invest in Chemical Trust was their faith and trust in Respondent. The Guaranteed Contract marketing materials provided to the Grossmans were identical (containing the same terms) to those provided to Skipper. As a result of the lost investments, the Grossmans: (1) were forced to move from a condo to mobile home; (2) cannot provide financial help to their children; and (3) can no longer afford an assisted living home. The Chemical Trust enterprise was a deliberate and largely transparent scheme to swindle Florida residents. Respondent either knew or should have known, had he made good faith attempt to verify the representations contained in the Guaranteed Contract marketing materials and the information furnished to him by other agents, employees, officers or staff of Chemical Trust, that Chemical Trust investments were worthless. Respondent failed to make a due diligence inquiry in this regard. Respondent employed either his past or then current insurance/client relationship with Imogene Skipper, Robert and Julia Marsh, Raymond and Mildred Grossman, Alice Lowe, and Edward and Dorothy Dandignac to gain their trust and then abused that trust by his failure to properly research and verify the claims made by Chemical Trust, a fellow insurance agent, others associated with Chemical Trust investments, and those otherwise contained in the Guaranteed Contract marketing materials. Respondent was the source of injury to Imogene Skipper, Robert and Julia Marsh, Raymond and Mildred Grossman, Alice Lowe, and Edward and Dorothy Dandignac by inappropriately attempting to act in multiple roles as their insurance agent and as an agent for Chemical Trust. As a result of Respondent's actions, Imogene Skipper, Robert and Julia Marsh, Raymond and Mildred Grossman, Alice Lowe, and Edward and Dorothy Dandignac were sold an investment that was nothing more than a scheme to swindle those who invested. The aggregate loss to the Chemical Trust investment scheme by Skipper, the Marshes, the Grossmans, Lowe, the Dandignacs, and Dostal was approximately $200,000. Under the circumstances of this case, the participation of Respondent in the sale of Chemical Trust investments to Skipper, the Dandignacs, Dostal, Lowe, the Marshes, and the Grossmans was "in the conduct of business under the [insurance license]" and "in the course of dealing under the [insurance] license."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and after careful consideration of both aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in Rule 4-231.160(1), Florida Administrative Code, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondent, Donald Dean Hooley, II, guilty of violating Subsections 626.611(4), (7), (8), (9), and 626.621(2), Florida Statutes, and revoking his license and eligibility for licensure as a life and life health insurance agent in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles D. Hinton, Esquire Deane & Hinton, P.A. Post Office Box 7473 St. Petersburg, Florida 33739 Anthony B. Miller, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
