The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents are guilty of mishandling an escrow deposit.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Vu is and was at all material times a licensed real estate broker, holding Florida license number 0394778. He is and was at all material times the qualifying broker for Respondent American Homes and Investment Realty, Inc., which holds Florida license number 0250718. Respondent Vu owns Respondent American Homes. In 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Serge Delisfort contacted Respondents about purchasing a residence. The Delisforts eventually signed a contract to purchase a home and paid the $500 earnest money deposit to Respondents. Later learning that they would be liable to pay an annual homeowners' fee of $72, the Delisforts told Respondent Vu that they did not want to complete the purchase. The listing broker, which was not either Respondent, omitted mention of the homeowners' fee from the listing information supplied Respondents and the Delisforts. The sellers refused to release the deposit. Confronted with the dispute, Respondent Vu promptly requested an escrow disbursement order from the Florida Real Estate Commission on March 29, 1991. Due to the presence of a factual or legal dispute, the Florida Real Estate Commission informed Respondents, in a 47-word letter dated October 16, 1991, that it could not issue an escrow disbursement order. The October 16 letter warns Respondents to "immediately choose one of the other two alternatives available to you under ss. 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, to settle this dispute, i.e., arbitration or a civil court." Instead, Respondents did nothing. The Delisforts periodically contacted Respondent Vu and asked if he could release their deposit. The sellers sold their house to another party and moved to Puerto Rico. The Delisforts contacted another broker and purchased a different house through the new broker. Eventually, the Delisforts contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission and asked its help in obtaining the deposit. An investigator for the Division of Real Estate interviewed Respondent Vu on March 1, 1994. Explaining the reason for the delay, Respondent Vu, possibly confused, stated that the buyers had left Orlando for awhile. In fact, the buyers had remained in Orlando. At the suggestion of the investigator, Respondent Vu contacted both parties, and they agreed to split the deposit equally. Respondent Vu prepared the paperwork, which the parties signed on March 11, 1994. At that time, Respondents paid each party $250. The Delisforts have since listed their home for sale by Respondents. While improperly holding the $500 deposit, Respondent Vu was preoccupied by the illnesses and deaths of his parents, who remained in Vietnam. Despite the possibility of trouble upon his return to Vietnam, Respondent Vu traveled to Vietnam at least once during this time to care for one or both of his parents. Respondents failed to implement timely the remedies established by law and identified by the Florida Real Estate Commission in its letter of October 26, 1991. Respondent Vu acted two and one-half years later, only after one of Petitioner's investigators contacted him. It is no excuse that the costs of arbitration or court would have consumed a large part of the amount in dispute. Confronted with that prospect, the sellers or the Delisforts would probably have settled the matter. If not, that would have been their problem, not Respondents'. The fact is that Respondents failed to discharge their obligations by presenting the dispute for resolution in a timely fashion. Nonetheless, the amount involved is modest. Neither party had a clear claim to the funds, nor was either party exceptionally troubled by Respondents' casual handling of the matter. The Delisforts contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission, but did not realize that they were in effect filing a complaint against Respondents, in whom they entrusted the sale of their current home. A final order issued July 18, 1988, involves Respondents' mishandling of a salesperson's commission. The husband of the salesperson owed Respondent Vu some money, and both men agreed that the debtor's wife would work off the debt by selling real estate at Respondent American Homes. However, the debtor's wife was of a different mind. After earning her first commission, she refused to allow Respondents to credit it against her husband's debt. When Respondent Vu ignored her demand for payment, she filed a complaint, which resulted in the final order and Respondents' proper payment of the commission.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding both Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25((1)(d)1, reprimanding both Respondents, and requiring Respondent Vu to take a thirty-hour broker management course. ENTERED on February 22, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 22, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section--Suite N-308 Hurston Bldg., North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32802-1772 Dau Viet Vu 1048 Pine Hills Rd. Orlando, FL 32808
The Issue Whether the Respondent's Florida real estate license should be disciplined based upon the charge that the Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility to Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of he State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statues, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Doris Duke is now and was at all material hereto a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0441054 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On June 13, 1989, the Respondent solicited and obtained a listing for the sale of an adult care center from seller Shirley Holland. The listing price was $300,000. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The property had been on the market for sometime and seller was anxious to sell. S. L. Patterson and Anne M. Reese had been interested for sometime. On January 19, 1990, the Respondent solicited and obtained an offer to purchase the adult care center from S. L. Patterson and Anne M. Reese, buyers, in the amount of $225.000. The contract was contingent upon financing. The Respondent presented the offer to the seller on or about January 20, 1990. Seller would have received approximately $25,000 and a second mortgage for $65,000. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Subsequently the buyers were unable to obtain financing, and the contract was void at this point. In an effort to consummate the sale, Respondent arranged financing for the buyers. The terms of this transaction as reflect in the closing documents, FREC 4, showed a sales price of $125,00, with a first mortgage of $100,000, a second mortgage of $46,250 and a third mortgage to seller of $84,500. However, this financing required an added $25,000 which came from the $25,000 originally to the seller. The Respondent advised the seller of the changes the day before the closing; however, the changes to the contract were not reflected in writing either in the contract or in an addendum. Instead the changes were reflected in the closing documents (FREC 4). Instead of receiving about $2,000 the seller had to pay $68.08 at closing. The Respondent and Respondent's employer Century 21 Harris Real Estate & Associates, Inc. profited in the amount of a $22,500 commission, an amount which they earned under the listing contract. Subsequently, the purchasers, who were black and operated an adult congregate living facility, were the targets of racially motivated vandalism and hate crimes. As result they were unable to make a financial success on the venture. The buyers defaulted on their mortgage payments, and foreclosure was initiated by one of the principal mortgagees.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that charges against the Respondent be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer 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 30th day of October, 1991. APPENDIX CASE NO. 91-4554 The Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order was read and considered. The following is a list of the findings which were adopted and which were rejected and why. Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 were adopted. Paragraph 3 was rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 6 was rejected as irrelevant and contrary to the best and most credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Senior Attorney Florida Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Doris Duke 6676 Cedar Point Road Jacksonville, Florida 32226 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented is whether a broker and active firm member for a corporate real estate broker can be held accountable for the wrongful handling of escrow funds by non-registered persons after the broker has resigned his employment and notified the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) of his resignation when another active firm member is not qualified by the corporation prior to the effective date of the broker's resignation.
Findings Of Fact Telfair is a registered real estate broker holding registration 0087817 issued by the FREC. Telfair was employed by LTP as the firm's sole broker and active firm member. LTP was a registered corporate broker. Telfair was not a corporate officer of LTP. The monies at issue in this case were deposited to the escrow account of LTP, pursuant to pending real estate contracts. These monies were maintained properly in the escrow account at all times during the period that Telfair was an active firm member. On February 14, 1975, Telfair gave notice to Frank Carcaise, President of LTP, that he was going to resign effective March 1, 1975. A copy of Telfair's letter of resignation to Carcaise as an active firm member and broker for LTP was forwarded to the FREC. On March 1, 1975, Telfair did resign, severed his relationship with LTP, removed himself from the business premises, together with his property. Prior to that date, he had advised Carcaise of the necessity to obtain a broker to serve as an active firm member for LTP, but Telfair was never replaced by Carcaise. As of the date of Telfair's resignation, there were sufficient funds on deposit in the LTP escrow account to meet all obligations against the account. On June 4, 1975, Carcaise directed the corporate bookkeeper, in writing, to issue a check transferring the escrow funds to Gateway Consultants. The bookkeeper, who had refused to issue any checks without written direction, called Telfair and asked him what she should do. Telfair suggested that she report this matter to the FREC, and Telfair volunteered to accompany her to Orlando to the FREC offices. On June 5, 1975, the bookkeeper, and Telfair met with Mr. Jones of the FREC legal staff and advised him of the removal of the escrow funds and showed him the corporate books which the bookkeeper had brought with her. Jones advised them that there was nothing which could be done because no demand had been made for the funds, and there had been no failure to deliver the funds by LTP. The funds were transferred, demand was subsequently made for the escrow funds by LTP's client, and they were not paid. Subsequently, the FREC brought the instant complaint against Telfair.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against Robert M. Telfair by the Florida Real Estate Commission. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esq. Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, FL 32789 Joseph A. Scarlett, Esq. 210 East New York Avenue DeLand, FL 32720
Findings Of Fact While working as a real estate salesperson in Deanna Duncan's office in the fall of 1976, respondent quarreled with Ms. Duncan about, among other things, their relative shares of real estate commissions. Respondent, who has been a real estate salesperson off and on since 1967, decided to leave Ms. Duncan's employ; and telephoned various brokers, including, eventually, Dean Downs, for whom she had worked from 1969 to 1971. Mr. Downs, who testified that he did not take respondent's abilities as a real estate salesperson seriously, was preoccupied with a development project on the east coast called Shoreham by the Sea and with his efforts to secure refinancing of a tract of land in Maitland, when respondent contacted him. He agreed to sign the appropriate papers to effect a transfer of respondent's certificate to his office, but he told respondent that he would be out of town most of the time and unable to supervise her. Respondent and Mr. Downs agreed orally that respondent could keep all commissions earned by the office as a result of respondent's efforts; and that respondent would pass on to Mr. Downs any leads she came across for sales of nonresidential properties, without expecting a share of any resulting commissions. During their association, respondent did pass on three such leads, none of which panned out. Respondent's affiliation with Mr. Downs began officially on December 1, 1976. Even before then, respondent had shown Mr. and Mrs. Thomas L. Oyler a house on Lake Catherine Drive in Maitland. On December 9, 1976, the Oylers made an offer, accompanied by a deposit check in the amount of $500.00 drawn in favor of Dean Downs' escrow account. In talking to Mr. Downs about this, respondent learned that there was no escrow account. Mr. Downs told her to look up a Mr. Green at the Southeast National Bank, who would help her open up an escrow account on which she would be authorized to sign. Respondent did open such an account and in it she deposited the Oylers' earnest money. On July 14, 1977, the transaction closed and respondent ended up with a check for the selling broker's commission drawn to Dean Downs' order in the amount of $2,208.00. Petitioner's exhibit No. 4. Respondent endorsed Dean Downs' name, then her own, deposited part of the proceeds of the check in her personal account, and took the difference in cash. Soon after starting with Mr. Downs, respondent caused business cards to be printed which read "DEAN DOWNS, BROKER/ MARGARET W. ROGERS, ASSOCIATE" and bore an address and telephone number. The Oylers understood that respondent was employed by Mr. Downs, at the time they made their offer. George D. Willmer's real estate firm obtained an exclusive listing for a house at 3232 South Fern Creek Avenue in Orlando. Respondent came into his office on January 12, 1977, saying she knew people who were interested in buying this house. Respondent told Mr. Willmer that she worked for Mr. Downs but that she "pretty well had a free hand . . . (T. 19) After Mr. Willmer typed in blanks on a form contract, respondent took it to Mr. and Mrs. James M. Kelley who signed it the same day. Mr. Kelley understood that respondent worked for Dean Downs. The transaction closed on February 25, 1977, and respondent received a check drawn in favor of Dean Downs Realty in the amount of $1,099.25. Petitioner's exhibit No. 9. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Downs dropped by respondent's house on an unrelated matter and, at respondent's request, endorsed the commission check. Subsequently, respondent also endorsed it, and deposited it in her personal account. In June of 1977, respondent herself expressed an interest in buying a piece of property on Pennsylvania Avenue in Winter Park. P. H. Davis, the real estate broker with whom the property was listed, first thought that respondent "was just a buyer" (T. 57), but later agreed to split his commission with Dean Downs Realty. The transaction closed on July 14, 1977, at which time respondent received a commission check drawn in favor of Dean Down Realty in the amount of $788.00. Petitioner's exhibit No. 11. Respondent endorsed this check "Dean Downs Realty," made another endorsement, then deposited the check in an account she controlled. In December of 1976 or January of 1977, respondent discussed renewal fees for her salesperson's certificate with Sylvia Garcia, at the time an employee of petitioner. As a result of this conversation, respondent got the mistaken impression that she need not renew her certificate for some two years after the conversation. Although petitioner sent respondent a certificate, in care of Dean Downs, indicating the need to renew, Mr. Downs never gave the notice to respondent. Respondent did not renew her certificate, which expired by its own terms on March 31, 1977.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's certificate for ten (10) days. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON,II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 H. Jay Stevens, Esquire 47 East Robinson Street, Suite 224 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Testimony established that during late December, 1975, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., a Florida corporation, filed application with the Commission, seeking registration as a corporate real estate broker. That application revealed that Respondent Frank Viruet was to become the Active Firm ember Broker, and Vice President of the company; that Carol Bauman was to become Secretary-Treasurer and that Lee Klein was to become President and Director of the company. Testimony reveals that Carol Bauman is the wife of the Respondent Bernard Bauman; that Lee Klein is the sister of Carol Bauman and that Jeffrey Bauman is the son of Bernard Bauman. Subsequent to the filing of the above referenced corporate application for registration, the name was changed to Noble Realty Corporation and shortly thereafter to Deed Realty, Inc., and that at each such change, new application for corporate registration was filed with the Commission. Evidence also revealed that the officers and Active Firm Member Broker remained as stated and therefore for all legal purposes, the above corporate entities are one and the same. Turning to the complaint allegations in Count One, according to the certificates of the Commission's Chairman, dated December 3, which was offered in evidence by Petitioner and admitted without objection, during the period of November 1, 1975 through the date of said certificate (December 3, 1976), which covers the material dates of the complaint herein, no registration was issued to or held by the above three named corporations. This was further confirmed by testimony of Bernard Bauman who was to have become a salesman associated with the above entities and by Frank Viruet, the broker, who was to have become the Active Firm Member Broker for the above entities. Approximately December 2, 1975, Land Re-Sales Service, Inc., entered a written lease for office premises known as Room 212, Nankin Building, which is located at 16499 N.E. 19th Avenue, North Miami Beach, covering the period January 1, through December 31, 1976. (A copy of the lease was entered into evidence by stipulation of the parties.) The unrebutted testimony of Petitioner Reagan was that he observed, during his investigation of this cause, a building directory on the ground floor entrance to the Nankin Building displaying the name Noble Realty Inc., and a similar display on the building directory on the second floor. Petitioner's witness, Peter King, representative for Southern Bell Telephone Company testified that based on records received, three phones were installed in said room 212, Nankin Building on December 27, 1975, in the name of Land Re-Sale Service, Inc. and that from January 2, 1976 through January 16, 1976, approximately 575 calls were made from the above phones during evening hours to out-of-state numbers. Bernard Bauman and Jeffrey Bauman admitted to having made phone calls to out-of-state numbers for purposes of soliciting real estate sales listings, but both were unable to recall nor did they have records to substantiate how many calls they made. Bernard Bauman testified that approximately four listings were obtained with an advance fee of $375.00 for each listing. He further testified that upon being advised by the investigator with the Commission that the operation was in violation of the licensing law, by reason that no registration had been issued to the applicant company and that all who were engaging in real estate activities for said company were in violation of the licensing law. Thereafter the premises were closed and as best as can be told, all real estate activities ceased. This was further confirmed by Petitioner Reagan. The evidence respecting Count two of the administrative complaint established as stated above that Respondents Bernard and Jeffrey H. Bauman solicited real estate listings with representations to property owners that the listings would in fact be published and disseminated to brokers nationwide. However, both Baumans admitted that their listings were never published or otherwise disseminated to brokers. According to Bernard Bauman's testimony, no monies received were ever returned. There was no evidence to show that Respondent Bernard Bauman knew at the time of soliciting that no bona fide effort would be made to sell properties so listed with Noble Realty Corporation.
Recommendation Based on the above findings and conclusions of law, it is therefore recommended that the registration of Bernard Bauman be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact During all times material to the Complaint Respondent Genaro O. DiDiego was licensed as a real estate broker under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. From May 1, 1976 until February 7, 1977, Mr. DiDiego did business under the trade name "Lauderdale Realty" in the Miami Beach Area. In the spring of 1976 Ms. Arlene Channing through a salesman, Anita Kandel, employed by Lauderdale Realty met the Respondent. Ms. Channing was naive about the real estate business and any related transactions. After their initial meeting the Respondent attempted to interest Ms. Channing in a variety of business ventures. Eventually she became involved in two. One was the Choice Chemical Company loan and the other was the Qualk Building purchase. On May 10, 1976, Ms. Channing loaned Mr. DiDiego $30,000.00 for his purchase of stock in the Choice Chemical Company. This loan was to be secured by a note and mortgage from Mr. DiDiego to Ms. Channing in the principal sum of $30,000.00 with interest at 10 percent until the principal was paid. The note and mortgage were due and payable within 18 months. Specifically, the security was 50 percent of the outstanding stock of Choice Chemical Corporation and also Lauderdale Realty's lots and telephone land operation. The security was to be held in escrow by Gerald S. Berkell, who at that time was counsel to Mr. DiDiego. In fact no such security was ever delivered into escrow. From the facts and circumstances of the transactions between Ms. Channing and Mr. DiDiego, it is found that Mr. DiDiego never intended to secure the $30,000.00 loan. That security was a material inducement to Ms. Channing for the loan. The principal sum of the loan, $30,000.00, was deposited into the account of Lauderdale Realty, account number 60-943-7 at County National Bank of North Miami Beach. Subsequently on April 18, 1978, Ms. Channing filed an action in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, against Mr. DiDiego for the unlawful conversion of her $30,000.00. On June 19, 1978, a final judgement by default was entered against Mr. DiDiego in the amount of $30,000.00 plus legal interest. The Qualk Building purchase concerned a building represented to Ms. Channing to cost $700,000.00. Mr. DiDiego induced her to invest $150,000.00 in the purchase of the Qualk Building. To effect the purchase, Mr. DiDiego and Ms. Channing entered into a limited partnership agreement in which Mr. DiDiego would be the general partner, investing $1,000.00 and Ms. Channing would be a limited partner, investing $150,000.00. Subsequently Ms. Channing deposited $150,000.00 into the Lauderdale Realty escrow account. Her check dated June 18, 1976, in the amount of $150,000.00 was deposited in Account number 60-944-8 for Lauderdale Realty. In fact, the total purchase price for the Qualk building was $585,000.00. The building was however encumbered by first and second mortgages totaling $535,855.90. The total amount therefore required to close was less than $33,000.00. These facts were known to Respondent but were not disclosed to Ms. Channing. From the facts and circumstances of this transaction, it is found that the facts were misrepresented to Ms. Channing for the purpose of inducing her to part with her $150,000.00. Ms. Channing never received any accounting for her investment and she subsequently brought an action in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida. On July 8, 1977, final judgment was entered against Respondent, Genaro O. DiDiego in the amount of $150,000.00 less $32,662.84, which were actually applied to the purchase price of the Qualk building, and less $9,780.00 which represents a portion of the income of the Qualk Building paid by Respondent to Ms. Channing. In entering its final judgment, the Court found that Respondent breached His fiduciary duty to Ms. Channing. This judgment has never been satisfied.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the license of Genaro O. DiDiego as a real estate broker be revoked by the Board of Real Estate, Department of Professional Regulation. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. B. Stafford Board Executive Director Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Genaro O. DiDiego 3745 N.E. 171st Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33160
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Annette J. Ruffin, held real estate broker license number 0076385 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. When the events herein occurred, respondent was owner and broker for Century 21 A Little Bit Country at 915 Lithia Pinecrest Road, Brandon, Florida. She is presently employed by U. S. Homes Corporation in Tampa, Florida. James and Shirley Yaksic wished to sell their residence at 3512 Plainview Drive in Brandon, Florida. They listed their property with Century 21 Solid Gold Properties II, Inc. in Brandon in December, 1983. Deborah Cassidy was a salesman at respondent's office, and knew her parents, J. R. and Helen Anderson, were in the market for a new home. With Cassidy's assistance, the Andersons executed a contract on February 16, 1984, to purchase the Yaksics' residence. The contract called for a purchase price of $65,000 with a down payment of $10,000, including a $500.00 cash deposit which was given to respondent's firm several days after the contract was executed. The deposit was placed in Ruffin's escrow account on February 28, 1984. The Andersons were also required to seek VA financing on the balance owed. After the contract was accepted by the Yaksics on February 17, Helen Anderson made application on February 23 for a $55,000 VA loan with Norwest Mortgage, Inc., a lending institution in Tampa. Florida. Since her husband was in New York State, only Helen signed the loan application agreeing to allow verification of all representations made in the application. While filling out the loan application at Norwest, Helen Anderson learned that the Veterans Administration allowed applicants to apply for loans equal to 100% of the value of the property. Since the Andersons preferred to make no down payment, Helen Anderson wrote Norwest in early March requesting that their loan application be increased from $55,000 to $65,000. She also noted that she did not sign the "disclosure statement" on behalf of her husband since "it would be incorrect." In response to this Letter, Norwest wrote the Andersons in early April requesting a number of items needed to process the application as well as an amendment to the contract reflecting that the sellers agreed to 100% financing by the buyers. The Andersons did not respond to this inquiry. In addition, they never, advised the sellers that they had changed their loan application to 100% financing, and that the sellers would be required to pay more discount points at closing. Because no amendment to the contract was ever filed, Norwest processed the application for a $55,000 loan. Due to insufficient income and excessive obligations, the application was denied. The Andersons were so notified by letter dated May 3, 1984. After Helen Anderson received the denial letter she telephoned respondent's office manager on several occasions to seek a refund of her deposit. This information was apparently conveyed to Ruffin by the office manager. About the same time the sellers were advised by the listing salesman that the Andersons did not intend to close. On May 5, the sellers wrote a letter to Solid Gold requesting that it notify the selling broker to not "release the binder to the buyers as we are entitled to this money." For some reason, a copy of this letter was not mailed to respondent until May 31, and she received it in early June. Even though Ruffin may have been orally advised in early May of the Yaksics' intended claim by the listing office, she had no concrete evidence of this intention until she received their letter in early June. On June 29, 1984, Helen Anderson wrote respondent's office manager a letter requesting a return of her deposit no later than July 9. She also indicated the letter was being sent pursuant to instructions received from petitioner. On July 2, Ruffin replied by letter stating that "we cannot release your deposit as the house was off the market for such a long time," and that Norwest had advised her that the Andersons "did not bring in a lot of the information until it was too late." After Helen Anderson filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), DPR wrote respondent a letter dated July 19, 1984, stating in part that Anderson had been refused her deposit and that its records did not show that respondent had notified DPR of conflicting demands for that money. On July 30, 1984, respondent replied to DPR's inquiry and gave her version of the circumstances surrounding the transaction. After receiving no reply to this letter, she wrote a second letter in late December, 1984 to the Division of Real Estate (Division) requesting advice on the deposit matter. The Division sent a her form for requesting an escrow disbursement order on January 4, 1985 which was returned by respondent within a few weeks. An escrow disbursement order was eventually issued by the Division on April 19, 1985 directing her to refund the deposit to the Andersons. She did so on May 5, 1985. In conjunction with its investigation, DPR obtained copies of respondent's escrow account bank statements during the period when the Andersons' deposit was retained by Ruffin. Although the $500.00 deposit should have been maintained in that account from February, 1984 until disbursement in May, 1985, her account dropped below $500.00 on sixteen separate days during this period of time, and continuously from February 28 through April 30, 1985. Respondent, who has been a broker since 1977, maintained a record of all escrow deposits and expenditures in a ledger book which reflected when the Anderson money was deposited and when it was paid out. Although she inferred the problem may have been attributable to her bookkeeper, no adequate explanation was given as to why her bank balances dropped below $500.00 on a number of occasions. She acknowledged that she learned of the conflicting demands in May, 1984, but felt that she could still "solve" the credit problem of the Andersons. She stated that she intended to give notice to the Division of the conflicting claims on the deposit and needed no encouragement from the Division to do so. There is no evidence that respondent has ever been disciplined on any other occasion since first receiving her salesman license around twelve years ago.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as set forth in the Conclusions of Law portion of this order. All other charges should be DISMISSED. It is recommended that respondent's broker license be suspended for ninety days and that she be fined $500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Bearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1985.
The Issue The issue to be resolved herein concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney's fees in this proceeding. Embodied in that general issue are questions concerning whether the Petitioners are the prevailing parties; whether they meet the definition of "small business" parties, including the net worth amounts, enumerated in Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, as well as whether the disciplinary proceeding against both Petitioners was "substantially justified". See Section 57.111(3)(e) , Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with licensing and regulating the practices of real estate salesmen and brokers by the various provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Included within those duties is the duty to investigate conduct by realtors allegedly in violation of Chapter 475 and related rules and to prosecute administrative penal proceedings for which probable cause is found as a result of such investigations. At times pertinent hereto, both Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Cosyns, (then Pauline Sealey) were licensed realtors working as independent contractors for Mariner Properties, Inc. and V.I.P. Realty Inc. The complete file of the underlying proceeding DOAH Case No. 86-0140, was stipulated into evidence. That file included the Administrative Complaint filed against these Respondents and the Recommended and Final Order, which Final Order adopted the Recommended Order. The findings of fact in that Recommended Order are incorporated by reference and adopted herein. During the Petitioner's case, counsel for Petitioner voluntarily reduced the attorney's fees bills for both Petitioners such that Ms. Maxwell's bill is the total amount of $2,695.50 and Ms. Cosyns' bill is $17,200, rather than the original amounts submitted in the affidavit. Respondent acknowledged in its proposed Final Order that the fees and costs submitted by the Respondent were thus reasonable. The testimony the Petitioners presented through depositions, transcripts of which were admitted into evidence into this proceeding, was unrefuted. That testimony demonstrates that both Ms. Cosyns and Ms. Maxwell were prevailing parties in the administrative proceeding referenced herein brought by the Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation. They were individually named as Respondents in the Administrative Complaint whereby their professional licenses were subjected to possible suspension or revocation for alleged wrong doing on their part. There is no dispute that they were exonerated in that proceeding and are thus prevailing parties within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The Petitioners are also "small business parties". In that connection, they both were independently licensed Real Estate professionals during times pertinent to the underlying proceeding and were acting in the capacity of independent contractors for all the activities with which the administrative complaint was concerned. Each established that her net worth is below the limit provided by Section 57.111 as an element of the definition of "small business party". The reasonableness of the fees having been established in the manner found-above and the Petitioners having established that they meet the definitional requirements of prevailing small business parties, there remains to be determined the issue of whether the proceedings against the two Petitioners were "substantially justified", that is, whether the proceeding had a "reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by a State agency." See Section 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes. The facts concerning each Petitioner's case regarding the three counts of the Administrative Complaint relating to them are as found in the Recommended Order incorporated by reference herein. Respondent Maxwell was charged in the complaint with having worked in conjunction with an office manager, Mr. Hurbanis of V.I.P. Realty, in conspiring with him to submit a fraudulent real estate sales contract to a lending institution for purposes of financing. This allegedly involved submitting a contract to the lending institution with an inflated purchase price in order to secure one hundred percent financing, the scheme being more particularly described in that portion of the findings of fact in the Recommended Order related to Jean Maxwell. In fact, Ms. Maxwell did not work in the realty office as charged in the Administrative Complaint, but rather was employed by Mariner Properties, which may have been a related company. The contract in question, although alleged to be fraudulent was, in fact, a bona fide contract which was a legitimate part of the Real Estate transaction submitted to the bank for financing purposes, about which the bank was kept fully advised. All details of the transaction were disclosed to the lender. Maxwell was specifically charged with concealing the true contract from the lender in order to enhance the percentage of the purchase price that the bank would finance, done by allegedly inflating the purchase price in a second contract submitted to the bank. It was established in the disciplinary proceeding that no such concealment ever took place. In fact, Ms. Maxwell was purchasing a lot from her own employer, Mariner Properties. Two contracts were indeed prepared for the purchase of Lot 69, a single family lot on Sanibel Island. In fact, however, the difference of $42,875 and $49,500 in the stated purchase price, as depicted on the two contracts, was the result of continuing negotiations between Ms. Maxwell and the seller, who was also her employer. The difference in the two prices depicted on the contracts was the result of, in effect, a set-off to the benefit of Ms. Maxwell, representing certain employee discounts and real estate commission due from the employer and seller to Ms. Maxwell, the purchaser. As Petitioners' composite Exhibit 5 reflects, the lender involved, North First Bank of Ft. Myers, Florida, was fully apprised of all the details concerning this transaction at the time it was entered into and the loan commitment extended and closed. Mr. Allan Barnes, the Assistant Vice President of North First Bank revealed, in the letter contained in this exhibit in evidence, that there was no concealment or misrepresentation of the facts to his institution by Ms. Maxwell. This letter is dated April 18, 1984. The other related letter in that exhibit, of May 2, 1984 from attorney Oertel to attorney Frederick H. Wilson of the Respondent agency, thus constitutes notice to the agency well before the complaint was filed, that no concealment or misrepresentation to the lender involved had occurred and the charges were requested to be dismissed. In spite of the fact that the agency was on notice of this turn of events well before the filing of the Administrative Complaint, it proceeded to file the complaint and to prosecute it all the way up to the date of hearing, requiring Ms. Maxwell's attorney to attend the hearing to defend her interests. At the hearing, counsel for the Department acknowledged that there was no basis for prosecuting Ms. Maxwell and voluntarily dismissed the complaint as to her. The Respondent's witness, Investigator Harris, in his deposition taken September 11, 1984, acknowledged that he did not discuss any details concerning the investigation, with attorney Frederick Wilson, who prepared the complaint, nor did he confer with him by telephone or correspondence before the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the complaint was prepared solely on the basis of the investigative report. The investigative report came into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. It reveals that Mr. A. J. Davis the president of Mariner Group and Mariner Properties, who was Jean Maxwell's employer and the owner of the lot in question, signed one contract and his Executive Vice President signed the other. In spite of this, the investigative report does not reveal that the investigator conferred with either Ms. Maxwell, or the sellers concerning this transaction. He conducted a general interview of A.J. Davis concerning the alleged "problem" in his office of "double contracting," but asked him no questions and received no comment about the Jean Maxwell transaction whatever. Nor did the investigator confer with Mr. Allen Barnes or any other representative of North First Bank. If the investigation had been more complete and thorough, he would have learned from Mr. Barnes, if from no one else, that the bank had knowledge of both contracts and all details of the transaction underlying them and there had been no concealment or misrepresentation of the facts regarding the transaction by Ms. Maxwell. This information was learned by attorney Oertel as early as April 18, 1984 by Mr. Barnes' letter, referenced above, and it was communicated to the agency by Mr. Oertel on May 2, 1984. Nevertheless, the complaint was filed and prosecuted through to hearing. Therefore, the prosecution and filing of the Administrative Complaint were clearly not substantially justified. If the Department had properly investigated the matter it would have discovered the true nature of the transaction as being a completely bona fide real estate arrangement. Former Respondent, Pauline Sealy Cosyns was charged with two counts, III and V, in the Administrative Complaint at issue. One count alleged, in essence, that Ms. Sealey had engaged in a similar fraudulent contract situation regarding the sale of her residence to a Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Floyd. The evidence in that proceedings revealed no concealment of any sales contract occurred whatever with regard to the lending institution or anyone else. The facts as revealed at hearing showed Ms. Cosyns and the Floyds, through continuing negotiations after the original sales contract was entered into, amended that contract and executed a second one, in order to allow Ms. Cosyns to take back a second mortgage from the Floyds. This was necessary because Mr. Floyd, an author, was short of the necessary down payment pursuant to the terms of the original contract, because his annual royalty payment from his publishers had not been received as the time approached for closing. The second contract was executed to allow for a second mortgage in favor of the seller, Ms. Cosyns, in order to make up the amount owed by the Floyds on the purchase price agreed upon, above the first mortgage amount. The testimony and evidence in the disciplinary proceeding revealed unequivocally that the lending institution, Amerifirst Mortgage Company, was fully apprised of the situation and of the reason for the two contractual agreements. The $24,000 second mortgage in question is even depicted on the closing statement issued by that bank. There was simply no concealment and no effort to conceal any facts concerning this transaction from the lender or from anyone else. The investigation conducted was deficient because the investigator failed to discuss this transaction with the lender or with the purchasers. He discussed the matter with Ms. Sealy-Cosyns and his own deposition testimony reveals, as does his investigative report, that he did not feel that he got a complete account of the transaction from her. She testified in her deposition, taken prior to the instant proceeding, that she indeed did not disclose all facts of the transaction to him because she was concerned that he was attempting to apprehend her in some "legal impropriety". Therefore, she was reluctant to be entirely candid. The fact remains, however, that had he conducted a complete investigation by conferring with the lender and the purchasers, he would have known immediately, long before the Administrative Complaint was filed and the matter prosecuted, that there was absolutely no basis for any probable cause finding that wrong-doing had occurred in terms of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Thus, the facts concerning the prosecution as to Count III against Pauline Sealy-Cosyns, as more particularly delineated in the findings of fact in the previous Recommended Order, reveal not only that Ms. Cosyns was totally exonerated in the referenced proceeding, but that there was no substantial basis for prosecuting her as to this count at all. Concerning Count V against Ms. Cosyns, it was established through the evidence at the hearing in the disciplinary case that she was merely the listing agent and did not have any part to play in the drafting of the contract nor the presenting of it to the lender. Because there was no evidence adduced to show that she had any complicity or direct involvement in any fraudulent conduct with regard to the transaction involved in Count V of the Administrative Complaint at issue she was exonerated as to that count as well. It is noteworthy here that a statement was made by counsel for the agency, appearing at pages 20 and 21 of the transcript of the proceeding involving the Administrative Complaint, which indicates that the agency, based upon its review of certain documents regarding Counts III and V, before hearing, felt that indeed there might not be a disputed issue of material fact as to Mrs. Cosyns. The agency, although acknowledging that a review of the documents caused it to have reason to believe that it was unnecessary to proceed further against Ms. Cosyns nevertheless did not voluntarily dismiss those counts and proceeded through hearing. Be that as it may, the investigation revealed that Ms. Cosyns acknowledged that she knew that there were two contractual documents involved, but the investigation also revealed that Ms. Cosyns was only the listing agent. The selling agent was Mr. Parks. The investigation revealed through interviews with Ms. Cosyns, Mr. Parks and Mr. Hurbanis, the office Manager of V.I.P. Realty, that Ms. Cosyns, as listing agent, was merely present when the offer from the buyers was communicated to the office manager, Mr. Hurbanis, and ultimately to the sellers, the Cottrells. There was no reason for the investigator to believe that Ms. Cosyns had anything to do with the drafting of the contracts nor with the communication of them to the lending institution involved. That was done by either Mr. Parks or Mr. Hurbanis or by the buyers. The investigation (as revealed in the investigative report) does not show who communicated the contract in question to the lender. The investigation was simply incomplete. If the investigator had conferred with the buyers, the sellers and especially the lender, he could have ascertained-whether the lender was aware of all the facts concerning this transaction and whether there was any reason to believe that Ms. Cosyns had anything to do with the arrangement and the details of the transaction. It was ultimately established, by unrefuted evidence at hearing, that indeed Ms. Cosyns did not have anything to do with the transaction, nor the manner in which it was disclosed to the lender. The fact that she was aware that two contracts had been prepared did not give a reasonable basis for the investigator to conclude that she had engaged in any wrong-doing. The report of his interviews with Ms. Cosyns, Mr. Hurbanis and Mr. Parks, as well as Donna Ross, does not indicate that he had a reasonable basis to conclude that Ms. Cosyns had engaged in any fraudulent conduct with regard to the transaction, including the conveyance of a bogus contract to the lending institution involved, nor for that matter, that Mr. Hurbanis or Mr. Parks engaged in such conduct. In order to ascertain a reasonable basis for concluding whether Ms. Cosyns was involved in any wrongful conduct, he would have had to obtain more information than he did from these people or confer with the lender, the buyer or the seller, or all of these approaches, before he could have a reasonable basis to recommend to the prosecuting agency that an Administrative Complaint be filed against her concerning this transaction. In fact, he did not do so, but the Administrative Complaint was filed and prosecuted through hearing anyway, causing her to incur the above-referenced attorney's fees. It thus has not been demonstrated that there was any substantial basis for the filing and prosecution of Count V of the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cosyn. Thus she is entitled to the attorneys fees referenced above with regard to the prosecution of the Administrative Complaint in question.
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to regulate the practice of real estate, pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Lynton Oliver Thomas, was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0504596 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent Thomas was as a broker-salesperson at Pagliari Realty, Inc., 323 Northeast 167 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, L T Express Realty Corp., was a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker, having been issued license number 0273473 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Thomas was licensed and operating as qualifying broker and officer of Respondent L T Express Realty Corp. The office for this corporate entity was located at 2124 Northeast 123 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. There was no evidence that Respondent Thomas operated his corporate entity from any other office. On May 7, 1995, Respondent Thomas, a licensed real estate broker, d/b/a L T Express Realty Corp., negotiated a contract for the sale of a house between Bruce and Ann McCormick (as sellers) and Marie S. Saintel and Carita Luc (as buyers). The buyers gave Respondent Thomas an earnest money deposit in the amount of $5,528.00. The transaction failed to close. The sellers, through their agent, attempted to make a demand upon Respondent Thomas for delivery of the earnest money deposit. The sellers' agent was unable to serve the demand on the Respondents because the Respondents had closed their offices and could not be located. Respondents had, or should have had, a good faith doubt as to the proper way to disburse the escrowed funds. Respondent Thomas, without authorization from the sellers, returned $3,000.00 of the original $5,528.00 deposit to the buyers. The balance of the earnest money deposit, in the amount of $2,528.00, has not been recovered from the Respondents. Rule 61J2-10.032(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides the procedure real estate brokers are required to follow when competing demands are made for funds that have been received in escrow or when a broker has a good faith doubt as to how escrowed funds should be disbursed. At no time did Respondents attempt to invoke those procedures. Kenneth G. Rehm, Petitioner's investigator, visited Respondent L T Express Realty Corp. and discovered that Respondent Thomas had abandoned his registered office. Respondent Thomas failed to notify Petitioner that he closed his real estate office at 2124 Northeast 123 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered that finds Respondents guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I-VIII of the Administrative Complaint. As a penalty for these violations, the Final Order should revoke all licenses issued by Petitioner to Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Mr. Lynton Oliver Thomas L T Express Realty Corp. 10810 Northeast Tenth Place Miami, Florida 33161 CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 18th day of November, 1997 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
The Issue Whether Respondents are guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of real estate pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and other pertinent provisions of law and rules. Respondent, Francis Walid Jacob, is a duly-licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0569854. Respondent, Renters Paradise Realty, Inc., is a duly- licensed real estate brokerage company, having been issued license number 0269583. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Jacob was the qualifying broker for the corporate Respondent. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Philip Jay Slewett was a licensed real estate salesperson employed by the corporate Respondent. Mr. Slewett's license number was 0614888. Related Management Services, Inc. (RMS), was, at all times pertinent to this proceeding, a real estate management company. Intercoastal Towers, an apartment complex, was one of the properties managed by RMS. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Bruce Terwilliger was the managing Vice President of RMS. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, RMS had a practice of paying commissions to real estate professionals who referred tenants to Intercoastal Towers. The practice required that the real estate professional visit the apartment complex with a client and that the client subsequently lease an apartment at Intercoastal Towers. RMS became suspicious that certain real estate professionals had submitted invoices for clients that they had not referred to the Galahads Apartments, another apartment complex managed by RMS. Because the leasing director at the Galahads had previously been the leasing director for Intercoastal Towers, Mr. Terwilliger investigated whether his company had paid for falsified invoices at the Galahads and at Intercoastal Towers. During his investigation, Mr. Terwilliger reviewed all billings from real estate professionals for commissions based on referrals to Intercoastal Towers, and he interviewed residents to determine whether the billing real estate professional had referred the tenant. Signed statements, including affidavits, were collected during the course of Mr. Terwilliger's investigation, and an investigation by the Miami-Dade Police Department. Based primarily on what Mr. Terwilliger was told by the various residents, he concluded that RMS had paid commissions to the Respondent corporation based on invoices for professional services that had not been rendered. Respondents and the salespersons who generated the billing for a commission split the commission. Mr. Terwilliger met with Respondent Jacob about these invoices. Afterwards, Respondent Jacob had his company reimburse RMS for the invoices at issue in this proceeding. Phillip Slewett was a real estate salesperson employed by the Respondent corporation at the times pertinent to this proceeding. Mr. Slewett admitted that he and another real estate salesperson employed by the Respondent corporation generated the falsified invoices to RMS. Mr. Slewett also implicated two employees of RMS in this billing scam. The evidence did not establish that Respndent Jacob or the Respondent corporation knew or should have known that the invoices generated by Mr. Slewett and the other salesperson were false.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against both Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 2nd day of November, 1999.
