Findings Of Fact Petitioners, a black married couple, executed a contract for the sale of real estate with Respondent Florida West Coast Homes, Inc., on April 15, 1985 which included their purchase of the land and a dwelling to be constructed thereon at Lot 5, Charro Lane, Country Trails Subdivision, Hillsborough County, Florida. The full purchase price of the land and dwelling was $79,850.00. Respondent Locke was President and General Manager of Florida West Coast Homes, Inc., at all times material hereto. He owned 50 percent of the stock of the corporation. Locke signed Petitioners' real estate sales contract on behalf of Florida West Coast Homes, Inc. Respondent Blanke acted as real estate salesman with Florida West Coast Realty in the transaction between Florida West Coast Homes, Inc., as builder and seller, and the Petitioners, as buyers. His broker, Frances Johnson, was employed by Locke. Blanke witnessed the sales contract. A deposit totaling $2000 was paid by Petitioners, who also paid a $1500 cash advance to Florida West Coast Homes, Inc., during construction of their home. These funds have never been refunded to Petitioners, nor has their home been completed. They have never closed on, or received a deed to, the property in question. Construction on Petitioners' home was begun in August, 1985 by Florida West Coast Homes, Inc., after approval for their V.A. financing was received. Approximately two weeks prior to commencement of construction on Petitioners' home, Florida West Coast Homes, Inc., began construction of a dwelling on the lot immediately adjacent to Petitioners' lot. This neighboring lot and dwelling is owned by Respondent Blanke. In September, 1985 construction of Blanke's house and Petitioners' were both at the same stage of completion. Subsequently, however, Blanke's house was completed in February, 1986, but Petitioners' house was not completed prior to Florida West Coast Homes' filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on February 27, 1986. Petitioners' house has not been completed to date. Reasons given to Petitioners for the delay in construction of their home included changes in subcontractors, and the need to complete other homes under construction before Florida West Coast Homes could complete their home. In reality, Florida West Coast Homes was in serious financial difficulty from November, 1985 until its filing for bankruptcy. Subcontractors and suppliers were refusing to do business with the company, and Locke was sued repeatedly in December, 1985 and January, 1986 for amounts owed by Florida West Coast Homes, Inc. Petitioners' contract for sale of real estate states that the estimated date of their home's completion would be November 15, 1985. However, when it became apparent that this completion date would not be met, Locke repeatedly informed them of new completion dates, including December 1, December 31 and January 31. All construction on Petitioners' house stopped after October, 1985 with the house forty or fifty percent complete. In late September or early October, 1985 Petitioners' went to see how construction was progressing on their home. They found that "KKK" had been painted on a tree in their yard. Two weeks later they found that the street in front of their house had been painted with the phrase, "KKK, No Nigers" (sic). Petitioners contacted Florida West Coast Homes about these incidents and requested that the tree be cut down and the street paint removed. They were advised by Locke that he would cut down the tree, but it would cost them $200 to $300, and further that there was nothing he could do about the street painting. In late March, 1986, Petitioners received two harassing telephone calls in which the callers said, "Niggers, take your money and run." This was after Florida West Coast Homes, Inc., had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and also after a newspaper article had appeared in the Tampa Tribune which detailed the incomplete progress of construction on their home, and the racial slurs which had been painted on their tree and on the street. There is no evidence that any of the Respondents were responsible for, directed, or personally engaged in activities which resulted in these racial slurs and harassing telephone calls. Petitioners testified that they believe they were unlawfully discriminated against due to their race because the house next door, which was at the same stage of construction as theirs at one time and which was owned by Respondent Blanke, a white male who was employed by Florida West Coast Realty and who indirectly reported to Respondent Locke, was completed while theirs was not. In addition, Petitioners' phone calls to Florida West Coast Homes were not returned by Locke during December, 1985 and January, 1986. Blanke's employment was terminated by Locke in August, 1985, shortly after the execution of Petitioners' sales contract. There is no evidence that the termination and the execution of this sales contract were in any way related. Blanke did return to work for Locke part-time for two weeks in October, 1985, but decided not to continue this employment. Thus, during the substantial portion of all times material hereto, there was no employment relationship between Respondents Locke and Blanke. Blanke had received conventional financing for his home construction prior to commencement of construction in August, 1985. He closed on the property and received a deed at that time. Although construction on his home was completed when Florida West Coast Homes filed for bankruptcy, his property had liens totaling approximately $10,000. Locke testified that he did not return Petitioners phone calls in December 1985 and January, 1986 because his company was in severe financial trouble, and he did not have any answers for the creditors and home buyers who were calling him. He had eight homes under construction at the time, and only Blanke's home was completed prior to bankruptcy. Of the seven homes which were not completed, six were being purchased by white families and only Petitioners' by a black family. There is no competent substantial evidence that Respondents ever told Petitioners to take their money and get out of the deal, or in any way sought to force Petitioners out of their contract for sale.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing Petitioners complaint under the Fair Housing Ordinance of Hillsborough County. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 11th day of March, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Kerry H. Brown, Esquire 3202 Henderson Blvd. Suite 204 Tampa, Fl 33609 Richard P. Condon, Esquire 214 Bullard Parkway Temple Terrace, Fl 33617 Fred Locke 143 Bunting Lane Land O'Lakes, Fl 33539 Bryon Blanke 4804 Charro Lane Plant City, Fl 33566 Amelia G. Brown, Esquire P. O. Box 1110 Tampa, Fl 33601 Robert W. Saunders, Director Equal Opportunity Office P. O. Box 1110 Tampa, Fl 33601
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility to license and regulate the licensure standards of real estate brokers and salespersons in the State of Florida and with prosecuting Administrative Complaints against the licensure status of those persons for alleged violations of the various provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (1991), and the rules promulgated thereunder. The Respondent at all times material hereto was a real estate broker- salesperson operating and licensed in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0162601. The last license issued the Respondent was effective on September 30, 1991 and accorded him the status of a "non-active broker" with an address at 5622 Thomas Drive, Panama City, Florida 32408. In 1987, Barbara Jean Parmer, also known as Barbara Jean Withers (hereafter Barbara Parmer), responded to a newspaper ad and rented a residential property from the Respondent. She gave the Respondent a damage deposit of approximately $395.00. Subsequent to renting the property, she expressed an interest in buying it from the Respondent and was advised by the Respondent that she could seek financing from his lender or she could make payments directly to the Respondent; and when he was fully paid, he would transfer the deed to her and pay off the existing first mortgage. This was the first occasion she had ever attempted to purchase a home. The Respondent told Barbara Parmer that the existing mortgage balance was $29,000.00 and that to sell her the property, he wanted a $5,000.00 down payment and $12,000.00 in "rent" for a total sales price of $46,000.00. In effect, the so-called payments would be payments toward purchase of his equity in the home. On October 9, 1987, the Respondent and Barbara Parmer executed a "Receipt for Deposit-Offer to Purchase-Contract for Sale" (contract) reflecting a $5,000.00 earnest money deposit for property located at 335 Gardenia Street, Panama City, Florida. On that day, Barbara Parmer gave the Respondent check number 108 for $5,000.00 as the down payment on the house. He cashed that check on October 12, 1987. The Respondent drafted the contract at issue and did not advise Barbara Parmer to have an attorney review the document. Barbara Parmer testified that she trusted the Respondent, in effect, because he was a real estate licensee. When she signed the contract and gave the earnest money deposit or down payment, she understood that she was contracting to purchase the property from the Respondent. Sometime after signing the contract and the tendering of the earnest money deposit, Barbara Parmer (then Withers) married David Parmer. Subsequent to the signing of the contract and the payment of the earnest money deposit, the Respondent advised the Parmers that he was getting divorced. He told them he did not want his wife to gain possession of the property and so suggested that Barbara Parmer go to Sun Bank to have the property transferred into her name, in other words, by re-financing the house with Sun Bank and thus paying off the existing first mortgage and any equity still owed the Respondent. After the Respondent told the Parmers about his impending divorce, Mr. Parmer asked the Respondent to return the $5,000.00 earnest money deposit. The Respondent advised that if he sold the house, he would return the deposit, which was being held in an account drawing interest, according to the Respondent. He also represented that he would not refund any of the money expended by them for improvements because he had not requested that any of the improvements be made. He had apparently taken the position in entering the arrangement with Barbara Parmer that it was a sale of the property under a "contract for deed" arrangement whereby title would pass only after his purchase price had been paid. In any event, Barbara Parmer went to Sun Bank and was advised by Loan Officer, Cindy McNeal, that the documents entered into between Barbara Parmer and the Respondent regarding purchase of the property were legally flawed in the opinion of Ms. McNeal and that Barbara Parmer should seek an attorney's advice. Sun Bank declined to refinance the property because Mr. Parmer was then unemployed due to an accident and was only receiving income from worker's compensation and no salary. After the conversation with the representative of Sun Bank, Barbara Parmer called Great Western, the holder of the first mortgage executed by the Respondent, to inquire as to the balance due on that first mortgage. Barbara Parmer received a document from Great Western dated November 13, 1990 indicating that the balance on the mortgage was approximately $33,000.00. In 1987, when she contracted with the Respondent to purchase the property, the Respondent had told her that the balance was approximately $29,000.00. The first mortgage was apparently an adjustable rate mortgage and either the represented $29,000.00 figure was inaccurate or the mortgage was in negative amortization or both. The Respondent never advised the Parmers of any negative amortization situation. Between October 9, 1987 and March or April of 1991, Barbara Parmer paid the Respondent between $400.00 and $500.00 per month toward purchase of the property. The checks for the monthly payments were payable to Respondent Melvin J. Powell and were negotiated by Powell. At the direction of the Respondent, the payments were made at the office of Sun Spot Realty. During this time, the Respondent's licensure was located and registered with Sun Spot Realty. The variation in the monthly payment was because the Respondent advised Barbara Parmer that the monthly payment on the first mortgage held by Great Western was $200.56 and that anything she paid over that amount would go toward the $12,000.00 equity she owed the Respondent pursuant to their agreement. Some months she paid different amounts over and above the amount represented by the monthly payment on the Great Western first mortgage. The Respondent gave Barbara Parmer a ledger sheet showing the dates she made payments on the property, the amount that went to Great Western to retire the first mortgage, and the amount that went to the Respondent toward the $12,000.00 second mortgage representing his equity, as well as the amounts contributed to interest, taxes, and insurance. During the approximately three and one-half years that she lived in the house, she made improvements to the property, including but not limited to: landscaping the front and back yards, pouring a foundation, erecting a metal shed, repairing the roof, painting the interior and exterior, replacing the walls and floor in the bathroom, wallpapering and finishing the kitchen, and installing a new dishwasher and a new hot water heater. Respondent never expended any funds for upkeep of the property during the time the Parmers occupied the house. The Parmers spent at least $5,000.00 on improvements to the property they were purchasing from the Respondent. The Respondent told them then to make whatever improvements they wished because the house was theirs. The Parmers would not have spent the money on the improvements had they not believed that they were purchasing the property. After attempting to obtain financing from Sun Bank, Barbara Parmer contacted Attorney Glenn Hess, who sent a letter to Respondent's counsel regarding Barbara Parmer's concerns. Prior to seeing Attorney Hess, the Respondent had admonished Barbara Parmer not to see an attorney, that the matter could be settled amicably between them, and he threatened to sue her if she did contact an attorney about her concerns. The Respondent told Mr. Parmer that Barbara Parmer had a legal contract to purchase the property and warned against them seeking legal advice by threatening to sue them for breach of contract if they did so. Attorney Hess advised Barbara Parmer that it would be uneconomical to file a lawsuit against the Respondent. Despite demand for return of the earnest money deposit, the Respondent never returned the deposit nor did he ever compensate the Parmers for the funds they expended on improvements to the property. They vacated the property on advice of their attorney. The Respondent never gave notice to the Parmers that he was claiming any of their funds for damage to the property or for breach of contract. When they vacated the property, there was no damage to the property other than a five-inch hole in one bedroom wall. Within two months of the Parmers moving out, the Respondent rented the property to another tenant for almost $100.00 per month more than the Parmers had been paying. On the advice of Attorney Hess, the Parmers filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Bay County Board of Realtors, Inc. Thomas S. Newbauer has been a licensed real estate broker since 1973 and serves as chairman of the Professional Standards Committee (hereafter Committee) of the Bay County Board of Realtors. The Committee hears cases and renders decisions on allegations of violations of the Board of Realtors' code of ethics. In September, 1991, Mr. Newbauer served as a member of the panel appointed by the Committee in considering the complaint filed by the Parmers against Respondent. A hearing was held by the appointed panel to consider the complaint filed by the Parmers against the Respondent. The Respondent was notified of the hearing and appeared and testified. On September 30, 1991, the ethics hearing panel of the Committee filed a decision regarding the Parmer complaint against the Respondent and determined that the Respondent had violated three articles of the realtor code of ethics and further that there might be grounds for investigation by the Florida Department of Professional Regulation. On October 1, 1991, Mr. Newbauer sent a letter to the Board of Directors of the Board of Realtors informing them of the determination of the panel of the Committee. The determination by the panel that the Respondent had violated the code of ethics was upheld by the Board. Paul R. Bratton, III has been a real estate investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation for some nine years. The Respondent told Mr. Bratton that he had kept the $5,000.00 earnest money deposit because the Parmers had breached the contract.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of having violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and that his Florida real estate license be suspended for a period of one year, that he be accorded a formal written reprimand, that he complete 60 hours of post-licensure continuing education for brokers within three years from the date of the Final Order entered in this cause, and that he pay a fine of $1,000.00 to the agency within 30 days of the filing of the Final Order in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 13th day of May, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3751 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-46. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The Respondent filed no separately-stated findings of fact but rather a one-page "Proposed Recommended Order" merely stating the conclusions that the Respondent was not guilty of the charges in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint and the statutes he was charged with violating. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Janine B. Myrick, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Melvin J. Powell 2610 Dade Panama City, FL 32408 Melvin J. Powell 5622 Thomas Drive Panama City, FL 32408
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license number 0073256 authorizing his practice in such a capacity in the State of Florida. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the licensure and practice standards embodied in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, for realtors in the State of Florida. From approximately April 16, 1977, through November 17, 1977, the Respondent, acting in the capacity of a real estate salesman, was employed by a broker by the name of Irwin Kane and Wintex Realty Corporation of Miami, Florida. That entity with Broker Kane was involved in the advertisement, promotion and sale of parcels of unimproved land in west Texas. The Respondent's duties involved making long-distance telephone calls to prospective purchasers of that land (in Cochran County, Texas), attempting to induce them to buy one or more parcels. In the course of this telephone sales campaign, in which the Respondent participated with approximately 20 salesmen making such phone calls, the Respondent used a script prepared for him by Irwin Kane, his employing broker. The script, in general, extolled the attributes of the unimproved property in an arid region of west Texas, representing that the land possessed favorable climatic conditions, water supply and soil conditions for agricultural purposes and was near property in which oil companies were interested. The Respondent contacted a potential buyer by phone who lived in Wisconsin and attempted to persuade the buyer to purchase a parcel of the property through use of the prepared "script" given him by his broker. That potential customer apparently became suspicious of the sales method, manner or assurances given by phone and ultimately was instrumental, along with the United State Attorney, in the filing of an indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, charging the Respondent (along with his broker, principals of the corporation and other salesmen) with the use of wire communication in furtherance of a scheme to defraud potential purchasers of real estate in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. In that proceeding, the Respondent initially professed his lack of knowledge of the truth or falsity of the representations made in the prepared script his broker gave him and required him to use concerning the attributes of the west Texas land involved. Due in part to a dearth of financial resources to devote to litigation, the Respondent ultimately pled nolo contendere on November 7, 1978, to the charge involving using wire communication in a scheme to defraud. He was ultimately found guilty and was placed on probation for three years, with imposition of a sentence of imprisonment being suspended by the court. The Respondent had no part in the preparation of any written materials or "script" which he employed in making the telephone conversation and representations describing the supposed attributes of the property he was attempting to market on behalf of his employer, Broker Irwin Kane and Wintex Realty Corporation. That script was prepared by his broker or others and the Respondent read or consulted from it as he was communicating with prospective purchasers, but had no actual knowledge of its truthfulness or falsity with regard to the representations contained therein. He was shown to have made no representation or verbal communication which he knew to be false when he made it. The Respondent has been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding involving the same factual transaction in the past which culminated in a final order dismissing that administrative complaint. 1/
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and the evidence in the record, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Ed Rich, be found guilty of a violation of Section 475.25(i)(f), Florida Statutes, and that the penalty of a two (2) year suspension of licensure be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joel S. Fass, Esquire 626 Northeast 124th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Mr. Ed Rich 1950 South Ocean Drive Hallendale, Florida 33009 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issues in this case are whether Respondents are guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Department is the appropriate state agency charged with the responsibility of disciplining real estate licensees. At all times material to the allegations in the administrative complaint, Respondent, O'Hayon, was a licensed real estate broker, license no. 0236925. At all times material to the allegations in the administrative complaint, Respondent, Gold Coast, was a corporation registered as a brokerage entity, license no. 0231581. On June 2, 1986, O'Hayon registered with the Division of Real Estate as broker and an officer of Gold Coast. At that time, the business location for Gold Coast was 9121 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. On March 25, 1988, the business location of Gold Coast was changed to 3585 Northlake Boulevard, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. On September 30, 1988, the broker's license held by O'Hayon became inactive due to the non-renewal of the corporate registration for Gold Coast. According to the Department's records and the Election of Rights filed by O'Hayon, O'Hayon's address is 12999 Calais Circle, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410. On February 19, 1988, J. Edward Lemon as broker of record for Respondent, Gold Coast, wrote to the Department to notify it of "many short falls." Mr. Lemon expressed concerns that Respondent, O'Hayon, had misappropriated monies belonging to the company. On February 25, 1988, Larry E. Whitten, an investigator employed by the Department, performed an informal audit of Gold Coast bank accounts. Gold Coast's escrow account was overdrawn in the amount of $1459.66. According to Whitten's calculations, the account should have held approximately $37,285. In order to make up for the lost funds, Lemon deposited approximately $45,000 into a new escrow account to cover the missing funds. Mr. Lemon also attempted to locate records to determine how the funds had been expended. Unfortunately, O'Hayon had not maintained records to explain the expenditures. Respondent, O'Hayon, misappropriated Gold Coast escrow funds to pay his home mortgage payment and other personal expenses. O'Hayon was a trustee and signatory on a realty group trust account. This account was to be maintained in accordance with an agreement executed by a group of realtors who sought to pool their resources to create a fund to defend, compromise or satisfy claims which were not covered by their errors and omissions insurance. O'Hayon was never authorized to remove funds from this account. Nevertheless, O'Hayon did withdraw funds from the group trust account to pay personal expenses. These monies were never returned or repaid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order revoking the real estate broker's license held by Respondent, Joe O'Hayon. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 9th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4039 RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are accepted. With the correction of the amounts in dispute, paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraphs 9 through 13 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation-Legal Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Gold Coast Properties of the Palm Beaches, Inc. 355 Northlake Blvd. Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Joe O'Hayon 12999 Calais Circle Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director DPR, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1973, Mr. and Mrs. Delmar D. Carter purchased the Buccaneer Motel and Woodside Apartments [the motel] from C.E.K., Inc., whom respondents represented in the sale. Respondents agreed to accept less from C.E.K., Inc., as their commission on the sale, that they might have otherwise, because the Carters agreed to give respondents the exclusive right to resell the motel for a period of five years. Two years after they purchased the motel, the Carters asked O.B. Linkous to try to sell the motel, but the Carters sell held the motel when the resale agreement expired in late 1978. One of the obligations assumed by the Carters in exchange for the motel was secured by a mortgage that C.E.K., Inc., had executed in favor of O.B. Linkous Realty, Inc., on December 14, 1972. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. This assumed obligation required the Carters to make certain monthly payments to the corporate respondent including a payment of $862.19 on January 1, 1979. Under the mortgage agreement, the entire principal (originally $88,247.93) would become due if a "default continue for a space of 30 days." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. On January 25, 1979, Mr. Carter delivered to Mr. Linkous a check in the amount of $862.19, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, as payment of the amount due on January 1, 1979. When he handed the check to respondent Linkous, Mr. Carter told him that the funds in the account on which the check was drawn were insufficient for the drawee to pay the check, but that he would deposit sufficient funds on the following day. Respondent Linkous answered that he saw no problem since he intended to deposit the check in his own account in another bank and assumed it would be at least a day before the check was presented to the drawee. On the following day, Mr. Carter deposited $865.96 in the account on which the check was drawn. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. On January 31, 1979, the balance in the account was $1,000.32. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Instead of depositing the check, respondent Linkous took the check, on the same day he received it, to the Flagship First National Bank of Ormond Beach, on which it was drawn, and persuaded a teller there to stamp it so as to indicate that it had been dishonored because sufficient funds were not on deposit. On February 7, 1979, a mortgage foreclosure complaint was filed against the Carters and C.E.K., Inc., (as holder of a junior mortgage), in which respondents' attorney alleged that the Carters had "defaulted under the note and mortgage by failing to pay the payment due January 1, 1979, and all subsequent payments." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The Carters retained counsel who filed an answer and counterclaim in which it was alleged, inter alia, that Linkous "deliberately with premeditated design, deceived and tricked [the Carters]." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. After these pleadings had been filed, the Carters agreed to respondents' counsel's suggestion that they grant the corporate respondent the exclusive right to sell the motel for another five-year period in exchange for an end to the litigation, and executed an agreement to that effect. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. The parties stipulated that both respondents hold real estate licenses issued by petitioner.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondents' licenses for a period of five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Ralph Fetner, Jr., Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Hadley, Esquire 827 Deltona Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman should be denied because he allegedly lacks the requisite honesty, trustworthiness, truthfulness, good character, and good reputation for fair dealing.
Findings Of Fact On June 10, 1983, petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Question No. 6, on the application, reads: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? If yes, state details including the outcome in full. Question #6 was answered by Petitioner as follows: Feb. 11, 1979 arrested - (hit & run & possession of cocaine) [sic] Case #79521C. In hit & run charge - (felony was dropped) In the cocaine [sic] charge 3 yrs. probation (Aug. 1, 79, Aug. 1, 82). Also (July 11, 80) went to court for loitering or prowling charge - Pleaded no contest and paid $25 court cost - Case No. 80-4630mm. On August 17, 1983, the Commission tentatively denied his application because of his criminal record disclosed by this answer to Question No. 6. His answer was truthful and correct. On February 11, 1979, he was arrested in Lake Worth, Florida, and charged with possession of cocaine and hit and run. The hit and run charge was dropped and, on August 1, 1979, he pled guilty to the charge of possession of cocaine. He was adjudged guilty and sentenced to three years of probation. On April 22, 1980, while on Probation, petitioner, was arrested in Boynton Beach, Florida, charged with loitering or prowling, and later convicted. II. Petitioner, 22, was 18 years old in 1979, when he was arrested, and convicted of possessing a small amount of cocaine. The seriousness of his loitering or prowling conviction, which occurred in the next year, is revealed by the minimal sentence he received--a $25 fine. That was his last unlawful act, and it occurred almost four years ago. During the last two years, his life and character have changed dramatically. He avoids illicit drugs; he works 60 hours a week as a salesman in a West Palm Beach furniture store; and he is the sole support for his 2 year old daughter, Keisha. Both he and his friends attribute his change in lifestyle and character to the love and responsibility he feels for Keisha, whose mother left him approximately a year ago. Two character witnesses, admittedly his friends, know petitioner to be an honest, trustworthy, and straight-forward person. They have been impressed by his willingness to accept responsibility for his young daughter and raise her almost single-handedly; by his willingness to work hard as a salesman and improve his lot. Both witnesses are reputable real estate brokers or salesmen in Florida. One has been in the real estate business for 11 years, is president of the largest realtor office in Palm Beach County, does a real estate radio talk show, and teaches and publishes articles on investing in real estate. He has known petitioner for about three years and stated, without hesitation, that he would hire petitioner if he obtains a real estate license. The other witness, licensed since 1977, has known petitioner since boyhood and believes that respondent would make a good real estate salesman. The opinions of these character witnesses are persuasive and supported by other convincing evidence. Until recently, when he began working at a West Palm Beach furniture store because of the opportunity for increased sales, he had worked at a Lake Worth furniture store for 3 and 1/2 years. He began as a delivery boy, was promoted to part-time sales, then full-time sales. He opened the store four to six days a week. For the last four years, he has been a stable, productive and, by all accounts, reliable employee. The Commission has not alleged or shown otherwise. Petitioner's completion of his application, and his candor and demeanor at hearing, provide further evidence of his character and honesty. On his application he truthfully and fully disclosed his previous arrests and convictions. At hearing, he candidly admitted his past indiscretions or unlawful acts, and expressed a sincere desire for an opportunity to become a real estate salesman: Yes, I would very much appreciate an opportunity to take the test. Like I say, my four years is a very long time. I don't know if it is for most people. It's been a long time for me. My lifestyle, you could really call it boring. Like I say, I am working sixty hours a week and taking of the business with the baby just about the rest of the time, and ninety percent of my spare time is spent with her. I am trying to prove something to you today that I already know in my heart, and that is that I would not cheat anybody and I do have a general fair and loving outlook on life. That's all. (TR.-28) Based on the above, it is concluded, as an ultimate finding, that petitioner is honest, truthful, and trustworthy, and has good character and reputation. His conduct, over four years, demonstrates that he possesses these qualities. Two licensed real estate professionals, aware of his past misdeeds, enthusiastically vouch for his good character and ask that he be given an opportunity to become a salesman. It appears likely that his licensing, should he pass the examination, will not endanger the interests of the public or real estate investors.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner be found qualified, under Section 475.17, and that, upon passing the required examination, he be licensed as a Florida real estate salesman. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 1984.
The Issue Should Petitioner, Darius Jermaine Santiago's, application for a real estate sales associate license be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is an applicant for licensure as a real estate sales associate. He is 36 years old and has lived in Florida since June 2004. He works in a Subway restaurant. Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing real estate professionals in the State of Florida and has the statutory authority to approve or deny Petitioner's application. Petitioner’s application discloses the following criminal offenses: Indecent exposure [Exposed sexual organ to law enforcement officer] Volusia County, Florida Date of offense 7/28/2005 Pled no contest; adjudication withheld, 6 mos. probation, fined. Possession of cannabis, possession of narcotic paraphernalia, [Possession of cannabis not more than 20 grams] Volusia County, Florida Date of offense 2/9/2009 Completed a “Level I” program, charge Nolle Prosequi Trespassing of conveyance [Accused of entering a truck without permission] Volusia County, Florida Date of offense 5/12/2009 In February, 2010, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the charge referenced in 3c. He has performed 15 of 25 hours of community service imposed by the Court. On October 2, 2009, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for real estate sales associate licensure. The stated reasons listed in the Notice of Intent to Deny are: C. Having engaged in conduct or practices which would have been grounds for revoking or suspending a real estate license. 475.17(1)(a), 475.181, F.S. Convicted or found guilty or entered a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime which directly relates to activities of a licensed broker or sales associate or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing. 475.25(1)(f), 475.181, F.S. Applicant has not had sufficient lapse of time, without government supervision, to establish rehabilitation by being crime free. M. The Commission concludes that it would be a breach of its duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public to license this applicant and thereby provide him easy access to the homes, families or personal belongings of the citizens of Florida. 455.201, F.S.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order denying Petitioner, Darius Jermaine Santiago’s application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Darius Jermaine Santiago 1534 Dunlap Drive Deltona, Florida 32725 Thomas W. O’Bryant Jr., Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Roger P. Enzor, Chair Real Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed a housing discriminatory practice against Petitioner based on Petitioner’s race and gender, in violation of Section 760.23, Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact Ms. Martindale is an African-American female. Westgate sells timeshare units and vacations. Westgate is the largest privately-owned timeshare developer in the world. It currently has 27 resorts around the United States. There are over 250,000 owners of timeshares sold by Westgate. Westgate has developed a strategy to market its timeshare units. It leases locations in the Orlando area, including space in hotels, and outdoor locations at gas stations and convenience stores. Marketing coordinators are placed in the locations to solicit families and individuals to come and tour Westgate properties in hopes that they will purchase vacations or timeshares. One of the enticements Westgate uses to get people to tour its properties is a free gift, if the potential customer meets certain qualifications. On July 1, 2008, Ms. Martindale was approached by a Westgate marketing coordinator at a convenience store. The marketing coordinator asked to see Ms. Martindale’s driver’s license and a credit card. The marketing coordinator also asked her the amount of her annual income. Ms. Martindale was presented with an invitation by the marketing coordinator, who went over the details of the invitation with Ms. Martindale. The invitation was to be used to secure Ms. Martindale’s admission to a tour of the Westgate resort at Kissimmee, Florida. Ms. Martindale signed the invitation and initialed the invitation acknowledging that she met the qualifications listed in the invitation for a $100 cash gift. The invitation states: Provisions of offer: There is no cost or obligation to purchase anything. No one is excluded from our tour or resort ownership; however, the following requirements must be met in order to receive a gift. After meal, you must attend a 90 minute sales presentation. If married, husband and wife must attend together. If cohabitating, both parties must be present. You must speak fluent English or Spanish. If married, husband or wife must be between the ages of 23-65 with a valid photo I.D. or passport to qualify with a combined gross annual household income of $50,000. Single persons (single constitutes never married, divorced, widowed; single does not constitute separated) must be between the ages of 23-65 with a valid photo I.D. or passport and a $50,000 gross annual income. Florida residents of Brevard, Volusia, Lake, Orange, Polk, or Seminole Counties do not qualify for this offer. Must have spent prior night in a motel, hotel, resort, condo or vacation rental in the Orlando area and are not staying in a campground, driving an R.V. or with family/friends. Subject to the above qualifications, this offer is available to all permanent residents and citizens of the United States. This offer may not be available to citizens and residents of some countries. I/we have confirmed our eligibility for the gift with the Marketing Representative prior to arranging for my/our tour. When Ms. Martindale received the invitation, she understood that she would not receive the free gift if she did not meet the qualifications listed in the invitation. She also understood that she did not have to meet the qualifications in order to take the tour and that she could purchase a timeshare unit without meeting the qualifications. Ms. Martindale took the invitation and went to the Westgate property for a tour and her free gift. At the time that Ms. Martindale signed the invitation and presented herself for the tour and free gift, she was a resident of Orlando, Orange County, Florida. When Ms. Martindale arrived at the Westgate property, she stopped at the tour check-in desk. Again she was asked to present her driver’s license and a major credit card. She was asked the amount of her annual income. The employee at the check-in desk told Ms. Martindale to proceed to the reception area where she would be greeted by another employee and taken on a tour. Ms. Martindale stayed in the reception area for about ten minutes when she was greeted by a salesperson who took her to a larger reception area in which there were hundreds of people of varying nationalities and gender, including African- American women. The reception area contained a buffet, and the salesperson told Ms. Martindale that she could enjoy the buffet. The man then began to ask her questions about her annual income. He told her that he did not believe her and left to get Lissette Roman, who was the assistant manager resort liaison. He returned with Ms. Roman. When a potential customer does not appear to meet the financial qualifications for the free gift, Ms. Roman is asked to assist in determining if there is any way in which the potential customer may qualify for the free gift. Ms. Roman’s duties include asking questions concerning the amount and sources of income the potential customer has. Ms. Roman receives a commission for each timeshare unit that is sold. Many times potential customers who do not qualify for the free gift become upset, and it is Ms. Roman’s job to calm the potential customer and to avoid a confrontation. If the potential customer becomes antagonistic, Ms. Roman will call security. Ms. Roman asked Ms. Martindale questions about Ms. Martindale’s income. Ms. Martindale felt that Ms. Roman was rude to her, and she felt humiliated by Ms. Roman’s questions regarding her income. According to Ms. Martindale, Ms. Roman called her a liar, wrote cancelled on the invitation, and asked Ms. Martindale to leave the premises. Ms. Roman does not recall the incident involving Ms. Martindale; however, she does not believe that she called Ms. Martindale a liar because such conduct could result in her being terminated from her job. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that Ms. Roman did not call Ms. Martindale a liar, but that, based on the questions that Ms. Roman was asking relating to Ms. Martindale’s income, Ms. Martindale felt that the veracity of her response regarding the amount of her annual income was being impugned. Ms. Roman did write “cancel tour” on the invitation and asked Ms. Martindale to leave. Ms. Roman’s actions had nothing to do with Ms. Martindale’s gender or race. Based on the evidence presented, the conversation between Ms. Martindale and staff from Westgate was escalating into a confrontational situation in a room with hundreds of potential customers. The removal of Ms. Martindale from the premises was a means of avoiding a scene in front of other potential customers. Ms. Martindale wrote a letter to Westgate complaining about the incident. She did receive a telephone call from a representative of Westgate concerning the letter, and she may have been offered a tour of the resort. She was not interested in touring the resort at that time and does not want to tour the resort now. Ms. Martindale never made an offer to purchase a timeshare unit from Westgate. Westgate gives free gifts to males and females of varying nationalities, including African-Americans, if the potential customers meet the qualifications listed on the invitation. Westgate gives tours and sells to males and females of varying nationalities, including African-Americans, regardless of whether the potential customers meet the qualifications for the free gifts. Usually, if the potential customer does not qualify for the free gift, the potential customer does not care to take the tour. However, there have been potential customers who have not met the free-gift qualifications, have taken the tour, and have purchased timeshare units.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing Ms. Martindale’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2009.
The Issue Whether Victor Jesus Monzon (Respondent) committed the violations alleged in the subject Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been a state certified residential real estate appraiser, having been issued license RD-4245 on January 3, 2004. Respondent's licensure has not been previously disciplined by Petitioner. Respondent's business is named Heartland Appraisal Group, Inc. Respondent is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board (Board) by operation of chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes (2010). Petitioner has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Board. Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints by operation of chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. On April 23, 2007, Respondent developed the Report on the Subject Property, which is a condominium unit located in a condominium complex known as the Jade Residences. Respondent prepared the Report for his client, Infinity Mortgage (Infinity). The Administrative Complaint was prepared in response to a complaint from J. P. Morgan Chase, also known as Chase Home Finance (Chase). No representative of Infinity or Chase testified at the formal hearing, so no finding has been made as to how Chase came to possess or utilize the Report. There is also no finding made as to whether Infinity or Chase was misled by any iteration of the Report. Respondent's work file contains a copy of a contract between "John Michael Pla" as seller and "Jeannette H. Lee Declaration of Trust Dated 9/25/98" as purchaser for the sale of the Subject Property in the amount of $1,307,500 (the contract price). In addition to the iteration of the Report that Petitioner received from Chase, Petitioner introduced four iterations of the Report as part of its Exhibit 1 that were copied from Respondent's work file. What was thought to be a fifth iteration obtained from Respondent's work file was also part of Petitioner's Exhibit 1, but it was later determined to be a duplicate of one of the other iterations. For ease of reference, the five iterations will be referred to by the letter I followed by a hyphen and its assigned number. Pages 18-40 of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 constitute the iteration of the Report Petitioner's investigator obtained from Chase (I-1). Respondent's work file did not have a copy of I-1. Page 20 of I-1 contains a photocopy of Respondent's handwritten notation: "Original 1." The handwritten notation does not appear on any of the other iterations. Pages 211-234 of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 constitute I- 2., pages 236-259 constitute I-3, pages 261-284 constitute I-4, and pages 311-335 constitute I-5. All five iterations of the Report were signed by Respondent. I-1 was signed April 24, 2007; I-2, I-4, and I-5 were signed on April 25, 2007; and I-3 was signed on July 25, 2007. All five iterations were effective as of April 23, 2007. All five iterations of the Report valued the Subject Property at $1,400,000. There was no evidence that the Report overstated the value of the Subject Property. There are two separate pages for I-1 marked "page one." On the I-1 page one with the handwritten notation, the name of the borrower is Jeannette Lee and the name of the owner of public record is John Pla. This same information is found on the page ones of I-2 and I-3. On the page one of I-1 without the handwritten notation, the name of the borrower is "LEE," and the name of the owner of record is "Wells Fargo Bank NA" (Wells Fargo). On the page one of I-4 and I-5, the name of the owner of record is Wells Fargo and the name of the borrower is Jeannette Lee. The contract price listed on all iterations except I-1 is $1,307,500. On both pages marked "one" on I-1, the contract price is listed as being $1,307,500 in one place and $1,370,500 in another place. In the "Comparable Sale" section of the reports, the unit number for comparable sale 3 is not listed for I-1 or I-5. The unit number for comparable sale 3 is listed for the other iterations. Also in the Comparable Sale section of the reports, I- 1 reflects the contract price for the subject property as being $1,370,500. In the same place on the other iterations, the contracted sales price is listed as being $1,307,500. Stating the contracted sales price for the subject property at $63,000 more than the actual contracted sales price was a mistake. There was insufficient evidence to establish that it was a deliberate mistake. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the mistake was anything other than a typographical error that Respondent subsequently caught and corrected. Petitioner failed to prove that the error had any effect on the appraised value Respondent put on the subject property. FARES is a software program which stands for "First American Real Estate Solutions." It is acceptable practice for an appraiser to use FARES in determining the ownership of property. Utilizing FARES, Respondent determined that the owner of the subject property was Wells Fargo. A Multiple Listing Service (MLS) entry reflected an unknown closed sale of the subject property with a sales price of $1,133,000. Respondent advised Infinity of the conflict, and he advised that he was using FARES instead of the MLS listing because he believed that FARES was more reliable. The copy of the sales contract in Respondent's work file reflected that the seller was JJohn (sic) Michael Pla. On March 8, 2007, Wells Fargo deeded the subject property to John Pla. This deed was recorded on April 14, 2007. The FARES search done by Respondent did not reveal the deed. The likely explanation for that failure is the delay in indexing public records in Dade County. After Respondent was able to verify this sale, he changed the name of the owner of the subject property on his Report and reflected the date of sale and the sales price of $1,133,000. I-1 and I-5 do not reflect a sale of the Subject Property in September 2004 for the amount of $860,000. Petitioner's expert agreed that that failure had no effect on the appraised value of the Subject Property in April 2007. I-2 and I-3 reflect that Pla was the owner and they reflected the $860,000 sale of the Subject Property in September 2004 and the sale of the property to Pla in 2007. On July 5, 2007, Infinity requested that Respondent change the name of the owner from Wells Fargo to Pla and provided Respondent with a copy of the deed from Wells Fargo to Pla. I-3, signed by Respondent on July 5, 2005, was prepared in response to that request. The record is unclear how I-2, signed on April 25, 2007, had that updated information. After I-3 was issued, the owner of record, the amount of the contract, and the sales history of the property were correctly stated. Respondent used four comparable sales in determining the value of the subject property. Respondent used a computer program to search for comparable sales that were similar in square footage, distance from the subject property, and time of sale. The use of the computer program and the parameters he used in selecting the comparable sales were reasonable. Petitioner asserted that Respondent erred in using comparable sale 1 because the use of that comparable inflated the price of the subject property. There was insufficient evidence to establish that comparable sale 1 was a fraudulent transaction or that Respondent erroneously relied on comparable sale 1 in determining the value of the subject property. Comparable sale 1 was another unit in the Jades Residences condominium complex that was on a higher floor than the Subject Property. Respondent made an adjustment to the sales price for comparable sale 1 to reflect the differences between the two units. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the adjustment was inappropriate. Further, Respondent used a weighted average which gave less consideration to comparable sale 1 than to the other comparables used. Respondent testified, credibly, that he sent two iterations of the Report to Infinity. The first report listed Wells Fargo as the owner and did not list the September 2004 sale of the property or the sale of the property to Pla in March 2007. That appears to be I-5, which was signed April 25, 2007. The other iteration was I-3, which was signed July 5, 2007. Petitioner's expert agreed that it was reasonable for Respondent to amend his Report in July 2007 after he learned of the September 2004 sale and after he verified the sale from Wells Fargo to Pla. The Jade Residences condominium complex became notorious for mortgage fraud in the latter part of 2007. There was no evidence that Respondent was aware of that mortgage fraud when he prepared his original Report in April 2007 or when he amended his original Report in July 2007. Respondent signed the Report which included the following representation: I performed this appraisal in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Standard of Professional Appraisal Practice that were accepted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation and that were in place at the time this appraisal report was prepared. Appraisers are not required by state law to comply with USPAP standards, but it is the industry practice to do so.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Donna Christine Lindamood, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Daniel Villazon, P.A. 1420 Celebration Boulevard, Suite 200 Celebration, Florida 34747
