Findings Of Fact Roy Ahringer, hereinafter referred to as "Respondent" has held real estate broker-salesman license number 0158288 at all times material hereto. From approximately August 15, 1983 to November 20, 1983, and from approximately March 1, 1984 to April 30, 1984, Respondent was licensed and operated as a real estate salesman in the employ of Highlands Holiday Realty, Inc., a licensed brokerage Corporation. On or about August 11, 1983, Highlands Holiday Realty, Inc., obtained from Mildred M. Haydon, as owner, a six month listing to sell certain property designated as Lot 9, Block 353, Section 26 Lake Placid, at a price of "any reasonable cash offer". By the terms of this listing agreement, the listing would continue beyond the six month period "until this agreement is revoked by a ten day's written notice" delivered by the owner to Highlands Holiday Realty, Inc. There is no evidence that this listing agreement was ever revoked and it remained in effect during the time Respondent was employed at Highlands Holiday Realty, Inc. Respondent was therefore an agent for Mildred M. Haydon. While this listing agreement was in effect, Respondent obtained a sales contract on March 29, 1984, executed by Robert J. and Marjorie P. Mitchell, as purchasers, for the purchase of Mildred M. Haydon's Lot 9 at a total purchase price of $5000. On April 30, 1984, the Mitchells executed two checks totaling $5000 to Highlands Holiday Realty which were to be placed in a trust account for this transaction. The contract was initially prepared omitting the name and address of the seller but was later completed by Respondent by having a secretary at Highlands Holiday Realty Inc. type in the names of Roy Ahringer and May Ahringer as sellers. On March 31, 1984 Respondent and his wife, May Ahringer, executed a contract for sale and purchase of Mildred M. Haydon's Lot 9 for the purchase price of $2220. Mildred M. Haydon executed this contract for sale and purchase on April 4, 1984. Subsequently this transaction closed and Respondent, with his wife, purchased the subject property for $2220 on or about May 23 or 24, 1984. The evidence presented establishes that Respondent did not explain to the Mitchells or to Mildred M. Haydon that he would be purchasing the property for $2220 from Mildred M. Haydon and then reselling the property to the Mitchells for $5000. Mildred M. Hayden was not informed of the Mitchell's offer of $5000 for her lot prior to her sale of the lot to Respondent. It is Respondent's contention that he told the Mitchells he was having a problem with the lot owner and that he might have to buy it from her in order to be able to resell it to the Mitchells. However, no evidence supporting this assertion was presented by Respondent, and in any event there is no evidence that the Mitchells or Mildred M. Haydon knew about the difference in the purchase and resale prices which would have resulted from this transaction. When the circumstances surrounding this transaction became apparent to Ronald N. Weisser, broker and owner of Highlands Holiday Realty, Inc., he stopped the Ahringer-Mitchell transaction, and the $5000 paid by the Mitchells for this lot has been returned to them. Respondent still owns the subject property. Mildred M. Hayden was damaged in an amount of approximately $2780 due to Respondent's failure to present the Mitchells' offer to her. The Mitchells were damaged in an amount equal to the interest they were required to pay on money borrowed for the purchase price during the period when the funds were retained in a non-interest bearing escrow account. The parties were allowed to submit post-hearing proposed findings of fact pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order except where such proposed findings of fact have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative immaterial or unnecessary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a period of two (2) years and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1000). DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1985 at Tallahassee Florida. Hearings Hearings DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 10th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James Gillis, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Roy Ahringer 232 Harmony Avenue Lake Placid Florida 33852 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Peter P. Sedler, at all times material to the complaint, has been licensed as a real estate broker, holding license 0079017. He was last licensed as a broker c/o Marshall & Sedler, Inc., 7771 St. Andrews, Lake Worth, Florida 33467. Marshall & Sedler, Inc., at all times relevant to the complaint, had been registered as a Florida real estate broker, holding license 0250511, its last licensed address was 7771 St. Andrews, Lake Worth, Florida 33467. Peter P. Sedler was the qualifying broker and officer for Marshall & Sedler, Inc. On about July 3, 1987, Tom Teixeira was employed as a salesman by Cartier Realty, of 11852 42nd Road North, Royal Palm Beach, Florida. Cartier Realty had solicited, through a direct mailing, listings for property in the Royal Palm Beach area. Ms. Mary Myers, an older woman of about 70 years of age, responded to the advertisement, and gave Mr. Teixeira an open listing for real property which she owned. While Mr. Teixeira placed a Cartier Realty "For Sale" sign on the property, the sign was somehow removed shortly thereafter, and no party dealing with Ms. Myers during the months of July, August and September of 1987 would have been placed on notice that Cartier Realty had any listing on the property. Mr. Sedler had nothing to do with the disappearance of the sign. Ms. Myers had originally acquired the property from her daughter. Long before Ms. Myers gave a listing to Cartier Realty, William Kemp and his wife Gina DiPace Kemp had told Ms. Myers that they were interested in purchasing the property, which is adjacent to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Kemp. When Mr. and Mrs. Kemp first contacted Ms. Myers, she had wanted to keep the property, in the belief that she might eventually convey it back to her daughter. Mr. Teixeira brought to Ms. Myers an offer from David R. and Maureen C. Rose to purchase the land for $11,900. Ms. Myers did not accept that offer, but the Roses accepted Ms. Myers' counteroffer on July 24, 1987, to sell it for $12,300. The sale was contingent upon the buyers obtaining financing; they applied for a loan, and ordered both an appraisal and a survey. The closing was to be held by September 1, 1987. (Contract, paragraph VI.) The closing date passed, without the buyers obtaining the necessary financing, so the contract was no longer effective. On about September 8, 1987, Mr. Teixeira attempted to contact Ms. Myers. He had obtained no written extension of the contract but hoped the sale might yet close. Ms. Myers told Teixeira that she was still willing to sell the property to Mr. and Mrs. Rose. In the meantime, Mr. and Mrs. Kemp became aware that Ms. Myers wanted to sell the property, because they noticed Mr. and Mrs. Rose coming to look at the land, and had engaged them in conversation. Ms. Kemp then contacted Ms. Myers to remind her that they were still willing to purchase the property, and also to say that they would offer more than the current offer on the property. On about September 11, 1987, Ms. Kemp contacted Cartier Realty to say that she also wished to make an offer on the Myers' lot. For a reason which was never adequately explained at the hearing, Teixeira, who should have been working on behalf of the seller, refused to take the offer, even though it was for a higher price. After this rebuff by Teixeira, Ms. Kemp contacted Marshall & Sedler, Inc., in order to try to find a broker who would convey their offer to Ms. Myers and spoke with Patricia Marshall, Ms. Marshall referred her to her partner, Peter Sedler. The Kemps told Sedler that Ms. Myers had told them that she had received a $9,000 offer on the lot. Why Ms. Myers told the Kemps that the Rose offer was $9,000 is not clear, for the actual offer had been $12,300, but Sedler did not know this. There was no listing of the lot in the local board of realtors multiple listing service book, and Mr. Sedler found the address of Ms. Myers through the public records. Mr. Sedler knew from his conversations with Ms. Kemp that Cartier Realty had some involvement with an offer on the property. He called Cartier Realty and tried to speak with the broker handling the matter. He spoke with a man named Tom, who he thought was a brother of the owner of Cartier Realty, Pete Cartier. Mr. Sedler actually talked with Tom Teixeira. Sedler believed he was dealt with rudely by Teixeira, who had hung up on him. Sedler then called Pete Cartier directly to find out whether there was an outstanding contract on the property, and Cartier told Sedler that he would call Sedler back. When Cartier called Sedler, Cartier warned Sedler that he should stay out of the deal. Mr. Sedler became suspicious about Cartier Realty's failure to bring a higher offer to the attention of the seller, and on September 16, 1987, filed a complaint against Tom Cartier with the Lake Worth Board of Realtors. Mr. Sedler then traveled to Pompano Beach to meet with Ms. Myers at her home, and brought with him a contract for sale and purchase of the property, already signed by the Kemps and dated September 14, 1987. While at the door, Ms. Myers asked Peter Sedler if he was "Tom." Ms. Myers knew that she had been dealing with a "Tom" at Cartier Realty, but all her dealings were on the phone, and she did not know what Tom Teixeira looked like. Sedler replied "Yes, but you can call me Pete." Sedler merely intended the comment as humor. At that time Sedler gave Ms. Myers his pink business card and specifically identified himself as Pete Sedler of Marshall & Sedler, Inc. Mr. Sedler asked Ms. Myers if she had any paperwork, such as the prior contract for the sale of the lot which had expired on September 1, 1987, but she did not. While Sedler was with Ms. Myers, she agreed to sell the property to the Kemps for $12,500 and signed the Kemp contract. The Kemps had put the purchase price of $12,500 into the Marshall & Sedler escrow account. Three days later, on September 18, 1987, Mr. Sedler, in the company of his wife Bonnie, presented a post-dated check to Ms. Myers in the amount of $11,020, the net amount due to Ms. Myers for the lot, based on the purchase price of $12,500. When they met this second time he introduced himself again as Pete Sedler and offered Ms. Myers his card for a second time. The post-dated check was conditioned by an endorsement making it good upon a determination that the title to the lot was good. A quit claim deed to Mr. and Mrs. Kemp was executed by Ms. Myers and witnessed by Bonnie Sedler. The post-dated check was given to Ms. Myers because she was about to leave on vacation. The check was given as a sort of security for good title, in return for the quit claim deed which closed the transaction. Mr. Sedler had structured the transaction in this way because he was concerned that someone at Cartier Realty might also attempt to purchase the property from Ms. Myers on behalf of one of their clients. At that time, Mr. Sedler held the reasonable belief that no other party had a subsisting contract to purchase the property from Ms. Myers. Sedler had no reason to believe the Roses would or could pay more for the property than the Kemps offered. Ms. Myers knew that Tom Teixeira from the Cartier realty firm represented a distinct business entity from Marshall & Sedler or Pete Sedler. After a title search showed that Ms. Myers had clear title to the property, the check which Mr. Sedler had given to Ms. Myers on September 18, 1987, with the restrictive endorsement was replaced. Later Mr. and Mrs. Rose tried to close their purchase, but found they could not. Ms. Myers had failed to inform them of the sale she made to the Kemps through Mr. Sedler. Mr. Teixeira, in retribution, filed an ethics complaint about Mr. Sedler with the West Palm Beach Board of Realtors.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint against Peter P. Sedler and Marshall & Sedler, Inc., be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6183 Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: 1. Rejected as unnecessary. 2 and 3. Adopted in Finding 1. 4 - 6. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 3. Implicit in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. Implicit in Finding 6. This does not mean that the contract subsisted, however. Rejected. Ms. Myers was willing to sell the property to Mr. and Mrs. Rose after the contract expired, but she was not under any obligation to do so. Adopted in Finding 7. Rejected, because there was no pending contract. Teixeira never obtained a written extension of the closing date and Ms. Myers was free to sell elsewhere. Rejected. No one could have truthfully told Sedler there was a pending contract. None existed. Rejected, because Mr. Sedler had no reason to believe that there was a subsisting contract for the sale of the property; there was none. Admission number 20 is not to the contrary. Adopted in Findings 10 and 11. Rejected. See, Findings 9 and 10. Rejected as unpersuasive. Rejected as cumulative to Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 11. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Frank W. Weathers, Esquire Frank W. Weathers, P.A. Post Office Box 3967 Lantana, Florida 33465-3967 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether respondent's license as an Ordinary-Combination Life, including Disability Insurance, agent should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, the Florida Insurance Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's insurance license be revoked for multiple violations of Chapter 626, Fla.Stat., without prejudice to his right to reapply for a license in the future upon a showing of rehabilitation. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of April, 1983, 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 27th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Curtis A. Billingsley, Esquire Department of Insurance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Joseph Plouffe, pro se 9158 Keating Drive Lake Park, Florida 33401 William Gunter, Insurance Commissioner and State Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA OFFICE OF TREASURER IN THE MATTER OF JAMES JOSEPH PLOUFFE Revocation of License and Case No. 82-L-192CB Eligibility for Licensure DOAH Case No. 82-2471 Ordinary-Combination Life, including Disability Insurance /
Findings Of Fact By application dated September 10, 1987, petitioner, John K. Whitaker, III, sought licensure as a real estate salesman by examination with respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). The application was received by the Division on September 14, 1987. Question six on the application requires the applicant to state whether he or she "has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld." Petitioner gave the following response: Yes. DUI and DWI 1981 and 1982. Upon further investigation by the Division, it learned that Whitaker had been arrested for a DUI in 1982 and that no arrest had occurred in 1981. However, it also learned that Whitaker had been arrested for the following incidents: March 17, 1984 - Arrest for resisting police officer with violence. April 17, 1984 - Arrest for forgery - possession of forged or altered driver's license August 31, 1984 - Burglary of a dwelling; adjudication withheld. August 31, 1984 - Grand larceny; adjudication withheld. August 31, 1984 - Arson; adjudication withheld. Armed with this new information, respondent advised petitioner by letter dated December 2, 1987 that his application had been denied. This decision was later reaffirmed by letter dated February 4, 1988 and cited respondent's "criminal record" as the basis for the agency's denial. That prompted this proceeding. Petitioner, who is now twenty-nine years old, is a December, 1982 graduate of Florida State University with a degree in economics. After graduation, he worked eight months as a stockbroker for Alan Bush Brokerage Company in West Palm Beach, Florida. In 1983 petitioner began receiving medical treatment for what he thought was depression. As a part of the treatment, he took an antidepressant drug. He later learned he had a manic-depressive condition, a more serious mental illness, and the antidepressant medication was actually aggravating this condition. Before his real illness was discovered, Whitaker experienced manic episodes which were manifested by grandiose ideas, slurred speech and extremely poor judgment. As a result, Whitaker was arrested in 1984 for the series of incidents enumerated in finding of fact 3. The first two charges were dismissed while adjudication of guilt was withheld as to the remaining three charges. For those latter charges, Whitaker was placed on five years' probation, or to and including August, 1989. Whitaker stated he did not intend to lie about these matters and did not list the 1984 arrests on his application because he thought that if a charge was dropped, or adjudication of guilt withheld, he did not have to disclose the matter. Since having his illness properly diagnosed in 1984, Whitaker has taken medication (lithium) to prevent the recurrence of the symptoms and sees a physician at least once a month. He must remain on medication for the rest of his life in order to control the illness. With the exception of one flare-up about a year ago, his condition has stabilized. After his arrests in 1984, Whitaker was hospitalized for a period of time and then moved into a halfway house. He now lives in his own apartment. He has held several jobs, including a food service job in a West Palm Beach hospital and a timeshare unit salesman for his uncle in California. Presently, he is employed in a public relations capacity for a consumer club in West Palm Beach. He eventually wants to enter the real estate business, and for this reason, desires a license. Because his mother is a broker-realtor in Palm Beach Gardens, he expects no difficulty in obtaining a real estate position. Petitioner presented the testimony of his mother, a retired business executive and a family friend who is also a real estate salesman. The mother described the nature of petitioner's illness while the retired executive recalled petitioner as having "industrious," self-motivating" and "honest" characteristics and being a terrific salesman. The family friend described petitioner's present conduct to be normal now that he had controlled his illness. Finally, a number of letters were offered by various local businessmen, including one from a professional golfer and businessman (Jack Nicklaus), a physician, a stockbroker and a financial planner. However, all letters predate petitioner's arrests and therefore are irrelevant to the issue in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of John K. Whitaker for licensure as a real estate salesman by examination be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of June 1988.
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A. Filed January 21, 2011 10:24 AM Division of Administrative Hearings DCA Order No. DCA11-GM-007
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies haye been furnished by U.S. Mail or Electronic May to each of the persons listed below on this day of January, 2011. / a Paula Ford Agency Clerk By U.S. Mail The Honorable Bram D. E. Canter Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 By Electronic Mail Amy Taylor Petrick, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Palm Beach County 300 North Dixie Highway, Suite 359 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Gary K. Hunter, Esquire Vinette D. Godelia, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 33301 Richard Grosso, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell, Esquire Everglades Law Center, Inc. Shepard Broad Law Center 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 DCA Order No. DCA11-GM-007
The Issue Whether Petitioner is qualified for licensure as a real estate salesman.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application be granted based on his having satisfied all statutory criteria for licensure. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee Florida. R. L. CALEEN 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 3rd day of December, 1985.
Findings Of Fact On June 8, 1979, the Division of Banking, Department of Banking and Finance, received an application submitted by Stanley G. Harris, Jr., Philip O. Gentry, Wendell Gooch, Harry W. Lindhorst, and Robert H. Long (hereinafter Applicant), pursuant to Section 650.02, Florida Statutes, for authority to organize a corporation for the purpose of conducting a trust business to be located at 501 South Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida. The proposed trust company will be named "Harris Trust Company of Florida." It will be a wholly owned subsidiary of Harris Bankcorp., Inc. Chicago, Illinois. Harris Bankcorp., Inc. is also the parent of Harris Trust and Savings Bank, Chicago, Illinois. (Testimony of Harris, Gooch, Exhibit 20) Each organizer of the proposed trust company will be a director and the trust committee will be composed of the chief executive officer who is a director, and the investment officer and trust officer of the proposed company. The proposed chief executive officer held various positions within the trust department of Harris Trust and Savings Bank from 1939 to 1977. All of the proposed officers and directors are United States citizens and there is no evidence that any have been convicted of a criminal offense. Three of the five proposed directors have resided in Florida for at least one year, including the proposed chief executive officer. (Testimony of Gooch, Exhibit 20) The proposed capital structure of the trust company will be $2,000,000, allocated $1,000,000 to common stock, $500,00 to surplus and $500,000 to undivided profits. (Testimony of Gooch, Exhibit 20) The proposed trust company will utilize 3,685 square feet on the first floor of Flagler Center, located at 501 South Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida. The office space is presently leased by the Harris Trust and Savings Bank for an investment advisory representative office. The lease is for a term of nine years commencing February 1979, and will be assigned to the proposed trust company if its application is approved, The lease cost during the first three years will be $53,432.50 per annum. (Testimony of Gooch, Exhibit 20) The Applicant's purpose in seeking to establish a trust company in Florida is to provide better service to a substantial portion of some 300 present customers of Harris Trust and Savings Bank who reside in the State of Florida, and to seek new trust business in the Applicant's designated Palm Beach County primary service area. The Applicant proposes to offer all services normally associated with a non-deposit trust company at competitive fees. These services include trustee, personal representative, and personal investment management. In addition, specialized services including institutional investors services, economic research and fixed income portfolio services and other services of a specialized nature. The proposed trust company will initially employ ten individuals, four of whom will be corporate officers. Support services utilizing the staff and systems of the Harris Trust and Savings Bank will be obtained by the Applicant under contractual arrangements at basically the same fees as those charged to correspondent banks for similar services. These services will include safekeeping of securities, record keeping and reporting, administration of accounts, execution of purchases or sales of securities, preparation of tax returns, and investment and economic research services. Investment decisions will be made by the local management of the proposed trust company. Personnel employed by the proposed company will solicit new accounts and provide independent investment and estate planning advice and services. (Testimony of Harris, Gooch, Exhibit 20) The Applicant's designated primary service area is all Of the area located within Palm Beach County, Florida. The Applicant is of the opinion that the defined PSA encompasses the smallest area from which the proposed trust company can anticipate obtaining 75 percent or more of its prospective business, including transfer of existing accounts of customers of Harris Trust and Savings Bank who reside in the primary service area. (Testimony of Gooch, Exhibit 20) The population of Palm Beach County increased from 348,993 persons in 1970 to 534,551 persons in 1978, an increase of 53.2 percent. The population of the State of Florida increased during a similar period by 32 percent. It is projected that the county population will increase to 673,000 by mid-1985. In mid-1978, Palm Beach County ranked 6th in population in the state. Almost 91 percent of the county's increased population during the period 1970-1978 was due to migration of individuals moving into the area rather than natural increase of the population. A substantial number of in-migrants consists of Illinois residents moving to Palm Beach County. Between 1970 and 1978, the 45 to 64 age group of Palm Beach County's population expanded from 79,298 to 120,469. The age group of 65 years and older increased from 60,655 to 110,825 during the same period. The 1970 to 1978 increase of county residents aged 45 years or more was 91,351 persons or 65.3 percent. The comparable percentage increase throughout Florida was 44 percent. It is estimated that from 1978 to 1985 the age group of 45 years and older will increase from 231,294 to 290,736. In 1978, those persons over 45 years of age constituted 43.2 percent of the population. The number of households in Palm Beach County in 1970 was 123,347 and is estimated to increase to 202,615 in 1930. In 1976, the per capita income of Palm Beach County residents was $7,165 as compared to $6,101 for the state population. In 1977, per capita income in Palm Beach County increased to $7,878 compared to $6,697 for the state. The average household effective buying income in Palm Beach County in 1978 was over $20,000 while the average for the state was $16,488. Such income is estimated to increase to $25,541 in Palm Beach County by 1982 and to $21,101 for the state. During a one year period between 1977 and 1978, there were 483 estate tax returns filed in Palm Beach County, of which 40.2 percent had a gross value of over $500,000. The average value of the estates was $935,242. Those estates over one million dollars constituted 16.8 percent of the total number of estates. About 40 percent of the estates were over $500,000 and this group constituted 83 percent of the total gross value of all estates during that period. Of the total number of 483 estate cases, corporate fiduciaries were named as sole executor in only 72 estates, and served with individual co- fiduciaries in 21 additional cases. Of 81 estates valued at one million dollars or more, only 15 estates were handled by corporate fiduciaries and in four additional cases a corporate fiduciary served jointly with an individual. Between 1975 and 1978, deposits of Palm Beach County financial institutions increased by 59.3 percent, while deposits in the state as a whole increased by 44.8 percent during the same period. Palm Beach County's per capita deposits increased from $6,990 in 1975 to $9,954 in 1978. Per capita deposits in the state as a whole were $5,376 in 1975 and $7,364 in 1978. In 1978, personal intangible tax returns for Palm Beach County show that 51.4 percent of the 15,700 returns included taxable personal assets of $100,000 or more. Almost ten percent of the returns included taxable assets of $500,000 or more and 4.39 percent were of one million dollars or more. (Testimony of Badalich, Exhibits 19-20, 26) The application reflects that in 1977, some 800 million dollars in trust assets were under management in Palm Beach County by 15 insured commercial banks. Over 40 percent of these assets were administered by the First National Bank in Palm Beach. During the period between 1972 and 1977, total trust assets under management by commercial banks in Palm Beach County increased over 32 percent while similar assets in banks throughout Florida increased 6.8 percent. Most of the banks providing trust services in Palm Beach County are affiliated with holding companies. There is one non-deposit trust company, Bessemer Trust Company of Florida, located in Palm Beach County, which is affiliated with out- of-state corporations. The combined total trust assets of all sixteen of the financial institutions in Palm Beach County totaled almost 938 million dollars as of December, 1978. In 1979, five of eight pending applicants for trust companies in Palm Beach County showed an existing volume of trust assets under management in Palm Beach County of almost 400 million dollars. Although Palm Beach County has been experiencing substantial population growth which is expected to continue into the future, not all of the affluent areas of the county are susceptible to continuing growth. The Town of Palm Beach is limited in growth possibilities and has increased by only 2,539 persons in the last ten years. However, the Boca Raton, Delray Beach, Palm Beach Gardens, and Jupiter-Tequesta areas are expected to have significant population growth in the future. (Testimony of Badalich, Beck, Exhibits 19-20, 26) The factors determining the extent of demand for trust services in particular areas include considerations of population and age distribution, personal wealth and income levels, and income growth. There is a higher potential for increased trust business in a rapidly growing area. The presence of a substantial segment of older population is significant because wealth is normally concentrated in that portion of the population and they constitute the primary customer source for fiduciary services. The primary service area of Palm Beach County constitutes a substantial market for trust services due to rapid population growth, together with age and wealth characteristics of its population. However, there exist other competitors in the field, such as attorneys, accountants, insurance companies, financial advisors, and relatives or fiends of potential customers. The extent of this portion of the market is large, but unknown as to the amount. (Testimony of Badalich, Beck, Exhibits 2, 19-20, 26) The national trust business is highly concentrated in a relatively small number of large banks, primarily in the eastern part of the nation. The largest fifty banks control almost two-thirds of the nation's trust assets and the largest thirty banks administer about as many trust assets as all other banks and trust companies. Harris Trust and Savings Bank has the fifth largest trust department in the United States with 1978 assets under management of over 11 billion dollars. It has 302 accounts of Florida customers which have an asset value of $190,879,000. Of these accounts, 100 are located in Palm Beach County which have an asset valuation of $82,189,000. The bank has experienced difficulties in servicing these Florida customers from its base in Chicago. The trust relation shin is one based upon personal service which requires a considerable amount of close contact in order to insure timely solutions and decisions with regard to the account. Harris Trust and .Savings Bank intends to "transfer" to the Applicant some 113 of the 302 existing Florida accounts with an asset valuation of $77,568,000, and annual fee income of $278,000. Included in the 113 accounts are some 39 investments accounts which are already being administered at the Bank's West Palm Beach investment advisory office. The 113 accounts include 60 personal trusts, 37 investment advisory accounts, and 16 custodian accounts. The accounts that are proposed to be transferred do not include those requiring major document modification nor Harris Trust and Savings Bank will appointments of Florida customers. Although customer consent to transfer has not yet been obtained, the fact that 39 investment accounts have been transferred to the Bank's West Palm Beach office leads the Applicant to believe that the other customers will agree to transfer. The Applicant therefore projects in its application that the 113 accounts will be transferred on the opening day of operations and that an additional 30 accounts will either be transferred or obtained by the end of the first year. It projects the acquisition of an additional 40 accounts by the end of the second year of operation, and a total of 233 accounts with asset valuation of $137,568,000 by the end of the third year and annual fee income of $926,000. Assuming that it will be successful in achieving projected transfer of accounts, together with an undetermined amount of new business and income Off on investment of its initial capitalization, the Applicant estimates that its total income for the first year will be $531,515, $710,280 for the second year, and $1,031,270 for the third year of operation. After deduction of anticipated expenses, the Applicant predicts a loss during the first year of operation amounting to $93,860, a loss during tie second year of $51,407, and net income of $57,850 during the third year. (Testimony of Harris, Gooch, Exhibit 20) The Applicant believes that it will secure new business, other than the transferred accounts, from current customers of Harris Trust and Savings Bank and other individuals familiar with its name who migrate to Florida, and from new customers obtained in the primary service area. It will not seek accounts under 5150,000, but will accept and service them at its minimum fee. It intends to employ advertising, personal contact, and solicitation of third parties, such as local lawyers, in order to obtain new business. It does not intend to seek new business from existing customers of local trust institutions. Trust customers usually remain with the institution which carries its account if acceptable services are being rendered. During the first six months of operation of the Harris Trust and Savings Thank's West Palm Beach investment advisory office, five customer accounts totalling seven and one-half million dollars were obtained from one present customer and four new customers who had moved to Florida and bad not previously had a customer relationship with the bank. (Testimony of Gooch, Beck, LeMaistre, Randall, Exhibits 20-22) Although trust departments of banks do not usually generate large profits through trust activities, three of four trust representatives of banks which intervened in this proceeding have experienced substantial growth in trust business over the past few years. The fourth representative testified that the trust department had been "marginally" profitable in recent years. All of these individuals are concerned that if a number of now competing trust companies are permitted to operate in Palm Beach County, such entry would result in the loss of larger, more profitable accounts which tend to subsidize the smaller ones because the services rendered in each instance are virtually the same. One representative testified that an account has to be at least $250,000 to be profitable and another testified that any account less than $100,000 would not usually be profitable dependent upon the services required to administer the account. They generally agreed that there is aggressive competition among trust institutions in Palm Beach County and that influx of numerous new trust companies would affect their ability to secure large accounts and consequently could affect profits. Smaller accounts of trust departments normally are with customers of the commercial banking department whom the bank feels obliged to accommodate with trust services. Profits, of course, are generated from these customers from their use of other services of the bank. If the large accounts of the banks are not replenished as the current ones expire, it will be difficult to provide the same services for the smaller accounts or to maintain them at all. Large accounts have been "leveling out" in recent years and most of the high wealth individuals migrating to Palm Beach County already have existing trust relationships. Additionally, some of the affluent communities in the county lack room for expansion and many of the wealthy individuals tend to locate in areas to the north of Palm Beach County. There is little fear by these banks that their present customers will affiliate with new institutions, but they believe that their ability to secure new customers from those with current customer relationship or those with current accounts with out-of-state institutions will be impaired. (Testimony of LeMaistre (Deposition-Exhibit 21), Kline, Northcrafts Myers, Southall, Beck) The impact of the Applicant and other new trust companies entering the Palm Beach County trust market is conjectural and speculative at this time. Although exact figures cannot be obtained as to the extent of the existing trust market in the county or as to the extent of "penetration' of such a market, various studies show that there is a market of approximately three billion dollars in trust assets and that it has been penetrated by both local and out- of-state institutions at least to the extent of 30 to 50 percent. Entry of new institutions into the market can benefit the public by providing new services and making the public more aware of the availability and extent of such services. Small trust departments of banks which are unaffiliated with holding companies generally are in a different market than the larger companies. Consequently, the Applicant and other new applicants representing large out-of- state corporations primarily will be competing with the larger local trust departments which have the expertise and can provide the customized services desired by trust customers. The entry of the Applicant into the local market will initially have little impact on local institutions because the bulk of its business will consist of customers who already have a trust relationship with the Harris Trust and Savings Bank. In addition, the Applicant will not be competing with the local trust departments for small accounts and will offer no commercial banking services which would generally be the vehicle through which such accounts are obtained and developed. A former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation testified at the hearing that the entry of large out-of-state trust companies into the Florida market would be a positive impact for the State in bringing new accounts and assets to Florida. It was his opinion that multiple entry of new companies would improve the "dynamics" of the entire area. Although he conceded that profits accruing to the new companies would probably be returned to the out-of-state parent corporation, some would be left in Florida for expansion and that the remaining amount would be insignificant compared to the additional business brought into the state. (Testimony of Randall, Beck, Myers, LeMaistre (Exhibits 21-26)) A telephone survey was made by a market research firm in October, 1979, that sought to determine the extent of the market for fiduciary services in the primary service area. The questions in the survey included such matters as length of residence in the area, age of the person called, current utilization of trust or other financial services, types and amounts of potential trust accounts, and whether those called would establish new trust accounts or change existing ones to either a major out-of-state institution" which opened a trust office in the area, or a "Florida based institution." The survey included responses of 219 individuals in Palm Beach County. The results of the survey are not found to be a reliable or representative assessment of the potential trust market in the primary service area. Limitations on the geographical areas covered by the survey, elimination of certain individuals as potential users of trust services, and the misleading use of certain terms in the questions are the primary reasons for the above finding. (Testimony of McAleer, Legg, Badalich, Randall, Exhibit 27) This Report is submitted pursuant to Section 120.57 (1)(b)(12), Florida Statutes, and Rule 3C-9.11, Florida Administrative Code. ISSUED this 8th day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen E. Day Julie H. Kuntz Attorneys for Respondent Bankers Trust Company of Florida Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlich, McNatt, Gobelman and Cobb 1500 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (904) 354-0624 John A. Jones Bruce Roberson Attorneys for DBT Trust Company of Florida Case No. 79-1228; 79-1234 Holland and Knight 610 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33601 (813) 223-1621 John Radey Holland and Knight Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Thomas Cardwell Attorney for Petitioner Florida Bankers Association and Intervenor Atlantic National Bank of Palm Beach County Akerman, Senterfit and Eidson Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802 (305) 843-7860) Bruce Culpepper Attorney for Petitioner Florida Association of Registered Bank Holding Companies, Inc. 350 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 222-6071 James G. Pressly, Jr. Attorney for Intervenor First National Thank in Palm Beach Attorney for Intervenor Bessmer Trust Company of Florida Gunster, Yoakley, Criser, Stewart and Hirsey, P.A. First National Bank Building Palm Beach, Florida 33480 (305) 655-1980 H. David Faust Attorney for Intervenor Bank of Palm Beach and Trust Company Attorney for Intervenor First Bank and Trust Company of Boca Raton Burns, Middleton, Farrell and Faust 205 Worth Avenue Palm Beach, Florida 33480 (305) 655-5311 Robert I. MacLaren, II Attorney for Intervenor Boca Raton National Bank Osborne and Hankins Post Office Drawer 40 855 South Federal Highway, Suite 200 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 (305) 395-1000 Ralph J. Blank, Jr. Attorney for Intervenor First National Bank and Trust Company of Riviera Beach Blank, Will and Benn Post Office Box 2100 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 (305) 832-2889 John C. H. Miller, Jr. Attorney for All Intervenors Post Office Box 46 Mobile, Alabama 36601 (205) 432-1414 Eugene Cella and Franklyn J. Wollett Attorneys for Respondent Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9896 Phillip G. Newcomm, Bowman Brown, and Arnold L. Berman Attorneys for Respondent, U.S. Trust Company of Florida 1000 Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 358-6300
The Issue The issues presented are whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained within the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Emilio Faroy has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0332008. At all times material hereto, Respondent Adriana Creel has been a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 033464. Creel has been employed as a licensed real estate salesperson with Faroy Realty since April 1, 1985. At all times material hereto, Respondent Faroy Realty Company has been a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0236806. At all times material hereto, Respondent Faroy was licensed and operating as the qualifying broker and the sole officer and director of Respondent Faroy Realty Company. The real estate licenses of the Respondents are presently suspended pursuant to an emergency suspension order issued by the Secretary of the Department of Professional Regulation on July 25, 1990, because of their activities at the Dunes Beach Club. Respondent Faroy and Respondent Creel live in a unit owned by Creel at the Dunes Beach Club. Faroy Realty is registered at that same address. The Dunes Beach Club is a former motel on Miami Beach which was purchased by a developer. The units were sold to individual owners, many of whom make their units available for rental to transients and tourists. Although the Dunes Beach Club is not a condominium, there is a Homeowners' Association. The developer retained ownership of certain commercial space within the Dunes Beach Club and leased the "front desk" to a realtor who managed rentals and sales of the individual units. The Homeowners' Association became dissatisfied with that realtor and bought the lease for the front desk. At the May 19, 1986, Board of Directors meeting, the Dunes Beach Club Homeowners' Association decided that it was in the Association's best interest to hire someone to both run the operation of the front desk and manage the Association's affairs. Adriana Creel, a member of the Board of Directors, was hired for that position. Her agreement with the Board was that she would be paid $30,000.00 as a salary, that she would be given the front desk office to use at no charge, add that the Association would receive 1% of the sales price as a commission for any sales or resales of units produced through her office. No evidence was offered to show that Creel sold any units through that office or paid a commission to the Homeowners' Association during the one year that that arrangement was in effect. Creel received no commissions for renting rooms during that year since she was a salaried employee of the Homeowners' Association, and renting rooms was part of her responsibilities. In April of 1987, the Homeowners' Association decided not to renew their front desk lease with the developer and told Creel to vacate the premises immediately and to cease renting rooms. She did not do so. Instead, she and Faroy negotiated a lease with the developer, the Dunes Beach Club, Inc., which lease commenced on May 1, 1987. Pursuant to the terms of the lease, Faroy Realty was given the right to use the front desk area for "real estate rental and sales" for 36 months in exchange for Faroy Realty paying the sum of $1,050.00 per month as rent for that space. A few months later, the business address for Faroy Realty was changed to the address of the Dunes Beach Club. From that point forward until the date of the emergency suspension order entered against Respondents herein, Creel ran the front desk operation through Faroy Realty. She and Faroy set up an operating account in the name of Faroy Realty for the Dunes Beach Club operation. She arranged rentals for approximately 60 of the units at the Dunes Beach Club, collecting the rental money and depositing it Into the Faroy Realty account. She paid expenses from that account and remitted to the owners of the units the rental monies minus expenses. Although the Homeowners' Association, when it was running the front desk, had written agreements with some of the unit owners for the rental of their units, when Faroy Realty took over that operation it obtained no written agreements from any of the unit owners on whose behalf Faroy and Creel acted. In November of 1989, Creel wrote six checks to Irene Avellino for the proceeds of rentals covering May through September for units 210 and 268. At the time that those checks were written, Faroy Realty did not have sufficient funds in its checking account to cover those checks. In November of 1989, Creel wrote two checks to Samco c/o Stan Paul, representing rental proceeds for May and June for units 124, 128, and 132. At the time that those checks were written, Faroy Realty did not have sufficient funds in its checking account to cover those checks. Respondent Creel also wrote two checks to Andrew Mecca representing rental proceeds for unit 102 at the Dunes Beach Club. At the time that those checks were written, Faroy Realty did not have sufficient funds in its checking account to cover those checks. Pursuant to complaints received by Petitioner, Petitioner initiated an investigation of Respondents on November 9, 1989. The Department's investigator met with Faroy and Creel a number of times. Creel told the investigator that she had made restitution for the worthless checks she had written on the Faroy Realty account. When the investigator contacted Avellino, Paul, and Mecca in mid-December, they advised him that restitution had not been made. Faroy Realty also had an escrow account. Faroy told the investigator that although monthly reconciliation statements had been made on Faroy Realty's escrow account, none of them could be located. A subpoena was issued to Faroy Realty and Emilio Faroy on February 9, 1990, for all escrow and operating account monthly bank statements, cancelled checks, all purchase/sale contracts and leases including addenda for the period January 1987 through present, all employment agreements, and bank deposit slips. Very few records were produced pursuant to that subpoena. The few bank statements which were produced indicated that the Faroy Realty escrow account experienced overdrafts in the early part of 1989. An examination of the Faroy Realty escrow account further revealed that between March of 1987 and October of 1989, Creel wrote checks from the Faroy Realty escrow account for such personal expenses as insurance on automobiles, payments on automobiles, repairs on fax machines, dinners, health insurance, and pet supplies. She had even written checks from the escrow account to Faroy Realty with the notation that the money represented a loan. In defense of her using escrow monies for personal expenses, Creel testified at the final hearing that those checks represented earned commissions. That being the case, then the escrow account contained personal monies intermingled with trust monies. In defense of Respondent Creel writing checks on the Faroy Realty operating account when there were not monies in the account to cover those checks, Creel testified that she would write postdated checks to the unit owners commensurate with the date that she had calculated there would be sufficient monies in the account to cover those checks. Whatever her reason for doing so, the fact remains that Creel wrote checks from an account which did not have monies in the account to cover those checks. Creel's explanation for the worthless checks written in November revolved around a German tour group which, according to Respondents' exhibit, stayed at the Dunes Beach Club in October. However, the checks written by Creel in November which "bounced," on their face, represent the proceeds from rentals well prior to October. Creel testified that Emilio Faroy knew nothing of her check-writing practices. Taken in its best light, her testimony shows that Faroy failed to exercise his supervisory responsibilities over the Faroy Realty escrow account, the Faroy Realty operating account, and Faroy Realty's licensed salesperson Creel. Creel's testimony is consistent with Faroy's statement to Petitioner's investigator that he was primarily involved with his bail bond business and Creel was running Faroy Realty. Creel testified that monthly reconciliation statements had been made regarding the Faroy Realty escrow account but that they could not be found. She further testified that no attempt was made to obtain copies from the accountant who allegedly prepared those monthly statements and that she does not know whether Faroy ever signed any of the monthly reconciliation statements alleged prepared. An accountant testified on behalf of Respondents in this proceeding that he was hired in March of 1990 to do the monthly reconciliation statements on Faroy Realty's escrow account and that he had gone back to 1986 to prepare those reconciliations. None of the statements performed by that accountant have been signed by Faroy. It is found that Respondent Faroy has failed to prepare, sign, retain, and produce for inspection the required written monthly escrow account reconciliations. Creel testified that restitution had been made for the worthless checks written to Avellino, Samco c/o Stan Paul, and Mecca. Absent from her testimony was the date on which restitution was made. Respondents did offer in evidence affidavits regarding those three unit owners, which affidavits were admitted without objection. One of the affidavits was dated August 29, 1990 and two were dated August 30, 1990, one and two days prior to the final hearing in this cause. Absent from each of the three affidavits is the date on which restitution was made. The affidavits state that two of the owners have received restitution. It is noted that the affidavit from Stan Paul does not, in fact, state that restitution was made but rather that Paul has arranged a payment plan with Creel. No proof of restitution was offered to Petitioner prior to the entry of the emergency suspension order against Respondents or prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint or Amended Administrative Complaint in this cause. It is also noteworthy that Mecca had to file a lawsuit against Creel and Faroy Realty to secure payment of the rental proceeds for which Creel had written the worthless checks to him. Respondents' failure to produce to Petitioner bank statements, cancelled checks from the escrow account, and monthly reconciliation statements has prevented a meaningful audit from being performed on the Faroy Realty accounts. Similarly, Respondents' failure to provide to Petitioner employment agreements or management agreements has made it impossible to determine Respondents' obligation to the unit owners.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking the real estate certifications, licenses, permits, and registrations of the Respondents Emilio Faroy, Adriana Creel, and Faroy Realty Company. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of October, 1990. LINDA H. RIGO 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 19th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-5153 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-17 and 19-23 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 18 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 2-6, 9-12, 14, 15, 17, 21, 25, 31-33, 36, and 37 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 24 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 8, 16, 22, 23, 30, and 35 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 13, 18, 19, 26-29, 34, and 38 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed finding of fact numbered 20 has been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire Suite 400 - One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2450 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
