Findings Of Fact The Respondent Karen Kay Colucci, whose license No. is 0062107,is a registered real estate salesman in the State of Florida. The Respondent is employed by Magnolia Homes, Inc., 300 Embassy Boulevard, Port Richey, Florida. The owner of the business is David Lukacher. On May 20, 1976, Harvey Thompson and his wife Mary Thompson looked at model homes built by Magnolia Homes, Inc. They were assisted by a registered real estate salesman for Magnolia Homes, Inc., Patrick D. DePianto. Mr. and Mrs. Thompson told the real estate salesman that they wanted to build a house but wanted to sell their own house first. Mr. and Mrs. Thompson found a lot and model home they desired and then proceeded to Mr. DePianto's office to make a deposit. The office in which the transaction took place is a large room in which several people worked for the builder including the Respondent Karen Kay Colucci who is the sales manager. Mr. DePianto's desk and work area was in rather close proximity to Mrs. Colucci's desk and work area. Mrs. Colucci was not involved in the assistance to the Thompsons in locating a lot and model home and was not directly involved with Mr. DePianto and Mr. and Mrs. Thompson at the time the transaction under consideration took place. At the time of making the deposit Mr. and Mrs. Thompson asked Mr. DePianto if they could get their deposit back if they did not sell their home. Mr. DePianto called over to Mrs. Colucci and asked if a refund could be made if the Thompsons could not sell their house and, satisfied with the answer, assured the purchasers that there would be no problem. A check was written out for five hundred ($500) dollars and handed to Mr. DePianto and a receipt was written out by Mr. DePianto and handed to the Thompsons. There was no representation on the receipt written by Mr. DePianto concerning the refundability of the deposit. The Thompsons did not request that the representation be included on the receipt. Mr. and Mrs. Thompson left the office feeling that there would be no problem obtaining a refund of the deposit if they could not sell their home , although they were confident that the sale of their home was imminent. Thereafter the expected sale of Mr. and Mrs. Thompson's home was not consummated and the Thompsons asked Mr. DePianto for a refund of the deposit. Mr. DePianto asked for the request to be in letter form and Mr. Thompson complied. Thereafter he was advised by Mr. DePianto that the builder, Mr. David Lukacher, would not return the deposit but would hold the $500 until they were able to buy one of their homes and credit that amount to the purchaser. Mr. Thompson requested Mr. DePianto to put the discussion in letter form which Mr. DePianto did. Mr. Thompson wrote Mr. Lukacher a letter and called him on the telephone requesting that the deposit be refunded but no refund was forthcoming. Approximately six months later Mr. DePianto sent Mr. and Mrs. Thompson a check for $250, half of the deposit, plus 7 months of interest at 6 per cent per annum. The remainder of the deposit has not been returned to Mr. and Mrs. Thompson and Mr. Lukacher retains the $250, having previously sent $250 of the $500 deposit to Mr. DePianto. Petitioner Florida Real Estate Commission contends: that the Respondent Karen Kay Colucci knowingly misrepresented to the Thompson's that there would be no problem obtaining a refund of the $500 deposit if the Thompson's could not sell their home; that such representation means the Respondent is guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, false pretences, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in a business transaction and that therefore her license should be suspended. Respondent contends that she was doing other work at the time the subject transaction took place and that she had no involvement with the transaction between Mr. DePianto and the Thompsons. Respondent further contends that in reply to the question posed to her by Mr. DePianto in the busy office that a refund could be made providing Mr. Lukacher, the builder, approved it. The hearing Officer further finds: There is no consistent testimony by the witnesses as to exactly what was said in reference to a refund at the time Mr. and Mrs. Thompson were seated at the desk of Mr. DePianto. There is no consistent testimony as to what exactly Mr. DePianto asked the Respondent or what her answer was. Mr. and Mrs. Thompson failed to request that the receipt reflect that the deposit was conditional and would be returned if the Thompson's could not sell their home. Mr. DePianto did not make the receipt a conditional receipt. Mr. David Lukacher, the builder, refused to refund the deposit to the Thompsons, kept $250 of it, and sent Mr. DePianto the salesman, $250. Mr. DePianto refunded his share of the deposit plus interest to the Thompsons.
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth A. Meer, Esquire Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Karen Kay Colucci Magnolia Homes, Inc. 300 Embassy Boulevard Port Richey, Florida 33568
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Fetters has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, trading as RONTRON Realty and Investment, with offices in Largo, Florida, and Choudhury has been a licensed real estate salesperson at RONTRON Realty. Fetters was Choudhury's broker at all times material hereto. Stanley and Mary K. Jankiewicz listed their home for $189,000 with Harvey Seybold, a licensed real estate broker, and neighbor. On January 28, 1988, Choudhury contacted Seybold and asked to see the Jankiewicz house. Seybold showed the house that same day. On January 30, 1988, Choudhury presented a contract for the sale and purchase of the home to Seybold and Jankiewicz. The purchasers, John and Gail Taylor, offered $185,000, but this offer was unacceptable to Jankiewicz because it called for him to hold a $150,000 purchase money mortgage. Jankiewicz proposed a counteroffer, which still provided for a sales price of $185,000, but only required him to hold a purchase money mortgage of $25,000. It also required the Taylors to obtain a firm financing commitment within 45 days for a first mortgage in the amount of $129,000. The Taylors accepted this counteroffer, and the transaction was scheduled to close on March 30, 1988, as proposed in Jankiewicz' counteroffer. Jankiewicz and Seybold testified that Choudhury told them, on January 30, 1988, that the Taylors had a net worth of from $2 to $3 million, and that he had a copy of their financial statement in his office, which he had reviewed. They claim that he promised to provide them with a copy of this financial statement on February 1, 1988. Jankiewicz testified that Choudhury's representation about the financial condition of the Taylors was a significant inducement for him to propose his counteroffer, and he would not have gone through wish this sale had he known on January 30, 1988, what he subsequently learned about their net worth. Choudhury denies making any representation about the Taylors' net worth. He testified that he had only met the Taylors on one occasion, and had no way of knowing their net worth since he denies having a copy of their financial statement at that time. When the Taylors' financial statement was not provided on February 1, 1988, Jankiewicz and Seybold made repeated attempts to contact Choudhury, most of which were futile. He would not return their calls. Finally, on March 7, 1988, Choudhury did send Seybold a copy of the Taylors' financial statement, and Seybold immediately forwarded it to Jankiewicz. The financial statement is dated January 31, 1988, and indicates a net worth of $238,100. Choudhury testified that he forwarded this financial statement to Seybold as soon as he received it from the Taylors, but that when he looked it over he was "shocked". Choudhury offered no credible explanation of why he would be "shocked" to see the Taylors' financial statement, unless he had expected a far higher net worth. Yet, he testified that he had no knowledge of their net worth. Based upon the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the testimony of Choudhury, Seybold and Jankiewicz, as well as Choudhury's unexplained testimony about being "shocked" to see the Taylors' net worth, it is found that Choudhury did represent to Jankiewicz and Seybold on January 30, 1988, that the Taylors had a net worth of from $2 to $3 million. This statement was false, but it was a material inducement which led Jankiewicz to make his counteroffer, accepting a $25,000 purchase money mortgage. The contract for sale did not provide any contingency which addressed Jankiewicz' concerns about the Taylors' net worth. He and Seybold believed Choudhury's representations, and admitted at hearing that it was an oversight on their part not to insist on a contingency in the sales contract. They simply took Choudhury's word that he had seen their financial statement, and it showed a net worth of $2 to $3 million. When he received the Taylors' financial statement in early March, 1988, Jankiewicz tried to back out of the deal, but because there was no contingency in the sales contract, and because the Taylors threatened to sue him for breach of contract if he did not close, he went through with the sale. The sale closed, as scheduled, on March 30, 1988. The Taylors had obtained a first mortgage through bank financing in early March, and have subsequently made payments to Jankiewicz under the purchase money mortgage which he holds, although on occasion they have been late with their payments. At no time did Fetters participate in the discussions which took place with Jankiewicz and Seybold concerning this sale. Choudhury made all contacts with them, presented the sales contract, and attended the closing. The Petitioner's investigator, Leo Huddleston, visited Fetters on June 28, 1988, to examine Fetters' records concerning the Jankiewicz transaction, but Fetters brought no records with him to this meeting. He claimed that Choudhury had all of these records. Subsequently, he did provide Huddleston with escrow records showing a $20,000 deposit in his escrow account, and copies of three checks from the Taylors totaling $20,000, which he claimed he received as their deposit on the Jankiewicz house, and which he stated he then deposited in his escrow account. These checks do indicate on their face that they were for a house deposit. However, Fetters was never able to produce a copy of his deposit slips or bank records which would directly establish that the Taylors' checks were in fact deposited into his escrow account. There was no indication on the face of the checks that they were deposited into his escrow account, or that he had an escrow account established for this purpose. Fetters testified at hearing, that he had lost his bank records, and presumed that a former tenant had taken them when he moved. Fetters failed to keep adequate records of his escrow account that would allow an audit of funds deposited into, and withdrawn from, such account. He could not establish that he had an escrow account on which he was signatory. He was also negligent in failing to safeguard any such records which he may have had, and could not produce complete records of his escrow account which would establish that the Taylors' deposit checks were placed in his escrow account, and remained there until they were withdrawn by a $20,000 cashier's check that was exchanged at closing. Following initial investigation of a complaint filed by Jankiewicz against Fetters and Choudhury, a probable cause panel decided not to issue an Administrative Complaint, and they were informed, in August, 1988, that this complaint file had been closed. Subsequently, however, new evidence was discovered concerning the fact that Seybold had also been present on January 30, 1988, when Choudhury met with Jankiewicz, and Seybold confirmed Jankiewicz' recollection of Choudhury's statements. Thereupon, this complaint was resubmitted to a probable cause panel, and the Administrative Complaint which is at issue in this case was filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent Fetters license for a period of six months, and suspending Respondent Choudhury's license for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX The Petitioner did not timely file Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent Choudhury did file a Memorandum of Law which contains unnumbered paragraphs under a section referred to as "Facts". This Memorandum has been considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order, but specific rulings cannot be made on the matters contained in the section labeled "Facts" since this consists largely of argument on the evidence without any citation to the record as required by Rule 22I-6.031(3), F.A.C. Rulings on the Respondent Fetters' Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding 1. 3. Adopted in Findings 2, 8. 4-5. Adopted in Findings 3, 4. Rejected in Finding 5, and as argument on the evidence, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 10, 11. Rejected in Finding 11. Not a proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: ARTHUR R. SHELL, ESQUIRE DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE P. O. BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 LESLIE M. CONKLIN, ESQUIRE 2120 U.S. 19, SOUTH SUITE 210 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34624 RONALD P. TEEVAN, ESQUIRE 200 NORTH GARDEN AVENUE SUITE A CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34615 DARLENE F. KELLER DIVISION DIRECTOR P. O. BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 KENNETH EASLEY, GENERAL COUNSEL NORTHWOOD CENTRE 1940 NORTH MONROE STREET SUITE 60 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0792 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Residential Realty, Inc. was incorporated by Ralph R. Voss, a non broker, some two years ago. He advertised for a registered broker to act as AFM and Mrs. Lucille Busch responded. Her broker's license was then inactive but since the job offered would not require full time participation she agreed to take it after consulting with her attorney and the FREC office in Ft. Myers. Mrs. Busch signed all checks drawn upon the escrow account and kept careful records involving this account. She conferred with Voss on office policies and on hiring or firing salesmen; however, as owner, it appears that Voss had the final say in policy matters if any dispute arose. Before assuming the duties as AFM Mrs. Busch, as noted above, received confirmation that such AFM participation was not in violation of the Real Estate License Law. She be lives that she was performing the duties required of a broker and that neither Voss, nor his successor Bach, held themselves out as brokers or performed the functions that can only be performed by a broker. Some twelve months ago Warren Bach and his wife purchased all shares of stock in Residential Realty, Inc. from Voss. Bach is a registered real estate salesman and he continued the office practices that existed under Voss with Mrs. Busch remaining AFM. When Bach purchased the realty corporation he too checked with an attorney and the Real Estate Commission office in Ft. Myers regarding the operation of Residential Realty, Inc. before continuing the status quo. Bach had been a real estate broker in Wisconsin for ten years before moving to Florida and purchasing Residential Realty, Inc. One sales person in Residential Realty, Inc., Mrs. Joan Edwards, obtained an exclusive listing on property owned by her parents-in-law. Bach subsequently obtained a purchaser and presented an offer to Edwards to purchase his property. The contract provided for a purchase price of $39,900 with a $100 down payment with an additional $900 to be paid by the buyer upon acceptance of the contract by the seller. This offer was presented to Edwards by Joan Edwards and Bach. Edwards modified the contract to a total price of $40,900, initialed this counter offer, but left the balance of the contract unchanged. The contract was returned to the purchaser by Bach and was accepted by him, but the additional $900 down payment required by the terms of the contract was never paid. Initially the buyer advised Bach that he would produce the $900 balance when he sold his home in Tampa, however, he never produced the $900 required by the contract and Bach failed to notify Edwards of this fact. Mrs. Busch, the AFM, became aware of the contract and the $900 discrepancy shortly after the contract was executed and she discussed this with Joan Edwards, the daughter-in-law of the seller. Mrs. Edwards testified that she became aware of the $900 problem about one week before the scheduled closing date while Mrs. Bach, who also worked in the real estate office, recalled numerous discussions about this additional deposit with Mrs. Joan Edwards several weeks before the scheduled closing. Regardless of the knowledge within the realty office, the seller was informed of the breach of the contract by the buyer by neither Bach nor his daughter-in-law, Joan Edwards, until only a few days before the scheduled closing. Bach assumed, incorrectly, that Mrs. Edwards would inform her parents-in-law- of the fact that the buyer had failed to produce the additional deposit. Bach considered the contract still valid although the buyer had failed to comply with the provision requiring him to make the additional $900 payment upon acceptance.
The Issue Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined for fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in any business transaction, pursuant to Section 475.25(1)(b) Florida Statutes(1983).
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the charges, Respondent Thomas F. Steffan Jr. was a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0402257. Respondent has since been issued a license as a real estate broker, same license number. Mr. and Mrs. Walther Ellis were the owners of certain property located on Windsor Road, Bonita Springs, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Ellis listed their property for sale with Wesley Brodersen of Gulder Real Estate, Inc. in Bonita Springs, Florida. The Respondent was employed at Gulder Real Estate, Inc. during the time that the Ellises listed said property with Gulder Real Estate, Inc. On or about May 23, 1984, the Respondent solicited and obtained a Catherine A. Griffin as a prospective purchaser of the Ellis' property. Mrs. Griffin submitted a contract for sale and purchase, witnessed by Respondent, which contract for sale and purchase the Respondent in turn submitted to the Ellises. Pursuant to the terms of the May 23, 1984 contract for sale and purchase, Mrs. Griffin had placed down a total deposit of $5,000.00. The Ellises rejected the terms of sale (offer) as expressed in the May 23, 1984 contract for sale and purchase. Thereafter, Mrs. Griffin, as buyer, along with her husband, Donald Griffin, who is not a buyer in the transaction but was intimately involved in the negotiations, continued to express an interest in the property and the Ellises continued to express an interest to sell the property. In July, 1984, contract negotiations were once again begun and Mr. Griffin informed the Respondent what terms would be acceptable to his wife, Catherine A. Griffin. Mr. Griffin further requested that the signatures of Mr. and Mrs. Ellis be obtained first on a new contract for sale and purchase setting out the terms he had dictated to Respondent. Somewhere during this time period, Mr. Griffin directed Respondent to have completed a survey of the property at the Griffins'expense. Respondent next communicated with Mr. Ellis and a new contract for sale and purchase was prepared by the Respondent and signed by Mr. Ellis personally and signed by Mr. Ellis for Mrs. Ellis with Mrs. Ellis' express consent and permission. Subsequent thereto, the Respondent brought the new contract for sale and purchase to the Griffins. In the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Donald Griffin the Respondent presented the offer. Mr. Griffin immediately signed the new contract for sale and purchase in the presence of both Respondent and Mrs. Griffin on the line indicating he was signing as a witness to the buyer's signature/execution. However, as this contract (offer) was physically handed by Mr. Griffin to his wife for formal execution, it was further reviewed by Mr. Griffin, who became aware that the terms of purchase contained in the new contract for sale and purchase were not as he had dictated them to the Respondent. Mr. Griffin advised his wife not to accept the offer, instructed her not to sign, and, in fact, the new contract for sale and purchase was not signed or accepted by Mrs. Griffin. Respondent requested that the Griffins think about the offer for a while longer and they agreed to do so over an extended vacation. While the Griffins were on vacation, the Respondent, apparently believing the offer contained in the second contract for sale and purchase would eventually be accepted, notified Mr. Ellis that the offer had already been accepted. Believing that the offer had been accepted by a bona fide purchaser, Mr. Ellis requested a copy of the signed contract. Due to the fact that the Respondent did not have a contract signed by a bona fide buyer (Catherine A. Griffin) but believing that one would be obtained in the very near future because Donald Griffin had signed the second contract and because Donald Griffin had indicated that he could finance the entire operation by himself, the Respondent caused a photo copy of the signature of Catherine A. Griffin to be placed onto the second contract without the permission , consent, or knowledge of either Donald Griffin or Catherine Griffin. The altered copy of the second contract is apparently no longer in existence and did not come into evidence. The only real point of contention in the parties' respective proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is concerning what representation was made by Respondent to Mr. Walther Ellis concerning who had accepted the second contract. Respondent admits he represented to Mr. Ellis that Mr. Griffin, controlling the transaction for buyers, had accepted the second contract. Mr. Ellis maintained that Respondent represented to him that the second contract had been accepted on his terms but he is not clear·whether Respondent told him Mrs. Griffin accepted it or who accepted it. (Walther Ellis Deposition Page 22). Mrs. Ellis's testimony presents no independent confirmation of any of this as her information in all respects is second-hand. Mr. Brodersen's testimony is that the Respondent's representation to him was that "the Griffins" had accepted the second contract for purchase and sale and that Respondent told Mr. Ellis the same thing in Brodersen's presence and also told Brodersen that the last copy of the signed contract had been mailed to Mr. Ellis by Respondent the day previous to this three-way conversation. Mr. Brodersen thought Mr. Ellis never got the fraudulent contract but testified further that Respondent later admitted to Brodersen that he had altered this copy of the second contract so as to fraudulently reflect Mrs. Griffin's signature and further admitted to Brodersen that he, Respondent, had mailed that fraudulent copy to Mr. Ellis. Mr. Brodersen never saw the fraudulent contract. Mr. Ellis testified to receiving in the mail a copy of the second contract with a suspicious-looking set of signatures which he turned over to his attorney. The parties stipulated the attorney does not now have the contract copy. By itself, the testimony of Investigator Jacobs that Respondent by telephone admitted falsifying Mrs. Griffin's signature onto a copy of the second contract for purchase and sale and further admitted destroying one copy of the fraudulent contract would fail as not having the proper predicate for voice identification. However, in light of Mr. Ellis's and Mr. Brodersen's testimony, Mr. Jacobs' testimony on Respondent's creation of the fraudulent document is accepted as corroborative pursuant to Section 120.58 Florida Statutes. The remainder of his testimony is rejected. At no time did Catherine A. Griffin and/or Donald Griffin as her agent or on his own behalf accept the Ellis' offer contained in the second contract for sale and purchase nor did Catherine A. Griffin nor Donald Griffin ever execute the second contract as a buyer. The transaction was never closed and Mrs. Griffin was returned her deposit money when she requested it in September 1984. Mr. Ellis admits having told Respondent he was not anxious for the deal to close and did not care if the deal failed to go through. Mr. Griffin spoke at length and with considerable feeling at the hearing of his desire that Respondent not receive a permanent record as a result of a single mistake committed while under stress from Respondent's father's medical condition. That Respondent was under such stress when all this occurred was confirmed by Mr. Brodersen.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered whereby Respondent Thomas F. Steffan Jr.'s licenses as a real estate salesman and broker be suspended for a period of one year and that he pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 8th day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James T. Mitchell, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation-Legal Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Thomas F. Steffan Jr., Pro Se 18645 Sandpiper Road Ft. Myers, Florida Harold R. Huff, Director Department of Professional Regulation-Legal Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence presented at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent Gustave A. Miller was a licensed real estate broker with license number 0060208, and Respondent Pamela Michaels was a licensed real estate salesman with license number 0059873. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent Miller operated Gus Miller Real Estate, Inc., 5505 E. Colonial Drive, Orlando, Florida; and Respondent Michaels was a salesperson working for him at that office. On or about November 15, 1981, Respondent Michaels prepared a contract for the sale of property owned by Betty B. Stahl (1/2 interest) and Helen Vierbickas or Flora Belle Turner Van Trease (1/2 interest) in Orlando, Florida, to Timothy Karl Kunke and Shawna Jean Kunke. Purchase price was to be $64,000 with $1,000 paid as deposit. Buyer was to apply and qualify for a loan guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Seller was to clean and paint the inside of the house, but did not enter into a contract with Respondents to accomplish this work. The contract contained the usual provision for the division of forfeited deposit in the event of buyer default. Due to a death in the buyer's family, he was not able to qualify for an FHA loan, and without any coordination with or approval of seller, Respondent Miller deducted $235 from the deposit held by him, as his fee for painting the property, and refunded $765 to the Kunkes. Thereafter, on or about December 4, 1982, Respondent Michaels presented a second contract for the sale of the same property to Mrs. Stahl, although the majority of her dealings were actually with Mr. Stahl, who was advising his wife. The buyer listed this time was Robert G. McRae, and the contract reflected a deposit in the amount of $4,000 paid by check to Gus Miller Real Estate, Inc. This contract, which was accepted by the sellers, also called for the buyer to apply for and qualify for an FHA loan, and seller agreed to pay the discount points on that loan, not to exceed 3 percent. Though the $4,000 was reflected as paid on the front of the contract, the provision reflecting the receipt of earnest money to be held in escrow on the bottom of the reverse side of the contract was not filled in or signed by either Respondent, even though Respondent Miller's firm name was stamped in. Nonetheless, when Mr. Stahl asked Respondent Michaels about the check at the time the contract was signed by Mrs. Stahl, Michaels assured him they had it in their possession and agreed to send him a photocopy of it, which she failed to do. In the prehearing stipulation, Respondents agreed that no deposit had been paid. At some point in time, Respondents admitted they did not have the deposit. Mrs. Vierbickas, a friend of Mrs. Stahl's sister, Mrs. Van Trease, was told by Respondent Michaels that they did not have the check, but she is unsure when she was told this. I find, nonetheless, that Respondents continued to represent to the Stahls that the deposit had been received and was being held by them until after the transfer was cancelled for other reasons. McRae signed the contract on December 4, 1981. That same day, he was taken by Respondent Michaels to the Orlando office of Countrywide Funding Corporation where, before an employee of that Company, Joyce Freed, he filled out an application for an FHA mortgage in the amount of $61,300. On that same visit, he signed a certificate that the property to be covered by the mortgage would serve as his primary home. He also acknowledged in writing that he understood FHA financing could not be utilized for any purpose other than owner- occupied properties. He subsequently signed additional documents in relation to the loan in which he affirmed that the property to be financed would be occupied by him, even after the mortgage commitment was received from the FHA. On January 11, 1982, McRae certified on a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (BUD) form that he intended to occupy the property. Coincidentally, that same day, a lease was signed by a Barbara Sullivan, on behalf of herself and her husband, purporting to lease the home McRae was then occupying for one year at $650 per month with an advance deposit of $1,300 paid. McRae was not asked to sign this lease, which was witnessed by both Respondents and notarized by Respondent Miller. McRae did not receive any rent from this lease, which was not a bona fide conveyance of an interest in the property. It was not intended to convey the property, but was generated by Respondents for some purpose not related to a tenancy by the Sullivans. McRae testified that when Michaels took him to Countrywide's office, he did not intend to occupy the property to be purchased, but instead intended for his daughters to live there. However, when he saw from the forms he was signing that there was a requirement for the property to be owner-occupied, he, at that moment, changed his mind; and when he signed the documents, minutes thereafter, he intended to move in. I find this testimony to be unworthy of belief. During the period from the date of the sales contract with McRae to the date of the proposed closing, the interest rate went up higher than was called for in the contract, and McRae refused to close. Sometime later, in late February, 1982, a Larry Werts came to the property in question and discussed with Mr. Stahl the possible purchase of Mrs. Stahl's one-half interest in the property for $27,500 in cash. Werts was, however, unable to secure this much cash. Thereafter, he indicated he would make an offer on the entire parcel through Respondent Michaels; and subsequently, Respondents, together, brought a contract to Mrs. Stahl, signed by Werts, which reflected a purchase price of $50,000. The Stahls rejected this offer as being too low.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the license of each respondent be suspended for one year, that each respondent pay an administrative fine of $1,000, and that each respondent be reprimanded in writing, but that the execution of the suspension be deferred for one year with a provision for automatic recission. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert W. Olsen, Esquire 205 N. Rosalind Avenue Post Office Box 1767 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Respondent Sexsmith is a licensed real estate broker, having held License Number 0079448 at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent Bellitto is a licensed real estate salesman, having held License No. 0204206 at all times relevant to Case No. 81-2630. Respondent Select Realty, Inc., is a licensed corporate real estate broker, having held License No. 0157174 at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent Sexsmith founded Select Realty, Inc., in 1975. He was a full time realtor until his employment by the Hollywood Fire Department in 1976. Select Realty thereafter became inactive. In 1979, Respondent Sexsmith was contacted by a Mr. Jim Holmes, who was seeking to register the corporate name, Select Realty. Sexsmith agreed to permit the name Select Realty to be used by Holmes and his associates to open a real estate office at 3045 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale. Sexsmith also applied to Petitioner for certification as a director and active broker with this company. His application was granted in June, 1979, and he remained affiliated with Respondent Select Realty, Inc., in this capacity until about April, 1980. Respondent Sexsmith did not participate in Select Realty operations and received no compensation for the use of his name and broker's license. He was slated to open and manage a branch office in Hollywood, but this project failed to materialize. Petitioner produced Mr. Tom Ott and Ms. Terri Casson as witnesses. They had utilized the services of Select Realty, Inc., in December, 1979 (Ott) and February, 1980 (Casson). Both had responded to advertisements in which Select Realty offered to provide rental assistance for a $45 refundable fee. These witnesses understood money would be refunded if Select Realty did not succeed in referring them to rental property which met their specifications. Mr. Ott was referred to several properties which did not meet his requirements. He sought to have his fee or a portion thereof returned, but was refused. His demand for such return was made within the 30-day contract period (PX-11). Ms. Casson was similarly dissatisfied with the referrals and sought the return of her fee within the 30-day contract period (PX-7). However, she was unable to contact this company or its agents since the office had closed and no forwarding instructions were posted or otherwise made available to her.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Select Realty, Inc., and Gary Lee Sexsmith be found guilty as charged in Counts Three and Four of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 81-2630. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges against these Respondents and other Respondents named in DOAH Cases 81-2630 and 81-2490 be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that the corporate broker's license of Select Realty, Inc., be revoked. It is further RECOMMENDED that the broker's license of Gary Lee Sexsmith be suspended for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 18th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101, Kristin Building 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 William Grossbard, Esquire Suite 6175M 6191 Southwest 45 Street 6177 North Davie, Florida 33314 Anthony S. Paetro, Esquire Bedzow and Korn, P.A. Suite C 1125 Northeast 125 Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Lawrence J. Spiegel, Esquire Spiegel and Abramowitz Suite 380 First National Bank Building 900 West 49th Street Hialeah, Florida 33012 Mr. Gary Lee Sexsmith 321 Southwest 70t Avenue Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023 Mr. Guiseppe D. Bellitto 2635 McKinley Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Select Realty, Inc. c/o Mr. Gary Lee Sexsmith last acting Director and Trustee of Select Realty, Inc. 321 Southwest 70th Avenue Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023 Mr. Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ralph De Ponte, Jr., is a licensed real estate salesman, license number 0110328, in the State of Florida. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating real estate licensees. On or about August 25, 1993, Respondent, while licensed as a real estate salesperson, solicited and obtained a joint venture agreement between Eugenio R. Martinez and Johnco Management, Inc. The purpose of the joint venture was to purchase and sell real estate lots for profit. Lot Center Real Estate, the brokerage company for whom Respondent was employed at the time, was to act as the exclusive agent for the purchase and resale of all properties purchased by the joint venture. Mr. Martinez entrusted $15,000 with Respondent in accordance with the joint venture agreement. Mr. Martinez, based upon the representations from Respondent, believed the money would be invested in the purchase of real estate. Instead, Respondent used the $15,000 to pay off his personal debts. Johnco Management, Inc. was administratively dissolved by the Secretary of State on August 26, 1994, for failure to file its annual report as required by law. Mr. Martinez made repeated demands on Respondent for the return of the $15,000 because no effort was being made to purchase real estate and sell it for profit. Respondent is unable to return Mr. Martinez' investment and claims that the lack of additional funds caused the joint venture to prove unsuccessful. Respondent considered the $15,000 from Mr. Martinez a personal loan. Mr. Martinez' version of the incident, which is also supported by the written joint venture agreement drafted by Respondent, has been deemed more credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order revoking Respondent's real estate license. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1996, 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 27th day of September, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0661 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 10 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel Villazon Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Ralph De Ponte, Jr. Post Office Box 7751 Port St. Lucie, Florida 34985
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(a), 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Phillip F. Niles, is and was, at times material to this matter, a licensed real estate broker. His license number is 0173298. Respondent's license was inactive from August 2, 1996, through March 31, 1997. It was invalid due to non-renewal from March 31, 1997 through May 28, 1997. From May 29, 1997 through August 20, 1997, Respondent was an active broker. From August 21, 1997 through June 10, 1998, Respondent was an inactive broker. From June 11, 1998, through the date of the formal hearing, Respondent was an active individual broker. The address of his last license was 1700 Ridge Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida 32117. Sam L. Berry owned a condominium located at 840 Center Street, Unit 101, Holly Hill, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the property). Sometime prior to April 27, 1997, Mr. Berry asked Respondent to sell the property. Mr. Berry wanted to receive $20,000 for the property. Mr. Berry told Respondent that he could keep any amount of the sales price in excess of $20,000. Respondent placed an advertisement for the sale of the property in the newspaper. Thereafter, he prepared a Contract for Sale and Purchase (the contract) for the sale of the property with $20,000 as the sales price. The buyer's name was John Richards. Meanwhile, Peggy Holloway became interested in the property after seeing Respondent's advertisement. Ms. Holloway contacted Respondent at the number referenced in the advertisement. Subsequently, she met Respondent at the property. At that time Respondent's broker's license was inactive. Ms. Holloway made an offer on the property. In order to make a commission or profit on the sale, Respondent decided to sell the property to her. He changed the existing contract by marking through Mr. Richard's name and adding Ms. Holloway's name as the buyer. Respondent changed the sales price on the contract to $23,000. On April 27, 1997, Ms. Holloway signed the contract as the buyer. That same day, Mr. Berry signed the contract as seller. As part of the contract, and pursuant to Respondent's instructions, Ms. Holloway made a check out to Respondent, personally, in the amount of $500. Respondent assured Ms. Holloway that he would place the money in an escrow account. The contract stated that the $500 deposit would be held in escrow. Respondent did not place Ms. Holloway's money in escrow. He cashed her check and kept the $500. At all times material to the transaction Ms. Holloway believed that Respondent was a licensed real estate broker. Additionally, the contract contained language stating that Respondent was a real estate broker. During subsequent conversations with Ms. Holloway about financing arrangements for the purchase of the property, Respondent appeared drunk. As a result of those conversations, Ms. Holloway became suspicious about Respondent's intentions and his competence to handle the real estate transaction. Ms. Holloway contacted Petitioner and learned that Respondent's license was inactive. On or about May 6, 1997, Ms. Holloway telephoned Respondent. She told him that she did not want to go through with the contract. She demanded that Respondent return her $500 deposit. Respondent failed to return Ms. Holloway's $500 deposit. Ms. Holloway then began to deal with Respondent's brother, Peter Niles, who is an attorney. Respondent's brother prepared a document for Mr. Berry to sign acknowledging receipt of the $500 deposit. Mr. Berry signed the document prepared by Respondent's brother even though Respondent never gave the $500 deposit to Mr. Berry. Ms. Holloway eventually decided to deal directly with Mr. Berry. They agreed on a sale price and closed the transaction with no assistance from Respondent, his brother, or any other individual. Ms. Holloway sued Respondent in the County Court of Volusia County, Florida. In Case No. 97-31586, the County Judge entered a judgment against Respondent in favor of Ms. Holloway. Respondent had not satisfied the judgment as of the date of the formal hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for a period of ten years and requiring him to pay a fine in the amount of $1,000 within one year of the date of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Phillip F. Niles 5747 Sweetwater Boulevard Port Orange, Florida 32127 Phillip F. Niles Apartment 503 100 Seabreeze Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Herbert S. Fecker, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0200291. He was licensed as a real estate salesman in the employ of broker John Wesley Bridwell at all times material to these proceedings. In early 1982, Respondent came into possession of bank checks totaling $1,275 belonging to his employing broker John Bridwell and which appeared to carry the signature of Bridwell as payor. Respondent deposited these checks in various bank accounts opened and maintained by Respondent. Respondent knew the checks were stolen at the time be deposited the checks into his bank accounts. On August 11, 1982, Respondent was arrested by the Seminole County Sheriff's Department, Sanford, Florida, on the charge of depositing stolen checks with intent to defraud. Respondent confessed to this charge, and on April 15, 1983, adjudication was withheld in the Circuit Court, Seminoles County, Florida, Case No. 32-1250 CFA. Respondent was sentenced to thirty days confinement followed by ten weekends of confinement in the Seminole County Jail, ordered to make restitution of the $1,275, pay fines exceeding $1,500, and perform 200 hours of community service work.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty as charged in the three counts of the Administrative Complaint, and revoking his real estate license. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 18th day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Brian D. Rist 3181 Harbado's Ct. Apopka, Florida 32803 Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Evidence reveals that during late December, 1975, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., a Florida Corporation, filed application with the Florida Real Estate Commission seeking registration as a corporate real estate broker. Said application revealed that Defendant, Frank Viruet, was to become the Active Firm Member Broker, and Vice president of the Company; that Carol Bauman was to become Secretary-Treasurer and Director of the company; and that Lee Klien was to become president and Director of the company. The application also revealed that Carol Bauman is the wife of the Defendant Bernard Bauman (Progress Docket #2357); that Lee Klien is the sister of Carol Bauman; and that Defendant Jeffrey Bauman (Progress Docket #2858) is the son of Bernard Bauman. Subsequent to filing the above corporate application For registration, the name was changed to Noble Realty Corporation and shortly thereafter to Deed Realty, Inc. and that at each such change, new application For corporate registration was filed with the Commission. Further, the stated offices and Active Firm Member Broker remained the same. Thus, For all legal purposes, the above corporate entities are one and the same. As to Count One of the complaint, according to the certificate of the Commission's Chairman, dated December 3, 1976, (which was offered and received into evidence without objections), during the period November 1, 1975 through the date of said certificate, no registration was issued to or held by either of the three corporations above referred to. This was confirmed by testimony of Bernard Bauman who was to have become a salesman associated with the above entities and by Frank Viruet the broker, who was to have become the Active Firm Member Broker For the above entities. Approximately December 2, 1975, evidence reveals that Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., entered a written lease For office premises known as Room 212, Nankin Building, which is located at 16499 N.E. 19th Avenue, North Miami Beach, For the period January 1 through December 31, 1976. (A copy of the lease was entered into evidence by stipulation). The unrebutted testimony by Plaintiff Reagan was that he observed during his investigation of this cause, a building directory on the ground floor entrance to the Nankin Building displaying the name Noble Realty, Inc., Room 212 (2nd Floor). A similar display on the building directory appeared on the second floor. Plaintiff's witness, Peter King, a representative of and For Southern Bell Telephone Company, testified that on December 27, 1975, three phones were installed in said room 212 of the Nankin Building in the name of Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., and that from January 1 through January 16, 1976, approximately 575 phone calls were made from such phones during evening hours to out-of-state numbers. Jeffrey Bauman and Bernard Bauman admitted to having made phone calls to out-of-state numbers For purposes of soliciting real estate sales listings, but did not recall nor introduce records as to how many calls were in fact made. Jeffrey Bauman testified that Frank Viruet had also made phone calls from the stated phones but did not state whether they were solicitations. On this point, Frank Viruet denied making solicitation calls although he admitted using the phone For other purposes. Bernard Bauman testified that approximately four listings were obtained with an advance fee of $375.00 For each listing received. He further testified that upon being advised, by the investigator with the Commission, that the operation was in violation of the licensing law by reason that no registration had been issued to the applicant company, and that all who were engaged in real estate activities For said company were in violation of the licensing law, the premises were closed and all real estate activities ceased. This was confirmed by nominal Plaintiff Reagan. Frank Viruet denied having knowledge of real estate activities being conducted by the Baumans. He further denied knowledge that office space in Room 212 of the Nankin Building was occupied by Land Re- Sale Service, Inc. and used by the Bauman's. He admitted to signing the application For registration which was submitted to the Commission as the corporate Active Firm Member Broker to be. As to Count Two, evidence established as stated above, that defendants Jeffrey and Bernard Bauman had solicited real estate sales listings with representations to property owners that the listings would in fact be published and disseminated to brokers nationwide. However, the Baumans, admitted by their own testimony that their listings were never published or otherwise disseminated to brokers either intrastate or nationwide. Bernard Bauman testified that no money was ever returned to senders. There was no evidence received to show that Defendant Frank Viruet knew that no bona fide efFort would be made to sell the property so listed with Noble Realty Corporation; nor that Viruet was aware that solicitations were being made. As to Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that the acts and doings set out in Counts One and Two establish a course of conduct by defendants upon which revocation of their registration should issue.
