The Issue The issue presented here concerns the Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, against the Respondent, Jack V. Quick, alleging that the Respondent has been found guilty of crimes against the laws of the United States, which crimes directly relate to the activities of a licensed broker or salesman or involve moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Specifically, it is charged that the Respondent was found guilty on or about December 11, 1979, of certain offenses, namely counts Three, Four, Five and Six of an indictment dated July 31, 1979. Those offenses involved: (1) the willful and knowing conspiracy with others to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, to wit, marijuana, (2) the use and arrangement for the use of telephonic communications in the aforementioned enterprise, two counts, and (3) travel in interstate commerce to carry out the business of distributing a controlled substance, to wit, marijuana in violation of Section 841(a)(1), Title 21, United States Code; Section 846, Title 21, United States Code; and Section 1952(a)(3), Title 18, United States Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, as the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, brought an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Jack V. Quick, setting forth those allegations as are found in the Issues statement of the Recommended Order. The Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and on February 9, 1981, that hearing was conducted. The case was presented on the basis of the introduction of Joint Exhibits A, B and C, by the parties. Joint Exhibit A is an indictment by the Grand Jury in the United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division, Case No. 79-7-VAL, placed against the Respondent Jack V. Quick who is referred to in the indictment as Jack Vernon Quick. Joint Exhibit B is the Judgment and Commitment Order of the U.S. District Court in the aforementioned case arising from a finding/verdict directed to the aforementioned indictment. Joint Exhibit C is the Judgment of the United States Court of Appeal, for the Fifth Circuit, directed to the judgment of the United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division. From the position taken by the parties in this action and the documents stipulated to by the parties, the following facts are found: Respondent, Jack V. Quick, is a real estate broker, licensed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate. The Respondent, Jack V. Quick, under the name Jack Vernon Quick, was indicted by the Grand Jury of the United States District, Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division, Case No. 79-7-VAL on the following Counts: COUNT ONE From on or about August 17, 1978, to and including on or about August 19, 1978, within the Middle District of Georgia and elsewhere, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, wilfully and knowingly did transport and cause to be transported and did aid and abet the transportation in interstate commerce from Tallahassee, Florida, to the State of Georgia, David Karl Roberts who had theretofore been unlawfully seized, confined, kidnapped, abducted, carried away, and held by the said defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, for ransom, reward and otherwise, that is, for the purpose of obtaining a particular hoard of one thousand pounds of marijuana or the return of the defendant's downpayment of $68,000 on the purchase price of $138,000 of the said marijuana; in violation of Sections 1201(a)(1) and (2), Title 18, United States Code. COUNT TWO From on or about August 17, 1978, to and including on or about August 19, 1978, within the Middle District of Georgia and elsewhere, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, wilfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate and agree together with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury to violate Section 1201 (a)(1), Title 18, United States Code, that is, to wilfully and knowingly transport in interstate commerce from Tallahassee, Florida, to the State of Georgia, David Karl Roberts, who had theretofore been unlawfully seized, confined, kidnapped, abducted, carried away and held by the said defendant for ransom, reward and otherwise, to wit, for the purpose of obtaining a particular hoard of one thousand pounds of marijuana or the return of the defendant's downpayment on said marijuana. OVERT ACTS In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect that objects thereof the defendant performed the following overt acts: On or about August 17, 1978, David Karl Roberts was transported by force and coercion by the defendant and others from the residence of James Mann Ervin to the residence of defendant JACK VERNON QUICK, both residences being in the State of Florida. On or about August 18, 1978, David Karl Roberts was transported by force and coercion from the residence of defendant JACK VERNON QUICK in Tallahassee, Florida, to Valdosta, Georgia, by the defendant JACK VERNON QUICK and others. On or about August 19, 1978, David Karl Roberts was transported by force and coercion from Valdosta, Georgia, to defendant JACK VERNON QUICK's residence in Tallahassee, Florida, where he was held against his will by the defendant and others. All in violation of Section 1201(c), Title 18, United States Code. COUNT THREE From on or about July 1, 1978, to and including on or about August 18, 1978, in Valdosta, Georgia, in the Middle District of Georgia and elsewhere, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, did unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly combine, conspire and confederate and agree together with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit an offense in violation of Section 841(a)(1), Title 21, United States Code, to wit, to knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to distribute approximately 1,000 pounds of marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance; all in violation of Section 846, Title 21, United States Code. COUNT FOUR On or about August 16, 1978, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, did use and cause to be used a facility in interstate commerce, that is, telephonic wire communications from Tallahassee, Florida, to Adel, Georgia, in the Middle District of Georgia, with the intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, said unlawful activity being a business enterprise involving the distribution of narcotics and controlled substances, to wit, marijuana, in violation of section 841(a)(1), Title 21, United States Code, and thereafter did perform and attempt to perform acts to promote, manage, and carry on and facilitate the promotion, management and carrying on of said unlawful activity; in violation of Section 1952(a)(3), Title 18, United States Code. COUNT FIVE On or about August 18, 1978, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, did travel in interstate commerce from Tallahassee, Florida, to Valdosta, Georgia, in the Middle District of Georgia, with the intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, said unlawful activity being a business enterprise involving the distribution of narcotics and controlled substances, to wit, marijuana, in violation of Section 841(a)(1), Title 21, United States Code, and thereafter did perform and attempt to perform acts to promote, manage, and carry on and facilitate the promotion, management and carrying on of said unlawful activity; in violation of Section 1952(a)(3), Title 18, United States Code. COUNT SIX On or about August 18, 1978, the defendant, JACK VERNON QUICK, did use and cause to be used a facility in interstate commerce, that is, telephonic wire communications from Tallahassee, Florida, to Valdosta, Georgia, in the Middle District of Georgia, with the intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, said unlawful activity being a business enterprise involving the distribution of narcotics and controlled substances, to wit, marijuana, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1), and thereafter did perform and attempt to perform acts to promote, manage, and carry on and facilitate the promotion, management and carrying on of said unlawful activity; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952(a)(3). On December 11, 1979, the Respondent was found not guilty of the aforementioned Counts One and Two. On December 11, 1979, the Respondent was found guilty of Counts Three, Four, Five and Six and was sentenced to five (5) years under Count Three or until otherwise discharged as provided by law, to be followed by special parole for two (2) years. On each of the Counts Four, Five and Six, the Respondent was given a five (5) year sentence to be served to run concurrently with the sentence set forth in Count Three. On November 7, 1980, in an action on Summary Calendar, United States Court of Appeal, for the Fifth Circuit, No. 79-5729, the court upheld the aforementioned judgment entered December 11, 1979, by the United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division. The appellate court order of affirmance was issued as a mandate on December 4, 1980.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged, inter alia, with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Pamela Jan Powers, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0508538. On May 8, 1995, Respondent filed an application with the Department for licensure as a real estate broker. Pertinent to this case, item 9 on the application required that Respondent answer yes or no to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. . . . Respondent responded to the question by checking the box marked "NO." Following approval of Respondent's application, and her licensure as a real estate broker, the Department discovered a "Court Status" document (the "court document") for the Circuit/County Court, Broward County, Florida, which reflected that Respondent, then known as Pamela Jan Saitta, had been charged with five offenses, as follows: DISORDERLY CONDUCT POSSES/DISPLY SUSP/REVK/FRD DL LICENSE SUSP OR REVOKED2 PERS/INJ/PROT/INS REQUIRE FAIL CHANGE ADDRESS/NAME (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) The court document further reflected that on May 18, 1990, a plea of nolo contendere was entered to counts 1 and 3, adjudication was withheld, and Respondent was assessed costs of $105.00, but not fined. As for the remaining counts, count 2 was nolle prosequi and counts 4 and 5 were dismissed. After receipt of the foregoing information, the Department undertook an investigation, which included an interview with the Respondent. At the time, Respondent told the investigator that she had no knowledge of the charges, as reflected on the court document. Thereafter, on July 18, 1997, the Department filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding, which, based on Respondent's negative response to item 9 on the application, charged that Respondent "has obtained a license by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Fla. Stat." and sought to take disciplinary action against her license. On September 17, 1997, Respondent appeared before the Florida Real Estate Commission in an apparent effort to resolve the complaint informally. At that time, Respondent told the commission, under oath, that she had no recollection of the charges or disposition, as reflected on the court document.3 She acknowledged, however, that the document referred to her, but could offer no explanation. During a recess, the commission's counsel spoke with Respondent, and suggested that she try and secure a copy of the police report, as well as other useful information. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, page 10.) Respondent, but not the Department, researched the records at the Broward County Police Department, and was able to locate a traffic accident report for February 21, 1990, that apparently related to the charges noted in the court document. (Respondent's Exhibit 1.) No police report was located. The accident report reflects that on February 21, 1990, Respondent's vehicle was struck in the rear by another vehicle. The report reads, in part, as follows: Driver of veh 1 [Respondent] had a suspended D.L. and no proof of insurance. Driver of Veh 1 [Respondent] was subsequently arrested for the suspended D.L. ss 322.34(1) No proof of insurance ss316.646(1) Fail to change address within 10 days ss 322.19 and unlawful Use of License ss 322.32(1). The vehicles were both towed by Dalys towing. There is no mention in the accident report of any disorderly conduct by Respondent or any charge of disorderly conduct against Respondent. Moreover, there is no explanation of record for the disorderly conduct charge made against Respondent, as evidenced by the court document. Regarding the events revealed by the accident report, Respondent acknowledges that these events are most likely the source of the charges that were reflected on the court document. She insists, however, that she has no recollection of receiving any citations at the time of the accident, and denies any knowledge of the court proceeding. In explanation, Respondent avers that, consequent to injuries received at the time, she has no recollection of events immediately following the accident. Regarding the court proceeding or its disposition, Respondent also avers she has no knowledge or recollection of that proceeding and did not appear in court on the charges. The only explanation she can offer for that proceeding or its disposition is that, most likely, her attorney resolved the matter, as he was resolving the civil suit that was brought against the other driver. Given the circumstances of this case, Respondent's averment that she was unaware of the charges or the disposition disclosed on the court document when she submitted the application for a broker's license, and that she was only able to connect the court document to the traffic accident after she had retrieved a copy of the accident report, is credible. In so concluding, it is observed that her testimony was candid and consistent. Moreover, her explanation afforded rational explanation for what, otherwise, would have been an irrational act. In this regard, it is observed that the charges filed against Respondent, as well as their disposition, were not serious and did not reflect adversely on her qualification for licensure as a real estate broker. Consequently, were she aware of the events, there was no rational reason to conceal them from the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as an optician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DO 003219. On March 7, 1986, Respondent was found guilty, by verdict of a jury, of the misdemeanor offense of disorderly conduct. He was placed on probation and ordered to pay restitution. As conditions of his probation, he was ordered to seek counseling, to undergo drug evaluation, and to avoid contact with the victim. On July 20, 1987, Respondent filed an application with the Florida Board of Real Estate to sit for an examination that he was required to pass to become licensed as a real estate professional in Florida. Respondent responded "yes" to the following question on that application: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "no" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "no". On January 6, 1988, Respondent filed an application with the Petitioner to sit for an examination that he was required to pass to become licensed as an optician in Florida. Respondent responded "no" to the following question on that application: Have you ever been convicted or found guilty regardless of adjudication - of a crime in any jurisdiction, or have you ever been a defendant in a military court-martial? (Do not include parking or speeding violations.) Based on his application of January 6, 1988, Respondent was permitted to sit for the examination, which was divided into parts. He failed one part of the examination, and he was not eligible for licensure as an optician until he passed the part he had failed. On July 6, 1988, Respondent filed an application with the Petitioner to retake the part of the examination that he had previously failed. Respondent again responded "no" to the following question on that application: Have you ever been convicted or found guilty regardless of adjudication - of a crime in any jurisdiction, or have you ever been a defendant in a military court-martial? (Do not include parking or speeding violations.) Based on his application of July 6, 1988, Respondent was permitted to retake the part of the examination for licensure as an optician that he had previously failed. Respondent passed that part of the examination and was subsequently licensed as an optician. Petitioner would have required additional information from Respondent had Respondent answered the subject question in the affirmative on either his application of January 6, 1988, or on his application of July 6, 1988. Respondent contends that he answered the question truthfully because the crime of disorderly conduct is no more serious than a traffic offense. Respondent also contends that he relied upon the advice of his attorney in responding to the question. Although Respondent and his attorney discussed having the conviction expunged, Respondent did not pursue expungement because of the costs involved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which revokes Respondent's licensure as an optician, but that the order of revocation be without prejudice to his right to reapply for licensure. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of May, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-8 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 and 10 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are rejected as being the recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings made. The Respondent's post-hearing submittal was in the form of a handwritten letter filed April 23, 1991. The proposed findings contained therein are rejected as being contrary to the findings made, as being irrelevant to the proceeding, or as being argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Renee Alsbrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David A. Whelihan, Jr. 18456 Lost Lake Way Jupiter, Florida 33458 LouElla Cook Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Has Mr. Guy demonstrated that he is honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character and has a good reputation for fair dealing as required by Section 475.17, Florida Statutes (1981)?
Findings Of Fact On March 23, 1981, Mr. Guy filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson with the Florida Board of Real Estate. By a letter dated May 19, 1981, the Board denied Mr. Guy's application. As stated by the letter, "the specific reasons for the Board's action is based on your answer to Question #6 of the licensing application and your criminal record according to the appropriate law enforcement agency." Question #6 of the application asks: 6. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? Mr. Guy responded "Yes" he had. The question further requested the details in full concerning any arrests. In response, Mr. Guy answered: Arrested three (3)-times in Tampa, Florida, between 1972 and 1976 for D.W.I. (No convictions). Arrested in Detroit, Michigan in 1979 for intoxication and disorderly conduct - confined for detoxication, released upon paying fine. (See Attachment A) Attachment A which was by reference made a part of Mr. Guy's application was a police report from the City of Tampa, which Mr. Guy himself obtained in order to attach to his application. It stated: Date: 27 February 1981 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: In reference to your ( ) counter check ( ) letter ( ) telephone call dated 27 February 81 regarding Milton Franklin Guy. Please be informed that our files were searched by ( ) fingerprints ( ) name only, and indicate that a person by the same name has the following record with this Department. WHITE/MALE DATE OF BIRTH: 21 Nov 41 21 Nov 49 4 Feb 74 Trespass After Warning $25 + CC 13 Mar 74 26 Mar 76 Deliver Amphetamines * 23 Dec 77 Disorderly Conduct * *NOTE: For all cases without a disposition, please contact the Clerk of the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. The Board of Real Estate has no knowledge about Mr. Guy's arrests, convictions, pardons or paroles except from the material supplied above by Mr. Guy. No evidence was introduced to show that Mr. Guy has a criminal record other than that which he disclosed on his application received by the Board of Real Estate on March 23, 1981. There is no direct evidence for the following supposition but it appears that Mr. Guy's denial by the Board was based upon a misunderstanding about how much material he submitted in support of his application. The police report, which is Mr. Guy's Attachment A, is identical to those reports which the Board's staff itself usually acquires independently from the applicant. If the Board thought it followed its routine in this instance, it is understandable that it could believe Mr. Guy was not forthright in answering Question #6. That was not the case here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Real Estate enter a Final Order finding Petitioner qualified pursuant to Section 475.17(1) Florida Statutes (1981) to take the licensing examination provided for in Section 475.17(5), Florida Statutes (1981), to be licensed as a real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON 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 25th day of February, 1982.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of obtaining his real estate license by means of misrepresentation or concealment in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent is now, and at all times material to this proceeding, was licensed as a Florida real estate broker. He holds real estate broker's license number 3004152. Respondent passed the real estate broker's examination on April 22, 1996. From May 10, 1996, through September 8, 1996, Respondent was an inactive broker. Since September 9, 1996, Respondent has been a land developer and a real estate broker/officer of a real estate brokerage corporation in DeLand, Florida. There have been no prior complaints or disciplinary action against Respondent's Florida license. Respondent is also a licensed real estate broker in Massachusetts since 1966 and in Colorado since 1994. There have been no complaints or disciplinary actions against Respondent's license in those states. In 1981, Respondent sold a boat for $10,000 to a person who failed to make a full payment. About a year later, Respondent made a demand for payment from the buyer. An argument between Respondent and the buyer resulted in a pushing contest. About one month later, Respondent ran a traffic light in Laconia, New Hampshire. The law enforcement officer who stopped Respondent informed him that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. Respondent was arrested and released on the same day. Until that time, Respondent was not aware that he had been charged with any offense. Respondent appeared in court with his attorney on October 15, 1982. After pleading guilty to the charge of simple assault, he paid a fine in the amount of $50. Respondent received a sentence of 10 days of jail time, suspended on good behavior, and given a conditional discharge. Respondent filed a application for a Florida real estate broker's license on August 17, 1995. He signed a notarized affidavit on the application form, swearing that his answers and statements were true and correct. The application form contained a question seeking the following information in pertinent part: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. . . . * * * Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. From the record, it is found that Respondent clearly understood question nine. In response to this question, Respondent answered in the negative by marking the "no" box. Respondent asserts that his response was truthful at the time he signed the application because he had no independent recollections of the 1982 simple assault charge. He claims that he did not knowingly and intentionally give a false or incomplete response. Respondent testified that he would have disclosed his guilty plea if he had remembered it. Taking into account all evidence, Respondent's testimony is not persuasive. Petitioner's investigator subsequently questioned Respondent about the 1982 offense. Respondent then contacted his attorney in New Hampshire. The attorney obtained a copy of the court docket which was subsequently furnished to Petitioner. During the hearing, Respondent testified that he still cannot remember whether the police fingerprinted him after his arrest. Respondent claims that he cannot remember the judge pronouncing a sentence or his attorney explaining anything about the proceeding to him. Likewise, this testimony is not credited.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's real estate broker's license and fining him $1000. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Ghunise Coaxum, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N308 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 1999 West Colonial Drive, Suite 211 Orlando, Florida 32804 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, 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. He has held Florida license number 0046313 at all times relevant to these proceedings. On February 2, 1979, in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit (Florida), Respondent was adjudicated guilty on three counts of failure to register as a securities salesman and three counts of failure to register securities, under Sections 517.03, 517.07, 517.12 and 517.302, F.S. (1973). He was sentenced to five years imprisonment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. 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.
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1988, shortly before 9:00 a.m., Sheriff Deputy William Emral of the Monroe County Sheriff's Office was notified by radio that the Sheriff's Office dispatcher had received an anonymous telephone call advising that two white males were loading what appeared to be narcotics into a white four-door Cadillac, with Florida license plate number 367-ZGX. The caller indicated that the Cadillac was headed northbound on the highway from Lower Matecumbe Key. Deputy Emral then took up a stationary position at mile marker 84 and began watching the northbound traffic. At about 9:05 a.m., he observed the Cadillac described by the anonymous caller. Deputy Emral began to follow the subject Cadillac northbound. He followed the Cadillac for approximately one mile and then activated his emergency lights and pulled the Cadillac over. From the time Deputy Emral first saw the subject Cadillac until the time he pulled the Cadillac over, he did not observe anything about the car or the driver that would have caused him to stop the Cadillac. Had it not been for the information provided by the anonymous caller, Deputy Emral would not have stopped the subject Cadillac. The Respondent, Mark Alfred Herre, was driving the Cadillac at the time Deputy Emral pulled it over. Mr. Herre did not flee and obeyed the directions given to him by Deputy Emral. He produced his driver's license which showed his name as Mark Alfred Herre. The car was rented and, when requested, he produced the rental contract showing that it had been rented by another individual. Deputy Emral reported this information to his base and to his superior, Captain Wilkinson, who later arrived at the scene. Deputy Emral observed two bags, one green and one gray. These were soft sided bags and appeared to be stuffed between the rear and front seats of the rented car, on both the driver and passenger sides. They were relative large, approximately three feet by four feet in size. The rental contract produced by Mr. Herre indicated that the vehicle was rented by a Maryland resident named Robert E. Lee. Mr. Herre could produce no authorization from Mr. Lee that he was entitled to use the vehicle nor could he produce the name of someone who could confirm he was authorized to be driving the subject vehicle. At about this time, Captain Wilkinson arrived at the scene as backup. At this point, Mr. Herre was not suspected of a crime and continued to answer questions from the Deputy. He stated that the bags in the car contained diving gear. Deputy Emral is a certified diver and the story seemed suspicious and inconsistent with the Deputy's previous diving experiences. Mr. Herre did not ask any questions or make other inquiries as to why he was stopped. Deputy Emral did explain that an anonymous tip was received and discussed this information with the Petitioner. At this point, Deputy Emral and Captain Wilkinson conferred and because of the information received by the anonymous tip to the Sheriff's Office and the inability of the Petitioner to prove he had authorization to be driving the rented vehicle, they decided that the vehicle should be taken into custody. In preparation for taking a vehicle into custody, an inventory of the vehicle is made as a standard procedure. Mr. Herre was not placed under arrest at this time. Mr. Herre was asked for, but declined to give, permission for the Deputy to search the vehicle. The vehicle was then searched and it was determined that the two bags in the passenger compartment contained bales of marijuana. Captain Wilkinson then took charge of the vehicle and drove it to the Sheriff's Office. Captain Wilkinson stated that even if no contraband were in the vehicle, he would probably have driven it to the substation to await confirmation that Mr. Herre was actually authorized to be in possession of the rented car and the same was not actually stolen. At the Sheriff's Office, the Cadillac was thoroughly searched and the car and its contents were photographed. Three bales of marijuana were recovered from the back seat and ten bales of marijuana were recovered from the trunk. Samples tested positive for marijuana. For purposes of this case, the parties have stipulated that the marijuana found in the subject Cadillac weighed a total of 300 pounds. On November 17, 1988, the Department issued a Notice Of Assessment And Jeopardy Findings to the Petitioner, Mr. Herre. The assessment was based on an estimated retail price for marijuana of $700.00 per pound times the stipulated 300 pounds, which comes to a total estimated retail value of $210,000.00. The tax, surcharge, and penalty assessed against Mr. Herre were as follows: 50% Tax $105,000.00 25% Surcharge 52,500.00 Additional penalty of 50% 78,750.00 Total Amount of assessment $236,250.00 Daily interest on the amount due is $51.78. The Notice of Assessment And Jeopardy Findings described above was properly and correctly prepared and notice of it was properly given to the Petitioner, Mr. Herre. On December 28, 1988, Mr. Herre was sentenced in Case No. 33-88-00446- CF-A to a period of five (5) years probation and to pay $5,000.00 in costs. The sentence in the aforementioned case was as a result of criminal charges arising from Petitioner's arrest for the conduct alleged in the Notice Of Assessment And Jeopardy Findings dated November 17, 1988.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue issue a Final Order in this case concluding that the Petitioner, Mark Alfred Herre, is liable for taxes, surcharges, penalties, and interest pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), and assessing the amount of such liability at $236,250.00, plus interest at the rate of $51.78 per day since November 7, 1988. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of March 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen J. Bronis, Esquire 1395 Coral Way Third Floor Miami, Florida 33145 MICHAEL M. 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 18th day of March 1991. Mark T. Aliff, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Thomas Herndon Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Vicki Weber General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of having obtained a real estate license by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2004). Whether Respondent is guilty of failure to comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-2.027(2), and, therefore, is in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes (2004). At all times material, Respondent was a licensed Florida real estate sales associate, issued license number 3019284 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2004). Petitioner has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission). Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission's jurisdiction. On or about August 6, 2001, Respondent submitted to Petitioner an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Respondent signed a sworn affidavit on the application which indicated that Respondent carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements were true, correct, and complete to his knowledge without any evasions or mental reservations. Question 9 on the application asks: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no Contest), even if adjudication was withheld: This question applies to a violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing to answering "NO." If you answered "Yes," attach the details including dates and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. Respondent marked the "Yes" box on the application in response to this question and provided insufficient or no explanation for the incidents in his criminal history. Respondent signed the "Affidavit of Applicant." Respondent's signature was duly notarized, and the application was submitted. Relying on Respondent's incomplete representations, Petitioner issued Respondent a Florida real estate salesperson's license. Petitioner subsequently performed a background check and discovered the following: In 1998, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of DUI. In 1987, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of possession of a controlled substance. In 1986, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of driving under the influence of liquor. In 1985, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of driving a motor vehicle while his license was suspended. In 1985, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of simple assault and battery. Respondent failed to include the above-mentioned adjudications on his application for licensure. Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are copies of court documents demonstrating that Respondent was adjudicated guilty in each unreported offense. Respondent testified that he failed to report the adjudications until August 20, 2003. However, Respondent's reporting of the adjudications occurred after Petitioner discovered them and prompted Respondent to explain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order declaring Respondent has been found guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2004), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-2.027(2), and, therefore, Subsection 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and suspending Respondent's license until June 30, 2005, and requiring that Respondent pay a $1,000 fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 1st day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: James P. Harwood, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Hurston Building North Tower Suite 801N 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Michael G. Nichola, Esquire 800 North Ferncreek Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Juana Watkins, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and related rules which establish the licensure and practice standards for real estate brokers and salesmen in the State of Florida and provide for a method of enforcing those standards. The Respondent is a licensed real estate salesman, being issued license number 0443228, in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The Respondent's last licensed practice location was as a salesman with John Davidson Realty, Inc., at 949 Jenks Avenue, Panama City, Florida 32401. The Respondent was first licensed in January of 1985. In November of 1983, the Respondent engaged in a telephone call(s) to introduce or serve as an intermediary between two old friends. The purpose of the calls was to arrange for one of his friends to buy a quantity of marijuana from the other. This arrangement arose out of friendships based upon the Respondent's former residence in Key West, Florida. The Respondent helped his friends arrange a marijuana sale transaction; and a few months later, in approximately June of 1984, he again telephoned one of them to urge him to pay the money he owed the seller of the marijuana. That was the extent of the Respondent's involvement in the illegal drug transaction. On December 29, 1988, the Respondent, was indicted, with other defendants, on a number of related charges concerning the use of the mails and telephones in promoting and facilitating the distribution, and the conspiracy to distribute, marijuana, and the commission of acts which are felonies under federal drug laws. He pled guilty to Count V of that indictment involving the intentional use of the telephone in facilitating another in commission of acts which are felonies under federal drug laws, specifically, the distribution and conspiracy to distribute a quantity of a controlled substance: to wit, marijuana. Thus, the Respondent was ultimately convicted of a violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 843, after his agreed plea was ultimately entered on April 18, 1989. On that date, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida entered a judgment convicting the Respondent of violating that Section of the United States Code, as charged in Count V of the indictment. The court sentenced the Respondent to three years of imprisonment, which was then suspended on the condition that the Respondent be confined in a treatment institution for 90 days. The Respondent carried out that sentence by spending nights in a "halfway house", while working during the day. The Respondent immediately notified the Petitioner of his conviction on or about April 24, 1989, by letter. The Respondent candidly explained his predicament to the Florida Real Estate Commission without any prompting by the Commission and asked for the Commission's guidance. Ultimately, the Petitioner responded by filing the subject administrative complaint. The Respondent also fully cooperated with the federal authorities in the prosecution of the various criminal matters relating to the confiscation of property acquired with drug sale proceeds by other individual defendants named in the original indictment. This criminal act was committed by the Respondent prior to his licensure as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida. Since the original criminal conduct, the Respondent, in early 1984, married and has since had four children. He, through his own testimony and that of his witnesses, established that he is an exemplary family man, husband and father of his children. He has been a good provider for his family and himself since he has been a very successful real estate salesman, with a higher professional certification pending for him in the field of commercial real estate. A number of real estate brokers in the Panama City area with whom the Respondent has worked as a business associate or employee attested to his excellent reputation for honesty and fair dealing in all business and personal transactions and to the purity of his personal character. Since his entry into the real estate sales profession, he has become prominent both in the actual practice of his profession and in related professional organizations and civic activities. He has truly proved himself to be a rather admirable citizen since his unfortunate illegal conduct and resulting conviction. This altercation with the federal criminal justice system was the only one on his record, and he has had no violations in a professional context since he was licensed as a real estate salesman. The Respondent's evidence establishes unequivocally that he has rehabilitated himself from the effects and personal blemish of his past miscreant conduct. No evidence was adduced to refute that showing, because the Petitioner essentially no longer disputes those facts. His rehabilitation is to such an extent that it is obvious that his prior criminal conduct, should it become known to the public, would not likely cause or induce the public to fear that he would act to his clients' detriment in the conduct of their business affairs and the handling of their funds. In summary, the peculiar circumstances of this case, starting with the fact that the Respondent himself was not directly involved in the sale of illegal drugs, but rather was seeking to "help out a friend", albeit wrongfully, through the remaining facts established, which prove his rehabilitation, have shown that his prior criminal conduct does not reflect adversely on his ability to serve as an exemplary licensed real estate professional in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner finding the Respondent guilty of a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, as prohibited by Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and that the penalty of a private, written reprimand be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-6876 The following discussion is given concerning the fact proposals of the parties: Petitioner's Facts 1-9. Accepted. Respondent' s Facts The Respondent filed no proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Glen L. Hess, Esquire 9108 West Highway 98 Panama City Beach, FL 32407
Findings Of Fact Jeralne C. Burt is registered with the Florida Board of Real Estate as a salesperson and was so registered at all times here involved. In the fall of 1977, Barbara Rogers came to Respondent's home seeking to purchase residential real estate and was shown several houses by Respondent. One of these houses she agreed to purchase. When asked how she wanted the contract made out, Barbara Rogers said make the contract in the name of Louise Rogers, her sister. The contract to purchase was prepared and given to Barbara Rogers to have executed. When this contract (Exhibit 1) was returned to Respondent it was signed Louise Rogers as the buyer, but the signature was not witnessed. After being assured that Louise had signed the contract to purchase, Respondent signed as a witness to the previously unwitnessed signature of Louise Rogers. At the time this offer was executed by the buyer, Respondent understood that Barbara Rogers was putting up the money for the cash required over the mortgage. Thereafter, Louise Rogers proceeded to the bank where the necessary documents were executed to qualify for an FHA morgage on the property. At the designated closing date Respondent drove to Barbara Rogers' house where Barbara was picked up and they went to the place Louise worked to pick her up. Louise came out to the car and told Respondent that she couldn't get off work and that Barbara could sign the papers for her. When Respondent said she thought Louise should come to the closing to sign, Louise replied that she and her sister signed each other's names all the time and that it was all riht for Barbara to execute the papers. Respondent and Barbara Rogers proceeded to the closing. No one inquired if Barbara Rogers was Louise Rogers, nor was she ever introduced as Louise Rogers. At the closing Barbara Rogers signed Louise Rogers' name on the various documents presented for signature. Due to the house requiring some repairs the closing was kept in escrow for approximately one week to ten days. During this escrow period the mortgage processor at the Barnett Bank, who had processed the application of Louise Rogers, received a phone call from a woman identifying herself as Louise Rogers inquiring when the closing on the house was to take place. When Louise Rogers said she had not executed any papers for the closing the bank officials quickly re-assembled the parties and this time all documents were executed by the real Louise Rogers. Although Respondent realized Louise Rogers should have signed the documents at closing, because of Louise's insistence that Barbara could sign for her and Respondent's previous experience of signing her grandmother's name for her the past two years of her grandmother's life, Respondent assumed the authorization for Barbara to sign Louise's name had been given.
