Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0413725. On November 8, 1983 Respondent submitted a Request for Active Salesman's License indicating the name of the firm at which he would be employed as Corporate Investments of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Corporate Investment Business Brokers and his broker as Lynne Levy. Respondent worked as a salesman with Lynne Levy as his broker until he was terminated by her on or about May 22, 1984. Respondent testified he was not told of his termination until 4:00 p.m. on May 25, 1984 at which time Lynne Levy also resigned as broker with Corporate Investments of Florida, Inc. Respondent's license was cancelled on May 29, 1984 due to the fact that his license was no longer placed with a broker. From May 29 until July 9, 1984 Respondent's license was not placed with a broker and was therefore in a "cancelled" status. On July 9, 1984 Respondent's license was reactivated since he had been employed by another real estate broker. On or about June 1, 1984 Respondent attempted to have Mr. Bert Malone register as broker for Corporate Investments of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Corporate Investment Business Brokers, but that application was never accepted by the Florida Real Estate Commission due to Respondent's failure to submit information requested by the Commission, including a copy of the corporation's minutes when Lynne Levy's resignation was accepted and Respondent was elected an officer or director. Respondent was co-owner with Robert L. Levy, Lynne Levy's husband, of Corporate Investments of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Corporate Investment Business Brokers. Lynne Levy was President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Corporation, as well as its broker. Robert L. Levy and Respondent each owned 50% of the corporation, but Respondent held a 51% voting interest to Levy's 49%. Respondent obtained his franchise on June 17, 1983 to open an office in Florida from Corporate Investment Business Brokers, Inc., a franchisor. Respondent contributed the franchise to the corporation he formed with Levy and agreed to keep the franchise current. The franchisor terminated its franchise agreement with Respondent on May 17, 1984 due to Respondent's failure to make payments due thereunder. On June 12, 1984 the franchisor notified Respondent that it would not reconsider the termination of the franchise. On or about May 30, 1984 Respondent attended the closing of a real estate transaction between Fred Hage, seller, and Frank De Santo, buyer. This was while Respondent's license was cancelled and inoperative. The property had been listed by Respondent and he received a check for $9000 made out to Corporate Investments of Florida, Inc., which represented the broker's commission. On the same day Respondent opened a checking account at Barnett Bank of Central Florida, Longwood Office, and deposited the $9000 commission check in that account without the knowledge or consent of Lynne Levy, his former registered employing broker. On August 16, 1984 Respondent disbursed $3750 to Robert L. Levy, Lynne Levy's husband, from this checking account as the co-partner's share of the $9000 commission. Respondent had obtained the listing agreement from Fred Hage on this property on March 14, 1984 at which time Respondent and Hage agreed to a $6000 commission, or 12% of the total price upon consummation of a sale. Or or about April 4, 1984 Hage signed another listing agreement which reflected a $9000 commission. When the transaction closed on or about May 30, Respondent collected the $9000 commission. Hage signed the closing statement and the purchase contract for this transaction, both of which disclosed the $9000 commission. Hage did not question the commission amount at the closing but waited until June 6, 1984 to raise his objection in a letter to Lynne Levy. On or about May 21, 1984 Respondent discussed with Paul Russell, II, the acquisition of a 50% partnership interest in his real estate franchise in the central Florida area for $50,000. Respondent admits that he was informed on May 17, 1984 that his franchise had been terminated and this termination was reconfirmed on June 12, 1984. Respondent did not inform Russell during their discussions that his franchise had already been terminated, but Russell decided not to go through with the deal. On or about June 2, 1984 while his license was cancelled and inoperative, Respondent received a check for $400 from Kenneth L. and Mary Lou Welker which represented one- half of the appraisal cost on certain property they were selling through Respondent as the selling agent. Respondent represented that he immediately ordered the appraisal as the Welkers requested, but Mrs. Welker learned that it had not been ordered by June 5 and stopped payment on the check.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In pertinent part Petitioner contends that Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for having been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) having failed to account for or deliver a share of a real estate commission to a person entitled thereto or to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission concerning doubts or conflicting demands being placed upon such funds as required by Section 475.25(1)(d): and having failed to immediately place with his registered broker money entrusted to him by persons dealing with him as a real estate salesman in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), F.S. Petitioner also urges that Respondent violated Sections 475.42(1)(a) and (b), F.S., by operating as a broker or real estate salesman without a valid and current license, or for a person not registered as his employer. Finally, it is alleged that Respondent violated Section 475.42(1)(d), F.S. which states, in part: No salesman shall collect any money in connection with any real estate brokerage transaction, whether as a commission, deposit, payment, rental, or otherwise, except in the name of the employer and with the express consent of the employer: . . . The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that between May 29 and July 9, 1984, Respondent did not have a current active salesman's license due to his termination by his broker, Lynne Levy. Yet during this time when his license was inoperative and cancelled, Respondent engaged in real estate transactions with Fred Hage on May 30, and with Kenneth L. and Mary Lou Welker on June 2. In each transaction Respondent collected money from these persons without the express consent of an employing broker since Respondent's license had been cancelled and was not placed with an employing broker at the time. Respondent did not immediately place these moneys which he received while acting as a salesman with a registered broker. Thus, Respondent violated Sections 475.42(1)(d) and 475.25(1)(k) on these two occasions. His actions on these occasions also constituted violations of Sections 475.42(1)(a) and (b) since he was operating during these real estate transactions as a salesman without a current valid license and without a registered employing broker. Respondent also violated Section 475.25(1)(d) by improperly placing the $9000 commission he received from Fred Hage in a checking account he opened on the same day he received the commission check. At the time he was not properly licensed to engage in real estate transactions and receive commissions, and he should reasonably have foreseen that doubts would arise and conflicting claims would be made for these funds, as in fact they were. Under these circumstances, Respondent was required to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of such doubts or conflicting demands, which he never formally did. Respondent did subsequently resolve the conflicting demand on these funds with the disbursement $3750 to Robert L. Levy on August 16, 1984, but his technical violation of Section 475.25(1)(d) by failing to formally notify the Commission remains. The evidence presented at the hearing does not establish clearly or convincingly that Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), F.S. It cannot be concluded that Respondent dealt fraudulently or dishonestly with Fred Hage when he collected a $9000 commission from the transaction on May 30. Although Hage had previously signed a listing agreement with Respondent that provided for a lesser commission, Hage did sign a second listing agreement on April 4 which called for the $9000 commission. There is no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation in the execution of this second agreement. In fact, Hage specifically acknowledged the $9000 commission at closing by signing the closing statement and the purchase contract, both of which disclosed the commission amount. Hage did not object to the commission until June 6, one week after the closing and two months after he signed the second listing agreement with Respondent which provided for this commission. Respondent's discussions with Paul Russell, II, about acquiring an interest in his franchise do not constitute a violation of Chapter 475. Although at the time of these discussions on May 21 Respondent had been notified by his franchisor of the termination of his franchise, the franchisor did not reconfirm this termination until June 12. By this time Russell had already decided not to go through with the deal or pursue discussions with Respondent. Russell was not harmed by these discussions and the simple fact that these discussions took place prior to the reconfirmation of the franchise's termination does not constitute a violation of Section 475.25(1)(b). In summary, it has been clearly and convincingly established that Respondent violated Sections 475.42(1)(a)(b) and (d) and 475.25(1)(k) in his dealings with Fred Hage and the Welkers on May 30 and June 2, 1984, and also that he violated Section 475.25(1)(d) in his handling of the $9000 commission he received from Hage. However, no violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) has been established. The violations in this case arise from two transactions occurring within a three day period. There is no evidence that Respondent engaged in a recurring course of conduct which would justify the imposition of the penalty of revocation of his license under the circumstances as established herein. Pauline v. Borer, 274 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973) Kopf v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 379 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980). Therefore, a reasonable suspension of Respondent's license is appropriate in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a period of ninety (90) days. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of July, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 17th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Wallace E. Hunter 214 East Hornbeam Drive Longwood, Florida 32779 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, George N. Sullivan, held real-estate license number 0128470 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission. His current address is 22 East Spruce Street, Orlando, Florida. At one time, respondent also held a registered general contractor's license and operated a construction firm under the name of George N. Sullivan, Inc. in Vero Beach, Florida. On or about December 7, 1979, George N. Sullivan, Inc. and Vero Fore, Incorporated entered into a construction agreement wherein Sullivan agreed to construct a residence at Lot 27, Unit III, the Moorings of Vero Beach, in Indian River County for a price of $155,628. The difference between this price and the price of $171,688 alleged in the administrative complaint is due to "extras" agreed upon by the parties to be added to the project. Sullivan began construction on the residence but abandoned the project before it was completed. When he left the job he had been paid all sums due under the agreement except one final $18,000 draw. Vero Fore later discovered that approximately $66,000 in unpaid bills were left by Sullivan. It also learned that Sullivan had obtained releases from three material suppliers by issuing worthless checks in the amounts of $5,849, $2,883.48, $1,913.14, $4,988.92 and $3,847.23. To date, Vero Fore has not been repaid by Sullivan. Sullivan was later adjudged guilty of passing worthless checks by the circuit court of Indian River County on July 8, 1981 and was sentenced to eighteen months probation and required to make restitution to the subcontractors. The official records of Indian River County reflect that Sullivan was found to be in violation of probation on March 23, 1983 for failure to make restitution. It is unknown what, if any, penalties were imposed upon him for this violation, or if restitution has ever been made. On or about September 5, 1980, Sullivan entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. James L. Cain to remodel their residence located at 2075 DeLeon Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida. The agreed upon price was $46,900. The Cains paid Sullivan $46890, or 10 percent, as a downpayment for the work on September 8, 1980. Sullivan sent three men to the Cains' house a few days later to build a platform. No other work was ever done. Sullivan did not pay the three workmen and the Cains were forced to pay them $788 to obtain a release of liens. To date, they have never been reimbursed by respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent George N. Sullivan be found guilty as charged in Counts I, III, and IV and that Count II be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent's real estate sales license be suspended for a period of ten years with the condition that said license be reinstated after a period of three years if respondent can demonstrate that restitution to the three material suppliers, Vero Fore, Inc. and the Cains has been made. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Lee Printy, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. George N. Sullivan 22 East Spruce Street Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact George A. Heyen is a duly registered real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission, and was so registered and has been so registered continuously since October 1, 1972, as evidenced by Petitioner's Exhibit number 1. While serving in the capacity as a real estate salesman, the Respondent entered into a listing agreement with one Thomas S. Bowers and Brenda L. Bowers, his wife. This agreement was drawn on December 11, 1973 and is Petitioner's Exhibit number 4. On February 6, 1974, a purchase and sell agreement was drawn up by the Respondent and entered into between Maria A. Hindes and the Bowers. This purchase and sell agreement is Petitioner's Exhibit number 3. This contract of February 6, 1974 was submitted to Molton, Allen and Williams, Mortgage Brokers, 5111 66th Street, St. Petersburg, Florida. The contract, as drawn, was rejected as being unacceptable for mortgage financing, because it failed, to contain the mandatory FHA clause. When the Respondent discovered that the February 6, 1974 contract had been rejected, a second contract of February 8, 1974 was prepared. A copy of this contract is Petitioner's Exhibit number 5. The form of the contract, drawn on February 8, 1974, was one provided by Molton, Allen and Williams. When, the Respondent received that form he prepared it and forged the signature of Mr. and Mrs. Bowers. The explanation for forging the signatures as stated in the course of the hearing, was to the effect that it was a matter of expediency. The expediency referred to the fact that the parties were anxious to have a closing and to have the transaction completed, particularly the sellers, Mr. and Mrs. Bowers. Therefore, in the name of expediency the signatures were forged. Testimony was also given that pointed out the Bowers were very hard to contact in and around the month of February, 1974, and some testimony was given to the effect that the Bowers made frequent trips to Ohio, but it was not clear whether these trips would have been made in the first part of February, 1974. The Bowers discovered that their name had been forged when they went to a closing on April 11, 1974. They refused to close the loan at that time. On April 24, 1974, a new sales contract was followed by a closing which was held on April 26, 1974 and a copy of the closing statement is Petitioner's Exhibit number 6. The Respondent has received no fees or commissions for his services in the transaction and there have been no further complaints about the transaction. Prior to this incident, the Respondent, George A. Heyen, was not shown to have had any disciplinary involvement with the Florida Real Estate Commission and has demonstrated that he has been a trustworthy individual in his business dealings as a real estate salesman.
Recommendation It is recommended that the registration of the registrant, George A. Heyen, be suspended for a period not to exceed 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 George A. Heyen c/o Gregoire-Gibbons, Inc. 6439 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
The Issue The issue in Count I is whether Section 475.42(1)(j) absolutely prohibits a broker or salesman from filing a lien or other encumberance against real property to collect a commission. The issue in Count II is whether the Respondents violated a lawful order of the Commission by failing to remove the motion of lis pendens contrary to Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Conclusions Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: "No real estate broker or salesman shall place, or cause to be placed, upon the public records of any county, any contract, assignment, deed, will, mortgage, lien, affidavit, or other writing which purports to affect the title of, or encumber, any real property, if the same is known to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property, maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce the payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person, or for any unlawful purpose." Clearly the Respondents placed or caused to be placed the notice of lis pendens in question. A notice of lis pendens is clearly an "other writing which purports to effect the title of, or encumber, any real property." The Florida Real Estate Commission argues that this provision is an absolute bar to the filing of any lien for the purpose of collecting a commission. The Respondents argue that this provision is not an absolute bar and there are circumstances when a broker may file a notice of lis pendens. They also assert that the notice of lis pendens falls within the exception because the Circuit Court refused to remove the notice of lis pendens upon motion of the property owner. Lastly, it is argued that the notice was filed by counsel for the Respondents in good faith on an action at law and that this mitigates their action even if there was a violation. The language of Section 475.42(1)(j) cannot be read to absolutely prohibit a broker from obtaining a lis pendens. When given this construction, it effectively denies brokers and salesmen access to the courts for redress of injury as provided in Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Section 475.42(1)(j) is a complex provision which is subject to two interpretations. One interpretation would prohibit a broker or salesman from filing an encumberance if the same were known to him to be false, void or not authorized by law; if not authorized to be upon the public records; if not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded; if the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property; if maliciously (filed); if for the purpose of collecting a commission, if to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person; or if for any other unlawful purpose. This first interpretation would consider each clause a separate limitation on filing an encumberance. The facts analyzed under this interpretation do not show any knowledge by Respondents that the lis pendens was false, void or not authorized to be filed or not on a form entitling it to be recorded. The facts do not show that Respondents filed the lis pendens maliciously, for the purpose of collecting a commission, or for the purpose of coercing payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. The nature of lis pendens would not require the owner's authorization of execution for recording. The facts show that the lis pendens was filed by Respondent's attorney in conjunction with a suit brought by the Respondents against Perrin. The record also shows that the circuit court determined that the lis pendens was recordable when it denied the motion to remove it. The notice of lis pendens was neither malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting the commission. The notice was for the purpose of perfecting the claim against the property for execution of the judgment if the Respondents prevailed in the suit. Executing on a judgment is different from collecting the commission or coercing payment. Under this interpretation the Respondents have not been shown to violate Section 475.42(1)(j). A second interpretation would read the clause, ". . . if the same is known to to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been authorized by the owner of the property. . ." as the first of two criteria to be met to establish a violation. The second criteria would consist of proof that the encumberance was recorded maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. Again the facts do not show there was knowledge by the Respondents of the falsity, or impropriety of the notice of lis pendens, as stated above. Again the facts show that the lis pendens was filed in conjunction with a law suit pending between the Respondent and the property owner, and that the court before which the action was pending refused to remove it. The file of the notice by Respondent's counsel was a legitimate method of perfecting the Respondent's claim should they prevail and obtain judgment. The facts do not indicate that the filing of the notice was malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting a commission. Under either interpretation, Respondents did not violate the statute. COUNT II The Respondents are charged in Count II with violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that the registration of a registrant may be suspended for up to two years for violation of a lawful order of the Commission. Clearly, the facts reveal that the Respondents had a substantial interest involved in the litigation with Perrin. The order, of the Florida Real Estate Commission to remove the notice of lis pendens substantially affected their rights in this litigation. Therefore, any final order directing Kay to remove the notice of lis pendens should have issued after an opportunity for hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The evidence reveals that the Florida Real Estate Commission did not notice a hearing under Section 120.57, and therefore its order cannot be "lawful." The provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d) require that registrants not violate lawful orders. The Respondents have not violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by not removing the notice of lis pendens as directed by the order of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the Respondent, Sam Kaye and Sam Kaye, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William E. Boyes, Esquire Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, P.A. Post Office Box 3466 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of obtaining a license by means of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1995).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is and was at all times material to this proceeding a licensed Florida Real Estate Salesperson. He was issued licensed number 0625149 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. His license is currently inactive. On or about April 6, 1995, Respondent submitted an application for licensure as a Real Estate Salesperson. Question number 9 on the application read as follows: 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 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 any other state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO". If you answered "Yes," attach details including dates and outcome, including 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 understand the question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. Respondent marked the "NO" box beside question number 9. Respondent then signed the "Affidavit of Applicant" which read above his signature: The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate salesperson under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)(he) is the person applying, that (s)(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and recollection permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever, that (s)(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and (s)(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications. On or about July 6, 1989, Respondent, going by the name of Pablo Alfaro, pled no contest to misdemeanor "joyriding" in Case No. 93CM04225, in Santa Ana, California. Respondent admitted to pleading no contest to a "joyriding” charge. By letter dated August 27, 1997, addressed to Petitioner, Respondent's employer at the time, John Maizie, Executive Sales Director of Cypress Pointe Resort, wrote that Respondent was an ethical and valued employee.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and that Respondent's license should be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 3rd day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Chief Deputy Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Juan Bonitto 2851 Runyon Circle Orlando, Florida 32837-5214 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all material times, the Respondent Tremone Rudman was an active real estate salesman having been issued license number, 0201202. The Respondent Rudman was employed by Fantastic Properties, Inc., as a salesman from February 6, 1979 until September 6, 1979. The broker and owner of Fantastic Properties, Inc., from February 6, 1979 through September 6, 1979, was Elaine Mueller. In July 1979, the Respondent Rudman negotiated a contract between Barbara Medema, seller, and Eugene and LaLita Mascarenhas, buyers, for two separate parcels of property described as Lot 14, Block Y, Coral Springs Subdivision Number 1 (parcel number 1) and Lot 13, Block Y, Coral Springs Subdivision Number 1 (parcel number 2). The transaction involving the properties was scheduled to close on November 12, 1979, at Taylor Title and Abstract in Sunrise, Florida. At the time of the closing, the Respondent Rudman and Elaine Mueller had terminated their business relationship due to personal differences. The Respondent was concerned that he would not receive his share of the Mascarenhas commission because of difficulties he was having collecting his share of other commissions from Mueller. In response to his actual or perceived difficulties in obtaining pending commissions, the Respondent Rudman made demands upon Mueller, his broker, and Pat Taylor, the title agent handling the closing, to disburse the Respondent's portion of the Mascarenhas commission directly to him rather than through the broker at closing. The closing, which occurred on November 12, 1979, was difficult and lasted long into the afternoon. During the course of the closing the Respondent placed calls to Taylor Title Company to ascertain when he could pick up his commission check. Elaine Mueller indicated to Taylor that the proper procedure should be that the check would be made payable to Fantastic Properties, Inc., as the broker, and that Fantastic Properties would then write a check to the Respondent, as the salesman. The procedure suggested to Taylor was not acceptable to the Respondent due to his belief that Mueller might delay his check. The Respondent contacted his attorney, David Hoines, and instructed him to demand that the commission check be issued directly to the Respondent. On November 12, 1979, at approximately 5:30 p.m., Hoines called Taylor Title Company, and in conversation with Mueller and Taylor, demanded that the commission check in question be paid directly to the Respondent per his client's request. Both Mueller and Taylor expressed apprehension concerning such a procedure and advised Hoines that in their opinion, they could not legally issue a commission check directly to the Respondent, a salesman. Hoines reiterated his demand on behalf of his client and threatened to institute legal proceedings which could stop the closing and/or create problems for both the buyer and the seller. Hoines indicated to Taylor that he had the means at his disposal to bring the closing to a halt if the commission check was not distributed to his client as he demanded. When Taylor inquired concerning what those means were, Hoines refused to elaborate. Hoines acknowledged that he had specifically made reference to a declaratory judgment action and in that sense, threatened legal action. He also stated that he ignored the statements made to him by Mueller and Taylor that the procedure he demanded that they follow was illegal. As a consequence of the actions taken by the Respondent Rudman and his attorney at his initiation, Mueller was placed in an untenable position. On one hand, Mueller was threatened with legal action if she did not pay the commission to the Respondent and on the other, she knew that if the closing did not take place that day, it would probably never occur since the outstanding mortgages on the two parcels were months in arrears. Mueller's problems with the mortgages on the property were also known to the Respondent when he and his attorney demanded the commission check. Mueller objected to issuing a check to the Respondent but was concerned that withholding the check could result in stopping the closing as a result of the threatened legal proceedings. Under such circumstances, Mueller did not voluntarily consent to the issuance of the check to the Respondent. As characterized by counsel for Petitioner, Mueller "acquiesced" rather than risk the possibility that the Respondent or his attorney would initiate action which could have affected the sale. Thus, the "consent" given by Mueller was under protest, the result of coercion and was not free and voluntary. As a result of Respondent's demands, Pat Taylor contacted her attorney, Mr. Finn, who instructed her to type the document dated November 13, 1979, Petitioner's Exhibit 10. Mueller did not see this document nor did she assist in its preparation. On November 13, 1979, Taylor presented the document, together with a check for the Respondent's share of the commission to Respondent at his office. The Respondent accepted the check which was made payable to "Tremone Rudman". The Respondent then signed the document and added, "I do not agree to the foregoing." The Respondent subsequently negotiated the check. The Respondent Rudman acknowledged that he was not collecting on behalf of the broker with whom he was employed when he received this commission, nor did he collect the funds on behalf of Fantastic Properties, Inc., for whom he was no longer employed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding the Respondent Rudman guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b) and 475.42(1)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes (1979), and suspending his real estate salesman's license for ninety (90) days. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 2nd day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John G. DeLancett, Esquire 801 North Magnolia Avenue Suite 402 Post Office Box 6171-C Orlando, Florida 32803 Richard H. Adams, Jr., Esquire Carlos B. Stafford, Executive PLEUS ADAMS FASSETT & DIVINE Director 220 North Palmetto Avenue Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 2747 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Orlando, Florida 32802 William M. Furlow, Esquire Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Department of Professional Regulation - Legal Section Regulation 400 West Robinson Street 130 North Monroe Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0000925 DOAH NO. 81-2152 TREMONE RUDMAN, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the post-hearing memorandum and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found: By letter dated February 18, 1983, the Florida Real Estate Commission (sometimes herein referred to as the respondent or the Commission) advised the petitioner that his application for licensure as a real estate salesman was denied based upon petitioner's answer to question 6 of the licensing application and his criminal record. On September 1, 1982, petitioner held a Mutuel Clerk's Occupational License (NOP-00455) issued by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Department of Business Regulation, State of Florida. While acting in the capacity of a mutuel clerk at Calder Race Course in Dade County, Florida, Petitioner, on September 1, 1982, cashed a winning one dollar ($1.00) trifecta ticket for the eighth race on August 28, 1982, valued at six hundred thirty-six dollars and eighty cents ($636.80) for Metro-Dade Organized Crime Bureau Detective, Jonas Sears, for a cash fee payable to Petitioner. Petitioner did not require Detective Sears to complete the necessary internal revenue service form W-2G which is required of any patron winning six hundred dollars ($600.00) or more. On October 22, 1982, petitioner entered into a consent order with the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering wherein petitioner agreed to certain findings. Based on those findings, petitioner agreed to a suspension of his pari-mutuel license for a period of seventy-five (75) days. A clerk who engages in such conduct violates Section 550.16(7), Florida Statutes and Rule Section 7E- 6.07(3)(6), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner also admitted to deducting sixty dollars and eighty cents ($60.80) as a cash fee payable to him for not requiring Detective Sears to complete the necessary Internal Revenue Service form W-2G.
Recommendation That the respondent enter a Final Order denying petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of September, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 14th day of September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Gary R. Berkson, is a licensed real estate salesman, holding license No. 034697. From September 27, 1980, until May of 1983, the Respondent as a salesman working as an independent contractor for Act Now Real Estate, Inc., a corporate broker whose active qualifying brokers and officers were Robert F. Picheny and Thelma R. Sarkas. Robert F. Picheny was subpoenaed and requested to bring with him the records of Act Now Real Estate, Inc., showing the disbursement of commissions to the Respondent. These records did not contain any entries relating to rental transactions involving the persons named in the complaint as having paid commissions to the Respondent. The only lease offered and received in evidence was between Samuel Schnur, as lessor, and lessees named Davis and Johnston. Samuel Schnur, presented as one of the Petitioner's witnesses, did not pay a rental commission to the Respondent in connection with this lease. Another lease transaction where the Respondent was alleged to have received rental commissions was between Sami Elmasri, as landlord, and Donald Bauerle, as tenant. Sami Elmasri, presented as another of the Petitioner's witnesses, testified that he paid a $300 commission, but that this was not paid to the Respondent. This commission was paid to another salesman, Wendy Corman. The final witness for the Petitioner, except for the Respondent, was Wendy Corman. She showed Mr. Elmasri's property to persons wishing to rent through a lead given by the Respondent. She was paid a $300 commission by Mr. Elmasri. The Respondent did not receive any of this commission. The Petitioner's final witness was the Respondent, who testified that he never received a commission for rental property. The only money he received in connection with rental properties was a management fee he received on some properties owned by Richard Jacobson. This fee was in payment for management services consisting of arranging for repairs to the properties such as painting it, repairs to the plumbing and the garage door, and being available to tenants with problems in the absence of the owner. These management fees continued even after the Respondent left Act Now Real Estate, Inc., until Mr. Jacobson assumed the management duties himself.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent, Gary R. Berkson, be DISMISSED. This Recommended Order entered this 13th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Prestige Realty, Inc. and Anthony C. Cappello were at all times here relevant registered with the FREC as alleged. Mrs. Cappello, wife of Respondent, is a salesperson with Prestige Realty, Inc. Prestige Realty, Inc. is an Electronics Realty Associates (ERA) franchisee and actively promotes the ERA Homeowners warranty Plan which will, for a fee, warrant to pay for repairs to structure and equipment within the first year of purchase all costs over the minimum for which the policy is written. While showing prospective purchasers William and Dora Keys various properties, Mrs. Cappello told them about the ERA Buyers Protection Plan (BPP) and the Keys expressed an interest in having same, particularly if the seller would pay for it. Mrs.. Cappello has worked with the Keys for several months showing them various properties for sale. Thomas Hanrahan listed his home for sale with B & M Real Estate as listing agent at a price of $52,000 on 31 January 1977. On April 28, 1977 Mrs. Cappello obtained an offer from William and Dora Keys to purchase Hanrahan's house for $49,000. Keys had inherited some money, and after seeing the Hanrahan house which they liked, made an offer to purchase the property for $49,000 including the drapes and BPP. Inclusion of the BPP in the offer was suggested by Respondent Cappello and/or Mrs. Cappello. The fact that an offer had been received was communicated to the listing salesperson and the listing agent met the Cappellos to present the offer to Hanrahan. Respondent Cappello, who had accompanied his wife to present the offer, first discussed the contract conditions, including drapes and BPP, before revealing the offering price to Hanrahan and the listing broker's agent. When Respondent revealed the $240 premium for BPP Hanrahan remarked it was a "rip- off"; however, Respondent Cappello emphasized that the seller shouldn't mind paying this premium if the selling price of the home is right. After obtaining Hanrahan's agreement to the BPP "if the price is right', Respondent disclosed the offering price of $49,000. Hanrahan refused this offer and made a counter offer of $51,000, which was communicated to the buyers who re-countered with a $50,000 offer. At no time during these negotiations did Respondents advise Hanrahan that Prestige Realty would receive 25 percent of the premium the contract provided the seller would pay for the ERA BPP. Of the $240 premium paid for the BPP, $C0 was retained by Respondent, Prestige Realty, and the remaining $180 was forwarded to ERA. When the offer of $50,000 was presented to Hanrahan by Respondent Cappello, it was represented to be the buyers' final offer, that the ERA BPP was an essential element of the offer, and if not accepted by the seller they would find the buyers another house. The Keys never insisted to Cappello that the BPP be included in their offer, and both William and Dora Keys testified they would have paid $50,000 for the Hanrahan home without the BPP. Attempts by Hanrahan to share the cost of BPP with the buyers or discourage their insistence upon having this policy provided were rebuffed by Respondents. Following the closing the Keys were offered the option of taking a lower deductible on the BPP than $100, but after being advised the additional cost to them for a lower deductible, it was declined. Respondents and other ERA franchisees consider the BPP to be a good selling tool in the conduct of their business. In addition to the BPP, ERA offers a sellers protection plan which, if the seller lists his house with an ERA franchisee and agrees to pay for a BPP when the house is sold, will insure the seller from failure of certain equipment (less a deductible) during the period the house is listed before sale.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a real estate broker should be suspended or revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violation of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as set forth in Administrative Complaint, dated December 4, 1981. This proceeding involves allegations by the Florida Board of Real Estate (now Florida Real Estate Commission) that Respondent, James R. Siebert, violated Subsection 475.25(1)(h) Florida Statutes, by sharing a commission with a person not properly licensed under the real estate law, and that he employed a person as a salesman who is not the holder of a valid license, in violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(c) , Florida Statutes, and therefore in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The incident which prompted the Administrative Complaint involved an auction sale of a restaurant in Brooksville, Florida which was conducted by an auctioneer who did not have a license to practice real estate in Florida. Respondent requested an administrative hearing and filed an answer to the Administrative Complaint admitting the occurrence of the auction, but denying that it involved the sale of real estate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, James L. Siebert, is a licensed real estate broker at Orange Lake, Florida, and was so licensed at all times relevant in this proceeding. (Stipulation) On several occasions prior to February 21, 1981, Respondent had gratuitously assisted Albert W. (Billy) Mitchell, an auctioneer, in conducting auctions by serving as a "ring man" and clerk. A "ring man" normally is one of several such individuals at an auction who assists the auctioneer by encouraging bidding and identifying bidders. Mitchell is not licensed under real estate laws of Florida, but operates under a local occupation license. None of the prior auctions in which Respondent assisted Mitchell involved the sale of real estate. (Testimony of Respondent, Mitchell) On January 28, 1981, Mitchell entered into an "auction sale contract" with Welberta Pruitt whereby Mitchell agreed to sell at auction to the highest and best bidder: . . . the following described business and personal property owned by the Party of the First Part: Pruitts Golden Wagon Steak House Restaurant and Contents on attached inventory list and located 1702 Howell Avenue, Brooksville, in Hernando County, State of Florida. The terms of this sale shall be 10 percent of the amount of the purchase price to be paid on day of sale and the balance to be paid as follows: On delivery of title - There is a mortgage on the business of $67,838.20 with interest at 8 3/4 percent on the unpaid balance. The attachment to the contract listed various items of food supplies and restaurant furniture and equipment, plus decorative items of personal property. Pruitt and her husband had purchased the real property on which the restaurant building was located under an agreement for deed in 1979 which provided that the Pruitts would make the payments on a mortgage of about $67,000 from the sellers to the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Citrus County and, when such mortgage was paid in full, the sellers would convey title to the property by warranty deed. The contract reflected that the total purchase price of the property was $75,000, and that a down payment had been made in the sum of $7,000. Mrs. Pruitt owned furniture, fixtures and equipment which she transported from Tennessee to operate a restaurant on the premises. (Testimony of W. Pruit Kelly, Mitchell, Johnston, Respondent's Exhibits 1,2) It was the understanding of the parties to the auction agreement that only the personal property in and around the restaurant building would be sold to the highest bidder, and it was anticipated that the successful bidder would take up the mortgage payments on the real property. The equity which the Pruitts had acquired by prior mortgage payments was to be "given" to whoever purchased the "business" at the auction. Accordingly, on February 20, 1981, the day preceding the auction, Mrs. Pruitt issued a "notice" that she would sell her "entire Restaurant, business, furnishings, equipment, and Inventory at Public Auction". The notice further stated that she would give her equity in the real estate to the purchaser on which there was an existing mortgage of $67,821.36 "that you may assume". The noticewas placed on the door of the restaurant. In addition, Mitchell issued a brochure advertising the auction wherein it was stated that the "entire business, furnishings, equipment, and stock" would he sold at absolute auction and that the purchaser would have the "privilege of assuming the payments on the existing mortgage." Mitchell had Respondent's name placed at the bottom of the brochure without Respondent's knowledge because he thought it would be a good advertisement for him. (Testimony of Mitchell, W. Pruitt, Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Mitchell asked Respondent to assist at the Pruitt auction and told him that since Mrs. Pruitt and her attorney were having a disagreement, it might be necessary for Respondent to write the contract resulting from the auction. No fee for Respondent's services was discussed prior to the auction. (Testimony of Mitchell, Respondent) On February 21, 1981, the auction was conducted at the restaurant in Brooksville, and Respondent was present to act as a "ring man". There were only about 3 individuals who entered bids at the auction. Prior to receiving bids, Mitchell announced that he was auctioning the contents of the business and that whoever bought the property would take over the payments on the mortgage. The successful bidder was Robert Shrader, who bid $9,600. He made a 20 percent down payment at the time in the amount of $1,920 which Mitchell retained as a commission on the sale. Mitchell had not described the real estate at the auction, but merely stated that he was auctioning the business and that Mrs. Pruitt would give the successful bidder her equity in the property. After accepting Schrader's bid, Mitchell gave the figures on the sale to Respondent who prepared a standard contract for sale and purchase of the real estate in the total amount of $77,421.36. The contract reflected a deposit of $1,920 to be held in escrow by Billy Mitchell and Associates, that the contract was subject to assumption of a mortgage of $67,821.36, and that there would be a balance of $7,680. Shrader and Mrs. Pruitt signed the agreement on February 21, 1981, which was witnessed by Mitchell and Respondent. Although no brokerage fee was listed, Respondent signed as broker on the contract. He testified at the hearing that he had done this out of habit. A real estate contract was prepared rather than merely a bill of sale of the personal property in order that the parties would have the figures they needed to close which they could take to the closing attorneys. After the auction, Mitchell gave Respondent $200 as a gift for his gasoline and other expenses on the Pruitt and prior auctions. Respondent testified, and Mitchell confirmed, that the latter insisted that he accept that amount as reimbursement for expenses. (Testimony of Mitchell, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) On April 6, 1981, Joseph P. Johnston, an attorney in Brooksville, closed the transaction by means of a bill of sale for the furnishings and equipment in Pruitts restaurant, and assignment of the Pruitt interest in the mortgaged real property. The closing statement reflected that a "broker's commission" in the amount of $1,920 was held by the "broker" to apply on commission, In actuality, the sum retained by Mitchell as a commission was based solely upon a percentage of the personal property sold at auction. (Testimony of Johnston, Mitchell, Petitioner's Exhibit 2)
Recommendation That the Florida Real Estate Commission dismiss the charges against Respondent, James R. Siebert. DONE and ENTERED this 3d day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 3d day of June, 1982 COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harvey R. Klein, Esquire Klein & Klein 333 North West 3rd Avenue Ocala, Florida 32670 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. C. B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
