Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1973, Mr. and Mrs. Delmar D. Carter purchased the Buccaneer Motel and Woodside Apartments [the motel] from C.E.K., Inc., whom respondents represented in the sale. Respondents agreed to accept less from C.E.K., Inc., as their commission on the sale, that they might have otherwise, because the Carters agreed to give respondents the exclusive right to resell the motel for a period of five years. Two years after they purchased the motel, the Carters asked O.B. Linkous to try to sell the motel, but the Carters sell held the motel when the resale agreement expired in late 1978. One of the obligations assumed by the Carters in exchange for the motel was secured by a mortgage that C.E.K., Inc., had executed in favor of O.B. Linkous Realty, Inc., on December 14, 1972. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. This assumed obligation required the Carters to make certain monthly payments to the corporate respondent including a payment of $862.19 on January 1, 1979. Under the mortgage agreement, the entire principal (originally $88,247.93) would become due if a "default continue for a space of 30 days." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. On January 25, 1979, Mr. Carter delivered to Mr. Linkous a check in the amount of $862.19, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, as payment of the amount due on January 1, 1979. When he handed the check to respondent Linkous, Mr. Carter told him that the funds in the account on which the check was drawn were insufficient for the drawee to pay the check, but that he would deposit sufficient funds on the following day. Respondent Linkous answered that he saw no problem since he intended to deposit the check in his own account in another bank and assumed it would be at least a day before the check was presented to the drawee. On the following day, Mr. Carter deposited $865.96 in the account on which the check was drawn. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. On January 31, 1979, the balance in the account was $1,000.32. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Instead of depositing the check, respondent Linkous took the check, on the same day he received it, to the Flagship First National Bank of Ormond Beach, on which it was drawn, and persuaded a teller there to stamp it so as to indicate that it had been dishonored because sufficient funds were not on deposit. On February 7, 1979, a mortgage foreclosure complaint was filed against the Carters and C.E.K., Inc., (as holder of a junior mortgage), in which respondents' attorney alleged that the Carters had "defaulted under the note and mortgage by failing to pay the payment due January 1, 1979, and all subsequent payments." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The Carters retained counsel who filed an answer and counterclaim in which it was alleged, inter alia, that Linkous "deliberately with premeditated design, deceived and tricked [the Carters]." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. After these pleadings had been filed, the Carters agreed to respondents' counsel's suggestion that they grant the corporate respondent the exclusive right to sell the motel for another five-year period in exchange for an end to the litigation, and executed an agreement to that effect. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. The parties stipulated that both respondents hold real estate licenses issued by petitioner.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondents' licenses for a period of five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Ralph Fetner, Jr., Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Hadley, Esquire 827 Deltona Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725
Findings Of Fact Robert Hartnett was at all times pertinent to this complaint a registered real estate broker. Bill Dew and Dave Allman sought to lease a specific piece of real property for business purposes. In this regard they contacted William Hartnett, who had previously leased a piece of real property which included the specific piece of property Messrs. Dew and Allman desired to lease. Messrs. Allman and Dew entered into an agreement to sublease a portion of the Hartnett leasehold. A contract was prepared by William Hartnett and delivered by Robert Hartnett to Dew and Allman, who executed the contract. Although there is conflicting testimony, the testimony of Robert Hartnett is accepted as the more accurate explanation of his role in the transaction. Robert Hartnett had no interest in William Hartnett's business venture or in the leasehold, and did not appear or function as a real estate broker in this transaction. The owner of the property, Mr. Grossinger, testified he agreed to lease the property to William Hartnett. Hartnett was permitted to occupy the premises and paid rent. William Hartnett prepared a written lease which was not signed by the owner, Mr. Grossinger. Grossinger terminated the agreement when Hartnett subleased the premises to Allman and Dew without notifying him and instituted legal action to evict William Hartnett. Under the circumstances, there was an oral lease between Hartnett and Grossinger. Messrs. Dew and Allman made arrangements with contractors to make modifications to the subleased premises, and the modifications were begun. These modifications were in part the cause for the owner terminating the lease with William Hartnett. Messrs. Dew and Allman or their agents did have occupancy of the premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against Respondent Robert Hartnett. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Louis M. Jepeway, Esquire 619 Dade Federal Building 101 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131
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
Findings Of Fact Donald L. Stuart is a real estate broker registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission. He holds license number 215732 with expiration date of 3/3/77. In the renewal application received April 3, 1975 by FREC, Stuart reported his business address to be 407 S. Old Dixie Highway, Vero Beach, Florida. In early August, 1976 an investigator for FREC visited the address on South Old Dixie Highway and found a vacant house with no real estate broker's sign displayed. Inquiry in the neighborhood revealed the house had been unoccupied for a considerable period of time. By Election of Rights form submitted November 26, 1976, Stuart acknowledged receipt of the Administrative Complaint by checking Block 1 in which he acknowledged having read the explanation of rights, did not dispute the allegations made in the Administrative Complaint, and requested a hearing. Notice of Hearing was forwarded by Certified Mail, to the same address, viz. 407 S. Old Dixie Highway, Vero Beach, Florida to which the Administrative Complaint had been forwarded.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Martin S. Steinhardt was president of FGCRE and was a qualifying real estate broker for this corporation. Steinhardt was also the president and operator of Gold Coast School of Real Estate III, Inc. (GCSRE), which is not a party to this proceeding, during the pertinent period. On May 8, 1979, Steinhardt, on behalf of GCSRE, entered into a lease with Robin Cook pertaining to two units of a condominium office building in West Palm Beach. Numerous problems arose thereafter culminating in the eviction of GCSRE by Court Order issued on September 30, 1981. Petitioner established that the lease was in violation of the condominium association by-laws. This was, however, the responsibility of the lessor who was a member of the association and bound by its rules. The disputes which arose over parking, noise, damage to property, etc. were landlord-tenant matters and are not relevant to the statutes under which Respondents are charged here. Steinhardt and GCSRE violated local ordinances by failing to obtain an occupation license, a building permit, and a certificate of occupancy. However, these violations were resolved when the necessary documents were secured, and no formal legal action was taken. Vannoy Banks was associated with Steinhardt in the operation of FGCRE. He obtained a listing on a house which was subsequently purchased by an employee of FGCRE. Banks believed he was entitled to 50 percent of the $1,300 sales commission, which had been reduced and deferred to accommodate the buyer. Following this sale, Banks and Steinhardt dissolved their relationship and have subsequently been involved in disputes and litigation over other matters. Banks has not been paid a share of this commission nor has he received an accounting on the transaction. The testimony of the buyer and seller established that a commission of $1,300 was paid on the transaction. Steinhardt concedes that he did not deliver any of these funds to Banks nor did he furnish a formal accounting. However, he contends that Banks was not due a separate commission since he shared in the corporate profits and that Banks never demanded a commission share or an accounting.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings, it is RECOMMENDED: The Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 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 6th day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia G. T. Allen, Esquire Gerald S. Lesher, Esquire 189 Bradley Place Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Rod Tennyson, Esquire 325-C Clematis Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Vernon J. Quigley 8920 North Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Defendant was at all material times registered with tie Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman in the employ of Razook Real Estate, Inc. Razook Real Estates Inc. is a duly registered real estate broker. During 1973, the Defendant negotiated the sale of a business known as Carvel Ice Cream Supermarket number 1034, located in Riviera Beach, Florida, between Philip Caruso and Dorothea Caruso, as sellers, and Beverly Barratt, as purchaser. The Carusos and Ms. Barratt entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement on May 14, 1973. (See: Defendant's Composite Exhibit 1). The agreement included assignment from the sellers to the purchaser of a lease covering the property on which the business was located. The lease assignment was incidental to the sale of the business, and was not a prime factor in the transaction. The Defendant negotiated the sale as a business broker employed by Rabern Business Associates, Inc., and not as a real estate salesman employed by Razook Real Estate, Inc. The Defendant was not registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman for Rabern Business Associates, Inc. When she signed the contract on May 14, 1973, Ms. Barratt delivered to the Defendant a $4,060 check made out to Rabern Business' Associates, Inc. which amount was to serve as a deposit. The contract provided that the sale would be subject to the approval of Carvel Corporation the franchisor of the business. On August 15, 1973, the transaction between the Carusos and Ms. Barratt was closed, except that the approval of Carvel Corporation had not yet been received. It was the clear understanding of the parties that the approval of Carvel Corporation was essential and that the closing was conditional upon that approval. The sellers were represented at the closing by Attorney Walter Colbath. Ms. Barratt was represented at the closing by Attorney Gustave Broberg. Shortly after the closing, Ms. Barratt went to New York to participate in a training program offered by Carvel Corporation for franchisees. Carvel Corporation would not approve the transaction unless the new franchisee completed this program. Upon her arrival in New York, Ms. Barratt was advised by representatives of Carvel Corporation that the Carusos owed Carvel Corporation more than $8,000, which amount was not reflected in the agreement between the Carusos and Ms. Barratt nor in the closing statement dated August 15, 1973. This is the first occasion upon which Ms. Barratt was apprised of this indebtedness on the part of the Carusos to Carvel Corporation. Carvel Corporation reluctantly permitted Ms. Barratt to participate in their training program with the hope that a resolution of the indebtedness could be made. Carvel Corporation would not approve the agreement between the Carusos and Ms. Barratt unless an arrangement was made respecting the indebtedness. When Ms. Barratt returned to Florida, negotiations respecting the $8,000 commenced, and although at one juncture the parties were close to an agreement, no final resolution was reached. The transaction was therefore not concluded. At no time did Carvel Corporation approve the sale as set out in the contract of May 14, 1973, or in the closing statement dated August 15, 1973. On October 23, 1973, Mr. Broberg, representing Ms. Barratt, wrote to Mr. Colbath, the attorney for the Carusos, stating that the transaction could not be consumated, and demanding that monies held by Attorney Colbath be returned to Ms. Barratt. He further stated in the letter: "It would be appreciated if you would forthwith inform Mr. Ralph J. DePaola of Rabern Business Associates, Inc. that the sale has terminated and request that he return the $4,000, which he is holding, to Mrs. Barratt." A copy of this letter was sent to Mr. DePaola. (See: Defendant's Composite Exhibit 1). On December 19, 1973, Mr. Colbath wrote to Mr. Broberg concerning monies that had been held by him, and with respect to the monies held by Mr. DePaola stated as follows: "The balance of $4,000 that was originally deposited with Mr. DePaola has, as you know, been retained by him as his commission. I am by copy of this letter informing Mr. DePaola what has transpired since we last talked and ask that you contact him directly." A copy of this letter was sent to Mr. DePaola. (See: Defendant's Composite Exhibit 1). No further demands were made by Ms. Barratt, or on her behalf, to the Defendant for the return of the $4,000. The Defendant did not have any agreement with Ms. Barratt that Ms. Barratt would be responsible to pay any commission to the Defendant. Four thousand dollars is listed on the August 15, 1973 closing statement as a sellers' expense. Mr. DePaola testified at the hearing that he considered the matter closed as of August 15, 1973; however, Mr. DePaola did know, or should have known, that approval by Carvel Corporation had not been obtained, and was necessary. Mr. DePaola has retained the $4,000, and it has not otherwise been returned to Ms. Barratt. The Defendant was not aware of the additional $8,000 obligation which the sellers owed Carvel Corporation on May 14, 1973, when the Purchase and Sale Agreement was signed, or on August 15, 1973, when the transaction was preliminarily closed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Count I of the Information against Ralph J. DePaola be dismissed. That Count II of the Information against Ralph J. DePaola be dismissed. That Count III of the Information against Ralph J. DePaola be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of February, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issues in this case are as follow: Did Respondent violate Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by representing to Laverne Hahn that he would rent his house to her if she sold her house, representing to Ms. Hahn that he would deliver certain papers to her attorney, and representing to Ms. Hahn that the closing on her house would not occur until after February 15, 1981? Did Respondent violate Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by failing to deliver survey, abstract and title insurance policy documents to Ms. Hahn or her attorney?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Allan R. Heuton, held real estate salesman license #0313305 Assued by the Board of Real Estate (now Florida Real Estate Commission). At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was registered as a salesman with Hugh Anderson Real Estate, Inc., at 2631 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339. Respondent listed with his employer, Hugh Anderson Real Estate, Inc., Laverne Hahn's offer to sell her residence and advised Ms. Hahn at that time that upon the sale of her residence she could rent his residence for a period of six months at the rate of $300 per month. In reliance on Respondent's statement, Ms. Hahn proceeded to sell her residence and made no other arrangements for a place to live, expecting to move into Respondent's house upon closing as per their agreement. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Pages 5 and 8.) Respondent testified to the events surrounding the transaction which gave rise to the Administrative Complaint. The Board presented the deposition of Ms. Hahn taken in Lakeland, Florida. Respondent admitted that he had advised Ms. Hahn it was not unusual to have closings delayed 60 days, and did offer and stood ready to rent his house to Ms. Hahn. Respondent testified that he did not recall picking up any documents from Ms. Hahn, but that had he done so it was his normal business practice to immediately deliver the documents to the attorney handling the closing. Ms. Hahn's deposition reflects that she could not locate the Respondent although she attempted to contact him through his broker's office. This was the reason she could not rent his house. Respondent testified that Ms. Hahn never asked to rent his house. Respondent testified that on January 14, 1981, the day after his birthday, he was suddenly taken ill and had to have emergency surgery in the early morning hours of that day. Respondent's testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Sheilah Kirk, who testified that she visited Respondent in the hospital on January 14 or 15, 1981, and that he was recovering from surgery at that time. Respondent testified that he was hospitalized for more than one week. Respondent testified that he was visited by the manager of the brokerage office for which he worked. It is hardly credible that Ms. Hahn could not find a man who was sick in a hospital for more than one week and whose whereabouts were known to his brokerage office. Wherefore, the Hearing Officer disregards the deponent's testimony and accepts the Respondent's testimony as the more credible concerning the rental of his house Ms. Hahn's deposition reflects that Respondent told her she would not have to move out until February of 1981. Respondent admits he told Ms. Hahn that closings were frequently delayed 60 days or more. The contract for sale originally provided for closing on December 29, 1980, a time which was changed to January 15, 1981, by persons unknown on a date unknown. The contract was signed by Ms. Hahn, who is presumed to have known its terms. Notwithstanding Respondent's statements as to delayed closings, Ms. Hahn had no basis for using such statement as a basis for planning in light of the contract which she signed. Again, Respondent's testimony is deemed to be more credible in light of the closing date provided in the contract for sale. A further conflict exists between Ms. Hahn's deposition and Respondent's testimony regarding the allegation that Respondent picked up certain documents from her but failed to deliver them. Respondent's statement that he had no recollection of the events, but that his regular practice was to deliver such documents immediately, and that since the time in question he has not discovered any such documents in his papers, is deemed credible.
Recommendation Having found that the allegations against the Respondent, Allan R. Heuton, were not proven, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 22nd day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Allan R. Heuton 6891 Forrest Street Hollywood, Florida 33024 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent Kenneth Kasha was licensed by the Petitioner as a registered real estate broker. During that time period he was licensed to trade as Florida Landowners Service Bureau. At present he is the holder of certificate number 0046189, in the position of registered real estate broker. The particulars of his license may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit 4, admitted into evidence. In the years 1975 and 1976, one of the enterprises that Kenneth Kasha was involved in was the solicitation of real estate listings from out-of-state land owners who owned land in the State of Florida. This solicitation led to an agreement with some of those owners to list their property through various publications which Kasha contracted for, with the expectation that his company would make a bona fide effort to sell the property. The general description of the arrangement between Kasha, operating as Florida Landowners Services Bureau, and his owner/clients, was to have the owner pay a fee of $250 to $300 to have their property listed by Kenneth Kasha, trading as Florida Landowners Services Bureau. Kenneth Kasha solicited the owners by phone personally and through real estate salesmen who were involved in the solicitation. Kenneth Kasha's statement of his participation may be found in the deposition which is part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 8, the deposition being admitted into evidence. This deposition is a part of the record of the proceedings of the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums v. Kenneth Kasha d/b/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau. The deposition was taken on March 26, 1976. In that deposition Kasha was asked if he solicited for the type of listing which is the subject of this case and if he made this solicitation via the telephone. At page 39 of that deposition he states that he did and indicates that the principal place of business of Florida Landowners Service Bureau at the time of the deposition was at 561 NE 79th Street and was the place solicitations were made from. A more complete description of the techniques involved in a solicitation is given by the witness, Alfred Landin. Alfred Landin testified in the proceedings by the Petitioner against Kenneth Kasha t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau. Mr. Landin correctly stated that he worked for the General American Realty Corporation as a real estate salesman from January, 1975 through February, 1976. His testimony established that he began to make the form of solicitation in behalf of the Florida Landowners Service Bureau in August, 1975. His participation was by agreement between the General American Realty Corporation and the Florida Landowners Service Bureau to have certain salesmen employed by General American Realty Corporation make phone solicitations for Florida Landowners Service Bureau. Those employees of General American Realty Corporation were then paid by their corporation, who had been paid by Florida Landowners Service Bureau under an agreement between that business and the General American Realty Corporation. Alfred Landin took approximately 75 to 100 listings for the Florida Landowners Service Bureau for which he charged the owner $250 to $300 for each listing. He in turn received 30 percent to 40 percent of the listing amount as his payment. He did not receive real estate commissions following any sale of the property which was listed with Florida Landowners Service Bureau. In fact, no commissions have been received, because no property has been sold under the listing agreements, at least as of the date of the Kasha deposition of March 26, 1976. In that deposition he states that none of the property listed by Florida Landowners Service Bureau had been sold. Moreover, Alfred Landin's testimony established that the salesmen who were the contact people for the solicitation for the listings were paid on the basis of obtaining the listings, in opposition to being paid commissions for selling' the property. When Landin would call a prospective owner to solicit the listing, which will now be referred to as "advance fee" listings, he did it based upon a list of prospective clients made available in the office of General American Realty Corporation. He would tell the potential "advance fee" client that the property that they listed with the Florida Landowners Service Bureau would be advertised within and without the United States. He did not indicate which form of media advertising would be utilized. Landin was unaware of the steps which Florida Landowners Service Bureau would specifically take to bring about the sale of the listed properties, because the arrangement with General American Realty Corporation was not to consummate the sale of the property through General American Realty Corporation's salesman. Landin did tell the owners that Florida Landowners Service Bureau would be responsible for advertising the properties for the purpose of sale. Furthermore, the indication was that a bona fide effort would be made to sell the property. The contact which Landin had with the out-of-state owners, in terms of the dialogue, was not by any particular script. It would be designed according to the nature of the property of the person being solicited. In the course of the conversation the property owner would submit his price and that information and other information would be forwarded to Florida Landowners Service Bureau. At all times when a prospective customer was called Landin introduced himself by name and his connection with Florida Landowners Service Bureau. The usual technique was to make an original contact call and then a follow-up call. Although a second individual working for Florida Landowners Service Bureau normally made the follow-up, call, Landin at times would make those calls. On those occasions, between the time of the initial call and the follow-up call, certain materials would be mailed to the prospective purchaser of a listing agreement. Landin identified three forms which are numbered 1, 2, and 3 and are part of the Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence. They are the mailouts. (The Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence is constituted of certain information pertaining to the listing of the Florida Landowners Service Bureau's "advance fee" property through the media National Multiple Listing, Inc.) In a follow-up call there would be discussion about the meaning of the listing and brokerage agreement which is number 3 in the group of documents. Landin established that in these follow-up conversations the purpose of the listing fee was brought out and the owner was told that the listing fee would be used to compensate for the costs involved of the listing; for example advertising. The three documents in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 are the crux of the contractual agreement between Florida Landowners Service Bureau, the company of Kenneth Kasha, and his "advance fee" listing clients. The three documents in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 are the same in their form as those documents appended to the Kenneth Kasha deposition of March 26, 1976, which has been mentioned before. In that deposition Kasha admits that those three documents were mailed out to the "advance fee" listing clients. The three documents are available for review either in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 or the attachments to the admitted portion of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, which is the Kasha deposition. The significant portions of those exhibits, in terms of the factual allegations against the Respondent, begin with Paragraph 3 of the document number 1 which states, "your property legals are checked thoroughly." In his deposition of March 26, 1976 Kasha indicated that what actually occurred was that Florida Landowners Service Bureau would receive a copy of the client's deed or agreement for deed and verify this with the developer to see if it indicates on the developer's books or records that the individual actually owned a specific piece of property in question. Kasha stated that his company did not check with the title company, but did check the tax records of various counties to see whether or not the individuals owned the particular piece of property set forth in their deeds. Continuing the examination of document 1, the next sentence in Paragraph 3 states, "an ad is constructed for your property(s) and published in our brochures and catalog which is distributed to several thousand brokers and investors NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY." The advertising that was done by Kenneth Kasha t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau, which was established in the course of the hearing is constituted of several media approaches. One of those approaches was found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence which is a copy of a magazine February, 1976, the magazine being a publication of the International Federation of Real Estate Brokers which has membership in 39 countries. It can be seen, the advertisement is an ad which allows the purchase of a catalog for the price of $4.00 or free to the members of the International Real Estate Federation. A copy of this form of catalog is the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12 admitted into evidence. This catalog lists multiple properties by the owner's name, the owner's asking price, and a rough description of the location in terms of the municipality if any, county, and state, subdivision or development if applicable and a rough description of the size of the parcel. The catalog would not allow the prospective purchaser to specifically locate the property. At best it would allow the location of the development or sub-division. A second form of advertising which the Respondent utilized in the time period in question was listing with the National Multiple Listing, Inc. Those listings were also multiple listings on a single page of the type previously discussed in describing the catalog. Access to those listings was based upon Kasha's purchase of circulation and it reached as many as 2,500 plus distributees in various areas of the United States. (The number assigned to the individual properties advertised by National Multiple Listing, Inc. corresponds to some of the invoices found in the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 11, which invoices were paid by Kenneth Kasha to have the listings published. There is a further correlation between those numbers and the numbers affixed to the certificates issued by National Multiple Listing, Inc. to the Respondent verifying the circulation of the listings. Those certificates are found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 12 admitted into evidence.) A compilation of those payments from Kenneth Kasha, as the owner of Florida Landowners Service Bureau, to the National Multiple Listing, Inc. for the period of June, 1975 through June, 1976 may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. The total cost for advertising in that time period was $3,583.82. Kasha also advertised his catalog in the Miami Herald, the Chicago Tribune and one German paper, entitled, Blick. This advertising was in the period of late 1975 and early 1976. The advertising is established through the Respondent's Exhibit No. 12A and a portion of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 which is the deposition and attachments of Kenneth Kasha taken March 26, 1976. 14 The fourth paragraph of document 1 states in its initial sentence. "In order for us to successfully merchandize and receive the highest offer for your property(s) considerable expense is involved because a great deal of time is put forth on your behalf and many of the property(s) are being offered for sale sight unseen. Therefore, we must constantly furnish prospective purchasers with factual updated information re: your listing(s). Your fee helps to defray expenses of estimating value, merchandizing, advertising, brochuring and cataloging this information here and abroad." The extent of advertising and brochuring has previously been discussed. The estimate of value is based upon the individual's price and the Florida Landowners Service Bureau does not concern itself with zoning and development in trying to get the price established. This conclusion is premised on Mr. Kasha's testimony of March 26, 1976 before the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums. Therefore, by Mr. Kasha's opinion there was no expense to be defrayed in estimating value. The only other merchandizing that was done other than that discussed in the advertising techniques may be found in the description by Robert Wandler who worked for Kenneth Kasha and was involved with Florida Landowners Service Bureau as a real estate salesman. The period of his employment is not established through Mr. Wandler's testimony, but it appears to be within the time frame of the Administrative Complaint and the other testimony given. Mr. Wandler stated that he tried to sell the property listed through the "advance fee" process by contacting hotels and hotel clerks who had connection with Columbian businessmen. This area of contact was in South Florida. His reasons for contacting the Columbians was due to the fact that he speaks Spanish fluently. He occasionally showed the brochures to the persons contacted, but none of those persons were interested in purchasing the property. He specifically made reference to Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12 as being the type of brochure or catalog that he showed. He also testified that on several occasions Arabian and Lebanese people in the South Florida area were contacted and seminars were held to discuss the catalog. The Arabian and Lebanese business persons did not purchase any property and did not negotiate with any of the owners for the right to purchase the property. Document No. 2, which is a document entitled, Important Facts, is found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11. In that document is a question which asks "(Q) Will you help me establish a correct selling price for my property? (A) Yes. While we do not appraise property, Florida Landowners Service Bureau will analyze your property comparing your property to adjacent property, to arrive at a price based on recent sales of neighboring property. The price must meet with your approval. From the testimony in Kenneth Kasha's appearance before the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums it is clear that Florida Landowners Service Bureau did not analyze the property by comparing the property to adjacent property to arrive at a price. They merely relied on the owner's price. One of the other questions in Document No. 2 asks the following: "(Q) How will Florida Landowners Service Bureau sell my property? (A) Review status of development and zoning in the immediate area of your property to recommend the correct selling price for you. List your property in our directory, which is distributed by mail to real estate brokers throughout the world." Kenneth Kasha in the aforementioned deposition stated that 95 percent of the time they did not document the development and zoning to set a price as the ad indicated they would do. In Document No. 3, which is a copy of the listing and brokerage agreement, one of the statements of consideration between the parties is that Florida Landowners Service Bureau as the part of their consideration will: "(b) Contemporaneously with appearance of said listing in the directory, you agree to direct the efforts of your organization to bring about the sale of my property". This should be read in pari materia with the following provision in that Document No. 3 which states: "(c) To advertise said property as you deem advisable in newspapers, magazines, or other mediums of merit". A view of the facts that were established on the question of promoting the sale of the property through advertising or other methods, demonstrates that the Florida Landowners Service Bureau in the person of Kenneth Kasha was not living up to this agreement to bring about a sale in a bone fide fashion. This leads to a consideration of the question of whether the efforts which were taken by Kenneth Kasha t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau were so fraudulent or deficient that they constitute violations of the provisions of Chapter 475, F.S. that are alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The general contention of the Administrative Complaint in Count I is that the solicitation of the property owners was a scheme to fraudulently secure money through the "advance fee" for reason that no bone fide effort was made to sell the property listed with Kenneth Kasha, t/a Florida Landowners Service Bureau. As indicated before there was no bone fide effort made to sell the property. More particularly, in terms of stating grounds for action against the Respondent's license, the course of conduct by the Respondent personally and through his company, Florida Landowners Service Bureau, demonstrates that he is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device and breach of trust in a business transaction in this state and has violated the duty imposed upon him by law or the terms of listing contract in a real estate transaction; and has formed an intent, design, or scheme to engage in said misconduct and has committed overt acts in furtherance of such intent, design or scheme, all in violation of 475.25(1)(a) F.S. The course of conduct by Kenneth Kasha personally and trading as Florida Landowners Service Bureau shows him to be guilty of conduct or practices which show that he is dishonest and untruthful to the extent that the money, property, transactions and rights of investors or those with whom he may sustain a confidential relation, may not be safely entrusted to him, as set forth in 475.25(3) F.S.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts in this cause, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, revoke the real estate broker's license, certificate number 0046189, held by the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Kasha P.O. Box 611238 North Miami, Florida 33161 Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire and Louis Guttmann, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 ================================================================= AGENCY MEMORANDUM ================================================================= Orlando, Florida June 15, 1979 MEMORANDUM TO: Renata Hendrick, Registration Supervisor FROM: Fred Langford, Staff Attorney RE: Revocation of Kenneth Kasha - PD No. 3014 004618904 DOAH Case No. 77-1299 Attached please find a copy of the Final Order, Mandate and Order from the Third DCA concerning Kenneth Kasha. The effective date of revocation is December 21, 1978. /FL:bam Attachments* Fred Langford Staff Attorney * NOTE: Attachments noted are unavailable at the division and therefore not a part of this ACCESS document.
