Findings Of Fact In early July, 1972, Donald R. and Pamela S. Leininger (buyer) entered into a contract to purchase a residence through Sun Up Realty with its salesman, Bernard Zapel. The real property involved and Sun Up Realty were owned by Defendant, Norman N. Zipkin either as sole proprietor or as sole shareholder of the corporation in whose name the property was held. Disclosure of the role of Defendant as owner-seller was not an issue in these proceedings. Buyer executed two contracts for the purchase of the property both dated July 9, 1972. The first contract acknowledged receipt of $100 as a deposit with a down payment to be made of $1750 with the buyer obtaining a mortgage of $33,250. Noted on this contract are two additional payments of $650 and $1,000. All of these deposits were payable to and deposited in Sun Up Realty's Escrow Account. The second deposit receipt contract was also dated July 9, 1972 and receipt of $1750 was thereon acknowledged by seller. The sale price of $35,000 applied to both contracts. The second contract provided as terms and conditions of sale that the buyer would make an additional deposit of $1700 before closing and that buyer was to apply for, qualify, and obtain a mortgage insured by FHA. Papers to so qualify were sent to the bank but buyer never qualified for the loan. The Administrative Complaint indicates that the first document executed by the buyer provided for an FHA insured mortgage; the evidence presented was as noted above. Apparently to allow buyer additional time to qualify for the loan Defendant leased the premises to buyer pursuant to lease agreement (Exhibit 5). Although Defendant testified buyer paid him nothing while he occupied the house pursuant to this lease agreement, in his deposition (Exhibit 1) buyer presented a receipt for one month's rent paid to the seller for the premises. Buyer never qualified for the mortgage because the lending agency was never satisfied from whence the additional $1700 down payment was to come. Although no evidence was presented on this point it appears that this additional deposit was required for buyer to reach a 10 percent down payment on the price of the residence. The July 9, 1972 deposit receipt contract that was in effect with respect to this transaction provides in pertinent part: "2. An additional sum of seventeen hundred dollars ($1700) shall be deposited with Escrow Agent before closing. In the event such sum is not so deposited, Seller at his option may cancel and terminate this agreement." "3. Buyer to apply for, qualify for, and obtain a Mortgage insured by the FHA Section in an amount not less than $31,550. In the event the Buyer fails to qualify for said mortgage, all said deposit shall be returned immediately, less the cost of the credit report. "14. It is mutually agreed that the trans action shall be closed and the Buyer shall pay the balance of the first payment and execute any and all papers necessary to be executed by him for the completion of this purchase within days from the aforementioned abstract of title, or such time as shall reasonably be required by seller to make such title good, otherwise the herein named Escrow Agent is hereby directed by both Seller and Buyer to divide the monies being held by said Escrow Agent, under the terms under this Contract between the Seller and Broker herein named as hereinafter provided." "It is further agreed that in case of default by the Buyers, the Seller may at his option take legal action at law and/or in equity to enforce this Contract, in which event, the Buyer shall pay reasonable attorney fees and court costs; or else the Seller may at his option retain one half of the deposit herein paid as considera tion for the release of the Buyer by the Seller from any and all further obligations under this Contract to the Seller, which release shall be implied from such act of retention by the Seller." Buyer quit the premises in October, 1972 and thereafter demanded return of his deposit from seller. By letter from buyer's attorney (Exhibit 6) dated March 19, 1973 demand was made for return of the deposit. By letter dated March 23, 1973 (Exhibit 7) Seller denied the refund of the deposit on grounds that the buyer had breached the contract as the Buyer had qualified for and been approved for a mortgage by the Collateral Mortgage Co. The money was withdrawn from the escrow account and paid to the seller. Defendant is an attorney, mortgage broker, general contractor, developer and real estate broker. For the past decade he has devoted most of his energies toward real estate development. This is the first time charges have been preferred against him by the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Lucille V. Payne has been registered as a real estate salesman with the Respondent since 1975. In October 1976, she was employed by Robert L. Richardson Real Estate, New Port Richey, Florida. Her registration expired on March 31, 1979, and no evidence was presented to indicate that she has renewed her license since that time. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) On or about October 18, 1976, George and Marie Theodorakos of Hopkinsville, Kentucky were in New Port Richey, Florida looking for a house to purchase. They viewed one house as the result of an advertisement, but decided that they did not like it. The lady at that residence told them that another house nearby was going to be put on the market. This was a home located at 1435 Mill Creek Lane which was owned by a Louisiana Corporation, W. H. Payne, Inc. Respondent was secretary/treasurer of the corporation and her husband, William H. Payne, was president. At the time, Respondent was residing in the house and her husband was employed in Wisconsin. The Paynes had not listed or advertised the house for sale, but contemplated doing so in the future. Mr. and Mrs. Theodorakos decided to purchase the house, and Respondent called her husband that evening and secured his approval for the sale. The next day a contract was executed by the Theodorakoses and Respondent. A standard form deposit receipt contract was used that contained various references to and a signature block for an "agent" who normally would have been the real estate broker or salesman handling the transaction. These references were left blank in the contract. The agreement provided that W. H. Payne, Inc. would sell the property for the sum of $42,000 payable with a $500 deposit and an additional $4,500 by November 4, 1976, with $15,000 cash payable at closing and the balance of $22,000 to be secured by mortgage. Closing of the transaction was to be on or before January 4, 1977. Paragraph 8 of the contract stated as follows: 8. This instrument shall become effective as a contract when signed by the Agent, Buyer, and Seller. If not signed by all parties on or before October 29, 1976, any monies deposited shall be refunded and this instrument shall be void. The prospective purchasers gave Respondent $500 as a deposit and she told them that it would be placed in an escrow account. She also informed them that she would send the contract to her husband in Wisconsin for his signature under the corporate seal. Respondent told Mr. and Mrs. Theodorakos that she was a real estate salesman employed by Richardson Realty, but that she was handling the sale of the house herself without commission. (Testimony of M. Theodorakos, Brooks, Petitioner's Exhibit 2) Respondent mailed the contract to her husband in Wisconsin on October 19 and he received it several days later. He signed and sealed it and placed it in the return mail to Respondent. She received it on an undetermined date prior to October 29, and placed it in the regular mail immediately to Mr. and Mrs. Theodorakos in Hopkinsville, Kentucky. Respondent's return address was on the envelope. Respondent also delivered a copy of the agreement to the Ellis National Bank in New Port Richey which held an existing mortgage on the property to be assumed by the purchasers. Respondent had previously notified the bank to send application forms to the purchasers for assumption of the mortgage. Respondent had also placed the $500 deposit in a bank account of W. H. Payne, Inc. (Testimony of Respondent, W. Payne) The Theodorakoses did not receive the contract mailed by Respondent. On Saturday, October 30, Respondent called Mrs. Theodorakos and told her that she was leaving for Wisconsin and that she could mail the remaining down payment of $4,500 to her. Mrs. Theodorakos told her that the executed contract had not been received and Respondent said that it was in the mail and would arrive probably the following Monday or Wednesday. When subsequent telephone conversations indicated that the contract probably had been lost in the mail, Respondent mailed another copy to the purchasers which they received on November 19, 1976. Also, the mother of Mrs. Theodorakos, Hylo H. Brooks, who had witnessed the agreement and lived in New Port Richey, communicated with Robert L. Richardson, Respondent's broker, concerning the matter, and he obtained a copy of the executed agreement from the bank for her sometime in early November. (Testimony of M. Theodorakos, Brooks, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 2-3, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Subsequent conversations between the parties concerning disposition of the deposit and payment of the remaining portion of the down payment resulted in Mr. Theodorakos informing Mr. Payne, in early December, that he was no longer interested in the house and wanted his deposit returned. Payne informed him that he would not return the deposit since they were in default by not paying the remaining amount for the down payment. Payne informed Theodorakos, however, that they could still have the property if they would send the down payment. Shortly prior to this last conversation, Payne listed the property with a local New Port Richey broker, but inserted a special provision in the listing agreement protecting the prior rights of Mr. and Mrs. Theodorakos to purchase the property. (Testimony of M. Theodorakos, Respondent, W. Payne) Robert L. Richardson had an informal policy in his real estate office that salesmen who sold their own properties must process the transaction through his office, whether or not a commission was involved. Although Richardson testified that he had informed all of his salesmen concerning this policy, Respondent denied being aware of it. After learning of the Theodorakos contract, Richardson terminated Respondent's employment with his office and informed Petitioner in this regard on November 5, 1976. On December 1, 1977, Richardson paid the $500 deposit amount to Mr. and Mrs. Theodorakos because he felt to do otherwise would reflect upon his reputation. (Testimony of Richardson, Petitioner's Exhibits 4-5)
Recommendation That the complaint against Respondent Lucille V. Payne be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Harold E. Scherr Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harvey V. Delzer Delzer, Edwards, Coulter and Parker Post Office Box 279 Port Richey, Florida 33568
Findings Of Fact Kenneth M. Olson, Jr., is a registered real estate broker with the FREC and Active Firm Member of Olson and Associates Real Estate, Inc., a corporate broker registered with the FREC. A copy of the Administrative Complaint was forwarded to the last address of Defendants registered with the FREC by certified mail numbers 4747 and 4748 and the notice of hearing was forwarded to the same address by certified mail numbers 4613 and 4614. Accordingly the Hearing Officer had jurisdiction over the Defendants and the offenses. By contract dated September 17, 1975 (Exhibit 6) Joseph J. Pillucere contracted to purchase real property from Paul L. Nave. The contract provided, inter alia, for a $500 earnest money deposit, $9500 down payment at closing with purchaser to assume existing first mortgage of approximately $28,000; and the seller taking back a purchase money second mortgage in the amount of $17,000. Thereafter, at the time scheduled for closing, the purchaser failed to produce the additional down payment required, execute the second mortgage and assume the existing first mortgage. After receiving conflicting demands from buyer and seller for the return of the earnest money deposit Defendant requested an advisory opinion from the FREC in accordance with Section 475.25(1)(c) FS. On May 13, 1976 an advisory opinion (Exhibit 5) was given by FREC to the Defendant, with copies to both parties to the contract, advising Defendant that the earnest money deposit should-be disbursed to the seller. The deposit has been disbursed to neither party to the contract.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents committed fraud, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; failed to prepare monthly trust account reconciliations, in violation of Rule 61J2-14.012(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code; failed to account for or deliver funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes; and failed to preserve books and accounts, in violation of Rule 61J2-14.012(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent Maria L. Nuevo (Respondent) was a licensed real estate broker, holding license number 3006548. Respondent was first licensed, as a real estate salesperson, in Florida in 1984 and became a broker in 1986. Respondent is president of, and qualifying broker for, Respondent Realco Realty, Inc. (Realco Realty), which is a corporation registered as a real estate broker, holding license number 1011738. In late August or early September 2000, Respondent prepared a Residential Sales and Purchase Contract (Contract) on behalf of Omar Canizares, as buyer, to purchase a residence at 10620 Southwest 139th Street in Miami (Property). The Contract provided for a purchase price of $260,000 and a deposit of $1000 to be held by Realco Realty. Respondent presented the Contract to Zoila de Castro, a real estate broker who was representing Antonio and Lorraine Lambo, and Mrs. Lambo. The record is poorly developed on these points, but it appears that Mr. and Mrs. Lambo jointly owned the Property and that both of them never signed the Contract. Respondent left the Contract with Mrs. Lambo because Mr. Lambo was out of town. A few days later, Ms. de Castro returned the Contract to Respondent, intending to convey a counteroffer that raised the purchase price to $265,000 and the deposit to $5000--to be paid within three days after the inspection. However, the Contract delivered by Ms. de Castro to Respondent is notable for two omissions--a signature of one of the Lambos and a deadline for Canizares' acceptance of the counteroffer. Ms. de Castro's testimony that she delivered to Respondent the only original contract with signatures of both Lambos is discredited for two reasons. First, Respondent would likely use the better version of the Contract--i.e., the one with both sellers' signatures--when providing a copy to the appraiser. Second, Ms. de Castro appears to have maintained, at best, an imperfect grasp of all that was transpiring in this attempted transaction and may be claiming to have delivered a fully signed contract--though still without a deadline for Mr. Canizares' acceptance--in order to place herself in a better light. At this point in the transaction, the lack of an enforceable agreement between Mr. Canizares and the Lambos should have been obvious to the Lambos' real estate broker, but it was not. The testimony depicts a series of unanswered letters and unsatisfied demands, as the Lambos initially tried to get the deal to close and eventually tried only to get the deposits, which they believed now totalled $5000. In fact, neither Respondent held any deposit. Although relieved from the obligation to collect another $4000 in deposit, due to the failure of the parties to come to an agreement, Respondents had misrepresented to the Lambos and Ms. de Castro that they held the initial $1000 deposit. Although Petitioner has failed to prove other fraudulent acts by either Respondent toward the Lambos or Ms. de Castro, Petitioner has proved another fraudulent act by Respondents in connection with this transaction. Exploiting Ms. de Castro's lack of diligence, Respondents appear to have shopped the Contract. On September 22, 2000, Respondent ordered an appraisal on a form showing the purchase price as $325,880. At the request of the appraiser, Respondent sent to the appraisal a copy of an altered Contract, which provided for a purchase price of $310,100 and reflected total deposits of $5000. The Lambos-Canizares sale never closed, and the Lambos never received any money representing the deposit that they claimed to be owed. Respondents opened an escrow account in September 2000, but had never performed written monthly escrow reconciliation for their trust account through the date of the audit in February 2001. Additionally, at the time of the audit, Respondents were unable to produce any documentation pertaining to their real estate practice. However, Respondents later produced banking records and reconciliations for January and February 2001, which were undoubtedly prepared after the February 2001 audit.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order revoking the real estate broker licenses of Maria L. Nuevo and Realco Realty, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy P. Campiglia, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Christopher J. DeCosta Senior Attorney Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-809 Orlando, Florida 32801 Michael H. Wolf Michael H. Wolf & Associates, LLC. 3832 North University Drive Sunrise, Florida 33322
The Issue Whether the Defendants, Leon Zwick and Elias Zwick together with a broker, Roberto E. Mitrani, received $10,000 earnest money deposit for a sale of Lot 12, Block 120, Lenox Manor Subdivision, Plat Book 7, page 15, Dade County, Florida, and thereafter released $9,000 of said deposit to the seller, retaining $1,000 for personal use in violation of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes; whether said money was disbursed without proper authority; whether the co-broker, Robert E. Mitrani, was not notified of the return of $9,000 deposit money or the retention of $1,000 of the deposit money. Whether Defendants failed to maintain in an escrow account all moneys prior to the culmination of the subject transaction. Whether the licenses of one or both of the Defendants should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Defendant, Leon Zwick, and the Defendant, Elias Zwick, are registered real estate broker and real estate salesman, respectively. The Defendants in cooperation with a broker, Roberto E. Mitrani, negotiated a contract dated September 1, 1972, as broker and salesman, respectively, for the sale of Lot 12, Block 120, Lenox Manor Subdivision, Plat Book 7, page 15, as recorded in the public records of Dade County, Florida, known as Jeffrey Apartments to Marco T. Gonzalez or assigns, as the purchaser, by E. M. Bornfriend, Sara Bornfriend and Pauline Bornfriend, as sellers. The Defendants received total earnest money deposit in the amount of $10,000, but the contract time expired and the sale was not consummated. On or about October 18, 1972, the Defendant, Leon Zwick, did pay over and release $9,000 of the $10,000 earnest money deposit to Mariana De Gonzalez, as attorney in fact for Marco T. Gonzalez, and both Leon Zwick and Elias Zwick executed a mutual release for the entire $10,000 earnest money deposit. The release stated and the Defendants admitted that $1,000 was retained by the Defendants for their personal use, said release being executed without the knowledge or consent of the sellers. Mariana De Gonzalez, was represented by an attorney, Melvin J. Richard, and the sellers were represented by an attorney, Howard N. Galbut. A letter dated October 12, 1972, complaining of the transaction with the Defendants, written by Melvin J. Richard to the Florida Real Estate Commission, was delivered to the Real Estate Commission but had not been answered and a letter of October 19, 1972 was then written in which it was stated that the matter had been settled and the complaint was withdrawn. The Plaintiffs filed an Information against the Defendants on April 25, 1975. The Hearing Officer further finds; That the Defendant broker Zwick and the Defendant salesman Zwick violated the terms of the subject contract by failing to return the money on deposit at the expiration of the time designated in the contract; That the retained $1,000 was used to pay the attorney for the Defendants, Martin Limlich, upon whose advice they relied when they retained $1,000 of the $10,000 deposit they should have returned forthwith in full to the purchasers; That the Defendants are guilty of failure to maintain a proper escrow account by not keeping the $10,000 deposit in escrow as required by Chapter 475, Florida Statutes; That the testimony of the co-broker, Roberto E. Mitrani, is inconclusive; and That Defendant Leon Zwick has previously been found guilty by the Florida Real Estate Commission of conduct warranting revocation.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondent's licenses as a real estate broker should be disciplined because of the matters set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations of misconduct in the Administrative Complaint, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, was the state agency charged with the responsibility for the licensing and regulation of the real estate profession in this state. The Respondent, Richard L. Bohner, was licensed as a real estate broker in Florida operating, with his wife, Kirsten, Bohner Real Estate, located at 205 E. Osceola Street in Stuart, Florida. On October 1, 1989, Mr. Bohner as owner/lessor, entered into separate rental agreements with Trudy Dohm and Thelma Reynolds, with Bohner Real Estate identified as agent, for the lease for 12 months each of apartments number 105 and 204, respectively, at 1674 S.E. St. Lucie Blvd. in Stuart, Florida, for a monthly rental of $350.00 each. Each lease provided for the placement of a security deposit and last month's rental in advance; those sums, according to the terms of the lease, to be held by the agent, Bohner Real Estate, in a non- interest bearing escrow account at the Florida National Bank in Stuart. In actuality, the sums above-mentioned were, in each case, deposited into an account at the First National Bank and Trust Company in Stuart. This account, number 8000030400, was held in the name of Richard L. Bohner or Kirsten L. Bohner, Trust account. This account was an interest bearing account and, over the time in question, also received several large deposits of funds by or on behalf of the Respondent, Richard L. Bohner which were his personal funds and not funds received as a part of or in conjunction with his activities as a real estate broker or those of Bohner Real Estate. For the most part, the funds placed in that account were Bohner's personal funds and security deposits and last month's rent on apartments in the building owned as a personal investment by Mr. and Mrs. Bohner. On February 20, 1990, Sharon Thayer, an investigator for the Department, in the normal course of business, went to the Respondent's real estate office, unannounced as was her prerogative, and asked to speak with Mr. Bohner. He was not present at the time and she asked Mrs. Bohner, who was present, to produce the Respondent's books for the brokerage's escrow account, which she did. In the course of their conversation, Mrs. Bohner identified herself as being in partnership with the Respondent and admitted to assisting him in the maintenance of the escrow account. When Ms. Thayer asked for the backup documents for the escrow account, these were produced. Ms. Bohner also provided Ms. Thayer with copies of the bank account she maintained. On inquiry, Mrs. Bohner said the deposits thereon were, in the main, representative of rental and security deposits from tenants on leases which Bohner Real Estate managed. Ms. Thayer asked about the large deposits made on May 3, June 7, and July 7, 1989. These were for $104,542.50, $50,000.00, and $4.600.00 respectively. In response, Mrs. Bohner indicated these were personal monies which came from personal sources and funds which had been put in that account because that's where they would get the most interest. They were not escrow funds related to the real estate brokerage. Ms. Thayer made an appointment to return to the brokerage office on February 23, 1990 to speak with Respondent. When she did so, Mr. Bohner accounted for the trust liability of $6,885.00 which existed on that date. This sum was verified with the bank by phone. The trust account had an overage of somewhat more than $881.00 which Respondent explained as accrued interest not removed from the account. Mr. Bohner admitted at hearing that he earned interest on the security and rental deposits he held in that account and used that earned interest to offset the low rentals he charged his tenants. He asserted, and there was no evidence to rebut this assertion, that the only security and rental deposits placed in that account were from tenants in the apartment building he and his wife owned personally. Neither he nor Bohner Real Estate managed or served as rental agent for any rental properties owned by others. It is so found. Ms. Thayer pointed out, and it is accepted as fact, that a broker is required to reconcile his trust account on a monthly basis and file a monthly reconciliation form which accounts for overages and shortages. Respondent admits he had not completed or filed these reconciliations because neither he nor Bohner Real Estate has a trust or escrow account into which client funds are deposited. He manages no property from which rents would be collected other than his own, and when he takes a deposit on a sale or transfer, a separate trust account is opened for that particular transaction with any interest earned going to the buyer. Petitioner showed, through the testimony of Ms. Casale, the bank records custodian, that the largest deposit in issue, that one in excess of $100,000.00, was the result of the maturity of a certificate of deposit that was transferred to the account in question. Respondent did not endorse the check for deposit or sign any deposit document. He submitted a letter from the bank chairman to support his thesis that he was not a party to the transfer, but the letter, admitted over objection by counsel for Petitioner, indicates the deposit was made by the bank's investment counselor who handled the transaction consistent with telephone instructions given her by the Respondent. This is a collateral matter, however. When Ms. Thayer completed her audit, she prepared and filed a report on which she indicated, inter alia, that the office met inspection standards and that the property management escrow/trust account was satisfactory. She noted an overage of $889.31 in the account and that it was an interest bearing account although the leases state it would be non-interest bearing. No deadline was given for the correction of this item. Mrs. Bohner admits that when she gave the apartment security escrow account to Ms. Thayer at her request and described it as a trust account, she was not thinking. In fact, and it is so found, neither Respondent nor Bohner Real Estate have a trust account for the business and have not had one for several years. She reiterates Mr. Bohner's assertion that the only money usually kept in the account referenced by Ms. Casale and referred to by Ms. Thayer, is money received as security deposits and last month's rental from tenants in their own building. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case dismissing all allegations of misconduct by Respondents as outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 1st day of April, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein,. Balance is not Finding of Fact but lore legal conclusion. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENTS: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 401 NW Second Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Richard L. Bohner Bohner Teal Estate 205 East Osceola Street Stuart, Florida 34994 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 - 1900
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to deliver a deposit to the person entitled to said delivery in violation of Section 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondent appeared at the hearing without legal counsel and was advised of his rights to same at his own expense. He elected to represent himself at the hearing. He was further advised as to his rights under the Administrative Procedure Act including the right to testify on his own behalf if he so desired. He indicated his understanding of his rights. It was stipulated by the parties that Joseph Sopotnick, Joseph Sopotnick, Jr., and Joe Sopotnick are one and the same person.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times under consideration in these proceedings, Respondent was a registered real estate broker (Stipulation of parties, Exhibit 2) In March 1974, Alvin K. Whittington of Marietta, Georgia, upon the recommendation of his job supervisor, who had dealt with Respondent in the past, called the Respondent on the telephone concerning the possibility of purchasing land in Florida. Although the Respondent indicated that he had none available at that time, he called Whittington later on in the day and told him that he had certain property which was for sale and inquired as to when he could come down to Florida to look it over. Whittington informed him that he did not know when he would be able to visit Florida and Respondent advised him to send a deposit in order to hold the land since there was a contractor interested in the same property. Whittington told him that he did not like the idea of placing a deposit on property that he had not seen and inquired as to whether or not he could secure a return of the deposit if, after he had seen the land he did not wish to purchase it. Respondent told him "That's no problem. You can get your deposit back". He advised him to send the deposit and that he would hold it until he came to Florida. Accordingly, Whittington sent a check for $360.00, dated March 20, 1974, to the Respondent which indicated on its face that it was a "deposit on Fla. shore lots - N.W. corner Needle Palm & 18th". The check was signed by Mrs. Whittington on a joint account with her husband. The sum of $360.00 represented 10 percent of a purchase price of $3600.00. After talking to Whittington, Respondent on March 20 wrote to the owners of the property, advised that a deposit check would be forthcoming and enclosed a standard sales contract for the sellers to execute and return to him. This was accomplished and Respondent then forwarded the contract to the Whittingtons for execution and return which they received on April 1st. Mr. Whittington thereupon called the Respondent and told him that he could not sign the contract without seeing the property. On April 12th, he and his wife went to Florida, met with the Respondent, looked over the lots in question, and informed the Respondent that he would call him the following Monday as to whether or not he wished to make the purchase. On April 15th, Whittington called the Respondent, informed him that he did not wish to purchase the property and requested return of his deposit. Respondent informed him he could not return it and that disposition of the deposit would be a matter to be determined by the seller. Thereafter, on April 19th, Respondent wrote to the Whittingtons informing them that after careful consideration, he intended to treat the matter as a forfeiture of deposit situation, and unless he heard from them to the contrary he would disburse the deposit to the seller under the terms of the contract. However, he stated in the letter that he would apply the full deposit to any purchase that the Whittingtons might thereafter wish to make. After receipt of this letter, Whittington again called the Respondent concerning the situation at which time Respondent informed him that he would try to get 1/3 of the deposit returned if Whittington would send him a letter indicating that he would accept such an amount. Nothing further was heard from the Respondent and the deposit was never refunded (Testimony of Mr. & Mrs. Whittington, Composite Exhibit 1, Exhibits 3, 4). On or about July 2, 1974, Respondent remitted 1/2 of the deposit to sellers and retained 1/2 for himself (Stipulation of parties) Respondent testified that Whittington had insisted he accept the deposit and send the contract to the seller to insure that he would be able to purchase the property, and that the proposed deal was not contingent upon the buyer's satisfaction with the property. He denied telling Whittington he could get his deposit back. He also testified that after the Whittingtons viewed the property in Florida, he asked Whittington about the contract and the latter said that he had not brought it with him but would send it within a few days. That when he thereafter called upon his return to Georgia, he informed Respondent that he did not wish to make the purchase because his wife was about to have a baby. Respondent contended at the hearing that he was never sure that Whittington wanted his deposit back, however, conceded that Composite Exhibit 1f was his letter to the sellers advising that the Whittingtons had requested the return of the deposit. Respondent asserted that it was his impression that if a deposit had been made in good faith, it was proper to consider that there was a binding contract even though the depositor had not signed a sales contract. He further indicated that if he was wrong in this respect he would return the deposit. At no time did the Respondent ever discuss the transaction with the sellers. He was unaware of the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(c), by which a registrant may seek advice from the real estate commission if he entertains, in good faith, doubt concerning his duty to account and deliver a deposit. Respondent has been in the real estate business for twelve years (Testimony of Respondent, Composite Exhibit 1f).
Recommendation That Respondent's registration as a real estate broker be suspended for a period of 60 days. That the period of suspension in excess of 30 days be vacated if the Respondent returns the $350.00 deposit to Mr. & Mrs. Alvin K. Whittington prior to the expiration of the aforesaid period of 30 days from the original date of suspension. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated above the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a letter of admonition to Leroy Wilson clarifying his responsibilities and the maintenance of his financial affairs and proper business office when operating as a broker. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 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: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Henry Latimer, Esquire Mavrides and Latimer 5353 Southwest 40th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are whether Respondents, who are licensed real estate brokers, failed to preserve and make available certain records relating to trust accounts and real estate transactions, and/or obstructed or hindered Petitioner's investigators in an official investigation, as alleged by Petitioner in its Administrative Complaint. If Petitioner proves one or more of the alleged violations, then an additional question will arise, namely whether disciplinary penalties should be imposed on Respondents, or either of them.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Nestor G. Mendoza ("Mendoza") is a licensed real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Real Estate Commission ("Commission"). Respondent Diamonds Realty of Miami Beach, Inc. ("Diamonds Realty") is and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission. Mendoza is an officer and principal of Diamonds Realty, and at all times relevant to this case he had substantial, if not exclusive, control of the corporation. Indeed, the evidence does not establish that Diamonds Realty engaged in any conduct distinct from Mendoza's in connection with the charges at issue. Therefore, Respondents will generally be referred to collectively as "Mendoza" except when a need to distinguish between them arises. Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation ("Department"), Division of Real Estate, has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Commission. At the Commission's direction, the Department is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission's jurisdiction. On January 15, 2008, Veronica Hardee, who was then employed by the Department as an investigator, conducted an audit of Mendoza's records at Mendoza's real estate brokerage office, which was located in Miami Beach. Ms. Hardee was accompanied by her supervisor, Brian Piper. Ms. Hardee knew Mendoza because, in the latter part of 2007, she had investigated a consumer complaint against him, which arose from a transaction that had taken place in the fall of that year. In the course of that investigation, which focused on the period from August 20, 2007 through November 30, 2007, Mendoza had provided Ms. Hardee with business records, including bank statements and documents relating to the brokerage's escrow account. Ms. Hardee's previous investigation had not resulted in charges of wrongdoing being brought against Mendoza. During the audit, Ms. Hardee asked to review some of Mendoza's business records. She testified about this on direct examination as follows: Q. All right. Did you tell [Mendoza] what he would need to bring——or what he could expect from an audit? A. I don't remember, but usually procedure [sic], I would tell them we need to see older escrow accounts, older operating accounts, deposit slips, deposit checks, anything that has to do with their financial matters. Final Hearing Transcript ("TR.") 40-41 (emphasis added). On cross examination, Ms. Hardee elaborated: Q. (BY MR. MENDOZA) . . . I remember quite well that you did not ask me for the whole year of——for instance, of 2004, you never asked me for whole year, you asked me for a certain month; is that correct? * * * THE WITNESS: During the investigation I requested certain documents, yes. You're correct, I asked you for certain months, you had different issues with the Department that I was looking at. . . . * * * You didn't provide all the months requested and we came to the audit, you didn't provide——at that time, we asked you to see all of your accounts, it just wasn't for the investigation, we wanted to see your escrow account so you should have had for——I don't remember the——we wanted 1-15-08, we would have done from January of '08 to six months prior, let's just say. I don't remember what dates we gave you at the time. But then you would have a file with those documents in your escrow reconciliation statement, with all of your checks, all of your deposits with the bank statement attached, you know, organized. But it wasn't so and you said that you wanted to organize it properly and that's why we allowed you to organize it. So the question, did you provide me documents, yes, you provided me documents in the investigation but not all of the documents requested. TR. 58-60 (emphasis added). The undersigned attempted to elicit from Ms. Hardee a more detailed description of the materials requested during the audit, giving rise to the following exchange: THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. And can you describe for me what it was in particular that you did request on that day in January of 2008? What did you ask [Mendoza] for? THE WITNESS: Yeah. We asked him for his escrow documents, reconciliation statements, such as the one that you see in [Petitioner's Composite] Exhibit 3. We asked about those months that were missing. We asked him——I don't know if we asked him for six months or one year. I don't remember the time frame we gave him, but pretty much when we go in to do an audit, we get the last six months, usually the months that are particularly discussed, the checks or the deposits that we're looking into for an investigation. * * * So pretty much that's what we asked, all of his escrow operating account that we had for the company, which includes the reconciliation statement, bank statement, deposit checks, as the statute statues here. THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. You're standard procedure would have been you say in an audit like this, to have asked for the last six months of records right? So you're nodding your head, that's a yes? THE WITNESS: Yes. In this case we asked for the months that I was missing and plus I wanted to do a whole——we were going to do a whole audit. I don't remember right now if I asked him for six months or twelve months, I don't remember that part, but usually we ask for all the documents. THE HEARING OFFICER: And if I could just ask you to clarify do there's no mistake about this, when you say the months that are missing, what months are you referring to? THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, November of '04 and December of '04. TR. 73-75 (emphasis added). The Department did not, at the time of the audit, reduce its request for records to writing, which is unfortunate for the Department because, as the above-quoted testimony shows, Ms. Hardee's memory of specifically what Mendoza had been asked to produce was spotty. Although Ms. Hardee did identify two particular months——November and December of 2004——for which contemporaneous records were sought, this detail is practically random (because no context was given to explain the description of these periods, which predated the audit by more than three years, as "missing" months) and, in any event, fails to make the testimony as a whole explicit or distinctly remembered. The undersigned finds that Ms. Hardee's testimony was insufficiently precise to constitute clear and convincing evidence concerning the particular items that the Department wanted to see. Even if Ms. Hardee's testimony were sufficient on the previous point, however, the proof regarding Mendoza's alleged failure to produce records, which is a separate issue, is less compelling. Ms. Hardee's testimony was that Mendoza made available some but not all of the documents she and Mr. Piper wanted to see. (Actually, a fairer characterization of Mendoza's relative compliance, accepting Ms. Hardee's testimony as true, would be that he produced most of the documents requested, namely six-to-12 or 13 months' worth, failing only to make available documents associated with the last two or three months of 2004.) Mendoza then requested, and was given, additional time to assemble the rest of the materials. For some reason, Mendoza never contacted the Department thereafter to produce the items he could not locate on January 15, 2008, which caused the Department to initiate the instant proceeding. The undersigned largely credits Ms. Hardee's testimony regarding this overview of the events, with the qualification that Mendoza's compliance, while less than 100 percent, was nevertheless substantial. (He might, after all, have produced satisfactorily as much as 13 months' worth of documents, according to Ms. Hardee's testimony.) Given that Mendoza is alleged to have failed only to produce specific documents relating to the particular period from October through December 2004, the undersigned infers that he produced everything else that the Department wanted to see. The Department did not, however, at the time of the audit (or later), prepare an inventory of the records Mendoza made available (or failed to produce), take copies of the materials Mendoza produced, or otherwise reduce to writing the particulars of his noncompliance (e.g. by sending him a letter, soon after the audit, reminding him of the obligation to produce the materials that were not accessible on January 15, 2008, and listing or describing those materials). The absence of a contemporaneous written record of Mendoza's alleged failure to make documents available at the audit is unfortunate for the Department because, on the question of what Mendoza did and did not produce, Ms. Hardee testified as follows: THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. And when you went back in January of 2008 to see the ——Mr. Mendoza at his office and audit his books and records, he produced nothing to you and your supervisor whatsoever on that date in response to the things that you requested to see? THE WITNESS: He may have provided certain documents but were incomplete. I do not remember which documents he provided. * * * I'm not saying he didn't provide me with anything. He didn't provide us with all of the documents we requested. TR. 71-72 (emphasis added). In sum, the evidence against Mendoza consists of the testimony of Ms. Hardee, who in a nutshell says that, while she cannot clearly remember exactly what the Department asked Mendoza to produce, she knows that she requested documents relating to November and December of 2004, and that, while she cannot remember what documents Mendoza made available, she is sure he did not produce everything associated with the fourth quarter of 2004. Assuming for argument's sake that the Department requested the specific documents Mendoza is charged with failing to produce (which is not entirely clear), and accepting that Mendoza did not produce everything that the Department asked to see, the Department's evidence is still too conclusory to support disciplinary action, in view of Ms. Hardee's testimony that the temporal scope of the Department's request for documents was not limited to the three-month period comprising the fourth quarter of 2004 and indeed might have covered 15 months or more. Because, as found above, Mendoza did produce a substantial, albeit indeterminate, amount of documentation, and because there is no clear proof regarding the contents of the records that Mendoza made available, the undersigned is unable to find, based on clear and convincing evidence as the law requires, that Mendoza failed to produce the documents he has been accused of failing to produce. The Charges In Counts I and V of the Administrative Complaint, the Department alleges that Mendoza and Diamonds Realty are guilty of failing to preserve and make available to the Department all deposit slips and bank statements associated with the broker's trust account(s), in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.012(1), which is a disciplinable offense under Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. In Counts II and VI, it is alleged that Mendoza and Diamonds Realty failed to prepare written monthly statements comparing the broker's total trust liability to the bank balance(s) in the broker's trust account(s), in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.012(2)-(3). This alleged violation is a disciplinable offense under Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. In Counts III and VII, the Department accuses Mendoza and Diamonds Realty of having failed to preserve and make available to the Department books, accounts, and records pertaining to the brokerage business, in violation of Section 475.5015, Florida Statutes. This alleged violation constitutes a disciplinable offense under Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. In Counts IV and VIII of its Administrative Complaint, the Department asserts that Respondents obstructed or hindered the enforcement of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(i), Florida Statutes, which is a disciplinable offense under Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Ultimate Factual Determinations As found and explained above, the evidence is insufficient to prove, clearly and convincingly, that Respondents failed to make available the specific records they are alleged to have withheld. At most the evidence establishes that Respondents were unable, on January 15, 2008, to produce an imprecisely identified (and not clearly proved) subset of the universe of documents that the Department's investigators sought to examine during the audit. This is insufficient to prove, much less clearly and convincingly to demonstrate, that Respondents failed to keep or preserve any particular documents. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondents obstructed or hindered the Department's audit. To the contrary, the evidence shows that Mendoza cooperated with the Department's investigators and substantially complied with their demands. Ultimately, therefore, it is found that Respondents are not guilty of the offences charged in Counts I through VIII of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Mendoza and Diamonds Realty not guilty of the offenses charged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick J. Cunningham, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-North Tower, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Nestor G. Mendoza Diamonds Realty of Miami Beach 12501 Southwest 26th Street Miami, Florida 33175 Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
