Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, arguments of counsel and the parties, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found.2 John B. Roberts, a/k/a John B. Roberts, Sr., is registered as a real estate broker; is licensed as a broker salesman and has been issued License No. 0145010. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) As such, Respondent is subject to the licensing provisions contained in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. During times material, Respondent was the active firm member broker of, and for, Gemco Realty Corporation which was, at that time, situated with an office at 3200 North Federal Highway, Boca Baton, Florida. On or about March 26, 1979, Respondent negotiated a Contract for Sale and Purchase wherein Jerald H. Malis agreed to purchase, for $190,000.00, Tract 87, Block 71, Palm Beach Farms Co., Plat No. 3, also known as 8298 Bridal Path, as recorded in Plat Book Pages 45/54 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, from Louise and Marvin Norris. The stated property was listed for sale with Patterson and Workman, Inc., corporate brokers with offices located in Boca Raton, Florida. According to the subject contract, Respondent was to retain a $25,000.00 escrow deposit and the transaction was scheduled for closing on June 15, 1979. Marlene Patterson Rooks, a real estate broker since 1972, and a part owner of the brokerage firm, Patterson and Workman, Inc., represented the Norrises in the subject transaction. On numerous occasions from the time that the contract was entered through the scheduled closing dates, Ms. Rooks made inquiry of Respondent to ascertain whether the $25,000.00 earnest money deposit was in fact in escrow as required per contract. These inquiries were prompted based on an interoffice policy of Patterson and Workman, Inc., to verify escrow deposits when it is the listing agent and is selling through a brokerage office that it has not had prior dealings with. After repeated requests, including a personal visit to Respondent's office by Ms. Patterson, Respondent tendered to Ms. Patterson, a deposit receipt for what appears to be a $22,500.00 deposit which is, according to Respondent, a verification of the $25,000.00 earnest money deposit receipt. Respondent contends that the remaining difference was in fact placed in an escrow account of Creative Home Designs.3 Ms. Patterson had doubts as to whether the $22,500.00 deposit actually represented the $25,000.00 deposit which is the subject of this transaction inasmuch as the deposit receipt pre-dated the execution date of the subject contract by approximately one week. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 11 and 12). When Ms. Patterson was told that the subject transaction failed to close, she later received a mailgram declaring that the subject contract had been cancelled. (Respondent's Exhibit 5). Ms. Patterson immediately requested that a portion of the deposit monies be retained since, in her opinion, said commission monies had been earned by the listing agency. (Respondent's Exhibit 6). Eleanor Britter, a loan officer for First Federal of Broward, processed a loan application for the purchaser, Jerald H. Malis. The loan application was approved by First Federal at an interest rate of 11 1/2%. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13, and Respondent's Exhibit 7). On August 23, 1978, Gemco Realty Corporation's active firm member broker and owner was Michael Eisenrod. During this period, Deborah Parnell was a registered real estate salesperson associated with Gemco Realty. On August 23, 1978, salesperson Parnell negotiated a Contract of Purchase and Sale whereby Lou Demarco, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Lou Demarco individually, agreed to sell Lot 38, Block 4, Boca Raton, Bath and Tennis Club, also known as 2000 N.W. 29th Road, Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida; and to build thereon a house for purchaser de Buitrago on which contract de Buitrago gave a $15,000.00 earnest money deposit to Gemco Realty Corporation. That deposit was placed into the escrow account of Gemco Realty Corporation. (Credited Testimony of Eisenrod.) On September15, 1978, Respondent then a registered real estate salesman, became associated with Gemco Realty Corporation. In November, 1978, Respondent became registered as a real estate broker and on February 19, 1979, Respondent purchased Gemco Realty Corporation from its owner-broker, Michael Eisenrod, and became the corporation's only active firm member-broker. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3.) At the time of the purchase, the stated $15,000.00 deposit on the Demarco contract was in the escrow account of Gemco Realty. At this time, the Demarco contract had not closed. The Demarco contract ultimately failed to close and the parties to the contract agreed to disburse the $15,000.00 deposit as follows: $12,500.00 to purchasers; $1,100.00 to salesperson Deborah Parnell; and $1,400.00 to Michael Eisenrod, the former active firm member-broker and owner of Gemco Realty Corporation. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8). Confirmation of this disbursement agreement was acknowledged by Respondent in his letter dated June 20, 1979, to Respondent's lawyer, John Downing of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Pursuant to the terms outlined in the referenced letter, Respondent was to deliver to attorney Downing, his escrow check in the amount of $13,600.00 which represented the total disbursement to the purchaser and salesperson Parnell.4 Respondent has not returned the deposit monies referred to from the Demarco contract to date. Rebecca Ritter, the head bookkeeper for Royal Beach Trust Company of Palm Beach, Florida, appeared and acknowledged that Respondent had escrow accounts at Royal Beach Trust Company during the period January, 1979, through July 30, 1979. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 15). During times material herein, Respondent was the only active firm member of and for Gemco Realty Corporation. During this period, Respondent has his trust and escrow accounts in general accounts in the following banking institutions: First Bank and Trust Company of Boca Raton, Florida; Boca Raton National Bank, Boca Raton, Florida; and Royal Trust Bank of Palm Beach, Boca Raton, Florida. On April 30, 1979, Respondent issued, on its trust account at First Bank and Trust Company of Boca Raton, checks numbered 0548 and 0549, each in the amount of $50,000.00, payable to Creative Home Designs, Inc. Neither check was honored when presented for payment and the reason being that the checks were returned due to "uncollected funds." (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Also, on April 12, 1979, Respondent issued on its trust account at First Bank and Trust Company of Boca Raton, Florida, its check No. 0592 in the amount of $3,000.00 payable to Lou Demarco, Inc., and Nicholas Brooks. This check was also not honored when presented for payment for reason "uncollected funds." Respondent's defense to these allegations are that he had in fact made the $22,500.00 deposit in a timely manner and that an additional deposit was on hand in the deposit of another company that he owned, Creative Home Designs, in the amount of $2,500.00. He contends that Ms. Patterson requested evidence to ascertain that the escrow deposit was in fact made and that such evidence was provided her. Respondent further contends that when purchaser Malis considered the contract to purchase cancelled, he merely related Malis' request to Ms. Patterson and that he presented Malis a refund in the form of a $25,000.00 check which Malis never processed. Respondent contends further that an accounting of the escrow accounts from Gemco Realty indicated that the accounts were in shambles when he purchased the operation and that there was less than the $15,000.00 deposit on hand when he assumed ownership of the corporate escrow accounts. Respondent acknowledged that several checks were returned inasmuch as he was attempting to separate the new escrow deposits from the old in an effort to get a true accounting of the escrow accounts. Respondent expressed his opinion that the $15,000.00 escrow deposit respecting the Demarco transaction was never placed in the escrow account. Further, Respondent contends that to the extent that monies were made on the Demarco transaction, that that payment was partially repaid in the form of a $3,000.00 check which represented a partial payment. (Respondent's Exhibit 4). Respondent also acknowledged that he agreed to the disbursement of deposit funds from the Demarco transaction as set forth herein but that they buyer later refused to close the transaction and forfeited, in Respondent's opinion, his deposit. According to Respondent, he then attempted to get the earnest money deposits returned to the purchasers. Respondent opined that the buyer forfeited the escrow deposit tendered to Gemco Realty. Finally, Respondent contends generally that the Gemco accounts were incorrect and that he was "duped" into accepting Messr. Eisenrod's accounting as of the date that he assumed, control of the Gemco Realty Corporation's escrow accounts. Respondent also allowed that he had on deposit,, two (2) $50,000.00 checks which were returned and as a result also created checks that he had written to also be dishonored when presented for payment.5
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's license to practice real estate as a broker be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1981. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1981.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaints are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact R. Granger Bruner is and at all material times has been licensed as a real estate broker, Florida license number 0010871. CASE NO. 90-2462 On or about September 9, 1989, Mr. Bruner obtained a contract from Alabama resident Earl W. Reed in which Mr. Reed offered to purchase certain property from owner Gary Salter. 1/ Mr. Reed, by his check, deposited with Mr. Bruner the sum of $1,000, as an earnest money deposit in connection with Mr. Reed's offer to purchase Mr. Salter's property. Mr. Bruner erroneously deposited Mr. Reed's earnest money deposit check into the Granger Bruner Realty operating account at People's National Bank of Niceville. Mr. Bruner's escrow account, where the earnest money deposit should have been held, was at the local Barnett Bank in the name of Granger Bruner Realty Trust Account. On or about September 14, 1989, the listing agent for Mr. Salter contacted Mr. Bruner's office and informed Mr. Bruner that Mr. Salter had withdrawn the property from the market. By letter dated September 21, 1989, Mr. Bruner notified Mr. Reed that the property had been withdrawn from the market and that the earnest money deposit was being returned. Enclosed with the letter was People's National Bank of Niceville check #509 drawn on the operating account of Granger Bruner Realty in the amount of $1,000 payable to Earl Reed. The letter and check were mailed to Mr. Reed at his address in Alabama. Mr. Reed apparently did not receive the letter or check, and became concerned about the return of his deposit money. The administrative complaint alleges that Mr. Reed continued to demand return of the deposit. Although the Department introduced a copy of Mr. Reed's complaint, Mr. Reed did not testify. The evidence does not establish that Mr. Reed made repeated demands on Mr. Bruner for return of the deposit. The complaint further alleges, but the evidence does not establish, that the September 21, 1989 check was not mailed until September 28, 1989. On September 30, 1989, Mr. Reed met in Crestview with Mr. Bruner and demanded the return of his earnest money deposit. Mr. Bruner issued check #2924 in the amount of $1,000 from Mr. Bruner's wife's personal account payable to Earl Reed. Mr. Bruner subsequently had a stop-payment order issued against the first check to Mr. Reed. CASE NO. 90-2463 Prior to October 6, 1989, Elaine Brantley, an auditor/investigator for the Department contacted Mr. Bruner and made an appointment to perform a routine audit on Mr. Bruner's accounts. Prior to October 6, 1989, Mr. Bruner was aware that his escrow account was short. On that date, Mr. Bruner deposited approximately $1,400 into his escrow account to cover the shortage. The deposit resulted in an overage in the account. Upon Ms. Brantley's arrival, Mr. Bruner informed her that the escrow account was short, that he'd gotten behind in bookkeeping, and that his secretary was depositing additional funds into the escrow account. Ms. Brantley had Mr. Bruner telephone the bookkeeping department at Barnett Bank. With Mr. Bruner's approval, Ms. Brantley asked for and obtained the balance of the escrow account by telephone from a bank employee. 2/ Mr. Bruner then informed Ms. Brantley that escrow account liabilities totaled $1,727.38. Ms. Brantley reviewed the account's check ledger and determined that the escrow account was indeed short. During the audit, Ms. Brantley noted an escrow account check #453 dated 7/25/89 in the amount of $500 made payable to Mr. Bruner. Ms. Brantley stated that Mr. Bruner said that he had disbursed the funds to himself to cover a mortgage payment he made to a third party identified as Ms. Penner. At hearing, Mr. Bruner testified that he had used his escrow account to cash a $400 check for another person, and that check #453 was drafted to recover his personal funds from the account. He stated that the check was written in error and that the transaction was not handled correctly. He admitted that he did not know the balance of the escrow account at the time the check was written. The recorded checkbook balance at the time was $340.19. At the time of the audit, Ms. Brantley also noted check #487 dated 9/26/89 in the amount of $500 to Ms. Penner. The evidence establishes that check #487 was Mr. Bruner's personal mortgage payment to Ms. Penner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order suspending the licensure of R. Granger Bruner for a period of 90 days, and imposing a total fine of $2,000, including $1,000 pursuant to Rule 2IV-24.001(3)(1), Florida Administrative Code, and $1,000 pursuant to Rule 21V-24.001(3)(c) and (f), Florida Administrative Code. It is further recommended that R. Granger Bruner be required to successfully complete a course of education related to management of operating and escrow trust accounts and be required to file escrow account status reports with the Commission at such intervals as the Commission deems appropriate. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-2462 The Petitioner did not file a proposed recommended order. The Respondent filed a "Proposed Order" which sets forth proposed findings of fact. The proposed findings are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: "Proposed Order" Accepted as to failure to prove exact amount of escrow account shortage. Rejected as to whether a shortage existed, contrary to evidence. Rejected. The testimony at hearing that certain deposits were not received is contrary to information provided to auditor and was not credited. Although the testimony related to the escrow account balance was unsupported hearsay, the auditor's testimony related to deposits and liabilities was based upon admissions by the Respondent. See Section 90.803(18), Florida Statutes. Rejected, conclusion of law. Rejected, not supported by weight of evidence. 8-9. Rejected, unnecessary. 10. Rejected, immaterial. 11-12. Rejected, unnecessary. "Finding of Fact" The Respondent also filed a separate statement entitled "Finding of Fact" which includes additional proposed findings of fact. The proposed findings are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Hurston North Tower 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Bart O. Moore, Esquire Moore, Kessler & Moore 102 Bayshore Drive Niceville, Florida 32578 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Hurston North Tower 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents' real estate licenses should be disciplined on the ground that Respondents allegedly violated a rule and various provisions within Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: When the events herein occurred, Respondents, Edward D. Armbruster and Colleen Michele Armbruster, were licensed real estate brokers having been issued license numbers 0002159 and 0362890, respectively, by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Respondents served as qualifying brokers and officers of Respondent, Armbruster Realty, Inc., a corporation registered as a real estate broker and located at 1031 West Nelson Avenue, DeFuniak Springs, Florida. The corporation holds license number 0211855, also issued by the Division. On July 10, 1996, Gerald and Joyce Singleton, who had just relocated to California, entered into a contract with James B. and Joyce Patten to sell their single-family residence located on Madison Street in the City of Freeport, Florida, for a price of $78,000.00. The contract called for the Pattens to pay $1,000.00 as an earnest money deposit, to be held in escrow by Respondents. The contract further provided that "[c]losing shall be within 30 days (more or less) after acceptance of this contract," and that "[i]n the event that buyer defaults and deposit is forfeited, it is agreed said deposit shall be divided equally between seller and broker." The transaction was handled by Geraldine Dillon (Dillon), a salesperson in Respondents' office, who is now retired. Because the Pattens had recently moved to Walton County from Washington State, and they were temporarily living with a relative in a mobile home, the time for closing was of the essence. Accordingly, the Pattens inserted into the contract a provision requiring that a closing be held within "30 days (more or less)." This meant that a closing should be held on or about August 10, 1996, give or take a few days. The parties acknowledge that property boundary problems were somewhat common in certain areas of Freeport, including the area where the subject property was located. To satisfy the bank and title company, a surveyor was engaged to prepare a survey of the property. However, the parties agree that the surveyor noted problems with the boundaries of the lot. When a second surveyor would not undertake the survey because of similar boundary problems, Joyce Patten, who was the principal negotiator for the couple, notified Dillon that they did not wish to close because of potential title problems and wanted a refund of their deposit. Notwithstanding this concern, Dillon advised Joyce Patten that a third surveyor would be hired, at the seller's expense, and he could "certify" the property. Although Joyce Patten expressed concern that the bank might not accept a third survey after two earlier ones had failed, and she did not want to pay for another survey, she did not instruct Dillon to stop the process. Accordingly, Dillon engaged the services of Tommy Jenkins, a local surveyor, to perform another survey. After a certified survey was obtained by Jenkins on August 12, 1996, which Respondents represent without contradiction satisfied the lender and title company, a closing was scheduled within the next few days. This closing date generally conformed to the requirement that a closing be held by August 10, 1996, "more or less." The seller, who by now had relocated to California, flew to Florida for the closing, and the title company prepared a closing statement and package. Just before the closing, however, Respondents learned through a representative of the title company that the Pattens were "cancelling the closing," apparently in violation of the contract. Shortly after the aborted closing, Joyce Patten requested that Dillon return their deposit. By this time, the Pattens had already entered into a second contract to buy another home in the same area and closed on that property before the end of August. Respondents were never informed of this fact by the Pattens. On August 21, 1996, Colleen Armbruster prepared a rather lengthy letter to the Pattens (with a copy to the sellers) in which she acknowledged that they had orally requested from Dillon that their escrow deposit be returned. The letter has been received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Armbruster stated that she was "perplexed" that they were demanding a refund of their earnest money deposit, given the fact that the seller had "met the terms and conditions of the sale." Armbruster outlined the three reasons in the contract which would allow the Pattens to withdraw without forfeiting their deposit, but noted that none were applicable here. Accordingly, she advised them that the seller would be consulted as to his wishes regarding the deposit, and that the Pattens should contact her if they had any questions. Through oversight, however, she did not include a notice to the Pattens that they must respond to her letter within a stated period of time reaffirming their demand for the trust funds, or the deposit thereafter would be disbursed pursuant to the contract. By failing to include this specific language, and sending the letter by regular rather than certified mail, return receipt requested, Respondents committed a technical, albeit minor, violation of an agency rule. Even so, the Pattens acknowledged receiving the letter, and there is no reason to believe that they did not understand its import, especially the requirement that they contact the broker if they disagreed with the proposed disbursement of the money. It can be reasonably inferred that the Pattens did not respond because they "figured [they weren't] going to be able to get [their] money back" due to their failure to perform. On September 13, 1996, the seller's attorney advised the Pattens by letter that the seller considered the deposit forfeited pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of the contract, which pertains to the "Default" provisions. The Pattens never responded to either letter, and they also failed to respond to telephone calls made by Respondents or their agents regarding this matter. In view of the Pattens' lack of response or reaffirmance of their demand, and the fact that they had already closed on another property, Respondents logically and fairly assumed that the Pattens were in agreement with the disbursement procedures outlined in Coleen Armbruster's letter of August 21. Accordingly, on September 17, 1996, Edward Armbruster, who had not been involved in this transaction to date, in good faith signed two disbursement checks giving $697.50 to the seller and retaining the balance for his firm. This division was consistent with the terms of the contract. In making this disbursement, there was no intent on the part of Respondents to trick, deceive, breach their trust, or in any way unlawfully deprive the Pattens of their deposit. Respondents did not notify the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) that they had received conflicting demands for a deposit, nor institute any other procedures regarding the deposit, since they no longer had any good faith doubt as to whom was entitled to their trust funds. This was because the Pattens had failed to respond to letters and telephone calls regarding the sellers' claim to the deposit. There is no evidence that Respondents have ever been the subject of prior disciplinary action during their lengthy tenure as licensees. At the same time, it is noted that Respondents acted in good faith throughout the process and genuinely believed that there was no dispute. It should also be recognized that, for at least part of the time, the Pattens were working two contracts simultaneously without advising the realtors.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of a technical violation of Rule 61J2-10.032(1), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and that they be given a reprimand. All other charges should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Christine M. Ryall, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Edward D. Armbruster Colleen M. Armbruster Post Office Box 635 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Louis M. Loguercio (Respondent) was licensed in the State of Florida as a real estate salesperson, having been issued license number 0609113. From March 11, 1996, through July 13, 1997, Respondent was a salesperson for CMT Holding Ltd., a partnership trading as The Prudential Florida Realty. Martha Meloni and her husband, Mario Meloni, (Sellers) owned residential property located at 6412 Southwest 127 Court, Miami, Florida. The Sellers' property was listed for sale with Jorge "Ivan" Salomon, a broker operating his own company, Real One Realty Corporation. On May 1, 1997, Carlos Castellanos and his wife, Daritza Jiminez, a/k/a Daritza Jiminez-Castellanos, (Buyers) met Respondent at his office at The Prudential Florida Realty. They were referred to Respondent by one of his clients. The Buyers were from Venezuela and had had no contact with Respondent prior to this transaction. On May 1, 1997, Respondent prepared a draft Residential Sale and Purchase Contract (Contract) for the purchase of the Sellers' property for $150,000 by the Buyers. Respondent drafted the Contract on behalf of the Buyers and prepared the contract while the Buyers were in his office. The terms of the Contract required an initial deposit of $2,000 from the Buyers to be held in escrow by Steven Greenspan Law Office, as "Escrow Agent." The Contract also required a $13,000 additional deposit to be made within ten (10) days of the date of the Contract. While the Buyers were in Respondent's office, they wrote two checks, and signed them, for deposits on the property: one for $2,000 dated May 1, 1997, and one for $13,000 dated May 15, 1997. The checks were made payable to Alan Greenspan, P.A. The Buyers wrote both checks with Respondent's assistance. The Buyers wanted to personally take the $2,000 deposit check to Alan Greenspan, the escrow agent. The Buyers permitted Respondent to photocopy the checks while they were in Respondent's office. Once the checks were photocopied, Respondent returned the checks to the Buyers. Respondent advised the Buyers to deliver the $2,000 check to the escrow agent that day and to mail the second check by the due date. Mr. Greenspan's office was in the same building as the mortgage company that the Buyers were using for the purchase of the property. His office was also in close proximity to Respondent's office. The Buyers failed to deliver the $2,000 deposit check to Mr. Greenspan on May 1, 1997. Respondent did not know that the check had not been given to Mr. Greenspan by the Buyers. Mr. Greenspan received a copy of the Contract. He did not contact any of the parties to the Contract regarding the escrow monies. As an escrow agent, Mr. Greenspan's office handles a large volume of closings and it is possible, according to him, that his staff assumed that the escrow monies had been received. No one in Mr. Greenspan's office verified that the monies had been received. Prior to the due date for the payment of the second deposit of $13,000, Respondent contacted the Sellers' listing agent, Mr. Salomon, and informed him that the Buyers were having problems paying the second deposit. Shortly after the due date for the payment of the second deposit, Mr. Salomon contacted Respondent, who informed Mr. Salomon that the Buyers had the money. Respondent also faxed Mr. Salomon a copy of the two checks for the two deposits, which were written on May 1, 1997. Mr. Salomon faxed a copy of those checks to the Sellers. Respondent did not inform Mr. Salomon that the Buyers had not given the deposit checks to him. Unbeknownst to Respondent, the Buyers had also failed to mail the second deposit of $13,000 to Mr. Greenspan. Mr. Salomon, having received the fax copy of the checks, assumed that the escrow agent had the Buyers' deposits. The Sellers, having received the fax copy of the checks, assumed also that the escrow agent had the Buyers' deposits. Mr. Greenspan became aware that his office did not have the Buyers' deposits in escrow when the mortgage company requested that he provide an escrow letter. He contacted the Sellers' attorney, who faxed a copy of the Buyers' checks. At that time, Mr. Greenspan became concerned regarding the Contract because the Contract made it appear that he, as the escrow agent, had deposits that he did not have. Mr. Greenspan contacted Respondent regarding the absence of the escrow deposits. Respondent was apologetic and responded to Mr. Greenspan that he (Respondent) was sorry that the Buyers had not given him (Mr. Greenspan) the deposits as they had indicated that they would do. After being contacted by Mr. Greenspan, Respondent attempted to contact the Buyers. He was unsuccessful. The Sellers did not become aware that none of the deposits were in escrow until the day before the scheduled closing on the property. In the manner in which Respondent handled the Buyers' deposits, he failed to follow office policy and practice of The Prudential Florida Realty. According to the office policy and practice, the sales associate handling the transaction has the duty to ensure that the buyer's deposit(s) are deposited with the designated person or entity at the designated time or date. Respondent also failed to advise the Sellers' agent, Mr. Salomon, or the escrow agent, Mr. Greenspan, the Sellers' attorney, or the Sellers that the Buyers had not given him any deposits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Louis M. Loguercio. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 April, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Louis S. Wooten, Sr. is a registered real estate broker holding license No. 0098381. Louis S. Wooten, Sr. did business at the times involved in the administrative complaint as Lou Wooten Realty. Adequate notice of this hearing was given Louis S Wooten, Sr. in the manner required by Chapter 120 and Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Evidence was received concerning deposits and withdrawals by Louis S. Wooten, Sr. from the Louis S. Wooten, Sr. escrow account in Peoples First National Bank, Miami Shores, Florida, between August 1, 1975 and November 10, 1975, when this account was closed. These records were identified by John Fortnash, vice president of the bank. These records included the ledger for this account from May, 1975 to November, 1975, (Exhibit 1), the ledger from November, 1975, until November 1976, (Exhibit 2), the signature card showing Louis S. Wooten to be the only person authorized to draw on the account, (Exhibit 3), and sixteen (16) individual deposit slips received as Composite Exhibit 4. These records show no activity in the account subsequent to December 23, 1975, when this account had a balance of $22.00. Thereafter, the balance of this account decreased by $2.00 per month, a service charge, until November 10, 1976, when the balance reached zero and the account was closed. Concerning Count 1, Yvard Jeune and Rosita Jeune contracted on or about September 26, 1975, to purchase certain real property from Eddie Silver for $28,500. The Jeunes paid $100 as an initial deposit to Lou Wooten, Sr., and agreed to pay an additional $1,900 for a total deposit of $2,000. This additional $1,900 was paid to Lou Wooten Realty by manager's check on or about September 30, 1975. This manager's check was identified by Barry Eber, chief savings and loan officer for First Savings and Loan of Miami, and received as Exhibit 5. The Jeune contract was contingent upon FHA financing for the Jeunes. FHA financing was not approved, and the Jeunes requested return of their $2,000 in accordance with the terms of the contract. The Jeunes never received their money from Louis S. Wooten, even though they eventually brought suit against Wooten and obtained a judgment against him. The records of Wooten's escrow account do not show the deposit of the $1,900 received from the Jeunes. Regarding Count 2, on or about October 19, 1975, Emma Crockett made an offer to purchase certain real property and paid an earnest money deposit to Lou Wooten Realty in the amount of $1,000 which was receipted for by Mollie Johnson. Mollie Johnson identified the receipt signed by her and testified that this money was duly delivered to Lou Wooten. Subsequently, Crockett's offer of $29,500 was rejected by the seller, and on December 24, 1975, a demand was made for return of the deposit. The cancellation mark on the check, identified by Crockett and received as Exhibit 24, indicates that it was received by Wooten Realty. Crockett's deposit was never returned to her by Wooten. As noted above, the Lou Wooten escrow account was closed with a zero balance. Regarding Count 3, George D. Pratt, Jr. and his wife, Eloise, contracted to purchase certain real property from Gladys P. Smith on or about December 5, 1975. The Pratts paid an initial deposit of $100 to T.F. Chambers and subsequently paid an additional $665 in the form of a manager's check to Lou Wooten Realty. This manager's check was identified by Barry Eber, chief savings and loan officer, First Federal Savings and Loan of Miami, and received as Exhibit 6. Harriet Pooley, an employee of Lou Wooten Realty, identified a receipt to George D. Pratt, Jr. and Eloise in the amount of $665 which was received as Exhibit 18. A review of the ledgers of the Louis S. Wooten, Sr. escrow account indicates no deposits were made to this account subsequent to November 26, 1975. Regarding Count 4, Bettye Green paid Lou Wooten Realty a deposit of $150 on a transaction in which she and her husband offered to purchase real property owned by the Fidlers. The Greens defaulted on the contract, and were advised by their salesman, T.F. Chambers, that their deposit would be forfeited. No evidence was introduced by the Florida Real Estate Commission regarding any demand on the Fidler's behalf for the money. Regarding Count 5, Mary Redfield, a friend and representative of Goldie Brown and Bernard Brown, identified a copy of a manager's check earlier identified by Barry Eber, chief loan officer of First Federal Savings and Loan of Miami and received as Exhibit 7, as a copy of an original check for $1,500 given to her by Goldie Brown which was deposited to Wooten's escrow account. Redfield also identified a contract, Exhibit 16, and a closing statement, Exhibit 17, as documents given to her by Goldie Brown. T.F. Chambers was the salesman who handled this contract. Chambers appeared at closing, after having purchased Lou Wooten Realty from Louis S. Wooten, Sr.Chambers stated that the Wooten escrow account lacked sufficient funds to permit closing the transaction and that he had personally paid for a cashiers check in the amount of $680, the amount necessary to close the purchase. Chambers identified this check which, as a part of Exhibit 21, was received into evidence. Regarding Count 6, Alladar Paczier, counsel for Istvan and Julia Beres, identified a deposit receipt contract for a bar and restaurant (Exhibit 26) and a receipt for a $3,500 deposit signed by Louis Wooten (Exhibit 27). Paczier represented that Wooten failed to produce the deposit money at closing, and that when demand was made by Paczier of Wooten for the deposit, Wooten stated to him that he did not have the money.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission revoke the registration of Louis S. Wooten, Sr. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Doherty, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Louis S. Wooten, Sr. 743 Fairlawn Drive Sebring, Florida 33870
The Issue The issues presented herein are whether or not the Respondent, Maria M. Drummond Mulgrave, failed to account and deliver monies received in a trust or escrow bank account monies received as a deposit for realty in a real estate transaction in violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and by reason thereof, Respondent engaged in acts and/or conduct amounting to fraud, is representation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. During times material herein, Respondent, Maria M. Drummond Mulgrave, was a licensed real estate salesperson and has been issued license number 0396817. Respondent's last issued license was as a salesperson and she worked through the entity, Welsh International Realty, Inc., 4684 NW 183 Street, Miami, Florida 33155. Respondent, in her capacity as a salesperson, on January 31, 1984, was the selling agent who executed a purchase, sales contract and receipt for deposit for purchasers Michael A. and Marjorie Bucknor for a residence situated at 240 NW 203 Terrace, Miami, Florida. The seller of that property was Equitable Relocation Management Corporation (Equitable). Equitable executed the sales contraction February 7, 1984. On January 31, 1984, Respondent Mulgrave received in trust a $1,000 earnest money deposit which was held in an escrow account by her broker, Welsh International Realty, Inc. In connection with the January 31, 1984 sales contract, the purchasers were to tender to the Respondent an additional $6,500 deposit within 5 days of acceptance by the seller or, in this case, on February 12, 1984, inasmuch as Equitable approved and executed the sales contract on February 7, 1984. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2) 3/ Petitioner has alleged that the listing agency, Associates Realty Company (Associates), requested from the Respondent on March 11 and March 19, 1984, an escrow letter verifying that the additional escrow deposits had, in fact, been made. It is also alleged that the Respondent verbally assured Associates that the entire deposit of $7,500 was in escrow and that the sale would close, but Respondent did not then provide Associates the promised escrow letter. It is also alleged that Associates relied upon Respondent's statements that the deposit was in escrow and that it was not until approximately April 17, 1984 that Respondent admitted to Associates Realty that only $1,000 was in escrow. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) As stated, Respondent Oswald S. Welsh entered into a stipulated settlement and is no longer a Respondent in these proceedings. Sometime following the execution of the sales/deposit receipt contract by the Bucknors and the sellers, Equitable Relocation Management Corporation, by its agent Claire Smith, Respondent Mulgrave left the Miami area and gave the pending sales contracts to her sponsoring broker, Oswald S. Welsh. Marcia Mize was, during times material herein, the processing supervisor for the listing agency, Associates Realty. Once Ms. Mize began processing the Bucknor contract, she commenced making inquiries from Welsh International Realty, Inc. trying to get the needed verifications of income, etc. to the mortgage company such that the purchasers could be processed and a commitment letter issued. Ms. Mize made several oral requests of Welsh International Realty for verification of the escrow deposits from approximately February 7, 1984 through March 9, 1984. On March 17, 1984, Ms. Mize learned (from Respondent) that Welsh Realty only had $1,000 in escrow. Oswald S. Welsh, the broker for Welsh International Realty, Inc., by letter dated January 31, 1984, advised Associates Realty that Welsh was holding $1,000 in escrow from the Bucknors toward the purchase of the subject property. Marcia Mize was unsure if Respondent Mulgrave advised her that she had the additional $6,500 in deposits. Ms. Mize testified that she spoke with several secretaries employed by Welsh International Realty but she was unable to verify that she determined that it was Respondent Mulgrave who advised that the additional $6,500 deposit was in escrow with Welsh International Realty, Inc. Respondent Mulgrave later determined that the Bucknors were having marital and financial problems and, as a result, were unable to close on the transaction as agreed in the purchase/sales contract. Respondent Mulgrave denies that she, at any time, advised Marcia Mize of Associates Realty that she had the $6,500 which represented the balance of the remainder of the downpayment by the Bucknors in the purchase of the residence from Equitable. Respondent Mulgrave turned this transaction over to her sponsoring broker, Oswald S. Welsh when she had to leave the Miami area to attend to some pending family business. The Bucknors did not give Welsh International Realty, Inc. the remaining $6,500 escrow deposit which represented the remainder of their downpayment toward the purchase of the subject residence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the administrative complaint filed herein against Respondent, Maria M. Drummond Mulgrave, be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1985.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent McVety was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license numbers 0461636 and 0258678. On January 1, 1989, the Respondent purchased the company Realty Services of Southwest Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation. One of the services provided by the corporation was property management. Rents and security deposits were collected from tenants of residential leases on behalf of property owners. In some cases, Respondent McVety was acting as an agent on behalf of property owners through the corporation. In other cases, Respondent McVety or the corporation was the actual property owner. When Respondent McVety took over the management of the corporation after his stock purchase, he noticed that the escrow account into which security deposits were placed, was a non-interest bearing account. On January 23, 1989, the escrow account was changed by the Respondent from an non-interest bearing escrow account to an interest bearing account. The tenants were not notified that their security deposits were now bearing interest. On March 17, 1989, a routine audit was conducted of the Respondent's escrow accounts. During the audit, it was discovered that one hundred and seventeen of the one hundred and thirty leases stated that the security deposits were being held in an non-interest bearing account. The leases which stated that the deposits were in an interest bearing account were signed after the Respondent purchased the corporation. The one hundred and seventeen leases with a non-interest bearing escrow were signed by the tenants prior to the stock transfer. There were no allegations that interest had actually been paid by the bank on the escrow account or that there had been any failure by the Respondent to account for the interest to the tenants, the actual owners of the funds. In mitigation, the Respondent stated that once he was made aware of the problems and truly understood the Department's concerns, a letter was sent to each tenant explaining the placement of the security deposits into an interest bearing escrow account on January 23, 1989. These letters were sent on April 3, 1989. In addition, a new real estate lease was prepared on behalf of the corporation by an attorney. The purpose of the new lease was to explicitly state the rights and responsibilities of the parties regarding the interest on these accounts. In this case, no one was cheated, no secret commissions were earned, and the sums in question were trifling.
Recommendation Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent McVety be found guilty of having violated Rule 21V- 14.014, Florida Administrative Code, and is therefore in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. This violation was originally Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Counts I and II, having been withdrawn, are dismissed. That the Respondent McVety be issued a written reprimand as the penalty for the one violation. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Copies furnished: John R. Alexander, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 John A. McVety 3120 Grand Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 30th day of January, 1990. Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondents' license as real estate brokers in the state of Florida should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined based upon the allegations of misconduct in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Deering, was licensed as a real estate broker in the state of Florida, having been issued license number 0563366. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Advantage, was licensed as a real estate broker, having been issued license number 0273342. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Deering, was licensed and operating as the qualifying broker for Respondent, Advantage. On October 22, 1992, Petitioner conducted an office inspection and audit of Advantage. The audit reflected what appeared to be a shortage in Advantage's security deposit escrow account (Number 027000122700) in the amount of $580.00, calculated as $6,600.00 in total trust liability, but only $6,020.00 as a reconciled bank balance. The audit also reflected what appeared to be a shortage in Advantage's rental distribution escrow account (Number 27000121900) in the amount of $369.40, calculated as $3,174.82 in total trust liability, but only $2,805.42 as reconciled bank balance. The audit also reflected that Deering, as the qualifying broker, failed to sign and properly reconcile Advantage's escrow accounts by comparing the total trust liability with the reconciled bank balance of the escrow accounts for the months of September and October, 1992. Marie Deering, Respondent, Deering's, wife and a corporate officer of Respondent, Advantage, signed the reconciliation form for the months of September and October, 1992. It appears from the record (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Respondents' Licensure file) that Roger J. Kathman was the Broker of Record for Respondent, Advantage until August 21, 1992, when he resigned. Apparently, part of the problem stemmed from using a form developed by the previous real estate agency which was not the form suggested by the Petitioner for this purpose. Since being advised about the form and that comparing the total trust liability of each escrow account with the reconciled the bank balance of each escrow account and signing the reconciliation form was the responsibility of the broker of record, Deering has been properly fulfilling that responsibility and reporting on the correct form. The total trust liability of Advantage's security deposit escrow account should have been $5,700.00 rather than the $6,600.00 indicated by the audit because the $900.00 included in the audit figure from the San Juan lease should not have been included since this amount was not to be escrowed pursuant to the lease. This was a verbal agreement between the parties that was later executed as an addendum to the lease. Advantage's reconciled bank balance for the security deposit escrow account should also be $5,700.00, calculated as $6,020.00 reflected in the audit, minus $1,000.00 that was erroneously disbursed from the Rental distribution escrow account (also called the property management escrow account) instead of the security deposit escrow account , plus $680.00 that was erroneously deposited into the rental distribution escrow account instead of the security deposit escrow account ( $6,020.00 - $1,000.00 + $680.00 = $5,700.00). The total trust fund liability of the rental distribution escrow account should be $3,175.42, calculated as $3,174.82 as reflected in audit plus $0.60 to correct bookkeeping error ($3,174.82 + $0.60 = $3,175.42). The reconciled bank balance for the rental distribution escrow account should be $3,175.42, calculated as $2,805.42 reflected in the audit, plus $1,000.00 transferred from the security deposit escrow account as reflected in Finding of Fact 8, minus $680.00 transferred to the security deposit escrow account as reflected in Finding of Fact 8, plus a deposit of $50.00 to correct an error made in crediting a tenant account with $50.00 more than was deposited from tenant ($2,805.42 + $1,000.00 - $680.00 + $50.00 = $3,175.42). Although there were clerical or bookkeeping errors made in the handling of Advantage's escrow accounts, there was no evidence that Deering failed to immediately deposit funds received in trust in an escrow account, albeit not always the correct one. After the audit, Respondent, Deering promptly and properly corrected the escrow accounts and accounted for the funds resulting in balanced escrow accounts. While the Respondents were negligent in the handling of the escrow accounts, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Respondents were culpably negligent or that there was a breach of trust. The Respondents' license as real estate brokers in the state of Florida has never been disciplined.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent Deering and Respondent Advantage guilty of technical violations of Section 475.25(1)(e) and (k), Florida Statutes. For such violations, Respondent Advantage should be given a written reprimand and Respondent Deering should be given a written reprimand and required to complete a 30-hour broker management course. Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. In making this recommendation, consideration has been given to the mitigating factors in relation to the disciplinary guidelines set out in Chapter 21V-24, Florida Administrative Code. Also, taken into consideration was the purpose of regulating any profession, the protection of the public by requiring compliance with those laws governing the profession. In this case, the recommended penalties will serve that purpose, the public has not been harmed, compliance has been accomplished and the penalty sufficient to remind the Respondents to be more diligent in the future. Adding any further penalty, including an administrative fine, would be unduly punitive. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 12th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0606 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 in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Unnecessary. 2.-12. Adopted in substance as modified by Findings of Fact 1 through 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 4, 5 and 8 through 13. Adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Hurston North Tower #308A 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Albert R. Deering, Pro se c/o Advantage Realty of Sarasota, Inc. t/a Century 21 Advantage 4121 Bee Ridge Road Sarasota, Florida 34233 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1900
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the violations alleged and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating real estate licensees. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Harold E. Hicks, was licensed as a real estate broker, license number 0136248. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Mr. Hicks was the qualifying broker for the Respondent corporation, Service First Realty, Inc. (the corporation), whose address is 9715 N. W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33147. The Respondent corporation holds license number 0223295. Mr. Hicks was responsible for the day-to-day business operations of the corporation. Mr. Hicks was responsible for the financial records kept and maintained by the corporation. All financial records at issue in this proceedings were in the name of the corporation. In 1996, an investigator employed by the Petitioner, Kenneth G. Rehm, attempted to conduct an audit of the Respondents' financial records. This audit was in response to a complaint not at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Rehm went to the Respondents' place of business and asked for the financial records for all real estate accounts. Mr. Hicks provided the investigator with records which established a negative escrow bank balance of $761.00. Moreover, there was no monthly reconciliation for the escrow account. Based upon the bookkeeping method used, the Respondents' records did not show how much money was being held in trust for individual clients. Respondents pooled money for different rental properties into one escrow account without establishing that they maintained accurate ledger balances per client. When Mr. Rehm was unable to reconcile the accounts, he elected to offer Respondents additional time to gather the records and to prepare for a complete audit. Such audit was assigned to Petitioner's investigator, Roberto Castro. Mr. Castro attempted to complete the follow-up audit of Respondents' financial records on February 13, 1996. Once again, the audit was hampered due to the lack of escrow account records. Based upon the records that were provided by Respondents, Mr. Castro computed that Respondents had $3,922.45 in outstanding checks from the rental distribution trust account but only $2,241.58 in the account. This calculation resulted in a shortage of $1,680.87. Mr. Castro also determined that Respondents were not completing monthly escrow account reconciliations in accordance with the rule promulgated by the Florida Real Estate Commission. On May 3, 1996, Respondents were served with a subpoena to provide Mr. Castro with all escrow records from February 1995 to February 1996. Respondents did not respond to the subpoena. As of the date of hearing, Respondents have not shown monthly escrow account reconciliations in accordance with the rule promulgated by the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding the Respondents guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b), (e), and (k), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00. It is further recommended that the Commission suspend Respondents' licenses until the Respondent Hicks has completed a seven-hour course in real estate escrow management and that such suspension be followed by a probationary period with monitoring of the Respondents' financial records to assure compliance with all Commission rules. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Harold E. Hicks, pro se Service First Realty, Inc. 9715 Northwest 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the charges brought against the Respondent, Jimmy D. Hill, he was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0144888. On June 20, 1983, a contract for the purchase of Unit 219 in Polynesian Village in Bay County, Florida, was signed by Margaret Gorshi and Glenn Coker. The buyers paid a total of $3,000 as an earnest money deposit which the Respondent deposited into his escrow account at Bay Bank and Trust Company in Panama City. This real estate transaction was subject to the buyers obtaining 90 percent financing, and it was scheduled to close on or before September 15, 1983. The transaction did not close because the buyers were not able to obtain the necessary financing, and in September of 1984 the buyers requested that their earnest money deposit be returned. On September 27, 1984, the Respondent's office manager forwarded a check for $3,000 dated September 24, 1984, to the buyers. This check was drawn on the Respondent's escrow account at Bay Bank and Trust Company in Panama City. This check was presented for payment in November of 1984, but it was not paid by the bank, and was returned because of insufficient funds in the Respondent's escrow account. The Respondent's escrow account was closed in July of 1985 without this check having been honored. Sometime prior to the issuance of the check to refund the buyer's deposit, another check in the amount of $5,400 was cashed at Bay Bank and Trust Company, drawn on the Respondent's business checking account at First National Bank. When this check was not honored by First National Bank due to insufficient funds, it was returned to Bay Bank and Trust Company. Upon receipt of this dishonored check, Bay Bank and Trust Company departed from its standard banking policy by charging the full amount thereof against the Respondent's trust or escrow account. As a result, the Respondent's escrow account became out of balance by $5,400. The Respondent's escrow account balance was at least $3,000 from June, 1983, through July, 1984. This balance was $1,600 on August 31, 1984; $1,600 on September 30, 1984; $600 on October 31, 1984; and from November 1984, through July, 1985, when the account was closed, the escrow account balance was $585. Without the unauthorized debit of $5,400, the balance was sufficient to enable the refund check to the buyers in the amount of $3,000 to clear. Although the Bay Bank and Trust Company issued a debit memo reflecting the charge of $5,400 to the Respondent's escrow account, the Respondent did not receive it. He testified that it must have been intercepted or diverted from him, by office personnel. The Respondent learned that his $3,000 check to the buyers had bounced in November or December, 1984. On February 25, 1985, the Respondent issued a replacement check for $3,000 to purchase a cashier's check which he intended to forward to the buyers. This check was given to an office employee to purchase the cashier's check, but the employee did not do so. Approximately three months later, in May of 1985, the Respondent was notified by an attorney for the buyers that they had not received the refund. The buyers had retained this attorney to obtain their refund from the Respondent, and after two or three discussions with the attorney, the Respondent finally forwarded his check for $3,400 plus, to counsel for the buyers in August of 1985. Although the Respondent's first refund check was caused to bounce by the bank's unauthorized charge of another check to his escrow account, the Respondent was negligent in not reviewing his escrow account statements so as to be informed of the bank's charge to his escrow account. The Respondent also failed to follow-up to assure that the buyers received the first replacement check when it was written in February, 1985. He did not regularly review the balances in his escrow account monthly after July of 1984, and only when he was contacted by the Real Estate Commission's investigator did he perform a thorough reconciliation of his escrow account in July, 1985. The Respondent also failed to supervise his employees and establish policies pertaining to review and verification of the balances in his escrow account.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Jimmy D. Hill, trading as Jim Hill Associates, be assessed an administrative fine of $1,000. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 25th day of September, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-1067 Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate vs. Jimmy D. Hill, t/a Jim Hill Associates Case No. 86-1067 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-10. Accepted. 11. Rejected because not a factual finding. 12-17. Accepted. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: (Paragraphs not numbered, but referred to in order.) Accepted. First sentence accepted. Second, third and fourth sentences rejected as not supported by corroborating evidence and thus are self-serving. Fifth, sixth and seventh sentences accepted. First sentence accepted. Second and third sentences rejected as not supported by corroborative evidence and thus are self-serving. Accepted. Accepted. First sentence accepted. Second and third sentences rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Michael C. Overstreet, Esquire 225 McKenzie Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings S. Benton, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
