Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of investigating and processing applications for licensure of real estate salesmen in the State of Florida. On February 20, 1989, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent seeking licensure in the State of Florida as a real estate salesman. Question 7 of the application form required Petitioner to disclose whether he had ever been convicted of a crime, had been found guilty of a crime, or had entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a crime. The question explicitly applied to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (except parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether the applicant had been placed on probation, had had adjudication withheld, had been paroled, or had been pardoned. Petitioner disclosed the following violations of law in his handwritten response to Question 7: In 1985, attempted possession of cocaine less than 1 gram for which he received 60 days probation; In 1985, disorderly intoxication for which he received three months probation; In 1985, speeding for which he received a fine; In 1985, vandalism for which no disposition was shown; In 1986, violation of probation for which no disposition was shown, and In 1986, possession of a stolen automobile tag for which he received two years probation. Petitioner failed to disclose the following violations of law in his response to question 7: In 1977, sexual battery for which he was placed on five years probation; In 1980, violation of probation; and In 1980, driving under the influence of alcohol for which he received six months probation and a fine of $100. Petitioner knew that he had committed the undisclosed offenses and he knew that he had not listed the undisclosed offenses in response to question 7. Petitioner could not justify his failure to list the undisclosed violations in his response to question 7. Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application was based on the violations of law disclosed by Petitioner, on the violations of law Petitioner failed to disclose, and on the failure of Petitioner to disclose violations of law. Following the denial of his application, Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing. This proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order which denies Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3180 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact contained in the Proposed Recommended Order submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact of paragraphs 1-3 are accepted. The proposed findings of fact of paragraph 4 that the charge of sexual battery was reduced to attempted sexual battery is rejected because there was no evidence that the charge was reduced. The remaining proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are accepted. The proposed findings in paragraph 5 are rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of paragraph 6 are accepted as part of the Preliminary Statement of the Recommended Order, but they are rejected as findings of fact as being unnecessary to the result reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack P. Hardin 722 Fernwood Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 32801 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 212, 400 West Robinson Orlando, Florida 33405 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, William J. Windsor, should have his real estate license no. 0158593 revoked or suspended, or otherwise subject to discipline, for the answers given to question six in the application of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, for registration as a real estate salesman filed with the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, which answer allegedly caused the Respondent, William J. Windsor, to obtain his registration by means of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment, in violation of 475.25(2), F.S.; and further for allegedly failing to fully and accurately answer inquires pertinent to his qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, good character and good reputation for fair dealing as propounded, and is required by 475.17 and 475.18, F.S. and would therefore be guilty of violations of 475.25(1)(d), F.S. Whether or not the Respondent, William J. Windsor, should have his real estate license no. 0158593 revoked or suspended, or otherwise subject to discipline, for the answers given to question 15(a) in the application of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, for registration as a real estate salesman filed with the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, which answer allegedly caused the Respondent, William J. Windsor, to obtain his registration by means of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment, in violation of 475.25(2), F.S.; and further for allegedly failing to fully and accurately answer inquires pertinent to his qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, good character and good reputation for fair dealing as propounded, and is required by and 475.18, F.S. and would therefore be guilty of violations of 475.25(1)(d) , F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, William J. Windsor, is now and at all times material to the complaint was a registered real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission and is and was so operating and registered in the employ of Watson Corporation of Jacksonville, 6206 Atlantic Boulevard, Jacksonville Florida. The application of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, for registration as a real estate salesman was subscribed and sworn to on January 14, 1976, and filed with the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 15, 1976. The Florida Real Estate Commission approved the application for William J. Windsor to become a real estate salesman on February 3, 1976. The application for registration as a real estate salesman contained within it a question no. 6 which provides as follows: "6. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation, including traffic offences (but not parking, speeding, inspection or signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled?" The Respondent, William J. Windsor, answered this question no.6 in the negative by placing the word "no" in the space provided. At the time of the execution of this application, the Respondent, William J. Windsor, knew or should have known that his answer to question six was false and untrue since he had failed to disclose and explain certain charges and arrests. The first matter was an arrest on September 11, 1973, by the Sheriff's office of St. Johns County, Florida under dockets no. 73-626, 73-626A and 73- 626B, three charges of the offense of "issuing a worthless check". The Respondent, William J. Windsor, also failed to reveal an arrest of October l8, 1973, by the Sheriff's office, St. Johns County, Florida, case no. 121992, on a charge of "contempt of court". The Respondent, William J. Windsor, did not reveal an arrest on October 19, 1973, by the Sheriff's Office, Polk County, Florida, on charges of "embezzlement-misapplication of funds, making false reports and furnishing false statements". The Respondent, William J. Windsor, failed to reveal in his answer to question six, that an order was entered which withheld the adjudication of guilt and placed the Respondent, William J. Windsor, on probation for a period of five (5) years', and an order of restitution after he had entered a plea of nolle contendre to the offense of misapplication of funds (five counts), case no. CF-73-2357, Circuit Court, Florida, May 1, 1974, in the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County. This plea was entered as an agent, officer, an employee of Mar-Bil Enterprises, Inc. The probation that was received was modified by orders of the committing court and a copy of those orders, whose contents are admitted as fact, may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits #1 & #2. In the subject application for registration as a real estate salesman, William J. Windsor, the Respondent, answered a question no. 15(a) which question provided as follows: "15(a). Has any license, registration, or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation or vocation been revoked, annulled or suspended in this or any other state, province, district, territory, procession or nation, upon grounds of fraudulent or dishonest dealing or violations of law, or is any proceeding now pending?" The Respondent, William J. Windsor, answered this question 15(a) with the word "no", inserted in the place provided for response. At the time the Respondent, William J. Windsor, gave the answer to question 15(a), he knew or should have known that the answer was false and untrue since he had failed to reveal, disclose and fully explain the revocation of his contractor's license (RG- 00l2898) on January 8, 1975, by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Respondent-licensee, William J. Windsor, having pled guilty to eleven (11) charges of violation of 468.112, F.S., at a formal hearing held on December 20, 1974, Hillsborough County Courthouse, Tampa, Florida. A copy of the notice of revocation of the Respondents license held with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, is Petitioner's Exhibit #3, admitted into evidence and accepted as fact. The date of this letter of notification is January 29, 1975. The Respondent, William J. Windsor, tried to explain his failure to answer questions 6 and 15(a) above, by stating that he had made numerous inquires of the Florida Real Estate Commission about the possibility of being granted a real estate salesman's license in view of his plea of nolle contendre and probation for the aforementioned offenses. The summary of the contact with the Florida Real Estate Commission, put concisely, would be that the Real Estate Commission did not foreclose the possibility of the Respondent being granted a real estate salesman's license; however, no one in the Florida Real Estate Commission office indicated that the Respondent would not be required to answer questions 6 and 15(a) completely. Respondent's Exhibit #1 is a copy of a letter of May 30, 1975, from the probation officer of the Respondent, addressed to the Florida Real Estate Commission This letter concerns the possibility of Respondent, William J. Windsor, obtaining a real estate salesman's license, and is a part of the contact which the Respondent had with the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation It is recommended that the registration of the Respondent, William J. Windsor, as a real estate salesman, license no. 0158593, be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William J. Windsor c/o Warson Corporation of Jacksonville 6206 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida Joseph C. Black, Esquire 1106 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue in this case involves the administrative charge which has been placed by the Florida Real Estate Commission in the person of Harold T. Mooney, against one Claude Talmadge Bray who is registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker. The charging document which is drawn in the form of an information, says in pertinent part: COUNT ONE "(1) That the defendant did, on or about May 21, 1974, file his sworn application for registration as a real estate broker with the Florida Real Estate Commission on a form provided by said Commission. Question 16(a) of the application read as follows: 16(a) Have you served an apprenticeship as a real estate salesman with a registered real estate broker in the State of Florida for the 12 consecutive months within 5 years next prior to the date of this application? If yes, who was the registered broker and what is his business adress? The defendant answered "yes" to the first part of the above question and "Tony Vaughan - Monteverde, Florida" to the second part of such question on his said application for registration. That thereafter the application of defendant, Claude Talmadge Bray, was approved and he subsequently received his registration as a real estate broker, being initially registered as1 such with the Commission on or about September 18, 1974. That, at the time of the execution of the application as aforesaid, the defendant knew or should have known that his answers to question numbered 16(a) thereof were false and untrue in that: From September 10, 1971, to June 30, 1974, inclusive, defendant Claude Talmadge Bray was a full-time employee of Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc., a construction company with offices at 3744 North 40th Street, Tampa, Florida 33610. While the defendant did register with the Commission as a real estate salesman employed by Lester Tony Vaughan, a registered real estate broker whose last business address is registered with the Commission as Division Street, Monteverde, Florida, 32756, said registration was effected solely for the purpose of attempting to show to the Commission that the defendant wads in compliance with the apprenticeship requirements of Subsection 475.17(3), Florida Statutes; but that, in truth and fact, the defendant Claude Talmadge Bray had served no apprenticeship as required by, and within the intent and meaning of said Subsection 475.17(3), Florida Statutes, with the said Lester Tony Vaughan or any other registered real estate broker, and that the defendant, during said period of purported apprenticeship, had not handled any real estate transactions participated in any closings or received any instructions from, for or on behalf of the said Lester Tony Vaughan, Registered Broker. That by reason therof, it appears that the defendant1 Claude Talmadge Bray, does not possess the necessary qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trust worthiness and good character as required by Subsection 475.17(1), Florida Statutes; has been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretenses, dishonest dealing and trick, scheme or device, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and that the defendant obtained his registration as a real estate broker with the Florida Real Estate Commission by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation Of Subsection 475.25(2), Florida Statutes. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Information be filed and notice of the filing thereof be given to the Defendant and that proceedings be had, all in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and if the evidence warrants, the registration of Claude Talmadge Bray be revoked." The Respondent has denied the allegations set forth in the charging document, which is entitled an information, and proceeded to a hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings in the person of the undersigned, under authority of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner presented its case on the basis of oral testimony presented at the hearing and through tangible items of evidence. The Respondent elected to present evidence in the course of the hearing, and did so through the medium of oral testimony in the course of the hearing and through tangible evidence, which was the subject of a stipulation with the Petitioner. The first witness presented by the Petitioner was Ralph J. Ramer, President of Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc. Mr. Ramer was the former employer of the Respondent, and additionally was responsible for making a complaint which led to the investigation of this case by the Petitioner. This complaint was in the form of a letter from the witness, Ramer, addressed to the Petitioner and dated July 3, 1974. A copy of this letter has been received by the hearing officer as a Joint Exhibit of the Petitioner and Respondent and Is therefore made a part of the record in this cause. Mr. Ramer indicated that he had hired the Respondent on September 10, 1971, as a salesman with the witness's then existing company, and that the Respondent had been promoted to a vice president's position in 1971 or 1972 after the incorporation of the witness's company. It was further related that the Respondent was terminated from employment by the witness on June 30, 1974. During the course of the Respondent's employment with Hallmark Leisure Homes, Mr. Bray participated in a position which had as its major function the sale of construction contracts for the purpose of building homes on real estate which was held by the purchaser. In addition, when the Respondent became Vice President he made certain connections with the bank, in that he talked with the officers of the banks relative to financing. More specifically, Bray presented sales papers to banks, he followed up on proposed financing, he attended closings of loans if necessary, he took credit statements for potential purchasers, ordered surveys, ordered titles, ordered insurance, prepared deeds, prepared mortgage documents, worked with appraisers, conducted closings and he picked up certain bank draw disbursements from the lending institutions. At these closings, as aforementioned, mortgages were signed and funds were disbursed. In relation to the question of whether or not Mr. Ramer's company and, more particularly, Mr. Bray, were involved in the active sale of real estate, he said that salesman could assist a potential customer in finding land to build houses on. Ramer also indicated that the company, Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc., had bought four lots in Ocala and had built three houses on these lots. The cause for dismissal of the Respondent, according to Mr. Ramer, was for the reasons set forth in the letter of July 3, 1974, by the witness. Ramer further elaborated that he didn't know that Lester L. Vaughan had made application for professional license to the Florida Construction Licensing Board, while Vaughan was working for Ramer. Therefore, when he found out that Bray was working full-time for the witness and at the same time helping other employees to obtain a contractor's license, which was felt to not be in the best interest of the company because it would promote competition against the company through the employee of the company, Ramer dismissed the Respondent. In response to questions concerning the existence of a certain civil suit filed by the Respondent against Mr. Ramer, the witness acknowledged such a suit, but stated that he had no sense of vendetta against the Respondent. While the Respondent was employed with Hallmark Leisure Homes, the Respondent was preparing for a real estate license exam and serving an apprenticeship according to Lester Vaughan, the younger At the same time there were negotiations with the officials at Hallmark Leisure Homes, in particular, Mr. Ramer, for the purpose of qualifying the real estate broker's license of Lester T. Vaughan in establishing a branch office at the Hallmark Leisure Homes office location on North 40th Street, Tampa, Florida. Moreover, Mr. Ramer was in favor of this arrangement and it didn't appear that these negotiations to establish such an office were in any way designed to defraud the public from Vaughan the younger's observation. When the witness, Lester Vaughan, was specifically asked questions about the nature of the sales in which the Respondent participated, he stated that the sales were not the sale of real estate per se. However, he did indicate that there was a similarity in his mind to the sale of real estate and the sale of "on your lot construction contracts", and he stated this opinion from his knowledge of the function of a real estate broker, being a real estate broker himself. As a matter of fact, the witness felt that the function performed by the Respondent, Bray, was much more detailed than the function of a real estate broker in carrying out the broker's duties. Another significant comment by the witness was his statement that the contract form used by Hallmark Leisure Homes was similar to the form utilized for real estate contracts, testifying from his knowledge. In closing, the witness testified that he and the Respondent had looked for lots to be purchased to build homes on for prospective customers, but that they were never successful in achieving such an arrangement. The Petitioner placed Lester T. Vaughan on the stand, who at the time of his testimony was also charged by the Florida Real Estate Commission in Progress Docket #2671 for Hillsborough County, with an offense relating to the apprenticeship of Claude Talmadge Bray. The witness, Lester T. Vaughan, indicated that he was not working at the time of his testimony, but he had been and office worker for a citrus company. He has been a licensed real estate broker since August of 1972; however, he has never transacted any real estate sales. The witness was shown Petitioner's Exhibits "B", "C", "D", and "E" and identified those documents. Exhibit "B" is a reference statement signed by the witness upon the request for application to be a real estate broker made by Claude Talmadge Bray before the Florida Real Estate Commission. Exhibit "C" by the Petitioner is an application for a branch office registration certificate. Petitioner's Exhibit "D" is a declaration of employment for apprenticeship purposes and Petitioner's Exhibit "E" is a statement of the. applicant's employment and apprenticeship by the witness, Lester Tony Vaughan. (All these documents are copies of the originals). Lester T. Vaughan indicated that the Respondent, Bray, had not made any real estate sales while in his employ and that the figures in the affidavit which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E", were transactions mad Respondent was working with Hallmark Leisure Homes. The witness then testified that the Respondent told him that these were sales while in the employ of Hallmark Leisure Homes and further that he, the Respondent, could use those sales as a basis for stating experience in applying for a Real Estate Broker's License, even though they were not sales of real estate. Lester T. Vaughan testified that he had not talked with Mr. Ramer about locating a branch office on North 40th Street, Tampa, Florida, at the business of Hallmark Leisure Homes, but to his knowledge Mr. Ramer had never voiced any objection to such a branch office at that location. Lester T. Vaughan stated that he had never examined the contract forms or the closing statements utilized by Hallmark Leisure Homes. He had however talked with the Respondent 4 or 5 times in Tampa and several times at his, the witness's home address, about real estate related matters. At the close of the Petitioner's case, the Petitioner offered into evidence Exhibits "A" - "E", all of which have been particularly described, in the course of the findings of fact, with the exception of Exhibit "A" for identification, which is the application for registration as a real estate broker which was filed with the Florida Real Estate Commission by the Respondent, Claude Talmadge Bray. These items of evidence were admitted as evidence after examination and legal argument as will be further described in the section of this Recommended Order entitled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Respondent made certain motions at the Inception of the case directed to the sufficiency of the charging document and renewed these motions at the close of the Petitioner's case. These representations by the Respondent will be considered in the section entitled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Respondent offered witnesses in support of his position in the form of a witness to the facts contained in the allegations placed against the Respondent and certain character witnesses in his behalf. The Respondent further elected to take the stand in his own behalf. (All matters offered by the Respondent were premised on the eventuality that the Hearing Officer and/or the Florida Real Estate Commission did not agree with the Respondent's contention that the Petitioner had failed to meet its burden of proof, either in the statement of its pleadings or through presentation of its case in chief). The presentation of testimony on the facts related in this matter was a brief recall of Lester T. Vaughn for purposes of testifying about the facts surrounding the apprenticeship. In this recall Lester T. Vaughan indicated that he felt that the Respondent was a smart young man, by way of responding to a question on the necessity for close supervision of the work by the Respondent. As a follow up he indicated that the broker apprentice did not need day to day supervision. Finally, the witness stated that he felt that bray would have called him if he had needed help from the witness. When the Respondent took the stand, he testified that he is now employed with Ruby V. Williamson, a real estate broker, and that he has been so employed for 6 months as a realtor associate. A brief statement of his background prior to his present employment indicated that he had received formal education to include a bachelors degree and some graduate work, although It was not clear from the testimony that he received a graduate degree. Additionally, it was net established if the formal education had any significance in real estate work. Some of the positions held by the Respondent included work in educational television, teaching, sales positions, and eventually work with Jim Walter Corporation in home sales. While with Jim Walter he served as a branch manager of the offices in Lake City, Florida, Orlando, Florida, and Fredricksburg, Virginia, in the home construction division of that corporation. After leaving Walter Corporation he worked briefly at Allstate Homes and then started with Hallmark Leisure Homes in 1971. At the beginning of his employment with Hallmark Leisure Homes they were a partnership and later became a corporation. The Respondent stated that he started as a salesman with Hallmark Leisure Homes and was elevated to the position of vice president in that corporation at a later date. In his employment with Hallmark Leisure Homes he said that the officials at Hallmark Leisure Homes thought that real estate expertise was an advantage aid, moreover, that to locate a real estate branch office at their business address on North 40th Street, Tampa, Florida would be advantageous. His involvement with real estate licensing started with the issuance of a real estate salesman's license from the Florida Regal Estate Commission in 1971. After that time he decided to qualify for a real estate broker's license before the Florida State Real Estate Commission, and selected Lester T. Vaughan as his apprenticing broker on the basis of a suggestion made by Lester Vaughan, his coworker. For the record, Lester Vaughan is the son of Lester T. Vaughan. Hue indicated that he spoke to other realtors about the apprenticeship, in addition to conversations with Lester T. Vaughan. Two of these persons, Pearl Elliston and Clay Cordington were asked about their interpretation of the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E", relating to the numbers of real estate sales and attendance at closings of real estate sales. The Respondent stated that Mr. Cordington felt that the Respondent's experience with selling "on your own lot homes" was sufficient experience to be counted in responding to the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E". The witness felt that the reason for this response was because of the familiarity of Mr. Cordington with the work the Respondent was doing, in that the Respondent had sold Mr. Cordington two houses. The Respondent stated that Mrs. Elliston did not give him a definite answer on his inquiry. Furthermore the witness Indicated that he called the Florida Real Estate Commission office, particularly the licensing department, about what the blanks meant on the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E" and the blanks Involved with numbers of real estate sales, closings attended, and hours of instruction, and ethics and office operations etc. The witness stated that he spoke with some lady in the department that didn't seem to know what to do about that particular form. Upon the undersigned's examination of the witness on the question of whether or not he referred this matter to the superior of the lady who answered his inquiry, the witness responded that he did not. By way of elaboration on the forms, the Respondent testified that he looked at the Land Book in order to comply with the matters set forth in the forms. The witness seemed to place emphasis on the fact that when he was provided with Petitioner's Exhibit "D", he was told that this was the only necessary form to be completed as part of the requirement for becoming a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, for that reason he seemed somewhat baffled by the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E". The witness went into some detail to explain how he arrived at the figures on the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E". Put concisely, the witness testified that the basis for the figures 56 and 24 upon Petitioner's Exhibit "E" were arrived at by examining "on your lot home sales" made while employed by Hallmark Leisure Homes and closings that he attended in connection with those sales. The figure 100 hours was arrived at by estimates in discussions with Lester T. Vaughan and lecture type course attendance. Bray stated that the figures on that form, Petitioner's Exhibit "E", had been discussed with Lester T. Vaughan, Ramer and Weisiger, another official at Hallmark Leisure Homes. There are other matters which constituted Involvement with real estate sales, but none of these listings were ever consummated through a real estate sale. Moreover, these figures involving listings for Hallmark Leisure Homes and Listings by the Respondent privately were not reflected in figures on Petitioner's Exhibit "E". The Respondent seemed to, under questioning of whether the sales reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit "E" were real estate sales, be convinced at the time of hearing that the sales were not real estate sales per se, although at the time he was making the representations on Petitioner's Exhibit "E" he did not seem as convinced of that fact. Nevertheless, because of the real estate related nature of the work done for Hallmark Leisure Homes, and because in many respects the witness felt that his function was more comprehensive than that of a real estate broker, he felt that the experience with Hallmark Leisure Homes was work which was a fulfillment of the requirement for apprenticeship. Finally, the witness indicated that at the time he filled out the various forms for the Real Estate Commission that he had no intent to defraud or mislead by offering the statistics that he had set forth. Testimony was offered by one Clifford Opp, Jr., Esquire, who has known the Respondent since he was 14 years old, to the extent of being in business with the Respondent, in a restaurant venture which was unsuccessful. He further stated that he, did not feel that the Respondent would provide false information to the Real Estate Commission. Although the witness had been in a confidential relationship with Hallmark Leisure Homes, as their attorney, and therefore unable to divulge any confidences; nevertheless, stated that he didn't recall any report of the company about the Respondent's conduct. In summary, the witness felt that the Respondent was trustworthy. Wilbur J. Wells was called on behalf of the Respondent. Mr. Wells had been a coworker at Hallmark Leisure Homes, in addition to being in the same fraternity in college with the Respondent and in the restaurant business with the Respondent. Mr. Wells is now a realtor associate and has a real estate salesman's license issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. He says that the Respondent's character in terms of truth and veracity is outstanding and that the witness did not believe that the Respondent would lie to the Real Estate Commission. Ruby Williamson, the present employer of the Respondent was called. Ruby Williamson is a real estate broker, and she has known the Respondent for 6 or 7 years, and feels that the Respondent has an excellant reputation and would not lie to the Real Estate Commission. Assuming the application of the cited statutes in the complaint, from the testimony set forth in the hearing it would appear that the Respondent did not intend to defraud, misrepresent, conceal, act under false pretenses, deal dishonestly or trick, unlawfully scheme or device, in violation of Section 425.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, nor did the applicant intend to defraud, misrepresent, or conceal in violation of ss.425.25(2), Florida Statutes. Moreover, there has been insufficient showing that the Respondent lacks the necessary qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness and good character as required by ss.425.17, Florida Statutes. The facts show that the Respondent sought advise from practicing real estate brokers in Florida and the Florida Real Estate Commission before filling out Petitioner's Exhibit "E", and these facts are unrefuted. He acted upon that information about the exhibit in good faith. Considering the testimony of the relationship of the Respondent to Lester Tony Vaughan, his apprenticing broker, the Respondent was legitimately receiving counsel and acting in the employ of Lester Tony Vaughan, notwithstanding, the fact that the pursuit failed to consummate any real estate sales. The facts also Indicate that the Respondent received adequate supervision from Lester Tony Vaughan, because Florida Statutes, Chapter 475 and its rules and regulations do not require full time supervision or employment in qualifying for a real estate broker's license in Florida. The six or seven visits and conferences between Lester Tony Vaughan and the Respondent were sufficient compliance for a man in the Respondent's position considering the relationship of the sales activity he was performing for Hallmark Leisure Homes to the sale of real estate proper. Finally, certain evidential items were offered in behalf of the Respondent. The first item was the letter dated January 3, 1974, written by R. J. Ramer, President of Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc., addressed to the Florida Real Estate Commission. This letter has been received as a Joint Exhibit of the parties upon joint stipulation of the parties and has been marked as Joint Exhibit "1". A second document was offered by the Respondent in the form of a letter addressed to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Beard on the subject of Lester Vaughn's application for license. This letter was written by R. J. Ramer, President, Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc. This particular correspondence was not admitted far reasons set forth in the section entitled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent, Claude Talmadge Bray, be released from the charges brought under Progress Docket #2658, Hillsborough County, and that the Respondent go forth without penalty against his registration as a real estate broker in the State of Florida and that his certificate as broker-salesman remain in full force and effect. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: S. Ralph Fetner, Jr., Esquire (For the Commission) Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 David Luther Woodward, Esquire Rose and Woodward, Chartered 1211 The Madison Building Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact By Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed in this cause on March 7, 1980, counsel for Petitioner and Respondent stipulated, among other things, that: Petitioner seeks relief from an Order of the Board of Real Estate dated 16th day of October, 1979, denying the granting of a real estate salesman's license to the Applicant- Petitioner pursuant to 475.17 Florida Statutes [sic]. Respondent seeks to uphold said Order pursuant to Section 475.17 Florida Statutes. Petitioner seeks to show rehabilitation and qualification because of lapse of time and subsequent good conduct and reputation and that the interest of the public and investors will not [sic] likely be endangered by the granting of registration. Respondent seeks to show that change has not taken place and that the Petitioner is not qualified. (e) The Counsel for the parties hereto stipulate that Constance B. Mastellone a/k/a Connie B. Martin was a registrant of the Florida Real Estate Commission and that said registration was revoked and that she subsequently appealed to the Board of Real Estate for registration and that said registration was denied in the Order dated the 16th day of October, 1979. In addition, counsel for the respective parties stipulated into the record in this proceeding a certified copy of a Final Judgment dated January 4, 1977 in Case No. 74-36190, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Dade County, wherein Diane Zeppo was the Plaintiff and Petitioner, who was at that time a registered Florida real estate broker, was the defendant. In entering a judgment against Petitioner in the amount of $4,000 for compensatory damages and $6,000 for punitive damages, the Circuit Court found that Petitioner, in her capacity as a real estate broker: . . .represented to the plaintiff that she would get the highest and best price that she could for [plaintiff's] property and to expedite such a sale, the plaintiff executed a deed to said property with a blank grantee, and delivered it to the defendant for the sole purpose of implementing and expediting a subsequent sale to be agreed upon, that instead of attempting to obtain the highest and best price for the plaintiff, the defendant, in derogation of her duties and responsibilities as a Real Estate Broker, intentionally deceived the plaintiff into believing that the highest price available was $26,500.00 when in fact the defendant had contracted for a sale of said property for a sale price of $33,000.00, that the defendant in breach of the trust and confidence reposed in her by the plaintiff and in breach of the trust agreement whereby the blank grantee deed, Plaintiff's Exhibit 17, was delivered to her in trust, did voluntarily insert therein her own name and used said deed in an attempt to transfer the title to said property from her client, the plaintiff, to herself, the broker, and in conjunction with so doing, the defendant did cause the plaintiff's tenants to vacate the property and did thereby interrupt the rental income which the plaintiff was receiving from said property in the amount of $275.00 per month, which was last received by her for the month of April, 1974; that the plaintiff has received no rental income from said property from said date to the present, caused solely and only by reason of the fraudulent, willful, and intentionally wrongful actions of the defendant-broker, CONSTANCE B. MASTELLONE, that the deed wherein DIANE ZEPPO is the named grantor, CONNIE B. MARTIN is the named, wrongfully inserted grantee dated the 2nd Day of April, 1974, whereby the above described property was purportedly transferred as recorded in Official Records Book 5756 Page 1504 is void and of no effect, and the plaintiff was entitled to continue to receive said rental income and would so have received said rental income, but for the wrongful actions of the defendant. . . It appears from the record in this proceeding that Petitioner was initially licensed as a real estate salesperson in the State of Florida in 1969 or 1970. At some time thereafter, which date does not appear in this record, she was apparently registered as a real estate broker. Subsequently, in December, 1978, Petitioner received a notice from the Florida Real Estate Commission that her real estate broker's license had been revoked. Revocation proceedings before the Florida Real Estate Commission had apparently been ongoing since 1974. No part of the record before the Florida Real Estate Commission leading to the revocation of Petitioner's real estate broker's license was made a part of the record in the instant proceeding. In fact, it is impossible to tell from the record in this case either the factual or legal basis for the Florida Real Estate Commission's revocation of Petitioner's real estate broker's license. Despite the recitations contained in the Final Judgment against Petitioner in Zeppo v. Mastellone, a portion of which is quoted above, no factual testimony was elicited in this proceeding that in any way connected the facts at issue in that case with the revocation of Petitioner's real estate broker's license. Each of the witnesses called by Petitioner uniformly testified as to their high estimate of her reputation for honesty and trustworthiness and to her knowledge of the real estate profession. However, none of these witnesses, whose acquaintance with Petitioner varied from periods of one to ten years, indicated that they had any knowledge of the fact's leading to the revocation of Petitioner's real estate broker's license, or to the facts giving rise to entry of the final judgment in Zeppo v. Mastellone. Additionally, these witnesses' acquaintanceships with Petitioner relate primarily to that period of time predating the revocation of her real estate broker's licenses, and those few witnesses having any contact with her subsequent to the revocation of her license indicated that that contact was either minimal, or was in the context of social rather than business matters. In her own direct testimony, Petitioner did not address herself to the facts giving rise to the revocation of her broker's license, nor did she attempt to explain the factual situation involved in Zeppo v. Mastellone. Although Petitioner indicated that she felt that she had rehabilitated herself sufficiently to be licensed as a real estate salesperson, she gave no testimony as to any affirmative steps taken by her since the revocation of her license as evidence of that rehabilitation.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent Bruce R. Dowell was licensed as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida and presently holds license number 0022658. The Respondent is employed as a real estate salesman by Allen Pacetti, a licensed real estate broker doing business as Pacetti Realty Company, 49 Cordova Street, St. Augustine, Florida 32084. Mr. Pacetti has a policy within his office of permitting his real estate salespersons to assist members of their immediate families with real estate transactions without involving the office or notifying the broker. Accordingly, the Respondent did not inform Mr. Pacetti of his efforts to rent his daughter's home. The Respondent's daughter and son-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. William Kasperski, owned a residence next door to the Respondent at 202 Coquina Avenue, St. Augustine, Florida, which they rented while they were out of the state for extended periods of time. The home would be shown to prospective tenants by either Mr. Dowell, his wife or other family members depending upon who was home when prospective tenants arrived. The rental property had been leased to at least two other tenants prior to the incident which prompted the instant complaint. In March, 1980, the Respondent placed an ad in the general classified section of the St. Augustine Record advertising the Kasperski home for rent. The advertisement was seen by a co-worker of Mr. and Mrs. G. David Petty who inspected the home and recommended it to them. Mr. Petty and his wife Frances Petty subsequently examined the home and orally agreed to a monthly rental of $265. Neither the Petty nor the Respondent requested or offered to sign a written lease. The Respondent informed the Petty that the owner was not expected to return to Florida for at least a year. The Pettys made an initial payment to the Respondent of $85 which represented a pro-rata share of the March rent. The Respondent would collect the checks from the Pettys and forward them to the Kasperskies who at the time were residing in Pennsylvania. The Respondent did not receive a fee, commission or any other renumeration in return for renting his daughter's home. During the course of the Petty three-month occupancy, the Respondent became concerned over the condition of the home and alterations which were made by the Pettys without prior authorization from the owners. The Respondent conveyed his concerns over the condition of the property to his son-in-law who in turn contacted an attorney in Pennsylvania, Louis D. Poulette. Mr. Poulette informed the Pettys by letter that the lease was terminated by the owners effective July 31, 1980. The Pettys vacated on July 15, 1980, and were refunded the balance of their rent payment for July, 1980. On August 1, 1980, the Respondent readvertised the property and it was rented in September, 1980 for $265 per month.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent, Bruce R. Dowell. DONE and ORDERED this day 3 of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L.SMITH 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 3rd day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 2400 Independent Square One Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robert F. Spohrer, Esquire ZISSER ROBISON SPOHRER WILNER & HARRIS, P.A. 303 Liberty Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether the Respondent was in violation of Subsection 464.21(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The effect of the stipulation was to reduce the charges against Miss Calhoun to the withdrawal of Demerol without a doctor's order, and failing to chart same. The Board presented no evidence regarding any intent to use said drugs, resting its case. There was no evidence that Miss Calhoun intended to use said drugs or whether the drugs were administered to the patients. Therefore, the Respondent admitted withdrawing drugs without a doctor's order and two counts of failing to properly chart. There was no evidence that this resulted in any harm-to the patients. The Petitioner is a white female, 26 years of age, who received her education in nursing at Abraham Baldwin Junior College, Tifton, Georgia; passed her Georgia boards in June 1969; worked for Putnam Memorial Hospital from 1969 until November 1971; passed her Florida nursing examination in October 1971; and worked at University Hospital of Jacksonville, Florida, from November 19/1 until October 1975 when the incident, upon which these charge are based, occurred. The Petitioner then took the stand and Exhibit 1 to 5 were introduced into the record in mitigation of the offenses. These were letters of various nurses and doctors who knew the Petitioner professionally. These letters generally indicate that Miss Calhoun was a very well trained, very competent emergency room nurse who got along well with staff, patients, and their families. In explanation of her behavior the Petitioner testified that she had had a "close personal relationship" with a member of the staff who prior to the incident had transferred from the hospital at which both were employed to another state. Their separation caused Miss Calhoun to go into a deep depression which required her hospitalization for psychiatric treatment for eight (8) days ending the third week of August 1975. Shortly thereafter Miss Calhoun visited the former friend during which time their relationship was permanently severed. She again went into a depression which continued from the period of this final meeting until the date of, the incident. The Petitioner stated that she had not received any further medical assistance for her personal problems after her hospitalization but that she was longer depressed although she was anxious over the outcome of these proceedings. It would appear from the evidence that Miss Calhoun is technically killed and has the ability to relate well with staff, patients, and their families. However, the failure to chart medications is a serious breach of professional conduct. There is uncontroverted testimony that Miss Calhoun suffered a severe emotional depression as the result of the termination of a close personal relationship., Her condition was so bad that she required treatment by a psychiatrist while hospitalized for eight (8) days for severe depression with suicidal tendencies. Those who know her have indicated that her behavior was not in keeping with her normal professional conduct, and that she has a deep respect and love of her chosen profession. Miss Calhoun indicated her willingness to seek professional help and guidance to assist her with her emotional problems, and to have periodic reports on her progress submitted to the Board as a condition of her continued practice. She also was willing to have her job performance monitored by periodic reports from her employer to the Board. Considering particularly Dr. Farquhar's letter, he places some degree of responsibility for her condition upon the supervision which she received from the physicians and nurses at her hospital. Dr. Farquhar states that Miss Calhoun's performance prior to the occurrence of her personal problem was outstanding. He further indicates that he would be willing to re-employ Miss Calhoun if she were rehabilitated and if she could meet the expectations of her profession. Dr. Farquhar concludes by expressing his belief that she can again represent the best of nursing as she had in the period before her problems. There are few of us who have not tasted the bittnerness of a broken personal relationship. Each person is effected to a greater or lesser deree, and reacts differently . The majority are able to re-establish their personal relationships and pursue their social and professional interest. However, during that period when all seems lost and when just coping is a struggle there are few of us who have not succumbed to some form of abnormal behavior. The duty of the Board of Nursing is first to protect the people of Florida by insuring the high quality of nursing care. The Board has the further duty to insure its members adhere to the high standards and ideals of the nursing profession. It also has a duty to its members individually to nurture and protect their talents so that the Boards two other purposes are served. In this case the Board has an opportunity to fulfill all of its purposes. The record in this case would indicate that Miss Calhoun's behavior was the result of an isolated, though undoubtedly personally tragic situation. The record reveals that her case was not effectively followed up after her release from the hospital, and that at the time of the incident charged she was not responding normally.
Recommendation Therefore the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board place the Respondent on probation for one year and require her to submit periodic reports to the Board regarding her employment and health. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of February, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1130 American Heritage Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Counsel for Petitioner Richard Moore, Esquire 924 Barnett Bank Building Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Counsel for Respondent.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Professional Regulation's Division of Real Estate and the Florida Real Estate Commission were the state agencies in Florida responsible for the licensing of real estate professionals and the regulation of the real estate profession in this state. Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesperson under license number SL 0566467. Mr. Brennan was licensed in Florida as a salesperson in 1990, and his initial license expired on March 31, 1992. It was renewed on time and due to expire a second time on March 31, 1994. Consistent with Florida Real Estate Commission requirements, a real estate salesperson is required to complete no less than 14 hours of continuing professional education in the two years prior to license renewal. Of these, 11 hours of course work can be in a specialized area, but at least 3 of the 14 hours must consist of core law, legal information designed to update the salesperson on the changes to Commission rules and policies and changes in the law as it relates to the practice of real estate in the interim since the prior renewal. Licensees periodically are put on notice of the requirement for continuing education and what it must entail, and with or before application for renewal, must certify as to the taking, testing and passing of the required courses. If a licensee certified compliance with the continuing education requirement but, in fact, was not in compliance, that individual would be in violation of the Commission rules even if the required fees were paid. On January 27, 1994, Respondent applied for renewal of his salesperson's license which was due to expire on March 31, 1994. Along with his application for renewal, Respondent submitted his check for $68.50 made payable to the Department, and affirmed he had completed the required 14 hours of continuing education for the license period beginning April 1, 1994. The license was renewed. By letter dated June 15, 1995, Respondent was notified by Barbara Rohloff, a records supervisor for the Department, that his 1994 renewal application had been selected for audit. As a result of that audit it was determined that Respondent had completed the required 11 hours of specialty education and an additional 3 hours in "Agency: Choices, Challenges and Opportunities," also a specialty course but not approved for credit toward the required "core law" portion of the continuing education requirements. Therefore, though Respondent had completed 14 hours of continuing education as required, that 14 hours did not include the required 3 hours of core law. The 11 hours of specialty education Respondent took was course number 100 of the Realtors Institute Course and was approved by the Florida Association of Realtors. The 3 hour course was taken through the Coldwell Banker School of Real Estate in Sarasota in November 1993, and was also an approved course, but it did not meet the requirements for the 3 hour core law course. As a result of this discovery, a determination was made to charge Respondent with misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent contends he took the above-described courses in the misinformed opinion that by doing so he was meeting the Commission requirements. When he was first licensed, he was advised he must take and pass 14 hours of continuing education every two years. The 11 hour course was taken in 1991, in advance of the renewal period, upon the representation of the Century 21 instructor with whom the course was taken that was acceptable. When Respondent went to take that 11 hour course, along with his wife, also licensed as a real estate salesperson, a representative of the Sarasota Board of Realtors advised them that the 11 hour course was acceptable toward the continuing education requirements and that they would need an additional 3 hours. When the real estate brokerage with which the Brennans had placed their licenses was sold to another brokerage, Coldwell Banker, they moved their licences to the new brokerage and went to work with that firm. Coldwell Banker offered the 3 hour course which Respondent took and which has been determined not to be acceptable, and Respondent claims the representative of Coldwell Banker advised him, wrongly, it would appear, that the 3 hour course in issue would meet the Commission's requirements. Though this allegation is self- serving to the Respondent, it was not contradicted and is accepted. Respondent denies any intent to mislead or misrepresent. He gained no advantage by taking the instant 3 hour course over the required course. He saved no time or money, it would appear, and there appears to be no reason for him to have intentionally taken the wrong course or to mislead the Commission. Through all his post-audit communication with the Commission, he relates, he was never advised, in a way he understood, just what he should have done in place of what he did, until the day of the hearing when it was explained to him by Petitioner's counsel. Respondent now admits that he did not have the required hours in the correct course, but adamantly asserts he did not, at the time, know or understand what was the problem. That would appear to be the case, and it is so found. The Petitioner presented no evidence to demonstrate an intent to mislead or to misrepresent by Respondent.
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 the Respondent, Edward John Brennan. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32803-1900 Edward John Brennan 4114 Pro Am Avenue Bradenton, Florida 34203 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the post-hearing memorandum and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found: By letter dated February 18, 1983, the Florida Real Estate Commission (sometimes herein referred to as the respondent or the Commission) advised the petitioner that his application for licensure as a real estate salesman was denied based upon petitioner's answer to question 6 of the licensing application and his criminal record. On September 1, 1982, petitioner held a Mutuel Clerk's Occupational License (NOP-00455) issued by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Department of Business Regulation, State of Florida. While acting in the capacity of a mutuel clerk at Calder Race Course in Dade County, Florida, Petitioner, on September 1, 1982, cashed a winning one dollar ($1.00) trifecta ticket for the eighth race on August 28, 1982, valued at six hundred thirty-six dollars and eighty cents ($636.80) for Metro-Dade Organized Crime Bureau Detective, Jonas Sears, for a cash fee payable to Petitioner. Petitioner did not require Detective Sears to complete the necessary internal revenue service form W-2G which is required of any patron winning six hundred dollars ($600.00) or more. On October 22, 1982, petitioner entered into a consent order with the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering wherein petitioner agreed to certain findings. Based on those findings, petitioner agreed to a suspension of his pari-mutuel license for a period of seventy-five (75) days. A clerk who engages in such conduct violates Section 550.16(7), Florida Statutes and Rule Section 7E- 6.07(3)(6), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner also admitted to deducting sixty dollars and eighty cents ($60.80) as a cash fee payable to him for not requiring Detective Sears to complete the necessary Internal Revenue Service form W-2G.
Recommendation That the respondent enter a Final Order denying petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of September, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Mollie Lee Warrington received due and proper notice of the hearing. Mollie Lee Warrington is and was a registered real estate salesman and at the time here in question was employed by Happy Home Hunters, Inc. a real estate broker corporation. The Florida Real Estate Commission also introduced into evidence Exhibit D, a Business Information Form sent to Happy Home Hunters, Inc. by the Better Business Bureau of South Florida, signed "Mollie Lee Warrington, Treasurer," and a letter signed "Lee Warrington" to Mr. Smathers of the Better Business Bureau of South Florida, both dated April 25, 1974. - John Correia, Vice President of the Better Business Bureau of South Florida, testified that the business records of the Better Business Bureau of South Florida, to include the Business Information Form (Exhibit D), were not available to the public, but that the information contained on the Business Information Form was provided to members of the public contacting the Better Business Bureau. Specifically, Mr. Correia indicated that members of the public who contacted the Better Business Bureau would generally be referred to the individual who had provided the information contained on the Business Information Form, which in the case of Happy Hone Hunters, Inc. would be Mollie L. Warrington. The record does not reveal any specific instance in which Mollie Warrington's corporate status was provided to the public. The records does not clearly indicate whether the corporate officers as stated in the Business Information Form would be provided to members of the public. See Transcript, p. Mr. Correia did not identify the signature of Mollie Warrington on the documents and no testimony was received that the Respondent had in fact signed and sent to the Better Business Bureau either the letter or the form. The Commission failed to prove that the Respondent sent or signed the form. Further, assuming the Respondent did sign and transmit the document, there is no evidence that the information contained relating to her corporate status was given to the public by the Better Business Bureau of South Florida. Edgar M. Greene, Jr., investigator for the Florida Real Estate Commission, testified that he had served a subpoena duces tecun upon Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company and Mr. P. M. King and pursuant to such subpoena received the documents marked and received into evidence as Exhibit F, Mr., Greene had no knowledge of the source of the information contained in the records, The Hearing Officer having reviewed the records (Exhibit F) finds that they do not indicate the source of the data contained therein. There is no evidence in the record that the Respondent was responsible for the representation made to the telephone company that she was a corporate officer. The Commission's position regarding the law applicable to the charges is that the Respondent held out to the public that she was a corporate officer, that corporate officers by law must be real estate brokers, therefore, the Respondent held out to the public that she was a real estate broker. See Commission Counsel's representation on p. 7 of the transcript. In reaching this interpretation of the statutes, the Commission has rea the provisions of Section 475.01(3) which defines any person who is an officer of a corporate broker as operating as a real estate broker back into the provisions of Section 475.01(2) which defines a real estate salesman or broker as anyone who advertises or holds out to the public that they are engage in the business of selling, renting, etc. real estate. Beyond the fact that these statutes involve penal sanctions and must be strictly construed, the basic premise of this interpretation is in error. Section 475.01(2) is a general definition of both salesman and broker. All the acts enumerated in Section 475.01(2) can legally be performed by either a salesman or broker except those acts enumerated in Section 475.01(3) which may only be performed by brokers. Section 475.01(3) does not concern itself with holding out to the public, but declares that corporate officers of corporate brokers operate as brokers. The record is clear that Respondent was not an officer of the corporation. See p. 85 of the transcript. Additional evidence was received at hearing that the Respondent's acts and business policies were free from direction, control or management of another person; however, violation of this specific provision of Subsection (3) of Section 475.01 is not charged in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint limits itself specifically to the instances of the Respondent holding herself out as an officer of the corporation. While it may be argued that the niceties of pleadings do not apply to administrative proceedings, the case law clearly provides that facts in the Complaint shall be alleged in concise, simple language and shall be deemed to afford notice of the charge, if a person of ordinary understanding may reasonably be enabled to present his defense. Both the Information and Answer shall be aided and deemed amended by the proof if the opposite party shall be afforded full opportunity to meet and defend against or rebut such proof. See Thorn vs. Real Estate Commission, 146 So.2nd 907 at page 909. Under the facts of Thorn above, where the Respondent had been charged with conspiracy and found to be guilty of aiding and abetting, the court stated: "The variance in the charge in the Information and the guilty findings of the Commission, was not material since all of the facts surrounding the transaction were the same and the findings were that the acts were done by way of aiding and assisting, rather than in furtherance of a conspiracy." Unlike Thorn, in the instant case there is a substantial difference between alleging that a person has held herself out to the public to be the officer of a corporate broker and alleging that a person's business policies and acts were free from direction, control or management of another person. while it has been argued that alleging the Respondent was operating as a real estate broker as defined in Section 475.01(3), Florida Statutes, would constitute sufficient notice, the Hearing Officer having considered the acts alleged in the Complaint to have been committed by the Respondent and the provisions of Subsection (3) of Section 475.01, finds as a matter of law that the general allegation contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint is insufficient to put the Respondent on notice of the charges. A person of ordinary understanding would not reasonably be able to prepare a defense, and meet and defend against or rebut proof of such broad allegations, but would be led solely to defend against the charges of being a corporate officer. Because the Administrative Complaint did not adequately state the factual allegations upon which the Commission presented evidence regarding the Respondent's alleged unsupervised business activities, the Complaint fails to meet the minimum due process requirements of notice to which the Respondent is entitled under Chapter 475 and 120, Florida Statutes, and the Florida and United States Constitutions. See Wood vs. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Aviation, etc. 325 So.2nd 24. Based on the foregoing conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer has not considered the evidence and testimony presented with regard to the Commission's contention that her unsupervised activities in behalf of Happy Home Hunters, Inc., and would recommend that the Commission also disregard said testimony and evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing conclusions of law and findings of fact, the Bearing Officer recommends that the Respondent's registration as a real estate salesman not be revoked or suspended. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of April, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mollie Lee Warrington 990 Northeast 89th Terrace Miami, Florida 33138
