The Issue By an information filed by the Florida Real Estate Commission, respondent Thomas F. Thayer was charged with fraud, dishonest dealing and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Florida Statutes s.475.25(1)(a). In essence, the information charges that respondent, as the real estate broker for the Jacobs and in order to obtain a ninety percent loan commitment for the Jacobs, falsely represented to a mortgage corporation that the Jacobs Intended to move into the duplex they planned to purchase and sell their present home.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times to this proceeding, respondent was a registered real estate broker. Respondent had been an acquaintance of Mr. and Mrs. Richard Jacobs for a period of four to five years. Some two years before the transaction in question, Jacobs had expressed to respondent his desire to purchase property containing a duplex for purposes of a tax shelter. Mr. Jacobs testified that he intended the purchase to be an Investment somewhere in the neighborhood of $5,000.00. There was also evidence that Mr. Jacobs understood that there were tax shelter benefits from living in half the duplex and depreciating the other half. In April of 1974, respondent showed the Jacobs a duplex. At the time, the Jacobs were living in a two bedroom, two bath waterfront home with a swimming pool, valued somewhere in the neighborhood of $60,000.00. The location of the duplex was in a lower rent neighborhood near some railroad tracks. However, the front portion contained three bedrooms, two baths, a thick shag carpet and a built-in bar. There were also two large screened-in patios. The Jacobs were impressed with the duplex, and on April 19, 1974, they signed a deposit receipt contract prepared by respondent to purchase the duplex for $41,000.00. This contract was subject to the Jacobs being able to obtain ninety percent financing at 9.25 percent annual Interest within fifteen days from the date of acceptance by the sellers. The contract also contained certain conditions regarding inspection of the rear apartment; electrical, plumbing, roofing and appliance defects; termite damage and the inclusion of a metal storage shed. Such conditions were included in the contract at the request of Mr. Jacobs. In order to obtain ninety percent financing, it was necessary that the lender be assured that the borrower actually intends to reside on the mortgaged property. This assurance comes about through either an affidavit executed by the borrower at the time of closing and/or the filing with the lender of a sales listing on the present home of the borrower. From this point forward, disputes in the testimony arise. Respondent testified that Mr. Jacobs was aware of the financing requirement that he would have to indicate an intent to sell his present home. Jacobs acknowledged that he was so aware, but testified that he never had any intent to move from his waterfront home to the duplex, and so informed respondent. However, when he went in to make the loan application with the mortgage company, he told its representative that he would be living in the duplex. Respondent then informed the mortgage company that he would be sending them a multiple listing form on the Jacobs' present residence. Jacobs stated at the hearing that he and his wife never intended to reside in the duplex and that he followed respondent's advice regarding the filing of a multiple listing only because he had faith and trust in respondent, who told him such things were done all the time. Respondent testified that the Jacobs never informed him that they did not intend to live in the duplex or that they did not intend to sell their present home. In fact, there was testimony from Mr. Jacobs that between the time of the deposit receipt contract and the first letter approving the mortgage loan commitment, he and his wife were looking at other homes on the water in which to live. The multiple listing form was signed by the Jacobs and delivered to the mortgage company by respondent, but it was never turned in to the multiple listing service. Sometime subsequent to receiving the mortgage loan commitment on May 29, 1974, Jacobs inspected the rear apartment of the duplex and became very upset and disgusted with its condition. Repairs were estimated at $1,000.00 and the sellers only offered to contribute approximately $75.00 toward such repairs. Jacobs then went to an attorney who advised him that it would be illegal to continue with the purchase because of the misrepresentation as to the Jacobs' intent to reside in the duplex. Jacobs then called the mortgage company and told them he did not intend to live in the duplex. Thereafter the mortgage company informed Jacobs that they were unable to obtain a mortgage commitment. Respondent testified that he first became aware that the Jacobs did not intend to live in the duplex the night after Jacobs inspected the rear apartment and spoke with his attorney. In summary, the testimony in this case is conflicting with respect to respondent's knowledge of the Jacobs' intent as to where they would actually reside. In order for respondent to be found guilty of fraud, dishonest dealing and breach of trust in a business transaction, as prohibited by Florida Statutes s 475.25(1)(a), the Real Estate Commission must prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent actually knew that the Jacobs never intended to reside at the duplex property. That proof is lacking in this case. Here, the substance of the matters in dispute are as readily susceptible of proving respondent's innocence as they are susceptible of proving guilt. Jacobs testified that he originally wanted the duplex as an investment which would provide a tax shelter and that he did not intend to live in it. Yet, he verbally represented to the mortgage company that he did intend to live in the duplex, signed a multiple listing agreement and actually did look at other homes to live in during the period of time between signing the deposit receipt contract and obtaining knowledge of the original loan commitment. There was no evidence that respondent had any knowledge of or was involved in the Jacobs' search for another home in which to live. Jacobs was willing to go through with the purchase of the duplex until he became aware of the extent of damages to the rear apartment. It was at this time that he Informed the mortgage company that he did not have any intention of living in the duplex or selling their house. And, it was at about this same time, according to respondent, that respondent first learned that the Jacobs did not intend to reside in the duplex. There is no clear and convincing evidence in this record that proved that respondent knew that the Jacobs did not plan to live in the duplex at the time respondent forwarded the multiple listing to the mortgage company on April 30, 1974. The most credible evidence tending to show such knowledge on respondent's behalf is the fact that after the multiple listing agreement was signed and delivered to the mortgage company, the house was never actually put up for sale, was not shown to anyone, and the agreement was not filed with the multiple listing service. Yet, this is consistent with the evidence that the Jacobs did not receive word of the loan commitment until after May 29, 1974 (later to be rescinded on July 5, 1974) and the fact that the Jacobs were in the process of looking for yet another home to purchase. It is logical to assume that they were not yet ready to sell their present home with the uncertainties that existed, and this Instructed respondent to delay the selling process. In summary, it is concluded that the Real Estate Commission failed in its burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the misconduct charged; to wit: fraud, dishonest dealing and breach of trust in a business transaction. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the information charging respondent with a violation of Florida Statute 475.25(1)(a) be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of December, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Louis B. Guttman, III, Esquire Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 James F. Spindler, Jr., Esquire and James R. Eddy, Esquire EDDY AND SPINDLER, P. A. 700 East Atlantic Boulevard Pompano Beach, Florida 33060
The Issue Whether Petitioners' claim upon the Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On or about September 12, 1995, Jerome F. Jacobs and Delby R. Jacobs (Petitioners) entered into a real estate listing agreement with Osvaldo Miller, a real estate licensee, on behalf of his brokerage corporation. The agreement gave Miller the right to secure a tenant for Petitioners' property. At all times material hereto, Miller held a valid, current, active Florida real estate license. In paragraph numbered 7 of the agreement, Petitioners agreed that Miller would be compensated if Petitioners entered into a lease agreement with a tenant "regardless of whether the tenant fulfills the terms of the lease." Miller's compensation in the said paragraph was modified, which modification was handwritten and which provided as follows: 50% of the 10% commission at closing, and the balance to be paid monthly for 36 months. The compensation was further modified to reflect that Miller's compensation was to be paid provided a mortgage of $225,000 was secured. In paragraph numbered 11, entitled "Special Clauses," of the agreement, the same modified terms as in paragraph numbered 7 of the agreement, were stated, but with slightly different language. Paragraph numbered 11 further provided, among other things, that "if tenant defaults for any reason during the ten years of said lease, broker (Miller) will return to owner (Petitioners) any unearned commission within 30 days of default." In late 1995, Miller secured a prospective tenant. The prospective tenant required renovations to be completed at the landlord's (Petitioners') expense. A lease agreement was entered into by the prospective tenant and Petitioners on or about January 4, 1996. The lease was for a period of ten years, with the lease payments totaling approximately $656,272.00. The lease further provided, among other things, that "if for any reason suitable financing is not available to the landlord [Petitioners] then this lease in its entirety shall be considered null and void with the landlord released from all obligations to the tenant and the tenant is released from all obligations to the landlord." Additionally, in January 1996, Petitioners entered into a new listing agreement with Miller. The new listing agreement was substantially the same as the other listing agreement, except that the new listing agreement provided that 10% of the lease would be paid the broker (Miller) at the signing of the lease, required the tenant to guarantee the lease, and included an addendum which detailed the manner in which the Miller's commission was to be paid. In or around April 1996, at Miller's request, Petitioners paid Miller $40,000 in commission, which represented approximately five years of occupancy. Miller attempted to negotiate a mortgage for Petitioners, which would offset the cost of the renovations. However, the mortgage negotiated by Miller would not offset the cost of the renovations. Petitioners failed to obtain suitable financing. As a result, in or around March 1997, the lease was deemed null and void. All monies paid by the tenants were refunded. The tenants did not take possession of the property or pay any rent under the lease. Subsequently, Petitioners demanded Miller to return the $40,000 paid in commission to him. Miller failed to return the $40,000. In or around November 1997, Petitioners filed suit against Miller in state circuit court for, among other things, the return of the $40,000 commission. On November 20, 1997, Petitioners properly notified the Real Estate Commission of their potential claim against the Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund. Miller filed bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court issued an automatic stay of the circuit court proceedings. Petitioners sought to have the automatic stay lifted. The bankruptcy court denied their request. The bankruptcy court discharged Miller's debts, including Petitioners' claim, by order dated June 23, 1998. Respondent represented that no disciplinary charges would be brought against Miller's license as a result of the situation involving Petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED2 that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order and therein: Granting Petitioners' claim on the Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund for the maximum allowable recovery amount of $25,000. Not suspending or otherwise discriminating against the license of Osvaldo Miller, pursuant to Subsection 475.484(7), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2000, 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 8th day of November, 2000.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and Notice of Rights dated June 16, 2009, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The OFR is the state agency responsible for regulating mortgage brokerage and mortgage lending in the State of Florida and for licensing and regulating mortgage brokers. §§ 494.0011(1); 494.0033(2), Fla. Stat. At the time of the final hearing, Mr. Razor held an inactive mortgage broker's license. The license was inactive because Mr. Razor did not apply for a renewal of his license when it expired on August 31, 2009. His license could be reactivated should he submit an application for renewal. Mr. Razor was a member of the Florida Bar and a practicing attorney in Florida until, in an opinion issued September 11, 2007, the Florida Supreme Court ordered Mr. Razor suspended from the practice of law for a period of 18 months. See Florida Bar v. Razor, 973 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 2007). In its opinion, the court approved the findings of fact contained in the Report of the Referee; approved the Referee's findings that Mr. Razor had violated Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 3-4.2, 3-4.3, 4-5.3(b), and 4-8.4(a); and approved the Referee's recommendation that Mr. Razor's license to practice law be suspended for a period of 18 months. Pertinent to this proceeding, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 3.4-3 provides: The standards of professional conduct to be observed by members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration herein of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline shall not be deemed to be all- inclusive nor shall the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance thereof. The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney's relations as an attorney or otherwise, whether committed within or outside the state of Florida, and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for discipline. The Referee based his recommendation that Mr. Razor's license to practice law be suspended for 18 months on "Respondent's [Mr. Razor's] conduct in allowing his collaborator (a suspended attorney) to practice law in an attempt to extort money; his ratification of the misconduct by failing to take immediate remedial action; his attempts to cover for the suspended attorney by defending the letter during the Bar investigation; and his inconsistent defense (lack of knowledge) at the live and final hearings." These acts constitute dishonest dealing. Mr. Razor's license to practice law was suspended 30 days after September 11, 2007, or on October 11, 2007. Mr. Razor did not report the suspension to the OFR because he did not believe it to be a reportable offense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation enter a final order finding that Arthur Nathan Razor violated Section 494.0041(2)(i) and (p), Florida Statutes, and revoking his Florida mortgage broker's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 9th day of June, 2010.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against the registration of Cindy Realty of Hernando, Inc., and William Colello as real estate brokers. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Stephen C. Booth, Esquire 1604 U.S. Highway 19, North New Port Richey, Florida 33552
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the registration of Thompson be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Pierce, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Calvin Dawson Thompson Route 1, Box 1075 Oviedo, Florida 32765 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner’s application for licensure as a mortgage broker should be granted.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: A Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Fleming 1653 Bass Avenue Seville, Florida 32191 Robert H. Schott, Esquire Office of Financial Regulation Post Office Box 8050 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8050 Alex Hager, Acting Commissioner Office of Financial Regulation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Robert Beitler, General Counsel Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street, Suite 526 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact On November 29, 1983 Petitioner filed with Respondent an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. By letter dated February 28, 1984 Respondent denied Petitioner's application as follows: The reason for the Commission's action is based on your answer to Questions 6, 7, 14 and 15 of the licensing application and/or your criminal record and disciplinary actions, and on your having unlawfully acted as a real estate salesman or real estate broker in the State of Florida. Specifically, your denial is based upon your May 1975 arrests and convictions for five counts of the sale of unregistered securities five counts of fraudulent sale of securities, five counts of grand larceny, petty larceny, ten counts of conspiracy to commit a felony, and also on disciplinary actions involving your Insurance License, Mortgage Brokers License and Securities License. In 1970 or 1971 Petitioner started Summit Investments, a conpany engaged in selling contracts for deed for developers to investors at a discount. The State of Florida determined that these contracts were mortgages and not securities, and, therefore, all persons selling them must be licensed mortgage brokers. Petitioner accordingly obtained a mortgage broker's license. In 1972 eight mortgage brokers formed S.E.I., Inc., and Petitioner became the president. Everyone selling contracts for deed for that company was licensed under the Mortgage Brokerage Act. Clinton E. Taylor, an investigator for the State of Florida Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities, as part of his regular job duties, frequented Petitioner's offices at S.E.I., Inc. to check the advertising and sales pitches being used by the persons selling what the State had classified as mortgages. Taylor monitored Petitioner's operation at Summit Investments and at S.E.I., Inc. for a number of years without receiving any consumer complaint and without finding any basis for any enforcement action against Petitioner. In 1974, a recession year, five persons to whom S.E.I. had made sales did not receive their interest income and therefore filed complaints with the State of Florida Department of Banking and Finance. In May 1975 state criminal charges were filed against Petitioner as president of S.E.I., against the developer, and against the selling broker, basically alleging that what had previously been classified as mortgages were in fact unregistered securities. After trial, Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of five counts of sale of unregistered securities; five counts of fraudulent sale of securities; five counts of petty larceny; five counts of conspiracy to commit a felony, to-wit: fraudulent sale of securities; and five counts of conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit: petty larceny. Petitioner was initially sentenced to a total of ten years of incarceration, $20,000.00 in fines, and 15 years of probation. In 1976 Petitioner plead no contest to a federal charge of mail fraud in Tampa, Florida in order to obtain a sentence which would run concurrent with that arising out of his state conviction. In 1977 Petitioner plead no contest to a charge in Palm Beach County of selling unregistered securities. Both of these charges were related to the same incidents forming the basis for the 1975 criminal charges. Based upon the conviction of Petitioner in the 1975 state case, his mortgage broker's license, his securities license, and his insurance license were revoked. By the time of the final hearing in this cause Petitioner had served 16 months in the State prison system and had been released; restitution had been made to the five people who caused the criminal charges to be filed from payment by Petitioner of the fines assessed against him; Petitioner had finished serving his amended probation period; and Petitioner's civil rights had been restored by the State of Florida. From September 1980 to November 1983 Petitioner earned his livelihood selling businesses. Be applied for a real estate license in both 1982 and 1983 and was denied both times. Petitioner seeks a real estate license in order that he can return to selling businesses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered approving Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman, subject to successful completion of the licensure examination. RECOMMENDED and ORDERED this 6th day of November, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. David R. Edstrom 5748 Northeast 16th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the relevant oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following pertinent facts are found: Respondent Charles Shane was formerly employed by IREC, Inc. (International Real Estate Consultants). His assigned duties were administrative in nature and included the performance of research and field work pertaining to appraisals. It was not one of his assigned duties to procure appraisals and his salary was not contingent upon the appraisals performed by IREC, Inc. By application dated January 22, 1973, respondent Shane applied to the Florida Real Estate Commission for registration as a real estate salesman. By certificate number 0117007, Shane was registered as a real estate salesman effective December 20, 1973. He is presently registered as a non-active salesman. By letter dated January 9, 1973, on IREC stationary, respondent Shane, signing as Vice President, wrote a letter to John R. Vereen stating that, upon acceptance by Vereen, IREC would conduct a market value appraisal of certain property for a compensation of $2,500.00. This letter bears the handwritten notation "cancelled with no liability 3/5/73." On March 5, 1973, respondent Shane, again signing as Vice President of IREC on IREC stationary, wrote a letter to Mr. Vereen stating "I will conduct a market value appraisal. . ." of the same property as that described in the January 9th letter for a compensation of $2,500.00. The checks in payment of this amount were made payable to respondent Shane individually and not to IREC, Inc. As indicated by Exhibits 6,7,10,11,12 and 13, appraisal reports were submitted to various entities on dates ranging from December 29, 1971, through March 20, 1973. The cover letters are each signed by respondent Shane as Vice- President and by one other person as "M.A.I. Consultant." These reports contain several pages concerning the qualifications of the appraiser. Respondent Shane's qualifications are included. Mr. Edward Waronker, who co-signed five of the six reports listed above, did not write or prepare the reports. It was Waronker's duty as an independent appraiser for IREC to inspect the property and review the appraisal reports prepared. A letter on IREC stationary dated July 23, 1974, from respondent Shane makes reference to a June 19, 1973, appraisal report. In such letter, Mr. Shane states "I have reviewed the referenced appraisal, which was conducted under my direction as of June 19, 1973." As noted above, respondent Shane did not appear at the hearing and therefore no evidence was offered in his behalf. A "petition for mitigation" was filed with the Real Estate Commission stating that respondent did not sign the appraisal reports with any intention of holding himself out as an appraiser or salesman. In summary, said petition states that respondent Shane signed these documents as the person of the corporation and not as a real estate appraiser or broker and that, had he been fully informed of the Florida real estate law, "he would not have continued in the manner that he did." Respondent Richard W. King has been registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission since 1957 and, prior to the instant complaint, has never been cited for a violation of the statutes, rules or regulations governing brokers or salesmen. Respondent King was employed with IREC, Inc. in June of 1973. According to the testimony, the registration of IREC and King was not approved by the Real Estate Commission until October of 1973. From the time that respondent King went to work with IREC, he had effective control and supervision of all appraisals performed by IREC. To King's knowledge, respondent Shane was never involved in the decision-making process surrounding appraisal work, and did not sign appraisal reports after June of 1973.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recite above, it is recommended that: the registration of respondent Charles Shane be suspended for a period of three (3) months; and the charges relating to respondent Richard King be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of September, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION THOMAS M. MURRAY, Petitioner, vs. PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 2709 DADE COUNTY CHARLES SHANE, IREC, INC., CASE NO. 76-844 and RICHARD W. KING, Respondents. /
