The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents negotiated the sale of real property and collected a commission on said sale without the requisite real estate license issued by the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty of prosecuting Administrative Complaints filed against real estate practitioners pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent Rene Larralde, Jr., is a citizen of the State of Florida. At no time relevant to this proceeding did Larralde hold a Florida-issued license as a real estate sales associate or real estate broker. Respondent Maxous, Inc., is a Florida for-profit corporation formed on August 10, 2004. Larralde is president and registered agent of Maxous. Respondent Glinda G. Hatfield has held licenses as a Florida real estate broker and a Florida real estate associate. As of the date of the incident relevant to this proceeding, Hatfield's real estate broker's license was in an inactive status. Hatfield had failed to meet one of the continuing education requirements for renewal of her license that year. She was not aware of that fact until notification by the state relevant to the issues in this proceeding. Upon receiving notice, Hatfield took the necessary measures to have her license re-instated to active status. Hatfield assisted Larralde in forming Maxous. It was Hatfield's responsibility, as the licensed real estate broker in the new entity, to make sure Maxous was duly registered with the state as a real estate broker. Hatfield went to the Melbourne Association of Realtors to register the business once it had been incorporated. Hatfield did not understand that the business also had to be registered through the Florida Real Estate Commission in Tallahassee. Not being aware of that requirement, Hatfield never registered Maxous with the state. Rather, she paid the fees associated with registration of the company with the local real estate association and made the erroneous presumption that the company could then operate as a licensed real estate broker in the state. On or about February 27, 2008, certain parties entered into a Contract for Sale and Purchase (the "Contract") of property located at 1033 June Drive, Melbourne, Florida (the "Property"). Maxous was designated as the listing broker in the Contract. On April 21, 2008, the sale of the Property closed, as evidenced by a HUD Settlement Statement. The Settlement Statement indicates a real estate commission in the amount of $5,964.18 for the sale. The Settlement Statement indicates $2,982.09 (one half of the commission) is to be paid to Maxous and the other half of the commission to be paid to Exit One Realty. Exit One Realty was the listing agent for the Property, but had not been made aware of the impending sale. As the sole listing agent, Exit One Realty would normally expect to receive the entire broker's commission at the time of closing. However, Exit One Realty was not even aware of the sale of the Property until it received its commission. It appears that Maxous, through the person of Larralde, held itself out as the listing broker and assumed ownership of the commission on the sale of the Property. Larralde did, however, designate Exit One Realty as another broker in the sale who was entitled to half of the commission. At the time of the transaction involving the Property, Maxous was not registered with the State of Florida as a real estate broker. Larralde was not licensed as a real estate sales associate. In order to consummate this sale (and others like it), Larralde had established Maxous. It was apparently Larralde's intent, although he did not appear at the final hearing, to use Hatfield's status as a licensed broker to legitimize Maxous' status as a brokerage firm. Hatfield was amenable to that arrangement. Hatfield was designated as the vice-president of Maxous when the company was formed. As previously noted, Hatfield went to the Melbourne Association of Realtors for the purpose of registering Maxous as a brokerage entity. Hatfield paid the necessary fees to the association for the registration of Maxous with the local real estate association, and, upon inquiry from that office, felt that she had done everything necessary to allow Maxous to operate as a broker. Thus, at the time of the aforementioned transaction, Maxous was not a legitimate broker in the State of Florida. Hatfield assumed she was the registered broker for Maxous; assumed Maxous was duly registered with the state; and assumed that her broker's license was current. In matter of fact, none of those assumptions proved true. Clearly Hatfield did not attempt to circumvent or avoid the requirements for real estate brokers. Rather, she was mistaken about what had to be done regarding registration with the Florida Real Estate Commission. She did not know that her license had been deemed inactive for failure to complete a continuing education class. Neither Larralde, nor anyone else testified at final hearing as to what their knowledge was concerning these matters. It cannot be determined whether Larralde knew Maxous was not a registered brokerage firm and that the transaction relating to the Property was improper. However, Larralde did share the commission with Exit One Realty. It is clear from Hatfield's testimony at final hearing that she did not intend to defraud anyone or to do anything illegal or improper. However, her actions were improper nonetheless. It is not clear from the testimony whether Hatfield received any of the commission provided to Larralde. However, to her credit, Hatfield, upon learning of the violations set forth above, unilaterally ceased doing business as a real estate agent or broker. She acknowledged her mistake and took immediate action to make sure she would not make any further mistakes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate: (1) imposing a fine in the amount of $5,000 against Respondent, Rene Larralde; (2) imposing a fine of $5,000 against Respondent, Maxous, Inc; (3) imposing a fine of $250 against Respondent, Glinda G. Hatfield; (4) requiring Hatfield to pay the costs of the investigation in this matter; and (5) suspending Hatfield's real estate license for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 24th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Amy Toman, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Patrick J. Cunningham, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-Suite 801 North Orlando, Florida 32801 Joseph G. Colombo, Esquire 2351 West Eau Gallie Boulevard, Suite 1 Melbourne, Florida 32935
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility for regulating the real estate profession in the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent was a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0189734 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On July 16, 1991, Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Respondent which contained certain factual allegations and which charged Respondent with violating certain statutory provisions and rules regulating licensed real estate professionals in the State of Florida. The matter was assigned Case No. 9181335 by Petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Florida Division of Administrative Hearing (DOAH) for formal proceedings pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Upon being referred to DOAH, the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 91-4852. On October 31, 1991, a formal hearing was conducted by a DOAH Hearing Officer. The Respondent was represented by counsel at that formal hearing. Following the formal hearing, a Recommended Order was duly entered by the Hearing Officer which contained findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended disposition of the proceeding. The Hearing Officer found that Petitioner had proved the violations alleged against Respondent by clear and convincing evidence and recommended that Petitioner impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000. On April 3, 1992, Petitioner entered a Final Order that adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended disposition submitted by the Hearing Officer in DOAH Case 91-4852. The Final Order imposed an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000. Respondent thereafter appealed the Final Order to the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida where it was assigned Case No. 92-01033. On June 3, 1992, Petitioner entered an "Order Granting Stay" which stayed the Final Order pending the appeal. On September 21, 1992, Respondent's appeal was dismissed by order of the Third District Court of Appeal. The Final Order entered by Petitioner on April 3, 1992, was lawfully imposed, is final, and is binding on Respondent. At the time of the formal hearing conducted in this proceeding, Respondent had not paid the $1,000 administrative fine that was imposed upon her by the Final Order entered in Case No. 9181335 (DOAH Case No. 91-4852) on April 3, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(e) and of Section 475.42(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and which suspends Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson for ten years. It is further recommended that the final order provide that the suspension of Respondent's license be terminated upon her paying the $1,000.00 administrative fine that was imposed upon her by the Final Order entered in Case No. 9181335 (DOAH Case No. 91-4852). DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gary, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Cecelia M. Smile 810 Rutland Drive, Apartment 726 Lincoln, Nebraska 68512 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for a real estate license should be denied for the reasons stated in Respondent's Notice of Intent to Deny, dated November 2, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The Commission is the state agency charged with licensing real estate brokers and sales associates in Florida. See § 475.161, Fla. Stat. On August 17, 2018, Petitioner filed with the Commission an application for a Real Estate Broker License – Out of State Experience. According to his PRO, however, he is applying for a "real estate associate license." In conjunction with the application, a lengthy and somewhat confusing record of Petitioner's administrative and criminal history in New York and Minnesota between 1995 and 2018 has been compiled and is found in Commission Exhibit 11, consisting of approximately 300 pages. Besides holding an active Colorado real estate license, he also has a mortgage originator's license issued by the State of Minnesota in 2018. The application required Petitioner to provide answers to four background questions. In response to question 1, which asks the applicant if he has ever been convicted or found guilty of, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction, or is currently under criminal investigation, Petitioner answered yes. In his explanation to the question, Petitioner listed four arrests, discussed below, all occurring in the State of Minnesota. Although the Notice of Intent to Deny alleges that he was convicted of a felony, the Commission now concedes that all convictions are for misdemeanors. First, on July 1, 1997, Petitioner, then 22 years old, was arrested for one felony count of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree and two felony counts of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree. In May 1998, he pled guilty to fifth degree sexual conduct, a gross misdemeanor, and was fined $900.00, sentenced to nine days in jail, placed on two years' probation, ordered to undergo sex offender treatment, and required to register as a sex offender for ten years in New York (where he had relocated temporarily) and Minnesota. Petitioner completed all conditions required by the court. In his application, Petitioner explained that the arrest and conviction were the result of "interactions with an underaged woman [a 15-year-old babysitter for his fiancee's child] that lied about her age." At hearing, he testified that he pled guilty to the misdemeanor charge because he did not have sufficient funds to continue to fight the original felony charges, and he "did not want to take the chances with the jury," even though the prosecutor admitted to the court the defendant's attorney "can kill our guys on cross-examination." He decided to "take the misdemeanor and get on with [his] life." Petitioner acknowledges that he pled guilty to a sexual offense, but it is fair to find that he wants the Commission to accept his version of events - that the girl fabricated the entire incident. Second, on July 10, 1997, Petitioner was arrested for disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, after an "[a]rgument with girlfriend and her brother." He was found guilty of the charge and paid a $150.00 fine. Third, in October 2008, while in a divorce proceeding with his then wife, Petitioner was charged with violation of an Order for Protection for "exchanging messages with my wife on childcare/exchange matters which were allowed according to the original order. She called in and filed a complaint." The application states that the charge was later dismissed. The Commission does not dispute this representation. Finally, in November 2008, Petitioner was arrested for gross misdemeanor domestic assault against his then wife. Petitioner explained that this incident occurred after an "argument with wife (she was heavily intoxicated) that escalated." He later pled guilty to disorderly conduct, paid a $300.00 fine, and was given one year of unsupervised probation. He successfully completed all conditions imposed by the court. Question 1 requires that an applicant also report traffic offenses other than parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signals. The Commission's PRO points out that Petitioner failed to disclose that in 1995, while a resident of the State of New York, he pled guilty to operating a motor vehicle (motorcycle) while impaired by drugs (marijuana). At hearing, Petitioner testified that he forgot about the traffic violation, as it occurred 24 years ago when he was only 20 years old. Even though the Notice of Intent to Deny does not allege that Petitioner failed to disclose his complete criminal record, the issue was tried by consent at hearing. However, Petitioner's omission of this minor item should have no bearing on whether to approve or deny the application. Question 4 asks the applicant to disclose whether he ever has had a license to practice any regulated profession revoked, annulled, suspended, relinquished, or otherwise disciplined in any jurisdiction. Petitioner answered yes. In explaining his answer to question 4, Petitioner stated that his Minnesota real estate broker license was revoked by the Department of Commerce in May 2018 for (a) failure to self-report a 2008 bankruptcy; (b) the denial in 2009 of his application for a residential general contractor's license; and a 2012 felony charge (domestic assault by strangulation of his ex-wife), which was dismissed later. The application added that due to the revocation of the Minnesota license, his Colorado realtor license "is currently in review." At hearing, however, Petitioner testified that Colorado is not taking any action on that license. The revocation order provided in part that Petitioner obtained his license by fraud and misrepresentation, he had a complete disregard for the law, and he could not be trusted to make material disclosures and otherwise comply with licensing requirements. See Comm. Ex. 11, p. 208. Obtaining a license by fraud and/or misrepresentation, and not being trusted to make material disclosures and comply with licensing requirements, are grounds for revoking or suspending a license in the state of Florida had Petitioner then been registered. At hearing, Petitioner testified that he actually had disclosed the bankruptcy and administrative action to the state when he submitted an application to transfer a brokerage license in 2009. Evidently, this contention was not accepted by the Department of Commerce. Petitioner says he "attempted" to appeal the revocation order, but the appeal was denied. In its PRO, the Commission alleges that Petitioner failed to disclose an enforcement action instituted by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (MDLI) in 2009, which resulted in him voluntarily consenting to the revocation of a residential building contractor license held by Vanquish Custom Homes, LLC, a company he controlled. Although this omission is not cited in the Notice of Intent to Deny, the issue was raised at hearing without objection by Petitioner. Petitioner's response to background question 3 acknowledges that his application for a "residential general contractor's license" was denied in 2009. Also, in a letter attached to the application, Petitioner made reference to that action, although in a somewhat confusing and incomplete manner. See Comm. Ex. 11, p. 187. The letter fails to disclose that the proceeding arose in the context of an enforcement action by MDLI, which alleged, among other things, that Petitioner was untrustworthy, incompetent, and unqualified to act as a licensee's qualifying owner. The letter and application also fail to disclose that MDLI issued a consent order revoking the license, imposing a $5,000.00 suspended civil fine, and ordering him to cease and desist from acting as a residential building contractor. Had Petitioner been registered in the state of Florida, these actions would have been grounds to suspend or revoke the license. At hearing, Petitioner explained that the license lapsed around 2007, he reapplied for licensure in 2008, but he withdrew the application after MDLI issued an intent to deny. He says he took this action because he "didn't need the contractor license, and it just wasn't worth spending the money to fight it." By consent of the parties, Petitioner acknowledged that he failed to disclose a consent order issued by MDLI in 2013, which determined that Vanquish Services Group, LLC, another company controlled by Mr. Shields, had violated the 2009 consent order. Petitioner was ordered to cease and desist from any further residential building contractor violations and to pay a $5,000.00 civil penalty, of which $4,500.00 was stayed. At hearing, Petitioner testified that in an effort to procure clients, his company incorrectly advertised four trades on Angie's List, when the company was allowed no more than three trades to be advertised. He admits this was a "mistake." Two character witnesses, Mr. Hartos and Ms. Anderson, both currently licensed as realtors in Minnesota, testified on behalf of Petitioner. Both testified that they are aware of his prior administrative and criminal history. Mr. Hartos is a long- time licensed broker, who has served on the Minnesota Association of Realtors Board of Professional Standards for more than 25 years, and was Petitioner's broker and "boss" for the last five years. The other is a former employee. Based on their work experience with Petitioner, they found him to be ethical, truthful, honest, and trustworthy, and not a danger to the public. Forty-three letters of recommendation, including those submitted by the two character witnesses, all hearsay in nature, corroborate this conclusion.
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 denying Petitioner's application for a license as a real estate broker or sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 15th day of July, 2019.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, German H. Rodriguez, committed the violation alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and disciplining real estate licensees in the State of Florida. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent has been licensed as a real estate broker, license number 0434907. On March 20, 1995, Respondent submitted a license renewal form to the Petitioner which resulted in the automatic issuance of a renewed license for two years, ending March 31, 1997. The license renewal form provided, in pertinent part: I hereby affirm that I have met all of the requirements for license renewal set forth by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and/or the professional regulatory board indicated on the reverse side of this notice. I understand that, within the upcoming licensure period, if my license number is selected for audit by the Department and/or professional regulatory board, I may be required to submit proof that I have met all applicable license renewal requirements. I understand that proof may be required by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and/or professional regulatory board at any time and that it is my responsibility to maintain all documentation supporting my affirmation of eligibility for license renewal. I further understand that failure to comply with such requirements is in violation of the rules and statutes governing my profession and subjects me to possible disciplinary action and, further, that any false statements herein is in violation of section 455.227 Florida Statutes, subjecting me to disciplinary action as well as those penalties provided below. I affirm that these statements are true and correct and recognize that providing false information may result in disciplinary action on my license and/or criminal prosecution as provided in section 455.2275, Florida Statutes. When Respondent executed the renewal form he did not have documentation supporting his eligibility for license renewal. Specifically, Respondent did not have a course report documenting completion of the required 14 hour continuing education course. The course report that Respondent later received from an approved real estate school noted that Respondent had started the course June 1, 1995, and had finished it June 26, 1995. Respondent knew that the 14 hour continuing education course was required by the Department for license renewal. Further, Respondent knew that the course was to be completed before the renewal came due. Respondent maintains that he intended to complete the course before the renewal because he had, in fact, requested a correspondence course from an approved real estate school, had completed the course work, and had filled out the answer sheet. Unfortunately, according to Respondent, the envelope was misplaced and he failed to timely mail the answer form to the company for scoring. Therefore, Respondent did not get credit for the work until June, 1995, when he completed the work again. As chance would have it, Respondent was selected for audit in August, 1995. By this time he had completed the continuing education course work as required by the Department for license renewal but, as indicated above, did so after the renewal form had been submitted. In response to the audit, Respondent represented that he had completed the work prior to renewal but, through inadvertence, had not gotten the course credit until after the renewal period. Respondent did not successfully complete 14 hours of continuing education prior to submitting the renewal form. Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker for ten years during which time he has never been disciplined. At the time of the renewal, Respondent was not using his real estate license and was in an inactive status.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and imposing a reprimand with an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Christine M. Ryall, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32802 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Gillis & Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 German H. Rodriguez 703 Southwest 89th Avenue Plantation, Florida 33324
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility, and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Paul F. Savich is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0077390 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Ernest M. Haefele, is a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0517821 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On October 1, 1984, the Respondents, purchasers in their individual capacities, entered into a contract for deed to a tract at the Tropical Acres Subdivision, with Tropical Sites, Inc., and Angie S. Crosby and Eugene T. Crosby, at a sales price of $9,046.50. Said amount to be paid at the rate of $90 per month until paid. Pursuant to the agreement, the Respondents agreed not to assign the agreement without the permission of Tropical Sites, Inc. A closing was held on May 8, 1990, and the Respondents transferred possession of the tract by assignment of contract to Leroy H. and Charlotte Beard. A mobile home on the real property was part of the purchase price for a total sales price of $39,000.00 The agreement called for a down payment of $2,000 to the Respondent Savich. The Beards also signed a mortgage note in favor of the Respondents Savich and Haffele, for $37,000. The note was payable at the rate of $373.15 per month. Upon payment in full, Respondents were obligated to deliver a good and sufficient deed to the property to the purchasers. At the closing, Respondent Haefele was not present. The Beards received two documents at closing, a contract for sale and one other document, but did not receive a copy of the original agreement for deed, a disclosure statement, or a title to the trailer on the tract. In addition, Respondent Savich did not seek permission of Tropical Sites, Inc., prior to the closing. Prior to the closing, the Beards moved onto the property, and subsequently began making monthly payments of $373.15 to Respondent Savich. The Beards had purchased two or three pieces of property in the past, but had always gone through a bank. In relation to this agreement, they understood the nature of the transaction at the time of the closing. In early 1991, Mr. Beard made a telephone inquiry to the County property appraiser's office as to the status of the property for homestead exemption purposes. He was advised that Tropical Sites, Inc. was the current owner of the tract, and that he was not eligible for homestead exemption. The Beards did not apply for homestead exemption at the appraiser's office. In August 1991, the Beards stopped making payments to the Respondents on the advice of their attorney, but continued to reside on the premises until December 1991. In November 1991, an attorney acting on behalf of the Beards made a demand upon Respondent Paul F. Savich for the return of the $2,000.00 deposit. The Respondents did not return the $2,000.00 deposit or otherwise pay the money claimed by the Beards. In his dealings with the Beards, Respondent Savich did not withhold information, lie or mislead the purchasers. They simply were unhappy with the agreement, and decided to get out of it when they recognized that they would not receive title to the mobile home and property until the note was paid in full. In early 1992, the Beards quitclaimed their interest to the property to Respondent Savich's former wife, and they were released from their obligations under the note.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondents Paul F. Savich and Earnest M. Haefele be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Adopted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7(in part),8,9(in part)10,11,12,13 Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 7(in part: the $2,000 was a down payment, not an earnest money deposit), 9(in part: the Beards moved on to the property prior to closing. Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Respondent submitted a proposed order with unnumbered paragraphs which partially recounted the testimony of several of the witnesses and combined facts and conclusions of law. Therefore, a separate ruling on Respondent's proposals are not possible. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Senior Attorney DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street #N-308 Orlando, FL 32801-1772 J. Stanford Lifsey, Esquire 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1465 Tampa, Florida 33602 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cherylyn Stoppler, at all times pertinent hereto, was licensed as a real estate saleswoman in the State Of Florida, holding license No. 0467803. Her last and current license was issued authorizing practice at Escambia Realty, Inc., 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. Respondent Dorothy Diane Owens, at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license No. 0380831. Respondent Escambia Realty, Inc., at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed corporate real estate brokerage holding license No. 0232503. Its address is 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, related to the licensure of real estate brokers and salesmen, the real estate professional practice standards embodied in that chapter and with prosecuting alleged violators of those standards. On April 13, 1986, Kenneth and Linda Williams, also known as Linda Brewer, requested that Cherylyn Stoppler show them rental property consisting of a single family residence located at 6853 Lake Charlene Drive in Pensacola. They had observed the Respondent corporate broker's sign on the front of that premises, advertising it for rental. Respondent Stoppler, Respondent Owens and the Escambia Realty, Inc. represented the owners of the property. Kenneth and Linda Williams examined the property and decided that they wanted to rent it. In their discussion with Cherylyn Stoppler concerning the terms of the rental arrangement, they requested that they be allowed to paint the premises and that the garage door be repaired. Respondent Stoppler agreed to this and indicated the owners would supply two gallons of paint and the prospective tenants, the Williamses, could do the painting with the owners ensuring repair of the garage door. Respondent Stoppler and the Williamses agreed to those terms and to the rental amount of $625 per month. They also agreed to pay Respondent Stoppler a $400 deposit, on behalf of the owners. Ms. Stoppler informed the Williamses that if they did not consummate the lease arrangement, upon which they had verbally agreed, the $400 would be retained and remitted over to the owners of the property. The Williamses agreed to this arrangement. The Williamses and Ms. Stoppler returned to Ms. Stoppler's office and she noted these terms on a lease agreement form with the additional term that the owner would steam clean the carpet in the house. The lease terms also provided that the premises would be used by no more than two adults and "zero" children, but the lease agreement has the "zero" stricken through indicating that that term was to be deleted. The striking of the zero on the term concerning the number of children to occupy the premises appears to have been executed with the same pen, inasmuch as the ink is the same color as the rest of Mrs. Stoppler's handwritten terms on the lease form. In any event, the Williamses were anxious to return to their home in Louisiana directly from the Respondent's office that same afternoon and to accommodate them Ms. Stoppler agreed to mail the lease form to them to be executed, urging them to send it back immediately. When they left the premises that day, Respondent Stoppler removed her firm's sign from the front of the premises and also told the Williamses that the property would be off the market as of that day, hence her admonishment to them to waste no time in returning the executed lease since the property would be off the market during the interim on the strength of the verbal agreement. The Williamses did not inform Ms. Stoppler that Mr. Williams had two children who might visit them from time to time or live with them at the premises. The Williamses returned to Louisiana and the lease was mailed to them by Ms. Stoppler. The Williamses decided not to execute the lease and to not consummate the rental arrangement. They informed Ms. Stoppler of this by phone on April 24, 1986, as well as communicating on that day with Respondent Owens. They indicated they did not desire to rent the premises and one reason given was that they felt that the two children were precluded by the lease terms from living on the premises for any period of time with them. In fact, the Williamses had never mentioned that they had any children and had sought to negotiate a reduction in the rent when they originally discussed the matter with Ms. Stoppler on the basis that only the two of them would live in the premises. The terms and conditions of the rental arrangement were those given to Ms. Stoppler by the Williamses themselves. When they conferred with Ms. Owens and Ms. Stoppler, they were again informed that the $400 would be retained and transmitted to the owners, to which they did not then object. In fact, they never did make any demand upon the Respondents for return of the $400 which was actually communicated to the Respondents. There is a letter in evidence (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) which the Respondents never received, as is shown by the certified mail receipt card and by Respondents' and Ms. Celano's testimony. The Williamses objected to consummating the lease because they contended that Ms. Stoppler had assured them that they could 1ive in the premises rent- free from the beginning of the lease, April 26, until May 1, during the time in which they would be painting the house and instead they were being charged $84 for those days. Mrs. Williams' testimony is somewhat equivocal in this regard in that she exhibited an incomplete memory regarding certain critical dates in the transaction, for example, the date she allegedly called Mrs. Stoppler to inform her of their refusal of the rental and the date she believed the lease was to commence. Mrs. Stoppler's testimony was corroborated by that of Ms. Owens, and was not refuted by the Williamses. It is accepted over that of Mrs. Williams in establishing that indeed the lease period and the rental there for was to commence on April 26. The Respondents' testimony shows that the house was off the rental market from April 13, when the verbal agreement with Ms. Williams was entered into and the sign was removed from the property and that both Respondents informed Mrs. Williams on two occasions that the $400 was not refundable but would be remitted to the owners of the property. The Respondents also established that Escambia Realty, Inc. followed a consistent policy of retaining deposit monies and remitting them to the owners without refund to prospective tenants when the tenants agreed to lease the premises after being informed that the deposit would be retained and the property taken off the market, when such tenants elect of their own volition to negate a lease or rental agreement. The Williamses additionally maintained that they did not want to consummate the lease arrangement because, in their view, the Respondents and the owners would not permit any children unrestrictedly visit or to live on the premises. That was established not to be the case. They also objected because they would not be allowed to live in the premises rent-free for several days during the time in which they were painting the premises. Additional objections involved various inconsequential technical deficiencies, such as misspellings, in the content of the lease. The employment position Mr. Williams was to have taken in the Pensacola area, and which was in large measure their reason for moving to Pensacola and renting the subject premises, failed to materialize. Ultimately, however, the Williamses moved to Pensacola and rented a different house at the lower rate of $600 per month. In short, the complaining witnesses contend that they did not want to execute the lease because of the problem of the $84 prorated rent required of them by the Respondents and the owners for the days when they thought they would live rent-free while painting the premises, because they felt that Mr. Williams' children by a previous marriage were precluded from unrestricted visits at the rental premises and because they felt that the proffered lease did not contain the proper initial date of tenancy. Thus, the Williamses breached the agreement because the Respondents refused to "correct" the lease according to the Williamses' desires. Those desires were not communicated to the Respondents until, at the very earliest, the phone conversations of April 24, 1986, some twelve days after the verbal agreement to rent the premises to the Williamses had been entered into and the $400 deposited with the Respondents on behalf of the owners. During that time, and longer, the property was taken off the rental market and the Respondents and the owners forbore the opportunity to secure other tenants. The Williamses themselves acknowledged that the letter by which they sought return of the $400 deposit was never actually received by the Respondents. Further, Ms. Williams in the telephone conversation on April 24, 1986, acknowledged that the owners were entitled to the $400 deposit. Even so, Ms. Owens waited approximately 25 days before remitting the funds over to the owners. Thus, no dispute as to the deposit was ever communicated to the Respondents, and the Respondents never misrepresented to either Mr. or Mrs. Williams the manner of disbursement of the deposit funds. It is noteworthy that Mrs. Williams is a licensed realtor herself and had some experience in similar real estate transactions. The Respondents carried out their portion of the bargain. Finally, it has been demonstrated that Respondent Owens is a well- respected real estate practitioner in the Pensacola area, having served as an officer and director of her local board of realtors and having been accorded a number of honors and certifications in connection with her professional performance as a realtor and her securing of advanced training in the field of real estate brokerage. Ms. Stoppler is relatively new to the profession, but neither she nor Ms. Owens have been shown to have ever engaged in any questionable practice or conduct in the course of their practice and neither have been shown to have been the subject of any other complaint of any nature resulting from a real estate transaction.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Respondents Cherylyn Stoppler, Dorothy Diane Owens and Escambia Realty, Inc. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3982 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Rejected as to its material import. 7-9. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 10-11. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 17-18. Accepted. 19. Rejected as to its material import. 20-21. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but rejected as to its material import. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 29-30. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 31. Accepted, but not as to its material import. 32-35. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but not to the effect that a demand for refund was made. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 39-41. Rejected. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: Specific rulings are not separately made here because Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact are inseparably entwined with legal argument and recitations of, and arguments concerning, the weight and credibility of testimony and evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Cherylyn Stoppler Dorothy Diane Owens Escambia Realty, Inc. 310 South Pace Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32501 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent Bruce D. Robertson ("Respondent") was a licensed real estate broker, license #0343680, operating as a president and qualifying broker for IDC Properties ("IDC") At all times material to this case, IDC was a corporation registered as a real estate broker, license #0234614, located at 17980 San Carlos Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, Florida. By agreement dated January 16, 1990, the Respondent agreed to pay to salesperson Randy Thibault a commission of $10,362.50 upon the closing of the sale of property at "Old Pelican Bay, Inc.," to Paula E. Brown, hereinafter referred to as the "Brown transaction". On July 5, 1990, the Brown transaction closed. The Respondent received the commission funds related to the sale of the property. The Respondent subsequently issued a check in the amount of $10,362.50 payable to Mr. Thibault. When Mr. Thibault attempted to negotiate the check, he was informed that the Respondent had issued a stop payment order on the check. Mr. Thibault thereafter filed a civil complaint against the Respondent in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida Case No. 90-5851-CA. The matter was heard in a bench trial. On October 3, 1991, Mr. Thibault obtained a Final Judgement in the amount of $11, 817.42 against IDC for the sum owed plus interest. On October 28, 1991, Mr. Thibault obtained a Final Judgement in the amount of $14,551.31 against IDC for the sum owed plus interest, attorney's fees and costs. On November 4, 1991, the Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal in the matter in the Second District Court of Appeal but subsequently abandoned the appeal. At hearing, the Respondent asserted that Mr. Thibault received his commission share at the closing. The Respondent presented no credible documentary evidence to support the claim. The Respondent also asserted that Mr. Thibault misled the Respondent as to Mr. Thibault's role in the sale of other unrelated property and that the Respondent intends to take legal action against him. The Respondent presented no credible documentary evidence to support the claim. The Respondent admitted that the Final Judgement obtained by Mr. Thibault remains unsatisfied and stated that stated that he will not pay the judgement pending resolution of the unrelated matter alleged above.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order determining Bruce D. Robertson and IDC Properties, Inc., guilty of the violations set forth herein and revoking the licenses identified herein. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6308 The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order. The Respondent did not submit a proposed recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Hurston North Tower 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Hurston North Tower 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Bruce D. Robertson IDC Properties, Inc. 17980 San Carlos Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33931
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds real estate broker license no. 0186475, and was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. However, he did not act in his licensed capacity in any of the transactions discussed herein. Respondent was involved in a corporate business venture with Donald M. and Darlene Pifalo. He believed the Pifalos had improperly diverted funds from the corporation and filed suit accordingly. In December, 1980, while this suit was pending, Respondent filed a notice of lis pendens against various properties owned by the Pifalos. This action encumbered property in which the Pifalos' equity greatly exceeded Respondent's alleged loss in the business venture. There was no evidence that the Pifalos were planning to leave the jurisdiction or would be unable to make any court ordered restitution. Further, the encumbered property was not at issue in this litigation. Finally, Respondent filed the notice of lis pendens on his own volition and not on the advice of counsel. The notice was subsequently dismissed.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(a) and 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1979), and fining Respondent $500. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1982 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Frederick Hodgdon (Hodgdon) has held Florida real estate broker license 0206805 at all times pertinent to this case. Hodgdon is owner and qualifying broker for Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., (Pelican Realty), through which Hodgdon conducts business and which also is named as a respondent. At all times pertinent, Pelican Realty has held Florida corporate real estate broker license 0223934. July 24 through August 6, 1984, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-Daze: DO YOU KNOW ... that all Florida real estate brokers are agents for the seller and CANNOT legally propose any lower than listed prices or better terms for the benefit of the buyer? UNLESS ... the broker legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer. As a Buyer's Broker Pelican Realty CAN and DOES exactly this and a lot more! Buyers pay no fees or commissions. Call or send for our informative brochure, you will be glad you did. The real estate buyer's best bet for the best price is to have a Buyer's Broker. On February 19, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Marco Island Eagle: 1/ BUYER BEWARE! DON'T BUY REAL ESTATE ON MARCO ISLAND. ... before consulting an attorney or carefully reading Paragraph 5) and 7) of the 1985 Revision of the Sales Contract as approved by the Naples Area Board of Realtors and the Marco Island Area Board of Realtors and the Collier County Bar Association contract Revision Committee. The Contract states quote: "The Buyer has inspected the property sold by the Contract and there are no other inspections permitted or required. The property is acceptable in its AS IS condition as of date of this offer. INCREDIBLE! ... What happens to the unwitting Buyer who intends to have termite, structural and seawall inspections AFTER his offer is accepted? He just may have to buy a termite ridden house that needs a new roof and a seawall that is on the verge of collapse. Thats what! ... Taken at face value the Sales contract calls for the buyer to spend several hundred dollars for inspections BEFORE making an offer that may well be turned down. INCREDIBLE! .... Paragraph 7) states quote: "Buyer's decision to buy was based on Buyer's own investigation of the property and not upon any representation, warranty, statement or conduct of the Seller, or broker, or any of Seller's or broker's agents" (Excluding those rare occasions when the seller and his agents remain silent.) INCREDIBLE! ... The above subject sections of Paragraphs 5) and 7) of the 1985 Sales Contract in our opinion may well violate the Realtor's Code of Ethics Article 7) "to treat fairly all parties to the transaction." There is nothing Pelican Realty could say or do to better emphasize the Buyer's need to have an advocate on his side. ... As a Buyer's Broker we recommend striking out any and all terms and conditions of the Sales Contract that are prejudicial to the Buyer's best interests. ... Pelican Realty would appreciate the opportunity to discuss with any interested parties the many advantages of working with a Buyer Broker. Our services are at NO additional expense to the buyer. CALL US FOR FURTHER DETAILS. NOW!! On March 11, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-News: CASH BACK FOR THE REAL ESTATE BUYER. THAT'S INCREDIBLE! Pelican Realty GUARANTEES CASH BACK to every buyer on every sale. The bigger the sale, the bigger the cash gift to the buyer. On top of this Pelican Realty (a Buyer's Broker) goes all out to get the lowest possible price for the buyer at NO additional cost to the buyer. Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller. The thousands you SAVE already belong to you. THINK ABOUT IT! Call us for further details NOW! "WE PAY OUR BUYERS TO DO BUSINESS WITH US" There is nothing false or fraudulent about the three advertisements. However, the following statements in the advertisements are deceptive or misleading in form or content: The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that buyers pay no fees or commissions. In form, the buyer perhaps does not pay brokerage fees or commissions. But in substance, the buyer does indirectly pay his broker a brokerage fee or commission when the seller pays fees and commissions out of the proceeds of the sale. The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that a buyer's broker "legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer." Although perhaps technically correct, this representation implies separate state regulation and qualification procedures for licensure as a buyer's broker. In fact and in law, any licensed real estate broker can become a buyer's broker simply by entering into an agreement with a buyer to be the buyer's broker. The representation in the March 11, 1986, News-Sun advertisement: "Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller." Read carefully in context, this representation is true--realtors other than those representing a buyer must try to get the highest price for the seller he represents (while being open, honest and fair to the buyer). But, as written, the representation could lead one to believe that the respondents have an ability no other realtors have when, in fact and in law, any realtor or other licensed real estate broker who represents a buyer can try to get the best price for the buyer. Although respondents have offered cash rebates, no client has seen the offer or asked for a rebate. Although respondents have maintained their innocence, they changed the ads to meet the criticism of the Department of Professional Regulation.
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 (1) reprimanding respondents, Frederick Hodgdon and Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., and (2) fining them $500 each for violations of Section 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). RECOMMENDED this 21st day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1987.
