The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Lori Wilk has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0349551. The last license issued was as a broker in care of Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc. At all times material hereto, Respondent Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc., has been a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0253076. At all times material hereto, Respondent Wilk has been licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer of Respondent Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc. Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert, as owner, had listed for sale certain real property with Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc./Gil Amara. Respondents obtained LPS Investments, Inc., as purchaser pursuant to a sales contract which was accepted by the seller on March 14, 1989. LPS Investments is owned by Leo and Patricia Scarola. Patricia Scarola was a former salesperson for Respondents. That Contract for Sale And Purchase of Real Property provided that a total of $500 as deposit monies was to be held in escrow by Stars and Stripes Realty. Respondent Wilk executed the portion of the Contract which acknowledged receipt of the first $100 of the deposit monies. Respondents' escrow account deposit slips reveal the first $100 was deposited into Respondents' escrow account. No proof of receipt of the additional $400 exists among the escrow account deposit slips admitted in evidence; however, Respondent Wilk's testimony is accepted that Respondents received in trust a total earnest money deposit in the sum of $500. Thereafter, LPS Investments, Inc., refused to close, alleging misrepresentation by the seller of the property. Although the property had been advertised as a "handyman special" and the Contract provided that the property was accepted in an "as is" condition, the Scarolas who never saw the property before they entered into the Contract to purchase it discovered that it would cost more to improve the property than they had guessed. They decided not to close. Rather, Pat Scarola instructed Respondents to transfer the $500 earnest money deposit to another piece of property not involving Gwendolyn Taylor- Herbert. Without the prior knowledge or consent of the seller or of the listing broker, Respondents transferred the Scarolas' earnest money deposit to another transaction for the benefit of the purchaser (LPS Investments, Inc.) and not involving the same seller. This was done without even considering whether the seller or the seller's agent might have an interest in the deposit. At no time prior to the time that the Respondents' transferred the deposit to a different property did the Respondents give the listing broker or the seller an opportunity or notice to make a demand upon the Respondents for the deposit. After the transfer, and after the contract failed to close, the seller and the seller's agent made a demand that the $500 deposit be accounted for and delivered. It was not. On June 1, 1989, Respondents obtained an offer from Herb Sider, as purchaser, for the property owned by Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert. That offer was accepted by the seller. The Contract for Sale and Purchase of Real Property provided that a total deposit of $1,000 was to be held in escrow by Stars and Stripes Realty. Respondent Wilk executed that portion of the Contract acknowledging that the first $100 of the earnest money deposit had been received by Respondents. That representation was false. Sider never gave Respondents the earnest money deposit specified in the Contract, and Respondents failed to advise anyone that the representation in the Contract was false. Although Respondent Wilk testified that she would "normally" keep $100 of Sider's money in her escrow account to be applied to the various contracts that he entered into through her, there is no evidence that there was $100 in Respondents' escrow account at the time or that it was available to be applied to this Contract. Rather, Respondent Wilk's testimony is accepted that she never received either the initial $100 or the additional $900 deposit monies from Sider for this property. Herb Sider refused to close. The seller, Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert, agreed to lower the sales price, and a modified contract was executed between Taylor-Herbert and Sider. Thereafter, Sider again refused to close. At no time did Respondents notify anyone that they did not have an earnest money deposit in escrow for the Taylor-Herbert/Sider transaction. Diane Quigley, branch manager of Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc., sent a letter dated July 11, 1989, to the Respondents transmitting release of deposit receipt forms and instructing Respondents to release the $500 earnest money deposit of LPS Investments, Inc., and the $1,000 earnest money deposit of Herb Sider to the seller Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert. Respondents ignored that demand letter. By letter dated August 25, 1989, Quigley again wrote to Respondents demanding the release of the Sider and the LPS Investments, Inc., deposits to the seller. That letter referred to the July 11th letter which Respondents had ignored and the numerous phone calls placed by Quigley to Respondents which had not been returned. On September 13, 1989, Respondents for the first time notified Petitioner of possible conflicting demands. That letter misrepresented the facts of the situation and suggested that the seller and buyer might still be able to strike a deal. On October 3, 1989, Respondents again wrote to the Florida Real Estate Commission advising that "there is now a conflicting demand" on the deposits relative to the Gwendolyn Taylor-Herbert property. Respondents' letters reveal a lack of understanding of the basics of a real estate contract. Neither letter advised the Commission that Respondents did not have any of the monies in escrow at any rate. On December 27, 1988, Respondent Wilk made an offer to purchase real property from Bel-Properties, Inc., which offer provided that $100 earnest money deposit would be held in escrow by Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc., and an additional $2,050 earnest money deposit would be placed in the Stars and Stripes escrow account within 72 hours of acceptance. Respondent Wilk executed the portion of the Contract for Sale and Purchase of Real Property acknowledging that the initial $100 deposit had been received. That representation was false. The Contract which she prepared listed as the buyer "Lori Wilk, a lisenced [sic] real estate broker, and/or assigns." The offer was accepted by the seller on December 30, 1988. In connection with that offer, Respondent Wilk represented that she was the purchaser when, in fact, she was acting on behalf of the actual purchaser HBS Investments, Inc., a corporation owned, controlled, and operated by Herb Sider. Immediately upon the acceptance of Respondent Wilk's offer, she assigned the sales contract to HBS Investments, Inc. At no time did Respondent Wilk or HBS Investments, Inc., place the $2,150 earnest money deposit in the escrow account of Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc., as represented by Respondent Wilk to the seller and as required by the Contract. Further, at no time did Respondents advise the seller that they did not have an earnest money deposit in the Stars and Stripes escrow account. On November 28, 1988, Respondent "Wilk, a lisenced [sic] real estate broker, and/or assigns" made an offer to purchase real property from Darlene Farris. Farris accepted that offer on December 6, 1988. That Contract for Sale and Purchase of Real Property provided that an initial deposit of $100 had been placed in the escrow account of Stars and Stripes Realty and that an additional earnest money deposit of $1,900 would be placed in escrow within 72 hours of acceptance. Respondent Wilk executed the portion of the Contract acknowledging that she had received the initial $100 earnest money deposit. That representation was false. In fact, Respondent Wilk never placed any of the $2,000 earnest money deposit in her escrow account and never advised the seller or the seller's listing broker that no earnest money deposit had been made. On or about February 2, 1989, Respondents solicited and obtained Willy Pearson as a tenant for the Farris property. Respondents represented to Pearson that the lessor was HBS Investments, Inc. Respondent Wilk prepared a Memorandum to Enter Into a Lease acknowledging the receipt of $550 as a deposit from Pearson, although Respondent Wilk only received $250 from Pearson. When Respondent Wilk received half of the rental deposit, she gave Pearson both a receipt and immediate possession of the property. Respondents obtained the tenant without the prior knowledge and consent of Darlene Farris, owner of the property. Further Respondents did not notify Farris or Farris' broker that Respondents had rented Farris' property until sometime after Respondents had received the $250 deposit from Pearson and had given him possession of Farris' property. Neither Respondent Wilk nor HBS Investments, Inc., ever closed on the Farris property. Further, Respondent Wilk never obtained authority from Darlene Farris to obtain or place a tenant in Farris' property.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them and revoking the licenses of Respondents Lori Wilk and Stars and Stripes Realty, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2468 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-21 and 23-28 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 22 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 2-9, 19, and 23 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents' proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 15, and 27 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 11, 12, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24, 25, 28, and 30 have been rejected as not been supported by the weight of the credible, competent evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 13, 26, and 29 have been rejected as being irrelevant to determination of the issues involved in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section - Suite N-308 Hurston Building - North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Monte K. Rassner, Esquire Rassner, Malove, Rassner, Kramer & Gold Plaza 7000, Suite 500 7000 Southwest 62nd Avenue South Miami, FL 33143 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to the Prehearing Stipulation, the following facts are established: This case is based on allegations by John Carosso that James J. Baruch, a licensed real estate broker, wrongfully allowed the dispersal of a deposit Mr. Carosso had made to Centennial Development Corporation on a villa to be constructed. James J. Baruch was associated with Wyn Pope Associates, Inc., as a realtor and salesman over a period of several years and on several projects which Mr. Pope developed. On the Gasa Tiempo project, the developer was Centennial Development Corporation and sales were handled by Wyn Pope Associates, Inc. This corporate realtor was formed using James J. Baruch's realtor's license. During their association, Wyn Pope and James Baruch had always agreed that no deposits would be accepted which could not be used for construction after the mortgage commitment. In the past Mr. Baruch had rejected contracts which did not allow such use of the deposit. The Casa Tiempo contracts all contained such a provision and deposit monies were invariably used for construction with the knowledge of the purchasers. Only the contract with John Carosso was changed to provide for an escrow and to prohibit use of the deposit for construction. Mr. Baruch did not prepare or negotiate this contract and his only connection with the Carosso sale was to witness Mr. Carosso's signature. The contract was negotiated and altered by Wyn Pope without Mr. Baruch's knowledge or consent. Neither Mr. Baruch nor Wyn Pope Associates was a party to the contract and the contract said that the deposit would be held in escrow, but did not specify an escrow agent. As a party to the contract, Centennial acknowledged receipt of the deposit and thereby agreed to hold it in escrow. Since Mr. Baruch was not an officer or in any way a part of Centennial Development Corporation, he had no authority to approve or modify the contracts and no reason to believe that he needed to review each contract himself. Mr. Baruch was therefore not authorized to control the deposit which according to the terms of the contract was made to Centennial Development Corporation. Although the contract was signed July 6, 1979, no deposit was received until July 17, 1979. The changes regarding escrow, although typed in, were each initialed, indicating that the contract was changed after execution and witnessing. Given the ten-day delay and initialing, it is likely that the changes regarding the deposit were made in the contract after Mr. Baruch had witnessed Mr. Carosso's signature and as a condition of the deposit being actually paid. In that case, Mr. Baruch would have no way of knowing that the standard contract had been modified unless he checked each contract submitted by other salesmen. Contrary to paragraph 9 of Petitioner's Complaint, Mr. Baruch never had actual knowledge of the terms of the Carosso contract until the project was taken over by Casa Tiempo Builders, Inc., in May, 1980. Mr. Baruch received no commission on the Carosso sale and never received any part of the deposit. Mr. Baruch completely severed his connection with Wyn Pope Associates, Inc., and Casa Tiempo in March, 1980, and did not profit in any way from the additional deposits demanded and received by Joseph Falso in May, 1980. On or about August 7, 1980, John Carosso entered into an agreement for the completion of his villa in which he released Centennial Development from all claims connected with his deposit. John Carosso was injured by the use of his deposit only in that he lost the option of withdrawing his deposit and rescinding the contract. He could not have finished his home at the original contract price even if the deposit remained in escrow. All the homes in the project had appreciated greatly in value between the contract of July 6, 1979 and the May, 1980 meeting, thus it was to each owner's advantage to pay the 7,500 and complete construction. Because of this appreciation, Mr. Carosso could have paid the $7,500 and immediately sold the house in May, 1980 for enough to return his entire initial deposit plus a profit. One Mr. Hmeilewski, a contract vendee, did so with the help of the new management of Centennial. Selling his contract would thus have enabled Mr. Carosso to be in a better position than rescission and return of the deposit. He preferred to have the house at the increased price. Respondent's position is that he was not responsible for the deposit and should not be sanctioned for the events stipulated to, especially since no actual damage was incurred by Mr. Carosso and all claims against the Developer and escrow holder Centennial Development Corporation were released by Mr. Carosso.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against James J. Baruch be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 24th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation State Office Building 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 James H. Gillis, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nicholas Rockwell, Esquire McCUNE HIAASEN CRUM FERRIS & GARDNER, P.A. 25 South Andrews Avenue Post Office Box 14636 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation Old Courthouse Square Bldg. 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order holding Respondent, Stephen E. Schiller, t/a Allstate Realty, guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b) and (k), Florida Statutes (1985), under Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint in this case, and suspending his real estate broker's license no. 0374362 for one year. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 27th day of August, 1986.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Richard Shindler has been a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0395044. The last license issued was as a salesman with Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. At all times material hereto, Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., has been a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0223589. At all times material hereto, Mark H. Adler was licensed and operated as the qualifying broker and officer of Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. Adler's license is currently under suspension by agreement with Petitioner as a result of the activities complained of in the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause. At no time has Respondent Shindler been a director or officer of Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. At all times material hereto, Respondent Shindler has been the sales manager for Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. As the sales manager, Respondent Shindler sometimes helped other salesmen structure financing and helped them with other problems. Respondent Shindler was not responsible for the collection of funds from individual salesmen. Each individual salesman was responsible for collecting funds from any real estate transaction and giving those funds to Respondent Global's bookkeeper for deposit. As sales manager, Shindler was a signatory on the escrow account in order to make disbursements for small transactions mainly involving rental properties. In addition, Respondent Shindler was responsible for the hiring and firing of office personnel. However, he had no control over the contracts of other salesmen. On March 13, 1989, Respondent Shindler, as a private purchaser, made two purchase offers for two pieces of property owned by the same sellers. The purchase offers were for $115,000 and $80,000, respectively, and required that Respondent Shindler place $6,000 and $5,000, respectively, into Respondent Global's escrow account as a deposit on the purchase of the properties. Respondent Global and real estate broker Jay Hirsch were to receive commissions on the sale of the properties. Those offers to purchase disclosed in writing that Respondent Shindler was also a licensed real estate salesman. Although both offers to purchase were accepted by the sellers, the transactions involving the purchase of these properties did not close due to Respondent Shindler's inability to obtain financing, which was a contingency of the contracts. In October, 1989, demands for the release of the escrowed monies were made by the sellers and by the sellers' broker Jay Hirsch. They made demand upon Respondent Global's attorney. Additionally, Jay Hirsch made demand on Mark Adler by telephone and then by demand letter to Adler, who, as the qualifying broker for Respondent Global, was responsible for the release of the escrowed funds. Subsequent to the demands made by the sellers and their broker, Respondent Global filed a complaint for interpleader. The escrowed deposits were eventually disbursed pursuant to a settlement among the parties claiming an interest in the escrowed deposits. In March, 1990, Petitioner began an investigation of the Respondents and Adler. Investigators Castro and Rehm both participated in the investigation. Investigator Castro believed Respondent Shindler to be the office manager of Respondent Global. During the initial interview with Respondent Shindler, he produced records which indicated that a deposit of $14,265.69 had been made on January 13, 1989, into Respondent Global's escrow account. This check had been given by Respondent Shindler to Global's bookkeeper for deposit. This deposit represented proceeds from the sale of property owned by Respondent Shindler's brother Paul, and was placed in escrow in anticipation of the offers to purchase made by Respondent Shindler on the two properties involved in this cause. Investigator Rehm examined the escrow account bank records and determined that for a two-month period the escrow account balance had dropped below the minimum $11,000 balance required by the two contracts in question herein alone. Initially, Respondent Shindler advised the investigators that the bank where the escrow account was maintained had represented that it had debited the escrow account as a result of a lien placed on that account by the Internal Revenue Service. Upon further investigation, Respondent Shindler advised the investigators that the bank itself had withdrawn $3,200 from Global's escrow account to cover a shortage in Respondent Global's operating account. At all times material hereto, both Adler and Respondent Shindler were signatories on the escrow account. As part of its investigation, Petitioner served a subpoena on Maria Aguerra, Respondent Global's bookkeeper, requesting from Adler, or Respondent Shindler, or the custodian of records for Respondent Global Real Estate, all contracts, leases, agreements, monthly bank statements, deposit slips, and cancelled checks for all accounts for the period of January 1, 1989, through March 22, 1990. Some of the requested documents were initially unavailable because they had previously been sent to the Florida Real Estate Commission. Although Adler testified that he was initially unaware that a subpoena had been served, he was given a 30-day extension to produce the records when he met with investigators Castro and Rehm on May 1, 1990. Although Adler had both the responsibility for and control over the records of Respondent Global, he was not fully familiar with the records, and the bookkeeping was in disarray. At all times material hereto, Adler, as the broker for Respondent Global, was responsible for operating the Global office, for overseeing Global's escrow account, for reviewing contracts, and for being aware of the day-to-day events in the Global office. In addition, as the broker, Adler was required to be an officer of the corporation, to be a signatory on the escrow account, to have prepared and to sign the monthly escrow account reconciliations, and to respond to Petitioner if there were complaints or requests for production of documents. Adler, as the broker for Respondent Global, did not reconcile and sign escrow account statements on a monthly basis since he was not aware of the requirement that he do so. However, Adler did testify that he was aware of his responsibility for escrowed funds. At no time did Respondent Shindler have the responsibility to maintain Global's escrow account or to reconcile the escrow account on a monthly basis. At no time did Respondent Shindler represent that he was the broker for Respondent Global or that he was a broker. Respondent Shindler did not state to investigator Rehm that he was acting as the broker for Global or that Adler had simply lent Adler's license to Shindler to use. At no time did Adler and Respondent Shindler enter into an agreement whereby Shindler would act as the broker for Global using Adler's broker's license, and Adler was never paid any monies for any use of his broker's license. Adler testified that his involvement with Global's business had declined as he had pursued his growing interest in performing appraisals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered: Dismissing Counts II, III, VII, VIII, and IX of the Administrative Complaint filed herein; Finding Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., guilty of the allegations contained in Count V of the Administrative Complaint; and Ordering Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., to pay a fine in the amount of $500 by a date certain. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of March, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 20th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4522 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-5, 7-9, 11-12c, 13, 14, and 16 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 15, and 17 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 12d has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-22 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The transcript of proceedings, together with Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 3, 5, and 8-14 and Respondents' Exhibit numbered 1 which were admitted in evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate - Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Suite 400 - One Datran Center Miami, Florida 33156 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc., by and through its president, an active firm member, Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, failed to maintain funds in its escrow or trust bank account until disbursement thereof is properly authorized; by receiving earnest money deposits from Edward Sheredy and Sharon Sheredy, his wife, and a separate earnest money deposit of Joseph Federico, both of which deposits were placed in the escrow bank account of Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc., and were allegedly unavailable for withdrawal from the escrow account at the time of any alleged real estate transaction closing in the two transactions, set for November 27, 1974, and by reason of the foregoing the Respondent, Vista Realty Inc., by and through its president, an active firm member, Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, failed to maintain funds in an escrow or trust bank account until disbursement thereof was properly authorized, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(i), F.S. Whether or not Arthur Sinett and Sylvia Sinett, his wife, as purchasers, and Vista Community Builders, Inc. by and through its president, Raymond S. Hurley, as seller, and Vista Realty, Inc., by and through its president an active firm member, Raymond S. Hurley, as real estate broker, entered into a contract to purchase and sell certain real property in Palm Beach County, Florida which called for deposits by the buyer to be held in escrow account until the sale is closed; and whether or not the $50,000.00 sum placed with Vista Community Builders, Inc. was an earnest money deposit made pursuant to the terms of the contract; and whether or not Vista Community Builders, Inc. by and through its president, Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, failed to deposit and maintain the said funds in an escrow account until the sale closed; thereby showing the Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, to be guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device in a business transaction, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), F.S. Whether or not Richard J. Fenick and Agina J. Fennick, his wife, as purchasers, and Vista Community Builders, Inc. by and through its president, Raymond S. Hurley, as seller, and Vista Realty, Inc., by and through its president, as an active firm member, Raymond S. Hurley, as real estate broker, entered into a contract to purchase and sell certain real property in Palm Beach County, Florida which called for deposits by the buyer to be held in escrow account until the sale is closed; and whether or not the $10,000.00 sum placed with the Vista Community Builders, Inc. was an earnest money deposit made pursuant to the terms of the contract; and whether or not Vista Community Builders, Inc. by and through its president, Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, failed to deposit and maintain the said funds in an escrow account until the sale closed; thereby showing the Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, to be guilty of misrepresentation, false policies, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device in a business transaction, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, is the holder of license no. 0042412, held with the Florida Real Estate Commission, at all times pertinent to this administrative complaint. The Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc., is the holder of license no. 0091754, held with the Florida Real Estate Commission, at all times pertinent to this administrative complaint. The Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, is now and was at all times alleged in the complaint, the President and active firm member of the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc., a registered corporate broker. On or about November 8 & 26, 1973, Edward Sheredy and Sharon Sheredy, his wife, entrusted the sums of $100.00 and $3,050.00 respectively, to the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc. as a real estate broker. A secretary of the Respondent corporation, one Marie Tolton, received the aforesaid sums, which represented an earnest money deposit on the purchase of real estate in Palm Beach County, Florida, by Edward Sheredy and Sharon Sheredy. On or about November 8 & 27, 1973, the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc., by and through its President and active firm member, Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, deposited the sums of $100.00 aid $3,050.00, respectively, into its escrow or trust bank account, to wit, the account of Vista Realty, Inc., escrow account with the American National Bank and Trust Company, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. This deposit was made by an employee of the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc., and was made to the account no. 2191-639-3. The balance in the escrow or bank account subsequent to the above deposits was $9,562.98, effective November 27, 1973. On or about February 19, 1974, Joseph Federico entrusted the sum of $5,637.50 to the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc. as a real estate broker. The aforementioned sum represented part of an earnest money deposit of $5737.50 on the purchase of real estate in Palm Beach County, Florida, being made by Joseph Federico. The remainder of the earnest money deposit was made by voiding a prior real estate contract and transferring the $100.00 earnest money deposit therein to the new transaction. On or about March 1, 1974, the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc., by and through its President and active firm member, Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley, deposited $5637.50 escrow money into its escrow or trust bank account, to wit, the account of Vista Realty, Inc. placed with the American National Bank and Trust Company, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. This deposit of escrow was made by an employee of the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc. into account no. 2191-63-3 after being received by the employee Marie Tolton, a secretary in the Respondent corporation. The balance in the escrow or trust bank account on March 4, 1974, which was present subsequent to the aforementioned deposit was $22,545.48. On November 27, 1974, the escrow bank account of the Respondent, Vista Realty, Inc. in the American National Bank and Trust Company, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, reflected the balance of $4,700.48. On November 27, 1974, the aforementioned real estate transactions did not close, and any withdrawal of the earnest money deposit placed by the parties, Sheredy and Federico was not authorized to be made by the Respondents. The total obligation of the Respondents for the payment of the earnest money deposits for the Sheredy and Federico contracts, was $8,887.50. Other escrow funds which the Respondents had on deposit included $91.80 shown on account and $4,050.90 as a cashier's check on the same account, which was an escrow account with the First Community Bank of Boca Raton, Florida. The account no. in the Boca Raton bank was account no. 7145831. The amounts mentioned in the escrow account in the First Community Bank of Boca Raton were those amounts effective on November 27, 1974. Taking the totals of the escrow deposits in both banks, the total amount available on November 27, 1974, was $8,843.18, leaving a $44.32 deficit in honoring the refund of the Federico and Sheredy earnest money deposits. In addition, there was other real estate deposit in the Boca Raton bank, earnest money deposits on two contracts. Those amounts were $2,564.10 for Kathleen G. and Carl F. Monturo, and $2,500.00 for Hogeland Barcalow. Taking the total of the Monturo and Barcalow contracts this would an additional $5,064.10, debit against the available funds in two escrow accounts, which would be in addition to the $44.32 deficit already mentioned. The $5,064.10 could not have been used to satisfy the obligation on the Federico and Sheredy contracts. On or about August 30, 1974, Arthur Sinett and Silvia Sinett, his wife, as purchasers, went to the offices of Vista Realty, Inc. 2 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida, to enter into a contract to purchase real estate. The Respondent, Raymond S. Hurley was representing the corporation know as Vista Community Builders, Inc. and received $50,000.00 deposit as earnest money deposit on the purchase of the real estate in two separate installments, one of $45,000.00 and one of $5,000.00. The deposit receipt contracts signed was on a form prepared for Vista Realty, Inc. and listed Vista Realty, Inc. as real estate broker in the transaction. A copy of that is Petitioner's Exhibit number 5, admitted into evidence. The contract called for the $5600000 earnest money deposit to be placed in an escrow account until the sale was closed, and Raymond S. Hurley entered into this contract as President of Vista Community Builders, Inc. listing Vista Realty, Inc. as real estate broker. The money was never placed in an escrow account until closing, as stated in the contract, and this failure to place the money in an escrow account was without the permission of the Sinetts. On or about July 16, 1974, Richard J. Fenick and Aginia J. Fenick, his wife, entered into a contract for the purchase of real estate. This negotiation of the contract was entered into at the offices of Vista Realty, Inc. at 2 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida. Raymond S. Hurley signed, in his own name, as the party receiving the earnest money deposit, which was in the amount of $10,000.00. He signed as a contracting party in the name of Raymond S. Hurley, President, Vista Community Builders, Inc. The contract did not show the name of any broker, and in fact, indicated the word none in the space provided for such designation. The contract entered into between the Fenicks and Hurley is petitioner's Exhibit number 19, admitted into evidence. The contract form was a form prepared for Vista Realty, Inc., and contained a statement that deposits by the buyer should be placed in an escrow account until the sale was closed. The Fenicks paid the $10,000.00 to Raymond S. Hurley and the earnest money deposit was never placed in an escrow account, and the failure to place the earnest money deposit in an escrow account was without the permission of the Fenicks.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license no. 0042142, held by Raymond S. Hurley, be suspended for one year. It is recommended that the license no. 0091754, held by Vista Realty, Inc. be suspended for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Ronald Sales, Esquire Sales & Christiansen 247 Royal Palm Way Palm Beach, Florida 33480 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, An Agency of the State of Florida, Plaintiff, PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 2759 PALM BEACH COUNTY vs. DOAH CASE NO. 76-0243 RAYMOND S. HURLEY and VISTA REALTY, INC., Defendants. /
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to deliver a deposit to the person entitled to said delivery in violation of Section 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondent appeared at the hearing without legal counsel and was advised of his rights to same at his own expense. He elected to represent himself at the hearing. He was further advised as to his rights under the Administrative Procedure Act including the right to testify on his own behalf if he so desired. He indicated his understanding of his rights. It was stipulated by the parties that Joseph Sopotnick, Joseph Sopotnick, Jr., and Joe Sopotnick are one and the same person.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times under consideration in these proceedings, Respondent was a registered real estate broker (Stipulation of parties, Exhibit 2) In March 1974, Alvin K. Whittington of Marietta, Georgia, upon the recommendation of his job supervisor, who had dealt with Respondent in the past, called the Respondent on the telephone concerning the possibility of purchasing land in Florida. Although the Respondent indicated that he had none available at that time, he called Whittington later on in the day and told him that he had certain property which was for sale and inquired as to when he could come down to Florida to look it over. Whittington informed him that he did not know when he would be able to visit Florida and Respondent advised him to send a deposit in order to hold the land since there was a contractor interested in the same property. Whittington told him that he did not like the idea of placing a deposit on property that he had not seen and inquired as to whether or not he could secure a return of the deposit if, after he had seen the land he did not wish to purchase it. Respondent told him "That's no problem. You can get your deposit back". He advised him to send the deposit and that he would hold it until he came to Florida. Accordingly, Whittington sent a check for $360.00, dated March 20, 1974, to the Respondent which indicated on its face that it was a "deposit on Fla. shore lots - N.W. corner Needle Palm & 18th". The check was signed by Mrs. Whittington on a joint account with her husband. The sum of $360.00 represented 10 percent of a purchase price of $3600.00. After talking to Whittington, Respondent on March 20 wrote to the owners of the property, advised that a deposit check would be forthcoming and enclosed a standard sales contract for the sellers to execute and return to him. This was accomplished and Respondent then forwarded the contract to the Whittingtons for execution and return which they received on April 1st. Mr. Whittington thereupon called the Respondent and told him that he could not sign the contract without seeing the property. On April 12th, he and his wife went to Florida, met with the Respondent, looked over the lots in question, and informed the Respondent that he would call him the following Monday as to whether or not he wished to make the purchase. On April 15th, Whittington called the Respondent, informed him that he did not wish to purchase the property and requested return of his deposit. Respondent informed him he could not return it and that disposition of the deposit would be a matter to be determined by the seller. Thereafter, on April 19th, Respondent wrote to the Whittingtons informing them that after careful consideration, he intended to treat the matter as a forfeiture of deposit situation, and unless he heard from them to the contrary he would disburse the deposit to the seller under the terms of the contract. However, he stated in the letter that he would apply the full deposit to any purchase that the Whittingtons might thereafter wish to make. After receipt of this letter, Whittington again called the Respondent concerning the situation at which time Respondent informed him that he would try to get 1/3 of the deposit returned if Whittington would send him a letter indicating that he would accept such an amount. Nothing further was heard from the Respondent and the deposit was never refunded (Testimony of Mr. & Mrs. Whittington, Composite Exhibit 1, Exhibits 3, 4). On or about July 2, 1974, Respondent remitted 1/2 of the deposit to sellers and retained 1/2 for himself (Stipulation of parties) Respondent testified that Whittington had insisted he accept the deposit and send the contract to the seller to insure that he would be able to purchase the property, and that the proposed deal was not contingent upon the buyer's satisfaction with the property. He denied telling Whittington he could get his deposit back. He also testified that after the Whittingtons viewed the property in Florida, he asked Whittington about the contract and the latter said that he had not brought it with him but would send it within a few days. That when he thereafter called upon his return to Georgia, he informed Respondent that he did not wish to make the purchase because his wife was about to have a baby. Respondent contended at the hearing that he was never sure that Whittington wanted his deposit back, however, conceded that Composite Exhibit 1f was his letter to the sellers advising that the Whittingtons had requested the return of the deposit. Respondent asserted that it was his impression that if a deposit had been made in good faith, it was proper to consider that there was a binding contract even though the depositor had not signed a sales contract. He further indicated that if he was wrong in this respect he would return the deposit. At no time did the Respondent ever discuss the transaction with the sellers. He was unaware of the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(c), by which a registrant may seek advice from the real estate commission if he entertains, in good faith, doubt concerning his duty to account and deliver a deposit. Respondent has been in the real estate business for twelve years (Testimony of Respondent, Composite Exhibit 1f).
Recommendation That Respondent's registration as a real estate broker be suspended for a period of 60 days. That the period of suspension in excess of 30 days be vacated if the Respondent returns the $350.00 deposit to Mr. & Mrs. Alvin K. Whittington prior to the expiration of the aforesaid period of 30 days from the original date of suspension. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact In early July, 1972, Donald R. and Pamela S. Leininger (buyer) entered into a contract to purchase a residence through Sun Up Realty with its salesman, Bernard Zapel. The real property involved and Sun Up Realty were owned by Defendant, Norman N. Zipkin either as sole proprietor or as sole shareholder of the corporation in whose name the property was held. Disclosure of the role of Defendant as owner-seller was not an issue in these proceedings. Buyer executed two contracts for the purchase of the property both dated July 9, 1972. The first contract acknowledged receipt of $100 as a deposit with a down payment to be made of $1750 with the buyer obtaining a mortgage of $33,250. Noted on this contract are two additional payments of $650 and $1,000. All of these deposits were payable to and deposited in Sun Up Realty's Escrow Account. The second deposit receipt contract was also dated July 9, 1972 and receipt of $1750 was thereon acknowledged by seller. The sale price of $35,000 applied to both contracts. The second contract provided as terms and conditions of sale that the buyer would make an additional deposit of $1700 before closing and that buyer was to apply for, qualify, and obtain a mortgage insured by FHA. Papers to so qualify were sent to the bank but buyer never qualified for the loan. The Administrative Complaint indicates that the first document executed by the buyer provided for an FHA insured mortgage; the evidence presented was as noted above. Apparently to allow buyer additional time to qualify for the loan Defendant leased the premises to buyer pursuant to lease agreement (Exhibit 5). Although Defendant testified buyer paid him nothing while he occupied the house pursuant to this lease agreement, in his deposition (Exhibit 1) buyer presented a receipt for one month's rent paid to the seller for the premises. Buyer never qualified for the mortgage because the lending agency was never satisfied from whence the additional $1700 down payment was to come. Although no evidence was presented on this point it appears that this additional deposit was required for buyer to reach a 10 percent down payment on the price of the residence. The July 9, 1972 deposit receipt contract that was in effect with respect to this transaction provides in pertinent part: "2. An additional sum of seventeen hundred dollars ($1700) shall be deposited with Escrow Agent before closing. In the event such sum is not so deposited, Seller at his option may cancel and terminate this agreement." "3. Buyer to apply for, qualify for, and obtain a Mortgage insured by the FHA Section in an amount not less than $31,550. In the event the Buyer fails to qualify for said mortgage, all said deposit shall be returned immediately, less the cost of the credit report. "14. It is mutually agreed that the trans action shall be closed and the Buyer shall pay the balance of the first payment and execute any and all papers necessary to be executed by him for the completion of this purchase within days from the aforementioned abstract of title, or such time as shall reasonably be required by seller to make such title good, otherwise the herein named Escrow Agent is hereby directed by both Seller and Buyer to divide the monies being held by said Escrow Agent, under the terms under this Contract between the Seller and Broker herein named as hereinafter provided." "It is further agreed that in case of default by the Buyers, the Seller may at his option take legal action at law and/or in equity to enforce this Contract, in which event, the Buyer shall pay reasonable attorney fees and court costs; or else the Seller may at his option retain one half of the deposit herein paid as considera tion for the release of the Buyer by the Seller from any and all further obligations under this Contract to the Seller, which release shall be implied from such act of retention by the Seller." Buyer quit the premises in October, 1972 and thereafter demanded return of his deposit from seller. By letter from buyer's attorney (Exhibit 6) dated March 19, 1973 demand was made for return of the deposit. By letter dated March 23, 1973 (Exhibit 7) Seller denied the refund of the deposit on grounds that the buyer had breached the contract as the Buyer had qualified for and been approved for a mortgage by the Collateral Mortgage Co. The money was withdrawn from the escrow account and paid to the seller. Defendant is an attorney, mortgage broker, general contractor, developer and real estate broker. For the past decade he has devoted most of his energies toward real estate development. This is the first time charges have been preferred against him by the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto John Young was registered as a real estate salesman by the Florida Real Estate Commission. On October 2, 1985 Respondent and William Kelly, D.O. entered into a contract to jointly purchase a condominium from Concord Developers Inc. (Exhibit 1). The contract provided for a down payment of $2,000 with an additional earnest money deposit of $3690 to be paid on or before November 4, 1985. Respondent and Kelly each gave the seller a check for $1000 at the signing of the contract and this $2000 was deposited in escrow with the escrow agent. Kelly met Respondent through Respondent's wife who worked in Kelly's office. At the time Kelly was looking for income tax shelters and this purchase appeared to qualify for that purpose. On November 9, 1985, Kelly made out a check payable to John Young in the amount of $1845 which represented Kelly's half of the additional $3690 earnest money deposit. This check was either cashed by Young or deposited in Young's bank account (Exhibit 2). The additional earnest money deposit was not made to the seller, as required by the contract, Exhibit 1. Young notified Bayside Federal Savings and Loan Association, who was to finance the sale, that the loan application was withdrawn, the transaction was cancelled, and two checks in the amount of $1000 each were returned to the seller by the escrow agent (Exhibit 6). The customary practice of the seller in such a situation was to return the down payment to the buyer by check drawn on the seller's account. While no witness could recall this specific transaction, the usual practice would be to return the deposit to the buyer. In this case, the deposit would normally have been returned to Young. Young acknowledged that he received the return of his $1000 deposit but not the $1000 that represented Kelley's portion of the down payment. When Kelley gave Young the check for $1845 he inquired if it was necessary for him (Kelley) to attend the closing and Young advised him it was not. When Kelley subsequently learned that the transaction did not close, he demanded the return of his money. To date he has received none of the monies he deposited to purchase this property. Evidence was presented that in December 1985, Young closed on a condominium he and his wife had contracted to purchase in this same development, and subsequently moved into this unit. While this indicates Young had the opportunity to convert Kelley's contribution to the purchase of the condominium by Young and his wife, no credible evidence was presented that he did so. The evidence that was presented regarding this transaction was that Young was able to move into that unit with a total cash outlay of less than $500. Young accounted for the $1845 check from Kelley as payment of a bet between him and Kelley on one football game. In rebuttal Kelley testified that not only did he not bet with Young on any matter, but also he has never gambled on a football game in his life. Young's testimony that a $1845 bet was made on a football game is so unbelievable that it taints all of his testimony.
Recommendation That the Real Estate license of John Young be revoked. Entered this 2nd day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 2nd day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert H. Dillinger, Esquire 5511 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
The Issue The issue is whether Mr. Powell should be disciplined for irregularities in the handling of an escrow deposit by a real estate firm for which he was the qualifying broker.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Willie Powell, was at all relevant times a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0070494. Mr. Powell was the sole qualifying broker of Future Investments & Development II Co., Inc., trading as ERA Thompkins and Saunders Realty Company (hereafter, T & S), 2734 N.W. 183rd Street, Suite 206, Miami, Florida 33056. On or about November 12, 1990, Guillermo Castillo, a licensed real estate broker for Emerald Enterprises, Inc., received a listing agreement from Horace B. Miller to sell residential property (a duplex) owned by Miller located at 2331 N.W. 103rd Street, Miami, Florida. The property was listed with the Multiple Listing Service. On or about February 27 or 28, 1991, Mr. Castillo received a telephone call from Willie J. Thompkins of T & S saying he wanted to show the Miller property to a prospective buyer. On or about February 28, 1991, Mr. Castillo received through the mail slot at his office a written offer from George R. Howell of Dorchester, Massachusetts, to buy the Miller property, with a business card of Jerry Saunders of T & S. On or about March 6, 1991, Guillermo Castillo met with Horace Miller to review the Howell offer. At Miller's request, Castillo made some changes to the contract to reflect that Miller was selling the duplex in "as is" condition. Miller signed the contract and initialed the changes, and Mr. Castillo signed the contract on behalf of Emerald Enterprises, and called Willie J. Thompkins to tell him the contract had been signed. The next day, Mr. Castillo went to the office of T & S and dropped off the contract for the buyer to consider the seller's changes. A day or two later, a representative of T & S telephoned Guillermo Castillo and told Mr. Castillo that the buyer had accepted the seller's changes to the contract; Mr. Castillo then notified Miller. Mr. Castillo later received from T & S the signed contract with Mr. Miller's changes initialed by Mr. Howell. The contract was also signed by Mr. Thompkins of T & S. The contract called for a $1,000 deposit to be held in escrow by T & S (Exhibit 5, Paragraph IIa). Guillermo Castillo contacted T & S to check on the progress of the sale. He learned that J.P. Mortgage was handling the buyer's mortgage loan application. Castillo contacted J.P. Mortgage and was told that the loan was proceeding normally. After the contractual closing date of April 29, 1991, had passed without the closing taking place, Castillo contracted J.P. Mortgage again, but was told that they were no longer processing the loan. Castillo requested that J.P. Mortgage send him a letter to that effect, and he received a letter dated May 2, 1991, stating that J.P. Mortgage was withdrawing as the lender because the buyer failed to return the mortgage loan application. Castillo informed Horace Miller of the situation and Miller instructed Castillo to write to T & S making a claim to the buyer's deposit under the contract of sale. On May 4, 1991, Castillo sent a letter to T & S claiming the deposit for the seller. Paragraph Q of the contract provided for the seller to retain the buyer's deposit as liquidated damages if the buyer failed to perform the contract. On or about May 9, 1991, Guillermo Castillo received from Mr. Thompkins, the manger of T & S, a letter dated May 1, 1991, but postmarked May 6, 1991, ". . . requesting that the . . . file be cancelled" due to ". . . communication problems with . . . Mr. Howell," and citing unsuccessful attempts to contact Howell by telephone and by mail. When Castillo received that letter he contacted T & S to point out the seriousness of the matter and to press for forfeiture of the buyer's deposit. On May 9, 1991, Castillo received a telefax from Mr. Thompkins of T & S stating that the Howell deposit check had been returned for insufficient funds and attaching a copy of the returned check. Prior to his receipt of this telefax, Castillo had not taken any independent steps to verify whether T & S had actually received the Howell deposit. He had relied on the contract, which had been executed by a licensed salesman and believed he did not require further verification that the escrow deposit had been made. Neither Mr. Castillo nor Mr. Miller dealt with the Respondent, Mr. Powell, at any time concerning the sale of the Miller property. T & S received George Howell's $1,000 deposit in the form of a check on March 4, 1991, drawn on a Massachusetts bank and deposited it in its account with First Union National Bank which was used as the escrow account, account number 15462242336, on March 5, 1991. The check was charged back to the account twice, on March 11, 1991, and on March 26, 1991. Mr. Powell was a signatory on that escrow account. After Guillermo Castillo received the May 9, 1991, telefax, he notified Horace Miller. Mr. Miller had not taken any steps on his own to verify whether T & S had received the deposit because he had confidence in his broker to let him know right away if there were any problems with the sale. By May 9, 1991, Horace Miller had already incurred expenses preparing the property for closing, and had lost rent by terminating a tenancy in the property. Because the transaction never closed, Mr. Miller sustained financial damage, some of which he might have avoided if he had been notified earlier of the buyer's dishonored escrow deposit check. On or about May 28, 1991, Miller filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation, which Sidney Miller investigated. He found that the person introduced to him during his investigation at T & S as Willie Powell was not actually the Respondent. In March 1991, Mr. Powell had not seen the bank statements for the T & S escrow account for several months, and had not signed the written monthly escrow account reconciliation statement for the month of October 1990 or for any subsequent month. Mr. Powell was serving as the qualifying broker of T & S for a salary of $75 per month and no commissions. He was not active in the management of the firm. He would come to the office of T & S approximately three days per week to check files and sign listing agreements, and he would call in to see if there were any problems, messages or documents to sign. He essentially loaned his brokers' license to those who operated T & S as an accommodation because he had known the Thompkins family for 25 years. Mr. Powell argues in his proposed order that "the adequacy of [Mr. Powell's] monthly reconciliations were impeded by frauds perpetrated upon him by persons at [T & S]" (PRO at page 9, paragraph 5). It is obvious that there were problems at T & S, since a person there misrepresented himself to the Department's investigator as Mr. Powell. The full extent of the misconduct there is unclear. There is no proof in this record that salespersons at T & S had fabricated escrow account statements for Mr. Powell. Had Mr. Powell proven that he performed monthly reconciliations with what turned out to be falsified records of T & S, his argument might be well taken. The record, unfortunately, shows that no reconciliations were done. Had Mr. Powell done them, the problem here should have been uncovered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding Willie Powell guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, finding him not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and taking the following disciplinary action against him: Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 to be paid within 30 days of the date of the final order adopting the recommended order. Placement of the license of Mr. Powell on probation for a period of one year beginning on the date of the final order and providing that during that period he shall provide satisfactory evidence to the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, Legal Section, Hurston Building, North Tower, Suite N-308, 400 West Robinson Street, Orlando, Florida 32801-1772, of having completion a 30-hour postlicensure education course in real estate brokerage management, in addition to any other education required of him to remain current and active as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, and that he be required to submit to the Commission during that year his monthly trust account reconciliations. Cf. Rule 21V-24.002(3)(i), Florida Administrative Code, on penalties for violation of Rule 21V-14.012(2), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of July 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 day of July 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-0192 Rulings on Findings proposed by the Commission: Adopted in Findings 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Findings 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 13. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 15. Rulings on Findings proposed by Mr. Powell: Adopted in Finding 1 with the exception of the license number. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 6. Generally adopted in Finding 6. Implicit in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Findings 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Rejected as subordinate to Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 13. Rejected as unnecessary, the reconciliation was not one done shortly following the month of March reconciling the account for March 1991. It was done during the investigation conducted by Mr. Miller and took place between approximately June 20 and July 10, 1991. Adopted in Finding 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 14. Rejected as unnecessary, or subordinate to Finding 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Suite N-607 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire Suite 400, One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the real estate license issued to the Respondent, James P. Hudson, should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: At all pertinent times, Respondent, James P. Hudson, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license No. 0148841 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been operating as a broker from an office at 413 South Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida 33435. Respondent maintains an escrow account No. 018200602689 at Sun Bank in Boynton Beach, Florida into which he deposits trusts funds received in his capacity as a real estate broker. Sometime in the early part of September 1989, Petitioner initiated a random audit of Respondent's business. Prior to the audit, Petitioner's investigator advised the Respondent that he would need to produce all the records related to his escrow account. An investigator for Petitioner visited Respondent's office on or about September 18, 1989 to conduct an audit of Respondent's escrow accounts. Based upon the investigator's review of the records, five different transactions were identified as allegedly involving delays or mishandling of escrow funds by Respondent. Those transactions are the basis for several of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Each transaction is addressed separately below. The first transaction involved a contract for the sale and purchase of real property between Fitz as buyer and Kerstin as seller (the "Fitz Contract"). Included in Respondent's files on this transaction was a copy of a contract for sale and purchase that was dated and signed by the buyer on September 6, 1989 and dated and signed by the seller on September 9, 1989. The buyer in the Fitz Contract gave Respondent a check for $1000 as a deposit to be held in escrow in connection with the transaction. The Respondent's written receipt for that check is dated September 7, 1989. The evidence established that this initial deposit check was delivered to Respondent on Thursday evening, September 7, 1989. Respondent was out of town on Friday, September 8 and returned on Monday evening, September 11. The check was deposited on the afternoon of September 12 and is reflected in the bank records as a deposit on September 13. The sellers (the Kerstins) signed the contract on September 9, 1989. However, in executing the contract, they crossed out the $900,000 sales price submitted by the buyer and increased the price to $1,400,000. In other words, the sellers made a counteroffer with respect to this contract. The initial deposit was timely returned to the sellers when the counteroffer was rejected. Petitioner's investigator erroneously assumed that Respondent did not timely collect the additional deposit required under this contract. While Petitioner's investigator considered this signed contract in Respondent's files to be a binding agreement on the parties, it is clear that the change in sales price was only initialed by the sellers and, therefore, there was no enforceable agreement. The parties to the Fitz Contract subsequently executed another written contract. This second agreement provided for a sales price of $1,100,000. That contract was executed by the buyer on September 20, 1989 and by the sellers on September 24, 1989. This second contract called for a $49,000.00 deposit upon acceptance. The buyers gave Respondent a check dated September 25, 1989 in the amount of $49,000.00. That check was deposited by Respondent in his escrow account on the afternoon of September 26, 1989. The $49,000 deposit is reflected in the bank records as being deposited on September 27, 1989. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay by Respondent in collecting or depositing the funds into escrow. The second transaction identified by Petitioner's investigator involved a contract for the sale and purchase of real property between Campanis as buyer and Hoffman as seller. The buyer in this transaction gave Respondent a check dated September 6, 1990 to be held as a deposit for this contract. A photocopy of the check presented to Petitioner's investigator included a handwritten note that states "hold until Friday 9/8/89." The evidence did not establish who wrote this note. The evidence established that the check was received by one of Respondent's sales associates on September 7 and left on the Respondent's desk on September 8. Respondent is the only company employee authorized to deposit checks or otherwise handle transactions involving the escrow account. As indicated above, Respondent was out of town from September 8 through the evening of September 11. The check was deposited on the afternoon of September 12 and is reflected in the bank records as being credited to the escrow account on September 13. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was not delinquent in depositing these funds. The third transaction involved a contract for the purchase and sale of real property between White as buyer and Adkins as seller (the "White Contract.") The White Contract was executed by the buyer on July 26, 1989 and by one of the sellers on July 27 and by the other seller on Friday, July 28. The contract called for an initial deposit of $500.00 with an additional deposit of $1,700 upon acceptance. The initial deposit check was dated July 26, 1989. That deposit check was attached to the contract executed by the purchaser and presented to a cooperating real estate agent who was to present the proposed contract to the seller. The executed contract was not returned to Respondent until sometime during the weekend of July 29 and 30. The initial deposit check along with the additional deposit were then deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Monday, July 31, 1989. Under the circumstances, the evidence established that there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money. The next transaction identified by Petitioner's investigator involved a contract for sale and purchase of real property between Milera as buyer and Twillie as seller (the "Milera Contract.") The Milera Contract provided for an additional deposit due upon acceptance. The contract was accepted by Twillie on August 23, 1989. The parties to the contract agreed that the time for making the additional deposit would be extended for two days. The check for the additional deposit was dated and received by Respondent on Friday, August 25, 1989. The check was deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Tuesday, August 29, 1989. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money. The final transaction involved a contract with the sale and purchase of real property between Gerrety as buyer and the estate of John Walsh as seller (the "Gerrety Contract.") The Gerrety Contract was executed by the purchaser on August 10, 1989. The deposit check was given to one of the Respondent's associates on that Thursday evening. The deposit check was not delivered to Respondent until after business hours on Friday, August 11. The check was deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Monday, August 14. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money on this transaction. During the audit, Petitioner's investigator determined that Respondent was holding deposits on two separate rental properties in his escrow account. At the time of the audit, Petitioner's investigator was not provided with any leases or other documentation regarding these transactions even though Respondent was supposed to produce records for all sums in the escrow account. Respondent contends that he did not realize he was supposed to produce his rental files, was never specifically asked to produce these files and did not know that Petitioner was questioning these transactions until he received the Administrative Complaint in this action. While there was apparently some miscommunication at the time of the audit, adequate documentation for these rental deposits was produced at the hearing. Therefore, Petitioner's allegation that Respondent did not maintain adequate documentation regarding these deposits is without merit. Petitioner has also charged that Respondent did not produce all of the deposit slips in connection with the escrow account and did not produce any evidence of reconciliation of the escrow account. The evidence at the hearing established that all deposit slips are available even though they were not all kept with the bank statements. Moreover, the evidence failed to substantiate the allegation that Respondent did not reconcile his escrow account. Thus, these charges were not substantiated. At the time of the audit, Respondent advised Petitioner's investigator that the escrow account included some commission money that had not yet been removed. In the past, Respondent would sometimes collect his commissions at the close of a transaction from the funds held in escrow. (Respondent no longer collects commissions in this manner.) In auditing Respondent's escrow account, Petitioner's investigator determined that there was an overage of approximately $8,178.17 in the account. Within thirty days of the completion of the audit, Respondent removed $7,500 of the overage which represented his commission on two previously closed transactions. While Respondent believed that the remaining amount of the overage was also his commission money, he refrained from removing any more money until completion of a year-end audit by his accountant. Respondent's records reflected a slight difference in the amount of the overage than the amount calculated by Petitioner during the audit. Respondent wanted to be absolutely certain that only the proper amount was removed from the escrow account. At the conclusion of the audit on September 18, 1989, Respondent signed an office inspection report form prepared by Petitioner which contained the following pre-printed statement: ...I certify that to the best of my knowledge all records pertaining to my sales escrow/trust account(s) and my rental property management account(s) have been provided to the investigator. The above violations are brought to my attention this date and thoroughly explained. I will take corrective action within thirty days and furnish photo/sketches of corrections and documents on the same... There is some confusion as to what additional documentation Respondent was expected to provide following the completion of the September, 1989 audit. Respondent did not believe he was required to provide any additional evidence to Petitioner or its investigator and no further documentation was provided by Respondent until Petitioner's investigator returned to his office in January of 1990. Petitioner's investigator returned to Respondent's office on January 17, 1990. At that time, $7500.00 of the overage had been removed from the escrow account. The remaining amount of the overage was removed later in January. It does not appear that Respondent provided Petitioner's investigator with copies of the rental agreements or the second contract in the Kerstin transaction during the January visit by Petitioner's investigator. Respondent contends that this information was never specifically requested. It is clear that communication between Respondent and Petitioner's investigator had deteriorated from bad to worse by the time of this January visit. There is no indication that Respondent ever used the escrow account for improper purposes or withdrew money from the escrow account for his own personal or business use. The Florida Real Estate Commission adopted new record keeping requirements regarding escrow accounts in July of 1989. The new rules require a written monthly reconciliation of a broker's escrow account. At the time of the audit, Respondent was not keeping the minimum written statement comparing broker's total liability with the reconciled bank balance of all trust accounts as required by the new rules. Even after the audit in September, Respondent did not keep the written reconciliations in the format required by the new rules. Respondent was reconciling the account on his computer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondent guilty of Counts III and IV and reprimanding him for minor and techinical violations of those counts and imposing a fine of $100.00. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of December, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 31st day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3589 Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on each of the parties' proposed findings of fact. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Addressed in the preliminary statement. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in pertinenet part in Findings of Fact 3. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5. 8. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 11. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 15. Subordinate 23. to Findings of Fact 8, 9 and Subordinate to Findings of Fact 23. This subject is also addressed in paragraph 9 of the conclusions of law. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. 19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 20. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 23. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 24. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 25. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. 26. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17. Rejected as not established by competent susbstantial evidence. The subject matter is addressed in Findigns of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19 and 20. Rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. The subject matter is addressed to some degree in Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected as irrelevant. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are not numbered. The numbers below refer to the numerical sections contained in the findings of fact section of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order. Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. The first two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6-9. The second two sentences are rejected as irrelevant. This subject matter is addressed in some degree in Findings of Fact 21. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentencess are subordinate to Findings of Fact 10. The next two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentence are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. The third sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first three sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. The second sentence is rejected as vague. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17 and 25. The first three sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18, 19 and 22. The fourth sentence is rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. This subject matter is addressed in part in Findings of Fact 19. The fifth and sixth sentences are rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 James P. Hudson 413 South Federal Highway Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
