Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency charged with the licensing and regulation of real estate salesmen and brokers. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Peebles was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license number 0396895. The last license issued was placed at 2690 52nd Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The home address listed with the Florida Real Estate Commission was Post Office Box 40063, St. Petersburg, Florida. On April 7, 1987, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the crime of credit card fraud in the United States District Court Middle District of Florida, Case No. 86-215 Cr- Orl-19. The crime was a felony in that the alleged acts involved the unauthorized use of access devices (credit cards) to obtain items of value aggregating $1,000 or more in a one-year period. The case was in federal court because the offense affected interstate and foreign commerce. The crime did not involve any business dealings in which the Respondent was acting as a real estate salesman or broker. However, the crime did involve fraudulent or dishonest dealings. Upon acceptance of the Respondent's plea, the court adjudicated the Respondent guilty and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment at Maxwell Air Force Base in a minimum security federal prison. In addition, the Respondent was ordered to make restitution of $60,590.00, and pay court costs. The sentencing occurred on April 7, 1987. A timely appeal from the judgment and sentence was not taken by the Respondent. The Respondent did not notify the Department of his guilty plea and subsequent conviction within the thirty-day period required by Section 475.25(1)(p), Florida Statutes. A Motion for New Trial based upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, was filed by the Respondent in the criminal case on March 1, 1990. The United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, has not ruled on the motion. Mitigation The Respondent does not currently have the financial ability to pay any fines if that penalty were to be imposed upon him in this case. The Respondent failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of his conviction because he was under extreme stress when the conviction occurred and he was incarcerated.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the mitigation presented by the Respondent, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of the allegations in Counts I through IV, which were proved at hearing. That the Respondent's real estate broker's license be revoked for seven years. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-0224 The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3, #4 and #5. Accepted. See HO #5. Rejected. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #7. Rejected. Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert J. Peeples Post Office Box 40063 St. Petersburg, Florida 33743 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a real estate salesman should be suspended or revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violation of Chapter 475, F.S., as set forth in Administrative Complaint, dated September 2, 1981. This case involves Petitioner's allegations that Respondent should be disciplined under Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, for dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, device, and breach of trust in a business transaction. Specifically, it is alleged that while Respondent was in the process of applying for his Florida real estate salesman's license, he was associated with Realty Exchange, Inc., of Tampa, Florida, and, during that association, made copies of the firm's real estate listings and placed the same on his home computer, and failed to return them after passing his real estate examination and obtaining employment elsewhere. At the commencement of the hearing, Petitioner moved to correct an inaccurate statutory reference in paragraph nine of the Administrative Complaint which cited Chapter 473 rather than 475, Florida Statutes, as the statute in question. The motion was granted. Petitioner called one witness and the Respondent to testify at the hearing, and Respondent testified in his own behalf. The Petitioner submitted five exhibits in evidence and the Respondent submitted two exhibits. Although the Administrative Complaint seeks to take disciplinary action with respect to Respondent's real estate salesman's license, the uncontroverted testimony of Respondent at the hearing established that he has held a real estate broker's license since October 13, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Harvey T. Estes, has been a licensed real estate broker in Florida since October 13, 1981. He previously had been licensed as a real estate salesman on or about April 1, 1980 (testimony of Respondent). On or about March 13, 1980, Respondent contacted Realty Exchange, Inc., Tampa, Florida, concerning possible future employment after he obtained his Florida real estate salesman's license. Respondent was planning to take the real estate examination in approximately two weeks. When Paul R. Young, of Realty Exchange, Inc., learned of Respondent's prior successful record as a real estate salesman in Oklahoma, he encouraged Respondent to familiarize himself with the office and its real estate listings, and to view the exterior of the listed properties so that he would be in a position to start work immediately when he obtained his salesman's license (testimony of Young, Respondent, Respondent's Exhibit 1). Although Respondent was not employed by Realty Exchange, Inc., he signed a standard form used by the firm indicating that he was an "independent contractor salesman," which stated that he was responsible for his own expenses and received no remuneration from the broker, and that his "association" with the broker could be terminated by either party at any time upon notice. This "agreement," which was signed only by Respondent, was prospective in anticipation of his future association with the firm. Respondent was at Realty Exchange, Inc., for three or four days prior to king his examination for salesman. During this period, with the knowledge of Young, he made copies of various cards in office files which contained information concerning commercial properties which had been listed with the firm. The majority were "open" listings which had been obtained orally and were not supported by written listing agreements, and a small number were "exclusive" listings. At no time did Respondent ever observe any listing agreement signed by a prospective seller of property. Respondent noted that some of the information on the cards was inaccurate, and he could find no office correspondence with any of the property owners. He also determined that on one of the cards, the owner's name was incorrect and he personally changed it to reflect the correct name of the seller. Respondent placed some of the information from the cards in his home computer and developed financial data concerning a particular property, such as a cash flow analysis, cost per unit, and income per square foot. He also provided Realty Exchange, Inc. with the names of his former out-of-state clients who might be interested in purchasing Florida property (testimony of Young, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 1,4). The evidence is conflicting as to whether Respondent returned to the Realty Exchange, Inc., office after taking the salesman examination. Young testified that he came back the following week and "hung around the office for a few days" and then left stating that he was going "up the country" for a few days. Young said that Respondent never returned again to the office, but that he called John White, the broker and president of the firm, on April 23 or 24, telling White that he had made another connection with a broker who paid 100 percent commissions, and that he would rather work by himself. At that time, White purportedly asked Respondent to turn in all of the "listings" and Respondent indicated that he would do so the first of the week. White did not testify at the hearing, however, as to this alleged phone conversation. Respondent testified that he never returned to the office after taking the examination, but phoned White's secretary and told her that he was not returning to the office. Respondent further claimed that he did not recall any conversation with White and that no one requested he return the listing information until his next employer, Mr. Ragan of Ragan Realty, at some undisclosed date, told him that Realty Exchange Inc., wanted their listing information returned. At this point, Respondent gathered up the information and returned it. In addition, he erased all the data he had entered in his computer. Ragan did not testify at the hearing and Young was not privy to the alleged telephone conversation between White and Respondent. Documentary evidence shows that Young complained to Petitioner by a letter dated May 2, 1980, concerning Respondent's failure to return the listing information and requesting that an investigation be undertaken. Respondent sent a letter to Young, dated June 17, 1980, which was received on June 20, reciting that the listing sheets were enclosed, and Young acknowledges that they were then received. Young testified that Respondent was never provided a written request to return the listing information because the firm did not know where he was located. However, information concerning Respondent's address and telephone number was available in the office files (testimony of Young, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 2-4, Respondent's Exhibit 1). It is found that the Respondent's version of the circumstances surrounding the return of the listing information is credible and unrebutted by competent evidence. While employed with Ragan Realty, Respondent made a personal offer to purchase an apartment complex which was one of the properties carried under an open listing by Realty Exchange, Inc. Although Ragan Realty did not have a listing on the property, it did have information on the property that had been circulated to Ragan and several others by the owner. Respondent did not purchase the property. He has had no other dealings with any of the properties on which he obtained information from Realty Exchange, Inc. (testimony of Young, Respondent, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4). Petitioner issues a handbook which contains its interpretation of various provisions of applicable real estate law. Section 10.23 of the handbook, which was applicable during the incident involved herein, provides that it is "bad faith" for a salesman to copy records, listings, or other confidential information found in the files of the broker and to take them for his later use (Petitioner's Exhibit 5)
Recommendation That the Board of Real Estate dismiss the charges against Respondent, Harvey T. Estes. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 25th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Grover C. Freeman, Esquire FREEMAN & LOPEZ, P.A. 4600 West Cypress, Suite 410 Tampa, Florida 33607 Richard S. Patterson, Esquire Post Office Box 24571 Tampa, Florida 33623 Mr. C. B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, Frederick L. Lundeen, is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction by misrepresenting that money he borrowed from a one Julie Couch would be used for the purchase of a lot but, instead, he utilized the money in connection with the purchase of a house for use by his family and for payment of other vacation and travel expenses and refuses to repay the loan, in a manner violative of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.3
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent, Frederick L. Lundeen, is a licensed real estate salesman and holds license number 0329068. On or about July 13, 1984, Respondent solicited and obtained $3,500 cash from Julie S. Couch (Couch) for the stated purpose of assisting Respondent in purchasing a lot on behalf of Keith and Beverly Rayburn, friends of the Couches. In connection therewith, Respondent executed and delivered to Couch a mortgage note dated July 13, 1984, to secure the $3,500 loan via certain real property owned by Respondent.4 Pursuant to the terms of the note executed by Respondent and given to Mrs. Couch, Respondent was to repay Couch the principal of $3,500 plus $1,000 interest due on or before July 27, 1984. On July 30, 1984, Respondent attempted to repay part of the loan via check dated July 30, 1984 drawn in the amount of $1,000. Respondent's check was returned unpaid by the Drawers Bank with the notification "insufficient funds." (Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 4) Thereafter, Respondent advised Mrs. Couch that the money was used to pay for his moving, vacation and other relocation costs for his family. Keith Rayburn attempted to buy property from the Respondent which was owned by Southern Standards Corporation. At no time during the attempted purchase by Keith Rayburn did Respondent offer to loan him money to purchase a lot from Southern Standards Corporation. Respondent executed and drafted the terms of the note which was given to Julie Couch which memorialized the loan from Mrs. Couch to Respondent. In this regard, Respondent contends that Julie Couch's ex-husband suggested the terms and the rate of interest which he inserted into the note which memorialized the loan from Julie Couch. On the other hand, Julie Couch testified that it was Respondent who suggested the terms and the interest which he provided with the executed note given her. Based on all of the evidence introduced herein including the fact that Respondent misrepresented the purpose for which the money would be utilized, and his failure to call Gary Couch as a witness to substantiate his claim that it was he, Gary Couch, who suggested the terms under which the loan would be made, the testimony of Julie Couch in this regard is credited.5 Respondent has repaid approximately $1,250 of the $3,500 loan from Julie Couch. Respondent, based on advice of his counsel, refuses to repay any further amounts on this loan contending that the interest rates were usurious and, further, that the State, in the person of Petitioner, is attempting to use its "strongarm tactics" to exact money from Respondent which is a usurious transaction. Respondent also contends that because the interest rate charged by Mrs. Couch was in excess of 45 percent per annum, Mrs. Couch committed a third degree felony. As previously stated, the weight of the evidence reveals that it was Respondent who drafted the note and provided the terms for repayment. It is also clear that Respondent misrepresented to Mrs. Couch the purpose for which he would utilize the money that he borrowed from her. It is therefore concluded that by such acts Respondent engaged in acts of misrepresentation, false pretenses, trick and dishonest dealing in a business transaction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the license of Respondent, Frederick L. Lundeen, be suspended for a period of one (1) year and that he be fined $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida.6 JAMES E. BRADWELL , Hearing officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488- 9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October 1985.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is now and has been since about September 9, 1988, a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida. She was issued license number 0523257. The last license issued was as a salesman, in care of Hammocks Properties, Inc., 9290 Hammocks Boulevard, #404, Miami, Florida 33196, with a home address of 7390 Northwest 48th Street, Lauderhill, Florida 33319-3401, listed with the Florida Real Estate Commission as of April 10, 1990. Prior to obtaining her initial real estate salesman's license, the Respondent filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. In that application the Respondent represented that all the answers and statements in the application were true and correct, and as complete as her knowledge, information, and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever. Question 6 on the application form read as follows: "Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld?" The Respondent's answer was, "Yes." The second part of Question 6 read as follows: "If you answered "Yes," please state the details including dates and outcome in full. (Use separate sheet if necessary.)" The Respondent's answer to this part of Question 6 was as follows: "I pleaded guilty to a third degree conspiracy, in 1982 in New Jersey involving an insurance claim." By letter dated February 3, 1988, Ms. Ruth Clayton, Supervisor of Application Certification, wrote to the Respondent seeking more details regarding the Respondent's answer to Question 6. By means of an undated letter, which was received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on February 17, 1988, the Respondent replied to Ms. Clayton's further inquiry about her answer to Question 6 on the application. The letter requesting clarification asked the following specific questions: "What was involved? Was it monies, etc? If a monetary value was involved advise us of the value. What was the court's disposition of the matter? Are you on any type of probation or parole?" The Respondent's letter of reply read as follows, in material part: I am replying to your letter of February 3, 1988 with regards to question #6. I was a part owner of a property in New Jersey in 1982 that was damaged. I did not commit any crime, did not make an insurance claim, and received no monetary gain. I was advised by the police without an attorney present to plead guilty to a third degree crime as part of a plea-bargain. This was to save my family from the strain, embarrassment, and expense of a lengthy trial. There was to be no trial and no punishment. I was placed in an Intensive Supervision Program for one year in which my only restriction was not to leave the state of New Jersey without permission. I am not currently, nor was I ever on any type of probation or parole. This is a matter which happened in 1982 in which I signed a document against my interest without knowing the consequences. I was never involved in a criminal matter before, nor after till this date. I am a moral, ethical, law abiding person and have raised five beautiful children. I have been in my own business for the past fifteen years and have never been involved in any litigation. On March 14, 1983, the Grand Jury in Monmouth County, New Jersey, issued a fourteen-count indictment against Frida Koren and others. The indictment alleged that the defendants had committed various crimes in the course of a criminal scheme to set fire to a house owned by the Respondent and her husband. Four of the fourteen courts alleged criminal conduct by the Respondent. On May 12, 1983, the Respondent retracted a plea of not guilty to all counts and entered a plea of guilty to Count 2 of the indictment. The essence of Count 2 was an allegation that the Respondent and the other defendants "... did commit the crime of conspiracy in that they unlawfully agreed with each other to commit the crime of arson, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission...." The caption to Count 2 describes it as a "third degree crime." On October 28, 1983, the Respondent was sentenced to a prison term of 5 years with a minimum parole ineligibility of 2.5 years. By order dated April 17, 1984, the sentence was modified to delete the parole ineligibility clause and to add a fine of $7,500.00. On June 25, 1984, the Respondent was released into the Intensive Supervision Program for a trial period. On January 11, 1985, the Respondent was resentenced into the Intensive Supervision Program for 5 years. By subsequent order, the Respondent was discharged from supervision of the Intensive Supervision Program as of August 9, 1985.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a final order in this case concluding that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the charge against the Respondent and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of September 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 4th day of September 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-0448 The following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. (It is an accurate conclusion of law.) Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5: Accepted. Paragraphs 6 and 7: Rejected as irrelevant, because there is no issue in this case regarding the Respondent's citizenship. Paragraphs 8 and 9: Accepted, with some additional facts in the interest of clarity. Paragraph 10: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent: The first eight unnumbered paragraphs of findings proposed by the Respondent are accepted. The remaining unnumbered paragraphs of findings proposed by the Respondent are all rejected as constituting argument or proposed conclusions of law, rather than proposed findings. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Dean J. Trantalis, Esquire Arvida Parkway Center 7900 Glades Road Boca Raton, Florida 33434 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, George Aliferis, was licensed as a real estate salesman in Florida under License No. 0325121. During all of April and May, 1980, Respondent was an associate in the real estate office of George D. Willmer. Mr. Willmer, a registered real estate broker, had managed property located at 713 East Court Street in Longwood, Florida, a 7-year-old home owned by William and Gloria Thomas, for several years while the Thomases were away, living in South Carolina. On April 3, 1980, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas entered an exclusive listing of their property for sale with Mr. Willmer. The asking price was $42,500, with $10,000 down, assumption of a first mortgage of $16,750, and the Thomases would hold a second mortgage of $15,750. Before executing the sales listing, the Thomases were advised by Mr. Willmer, their agent, that a sales price of $40,000 was fair, as other comparably sized houses in the area were selling for between $37,000 and $41,000. The price of $42,500 was to give the Thomases some bargaining room. On April 15, 1980, Respondent, who was then a salesman in Mr. Willmer's agency, submitted an offer to purchase the Thomases' property for $40,000, the exact price suggested by Mr. Willmer, his broker, to the Thomases, with $500 cash paid at time of offer, assumption of the first mortgage described above, a second mortgage of $13,250.10, and $9,500 cash at closing. The contract executed that date by Respondent listed him, his assigns or nominees as buyer, and called for a closing by June 30, 1980. This date was unilaterally changed to May 30, 1980, by the Respondent on April 16, 1980, the day after the offer was made. On April 16, 1980, the Thomases telegraphed their acceptance of Respondent's offer and terms with the exception that they stipulated closing would be held on or before May 15, 1980. The contract document signed by Respondent, bearing the May 30, 1980, closing date, was signed by the Thomases on April 20, 1980. On Sunday evening, April 27, 1980, Respondent telephoned Mr. and Mrs. Philip Fillman, then recent arrivals in the Orlando area, whom he had heard were looking for a house to buy. The Fillmans met the next day with Respondent, who took them to see the Thomas house. After checking it over, they decided to make an offer. Respondent had advised them during this period that comparable homes in the area were selling for $55,000 to $61,000 and that this house listed at $45,500 was a good investment. When the Fillmans asked if the owners would possibly take less, Respondent replied they would not, having already turned down a lesser offer. At no time did Respondent indicate he already had the house under contract for $40,000 or that he was representing himself. At no time was any offer for the property, other than that submitted by Respondent for $40,000 which was accepted by the Thomases, ever submitted to them by Respondent, Mr. Willmer, or anyone else. The Fillmans agreed to the $45,500 price and, on April 28, 1980, executed a contract to buy the property in question for that price, making a cash down payment at the time of execution of $6,000 payable to George Aliferis, the Respondent. Respondent deposited that check to his personal account at Park Federal Savings and Loan Association. It was not put into the real estate agency's escrow account. The name of the seller on the contract signed by the Fillmans was not the Thomases, but was instead George Aliferis, who indicated he had "control" of the property. He did not explain what that term meant. The contract executed by the Fillmans and by Respondent in his own name the same day, April 28, 1980, called for assumption of both mortgages and closing by June 1, 1980. Because the Fillmans were renting, they asked for, and received from Respondent, permission to move into the house prior to closing. They did so on May 11, 1980. Closings on both transactions were held at the law office of David Kerben in Orlando on May 14, 1980, in succession. At the first closing not personally attended by the Thomases, they conveyed the property to Respondent, who paid a net of $6,499.90 in cash which represented the net to close for the $40,000 purchase price, less $550 required to fix the air conditioner which had been complained of by the Fillmans. At that closing, Respondent also executed a second mortgage to the Thomases in the amount of $13,250 as a part of the purchase price. Within minutes of the Thomas-Aliferis closing referenced above, Respondent then conveyed the property to the Fillmans, who were present at the closing and who paid a net to close of $10,126.40 after a $6,000 down payment, and the two mortgages totaling $29,842.10. At the closing, the Fillmans signed a form relating to property insurance which also bore the notation that a payment of $159.05 was due to the Thomases (their address was also listed) on June 14. When the Thomases received that payment from the Fillmans, they called to find out why the Fillmans had sent the payment and in the course of this conversation, which took place on July 14, 1980, both parties first learned of the course of events which led up to the Fillmans' purchase. Up until that point, neither Mr. Willmer nor Respondent had made clear the nature of the transaction, except that on May 14, 1980, when the Fillmans arrived at lawyer Kerben's office for the closing, Respondent met them outside and said something about having just taken title to the property. Respondent contends that at the time he contracted with the Thomases to buy the property, he intended to live in it if his wife approved of it, or to lease it out on a long-term basis as an investment. However, Respondent had just recently moved into a newly built house and, in fact, put the property in question up for sale within two weeks of his contract. Respondent also indicated that he had been a real estate, agent only a few months, yet his application for licensure shows he was a licensed real estate agent in Maryland for approximately five years. In light of this evidence, I find the Respondent's credibility to be questionable and that he failed to fully disclose all required information regarding the transaction to his parties, the Thomases.
Recommendation In light of the above, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's license to practice real estate in Florida be suspended for one year and that an administrative fine of $1,000 be imposed upon him. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Gary Printy, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Erik C. Larsen, Esquire 243 West Park Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for a real estate salesman's license should be denied on the ground that he fails to meet the requirement that an applicant be "honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character, and shall have a good reputation for fair dealing. "
Findings Of Fact In March, 1981, petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. (Joint Exhibit 1.) Question No. 6 of the application and petitioner's answer (underlined below) were as follows: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal vio- lations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? Yes. If yes, state details including the outcome in full: Arrested in Savannah, Georgia 1974 for Sales and Possession of Marijuana--Case Dropped- Beaufort, South Carolina 1974 Simple Posses sion of Marijuana--fined $100.00--1978 following to [sic] close--Sarasota, FL $31.00 fine. (Joint Exhibit 1.) At hearing, petitioner confirms his answer to Question No. 6. In 1974, he was in the U.S. Marine Corps and stationed at Beaufort, South Carolina. He was arrested twice on criminal charges. On August 14, 1974, he was arrested in Savannah, Georgia, on charges of possession and sale of marijuana. The present state of the charges is uncertain. At hearing, petitioner invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to questions concerning the circumstances surrounding that arrest. His second arrest occurred in Beaufort, South Carolina; on November 7, 1974, he pleaded guilty to the criminal charge of simple possession of marijuana and paid a $100 fine. Other than a subsequent arrest in Port Charlotte, Florida, arising out of a marriage dissolution (the charge of withholding means of support was ultimately dropped) , petitioner has not been arrested or convicted of any crime since 1974. (Testimony of R. Kiebler; Joint Exhibits 2, 3.) During the last five years, petitioner has been employed by various glass and window companies in southwest Florida. Since February, 1981, he has worked as a salesman for Bill's Custom Glass and Mirror Company in Naples, Florida. In that capacity, he called on contractors, read prints, submitted bids, and signed contracts. He performed his work well; his employer considers him to be a very honest and reliable individual. (Testimony of Reagan, R. Kiebler; Joint Exhibit 1.) Since moving to Naples in February, 1980, petitioner has earned a reputation for truthfulness, honesty, and fair dealing in business affairs. (Testimony of S. Kiebler.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Ronald Leroy Kiebler for a Florida real estate salesman's license be GRANTED. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 12th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 12th day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael E. Burns, Esquire 945 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 33940 Jeffrey A. Miller, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32789
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at final hearing was whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson should be approved.
Findings Of Fact In October 1992, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent for licensure as a real estate salesperson, together with the required fee. The application asked several questions, including in pertinent part: Question 9: if Petitioner had been "convicted of a crime, found guilty or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld," and Question 13: if Petitioner had had a license to practice any regulated profession revoked upon grounds of fraudulent or dishonest dealing or violations of law. Petitioner responded in the affirmative to both questions and provided written documentation and statements regarding the questions. Petitioner attached to her October 1992 application for licensure various letters to support her application. The letters included one from her probation officer indicating her compliance with her probation; from the local board of realtors indicating that no complaints had been registered against Petitioner during her membership with them, which was from 1979 to 1982 and 1990 to 1992; and from her present employer who is a licensed real estate agent and has employed Petitioner since 1989. On October 21, 1992, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. The denial was based upon her response to questions 9 and 13 on the application, specifically her 1991 conviction and sentence and the 1992 revocation of her real estate salesperson license. On May 29, 1991, Petitioner plead nolo contendere to three felony counts of grand theft in the third degree. She was placed on probation for five years with special conditions, and adjudication of guilt was withheld. The special conditions of Petitioner's probation were that she would make restitution in the amount of $19,864.52, that she would perform 500 hours of community service, that she would fully cooperate with the State Attorney's Office in the investigation of the criminal activity in which she was involved, and that the probation may be terminated, upon motion, after 30 months. The theft involved a scheme devised by Petitioner's "boss" to obtain funds, beyond entitlement, from the City of Miami. Petitioner was employed as a bookkeeper by an elderly center from 1986 to 1988, which provided transportation, lunches and recreational activities for senior citizens. The center received funds from the City of Miami to operate by being reimbursed for monies paid to vendors. From 1986 to 1988, the center was performing poorly economically. In order to obtain additional monies, the invoices of vendors who did business with the center were inflated or increased and submitted by the center to the City of Miami for reimbursement. As bookkeeper, Petitioner was instrumental in the scheme. The difference between the actual cost and the inflated cost was retained by Petitioner and her boss and distributed at the end of the year to the center's employees, including Petitioner and her boss. Petitioner and her boss controlled the illegally obtained funds. At the end of the center's budget year, which was June 30th of each year, the center was withholding back payments to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), using the funds held to pay salaries. As a result, a debt to IRS was created, and when IRS attempted to collect on the debt in 1988, the scheme was discovered and stopped. Petitioner cooperated fully with the State Attorney's Office. At the time of her conviction, Petitioner was licensed by Respondent as a real estate salesperson. Less than a month after her plea of nolo contendere to the grand theft charge and sentence, in June 1991 Petitioner notified Respondent of her conviction and sentence in accordance with statutory provisions regulating the practice of her profession as a licensed real estate salesperson. No evidence of any other conviction was presented. Subsequently, on or about October 30, 1991, an administrative complaint was filed by Respondent against Petitioner based upon her conviction. Petitioner admitted the allegations contained in the administrative complaint. She saw no need to deny the allegations, since she had reported the incident to Respondent. To Petitioner's shock and surprise, in a Final Order dated February 14, 1992, Petitioner's license as a real estate salesperson was revoked by Respondent. Petitioner had been licensed for 13 years without a complaint being filed against her. On February 13, 1992, Petitioner's probationary terms were modified by the court due to her inability to pay the $19,864.52 restitution. The modification included, among other things, that Petitioner was only required to pay monthly the restitution to individuals, which totaled $1,700, that the restitution to the City of Miami could be paid through community service at $10.00 per hour for each month that Petitioner was unable to pay, and that probation could be terminated early after 30 months if restitution was paid in full. By March 9, 1993, Petitioner had completed 500 hours of community service in accordance with the original court order, and for compliance with the modified court order, she had completed 235 hours of community service and paid $125.00 restitution to individuals. Prior to her conviction and license revocation, in 1989. Petitioner was employed with a real estate broker at Allied Associates of the South, Inc. (Allied Associates), in Miami Springs, Florida, as a sales associate, and continued in that position until sometime in 1991 when, due to economic constraints on Allied Associates, the broker cut her staff, choosing a more experienced salesperson over Petitioner. During her employment as a sales associate, no complaints were received by Allied Associates against Petitioner, and no money which was entrusted to her was reported missing. Allied Associates received many complimentary remarks from clients and real estate brokers alike. Subsequently, in November 1991, the broker re-employed Petitioner as a sales manager at Allied Associates. Petitioner informed the broker of her conviction and the circumstances of her conviction. The broker has allowed Petitioner to manage the financial books of the business with no problems. And Respondent has audited Allied Associates' financial books without citing a problem. Furthermore, Petitioner has handled escrow deposits and cash without any problems. Since October 1992, Petitioner has been working with Allied Associates as a sales manager on a part-time basis due to financial constraints experienced by Allied Associates. She has continued to handle escrow deposits and cash without any problems. Moreover, the broker/owner of Allied Associates has no hesitation in putting Petitioner in a position of trust. Further, Petitioner has assisted in the guidance of Allied Associates' sales associates.
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 allowing Petitioner to take the real estate salesperson's examination. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of October 1993. ERROL H. POWELL 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 29th day of October 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7368 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact consists of one paragraph with several sentences. 1. Substantially adopted in findings of fact 2, 4, 5, and 7-14; but rejected, regarding the second sentence, as unnecessary to the determination of the issues of this case and rejected, regarding the sixth sentence, as constituting argument, conclusions of law, or recitation of testimony. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 1. Substantially adopted in findings of fact 1 and 4. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 4. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 10. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 10. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 11. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 9. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 9. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 9. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 9; but rejected, regarding notice and failure of Petitioner to appear at the informal hearing, as unnecessary to the determination of the issues of this case. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 5; but rejected, regarding the first sentence, as constituting argument, conclusions of law, or recitation of testimony and rejected, regarding the last sentence which indicates that only Petitioner received and used the monies, as contrary to the evidence present. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 8. Substantially adopted in findings of fact 12-14. Note: Respondent proposed finding of fact is very close to constituting recitation of testimony. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 13. Note: Respondent proposed finding of fact is very close to and constituting recitation of testimony. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Marina P. Cintron 151 Fairway Drive #2301 Miami Springs, Florida 33166 Manuel E. Oliver Assistant Attorney General 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 107 South Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Ernest Page and Page Realty, Inc. are licensed as real estate brokers in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbers 0187380 and 0223391, respectively. From approximately July 28, 1983, to approximately August 11, 1983, the Respondent, Ernest Page, knowingly obtained or used, or endeavored to obtain or use, certain personal property, including typewriters, copy machines, a television receiver, and a stereo receiver, each of which was valued at $100.00 or more, which was the property of Stewart Hudson or Michael Bethea, with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the owners thereof, and to appropriate this property to their own use. The Respondent, Ernest Page, had received and was in possession of property that he knew or had reason to know was stolen. The Administrative Complaint tracked the charging language of the information filed against the Respondent, Ernest Page, in the Circuit Court of the 9th Judicial Circuit of Florida. The Respondent, Ernest Page, was found guilty of six counts of grand theft second degree by a jury on January 31, 1984. He was adjudicated guilty by judgment dated March 28, 1984, of six counts of grand theft second degree, which crimes are punishable as third degree felonies. The Respondent, Ernest Page, was sentenced on March 28, 1985.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that real estate broker's license numbered 0187380 and 0223391, held by the Respondents, Ernest Page and Page Realty, Inc., respectively, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 31st day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Edward R. Kirkland, Esquire 126 E. Jefferson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence presented at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent Gustave A. Miller was a licensed real estate broker with license number 0060208, and Respondent Pamela Michaels was a licensed real estate salesman with license number 0059873. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent Miller operated Gus Miller Real Estate, Inc., 5505 E. Colonial Drive, Orlando, Florida; and Respondent Michaels was a salesperson working for him at that office. On or about November 15, 1981, Respondent Michaels prepared a contract for the sale of property owned by Betty B. Stahl (1/2 interest) and Helen Vierbickas or Flora Belle Turner Van Trease (1/2 interest) in Orlando, Florida, to Timothy Karl Kunke and Shawna Jean Kunke. Purchase price was to be $64,000 with $1,000 paid as deposit. Buyer was to apply and qualify for a loan guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Seller was to clean and paint the inside of the house, but did not enter into a contract with Respondents to accomplish this work. The contract contained the usual provision for the division of forfeited deposit in the event of buyer default. Due to a death in the buyer's family, he was not able to qualify for an FHA loan, and without any coordination with or approval of seller, Respondent Miller deducted $235 from the deposit held by him, as his fee for painting the property, and refunded $765 to the Kunkes. Thereafter, on or about December 4, 1982, Respondent Michaels presented a second contract for the sale of the same property to Mrs. Stahl, although the majority of her dealings were actually with Mr. Stahl, who was advising his wife. The buyer listed this time was Robert G. McRae, and the contract reflected a deposit in the amount of $4,000 paid by check to Gus Miller Real Estate, Inc. This contract, which was accepted by the sellers, also called for the buyer to apply for and qualify for an FHA loan, and seller agreed to pay the discount points on that loan, not to exceed 3 percent. Though the $4,000 was reflected as paid on the front of the contract, the provision reflecting the receipt of earnest money to be held in escrow on the bottom of the reverse side of the contract was not filled in or signed by either Respondent, even though Respondent Miller's firm name was stamped in. Nonetheless, when Mr. Stahl asked Respondent Michaels about the check at the time the contract was signed by Mrs. Stahl, Michaels assured him they had it in their possession and agreed to send him a photocopy of it, which she failed to do. In the prehearing stipulation, Respondents agreed that no deposit had been paid. At some point in time, Respondents admitted they did not have the deposit. Mrs. Vierbickas, a friend of Mrs. Stahl's sister, Mrs. Van Trease, was told by Respondent Michaels that they did not have the check, but she is unsure when she was told this. I find, nonetheless, that Respondents continued to represent to the Stahls that the deposit had been received and was being held by them until after the transfer was cancelled for other reasons. McRae signed the contract on December 4, 1981. That same day, he was taken by Respondent Michaels to the Orlando office of Countrywide Funding Corporation where, before an employee of that Company, Joyce Freed, he filled out an application for an FHA mortgage in the amount of $61,300. On that same visit, he signed a certificate that the property to be covered by the mortgage would serve as his primary home. He also acknowledged in writing that he understood FHA financing could not be utilized for any purpose other than owner- occupied properties. He subsequently signed additional documents in relation to the loan in which he affirmed that the property to be financed would be occupied by him, even after the mortgage commitment was received from the FHA. On January 11, 1982, McRae certified on a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (BUD) form that he intended to occupy the property. Coincidentally, that same day, a lease was signed by a Barbara Sullivan, on behalf of herself and her husband, purporting to lease the home McRae was then occupying for one year at $650 per month with an advance deposit of $1,300 paid. McRae was not asked to sign this lease, which was witnessed by both Respondents and notarized by Respondent Miller. McRae did not receive any rent from this lease, which was not a bona fide conveyance of an interest in the property. It was not intended to convey the property, but was generated by Respondents for some purpose not related to a tenancy by the Sullivans. McRae testified that when Michaels took him to Countrywide's office, he did not intend to occupy the property to be purchased, but instead intended for his daughters to live there. However, when he saw from the forms he was signing that there was a requirement for the property to be owner-occupied, he, at that moment, changed his mind; and when he signed the documents, minutes thereafter, he intended to move in. I find this testimony to be unworthy of belief. During the period from the date of the sales contract with McRae to the date of the proposed closing, the interest rate went up higher than was called for in the contract, and McRae refused to close. Sometime later, in late February, 1982, a Larry Werts came to the property in question and discussed with Mr. Stahl the possible purchase of Mrs. Stahl's one-half interest in the property for $27,500 in cash. Werts was, however, unable to secure this much cash. Thereafter, he indicated he would make an offer on the entire parcel through Respondent Michaels; and subsequently, Respondents, together, brought a contract to Mrs. Stahl, signed by Werts, which reflected a purchase price of $50,000. The Stahls rejected this offer as being too low.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the license of each respondent be suspended for one year, that each respondent pay an administrative fine of $1,000, and that each respondent be reprimanded in writing, but that the execution of the suspension be deferred for one year with a provision for automatic recission. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert W. Olsen, Esquire 205 N. Rosalind Avenue Post Office Box 1767 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact By an application received by the Board on March 21, 1979, Petitioner Carole Leigh McGraw applied for registration as a real estate salesman with the Florida Board of Real Estate. Question number 6 of the application form inquired about past arrests or charges for violation of law. Ms. McGraw indicated that she had been arrested and as an explanation attached a separate sheet of paper on which she disclosed that she was arrested in July, 1973 for various criminal charges pending before the Court of Common Pleas in Cincinnati, Ohio. She referred the Board for further details to her attorney, James N. Perry, Esquire of Cincinnati, Ohio. No attempt was made by the applicant to conceal any of the facts relating to her outstanding charges. Subsequent to the receipt of her application the Board requested on April 10, 1979, that Ms. McGraw furnish a copy of the indictment and advise the Board of the present status of the indictment. That information was provided by James N. Perry, Esquire who indicated in his letter of April 23, 1979, that counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the twenty count indictment had been dismissed. The dismissal was on appeal and probably would be decided eventually by the Ohio Supreme Court as the issue on appeal is the constitutionality of the organized crime status of Ohio. On July 7, 1978, in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, State of Ohio, the applicant, Carole Leigh McGraw, was indicted by Grand Jury on four counts of engaging in organized crime, six counts of forgery, one count of theft in office and one count of felony theft. None of these charges has been brought to trial. Except for the foregoing indictment the applicant has never been charged with any violation of law or with being dishonest or immoral in any way.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Carole Leigh McGraw for registration as a real estate salesman with the Florida Board of Real Estate be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carole Leigh McGraw 4180 South West 52nd Court Apartment #1 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314
