Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Ellyn Schechter, who is thirty-two years of age, made application on October 14, 1985 for licensure as a real estate salesman by examination with respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Question six on the application requires the applicant to state whether he or she "has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld". Petitioner gave the following response: "Yes, resist arrest w/o violence, possession cocaine." Applicant's attorney provided letter and documents attached, FDLE report lists an arrest 6-30-84 possess cocaine, narcotic equipment, tuinal (drug) - no dis- position. According to documents furnished, resisting arrest charges resulted in 1 yrs. probation effective July 10, 1984, fines and "community service hours; arrest reference drugs - withheld adj., 2 years community control, 1 year probation effective Nov. 9, 1984, 6 special conditions, concurrent. A background check by the Division revealed that Schechter was arrested and charged with three counts of resisting arrest without violence in Broward County in 1984. After pleading guilty to all three counts, the court withheld adjudication and placed Schechter on probation for one year. In addition, petitioner was also arrested and charged in Broward County in 1984 with possession of cocaine, possession of a barbiturate, and possession of drug paraphernalia . She pled guilty to the first and second charges. The third charge was dismissed. The court withheld adjudication, and sentenced petitioner to two years community control followed by one year of probation, 100 hours community service, drug evaluation and/or treatment as deemed appropriate, $1,000 court costs, and a requirement that she abstain from alcohol and drugs for three years. She satisfactorily completed her probation and community control in January, 1986. There is no evidence of any arrests or other problems since 1984. Schechter is a licensed dental hygienist and holds licenses to practice that profession in both Florida and New York. Due to a hand injury, she is no longer able to pursue that vocation. She desires to be licensed as a real estate salesman, and successfully completed the pre-examination course in October, 1985 with a score of 96. She was also offered a job at that time with Century 21 Rainbow Realty, Inc. in Plantation, Florida. At the present time, she is working as a waitress in a Fort Lauderdale area restaurant. Her employer described her as being honest, courteous and dependable, and stated that she handled his money in a responsible manner. Schechter also furnished letters from four former employers to corroborate the testimony concerning her honesty and trustworthiness. However, they all predate her 1984 convictions. Schechter freely acknowledged her prior difficulties, and was candid and forthright in answering all questions about her arrests. She stated the arrest for drugs stemmed from a passenger in her automobile having drugs in his possession. The charge of resisting arrest without violence occurred after Schechter was arrested in her home by two City of Hollywood police officers. They had apparently responded to a disturbance involving Schechter and a female guest. According to Schechter, the arrest was unjustified, and resulted in her receiving a beating from one of the officers which caused her to be hospitalized for four days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for licensure by examination be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 10th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-1421 Respondent: Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Ida M. Lawry, Esquire 621 South Federal Highway Suite 4 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Harold Huff Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings S. Benton, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner lacks good moral character in violation of Section 539.001(4)(a)1., Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). 1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and her husband own and operate Seminole Antiques and Pawn ("Seminole Antiques") at 6115 Seminole Boulevard in Seminole, Florida. The business of Seminole Antiques includes pawnbroking. Petitioner first engaged in the business of pawnbroking in 1990. On November 28, 1995, officers from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (the "Sheriff's Office") arrested Petitioner on charges of dealing in stolen property and failing to maintain adequate records. On March 4, 1995, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to both charges. The court accepted Petitioner's plea, withheld adjudication of guilt, assessed costs of $144, and placed Petitioner on probation for two years. On March 14, 1997, the court entered an order terminating Petitioner's probation. Registration And License Prior to October 1, 1996, pawnbrokers had been required by former Chapter 538, Part I, Florida Statutes (1995). 2/ to register with the Department of Revenue ("DOR") as secondhand dealers. From 1990 through 1996, Petitioner was continuously registered with DOR as a secondhand dealer. In relevant part, former Section 538.09(4) provided: . . . registration may be denied . . . or any registration granted may be revoked, restricted, or suspended . . . if the applicant or registrant: (f) Has, within the preceding 5-year period, been convicted of, or has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to, a crime . . . which relates to registration as a secondhand dealer or which involves . . . dealing in stolen property. . . . The registration provisions in former Section 538.09 did not include a requirement that a pawnbroker be of good moral character. Effective October 1, 1996, Section 539.001 transferred responsibility for licensing and regulating pawnbrokers from DOR to Respondent and prescribed license eligibility requirements. 3/ The license eligibility requirements in Section 539.001 include a requirement that an applicant be of good moral character. On October 1, 1996, the eligibility requirements in Section 539.001 did not prohibit a plea of nolo contendere to a criminal charge of dealing in stolen property within a five year period. However, Sections 539.001(4)(a)3. and 4. did prohibit a conviction in the last 10 years of any felony or any other crime that directly relates to the duties and responsibilities of a pawnbroker ( a "related crime"). In 1997, the legislature amended Sections 539.001(4)(a) and 4. to prohibit a plea of nolo contendere to a felony or related crime. The amendments took effect on June 3, 1997, approximately 36 days after the hearing in this case. As amended, Section 539.001 provides inter alia: (4) ELIGIBILITY FOR LICENSE-- (a) To be eligible for a pawnbroker's license, an applicant must: 1. Be of good moral character; Not have been convicted of, entered a plea of . . . nolo contendere to, or had an adjudication withheld for a felony within the last 10 years . . . . Not have been convicted of, entered a plea of nolo contendere to, or had adjudication withheld for a crime that involves dealing in stolen property . . . within the last 10 years. * * * (6) SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, AND SURRENDER OF LICENSE . . . (a) The agency may, after notice and a hearing, suspend or revoke any license upon a finding that: The licensee . . . has violated this section . . . . A condition exists that, had it existed when the original license was issued, would have justified the agency's refusal to issue a license. . . . (emphasis supplied) The underlined provisions became effective June 3, 1997. Pawnbrokers already in business had six months from the date Section 539.001 became effective to comply with the "registration . . . provisions" of Section 539.001. 4/ Section 539.001(21) provides, in relevant part: (21) TRANSITION PERIOD FOR LICENSING--Each pawnbroker operating a pawnshop in business of the effective date of this section shall have 6 months from the effective date of this section to comply with the registration . . . provisions before the agency may initiate any administrative . . . action. (emphasis supplied) Section 539.001 became effective on October 1, 1996. Petitioner, had until April 1, 1997, to comply with the registration provisions in Section 539.001. Prior to April 1, 1997, Respondent was statutorily prohibited from initiating any administrative action against Petitioner. On October 8, 1996, Petitioner applied for a pawnbroker license. On December 4, 1996, Respondent initiated administrative action by denying the application. Notice In the letter of denial dated December 4, 1996, Respondent stated several grounds for denying Petitioner's application. In relevant part, the letter stated: Section 539.001(4) . . . provides that to be eligible for a pawnbroker's license, an applicant must be of good moral character and must not have been convicted of a felony within the last 10 years . . . that directly relates to the duties and responsibilities of a pawnbroker. Our background investigation has revealed that you were found guilty of or pleaded nolo contendere to dealing in stolen property and failure to maintain records, case number CRC9519648CFANOB in 1996 (sic). Based upon these findings, your application for a pawnbroker license is hereby denied for failure to meet the eligibility requirements of s. 539.001(4) . . . . (emphasis supplied) Consistent with Section 539.001(4), Respondent's letter of denial listed as separate and distinct requirements the requirement for good moral character and the requirement of no felony conviction within the last 10 years. However, Respondent's letter of denial deviated from the statute that was in effect at the time, by expanding the definition of a conviction to include a plea of nolo contendere. Petitioner timely requested an informal hearing with Respondent. Respondent conducted the informal hearing by telephone conference. During the telephone conference, Petitioner testified that she was not guilty of dealing in stolen property. She testified that law enforcement officers, posing as consumers, had tried, unsuccessfully, to get her husband to purchase a watch. The transaction was not completed, and Petitioner was not present at the time. Nevertheless, Petitioner was charged with dealing in stolen property and failure to maintain records. Petitioner further testified that she chose to enter a plea of nolo contendere in order to quickly resolve the issue. Respondent disregarded Petitioner's testimony. On January 13, 1997, Respondent issued a letter overruling Petitioner's objections and denying Petitioner's application. Respondent based its administrative action on the ground that Petitioner was not of good moral character. Respondent did not make an independent determination that Petitioner was guilty of dealing in stolen property. Respondent determined that Petitioner lacked good moral character solely on the basis of the criminal charge and plea of nolo contendere. In relevant part, Respondent's letter of January 13, 1997, stated: The facts set forth in the . . . denial letter dated December 4, 1996, are undisputed. As part of the . . . review of your application, a criminal background check . . . by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement . . . revealed that you pled nolo contendere to dealing in stolen property and failure to maintain records. Adjudication was withheld. During the proceeding, you stated that law enforcement officers, posing as consumers, had tried, unsuccessfully, to get your husband to purchase a watch. Although according to your testimony the transaction was not completed and your were not present at the time, you were charged. Subsequently, you chose to enter a plea in order to quickly resolve the issue. . . . Pursuant to Section 539.001(4) to be eligible for a pawnbroker license the applicant must be of good moral character. Based upon your criminal arrest and plea discussed herein, you fail to meet the eligibility requirements set forth in the Florida Pawnbroking Act. Therefore, your objections to the denial of your application for a license are hereby overruled. (emphasis supplied) Petitioner retained counsel. On February 5, 1997, Petitioner's counsel sent a letter to Respondent requesting a formal hearing. In relevant part, the letter stated: . . . my client . . . received a letter indicating that she had been turned down for her license because of a criminal matter where she had been charged with dealing in stolen property and received a withhold of adjudication and probation. It is my understanding that her probation is now complete. . . . Mrs. Garafolo received a letter from Geoffrey G. Luckemann informing her that she was not eligible for a pawn broker's license because she was not of good moral character. . . . I . . . believe that the ends of justice would be honestly met by allowing . . . a Formal Hearing. . . . (emphasis supplied) On February 24, 1997, Respondent referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct the administrative hearing. From February 24 through April 28, 1997, Petitioner's counsel did not file a request for discovery. On April 11, 1997, Respondent voluntarily served Petitioner's counsel with a copy of its administrative file. The administrative file contained numerous exhibits, including the exhibits Respondent submitted for admission in evidence at the administrative hearing. On April 15, 1997, the parties entered into a Prehearing Stipulation that included a list of Respondent's witnesses. The only witnesses listed by Respondent were the two undercover investigators Respondent called at the hearing. The Prehearing Stipulation stated that the issue for determination at the administrative hearing was whether Petitioner lacked good moral character. The parties did not stipulate that Respondent was limited to evidence of Petitioner's ". . . criminal arrest and plea . . .". In relevant part, the Prehearing Stipulation stated: . . . the application for a pawnbroker license was denied by respondent on the basis petitioner did not have good moral character. * * * The issue of fact to be determined is the good moral character or lack thereof by Nella Garafolo. At the administrative hearing, Respondent stated, for the first time, that it intended to prove Petitioner's lack of good moral character by evidence other than evidence of her ". . . criminal arrest and plea . . .". Respondent sought to prove that Petitioner actually dealt in stolen property and failed to keep adequate records. Petitioner's counsel objected to the admissibility of any evidence other than the ". . . criminal arrest and plea . . ." and moved to suppress any other evidence. Petitioner's counsel stated numerous grounds for the objection and motion, including due process requirements for adequate notice. The objections by Petitioner's counsel were overruled, and the motion was denied. Petitioner's counsel had adequate notice of the nature and scope of evidence Respondent intended to present at the administrative hearing. Even if Respondent had been required to file an administrative complaint in this case, due process would not require the complaint to satisfy the technical niceties of a legal pleading. 5/ Due process requires a specific accusation in the charging document or a procedure for disclosure, but not both. 6/ Respondent's letters of denial specifically charged that Petitioner lacked good moral character. Petitioner's counsel had adequate time from January 13, 1997, through April 28, 1997, to seek disclosure of the nature and scope of the evidence Respondent intended to adduce at the hearing. Petitioner's counsel declined to avail himself of the benefit of any procedure for disclosure. Petitioner's counsel had notice that Respondent intended to call the undercover investigating officers as witnesses in the administrative hearing. Neither Petitioner's arrest nor her plea were disputed issues of fact. The testimony of the undercover investigators was unnecessary to prove the criminal arrest and plea. It was reasonable to conclude that the undercover investigators were going to testify to facts other than Petitioner's ". . . criminal arrest and plea . . .". The notice to Petitioner's counsel was timely. On April 11, 1997, Respondent served Petitioner's counsel with a Notice of Filing Discovery. The notice listed the two undercover investigators as Respondent's only witnesses. On April 15, 1997, Petitioner's counsel signed the Prehearing Stipulation with a list of Respondent's witnesses attached as Exhibit 1. The Prehearing Stipulation identified the undercover investigators as Respondent's only witnesses. Petitioner's counsel had approximately 17 days from April 11, 1997, until the hearing on April 28, 1997, to inquire into the scope of the witnesses' testimony and to either prepare his case accordingly or to request a continuance to allow him time to do so. Petitioner's counsel chose not to avail himself of that opportunity prior to the hearing. There was no material error in procedure that impaired the correctness of Respondent's action. Respondent followed prescribed procedure. 7/ Good Moral Character In support of the allegation that Petitioner lacked good moral character, Respondent submitted evidence of an investigation and arrest that took place in November, 1995. On November 7, 1995, two undercover investigators for the Sheriff's Office began an investigation of Seminole Antiques. They were supported by four more officers at remote locations who monitored the conversations of the two undercover investigators. One or both of the undercover investigators visited Seminole Antiques on November 7, 14, 17, 20, 22, and 28. The investigation concluded on November 28, 1995, when Sheriff's deputies arrested Petitioner and her husband. The evidence submitted by Respondent consisted of the testimony of two undercover investigators, their arrest reports, tapes of visits they made to Seminole Antiques on November 14 and 17, 1995, transcripts of those two tapes, and transcripts of the tapes of the other visits. The evidence also included other miscellaneous documents. The tapes and transcripts purport to evidence conversations between the investigators, Petitioner's husband, and Petitioner. The two tapes submitted by Respondent are copies of the original tapes made by Sheriff's office personnel who monitored the conversations of the undercover investigators from outside Seminole Antiques. The original tapes were destroyed by the Sheriff's Office in accordance with department policy for cases in which a nolo contendere plea is entered. One of the undercover investigators made copies of the original tapes for November 14 and 17, 1997. Both copies are in evidence in this proceeding, without objection. Transcripts exist for the original tapes for each of the six visits that the undercover investigators made to Seminole Antiques. None of the transcripts are verbatim transcriptions. Each transcript is a summary prepared by one or the other of the two undercover investigators. Each summary contains only that portion of the recorded conversations which, in the opinion of the author of the transcript, are inculpatory. 8/ Respondent did not provide Petitioner with the notice of intent to use summaries that is required in Section 90.956. Similarly, Respondent did not make available to Petitioner the data from which the summaries were prepared because the data had been destroyed by the Sheriff's Office. The undercover investigators did not conduct business transactions every time they visited Seminole Antiques. On each occasion that the undercover investigators did conduct business, they used stolen property that the Sheriff's Office had recovered, inventoried in its log books, and stored. For the initial transaction conducted on November 7, 1995, the undercover investigators used two rings. One ring was a 14 karat gold ring with an onyx stone. The investigators placed a wholesale value of approximately $30 on the ring. The other ring was a gold ring with four diamond chips. The investigators placed a wholesale value of $35 on the second ring. On November 7, 1995, the undercover investigators pawned the two rings to Petitioner for $30. 9/ Petitioner completed the required paperwork evidencing the transaction. One of the undercover investigators returned to Seminole Antiques on November 14, 1995. He carried a bag containing two gold rings, two gold bracelets, and a gold necklace. One ring was a 10 karat gold ring with one sapphire stone flanked by two small diamond chips. The undercover investigator estimated its retail value at $40. The other ring was a 14 karat gold ring. The undercover investigator estimated its retail value at $39. One bracelet was a seven inch, 14 karat, bracelet. The undercover investigator estimated its retail value at $27. The other bracelet was also a seven inch, 14 karat, bracelet. The investigator estimated its retail value at $54. The necklace was an 18 inch, 14 karat, necklace. The undercover investigator estimated its retail value at $108. When the undercover investigator presented the bag of items to Petitioner, she and her husband were standing behind the counter at Seminole Antiques. Petitioner opened the bag and appraised the items inside while the undercover investigator conducted simultaneous conversations with Petitioner and her husband. Petitioner did not agree with the value placed on the goods by the undercover investigator. Petitioner gave the undercover investigator $30 for all of the items. She completed the required forms. The investigator terminated the transaction and returned to the Sheriff's Office. The same undercover investigator returned to Seminole Antiques on November 17, 1995. He did not conduct a transaction. He described to Petitioner and her husband a fictitious transaction on the previous day in which the investigator said he sold a gold Rolex watch to a competing pawn shop for $600. Petitioner was upset and told the investigator she would have given him more money. The investigator stated that Seminole Antiques was closed and that he needed the money. On November 20, 1995, both investigators returned to Seminole Antiques with unopened video cassettes. The investigators placed an aggregate value on the cassettes of $340. The investigators conducted a transaction with Petitioner's husband and agreed to take $60 for the cassettes. Petitioner paid the investigators $60 and completed the required forms. The investigators returned to the Sheriff's Office. On November 22, 1995, the two undercover investigators returned to Seminole Antiques with a video cassette recorder and remote control. They valued the two items at $149. The investigators conducted a transaction with Petitioner's husband and agreed to $55 for both items. Petitioner paid the investigators $55 and added the VCR to the pawn ticket for the previous transaction. On November 28, 1995, the two undercover investigators returned to Seminole Antiques with two Rolex watches. One watch was a stainless and gold watch. The other was an 18 karat gold watch with a 14 karat gold band. The undercover investigators valued each watch, respectively, at $2,995 and $6,995. The investigators first offered to sell the watches to Petitioner for $300 each. The investigators conducted the balance of the transaction with Petitioner's husband. The investigators agreed to accept $600 for the watches. Law enforcement officers from the Sheriff's Office arrested Petitioner and her husband. They took Petitioner and her husband to the Sheriff's Office and questioned them. Petitioner stated that she did not know any of the items had been stolen. She said that she was going to do the paper work on the watches and then resell them in the store. Petitioner did not have actual knowledge that the items she purchased were stolen. The investigators never represented to Petitioner that the items were stolen. As one of the investigators explained during his testimony: . . . at some time . . . it has to be represented as stolen. And that's hard to do sometimes because a lot of stores and pawn shops are fully aware of the law, and once you say something is stolen, they'll throw you right on out. * * * I did not say stolen. Transcript ("TR") at 40, 68. Respondent failed to show that Petitioner should have known that the items were stolen. Much of the evidence submitted by Respondent consisted of opinion testimony by the undercover investigators and hearsay statements by Petitioner's husband. The investigators opined that Petitioner paid them amounts far below the fair market value of the property. When asked how he determined the fair market value for each item, one investigator testified: . . . we've been taught by jewelers how to appraise and pawn brokers, and we give, at the Sheriff's Office, an incredibly low retail value. Wholesale and retail very low so that this way there's never no error. TR at 41. The investigators are not qualified experts in appraising property as diverse as jewelry, video equipment, VCRs, and watches. Respondent offered evidence that the investigators were dressed to portray someone who, in the opinion of the investigators, Petitioner should have known was of bad character. When questioned on this issue, one investigator testified: I had a goatee. I would wear a hat that I've got that's a very scrubby hat. I've got several of them that are scrubby. Holes in my pants. . . . I cut my grass. I don't shower. I get real sweaty. You can see the sweat stain on my shirt, and I walk in looking crummy. Pretty crummy. . . [t]o portray someone of bad character. TR at 42. Respondent offered evidence that the investigators conducted themselves in a manner which, in the opinion of the investigators, Petitioner should have known was typical of bad guys. When questioned on this issue, one investigator testified: I pulled the second [ring out of my pocket], which is typical of bad guys because they want to see how much money they can get for an item. TR at 47. The transactions conducted with Petitioner on November 7 and 14, 1997, do not show that Petitioner should have known she was dealing in stolen property. The investigators did not conduct a transaction on November 17. The transactions of November 20, 22, and 28, 1997, were conducted primarily with Petitioner's husband. Respondent relied on hearsay statements allegedly made by Petitioner's husband in the same room with Petitioner. Those statements are not competent and substantial evidence that Petitioner should have known she was dealing in stolen property. Petitioner maintained adequate records. The investigator who was at Seminole Antiques on each occasion originally testified that Petitioner did not complete the required records. He later testified that Petitioner completed the required paperwork after every transaction but did not give the investigator a copy of the paperwork.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's application for a pawnbroker license. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mike Somogyi, filed an application for registration as a real estate salesman with the Respondent, Board of Real Estate, on or about April 16, 1980. By Order dated June 23, 1980, Respondent denied Petitioner's application because Petitioner had not made it appear to the Board that he was honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character as required by Section 475.17, Florida Statutes. Respondent based its denial on Petitioner's arrest in 1980 for possession of controlled substances, i.e., marijuana, quaaludes and narcotic equipment. A five count information was filed against Petitioner on March 4, 1980, in Martin County. Petitioner entered a not guilty plea and was subsequently approved for the Pretrial Intervention Program. Petitioner's required involvement with the program will expire on January 15 1981, and if the program is successfully completed, all charges pending against Petitioner will be dismissed. Respondent further relied upon Petitioner's arrest on September 1, 1976, in Dade County, Florida, for resisting arrest. However, that charge was dismissed in October, 1976. Petitioner has no other record of arrests or convictions.
The Issue Has Mr. Guy demonstrated that he is honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character and has a good reputation for fair dealing as required by Section 475.17, Florida Statutes (1981)?
Findings Of Fact On March 23, 1981, Mr. Guy filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson with the Florida Board of Real Estate. By a letter dated May 19, 1981, the Board denied Mr. Guy's application. As stated by the letter, "the specific reasons for the Board's action is based on your answer to Question #6 of the licensing application and your criminal record according to the appropriate law enforcement agency." Question #6 of the application asks: 6. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? Mr. Guy responded "Yes" he had. The question further requested the details in full concerning any arrests. In response, Mr. Guy answered: Arrested three (3)-times in Tampa, Florida, between 1972 and 1976 for D.W.I. (No convictions). Arrested in Detroit, Michigan in 1979 for intoxication and disorderly conduct - confined for detoxication, released upon paying fine. (See Attachment A) Attachment A which was by reference made a part of Mr. Guy's application was a police report from the City of Tampa, which Mr. Guy himself obtained in order to attach to his application. It stated: Date: 27 February 1981 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: In reference to your ( ) counter check ( ) letter ( ) telephone call dated 27 February 81 regarding Milton Franklin Guy. Please be informed that our files were searched by ( ) fingerprints ( ) name only, and indicate that a person by the same name has the following record with this Department. WHITE/MALE DATE OF BIRTH: 21 Nov 41 21 Nov 49 4 Feb 74 Trespass After Warning $25 + CC 13 Mar 74 26 Mar 76 Deliver Amphetamines * 23 Dec 77 Disorderly Conduct * *NOTE: For all cases without a disposition, please contact the Clerk of the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. The Board of Real Estate has no knowledge about Mr. Guy's arrests, convictions, pardons or paroles except from the material supplied above by Mr. Guy. No evidence was introduced to show that Mr. Guy has a criminal record other than that which he disclosed on his application received by the Board of Real Estate on March 23, 1981. There is no direct evidence for the following supposition but it appears that Mr. Guy's denial by the Board was based upon a misunderstanding about how much material he submitted in support of his application. The police report, which is Mr. Guy's Attachment A, is identical to those reports which the Board's staff itself usually acquires independently from the applicant. If the Board thought it followed its routine in this instance, it is understandable that it could believe Mr. Guy was not forthright in answering Question #6. That was not the case here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Real Estate enter a Final Order finding Petitioner qualified pursuant to Section 475.17(1) Florida Statutes (1981) to take the licensing examination provided for in Section 475.17(5), Florida Statutes (1981), to be licensed as a real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON 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 February, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Teresita de Jesus Rangel, who is a thirty-four year old female, made application in early 1987 for licensure as a real estate salesman by examination with respondents Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Question six on the application requires the applicant to state whether he or she "has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld." Petitioner answered in the affirmative and gave the following response: 6. Conviction of crimes: January 28th, 1983 - Charged with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Was found guilty and charged with 3 years incarcerated and 3 years Special Parole. Conviction took place in Los Angeles, Ca. March 17th, 1983 - Charges: Conspiracy to import cocaine and marijuana. These were started as two different cases. Pleaded guilty to conspiracy and was sentenced five years on each case to run concurrent with the case in California. This conviction took place in Fort Lauderdale, Fl. I started my sentence on January 11th, 1984 at F.C.I., Lexington, Kentucky and was released to a Half-way House on October 2nd, 1986. These arrests stem from the same circumstances and were handled together and treated as one. The arrests occurred as a result of my involvement with my then boyfriend. Approximately a year and a half prior to my arrests I became romantically involved with this individual. This individual was Co- defendant in the case I was arrested. My involvement in the criminal case stands on my romantic involvement with him. Due to lack of judgement [sic] on my part, I became criminally involved with him eventually leading to our arrest. I have had no contact whatsoever with this individual since my incarceration. I further intend to avoid all contact with him in the future. At this time, I have an outstanding offer from Dominion Realty, Inc. In fact, the Broker at this firm is encouraging me to make this application to become a real estate salesperson. I realize this is a once-in-a- lifetime opportunity to begin a career. It will allow me to stand on my own and provide a respectable home and future for my children. Based upon the above response, the Division issued proposed agency action on July 14, 1987 denying the application. As grounds, the Division stated its action was "based upon (her) answer to Question #6 of the licensing application and/or (her) criminal record according to the appropriate law enforcement agency." The denial prompted this proceeding. Petitioner is divorced and the sole support of three young children. She has been in the work force since 1972. According to all accounts, her work performance over the years has been exemplary, and Rangel was steadily promoted to positions of greater responsibility and duties in each of her jobs. Her work experience includes stints with a mortgage brokerage firm, an air freight carrier, an equipment distributor and a property management firm where she is now employed. In 1983 Rangel was arrested on the previously cited charges, and pled guilty. She received three and five year prison terms in California and Florida, respectively, to run concurrently. Her involvement in the crimes was due to a romantic relationship with another man (the father of one of her children), who was also arrested and charged with the same offenses. Needless to say, their relationship went on the skids and they no longer have contact with one another. After her plea, Rangel began serving her sentence in January, 1984 at a federal institution in Lexington, Kentucky. In early October, 1986, or thirty-four months later, she was given an early release. Rangel then lived in a halfway house in Coral Gables until April- 1987. She now lives with her parents and three children in Miami. She will remain on probation until July, 1991. As such, she is subject to a number of special conditions, including random drug testing, a restriction on travel, and regular reporting to a parole officer. So far, she has had no problem in conforming with all restrictions imposed by the government, and anticipates none in the future. Independent testimony established that petitioner is highly regarded by her employer. She is considered to be honest and of good character, and even though her employer is aware of her criminal record, Rangel has been entrusted with the responsibility of handling large amounts of cash (up to 10,000) each day without supervision. She is in charge of managing four executive office centers, and if licensed, will become a rental agent for Dominion Realty, Inc., a subsidiary company of the corporation for which she now works. Rangel was candid and forthright in her testimony. She willingly accepted responsibility for her prior actions, and now wants the opportunity to use a real estate license as a means to provide support for her family. She appeared to the undersigned to be mature, and capable of handling the responsibilities of a real estate salesperson. Given her present job responsibilities, including the handling of large sums of money, and subsequent good conduct since release from prison, it is found Rangel is sufficiently rehabilitated to justify granting her application. Moreover, it is not likely that the public and investors will be endangered by licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Teresita de Jesus Rangel for licensure as a real estate salesperson be GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3028 Respondent: Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in findings of fact 2 and 4. Covered in findings of fact 2 and 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis N. Urbano, Esquire 1000 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 300 Coral Gables, Florida 33132 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Tom Gallagher Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Robert R. Hambley, is now and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in Florida having been issued license number 0200892. The last license issued was as a broker, c/o Real Pro Associates, Inc., 10863 74th Avenue, North, Seminole, Florida 35542. During times material, Respondent was an officer of and qualifying broker for Real Pro Associates, Inc. (Real Pro). During 1987, it came to Petitioner's attention that Respondent was paying commissions to unlicensed salesmen through Real Pro Associates; that Respondent was not placing escrow and trust monies into escrow or other satisfactory depository accounts and that Respondent was failing to disclose to the purchasers, the Federal Housing Authority and the title and trust companies that escrow deposits were not made as set forth in sales contracts as required. Based on that information, Petitioner's Investigator, Edward J. P. Shea served a subpoena upon Stewart Fidelity Title Company and obtained the documentation of the last five sales transactions by Paul George (George), the owner of Real Pro. Stewart Fidelity Title Company also provided Investigator Shea with the sales contracts consummated by Paul George and the following sellers: William G. Summer, Harold G. Johnson, Windy J. Domke, Charles Stephens, Jr., and Ernest G. Sanchez. George is not licensed by Petitioner as a real estate salesman. Each of the subpoenaed contracts represented that a $500 escrow deposit had been received and that the deposits were being held in Real Pro's escrow account. Real Pro's bank records revealed that no such deposits had either been received or placed in Real Pro's escrow account. At the closing of each transaction, Respondent did not inform or otherwise disclose to Stewart Fidelity Title Company, which handled the closing for each transaction, that the stated $500 escrow deposits were never placed into an escrow account as stated in the purchase and sales contracts. Likewise, Respondent did not advise the Federal Housing Authority or Stewart Fidelity Company that Paul George was receiving more than 100% financing for each of the properties involved in the above-referred transactions. This information is significant because it alerts the lender that the purchaser has no equity position in the purchase in the form of a downpayment. Of five transactions involving Paul George as buyer and seller, William G. Sumner, Harold G. Johnson, Charles and Helen Stephens, Ernest and Jane Sanchez, George received commissions in the amounts of $9,900, $7,900, $8,804 and $1,900.38.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order: Imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000 payable to Petitioner within thirty days of entry of the Final Order herein, and Placing Respondent's license number 0200892 on probation for a period of one (1) year. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 5th day of July, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste. 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Arthur R. Shell, Jr. Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation -- Legal Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert R. Hambley, Pro Se 8404 Annwood Road Largo, Florida 34647 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Petitioner meets the qualifications for licensure as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact On June 13, 1988, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. In responding to question 14(a) of the application, Petitioner answered that his license, as a real estate broker, had been revoked for non-payment of an administrative fine. (Respondent's exhibit 1). Petitioner attached to his application a copy of a transcript of an administrative hearing held in DOAH Case No. 84-0981. A final order was entered in that case based on a stipulation wherein Petitioner agreed to pay an administrative fine of $500 within 30 days of entry of the final order. Petitioner has not paid the administrative fine as he agreed. Petitioner admitted during hearing that he had not paid the fine and made an offer during the hearing herein to pay that fine in as much as he failed to pay it earlier since he did not have the wherewithal to pay the fine. Petitioner is now employed as a sales representative with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. 1/ Petitioner's license as a real estate broker was revoked by Respondent based on his failure to pay an administrative fine imposed in an earlier case (DOAH Case No. 86-145, Respondent's exhibit 2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman be DENIED. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this of 27th day of January, 1989. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed real estate broker, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to regulate the practice of real estate in the State of Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 61J2, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's responsibilities include the prosecution of administrative complaints. Prior to February 1993, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. In February 1993, Respondent filed an application with Petitioner for licensure as a real estate broker. The application provided the applicant with two boxes, one marked "yes" and the other marked "no" to the following question, instructions, and caveat: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty of nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state, or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "YES," attach the details and outcome, including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could result in denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney of the Division of Real Estate. Respondent answered Question 9 in the negative. Respondent thereafter signed the application, including the following affidavit: The above named and undersigned applicant for licensure as a real estate broker under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn deposes and says that s(he) is the person so applying, that s(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information, an records permit, without any evasion or mental reservations whatsoever; that s(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and s(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications, whether and additional oath thereto shall be administered or not. On the evening of September 28, 1986, Respondent and her husband became involved in a loud argument at their home after having consumed too much alcohol. As a result, someone called the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Respondent was thereafter arrested and charged with disorderly intoxication. On November 20, 1986, Respondent pled nolo contendere to one count of disorderly intoxication in Broward County, Florida. Respondent was fined, but adjudication of guilt was withheld. The court records reflect Respondent's name as being Katherine [sic] Lawand, which is her married name, and Kay Starr, which is the name Respondent uses for business purposes. On the evening of April 25, 1992, a virtual repeat of the incident of September 28, 1986, occurred. Again, as the result of a loud, drunken argument between Respondent and her husband, the Fort Lauderdale Police Department was called. As a result of her behavior, Respondent was arrested on the charge of disorderly conduct. On May 21, 1992, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to one count of disorderly conduct in Broward County, Florida. The court records reflect Respondent's name entered on this plea as Kathline [sic] Starr. Respondent testified that she thought Question 9 on the application for a broker's license only pertained to felony crimes. Respondent testified that she does not consider herself to be a criminal and that she did not intend to mislead or deceive the licensing agency. On May 3, 1993, Respondent passed the broker licensure examination. On May 23, 1993, Respondent was issued her initial license as an inactive broker. The license number was BK0459569. Since September 24, 1993, Respondent has been actively licensed as either a broker or a broker/salesperson. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent was licensed as an individual broker with an office at 120 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Following an automobile accident in Broward County, Florida, on December 12, 1994, Respondent was charged with "DUI/ Blood Alch Above 0.20" (Count I); "Driving Under the Influence" (Count II); and "Disobey Stop/Yield Sign" (Count III). On October 3, 1995, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (Count II). Count I was nolle prossed and Count III was dismissed. As a result of the plea entered on October 3, 1995, Respondent was adjudged guilty of D.U.I. She was fined, placed on probation for six months, and ordered to perform 50 hours of community service. Her driver's license was suspended for six months. As a condition of her probation, she attended a Court Alcohol Substance Abuse Program D.U.I. School. The court records reflect Respondent's name as being Kay Starr Lawand. There was only minor property damage as a result of the accident involving Respondent on December 12, 1994. No person was injured.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be adopted that finds Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and orders that all licenses issued to her by Petitioner be revoked without prejudice to her right to reapply for licensure. It is further RECOMMENDED that Count II of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1998
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed his application for licensure as a real estate salesman on February 23, 1989. Question number 7 of the application asked Petitioner whether he had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld. Petitioner answered Question number 7 affirmatively. Respondent presented no evidence of any other basis for its refusal of Petitioner's licensure. Petitioner entered a no-contest plea to a charge of credit card forgery, uttering a forged instrument (credit card), fraudulent use of a credit card, and petit theft involving an incident in December, 1987. Adjudication was withheld and Petitioner was placed on probation for 18 months on February 16, 1988. One of the conditions of probation was that Petitioner would neither possess, carry, nor own any weapon or firearm without the Probation Supervisor's consent. Petitioner's probation was revoked on May 4, 1988. Petitioner was found guilty of being in possession of a firearm, on or about April 28, 1988, without his Probation Supervisor's consent. Petitioner was placed on one year Community Control. Petitioner has no convictions or arrests prior to or subsequent to the original offense and revocation of probation. The uncontroverted evidence established that subsequent to the revocation of his probation, Petitioner consistently demonstrated good conduct and reputation. Petitioner was released from probation eight months in advance of schedule pursuant to the recommendation of his Probation Supervisor. Petitioner worked during the day, attended a review course for his real estate salesman examination at night, and successfully completed the review course. The uncontroverted evidence further established Petitioner's subsequent good conduct and reputation during his employment over the past year as a furniture salesman for a national furniture store. Petitioner has been instrumental in handling all of the business bank deposits and payroll. Petitioner has been responsible for opening and closing the store and has been entrusted with all keys and alarm combinations. During his employment, Petitioner has demonstrated honesty, diligence, and trustworthiness. Finally, the uncontroverted evidence established that Petitioner has a reputation for trustworthiness and good character with his Probation Supervisor and among social, civic, and business leaders. See Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman be accepted. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of April 1990. DANIEL MANRY 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 17th day of April 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-6251 Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. No reference is made to unnumbered paragraphs. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 and 2 Accepted in finding 1 3 and 4 Accepted in finding 2 and 7 Accepted in part in finding 3 Remainder rejected as immaterial. Accepted in finding 4 Accepted in findings 4 and 5 Accepted in finding 5 Accepted in finding 1 Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. No reference is made to unnumbered paragraphs. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 and 2 Accepted in finding 1 3 and 4 Accepted in finding 2 Accepted in finding 3 Included in Preliminary Statement Rejected as immaterial COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Manuel Oliver Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Paul A. Sack, Esquire Glendale Federal Building, Suite 630 2121 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jerry R. Erickson, who is now thirty years old, made application on May 29, 1986 for licensure as a real estate salesman by examination with respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Question six on the application requires the applicant to state whether he or she "has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld". Petitioner answered in the affirmative and gave the following response: February 10, 1984 incurred several felonies, all drug and alcohol related, there were several incidents in my past that were drug and alcohol related. (See attached letters). A subsequent background check by respondent revealed the following arrests and/or convictions: 1980 - Arrest for driving while under the influence. 1982 - Arrest for trespassing after warning and assault and battery. 1982 - Arrest and conviction for driving while under the influence. 1983 - Disorderly intoxication ar- rest. 1984 - Arrest and conviction for armed burglary, kidnap, false imprisonment, aggravated assault, and burglary to a business. Although arrested on the above five occasions, he was convicted only twice. For the most recent conviction in 1984, Erickson was allowed to enter into a negotiated plea whereby he received 455 days incarceration, two years community control, and ten years probation, each to run consecutively. 1/ Because of his record, petitioner's application for licensure was denied by respondent on September 15, 1986. Erickson's problems are directly related to alcohol and drug addiction. Its origin began at age thirteen when he was given valium by his parents for hyperactivity. Following this exposure to drugs, Erickson freely admits that he abused alcohol and drugs until early February, 1984. Having taken a large dose of valiums over a 48 hour period, and still not being able to sleep, Erickson entered a drug store on February 9, 1984 and demanded, at gunpoint, an ampule of morphine to help him calm down. For that episode, he was arrested and charged with a number of serious crimes. Apparently recognizing that Erickson's underlying problem of drug and alcohol addiction was the reason for his actions, the State allowed Erickson to enter a negotiated plea if he could master his addiction problem. He has successfully done so and is now under community control until November, 1986. After that, he must serve 10 years probation. In addition, he must receive an annual psychological review during the term of his probation. In addition to his own testimony, a psychiatrist, executive vice- president of a bank, and the chief of the public defender's criminal trial division testified on Erickson's behalf. All were aware of Erickson's background and prior legal problems. Erickson was described as being responsible, mature, reliable and honest. The banker stated he would have no hesitation in using Erickson in a real estate transaction and that Erickson has met all obligations on several loans with the bank. The public defender described Erickson's conduct as "exceptional", and that he is one out of perhaps five hundred clients who has been assigned to community control. All felt Erickson had rehabilitated himself. Erickson desires to become a real estate salesman, and eventually to obtain a broker's license. He is married, has a child, and is employed at a West Palm Beach newspaper. He was most candid and forthright in his testimony and appeared to the undersigned to have rehabilitated himself by reason of good conduct and lapse of time since his 1984 conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's application for licensure as by examination as a real estate salesman be GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1986.
