The Issue The general issue for determination in this proceeding is whether, under Section 57.011, Fla. Stat. (1989), the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (DPR), should pay Dorothea L. Prisament and Warricks Real Estate, Inc., attorney fees and costs incurred in their defense to the Administrative Complaint DPR filed in DOAH Case No. 89-6293. As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, the parties stipulated that Prisament and Warricks operate as a "small business party" 1/ and that the amount of the fees and costs they seek is reasonable. It already has been ruled, by Order Denying [DPR's] Motion to Dismiss, that Prisament and Warricks "prevailed" in the underlying administrative proceeding. The only remaining issues under the statute are whether the Respondent was "substantially justified" in filing the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 89-6293 and, if not, whether "special circumstances exist that would make an award unjust."
Findings Of Fact On or about August 16, 1989, DPR's investigator Marjorie G. May conducted an office inspection and audit of the escrow account of Dorothea L. Prisament and Warricks Real Estate, Inc. (Prisament is a licensed real estate broker who serves as qualifying broker for Warricks, a corporate real estate broker owned by Prisament.) May's audit revealed to her that the escrow account had a $1,380.86 shortage. This determination was in error. In adding the entries she had copied down by hand from the Warricks records to arrive at the total amount required in the escrow account, May inadvertently entered an incorrect $7,000 figure into her calculator instead of the correct figure of $1,000. As a result, the total incorrectly indicated a $1,380.86 shortage instead of the actual overage that was in the account. May also noted that the office entrance sign did not have Prisament's name on it as broker; the sign did have Warricks's correct name, identified as a licensed real estate broker, on it. On October 17, 1989, a probable cause panel of the Florida Real Estate Commission deliberated on information presented to it as the report of May's investigation. The information included a draft proposed Administrative Complaint that alleged a $1,380.86 shortage in the escrow account as the basis for four counts (two each against Prisament and Warricks); two counts (one each against Prisament and Warricks) alleged the improper signage. Attached to the draft proposed Administrative Complaint was a copy of May's handwritten notes correctly listing the entries from Warricks's records. In addition, the information presented to the probable cause panel included a copy of the calculator tape showing how May entered these amounts into her calculator-- including the erroneous entry--to arrive at a total amount required in the account (the incorrect total.) The draft proposed Administrative Complaint also alleged: When the [DPR's] investigator suggested that Respondent Prisament go over the books again to make sure nothing was overlooked prior to making up the shortage, Respondent Prisament replied "I dont't have time." The Respondents replaced the shortage on August 24, 1989. The copy of the Investigative Report attached to the draft proposed Administrative Complaint supported these allegations. It also disclosed that Prisament agreed on the day of the inspection and audit, August 16, 1989, to make up the shortage and that she signed an Office Inspection and Escrow/Trust Account Audit Form by which she agreed "to take corrective action within 10 days." The Investigative Report also recites that Prisament told May on the day of the inspection and audit: "It is believed the deficit came from errors as opposed to any 'intentional' withdrawal." Additional information presented to the probable cause panel included a copy of a "speedy reply message" from Prisament to May, dated August 24, 1989, that said, among other things: "Due to several deals not closing, I was short of the amount you say I owe but now have obtained it and have deposited in into my Escrow Account. . . . Thanks for your help correcting us." Attached was a copy of the check and the deposit slip. May's Investigative Report was signed by May and by her supervisor, John W. Shrive, Inv. Mgr. The information was presented to the probable cause panel by the DPR's attorney as establishing an escrow shortage and with the comment: "We believe this supports a charge of culpable negligence and failure to maintain sufficient funds in a trust account." The probable cause panel found probable cause, reciting that the finding came "after a complete review of the file." One member commented: "I guess he'll have time to come to a hearing." On or about October 18, 1989, DPR filed the six-count Administrative Complaint. At the formal administrative proceeding in the case, the error in calculating the amount required in the escrow account was disclosed, and the true facts were made clear. The parties filed a Joint Proposed Recommended Order, which formed the basis of the Recommended Order in the case. Eventually, a Final Order was entered adopting the Recommended Order. The four counts involving the allegation of a shortage in the escrow account were dismissed. The two counts involving the improper sign (which were characterized as "technical violations" that were "immediately corrected") were sustained, and Prisament and Warricks were reprimanded. On or about December 6, 1990, Prisament and Warricks filed a Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was licensed as a real estate broker by the Florida Real Estate Commission. In May 1988, he was working as a broker-salesman with G.V. Stewart, Inc., a corporate real estate broker whose active broker is G.V. Stewart. On April 20, 1989, Respondent submitted a Contract for Sale and Purchase to the University of South Florida Credit Union who was attempting to sell a house at 2412 Elm Street in Tampa, Florida, which the seller had acquired in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. This offer reflected a purchase price of $25,000 with a deposit of $100 (Exhibit 2). The president of the seller rejected the offer by striking out the $25,000 and $100 figures and made a counter offer to sell the property for $29,000 with a $2000 deposit (Exhibit 2). On May 9, 1989, Respondent submitted a new contract for sale and purchase for this same property which offer reflected an offering price of $27,000 with a deposit of $2000 held in escrow by G.V. Stewart (Exhibit 3). This offer, as did Exhibit 2, bore what purported to be the signature of William P. Murphy as buyer and G. Stewart as escrow agent. In fact, neither Murphy nor Stewart signed either Exhibit 2 or Exhibit 3, and neither was aware the offers had been made at the time they were submitted to the seller. This offer was accepted by the seller. This property was an open listing with no brokerage firm having an exclusive agreement with the owner to sell the property. Stewart's firm had been notified by the seller that the property was for sale. Respondent had worked with Stewart for upwards of ten years and had frequently signed Stewart's name on contracts, which practice was condoned by Stewart. Respondent had sold several parcels of property to Murphy, an attorney in Tampa, on contracts signed by him in the name of Murphy, which signatures were subsequently ratified by Murphy. Respondent considers Murphy to be a Class A customer for whom he obtained a deposit only after the offer was accepted by the seller and Murphy confirmed a desire to purchase. Respondent has followed this procedure in selling property to Murphy for a considerable period of time and saw nothing wrong with this practice. At present, Respondent is the active broker at his own real estate firm.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that William H. McCoy's license as a real estate broker be suspended for one year. However, if before the expiration of the year's suspension Respondent can prove, to the satisfaction of the Real Estate Commission, that he fully understands the duty owed by a broker to the seller and the elements of a valid contract, the remaining portion of the suspension be set aside. ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: John Alexander, Esquire Kenneth E. Easley 400 West Robinson Street General Counsel Orlando, Florida 32802 Department of Professional Regulation William H. McCoy 1940 North Monroe Street 4002 South Pocahontas Avenue Suite 60 Suite 106 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Tampa Florida 33610 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent Sexsmith is a licensed real estate broker, having held License Number 0079448 at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent Bellitto is a licensed real estate salesman, having held License No. 0204206 at all times relevant to Case No. 81-2630. Respondent Select Realty, Inc., is a licensed corporate real estate broker, having held License No. 0157174 at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent Sexsmith founded Select Realty, Inc., in 1975. He was a full time realtor until his employment by the Hollywood Fire Department in 1976. Select Realty thereafter became inactive. In 1979, Respondent Sexsmith was contacted by a Mr. Jim Holmes, who was seeking to register the corporate name, Select Realty. Sexsmith agreed to permit the name Select Realty to be used by Holmes and his associates to open a real estate office at 3045 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale. Sexsmith also applied to Petitioner for certification as a director and active broker with this company. His application was granted in June, 1979, and he remained affiliated with Respondent Select Realty, Inc., in this capacity until about April, 1980. Respondent Sexsmith did not participate in Select Realty operations and received no compensation for the use of his name and broker's license. He was slated to open and manage a branch office in Hollywood, but this project failed to materialize. Petitioner produced Mr. Tom Ott and Ms. Terri Casson as witnesses. They had utilized the services of Select Realty, Inc., in December, 1979 (Ott) and February, 1980 (Casson). Both had responded to advertisements in which Select Realty offered to provide rental assistance for a $45 refundable fee. These witnesses understood money would be refunded if Select Realty did not succeed in referring them to rental property which met their specifications. Mr. Ott was referred to several properties which did not meet his requirements. He sought to have his fee or a portion thereof returned, but was refused. His demand for such return was made within the 30-day contract period (PX-11). Ms. Casson was similarly dissatisfied with the referrals and sought the return of her fee within the 30-day contract period (PX-7). However, she was unable to contact this company or its agents since the office had closed and no forwarding instructions were posted or otherwise made available to her.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Select Realty, Inc., and Gary Lee Sexsmith be found guilty as charged in Counts Three and Four of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 81-2630. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges against these Respondents and other Respondents named in DOAH Cases 81-2630 and 81-2490 be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that the corporate broker's license of Select Realty, Inc., be revoked. It is further RECOMMENDED that the broker's license of Gary Lee Sexsmith be suspended for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101, Kristin Building 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 William Grossbard, Esquire Suite 6175M 6191 Southwest 45 Street 6177 North Davie, Florida 33314 Anthony S. Paetro, Esquire Bedzow and Korn, P.A. Suite C 1125 Northeast 125 Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Lawrence J. Spiegel, Esquire Spiegel and Abramowitz Suite 380 First National Bank Building 900 West 49th Street Hialeah, Florida 33012 Mr. Gary Lee Sexsmith 321 Southwest 70t Avenue Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023 Mr. Guiseppe D. Bellitto 2635 McKinley Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Select Realty, Inc. c/o Mr. Gary Lee Sexsmith last acting Director and Trustee of Select Realty, Inc. 321 Southwest 70th Avenue Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023 Mr. Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what penalty, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of real estate licensees in the State of Florida. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman, license number 0646052. On or about July 15, 1996, the Respondent completed an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson that was submitted to the Department. Such application posed several questions to be completed by the Respondent by checking boxes "Yes" or "No." Among such questions was the following: 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. 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, or applicable law of another state, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." In addition to the foregoing, the question also advised the Respondent as follows: Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. After reviewing the foregoing question, the Respondent submitted the answer "No" on his application for licensure. The Respondent represented at hearing that prior to submitting the application he consulted an attorney. The Respondent's application for licensure also contained an affidavit wherein the Respondent, after being sworn, represented that he had carefully read the application and that all answers to same are true and correct. The answer the Respondent gave to the above-described question was not accurate. In fact, in Case No. 87-2661-CF before the Circuit Court of Alachua County, Florida, the Respondent was charged with grand theft of the amount of $4200.00, a felony. The resolution of such charge came when the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere. Thereafter the Respondent was placed on probation for a period of three years and was directed to pay court costs and restitution. The court withheld adjudication and the Respondent successfully completed all conditions of the probation. At the time of the foregoing plea the Respondent was represented by counsel, was apprised of his rights regarding the charge pending against him, had no prior convictions, and was approximately 19 years of age with satisfactory mental health. The record of the Respondent’s plea and the conditions of his probation have not been sealed nor expunged. The Respondent did not deny the factual allegations in the underlying criminal matter. That is, he has not alleged that the charge of grand theft was untrue. He has asserted that he believed the record would not appear on a background check and that, therefore, he unintentionally failed to disclose the criminal record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order revoking Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy P. Campiglia, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Thomas Payne, Esquire 3780 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33134 Herbert S. Fecker, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate broker should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been a licensed real estate sales associate since 2000. His license number is 693538. Most of Petitioner’s work in the real estate industry has involved business transactions, but he has also handled transactions involving residential properties. On August 23, 2004, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate broker. Petitioner disclosed in the application that, in July 2003, his sales associate license was suspended by the Commission for 30 days and that he was placed on probation for a period of six months. That disciplinary action was based upon a single incident that occurred on or about November 7, 2001. Petitioner agreed to the disciplinary action as part of a “Stipulation” to resolve an Administrative Complaint charging him with fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), and with having operated as a broker without a license in violation of Sections 475.42(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2001). The Administrative Complaint contained the following “essential allegations of material fact,” which were admitted by Petitioner as part of the Stipulation: On or about November 7, 2001, Respondent, a seller’s agent, facilitated a purchase and sale transaction between Buyer and Seller. On or about November 7, 2001, [Petitioner] was not registered with a broker.[1] The transaction referenced above failed to close. Buyer released a $1,000.00 payment to Seller. [Petitioner] submitted the $1,000.00 payment to Seller. [Petitioner] instructed [Seller] to execute a check in the amount of $500.00 payable to “Cash.”[2] [Petitioner] accepted the $500.00 payment as his own payment for services. The Final Order adopting the Stipulation was filed with the agency clerk on June 25, 2003. Petitioner’s suspension commenced on July 25, 2003, which is “thirty days from the date of filing of the Final Order.” The suspension ended 30 days later, on August 24, 2003. Petitioner’s probation ran “for a period of six (6) months from the Effective Date [of the Stipulation],” which was defined as the date that the Final Order was filed with the agency clerk. As a result, the probation period ran from June 25, 2003, to December 25, 2003. Petitioner was required to complete a three-hour ethics course and a four-hour escrow management course during the probation period, which he did. Petitioner has not been subject to any other disciplinary action. Petitioner has taken several continuing education courses in addition to those required as part of his probation. He is working towards certification by the Graduate Realtor Institute. Petitioner has taken the classes necessary to become a real estate broker, and he passed the broker examination. Petitioner has worked for broker Phillip Wetter since March 2005. Petitioner manages the day-to-day operation of Mr. Wetter’s brokerage firm. His responsibilities include preparing listings, negotiating contracts, and handling escrow funds. He has been involved in over 50 successful real estate transactions under Mr. Wetter’s supervision. According to Mr. Wetter, Petitioner is meticulous in his work, including his handling of escrow funds, and he always makes sure that he “dots all his ‘I’s’ and crosses all his ‘T’s’.” Petitioner acknowledged in his testimony before the Commission and at the final hearing that what he did in November 2001 was wrong. He credibly testified that he has learned from his mistake. In his testimony before the Commission and at the final hearing, Mr. Wetter attested to Petitioner’s honesty, ethics, good moral character, as well as his qualifications to be a broker. That testimony was unrebutted and is corroborated by the letters of support from Petitioner’s former clients that are contained in his application file, Exhibit R1. Mr. Wetter’s opinions regarding Petitioner’s fitness for licensure as a real estate broker are given great weight. Those opinions are based not only on his personal observations as Petitioner’s current qualifying broker, but also on his personal experience with Petitioner representing him in several business transactions while Petitioner was working for other brokers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division issue a final order approving Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 2005.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 475.624(14) and 475.624(15), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Pfeiffer was a certified residential appraiser licensed by the State of Florida, License No. RD3059. She first became licensed in 1998. On June 12, 2006, Ms. Pfeiffer accepted an assignment from Diane Purser to appraise her home located in Gulf Breeze, Florida. Mrs. Purser was in the midst of a divorce proceeding with her husband Mark Purser and wanted to have the appraisal to determine the market value of their home prior to a meeting with her attorney. Mrs. Purser wanted the appraisal to be expedited. Ms. Pfeiffer gave the appraisal assignment to Brian Choron, who, at that time, was a registered trainee real estate appraiser, License No. RI-10526. Ms. Pfeiffer was Mr. Choron’s supervisor. Mr. Choron went to Mrs. Purser’s home and physically inspected the home while Mr. and Mrs. Purser were present. Mr. Choron developed an appraisal report of the Purser property. Mr. Choron extracted data from appraisals of other property in the area in developing the report on the Purser property. This is not an uncommon practice in the appraisal profession. Mr. Choron sent the appraisal report to Ms. Pfeiffer for her review. Ms. Pfeiffer reviewed the report and sent it to Mrs. Purser. Ms. Pfeiffer signed the appraisal on June 15, 2006, as the appraiser. Mr. Choron did not sign the appraisal. By signing the appraisal report as the appraiser, Ms. Pfeiffer certified, among other things, that she had “performed a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property.” Additionally, she certified the following: I personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in this appraisal report. If I relied on significant real property appraisal assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of this appraisal or the preparation of the appraisal report, I have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed in this appraisal report. I certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. I have not authorized anyone to make a change to any item in this appraisal report; therefore, any changes made to this appraisal is unauthorized and I will take no responsibility for it. On page four3 of the appraisal report, Ms. Pfeiffer stated: “Brian Choron RI10526 assisted in the research, inspection, preparation of this appraisal report.” On page 17 of the appraisal report, Ms. Pfeiffer indicated that she had inspected the property. Ms. Pfeiffer admits that she incorrectly signed the appraisal report as the appraiser, that she should have signed as the supervisory appraiser, and that Mr. Choron should have signed the appraisal report as the appraiser. The appraisal report listed the effective date of the appraisal as June 14, 2006. The final estimated value of the Purser property was listed as $275,000.00. Mr. Purser contacted Ms. Pfeiffer and was upset about some discrepancies which he perceived to be in the appraisal report. Ms. Pfeiffer and Mr. Choron developed a revised appraisal report, hereinafter referred to as the “revised appraisal.” The revised appraisal was communicated to Mrs. Purser in October 2006. The final estimated value of the property was listed the same as it was in the original appraisal, $275,000.00. The revised appraisal listed Mr. Choron as the appraiser. On page 8 of the revised appraisal, Mr. Choron signed the revised appraisal as the appraiser with a signature date of June 15, 2006. On the same page of the revised appraisal, Ms. Pfeiffer signed the revised appraisal as the supervisory appraiser with a signature date of June 15, 2006. She also indicated on that page that she had not inspected the property. On page 18 of the revised appraisal, Mr. Choron signed the revised appraisal as the appraiser with a signature date of October 20, 2006. Ms. Pfeiffer signed on the same page as the supervisory appraiser with a signature date of June 15, 2006. Ms. Pfeiffer checked boxes on page 18 of the revised appraisal, indicating that she both did and did not inspect the property. There are no issues with the valuation of the Purser property. None of the experts who testified at the final hearing found fault with the market value placed on the property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Ms. Pfeiffer guilty of violating Subsections 475.624(14) and 475.624(15), Florida Statutes, and Rule 2-3 of the USPAP; dismissing Count IX of the Amended Administrative Complaint; placing Ms. Pfeiffer on probation for two years; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00; and requiring Ms. Pfeiffer to complete the 15-hour USPAP course. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2009.
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 obtained his real estate license by means of misrepresentation or concealment in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and Title 61J2, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent is and, at all times material hereto, was a duly licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. Respondent is now and was at all times material herein actively engaged in major real estate developments and has also operated on behalf of family owned corporations. During the relevant time period, Respondent has not engaged in the general real estate brokerage business. On August 16, 1984, Respondent was found guilty in federal court of one count of knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully participating in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect an extension of credit in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 894. Respondent was sentenced to 18 months in prison and fined $2,000. The incident which gave rise to the conviction occurred in and while the Respondent was a resident of Illinois, and prior to the Respondent's being issued his Florida real estate license. Respondent testified that in 1983 he owned a Chicago nightclub. According to Respondent, during that time period someone owed Respondent a gambling debt in the amount of $36,000. The person who owed the money to Respondent said he would pay the debt. Because the Respondent was leaving town, he asked his wife's uncle to pick up the money. The Respondent indicated, that unknown to him, the uncle used unlawful means in an attempt to collect the funds. It was this collection effort which eventually lead to the Respondent's arrest, not guilty plea, and guilty verdict in 1984. The Respondent moved to Florida and, subsequently, on or about January 19, 1994, he applied to become licensed as a Florida real estate salesperson. The application contained an affidavit which provided in part that "such responses are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever." Petitioner's application form contained Question 9 which requested information concerning an applicant's criminal history. In pertinent part the question is 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? 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. * * * Your answer to this will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. In response to this question, Respondent answered in the negative by marking the "no" box. On April 18, 1994, the State of Florida issued Respondent license #0611142 as a real estate salesperson. On January 10, 1994, Respondent signed the application. By his duly notarized signature, the Respondent swore that all answers and information provided on his application were true, correct, and complete. On or about January 16, 1995, Respondent applied to become licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. Respondent, again, checked "no" to Question 9 on his broker's application as to whether or not he had ever been convicted or found guilty of any crime. Also, Respondent again swore that all answers and information contained in his application to become a real estate broker in the State of Florida were true, correct, and complete. Again, the Respondent's signature was duly notarized. The broker's application was approved for the Petitioner. However, a broker's license was not issued because Respondent failed to pass the state examination required to be licensed as a broker. Respondent testified at the formal hearing that the reason he did not disclose his prior conviction on his real estate applications was that he had spoken to his brother who advised him that matters over 10 years old did not have to be disclosed. Respondent did not consult with an attorney, the Division of Real Estate or anyone else other than his brother about how to answer Question 9 on his real estate application. Respondent's stated justification for checking "no" on his license applications lacked credibility given the clear wording of Question 9 on the application form. The Respondent has had no other incidents of criminal problems. Similarly, there have been no civil judgments involving the Respondent and dishonest dealing. Finally, there have been no prior disciplinary matters against the Respondent. The Respondent has served in the military and was honorably discharged and earned a two-year degree in electronics.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes; revoking his real estate license; and imposing a fine of $1000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 * day of February, 1998. *Filed with the Clerk undated. -ac COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey T. Kirk, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 July 21, 1999 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Re: Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate vs. Frank Efstathios Touloumis DOAH Case No. 97-3722 Dear Mr. Solares: Enclosed is the Amended Recommended Order issued in the referenced case. It was issued in order to correct a scrivenners error in page 8 of the original order. Please replace page 1 and page 8 enclosing for pages 1 and 8 oriignally sent to you. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this might have caused. Sincerely, CSH/scl Enclosures cc: Geoffrey T. Kirk, Esquire Frederick H. Wilson, Esquire CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge
