Findings Of Fact The Respondents at all times pertinent hereto are licensed real estate brokers having been issued, in the case of Lorraine B. Anthony individually, license number 0123486, and in the case of Lorraine Anthony Realty, Inc., as a corporate broker, license number 0181092. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent Lorraine B. Anthony was licensed and operating as a real estate broker and the sole "qualifying" broker and officer of Respondent Lorraine Anthony Realty, Inc. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes and appurtenant rules governing the licensure standards and practice standards for real estate brokers, broker salesmen and salespersons in the State of Florida and conducting disciplinary proceedings inconnection therewith. On or about May, 1982, Mr. Leif Rosenquist journeyed to Lee County, Florida from his native Sweden with the intention of purchasing real property for the purpose of building a residence for himself and his wife. He became acquainted with Ida Chacko, a real estate salesperson operating in Lee County, Florida, and ultimately entered into a real estate sales contract partly at her behest. Ida Chacko was not then employed by the Respondent, Lorraine B. Anthony nor the Lorraine Anthony Realty, Inc. Mr. Rosenquist gave Ida Chacko approximately $10,000 to place in an escrow account for him in order to effect a deposit and down payment on that real estate purchase. This transaction ultimately did not occur. Ida Chacko, however, retained $7,000 of those funds which were placed in an escrow account with Tri-County Title Company in approximately May of 1982. Shortly thereafter Ms. Chacko became an employee and salesperson with the Respondents real estate firm, with the Respondent Lorraine Anthony as her managing broker. In approximately August, 1982, Mr. and Mrs. Rosenquist entered into a "deposit, receipt and sales contract" with Santa Barbara Development Corporation and Thomas Romano, its president, for the purchase of a piece of property upon which they wished Mr. Romano to construct a duplex which they would use as their residence. The transaction was arranged by Ida Chacko. Mr. Romano owned that property and contracted with the Rosenquists to construct the dwelling. The contract terms required the payment of a $500 earnest money deposit to Mr. Romano and Santa Barbara Development Corporation. Ida Chacko assured Mr. and Mrs. Rosenquist that the $500 earnest money deposit required by the contract would be paid to Mr. Romano from the $7,000 escrow account which she maintained on their behalf. In fact, Ms. Chacko had, prior to that time, withdrawn the $7,000 from the escrow account with Tri-County Title Company for unknown purposes. Further, Ms. Chacko never paid over the $500 earnest money to the Respondent's escrow account nor to Mr. Romano or Santa Barbara Development Corporation. The contract, moreover, was contingent in its terms on the Rosenquists being able to obtain financing at terms stated on the face of the contract, secured by a mortgage with Barnett Bank. The Rosenquists however, were unable to secure compatible financing in accordance with the contractual terms regarding that financing and so that contingency was never satisfied and the Rosenquists elected to never consummate that transaction. That contingency never being satisfied, the Rosenquists never actually defaulted on the contract. Moreover, during the pendency of the Rosenquists attempts to obtain the financial arrangements with Barnett Bank, the time period stated in the contract during which it could be enforceable, expired. Pursuant to a later contract entered into September 26, 1982, the real estate involved in the Rosenquist transaction was sold to Ida Chacko's daughter. Mr. Romano sold her the property and ultimately constructed a duplex dwelling for Ms. Chacko's daughter on that property according to the same construction plans referenced in the Rosenquist contract and for a higher purchase price. He thus incurred no financial detriment caused by the failure of the Rosenquist transaction, nor did the Santa Barbara Development Corporation. Some two months after the failure of the Rosenquist transaction, Mr. Romano sought payment of the $500 earnest money deposit he believed he was due from the Respondent Lorraine B. Anthony and Lorraine Anthony Realty, Inc. She initially refused to pay him the $500. The Respondent had no knowledge that the Rosenquist's agreement had been entered into, knew nothing of its particulars, nor of any representations made by any of the parties to the agreement, nor Ida Chacko, until approximately two days after the contract was executed. She learned of the contract when her office manager, Ellen Smith, told her that no earnest money deposit had been obtained on that contract. She immediately instructed Mrs. Smith to ascertain that an earnest money deposit was immediately obtained according to the terms of the contract. After later consulting with Ida Chacko and learning that the transaction never reached fruition, she did not inquire further concerning the earnest money deposit or other particulars regarding that transaction, believing that she had no reason or duty to do so. The Respondent, Lorraine B. Anthony never met with the Rosenquists nor discussed any facet of the transaction with them nor made any representations to them with regard to the transaction. She never discussed the transaction or made any representations regarding it to Mr. Romano, until he finally demanded the $500 earnest money deposit some two months after the failure of the contract with the Rosenquists and after the consummation of the second contract with Ida Chacko's daughter. The Respondents had had a successful business relationship with Mr. Romano prior to these occasions and desired to continue such relationship and therefore, in an abundance of caution, ultimately paid the $500 to Mr. Romano. He has no claim presently pending against the Respondents. Helen Smith, the Respondents' office manager, established that it was the Respondents' consistent policy to always obtain an earnest money deposit contemporaneously with the execution of a real estate sales contract in which she or her agents were involved, and to deposit such money in her escrow account. Ida Chacko was well aware of this policy at the time the Rosenquist transaction was entered into, but never obtained the earnest money deposit either directly from the Rosenquists nor carried out her assurance to the Rosenquists that she would obtain the required $500 earnest money deposit from the $7,000 "escrow account" supposedly on deposit on their behalf with Tri- County Title Company (or another unidentified party). The $7,000 which Ms. Chacko had on deposit on behalf of the Rosenquists was obtained before she was ever employed with the Respondents' firm as an agent of the Respondent and the Respondent never knew of the existence of those funds. The only connection Respondent and her firm had with this transaction and her only representation made with regard to this transaction was that Mrs. Smith should make sure that agent Chacko placed the $500 earnest money deposit in the proper escrow account in favor of Mr. Romano and Santa Barbara Development Corporation. In any event the Respondents never received the $500 earnest money deposit. The only representation made to the Rosenquists with regard to the earnest money deposit was that of Ida Chacko to the effect that she would pay it over to the Respondents' escrow account from the funds she supposedly had on deposit on the Rosenquists' behalf, which of course, she failed to do. Neither the Respondent, Lorraine B. Anthony, nor any of her agents, ever represented to Mr. Romano or Santa Barbara Development Corporation that the $500 was held on deposit on his behalf or otherwise. Finally, because the Respondents never received the $500 deposit, they could not possibly have return edit to the purchasers without the prior knowledge or consent of the seller, as alleged in Count II of the Complaint. In summary, the Respondent instructed her office manager to see that Ida Chacko received the deposit money and placed it in the escrow account at the time she believed the contract to be valid and enforceable and Ida Chacko failed to comply, thus flouting the Respondent's clearly defined office policy regarding the escrowing of deposit money, of which policy Ida Chacko was previously well aware. The Respondent had had prior and subsequent difficulties with Ida Chacko concerning her failure to follow this and other office policies required by the Respondents. The Respondent only learned definitely that no deposit money had been received nor deposited in her escrow account, approximately two months after the contract was executed and long after the contract was automatically cancelled. She at no time received any commission related to any transaction involving the subject parcel of real property. She never made any representations of any kind to any of the parties to the deal.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Lorraine B. Anthony and Lorraine Anthony Realty, Inc. be DISMISSED in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 30th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Harvey Rollings, Esquire PAVESE, SHEILDS, GARNER, HAVERFIELD, DALTON & HARRISON Post Office Box 88 Cape Coral, Florida 33910 Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact William J. Francis, Respondent, is now, and was at all times alleged in the Administrative Complaint, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having license No. 0388666. Respondent, V R Business Brokers of Lakeland, Inc., is currently, and was at all times alleged in the Administrative Complaint, a real estate broker corporation, having been issued license No. 0224405. At all times alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent Francis was licensed and operating as a real estate broker and sole qualifying broker and officer of Respondent, V R Business Brokers of Lakeland, Inc. Respondent, via Theresa Rosalie Francis, a broker/salesman and wife of Respondent, employed by V R Business Brokers, obtained from Joyce Houser a listing agreement (Exhibit 1) to sell a restaurant called "Bac O' The Mall at a price of $43,000. This listing agreement provided a minimum commission of $6,000 to the broker. Subsequent to obtaining the listing agreement, another employee of V R Business Brokers, James Rice, a real estate salesman, obtained a written offer to purchase "Bac O' The Mall" on January 13, 1983 (Exhibit 2). This offer was made by Robert Stevens and Richard Destin to purchase the business for $30,000, with a $500 deposit and an additional $1,500 down payment when the seller accepted the offer and the balance of $28,000 at closing. Joyce Houser was advised the offer had been received and was requested to come down to Respondent's office to have it presented. Mrs. Houser went to the office of Respondent and was quite upset with the disparity in asking price and the offer. Salesman Rice, who had obtained the offer, urged Mrs. Houser to accept the contract immediately because the business had been losing money and a better offer might not be forthcoming. Mrs. Houser refused this offer and contacted her brother, a real estate broker, who helped her prepare a counteroffer. Prior to this offer being submitted, Mrs. Houser had become unhappy with her dealings with V R Business Brokers due to salesmen bringing clients in at inopportune times to show the business and for failing to maintain secrecy with respect to her employees of the fact that the business was for sale. A prior offer had also been obtained on which Mrs. Houser felt she had been pressured by Respondent to accept; and she had directed all negotiations to be made through her brother, Charles Whitten. The buyers accepted the counteroffer (Exhibit 7) When the counteroffer was accepted, Whitten reminded Respondent that the additional $1,500 was due. When the buyers did not appear the following day with the additional deposit, Respondent, who had agreed to hold the buyers' personal check for $500 to be replaced with a cashier's check for $2,000, apparently became suspicious of the buyers' ability to pay and called the bank on which the check had been written to find out if sufficient funds were on deposit to cover the check. When advised that there were insufficient funds to cover the check, Respondent sent the check to his escrow agent to have the check sent to the bank where, in fact, it was subsequently dishonored. Respondent never advised Mrs. Houser or Charles Whitten that the $500 check bounced or that the buyers had failed to deposit the additional $1,500 required by the contract until after the scheduled date of closing. A few days before the February 15, 1983, scheduled closing date Respondent or his salesman contacted Whitten to solicit Mrs. Houser to finance part of the purchase price. She declined to do so. At the time the initial contract was submitted by Destin and Stevens, Respondent knew these buyers were unemployed engineers and soon thereafter learned they were attempting to borrow the money to finance the deal, and that the banks would not lend them the money they needed. Nevertheless, Respondent attempted to induce the seller to finance the sale of the business when he knew, or should have known, the buyers to be sufficiently poor credit risks they could not obtain financing. When February 15, 1983, passed without the scheduled closing taking place by reason of default on the port of the buyers, Mrs. Houser, on February 18, 1983, wrote to Respondent (Exhibit 5) requesting the earnest money deposit as liquidated damages and a release from the listing agreement which she had been promised. In response thereto, Respondent, by letter dated February 24, 1983 (Exhibit 6), advised Mrs. Houser that the buyers' $500 check was no good and that they had failed to put up the additional $1,500 required by the contract. He agreed to cancel the listing agreement `as soon as this matter is resolved." Mrs. Houser then reported the entire transaction to the Florida Real Estate Commission and these proceedings followed their investigation.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated January 19, 1989; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing stipulation filed by the parties, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and disciplining real estate licensees. The Respondent, Charles P. Grimes, is, and has been at all times material to the allegations of the administrative complaint, licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, license number 0034301. In November, 1980, a contract for sale and purchase of real estate was drafted between Dorothy Langham Scott, seller, and Phillip Crawford, buyer. The contract, which was subsequently executed by both parties, provided that a deposit in the amount of $18,500 was to be held in escrow by Respondent. A separate brokerage agreement between Respondent and the seller, executed November 30, 1980, provided that Respondent would receive a brokerage fee of ten percent of the total gross sales price. The brokerage agreement specified that "should the buyer default and not close the transaction in accordance with the Contract, the Broker shall not be entitled to any commission." The agreement further provided that Respondent would "use reasonable diligence and his best efforts to see that the transaction is closed in accordance with the executed Contract." The contract described in paragraph 3 did not close. Subsequently, the seller sued Respondent in the Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, Case no. 82-1974 CA (L) 01 B. On August 13, 1985, an amended final judgment was entered which provided, in part: The facts adduced at trial indicate that Crawford and Scott entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of certain real property, located in Putnam County and that for no apparent reason Crawford defaulted on the contract. The evidence is clear and convincing and unrefuted. Crawford has admitted several letters which he says were communicated to the attorney for Scott. However, the substantial weight of the evidence will not support his repudiation of the contract. Accordingly, it is clear that as between Scott and Grimes, the real estate agent who was allegedly holding the deposit under the provisions of the deposit receipt contract, Scott is entitled to a judgment for $18,500.00, plus its costs and attorney's fees. John L. Burns, an attorney who represented the seller, Scott, during the contract negotiations in November, 1980- January, 1981, received a letter from Respondent on December 12, 1980. That letter, dated December 5, 1980, provided: "I have enclosed the signed contract and have received the deposit check from Dr. Crawford." On or about January 29, 1981, Mr. Burns received a letter from Respondent which indicated that the contract would close in March, 1981. Respondent did not advise the seller that the deposit on the Crawford/Scott contract was not in escrow. Respondent erroneously assumed that a deposit from the buyer (which had been deposited on another contract for sale and purchase) could be applied to the contract. That deposit, in the amount of $20,000.00, was not transferred and was not used to satisfy the amended judgment entered in Scott's favor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00, suspending his license for a period of 60 days, and placing the Respondent on probation for a period of two years. It is recommended that the Respondent be found not guilty of the other alleged violations. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 89-2517 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 5, it is accepted that on or about November 30, 1980, Respondent was attempting to procure the contract described; however, the exact date the parties executed the contract is not known. The contract was ultimately executed by both parties but did not close. Consequently, the proposed fact, as written, is not supported by the record. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 8, it is accepted that the contract did not close and that a court of competent jurisdiction determined that the deposit should be awarded the seller; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as outside the scope of this record. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 12 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Glenn M. Blake Blake & Torres, P.A. 200 South Indian River Drive Suite 101 Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Thomas R. Greninger is a registered real estate broker and was registered at all times here relevant. He is the active firm member for Cronan Realty, Inc. Cronan Realty, Inc., is a registered corporate broker and was so licensed at all times here relevant. On January 6, 1980, Thomas R. Greninger executed and submitted a Purchase and Sale Contract and Receipt for Deposit (Exhibit 5) to Arcadio Hernandez with Greninger, Trustee, as buyer and Hernandez as seller of property at 15815 Southwest 88th Court, South Miami, Florida. The contract (offer to purchase) provided for $500 initial deposit to be held in escrow by Cronan Realty, Inc., with another deposit of $1,000 within seven days of acceptance of the offer by the seller, and that the seller had until 6:00 p.m. on 7 January 1981 to accept the offer. The contract further provided seller grants buyer occupancy to sell and advertise the property effective 1/9/81. The offer was handed to Hernandez on the evening of 6 January 1981 to present to his attorney for perusal and Hernandez gave Greninger a key to the residence. At that time Greninger prepared a check payable to Cronan Realty, Inc., in the amount of $500 (Exhibit 6) and delivered it to himself as active firm member for the corporate broker. This check was never deposited in Cronan Realty's escrow account. The contract further provided buyer shall inspect the property within three days of seller's acceptance of the offer and either accept or reject the property, in writing, within twenty-four hours after said inspection. Hernandez accepted the offer on 9 January 1981 and returned the contract to Greninger. On or about 9 January 1981 Greninger inspected the property and made a "punch" list of some twenty-nine items that he wanted seller to correct. Letter of Agreement dated 1-15-81 and executed by Greninger (Exhibit 2) states seller agrees to credit buyer $1,000 from second mortgage balance for the purpose of completing the renovation of the house. This exhibit was not signed by seller. Sometime thereafter it became apparent that this transaction would not be closed and, on 17 February 1981, a Release of Deposit Receipts (Exhibit 3) was executed by the seller and the buyer. This release provided for the escrow agent to disburse the $1,500 held in escrow to Greninger. Since the initial $500 check was never deposited and the additional deposit of $1,000 was never made, no $1,500 was disbursed from Cronan Realty's escrow account. Upon regaining exclusive custody of the residence, the buyer reported to his attorney, who in turn advised Greninger that a washing machine, dryer, two refrigerators and sliding glass doors were missing. Demand for the return of the property or payment therefor was refused by Greninger. Greninger's testimony that no contract ever existed because his offer was not timely accepted by the seller is contrary to the parties' actions after Hernandez accepted the offer on 9 January 1981. Upon acceptance of the offer by Hernandez, Respondent prepared the "punch" list (Exhibit 7), prepared the Letter of Agreement (Exhibit 2), took possession of the residence and put the property up for sale. By these acts he waived the provision of the offer requiring acceptance by 6:00 p.m. on 7 January 1981. Hernandez did not appear as a witness. As a result the only evidence respecting the property allegedly removed from the residence while Respondent had a key was the testimony of Hernandez's attorney that Hernandez came into his office "steaming" about the missing property and that when he asked Greninger about the property the latter told him it was a bunch of junk and that he would not replace it or pay for it.
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Respondent violated the real estate licensing law, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to account and deliver a deposit; failing to maintain a deposit in a real estate brokerage escrow account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized; and/or being guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, and/or breach of trust in a business transaction.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0360741. The last license issued was as a broker, c/o Consolidated American Realty Services, Inc., in Tampa, Florida. From June 6, 1983, through June 25, 1984, Respondent was licensed and operating as a real estate broker under the trade name, "Benjamin Realty," in Tampa, Florida. For sometime prior to June 2, 1984, Eileen Cumbie attempted to sell a lot owned by her located at 1102 26th Avenue, Tampa, Florida. On June 2, 1984, the Respondent contacted Ms. Cumbie and informed her that he had a client interested in purchasing the property. Ms. Cumbie informed the Respondent that as long as she netted a certain amount, she would be willing to sell the property. Ms. Cumbie allowed the Respondent to put together a contract for the sale of the lot. In connection therewith, the Respondent prepared a sales contract with Danilo Castellanos, as purchaser, and Eileen W. Cumbie, as seller, for the purchase and sale of the property. Pursuant to the purchase and sales agreement, the Respondent received in trust from Mr. Castellanos a $500 earnest money deposit via check dated June 2, 1984. On June 5, 1984, the Respondent deposited the check into his real estate brokerage account maintained at the Central Bank of Tampa, 2307 W. Rennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Mr. Castellanos entered into the contract for the benefit of his son and daughter-in-law who resided in New Jersey but were planning to relocate to the Tampa area. Mr. Castellanos' daughter-in-law went to look at the lot on June 10, 1984 and decided that she did not like the area in which it was located. The closing of the transaction was set for June 15, 1984. On approximately June 13, 1984, Mr. Castellanos' daughter- in-law informed the Respondent that they were no longer interested in purchasing the property. Ms. Cumbie was out of town during the time of the scheduled closing, but had prepared and signed all of the paperwork in advance. When she returned after June 15, 1984, she called Respondent to find out how the closing went. The Respondent informed her that the buyers failed to go through with the transaction. The contract provided in part as follows: ". . . If the buyer fails to perform this contract within the time specified herein, time being of the essence of this agreement, the deposit made by the buyer shall be disposed of in the following manner: To the Broker an amount equal to his earned commission, but not to exceed 1/2 of the deposit which shall discharge the sellers obligation to him for that service; remainder to the seller to be credited to him against his damages accrued by reason of the breach of contract. " After the transaction failed to close, Ms. Cumbie requested that Respondent give a portion of the deposit to her. The Respondent told Ms. Cumbie that he would give her the entire deposit because she had paid for the survey and a few other items to facilitate the closing of the transaction. Over the next several months, the Respondent, on several occasions, promised to deliver a check to Ms. Cumbie. However, the Respondent never delivered any such check to Ms. Cumbie. Because the Respondent failed to provide Ms. Cumbie with a share of the earnest money deposit, she initiated a civil action in the County Court of Hillsborough County. On October 15, 1985, Ms. Cumbie was awarded a final judgment in the amount of $250 against Respondent for her share of the forfeited earnest money deposit. As of the date of the final hearing, the Respondent had not satisfied the judgment and Ms. Cumbie had not received any proceeds from the forfeited earnest money deposit. Shortly after the transaction failed to close, the purchasers requested that the Respondent return the earnest money deposit to them. However, the Respondent informed them that they were not entitled to the return of the earnest money deposit. The earnest money deposit was never returned to the purchasers. On July 31, 1984, the balance in Respondent's escrow account was $568.83. However, on September 1, 1984, the balance in the Petitioner's escrow account fell to S18.83. From October 31, 1984 to January 1, 1986, the balance in the Petitioner's escrow account remained $3.83.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the registration of Fortunato Benjamin- Pabon as a real estate broker be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fortunato Benjamin-Pabon 2729 N. Ridgewood Avenue, #1 Tampa, Florida 33602 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George G. Walsh, is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0117943. Mr. Walsh is the owner of and the qualifying broker for G. G. Jerry Walsh Real Estate, located in Panama city, Florida. In May 1989, Respondent was the acting broker for Howard Bilford of Miami, Florida. Mr. Bilford owned a five acre parcel of property located in Bay County, Florida. Around May 15, 1989, Tama and Paul Russ, through Mr. Walsh's office, entered into a contract for the purchase of Mr. Bilford's property. The purchase price of the property was $15,000. The Russ' gave Mr. Walsh a $500 binder for deposit in his escrow account. The $500 was placed in Respondent's escrow account. Simultaneous with the signing of the sales contract and deposit receipt agreement, Mr. Walsh also prepared an estimated closing cost statement. On that closing cost statement, Mr. Walsh estimated that a survey of the property would cost the Russ' $450. During this meeting, Mr. Walsh explained to the Russ' that, especially if a financial institution was involved in the financing of the property, there would be certain costs which they would probably have to pay up front. Part of those costs included a survey of the property. At about the same time, the Russ' made application for a loan to a credit union located in Panama City, Florida. At the time of the loan application, the loan officers Mrs. Stokes, prepared a closing cost statement estimating the loan closing costs which the Russ' would encounter. On the credit union's closing cost statement, the cost of a survey was estimated to be $150 to $200. Since it was the credit union that required the survey, the Russ' believed that that estimate was the more accurate. The Russ' simply could not afford a $500 survey. As part of the loan application, an appraisal of the property was required. The appraisal was ordered by the credit union on May 16, 1989, and was completed on May 31, 1989. Unfortunately, the property had been vandalized by unknown persons, and the mobile home which was on the property had suffered severe and substantial damage. The appraisal indicated that the real estate was worth $10,500. With such a low appraisal, the credit union would not lend the amount necessary to purchase the property at the negotiated price. In an effort to renegotiate the property's price, Tama Russ inspected the property and prepared a list of the items which would have to be repaired to make the mobile home liveable. At the same time, the Russ' placed no trespassing signs and pulled logs across the entry to the property. The Russ' also placed padlocks on the doors to the mobile home and removed the accumulated garbage inside the mobile home in an effort to secure the property. They made no other repairs to the property. On June 1, 1990, the Russ' told the loan officer to hold the loan application. At some point during this process, both Mr. Walsh and the Russ' became aware that the survey would cost a considerable amount more than had been expected. By using a favor with Mr. Walsingham of County Wide Surveying, Mr. Walsh obtained a survey price of $500 for the Russ'. In an effort to help the Russ' close on the property, Mr. Walsh contacted Mr. Bilford to see if he would agree to pay the $500 survey cost. Mr. Bilford so agreed, contingent on the closure of the transaction, and sent Mr. Walsh a check made out to County Wide Surveying in the amount of $500. At that point, the Russ' believed that they were no longer obligated to pay for the survey since Mr. Walsh told them that Mr. Bilford was to pay for the survey. On June 3, 1989, Mr. Bilford agreed to a renegotiated price of $10,500.00 on the property. Additionally the Russ' agreed to sign a ten year promissory note for $2,000 bearing 11% interest per annum. Since there were changes in the terms of the contract, the Russ' entered into a net contract with Mr. Bilford on June 3, 1989. The new contract expired on June 30, 1989. Around June 5, 1989, the Russ' learned that their credit had been preliminarily approved. However, such preliminary approval only indicated that the Russ' had sufficient income to proceed with the more costly loan underwriting requirements of the credit union. Such preliminary approval did not indicate that the loan would be finally approved by the financial institution. The preliminary approval was communicated to Mr. Walsh by Tama Russ. Ms. Russ intended the communication to mean that they had been preliminarily approved by the financial institution. Mr. Walsh in an abundance caution contacted Mrs. Stokes, the loan officer. Mrs. Stokes advised him that the Russ' credit had been preliminarily approved. She did not tell him that the loan had been finally approved. Through a misunderstanding of what Mrs. Stokes communicated to him, Mr. Walsh ordered the survey from County Wide Realty on June 7, 1989. There was no reliable evidence presented that the credit union had authorized him to order the survey. The credit union at no time during this process ordered the survey. Mr. Walsh testified that Ms. Russ told him to order the survey. Ms. Russ denies that she gave Mr. Walsh permission to order the survey. At best this evidence goes only to demonstrate Respondent's intent with regards to the actions he undertook in this case and removes this case from a Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, violation. At some point Ms. Stokes left the employ of the credit union. On June 16, 1989, as part of her leaving, she unilaterally closed the Russ' loan application file and cancelled the loan application. Neither the Russ' nor Mr. Walsh were notified of the closure or the cancellation. The credit union's file fell into the void created between a change of employees. Because Mr. Walsh was unaware of Ms. Stokes' actions, Mr. Walsh, on July 13, 1989, after the expiration of the Russ' sales contract, contacted the credit union in order to obtain the loan closing package from the institution. The credit union had to hunt for the Russ' file. The credit union president called the Russ' about the loan and he was advised that they did not want the loan. The credit union's president then reviewed the loan file and noted that the Russ' had insufficient income to come up with the amount of the promissory note. He also thought the real estate constituted insufficient collateral for the loan. The loan application was officially denied on July 15, 1989. The Russ' were notified of the credit union's denial credit. The real estate transaction never closed. However, sometime after July 15, 1989, Mr. Walsh received the survey from County Wide. The survey indicates that the field work for the survey was completed on July 17, 1989, and that it was drawn on July 18, 1989. 1/ There was no reliable evidence which indicated any attempt had been made to cancel the survey. Sometime, after July 15, 1989, Tama Russ contacted Mr. Walsh in order to obtain the return of their $500 deposit. After many failed attempts to get the Russ' to voluntarily agree to pay for the cost of the survey, Mr. Walsh, around October, 1989, unilaterally paid the Russ' deposit to County Wide Realty. Mr. Walsh followed this course of action after speaking with some local FREC members who advised him that since FREC was swamped with deposit disputes that nothing would happen as long as he used his best judgment. The payment of the deposit to the surveyor, without prior authorization from the Ruse' violates Section 475.25(1)(d) and (k) Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the pleadings and argument of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(d) and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, issuing a letter of reprimand to Respondent with instructions to immediately replace the Russ' trust deposit and forthwith submit the matter to the commission for an escrow disbursement order and levying a $250 fine. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the portions of the Administrative Complaint alleging violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Theodore Dorwin is a registered real estate broker, registration certificate number 0022474, 561 N.E. 79th Street, Miami, Florida. He also is now and was at all times alleged in the Administrative Complain the president and active firm member of Respondent Intermart, Inc., a registered corporate broker located at the same address. As broker with Intermart, Respondent holds registration certificate number . 0157090. Intermart is registered under certificate number 0157081. The registrations of both Dorwin and Intermart were suspended by Petitioner on July 21, 1976, for a period of ninety (90) days. By order, dated December 16, 1976, Petitioner denied Respondents' petition for reactivation and return of registration certificates. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1) Intermart, Inc. was formed in the middle of 1975, but did not commence active operations until February, 1976. Prior to 1975, Dorwin had been a general real estate broker for various land companies in Florida. In 1975, he became associated for a brief period of time with a firm called Property Resales Service, Inc., of Miami, an organization that solicited listings for the resale of property. During the period February, 1975, until 1976, Dorwin was connected successively with International Land Brokers, Inc. (hereinafter "International") and Florida Landowners Service Bureau (hereinafter "Service Bureau"), both of which firms engaged in the solicitation of advance fees from out of state property owners for listing agreements whereby they undertook to advertise and sell the property for a ten percent commission. The listing agreements of these firms provided that the advance fee would be credited against the commission. In February, 1976, Intermart, Inc. was activated and began operations at the same office and with the same salesmen who had been used by Dorwin in his activities for the Service Bureau. It used virtually the identical "Listing and Brokerage Agreement" and promotional material as had the other firms. The change was brought about by the fact that commission checks received from the Service Bureau had "bounced." (Testimony of Dorwin, Petitioner's Exhibits 2,5,6,7,23,26,27,28) Respondents operated the advance fee business in the following manner: Lists of primarily out of state owners of land in large developments in Florida and other states were purchased by Respondents from individuals who sold such lists "on the street." In like manner, lists of prospective purchasers of such land were purchased. Information was placed on cards containing the name, address and phone number of the landowner, together with information as to the development where the land was located. A staff of some fifteen to twenty real estate salesmen were utilized to solicit listings from the prospective sellers over the telephone. Each salesman had a cubicle in a small office with a .telephone. These individuals worked in two shifts, six days a week, during the evening hours. Each salesman averaged about twenty to twenty-five telephone calls a night. When Intermart succeeded Dorwin's operation for the Service Bureau, there was little or no change in any of the above procedures. The average, listing fee was $350 , of which the soliciting salesmen received approximately one-third. The salesmen were provided a "script" or "opening statement" by Dorwin to use as a selling "pitch." The persons called were asked if they were interested in reselling their property. They were told that foreign investors around the world were interested in buying blocks of land in Florida and were quoted a sale price that usually was somewhat in excess of the current market value of the property. If the property owner expressed interest in listing his land for sale, literature was mailed to him which consisted of information about Intermart and the experience and qualifications of its officers, together with a form "Listing and Brokerage Agreement," and reprints of newspaper and other articles concerning the interest of foreign investors in land in the United States, and similar subjects. About two weeks later, the salesman would call the individual again to urge that he send in his advance fee, along with the signed listing agreement. The proposed selling price was fixed by the salesman from a large chart in the office that showed sample original purchase prices and amounts to be quoted as selling prices based on the number of years since purchase of the property. These amounts were used in all cases, regardless of where the property was located. The only deviation from the standard selling price was in cases where water or canal front property, golf course or business property was involved, in which case, $500 to $1,000 was added to the quoted figure. During the initial call, the salesman asked for the legal description of the lots in question and, if a listing was obtained, a copy of the agreement for deed or warranty deed was also requested. However, no efforts were made to check the legal descriptions of the property nor were any visits made to the property by Dorwin or other personnel of the firm. The sales man had nothing to do with actual sales of the property and did not contact prospective purchasers. Neither Dorwin nor one of his former salesmen who testified at the hearing was aware of any actual sales of listed property made by Intermart or the Service Bureau. No credible evidence was submitted that the property was ever checked for zoning restrictions or that prospective purchasers were contacted by anyone. Respondents did occasionally send a form letter to those listing property stating that Intermart "had the opportunity to present your property" to a named individual and that they would "endeavor to interest the prospect further." However nothing ever came of these supposed contacts. During the telephone conversations with sellers, the alesmen made statements to the effect that Intermart was making sales, and that the land would usually be sold within eight to nine months. In one case, a seller was told by one of Respondents' salesmen that Intermart had sold all of the property that had been listed with it. Further representations were that Argentine buyers loaded with money" wanted to invest in American real estate. One salesman represented that Respondents advertised all over the world in all foreign countries and in every state in the Union. A letter enclosed with promotional materials stated that Respondents advertised or had proposed advertising pending in a number of countries via major magazine and newspaper publications, and in Miami, Los Angeles, New York City, Boston and Chicago. Another landowner was told that the company had been in business for a period of ten years. It was also represented that Intermart had a computer printout on the latest market values of land and that this was used in determining their estimate of a selling price. In one instance, the salesman told the seller that they had identified a buyer for his land which would be part of a large block package to be sold to the individual and that a rapid decision had to be made whether or not to list. the property so that he could participate in the deal. He was further told that it would take about three months to close the sale with a Venezuelan investor. Attempts by the property owners to obtain copies of the listing agreement signed by Respondent proved to be futile, in spite of promises from its representatives to provide the same. In one instance, to induce a listing, the sales man told the landowner to cross out the amount shown on the listing contract that previously had stated a sale price and to pencil in an increased sales price. He also told him to make pencil corrections on the proposed agreement to indicate that the purchaser rather than the seller would pay the ten percent commission of the sales price. (Testimony of Judkins, Ladabauche, Nicholas, Burke, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, Petitioner's Exhibits 5,6,7 [depositions]) Respondents' promotional literature and information that was sent to prospective sellers of property contained various promises and representations that were not kept, as follows: Respondents stated that it would "analyze" the property to arrive at a correct selling price by reviewing the status of development and zoning in the immediate area of the property. In fact, the selling price was based solely on an arbitrary figure selected from a chart on the wall that did not take into consideration the precise location of the property or zoning considerations. Respondents stated that "Your property legals are checked thoroughly." In fact, any legal description of the property was obtained solely from copies of agreements for deed or warranty deeds supplied by the owner , and were not further checked in any manner. Respondents stated "In order for us to successfully merchandise and receive the highest offer for your property (ies) considerable expense is involved because a great deal of time is put forth on your behalf and many of the property(ies) are being offered for sale sight unseen." In fact, only a small amount of money and little or no time was expended to sell the property. After the property owner had submitted his advance fee and listing agreement to Respondents, no further efforts were made on his be half nor was he ever contacted thereafter by the firm. (Testimony of Lewis, Judkins, Ladabauche, Nicholas, Petitioners' Composite Exhibit 2, Petitioners' Exhibits 57, 23) In the "Listing and Brokerage Agreement," Respondents a greed to use its "efforts to secure a purchaser for the property" and to include the property in its directory of "available properties, to be distributed to other real estate brokers." It also contained A the following pertinent undertakings: "4. In consideration of this listing, you agree: To cause said property to be included in your listing directory and in two successive issues of said directory within a period of one year. Contemporaneously with the appearance of said listing in the directory, you agree to direct the efforts of your organization to bringing about a sale of my property; To advertise said property as you deem advisable in magazines or other mediums of merit: I understand that this agreement does not guarantee the sale of my property, but that it does guarantee that you will make an earnest effort pursuant to the aforementioned provisions." (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 23) Respondent Dorwin testified that he planned to issue a catalog of listed properties in June, 1976 to be distributed to various investors and brokers in the United States and foreign Mailings this depend 7 countries. of catalog were to on responses to .advertisements placed in newspapers around the world and in the United States in April. No action toward any of these goals was taken until March, 1976 when Intermart entered into an agreement with Currency Control Advertising, Miami, Florida, to act as an advertising agency for brochures, printing, copy, layout, typesetting, art, newspaper and magazine advertising, public relations, radio and television. Under this contract, small, one insertion newspaper ads were placed in approximately seven newspapers of various foreign countries and Canada, and in newspapers in Chicago, Los Angeles and New York, costing approximately $500. These ads read as follows: "U.S. Investments Catalogue . . . $9.95 U.S. Complimentary to Investors and to the Trade." Property listings for the catalog were not provided to the advertising agency until the last half of July, 1976. It was not published until August 20th but has not been mailed due to Respondents' current suspension by Petitioner. A few responses were received as a result of the newspaper advertisements but Dorwin testified that nothing was done to follow-up such inquiries because he was waiting for the catalog to be published. Five thousand copies of the catalog were printed at a cost of some $4,500. At the present time, Intermart owes the advertising firm about $2,500 for its work. Dorwin testified that he planned to distribute the catalog to several thousand investors and brokers listed in the International Real Estate Federation, of which he was a member, but that he was unable to do so because of his suspension by Petitioner in July. During the period January-June, 1976, Intermart's records reflected a gross income from the advance fee business of approximately $190,000. About forty-eight per cent of this amount was paid to salesmen for commissions on listing fees, twenty-eight per cent for officers salaries, and about one and one-half per cent was paid for advertising. (Testimony of Dorwin, Weinstein, Stowe, Leader, Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 825) During the last half of June, 1975, Intermart, upon advice of Counsel, in anticipation of a new state law regulating advance fee contracts, stamped on their listing agreements a statement that the parties agreed the advance fee did not constitute trust funds and that the monies therefrom could be expended for expenses. Listing fees received after July 1, 1976, were placed in an Intermart, Inc. trust account of the Capital Bank of North Bay Village, Florida, Account 10452, and as of December 31, 1976, this account showed a balance of $5,083.35 that is being retained by Respondents pending the outcome of present proceedings. (Testimony of Dorwin, Petitioner's Dorwin testified that, although he was aware the other advance fee firms with which he had been associated did not follow through on listings to attempt to make sales, he planned to do so by his newspaper advertisements and issuance of the catalog. However, he admitted that no information was ever sent to any prospective purchaser, that no advertisements were ever placed that described individual parcels of property, and that the only contact ever made with prospective purchasers was by telephone calls. He further admitted that no one from the firm ever checked public records involving the property listed for sale to assure the accuracy of information provided by the owners, and only token visits were ever made to view the listed properties by any member of the firm. He maintained that salesmen were not given a "script" to use but merely an "opening statement" and that they were free to deal with property owners as individuals. He was unaware of where the chart showing sample property values had been obtained and stated that such a chart was not used during Intermart's operations but had been used only during the previous operation at the same address. He denied ever telling salesmen to inform expected sellers that the firm was selling blocks of land but acknowledged that in monitoring telephone conversations of the salesmen, they did exaggerate at times. (Testimony of Dorwin) In view of the totality of the evidence, it is found that the operations of Intermart, Inc. were designed and carried out with the sole intention of extracting monies from landowners with no intent to carry out the stated promises of "earnest efforts" to sell the property.
Recommendation That the certificates of registration of Theodore Dorwin and Intermart, Inc. be revoked pursuant to subsection 475.25(3), F.S. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Louis B. Guttmann, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Harold Mendelow, Esquire Manners and Amoon, P.A. 4349 N.W. 36th Street, Suite 106 Miami, Florida 33166
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are whether Respondents, who are licensed real estate brokers, committed acts of dishonest dealing or culpable negligence in a business transaction; failed to account for and deliver trust funds; failed to maintain trust funds in an escrow account as required; intermingled personal funds with trust funds; obstructed or hindered Petitioner's investigator in an official investigation; or committed any of these offenses, as alleged by Petitioner in its Administrative Complaint. If Petitioner proves one or more of the alleged violations, then an additional question will arise, namely whether disciplinary penalties should be imposed on Respondents, or either of them.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Marlene Montenegro Toirac ("Toirac") is a licensed real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Real Estate Commission ("Commission"). Respondent Home Center International Corp. ("HCIC") is and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission. Toirac is an officer and principal of HCIC, and at all times relevant to this case she had substantial, if not exclusive, control of the corporation. Indeed, the evidence does not establish that HCIC engaged in any conduct distinct from Toirac's in connection with the transactions at issue. Therefore, Respondents will generally be referred to collectively as "Toirac" except when a need to distinguish between them arises. Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Commission. At the Commission's direction, Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Ramirez Transaction On or about September 9, 2003, Toirac, in her individual capacity, entered into a Sale and Purchase Contract (the "Contract") with Andres Ramirez ("Ramirez"), whereby Toirac agreed to sell, and Ramirez to buy, certain real estate then owned by Toirac. The Contract called for Ramirez to make several deposits toward the purchase price. Accordingly, Ramirez tendered to Toirac a total of $14,000 in pre-closing payments. Toirac accepted these payments, which were deposited in HCIC's operating account. At some point, Toirac withdrew Ramirez's deposits from HCIC's operating account, taking the money in cash. She brought the $14,000 in cash to her attorney, Alix Montes, who agreed to hold the money in escrow pending the closing of the sale to Ramirez. Mr. Montes placed the cash in a safe located in his home. The sale to Ramirez fell through after Ramirez failed to obtain acceptable financing and exercised his right to cancel the Contract in consequence thereof. Ramirez requested that his deposits be returned. Within a short time (not more than about two weeks), Toirac gave Ramirez his money back——in cash. The parties dispute whether Toirac properly handled Ramirez's deposits. Petitioner asserts that the $14,000 should have been held in an escrow account maintained at a financial institution such as a bank or title company. Toirac responds that she complied with a "Financing and Deposit Addendum" (the "Addendum") to the Contract. The Addendum, which is part of the Contract that Petitioner offered into evidence (as Petitioner's Exhibit 4), provides in pertinent part as follows: Seller acknowledges that in the event that the Buyer is not approved for a mortgage loan or the terms and conditions of said mortgage loan are not acceptable to Seller, Seller within thirty (30) days from the date Seller receives Buyer's written request for the return of its deposit, shall refund Buyer's deposit in full. Upon Seller's refund of the deposit, this contract will terminate and all parties will be relieved from the obligations and liabilities. Buyer acknowledges that the Seller herein is a licensed Real Estate Broker in the state of Florida and That Home Center International Corp. will not be the "Escrow Agent" in this transaction nor will Home Center International Corp. or any of its affiliates, officers, directors, agents and/or employees will receive a Real Estate Brokerage fee in connection with this transaction. Buyer authorizes Home Center International Corp. to place any and all deposits herein in its operating account. Buyer further authorizes Home Center International Corp, at any time to withdraw and/or transfer Buyer's funds from the operating account. In the event a transfer of any and all funds is effected, such funds shall be held by Alix J. Montes, Esq., Attorney for the Seller. This Addendum supercedes the provisions of paragraph 2 (A)2(B)(1), 16(A)(B)(C), 17, 18, and 19 of the "As Is" Sale and Purchase Contract signed by all parties herein. (In the original, the text is written in all capital letters.) The Addendum is dated September 9, 2003, and bears the purported signatures of Ramirez and Toirac. Petitioner alleged in its Administrative Complaint that Ramirez had denied executing the Addendum. At hearing, however, Petitioner failed to offer any proof——such as Ramirez's testimony or the testimony of an expert disputing the authenticity of Ramirez's purported signature on the Addendum—— to establish this allegation. In contrast, Toirac testified that both she and Ramirez had, in fact, signed the Addendum. As a result, on this record, the undersigned is not clearly convinced that the Addendum is fraudulent. Moreover, the Addendum and Toirac's testimony, taken together, are sufficiently persuasive (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) to prevent the undersigned from being clearly convinced that Toirac mishandled Ramirez's deposits or otherwise dealt dishonestly or improperly with him. The January 2004 Audit On January 20, 2004, Tibizay Morales, who was then employed by Petitioner as an investigator, conducted an audit of Toirac's records. (The impetus for this audit was Petitioner's receipt of a complaint from Ramirez.) During the audit, Toirac reported to Ms. Morales that she no longer maintained an escrow account but instead relied upon her attorney to act as escrow agent for funds entrusted to her. Toirac also told Mr. Morales that Ramirez's deposits initially had been held in HCIC's operating account, before being handed over to Mr. Montes for safekeeping. Toirac was not able, at the time of the audit, to produce bank statements for HCIC's operating account, and apparently a listing agreement that should have been in the broker's file was not there. Toirac agreed to provide the missing documentation. By letter dated January 20, 2004, Toirac informed Ms. Morales that she would forward requested documentation within 10 days. For reasons unknown, Toirac failed to follow through with this, prompting the instant disciplinary action. The Charges In Counts I and VII, Petitioner alleges that Respondents are guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in any business transaction, either of which is a disciplinable offense under Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is that Respondents mishandled Ramirez's deposits and misled him into believing that the money would be held in trust by HCIC as an escrow agent.1 In Counts II and VIII, Petitioner charges Respondents with failing to account for and deliver trust funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is unclear. What is clear, however, is that Respondents returned Ramirez's deposit money within a reasonable time after his demand therefor. In Counts III and IX, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow account until disbursement was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. In Counts IV and X of its Administrative Complaint, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having intermingled personal funds with funds being held in escrow. Petitioner's position is that by initially depositing Ramirez's deposits in HCIC's operating account, Respondents failed to comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.008(2), and hence violated Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. In Counts V and XI, Petitioner asserts that Respondents obstructed or hindered the enforcement of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and therefore in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is that Respondents willfully interfered with Morales's investigation by failing to provide documentation as promised.2 Ultimate Factual Determinations Toirac handled Ramirez's deposit money in accordance with the unambiguous terms of the Addendum. Petitioner failed to prove that the Addendum is fraudulent. Thus, the Addendum, when considered in conjunction with Toirac's unrebutted testimony that she and Ramirez signed the instrument, is fatal to Counts I, III, IV, VII, IX, and X of the Administrative Complaint. Respondents are not guilty of the offenses charged therein. Toirac did, in fact, return Ramirez's deposit money within a reasonable time after he demanded a refund. Respondents therefore are not guilty of the offenses charged in Counts II and VII of the Administrative Complaint. When Ms. Morales interviewed Toirac in January 2004 in response to Ramirez's complaint, Toirac admitted most, if not all, of the material facts pertaining to the circumstances under which Ramirez's deposits had been held. Further, the documents that Toirac neglected to provide Ms. Morales, i.e. HCIC's bank records and a listing agreement that had gone missing, were claimed by Toirac to be corroborative of her statements to the investigator. Toirac's failure to produce such documents cost Toirac an opportunity to bolster her credibility——and enabled Petitioner to draw adverse inferences against Toirac, e.g. that the questioned listing agreement did not exist after all.3 Given these facts, the undersigned is not convinced that Respondents obstructed or hindered Petitioner's investigation. Consequently, Respondents are not guilty of the charges set forth in Counts V and VI of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondents not guilty of the offenses charged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of September, 2005.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Robert A. Sempell, was a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 02178232 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). Respondent, Virginia Bloise, was also a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0376974. Respondent, Home Shoppe, Inc., is a corporation registered as a broker having been issued license number 0229887. When the events herein occurred, the firm was located at 2610 North Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida. Sempell operated as qualifying broker for Home Shoppe, Inc., from November 14, 1983, until October 12, 1984, Bloise was a salesperson with the same firm from July 9, 1984, until October 18, 1984, when she assumed the position of broker of record. Ilana Frank was the firm's only licensed salesperson, and she worked for the firm from 1983 until around January, 1986. In February, 1984, Frank represented Morgan King, an individual interested in purchasing a home located at 502 Northeast Second Street, Delray Beach, Florida. The property was listed with Douglas Rill and Associates, Inc., a West Palm Beach real estate firm. The home was owned by Joseph Michell, a Pratt-Whitney employee being transferred to Texas, and he had turned it over to TransAmerica Relocation Service, Inc. (TransAmerica), a firm that handled real estate sales for Pratt-Whitney employees who were relocating to other areas of the country. Deciding to purchase the property, King executed a standard contract on February 20, 1984 to purchase the home for $125,000. The contract contained a clause providing that the purchase was contingent on King obtaining a Veterans Administration (VA) loan in the amount of $122,250 at a 12 1/2 percent interest rate. 3/ A closing date of May 20, 1984, was established by the parties. The contract provided further that King would make a $1,200 cash deposit and that, pursuant to an addendum executed on February 22, he could rent the house until closing at a rate of $628 per month. Finally, the contract required that King give an extra $3800 to be deposited in escrow before moving into house, and within 45 days after the contract was executed, to 'submits' an additional $3,000. The addendum provided, however, that the $8,000 was "nonrefundable." After King signed the original contract, he gave Frank a $1,200 deposit. Frank, who was not a signatory on the firm's escrow account, carried the money to Sempell who placed his signature on the contract as an acknowledgment of receipt of deposit. Whether the money was deposited into the firm's escrow account is not of record. In any event, King did not have the extra $3800 needed to satisfy the initial deposit requirements of the contract. To ensure that a closing could be held, Frank approached Alan D. Mentser, a real estate salesman with another firm, Bob Railey's Realty, Inc., and asked if he would loan King the money until the anticipated closing on March 30, 1984. 4/ Mentser agreed to do so with the understanding that the $3800 would be placed immediately in an escrow account until closing. When he loaned the money, Mentser was under the impression that the money would be held in the escrow account of Douglas Rill, the listing broker. Because Mentser did not feel comfortable loaning the money to King, a person who he did not know, he required Frank to sign a promissory note on February 24, 1984 in the amount of $3800. At the same time, King signed an identical promissory note for $3800 payable to Frank. In addition, Frank orally agreed with Mentser that, for the use of his $3800 until March 30, 1984, she would pay him $1200 interest, or a handsome thirty percent return on his money. The $1200 was to be taken out of Frank's portion of the broker commission split. However, Mentser recognized that he was not a participating broker or salesman in the transaction and had no formal claim to the escrowed money in a realtor capacity. Indeed, the loan to Frank was personal in nature, and although Mentser intended it to be used as a part of the deposit, it was not considered a part of the real estate transaction. On February 24, Mentser gave Frank $3800 in cash which she promptly gave to Bloise the same day. Bloise was a signatory on the firm's trust account and had authority to make deposits and disbursements. After Bloise prepared a deposit receipt, Frank used $300 of the $3800 to purchase renter's insurance for King and deposited the remaining $3500 in Home Shoppe, Inc.'s escrow account at the Bank of South Palm Beaches in Lantana. The $300 deduction was made pursuant to an agreement by all parties. After King took possession of the property, he failed to qualify for a VA loan. Sometime later, he moved out of the house with no notice to the realtors or seller and gave no forwarding address. His whereabouts are unknown. TransAmerica later instituted eviction proceedings in order to legally take possession of the property. A final judgment of eviction was obtained on July 6, 1984. By now March 30, 1984, had come and gone and Mentser was eager to get his money. He initially contacted Frank but learned something had gone awry with the contract. When his informal requests to Frank were unsuccessful, Mentser engaged the services of an attorney who wrote a certified letter on May 4 to Sempell demanding a refund of his money from the firm's escrow account. After the letter was returned three times, the attorney had the letter hand- delivered to the firm's address where Frank signed for it. There is no evidence that Sempell was given the letter. After Mentser contacted Frank about his money, Frank spoke to Bloise on several occasions concerning Mentser's inquiry. The dates of these conversations are not of record. In any event, Bloise told her that a "dispute" had arisen over the escrow deposit and until it was resolved by the Division, Mentser could not get his money. This was not true since Bloise never turned the matter over to the Division for resolution. On July 12, 1984, the seller made a formal claim for the full deposit on the ground King had breached the contract and forfeited the deposit. Although there is no specific evidence as to the disposition of the claim, it may be reasonably inferred that TransAmerica's claim has not been honored. On August 6, 1984, Mentser obtained a default judgment against Frank in circuit court and was awarded $3800 in damages, prejudgment interest of $160, attorney fees of $300, and fees and costs of $50, or a total of $4310. He wisely did not request that he also be awarded the $1200 interest for the use of his money. The judgment has never been satisfied. Sempell went "out of the country" sometime in 1984 and was absent for much of the year. There is no evidence he received any demands for Mentser's money before he resigned as broker of record nor is there evidence that he was a signatory on Home Shoppe, Inc.'s escrow account. Indeed, the president of the bank in which the firm's escrow account was placed knew only that Bloise was a signatory on the account. Further, copies of cancelled checks written on the account and introduced into evidence reflected only Bloise's signature. The allegation that in October, 1984, Sempell absconded with certain funds from the firm's escrow account was not addressed at hearing and has been disregarded. Partial bank records of the firm's escrow account reflect that the $3500 was properly deposited into the account on February 27, 1984. As of December 28, 1984, the balance in the account had dropped to $1,688.98, which meant at least a part of the deposit had been spent for other purposes. Whether these expenditures occurred before or after Sempell resigned as broker of record is unclear. In any event, Bloise acknowledged to a Division investigator in May, 1987, that she had written a number of checks on the account for her own use. She justified this action by explaining that Frank had told her that the $3800 was their "own" money and could be spent "to run the business." Bloise also confirmed that, when this controversy arose, she was the only signatory on the firm's account and that Sempell had no authority to write checks or make disbursements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondents be found guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (d) and (k), Florida Statutes (1983), and that the broker licenses of Bloise and Home Shoppe, Inc. be suspended for five years. Sempell's broker license should be suspended for one year. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of July, 1988, 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 20th day of July, 1988.
