The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated October 17, 2002, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency responsible for the regulation and discipline of real estate licensees in Florida pursuant to Section 20.125, Florida Statutes (2000). At all times material to this case, Respondent is a licensed real estate broker and holds license number 0349967. In the summer of 2001, Jose Diaz (Diaz) met Saldana at a seminar. The seminar was aimed at persons seeking to participate in federally financed programs designed to assist them in financing home purchases. At the seminar, Diaz was referred to Saldana and described as a person who could assist Diaz in finding a home which could be financed with government funds. Diaz sought Saldana's help in good faith, but Saldana abused Diaz' trust and took advantage of his lack of sophistication in the field of real estate. Specifically, Saldana told Diaz that in order to be eligible for a government financed loan, it would be necessary to pay off certain of Diaz' debts. Saldana instructed Diaz to provide him with blank money orders and represented to Diaz that the money orders would be used by Saldana to pay off the debts so as to facilitate Diaz' receiving a government loan. Saldana failed to deposit the funds with his broker or in an escrow account, and failed to use them for the purposes for which they were intended, that is, to pay off Diaz' debts in order to satisfy government requirements for loaning Diaz funds toward a home purchase. Instead, Saldana converted the funds to his own use. Diaz sued Saldana for civil theft in Palm Beach County Court. On June 19, 2002, a final judgment was entered in Diaz' favor for the full amount of the funds converted, plus interest. As of the date of the final hearing, Saldana had failed to satisfy Diaz' judgment, and had no plans to do so. In early 2001, Rafael Alcocer (Alcocer) met Saldana in a social club and asked him to assist him and his wife in purchasing a home. Saldana agreed, but did little on Alcocer's behalf. Eventually, Alcocer found a home he liked and asked Saldana to present an offer to the homeowner, Diane Dorish (Dorish). Dorish accepted the offer, which included a $500 deposit. However, Saldana falsely told Alcocer that Dorish required a $2,500 deposit, and obtained funds in that amount which Alcocer thought would be used for a deposit required by the homeowner. In fact, Saldana converted those funds to his personal use, although Alcocer was eventually able to recoup $1,500. In addition, Saldana forged Alcocer's signature on a contract which provided for additional terms which had not been authorized by either Alcocer or Dorish. The Division also charged Saldana with collecting a $320 mortgage application fee, plus a $1,000 earnest money deposit from a third client. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Saldana failed to deposit these funds into a trust or escrow account, but instead converted the funds to his own use. However, no evidence was presented in connection with this transaction, and it has not been considered in the disposition of this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order revoking Respondent’s real estate license. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 24th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Lorenzo Level, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N308 Orlando, Florida 32801-1900 Enrique Saldana 7560 Gilmour Court Lake Worth, Florida 33467 Nancy P. Campiglia, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802N Orlando, Florida 32801-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the charges, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman and broker-salesman, license number 0326235. In 1983, Dorothy Nutt and Diane Falstad were the owners of a house located at 608 Hillcrest Street, Orlando, Florida. In December of 1983, Ms. Nutt and Ms. Falstad placed this house for sale with real estate broker Frank Daley. The listing was an exclusive listing except as to the Respondent and another individual, for which no commission would be paid, if a contract submitted by the Respondent was accepted by Nutt and Falstad prior to December 26, 1983. On December 25, 1983, the Respondent, along with his parents, Barbara Okoniewski and Louis Okoniewski, Jr., submitted a written contract to Diane Falstad and Dorothy Nutt for the purchase of the 608 Hillcrest Street property. The contract was accepted by the sellers on December 26, 1983. The contract, as executed by the Respondent and his parents, specified that a $1,000 deposit was to be held in escrow by "Closing Agents." Additionally, Respondent represented to Ms. Falstad that the $1,000 deposit was being maintained in an escrow account. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Respondent applied for a V.A. mortgage loan, but was later determined to be ineligible. Subsequent thereto, on or about February 8, 1984, application was made with Residential Financial Corporation (RFC), to obtain financing to purchase the 608 Hillcrest Street property. The application was in the name of the Respondent's parents, with Respondent handling the matter on their behalf. Thereafter, the Respondent requested that the loan officer (Charlyne Becker) at RFC not submit the loan application for approval to the underwriters. Pursuant to his request, the application was not submitted for approval. The transaction did not close. Subsequent to the scheduled date of closing both Ms. Falstad and Ms. Nutt made demands of the Respondent for forfeiture of the $1,000 deposit, due to their belief that, he had breached the contract by failing to secure financing. It was not until after the scheduled closing date that the sellers learned the $1,000 was not in escro. To date, Respondent has neither deposited the $1,000 in any trust account nor paid any money to the sellers. Respondent admits through his own testimony, that he did not make the deposit, nor was the deposit placed in any escrow account by his parents. Respondent's testimony, which was not rebutted, established that he and his parents sought to purchase the 608 Hillcrest Street property and that adjacent to it for rental purposes. However, they were advised by the RFC loan officer (Charlyne Becker) that the applications were not likely to be approved by RFC. Respondent did not thereafter pursue any of the loan applications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order fining Respondent $500. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1985 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 12th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esq. Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Louis S. Okoniewski 730 Lake View Avenue, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Harold Huff. Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================ =
The Issue The issue to be resolved herein concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney's fees in this proceeding. Embodied in that general issue are questions concerning whether the Petitioners are the prevailing parties; whether they meet the definition of "small business" parties, including the net worth amounts, enumerated in Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, as well as whether the disciplinary proceeding against both Petitioners was "substantially justified". See Section 57.111(3)(e) , Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with licensing and regulating the practices of real estate salesmen and brokers by the various provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Included within those duties is the duty to investigate conduct by realtors allegedly in violation of Chapter 475 and related rules and to prosecute administrative penal proceedings for which probable cause is found as a result of such investigations. At times pertinent hereto, both Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Cosyns, (then Pauline Sealey) were licensed realtors working as independent contractors for Mariner Properties, Inc. and V.I.P. Realty Inc. The complete file of the underlying proceeding DOAH Case No. 86-0140, was stipulated into evidence. That file included the Administrative Complaint filed against these Respondents and the Recommended and Final Order, which Final Order adopted the Recommended Order. The findings of fact in that Recommended Order are incorporated by reference and adopted herein. During the Petitioner's case, counsel for Petitioner voluntarily reduced the attorney's fees bills for both Petitioners such that Ms. Maxwell's bill is the total amount of $2,695.50 and Ms. Cosyns' bill is $17,200, rather than the original amounts submitted in the affidavit. Respondent acknowledged in its proposed Final Order that the fees and costs submitted by the Respondent were thus reasonable. The testimony the Petitioners presented through depositions, transcripts of which were admitted into evidence into this proceeding, was unrefuted. That testimony demonstrates that both Ms. Cosyns and Ms. Maxwell were prevailing parties in the administrative proceeding referenced herein brought by the Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation. They were individually named as Respondents in the Administrative Complaint whereby their professional licenses were subjected to possible suspension or revocation for alleged wrong doing on their part. There is no dispute that they were exonerated in that proceeding and are thus prevailing parties within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The Petitioners are also "small business parties". In that connection, they both were independently licensed Real Estate professionals during times pertinent to the underlying proceeding and were acting in the capacity of independent contractors for all the activities with which the administrative complaint was concerned. Each established that her net worth is below the limit provided by Section 57.111 as an element of the definition of "small business party". The reasonableness of the fees having been established in the manner found-above and the Petitioners having established that they meet the definitional requirements of prevailing small business parties, there remains to be determined the issue of whether the proceedings against the two Petitioners were "substantially justified", that is, whether the proceeding had a "reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by a State agency." See Section 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes. The facts concerning each Petitioner's case regarding the three counts of the Administrative Complaint relating to them are as found in the Recommended Order incorporated by reference herein. Respondent Maxwell was charged in the complaint with having worked in conjunction with an office manager, Mr. Hurbanis of V.I.P. Realty, in conspiring with him to submit a fraudulent real estate sales contract to a lending institution for purposes of financing. This allegedly involved submitting a contract to the lending institution with an inflated purchase price in order to secure one hundred percent financing, the scheme being more particularly described in that portion of the findings of fact in the Recommended Order related to Jean Maxwell. In fact, Ms. Maxwell did not work in the realty office as charged in the Administrative Complaint, but rather was employed by Mariner Properties, which may have been a related company. The contract in question, although alleged to be fraudulent was, in fact, a bona fide contract which was a legitimate part of the Real Estate transaction submitted to the bank for financing purposes, about which the bank was kept fully advised. All details of the transaction were disclosed to the lender. Maxwell was specifically charged with concealing the true contract from the lender in order to enhance the percentage of the purchase price that the bank would finance, done by allegedly inflating the purchase price in a second contract submitted to the bank. It was established in the disciplinary proceeding that no such concealment ever took place. In fact, Ms. Maxwell was purchasing a lot from her own employer, Mariner Properties. Two contracts were indeed prepared for the purchase of Lot 69, a single family lot on Sanibel Island. In fact, however, the difference of $42,875 and $49,500 in the stated purchase price, as depicted on the two contracts, was the result of continuing negotiations between Ms. Maxwell and the seller, who was also her employer. The difference in the two prices depicted on the contracts was the result of, in effect, a set-off to the benefit of Ms. Maxwell, representing certain employee discounts and real estate commission due from the employer and seller to Ms. Maxwell, the purchaser. As Petitioners' composite Exhibit 5 reflects, the lender involved, North First Bank of Ft. Myers, Florida, was fully apprised of all the details concerning this transaction at the time it was entered into and the loan commitment extended and closed. Mr. Allan Barnes, the Assistant Vice President of North First Bank revealed, in the letter contained in this exhibit in evidence, that there was no concealment or misrepresentation of the facts to his institution by Ms. Maxwell. This letter is dated April 18, 1984. The other related letter in that exhibit, of May 2, 1984 from attorney Oertel to attorney Frederick H. Wilson of the Respondent agency, thus constitutes notice to the agency well before the complaint was filed, that no concealment or misrepresentation to the lender involved had occurred and the charges were requested to be dismissed. In spite of the fact that the agency was on notice of this turn of events well before the filing of the Administrative Complaint, it proceeded to file the complaint and to prosecute it all the way up to the date of hearing, requiring Ms. Maxwell's attorney to attend the hearing to defend her interests. At the hearing, counsel for the Department acknowledged that there was no basis for prosecuting Ms. Maxwell and voluntarily dismissed the complaint as to her. The Respondent's witness, Investigator Harris, in his deposition taken September 11, 1984, acknowledged that he did not discuss any details concerning the investigation, with attorney Frederick Wilson, who prepared the complaint, nor did he confer with him by telephone or correspondence before the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the complaint was prepared solely on the basis of the investigative report. The investigative report came into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. It reveals that Mr. A. J. Davis the president of Mariner Group and Mariner Properties, who was Jean Maxwell's employer and the owner of the lot in question, signed one contract and his Executive Vice President signed the other. In spite of this, the investigative report does not reveal that the investigator conferred with either Ms. Maxwell, or the sellers concerning this transaction. He conducted a general interview of A.J. Davis concerning the alleged "problem" in his office of "double contracting," but asked him no questions and received no comment about the Jean Maxwell transaction whatever. Nor did the investigator confer with Mr. Allen Barnes or any other representative of North First Bank. If the investigation had been more complete and thorough, he would have learned from Mr. Barnes, if from no one else, that the bank had knowledge of both contracts and all details of the transaction underlying them and there had been no concealment or misrepresentation of the facts regarding the transaction by Ms. Maxwell. This information was learned by attorney Oertel as early as April 18, 1984 by Mr. Barnes' letter, referenced above, and it was communicated to the agency by Mr. Oertel on May 2, 1984. Nevertheless, the complaint was filed and prosecuted through to hearing. Therefore, the prosecution and filing of the Administrative Complaint were clearly not substantially justified. If the Department had properly investigated the matter it would have discovered the true nature of the transaction as being a completely bona fide real estate arrangement. Former Respondent, Pauline Sealy Cosyns was charged with two counts, III and V, in the Administrative Complaint at issue. One count alleged, in essence, that Ms. Sealey had engaged in a similar fraudulent contract situation regarding the sale of her residence to a Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Floyd. The evidence in that proceedings revealed no concealment of any sales contract occurred whatever with regard to the lending institution or anyone else. The facts as revealed at hearing showed Ms. Cosyns and the Floyds, through continuing negotiations after the original sales contract was entered into, amended that contract and executed a second one, in order to allow Ms. Cosyns to take back a second mortgage from the Floyds. This was necessary because Mr. Floyd, an author, was short of the necessary down payment pursuant to the terms of the original contract, because his annual royalty payment from his publishers had not been received as the time approached for closing. The second contract was executed to allow for a second mortgage in favor of the seller, Ms. Cosyns, in order to make up the amount owed by the Floyds on the purchase price agreed upon, above the first mortgage amount. The testimony and evidence in the disciplinary proceeding revealed unequivocally that the lending institution, Amerifirst Mortgage Company, was fully apprised of the situation and of the reason for the two contractual agreements. The $24,000 second mortgage in question is even depicted on the closing statement issued by that bank. There was simply no concealment and no effort to conceal any facts concerning this transaction from the lender or from anyone else. The investigation conducted was deficient because the investigator failed to discuss this transaction with the lender or with the purchasers. He discussed the matter with Ms. Sealy-Cosyns and his own deposition testimony reveals, as does his investigative report, that he did not feel that he got a complete account of the transaction from her. She testified in her deposition, taken prior to the instant proceeding, that she indeed did not disclose all facts of the transaction to him because she was concerned that he was attempting to apprehend her in some "legal impropriety". Therefore, she was reluctant to be entirely candid. The fact remains, however, that had he conducted a complete investigation by conferring with the lender and the purchasers, he would have known immediately, long before the Administrative Complaint was filed and the matter prosecuted, that there was absolutely no basis for any probable cause finding that wrong-doing had occurred in terms of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Thus, the facts concerning the prosecution as to Count III against Pauline Sealy-Cosyns, as more particularly delineated in the findings of fact in the previous Recommended Order, reveal not only that Ms. Cosyns was totally exonerated in the referenced proceeding, but that there was no substantial basis for prosecuting her as to this count at all. Concerning Count V against Ms. Cosyns, it was established through the evidence at the hearing in the disciplinary case that she was merely the listing agent and did not have any part to play in the drafting of the contract nor the presenting of it to the lender. Because there was no evidence adduced to show that she had any complicity or direct involvement in any fraudulent conduct with regard to the transaction involved in Count V of the Administrative Complaint at issue she was exonerated as to that count as well. It is noteworthy here that a statement was made by counsel for the agency, appearing at pages 20 and 21 of the transcript of the proceeding involving the Administrative Complaint, which indicates that the agency, based upon its review of certain documents regarding Counts III and V, before hearing, felt that indeed there might not be a disputed issue of material fact as to Mrs. Cosyns. The agency, although acknowledging that a review of the documents caused it to have reason to believe that it was unnecessary to proceed further against Ms. Cosyns nevertheless did not voluntarily dismiss those counts and proceeded through hearing. Be that as it may, the investigation revealed that Ms. Cosyns acknowledged that she knew that there were two contractual documents involved, but the investigation also revealed that Ms. Cosyns was only the listing agent. The selling agent was Mr. Parks. The investigation revealed through interviews with Ms. Cosyns, Mr. Parks and Mr. Hurbanis, the office Manager of V.I.P. Realty, that Ms. Cosyns, as listing agent, was merely present when the offer from the buyers was communicated to the office manager, Mr. Hurbanis, and ultimately to the sellers, the Cottrells. There was no reason for the investigator to believe that Ms. Cosyns had anything to do with the drafting of the contracts nor with the communication of them to the lending institution involved. That was done by either Mr. Parks or Mr. Hurbanis or by the buyers. The investigation (as revealed in the investigative report) does not show who communicated the contract in question to the lender. The investigation was simply incomplete. If the investigator had conferred with the buyers, the sellers and especially the lender, he could have ascertained-whether the lender was aware of all the facts concerning this transaction and whether there was any reason to believe that Ms. Cosyns had anything to do with the arrangement and the details of the transaction. It was ultimately established, by unrefuted evidence at hearing, that indeed Ms. Cosyns did not have anything to do with the transaction, nor the manner in which it was disclosed to the lender. The fact that she was aware that two contracts had been prepared did not give a reasonable basis for the investigator to conclude that she had engaged in any wrong-doing. The report of his interviews with Ms. Cosyns, Mr. Hurbanis and Mr. Parks, as well as Donna Ross, does not indicate that he had a reasonable basis to conclude that Ms. Cosyns had engaged in any fraudulent conduct with regard to the transaction, including the conveyance of a bogus contract to the lending institution involved, nor for that matter, that Mr. Hurbanis or Mr. Parks engaged in such conduct. In order to ascertain a reasonable basis for concluding whether Ms. Cosyns was involved in any wrongful conduct, he would have had to obtain more information than he did from these people or confer with the lender, the buyer or the seller, or all of these approaches, before he could have a reasonable basis to recommend to the prosecuting agency that an Administrative Complaint be filed against her concerning this transaction. In fact, he did not do so, but the Administrative Complaint was filed and prosecuted through hearing anyway, causing her to incur the above-referenced attorney's fees. It thus has not been demonstrated that there was any substantial basis for the filing and prosecution of Count V of the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cosyn. Thus she is entitled to the attorneys fees referenced above with regard to the prosecution of the Administrative Complaint in question.
The Issue Whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulation of licensed real estate salespersons in the State of Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a licensed real estate salesperson, holding Florida license no. 0566297. Most recently, the Respondent's license identifies her as a salesperson with Robert E. Bartlett at Bartlett Realty, 3500 First Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701. From July 11, 1995, to September 27, 1996, the Respondent was employed by Century 21, Grant Realty of Florida, 6450 Seminole Boulevard, Largo, Florida 34642. Steve and Janice Perry (the Perrys) owned a house located at 12907 Hickorywood Lane, Largo, Florida. On or about June 5, 1996, the Perrys listed the house for sale through execution of an Exclusive Right to Sell Listing Agreement with the Respondent and Grant Realty. The Perrys were very anxious to sell the house and contacted the Respondent almost daily to determine whether there was activity on the listing. In time, the Respondent presented to the Perrys a written and signed offer (the "first offer") to purchase the property. The Perrys declined the offer, but proposed a counteroffer, and executed the document. The Respondent did not provide a copy of the offer or counteroffer to the Perrys. The Respondent eventually told the Perrys that the purchasers had been unable to obtain financing. The Respondent has no documentation of the first offer. The Respondent is unable to recall the names of the prospective buyers or of any agent representing the buyers. The files of Grant Realty contain no records related to the first offer. At some time after the first offer had failed to close, the Respondent presented a second written and signed offer to the Perrys. The Respondent indicated to the Perrys that she knew the second buyer. On the Respondent's advice, Mr. Perry amended the second offer, initialed the changes, and signed the document. Mr. Perry told the Respondent that if the amendments were not acceptable to the buyer, he would accept the original offer. The Respondent did not provide a copy of the second offer to the Perrys. The Respondent has no documentation of the second offer. The files of Grant Realty contain no records related to the second offer. The day following execution of the second offer, the Perrys inquired about the status of the matter. The Respondent told Mr. Perry that the buyer was part of an "investment group" and that the group was being contacted about the Perrys' amendments. The Perrys continued to contact the Respondent about the status of the second offer, but she offered little new information. The Respondent eventually told the Perrys that the prospective buyer thought she was being "too pushy" and was refusing to discuss the matter with her. The Respondent told the Perrys that the buyer's agent would handle the sale, but stated that it would be improper for the Perrys to contact the buyer's agent and declined to identify the agent. The Perrys continued to contact the Respondent and request information. She eventually indicated that the buyer's agent was "Dave," another Century 21 agent, and suggested it could be Dave Sweet, another Grant Realty agent. The Perrys contacted Dave Sweet. Mr. Sweet had no knowledge of the second offer and was unable to provide any information. At this point, the Perrys contacted the Respondent's employer and spoke with Karen Selby, a broker at Grant Realty. Ms. Selby was unaware of any offer on the property. Conrad Grant, owner/broker of the agency, was also unaware of any pending offer on the Perry property. Ms. Selby took possession of the Perry listing file. There was no documentation in the file suggesting that any offers were received. Ms. Selby questioned the Respondent about the second offer. The Respondent stated that the offer came from "John," a man who had come through an open house a few weeks earlier, that she'd prepared a written offer according to his direction but that he had not signed it, that Mr. Perry counteroffered, and that the counteroffer had been declined. The Respondent further told Ms. Selby that the buyer had been working with "Dave," an agent in another Century 21 agency. Ms. Selby asked for the full names of the buyer and the agent, but the Respondent was unable to provide them. Ms. Selby asked the Respondent to consult her notes or the open house sign- in sheet for the information. The Respondent was unable to provide any additional information related to the offer. Ms. Selby contacted the agency's attorney and arranged a meeting with the Respondent. During this meeting, the Respondent was again asked for, but was unable to provide, additional information related to the alleged offers. Subsequent to the meeting, the Respondent provided a name and telephone facsimile number for the alleged buyer. Using the phone number, Ms. Selby attempted to contact the buyer, identified as "Brian John Edridge." Ms. Selby received a response from a business which stated that no one by that name was involved in the business. Ms. Selby discussed the matter with Dave Sweet. Mr. Sweet told Ms. Selby he was not involved in the purported offer and had no information about the situation. The Respondent's employment at Grant Realty was terminated. There is no credible evidence that the "offers" presented by the Respondent to the Perrys were real. There is no credible evidence that the prospective "buyers" identified to the Perrys by the Respondent existed. There is no credible evidence that anyone identified as "Brian John Edridge," or any variation of the name, was involved in any prospective purchase of the Perry property. There is no credible evidence that an agent identified as "Dave" was involved in any prospective purchase of the Perry property. At the hearing, the Respondent testified in her own behalf. Her testimony lacks credibility and is rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order revoking the Respondent's real estate license. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 1st day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801-2169 Christine M. Ryall, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Robert & Gilman, Inc. at all times herein involved was registered as a real estate broker by the State of Florida. Delair A. Clark at all times herein involved was registered as a real estate salesman by the State of Florida. Residential property owned by William L. and Frances Crummett was listed with J.B. Steelman, Jr. real estate broker and put on Multiple Listing Service. On June 17, 1972, immediately after the For Sale sign was erected, Respondent, Delair A. Clark, presented an offer to the sellers on this property which was accepted by sellers on the same date presented (Exhibit 9). This contract provided the purchase price of $28,500 with a $300 earnest money deposit, the usual clauses in a form contract for sale and purchase, and two special clauses to wit: "A. Subject to: Buyer being reassigned to central Florida prior to June 22, 1972. In the event the assignment does not materialize by June 23, 1972 deposit will, be returned in full and contract will be null and void. B. Subject to: Buyer obtaining a 90 percent conventional loan for a period of 25 years or an FHA loan for 30 years." By telegram dated 6/20/72 (Exhibit 8) buyer confirmed re-assignment to Orlando, thus satisfying condition A in the contract. Buyers thereafter asked for earlier occupancy than originally called for. Since special arrangements would have to be made by sellers, Mr. Crummett asked for an amendment to the contract to increase the earnest money deposit to $1,000 of which $500 would be non-refundable if contract was not consummated. This amendment was duly executed by the buyers on July 15, 1972 and by the sellers. A copy thereof was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 11 which provides: "SPECIAL CLAUSE" "C. An additional deposit of $700 will be made on July 17, 1972, of which $500 will be non-refundable in the event the referenced contract is not consumated (sic)." This amendment was forwarded to the sellers by Respondent's Roberts & Gilman letter of July 17, 1972 which amendment was executed by the sellers upon receipt and mailed back to Roberts & Gilman. The July 17, 1972 letter was signed by Judy L. Rostatter of the sales processing department. A copy of the check received from the buyers was not enclosed although the letter stated it was enclosed. Prior to receipt of this amendment Crummett was advised by Richter, the buyer, that he had mailed a $700 check to Roberts & Gilman made payable to Crummett. Crummett was also advised by Respondent Clark that the check had been received. Since closing was scheduled to be held within a couple of days Crummett requested Clark to hold the check and he would endorse same at closing. Crummett never saw the original check for $700. On the day originally scheduled for the closing (circa July 18, 1972) Crummett received a telephone call from Respondent Clark to the effect that the appraisal on the property had come in some $3,000 below the asking price and inquiring if Crummett would accept $26,000 for his property. The latter advised he would not and, after some heated words, Crummett hung up. At this time it was evident to Respondent Clark and the sellers that the sale would not be consummated. Clark put a memo in the file dated July 28, 1972 saying: "Return checks of $700 + $300 in estrow (sic) to Richter. Seller advised we had no contract." A few weeks later, on August 3, 1972, after making several phone calls to Roberts & Gilman without success, Crummett had the listing broker, J.B. Steelman, write a letter (Exhibit 7) to Gilman making demand for the $500 deposit refund. By letter dated August 11, 1972 (Exhibit 6) Roberts and Gilman replied that they considered the contract had been terminated by the seller and saw no "justification by the seller to claim any escrow that has been returned to the buyer". This letter was signed "Dan T. Gilman /b.c." Several months later, in the spring of 1973, Crummett went to the office of Roberts and Gilman and obtained a photostatic copy of the check dated 7/15/72 that had been made by J.A. Richter in the amount of $700. This was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 12. At the hearing Dan G. Gilman, President of Roberts & Gilman, Inc. denied any recollection of any part of this transaction or ever having heard of the incident prior to the investigator from the FREC coming to inquire about the incident. At the time of this transaction the realtor's office was very busy with several branch offices and some 120 salesmen handling transactions in eight or ten counties in central Florida. He has no recollection of dictating Exhibit 12 or anything about the incident but his secretary at that time was Beverly Cass. It was standard practice for a broker to review every contract before trust account money was disbursed or refunded. His initial testimony that numerous people in the office had authority to sign his name to letters going out of the office was recanted when he was recalled as a witness after the close of the Commission's case. He then stated he never authorized anyone to sign his name to a document having legal implication. Clark testified that the first time he ever saw Exhibit 11, the amendment to the contract, was when shown to him by the investigator for the FREC. Likewise he claims never to have seen or received the $700 check signed by Richter. With respect to the return of the deposit to Richter, (after being shown Exhibit 13) his recollection of the cancellation of the contract was that Richter was not re-assigned to the Orlando area. This was the only contract ever handled by Clark which involved the return of an escrow deposit. He has no recollection of talking to any member of the realty firm regarding clearing the return of the escrow deposit to Richter. Exhibit 5 is a photocopy of the check by which the $300 earnest money deposit was returned to Richter. It is obvious that the contract for the sale of the residential property herein involved was amended to provide for an additional deposit from the buyers and a clause which required the buyer to forfeit one half of his deposit in the event the transaction was not consummated. It is incomprehensible that such an amendment to the contract could be made without the knowledge of the salesman or the broker. It therefore appears that the Defendants either: (1) are not telling the truth; (2) have faulty memories; (3) allowed the duties normally performed by brokers to be carried out by secretaries; or (4) operated a realty company in a slipshod manner without due regard to the duties and responsibilities imposed upon brokers and salesman by the real estate license law.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent A. G. Ennis Realty, Inc. is a corporate real estate broker having been issued license number 0133016. The Respondent Thomas E. Ennis is the licensed real estate broker of record for A. G. Ennis Realty, Inc., and he holds broker's license number 0025105. The Respondent Marshall J. Hungerford is a licensed real estate salesman who has been issued license number 0042181. The Respondent Mildred B. Hardin is a licensed real estate salesman holding license number 0130139. In February, 1980, the Respondent Mildred Hardin commenced negotiations with Henry Roehr for the purchase of a lot on which he wished to build a condominium. During these negotiations, the Respondent Marshall Hungerford had deposits from ten parties for units in a condominium to be constructed. These parties wanted to live together, but they did not want to go into the particular location where the condominium was to be built because it was across the street from a public boat ramp. Negotiations on this first lot began to lag, because the owners were in Europe. The Respondent Mildred Hardin suggested that Henry Roehr purchase another lot for his proposed condominium. By letter dated March 18, 1980, Mildred Hardin forwarded a proposed contract for the purchase of Lot 35, Block 357, Unit II Replat, Marco Beach Subdivision. In this letter, the Respondent Mildred Hardin reminded Henry Roehr to keep her informed of what was happening so that Marshall Hungerford could tell his prospective buyers something. The terms of the contract for the purchase of Lot 35, generally, called for Henry Roehr to deposit $38,000 as earnest money against a selling price of $360,000. Mr. Roehr made the required deposit by check to the Respondent A.G. Ennis Realty, Inc., to be held in escrow. After Henry Roehr received assurances from the Respondent Mildred Hardin that the ten persons who had given deposit checks to Marshall Hungerford would purchase condominium units on Lot 35, Henry Roehr by letter dated April 7, 1980, authorized the Respondent Mildred Hardin to release to the seller the signed contract and check for the purchase of Lot 35. In this letter he stated that the only reason he was purchasing the lot was because of the representations that had been made to him that Marshall Hungerford had ten firm purchasers for condominium units. Before this transaction closed, the Respondent Marshall Hungerford accompanied Henry Roehr to two banking institutions for the purpose of obtaining a construction loan for the condominium units. During these visits, the Respondent Marshall Hungerford represented to the banking institutions that he had ten firm purchasers for units in the proposed condominium. The transaction closed on July 13, 1980. When Henry Roehr began to request more information about the prospective buyers of condominium units, the Respondent Marshall J. Hungerford, by letter dated July 29, 1980, forwarded to Henry Roehr the names and addresses of ten individuals who were represented to "have deposited checks with us and have expressed a desire to purchase a condominium, as proposed for the above reference project". In this letter he further stated, "its my personal opinion knowing all of these people that they are certified buyers and are interested and capable of entering into a purchase contract". When the Respondents presented no contracts for the purchase of condominium units from any of the people who were represented to be buyers, Henry Roehr suspected that he had been deceived, and tried to sell some of the condominium units himself. However, when the combined efforts of Henry Roehr and the Respondents failed to pre-sell enough units to warrant construction of a condominium, the plan to build was abandoned. The representations made by the Respondents, Marshall Hungerford and Mildred Hardin, that they had deposits from ten buyers for condominiums were false. These representations were made while they were salesmen employed by the Respondents, A.G. Ennis Realty, Inc., and the broker for A.G. Ennis Realty, Inc., Thomas Ennis. Thomas Ennis was aware of the transaction and participated in it as a broker, and collected a commission on it. Henry Roehr purchased Lot 35 in reliance upon these false representations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the licenses of the Respondents, Thomas E. Ennis, Marshall J. Hungerford, Mildred B. Hardin, and A.G. Ennis Realty, Inc., be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. William B. Thomas Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Thomas E. Ennis A.G. Ennis Realty, Inc. 821 South Barfield Drive Marco Island, Florida 33937 Marshall J. Hungerford Post Office Box 432 Marco Island, Florida 33937 Mildred B. Hardin Post Office Box 121 Georgetown, Florida 32039 William M. Furlow, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Paul F. Savich is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0077390 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Ernest M. Haefele, is a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0517821 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On October 1, 1984, the Respondents, purchasers in their individual capacities, entered into a contract for deed to a tract at the Tropical Acres Subdivision, with Tropical Sites, Inc., and Angie S. Crosby and Eugene T. Crosby, at a sales price of $9,046.50. Said amount to be paid at the rate of $90 per month until paid. Pursuant to the agreement, the Respondents agreed not to assign the agreement without the permission of Tropical Sites, Inc. A closing was held on May 8, 1990, and the Respondents transferred possession of the tract by assignment of contract to Leroy H. and Charlotte Beard. A mobile home on the real property was part of the purchase price for a total sales price of $39,000.00 The agreement called for a down payment of $2,000 to the Respondent Savich. The Beards also signed a mortgage note in favor of the Respondents Savich and Haffele, for $37,000. The note was payable at the rate of $373.15 per month. Upon payment in full, Respondents were obligated to deliver a good and sufficient deed to the property to the purchasers. At the closing, Respondent Haefele was not present. The Beards received two documents at closing, a contract for sale and one other document, but did not receive a copy of the original agreement for deed, a disclosure statement, or a title to the trailer on the tract. In addition, Respondent Savich did not seek permission of Tropical Sites, Inc., prior to the closing. Prior to the closing, the Beards moved onto the property, and subsequently began making monthly payments of $373.15 to Respondent Savich. The Beards had purchased two or three pieces of property in the past, but had always gone through a bank. In relation to this agreement, they understood the nature of the transaction at the time of the closing. In early 1991, Mr. Beard made a telephone inquiry to the County property appraiser's office as to the status of the property for homestead exemption purposes. He was advised that Tropical Sites, Inc. was the current owner of the tract, and that he was not eligible for homestead exemption. The Beards did not apply for homestead exemption at the appraiser's office. In August 1991, the Beards stopped making payments to the Respondents on the advice of their attorney, but continued to reside on the premises until December 1991. In November 1991, an attorney acting on behalf of the Beards made a demand upon Respondent Paul F. Savich for the return of the $2,000.00 deposit. The Respondents did not return the $2,000.00 deposit or otherwise pay the money claimed by the Beards. In his dealings with the Beards, Respondent Savich did not withhold information, lie or mislead the purchasers. They simply were unhappy with the agreement, and decided to get out of it when they recognized that they would not receive title to the mobile home and property until the note was paid in full. In early 1992, the Beards quitclaimed their interest to the property to Respondent Savich's former wife, and they were released from their obligations under the note.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondents Paul F. Savich and Earnest M. Haefele be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 30th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Adopted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7(in part),8,9(in part)10,11,12,13 Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 7(in part: the $2,000 was a down payment, not an earnest money deposit), 9(in part: the Beards moved on to the property prior to closing. Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Respondent submitted a proposed order with unnumbered paragraphs which partially recounted the testimony of several of the witnesses and combined facts and conclusions of law. Therefore, a separate ruling on Respondent's proposals are not possible. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Senior Attorney DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street #N-308 Orlando, FL 32801-1772 J. Stanford Lifsey, Esquire 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1465 Tampa, Florida 33602 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(b) Florida Statutes, 1/ by committing the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate and for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent is a licensed real estate broker under license number 0478560. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a broker t/a Concord Financial Realty Co. ("CFR"), 495 E. Semoran Boulevard #115, Casselberry, Florida 32708. Respondent is the sole owner of CFR. CFR carries on regular business activities that include apartment rentals and sales of real estate. On January 31, 1992, Respondent and Mr. Charles Wallman, Respondent's husband, owned all of the stock of C.L. Wallman Associates, Inc ("CWA"). 2/ Respondent's husband owned Concord Financial Services, Inc. ("CFS"). CFS was formed to sell insurance and securities. Respondent and her husband operated CFR, CWA, and CFS out of shared office space. Respondent performed bookkeeping and secretarial duties for CWA and CFS. In January, 1992, Respondent's husband (the "seller") verbally agreed ("agreed") to sell 35 percent of the stock of CFS to Mr. John Topercer (the "purchaser") for $35,000. The seller and purchaser agreed to operate the company as "partners." The sale proceeds were to be invested in the company in which the seller and purchaser were to be partners. The purchaser paid the $35,000 purchase price in five installments from January 31, 1992, through March 12, 1992. During that time, the seller agreed to sell an additional 14 percent of the stock of CFS for an additional $13,000. The purchaser paid the additional $13,000 in three installments from April 14, 1992, through May 13, 1992. In May, 1992, the purchaser and seller agreed to another stock acquisition for $20,000. The seller would merge CFS, CWA, and CFR into a new company to be known as Concord Financial Centre ("CFC"). All of the business activities carried out by the separate companies would be consolidated into CFC. The purchaser would receive 49 percent of the stock of CFC in exchange for his 49 percent stock ownership in CFS. The seller and purchaser would operate CFC as "partners" in the same manner as originally contemplated for CFS. The sale proceeds were to be invested in the company in which the seller and purchaser were to be partners. The purchaser paid $20,000 in five installments from June 2 through June 22, 1992, and tendered his stock in CFS. However, the purchaser never received any stock in CFC. CFC was never formed. The seller never tendered any stock in CFC to the purchaser. The seller used some of the sale proceeds to operate CFS. However, approximately $30,000 of the sale proceeds were misappropriated and used by Respondent and her husband for personal purposes including a down payment on a house and a car. On January 6, 1993, the purchaser filed a civil complaint against Respondent and her husband alleging fraud, recision, and mismanagement of corporate funds. On August 8, 1994, the purchaser received judgment against Respondent and her husband in the amount of $30,000. Respondent and her husband have not satisfied the judgment. Neither has paid any money toward the judgment, and the purchaser has been unable to satisfy the judgment. Respondent knew of the negotiations and business transactions between her husband and Mr. Topercer. Respondent performed the duties of bookkeeper and documented all of the payments made by Mr. Topercer. Respondent was present during some of the discussions between her husband and Mr. Topercer. Respondent agreed to the merger of CFR into CFC. Respondent participated in the misappropriation of the purchase proceeds for her own personal use. When considered in their totality, the acts committed by Respondent constitute fraud and dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device within the meaning of Section 475.25(1)(b). Those acts were repeated and continued for more than six months. The amount misappropriated by Respondent is significant. During the three and a half years since June, 1992, Respondent has made no attempt at restitution.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b) and revoking Respondent's real estate license. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January 1996.
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), (d), and (e), Florida Statutes, 1/ through culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction; by failing to account or deliver trust funds; and by failing to timely notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of a deposit dispute or to implement remedial action; and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate and for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent is a licensed real estate broker under license number 0037920. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a broker at Heath Realty, 4864 S. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida. On May 18, 1993, Mr. Anthony Rodgers and Ms. Jill Rodgers (the "buyers") entered into a contract to purchase real property from Ms. Norma A. Cash (the "seller"). The buyers entrusted Respondent with a total earnest money deposit of $1,000. The transaction failed to close. On July 8, 1993, Respondent timely notified Petitioner in writing that there were conflicting demands for the earnest money deposit and a good faith doubt regarding the deposit. However, Respondent failed to institute one of the settlement procedures described in Section 475.25(1)(d)1. until legal proceedings between the buyer and seller were amicably settled approximately seven months later. Respondent failed to institute a prescribed settlement procedure in a timely manner even though Petitioner advised Respondent in letters dated July 26, 1993, and September 9, 1993, of the action Respondent should take. On February 9, 1994, Respondent finally requested an escrow disbursement order in accordance with Section 475.25(10(d)1. The escrow deposit was paid to the seller pursuant to the agreement of the parties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d)1., but guilty of violating Section 475.42(1)(e) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-10.032. It is further recommended that the Final Order place Respondent on probation for a period of one year and, during the period of probation, require Respondent to complete courses in broker management not to exceed eight credit hours. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February 1995.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Elliot Rosen Realty, Inc. was a licensed corporate real estate broker having been issued license number 0218821 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate. Respondent Elliot Rosen held real estate broker's license number 0075258 issued by petitioner and was the qualifying officer of Elliot Rosen Realty, Inc. Respondents Stanleigh M. Franklin and Maria C. Franklin were licensed real estate salesmen in Rosen's office having been issued license numbers 0318042 and 0370308, respectively. The firm is located at 8120 Coral Way, Miami, Florida 33155. On an undisclosed date Robert W. and Carol A. Bush listed for sale with Elliot Rosen Realty, Inc., a residential property located at 8295 Southwest 153rd Street, Miami. The initial asking price was $119,000, but this was later reduced to $112,000. In April 1984, Joseph and Maria Yanes were in the process of selling their home and were consequently seeking to purchase a new residence. Both are educated persons, and Mr. Yanes has a college degree. Mr. Yanes read a real estate advertisement which advertised the Bush's property. They contacted Rosen Realty, Inc. and spoke with Maria Franklin. After inspecting the house with Maria, the Franklins met with the Yanes on April 15, 1985, for the purpose of preparing and executing an offer to purchase the house. Joseph Yanes made clear to Stanleigh Franklin that his primary concern was obtaining a mortgage with monthly payments that did not exceed $1000 per month. Otherwise, he would not be able to purchase the property. Stanleigh was familiar with a new mortgage loan program offered by a local lender (American International Mortgage Company) known as the "7.5 magnet mortgage" which offered a monthly payment for the first three years at a 7.5 percent interest rate. Stanleigh computed the principal and interest payments under this plan to be $711.55 per month. When estimated taxes and insurance were added in the total payment came to approximately $850 per month. He also advised that a mortgage insurance premium would be charged each month, which he estimated to be $50 to $60 per month. This still totaled less than the $960 or $970 which the Yanes stated their existing mortgage to be. The Yanes were told that because of the low interest rate (7.5 percent) during the first 36 months, there would be negative amortization during that period of time. In other words, the principal amount owed would actually increase rather than decrease during the first three years since interest on the note was accruing at a higher rate (13 percent). Finally, Franklin advised the Yanes that a 5 percent down payment was required with this type of mortgage and that their deposit should equal this amount to qualify for the loan. The Yanes did not indicate any dissatisfaction with this type of financing, or that they did not understand how the plan worked, particularly with respect to the negative amortization. They agreed to make an offer of $107,000 on the property, to give a $500 deposit that day, and an additional $4850 later on which equated to 5 percent of the purchase price. The contract itself made no reference to the 7.5 percent financing, but provided only that the buyers would obtain a new first mortgage for the balance owed on the $107,000 purchase price. Throughout these negotiations, there was no misrepresentation of facts by Franklin concerning the mortgage or amount of deposit required. The Yanes' offer was quickly presented by the Franklins to the sellers who accepted the offer within the next few days. The Yanes then gave an additional $4850 deposit around May 1 which was deposited in Rosen's escrow account. On May 7, they filed a loan application with American International Mortgage Company and gave a check in the amount of $185 to have an appraisal made and a credit report prepared. At that time, the loan officer explained to Joseph Yanes in detail how the magnet mortgage program worked and that there would be negative amortization under this plan. The meeting lasted for an hour and a half and Yanes did not express surprise at how the mortgage worked, or that he did not understand its concept. An appraisal was then made, and a credit check run on Mr. Yanes. However, the lender was unable to confirm any credit information on Mrs. Yanes because her employer refused to return the employment verification form. On June 20, 1984, the lender sent a denial notice to the Yanes because of its inability to obtain information regarding Mrs. Yanes. The Yanes made no other efforts to obtain financing on the property. After they executed the contract to purchase, the Yanes engaged counsel in early May to represent them at closing. Their attorney (Lisa Wilson) called all pertinent parties, including the Franklins and Rosen to learn the details of the mortgage. After having the details explained to them again, the Yanes advised counsel that they wished to cancel the contract. On May 23, 1984, Wilson sent a certified letter to Stanleigh Franklin advising that because the financing arrangements had been misrepresented to her clients they were cancelling the contract. She also demanded a return of their deposit plus interest. Just prior to the receipt of the certified letter, Joseph Yanes also telephoned Stanleigh Franklin and demanded a return of his deposit. This was the first time Franklin suspected the deal had gone awry. Shortly after this, the Yanes contacted petitioner to file a complaint against respondents. When Mr. Bush learned that the Yanes were not honoring the contract, upon advice of counsel, Bush made a claim on the $5,350 deposit for breach of contract. Faced with conflicting demands for the deposit, Rosen contacted petitioner to determine how the deposit should be disbursed. The matter was eventually referred by petitioner to its local office in Miami for investigation in October 1984. On November 27, 1984, counsel for petitioner advised Rosen that because of the pending complaint of the Yanes, petitioner could not issue an escrow disbursement order. However, he was told of the remaining two alternatives for resolving the dispute prescribed in Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. A complaint for interpleader was later filed in circuit court by agreement of counsel for the Yanes, Bush, and Rosen. That complaint is still pending. Rosen, as broker, was never personally involved in the transaction until a complaint with petitioner was filed. He stood to gain no commission on the sale since the Franklins were working on a "100 percent basis" and were to receive the entire commission. Rosen has been licensed for some thirty-one years and has had no prior disciplinary action in all that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 1985.
