Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, George N. Sullivan, held real-estate license number 0128470 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission. His current address is 22 East Spruce Street, Orlando, Florida. At one time, respondent also held a registered general contractor's license and operated a construction firm under the name of George N. Sullivan, Inc. in Vero Beach, Florida. On or about December 7, 1979, George N. Sullivan, Inc. and Vero Fore, Incorporated entered into a construction agreement wherein Sullivan agreed to construct a residence at Lot 27, Unit III, the Moorings of Vero Beach, in Indian River County for a price of $155,628. The difference between this price and the price of $171,688 alleged in the administrative complaint is due to "extras" agreed upon by the parties to be added to the project. Sullivan began construction on the residence but abandoned the project before it was completed. When he left the job he had been paid all sums due under the agreement except one final $18,000 draw. Vero Fore later discovered that approximately $66,000 in unpaid bills were left by Sullivan. It also learned that Sullivan had obtained releases from three material suppliers by issuing worthless checks in the amounts of $5,849, $2,883.48, $1,913.14, $4,988.92 and $3,847.23. To date, Vero Fore has not been repaid by Sullivan. Sullivan was later adjudged guilty of passing worthless checks by the circuit court of Indian River County on July 8, 1981 and was sentenced to eighteen months probation and required to make restitution to the subcontractors. The official records of Indian River County reflect that Sullivan was found to be in violation of probation on March 23, 1983 for failure to make restitution. It is unknown what, if any, penalties were imposed upon him for this violation, or if restitution has ever been made. On or about September 5, 1980, Sullivan entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. James L. Cain to remodel their residence located at 2075 DeLeon Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida. The agreed upon price was $46,900. The Cains paid Sullivan $46890, or 10 percent, as a downpayment for the work on September 8, 1980. Sullivan sent three men to the Cains' house a few days later to build a platform. No other work was ever done. Sullivan did not pay the three workmen and the Cains were forced to pay them $788 to obtain a release of liens. To date, they have never been reimbursed by respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent George N. Sullivan be found guilty as charged in Counts I, III, and IV and that Count II be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent's real estate sales license be suspended for a period of ten years with the condition that said license be reinstated after a period of three years if respondent can demonstrate that restitution to the three material suppliers, Vero Fore, Inc. and the Cains has been made. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of December, 1983, 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 10th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Lee Printy, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. George N. Sullivan 22 East Spruce Street Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, G. Steven Pfeiffer, held a public hearing in this case on January 11, 1978, in Cocoa, Florida. The following appearances were entered: Charles E. Felix, Orlando, Florida, for the Plaintiff, Florida Real Estate Commission; and Kenneth A. Studstill, Titusville, Florida, for the Defendants, Thomas L. Pittman and Pittman Real Estate, Inc. The Florida Real Estate Commission issued an Administrative Complaint against the Defendants on August 23, 1977. On September 12, 1977, the Defendants filed an election of rights form which constituted a petition for hearing. In accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1)(b)(3), the Commission requested that a hearing officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings be assigned to conduct the hearing. The final hearing was scheduled by notices dated October 19, 1977 and November 2, 1977. At the final hearing the Commission called Gary W. Brandt, a registered real estate salesman, as its only witness. The Defendants called Virginia Laver, a former employee of Defendant Pittman Real Estate, Inc., and the Defendant Thomas L. Pittman. Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1-3, and Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2 were offered into evidence and were received. There were conflicts in the testimony of certain of the witnesses. In resolving these conflicts due regard has been given to the credibility of the witnesses as evidenced in part by the demeanor of the witnesses at the hearing, and in part by the extent to which the witnesses' testimony has been corroborated by other evidence.
The Issue The issue in Count I is whether Section 475.42(1)(j) absolutely prohibits a broker or salesman from filing a lien or other encumberance against real property to collect a commission. The issue in Count II is whether the Respondents violated a lawful order of the Commission by failing to remove the motion of lis pendens contrary to Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Conclusions Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: "No real estate broker or salesman shall place, or cause to be placed, upon the public records of any county, any contract, assignment, deed, will, mortgage, lien, affidavit, or other writing which purports to affect the title of, or encumber, any real property, if the same is known to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property, maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce the payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person, or for any unlawful purpose." Clearly the Respondents placed or caused to be placed the notice of lis pendens in question. A notice of lis pendens is clearly an "other writing which purports to effect the title of, or encumber, any real property." The Florida Real Estate Commission argues that this provision is an absolute bar to the filing of any lien for the purpose of collecting a commission. The Respondents argue that this provision is not an absolute bar and there are circumstances when a broker may file a notice of lis pendens. They also assert that the notice of lis pendens falls within the exception because the Circuit Court refused to remove the notice of lis pendens upon motion of the property owner. Lastly, it is argued that the notice was filed by counsel for the Respondents in good faith on an action at law and that this mitigates their action even if there was a violation. The language of Section 475.42(1)(j) cannot be read to absolutely prohibit a broker from obtaining a lis pendens. When given this construction, it effectively denies brokers and salesmen access to the courts for redress of injury as provided in Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Section 475.42(1)(j) is a complex provision which is subject to two interpretations. One interpretation would prohibit a broker or salesman from filing an encumberance if the same were known to him to be false, void or not authorized by law; if not authorized to be upon the public records; if not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded; if the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property; if maliciously (filed); if for the purpose of collecting a commission, if to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person; or if for any other unlawful purpose. This first interpretation would consider each clause a separate limitation on filing an encumberance. The facts analyzed under this interpretation do not show any knowledge by Respondents that the lis pendens was false, void or not authorized to be filed or not on a form entitling it to be recorded. The facts do not show that Respondents filed the lis pendens maliciously, for the purpose of collecting a commission, or for the purpose of coercing payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. The nature of lis pendens would not require the owner's authorization of execution for recording. The facts show that the lis pendens was filed by Respondent's attorney in conjunction with a suit brought by the Respondents against Perrin. The record also shows that the circuit court determined that the lis pendens was recordable when it denied the motion to remove it. The notice of lis pendens was neither malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting the commission. The notice was for the purpose of perfecting the claim against the property for execution of the judgment if the Respondents prevailed in the suit. Executing on a judgment is different from collecting the commission or coercing payment. Under this interpretation the Respondents have not been shown to violate Section 475.42(1)(j). A second interpretation would read the clause, ". . . if the same is known to to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been authorized by the owner of the property. . ." as the first of two criteria to be met to establish a violation. The second criteria would consist of proof that the encumberance was recorded maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. Again the facts do not show there was knowledge by the Respondents of the falsity, or impropriety of the notice of lis pendens, as stated above. Again the facts show that the lis pendens was filed in conjunction with a law suit pending between the Respondent and the property owner, and that the court before which the action was pending refused to remove it. The file of the notice by Respondent's counsel was a legitimate method of perfecting the Respondent's claim should they prevail and obtain judgment. The facts do not indicate that the filing of the notice was malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting a commission. Under either interpretation, Respondents did not violate the statute. COUNT II The Respondents are charged in Count II with violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that the registration of a registrant may be suspended for up to two years for violation of a lawful order of the Commission. Clearly, the facts reveal that the Respondents had a substantial interest involved in the litigation with Perrin. The order, of the Florida Real Estate Commission to remove the notice of lis pendens substantially affected their rights in this litigation. Therefore, any final order directing Kay to remove the notice of lis pendens should have issued after an opportunity for hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The evidence reveals that the Florida Real Estate Commission did not notice a hearing under Section 120.57, and therefore its order cannot be "lawful." The provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d) require that registrants not violate lawful orders. The Respondents have not violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by not removing the notice of lis pendens as directed by the order of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the Respondent, Sam Kaye and Sam Kaye, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William E. Boyes, Esquire Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, P.A. Post Office Box 3466 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Findings Of Fact Prior to the commencement of hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation of fact, a copy of which is attached and constitutes the findings of fact in this hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take action to cause Holdridge's name to be placed on the list of active brokers and to have current registration papers issued. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 2nd day of May, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Michael E. Crane, Esquire 521 Landmark Building Naples, Florida 33940 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Gary R. Berkson, is a licensed real estate salesman, holding license No. 034697. From September 27, 1980, until May of 1983, the Respondent as a salesman working as an independent contractor for Act Now Real Estate, Inc., a corporate broker whose active qualifying brokers and officers were Robert F. Picheny and Thelma R. Sarkas. Robert F. Picheny was subpoenaed and requested to bring with him the records of Act Now Real Estate, Inc., showing the disbursement of commissions to the Respondent. These records did not contain any entries relating to rental transactions involving the persons named in the complaint as having paid commissions to the Respondent. The only lease offered and received in evidence was between Samuel Schnur, as lessor, and lessees named Davis and Johnston. Samuel Schnur, presented as one of the Petitioner's witnesses, did not pay a rental commission to the Respondent in connection with this lease. Another lease transaction where the Respondent was alleged to have received rental commissions was between Sami Elmasri, as landlord, and Donald Bauerle, as tenant. Sami Elmasri, presented as another of the Petitioner's witnesses, testified that he paid a $300 commission, but that this was not paid to the Respondent. This commission was paid to another salesman, Wendy Corman. The final witness for the Petitioner, except for the Respondent, was Wendy Corman. She showed Mr. Elmasri's property to persons wishing to rent through a lead given by the Respondent. She was paid a $300 commission by Mr. Elmasri. The Respondent did not receive any of this commission. The Petitioner's final witness was the Respondent, who testified that he never received a commission for rental property. The only money he received in connection with rental properties was a management fee he received on some properties owned by Richard Jacobson. This fee was in payment for management services consisting of arranging for repairs to the properties such as painting it, repairs to the plumbing and the garage door, and being available to tenants with problems in the absence of the owner. These management fees continued even after the Respondent left Act Now Real Estate, Inc., until Mr. Jacobson assumed the management duties himself.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent, Gary R. Berkson, be DISMISSED. This Recommended Order entered this 13th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 13th day of June, 1984.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent, George R. Gurley, was a registered real estate broker-salesman in the State of Florida operating under License No. 0034797 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission on April 1, 1979. Mr. Gurley arranged the sale of certain property on Highway 542 in Lakeland, Florida, owned by Lakeland Skyview, Inc., Durward Harrell and Charles J. Ziemba to Joseph D. De Silvestro. This sale was initially arranged in a contract executed on April 5, 1979, by Mr. De Silvestro, as buyer, and Charles J. Ziemba, individually, and Hobart H. Joost, President of Lakeland Skyview, Inc., for the seller. Sale price was to be $70,000 with a $1,000 deposit being held in escrow by R/D Parker Realty Company. A commission of 10 percent ($7,000) was called for in that portion of the contract providing for method of payment, but was not referenced in the brokerage fee portion of the contract at the bottom of the first page thereof. Respondent, Gurley, and two others were listed as witnesses. Thereafter, before this contract was closed, on May 4, 1979, Respondent arranged a resale of the property from Mr. De Silvestro to American Vault Bed Corporation with a purchase price of $90,000 of which, again, $1,000 was to be held in escrow by the R/D Parker Realty Company. This contract made no provision for any real estate commission. This second contract was witnessed as to both buyer and seller by Respondent. The property in question was originally listed with R/D Parker Realty Company on November 10, 1978, by Mr. Joost, President of Lakeland Skyview, Inc., on an exclusive right of sale contract form which was accepted by Mr. Gurley, the Respondent. Because Mr. Joost had worked with Respondent previously and was aware of his reputation, he listed the property with Respondent in preference to another real estate agent. According to Ms. Parker, who ran the real estate company, though the form indicates the listing was an exclusive, it was, in fact, not entered into the multiple listing service. Mr. De Silvestro, the individual who purchased the property in the first transaction, was himself a real estate broker-salesman who was at the time working as office manager for R/D Parker Realty Company. At the time of both transactions, it was the policy of Parker Realty that salesmen working for the company could make two transactions per year in their own names without paying any commission to Parker Realty so lone as Ms. Parker was made aware of it in advance. In the instant case, Parker Realty did not get a share of the commission, nor did Ms. Parker know about either sale at the time. She found out about them in June, 1982, after both Respondent and Mr. De Silvestro had left their association with her firm, in the summer of 1979. Both transactions were closed by mail by Stewart Title Company off Polk County during the period from late May to mid-June, 1979. The buyer's closing statement dated May 29, 1979, for the first sale to Mr. De Silvestro does not reflect a broker's commission. However, a check in the amount of $2,829.51, drawn by Stewart Title of Polk County, Inc., on its escrow account, made payable to Charles J. Ziemba and S. A. Rice, dated June 28, 1979, bears the notation "payment in full for note from George R. Gurley dated June 8, 1978, with interest in full." Both Mr. Gurley and Mr. Ziemba acknowledge that this check was a portion of the $3,500 Mr. Gurley received as commission on the sale to Mr. De Silvestro and which was paid to Mr. Ziemba in fulfillment of a prior existing debt to him. The following day, June 29, 1979, an additional check was drawn on the escrow account of Stewart Title of Polk County, Inc., payable to Randy Gurley in the amount of $670.49, which bears the notation, inter alia, "for balance of realtor's commission." Randy Curley is, in fact, Respondent. Mr. Gurley acknowledged that this figure, which, when added to the amount of the prior mentioned check totals $3,500, was his share of the real estate commission earned on the property in question to Mr. De Silvestro. The balance of the real estate commission of $7,000, in the amount of $3,500, was never paid either to Mr. Gurley or to Parker Realty. No evidence was presented to indicate where that $3,500 went, if, in fact, it was paid at all. Testimony in this area came from Karen Beck, an agent with Stewart Title, who was not, however, the closing agent for this transaction. Her testimony, based on what the actual closing agent told her, and therefore hearsay, leads her to conclude that the "parties," De Silvestro and Gurley, had indicated the commission was to be handled as it was. On June 12, 1979, Stewart Title received a check for $2,000 from R/D Parker Realty Company, which represented the $2,000 paid as deposits into Parker Realty Company's escrow account on the two sales in question. The check for $2,000 was signed by Ms. Parker's son, Richard, who was a partner in R/D Parker Realty and who had authority to execute the check in question. Mr. Parker was not present at the hearing, nor did he testify as to whether he had given Mr. Gurley authority to keep his half of the commission and not forward any of the commission to Parker Realty, the broker. Mr. Gurley at no time was an owner of the property in question, nor did he realize any profit from either sale. His sole compensation came from the commission he received from the sale of the property initially to Mr. De Silvestro. This does not fall within the permitted transactions referred to by Ms. Parker, whereby employees could make two purchases per year without paying commission. Respondent, Gurley, who has held a salesman's license since 1972 and been a broker since 1974, contends he has never, in all those years, done anything in the practice of the real estate profession which would warrant disciplinary action by the Real Estate Commission. He contends that both he and Mr. De Silvestro acted with the knowledge of the broker, R/D Parker Realty; they used office forms; used office witnesses; and the deposit monies placed on both contracts went into the office escrow account. Mr. Gurley contends that the entire transaction was open and aboveboard and that when he acted, he felt he was authorized to do this. Though he contends Ms. Parker's son, Richard, acknowledged that what Gurley was doing was appropriate, Ms. Parker indicates her son denied any knowledge of what Respondent and De Silvestro were doing. On balance, it is found that neither Gurley nor De Silvestro notified Parker Realty, in the form of Ms. Parker or Richard Parker, as to the details of the transaction. Respondent is a minister, has no criminal record, no bad debts and no difficulties with the law of any kind. He applied for a renewal of his license In April, 1982, but has had no notice of denial. The records of the State of Florida submitted pertaining to Respondent's licensure status, however, reflect his licensee as a broker was issued on January 21, 1983, and is effective until September 30, 1984. That would make his license current at the present time.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. George R. Gurley 800 East State Road 540A, #106 Lakeland, Florida 33803 Mr. Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
