Findings Of Fact Respondent Donald E. Swagler is now and was at all times material a licensed real estate broker or broker/salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0139756, in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At all times alleged in the Administrative Complaint, respondent Donald Swagler was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker for and an officer of respondent Swagler Realty, Inc., which is now and was at all times material a corporation licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0169035, in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material, Fern Z. Taylor was a licensed real estate broker with an office in Bonita Springs, approximately a twenty-minute drive south from the offices of Swagler Realty Company in Ft. Myers. On April 10, 1980, Andrew W. Kuchmaner was working part-time as a licensed real estate salesman in the employ (as that term is defined in Section 475.01(2), Florida Statutes) of Swagler Realty Company. Kuchmaner was a new salesman and had not yet had occasion to present a buyer's purchase offer to a client seller. During the early months of 1980, Kuchmaner was also working in the employ of, and receiving a salary from, Jim Walter Homes Company. Philip R. and Susan B. Workman first met Kuchmaner in January or February 1980 while visiting a Jim Walter's Homes sales office in Ft. Myers where he was working in his capacity as a Jim Walter Homes salesman. Kuchmaner advised the Workmans to find and purchase a lot for the Jim Walter home they had selected, and then they could purchase the Jim Walter home. Jim Walter Homes Company requires lot ownership prior to building one of their homes. Prior to selecting a lot, the Workmans had already decided on the Jim Walter home they were going to purchase, and Kuchmaner was going to do the paperwork for Jim Walter. Throughout the first quarter of 1980, the Workmans searched for a lot on which to construct their home in the Bonita Springs area of southern Lee County. During their search, the Workmans came upon a vacant lot with a sign saying it was for sale by Fern Z. Taylor. Upon seeing her real estate for sale sign, the Workmans went to Fern Taylor's office to inquire about the property and seek her assistance in their purchase of a lot in the Bonita Springs area. Fern Taylor advised the Workmans that, in addition to the lot they had already seen bearing her sign, she had Dust that morning listed and had for sale another lot in the Bonita Springs area which they would be interested in seeing. Earlier that same morning, Taylor took a long distance telephone call from a Charles A. Bennett, a resident of Arizona. Bennett said he had a lot he wanted to sell and gave Taylor the price ($7,000) and a description--Lot 20, Block E, Rosemary Park No. 2, in Bonita Springs. Bennett had not seen the property in some time and gave no landmarks or street address for Taylor's guidance. Back in 1925, Rosemary Park No. 2 was subdivided into eight blocks of 24 140' x 50' lots each and two larger blocks containing 16 larger 162' x 300' lots each. One of the smaller lots bore the legal description: "Lot 20, Block E of Rosemary Park No. 2 according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 6 at Page 30, of the Public Records of Lee County. This is the lot Bennett owned and was trying to sell. It is located on First Street. In 1926, Rosemary Park No. 2 was re-subdivided. The two larger blocks of the prior subdivision were re-subdivided into eight blocks of 24 140' x 50' lots each. Unfortunately, in a stroke of singular lack of vision, the new blocks and lots were designated with the same letters and numbers already assigned to the smaller blocks and lots in the original 1925 subdivision. As a result, there is another lot in Rosemary Park No. 2 designated as Lot 20, Block E: Lot 20, Block E, Rosemary Park, resubdivision of the East 1/2 of No. 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 32, in the Public Records of Lee County, Florida. This other Lot 20, Block E, is owned by the Fyfes of Maine and is on Fifth Street. Taylor, who was quite busy, quickly checked a plat book in her office to locate the lot and the tax rolls to attempt far to verify Bennett's ownership and left to put her sign on the lot she thought Bennett owned and was trying to sell. Through a combination of the confusing legal description, the incomplete description and paucity of information Bennett gave Taylor, and Taylor's admitted negligence, Taylor put her for sale sign on the Fyfes' lot on Fifth Street instead of on Bennett's lot on First Street. Taylor had no listing agreement with the Fyfes, and the Fyfes' property was not for sale. Fern Taylor drew a map for the Workmans providing them with directions to this purportedly newly listed lot on which she had placed her "For Sale" sign. In reliance on Fern Taylor's map and representations as to her listing agreement, the Workmans drove to the Fifth Street lot and viewed the property as well as Fern Taylor's "For Sale" sign. Approximately one week after seeing the Fifth Street lot, the Workmans summoned Andrew Kuchmaner to Bonita Springs to view the lot and give them his opinion as to how the Jim Walter home they had previously selected would sit on the lot. The Workmans had their minds pretty well made up that they wanted to purchase the Fifth Street lot before summoning Kuchmaner. Kuchmaner never took the Workmans to any property but, upon their request, traveled to Bonita Springs to meet them and was thereupon shown the Fifth Street lot. While viewing the Fifth Street lot, Kuchmaner advised the Workmans that the Jim Walter's home they had selected would sit nicely on that lot. He also told the Workmans for the first time that he had a real estate license and would be glad to help them out with placing an offer for the lot on their behalf. The Workmans used Kuchmaner to make their $6,000 offer on the lot to save time because it was late in the afternoon and they lived in North Ft. Myers. When Fern Taylor first met Kuchmaner, he had been represented to her by the Workmans as a Jim Walter salesman. Kuchmaner went to Taylor's office and requested she prepare the contract because he would have to go all the way back to Ft. Myers to write it up. Taylor provided Kuchmaner with the legal description "Lot 20, Block E, Rosemary Park #2" and advised him he would have to write his own contract. Kuchmaner also proposed to Taylor that they not tell Swagler or Swagler Realty about the sale so they could divide Swagler's quarter of the 10 percent commission ($150 of the total $600 commission). Taylor refused and told Swagler what had happened. Swagler had an angry confrontation with Kuchmaner and was about to fire him, but Kuchmaner begged for a second chance and promised not to try to cut Swagler out of a commission again. Swagler relented and kept Kuchmaner on as a salesman. Kuchmaner filled out a contract on a Swagler Realty form and brought it to Donald Swagler for his review. He advised Swagler that he had gotten the legal description from Fern Taylor and had been to see the property. Swagler generally does not sell property in the Bonita Springs area and is not familiar with the area. He relied on Taylor to provide an accurate legal description of the property being sold. Kuchmaner hand delivered the contract offering to purchase the Bennett parcel to Taylor. Taylor checked the contract before she sent it to Bennett to see that the legal was the same that she had, and it was. She also checked it again when it was sent back from Bennett. Fern Taylor had received and checked the contract, title insurance binder, seller's closing statement and a copy of the warranty deed from Bennett to Workman prior to the closing The Workmans had the property they thought they were purchasing surveyed by William R. Allen, a registered and licensed land surveyor. He received the request to survey the property from Susan Workman. Over the phone, she advised Mr. Allen she had purchased a lot in Rosemary Park, Specifically lot far 20, block E. Mr. Allen informed Mrs. Workman that there are two Block E's in Rosemary Park and that they should be careful. He inquired as to which street she had purchased property on and was told, "We're on Fifth Street." Allen surveyed the Fifth Street lot and certified his survery, using the actual legal description of the Fifth Street (Fyfes') lot. Allen never saw any document with the legal description of the Bennett lot. Fern Taylor did not know that the Workmans had ordered a survey and did not see a copy of the survey until well after the closing. Although she attended the closing, she saw no discrepancies among the documents cursorily reviewed at the closing. Neither did the Workmans or the closing agent. The evidence was not clear whether there was a copy of the survey among the documents at the closing. The lender (Jim Walter Homes) and the title insurance company got a copy of the survey before closing. Neither of their professionals noticed that the legal description on the survey (the Fyfe lot) did not match the legal description on the deed and other documents (the Bennett lot). When a real estate broker has placed his sign ("For Sale") on a parcel of property, it is a reasonable conclusion that he is authorized to sell that parcel. It is customary for a broker to rely on the listing broker to provide a correct legal description for the property they have listed. At no time before the closing did Swagler or Kuchmaner have reason to suspect that the Workmans were purchasing a parcel of property different from the parcel they believed they were purchasing. Neither Swagler nor Kuchmaner were at the closing of the Workmans' purchase. But their presence would not have made any difference. It is not the real estate broker's or salesman's lob to scrutinize the documents being signed to make sure the legal descriptions on all the documents match (unless he has reason to believe the legal descriptions might be wrong.) He has the right to rely on the other professionals--the listing broker (especially since Fern Taylor was familiar with the Bonita Springs area and Swagler was not), the lender's attorney, the title company, the closing agent and, if any, the surveyor and the buyer's attorney. Fern Taylor and perhaps others were culpably negligent. Swagler and Kuchmaner were not. What happened to the Workmans is not their fault.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against respondents, Donald E. Swagler and Swagler Realty Company, in this case. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of February, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 9th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3502 These rulings on proposed findings of fact are made in compliance with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated. 5. Rejected as contrary to facts found. (Kuchmaner did not "solicit" or "obtain" them.) 6.-14. Accepted and incorporated. 15. Rejected as contrary to facts found. (Taylor's "investigation" or "attempt" to ascertain the legal description was deficiently and negligently performed.) 16.-17. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as incomplete ("compare the deed" with what?); second sentence, rejected because it was not proved Taylor had access to a copy of the survey before the closing. Rejected as unnecessary and potentially misleading. (A Final Judgment was entered; Taylor paid the portion against her; the other defendants have not paid the portions against them.) Rejected. Swagler Realty Company was a defendant in the case; Donald E. Swagler was not. 21.-24. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proved whether they "failed," "refused" or "neglected." (The fact is that neither has paid the Workmans any money in satisfaction of the portion of the Final Judgment against Swagler Realty Company.) Accepted but unnecessary. B. Respondents' Proposed Findings Of Fact. 1. Accepted but unnecessary. 2.-10. Accepted and incorporated. 11. Accepted but unnecessary. 12.-23. Accepted and incorporated. 24.-28. Accepted and incorporated. 29. Accepted but unnecessary. 30.-36. Accepted but cumulative. 37.-42. Accepted and incorporated, along with additional findings. 43. Accepted but unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Fl 32802 J. Michael Hussey, Esquire 3443 Hancock Bridge Parkway Suite 501 North Ft. Myers, Fl 33903 Van B. Poole Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32301 Wings S. Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32301 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Fl 32802
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to regulate the practice of real estate, pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Lynton Oliver Thomas, was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0504596 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent Thomas was as a broker-salesperson at Pagliari Realty, Inc., 323 Northeast 167 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, L T Express Realty Corp., was a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker, having been issued license number 0273473 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Thomas was licensed and operating as qualifying broker and officer of Respondent L T Express Realty Corp. The office for this corporate entity was located at 2124 Northeast 123 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. There was no evidence that Respondent Thomas operated his corporate entity from any other office. On May 7, 1995, Respondent Thomas, a licensed real estate broker, d/b/a L T Express Realty Corp., negotiated a contract for the sale of a house between Bruce and Ann McCormick (as sellers) and Marie S. Saintel and Carita Luc (as buyers). The buyers gave Respondent Thomas an earnest money deposit in the amount of $5,528.00. The transaction failed to close. The sellers, through their agent, attempted to make a demand upon Respondent Thomas for delivery of the earnest money deposit. The sellers' agent was unable to serve the demand on the Respondents because the Respondents had closed their offices and could not be located. Respondents had, or should have had, a good faith doubt as to the proper way to disburse the escrowed funds. Respondent Thomas, without authorization from the sellers, returned $3,000.00 of the original $5,528.00 deposit to the buyers. The balance of the earnest money deposit, in the amount of $2,528.00, has not been recovered from the Respondents. Rule 61J2-10.032(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides the procedure real estate brokers are required to follow when competing demands are made for funds that have been received in escrow or when a broker has a good faith doubt as to how escrowed funds should be disbursed. At no time did Respondents attempt to invoke those procedures. Kenneth G. Rehm, Petitioner's investigator, visited Respondent L T Express Realty Corp. and discovered that Respondent Thomas had abandoned his registered office. Respondent Thomas failed to notify Petitioner that he closed his real estate office at 2124 Northeast 123 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered that finds Respondents guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I-VIII of the Administrative Complaint. As a penalty for these violations, the Final Order should revoke all licenses issued by Petitioner to Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Mr. Lynton Oliver Thomas L T Express Realty Corp. 10810 Northeast Tenth Place Miami, Florida 33161 CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1997 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate 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
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Joseph J. Kowitt, is now a licensed real estate broker-salesman, having been issued License No. 0048987. At all times pertinent to this proceeding the Respondent was registered and licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission or the Board of Real Estate, respectively, as a non- active real estate broker. The Respondent's registration certificate bore an effective date of October 1, 1978 and an expiration date of September 30, 1980. Some time prior to October 9, 1979, Mrs. Frieda Frank of Silver Spring, Maryland, was contacted by Mr. Douglas Bradshaw, a broker-salesman in the employ of Powis Properties, Inc., a corporate real estate broker of Boca Raton, Florida, to ascertain her interest in selling two unimproved lots in Palm Beach County, Florida. Mrs. Frank, the owner of the property, indicated to Mr. Bradshaw that he should coordinate activities involved in effecting a sale through her cousin, the Respondent. Mrs. Frank had previously instructed the Respondent to attempt to sell the two lots for her for a certain minimum price. The Respondent was contacted by Mr. Bradshaw either shortly before or shortly after he contacted the seller of the property, Mrs. Frank, but after the Respondent had placed signs on the property indicating it to be for sale by the owner, with the Respondent's telephone number depicted thereon. Upon being contacted by Mr. Bradshaw or Powis Properties, Inc., the Respondent explained that he was not the owner of the property, but that he represented his cousin, Mrs. Frank, who lived in Maryland. The result of the conversation was that the Respondent agreed to give Mr. Bradshaw an "open listing" and the Respondent requested that he be reimbursed for any expenses born personally in preparing for and effecting a sale, indicating that this was his cousin's wish also. There is no evidence to reflect the precise amount of expenses incurred by the Respondent in attempting to sell his cousin's property, his testimony simply consisting of statements to the effect that he had erected four or five signs on the property during the course of the year preceding the sale and had incurred gasoline expenses traveling between the property in Palm Beach County and his home in north Dade County. On approximately October 9, 1979 Powis Properties, Inc. secured an offer to purchase the subject property in the amount of $27,000 and communicated that offer to the seller. She indicated to Mr. Kowitt that a $30,000 sales price would be acceptable, including a 10 percent brokerage fee for Powis Properties who had secured the prospective buyer. At approximately this point in time an agreement was reached between Mr. Kowitt, the Respondent, and Powis Properties, Inc. whereby Mr. Kowitt would receive $500 for his services rendered in effecting the sale and which would he paid to him at the closing of the sale of the two subject lots. This arrangement is reflected in the Respondent's own Exhibit 2, although the Respondent maintained the fee arrangement agreed upon was merely for reimbursement of his expenses incurred in preparing the property for sale and was not a referral fee, as Mr. Stingene of Powis Properties had represented in the letter which is Exhibit Two. The Respondent, however, in the face of the Petitioner's showing that a flat fee of $500 was paid with the understanding of the Petitioner's chief witness that it was for a referral or for "services rendered," offered no concrete evidence to establish what his alleged expense items consisted of nor their respective amounts. A purchase offer was redrawn at the required price of $30,000 in accordance with the seller's wishes and accepted by the seller. The transaction proceeded to closing on October 28, 1980. Approximately three days prior to the closing date, Powis Properties, Inc. inquired of the Registration Division of the Board of Real Estate regarding the status of Mr. Kowitt's registration as a realtor and was informed that he held an inactive status at that time. Powis Properties, Inc. communicated this information to Mr. Kowitt who indicated that his registration renewal application was in process and apparently such was not yet reflected in the records of the Board of Real Estate. Powis Properties, through Mr. Powis or Mr. Stingene, then requested that he evidence his valid registration at the closing in order to receive the subject $500 fee. Powis Properties then drew a check of $500 payable to Mr. Kowitt and authorized its sales agent who would be present at the closing to deliver the check to Mr. Kowitt upon his establishing proof of his registration or otherwise inform him that the fee would have to be held in escrow until he could establish the fact of his active registration. At the closing Mr. Kowitt delivered to the salesman representative of Powis Properties, Inc. a photocopy of registration Certificate No. 0048987 indicating on its face the status of "active broker" and based upon that representation, the sales agent delivered to Mr. Kowitt the $500 check which he later negotiated. Petitioner's Exhibit 7, which was unrefuted, reveals that the Respondent held Certificate No. 0048987 which is a non-active broker's certificate issued October 21, 1976 with an expiration date of September 30, 1980. Petitioner's Exhibit 8 was not contradicted and reveals that the Respondent applied for a renewal as a broker-salesman on October 27, 1979, the day prior to the subject closing. After amending his application to that for a broker-salesman certificate, since he did not maintain an office, a broker- salesman certificate was issued to the Respondent with an effective date of November 6, 1979, although with a date of issuance of December 20, 1979 (Exhibit 9). The dates reflected on Exhibit 9 corroborate the Petitioner's showing (in Exhibit 5) that it is the policy of the Board that a registration certificate reflect the effective date to be the date the request was received by the Board in proper form, as opposed to the date of mailing. At the closing the Respondent represented that he was an active broker by the display of a xerox copy of his registration certificate with the above number and expiration date of September 30, 1980. Be acknowledges and admits that he altered the copy of the certificate to remove the prefix "non" from his ostensible designation as an active broker, but the Respondent contends that he informed the representative of Powis Properties at the closing that he had been assured by "someone" with the Board of Real Estate that he could consider himself an active broker upon posting of his renewal application and fee. Shortly after the closing, Mr. Powis or his agent examined the ostensible broker certificate copy supplied them by the Respondent. Upon the belief that the copy of the broker certificate was irregular when compared to other broker certificates which simply state "broker" rather than "active broker" (as the subject one did after the alteration) inquiry was made by phone to the Registration Division of the Board regarding the Respondent's true status. The Board informed Powis Properties that Mr. Kowitt at that time continued to be a non-active broker. Powis Properties then immediately notified Mr. Kowitt of the circumstances and made demand that he return the $500 fee. After a period of days or weeks had elapsed without satisfactory response from Mr. Kowitt, the subject complaint initiating these proceedings was filed by Powis Properties with the Board of Real Estate. Finally, a meeting was held on November 19th between the Respondent and Powis Properties or its agent or representative, at which time the Respondent could not yet supply concrete evidence of his registration as an active broker or broker-salesman, although the application for active status remained pending. Thus, Powis Properties, Inc. continued to maintain its claim against the Respondent for return of the $500 fee and the Petitioner initiated these proceedings.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, as well as the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Joseph J. Kowitt, be found guilty of a violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) Florida Statutes (1979), as well as Section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), and that the penalty of a public written reprimand be imposed on the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 18ths day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph Fetner, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph J. Kowitt 2030 South Ocean Drive Apartment No. 1227 Hallandale, Florida 33009
Findings Of Fact Herbert Goldman is a registered real estate broker holding license number 0032343 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Herbert Goldman maintains an office at the Robertson Building, Ocala, Florida, consisting of at least one closed room, wherein negotiations and closings of real estate transactions of others may be conducted and carried on with privacy and where the books, records, and files pertaining to the real estate transactions of Herbert Goldman are maintained. On the entry way to the Robertson Building, Ocala, Florida, there is a Building Directory and on this directory, there appears "Goldman, Herbert, Realtor, Room 214." See Exhibit 4. On the second floor of the Robertson Building, Ocala, Florida, in Room 214, Herbert Goldman maintains the office described above outside of which is a sign stating the following: "Herbert Goldman, Registered Real Estate Broker." It was admitted that the second floor of the Robertson Building is generally closed to public and that the Robertson Building is owned by the Estate of Mr. Herbert Goldman's deceased father. By direct contact with Herbert Goldman or his brother, an attorney who maintains an office on the first floor of the Robertson Building with access directly to the street, authorized persons may gain access to Herbert Goldman's office. Herbert Goldman engages in an active real estate brokerage primarily consisting of site location for shopping centers and similar developments for clients throughout the United States. Herbert Goldman does not solicit nor desire to participate in a general real estate practice. Goldman makes no pretense that he maintains an office in Room 214 of the Robertson Building, which is at all times staffed and which is an office in the conventional sense. However, Goldman does maintain an active brokerage practice visiting clients in various portions of Florida and in other states in the course of his brokerage business. Due to the nature of transactions which Goldman is involved in, all of the closings are conducted in the business offices of the firms with which he does business or of their attorneys. The foregoing Findings of Fact are substantially identical to the general proposed findings submitted by Goldman.
Recommendation At hearing, the forthrightness of Mr. Goldman was evident, and it was clear that he did not desire to be uncooperative with the Commission or to flaunt its rules. His concern was that to maintain an accessible office would create more problems than it would solve. He felt that such an office would appear to be closed and "inactive", and to avoid this problem he would have to hire office staff to advise people he did not handle general real estate. This would be an unnecessary expense for him and would possibly create misunderstandings. It was, therefore, simpler to maintain his office where it has been for many years, from where, although inaccessible to the public, he centers his brokerage activity. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that no disciplinary actions be taken. In view of Goldman's general cooperativeness and the fact that he is not totally pleased with the security of his office, it might be useful and beneficial for the Commission to examine with Goldman alternatives which would be acceptable to all concerned and would result in office accommodations which re more conventional and secure but which would not prevent a confusing picture to the public. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of July, 1977, at Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Pierce, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mary B. Steddom, Esquire O'Neill & Steddom Post Office Box 253 Ocala, Florida 32670 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, An Agency of the State of Florida, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 3123 MARION COUNTY HERBERT GOLDMAN, DOAH CASE NO. 77-443 Defendant. /
Findings Of Fact Carl D. Hill, Petitioner, applied for licensure to the Florida Real Estate Commission, Respondent, on or about October 19, 1983, and subsequently received a letter of denial dated December 6, 1983. The denial was based upon Sections 475.17(1) and 475.25, F.S., and specifically cited Petitioner's prior arrest in 1980 and criminal record. By Order of the Circuit Court dated June 12, 1984, the record of Petitioner's prior arrest and plea of guilty was expunged and sealed. Petitioner had originally been placed on probation for five years, but that probation was terminated early for good behavior after three years, on or about April 16, 1984. Petitioner has not been arrested for any offense since 1980, and has at all times been employed. His reputation in the community is very good. Petitioner is currently co-owner of Interstate Mobile Homes and handles sales, service and set-up of mobile homes. His partner is a licensed real estate broker who also operates Sun American Realty in the same building. There is no evidence in the record which would indicate that Petitioner has at any time engaged in activities which would require a real estate salesman's license. All such activities are handled by his partner and co-owner who is licensed as a real estate broker. Petitioner held a real estate salesman's license from November 1981 until January 18, 1983. Petitioner's previous license was revoked pursuant to Section 475.25(1)(m), F.S., but he was not precluded from reapplying for reinstatement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson be APPROVED. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of February, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 26th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack W. Crooks, Esquire Crooks, Vetter, Cuellar and Blau, P.A. 4202 West Waters Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Ralph Armstead, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Harold R. Huff, Director Dept. of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Under the Administrative Complaint filed by the Florida Real Estate Commission there were five counts containing allegations against Bartley C. Johnson, Anthony Johnson, Barry P. Rifkin, and Flag Realty, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Flag). Prior to the commencement of the hearing, all allegations against Anthony Johnson were dropped by the Florida Real Estate Commission. The issues raised under the five counts of the Administrative Complaint were as follows: Whether Barry P. Rifkin and Flag were guilty of negligence and breach of trust in a real estate transaction by violating a duty imposed upon them by law and the terms of a listing contract by allowing Bartley C. Johnson to handle a closing and prepare a closing statement reflecting the erroneous proration of taxes, and failing to refund the excess taxes upon demand by the Sanchez's contrary to 475.25(1)(a), F.S. Whether Bartley Johnson failed to account for and deliver upon demand personal property in the form of money which he had in his possession and which was not his property or was not property which he was entitled to retain contrary to 475.25(1)(c), F.S. Whether Barry P. Rifkin and Bartley Johnson were guilty of fraud and concealment by not revealing to the Sanchez's that Bartley Johnson was a licensed real estate salesman contrary to the provision of 475.25(1)(a), F.S. Whether Barry P. Rifkin and Flag were found guilty of misconduct by the Florida Real Estate Commission warranting suspension of their licenses on August 8, 1975. Whether Barry P. Rifkin and Flag if found guilty of counts one and three, would be guilty of a second offense warranting suspension of their registration and have demonstrated a course of conduct and practices which show that they are incompetent, negligent, dishonest and untruthful and that money, property, transactions and rights of investors are those with whom they may sustain a confidential relationship may not be entrusted to them whereupon their registrations should be revoked pursuant to 475.25(3), F.S.
Findings Of Fact Barry P. Rifkin is a registered real estate broker as stipulated by Counsel for Rifkin and Counsel for the Commission. Bartley Johnson is a licensed real estate salesman as stipulated by Bartley Johnson and Counsel for the Commission. Flag Realty, Inc. is a registered real estate broker corporation as stipulated by Counsel for Flag and Counsel for the Commission. At no time has Bartley Johnson been employed by or working for Barry P. Rifkin or Flag. About February 11, 1974 Vince Zarra, a salesman for Flag Realty, Inc. entered into an exclusive right of sale contract with Mr. and Mrs. Armando J. Sanchez (hereinafter referred as Sanchez) to sell certain real property located in Putnam County. Subsequently, on or about April 29, 1974 Bartley Johnson and his wife, Dorothy M. Johnson, signed a deposit receipt contract to purchase the aforesaid property from Sanchez for $12,000. Said contract for purchase was negotiated by Vince Zarra, salesman for Flag Realty, Inc. Prior to July 16, 1974, Vince Zarra arranged for a closing in the real estate transaction described above between Bartley C. Johnson and Sanchez. This closing was to take place on July 16, 1974 in the office of Flag Realty., Inc. Vince Zarra was not present at the closing and made no arrangements for Flag to be represented at the closing but did advise a secretary at the Flag office to expect the arrival of the parties. Bartley Johnson arrived at the closing first and obtained certain data from the files of Flag from their secretary. Subsequently, the Sanchez's arrived at the Flag office, unaware that Zarra was not going to be present at the closing. The Sanchez's were greeted by Johnson and shown certain papers related to the closing. These papers indicated a purchase price of some $600 less than the contract price of $12,000. This $600 reduction was represented by Johnson to be the Sanchez cost of filling certain portions of the property. The Sanchez's did not agree to the reduction in the contract price but demanded and received the full $12,000 contract price. The Sanchez's had had prepared by an out-of-town attorney a proposed closing statement which prorated the various costs of the transaction to include the real property taxes. Johnson controverted the proration of the real estate taxes as presented in the proposed closing statement. Johnson attempted to determine the tax assessment for 1974 on the real property in question. Sanchez although not in agreement with the proration of the taxes, but, in an effort to conclude the closing, accepted proration of the taxes in accordance with the figures provided by Bartley Johnson. Rifkin arrived at the Flag office after Bartley Johnson and the Sanchez's. Upon his arrival, Rifkin was made aware that the Johnsons and Sanchez's were closing on their real estate transaction and that Vince Zarra was not present. Rifkin introduced himself to the Sanchez's and Johnson, who he already knew, and advised the parties that he was available if they needed him. He subsequently wrote checks from Flag's account necessary to complete the transaction; however, he did not participate in the closing. Although Rifkin had known Bartley Johnson and Anthony Johnson, his son, Rifkin did not know that Bartley Johnson was a licensed real estate salesman. Johnson did not advise the Sanchez's of the fact that he was a licensed real estate salesman until after the closing. Within days after the closing, Sanchez began to make inquiries as to what the actual 1974 taxes were. He eventually determined that the proration of the taxes at the closing were incorrect, whereupon he made demands upon Johnson and Zarra for a refund of the excess taxes he had been assessed at closing. At the time of the final hearing in this cause Sanchez had not received a refund of the excess taxes assessed at closing. Bartley Johnson asserted at hearing that the property purchased was not as represented by the Sanchez's and that he had advised them by letter that he was willing to reconvey to them their property in return for his money. However, because of the misrepresentations he would not repay them the taxes. Exhibit A, an Order of Dismissal and Final Order of the Florida Real Estate Commission, was presented as a joint exhibit of the Florida Real Estate Commission, Barry P. Rifkin and Flag. The Order of Dismissal states in pertinent part: "It is, therefore, ORDERED, that the above information be, and the same is hereby dismissed."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer finds the allegations contained in counts two, three, four and five unfounded and recommends that they be dismissed; and further the Hearing Officer finds that the allegations contained in count one were proven; however, the fact that Barry Rifkin was present and did offer his services if needed must be considered in mitigation together with the fact that the parties did tacitedly agree to the disbursement of the funds as presented in the closing statement. Based upon the factors in mitigation, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the registration of Barry P. Rifkin and Flag Realty not be suspended but that they be required to refund the excess taxes paid by the Sanchez's. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of August, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Barry D. Schreiber, Esquire 2020 Northeast 163rd Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Bartley C. Johnson Ethel Birmingham 655 Northeast 123rd Street Miami, Florida 33162 Charles Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Petitioner meets the qualifications for licensure as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact On June 13, 1988, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. In responding to question 14(a) of the application, Petitioner answered that his license, as a real estate broker, had been revoked for non-payment of an administrative fine. (Respondent's exhibit 1). Petitioner attached to his application a copy of a transcript of an administrative hearing held in DOAH Case No. 84-0981. A final order was entered in that case based on a stipulation wherein Petitioner agreed to pay an administrative fine of $500 within 30 days of entry of the final order. Petitioner has not paid the administrative fine as he agreed. Petitioner admitted during hearing that he had not paid the fine and made an offer during the hearing herein to pay that fine in as much as he failed to pay it earlier since he did not have the wherewithal to pay the fine. Petitioner is now employed as a sales representative with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. 1/ Petitioner's license as a real estate broker was revoked by Respondent based on his failure to pay an administrative fine imposed in an earlier case (DOAH Case No. 86-145, Respondent's exhibit 2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman be DENIED. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this of 27th day of January, 1989. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensed barber in the State of New York where he has 30 years experience in men's hair styling. He also maintains a residence in Pompano Beach, Florida. Petitioner was convicted of attempted grand larceny, third degree, in the State of New York in 1978. The offense involved assisting his employee in attempting to defraud an insurance company. Petitioner was fined $350 for committing this offense, which is a Class A misdemeanor. He was issued a Certificate of Relief from Disabilities by the State of New York on September 25, 1978. A licensed Florida real estate broker and a building contractor testified on behalf of Petitioner. The broker has known Petitioner for over five years and trusts him sufficiently to employ him in her realty business if he is granted a real estate salesman's license. The building contractor has known Petitioner for nine years and has found him to be honest and reliable. Petitioner also introduced twelve letters of recommendation submitted by business and professional persons. These individuals have known Petitioner for substantial periods, and uniformly conclude that he is honest and trustworthy. They base their conclusions on extensive personal contact with Petitioner, as well as their knowledge of his general reputation.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Anthony A. Deriggi for registration as a real estate salesman be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed real estate salesman, having been issued license number 0073256 authorizing his practice in such a capacity in the State of Florida. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the licensure and practice standards embodied in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, for realtors in the State of Florida. From approximately April 16, 1977, through November 17, 1977, the Respondent, acting in the capacity of a real estate salesman, was employed by a broker by the name of Irwin Kane and Wintex Realty Corporation of Miami, Florida. That entity with Broker Kane was involved in the advertisement, promotion and sale of parcels of unimproved land in west Texas. The Respondent's duties involved making long-distance telephone calls to prospective purchasers of that land (in Cochran County, Texas), attempting to induce them to buy one or more parcels. In the course of this telephone sales campaign, in which the Respondent participated with approximately 20 salesmen making such phone calls, the Respondent used a script prepared for him by Irwin Kane, his employing broker. The script, in general, extolled the attributes of the unimproved property in an arid region of west Texas, representing that the land possessed favorable climatic conditions, water supply and soil conditions for agricultural purposes and was near property in which oil companies were interested. The Respondent contacted a potential buyer by phone who lived in Wisconsin and attempted to persuade the buyer to purchase a parcel of the property through use of the prepared "script" given him by his broker. That potential customer apparently became suspicious of the sales method, manner or assurances given by phone and ultimately was instrumental, along with the United State Attorney, in the filing of an indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, charging the Respondent (along with his broker, principals of the corporation and other salesmen) with the use of wire communication in furtherance of a scheme to defraud potential purchasers of real estate in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. In that proceeding, the Respondent initially professed his lack of knowledge of the truth or falsity of the representations made in the prepared script his broker gave him and required him to use concerning the attributes of the west Texas land involved. Due in part to a dearth of financial resources to devote to litigation, the Respondent ultimately pled nolo contendere on November 7, 1978, to the charge involving using wire communication in a scheme to defraud. He was ultimately found guilty and was placed on probation for three years, with imposition of a sentence of imprisonment being suspended by the court. The Respondent had no part in the preparation of any written materials or "script" which he employed in making the telephone conversation and representations describing the supposed attributes of the property he was attempting to market on behalf of his employer, Broker Irwin Kane and Wintex Realty Corporation. That script was prepared by his broker or others and the Respondent read or consulted from it as he was communicating with prospective purchasers, but had no actual knowledge of its truthfulness or falsity with regard to the representations contained therein. He was shown to have made no representation or verbal communication which he knew to be false when he made it. The Respondent has been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding involving the same factual transaction in the past which culminated in a final order dismissing that administrative complaint. 1/
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and the evidence in the record, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Ed Rich, be found guilty of a violation of Section 475.25(i)(f), Florida Statutes, and that the penalty of a two (2) year suspension of licensure be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1983, 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 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joel S. Fass, Esquire 626 Northeast 124th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Mr. Ed Rich 1950 South Ocean Drive Hallendale, Florida 33009 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Alvin D. Hestekind was licensed as a real estate salesman in Florida and was employed by a licensed real estate broker, Phillip W. Cunnagin, in his Palm Harbor office. In September, 1982, Peter Maranda, a friend of Respondent, was visiting in Florida and was looking for property to purchase. Respondent's office had a listing on property at 40 North Louisiana Court. Respondent heard the owner would take less than the asking price and suggested Mr. Maranda submit an offer $4,000 under the asking price. Respondent typed up the offer, Maranda gave him $100 deposit for which Respondent wrote a receipt; and Respondent forthwith presented the offer, which was immediately rejected. At this time Respondent tore up the contract but did not refund the deposit to Maranda or place it in escrow with Respondent's broker. A few days later Respondent drove Maranda to the airport and Maranda returned to Minnesota. Respondent testified that Maranda stayed with him while he was in New Port Richey and never asked for the return of the deposit. Respondent told Petitioner's investigator that he retained the $100 deposit for the week's room and board he provided Maranda. After waiting a few weeks for the return of his deposit, Maranda sent a memo (Exhibit 1) to the Cunnagin real estate office demanding return of his $100 deposit. When Cunnigan questioned Respondent about the transaction, Respondent told him that Respondent had given the deposit back to Maranda and had torn up the offer and thrown it in the wastebasket. Cunnagin wrote on December 20, 1982 (Exhibit 2), to tell Maranda Respondent had been fired from his real estate office, that Respondent said he returned the deposit to Maranda, and that, if he had not returned the deposit he could be in danger of losing his real estate license. Maranda responded by letter dated December 30, 1982 (Exhibit 3), again stating that Respondent had not returned the deposit and all he wanted was his $100 "no more, no less." Respondent acknowledged receiving the $100 deposit and writing a receipt from his personal receipt book; and further testified that he himself typed up the contract at his home, that there was nobody at the office to whom the deposit could be given, and that, when the offer was summarily rejected, he tore up the contract. He further testified Maranda never asked him for return of the deposit, that he understood Maranda was still interested in buying property in Florida after he departed, and that he was holding the money to use as a deposit for other property Maranda would be interested in buying. He testified that if Maranda wanted his $100 back all he had to do was ask him and he would return it. Respondent has been licensed since 1979 but has been actively associated with a real estate office for only six months. His license is currently inactive.
