Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
ROBERT O. FIGUEREDO vs. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, 77-002289 (1977)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-002289 Latest Update: Mar. 22, 1978

The Issue Whether petitioner's application for registration as a real estate salesman, pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, should be approved.

Findings Of Fact Petitioner field applications for registration as a real estate salesman with respondent on October 10, 1977. Question 16 of the application reads as follows: 16. Have you, in this state, operated, attempted to operate, or held yourself out as being entitled to operate, as a real estate salesman or broker, within one year next prior to the filing of this application without then being the holder of a valid current registration certificate authorizing you to do so? The petitioner answered "no" to Question 16. On December 8, 1977, respondent Florida Real Estate Commission issued an order denying the application based on its determination that the applicant had operated, attempted to operate or held himself out as a real estate broker or salesman within the one year period prior to filing his application. Petitioner thereafter requested a hearing in the matter. (Exhibit 1) Petitioner is the president of Marketing Institute Corporation of the Americas, Ltd. of San Jose, Costa Rica. (MICA) The firm operates as a real estate sales organization under the laws of Costa Rica, and is owned by Insco S.A., a Costa Rican holding company. (Testmony of McIntire, Figueredo) In 1975, petitioner became associated with William W. Landa, president of Costa del Sol, a condominium project in Miami, Florida. His function was to produce sales of condominium units as a result of sales efforts in Latin America. Part of the informal arrangement was the petitioner occupied a rental villa at the condominium project. His success in producing sales was limited and, as a result, the association was terminated sometime in 1976. In a letter to Lands, dated January 21, 1977, petitioner sought an accounting of expenses incurred in the operation and stated that he had produced three purchasers for which commissions were payable at the rate of "10% for foreign sales and 5% on domestic sales." Although no explanation of the terms "foreign sales" and "domestic sales" was presented, Landa testified at the hearing that petitioner did not sell in Florida for Costa del Sol. (Testimony of Landa, Figueredo, Exhibits 2-3) On December 1. 1976, the receiver in bankruptcy of the estates of Grandlich Development Corporation and Fisher Development Corporation, Fred Stanton Smith, president of the Keyes Company, Miami, Florida, Wrote petitioner and offered to pay his firm a 10% commission on "all sales closed by you of all Commodore Club Condominiums sold to your prospects." The commission was to be payable to MICA through its agent in the United States, Transcontinental Properties, Inc. of Miami, Florida, a corporate broker, The Commodore Club is a condominium project located at Key Biscayn, Florida. Hemisphere Equity Investors, Inc. was the registered broker for the sales of the condominiums and kept sales agents on the premises. Smith instructed Hemisphere to cooperate with foreign brokers in the sales of the properties. Petitioner proceeded under this arrangement to obtain and refer prospective foreign purchasers to Transcontinental who arranged to show the condominium units to the clients and consummate any resulting sales. Although petitioner had desk space in the Transcontinental office from September, 1976, to August, 1977, he was not supposed to show properties to clients or be involve in any real estate sales functions. In September, 1976, the president of Transcontinental placed a telephone call to respondent's legal office at Winter Park, Florida and ascertained that commissions could be paid to a foreign broker. However, he was informed by the Commission representative that it was a "gray" area and, although the foreign representative could serve as an interpreter for foreign clients during transactions in the United States, he could not perform any of the sales functions himself in Florida. Sales were made in this manner and commission checks were paid to petitioner's firm during the period January - September, 1977. (Testimony of Smith, McIntire, Figueredo, Exhibits 4, 5, 12, 13, 15) On July 1, 1976, Alexander Sandru purchased a condominium at the Commordore Club through the Keyes Company as broker. He was a friend of petitioner's from Caracas, Venezuela, and the latter had recommended his purchase of the condominium. However, petitioner was not in the United States at the time Sandru viewed the property and purchased it. Petitioner claimed a commission on the sale and it was paid to his firm through Transcontinental's predecessor company. A dispute arose over the payment of the commission because a saleswoman of Hemisphere Equity Investors, Inc. had shown the property to Sandru and assumed that she would earn the commission on any resulting sale. (Testimony of Lundberg, Nelson, Murragy, Exhibits 8-11) On several occasions in 1976 and 1977, petitioner accompanied Latin American individuals to the Commodore Club where a representative of Hemisphere showed them various condominium units. During this time, petitioner would inquire concerning maintenance charges and the like and transmit such information to the individuals in Spanish. Several of these persons were connected with petitioner's foreign firm and were not prospective purchasers. (Testimony of Lundberg, Figueredo, Exhibit 7) On January 30, 1977, Insco S.A. entered into a purchase agreement for a Commodore Club condominium unit. Petitioner signed the agreement on behalf of his firm MICA as broker for the transaction. However, the deal was never consummated. (Testimony of Figeredo, Exhibit 14)

Recommendation That Petitioner's application for registration as a real estate salesman under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, be denied. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of March, 1978. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard J. Mandell, Esquire 748 Seybold Building Miami, Florida 33132

Florida Laws (1) 475.01
# 1
JERRY ROSS SMART vs. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, 81-000271 (1981)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 81-000271 Latest Update: Dec. 17, 1982

Findings Of Fact Jerry Ross Smart was a registered real estate broker with the Florida Real Estate Commission prior to the revocation of his registration by final order entered May 23, 1977. The revocation was invoked pursuant to a multiple count disciplinary complaint under Section 475.25, Florida Statutes, involving the Petitioner's failure to escrow funds upon his receipt of them and failure to properly account for those funds, including co-mingling them with his personal funds. The Petitioner's proscribed course of conduct in the transaction which ultimately resulted in his license revocation also lead to criminal prosecution for attempted grand larceny. The Petitioner pled no contest to the criminal charges and was found guilty of attempted larceny, but adjudication was withheld and he was placed upon probation for one year and ordered to make restitution of $5,000. The sentence was imposed on June 29, 1976, almost five years ago. The Petitioner successfully completed his probationary period and made restitution within the time period required by borrowing the required funds from a bank which loan has subsequently also been repaid. He was terminated from probation on June 4, 1977 just prior to his license revocation by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Since the revocation of his real estate broker's license, the Petitioner has been, of course, unable to practice his profession and has had difficulty finding other steady employment due to public knowledge of his criminal conviction, with the result that his and his family's financial security has never since been stabilized or firmly assured. Nevertheless, the Petitioner has steadfastly strived at numerous jobs in an effort to support his family of seven and to provide several of his five daughters with a college education. These jobs included employment as a salesman for a radio station, a traveling salesman for a tool company, a traveling salesman for a chemical company, and a manager for a real estate developer. For approximately the last two years the Petitioner has worked at a rather grueling job as a newspaper delivery man for the Orlando Sentinel Star. He has been required by this employment to arise at 2:00 a.m. seven days a week in order to deliver newspapers for several routes for his employer, for which he has been able to earn approximately $25,000 per year to furnish support for his large family as well as higher education for two of his children. At the hearing, his immediate supervisor, Ralph Magio, described the Petitioner as a very trustworthy employee, possessed of substantial initiative and fortitude as evidenced by his working at such a strenuous job in his middle age. During the entire two years he has worked at this job (subsequent to his revocation and criminal conviction), the Petitioner has regularly collected, handled and accounted for substantial sums of money for this employer and his supervisor with never an irregularity or questionable incident. The witness established that he had no qualms in continuing to so employ the Petitioner and trust him in accounting for his money. This witness established that he, as well as mutual friends and business associates of he and the Petitioner regards the Petitioner as honest, fair and trustworthy in all monetary transactions and such other incidents of business dealing as he has been able to be involved in as a mere employee. The Petitioner has been unable, primarily for financial reasons, to operate his own independent business in his community since his criminal conviction. Former Sheriff Melvin Coleman of Orange County, Florida has known the Petitioner both socially and with knowledge of his business reputation before and after his criminal conviction. Mr. Coleman described in detail the Petitioner's initiative, fortitude and his sacrifices of many of life's pleasurable aspects necessitated by his being forced to accept whatever jobs he could find in order to support his family. His testimony establishes that he, as well as their mutual friends, continues to hold the Petitioner in high regard insofar as his reputation for honesty and trustworthiness are concerned, even among those mutual friends and professional acquaintances who are aware of the Petitioner's criminal conviction. Witness Jerry Behn is a licensed real estate broker of long standing. He described his former business relationships with the Petitioner when he was a licensed broker, as well as their personal friendship. Mr. Behn dealt with the Petitioner as a fellow real estate broker prior to his revocation without any qualm, experiencing no breach of trust or failure by the Petitioner to measure up to the standards of integrity required of a broker. This witness demonstrated that be and others in the profession, who have known the Petitioner both before and after the episode leading to his revocation, would trust the Petitioner in further real estate dealings and this witness supports his application for registration. Mr. Behn's trust and belief in the Petitioner's integrity has been buttressed by his knowledge of the Petitioner's rather harrowing financial circumstances and the perseverance associated with his employment at mediocre, financially inadequate jobs such as the strenuous occupation of delivering newspapers at all hours of the day and night seven days a week in order to support his family, when more rewarding jobs are denied him. He is impressed with the humility and courage demonstrated by the Petitioner's supporting a large family with such difficulty after having become accustomed to a high income and favorable station in life prior to his revocation of the privilege of practicing his profession. The Petitioner testified on his own behalf regarding his qualifications to be a real estate salesman and the factors incident to his rehabilitation since the revocation of his broker's license. The totality of his testimony and general demeanor reveal that the acute embarrassment and subsequent financial and familial hardships and sacrifices he and his family have endured since his downfall almost five years ago have instilled in him a valuable lesson which will constantly serve as a reminder to him of the standards of conduct required of one licensed in the real estate profession. He described the numerous mediocre jobs he has had to accept since his revocation in order to support his family, which have rendered his and his family's existence especially trying, since they were accustomed to a relatively high income and social station prior to his revocation which they have been unable to enjoy since. In describing the various unrewarding jobs he has held and the arduous nature of his current employment, the Petitioner indicated regret at not being able to resume his involvement in civic affairs and service organizations, but that his working schedule and the difficult hours it entails has prevented him from doing so. He is active in his church however and his testimony and demeanor corroborates that of the showing by the other witnesses on his behalf that he is a responsible, mature husband and father and that he heartily regrets the aberrational behavior he engaged in on the isolated occasion in 1976. He feels that the hard lesson learned as a result will render him more capable of adhering to the strict standards required in the real estate profession. He has completed all required educational courses to qualify as a real estate salesman.

Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered approving the application of Jerry Ross Smart for licensing as a real estate salesman. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th 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 11th day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire 602 East Central Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32801 Linda A. Lawson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Office of Attorney General The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION JERRY ROSS SMART, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-271 BOARD OF REAL ESTATE, DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. /

Florida Laws (3) 120.57475.17475.25
# 4
ALAN KATZ vs. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, 82-000001 (1982)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 82-000001 Latest Update: Feb. 22, 1982

Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Alan D. Katz, filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman on April 10, 1981, with Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Hoard of Real Estate. Question six of the application requires the applicant to answer whether he had ever been arrested without regard to whether he was convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled. Petitioner responded in the affirmative and attached a list of six prior arrests. All arrests occurred between the years 1958 and 1969. They included possession of marijuana (less than one gram) -1958; attempted petty larceny (misdemeanor) -1962; vagrancy- 1964; embezzlement and larceny-1965; flight to avoid prosecution-1965; and improperly filling out an application for a work card-1969. All charges were dismissed or dropped except the possession of marijuana and attempted petty larceny. For these offenses Katz was fined $50 and placed on probation, respectively. Petitioner has had no arrests since 1969. 1/ After reviewing the application, Respondent concluded that by virtue of the response to question six Petitioner had failed to demonstrate that be was "honest, truthful, trustworthy and of good character, and (had) a good reputation for fair dealing." It denied the application by letter dated July 23, 1981. The denial precipitated the instant hearing. Petitioner, 46-years old, is currently unemployed. He now considers Hallandale, Florida, to be his permanent home. He has worked in various phases of the real estate business since 1964. For the last eight years, his specialty has been vacation time sharing. Most recently, he was employed in Europe by Royal Aloha Vacation Club where he was responsible for investing 100,000 pounds (approximately $225,000 U.S. currency) on behalf of his employer to establish its European time-sharing operations, and in "setting-up" sales for its broker. Prior to that he was employed in Las Vegas, Nevada, by Passport to Pleasure in the unit acquistion phase of its operations. In that capacity, he was entrusted with dealing in small amounts of cash (less than $5,000) and making deposits on behalf of his employer. Before that, he worked in real estate sales for one of Nevada's largest developers. If the application is granted, Petitioner will associate with a broker and specialize in resort time sharing. He has been offered other real estate employment opportunities (e.g., General Development Corporation) but wishes to restrict his activities to the time-sharing field. Letters offered into evidence as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 attest to Katz's honesty, integrity and ability. Although Petitioner has been arrested on at least six occasions, all cases were dismissed except for two minor misdemeanor charges, the last occurring in 1963. He attributes those arrests to immaturity during the early part of his adulthood. His conduct since 1969 is unblemished and sufficient time has lapsed to rehabilitate himself and gain the necessary maturity to operate successfully and honestly in the real estate profession.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Alan D. Katz for licensure as a real estate salesman be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 1982

Florida Laws (3) 120.57475.17475.25
# 5
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. GEORGE F. LEWIS, 82-000204 (1982)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 82-000204 Latest Update: Sep. 24, 1982

The Issue The issues presented in this case concern an Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent, accusing the Respondent of failing to account or deliver, upon demand, money which he would not be entitled to retain, which money was due and owing to a real estate salesman employee of the Respondent broker, all in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes.

Findings Of Fact On December 9, 1981, Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, now Florida Real Estate Commission, filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent alleging the violation referred to in the Issues statement of this Recommended Order. Respondent who is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0137645, requested a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, to resolve the factual disputes between the parties and the case was subsequently referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration. This request for assignment of a Hearing Officer was received on January 28, 1982, by the Division and a formal hearing was conducted on April 29, 1982. Notwithstanding notice provided to the parties, Respondent did not attend the hearing. At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, George F. Lewis, was the record broker for George F. Lewis Realty, Inc., located at 4237 Cape Coral Bridge Road, Fort Myers, Florida, 33907, the address listed with Petitioner as the business premises for Respondent. On December 2, 1981, Eleni Kaklis, a licensed Florida real estate salesman, employed by George Lewis Realty, Inc., while acting in the capacity of real estate salesman for that corporation, participated in the execution of a contract for sale and purchase in Lee County, Florida. The sellers were James Henry and Ruth Elizabeth Aalderink, and the purchasers were Stanley M. and Mary Jo Shaver. The terms and conditions of that contract may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, which is a copy of the contract admitted as evidence. The contract concerned residential property, and that property had been the subject of a listing through a real estate firm unaffiliated with the Lewis corporation. The listing broker was Aloia Realty. Kaklis had reviewed the multiple listings book in her office with the purchasers and had shown several other residences before the Shavers decided to purchase the Aalderink property. She also prepared the purchase contract which has been discussed. Respondent was not involved in the transaction, in the sense of actively showing property or consulting with the clients or in the preparation of the contract. A real estate closing was held on the Aalderink property in February, 1981. On February 17, 1981, George Lewis Realty, Inc., was paid a commission in the amount of $1,587.00, which represented the fifty (50) percent commission entitlement for the selling broker, with an equal amount being due the listing broker, Aloia Realty. The money paid the Lewis corporation was by a check which check was cashed by George Lewis. See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3. In keeping with the terms and conditions of the employment agreement between Kaklis and George F. Lewis Realty, Inc., set forth in Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6, specifically the numbered paragraphs 4 and 5, at page 11 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, Kaklis was to receive fifty (50) percent of the commission paid to George F. Lewis Realty, Inc., less franchise fees due to Better Homes and Gardens. (Petitioners Exhibit No. 5, is constituted of a copy of excerpts of the contract between Kaklis and Lewis Realty, Inc., in the person of George Lewis, and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 is a format of the complete contract signed by Kaklis with the corporation through the offices or George Lewis, broker for the corporation.) Respondent was responsible for and obligated to Kaklis for the payment of her commission fee, which had been given to him by Kaklis by the delivery of a title company check which has been discussed herein. Nonetheless, Kaklis did not receive the commission fee for the sale of the Aalderink property and has been refused that commission in the face of repeated demands, on at least three (3) occasions. Respondent has always answered that request by stating that he did not have the money.

Florida Laws (2) 120.57475.25
# 6
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. IRVING Z. MANN, STANLEY M. ROBBINS, ET AL., 78-000976 (1978)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 78-000976 Latest Update: Sep. 05, 1978

Findings Of Fact I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation was at all times material to this proceeding a corporation registered as a real estate broker with the Commission, with its principal business address at 240 North Washington Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, 33577. Irving Z. Mann was at all times material to this proceeding a real estate broker registered with the Commission, and the holder of two registration certificates: one as an individual broker with an office at 2197 Princeton Street, Sarasota, Florida 33577; and the other license as president and active broker of I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation. Stanley M. Robbins was at all times material to this proceeding a registered real estate salesman in the employ of I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation. At all times material to this proceeding Fritz K. Grolock was a registered real estate salesman, and from April 12, 1972, to February 2, 1976, he was registered with the Commission as a real estate salesman in the employ of I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation. From February 2, 1976, to November 29, 1976, Mr. Grolock was registered with the Commission as a real estate salesman in the employ of I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. At all times material to this proceeding Irving Z. Mann was president, and Stanley M. Robbins was vice president, assistant secretary, treasurer and general sales manager of I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation which was the owner and developer of the Palma Sola Harbor condominium development in Sarasota County, Florida. On or before February 4, 1976, Mr. Grolock and Mr. Robbins had agreed that Mr. Grolock would receive for his services as a real estate salesman for I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. a three percent commission based upon the sales price of individual condominium units sold at Palma Sola Harbor. Commissions were to be paid to Mr.Grolock at the end of the month in which the sale of each such unit was consummated. Mr. Robbins explained to Mr. Grolock at the time of this agreement that I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. was short of cash, and that should Grolock make any sales, he might have to wait for some indefinite period of time to receive his commission. Mr. Grolock indicated his willingness at the time to proceed on that basis. No testimony was adduced, and no documentary evidence was offered to establish that Mr. Grolock was employed by I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., at any time material to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint. During the course of his employment as a real estate salesman with I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc. Mr. Grolock solicited and obtained a real property sales contract between Elmer C. Sutter and Ruth W. Sutter, as purchasers, and I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., as seller, for a condominium unit in the Palma Sola Harbor project. The purchase price of the unit was $26,450, and the evidence established that Mr.Grolock is due, and has not been paid, a commission of $793.50 for that sale. During the course of his employment as a real estate salesman with I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc., Mr. Grolock solicited and obtained a real property sales contract between Martin G. Tepatti and Dorothy L. Tepatti, as purchasers, and I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., as seller, for a condominium unit in the Palma Sola Harbor project. The purchase price of the unit was $37,450, and the evidence established that Mr. Grolock is due, and has not been paid, a commission of $1,123.50 for that sale. During the course of his employment as a real estate salesman with I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., Mr. Grolock solicited and obtained real property sales contract (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) dated April 29, 1976, between Donald F. Brown and Barbara S. Brown, as purchasers, and I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc. as seller, for a condominium unit in the Palma Sola Harbor project. The purchase price of the unit was $37,450, and the evidence established that Mr. Grolock is due, and has not been paid, a real estate commission of $1,123.50 for that sale. Mr. Grolock did not attend the closing of any of the three transactions referenced above and described in the Administrative Complaint. However, the only evidence of record establishes that these transactions resulted in "negative closings" that is, after deductions of amounts due on the pre-existing construction mortgage, charges for documentary stamp taxes, tax pro-rations and the like, no funds remained for disbursement to I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc. for payment to Mr. Grolock as a commission. Neither Mr. Mann, Mr. Robbins, I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, nor I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. received any funds at the closing of these transactions. Some time after the closings of the three transactions described in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Grolock spoke with Mr. Robbins concerning non- payment of his commissions. Mr. Robbins explained t6hat the three transactions had resulted in "negative closings," but that if Mr. Grolock would be patient he would be paid his commissions in due course. Mr. Robbins discussed the commissions once or twice thereafter with Mr. Grolock, each time explaining that the company was short of money but that Mr. Grolock would be paid eventually. Because of poor market conditions in the condominium industry, I.Z. Mann Realty & Associates experienced financial problems which ultimately resulted in the company's insolvency. The company eventually voluntarily relinquished its assets to creditors, or had its interest in those assets foreclosed, and at the present time is no longer actively engaged in business. By letters to Mr. Robbins dated December 7, 1976, and January 19, 1977, (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) Mr. Grolock demanded that some arrangements be made for payment of his past due commissions. When he received no reply to these letters, Mr. Grolock sent a letter (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) to Mr. Mann dated April 25, 1977, listing the transactions which resulted in $3,040.50 being owed to him for real estate commissions. Shortly after receiving this letter, Mr. Mann telephoned Mr. Grolock, on May 5, 1977, and told him ". . . the company had been inactive for a long time, but that I would see to it that he would get paid eventually. Just give us a chance to get some money to do it." (Transcript, p. 63). Mr. Grolock agreed at that time to wait for payment of his commissions. Some time after his May 5, 1977, telephone conversation with Mr. Mann, Mr. Grolock filed a complaint with the Commission ". . . [b]ecause I found no other recourse. . . [t]o obtain my commission . . . ." (Transcript, p. 26).

Florida Laws (2) 120.57475.25
# 7
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. DONALD ALLEN AND CONDO RESORTS MANAGEMENT, INC., 83-001160 (1983)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 83-001160 Latest Update: Apr. 04, 1984

Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondents were licensed as alleged. In 1980 Respondent Allen conceived the idea of setting up a computer listing service for condo owners desiring to rent their Florida condos. He formed VCI to act as an interface between the owners and travel agents or brokers desiring rental for their customers. VCI was never licensed as a real estate broker nor was it ever held out to be so licensed. Respondent mailed out forms to condo owners to complete if they wanted to have their condos placed in the exchange bank to be established by VCI (Exhibit 6). He also prepared a Computerized Reservations Handbook (Exhibit 5) which was also sent to condo owners. Among those responding to this solicitation were Day and Forsgren, who sent VCI $60 each. Because the expenses of setting up VCI, mailing out material, renting computer, and renting office space far exceeded the income received from those owners accepting VCI's offer and the capital with which Respondent started VCI, the company ran out of funds before the catalog was published. The computer was repossessed in December of 1981 after having been rented for one year, thereby removing the tool which was to keep track of the condos available for lease. Some $4,128 was collected from condo owners before VCI had to be abandoned for lack of funds. Ms. Gertrude Naumann, broker at Daisy Realty, Inc., saw the VCI brochure and contacted Respondent. She had contacts with Canadian travel agencies to whom she had rented condominiums in the Orlando area in the past and was interested in expanding to the Clearwater-St. Petersburg area. After receiving an advance deposit from the Canadian travel agencies, Naumann met with Respondent in her office and drafted a contract, Exhibit 1, and gave Respondent a binder check in the amount of $5,000. Although Ms. Naumann testified that she understood, and specifically told Respondent, that the $5,000 deposit must be placed in escrow, the rough draft of the contract (Exhibit 4) that became Exhibit 1 when retyped, shows the words "non-interest bearing trust account" to have been deleted, and the sentence changed to read "said binder to be held in a bearing account and to be used only upon completion of rental arrangements and for telephone security, cleaning fees and not to be applied toward rents. By this contract Respondent agreed to block out and have available 20 one-bedroom units and 5 two-bedroom units from January 30, 1982, to March 30, 1982, and Daisy agreed that 30 days prior to January 30, 1982, Daisy would notify VCI the number of units actually required so units not required could be released for renting to others. By letter dated January 21, 1982 (Exhibit 3) Daisy Realty advised VCI, inter alia, that for the period January 30 to February 20 to release all units-- none would be required. Ms. Naumann testified that her office made frequent telephone calls to Respondent during December, 1981, and January, 1982, modifying the number of units desired for rental. Respondent denies receiving any such calls or that he received notice that none of the units blocked out from January 30 through February 20, 1982, would be released until he received Daisy's hand-delivered letter on January 21, 1982. After receiving Exhibit 3, Respondent considered Exhibit 1 void because of the breach by Daisy but leased units to clients produced by the Canadian travel agents. These leases were conducted through Condo Resorts Management, a real estate company. The evidence was not disputed that these rentals were paid to Respondent both by the Canadian travel agencies and by Daisy. In several instances, the rental for the units came to Condo Resorts Management from or through Daisy. On at least one occasion, Daisy deducted the commission from the rental received before forwarding it to Condo Resorts Management. When Naumann was unsuccessful in getting the $5,000 deposit returned, she filed a complaint with the Florida Real Estate Commission and, following an investigation, the Administrative Complaints here being considered were filed. Ms. Naumann has made no attempt to recover the deposit or commissions by instituting civil proceedings against Allen. The contract (Exhibit 1) provides that VCI would make available 20 one-bedroom units and 5 two-bedroom units for the period January 30 to March 20, 1982, at a total rental of $75,048. The total rent paid Respondent based on the units actually rented was slightly more than $7,000.

Florida Laws (1) 475.25
# 10

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer