The Issue The two issues raised in this proceeding are: (1) whether the basis and reason Respondent, Vestcor Companies, d/b/a Madalyn Landings (Vestcor), terminated Petitioner, Carlos Gomez's (Petitioner), employment on June 28, 2002, was in retaliation for Petitioner's protected conduct during his normal course of employment; and (2) whether Vestcor committed unlawful housing practice by permitting Vestcor employees without families to reside on its property, Madalyn Landing Apartments, without paying rent, while requiring Vestcor employees with families to pay rent in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, and Chapter 760.23, Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the demeanor and candor of each witness while testifying, exhibits offered in support of and in opposition to the respective position of the parties received in evidence, stipulations of the parties, evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2002), and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant, material, and substantial facts are determined: Petitioner filed charges of housing discrimination against Vestcor with the Commission on August 30, 2002. Petitioner alleged that Vestcor discriminated against him based on his familial status and his June 28, 2002, termination was in retaliation for filing the charge of discrimination. Vestcor denied the allegations and contended that Petitioner's termination was for cause. Additionally, Vestcor maintained Petitioner relinquished his claim of retaliation before the final hearing; and under oath during his deposition, asserted he would not pursue a claim for retaliation. Petitioner was permitted to proffer evidence of retaliation because Vestcor terminated his employment. The Commission's Notice was issued on January 7, 2005. The parties agree that Petitioner was hired by Vestcor on June 25, 2001, as a leasing consultant agent for Madalyn Landing Apartments located in Palm Bay, Florida. Petitioner's job responsibilities as a leasing consultant agent included showing the property, leasing the property (apartment units), and assisting with tenant relations by responding to concerns and questions, and preparing and following up on maintenance orders. Petitioner had access to keys to all apartments on site. At the time of his hire, Petitioner was, as was all of Vestcor employees, given a copy of Vestcor's Employee Handbook. This handbook is required reading for each employee for personal information and familiarity with company policies and procedures, to include the company requirement that each employee personally telephone and speak with his/her supervisor when the employee, for whatever reason, could not appear at work as scheduled, which is a basis and cause for termination. The parties agree that Vestcor's handbook, among other things, contains company policies regarding equal employment; prohibition against unlawful conduct and appropriate workplace conduct; procedures for handling employee problems and complaints associated with their employment; and procedures for reporting illness or absences from work, which include personal notification to supervisors, and not messages left on the answering service. Failure to comply with employment reporting polices may result in progressive disciplinary action. The parties agree that employee benefits were also contained in the handbook. One such employee benefit, at issue in this proceeding, is the live-on-site benefit. The live-on- site benefit first requires eligible employees to complete a 90-day orientation period, meet the rental criteria for a tax credit property, and be a full-time employee. The eligible employee must pay all applicable security deposits and utility expenses for the live-on-site unit. Rent-free, live-on-site benefits are available only to employees who occupy the positions of (1) site community managers, (2) maintenance supervisors, and (3) courtesy officers. These individuals received a free two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment at the apartment complex in which they work as part of their employment compensation package. The rent-free, live-on-site benefit is not available for Vestcor's leasing consultant agent employees, such as Petitioner. On or about July 3, 2001, Petitioner entered into a lease agreement with Vestcor to move into Apartment No. 202-24 located at Madalyn Landing Apartments. The lease agreement ended on January 31, 2002. The lease agreement set forth terms that Petitioner was to receive a $50.00 monthly rental concession, which became effective on September 3, 2001. Although he was eligible for the 25-percent monthly rental concession, to have given Petitioner the full 25 percent of his monthly rental cost would have over-qualified Petitioner based upon Madalyn Landing Apartment's tax credit property status. Petitioner and Vestcor agreed he would receive a $50.00 monthly rental concession, thereby qualifying him as a resident on the property. Petitioner understood and accepted the fact that he did not qualify for rent-free, live-on-site benefits because of his employment status as a leasing consultant agent. Petitioner understood and accepted Vestcor's $50.00 monthly rental concession because of his employment status as a leasing consultant agent. The rental concession meant Petitioner's regular monthly rental would be reduced by $50.00 each month. On September 1, 2001, Henry Oliver was hired by Vestcor as a maintenance technician. Maintenance technicians do not qualify for rent-free, live-on-site benefits. At the time of his hire, Mr. Oliver did not live on site. As with other employees, to become eligible for the standard 25-percent monthly rental concession benefits, Mr. Oliver was required to complete a 90-day orientation period, meet the rental criteria for a tax credit property, be a full-time employee, and pay all applicable security deposits and utility expenses for the unit. On November 13, 2001, Michael Gomez, the brother of Petitioner (Mr. Gomez), commenced his employment with Vestcor as a groundskeeper. Groundskeepers did not meet the qualifications for rent-free, live-on-site benefits. At the time of his hire, Mr. Gomez did not live on site. As with other employees, to become eligible for the standard 25-percent monthly rental concession benefits, Mr. Gomez was required to complete a 90-day orientation period, meet the rental criteria for a tax credit property, be a full-time employee, and pay all applicable security deposits and utility expenses for the unit. On November 21, 2001, 81 days after his hire, Mr. Oliver commenced his lease application process to reside in Apartment No. 203-44 at Madalyn Landing Apartments. Mr. Oliver's leasing consultant agent was Petitioner in this cause. Like other eligible Vestcor employees and as a part of the lease application process, Mr. Oliver completed all required paperwork, which included, but not limited to, completing a credit check, employment verification, and income test to ensure that he was qualified to reside at Madalyn Landing Apartments. Fifteen days later, on November 28, 2001, Mr. Gomez commenced his lease application process to reside in Apartment No. 206-24 at Madalyn Landing Apartments. As part of the leasing process, Mr. Gomez, as other eligible Vestcor employees who intend to reside on Vestcor property, completed all necessary paperwork including, but not limited to, a credit check and employment verification and income test to ensure he was qualified to reside at Madalyn Landing Apartments. Included in the paperwork was a list of rental criteria requiring Mr. Gomez to execute a lease agreement to obligate himself to pay the required rent payment, consent to a credit check, pay an application fee and required security deposit, and agree not to take possession of an apartment until all supporting paperwork was completed and approved. Mr. Gomez's leasing consultant was Petitioner. On December 28, 2001, Petitioner signed a Notice to Vacate Apartment No. 206-24, effective February 1, 2002. The Notice to Vacate was placed in Vestcor's office files. Petitioner's reasons for vacating his apartment stated he "needed a yard, garage, more space, a big family room, and some privacy." Thirty-four days later, February 1, 2002, Mr. Gomez moved into Apartment No. 206-24 at Madalyn Landing Apartments without the approval or knowledge of Vestcor management. On January 9, 2002, a "Corrective Action Notice" was placed in Petitioner's employee file by his supervisor, Genea Closs. The notice cited two violations of Vestcor's policies and procedures. Specifically, his supervisor noted Petitioner did not collect administration fees from two unidentified rental units, and he had taken an unidentified resident's rental check home with him, rather than directly to the office as required by policy. As a direct result of those policy violations, Ms. Closs placed Petitioner on 180 days' probation and instructed him to re-read all Vestcor employees' handbook and manuals. Petitioner acknowledged receiving and understanding the warning. At the time she took the above action against Petitioner, there is no evidence that Ms. Closs had knowledge of Petitioner's past or present efforts to gather statements and other information from Mr. Gomez and/or Mr. Oliver in anticipation and preparation for his subsequent filing of claims of discrimination against Vestcor. Also, on January 9, 2002, Petitioner was notified that his brother, Mr. Gomez, did not qualify to reside at Madalyn Landing Apartments because of insufficient credit. Further, Petitioner was advised that should Mr. Gomez wish to continue with the application process, he would need a co-signer on his lease agreement or pay an additional security deposit. Mr. Gomez produced an unidentified co-signer, who also completed a lease application. On January 30, 2002, the lease application submitted by Mr. Gomez's co-signor was denied. As a result of the denial of Mr. Gomez's co-signor lease application, Vestcor did not approve Mr. Gomez's lease application. When he was made aware that his co-signor's application was denied and of management's request for him to pay an additional security deposit, as was previously agreed, Mr. Gomez refused to pay the additional security deposit. As a direct result of his refusal, his lease application was never approved, and he was not authorized by Vestcor to move into any Madalyn Landing's rental apartment units. At some unspecified time thereafter, Vestcor's management became aware that Mr. Gomez had moved into Apartment No. 206-24, even though he was never approved or authorized to move into an on site apartment. Vestcor's management ordered Mr. Gomez to remove his belongings from Apartment No. 206-24. Subsequent to the removal order, Mr. Gomez moved his belongings from Apartment No. 206-24 into Apartment No. 103-20. Mr. Gomez's move into Apartment No. 103-20, as was his move into Apartment No. 206-04, was without approval and/or authorization from Vestcor's management. Upon learning that his belonging had been placed in Apartment No. 103-20, Mr. Gomez was again instructed by management to remove his belongings. After he failed and refused to move his belongings from Apartment No. 103-20, Vestcor's management entered the apartment and gathered and discarded Mr. Gomez's belongings. As a leasing contract agent, Petitioner had access to keys to all vacant apartments. His brother, Mr. Gomez, who was a groundskeeper, did not have access to keys to any apartment, save the one he occupied. Any apartment occupied by Ms. Gomez after his Notice to Vacate Apartment No. 103-20 was without the knowledge or approval of Vestcor and in violation of Vestcor's policies and procedures. Therefore, any period of apartment occupancy by Mr. Gomez was not discriminatory against Petitioner (rent-free and/or reduced rent), but was a direct violation of Vestcor's policies. On February 10, 2002, Mr. Oliver signed a one-year lease agreement with Vestcor. Mr. Oliver's lease agreement reflected a 25-percent employee rental concession. Throughout Mr. Oliver's occupancy of Apartment No. 203-64 and pursuant to his lease agreement duration, Mr. Oliver's rental history reflected his monthly payment of $413.00. There is no evidence that Mr. Oliver lived on site without paying rent or that Vestcor authorized or permitted Mr. Oliver to live on site without paying rent, as alleged by Petitioner. On June 2, 2002, Ms. Closs completed Petitioner's annual performance appraisal report. Performance ratings range from a one -- below expectations, to a four -- exceeds expectations. Petitioner received ratings in the categories appraised as follows: Leasing skills -- 4; Administrative skills -- 2, with comments of improvement needed in paperwork, computer updating, and policy adherence; Marketing skills -- 4, with comments that Petitioner had a flair for finding the right markets; Community awareness -- 3, with no comment; Professionalism -- 2, with comments of improvement needed in paperwork reporting; Dependability -- 2, with comments of improvement needed in attendance; Interpersonal skills -- 3, with no comments; Judgment/Decision-making -- 3, with no comments; Quality of Work -- 2, with comments that work lacked accuracy; Initiative -- 4, with no comment; Customer service -- 3, with no comments; Team work -- 2, with comments of improvement needed in the area of resident confidence; Company loyalty -- 2, with comments of improvement needed in adherence to company policy and procedures; and Training and development -- 3, with no comments. Petitioner's Overall rating was 2.5, with comments that there was "room for improvement." On June 27, 2002, while on 180 days' probation that began on January 9, 2002, Petitioner failed to report to work and failed to report his absence to his supervisor, Ms. Closs, by a person-to-person telephone call. This conduct constituted a violation of Vestcor's policy requiring all its employees to personally contact their supervisor when late and/or absent from work and prohibited leaving messages on the community answering service machine. On June 28, 2002, Petitioner reported to work. Ms. Closs, his supervisor, informed Petitioner of his termination of employment with Vestcor for failure to report to work (i.e. job abandonment) and for probation violation, as he had been warned on January 9, 2002, what would happen should a policy violation re-occur. It was after his June 28, 2002, termination that Petitioner began his personal investigation and gathering of information (i.e., interviews and statements from other Vestcor employees) in preparation to file this complaint. Considering the findings favorable to Petitioner, he failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation by Vestcor, when they terminated his employment on June 28, 2002. Considering the findings of record favorable to Petitioner, he failed to establish a prima facie case of housing and/or rental adjustment discrimination by Vestcor, based upon familial status of himself or any other employer. Petitioner failed to prove Vestcor knowingly and/or intentionally permitted, approved, or allowed either Mr. Gomez or Mr. Oliver to live on site without a completed and approved application followed by appropriate rent adjustments according to their employment status and keeping within the tax credit requirement, while requiring Vestcor employees with families (or different employment status) to pay a different monthly rent in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Petitioner failed to prove his termination on June 28, 2002, was in retaliation for his actions and conduct other than his personal violation, while on probation, of Vestcor's policies and procedures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the Florida Commission on Human Rights enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief alleging discrimination filed by Petitioner, Carlos Gomez. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2005.
The Issue Are the corporate names, Dunes of Panama Rental Association, Inc. and Dunes of Panama Rental Management Association, Inc. deceptively similar to each other? If the names are deceptively similar to each other, may the Department of State require the later chartered corporation to amend its Articles of Incorporation and registration to reflect a new name?
Findings Of Fact At 7205 Thomas Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida, there is a cluster of condominiums known colloquially as the Dunes of Panama. The Dunes is a phased condominium development constructed and sold by A. W. Hirshberg, Inc. At the time of hearing there were three units of the development completed and a fourth under construction. Each unit, known respectively as Phase I, Phase II, Phase III and Phase IV, is contained in a freestanding building approximately 100 feet apart from the next unit. Construction of Phase 1 began in 1974. It was completed and sold by 1977. In that year the Dunes of Panama Phase I Association, Inc. was incorporated and chartered by the Department of State. As each succeeding unit was completed and sold a new owner's association was chartered until there are now Dunes of Panama Phase I Association, Inc., Dunes of Panama Phase II Association, Inc., and Dunes of Panama Phase III Association, Inc. Phase IV will be incorporated upon the completion of its building. To provide a service to the condominium owners in Phase I the developer established a rental office to assist in renting the condominiums to third parties. On July 1, 1977, this service was incorporated and received a corporate charter from the Department of State in the name of Dunes of Panama Rental Association, Inc. In September of 1977, when the developer Hirshberg conveyed all condominium assets of Phase I to the new owner's association, Dunes of Panama Phase 1 Association, Inc., he also transferred to the association all the assets of Dunes of Panama Rental Association, Inc. As each new phase of the development has been completed Rental has offered its rental management services to the new condominium owners in that phase. During December, 1980, a rival rental office was established by some condominium owners (primarily those in Phase III) to offer rental services to all condominium owners in each phase of the Dunes of Panama. This office was later, incorporated on February 4, 1980, as Dunes of Panama Rental Management Association, Inc. The services it offers its clients are exactly the same as those offered by Rental. All three existing units at the Dunes of Panama have the same street address, 7205 Thomas Drive. Each of the three buildings containing condominiums are designated by the letters "A," "B," and "C." The office of Rental is located in Building A. The office of Management is located in Building C. If the building letter is left off the address of mail to either Rental or Management, as frequently happens, there is considerable confusion among the postmen as to where the mail should be delivered. Frequently Management receives telephone calls for Rental and vice-versa. There is ample evidence that members of the public do not distinguish between the names of Rental and Management. Because the offices genrally cooperate with each other, the confusion from the similarity of their names is not always harmful but it does mean that, for instance, a person who made a rental agreement with Rental might send his deposit to Management, who may not be sure if that deposit is from one of its own customers or should be forwarded over to Rental. Both Rental and Management presently represent owners in Buildings A (Phase I), B (Phase II), and C (Phase III). The name Dunes of Panama Rental Management Association, Inc. is deceptively similar to the name Dunes of Panama Rental Association, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Secretary of State enter a final order requiring Intervenor- Respondent Dunes of Panama Rental Mangement Association, Inc. to amend its Articles of Incorporation and registration with the Department of State to reflect a name other than Dunes of Panama Rental Management Association, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 1981.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondents' real estate brokers licenses should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Barbara Odom, is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0189819. Ms. Odom is the owner of and the qualifying broker for Respondent, Odom Realty, Inc., located in Pensacola, Florida. Respondent, Odom Realty, Inc. is a corporation registered as a real estate brokerage company in the State of Florida, holding license number 0226080. Ms. Odom has been licensed since 1982 and has been the owner of Odom Realty, Inc., since 1983. Rita Leonard has been the corporation's bookkeeper since Ms. Odom's acquisition of the company. Previous to her employment with Odom Realty, Ms. Leonard was the financial manager in charge of a large bank's accounting and bookkeeping department. Ms. Leonard was and is highly qualified as an accountant/bookkeeper. In addition to Ms. Leonard's bookkeeping services, Ms. Odom also has Odom Realty's books and records, including the various escrow account books and records, annually audited and reviewed by her CPA. Early in the company's history Ms. Odom entered into the rental property management business. Initially, Ms. Leonard was paying clients' repair bills on that client's rental property out of the corporation's operating account. The CPA questioned whether it was appropriate to pay those bills out of the corporation's operating account and indicated that the bills should be paid out of the corporation's rental property management escrow account, #11823890431. The CPA was not sure what the appropriate bookkeeping practice should be and indicated that Ms. Leonard should check with the Florida Real Estate Commission to discover what the appropriate procedure was. Ms. Leonard called the Florida Real Estate Commission to inquire about the proper method of paying clients' repair bills. Her impression of that conversation was that client repair bills should be paid out of the escrow account regardless of whether the individual had the money in the account. After this conversation with the Florida Real Estate Commission, Ms. Leonard began paying all the clients' repair bills out of the rental property management escrow account. All such client bills were paid promptly upon the repair bill's presentation, whether or not the individual client had the money available in the escrow account. Each client was later billed for the amount not covered by the balance in that individuals' escrow account. The client billings occurred on at least a monthly basis and the majority of the rental clients remitted their payments on a monthly basis. Occasionally, one of Respondent's clients was permitted to carry a negative balance for more than a month. These carry- overs occurred in the off-season and were paid when rentals picked back up during the areas main tourist season. As a consequence of this practice, some of Respondents' clients would have negative escrow balances on their individual escrow ledger account. Respondents were under the impression that such a practice was all right as long as the corporation had money available to cover those negative balances. In fact, the corporation always had such money available, although the actual transfers of funds were never made from the corporation's operating account to the rental property management escrow account. Respondents believed this practice was tantamount to loaning the respective clients money to cover the client's negative balance until that client corrected the deficit. No client ever complained about this practice. In fact, most of Respondents' clients wanted the repair bills paid promptly so that good repair service could be maintained on that client's property. On March 15, 1990, Elaine Brantley, Petitioner's investigator, conducted an audit of all of Respondents' escrow accounts. The only account she found a problem with was the rental property management account. During that investigation, Ms. Brantley found that Respondents had a trust liability of $10,081.71 and a bank balance of $9,480.97, leaving a shortage of $600.74. Respondents, the same day and prior to Ms. Brantley leaving, transferred the amount of the shortage from the corporation's operating account to the escrow account. Ms. Brantley then explained to Ms. Odom and her bookkeeper her opinion of how the Commission wanted escrow accounts maintained. Since that time, Respondents have maintained the escrow accounts in the manner prescribed by Ms. Brantley and no longer follow their policy of maintaining negative balances on the individual ledger sheets of their clients. They now make the actual transfer of funds from the operating account to the escrow account prior to paying any bill which would take an individual client over the amount of money that client has in the escrow account. The Respondents' books and records for the rental property management account were meticulously kept and both total and individual reconciliations were completed on a monthly basis by Respondents. All the records, including the monthly reconciliations reflected the appropriate negative balances if a particular client should have such a balance. As a consequence of this method of bookkeeping, there were no discrepancies, as opposed to a total shortage, between the total reconciliations and the escrow account's bank statement. Likewise, there were no discrepancies on the individual ledger accounts. There were no discrepancies because everything was added and subtracted out according to the records being kept and the bookkeeping method used in maintaining those records. Importantly, Respondents' CPA never criticized or commented on Respondents' method of accounting and maintenance of negative balances in Respondents' escrow account. As indicated earlier, the temporary negative balances were maintained for the convenience of the customer in order to obtain better service from repairmen. In reality, Respondents' clients probably never thought about the intricacies and inner workings of the trust account in which that client's money was maintained. Given the desires of Respondents' customers, such payments and the maintenance of a negative balance on behalf of that individual client were impliedly authorized by those respective customers. However none of the clients expressly authorized Respondents to use that client's money to pay another client's repair bills. The clients' general desires on getting prompt payment of repair bills is, by itself, insufficient to establish express authorization for one client to use another client's escrow money. Without such express authority Respondents made improper disbursements from the property management escrow account in violation of Section 475.25 (1)(k), Florida Statutes. However, because of the client's general desires regarding their repair bills, the record keeping utilized by Respondents, the manner of billing and the obvious lack of any intent to defraud on the part of Respondents, there was no evidence of any fraud, misrepresentation, trick, scheme or device, or breach of trust or culpable negligence on the part of Respondents in the maintenance of their property management escrow account.
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 that Respondents are guilty of one violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and issuing a letter of guidance to Respondents for the violation. It is further recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final Order dismissing the Counts of the Administrative Complaint charging Respondents with violations of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 1990.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes (1991), and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Respondents, Shirley M. Ferguson and Dosh Realty, Inc., are now, and were at all times material hereto, licensed real estate brokers in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbers 0393921 and 0252372, respectively, in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last licenses issued were as brokers, c/o Dosh Realty, Inc., 595 N. Nova Road 105A, Ormond Beach, Florida 32174. At all times material hereto, Ms. Ferguson was licensed and operating as qualifying broker and officer of Dosh Realty, Inc. On or about August 1, 1990, Ms. Ferguson maintained and operated a branch office of Dosh Realty, Inc., at the Aliki Condominium located in Daytona Beach. On or about August 1, 1990, Ms. Ferguson and Carol Savage, a licensed salesperson, entered into an "Independent Contractor Agreement" whereby Ms. Savage agreed to act as a property management agent for Dosh Realty, Inc., at the Aliki Condominium. Ms. Savage's license was registered with Dosh Realty, Inc. The Independent Contractor Agreement between Ms. Ferguson and Ms. Savage specifically required that Ms. Savage set up "two rental accounts - Dosh Realty, Inc./ (condo name) - one account to be a general account for rentals, the other account to be a non-interest escrow account for security deposits." On August 1, 1990, Ms. Ferguson opened an account, number 1130222031, at Barnett Bank in Ormond Beach, Florida. Ms. Ferguson and Ms. Savage were signatories on the account. The account was not an escrow security account. Ms. Ferguson inquired of Ms. Savage about a rental escrow account for Aliki Condominium. Ms. Savage informed Ms. Ferguson that security deposits were not required or received and, therefore, no escrow account was necessary. Despite the requirement of the Independent Contractor Agreement that an escrow account be established, Ms. Ferguson did not require that Ms. Savage comply with the terms of the Independent Contractor Agreement. Between August 1, 1990, and July 20, 1991, Ms. Savage, in the course of her association with the Respondents, solicited and obtained tenants to lease condominium units at the Aliki Condominium. Ms. Savage informed Ms. Ferguson that the agreements for these rentals were verbal. Ms. Ferguson did not insist that written agreements be entered into. Between August 1, 1990, and July 20, 1991, Ms. Savage in fact received monies as security deposits for rentals at the Aliki Condominium. Not all of the monies received by Ms. Savage were deposited in an account of the Respondents. Respondents were not notified of the security deposits and the Respondents were not aware that the security deposits had been collected. On July 20, 1991, Ms. Ferguson became aware that Ms. Savage had been collecting security deposits from tenants of the Aliki Condominium. Ms. Ferguson learned that Ms. Savage had taken the deposits and had failed to deliver the deposits to the Respondents. On or about July 20, 1991, tenants of the Aliki Condominium began to demand a return of their security deposits and Ms. Savage left the State of Florida. Ms. Ferguson reported the foregoing events to the Department and ultimately filed a complaint against Ms. Savage. Ms. Savage ultimately surrendered her license with the Department for revocation. The Respondents have not returned the security deposits received by Ms. Savage at the Aliki Condominium. Although Ms. Ferguson was very cooperative during the Department's investigation of this matter and although Ms. Ferguson did inquire of Ms. Savage concerning the manner in which rentals were handled at Aliki condominium, Ms. Ferguson did not insist, as a condition for the continued use by Ms. Savage of Ms. Ferguson's brokers license and the brokers license of Dosh Realty, Inc., that Ms. Savage use written rental agreements, require deposits and use an escrow account. Ms. Ferguson acknowledged during the investigation of this matter that monies were received at Dosh Realty's branch office at the Aliki Condominium that were not deposited in an escrow account and that she accepted Ms. Savage's representation that no written leases were entered into at the Aliki Condominium.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order finding that the Respondents have violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), (d) and (k), Florida Statutes (1991). It is further RECOMMENDED that Ms. Ferguson be reprimanded, placed on probation for one year and required to complete the 30 hour broker management course. DONE and ENTERED this day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of July, 1992. APPENDIX Case Number 92-1990 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 4 3. 5 4. See 5. See 8. 8 10. See 11. The exact amount of the deposits at issue was not proved by competent substantial evidence. Hereby accepted. 11 12. 12 13-14. 14 15. 15 See 17. The Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 3. 4 4. 5 5. 6 8. 7 11. See 9-10. 8 10-11. 9 12 and 13. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence and is not relevant. Although it is true that the exact monies Ms. Savage took were not received by the Respondents, they were responsible and could have returned monies of the Respondents. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section Hurston Building, North Tower #308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 R. Michael Kennedy, Esquire Post Office Box 4319 South Daytona, Florida 32121 Jack Ray General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Sundial is a limited partnership authorized to do business in the State of Florida and is a developer and builder of a condominium complex known as Sundial of Sanabel. In order to provide the purchasers of the condominium units with a means of renting their units when the units were not occupied by the owners, a second limited partnership was formed, Sundial Rental Partners Ltd., in which Sundial is the general partner and each of the condominium owners are limited partners. On August 1, 1973, a management agreement was entered into between Sundial Rental Partners Ltd. (hereafter Rental Partners) and Sundial whereby Sundial agreed to provide management services in connection with the operation of the condominium units as rental accommodations. The terms of this agreement provided that Sundial would be compensated for its management services in the amount of five percent (5 percent) of the gross revenue of the rental partners. On April 7, 1973, an Additional Facilities Lease Agreement was entered into between Sundial and Rental Partners. By this agreement, Sundial leased to Rental Partners additional facilities to be constructed by Sundial and used by the condominium unit owners, the persons who rent the condominium units from the Rental Partners and their guests. Compensation to Sundial is set forth in paragraph 3 of the agreement: Sundial Associates shall be paid an annual rental fee for the additional facilities equal to fifteen percent of the gross revenues of the Rental Partnership. Sun- dial Associates shall operate the additional facilities for its own account. All incom- ing profits shall inure to its benefit and the rental partnership shall have no interest in such incoming profits. The limited partnership agreement between Sundial and Rental Partners was amended on August 6, 1974. Paragraph 5.1 of the Amended Agreement provides that a total of five percent (5 percent) of the gross revenues of the partnership shall be paid to Sundial for its management services and that fifteen percent (15 percent) of the gross revenues of the partnership shall be paid to Sundial as rental payments for those additional facilities to be constructed by Sundial Paragraph 6.1 provides for a management deed to be paid to Sundial in the amount of four percent (4 percent) of the gross revenues of the partnership and paragraph 6.4 provides that the partnership shall lease from Sundial the additional facilities at the rate of fifteen percent (15 percent) of the gross revenues of the partnership. Paragraph 6.4 of the limited partnership agreement calls for the construction of additional facilities, the cost of which is to be some two million one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($2,150,000.00). During the tax period in question, the only facilities actually constructed were a lobby and registration area, the value of which is significantly less than the total value of the expected construction. Nonetheless, during the tax period in question, the Rental Partners have paid Sundial the full five percent (5 percent) management fee and the full fifteen percent (15 percent) rental payment. Sundial recorded receipt of these amounts in separate accounts in their financial records. Sundial received as income during the tax period in question, certain tennis court admission fees which DOR did not intend to include in its computation of the sales tax due from rental proceeds. Yet, the record reflects that the total of fifteen percent (15 percent) of gross sales was three hundred seventeen thousand three hundred ninety-three dollars and ninety-four cents ($317,393.94) while the total from tennis court admission fees was eighteen thousand four hundred ninety-seven dollars and sixty-seven cents ($18,497.67). The sum of these two figures is three hundred thirty-five thousand eight hundred ninety-one dollars and sixty-one cents ($335,891.61) which, when multiplied by four percent (4 percent) equals thirteen thousand four hundred thirty-five dollars and sixty-six cents ($13,435.66). This is the exact amount of the tax assessed by DOR exclusive of interest and penalties. The assessment is in error to the extent that tennis court admission fees were included in the figure purporting to reflect gross receipts of rental fees.
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent failed to make documents available to Petitioner in violation of Section 475.5015, Florida Statutes; (b) whether Respondent obstructed or hindered the enforcement of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, or hindered the performance of any person acting under the authority of that chapter in violation of Sections 475.25(1)(e) and 475.42(1)(i), Florida Statutes; and (c) what penalty, if any, should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is charged with regulating and enforcing the statutory provisions pertaining to persons holding real estate broker and salesperson licenses in Florida. Respondent is and was, at all times material to this case, a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license No. 0372849. Respondent's license is currently voluntarily inactive because she did not renew it in 1999. At all times material here, Petitioner was an agent and the broker of record for Park Avenue Properties, Inc. On or about September 11, 1998, Harper Fields, Esquire, filed a complaint with Petitioner. The complaint alleged that Respondent had mismanaged his wife's rental property pursuant to a property management agreement. The complaint resulted in an investigation and subsequent Administrative Complaint in DBPR Case No. 98-83963. That case became the subject of the Recommended Order in DOAH 02-2720PL, entered contemporaneously with the Recommended Order in the instant case. By letter dated November 25, 1998, Petitioner informed Respondent that Mr. Fields had filed a complaint against her. The letter stated that Petitioner's investigator, Sidney Miller, would be in contact with Respondent to discuss the complaint in detail. Respondent sent Mr. Miller a letter dated December 20, 1998. In the letter, Respondent attempted to explain her involvement in the management of the rental property owned by Mrs. Paula Fields. During the investigation of the complaint, Mr. Miller requested Respondent to furnish him all documentation related to the management of Mrs. Field's rental property. The initial request included documentation about the transaction for the months of February through April 1998, including, but not limited to, monthly statement reconciliations for Respondent's rental escrow account and her operating account, bank statements for these accounts and copies of supporting checks, deposits slips, and transfers. Soon thereafter, Respondent furnished Mr. Miller with some of the requested information. However, Respondent never provided Mr. Miller with a copy of the property management agreement at issue in DOAH Case No. 02-2720PL. Mr. Miller also requested information regarding any background check that Respondent conducted before renting Mrs. Field's property to Donnda Williams. Respondent provided this information to Mr. Miller under cover of a letter received by Mr. Miller on June 16, 1999. Mr. Miller's review of Respondent's monthly statement reconciliations for her rental escrow account from February through April 1998 revealed negative balances. The monthly statement reconciliations are a more accurate reflection of the transactions that occur in an account than a corresponding bank statement. Mr. Miller also discerned that Respondent transferred $1,000 from her rental escrow account to her operating account on February 10, 1998. Additionally, Respondent's February and April bank statements for her rental escrow account and her operating account did not reflect negative balances; but her March 1998 bank statement for the rental escrow account had two overdrafts, one on March 19 and another one on March 20. Respondent transferred $1,000 on March 2, 1998, and $8,000 on March 16, 1998, from her rental escrow account to her operating account. The $8,000 transfer resulted in a negative balance on Respondent's monthly statement reconciliation for her rental escrow account. Mr. Miller addressed his concerns relating to Respondent's rental escrow account in writing on June 25, 1999, and verbally on June 29, 1999. Mr. Miller requested Respondent to explain the March 1998 transfers and the negative balances reflected in the monthly statement reconciliations for the rental escrow account in the months of February through April 1998. Mr. Miller's June 25, 1998, letter requested additional information, stating as follows: I will also need the deposit slips and reconciliation for the rental escrow account for January 1998 along with copies of the bank statements, reconiliation's [sic] and deposits slips for any other account you maintained in January 1998. In addition please provide me with copies of the reconciliation's [sic] for the escrow account and the rental escrow account from May 1998 through the month you closed these accounts. If you maintained any other real estate escrow accounts for the period of January 1998 to this date, provide me with the same information. Respondent received Mr. Miller's June 25, 1999, letter. However, she hired an attorney and forwarded to him the records that she believed were responsive to Mr. Miller's request. Mr. Miller did not learn that Respondent had hired an attorney until he talked to her on June 29, 1999. On or about June 29, 1999, Petitioner explained to Mr. Miller that she had been in the State of Washington caring for a sick relative during parts of January, February, and March 1998. She did not have her rental escrow account checkbook with her when disbursements were due from that account. Therefore, Respondent made the disbursements from her operating account. She made the transfers from her rental escrow account to her operating account to facilitate making the payments in this manner. Upon learning that counsel represented Respondent, Mr. Miller contacted the attorney by telephone. The purpose of the call, in part, was to request the attorney to file a letter of representation. Because the attorney was unavailable, Mr. Miller left a message requesting the attorney to return the call. The attorney did not respond to the message. After not receiving any further information from Respondent or her attorney, Mr. Miller sent Respondent a letter dated November 1, 1999. The letter requested the status of the records requested in Mr. Miller's June 25, 1999, letter. Respondent received the November 1, 1999, and forwarded it to her attorney. In a letter dated November 29, 1999, Respondent's attorney acknowledged that he had received Mr. Miller's November 1, 1999, letter. The attorney stated that he had instructed Respondent to furnish Mr. Miller with copies of the cashed checks for the two transfers that Mr. Miller was inquiring about. The November 29, 1999, letter from Respondent's attorney did not otherwise address the information requested by Mr. Miller's June 25, 1999, letter. In correspondence dated January 22, 2000, Respondent's attorney explained that Respondent had issued the attached copies of checks while she was in the State of Washington during her father's illness only to avoid delay in payment. Attached to the letter were copies of checks, front and back, of Respondent's operating account for her business, Park Avenue Properties, Inc. The copies of checks were issued in February through April 1998. Respondent had furnished Mr. Miller with copies of these checks in June 1999. The January 22, 2000, letter from Respondent's attorney was otherwise not responsive to Mr. Miller's June 25, 1999, letter. Specifically, there were no copies of deposit slips and reconciliation for the rental escrow account for January 1998. There were no documents or reference to the same information for any other accounts that Respondent maintained in 1998. There were no copies of the reconciliations for the rental escrow account from May 1998 through January or February 1999 when Respondent closed her accounts. During the hearing, Respondent admitted that the information furnished to Mr. Miller under cover of the January 22, 2000, letter was not responsive to the request in Mr. Miller's June 25, 1999, letter. At no time during the investigation did Respondent explain that the documents reflected paid personal expenses, as well as expenses paid on behalf of clients out of the same account. In a letter dated April 6, 2000, Mr. Miller sent yet another request for records and information to Respondent's attorney. This letter requested an explanation regarding certain transfers between Respondent's accounts on March 6, April 6, and April 14, 1998. Mr. Miller needed copies of the cancelled checks and better copies of the bank statement for January 1998 for the rental escrow account. Mr. Miller also requested the bank statements, reconciliations, deposit slips and cancelled checks for the rental escrow, and operating accounts for February 1998. The April 6, 2000, letter again requested information previously requested in June 1999. This information included the following: (a) deposit slips for the rental escrow account in January 1998, along with copies of the bank statements, reconciliations, and deposit slips for any other accounts that Respondent maintained in January 1998; (b) copies of the reconciliations for the operating account and the rental escrow account from May 1998 through the month that Respondent closed the accounts; and (c) the same information for any other real estate escrow accounts that Respondent maintained from January 1998 to June 25, 1999. Mr. Miller's April 6, 2000, letter was sent to Respondent's attorney by certified mail. The return receipt indicates that the attorney's office received the letter on April 10, 2000. In a letter dated October 26, 2000, Respondent's attorney sent Petitioner's counsel a letter. According to the letter, Respondent had provided copies of all the checks and the explanation behind the transactions. The letter states that the attorney had not heard from Mr. Miller after the attorney sent the January 2000 letter. On or about June 3, 2002, Respondent's attorney sent Petitioner's counsel some 351 pages of documents, indicating that they included all documents requested by Mr. Miller and that they were responsive to all discovery requests. However, clear and convincing evidence indicates that the documents were not responsive to Mr. Miller's June 25, 1999, and April 6, 2000, record requests. During the hearing, Respondent agreed that the documents were not responsive to Mr. Miller's requests for records related to Respondent's rental escrow account from May 1998 through the time she closed the account. Because Mr. Miller was unable to review the records he requested, he was unable to perform an audit of Respondent's accounts. Mr. Miller needed records covering a six-month period in order to audit Respondent's accounts. Without the records, Mr. Miller was unable to determine whether problems in Respondent's rental escrow account occurred at other times. Respondent testified during the hearing that she had provided Mr. Miller with all of the records in her possession. Her testimony in this regard is not persuasive. Respondent admitted that Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, required her to keep all of her records for four or five years. The instant case is not the only time that Respondent has been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding. She admitted during the hearing that Petitioner previously had cited her and "smacked her on the wrist" for not disbursing funds in a timely fashion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order revoking Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth D. Cooper, Esquire 400 Southeast Eighth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Stacy N. Robinson Pierce, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Suite N308 Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Buddy Johnson, Director Nancy P. Campiglia, Chief Attorney Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. During times material, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman in Florida, having been issued license number 0319604. The last license issued Respondent was as a salesman, c/o Referral Realty Center, Inc. (herein Referral) at 8974 Seminole Boulevard, Seminole, Florida. On December 1, 1988, Respondent entered into a management agreement with Madeira Beach Yacht Club Condominium Association, Inc. (herein Madeira) to serve as property manager. Respondent assumed the property manager position with Madeira in June of 1987, which was formalized by a written agreement in December 1988. While acting as property manager for Madeira, Respondent handled the rental transactions of individual units for owners. In return for her services, Respondent was compensated based on a commission of 10% to 20% of the monthly rental. On at least one occasion, Respondent rented an individual unit for owners for a term greater than one year. Respondent was aware that she was renting the one unit for a term in excess of one year. Respondent signed leases for units belonging to individual owners as the rental agent or representative. Respondent used the commissions that she received to defray operating expenses for her rental business such as cleaning fees for the units and for personal compensation. Respondent maintained a bank account at the First Federal of Largo Savings and Loan Association entitled "Dorothy K. Livingston Rental Account" for her rental business. Deposits to that account were rental monies received from tenants from which disbursements were made to unit owners and the remaining commissions went to Respondent as compensation. The rental account maintained by Respondent was neither an account with her employing real estate broker, nor was it an escrow account. Respondent placed security deposits that she received from tenants in the referenced rental account that she maintained. Respondent did not inform her employing broker of the receipt of security deposits nor did she discuss with her employing broker any of her activities involving rental of units for owners at Madeira. However, there is credible testimony evidencing that her broker was knowledgeable of Respondent's activities relative to her rental of units for owners. During May 1989, Respondent placed her real estate license with Referral Realty Center (Referral) as her employing broker. She did so in order to receive payment for referring prospects to Referral. On or about May 22, 1989, Respondent entered into an independent contractor agreement with Referral. That agreement provided in pertinent part that: Independent contractor agrees that Independent contractor will not list any real estate for sale, exchange, lease or rental... . Independent contractor agrees to refer all prospective clients, customers, buyers and sellers of which Independent contractor becomes aware to the Center... . Independent contractor agrees that so long as this Agreement is in force and effect the Independent contractor will not refer any prospective seller or buyer to another real estate broker... . 9. Independent contractor agrees to act, and to represent that he or she is acting solely as a referral associate of the Center... . While employed by Referral, Respondent also received commissions from individual unit owners at Madeira. During the time when Respondent had her license listed with Referral, she also received commissions from Referral for prospects she generated while renting units for owners and acting as property manager at Madeira. Respondent received a copy of a letter from attorney R. Michael Kennedy, addressed to J.L. Cleghorn of Building Managers International, Inc., dated September 5, 1989. In that letter, attorney Kennedy expressed his opinion that condominium or cooperative managers are exempted from the licensing provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and that receipt of a percentage of rental proceeds would not be precluded even if the manager was salaried. The Kennedy letter erroneously states support for attorney Kennedy's opinion by Alexander M. Knight, Chief of the Bureau of Condominiums, and Knight so advised attorney Kennedy of that erroneous support by a subsequent letter to him. It is unclear to what extent Respondent apprised attorney Kennedy as to the specifics of her activities and to what extent she relied on his opinion prior to engaging in her property manager's rental and referral activities. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Respondent did not seek advice from Petitioner as to whether her activities fell within the guidelines of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent is familiar with the statutory definitions of a broker and salesman and what activities constitute brokerage and sales activities. During times material, Respondent's employing broker, David Hurd, was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, and the broker of record for Referral for procuring prospects and making referrals of real estate activities. Employment under an independent contractor agreement is considered employment under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,500.00, issue a written reprimand to her, place her license on probation for a period of one (1) year with the further condition that she complete 60 hours of continuing education. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jerry Gottlieb, Esquire GOTTLIEB & GOTTLIEB, P.A. 2753 State Road 580, Suite 204 Clearwater, Florida 34621 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondents' Florida licenses as real estate broker, salesperson and brokerage corporation, respectively, should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation of the real estate profession and the licensing of real estate professionals. Respondents Frank E. Smith, Elaine M Smith, and Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc., were licensed real estate professionals, a broker, a sales person, and a brokerage corporation respectively. Respondent Frank E. Smith was the qualifying broker for Respondent, Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc.. On or about July 23, 1991, the Respondents and Carolyn Chaple entered into a management agreement whereby Respondent agreed to rent and manage Ms. Chaple's residence located in Tampa. The terms of the management agreement signed by Ms. Chaple and Ms. Smith called for the company to render a monthly statement of receipts, charges and disbursements, and to remit the net proceeds each month to Ms. Chaple whose address was listed in the agreement as P.O. Box 12003, Brooksville, Florida 34601. For performing this service, Respondents were to receive a commission of 8% of the monthly gross receipts. The agreement also called for the Respondents to: ... hire, discharge and pay all engineers, janitors and other employees; to make or cause to be made all ordinary repairs and replacements necessary to preserve the premises in its present condition and for the operating efficiency thereof and all alterations required to comply with lease requirements, and to do decorating on the premises; to negotiate contracts for nonrecurring items not exceeding $100.00 and to enter into agreements for all necessary repairs, maintenance, minor alterations and utility services; and to purchase supplies and pay all bills. An amendment to the agreement, initialed by Ms. Chaple only, made the provision subject to a lease agreement purportedly attached but which was not offered into evidence. Ms. Chaple contends that lease provided she would be responsible only for those repairs costing in excess of $250.00 and which she had approved. This added provision was not, however, initialed by Respondents and, therefore, never became a binding part of the management agreement, regardless of what Ms. Chaple intended. Ms. Smith asserts that if Ms. Chaple had insisted on that change, she would not have entered into the agreement. It is found, therefore, that there was no agreement limiting Ms. Chaple's liability for repairs. Pursuant to the management agreement, Respondents solicited and obtained tenants for Ms. Chaple's property. Respondent admittedly did not send a copy of the first lease to Ms. Chaple, but the tenancy was short lived and terminated when the tenant moved out owing rent. Ms. Chaple claims the Respondents did not advise her of this situation. Instead, she claims, she heard of it from neighbors. However, on December 30, 1991, Respondents obtained another lessee for the property at a rental of $600.00 per month for 12 months. Respondents' fee was %8 of that ($48.00) resulting in a net monthly rental to Ms. Chaple, exclusive of repair expenses if any, of $552.00 per month. Ms. Chaple claims that though she repeatedly asked for a copy of the management agreement she had signed, she never got one. When she began to ask for accountings, she says she got some but not all. By the same token, she claims she did not get all the receipts relating to the repair work done on her property. Between December 4, 1991 and August 16, 1992, Ms. Chaple wrote several detailed letters to the Respondents requesting information on the status of the first tenancy and efforts being made to receive compensation, and detailed explanations for expenditures made and charged to her on the account statements that were sent. She also complained of the lateness of the statements, of the Respondents' notice of intended termination of the agreement, and an explanation of large expense charged almost every month. Respondents claim they furnished Ms. Chaple a copy of the management agreement on at least 3 separate occasions by mailing a copy to her Brooksville address, that address listed for her in the agreement. Ms. Chaple, however, was living in Houston, Texas during all this period and requested the use of the Brooksville address, apparently her father's post office box. Respondents also claim they sent Ms. Chaple a monthly statement of account along with her net rent check each month. Every check sent was cashed by Ms. Chaple indicating she received them. There is no explanation as to why she did not also receive the account statements. In light of Ms. Chaple's moves, and the use of an intermediary to transmit mail, it cannot be said Respondents did not send the agreements. This is not to say Ms. Chaple did receive them all, merely that the Respondents dispatched them to her. Ms. Chaple also claimed she never got a copy of a lease from the Respondents. Respondent, Elaine Smith, admits this indicating she did not send copies of leases to owners as a matter of practice. It is noted that Ms. Chaple repeatedly requested itemized explanations for the major expenditures deducted from the rent each month and characterized on the account statement solely as "maintenance." The management agreement obliging the owner to pay for such expenditures as a deduction from rent is silent on the need on the Respondents to explain such deductions. The agreement obliges the agent to "render a monthly statement of receipts, disbursements and charges and to remit each month the net proceeds to the [owner]." While it may be true the monthly statement of accounting showing "maintenance" might be acceptable evidence to the Internal Revenue Service, when, as here, such expenses are relatively large and frequent, it is not at all unusual or unreasonable for the owner to request and expect to receive an explanation of those deductions. To be sure, Respondents did send some receipts as requested, but it is clear they did not do so in all cases. Clearly the mere use of the word, "maintenance" does not constitute a sufficient showing of "disbursements" or "charges" as are called for in the agreement. This is so especially in light of the fact Respondents also operated a maintenance company through which they contracted for almost all maintenance and repair work except air conditioning. The charge to the owners was cost plus 10%. Ms. Chaple ultimately filed a complaint with the Division which, on March 18, 1992, sent its investigator, J.L. Graham, to the Respondents' office. As a part of her investigations, Ms. Graham did an audit of the Respondents' escrow accounts maintained at the Sun Bank in Tampa. She discovered that Respondents maintained a security escrow account which had a shortage of $5,780.00 and a rental escrow account which had a shortage of $4,261.31. Respondents admit a shortage had existed ever since the business was purchased in 1986 and claim that due to the shrinking inventory of properties they managed, the need to pay $500.00 a month on the purchase price, and $1,300.00 a month on obligated rent, they did not have sufficient income from operations to reimburse the accounts the amount of the shortages. There is no evidence that Respondents misappropriated any of the funds represented by the shortages and it is accepted they did not cause or increase either shortage. However, it is equally true they did nothing to eradicate or reduce either, routinely drawing their lawful commissions which were placed in the company's operating account and used to pay routine expenses. In any event, within 2 days of Ms. Graham's inspection, Respondents borrowed the money to reimburse the escrow accounts for the amount of the shortages in full. Ms. Graham also found that Respondents failed to prepare and sign written monthly reconciliations of the escrow accounts and had no supporting documentation for the accounts other than the check register, leases and the management agreements. Respondents' books were primarily kept in a computer and the information in support of the escrow accounts was not being kept in a manner readily accessible to the Division's representatives. Mr. Smith admits he did not do the required reconciliations, claiming that between the computer records and the bank statements, he knew what was going on. This is insufficient to satisfy the Division's requirements. Mr. Smith contends that immediately after the audit, he began doing the required reconciliations and would be willing to furnish them to the Division on a repeated basis if necessary. Respondents also failed to prepare and furnish to the tenants of clients' properties the required disclosure of agency relationship, notifying the tenants in writing that they, Respondents, represented the respective landlords, not them. Respondents asserted they made it clear to each tenant that they did not own the units being rented, but this does not meet the rule or statutory requirement. Review of the corporation records also revealed that Mrs. Smith, a licensed salesperson, was listed as an officer of the brokerage corporation. Respondents admit this but claim they did not know it was improper and that their accountant failed to so advise them. Gennie Amick has known and been friends with Respondents for more than 7 years. She has used their services in the past as managers of property she then owned and both her son and her daughter do so at the present time. They have had absolutely no complaints about the Respondents' management. Ms. Amick knows Mrs. Smith very well and considers her to be a very honorable person. Respondent's integrity has never been questioned, to the best of Amick's knowledge, and she goes out of her way to help her clients, doing more than her contract requires of her. Mr. Smith is also an honorable person. Because of Ms. Amick's trust in the Respondents, she loaned them $6,000.00 when she learned of their difficulties with the Division and this loan was repaid when Respondents thereafter mortgaged their home. Respondents have owned Sunshine Properties of Tampa, Inc. since they bought it in 1986, paying $20,000.00 for the business. They put $1,500.00 down and agreed to pay the balance off at $500.00 per month. They also agreed with the seller to rent his office for $1,300.00 per month. It was these commitments, and the shrinking of the client list, which prevented them from making up the shortages in the escrow accounts. Mr. Smith has been in the real estate business, both in Florida and elsewhere, since 1967. He has been licensed as a broker since 1988 and he and his wife have operated Sunshine, which does not handle sales, only property management, since 1986. It is their livelihood. He became the qualifying broker for the firm in 1988. Neither he nor Mrs. Smith has been the subject of a complaint before now. At no time did either Respondent intend to break any rules or to unlawfully profit by their improper actions. They claim any infractions are as a result of ignorance rather than design and so it would appear. Their relationship with Ms. Chaple was less than an acceptable business relationship, yet Ms. Chaple did not make a good witness. It appeared she had her own agenda to follow and her memory of facts seemed selective. She appears to be difficult to deal with and it is reasonable to believe that much of the difficulty she had with the Respondents was as a result of her own attitude and approach.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered placing all Respondents' licenses on probation for a period of 1 year under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Division and imposing an administrative file of $500.00 upon each Respondent Smith for a total fine of $1,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3898 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the word, solicited. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein, Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein 5. Accepted to the extent that the evidence shows the agree-ment and accountings were sent to the best evidence available to the Respondents. 6. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law, 7. & 8. More a comment on the state of the evidence, than a Finding of Fact. 9. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. - 14. Accepted. Rejected as implying the disclosures made satisfied the rule requirements. Accepted. & 18. Accepted as to what Respondent's did and that no harm to the public or any client resulted, but rejected to the extent public benefit is asserted. 19. & 20. Accepted but relevant only to the quantum of punishment to be imposed. 21. - 23. Accepted. 24. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire DPR, Division of Real Estate Hurston Building - N308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Sheldon L. Wind, Esquire 110 E. Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33504 Jack McRay General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact During the audit period in question, i.e., December 1, 1975 through March 31, 1979, Petitioner Ormond Hotel Corporation operated the Ormond Hotel, Ormond Beach, Florida. It was licensed during the audit period by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business Regulation, and classified as a retirement establishment. (Interrogatories) The Ormond Hotel is an old wooden structure containing 350 rooms with 258 rooms available for rental. The remaining rooms are not in proper condition for rental. Most of the hotel guests are over 65 years of age and reside there either permanently or on a seasonal basis, usually from December through March of each year. A few married couples have accommodations at the hotel, but most of the residents are single individuals occupying one room. Prior to 1978, Petitioner advertised the hotel in a national magazine called "Retirement Living" and conducted advertising on billboards, brochures, and in the classified section of the local telephone book under the hearing "Retirement Homes." The latter advertisement states that the facility is "a residential hotel," but also includes the words "DAY-WK-MO-YR." Similarly, the hotel's brochure recites that accommodations are available by day, month, or year. All units are available for rental to permanent tenants, but short-term occupancy is accepted if there are available rooms. The hotel does not have a swimming pool, but does have restaurant facilities and recreation areas. The hotel does not primarily cater to transient guests. (Testimony of Salveson, interrogatories) Respondent's auditor conducted an audit of Petitioner's business operations for the period December 1, 1975, through March 31, 1979. In arriving at whether or not the Ormond Hotel was subject to tax imposed by Section 212.03, Florida Statutes, on its rentals, he examined the Petitioner's books to ascertain the number of total available rental units and the status of tenants at the hotel during the months of April, May, and June of each year. If he found that 50 percent or more of the total units had been rented to persons residing there continuously for the specific three-month period, those tenants were considered to be permanent rather than transient tenants and the hotel was deemed exempt from tax pursuant to Rule 12A-1.61(1), F.A.C. In arriving at his determination of exempt status, the auditor did not deduct unoccupied rooms from the total number of units in arriving at his "fifty percent" determination. Although the auditor analyzed the advertising brochures of Petitioner, and was aware that the hotel was listed in the telephone directory under retirement homes, and concluded that such advertising was directed primarily to the acquisition of permanent guests, he predicted his audit findings solely on the "fifty percent" test concerning occupancy of total units. In this manner, he determined that Petitioner was exempt from taxation in 1975 based on the fact that for the April through June period for that year, 135 of the 264 total units had been occupied continuously by "permanent" tenants. In a similar manner he found that the hotel did not qualify for exemption during the succeeding years of the audit period. In this respect, he found that for 1976, there were only 119 such guests during the three-month period out of the 263 total units, which was less than 50 percent. In 1977, there were 102 such tenants out of 261 total units, which was less than 50 percent. In 1978, there were 98 such tenants and 259 total units, which was less than 50 percent. The auditor's worksheet reflects that there were 124 vacant rooms during the three-month period in 1975, 140 in 1976, 153 in 1977, and 153 in 1978. He concedes that if he had applied the "fifty percent" rule by comparing the number of three-month or "permanent" tenants with the number of occupied rooms for the three-month period each year, the number of rooms occupied by "permanent" guests would have been over fifty percent for each year of the audit period. (Testimony of Boerner, Exhibits 1-2, 4) Based on the audit, Respondent issued two separate "Second Revised Notices of Proposed Assessment" on January 15, 1980. The first assessment covered the period December 1, 1975 through November 30, 1978. It asserted tax due on room rentals in the amount of $21, 362.91 plus a delinquent penalty, and interest through January 15, 1980, for a total sum of $28,062.45. The assessment also asserted tax, penalty and interest for purchases unrelated to room rentals in the amount of $984.92, for a total assessment of $29,047.37. The assessment reflected that a partial payment had been made on October 2, 1979, in the amount of $2,590.62, leaving a balance due of $26,456.75. The other assessment showed tax on room rentals in the amount of $6,001.75, plus delinquent penalty of $300.10, and interest through January 15, 1980 in the amount of $611.76 for a total of $6,913.61. It also asserted tax, penalty, and interest on purchases in the amount of $23.39 for a total assessment of $6,937.00. This assessment also showed partial payment on October 2, 1979, in the amount of $132.08, leaving a balance due of $6,804.92. In a letter transmitting the assessments, dated January 16, 1980, Respondent advised Petitioner that the hotel did not qualify as an exempt facility under Rule 12A- 1.61(1)(a), F.A.C., during the audit period, because less than fifty percent of the facility's units were occupied by guests who had resided there three or more months as of July 1 each year. The letter further stated that "an analysis" of the rental of units submitted by Petitioner as to its exempt status did not conform to the requirements of the rule because the facility advertised to guests on a daily, weekly and monthly basis in addition to long-term leasing, the analysis used an annual rather than a three-month period prior to July as a basis, and the number of tenants at the facility rather than total units. (Exhibit 2) Petitioner's accountant prepared an analysis of the room status at the Ormond Hotel during the period July 1, 1977 to June 30, 1978. It reflects that 165 rooms, or 64.5 percent of the total of 256 units rented during the year, were occupied by tenants for a continuous period of over three months. On March 31 of that year, 157 rooms, or 61 percent of the total of 258 room available for occupancy, were occupied by guests for more than three months. Sixty-nine of the rooms were occupied by transient tenants or those with less than three- months occupancy (17 percent) and 32 rooms were unoccupied (12 percent). As of June 30, 1978, the hotel had 110 guests who had resided there for more than three months, and 18 guests with residency of less than three months. (Testimony of Salveson, Exhibit 3)
Recommendation That the proposed tax assessments against Petitioner Ormond Hotel Corporation arising out of the rental of living accommodations at the Ormond Hotel during the period December 1, 1975 through March 1, 1979, be vacated, and that the remainder of the proposed assessments be enforced. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Lester Kaney, Esquire Post Office Box 191 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Linda C. Procta, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
