Findings Of Fact At all times material to the charges, respondent was a licensed real estate salesman, on inactive status, holding license no. 0330793., and residing in Lake Worth, Florida. In early October, 1983, Jack Barlage entered the offices of Colony Real Estate in Lake Worth, Florida. He was a builder and looking for acreage to purchase. Joyce Adams, a real estate salesman with Colony Real Estate, met with him and, two or three days later, showed him a 5.207 acre tract of land in sunny Urban Meadows, an unrecorded subdivision located west of Loxahatchee, Florida. He expressed an interest in the property; she told him that the owner, Richard Moore, might be willing to sell it. A day or two later, Mr. Barlage called Ms. Adams and asked if she would call owner Moore and obtain a purchase price. She responded that she would not get a commission from selling the property and that he should deal with "Leon," who would be able to contact Mr. Moore, the owner. A day or two later, Ms. Adams introduced Mr. Barlage to "Leon," who was Leon Dennis, respondent's husband--the original developer of Sunny Urban Meadows. This meeting took place at a nearby coffee shop in Royal Palm Beach, called Sandy's. John Adams, Ms. Adams' husband and a real estate salesman, was also present. Respondent did not attend this meeting and there is no evidence that she was, at this point in time, involved in the transaction. This coffee shop meeting was Ms. Adams' last contact with Mr. Barlage, and she had no further involvement in this real estate transaction. A contract for "purchase and sale" of the Sunny Urban Meadows tract was prepared at this meeting and signed by Mr. Barlage, the prospective purchaser. Leon Dennis, respondent's husband, retrieved the form "purchase and sale" contract from his car, returned to the coffee shop, and completed it in the presence of the others. He filled in the terms, including a $28,000 purchase price. He arrived at this figure based on her knowledge of current land values in the area. The form "Brokerage Fee" provision on the bottom of the contract, however, was not filled in; no sales commission was indicated and no broker identified. Mr. Dennis told purchaser Barlage that he would have the contract presented to owner Moore. At that time, Mr. Barlage had not yet had any contacts with respondent, Mr. Dennis's wife. Mr. Dennis, with the help of a relative who was a close friend of Mr. Moore's, then had the contract delivered to Mr. Moore, in Punta Gorda, Florida. Approximately a week earlier, respondent had telephoned Mr. Moore, asking if he wanted to sell the subject property. At that time, a sales commission was not discussed; neither did she represent that she was a licensed real estate salesman or broker. But when the original contract was subsequently delivered to him by Mr. Moore's relative, the "Brokerage Fee" provision had been completed, providing for payment of ten percent of the gross price or $2,800 to Pat Dennis, the respondent. Her name was hand printed above the line labeled, "Name of Broker." Upon receiving the contract and discovering the sales commission, Mr. Moore telephoned respondent and told her that he would not pay a ten percent commission--he said he would agree only to a six percent commission, to be split between her and his own real estate brokerage firm. He also told her that if those terms were not acceptable to her, he "would go ahead and do it without her and give-her her money after the deal was done." (TR-21) Mr. Moore then arranged to meet directly with Mr. Barlage, the prospective purchaser. On October 9, 1983, Mr. Barlage drove to Punta Gorda and met Mr. Moore in a hospital parking lot to finalize the contract. Mr. Moore, noting the "Brokerage Fee" provision, said "Who are these people?" and "Well, I'll take care of them," or words to that effect, (TR-10). He then drew a line crossing out the "Brokerage Fee" provision and initialed it. He then told Mr. Barlage he wanted to do a credit check; one or two days later, he called Mr. Barlage and told him he was going to accept the contract. It was at that time, on or about October 9, 1983, that Mr. Moore executed the contract as seller. For reasons not material, the contract of sale was never carried out by the parties. Mr. Barlage unilaterally cancelled the contract. When Mr. Moore called him to inquire about the $500 earnest money deposit, which the contract had indicated was held by "Stewart Title," Mr. Moore learned that a deposit had not been received by Stewart Title; in fact, Mr. Barlage had made no deposit at all. There is conflicting testimony as to whether respondent ever communicated with Mr. Moore concerning this real estate transaction. Respondent denies any direct involvement. Her denial is rejected and the testimony of Mr. Moore, who had no discernible bias or motive to falsify, is accepted as persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's license as a Florida real estate salesman be revoked for violating Section 475.25(1)(a) and (b) and 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in the manner described above. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 25th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard McClain, Esquire 6167 Haddon Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Findings Of Fact Respondent Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc., is a registered corporate real estate broker holding license number C00213882. Respondents Richard S. Testut, A. C. Kibler and Beatrix Meyer-Burghagen are registered real estate brokers holding licenses numbered 0180949, 0047414 and 0145168, respectively, and these individuals are officers of Respondent Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc. In addition, Beatrix Meyer-Burghagen holds a license to operate real estate school named Florida Real Estate Clinics, Inc., which is also a Respondent herein. In support of the allegations in its Administrative Complaint the Petitioner presented testimony and evidence from five witnesses. The first, Stephen E. Thomas, Jr., is an officer of Respondent, Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc., and he is also an officer of Florida Real Estate Council, Inc. Neither Mr. Thomas nor Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., hold any real estate licenses, and they are not parties to this proceeding. Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., was formed to offer licensed salespeople an opportunity to belong to their own association. During the month of April, 1980, this organization sponsored a series of public meetings to which inactive licensees were invited by means of a flier which was mailed to approximately 21,000 of them in South Florida. The purpose of these meetings was to inform inactive real estate salespeople concerning the status of their licenses after June of 1980. Generally, these fliers conveyed the impression that inactive licenses had been placed in jeopardy by a change in the real estate law, and the information conveyed at the public meetings reiterated the existence of an apparent threat to these licenses. Two other witness presented by the petitioner established the content of one of the public meetings held by Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., in April of 1980. The remaining two witnesses were presented to clarify the actual changes that were made in the real estate law on July 1, 1980. There was no truth or substance to the information conveyed to over 21,000 inactive licensees concerning the status of these licenses as a result of statutory changes made in 1980. However, this information was not established to be more than an inaccurate lay interpretation of the Florida Statutes by Stephen E. Thomas, Jr., or by Florida Real Estate Council, Inc. In summary, the Petitioner's evidence fails to prove a conspiracy among the Respondents as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Except for the fact that Stephen E. Thomas, Jr., is an officer of both Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., and Respondent Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc., insufficient evidence was presented to establish a connection between these corporations. Any false and misleading statements or information disseminated at the public meetings and by flier was the action of Mr. Thomas, individually, and/or Florida Real Estate Council, Inc., neither of whom are subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Real Estate, and neither of whom are parties to this proceeding. The evidence does not support a finding that any of the Respondents conspired together for the purpose of distributing false information to real estate license holders, as alleged. Nor was there substantial, competent evidence that the Respondents, or any of them received financial benefit either from the flier or the public meetings. Finally, based upon the testimony of Petitioner's witness, Stephen E. Thomas, Jr., and evidence from the only Respondent who testified, Richard S. Testut, Freedom of Choice Realty, Inc., attempted to operate a real estate brokerage business beginning on July 1, 1980. The initiation on July 2, 1980, of the investigation which resulted in the filing of the administrative Complaint under consideration here adversely affected its employees, as well as potential employees, to such an extent that no sales or commissions could be earned. However, this company did have a staff, listings, sales meetings, literature, and advertised to recruit salespeople. Thus, the Petitioner's contention that this corporation neither actively employed any licensees, or performed any brokerage services, was not proven.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed in this case be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 18 day of February, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18 day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alan H. Konigsburg, Esquire 1700 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 202 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mr. Richard S. Testut 4180 Coral Springs Drive Coral Springs, Florida 33035
Findings Of Fact George A. Heyen is a duly registered real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission, and was so registered and has been so registered continuously since October 1, 1972, as evidenced by Petitioner's Exhibit number 1. While serving in the capacity as a real estate salesman, the Respondent entered into a listing agreement with one Thomas S. Bowers and Brenda L. Bowers, his wife. This agreement was drawn on December 11, 1973 and is Petitioner's Exhibit number 4. On February 6, 1974, a purchase and sell agreement was drawn up by the Respondent and entered into between Maria A. Hindes and the Bowers. This purchase and sell agreement is Petitioner's Exhibit number 3. This contract of February 6, 1974 was submitted to Molton, Allen and Williams, Mortgage Brokers, 5111 66th Street, St. Petersburg, Florida. The contract, as drawn, was rejected as being unacceptable for mortgage financing, because it failed, to contain the mandatory FHA clause. When the Respondent discovered that the February 6, 1974 contract had been rejected, a second contract of February 8, 1974 was prepared. A copy of this contract is Petitioner's Exhibit number 5. The form of the contract, drawn on February 8, 1974, was one provided by Molton, Allen and Williams. When, the Respondent received that form he prepared it and forged the signature of Mr. and Mrs. Bowers. The explanation for forging the signatures as stated in the course of the hearing, was to the effect that it was a matter of expediency. The expediency referred to the fact that the parties were anxious to have a closing and to have the transaction completed, particularly the sellers, Mr. and Mrs. Bowers. Therefore, in the name of expediency the signatures were forged. Testimony was also given that pointed out the Bowers were very hard to contact in and around the month of February, 1974, and some testimony was given to the effect that the Bowers made frequent trips to Ohio, but it was not clear whether these trips would have been made in the first part of February, 1974. The Bowers discovered that their name had been forged when they went to a closing on April 11, 1974. They refused to close the loan at that time. On April 24, 1974, a new sales contract was followed by a closing which was held on April 26, 1974 and a copy of the closing statement is Petitioner's Exhibit number 6. The Respondent has received no fees or commissions for his services in the transaction and there have been no further complaints about the transaction. Prior to this incident, the Respondent, George A. Heyen, was not shown to have had any disciplinary involvement with the Florida Real Estate Commission and has demonstrated that he has been a trustworthy individual in his business dealings as a real estate salesman.
Recommendation It is recommended that the registration of the registrant, George A. Heyen, be suspended for a period not to exceed 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 George A. Heyen c/o Gregoire-Gibbons, Inc. 6439 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
The Issue Whether Petitioner is qualified for licensure as a real estate salesman.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application be granted based on his having satisfied all statutory criteria for licensure. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee Florida. R. L. CALEEN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Richard C. Lightner, was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0408120. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker, with a home address of 1221 Duval Street, Key West, Florida 32040. Respondent, or a representative on his behalf, did not appear at the hearing to refute or otherwise contest the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: The Department enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's Real Estate brokers license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 4th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Raymond O. Bodiford, Esquire 515 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE Petitioner vs. Case No. 0154510 DOAH No. 87-3668 RICHARD C. LIGHTNER III Respondent /
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure by examination as a real estate salesman sometime prior to July 14, 1987 but her application was denied because she had been convicted of the possession of cocaine. On July 15, 1986, the Petitioner, Kristin M. Yanick, was arrested in Martin County, Florida, and charged with possession of cocaine, resisting an officer without violence, and possession of narcotics equipment. Thereafter, the court withheld adjudication of guilt on the possession of cocaine charge and dismissed the others, and, in November, 1986, placed her on probation for five years, assigning her to Mr. Martin T. Zientz, a Probation Officer. Petitioner successfully carried out the terms of her probation until sometime in May, 1987 when one of her periodic drug analysis reports requested by the Probation Officer came back positive for cocaine. Petitioner immediately and voluntarily entered a detoxification unit and Mr. Ziantz considers this an isolated incident. Since her release from the detoxification unit he considers her conduct to have been exemplary. Petitioner has taken a job and, according to interviews conducted with her supervisors is doing well. Mr. Zientz is convinced that Petitioner will stay clean of drugs because of her strong goal of getting a real estate license. He is willing to work with the Real Estate Commission to ensure she remains free of drugs if such could be made a condition imposed by the Commission. Mr. Zientz does not feel Petitioner is manipulating the system. She works closely with him and he would consider her to be in the top 15 percent of his probationers. She will be eligible for termination of probation when she has completed one-half her sentence. He considers her to be a responsible individual and he believes she could serve effectively as a real estate salesman. These sentiments are shared by Deputy Johnson who has known Petitioner for about two years including the period of her difficulty with drugs. Subsequent to her treatment, he has seen a considerable difference in her attitude and outlook. She is working and has taken over the care of her own children who previously were with her parents and she appears to have improved physically. Johnson, too, feels that she is not a manipulative person and is sincere in her efforts to be a responsible individual. Petitioner is quite active in her church and its Sunday School. According to Jacqueline Esker, Petitioner has filled in as a substitute Sunday School teacher and Mrs. Esker feels that Petitioner is making a sincere effort to get on with her life and her children. She is active in other church activities as well. Mrs. Esker is aware of Petitioner's problems with drugs and would nonetheless, have no hesitancy in allowing Petitioner to teach her children in Sunday School. She feels safe with her children in Petitioner's care. Petitioner worked for Mr. Edward Bessemer several years ago. He is aware of her drug problem and can see a night and day difference in her since her rehabilitation. While she was working for him, she had the keys to his office and his home and had access to petty cash. Even when she was involved with drugs, she never violated his trust and he would trust her with his life. He considers her to be responsible, conscientious, and an honest person. If it were possible for him to do so, he would hire her on a full time basis. Sherry Ketchum, a former member of the Ethics and Standards Committee of the Martin County Board of Realtors, worked with Petitioner in the same real estate office during the period Petitioner was having trouble with drugs. Since her rehabilitation , Petitioner has become a conscientious employee with a good attitude. She is punctual and responsible and Ms. Ketchum has no reservations about Petitioner sitting for the real estate examination. When they were working together for a developer, Petitioner showed homes for Ms. Ketchum and had access to private property. There was never any indication of Petitioner's dishonesty and were she able to do so, Ms. Ketchum would hire Petitioner. Frances J. Yanick, mother of Petitioner's estranged husband, has known her for approximately 5 to 6 years and is aware of Petitioner's drug problem. Mrs. Yanick has seen a tremendous change in Petitioner's behavior. She has taken hold of her life and is going to work every day; her children are well taken care of; she is active in the church; and has made a responsible effort to manage her time and set a goal for herself. Mrs. Yanick, does not feel that Petitioner is manipulating the system. She believes that Petitioner should be allowed to sit for the examination since she has proven she is capable, honest, and trustworthy and would be no threat to the public. If Petitioner is allowed to earn her license, Mrs. Yanick intends to hire her. Petitioner admits she is guilty of possessing cocaine. However, she contends, prior to her arrest, she enrolled in the Palm Beach Institute, a drug rehabilitation facility, on her own because she knew she needed help. She has learned a lot about her addiction. Petitioner has wanted to be a real estate agent even prior to her arrest but at that time, did nothing about it. After her arrest, she decided she had to do something positive or she would never get her life in shape. She stopped using drugs, voluntarily entered a drug rehabilitation program, and enrolled in real estate school. Petitioner admits that in April, 1987, she again used cocaine. For the most part, however, she has continued with mental health counseling , has entered Alcoholics Anonymous , and has enlisted the support of her pastor and her mother-in-law. She believes this is a very strong support system and will be instrumental in keeping her drug-free. She now has hope instead of despair and courage instead of depression. She got rid of all her old friends and has new ones; she has developed a routine to live by; and, most important, she has grown up. She has self-discipline and has opened a new relationship with her children , and , hopefully, with her husband. Understanding the legitimate concern of the Real Estate Commission and recognizing that licensing is a privilege with responsibilities attendant thereto and not a right, she feels confident she can handle these responsibilities. She believes her dependency is sufficiently under control that she can handle the responsibilities that would go with licensing as a real estate salesman . Her support system is sufficient to bolster her when things do not go as she would hope. She is willing to work under any conditions imposed by the Commission. Petitioner submitted a package of letters from numerous individuals testifying to her rehabilitation and recovery. These include her addiction counselor at the Indian River Mental Health Center; her sister; her pastor; Mr. Johnson; Mr. Lucien Roy, a former employer in the investment business; her mother-in-law; her husband; the church secretary; neighbors; other real estate professionals; co-workers; and acquaintances; all of whom support her in her effort toward licensure. In their opinion, she is honest, sincere, dependable, enthusiastic, and conscientious and should not be continually penalized because of her one mistake with drugs. Petitioner's sister, Ms. Silva, who was herself an addict, is now a rehabilitation professional in Palm Beach County. She concludes that Petitioner has all the right things going for her. The biggest thing in Petitioner's favor at the moment is her participation in Alcoholics Anonymous. She believes that Petitioner, honestly recognizing that she has and will continue to have a drug addiction, can nonetheless manage it with continuing success.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Kristin Yanick be permitted to sit for the examination for licensure as a real estate salesman in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3020 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 1 and 2. 4 and 5. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 1 and 2. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 3-5. For the Respondent 1 and 2. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 1 and 2. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 3 and 15. Rejected as a restatement of the evidence and cumulative. Rejected as a restatement of the evidence or comment thereon. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce M. Wilkinson, Esquire 55 East Osceola Street Suite 100 Stuart, Florida 34994 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street Room 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller, Acting Director Department of Professional Regulation Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
