Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. NELSON F. HAWK, 75-000233 (1975)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 75-000233 Latest Update: Dec. 10, 1976

Findings Of Fact The Respondent has been a registered real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission from February 17, 1967, until the present. The Respondent was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Middle District of Florida and charged with devising and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud certain named persons and entities by use of the mails and further charged with the commission of an overt act in furtherance of said scheme. U.S. v. Hawk, Case No. 68-47-ORL CR, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. On October 11, 1968, the Respondent pled guilty to the offense of devising a scheme to defraud others and executing said scheme by use of the United States Mail and by telephone in violation of Title 18, Section 1341, U.S.C. The Respondent was sentenced to four years' imprisonment upon his plea of guilty. He served 17 months of his sentence before being paroled, which parole ended in October, 1972. The charge to which the Respondent pled guilty and was found guilty did not, in any manner, involve the sale of real property. Since his conviction and release from prison, the Respondent has worked as a real estate salesman. The Florida Real Estate Commission has shown no complaint lodged against Mr. Hawk regarding his registration as a real estate salesman from February 17, 1967, until the present, other than the complaint and allegations presently being considered. There has been no showing that Nelson F. Hawk engaged in any conduct warranting suspension of his registration as a real estate salesman other than that conviction heretofore referred to in 1968. Nelson F. Hawk is guilty of a crime against the laws of the United States involving fraudulent dealing as evidenced by the certificate of Wesley R. Thies, Clerk, United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Florida Laws (1) 475.25
# 1
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. ARCHIE STRUHL, 80-001721 (1980)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 80-001721 Latest Update: Jan. 22, 1981

Findings Of Fact The Respondent, on or about January 15, 1979 pled guilty to four counts of grand larceny in the Circuit Court in and for Dade County, Case No. 77-4457A. Count II of the instant Administrative Complaint apparently was based upon the transaction acts alleged in the Information, (Exhibit 1) . The Petitioner voluntarily dismissed Count I of the Administrative Complaint. In support of the allegations in Count II, the Petitioner presented Exhibit 1 consisting of the State Attorney's Information, the Order withholding adjudication in that criminal case, and the Order granting probation. The Petitioner contends that the fact of the plea of guilty to the larceny charges in Circuit Court is sufficient to prove the allegations of misrepresentation, dishonest dealing, and the numerous other acts proscribed by subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1977) as amended. The Respondent's plea of guilty to the criminal charges was entered into in the Circuit Court as a result of negotiations with the State Attorney whereby the Respondent was assured that adjudication would be withheld, he would be placed on probation, and no felony conviction would appear on the Respondent's criminal record. The negotiations reached fruition in the order of the Circuit Judge dated January 15, 1979 allowing that result. The Petitioner's exhibit 1 does not contain the guilty plea itself, although it is referred to in the judge's order. The State Attorney's Information contained in that exhibit, to which the guilty plea was directed, merely recites the statutorily derived language necessary to make out charges of larceny, but does not refer to the Goldbergs as victims, mentions no specific amounts of money, makes no mention of a purported mortgager-mortgagee relationship, nor does it relate the charges to a real estate transaction in any way. No other evidence in support of the alleged violations of Section 475.25(1)(a) Florida Statutes (1977) was adduced.

Recommendation Having considered the evidence in the record, the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and arguments of counsel, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found not guilty and that the Adiainistrative Complaint filed in this cause be dismissed, and Case No. 80-1721 be closed. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Board of Real Estate 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Julian R. Benjamin, Esquire Executive Suite DuPont Plaza Center 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way Miami, Florida 33131

Florida Laws (1) 475.25
# 2
ROBERT G. GRENE vs. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, 82-000341 (1982)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 82-000341 Latest Update: Sep. 15, 1982

The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner meets the qualifications for licensure as a real estate salesman and should be allowed to sit for the examination for licensure administered by the Florida Real Estate Commission. The Commission contends that Petitioner is not eligible for licensure on account of several convictions of criminal offenses. Respondent contends that due to the passage of time and subsequent good conduct, the criminal convictions do not render him ineligible for licensure.

Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a natural person over eighteen years of age and is a bona fide resident of the State of Florida. Except for issues raised with respect to several criminal convictions, there is no issue as to Petitioner's eligibility to take the examination for licensure as a real estate salesman. On August 20, 1962, Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida of the offenses of mail fraud and mail fraud conspiracy. He was sentenced to serve consecutive sentences of eighteen months on each of ten counts of an indictment, making a total of fifteen years. On September 20, 1963, Petitioner was convicted by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida of conspiracy to transport stolen securities in foreign commerce and causing stolen securities to be transported in foreign commerce. He was sentenced to three-year and one- year prison terms on two separate counts of an indictment. The sentences were imposed to run concurrently with each other and with the sentence imposed in the earlier mail fraud conviction. These convictions resulted from guilty verdicts entered subsequent to jury trials. Petitioner ultimately served three years in prison as a result of these convictions and was paroled in 1971. On June 26, 1967, Petitioner was convicted in the criminal court of record in Dade County, Florida, of issuing worthless checks. He was placed on probation for a period of five years and ordered to make restitution. On or about May 29, 1981, the Florida Office of Executive Clemency issued a Certificate of Restoration of Civil Rights to the Petitioner. By Order entered July 8, 1981, the Governor and Cabinet of the State of Florida granted specific authority to Petitioner to receive, possess or transport a firearm in commerce. Petitioner has been engaged in various business activities in the Orlando area since 1979. He enjoys a reputation for honesty and integrity among business associates. Since he was released from prison in 1971, Petitioner has lived a law-abiding life. He is active in his church and in various civic activities. It appears that if the Petitioner is licensed as a real estate salesman, he would faithfully and honestly represent clients. Petitioner tends to minimize the role that he played in the activities that led to his criminal convictions. It does appear, however, that Petitioner is generally remorseful, and that he has shown himself capable of living an honest life. More than seventeen years have elapsed since Petitioner engaged in any criminal conduct that resulted in a conviction.

Florida Laws (3) 120.57475.17475.25
# 3
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. CARL D. HILL, 82-001389 (1982)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 82-001389 Latest Update: Feb. 07, 1983

The Issue Did the Respondent obtain licensure by fraud or misrepresentation contrary to Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes?

Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Carl D. Hill, submitted an application for licensure to become a real estate salesperson on June 22, 1981. See Exhibit "A", a true and correct copy of the Respondent's application. Respondent admits he executed the original application in the line designated for the signature of the applicant. Said application was received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on June 26, 1981, and was approved on July 24, 1981. Based upon said application, Respondent was issued license number 0372160 as a real estate salesman. In response to question number six in the referenced application, Respondent replied "no" to the question of whether he had ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled. On June 7, 1980, Respondent was arrested by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office and charged with trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine, delivery of cocaine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. See Exhibit "B". On May 12, 1981, Respondent pleaded guilty to the crime of delivery of cocaine. Upon accepting such plea, the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County imposed a sentence of five years' probation and withheld adjudication.

Recommendation Having found that the Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the license of Respondent as a real estate salesperson be revoked. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: David P. Rankin, Esquire 4600 West Cypress, Suite 410 Tampa, Florida 33607 Jack W. Crooks, Esquire 4202 West Waters Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Samuel R. Shorstein, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William M. Furlow, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802

Florida Laws (2) 120.57475.25
# 4
FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION vs. GEORGE CHACONAS, 88-004435 (1988)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 88-004435 Latest Update: Aug. 29, 1989

Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida responsible for licensing and regulating real estate salesmen in the State of Florida. The Respondent, George Chaconas, at all times pertinent hereto, was, and still is, the holder of a Florida real estate salesman license, number 0402455. The Respondent was convicted on February 2, 1988, of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, a felony. The Respondent was convicted in United States District Court, District of Baltimore. On April 15, 1988, the Respondent was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. The Respondent is presently serving his sentence in the Federal Correctional Institute located in Tallahassee, Florida. By letter dated February 29, 1988, from the Respondent's counsel, the Petitioner was informed of the Respondent's conviction. The Respondent's conviction is currently on appeal. Mitigating circumstances in this case include the following: (1) the evidence failed to prove that the Respondent's violations harmed real estate consumers or the real estate public; (2) there are two counts in the Administrative Complaint; (3) this is the first time the offense has been committed; (4) no disciplinary action has been taken against the Respondent in the past; (5) the Respondent was not on probation or under suspension at the time the violations occurred; (6) the real state business will be the Respondent's only source of income when he is released from incarceration; and (7) the Respondent has not received a letter of guidance.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a real estate salesman by revoked; provided, that if the Respondent's conviction is reversed on appeal, his license as real estate sales can be reinstated. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1989, 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 29th day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr. Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 George Chaconas Federal Correctional Institute Capital Circle #07593-018, PMB 1000 Unit B/X Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando Florida 32802

Florida Laws (3) 120.57455.225475.25
# 5
LOUIS J. ABBATE vs. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, 77-001099 (1977)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-001099 Latest Update: Feb. 22, 1978

Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Louis J. Abbate filed an application with the Florida Real Estate Commission for registration as a real estate salesman on February 10, 1977. The Petitioner answered "No." to question 6 of the application which reads as follows: "(6) Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled?" The Florida Real Estate Commission issued an order dated June 8, 1977, denying the application of the Petitioner for the following reasons: That on or about August 16, 1955, the Petitioner was arrested in Chicago, Illinois and charged with conspiracy. On or about January 25, 1956, the Petitioner was arrested in Chicago, Illinois and charged with conspiracy to interfere with communication lines operated and controlled by the United States. On or about July 9, 1956, the Petitioner was sentenced to three years imprisonment and fined $1,000. On or about June 18, 1959, the Petitioner was arrested in Terre Haute, Indiana and charged with conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce. The Petitioner failed to disclose in his answer to question 6 on the application the foregoing arrests. The application of Petitioner was considered at the Commission's May 19, 1977, meeting. A mailogram sent by the Petitioner dated May 24, 1977, and received by the Respondent on May 25, 1977, indicated that the Petitioner had failed to disclose certain items on his application. This attempt to amend the application was not considered in the order dated June 8, 1977. The arrest of Petitioner grew out of a conspiracy by a union to commit vandalism to the property of Southern Bell Telephone Company in Jackson, Mississippi. The Petitioner was a member of a union but not of the union conspiring to vandalize the telephone company. The Petitioner stated that he informed the company of the proposed vandalism and that no vandalism did take place. He was, however, convicted of conspiracy and fined $1,000 and sentenced to four months in prison in the State of Illinois. Thereafter he was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and subsequently convicted and served time in the Federal Penitentiary and paid a fine as a result of the original conspiracy in Illinois. After the Petitioner had served his sentence in Illinois and later has served his sentence in the Federal Penitentiary he was employed for some 13 years by Aircraft Gear Corporation until his retirement in July, 1976. Petitioner presented three letters attesting to his satisfactory employment and to his good character.

Recommendation Grant the application for registration. It appears that the Petitioner has rehabilitated himself since the conspiracy conviction and his attempted amendment to his application for registration shows that he intends to come a citizen, honest, truthful, and trustworthy. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of January, 1978. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 1978 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Pierce, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Louis J. Abbate 6012 Raven Drive Holiday, Florida 33590 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, An Agency of the State of Florida, PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 3210 vs. Petitioner, PASCO COUNTY DOAH CASE NO. 77-1099 LOUIS J. ABBATE, Respondent. /

Florida Laws (1) 475.17
# 6
PAUL ELDEN vs. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, 88-000350 (1988)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 88-000350 Latest Update: May 23, 1988

Findings Of Fact By application originally executed on March 6, 1987, petitioner, Paul Elden, sought licensure as a real estate salesman by examination with respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). The application reflects it was received by the Division on July 27, 1987. Question six on the application requires the applicant to state whether he or she "has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld." Petitioner answered in the affirmative and gave the following response: March 1986 for bookmaking was given two years probation. Upon further investigation by the Division, it learned that on March 17, 1986 in the Broward County Circuit Court, Elden was adjudicated guilty of two counts of bookmaking. In addition, adjudication of guilt was withheld for a third count of possession of gambling paraphernalia. All counts were felony charges. For these charges, Elden was placed on two years' probation. The probation was successfully completed in March, 1988. Based upon this information, but without citing relevant statutory grounds, the Division denied the application by letter dated January 21, 1988. Elden freely acknowledged his mishap with the law. It occurred in December, 1985 when a Hallandale undercover police officer entered his book store in Hallandale and asked Elden to place two bets on football games. Elden took the bets and placed them with a bookie who frequented the store for the purpose of taking bets from Elden and other customers. Elden was later charged with two felony counts of bookmaking and, after a notebook with names of betting customers was found on the premises, he was also charged with possession of gambling paraphernalia. Elden no longer owns the book store in which the gambling occurred. At the time of hearing, Elden was a sales representative for a local health maintenance organization. If his application is granted, he intends to place his license with a North Miami Beach broker who has offered him a position.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Paul Elden for licensure as a real estate salesman by examination be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0350 Respondent: Covered in findings of fact 1 and 2. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Paul Elden 2049 South Ocean Drive Hallandale, Florida 33009 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Room 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Florida Laws (2) 120.57475.17
# 7
CHRISTOPHER ROBERTSON MURPHY vs. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, 88-004439 (1988)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 88-004439 Latest Update: Feb. 22, 1989

Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Florida Real Estate Commission, (Commission), was the state agency charged with the regulation of the profession of real estate in Florida and is the licensing agency for real estate salesmen and brokers. On or about April 20, 1988, the Petitioner, Christopher R. Murphy, prepared and submitted, along with the appropriate fee, to the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. At paragraph 6 of the application form appears the question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? Petitioner answered, "Yes (2)" to this question and consistent with further instructions on the form, indicated: August 9, 1978, arrested Lima, Peru, Charged with Traficking [sic] in cocaine, sentenced to 24 months Oct. 4, 1985, arrested in Jacksonville Florida, Charged with conspiracy to possess & distribute, sentenced 42 mos. At the hearing, Petitioner admitted that in 1978 he was arrested for trafficking in cocaine in Lima, Peru. He was in pretrial confinement for 27 months prior to his conviction, which, he claims, did not meet with the requirements of due process. The facts of the case were that he was in Peru with a friend who was in the cocaine business. It was his companion, not him, he claims, who had cocaine in his hotel room and because Petitioner was with him there, he, too, was charged. Petitioner admits that he knew his friend was in Peru to buy cocaine and that he went with him willingly, but claims that he was not a party to the purchase nor did he own or possess any of the cocaine. He also admits that in 1985 he was convicted in Jacksonville, Florida of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. He claims, however, that this conviction will be reconsidered by the court even though he admits to being guilty of the offense. There was, however, no evidence of any appeal of the conviction filed by Petitioner and his representation that his case will be reconsidered is based on his cooperation in an ongoing investigation about which he cannot speak. The fact remain that he has been convicted and the conviction still stands. Mr. Murphy was born in 1938 in Boston. In later years, his father worked as a civil engineer on the Saturn 5 project for NASA and he has lived in Florida for 30 years. He is presently a student of accounting due to graduate with a degree in education. He wants his real estate license because he is interested in real estate and in mortgage brokerage and wants to establish a family business, the prime thrust of which will be mortgage brokerage. Nonetheless, he feels a real estate license would go hand in glove with this end. Petitioner contends he disclosed everything in his application. As a result of the trial in Jacksonville, he was sentenced to three and a half years in prison. He was given credit for the 6 months pretrial confinement he spent in County Jail, served 18 months of the full term, and spent an additional 6 months in a halfway house. While in prison, he took college courses in real estate, finance, and management. By Order dated November 28, 1988, the Comptroller of the State of Florida, incorporated a Stipulation between the Department of Banking and Finance and the Petitioner which had the effect of granting Petitioner's application for a probationary mortgage broker's license, and he is currently so licensed in Florida. Mr. Murphy regrets his errors and claims he has left that part of his life behind him. He wants the license for which he has applied so that he can do something better with his life consistent with the plans mentioned previously. Kent Brink, a real estate broker in Odessa, Florida, has known Petitioner for approximately five years from the time when Petitioner first bought a piece of property through him. Since that time, he has gotten to know Petitioner socially as well and has mutual friends and business associates with him. He is aware of Petitioner's reputation for honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, and his reputation for good character within the community and it is good in all respects. He is aware of Petitioner's convictions and what they are for, and in spite of that, trusts him and would hire him if he were licensed. He would have no problem trusting his own reputation and the welfare of his clients with the Petitioner. Steven G. Burgess, the sales manager for Keystone Real Estate in Holiday, Florida, met the Petitioner about a year and a half ago and is aware of Petitioner's criminal record. Since their meeting, however, he has had numerous business dealings with the Petitioner and has found him to be reliable. He has had no problem trusting Petitioner and has found him to be totally honest. Petitioner's reputation for honesty, truthfulness, and good character in the community, as he knows it, is good. Sheryl Howard, a builder in Brooksville, Florida, has known Petitioner for approximately one year, having met him through a real estate transaction Petitioner had with her father. Petitioner came to work for her and her father in the building business. He was hired to work with punch lists and to run errands and in that capacity, he had to be trusted. He was given a key to the office without problem, and always accomplished the job requested of him, going beyond that which was required. She is aware of Petitioner's criminal record because he made it known to her. Nonetheless, if he is licensed, she would be happy to have him work for her and would trust him with access to her escrow account and her funds. Petitioner demonstrated exceptionally poor judgement as well as criminality in his involvement in the two offenses of which he was convicted. Even conceding that the lack of due process during his Peruvian conviction, he admitted he was there in the company of his friend who he knew was involved in an unlawful activity. Nonetheless, for the purpose of argument, disregarding that conviction, he also admits his involvement in and guilt of the cocaine offense in Jacksonville. There is no doubt that drug offenses are egregious and nefarious and his involvement therein indicates a complete disregard not only for the laws of this state and country, but for the welfare of his fellow citizens, the same group which would serve as potential clients were he to be licensed. Nonetheless, it would appear from the evidence presented by Petitioner and unrebutted by Respondent that he has changed and has been rehabilitated. The evidence shows he has been tested in the community since his release from prison, and has passed the test. He has shown evidence of an attempt to better himself through education and employment and has satisfied those for and with whom he worked that he can be trusted. It is found, therefore, that he has been rehabilitated and no longer presents a threat or danger to the interests of the public and investors with whom he is likely to come into contact.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Christopher R. Murphy, be deemed eligible to sit for examination for licensure as a real estate salesman in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of February, 1989 at 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 23rd day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4439 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. By the Petitioner: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein 3. & 4. Accepted as a reflection of the evidence Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted as a comment on the evidence Accepted and incorporated herein & 9. Accepted and incorporated herein By the Respondent: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph C. Stoddard, Esquire 132 Lithia Pinecrest Road Brandon, Florida 33511 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 212 400 West Robinson Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director DPR, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801

Florida Laws (3) 120.57475.17475.25
# 8
STEVEN ABEL vs. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, 84-004319 (1984)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 84-004319 Latest Update: Dec. 12, 1985

The Issue Whether the petitioner meets the qualifications for licensure as a real estate salesman.

Findings Of Fact On July 6, 1984, the petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Department of Professional Regulations Division of Real Estate. The petitioner responded in the affirmative to question 6, which asked whether the applicant had "ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. . .", and set forth the details as follows: "Attempted Possession of Stolen Property" (New York) Bronx Date of Probation May 29, 1984 Date of Conviction November 16, 1983 Probation Officer Ms. English 212-590-3101 By letter dated September 24, 1984, and undated letter filed October 31, 1984, the petitioner was informed that the Commission had denied his application for licensure. In pertinent part the letter stated as follows. "The power of the Commission to review and deny applications is based upon Sections 475.17 and 475.25, Florida Statutes. Subsection 475.17(1) calls for the applicant to be "honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character, and shall have a good reputation for fair dealing. . ." The reason for the Commission's action is based on your answer to Question(s) 6 of the licensing application and/or your criminal record according to the appropriate law enforcement agency. The petitioner owned a secondhand jewelry business in New York, similar to a pawn shop. He dealt with people all over the world, mainly wealthy people, and they sold him antiques and jewelry. He informed anyone coming in his store that he did not buy stolen goods and had a sign on his wall so stating. One gentleman, that had been a client for approximately three years, came into the store about every six or seven months to sell something. The last time this individual came into the store, about four weeks before the petitioner closed his business and moved to Florida, the individual implied that the gold he was selling might not belong to him. However, petitioner wasn't paying particular attention at that time to what the individual was saying since the petitioner had had previous dealings with him. After moving to Florida, in February of 1983, Petitioner was notified that he had been indicted in Bronx, New York. He flew back to New York and turned himself into the authorities. He discovered that the gentleman with whom he had been dealing for three years was a New York police officer and that their conversations had been taped. The tape revealed that during the last transaction the officer had implied that the gold he was selling did not belong to him. Petitioner pleaded guilty to attempted possession of stolen property, a felony, and was placed on probation for five years beginning in December, 1983. Petitioner has had a very good record while on probation. The petitioner held a real estate license in New York for over 10 years which has now expired. The license was never suspended or revoked and petitioner never had any other type of problem while in the real estate business. Since petitioner has been in Florida he has held responsible jobs handling large amounts of money. His employers, friends and coworkers have been impressed with his reliability, integrity and honesty. Petitioner presented sufficient evidence to show that since living in Florida he has been honest, truthful, trustworthy, of good character, and has a good reputation for fair dealing. Nevertheless, respondent pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted possession of stolen property and is still on probation for that crime. Although an isolated unlawful act or criminal conviction in the past does not necessarily mean that an individual is presently dishonest, untrustworthy or of bad character, 1/ it must be concluded that when an individual is presently on probation for a crime involving dishonest dealing, the unlawful act or conviction is not so remote that it can be deemed an isolated incident in the past. Because Petitioner is still on probation for a crime that involves dishonesty and a lack of trustworthiness, petitioner has not established that he meets the requirements of Section 474.17(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for licensure be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 12th of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 12th day of December, 1985.

Florida Laws (3) 120.57475.17475.25
# 9

Can't find what you're looking for?

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