Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts were found: At all times relevant hereto, respondent was licensed as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida having been issued license No. 0204657 which license was inactive and scheduled to expire on March 31, 1983. Respondent's license was renewed on April 1, 1983. On or about May 13, 1983, on Information filed by the office of the State Attorney of the 12th Judicial Circuit in the State of Florida, respondent was charged with the commission of prostitution, lewdness or assignation; contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes. Thereafter, on December 19, 1983, respondent made her appearance in the County Court of Sarasota County, Florida, before the Honorable Robert Stahlschmidt, County Court Judge, and entered a plea of no1o contendere to the charge of prostitution. On the same day, Judge Stahlschmidt, withheld adjudication; sentenced respondent to sixty (60) days in the county jail which was suspended; fined respondent $340, including court costs; placed respondent on supervised probation for a period of one (1) year under the supervision of the Salvation Army Correction Division upon the condition that she serve 50 hours of community services and not be involved in any acts of prostitution.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of facts and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the respondent be found guilty of violation of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, 1983. For such violation, considering the mitigating circumstances surrounding the violation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a letter of REPRIMAND to the respondent. Respectively submitted and entered this 17th day of May, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 17th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Gerald C. Surfus, Esquire 150 East Avenue South Sarasota, Florida 33577 Sharla Speakman Post Office Box 4202 Sarasota, Florida 33578 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, whether any disciplinary action against his licensure status is warranted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material herein, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 00335420. The last license issued was as a salesman, c/o Ancla Realty, Inc., 292 Aragon, Coral Gables, Florida 33134. Respondent, on or about January 24, 1983, in Dade County, Florida, did unlawfully obtain or use, or did endeavor to obtain or use the property of another, Steffi Downs or Joann Downs, being a lamp, with the intent to deprive that person of the right to the property or of a benefit therefrom, or to appropriate the property to his own use or to the use of any person not entitled thereto, in violation of Subsection 812.014 (1) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes. As a result thereof, an information alleging petit theft was filed against the Respondent on March 1, 1983. Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the information and by order of April 22, 1983, Respondent was found guilty of petit theft, adjudication was withheld, Respondent was placed on six months probation and was assessed $100.00 court costs.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is Recommended that a Final Order be entered which would: Dismiss Count I of the Administrative Complaint; Find the Respondent guilty of the violation charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; and Revoke the Respondent's license, without prejudice to his reapplication for licensure upon a showing of rehabilitation. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 24th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Eddie Garcia 1260 N. W. 124th Street North Miami, Florida 33167 Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando Florida 32801
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner should be accepted for licensure as a real estate salesman or whether that application for licensure should be denied on account of her past criminal record.
Findings Of Fact On or about January 19, 1989, the Petitioner filed her application for licensure as a real estate salesman. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of licensed real estate salespersons and with regulating and controlling entry into that profession in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and related rules. The Petitioner answered question 6 on that application, the question inquiring as to her criminal history, by enclosing a copy of her arrest record and candidly admitting that she had been subjected to criminal prosecution in the past. That arrest record reflected charges of driving under the influence (DUI) to which she plead guilty and was placed on probation for a term of six months in each of two cases. The record also reflected 22 incidents of issuing worthless checks. She was prosecuted for these with the result that adjudication was withheld and the Petitioner was ordered to make restitution and to pay court costs. The criminal record further discloses that Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of grand theft in 1985 involving a retail store, apparently Sears, in Pensacola, for which she was adjudicated guilty and placed under community control for one year, ordered to make restitution and to perform six weeks of community service followed by one year of probation. The denial was only based upon the worthless check charges and the 1983 DUI conviction as well as a conviction in Texas occurring in 1981, when the Petitioner was 17 years old. The Petitioner candidly admitted this criminal histor both on her application form and in her testimony at hearing. The Texas charge was not indicated on her application form because the Petitioner had been told by the prosecutor in Texas that the result of her offense would not be of record for purposes of later employment. That charge involved alleged grand theft which was reduced by the prosecution to a charge of disorderly conduct for which she was adjudicated guilty and required to pay a fine and court costs. The factual circumstance in the Texas charge involved the theft of a tube of lipstick and a bottle of nail polish. The Petitioner testified that the prosecutor in San Antonio had told the Petitioner's mother that it was a juvenile offense which would have no effect on her record. With regard to the bad check charges, full restitution was made to all the vendors involved before the matter went before the court for adjudication. Although the criminal records reflect various arrests through 1985 and in 1986 on the worthless check charges, in fact the Petitioner established that the checks were all written in a very short period in the summer of 1985, but were prosecuted at different times, hence the different arrests. The Petitioner is genuinely remorseful about those charges and the related conduct and established that, by way of mitigation, they occurred at a time when she was only 21 years old, was married, but was having marital discord with her then husband, who exerted a great deal of influence in inducing her to issue the worthless checks. They have since become divorced and she is making an effort to better herself and engage in a productive life and career. She freely acknowledges that at the time of the San Antonio, Texas, disorderly conduct conviction she was 17 years old and at the time of the worthless check and grand theft convictions in Florida she was only approximately 21 years of age, was quite immature and having significant personal problems which she has since overcome. She is genuinely sorry for engaging in such conduct and has consistently attempted to improve her life ever since. She has held a number of jobs as waitress and cashier for local restaurants in the Pensacola area and the Navy Club at the Pensacola Naval base. This includes the handling of large sums of money or her employers for which she has an unblemished record, accounting for all monies entrusted to her in an honest, reliable way. This testimony to this effect is borne out by various letters of recommendation which the Respondent stipulated into evidence and in which former employers and friends all uniformly attest to her good reputation and character, all of whom knew of her past criminal history. They unhesitatingly describe her reputation and character as good. Her employers so attesting to her reputation for honesty and good morals attest to the fact that she worked in a capacity as waitress and cashier and successfully and honestly handle their funds. In particular, as a waitress at the Pensacola "Navy Club," she was placed in charge of the bingo concession or activity and served as the cashier for thousands of dollars collected in the course of such activities. She handled and accounted for these large sums of money in an honest, reliable and accurate fashion to the satisfaction of her employer. The Petitioner's one witness aside from herself was Rusty Coleman. He has known the Petitioner for at least three years and they are best friends. He was aware of her past criminal problems because she has told him about them herself. He finds her trustworthy and an honest, decent person who is seeking to better herself and become a reliable, productive citizen and member of society, as evidenced by her pursuing her higher education since the criminal episodes of record. It is noteworthy that although 22 incidents of prosecution for worthless checks appear at first to be a significant level of such miscreant conduct, that all the checks were issued within a short period of time in 1985 when she was under considerable stress due to her unfortunate and successful marriage situation, and related financial difficulties, and the same consideration applies to the issue of the grand theft conviction and the DUI convictions in 1983. Under ordinary circumstances this aggregation of criminal convictions and conduct would appear sufficient to preclude an applicant from licensure approval only four years after the last incident of such conduct, as was reflected in her criminal record. It is noteworthy however, that, in addition to the Petitioner's own credible, candid testimony concerning her genuine change in attitude and attempt to live an honest, productive life, that none of this type of conduct was repeated after the time when she ended her unsuccessful marriage and the related stress it caused in both an emotional and financial sense. She has honestly pursued gainful employment ever since, in positions of trust, handling large sums of money and further has embarked on a higher education career as well as, at the same time, successfully completing and passing her real estate instruction course in an effort to prepare herself for a productive, honorable profession. Under these circumstances, established by the Petitioner, her attending witness, and the corroborative statements admitted in evidence, although only four years have elapsed; it is found that in her particular situation that is sufficient time, coupled with the other evidence of her rehabilitation, to justify admitting her to licensure if she should pass the state examination involved. This is particularly true given that the Respondent has sufficient regulatory authority to oversee her entry into and practice of the profession so that it can ensure that the public is protected through its authority to impose accounting and reporting requirements on all funds and transactions the Petitioner might engage in as a realtor as conditions upon her entry into the profession. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case it is thus fund that the Petitioner has established her rehabilitation and resultant qualification for licensure.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the pleadings and arguments of the parties, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 30th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2127 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted except that the criminal record in evidence shows that only 22 charges of issuing worthless checks were the subject of criminal proceedings. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted in a general context, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Delia H. Dolan 2635 Belle Christiane Circle Pensacola, Florida 32503-5860 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32802 Darlene F. Keller, Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, George Aliferis, was licensed as a real estate salesman in Florida under License No. 0325121. During all of April and May, 1980, Respondent was an associate in the real estate office of George D. Willmer. Mr. Willmer, a registered real estate broker, had managed property located at 713 East Court Street in Longwood, Florida, a 7-year-old home owned by William and Gloria Thomas, for several years while the Thomases were away, living in South Carolina. On April 3, 1980, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas entered an exclusive listing of their property for sale with Mr. Willmer. The asking price was $42,500, with $10,000 down, assumption of a first mortgage of $16,750, and the Thomases would hold a second mortgage of $15,750. Before executing the sales listing, the Thomases were advised by Mr. Willmer, their agent, that a sales price of $40,000 was fair, as other comparably sized houses in the area were selling for between $37,000 and $41,000. The price of $42,500 was to give the Thomases some bargaining room. On April 15, 1980, Respondent, who was then a salesman in Mr. Willmer's agency, submitted an offer to purchase the Thomases' property for $40,000, the exact price suggested by Mr. Willmer, his broker, to the Thomases, with $500 cash paid at time of offer, assumption of the first mortgage described above, a second mortgage of $13,250.10, and $9,500 cash at closing. The contract executed that date by Respondent listed him, his assigns or nominees as buyer, and called for a closing by June 30, 1980. This date was unilaterally changed to May 30, 1980, by the Respondent on April 16, 1980, the day after the offer was made. On April 16, 1980, the Thomases telegraphed their acceptance of Respondent's offer and terms with the exception that they stipulated closing would be held on or before May 15, 1980. The contract document signed by Respondent, bearing the May 30, 1980, closing date, was signed by the Thomases on April 20, 1980. On Sunday evening, April 27, 1980, Respondent telephoned Mr. and Mrs. Philip Fillman, then recent arrivals in the Orlando area, whom he had heard were looking for a house to buy. The Fillmans met the next day with Respondent, who took them to see the Thomas house. After checking it over, they decided to make an offer. Respondent had advised them during this period that comparable homes in the area were selling for $55,000 to $61,000 and that this house listed at $45,500 was a good investment. When the Fillmans asked if the owners would possibly take less, Respondent replied they would not, having already turned down a lesser offer. At no time did Respondent indicate he already had the house under contract for $40,000 or that he was representing himself. At no time was any offer for the property, other than that submitted by Respondent for $40,000 which was accepted by the Thomases, ever submitted to them by Respondent, Mr. Willmer, or anyone else. The Fillmans agreed to the $45,500 price and, on April 28, 1980, executed a contract to buy the property in question for that price, making a cash down payment at the time of execution of $6,000 payable to George Aliferis, the Respondent. Respondent deposited that check to his personal account at Park Federal Savings and Loan Association. It was not put into the real estate agency's escrow account. The name of the seller on the contract signed by the Fillmans was not the Thomases, but was instead George Aliferis, who indicated he had "control" of the property. He did not explain what that term meant. The contract executed by the Fillmans and by Respondent in his own name the same day, April 28, 1980, called for assumption of both mortgages and closing by June 1, 1980. Because the Fillmans were renting, they asked for, and received from Respondent, permission to move into the house prior to closing. They did so on May 11, 1980. Closings on both transactions were held at the law office of David Kerben in Orlando on May 14, 1980, in succession. At the first closing not personally attended by the Thomases, they conveyed the property to Respondent, who paid a net of $6,499.90 in cash which represented the net to close for the $40,000 purchase price, less $550 required to fix the air conditioner which had been complained of by the Fillmans. At that closing, Respondent also executed a second mortgage to the Thomases in the amount of $13,250 as a part of the purchase price. Within minutes of the Thomas-Aliferis closing referenced above, Respondent then conveyed the property to the Fillmans, who were present at the closing and who paid a net to close of $10,126.40 after a $6,000 down payment, and the two mortgages totaling $29,842.10. At the closing, the Fillmans signed a form relating to property insurance which also bore the notation that a payment of $159.05 was due to the Thomases (their address was also listed) on June 14. When the Thomases received that payment from the Fillmans, they called to find out why the Fillmans had sent the payment and in the course of this conversation, which took place on July 14, 1980, both parties first learned of the course of events which led up to the Fillmans' purchase. Up until that point, neither Mr. Willmer nor Respondent had made clear the nature of the transaction, except that on May 14, 1980, when the Fillmans arrived at lawyer Kerben's office for the closing, Respondent met them outside and said something about having just taken title to the property. Respondent contends that at the time he contracted with the Thomases to buy the property, he intended to live in it if his wife approved of it, or to lease it out on a long-term basis as an investment. However, Respondent had just recently moved into a newly built house and, in fact, put the property in question up for sale within two weeks of his contract. Respondent also indicated that he had been a real estate, agent only a few months, yet his application for licensure shows he was a licensed real estate agent in Maryland for approximately five years. In light of this evidence, I find the Respondent's credibility to be questionable and that he failed to fully disclose all required information regarding the transaction to his parties, the Thomases.
Recommendation In light of the above, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's license to practice real estate in Florida be suspended for one year and that an administrative fine of $1,000 be imposed upon him. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Gary Printy, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Erik C. Larsen, Esquire 243 West Park Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Petitioner purchased the facilities of a bankrupt chemical recovery plant and on May 13, 1987, was issued a temporary tax exemption (Exhibit 1) for sales taxes on equipment purchased for the production or processing of tangible personal property for resale. Petitioner essentially operates a distillation plant where products are distilled and certain chemicals are produced. The plant also operates as a servicing facility in removing impurities from products submitted for distillation. Because the materials received at the plant were not as clean as originally anticipated, there was less product for resale and more servicing provided than originally intended. The items on which sales tax refunds are requested were used to ,repair and/or refurbish the distillation plant, and the business qualifies as new business under Section 212.08(5)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. In 1987, Petitioner had receivables totaling $824,819 of which only $63,474 (7.7%) was in the account for sale of tangible personal property (Exhibit 3). Petitioner's witness testified that the other receivable accounts (Exhibit 3) are not service accounts. Petitioner now has an inventory of tangible personal property for sale in excess of $100,000 which was produced through the distillation plant. Although Respondent's auditor initially contended that Petitioner had failed to produce all invoices and bills to justify the exemptions claimed, on cross-examination he acknowledged that the refund for sale taxes paid on the equipment purchased was denied solely on the basis that the equipment and plant was not used principally for the production of tangible personal property for sale. The Notice of Intent (Exhibit 6) denied Petitioner's application for a sales tax refund in the amount of $12,592.75 for the reason that: Business is primarily a service organiza- tion and tangible personal property is only a minute show (sic) of the operation. Records were incomplete. The witness who signed the Notice of Intent understands the denial of the refund of sales taxes was because the sale of tangible personal property produced by Petitioner was not the primary or a substantial part of the revenues generated by the plant.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Ben D. Harrell, is registered with the Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman. Copies of the Administrative Complaint filed by the Commission were forwarded to the Respondent at the address he most recently provided the Commission. In addition, a copy of the complaint was hand served upon the Respondent. A copy of the Notice scheduling the final hearing was also forwarded to the Respondent at his last listed address. A Grand Jury for the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville District, returned an indictment against the Respondent, charging him with knowingly making materially false statements in a Satisfaction of Mortgage submitted to the Federal Land Bank in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 1014. The Respondent was convicted of the charges and on May 13, 1977, he was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to serve two years in federal penitentiary, execution of the sentence being suspended, and the Respondent being placed on probation for a period of five years. The crime of which the Respondent was convicted involves dishonest dealing in connection with a real estate transaction, and is a crime involving moral turpitude.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Respondent guilty of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint and suspending the Respondent's registration as a real estate salesman for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of July, 1978. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Grimes, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Ben David Harrell 900 S.W. 15th Terrace Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 ================================================================= AGENCY MEMORANDUM ================================================================= November 8, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: Renata Hendrick, Registration Supervisor FROM: Mark A. Grimes, Staff Attorney RE: PD 3278 FREC vs. Ben David Harrell DOAH Case No. 78-835 Enclosed* is a copy of a Final Order suspending the above named Defendant's registration for a period of two years. Please mark your records accordingly. Mark A. Grimes MAG:lam * NOTE: The Agency Final Order is not available at the Division and therefore not a part of this ACCESS document.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Gloria Corsoro, has been a licensed real estate broker. She is the qualifying broker for the company known as Orange Management Corp. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating real estate licensees in the State of Florida. On or about July 20, 1994, the Respondent, Gloria Corsoro, entered a plea of nolo contendere to the crime of unlawful use of a notary. As a result, the Respondent was adjudicated guilty, placed on probation for a period of six months, and required to make payments and serve community service as directed by the court order. The plea and conviction stemmed from Respondent's conduct in connection with a warranty deed (the deed) which was recorded in the public record for Indian River County, Florida, on October 12, 1993. The deed conveyed a condominium unit from Leon R. Leavitt to the G. Corsoro Family Trust. The deed, notarized on October 1, 1989, purportedly bore the signatures of Leon R. Leavitt, the grantor; Mamie Cellura, a witness; Marie Copley, a witness; and Joseph Cellura, the notary before whom the document was executed. In fact, the document was not signed by Marie Copley or Leon R. Leavitt. At the time of the hearing, Mamie Cellura and Joseph Cellura were deceased. They were the parents of Marie Copley and her sister, the Respondent. At the time the deed was executed, Respondent signed Mr. Leavitt's name under a power of attorney he had reportedly given to her. Respondent further claims that Mamie Cellura signed for herself as a witness, signed for Marie Copley as a witness, and signed her husband's name with him (he had Parkinson's disease) as the notary. All this was completed, according to Respondent, Marie Copley, and Leon R. Leavitt, with everyone's full consent and knowledge. Marie Copley and Leon R. Leavitt were not present when the document was executed. Since they claim Respondent was authorized to execute the document, they are not concerned as to who signed the document but believe Mamie Cellura and Respondent signed as represented by Respondent. According to Nicholas Burczyk, the Respondent signed the document for all signatories on the instrument. Even by Respondent's account, the named parties did not execute the deed as presented on the face of the document. Respondent was originally charged with uttering a forged instrument and forgery. She chose to enter the plea as to the misdemeanor charge of unlawful use of a notary because she was "financially unable to pay to go to trial."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, through the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order determining the Respondent, Gloria Corsoro violated Section 475.25(f), Florida Statutes, and imposing a reprimand together with an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 10th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0334 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is accepted as stated in findings of fact paragraphs 6 through 14 above; otherwise rejected as incomplete statement of fact. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. Respondent's assessment of the charges against Respondent together with the argument has been considered in the preparation of the foregoing. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel Villazon Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Michael F. Berry MICHAEL F. BERRY, P.A. 2145-15th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1992, there were several Democratic candidates for the office of Tax Collector for Walton County. Among the Democratic candidates was Sue Carter who had been employed in the Walton County Tax Collector's Office prior to resigning to run for tax collector. The first Democratic primary was held in September, 1992, resulting in a runoff primary between Sue Carter and Sue Rushing in October, 1992. Ms. Carter defeated Ms. Rushing. In November, 1992, Sue Carter won the general election. Respondent, Teresa Gomillion (Gomillion), was employed in the Walton County Tax Collector's Office in 1992. Pat Pollard, Tammy Day, Patty Lynch, and Sylvia Rushing were also employed in the tax collector's office during the 1992 election campaign. Ms. Lynch and Gomillion supported Ms. Carter. Ms. Day did not support Ms. Carter. Ms. Rushing was related to Sue Rushing, Ms. Carter's opponent. Ms. Pollard did not support any candidate for the office of tax collector. Pat Pollard's work station was located about three feet away from Gomillion's work station. She overheard Gomillion ask a customer of the tax collector's office for whom he was going to vote. This was the only time that Ms. Pollard heard Gomillion talk to a customer concerning the race for tax collector. Gomillion and other employees in the tax collector's office did discuss the race for tax collector during office hours. Pam Dyess has been employed at a car dealership in DeFuniak Springs for 16 years. During 1992, her job responsibilities required her to go to the tax collector's office to handle the tag and title work for the dealership. After the first primary, Ms. Dyess went to the tax collector's office during working hours and while she was there the subject of the first primary was discussed. Ms. Dyess stated that she had voted for Harley Henderson. Ms. Gomillion joined the conversation and asked Ms. Dyess why she had voted for Harley Henderson and made some disparaging remarks about Mr. Henderson's qualifications. Rodney Ryals is now and was an employee of the City of DeFuniak Springs during the fall of 1992. During the election, Mr. Ryals spent a great deal of time at the tax collector's office taking care of city business and visiting with his friend Ms. Pollard. While Ryals was at the tax collector's office Gomillion told him, "You better vote for Sue Carter, she's the only qualified candidate." Ryals had told Gomillion and Ms. Lynch that they should not campaign on the job because it was illegal. Both women told him that if they did not politick that they might lose their jobs. Both Jack Little, the tax collector, and Ms. Carter had advised Gomillion not to politick in the tax collector's office. Having judged the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, I find that Gomillion did not hand out campaign literature while she was on the job at the tax collector's office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics enter a final order finding that Teresa Gomillion violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, and recommending a civil penalty of $500 and a public censure and reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 19th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2067EC To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Advocate's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Accepted to the extent that Ms. Gomillion had solicited Mr. Ryals' vote but rejected as far as Mr. Ryals observing Ms. Gomillion soliciting other customers. Paragraph 12: Having judged the credibility of the witnesses, I find that Mr. Ryals testimony that Ms. Gomillion handed out campaign literature not to be credible. Paragraph 13: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 14: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 15-16: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-2: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 3: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 4: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected as constituting both recitation of testimony and argument. Paragraph 5: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected to the extent that it implies that Ms. Gomillion properly performed her duties. The greater weight of the evidence shows that Ms. Gomillion's actions were prohibited by the tax collector and were not part of her duties. Paragraphs 6-8: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 9: The first sentence is accepted in substance except as it relates to Ms. Gomillion's solicitation of Mr. Ryals. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 10: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 11-12: Rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 13: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 14: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 15-16: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 17: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 18-19: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 20: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 21-22: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 23: The first sentence is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 24: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 25: The first sentence is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Carrie Stillman Complaint Coordinator Commission on Ethics Post Office Box 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Michael E. Ingram Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs, PL-01 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 E. Allan Ramey, Esquire 13 Circle Drive Post Office Box 369 Defuniak Springs, Florida 32433-0369 Bonnie Williams Executive Director Florida Commission On Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, Esquire General Counsel Ethics Commission 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
