The Issue Whether J.C. Hoffman violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(a) and Section 475.25(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact J. C. Hoffman also known as Jean Hoffman was a registered real estate salesman whose certificate expired September 30, 1974. On March 31, 1975, Hoffman reapplied and was recertified by the Florida Real Estate Commission. During the intervening period, Hoffman continued to be registered by the Commission. In late 1974, Jean Hoffman showed David W. Jarrett two lots which Jarrett subsequently offered to purchase. Jarrett gave Hoffman $1,500 as a deposit receipt on this transaction in two checks, one for $300 and the other for $1,200. These checks were received into evidence as Exhibit 2. The contract entered into by Jarrett was received into evidence as Exhibit 1. Because Hoffman was not present at the hearing, Jarrett identified a picture of Hoffman taken from the files of the Florida Real Estate Commission as the individual who he had known as Hoffman. This picture was received into evidence as Exhibit 4. After entering into this transaction, Jarrett waited some time and when a closing did not take place, attempted to contact Hoffman. He was unable to contact Hoffman and unable to obtain the return of his $1,500. Jarrett also identified a letter from Barbara E. Green, the owner of the property, which he had received in reply to a letter to her concerning this transaction. This letter was received as Exhibit 3, and indicates that Green had rejected the offer. All Jarrett's efforts to obtain return of his money from Hoffman failed and the money and Hoffman have disappeared.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission revoke the registration of J. C. Hoffman also known as Jean Hoffman. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles E. Felix, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 J. C. Hoffman % Patrick N. O'Keef Dist. Road 5-7837 and N. Hwy 452 Lake Yale Village Leesburg, Florida 32748
The Issue At issue herein is whether respondents' real estate licenses should be disciplined for-the alleged violations set forth in the administrative complaint. Based upon all of the evidence, the following facts are determined:
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Juan Rios, was a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0155126 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. Respondent, Victoria R. Rios, is a licensed real estate broker-salesman having been issued license number 0331183 by petitioner. The Rios are husband and wife and presently reside at 855 80th Street, #1, Miami Beach, Florida. On December 13, 1982, Juan Rios obtained a six-month multiple listing agreement to sell a house located in Hacienda Estates at 11451 S.W. 33rd Lane, Miami, Florida. The agreement was executed by Rios "As Realtor" and by the property owner, Mercedes Garcia. At Mercedes' request, the Rios placed an initial sales price of $145,000 on the home. On December 15, a similar agreement was executed by Rios and Garcia on condominium unit 9B, Laguna Club Condominium, 10710 N. W. 7th Street, Miami, Florida. That property was also owned by Garcia. Although the agreement introduced into evidence does not contain Rios' signature, at final hearing Juan Rios acknowledged that he had executed such an agreement. The listing agreements provided that if the properties were leased during the term of the agreements, the listing realtor would receive a brokerage fee of 10% for such leasing. The agreement also provided that the realtors were not responsible for vandalism, theft or damage of any nature to the property. Garcia is a native and resident of Venezuela, where she owns a radio station. The two properties in question were previously owned by her father. When the father died, apparently sometime in 1982, Mercedes inherited the house and condominium. The Rios were friends of the father, and agreed to list and manage the properties as a favor to the deceased. Mercedes left the country after the agreements were signed, and has apparently not returned. Although she is the complainant who initiated this matter, she did not appear at final hearing. The house at 11451 S. W. 33rd Lane had been vandalized prior to the listing agreement being signed. According to documents introduced into evidence, the property has also been the subject of subsequent vandalisms, the nature and extent of which are unknown. A tenant was eventually procured by Mercedes' aunt in February, 1983 at a monthly rate of $800. The tenant, a Mrs. Ramirez, paid some $4,800 in rents and deposits before she was killed at the home in June, 1983. The Rios spent some $2,644.36 of the $4,800 on repairs to the vandalism and for general maintenance. They also retained a 10% commission for their services, or $480. That left $1,675.64 owed to Mercedes. No lease was apparently ever signed by Ramirez, or at least none was given to the Rios by the relative who procured the tenant. The home was eventually sold to Mercedes' aunt for $85,000.1 None of the rental monies were placed in the Rios' trust account. The condominium unit was rented in June, 1983. The tenant, Oscar Ruiz, had answered an advertisement run by the Rios in a local newspaper. Although Ruiz executed a lease to rent the unit at a monthly rate of $500, the Rios did not have a copy of same, and claimed none was kept in their records. According to the Rios, Ruiz continued to rent the unit through April, 1984, or for eleven months. Total monies collected by the Rios from Ruiz, including a $500 security deposit, were $6,000, of which $3,364.86 was spent for maintenance, utilities, two mortgage payments, and a $500 payment to the owner (Mercedes). An additional $40.33 was spent on a plumbing bill, and $600 was retained as a commission by the Rios. This left $2,724.53 owed to Mercedes. None of the rental monies were placed in the Rios' trust account. In the spring of 1984, Mercedes retained the services of an attorney in Miami to seek her monies due from the Rios. Up to then, she had received no income or accounting on the two properties. The attorney wrote the Rios on several occasions beginning in April 1984, asking for a copy of the lease on the condominium unit, the security deposit, an accounting of the funds, and all other documents relating to the two, properties. He received his first reply from the Rios on May 3, 1984 who advised him that they had attempted to reach Mercedes by telephone on numerous occasions but that she would never return their calls. They explained that rental proceeds had been used to repair vandalism damage and structural defects. When the attorney did not receive the satisfaction that he desired, he filed a civil action against the Rios on October 10, 1984. On October 26, 1984 the Rios sent Mercedes a letter containing an accounting on the two properties reflecting that she was owed $4,400.17 by the Rios. To pay this, they sent a $140 "official check," and a promissory note for the balance to be paid off in 40 monthly installments at 10% interest. They explained that their real estate business had closed, and due to financial problems, they were unable to pay off the monies due any sooner. They also asked that she instruct her attorney to drop the suit. Mercedes rejected this offer and has continued to pursue the civil action. It is still pending in Dade County Circuit Court. At final hearing, the Rios characterized their involvement with Mercedes as a "professional mistake," and one undertaken out of friendship for Mercedes' father. They acknowledged they did not use a trust account on the transactions and that they had used the $4,400 in rental money due Mercedes for their own use. They considered the excess rent proceeds to be compensation for other "services" performed by them on behalf of Mercedes. However, there is no evidence of any such agreement between the parties reflecting that understanding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Recommended that Juan and Victoria Rios be found guilty as charged in Counts II and III, and be found guilty of culpable negligence and breach of trust in Count I. It is further recommended that Juan Rios' license be suspended for one year and that Victoria Rios' license be suspended for three months. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1986
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and Respondent stipulated at formal hearing to Paragraphs 1- 6 of the Administrative Complaint, (TR-5-6) and it is accordingly found that: Petitioner seeks to suspend, revoke or take other disciplinary action against Respondent as licensee and against his license to practice the real estate brokerage business under the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and was at all times alleged in the administrative complaint a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0191613. The last license issued was as a broker c/o Cluett Realty, Inc., 4720 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33905. On about July 14, 1983, Respondent received a check in the amount of $400.00 from Mary Snodgrass, a salesman, who at the time was associated with Respondent. Snodgrass had received the money from Robert James. James had submitted four contracts which were accepted for purchase of four duplexes listed with Respondent. The $400.00 represented a deposit of $100.00 on each of the four contracts. When the check was entrusted to Respondent, Snodgrass stated that the buyer had requested the check be held a couple of days before depositing into escrow to insure it would clear. Respondent indicated this was wrong and the check should be deposited immediately. 1/ The check was not deposited into Respondent's escrow account, but, was held by Respondent until September 15, 1983, two months after initial receipt of the check. The check presented by Mr. James (buyer) to Mrs. Snodgrass (saleswoman) was drawn on the Fort Myers Barnett Bank and on its face represents it is drawn on an account in the name "Clara A. James For: Caj-Raj-Casa De Chihuahua's." There is no indicator on the check itself that Robert A. James is an appropriate signatory on this account. At hearing, Mr. James represented that he was a proper signatory on the account because Clara A. James is his wife. Mrs. Snodgrass represented that she knew Mr. James had this authority but there was no predicate laid for this knowledge on her part and there is nothing about the check itself which would convey such knowledge to someone not intimate with the James' household, nor does the check itself reveal any relationship between Mr. James and "Caj-Raj-Casa De Chihuahua' s." At the time Snodgrass submitted the check to Respondent, she informed Respondent that it was possible that the check would not clear the bank due to insufficient funds. At the time of his conversation with Mrs. Snodgrass on July 14, Respondent was aware of previous problems arising from failure of an earlier check written by Mr. James for rent to one of Respondent's other clients to clear the bank. Respondent was also aware that Mr. James had refused to vacate the premises which James, James' wife, and approximately 80 Chihuahuas occupied by rental from this other client. Respondent perceived Mr. James resented Respondent due to Respondent's involvement in getting the James entourage out of the rental properties so that Respondent's other client as seller could close sale of that property to a third party buyer. Accordingly, Respondent retained the check when it was given him by Mrs. Snodgrass for a few minutes to think about the situation. He then returned it to her and explained it was an inappropriate deposit because it did not represent cash if they knew at the time it was tendered that it might be returned for insufficient funds. He told Mrs. Snodgrass to either secure a check which would clear or to inform both potential buyer and sellers that there was no deposit placed in escrow on the four contracts. Mrs. Snodgrass denied that the check was returned to her by Respondent or that this conversation ever took place; she assumed the check would be held by Respondent until evening and in the evening she went out and got the sellers to sign the 4 contracts previously signed by James. Mrs. Snodgrass placed the signed contracts in a file drawer in Respondent's office and never again initiated any title work or any conversation with Respondent about the transaction. The testimony of Mrs. Weise and Mrs. Cluett support the material particulars of Respondent's version of this second interchange between Mrs. Snodgrass and Respondent. Mr. James testified that he did, indeed, go the following day (July 15) to the bank to transfer funds if needed, but did not then notify Mrs. Snodgrass or Respondent because the money transfer was not necessary. Upon this evidence and due to the credibility problems recited in footnote 1, supra and in Findings of Fact Paragraph 8 infra, the Respondent's version of this interchange is accepted over that of Mrs. Snodgrass and provides additional, but not contradictory, information to Finding of Fact Paragraph 1-e as stipulated by the parties. In early September, Mrs. Snodgrass secured employment with Barbara Ware Realty, a competitor of Respondent. She then turned in all of her keys, gear, and papers to Cluett Realty. Shortly thereafter, Helen Weise, secretary to Respondent, discovered the July 14, 1983, check on what had been Mrs. Snodgrass's desk. This discovery is confirmed by both Respondent and Mrs. Weise. Respondent knew Mrs. Snodgrass and Mr. James were personal friends. He telephoned Mrs. Snodgrass about the status of the James' transaction when the check was discovered. Mrs. Snodgrass admitted she thereafter called Mr. James to verify the status of the transaction and then called Respondent to tell him she thought the sale would go through, but she now denies telling Respondent that the July 14, 1983, check was good or even that Respondent mentioned the check when he called her the first time. Respondent then deposited the check into his escrow account the next day, September 15, 1983. He immediately placed the request for title search and insurance. Thereafter, two duplexes out of the four involved in the four James contracts with Cluett Realty were sold by Mrs. Snodgrass through her new employer, Barbara Ware Realty, and two were sold by Mary Cluett, Respondent's wife, through Cluett Realty. During the period from July 14, 1983, until September 15, 1983, Mr. James was apparently aware that the check submitted to Cluett Realty had never been deposited by Cluett Realty because it did not show up in monthly bank statements. After September, Mr. James clearly was further aware of what was going on because he admits to trying to get Mary Snodgrass to pursue the transaction under her new employer's auspices, despite Cluett's retaining the exclusive listing for the sellers of the properties. It was not established whether or not the sellers were misled by Respondent's failure to immediately deposit the July 14, 1983, check, but Mr. James testified that when Respondent approached him about refunding his deposit or at least a portion thereof, he, (Mr. James), told the Respondent to keep it or give it to the sellers or at least not to give it back to him due to all the inconvenience. Mr. James and Mrs. Snodgrass were friends on July 14, 1983. They became friendlier thereafter. Apparently, in early September, Mrs. Snodgrass left Respondent's employ upon very unfriendly terms. The terms may be characterized as "unfriendly" even if one accepts Mrs. Snodgrass' version that her job hunt was successful before she was fired by Respondent and therefore she should be viewed as quitting upon being asked by Respondent to resign. Respondent has previously filed an unsuccessful complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation against Mrs. Snodgrass. It was she who initiated the complaint giving rise to these instant proceedings against Respondent. Mrs. Snodgrass' resentment of Respondent's filing a complaint against her was evident in her demeanor on the stand. An attempt at formal hearing to impeach Respondent's credibility upon the basis of a supposed prior admission to Petitioner's investigator that Respondent forgot to deposit the crucial check and upon the basis of Respondent's July 13, 1984, letter to the Department of Professional Regulation (P-7) left Respondent's credibility intact. When Investigator Potter's testimony as a whole is compared with Respondent's letter as a whole in light of Potter's investigation of three separate complaints over a period of many months 2/ there is no material variation of Respondent's representations. Also, what was "forgotten" and when it was forgotten is vague and immaterial in light of consistent information supplied to the investigator by Respondent that there was a request to hold the July 14, 1983, check for a couple of days due to insufficient funds.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of August, 1985.
The Issue Whether Weston Professional Title Group, Inc. (Respondent) committed the violations alleged in Counts I, II, III, V, VI, and VII of the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times, Petitioner has been the entity of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility to regulate title insurance agencies. At all times relevant to this proceeding Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a title insurance agent in the State of Florida. As of the formal hearing, Respondent had ceased its operations due to the lack of business. Petitioner's investigation of Respondent was initiated by a complaint from a man named Robert Anderson. Mr. Anderson represented to Petitioner that he discovered that his name and address had been used as the buyer of the two residences discussed above. Respondent was the title and settlement agent for both transactions. The Collonade Drive transaction settled on November 14, 2006, with disbursement of the funds on November 16, 2006. The Vignon Place transaction settled and the funds were disbursed on December 15, 2006. Mr. Anderson reported to Petitioner his belief that his identity had been stolen by a person named Pamela Higgins. Mr. Anderson reported to Petitioner that he had not participated in either transaction, and asserted that he did not sign any of the documents that purport to contain his signature as the buyer. Respondent was required to comply with the provisions of RESPA in completing the HUD-1 for the Collonade Drive closing and the Vignon Place closing. RESPA required that disbursements at closing be consistent with the HUD-1 as approved by the parties to the transaction and by the lender. COLLONADE DRIVE CLOSING On September 15, 2006, Robert Anderson (or someone impersonating Mr. Anderson) signed a "Contract for Sale and Purchase" (Collonade contract), agreeing to buy the Collonade Drive property from Mark Mariani and Kathy Mariani, for the purchase price of $1,375,000.00. The Collonade contract reflected that a deposit had been made to "FLORIDA TITLE & ESC." in the amount of $5,000 with an additional deposit of $5,000 to be made within ten days. Two loans with separate mortgages constituted the financing for the purchase of the Collonade Drive property. The first mortgage was $962,500.00. The second mortgage, as reflected on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement with the disbursement date of November 14, 2006, was $263,430.08.3/ First Magnus Financial Corporation, an Arizona corporation, was the lender for both loans. Agents of America Mortgage Corp. served as the mortgage broker for the transaction. Juan Carlos Rodriguez, an employee of Agents of America Mortgages, signed Mr. Anderson's loan application as the "interviewer." The following was a special clause of the Collonade contract: "BUYER AGREES TO PAY FOR TITLE INSUANCE [sic] FEE ONLY (LINE 1108 OF SELLERS' SETTLEMENT STATEMENT), ONLY [SIC] IF SELLERS AGREE TO USE BUYER'S TITLE COMPANY OF CHOICE. BUYER IS A LICENSED FLORIDA REAL ESTATE AGENT." Petitioner established that Robert Anderson was not a licensed Florida real estate agent. The Collonade contract represented that there were no real estate brokers representing either party. On or about November 1, 2006, Respondent received a "Request for Title Commitment" from Claudit Casanova, a mortgage broker with Agents of America Mortgage Corp., for the Collonade Drive transaction. This was a revised request. The first request had been sent to Respondent on or about October 3, 2006. A copy of the Collonade contract had been forwarded to Respondent with the first request. In connection with the Collonade Drive transaction, Respondent prepared two HUD-1s,4/ each of which was approved by the parties and the lender.5/ The first HUD-1 had an anticipated closing date of November 14, 2006. That HUD-1 was revised in response to the lender's instruction to move the disbursement date from November 14, 2006, to November 16, 2006. The revision of the HUD-1 slightly reduced the amount of cash the buyer needed to close as a result of interest beginning to run on the loans as of November 16 instead of November 14. This was a mail-away closing, in that a packet of the documents the buyer was to sign was sent to someone named Laurie Martin at a title agency in Glendale, Arizona. Ms. Marrero testified she mailed the packet pursuant to instructions without specifying who gave her those instructions. The packet of documents was returned to Respondent, with signatures purporting to be Mr. Anderson's. Laurie Martin appears to have served as the notary public when the documents were signed. The transaction closed pursuant to the revised HUD-1 with the disbursement date of November 16, 2006, which, as approved by the parties and the lender, reflected that the sellers were to receive $477,884.93 upon closing. Upon closing, Respondent drafted a check in the amount of $477,884.93 made payable to the sellers. The sellers voided the check and based on instructions from the sellers, Ms. Marrero redistributed the sellers' proceeds by wire transfer as follows: $116,112.85 to sellers; $170,250.00 to Pamela Higgins; and $191,508.08 to Unlimited Advertising USA. Fourteen dollars were spent on wire transfer charges. The actual disbursement of the seller's proceeds was inconsistent with the HUD-1 and unknown to the buyer and the lender. Respondent violated the provisions of RESPA by disbursing the proceeds of the sale in a manner that was inconsistent with the HUD-1. $195,000 DEPOSIT The Collonade contract reflected that a $5,000 deposit had been made to "Fla. Title & Esc." required for the buyer to pay an additional deposit of $5,000 within ten days. There was no evidence establishing any relationship between Respondent and "Fla. Title & Esc." Both HUD-1s for the Collonade Drive transaction reflected that the buyer had provided to the sellers a deposit in the amount of $195,000. These HUD-1s, reflecting that the sellers were holding a deposit in the amount of $195,000, were approved by the parties and the lender. Ms. Marrero testified that she was instructed to include the $195,000 deposit on the HUD-1s without specifying who gave her those instructions. Ms. Marrero did not attempt to verify that the $195,000 deposit was actually being held by the sellers. FRAUD Petitioner alleged that the Collonade Drive transaction was fraudulent. Mr. Wenger's testimony, based in part on reports of mortgage fraud prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, supported that allegation. Other evidence supporting that allegation included the following facts The first mortgage quickly went into foreclosure; A mailing address given for Robert Anderson did not (as of April 19, 2011) exist. The address of Unlimited Advertising USA was also the address of Claudia Rodriguez, a former Florida title agent whose license had been suspended by Petitioner for failing to disburse in accordance with HUD statements and disbursing on uncollected funds; The address of Unlimited Advertising USA was also the address of Juan Carlos Rodriguez (the person who supposedly took the credit application from Robert Anderson); The address of Unlimited Advertising USA was also the address of Agents of America Mortgage Corporation (the mortgage broker for the Collonade closing. Juan Carlos Rodriguez supposedly notarized the document authorizing disbursement of part of the sellers' proceeds to Pamela Higgins. Mr. Anderson's purported signatures on different documents are inconsistent. The address for Mr. Anderson as it appears on the HUD- 1 Settlement Statements is 14233 W. Jenan Drive, Surprise, Arizona. Prior to the closing Ms. Marrero sent by Federal Express a copy of the unexecuted closing documents to "Pam Higgins c/o Robert S. Anderson" 12211 N. 85th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona. Following the closing, Ms. Marrero sent a copy of the closing documents by Federal Express to Robert S. Anderson, at the address 12211 N. 85th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona. Ms. Marrero testified that she acted on instructions in sending the two packages, without identifying who gave her those instructions. There was no evidence that anyone employed by Respondent knew anyone connected to this transaction prior to being asked to provide a title commitment. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent had anything to do with the buy-sell agreement between the buyer and the sellers or the efforts by Mr. Anderson (or the person or persons impersonating Mr. Anderson) to obtain financing for the purchase. While there was significant evidence that the Colonnade Closing was a fraudulent transaction, there was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent was complicit in that fraud. VIGNON COURT CLOSING On a date prior to November 6, 2006, Maribel and Timothy Graves signed a "Contract for Sale and Purchase" offering to sell their Vignon Court residence to Robert Anderson for the purchase price of $1,975,000.00. Mr. and Mrs. Graves were represented by counsel during this transaction. The copy of the contract admitted into evidence had not been signed by Mr. Anderson and did not bear a legible date. The contract provided an acceptance date of November 6, 2006. The fully executed contract was not admitted into evidence. On October 4, 2006, Claudit Casanova of Agents of America Mortgage requested Respondent to provide a title commitment for the Vignon Court transaction. In that request, the sales price was stated as being $1,975,000; the loan amount was $1,481,250 and the mortgagee was American Brokers Conduit. Preferred Properties, Int., Inc., was listed as being the real estate broker for the transaction. Respondent prepared a HUD-1 for the Vignon Court transaction that reflected a closing and disbursement date of December 15, 2006. DEPOSIT The unexecuted (by the buyer) and undated copy Purchase Agreement required a deposit of $100,000 at the time of acceptance with an additional $50,000 being due within ten days thereafter. There was no evidence as to the terms of the completely executed Purchase Agreement. Line 201 of the HUD-1 reflected a deposit of $250,000 paid on behalf of the buyer. Respondent did not verify that deposit had been made. The HUD-1 specified that the deposit was being held by the sellers. The buyer, sellers, and lender approved the HUD-1, which reflected the existence of a deposit of $250,000, prior to closing. GASPARE VALENTINO On December 6, 2006, Mr. and Mrs. Graves entered into a "Joint Venture and Property Resale Agreement" (Resale Agreement) pertaining to the sale of the Vignon Court residence with Gaspare Valentino. On February 5, 2002, Gaspare Rino Valentino was issued a license by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation of the type "Real Estate Broker or Sales" and of the rank "Sales Associate." That license was valid at the times relevant to this proceeding. Paragraph 2 of the Resale Agreement provides as follows: (2) SALE EFFORTS: CONTRACT PROCEEDS. Valentino agrees to use reasonable efforts to obtain a third party purchaser (a "Purchaser") for the Property. Valentino is not required to advertise the Property or list the Property for sale, but shall have such right to do so. Valentino does not guaranty [sic] the procurement of a Purchaser. The parties agree that the intention is for Valentino to secure a Purchaser who will pay a purchase price sufficient in order to (i) satisfy the existing debt upon the Property, (ii) pay ordinary and reasonable closing costs of the transaction, (iii) generate a net proceeds [illegible] to Owner not less than ONE HUNDERED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100,000); and (iv) generate such further sums beyond the foregoing in order to pay Valentino a fee for services rendered as set forth in this Agreement. In accordance with such understanding, Owner agrees to enter into and fully execute a Contract for Purchase and Sale with a Purchaser procured by Valentino which is consistent with the terms set forth in this Agreement, including without limitation, a designated sales price which enables Owner to receive at closing a net proceeds sum equal to ONE HUNDERED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100,000) (the "Owner's Sale Proceeds") after payment of the Property Sale Expenses, hereinafter defined as set forth in Paragraph 3. Owner agrees that any net sales proceeds in excess of the Owner's Sale Proceeds shall be payable to Valentino (the "Excess Proceeds Fee), as Valentino's fee for the efforts of Valentino as set forth herein. Paragraph 3 (i) of the Resale Agreement reiterates that after the payment of the "Property Sale Expenses" as follows: Owner shall receive the Owner Sale Proceeds consisting of exactly ONE HUNDERED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100,000) from the net sales proceeds . . . Paragraph 3 (ii) of the Resale Agreement reiterates that after the payment of the "Property Sale Expenses" and the "Owner Sale Proceeds": Valentino shall receive the Excess Proceeds Fees, constituting all remaining net sales proceeds in excess of the Owner Sale Proceeds, as a fee for services rendered by Valentino pursuant to this Agreement. Paragraph 7 of the Resale Agreement is as follows: 7. Licensed Agent: Valentino represents and discloses that Valentino is a licensed real estate agent in the State of Florida. Notwithstanding such, Valentino is individually entering into this Agreement using his own resources to assist Owner in the improvement and sale of the Property, and as such is a principal in this transaction earning the Excess Proceeds Fee. The parties acknowledge that Valentino is an investor in this transaction and as such at closing is entitled to and shall receive the Excess Proceeds Fee as set forth in Section [Paragraph] 3(ii) of this Agreement. Under RESPA, Section 700 of a HUD-1 is appropriately used for reporting the payments for commissions to real estate salesmen and/or brokers as part of the "Settlement Charges." Such payments can also be reported under Section 1300 ("Additional Settlement Charges"), if the payments are appropriately labeled. Respondent reflected the payment of $527,656.92 as "Payoff" to Gaspare Valentino at line 1307 of Section 1300." Prior to closing the buyer, sellers, and lender had approved the HUD-1 for the Vignon Court transaction. The lender was aware of the Resale Agreement. Mr. Marrero is an attorney licensed to practice law in Florida. Mr. Marrero construed the payments to Mr. Valentino to be other than a real estate commission. Although it is clear that Petitioner considers that payment to Mr. Valentino to be a real estate commission, the terms of the Resale Agreement entitled Mr. Marrero to treat that payment as being to an investor. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent erroneously stated the payment to Mr. Valentino on the HUD-1. SURETY BOND As a condition of licensure, a title agency is required to provide to Petitioner a $35,000 security deposit or a $35,000 surety bond. In connection with its application for licensure on August 29, 2002, Respondent filed the required surety bond with Petitioner. The bond was issued by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland with bond number 133046577. On July 14, 2004, Petitioner received from Respondent a surety bond issued by Western Surety Company in the amount of $35,000, effective as of August 29, 2004. The bond number was 69728435. On May 28, 2010, Petitioner received a letter from his surety dated May 24, 2010, which advised that bond number 69728435 would be voided or cancelled as of August 29, 2010. That letter of cancellation showed a copy being furnished to Respondent at the address "1820 North. Corporate Lakes Boulevard, Suite 105, Weston, Florida 33326." On June 11, 2010, Petitioner advised Respondent by letter sent to "1820 North Corporate Lakes Boulevard, Suite. 105, Weston, Florida 33326" that it had received the cancellation letter. The letter stated, in part, as follows: If we do not receive a replacement bond within 30 days of the dated letter, we will forward your file to the appropriate division for disciplinary action. If you do not plan to continue transacting business and wish to terminate your license, you must submit a request to us immediately. Prior to May 24, 2010, Respondent moved its offices from 1802 North Corporate Lakes Boulevard, Suite 105, Weston, Florida, to Suite 304 of the same building. Mr. Marrero testified that he had no recollection of receiving the letters cancelling the surety bond or the letter from Petitioner dated June 11, 2010. Respondent was without a surety bond between August 29, 2010, and November 18, 2010. Petitioner did not establish that Respondent's failure to maintain it surety bond during that period was willful within the meaning of section 626.8437(9). No prior disciplinary action has been brought against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of subsections 626.8473(2) and (4) as alleged in Count I of the Amended AC; and guilty of failing to maintain a surety bond as required by section 626.8418(2) in violation of section 626.8437(1), as alleged in Count III of the Amended AC. It is further recommended that the final order find Respondent not guilty of all other violations alleged in the Amended AC. For the violations found as to Count I, it is recommended that Respondent's licensure be suspended for a period of six months. For the violations found in Count III, it is recommended that Respondent's licensure be suspended for a period of three months. It is further recommended that the periods of suspension run concurrently. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2012
Findings Of Fact Respondent Jimmy D. Napier is a licensed real estate broker having been issued license No. 0063347. His license has been inactive since March 31, 1981. In early May of 1980, respondent entered into a two-year lease of real property owned by Rosemary Drake, with an option to purchase it. The property was encumbered at the time by a mortgage in favor of Farmers Home Administration (FHA), and Ms. Drake was in arrears on her mortgage payments. Respondent went to FHA's DeFuniak Springs office to inquire as to the precise amount of the arrearage before executing the lease with option to purchase. Mack Baker, who had charge of the FHA office in DeFuniak Springs, had knowledge of the transaction at the time and discussed it with respondent. On May 17, 1980, respondent entered into a two-year lease of real property in Walton County, Florida, owned by Bobby Joe and Hilda Turner, with an option to purchase it. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. One provision of this agreement purported to allow respondent to sublease. The Turners were not delinquent on the FHA mortgage that encumbered the property at the time. Mrs. Turner telephoned FHA's Mack Baker and told him that they planned to rent their home and give an option to purchase. Only after this conversation did she and her husband execute the lease and option. Respondent gave the Turners a check for $3,075 on May 17, 1980, and other consideration subsequently. No commission was paid by any party. Respondent told them that he was a real estate broker buying for his own account, before the lease was executed. Respondent said he would let Mr. Baker know about the transaction and did in fact do so. Since the lease was executed, various people have lived on the property. On June 14, 1980, respondent entered into a two-year lease of real property in Walton County, Florida, owned by Doris A. Stocker, now Wilson, with an option to purchase it. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. At the time, the property was encumbered with a mortgage in favor of FHA, and Mrs. Wilson was sometimes in arrears on her mortgage payments. Jack Webster, a licensed real estate broker, had not succeeded in finding a purchaser for Mrs. Wilson's property when he worked as a salesman in the office of another broker with whom Mrs. Wilson had listed the property. After he went out on his own, he introduced Mr. Napier to Mrs. Wilson (then Stocker) and he was present when Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 was executed. He had told Mrs. Wilson that respondent was a real estate broker buying for his own account. Respondent paid Mrs. Wilson $1,750 on June 14, 1980. No commission was paid by any party. Mrs. Wilson asked respondent whether she should contact Mr. Baker, but respondent said he would handle it. Eventually, Mrs. Wilson deeded the property to respondent. One provision of the lease and option purported to allow respondent to sublease. Somebody else is now living on the property. Fred Thurmond Wakefield II, and his wife, Marie, bought some property in Walton County with money they borrowed from FHA. Eventually they listed the property, encumbered with an FHA mortgage, for sale with Joseph G. Lamerche, Jr., a licensed real estate broker in DeFuniak Springs. Mr. Lamerche read the FHA mortgage, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, a form used by FHA in all Florida transactions for the last few years. Paragraph (12) states: Neither the property nor any portion thereof or interest therein shall be leased, assigned, sold, transferred, or encumbered, voluntarily or otherwise, without the writ- ten consent of the Government. The Govern- ment shall have the sole and exclusive rights as beneficiary hereunder, including but not limited to the power to grant consents, par- tial releases, subordinations, and satisfac- tion, and no insured holder shall have any right, title or interest in or to the lien or any benefits hereof. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Lamerche telephoned Mr. Baker and brought the matter up without, however, mentioning the Wakefield property specifically. Mr. Baker told Mr. Lamerche he was glad respondent had bought the Drake property because of problems with Ms. Drake before the sale. Five or six days later, on February 3, 1981, respondent entered into a two-year lease of the Wakefield property with an option to purchase it. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Mr. Lamerche represented the Wakefields when the agreement was executed. Before they signed, respondent told them he was a real estate broker buying for his own account. Mr. Wakefield asked respondent if the transaction was legal and respondent answered that he had done three or four the same way. In all, respondent leased six separate parcels encumbered by FHA mortgages with options to purchase each, and without the written consent of FHA. Typically, the leases called for respondent to make the lessors' FHA mortgage payments. As a result of conversations going back to 1967 with Jerry Ausley, an FHA employee, respondent was under the impression that real estate encumbered by an FHA mortgage could be leased for two years before refinancing was necessary. He did not know that the consent FHA required for a mortgagor to sell property had to be in writing. FHA's Mr. Baker was aware of each of the six transactions. The office which Mr. Baker headed was the appropriate office at which to approach FHA for permission to lease or encumber property mortgaged to the FHA. FHA accepted mortgage payments from respondent for each of the six mortgages. At some point, however, FHA mailed warning letters threatening everyone leasing to respondent with foreclosure. Under FHA rules, Napier was ineligible for FHA loans because his income was too high, his assets were too great, and because he did not reside on any of the six parcels. Nevertheless, FHA eventually permitted respondent to assume the Turner, Wilson, and Wakefield mortgages. Respondents' Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Respondent's proposed recommended order has been considered in preparation of the foregoing findings of fact, and respondent's proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint filed against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 29th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Russell A. Cole, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 155 Bonifay, Florida 32425 Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondents for alleged violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(a) (1977), 475.25(1)(b) (1979), 475.25(1)(c) (1977), and 475.25(1)(d) (1979), Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, dated May 1, 1980. At the commencement of the hearing, Counsel for Respondent Marie Bonello announced that his client, who was present, was ill and 78 years of age and unable to testify, and moved to continue the hearing. The continuance was denied, but the parties agreed to allow her Counsel to file a deposition subsequent to the hearing and to hold the case open until her deposition could be filed. By letter dated August 13, 1980 Counsel for Marie Bonello stated that he anticipated a restitution settlement with complaining witness Marlene Jacobs and requested further delay in closing the case. Counsel for Respondent Gloria Campione agreed to the delay by letter dated September 25, 1980. On October 8, 1980 Counsel for Petitioner requested that a recommended order be entered, and on October 31, 1980 notified the Hearing Officer that a transcript would be ordered and a proposed recommended order would be filed by Petitioner. A transcript was filed December 8, 1980. No deposition, proposed orders, or memorandum showing restitution were filed by the parties subsequent to the hearing except Counsel for Respondent Campione filed a legal memorandum and a proposed recommended order, which were considered in the rendition of this order.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Marie Bonello was registered with Petitioner as a real estate salesperson and also as President and Treasurer of Bonne Realty Corporation and was so registered during the time pertinent to this hearing in the year 1978 (Petitioner's Exhibit 23). Respondent Bonne Realty Corporation was licensed under Corporate Certificate No. 0196358-6 by the Florida Real Estate Commission to transact real estate business and was so registered during the time pertinent to this hearing. Respondent Gloria Campione is registered as a real estate salesperson and was so registered In 1978 and at all times material to this case was either employed by or was working with Respondent Bonello and the Respondent Bonne Realty Corporation. In May of 1978 one Marlene Jacobs contacted Gloria Campione, a salesperson in Archer Real Estate, Inc., in regard to the purchase of a home in Broward County, Florida. Ms. Campione showed Ms. Jacobs several homes in the area and on or about June 9, 1978 showed her some substantially completed model homes in the Deer Run subdivision. On June 11, 1978 a Deposit Receipt and Contract for Sale and Purchase was drawn for Lot 155 of the Deer Run project on which a residence was to be constructed for Ms. Jacobs and Ms. Jacobs made an initial deposit of $1,000 (Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 9; Transcript, page 74). Archer Real Estate, Inc. and Bonne Realty Corporation were indicated as Brokers and Marlene Jacobs as the buyer. That evening Respondent Campione and another salesperson, Shannon Brisbon, who had a contract with a buyer for the same Lot Number 155, Deer Run, had a meeting with the builder/owner of the subdivision (Respondent's Exhibit 2). The builders, Frank Sepe and Lou Gonzalez, decided to accept the contract negotiated by salesperson Brisbon rather than the contract between Ms. Jacobs and Respondent Campione because Ms. Brisbon's clients would have more money to pay on the property at closing. Respondent Campione later notified Ms. Jacobs that Lot 155 was not available to her but a similar house could be built on a similar lot. Shortly thereafter Ms. Jacobs met with Respondent Campione, Ms. Bonello, and the builders and modified the original contract in ink to reflect a change in lots. Ms. Jacobs paid the balance of the deposit for a total of $5,000 and gave it to Respondent Campione. No construction was commenced. In September of 1978 Respondent Bonello contacted Ms. Jacobs and said she desperately needed money at once and wanted Ms. Jacobs to write two checks prior to the closing of the real estate transaction. Ms. Jacobs, without notifying Respondent Campione, drew two checks dated September 8, 1978, one to Respondent Marie Bonello in the amount of $3,478.03 and one to Mr. and Mrs. Wm. Maki in the amount of $5,521.97. No receipt was given for those checks. In October of 1978 Ms. Campione learned that Ms. Jacobs had drawn the two checks in the total amount of $9,000 and had given one to Respondent Bonello and one to the Makis, whom she was informed held a mortgage on a shopping center owned or partially owned by Respondent Bonello. Respondent Campione was alarmed, fearing her client Ms. Jacobs would lose the unsecured money, and forthwith procured a promissory note and a new building contract dated October 4, 1978 from Respondent Bonello reflecting the receipt of the original $5,000 deposit plus the $9,000 in the two unsecured checks. The promissory note and contract were signed by Respondent Bonello upon the insistence of Respondent Campione. The contract showed a total of $14,000 deposit to be used for construction (Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 4 and 7). Still no construction was started. Respondent Bonello did not deny the allegations in the complaint either at the hearing or by deposition. The evidence and the testimony of Ms. Jacobs and Respondent Campione show that Respondent Bonello was a party in her capacity as President and Treasurer of the broker Bonne Realty Corporation, as a principal on a promissory note drawn to secure monies deposited by the buyer in furtherance of a real estate transaction and was a witness on many documents pertaining to the proposed real estate sale. It is the finding of the Hearing Officer that Respondent Bonello participated in all transactions pertaining to the proposed sale of a lot on which a house was to have been constructed for the buyer Ms. Marlene Jacobs. Money was obtained from the buyer by Respondent Bonello and was not to be used and was not used for construction of Ms. Jacob's home as she was led to believe. It is the further finding that Respondent Bonello signed a promissory note to Marlene Jacobs to secure the monies she had obtained from the buyer but only at the request of Respondent Campione. In November, 1978, when it appeared that no house was to be built, Ms. Jacobs discovered that Respondent Bonello had not only contracted to sell her lot to other persons but had used the deposit money in the shopping center Respondent Bonello was constructing for herself (Transcript, page 25). Ms. Jacobs has demanded the $14,000 she paid to Respondents Bonello, Campione and Bonne Realty Corporation, but no money has been received and Ms. Jacobs has been forced to seek recompense through the courts (Petitioner's Exhibits 14 and 15). After Respondent Campione had first showed the property in Deer Run to her client, Ms. Jacobs, and had negotiated the contract offer between Marlene Jacobs, buyer and Archer Real Estate, Inc. aid Bonne Realty Corporation, Co- Brokers and Frank Sepe as Seller Respondent Campione moved her license and worked exclusively with Respondent Marie Bonello. Archer Real Estate, Inc. is not involved in this case. At the hearing evidence was entered indicating that Bonne Realty (corporation was in existence and licensed at the time the foregoing complaint was filed and at the time of the subject transaction. Respondent Marie Bonello was listed as the President, Treasurer and 50 percent shareholder and broker for the corporation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent Marie Bonello guilty of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and suspending her for a period of two (2) years; That a final order be entered suspending the registration of Bonne Realty Corporation for two (2) years and until compliance with a lawful order imposed in the final order of suspension; That a final order be entered dismissing the complaint against Respondent Gloria Campione. DONE ad ORDERED this 19th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alan J. Werksman, Esquire Suite 404, Interstate Plaza 1499 West Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Robert M. Arlen, Esquire 2700 North East 14th Causeway Pompano Beach, Florida 33062
Findings Of Fact From September 22, 1975, to December 24, 1975, Kopf was a registered real estate salesman in the employ of FAR, a registered corporate broker, located in Dade County, Florida. During that period of time, FAR was engaged in an enterprise whereby advanced fee listings were obtained from Florida property owners. Salesmen known as "fronters" or "qualifiers" were employed to place calls to Florida property owners whose names and phone numbers had been provided to the salesmen by FAR. The prospects were asked if they cared to list their real estate with FAR in anticipation of resale. It was explained that there would be a refundable fee to be paid by the property owner for the listing. The refund was to occur upon sale of the property. If the prospect was interested, then certain literature was mailed out to them. Other salesmen were employed as "drivers" who would make the second contact of the prospect who indicated an interest in listing his property. The driver would secure a signed listing agreement along with a check for $375.00 which constituted the refundable listing Fee. There was no evidence that any of the listings obtained by FAR were ever resold. There were, however, three parcels of land in negotiation for sale when the operations of FAR were terminated in June, 1976. There was to be a division separate and apart from the "fronters" and "drivers" to do the actual selling of the property. The listings were advertised in the Fort Lauderdale area but there was no evidence to establish whether or not other advertising occurred. In November of 1975, Kopf telephoned Mr. Harold E. Triplett, a resident of Pomeroy, Ohio. Mr. Triplett was the owner of two lots in the Cape Coral residential development. Kopf represented to Mr. Triplett that he, Kopf, had a buyer for the Triplett property which was a foreign company seeking tax advantages. Kopf guaranteed that the property would be sold by November 29, 1975. November 29 came and went without a closing on the Florida property. This, notwithstanding the fact that Kopf had advised Triplett that the property was already sold and that the $347.20 check that Triplett had sent to Kopf was for closing costs. Triplett tried unsuccessfully to contact Kopf but was advised that the telephone had been disconnected. Notwithstanding the fact that FAR had never resold any of its listings Kopf represented to Triplett that he had successfully concluded similar transactions. As to the remaining allegations numbered 1, 3 and 4 above, there was a total absence of evidence and, hence, a failure of proof as to misrepresentations of those facts. FREC introduced no evidence to establish that the prices for which the properties were listed were reasonable listing prices and further introduced no evidence to show that Kopf represented that the property would be advertised nationwide and in foreign countries, or that the company had foreign buyers wanting to purchase the property listed with FAR, with the exception of Kopf's property, or that such representations, if made, were false. However, the evidence establishes that Kopf represented that the property would be sold within 30 days of the listing, which representation was false, and that Kopf knew that the representation was false.
Findings Of Fact During December of 1979, Fred H. Greene and his wife Marie L. Greene, decided to sell their residence located in St. Augustine, Florida. They listed the property with Respondent for a selling price of $55,000. Ms. Farrell holds a real estate salesman's license issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. At all times pertinent to this case she has been so licensed. In January 1980, Ms. Farrell presented an offer to purchase the Greene's home for $50,000. They agreed to the offer and entered into a Contract for Purchase and Sale on January 15, 1980. In the course of discussing how to structure the financing of the sale, Ms. Farrell suggested that the Greenes take back a $6,000 second mortgage from the purchasers, Harry and Margaret Carlyle. Mr. Greene wanted to know from Ms. Farrell how much in proceeds he would receive when the parties closed the sale. She made the following calculations: $50,000.00 Purchase Price -$31,000.00 Greene's First Mortgage held by McCaughn $19,000.00 $19,000.00 -$ 3,562.00 ----------- $15,438.00 Commission and Closing Costs tary Stamps, Abstract Cost) (Documen- $15,438.00 +$ 8,490.00 (Six Thousand Dollars Second Mortgage ----------- and Interest thereon at 10 percent) $23,928.00 These computations are incorrect. At closing the $6,000 second mortgage was not to be part of the cash distribution to the Greenes, but, was a debit against the cash proceeds. The above incorrect calculation is the only error made by Respondent in discussing the sales transaction with the Greenes. At all times relevant the Greenes were properly apprised of all the other details concerning the sale of their house. The miscalculation was an honest mistake on the part of Ms. Farrell. There is no evidence that it was made with the intent of misrepresenting anything to the Greenes. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the miscalculation was made negligently. Neither Ms. Farrell nor the Greenes knew she had made a mistake until the closing which was held on March 24, 1980. During the closing Ms. Judy White who was the closing agent for St. Johns Title and Abstract Company began to explain to the Greenes their closing statement. Mr. Greene pushed the statement away and said, "That's not what I expected to get." The statement showed that his cash proceeds were $9,144.46. The statement properly reflected the $6,000 second mortgage as a sellers' debit. Ms. White explained the statement to Mr. Greene several times, but he still did not understand why the cash proceeds did not equal the amount computed for him by Ms. Farrell during their early discussion. Mr. Greene was visibly upset and directed several angry questions towards Ms. Farrell concerning the discrepancy. Because she felt a need to control the closing proceedings, Ms. White vigorously intervened and attempted to answer Mr. Greene's questions. Both of the buyers who were also present at the closing urged the Greenes not to sign the closing documents if they had any questions or doubts about the sale. During the closing Ms. Farrell was not aware of her original mistake in miscalculating the closing proceeds. Neither the Carlyles, Ms. Farrell or Ms. White did anything to influence Mr. Greene to execute the closing documents. During his heated discussion of the figures with Ms. White, Mr. Greene's wife repeatedly urged him to be quiet and execute the documents. At one point she said, "Oh sign it, you son-of-a-bitch." Finally Mr. Greene relented and executed all of the closing documents which were then recorded. The proceeds of the sale were then disbursed. Prior to executing the closing documents the Greenes were fully apprised of all significant financial facts concerning the sale of their home to Harry and Margaret Carlyle. During the foregoing transaction Ms. Farrell represented the Greenes as their real estate salesperson. She did not become aware of the mistake in her calculation of the closing proceeds, until she discussed the matter with her real estate sales manager after the closing. Ms. Farrell has an excellent reputation for competency in the real estate profession, both in St. Johns County where the above transaction took place and in Broward County where she is now employed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent, Mary P. Farrell be DISMISSED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON 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 18th day of October,1982
