The Issue Whether Respondent, the developer of Hidden Banyan Condominium, violated provisions of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, and implementing rules by failing to timely call a meeting to allow unit owners, other than the developer, to elect one-third of the members of the board of directors; by failing to include reserve accounts in the condominium association's 1982 and 1983 budgets; by failing to call an annual meeting in 1981, 1982 and 1983; and by failing to pay its share of common expenses.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the developer of Hidden Banyan Condominium, a 24-unit condominium located in Lantana, Florida. This condominium was created, in law, on March 6, 1980, with the filing of a Declaration of Condominium, and construction was completed soon thereafter. Under the Declaration of Condominium, Hidden Banyan Condominium Association, Inc., a Florida not-for- profit corporation, was responsible for the operation of the condominium. Respondent sold the first condominium units on April 18, 1980, May 15, 1980, July 1, 1980, and two units on August 1, 1980. Consequently on August 1, 1980, unit owners other than Respondent owned more than 15 percent of the condominium units. Respondent controlled the condominium association until September 26, 1983, when a duly noticed condominium association meeting was held. Four non- developer unit owners were elected to the five seats on the governing board. Sam Seppala, a contractor and president of the Respondent corporation, was formerly director of the condominium association's governing board. Although several informal meetings of unit owners were held, no duly noticed annual meeting was held in 1982 or in February, 1983. 1/ As Mr. Seppala explained, he was "too busy" and unaware of the February annual meeting date designated by the Declaration. Respondent admits that, during the time it controlled the association, it failed to call a meeting of the unit owners within sixty days of August 1, 1980, to allow unit owners (other than the developer) to elect one-third of the membership of the governing board. The budgets for the condominium association during 1982 and 1983, when the association was controlled by the developer, contained reserve accounts but did not separately designate or "line itemize" reserve accounts for roof replacement, building painting, and pavement resurfacing. Both before and after July 1, 1980, 2/ - until August 5, 1983, when the Notice to Show Cause was issued - Respondent paid no monthly common expense assessments for the units which it owned. It did, however, pay all of the condominium association's budgetary deficits during that period, and no net amount is now owed by it to the association. There is no evidence that the condominium association suffered any monetary loss from Respondent's failure to itemize reserve accounts for roof replacement, building painting, and pavement resurfacing, or from its failure to pay common expenses otherwise due for the units which it owns. Beginning in March, 1982, the Division notified Respondent - on four separate occasions - of the alleged violations which later became the subject of its Notice to Show Cause, resulting in this proceeding. Respondent was given ample opportunity to voluntarily comply with the statute, yet did not do so until September 1, 1983.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be fined $3000 for multiple violations of Ch. 718, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums of the Department of Business Regulation, is seeking by a Cease and Dosist Order to enforce the provisions of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, the "Condominium Act," pursuant to the authority granted in Sections 718.501(1) and 498.051, Florida Statutes, alleging that it has evidence that Respondent has violated Section 718.401(8), Florida Statutes, by binding an owner of a condominium parcel in Covered Bridge Condominium Phase 18 to the provisions of a long-term lease that contains an escalation clause. Respondent, Hovnanian Florida, Inc., is a "developer" as defined in Section 718.103(13), Florida Statutes. Kevork S. Hovnanian is the President of the corporation. Covered Bridge Condominium Association, Inc., incorporated on June 8, 1971, is an "association" as defined in Section 718.103(2) subscribed to by Kevork S. Hovnanian, Lawrence Dombrowski and John R. Langly (Respondent's Exhibit A). Covered Bridge Condominium No. 18 was created by a "Declaration of Condominium," as defined in Section 718.103(12) and filed on December 14, 1978. Attached as "Exhibit 3" and expressly made a part of Covered Bridge Condominium No. 18 is a "Lease Agreement" dated July 8, 1971 in which Respondent was the lessor and Covered Bridge Condominium Association, Inc. is a lessee (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Kevork S. Hovnanian is the assignee of the Lease Agreement by assignment from Respondent on June 24, 1974 (Respondent's Exhibit C). Covered Bridge Condominium Association, Inc. is the association responsible for operation of the condominium, Covered Bridge Condominium No. 18. Paragraph IX of the foregoing Declaration, The Operating Entity, states in C.(9) in part that "Every owner of a Condominium Parcel, whether he has acquired his ownership by gift, conveyance or transfer by operation of law, or otherwise, shall be bound by the Bylaws of the Association (Exhibit 2), the provisions of this Declaration and the Long-Term Lease" (Exhibit 3). (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) IX A. provides in part: "Covered Bridge Condominium Association, Inc. shall administer, supervise and shall act by and on behalf of the owners of the family units in Covered Bridge Condominium No. 18 in accordance with this instrument, the Bylaws of the Association annexed hereto as 'Exhibit No. 2' and in accordance with the Condominium Act of the State of Florida, its supplements and amendments." Paragraph XIX of the Declaration, Long-Term Lease, requires each original purchaser from the Developer to execute a copy of the Long-Term Lease to secure the unit owner's (original purchaser's) obligation to pay his share of the common expenses as to the Long-Term Lease. The Long-Term Lease referred to in Paragraphs VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XV, XVII, XIX, XX and XII of the Declaration was attached as "Exhibit 3" and is the aforesaid Lease Agreement of July 8, 1971 in which the Respondent is the lessor and the Developer, and Kevork S. Hovnanian is the assignee. Paragraph XXI, Miscellaneous Provisions, Section G, provides: "If any of the provisions of this Declaration, or of the Bylaws, or of the Long-Term Lease attached hereto, or of the Condominium Act, or any section, sentence, clause, phrase, or work, or the application thereof, in any circumstance, is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Declaration, the Bylaws, the Long-Term Lease or the Condominium Act, and of the application of any such provision, action, sentence, clause, phrase, or word, in other circumstances, shall not be affected thereby." XXI K. provides: "The captions used in this Declaration of Condominium and Exhibits annexed hereto, are inserted solely as a matter of convenience and shall not be relied upon and/or used in construing the effect or meaning of any of the text of this Declaration or Exhibits hereto annexed." XXI N. provides in part: "By way of clarification as to Article XIX of this Declaration, the Long-Term Lease may be amended by an instrument in writing, executed by the Lessor and the Condominium Association, by and through its Board of Directors except there shall be no Amendment affecting the Long- Term Lease which would change a unit owner's rent under the Long-Term Lease nor the manner of sharing common expenses under the Long-Term Lease, nor impair the rights of unit owners to the use and enjoyment of the recreational facilities, without the unit owners so affected, and all record owners of Institutional Mortgages thereon, joining in the execution of said Amendment." The Bylaws in Article XIV, Rules and Regulations, Section 4, "Recreation Area and Facilities," establish rules for the recreational facilities. Section 5, "Conflict," provides that should conflict arise the Condominium Act shall prevail (Respondent's Exhibit B). Section IX, Improvements, of the Lease Agreement provides in part: "The Lessor covenants and warrants unto the Lessee that it has constructed, or is in the process of constructing upon the aforedescribed premises, at Lessor's cost and expense, certain recreational facilities, consisting of a swimming pool and sundeck areas, shuffleboard courts, Community Center Building which will include and provide for a meeting area, cardroom, space for arts and crafts, sewing, and billiards, together with equipment and personalty contained therein, and such other improvements and personalty as Lessor determines in its sole discretion." Section XXIV, Rent Adjustment, provides in part: "Lessor and Lessee herein covenant and agree that the rental payments Provided for in Article III above, shall be adjusted, higher or lower, based upon the Cost of Living Index, as hereinafter defined and provided in this Paragraph at one (1) year intervals, commencing January 1st, 1972, and continuing yearly thereafter throughout the term of this Lease" (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On September 26, 1979 Respondent sold by Warranty Deed a condominium in Covered Bridge Condominium No. 18 to Mr. and Mrs. Milton Marcus. The deed recited the fact of the assignment of the recreational facilities and further recited: "The Long-Term Lease as to the recreational facilities ... has been contemporaneously entered into by the Grantee(s) herein." On the same date the parties executed an "Acknowledgement of Lease Agreement" which recited their covenant to be bound by the 1979 Long-Term Lease Agreement (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On October 15, 1979 Respondent sold another condominium in Covered Bridge Condominium No. 18 to Mr. and Mrs. Saul Schwartz with similar recitations and with a similar lease acknowledgement agreement (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3) Rental payments attributed to the escalation clause in the Long-Term Lease were paid by Covered Bridge Condominium Association, Inc. subsequent to June 4, 1975, the effective date of Section 718.401(8), Florida Statutes, which declared that public policy precludes the inclusion or enforcement of escalation clauses (Stipulation) On June 5, 1979 Petitioner Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums served a Notice to Show Cause why a cease and desist order should not issue on Respondent Hovnanian Florida, Inc. alleging: Covered Bridge, Phase 18, is a condominium created pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is offering for sale and has closed on contracts for sale of condominium parcels in the condominium. Article IX of the Declaration of Condominium binds the owner of a condominium parcel to the provisions of a long-term lease, attached to the Declaration of Condominium as Exhibit 3. Section XXIV of said long-term lease contains an escalation clause as defined and prohibited by Section 718.701(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.). On July 17, 1979 Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. A Notice of Hearing was mailed by the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 6, 1979 notifying the parties that a formal hearing would be held October 24, 1979 in West Palm Beach, Florida. The notice recited: ISSUES: Whether a cease and desist order should be entered against the Respondent for an escala- tion clause prohibited by statute. AUTHORITY: Chapters 120 and 718, F.S. Sections 718.401 and 718.501(b), F.S.; Section 478.171(1), F.S. The hearing was rescheduled and then continued numerous times but went to hearing on April 15, 1980. In the initial stage of the formal hearing on that date the parties jointly moved for a Continuance on the basis of an attached Stipulation, infra, which it was stated would change the character of the hearing and limit the necessity for an extended hearing. The Stipulation is set forth in full for clarity: "Stipulation A Declaration of Condominium creating Covered Bridge Condominium No. 18, address 7240 Covered Bridge Boulevard, Lake Worth, Florida, 33463, was filed and recorded on December 14, 1978, in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County. Section XI, entitled "Assessments" of the Declaration states that "the portion of the common expenses under the Long-Term Lease shall be fixed and determined by the Lessor as provided under said Lease." Common expenses are defined in Section IH of the Declaration as "the expenses for which the unit owners are liable to the Association." Section XIX of the Declaration, entitled "Long-Term Lease" refers to a Lease and Assignment "... attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and made a part hereof, just as though said Lease were fully set forth herein." Payments under the lease are declared to be common expenses in Section XIX. By the above- referenced language, the Long-Term Lease is incorporated in and made a part of the Declaration of Condominium. Section XIX requires that each unit owner execute a copy of the Long-Term Lease attached as Exhibit 3, and that such lease be recorded in the Public Records of Palm Beach County, together with the deed conveying the unit to the owners. Exhibit No. 3 of the Declaration entitled "Lease Agreement" is an agreement between Hovnanian Florida, Inc., lessor, and Covered Bridge Condominium Association, Inc., lessee, the entity responsible for the operation of the condominium. Therein, it is stated that any reference to an obligation of a "lessee" shall be deemed to include Covered Bridge Condominium Association, Inc., and all individual lessees, jointly and severally. The Long-Term Lease, in Section III C states that rent due under it shall be the obliga- tion of the Individual Lessees and the Lessee-Association. Section XXIV of the Long-Term Lease provides that rental payments due under the lease shall be adjusted yearly. Such adjustment is computed by utilizing a nationally recognized comodity or consumer price index. Such lease was assigned to KEVORK S. HOVNANIAN by HOVNANIAN FLORIDA, INC., on June 24, 1974. Subsequent to the recordation of the Declara- tion of Covered Bridge Condominium No. 18, the developer did sell units to purchasers, and close on such sales. Purchasers were required to and did sign acknowledgements of Lease Agreement, in which purchasers have agreed to be bound by all the terms, covenants and conditions, set forth in the Long-Term Lease, and acknowledged that their signatures constituted an acknowledgement of the Long- Term Lease Agreement and their covenant to be bound by it. Such purchasers purchased sub- sequent to June 4, 1975. In 1975, Section 711.231, Florida Statutes, became effective on June 4, 1975. That act declared that the public policy of this state precludes the inclusion or enforcement of escalation clauses in leases for recreational facilities on other commonly used facilities serving residential condominiums. That statute has since been renumbered and is now Section 718.401(8), Florida Statutes. It is the position of the developer that all rents, including portions due under the esca- lation clause, are and remain the obligation of the association--lessees and the association remains bound to assess unit owners amounts necessary to pay such rents. The lessor has demanded such amounts from the lessee(s), and the lessee Association has refused to pay them. Rental payments attributed to the escalation clause were paid by the association to the lessor subsequent to June 4, 1975. It is stipulated that the following documents are placed before the Hearing Officer for con- sideration in deciding this matter, subject to the recitals in #13 relating to the determina- tion of the relevancy and admissability in this cause For petitioner: Warranty Deed - Hovnanian, Inc. to Saul, Shirly & Schwartz Acknowledgement & Acceptance by Grantee, Saul, Shirly & Schwartz Acknowledgement of Lease Agreement Milton & Rose Marcus Warranty Deed Hovnanian, Inc. to Milton & Rose Marcus Amendment to Declaration of Condominium Covered Bridge No. 18 Recorded August 31, 1979 Amendment to Declaration of Condominium Covered Bridge No. 18 Recorded April 26, 1977 Amendment to Declaration of Condominium Covered Bridge No. 18 Recorded February 21, 1979 Declaration of Condominium Covered Bridge No. 18, with Exhibits Recorded December 14, 1978 Complaint for Damages and Declaratory Relief, Case No. 79-306, 15th Judicial Circuit. Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim, Case No. 79-306, 15th Judicial Circuit. Offering Circulars Without Exhibits For Respondent: All documents listed by Petitioner: Bylaws of Covered Bridge Condominium Association, Inc., as recorded in Official Record Book 1913 at pages 1025 through 1054 and in official Record Book 1013 at pages 1085 and 1086 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County. Assignment of Lease dated June 24, 1974 as duly recorded in Official Record Book 2320 at pages 1096 through 1100 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Covered Bridge Plat #1, as recorded in Plat Book 29 on Page 44 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Covered Bridge Plat #2 as recorded in Plat Book 29 on page 79 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. 1976 Settlement Agreement entered into between Kevork Hovnanian, Hov- nanian Florida, Inc. and Covered Bridge Condominium Association, Inc. Exhibit 4, Offering Circular Petitioner and Respondent agree and stipulate that the facts recited in this stipulation and the documents are true and accurate. The parties reserve the right to present legal arguments directed to the relevancy and/or materiality of any and all facts and documentary evidence, or the contents thereof, to this action. This stipulation is contingent upon the Hearing Officer granting a Motion for Con- tinuance of the hearing scheduled in this matter for April 15 and 16, 1980. The parties agree that this stipulation will not be intro- duced into evidence in any proceeding or used in any manner unless and until the above- referenced Motion for Continuance is granted and, in the event the Motion for Continuance is denied, this stipulation is null and void. In no event will this stipulation be used in any other proceeding. The parties agree that should the stipu- lation be accepted and the hearing continued by the Hearing Officer no witnesses will be called in this cause at any future time, and additional documentary evidence will be placed before the Hearing Officer only upon the agreement of both the Petitioner and Respon- dent to such admission. Petitioner and Respondent agree that the sole remaining matters to be placed before the Hearing Officer shall consist of legal arguments re- lating to the admissability of evidence as stated above, and argument pertinent to the disposition of this cause." The hearing was continued and rescheduled to be heard June 24, 1980. The Notice of Hearing was in the same form and showed the same issue and authorities as stated in each of the previous notices, but with the addition: "issues involved in Stipulation filed April 15, 1980." Thereafter, a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a course of action was denied. At the commencement of the formal hearing rescheduled for June 24, 1980, Petitioner moved to amend the complaint on the grounds that Article IX (9) of the Declaration was cited in error in the complaint rather than Article XIX (19). The Motion to Amend was orally granted. A Motion for Continuance was then presented by Respondent on the grounds that since the Motion for Amendment had been granted the Respondent had insufficient time to prepare a defense to the amended charge and had not been informed of the issue involved in the case. Believing that the Notice to Show Cause, both original and as amended, together with the Stipulation filed at the previous hearing and the issue and authorities stated in the numerous Notices of Hearing, the Motions and Memoranda filed by Respondent, and the length of time from the inception of the case to the date of hearing had given Respondent adequate notice of the issues involved in the case and the time to prepare, the Hearing Officer denied Respondent's Motion for Continuance of the administrative hearing then in process. Exerpts from the voluminous documentary evidence which was introduced at the hearing are hereinbefore detailed, but a capsule summary of the facts follows: Covered Bridge Condominium Association, Inc. and the plats of the property show that it was anticipated in June of 1971 that Covered Bridge Condominium No. 18 might be erected on said corporate property and that when erected, purchasers of the' condominium units would become members of the Association. The Bylaws in 1971 authorized the Board of Directors of the Association to enter into long-term leases of recreational facilities. The Developer entered into the subject lease agreement that contained an escalation clause with the Association in July of 1971. The lease provided that common expenses would be assessed against all condominium units. Respondent created Covered Bridge Condominium No. 18 by "Declaration of Condominium" on December 13, 1978 "pursuant to Chapter 718, Florida Statutes (1976)." It incorporated the lease agreement of 1971 by reference as well as the Bylaws of 1971 and provided that the operating entity of 1971 should be Covered Bridge Condominium Association, Inc. The Declaration stated under "Operating-Entity" that Covered Bridge Condominium No. 18 should be administered under Covered Bridge Condominium Association, Inc., its Bylaws and "in accordance with the Condominium Act of the State of Florida, its supplements and amendments." Respondent expressly sought to tie the owners to the long-term lease which contained an escalation clause. When the new units in the condominium created in 1978 were sold in 1979, the deeds bound the purchasers to the 1971 lease agreement which provided recreational facilities to the condominium parcel. The parties submitted proposed findings of fact and memoranda of law, and Respondent submitted a proposed recommended order. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that an order be entered requiring Respondent Hovnanian Florida, Inc. to cease and desist from enforcing the escalation clause in the "Lease Agreement" of 1971 as it pertains to the condominium created in 1978, Covered Bridge Condominium No. 18, and the purchasers of units in said condominium. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Jo M. Gallay, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Spector, Esquire Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Guyte P. McCord, III, Esquire SPECTOR & TUNNICLIFF, P. A. Suite 750 Barnett Bank Building Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact The Declaration of Condominium for Oaks of Broward was filed by Margen, a Florida Partnership, in May, 1974 in the Public Records of Broward County and with the Petitioner. All documents required to be filed by Margen with Petitioner were filed and the fees paid. Simultaneously a recreational lease was filed of property adjacent to the condominium in which Barnett Bank of Hollywood was named as Trustee and Lessor, and The Oaks Condominium Association, Inc. of Broward as Lessee. Between May 1974 and early 1976 Margen sold to individuals 39 condominium units at Oaks of Broward. In early 1976, Housing Investment Corporation, mortgagee, began foreclosure proceedings which resulted in title to all of the Oaks condominium property, except for the 39 units previously sold, being taken by The Oaks of Broward, Inc., Respondent. Thereby Respondent became successor in title to the previously unsold 75 units in the building and to the position of the Lessor on the long-term recreational lease. On or about August 1977, Respondent offered for sale the 75 condominium units pursuant to prospectus admitted into evidence as Exhibit 2. In addition thereto and as part of the sales effort Respondent executed and recorded the Declaration Waiving Rents, a copy of which was admitted into evidence as Exhibit Neither of these documents was filed with Petitioner. The 75 units owned by Respondent were sold with the recreational lease rents waived. Pursuant to the terms of the recreational lease the original 39 buyers pay $20 per month, either to the Association or directly to the Lessor. This lease is a net/net lease, which means the Lessor performs no services except to provide the premises themselves. The Condominium Association is responsible for and pays all maintenance, taxes, upkeep and expenses for the operation of the Recreation Area. All condominium units, the original 39 as well as the remaining 75, pay to the Association, as part of the common expenses, their pro rate share of those operating expenses. It is this disparate treatment of the two groups of unit owners with respect to the recreational lease rent payment of $20 per month that is one subject of Petitioner's request for a cease and desist order. The second subject of the Petition for a cease and desist order is Petitioner's contention that Respondent is a Developer and is required to file documents and pay a $10 filing fee for each of the 75 condominiums sold, regardless of whether fees for these 75 units were paid by Respondent's predecessor in title.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent condominium association properly assessed unit owners for common expenses based on their respective proportionate shares of such expenses as set forth in the declaration of condominium.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Eden Isles Condominium Association, Inc. ("Association") is the entity responsible for operating the common elements of the Eden Isles Condominium ("Condominium"). As such, the Association is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of Petitioner Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes ("Division"). The Condominium was created——and continues to be governed by——a Declaration of Condominium ("Declaration"), which has been amended at least once during the Condominium's existence. The Condominium comprises seven identical buildings. Each four-story building contains 52 units. Each unit is laid out according to one of three different floor plans. The Declaration prescribes each unit's proportionate share (expressed as a percentage, e.g. 2.16%, 2.08%, 1.64%, etc.) of the common expenses. These percentages are used to calculate the amounts assessed against each respective unit to collect the funds needed to pay common expenses. For reasons not revealed at hearing, the Declaration——at least in its original form——established a separate and unique schedule of percentages for each building in the Condominium, with the result that similarly situated owners (i.e. those whose units had the same floor plan and comparable locations) did not necessarily pay the same proportionate share of the common expenses. Not surprisingly, owners who were compelled to contribute more toward the common expenses than their similarly situated neighbors were wont to complain about the seeming unfairness of this. Some time in 2004 the Association's governing Board of Directors ("Board") was made aware of an amendment to the Declaration, which, among other things, had revised the appendix that specified each unit's proportionate share of the common expenses. Due to an absence of evidence, the undersigned cannot determine when this amendment took effect, yet neither its existence (a copy is in evidence) nor its authenticity is in doubt. There is, further, no evidence explaining why the Board had not previously been familiar with the amendment, but——for whatever reason(s)——it was not. After deliberating over the meaning and import of the amendment, the Board voted, during an open meeting, to construe the amendment as providing for the assessment of common expenses against all units in the Condominium according to the percentages assigned to the units located in "Building G," which was the last of the buildings in the Condominium to be completed. In other words, the Board interpreted the amendment as requiring that all similarly situated unit owners be assessed the same amount for common expenses, using only the most recent proportionate shares. Consequently, starting in 2005, the Association assessed unit owners for common expenses pursuant to the Board's interpretation of the amendment. While this course of action evidently pleased most residents, someone complained to the Division about the change. The Division investigated. Based on its own understanding of the amendment, which differs from the Board's, the Division determined that the Association was not properly assessing the unit owners; accordingly, it demanded that the Association remedy the situation. Under pressure from the Division, which was threatening to impose penalties against the Association for noncompliance with the Division's directives, and for some other reasons not relevant here, the Board eventually decided to "revert back" to the original proportionate shares, beginning in 2006. The Board continues to believe, however, that its interpretation of the amendment (as requiring similarly situated owners to be assessed at the same percentage) is correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order rescinding the Notice to Show Cause and exonerating the Association of the charge of failing to assess for common expenses in the appropriate percentages as set forth in the Declaration, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Facts stipulated to by the parties Winston Towers 600 condominium was created by Winston Capital, Inc., which still owns units for sale in the condominium. Control of the association has been relinquished by the creator/developer and turned over by it to the unit owners including joint intervenors. In May of 1983, six Michigan limited partnerships each purchased a number of units in the condominium from Winston Capital, Inc. In March of 1984, four Texas limited partnerships each purchased a number of units in the condominium from Winston Capital, Inc. The joint intervenors consist of the six Michigan limited partnerships and the four Texas limited partnerships. The number of units so purchased gives the joint intervenors, as a block, a controlling interest in the condominium association. The association is controlled by the joint intervenors, who elected two of the three directors of the association. The association hired Hall Management Company, Kent Security Services, Inc., and an unnamed cleaning company. Records of the Secretary of State reveal that among other officers of Hall Management Company are Craig Hall, President and Director, and Christine Erdody, Vice-President. The records of the Secretary of State reveal no entity known as the Hall Real Estate Group. The public records of Dade County, Florida, reveal no fictitious name affidavit for any entity trading as the Hall Real Estate Group. The records of the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes reflect that Winston Towers 600 is a residential condominium, located in Dade County, Florida. The joint intervenors are not now offering and have not ever offered condominium units for sale. The joint intervenors are not now offering and have not ever offered condominium units for lease for periods in excess of five years. Winston Towers 600 Condominium Association, Inc., is the non-profit condominium association established to maintain and operate the condominium. In July, 1984, a meeting of the condominium association was held upon instructions of the developer, Winston Capital, Inc. Winston Capital, Inc., scheduled and held the condominium association meeting in July 1984, under the good faith impression and belief that the threshold requirements in Section 718.301 mandating turnover of control of the association board of directors had been met. Joint intervenors, collectively, own more than 50 per cent of the units in the condominium. Joint intervenors, as developers, did not turn over control of the condominium association in July 1984. The declaration of condominium for the condominium and the Florida Statutes grant certain rights and privileges to the developers. The joint intervenors have a substantial economic investment in the condominium. The joint intervenors desire to have the condominium operated and maintained by competent professional management so as to protect and enhance the condominium project. The annual fee being paid to Hall Management Company for management of the condominium is the same fee as had been previously paid by the developer, Winston Capital, Inc., to the prior manager, Keyes Management Company. The names of the board of directors elected to the board of administrators of the association on July 16, 1985, were Ms. Christine Erdody, Mr. James Sherry, and Mr. Joseph Pereira. Ms. Christine Erdody and Mr. James Sherry are general partners in each of the ten limited partnerships. Mr. Craig Hall is President and Ms. Christine Erdody is Vice- President. Other findings based on evidence Adduced at hearing At the turnover meeting in July of 1984, Ms. Erdody cast votes on behalf of each of the ten limited partnerships, voting once for each unit owned by all ten of the limited partnerships. There has never been a meeting of the unit owners in which the limited partnerships turned over control of the association to unit owners other than the ten limited partnerships. The ten limited partnerships have no business ventures or income producing activities other than attempting to offset expenses of operations by leasing the units owned by the limited partnerships and attempting to increase their equity in the condominium units. The units acquired by the joint intervenors were not acquired for their own occupancy. The limited partnerships, while in control of the association, employed Hall Management Company, pursuant to contract, to manage the condominium and to lease the units owned by the limited partnerships. The rental office used by the management company consists of a unit owned by one of the limited partnerships. The contract specifically requires that Hall Management Company attempt to lease those condominiums units owned by the limited partnerships. The limited partnerships have no income producing mechanism other than the disposition of condominium units owned by the listed partnerships pursuant to the contract with the Hall Management Company. A regular, normal, and common activity of each of the ten limited partnerships is to offer to lease and to enter into leases of the condominium units owned by the limited partnerships. They typically engage in this activity through their agent, the Hall Management Company. None of the ten limited partnerships have ever offered any of their units for sale. None of the ten limited partnerships have ever offered any of their condominium units for leases in excess of five years. Ultimately, all of the ten limited partnerships intend to sell all of their condominium units. There is no relationship or affiliation between the creator/developer, Winston Capital, Inc., and any of the joint intervenors. Each of the joint intervenors is a separate limited partnership. However, due to the facts that each of the joint intervenors have a common purpose, each has at least several general partners in common, each has entered into a management contract with a closely related management company, and each has acted in concert with the others in prior matters concerning the condominium facility and the association, for all practical purposes relevant to this case, the joint intervenors may be regarded as a single entity. This is true even though there is no agreement or contract between the joint intervenors requiring them to act collectively in any matter involving or affecting their vote in condominium association matters at Winston Towers 600 Condominium. In all the actions of the joint intervenors in voting their interests at association meetings, they have never thought or acted on the understanding that the joint intervenors were developers of the condominium. The unit owners other than the joint intervenors have selected one-third of the Board of Directors of the Association. The right to vote for a majority of the board of directors of the condominium association is a significant and valuable right which the joint intervenors believed they would be entitled to upon purchasing a majority of the units in the condominium. A substantial number of the purchasers of Florida condominium units are non-residents of Florida. A substantial number of purchasers of condominium units intend to rent their condominiums under leases with a duration of two years or less.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes issue a declaratory statement to the following effect: That the joint intervenors, individually and collectively, constitute concurrent and successor developers, and that as such concurrent and successor developers who collectively own more than fifty per cent but less than eighty-five per cent of the units, they are entitled to appoint two-thirds of the members of the board of administration of the condominium association. The statement should also note that the joint intervenors should comply with Section 718.3025(1)(e), Florida Statutes, by disclosing any financial or ownership interest which the joint intervenors have, if any, in Hall Management Company That the issue of whether the joint intervenors may have violated the provisions of the declaration of condominium is not a proper subject for a declaratory statement. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Arnold Belkin Apartment 912 210 - 174 Street Miami, Florida 33160 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karl M. Scheuerman, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 323301 Joseph D. Bolton, Esquire Stephen Gillman, Esquire SHUTTS & BOWEN 1500 Edward Ball Building Miami Center 100 Chopin Plaza Miami, Florida 33131 Linda McMullen, Esquire McFARLAIN, BOBO, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY P. O. Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Kearney, Jr., Acting Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Kearney, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The Following are my specific rulings on each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all of the parties. Rulings on findings proposed by the Division Paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Division's proposed findings are accepted and incorporated into the findings in this Recommended order. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant and as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as irrelevant in part and is redundant in part. The substance of paragraph 26 is accepted with the deletion of certain redundant information. The substance of paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 is accepted with some modifications in the interest of clarity and accuracy and with the deletion of certain redundant information. Rulings on findings proposed by the Joint Intervenors Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Joint Intervenors' proposed findings are accepted and incorporated into the findings in this Recommended Order. Paragraph 13 is rejected as irrelevant, subordinate, and not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraphs 14 and 15 are accepted. Paragraphs 16 and 17 are accepted with additional findings for the purpose of clarity and accuracy. The substance of paragraphs 18, 19, 23, and 26 is accepted. Paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 27 are accepted. Rulings on findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Petitioner's proposed findings are accepted in substance. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are accepted in substance with the deletion of the reference to the Hall Group of real estate limited partnerships. Paragraph 11 is rejected in part because it is subordinate, in part because not supported by competent substantial evidence and in part because it is a conclusion of law. Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, and 15 are accepted in substance. Paragraph 16 is rejected because it is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 17 is rejected because it is irrelevant and subordinate. Paragraphs 18, 19, and 20 are accepted in substance. Paragraphs 21 and 22 are rejected because they constitute argument or conclusions of law and are not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected because it is irrelevant to the issues to be decided in this case and because portions of it are not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraph 25 is rejected because it is irrelevant to the issues to be decided in this case, because portions of it are not supported by competent substantial evidence, and because portions of it constitute argument or conclusions of law. Paragraph 26 is rejected because it is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 27 is rejected because it constitutes argument. Paragraph 28 is rejected because it is irrelevant and redundant. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are rejected because they constitute argument or conclusions of law. Paragraphs 31 and 32 are rejected because they are not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 33 is rejected because it constitutes argument or conclusions of law. Paragraphs 34 and 35 are rejected because they are irrelevant and because they constitute argument.
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Michael H. Cohen, based on conduct set forth hereinafter in detail, is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, false promises and breach of trust in a business transaction in the State of Florida, in violation of subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979). Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the transcript of the proceedings, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant:
Findings Of Fact By its Administrative Complaint filed herein signed September 29, 1981, the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission (herein called the "Commission" or "Petitioner") seeks to suspend, revoke, or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent as licensee, and against his license as a real estate broker under the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is a licensed real estate broker who has been issued license No. 0209033. On February 17, 1978, Michael Rappaport sold ten townhouse units in Collonade Condominiums, 2275 N.E. 122nd Street, North Miami, FLORIDA, to the Respondent. The Respondent purchased the townhouses, by deed, in the name of his mother-in-law, Luz Sanabria. At the time of this conveyance, Michael Rappaport owed $2,400 in condominium assessments to the Collonade Condominium Association and, at that time, foreclosure proceedings by the mortgagee, Dade Federal Savings and Loan Association, were pending for failure to pay the mortgages (by Rappaport). Respondent, as agent for Ms. Sanabria, contacted the condominium association and made promises to pay the past due assessments. As stated, following transfer of the title to the Respondent, there remained owing to the condominium association past due assessments by the Respondent. The Respondent negotiated a settlement with the condominium association for payment of the delinquent assessments; however, the Respondent defaulted on the terms of the settlement for payment of the delinquent assessments. On September 25, 1979, Collonade Condominium Association obtained a judgment against Respondent for $7,094.40 which remained unsatisfied at the time of the hearing herein. It is based upon the above-referred to facts that the Petitioner contends that Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, false promises and breach of trust in a business transaction in the State of Florida in violation of subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979). Respondent takes the position that (1) he was not the real party in interest inasmuch as he was attempting to execute a favorable transaction on behalf of his mother-in-law, and (2) that he attempted to strike deals, negotiate settlements and that to do otherwise, either in his capacity as a real estate agent or as a son-in-law, he would be remiss. To support his position, Respondent points to the fact that he retained a knowledgeable mortgage broker to remove these properties from foreclosure proceedings and to attempt to renegotiate, restructure or otherwise put these mortgages, which were in foreclosure, back into current status. Additionally, Respondent avers that there is nothing improper respecting his attempt to negotiate a settlement with the condominium association, which was an everyday common practice. Respondent admits that he personally agreed to repay the condominium association, which agreement was defaulted and resulted in a judgment being entered against him. However, Respondent's position is that these were matters of a personal nature and were in no manner conduct amounting to fraud, misrepresentation, concealment and false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device or any other acts of conduct which subject him to disciplinary action pursuant to Section 475.25, Florida Statutes, Subsection 1(b) thereof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore J. Silver, Esquire 9445 Bird Road Miami Florida 33165 Walter F. McQuade, Esquire 700 Northeast 125th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 William Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation - Legal Section P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. C. B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 Based upon the pleadings and responses thereto, an Order imposing sanctions for Respondent's failure to submit discovery as required by the undersigned dated October 15, 1986 and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent is the developer of a condominium known as La Residence. As Presently developed, La Residence consists of sixty units. La Residence is located in Boca Raton, Florida. Respondent failed to meet the completion date for the subsequent phases of La Residence as is described in the declaration of condominium of La Residence. According to the Declaration of Condominiums for La Residence, the scheduled dates listed for construction of the subsequent phases of La Residence were June, 1982 for phase II; February, 1983 for phase III, and November, 1983 for phase IV. Amendments to the Declaration of Condominium of La Residence were recorded on June 30, 1981, March 22, 1982 and August 2, 1984. Respondent did not furnish the Division with copies of the above-referred amendments. Additionally, Respondent failed to provide purchasers of units within La Residence, copies of the above-referred amendments. Respondent failed to hold annual members meeting for the years 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984. Respondent failed to call a members meeting to allow non-developer unit owners to elect a director after fifteen percent of the available units had been conveyed. Respondent failed to mail to unit owners, copies of the proposed annual budget for the years 1982, 1983, and 1984. Respondent failed to include the statutory reserves and the proposed annual budget as required for the years 1982, 1983 and 1984. Respondent failed to fund reserve accounts for the years 1982, 1983 and 1984. Respondent failed to provide unit owners with financial reports for fiscal years 1982, 1983 and 1984. Respondent failed to pay the developer's share of assessments due to be paid by the developer after June 30, 1982. The Declaration of Condominium for La Residence was recorded in the public records of Palm Beach County in 1981. Control of the Condominium Association was turned over to non-developer unit owners on February 16, 1985. No "turnover report" was prepared by a certified public accountant nor was such a report ever furnished to the Condominium Association by Respondent. Respondent has not provided the Condominium Association copies of all canceled checks and bank statements for the time period dating from the recordation in 1981 to January 31 1984. Respondent, or a representative on its behalf, did not appear at the hearing to refute or otherwise contest the alleged violations set forth in the Notice to Show Cause filed herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions, of a Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED Respondent pay to the Division, within thirty (30) days of issuance of the Division's Final Order, a civil penalty in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Respondent secure the services of an independent certified public accountant who shall review the condominium records and submit a turnover review in accordance with the provisions of Section 718.301(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1985) and rule 7B-23.03(4)(5) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. Within thirty days of the Division's Final Order, it is recommended that the Division issue guidelines to Respondent to ensure that the condominium records are reviewed in accordance with the above-referenced statutory and rule provisions. Provided that monies are found to be due and owing the association based on the review, Respondent shall be directed to remit such amounts to La Residence of Boca Del Mar Condominium Association. Recommended this 23rd day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1987.
Findings Of Fact At all times referred to in these findings of fact, Carlson was a licensed real estate salesman having been issued License Number 0187184. The last license issued was as a salesman, c/o Pauls Real Estate and Investments, Inc., 441 East Shore Drive, Clearwater Beach, Florida 33515. From October 13, 1982, to June 28, 1983, Carlson was licensed as a real estate salesman in the employ of corporate real estate broker Alliance Real Estate, Inc. of which Nicholas G. Mastro was a qualifying broker and officer. During her employment, Carlson was employed to solicit and obtain landlords and tenants in connection with the rental property management brokerage business of Alliance Real Estate, Inc. Carlson worked out of Alliance's Clearwater Beach office, ten miles from the main office on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Clearwater. Generally, Alliance's official policy was that the originals of property listings, property management agreements and rental agreements were to be maintained at the main office, with work copies filed at the Beach office. Correspondence and miscellaneous property management papers, such as invoices, frequently are maintained exclusively at the Beach office. Funds were to be deposited into, and checks were to be written out of, Alliance's operating account by Alliance's staff at the main office. However, due to the distance between the main office and the Beach office, it was inefficient and inconvenient for Carlson to follow the official policies and procedures. Instead, Carlson began using her own personal bank account as a conduit for funds flowing to and from Alliance (including brokerage fees to Alliance). She also ceased following the procedure for maintaining certain original papers at the main office and even began maintaining files at her home. Alliance knew or should have known that Carlson was using her personal bank account as a conduit for Alliance funds. Alliance's ledgers showed these transactions, and Alliance's bookkeeper wrote reimbursement checks to Carlson for some of them. Since Ronald Lohr, Alliance's qualifying broker with supervisory responsibility over the Beach office, did not testify, the evidence did not preclude the possibility that he had actual or constructive knowledge of this deviation from official policy. Regarding Carlson's maintenance of files (including original papers normally kept at the main office) at her house, Alliance did not have actual or constructive knowledge of this deviation from official policy. Rather, Alliance's minimal supervision of the Beach office gave Carlson the opportunity to deviate from that official policy without detection. Through the combined effect of these circumstances, Carlson was able to operate as a salesman for Alliance in connection with the following transactions while concealing the transactions from her employer and wrongfully retaining brokerage commissions which properly should have been paid over to Alliance. At the conclusion of these transactions (except one), Carlson "pitched" her file on it. In February, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained $1,000.00 as rental payments from William Russ, as a tenant, for the rental of Unite 908, Clearwater Point Condominium, 830 S. Gulfview Blvd., Clearwater Beach, Florida owned by Bernhardt Elsen. In March, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained $680 from Carl Dotterman, as a tenant, for the rental of Elsen's condominium. Notwithstanding that Carlson had received $1,680, Carlson advised Bernhardt Elsen that she had only received $1,600. Carlson disbursed $1,513.30 to Bernhardt Elsen, calculated as $1,600, minus $160 being a 10 percent management fee, plus $73.39 as reimbursement for payment of an electric bill. Carlson collected, received and disbursed the Russ and Dotterman rental money in her own name. She engaged in the Elsen rental property management activities and received compensation for the performance of real estate brokerage services all without the prior knowledge and consent of her employing broker, Alliance Real Estate, Inc., or any of its qualifying brokers. In February and March, 1983, Carlson negotiated for her son Martin Carlson, as tenant, and Dr. Rolando Perez, as owner, for the rental of Unit 207, Commodore Building, Clearwater Point Condominiums, Clearwater Beach, Florida, owned by Dr. Rolando Perez. Rent was to be $800. Carlson, for her son, paid Dr. Rolando Perez $720 calculated as $800 minus $80 being a 10 percent management fee. Carlson collected, received and disbursed the Carlson rental money in her own name. She engaged in the Perez rental property management activities and received compensation for the performance of real estate brokerage services all without the prior knowledge and consent of her employing broker, Alliance Real Estate, Inc., or any of its qualifying brokers. In April, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained $500 as rental payment from a Mr. and Mrs. Scalise, as tenants, for the period April 9, 1983, to April 15, 1983, for the rental of Unit 701, Sailmaster Building, Clearwater Point Condominiums, Clearwater Beach, Florida, owned by Anthony and Jeanette Eman. On or about April 14, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained a $100 rental deposit from Mr. and Mrs. Scalise for the rental of Eman's condominium for a period in 1984. On or about April 15, 1983, Carlson disbursed to Mr. and Mrs. Eman the $100 deposit and $200 of the $500 rental payment with $300 thereof being retained by Carlson as a management fee. Carlson collected, received and disbursed the Scalise rental money in her own name. She engaged in the Eman rental property management activities and received compensation for the performance of real estate brokerage services all without the prior knowledge and consent of her employing broker, Alliance Real Estate, Inc., or any of its qualifying brokers. In January and February, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained $2,400 as rental payments from Ernest Pfau, as a tenant, for the rental of Unit 605, Shipmaster Building, Clearwater Point Condominiums, Clearwater Beach, Florida, owned by Joseph Seta. Carlson disbursed to Joseph Seta $2,160 calculated as $2,400 minus $240 being a 10 percent management fee. Carlson collected, received and disbursed the Pfau rental money in her own name. She engaged in the Eifert rental property management activities and received compensation for the performance of real estate brokerage services all without the prior knowledge and consent of her employing broker, Alliance Real Estate, Inc., or any of its qualifying brokers. On or about June 7, 1983, Carlson solicited and obtained a $100 rental deposit from Lawrence Augostino, as a tenant, for the rental of Unit 706, 450 Gulf Blvd., South Building, Clearwater Beach, Florida, owned by Dr. Donald F. Eifert. Carlson was to hold the deposit until she was able to obtain a listing on the rental property. While waiting for a listing on the Eifert property, Alliance, through Mr. Mastro, became aware of one of Carlson's "secret clients," Mr. Elsen, and confronted Carlson about it. In response to Mastro's demand, she retrieved the entire Elsen file from her home. When Mastro learned about a second "secret client," Dr. Perez, a short time later, Mastro immediately terminated Carlson from her employment on June 15, 1983. Carlson did not advise Alliance of the Augostino deposit and was not able to get a good address for Augostino to return the deposit before she left the Clearwater area to go to Michigan for a month. Carlson collected and received the Augostino deposit in her own name. She engaged in the Eifert rental property management activities without the prior knowledge and consent of her employing broker, Alliance Real Estate, Inc., or any of its qualifying brokers. As previously alluded to, Carlson produced evidence of having used her personal checking account as a conduit for funds flowing between Alliance and its customers (including brokerage fees payable to Alliance) with the actual or constructive knowledge of Lohr and Alliance's bookkeeper. But Carlson was unable to produce any similar evidence (such as Alliance's ledgers or her cancelled checks) in response to the absence of any Alliance corporate records indicating that Carlson paid any of the brokerage fees generated in the foregoing transactions over to Alliance. Carlson's self-serving and vague testimony that she did not owe Alliance any money was insufficient in this respect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a final order suspending respondent's license for two (2) years for violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1983). RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32002 Bruce M. Harlan, Esquire 110 Turner Street Clearwater, Florida 33516 Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
