Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Gary R. Berkson, is a licensed real estate salesman, holding license No. 034697. From September 27, 1980, until May of 1983, the Respondent as a salesman working as an independent contractor for Act Now Real Estate, Inc., a corporate broker whose active qualifying brokers and officers were Robert F. Picheny and Thelma R. Sarkas. Robert F. Picheny was subpoenaed and requested to bring with him the records of Act Now Real Estate, Inc., showing the disbursement of commissions to the Respondent. These records did not contain any entries relating to rental transactions involving the persons named in the complaint as having paid commissions to the Respondent. The only lease offered and received in evidence was between Samuel Schnur, as lessor, and lessees named Davis and Johnston. Samuel Schnur, presented as one of the Petitioner's witnesses, did not pay a rental commission to the Respondent in connection with this lease. Another lease transaction where the Respondent was alleged to have received rental commissions was between Sami Elmasri, as landlord, and Donald Bauerle, as tenant. Sami Elmasri, presented as another of the Petitioner's witnesses, testified that he paid a $300 commission, but that this was not paid to the Respondent. This commission was paid to another salesman, Wendy Corman. The final witness for the Petitioner, except for the Respondent, was Wendy Corman. She showed Mr. Elmasri's property to persons wishing to rent through a lead given by the Respondent. She was paid a $300 commission by Mr. Elmasri. The Respondent did not receive any of this commission. The Petitioner's final witness was the Respondent, who testified that he never received a commission for rental property. The only money he received in connection with rental properties was a management fee he received on some properties owned by Richard Jacobson. This fee was in payment for management services consisting of arranging for repairs to the properties such as painting it, repairs to the plumbing and the garage door, and being available to tenants with problems in the absence of the owner. These management fees continued even after the Respondent left Act Now Real Estate, Inc., until Mr. Jacobson assumed the management duties himself.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent, Gary R. Berkson, be DISMISSED. This Recommended Order entered this 13th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 13th day of June, 1984.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Dudley Cohn, is a registered real estate salesman having been issued license number 0314085. The last known address of Respondent is 3351 NE 19th Avenue, Oakland Park, Florida 33306. Dudley Cohn also goes by the name of Doug Cohn, under which name he is not licensed. Cohn did not give the name of Douglas or Doug as an alias on his application for licensure. During March and/or April of 1980, several advertisements for real property appeared in the Pompano Shopper in the classified section. In response to the subject advertisements, John Michaelis and Albert Crowley called the telephone numbers listed in said advertisements to obtain information on real property advertised therein. One of the telephone numbers which appeared in the advertisements is a number which was maintained by former real estate licensees, Real Estate Merchandisers, Inc., and George May. Respondent Cohn visited Mr. and Mrs. Michaelis and Mr. Crowley, individually, at their residences in 1980, and at that time he identified himself to them as a salesman associate of Real Estate Merchandisers, Inc. For the purpose of identification, Respondent presented to the Michaelises and to Crowley, individually, business cards from Real Estate Merchandisers, Inc., and/or George May, Broker, on which Respondent had written his name as "Cohn" or "Doug Cohn." (Transcript, pages 16, 41, 44; Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 4.) After identifying himself as a representative of Real Estate Merchandisers, Inc., Respondent proceeded to make a sales presentation to the Michaelises and Crowley, individually, for the purpose of persuading them to purchase investment property in the Miami area. Respondent represented to the Michaelises that he had seen the property and it was beautiful, that it was high and dry, and that access by road existed to the property. Based on these representations, on April 10, 1980, the Michaelises agreed to purchase the real property located in Dade County, Florida, being sold by Respondent and executed an agreement for deed. Respondent also represented to the Michaelises that the property was located approximately 2.5 miles west of the Krome Avenue cutoff of U.S. Highway 27, behind a cement plant. Respondent gave to the Michaelises and Crowley copies of maps indicating the location of the subject property and stating it was behind the cement plant. (Transcript, pages 21, 22, 27, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 55, 57, 61, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98; Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 5, 6.) Based upon the representations of its location made by Respondent, Crowley agreed to purchase a piece of real property located in Dade County, Florida, and gave Respondent a check in the amount of $1,000 to serve as a binder on said property. Crowley instructed Respondent to hold the check until Crowley had inspected the real property. Respondent tried to cash the check, but the bank refused to honor the check. Crowley learned from the Miami Planning Commission that the property in question was not as Respondent had represented it to be and did not go through with the purchase. (Transcript, pages 29, 32, 33.) Said properties in actuality were located approximately seven to 15 miles west of the Krome Avenue cutoff of U.S. Highway 27. The subject property is accessible only by air boat or other off-road vehicles. No plans existed to develop roads in this area. (Transcript, pages 31, 58, 62, 63, 64, 99, 100, 101, 178, 179, 184, 185, 186, 192, 193, 200.) When the Michaelises went to view the subject property, it was submerged below standing water. Said property is normally submerged below ground water at least nine months out of each year and lies in a vital water flow area for the South Florida Everglades area. (Transcript, pages 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 184, 185, 189, 190, 191, 198.) At the time that Respondent contacted the Michaelises and Crowley, Respondent was registered as a non-active real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Respondent had never personally seen the property he was selling. (Transcript, pages 203, 206, 248; Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3.) Respondent gave money to his broker to have his registration changed from inactive to active. When advised that his license was not active, Respondent immediately applied to activate his license.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent, Dudley Cohn, also known as Douglas Cohn, guilty of two counts of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged by the Florida Real Estate Commission, it is recommended that the license of Respondent be suspended for two years. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eli Breger, Esquire, and Richard Breger, Esquire 17200 NE 19th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William M. Furlow, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, George N. Sullivan, held real-estate license number 0128470 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission. His current address is 22 East Spruce Street, Orlando, Florida. At one time, respondent also held a registered general contractor's license and operated a construction firm under the name of George N. Sullivan, Inc. in Vero Beach, Florida. On or about December 7, 1979, George N. Sullivan, Inc. and Vero Fore, Incorporated entered into a construction agreement wherein Sullivan agreed to construct a residence at Lot 27, Unit III, the Moorings of Vero Beach, in Indian River County for a price of $155,628. The difference between this price and the price of $171,688 alleged in the administrative complaint is due to "extras" agreed upon by the parties to be added to the project. Sullivan began construction on the residence but abandoned the project before it was completed. When he left the job he had been paid all sums due under the agreement except one final $18,000 draw. Vero Fore later discovered that approximately $66,000 in unpaid bills were left by Sullivan. It also learned that Sullivan had obtained releases from three material suppliers by issuing worthless checks in the amounts of $5,849, $2,883.48, $1,913.14, $4,988.92 and $3,847.23. To date, Vero Fore has not been repaid by Sullivan. Sullivan was later adjudged guilty of passing worthless checks by the circuit court of Indian River County on July 8, 1981 and was sentenced to eighteen months probation and required to make restitution to the subcontractors. The official records of Indian River County reflect that Sullivan was found to be in violation of probation on March 23, 1983 for failure to make restitution. It is unknown what, if any, penalties were imposed upon him for this violation, or if restitution has ever been made. On or about September 5, 1980, Sullivan entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. James L. Cain to remodel their residence located at 2075 DeLeon Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida. The agreed upon price was $46,900. The Cains paid Sullivan $46890, or 10 percent, as a downpayment for the work on September 8, 1980. Sullivan sent three men to the Cains' house a few days later to build a platform. No other work was ever done. Sullivan did not pay the three workmen and the Cains were forced to pay them $788 to obtain a release of liens. To date, they have never been reimbursed by respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent George N. Sullivan be found guilty as charged in Counts I, III, and IV and that Count II be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent's real estate sales license be suspended for a period of ten years with the condition that said license be reinstated after a period of three years if respondent can demonstrate that restitution to the three material suppliers, Vero Fore, Inc. and the Cains has been made. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 10th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Lee Printy, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. George N. Sullivan 22 East Spruce Street Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0413725. On November 8, 1983 Respondent submitted a Request for Active Salesman's License indicating the name of the firm at which he would be employed as Corporate Investments of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Corporate Investment Business Brokers and his broker as Lynne Levy. Respondent worked as a salesman with Lynne Levy as his broker until he was terminated by her on or about May 22, 1984. Respondent testified he was not told of his termination until 4:00 p.m. on May 25, 1984 at which time Lynne Levy also resigned as broker with Corporate Investments of Florida, Inc. Respondent's license was cancelled on May 29, 1984 due to the fact that his license was no longer placed with a broker. From May 29 until July 9, 1984 Respondent's license was not placed with a broker and was therefore in a "cancelled" status. On July 9, 1984 Respondent's license was reactivated since he had been employed by another real estate broker. On or about June 1, 1984 Respondent attempted to have Mr. Bert Malone register as broker for Corporate Investments of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Corporate Investment Business Brokers, but that application was never accepted by the Florida Real Estate Commission due to Respondent's failure to submit information requested by the Commission, including a copy of the corporation's minutes when Lynne Levy's resignation was accepted and Respondent was elected an officer or director. Respondent was co-owner with Robert L. Levy, Lynne Levy's husband, of Corporate Investments of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Corporate Investment Business Brokers. Lynne Levy was President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Corporation, as well as its broker. Robert L. Levy and Respondent each owned 50% of the corporation, but Respondent held a 51% voting interest to Levy's 49%. Respondent obtained his franchise on June 17, 1983 to open an office in Florida from Corporate Investment Business Brokers, Inc., a franchisor. Respondent contributed the franchise to the corporation he formed with Levy and agreed to keep the franchise current. The franchisor terminated its franchise agreement with Respondent on May 17, 1984 due to Respondent's failure to make payments due thereunder. On June 12, 1984 the franchisor notified Respondent that it would not reconsider the termination of the franchise. On or about May 30, 1984 Respondent attended the closing of a real estate transaction between Fred Hage, seller, and Frank De Santo, buyer. This was while Respondent's license was cancelled and inoperative. The property had been listed by Respondent and he received a check for $9000 made out to Corporate Investments of Florida, Inc., which represented the broker's commission. On the same day Respondent opened a checking account at Barnett Bank of Central Florida, Longwood Office, and deposited the $9000 commission check in that account without the knowledge or consent of Lynne Levy, his former registered employing broker. On August 16, 1984 Respondent disbursed $3750 to Robert L. Levy, Lynne Levy's husband, from this checking account as the co-partner's share of the $9000 commission. Respondent had obtained the listing agreement from Fred Hage on this property on March 14, 1984 at which time Respondent and Hage agreed to a $6000 commission, or 12% of the total price upon consummation of a sale. Or or about April 4, 1984 Hage signed another listing agreement which reflected a $9000 commission. When the transaction closed on or about May 30, Respondent collected the $9000 commission. Hage signed the closing statement and the purchase contract for this transaction, both of which disclosed the $9000 commission. Hage did not question the commission amount at the closing but waited until June 6, 1984 to raise his objection in a letter to Lynne Levy. On or about May 21, 1984 Respondent discussed with Paul Russell, II, the acquisition of a 50% partnership interest in his real estate franchise in the central Florida area for $50,000. Respondent admits that he was informed on May 17, 1984 that his franchise had been terminated and this termination was reconfirmed on June 12, 1984. Respondent did not inform Russell during their discussions that his franchise had already been terminated, but Russell decided not to go through with the deal. On or about June 2, 1984 while his license was cancelled and inoperative, Respondent received a check for $400 from Kenneth L. and Mary Lou Welker which represented one- half of the appraisal cost on certain property they were selling through Respondent as the selling agent. Respondent represented that he immediately ordered the appraisal as the Welkers requested, but Mrs. Welker learned that it had not been ordered by June 5 and stopped payment on the check.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In pertinent part Petitioner contends that Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for having been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) having failed to account for or deliver a share of a real estate commission to a person entitled thereto or to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission concerning doubts or conflicting demands being placed upon such funds as required by Section 475.25(1)(d): and having failed to immediately place with his registered broker money entrusted to him by persons dealing with him as a real estate salesman in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), F.S. Petitioner also urges that Respondent violated Sections 475.42(1)(a) and (b), F.S., by operating as a broker or real estate salesman without a valid and current license, or for a person not registered as his employer. Finally, it is alleged that Respondent violated Section 475.42(1)(d), F.S. which states, in part: No salesman shall collect any money in connection with any real estate brokerage transaction, whether as a commission, deposit, payment, rental, or otherwise, except in the name of the employer and with the express consent of the employer: . . . The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that between May 29 and July 9, 1984, Respondent did not have a current active salesman's license due to his termination by his broker, Lynne Levy. Yet during this time when his license was inoperative and cancelled, Respondent engaged in real estate transactions with Fred Hage on May 30, and with Kenneth L. and Mary Lou Welker on June 2. In each transaction Respondent collected money from these persons without the express consent of an employing broker since Respondent's license had been cancelled and was not placed with an employing broker at the time. Respondent did not immediately place these moneys which he received while acting as a salesman with a registered broker. Thus, Respondent violated Sections 475.42(1)(d) and 475.25(1)(k) on these two occasions. His actions on these occasions also constituted violations of Sections 475.42(1)(a) and (b) since he was operating during these real estate transactions as a salesman without a current valid license and without a registered employing broker. Respondent also violated Section 475.25(1)(d) by improperly placing the $9000 commission he received from Fred Hage in a checking account he opened on the same day he received the commission check. At the time he was not properly licensed to engage in real estate transactions and receive commissions, and he should reasonably have foreseen that doubts would arise and conflicting claims would be made for these funds, as in fact they were. Under these circumstances, Respondent was required to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of such doubts or conflicting demands, which he never formally did. Respondent did subsequently resolve the conflicting demand on these funds with the disbursement $3750 to Robert L. Levy on August 16, 1984, but his technical violation of Section 475.25(1)(d) by failing to formally notify the Commission remains. The evidence presented at the hearing does not establish clearly or convincingly that Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), F.S. It cannot be concluded that Respondent dealt fraudulently or dishonestly with Fred Hage when he collected a $9000 commission from the transaction on May 30. Although Hage had previously signed a listing agreement with Respondent that provided for a lesser commission, Hage did sign a second listing agreement on April 4 which called for the $9000 commission. There is no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation in the execution of this second agreement. In fact, Hage specifically acknowledged the $9000 commission at closing by signing the closing statement and the purchase contract, both of which disclosed the commission amount. Hage did not object to the commission until June 6, one week after the closing and two months after he signed the second listing agreement with Respondent which provided for this commission. Respondent's discussions with Paul Russell, II, about acquiring an interest in his franchise do not constitute a violation of Chapter 475. Although at the time of these discussions on May 21 Respondent had been notified by his franchisor of the termination of his franchise, the franchisor did not reconfirm this termination until June 12. By this time Russell had already decided not to go through with the deal or pursue discussions with Respondent. Russell was not harmed by these discussions and the simple fact that these discussions took place prior to the reconfirmation of the franchise's termination does not constitute a violation of Section 475.25(1)(b). In summary, it has been clearly and convincingly established that Respondent violated Sections 475.42(1)(a)(b) and (d) and 475.25(1)(k) in his dealings with Fred Hage and the Welkers on May 30 and June 2, 1984, and also that he violated Section 475.25(1)(d) in his handling of the $9000 commission he received from Hage. However, no violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) has been established. The violations in this case arise from two transactions occurring within a three day period. There is no evidence that Respondent engaged in a recurring course of conduct which would justify the imposition of the penalty of revocation of his license under the circumstances as established herein. Pauline v. Borer, 274 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973) Kopf v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 379 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980). Therefore, a reasonable suspension of Respondent's license is appropriate in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a period of ninety (90) days. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of July, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 17th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Wallace E. Hunter 214 East Hornbeam Drive Longwood, Florida 32779 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are as follow: Did Respondent violate Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by representing to Laverne Hahn that he would rent his house to her if she sold her house, representing to Ms. Hahn that he would deliver certain papers to her attorney, and representing to Ms. Hahn that the closing on her house would not occur until after February 15, 1981? Did Respondent violate Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by failing to deliver survey, abstract and title insurance policy documents to Ms. Hahn or her attorney?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Allan R. Heuton, held real estate salesman license #0313305 Assued by the Board of Real Estate (now Florida Real Estate Commission). At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was registered as a salesman with Hugh Anderson Real Estate, Inc., at 2631 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339. Respondent listed with his employer, Hugh Anderson Real Estate, Inc., Laverne Hahn's offer to sell her residence and advised Ms. Hahn at that time that upon the sale of her residence she could rent his residence for a period of six months at the rate of $300 per month. In reliance on Respondent's statement, Ms. Hahn proceeded to sell her residence and made no other arrangements for a place to live, expecting to move into Respondent's house upon closing as per their agreement. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Pages 5 and 8.) Respondent testified to the events surrounding the transaction which gave rise to the Administrative Complaint. The Board presented the deposition of Ms. Hahn taken in Lakeland, Florida. Respondent admitted that he had advised Ms. Hahn it was not unusual to have closings delayed 60 days, and did offer and stood ready to rent his house to Ms. Hahn. Respondent testified that he did not recall picking up any documents from Ms. Hahn, but that had he done so it was his normal business practice to immediately deliver the documents to the attorney handling the closing. Ms. Hahn's deposition reflects that she could not locate the Respondent although she attempted to contact him through his broker's office. This was the reason she could not rent his house. Respondent testified that Ms. Hahn never asked to rent his house. Respondent testified that on January 14, 1981, the day after his birthday, he was suddenly taken ill and had to have emergency surgery in the early morning hours of that day. Respondent's testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Sheilah Kirk, who testified that she visited Respondent in the hospital on January 14 or 15, 1981, and that he was recovering from surgery at that time. Respondent testified that he was hospitalized for more than one week. Respondent testified that he was visited by the manager of the brokerage office for which he worked. It is hardly credible that Ms. Hahn could not find a man who was sick in a hospital for more than one week and whose whereabouts were known to his brokerage office. Wherefore, the Hearing Officer disregards the deponent's testimony and accepts the Respondent's testimony as the more credible concerning the rental of his house Ms. Hahn's deposition reflects that Respondent told her she would not have to move out until February of 1981. Respondent admits he told Ms. Hahn that closings were frequently delayed 60 days or more. The contract for sale originally provided for closing on December 29, 1980, a time which was changed to January 15, 1981, by persons unknown on a date unknown. The contract was signed by Ms. Hahn, who is presumed to have known its terms. Notwithstanding Respondent's statements as to delayed closings, Ms. Hahn had no basis for using such statement as a basis for planning in light of the contract which she signed. Again, Respondent's testimony is deemed to be more credible in light of the closing date provided in the contract for sale. A further conflict exists between Ms. Hahn's deposition and Respondent's testimony regarding the allegation that Respondent picked up certain documents from her but failed to deliver them. Respondent's statement that he had no recollection of the events, but that his regular practice was to deliver such documents immediately, and that since the time in question he has not discovered any such documents in his papers, is deemed credible.
Recommendation Having found that the allegations against the Respondent, Allan R. Heuton, were not proven, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Allan R. Heuton 6891 Forrest Street Hollywood, Florida 33024 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent Ray T. Kline is and at all times material to the charges in this action was a registered real estate broker holding License No. 0048253. Respondent Vincent Tomasino is and at all times material to the charges in this action was a licensed real estate salesman holding License No. 0353215. Respondent Krishnalall D. Persaud is and all times material to the charges in this action was a licensed real estate salesman holding License No. 0336161. At the time of the hearing the Respondent Persaud had obtained his broker's license. In December, 1980, the Respondents Tomasino and Persaud were employed as salesmen, selling time-share units at Vistana Development. During December they discussed and agreed upon a business plan for marketing time-share units. As a part of that plan-they agreed to form Intercontinental Marketing Services, Ltd. (hereafter referred to as IMS) a corporation which would be used to market time-share condominiums and other real estate. Subsequent to that time they did in fact incorporate on May 4, 1981, as a Delaware corporation and formed another Delaware corporation to handle travel and tour business. The incorporators of these corporations were the Respondents Tomasino and Persaud who were also officers and directors of both corporations. Sometime between December, 1980 and March, 1981 Persuad introduced Respondent Ray Kline to Respondent Tomasino. They discussed Ray Kline becoming the registered broker for IMS. After some discussion, Ray Kline did in fact agree to become the broker for IMS. On January 19, 1981, Respondent Tomasino and Respondent Persaud opened a general corporate account for IMS at the Atlantic Bank of Orlando. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 6) The account required two signatures for all checks and the two persons allowed to sign were Respondents Tomasino and Persaud. This account was not set up as an escrow or trust account and was not used a's an escrow or trust account during the operating life of IMS. At no time was the Respondent Ray T. Kline a signator on this account. In early 1931 the Respondents Persaud and Tomasino began negotiating with the Highlands County Title and Guaranty Land Company (hereafter referred to as Highlands County Title) to become its representative in the Orlando area. Highlands County Title is a subsidiary of Sun-N-Lake Estates which is the owner and developer of Lakeside Villas located near Sebring, Florida. A verbal agreement was reached between Highlands County Title and IMS whereby IMS would market time-share units in Lakeside Villas in the Orlando area. This verbal agreement was later reduced to writing. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 11) On or about March 3, 1981, IMS and Respondent Ray T. Kline entered into a written agreement whereby Ray T. Kline agreed to act as the real estate broker for IMS. (See Respondent Kline's Exhibit 3) Highlands County Title and Sun-N- Lake Estates required a broker be designated for all its sales representatives. Under the written agreement Mr. Kline agreed generally to act as broker and to not interfere with any of the marketing projects of IMS. IMS was to provide Respondent Kline with an office, secretarial assistance, a phone, and real estate leads acquired through IMS advertising. The contract required Kline to maintain an escrow account for his real estate transactions and to pay twenty- five percent of all commissions earned by him on real estate transactions other than his on personal business. There was no requirement in the contract that Ray T. Kline open or maintain an escrow account for real estate transactions handled by IMS. On March 3, 1981, Ray T. Kline changed his broker address to 1121 South Cimarron Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida, the offices of IMS. At the time Mr. Kline moved his license to the IMS office he did not register or reflect a trade name under which he was doing business as a broker. On March 5, 1981, Vincent Tomasino and Krishnalall Persaud placed their salesman licenses with Ray T. Kline as an individual broker employer at 1121 Cimarron Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida. IMS was not registered or qualified with the Board of Real Estate or the Department of Professional Regulation by the Respondents. On March 16, 1981, a written agreement was entered into between IMS and Highlands County Title. The agreement showed Ray T. Kline as broker for IMS and was signed by Vincent Tomasino as director of IMS and Ray T. Kline, Jr. as broker. On March 18, 1981, a supplement to that written agreement was entered into between Ray T. Kline, IMS, and Highlands County Title whereby Highlands County Title agreed to pay advance draws against commissions to IMS. This supplement to the original agreement was signed by Ray T. Kline on behalf of IMS. Mr. Dennis Grage had met and become acquainted with Vincent Tomasino when Mr. Tomasino was selling time-share units at Vistana. In early March, 1981, Vincent Tomasino contacted Mr. Grage to see if he was interested in purchasing time-share units in Lakeside Villas. Shortly after the initial contact Mr. Tomasino took Mr. Grage's wife, Barbara, together with Richard and Benita Drapeau (Mrs. Grage's sister and her husband) on a tour of Lakeside Villas. After the tour Mr. Tomasino and Mr. Grage met regarding the purchase of a unit in Lakeside Villas. Mr. Grage explained to Mr. Tomasino that he could not afford the $600 down payment. Mr. Tomasino then told Mr. Grage that if he would get the Drapeaus and the Brownings to buy a time-share unit in Lakeside Villas, he would pay $500 of the down-payment on a time-share unit for Mr. Grage. After the tour Mr. and Mrs. Drapeau decided to buy four time-share units in Lakeside Villas. However, after returning to their home in New Hampshire they decided to buy only two time- share units and so informed Vincent Tomasino. The Drapeaus then sent two deposit checks of $400 each dated March 30, 1981 and April 11, 1981 to Vincent Tomasino. These checks were made payable to Vincent Tomasino pursuant to his instructions. These two checks were deposits on two time-share units at Lakeside Villas. The March 30, 1981 check was deposited in the IMS corporate account on April 7, 1981. The April 11, 1981 check was endorsed by Vincent Tomasino and forwarded to Sun-N-Lake Estates where it was deposited in the Sun-N-Lake Estates attorney's escrow account. The $400 from the March 30, 1981 deposit check was never forwarded by IMS or Vincent Tomasino to Sun-N-Lake Estates. Pursuant to the agreement with Vincent Tomasino regarding the down payment on a time-share unit, Dennis Grage forwarded a $100 deposit to Mr. Tomasino. The balance of the $600 deposit called for in the contract was to be paid by Vincent Tomasino. Mr. Grage also contacted John and Helen Browning. In March, 1981, Dennis Grage contacted John and Helen Browning at their home in Michigan. He discussed with them the possibility of purchasing a time-share unit at Lakeside Villas. During this conversation the Brownings authorized Mr. Grage to place a $100 deposit on two units for them. By letter dated March 9, 1981, Vincent Tomasino acknowledged on behalf of IMS the receipt of the deposit placed by Dennis Grage for the Brownings. The Brownings then asked for more information regarding the time- share units and inquired of Mr. Tomasino as to whom the deposit check should be made payable. They were advised by Mr. Tomasino to make the check payable to IMS. On March 20, 1981, the Brownings sent a $1,000 deposit check to Vincent Tomasino payable to IMS. By letter dated March 23, 1981, Vincent Tomasino acknowledged receipt of the $1,000 deposit and also forwarded two time-share purchase agreements to the Brownings for their signatures. Each of the contracts called for a $500 deposit. On April 7, 1981, the Brownings executed the two purchase agreements and returned them to Vincent Tomasino. The Brownings' $1,000 deposit check was deposited into the IMS corporate account at the Atlantic Bank on or about March 24, 1981. On May 18, 1981, Vincent Tomasino wrote a check to Sun-N-Lake Estates in the amount of $1,000 for the Brownings' deposit. The check was received and deposited for collection by Sun-N-Lake Estates but before it could be paid Vincent Tomasino placed a stop-payment order on the check. The stop-payment order was placed because there were insufficient funds in the account to cover the $1,000 check. The $1,000 deposit was never forwarded to Sun-N-Lake Estates by IMS for Vincent Tomasino. In May, 1981, Vincent Tomasino removed Krishnalall Persuad as a signator on the IMS account at the Atlantic Bank. This occurred primarily as a result of a disagreement over a $1,200 deposit made by Mr. Persaud to an account other than the IMS account. Also during May, 1981, Vincent Tomasino changed the locks on the doors at the IMS offices at 1121 South Cimarron Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida, and did not give Mr. Persaud a key. Prior to May, 1981, the checking account at Atlantic Bank had been controlled by both Mr. Persaud and Mr. Tomasino. From January to May, 1981, checks written on the IMS account were signed and approved by both Tomasino and Persaud. Respondent Persaud knew or reasonably should have known that money being received from purchasers was being deposited in the corporate account. After May, 1981, only Vincent Tomasino signed checks on the IMS account. In June, 1981, the relationship between Mr. Persuad and Mr. Tomasino terminated. Also in June, 1981, the IMS account became overdrawn and in August, 1981, the Atlantic Bank closed the account. Between January and June, 1981, Vincent Tomasino received approximately $7,000 in draws from IMS and Mr. Persaud received approximately $4,900 in draws from IMS. Ray T. Kline received no funds from IMS. When interviewed by a DPR investigator Mr. Persaud denied having received any funds from IMS during its operation. Between January and June, 1981, Vincent Tomasino was the person in charge of the IMS finances. Ray Kline had no control over and did not participate in the finances of IMS. The bookkeeping was done by the office manager and the checkbook was kept by Mr. Tomasino. During this period salesmen were hired and supervised by Tomasino and Persaud, but were not supervised by Respondent Kline. IMS also purchased a tour bus during this period which was used by Mr. Persaud to take potential buyers on tours of Lakeside Villas. Once these tours began, Mr. Persaud was in the office less than he had been the first couple of months of operation. Once there were no more funds in the corporate account the Respondent Tomasino essentially walked away from the corporation and paid only a few small debts. By letter dated June 23, 1981, Vincent Tomasino notified Sun-N-Lake Estates that IMS would no longer sell time- share units at Lakeside Villas. In November, 1981, the relationship between IMS and Sun-N-Lake Estates was formally terminated. Prior to termination, IMS had received advances of $9,000 in excess of commissions due and earned and no reimbursement of those excess funds has been made to Sun-N-Lake Estates. In approximately September, 1981, the Drapeaus as a result of financial problems sent a letter to Sun-N-Lake Estates requesting a refund of their $800 deposit. Sun-N-Lake Estates refunded the $400 which was in escrow and informed the Drapeaus that Sun-N-Lake Estates had never received the other $400 deposit. Robert Wright of Sun-N-Lake Estates was contacted by the Drapeaus. He then contacted Vincent Tomasino who told him that he would speak with Ray Kline and Krishnalall Persaud about the Drapeau problem. Mr. Wright was never contacted again by Mr. Tomasino. Dennis Grage, after learning that the Drapeau's $400 deposit had not been placed in escrow also contacted Vincent Tomasino. He demanded the return of the $400 deposit and Mr. Tomasino stated that someone had run off with the money and that he was trying to get it back. After several unsuccessful contacts with Mr. Tomasino, Mr. Grage contacted Ray Kline. Mr. Kline said he was checking on the problem, but at the time of the formal hearing the Drapeau deposit had not been refunded. Dennis Grage also informed the Brownings of the problems the Drapeaus were encountering. The Brownings then contacted Sun-N-Lake Estates and spoke with Robert Wright who informed them that Sun-N-Lake Estates had never received their $1,000 deposit. Mr. Tomasino informed him that IMS was bankrupt and had no money and that it wasn't his problem. Mr. Browning then contacted Ray Kline who denied any personal responsibility and stated that Tomasino had taken the money and was responsible for its return. Mr. Browning then made demand upon Krishnalall Persaud for the $1,000 deposit and Mr. Persaud denied being an officer or director of IMS and also stated that he had no responsibility to the Brownings. During August and September, 1981, Robert Wright repeatedly discussed the Drapeau and Browning deposits with Respondents Persaud and Kline. On each occasion they denied any responsibility for those deposits. Until contacted by the Brownings and Drapeaus, Ray Kline and Krishnalall Persaud had no knowledge of the deposits of these people and how they were being received. Ray Kline, after being contacted was aware that these deposits were funds that should have been placed in escrow upon receipt by IMS and Tomasino. Neither Tomasino, Kline, nor Persaud attempted to provide an accounting to the Drapeaus or Brownings and the Respondents made no attempt to return their deposits. For at least a two week period in the Spring of 1981, Ray Kline also opened and operated a branch office for IMS at a condominium development. At no time was this branch office registered as required by statute. From the beginning of the relationship between Ray Kline and IMS, by agreement, Kline's involvement was to be very limited. Kline never opened an escrow account for IMS and did not supervise the sales personnel. Ray Kline had little or no involvement in the day-to-day operation of IMS. At no time was IMS registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission or the Department of Professional Regulation. At some point in time in the Spring of 1981, the Respondents discussed opening an escrow account but decided to not open such an account until they had earned commissions. From January through May, 1981, Respondents Tomasino and Persuad hired and supervised salesmen and controlled the operations of IMS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the license of Vincent Tomasino be revoked and that an administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500) be imposed upon him; That the license of Ray T. Kline be suspended for a period of two (2) years and an administrative fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000) be imposed upon him; and That the license of Krishnalall Persaud be suspended for a period of two (2) years and an administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500) be imposed upon him. It is further RECOMMENDED that upon a showing by the Respondents to the Commission prior to entry of the final order that restitution has been made to Mr. and Mrs. Drapeau and Mr. and Mrs. Browning, the fines of Respondents Tomasino, Kline and Persaud be reduced to two hundred fifty dollars ($250), five hundred dollars ($500), and two hundred fifty dollars ($250), respectively. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 September, 1983.
The Issue The issue in Count I is whether Section 475.42(1)(j) absolutely prohibits a broker or salesman from filing a lien or other encumberance against real property to collect a commission. The issue in Count II is whether the Respondents violated a lawful order of the Commission by failing to remove the motion of lis pendens contrary to Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Conclusions Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: "No real estate broker or salesman shall place, or cause to be placed, upon the public records of any county, any contract, assignment, deed, will, mortgage, lien, affidavit, or other writing which purports to affect the title of, or encumber, any real property, if the same is known to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property, maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce the payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person, or for any unlawful purpose." Clearly the Respondents placed or caused to be placed the notice of lis pendens in question. A notice of lis pendens is clearly an "other writing which purports to effect the title of, or encumber, any real property." The Florida Real Estate Commission argues that this provision is an absolute bar to the filing of any lien for the purpose of collecting a commission. The Respondents argue that this provision is not an absolute bar and there are circumstances when a broker may file a notice of lis pendens. They also assert that the notice of lis pendens falls within the exception because the Circuit Court refused to remove the notice of lis pendens upon motion of the property owner. Lastly, it is argued that the notice was filed by counsel for the Respondents in good faith on an action at law and that this mitigates their action even if there was a violation. The language of Section 475.42(1)(j) cannot be read to absolutely prohibit a broker from obtaining a lis pendens. When given this construction, it effectively denies brokers and salesmen access to the courts for redress of injury as provided in Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Section 475.42(1)(j) is a complex provision which is subject to two interpretations. One interpretation would prohibit a broker or salesman from filing an encumberance if the same were known to him to be false, void or not authorized by law; if not authorized to be upon the public records; if not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded; if the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property; if maliciously (filed); if for the purpose of collecting a commission, if to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person; or if for any other unlawful purpose. This first interpretation would consider each clause a separate limitation on filing an encumberance. The facts analyzed under this interpretation do not show any knowledge by Respondents that the lis pendens was false, void or not authorized to be filed or not on a form entitling it to be recorded. The facts do not show that Respondents filed the lis pendens maliciously, for the purpose of collecting a commission, or for the purpose of coercing payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. The nature of lis pendens would not require the owner's authorization of execution for recording. The facts show that the lis pendens was filed by Respondent's attorney in conjunction with a suit brought by the Respondents against Perrin. The record also shows that the circuit court determined that the lis pendens was recordable when it denied the motion to remove it. The notice of lis pendens was neither malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting the commission. The notice was for the purpose of perfecting the claim against the property for execution of the judgment if the Respondents prevailed in the suit. Executing on a judgment is different from collecting the commission or coercing payment. Under this interpretation the Respondents have not been shown to violate Section 475.42(1)(j). A second interpretation would read the clause, ". . . if the same is known to to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been authorized by the owner of the property. . ." as the first of two criteria to be met to establish a violation. The second criteria would consist of proof that the encumberance was recorded maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. Again the facts do not show there was knowledge by the Respondents of the falsity, or impropriety of the notice of lis pendens, as stated above. Again the facts show that the lis pendens was filed in conjunction with a law suit pending between the Respondent and the property owner, and that the court before which the action was pending refused to remove it. The file of the notice by Respondent's counsel was a legitimate method of perfecting the Respondent's claim should they prevail and obtain judgment. The facts do not indicate that the filing of the notice was malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting a commission. Under either interpretation, Respondents did not violate the statute. COUNT II The Respondents are charged in Count II with violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that the registration of a registrant may be suspended for up to two years for violation of a lawful order of the Commission. Clearly, the facts reveal that the Respondents had a substantial interest involved in the litigation with Perrin. The order, of the Florida Real Estate Commission to remove the notice of lis pendens substantially affected their rights in this litigation. Therefore, any final order directing Kay to remove the notice of lis pendens should have issued after an opportunity for hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The evidence reveals that the Florida Real Estate Commission did not notice a hearing under Section 120.57, and therefore its order cannot be "lawful." The provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d) require that registrants not violate lawful orders. The Respondents have not violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by not removing the notice of lis pendens as directed by the order of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the Respondent, Sam Kaye and Sam Kaye, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William E. Boyes, Esquire Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, P.A. Post Office Box 3466 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
The Issue The Administrative Complaint alleges Respondents violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by committing certain acts which were fraudulent or were misrepresentations or concealed material facts. The issues are whether the Respondents committed the acts alleged and, if so, did their conduct constitute a violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Both parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. To the extent that the findings herein differ from the findings proposed, it is because the proposed findings were not relevant or material to the issues, were not based upon the most credible evidence, or were not findings of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Norman D. Rathbun and Dianna A. Stolpman, are real estate brokers having been issued license numbers 0072024 and 0085366 respectively. The last known address of Respondents is c/o Mark Realty, Inc., 130 Fifth Avenue, Indialantic, Florida. Respondents are now and were at all times alleged herein licensed real estate brokers in the State of Florida. In February of 1980, Rathbun discussed with Gene Myers at Myers' behest a financial arrangement by which Myers, who had been trying to sell a house which he and his wife owned and were leasing, could obtain immediate cash to go to California. On February 4, 1980, they entered into a written agreement which provided in general terms that the Respondents would give the Myers $5,000 in cash, would assume financial responsibility for the three mortgage payments on the house, would manage the rental of the property, and would attempt to sell the house for which Respondents would receive a $3,000 commission and split the proceeds of the sale of the house with the Myers less the moneys the Respondents had expended. Upon discovering an outstanding judgment against the property of over $1,000, the Respondents prepared an amended agreement which provided that they would give the Myers $4,000 in cash and pay the outstanding judgment. This amendment was executed on February 8, 1980, at which time the Myers executed a warranty deed conveying the property to the Respondents. All of the parties were aware of their mutual obligations and the benefits they were to obtain from the agreement, and the Myers executed the warranty deed with a full understanding that they were conveying their right in the property to the Respondents subject to the terms of this agreement. Although conflicting testimony was received about whether the deed would be recorded by the Respondents, the documents and actions of the parties show the Myers were aware that the deed was in exchange for the cash and promises they received and that it would be recorded if necessary to secure the Respondents' interests (i.e., if the Myers were killed in an automobile accident) although the Respondents did not anticipate filing the deed. In early May of 1980, the Myers, who were living in California, determined they wanted to return to Florida. Gene Myers called Rathbun and asked if they could get the house back. Rathbun consulted Stolpman and, as a result, a letter was sent to the Myers on or about May 2, 1980, setting forth the terms under which the Myers could have the house back. The Myers did not comply with the terms of this letter until September 5, 1980, when they tendered the money to the Respondents. Upon tendering the money in return for rescinding their previous agreement, the Respondents reconveyed the property. Before the agreement was rescinded, Respondents continued to deal with the property as its owners limited only by the written agreement. The Myers had no legal right prior to September 5, 1980, to direct the Respondents to return the house to the Myers' possession or to cease their efforts to sell the property. The Respondents did all the things which they were required to do under the agreement and at all times met their obligations under the agreement. On or about May 10, 1980, when the Myers had returned to Florida, Gene Myers told Rathbun that he did not want the house sold, and that he could cut off the Respondents' rights by conveying the property to a relative. On May 12, 1980, in response to Myers' comment about cutting off their rights in the property, the Respondents filed the deed executed by the Myers conveying the property to the Respondents. On June 30, 1980, the Myers filed a claim of financial interest in the property with the local circuit court clerk. No evidence exists that the Respondents were served with this claim. Respondents continued their efforts to sell the property and on July 1, 1980, obtained a contract for sale on the property for a price that was within the limits established under their agreement with the Myers. Closing on the contract was to be on Friday August 1, 1980. On July 21, 1980, through their attorney, the Myers filed suit against the Respondents, who were served with the suit and a lis pendens on July 24, 1980. On July 25, 1980, Respondents met with their attorney, who called the Myers' attorney. Arrangements were made to meet on August 4, 1980, to discuss resolution of the suit. Between July 25 and August 1, 1980, Respondents did not notify the buyers or the buyers' agent that a suit was pending regarding the property. On or about July 31, 1980, the Myers reoccupied the house and on August 1, 1980, advised the buyers that they were the owners, not the Respondents. The buyers, their attorney and their real estate agent attended the scheduled closing. Rathbun arrived late, at which time the pending litigation and the Myers' claims were being discussed. Rathbun advised the group that he and his attorney were already scheduled to meet with the Myers and their attorney the following Monday, and that he felt the matter could be resolved. On August 2, 1980, the buyers elected to withdraw their offer. On August 4, the Respondents and the Myers reached a tentative agreement for the Myers' continued possession of the property. This resulted in a written agreement dated September 5, 1980. The terms of this agreement were substantially the same as the terms stated in the letter to Myers of May 2, 1980.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission dismiss the allegations of the Administrative Complaint against the Respondents. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John G. DeLancett, Esquire 801 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite 402 Post Office Box 6171-C Orlando, Florida 32803 Michael Krasny, Esquire 416 South Babcock Street Post Office Box 1376 Melbourne, Florida 32901 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. ,Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Streets Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact From September 5, 1972 to and including March 31, 1974, Barclay Realty, Inc. was a corporate real estate broker and was registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Kenneth Friedman was the sole acting firm member of Barclay Realty, Inc. during said period of time and was the only real estate broker involved with said corporate broker during that period of time. During the period of time from September 5, 1972 to and including March 31, 1974, Edward D. Morris, Nikki Morris, Carl Hoy, and Dennis Morris were not registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as real estate brokers or real estate salesmen and were not holders of valid registration certificates from the Florida Real Estate Commission. Michael Anthony Morris was a salesman duly registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission and an active member of the Barclay Realty, Inc. prior to his death in January, 1973. A bank account was opened in the name of Barclay Realty, Inc. at the First National Bank of Bay Harbor Island, Bay Heights, Bay Harbor Island, Florida. Respondent Friedman was not authorized to sign on the operating bank account of the corporate broker. The account was opened by one Dennis Morris and others without the knowledge of the Respondent. Respondent Friedman, although the Vice President and duly registered broker with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a broker for the Barclay Realty, Inc. whose business address was Eden Rock Hotel, Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, did not know of and did not supervise the activities of Dennis Morris and others who were advertising for the firm and who were working selling real estate in the name of the firm. The Barclay Realty, Inc. ceased operating from its registered address prior to March 31, 1974, and was operating from another address not properly registered with the Commission, to wit: 4525 Pinetree Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. Kenneth Friedman sent a letter on March 26, 1974, notifying the Commission that he had severed affiliation with Barclay Realty, Inc. previously thereto in August, 1973. In November of 1973, Louis Franco put up the sums of $4,000 and $3,900 for the purchase of condominiums located at 18071 Biscayne Boulevard, N. Miami Beach. The checks were made payable to Barclay Realty, Inc. and given to an individual known as Dennis Morris. These checks were deposited in an escrow account opened by Dennis and Edward Morris in the First National Bank of Bay Harbor Islands. The Franco real estate transactions in question never closed nor were the deposits totalling $7,900 refunded to Mr. Franco. The Hearing Officer further finds: That Respondent Kenneth Friedman used poor judgment in failing to sever relationship with the Barclay Realty, Inc. at the death of the only registered salesman, Michael Morris, that he had not intent to defraud members of the public and no intent to allow others to defraud members of the public. He did not receive remuneration from the activities of those who perpetrated fraud in the name of Barclay Realty, Inc. That Respondent Friedman had no actual knowledge of the opening of the bank account in the name of the Barclay Realty, Inc. nor of the fraudulent transactions of those working in the name of Barclay Realty, Inc. That Respondent Friedman failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission when he withdrew as a member of the firm as required by the Florida Statutes and the Rules of the Florida Real Estate Commission. He failed to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission when the corporate place of business moved from the registered place of business to another location. That Respondent Kenneth Friedman, the Vice President and the only registered broker of Barclay Realty, Inc., negligently allowed the real estate corporation to operate in such a fashion that Mr. and Mrs. Louis Franco were defrauded of some $7,900 by non-registered salesmen of Barclay Realty, Inc. That Respondent Kenneth Friedman failed to keep himself informed as to the transactions of the corporation; failed to keep records as required by the Commission; failed to keep the interest of the public in mind in dealing with those working with the Barclay Realty, Inc., thus allowing his name and license to be so used that members of the public involved in real property transactions were or could have been mislead into believing that the Barclay Realty, Inc. was being properly operated under the Statutes of the State of Florida and the Rules of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
