Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
HERBERT GIMELSTOB vs. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, 82-000285 (1982)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 82-000285 Latest Update: Nov. 01, 1982

Findings Of Fact On January 19, 1981, Petitioner Gimelstob filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission. By letter dated April 28, 1981, the Commission denied Petitioner's application, stating that the specific reason for the Commission's denial was based on his answer to question six of the licensing application and his criminal record. The application form for licensure as a real estate salesman includes question six which inquires: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses. . .without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? In response to this inquiry, the Petitioner answered "Yes". The question goes on to request: "If yes, state details including the outcome in full." The Petitioner revealed on his application form that he was convicted of assault on a federal officer and constructive possession of stolen merchandise for which he was sentenced to 7 1/2 years in prison and fined $10,000. Following 2 1/2 years of confinement, the Petitioner was paroled and successfully completed his parole on July 19, 1978. On June 8, 1972, the Petitioner was convicted on counts three and four of a four count indictment. Count three charged that the Petitioner knowingly possessed goods which had been stolen from interstate shipment and count four involved an assault and interference with a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation while engaged in the performance of his duties. On December 18, 1973, the Petitioner was adjudged guilty on count one of conspiring to remove merchandise knowing the same to have been unlawfully removed from custody and embezzling and transporting stolen goods for interstate shipment. The Petitioner was sentenced to 7 1/2 years in the federal penitentiary and fined $10,000. Although tried separately, the convictions set forth above were apparently part of a single multi-count indictment involving one transaction. In May, 1961, the Petitioner was arrested but not convicted for receiving stolen goods. The Petitioner did not list this arrest on his application due to the length of time since the occurrence and his confusion over what the question was intended to cover. The Petitioner did not intend by his answer to mislead the Commission regarding his prior record. Since his parole, the Petitioner has worked diligently to overcome his past problems. He is highly regarded by those with whom he worked in New Jersey prior to moving to Florida. In particular regard to financial matters and trust of monies, the Petitioner presently enjoys an excellent reputation in the financial community as a successful and honest businessman. Mr. Theodore Edwards, the Petitioner's parole officer, described the Petitioner as "completely rehabilitated". This view is also apparently shared by the Parole Board which granted the Petitioner an early discharge from parole. Since his release from prison the Petitioner has raised two children from his first marriage and also remarried. His daughter has recently graduated from Indiana University and his son attends Miami-Dade Junior College.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order granting Petitioner Herbert Gimelstob's application for a real estate license. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 9th day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Angelo Ali, Esquire Suite 400 Roberts Building 28 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Room 212, 400 West Robinson Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation State Office Building 400 West Robinson Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Florida Laws (2) 112.011475.17
# 1
JOHN K. WHITAKER vs. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, 88-000613 (1988)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 88-000613 Latest Update: Jun. 13, 1988

Findings Of Fact By application dated September 10, 1987, petitioner, John K. Whitaker, III, sought licensure as a real estate salesman by examination with respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). The application was received by the Division on September 14, 1987. Question six on the application requires the applicant to state whether he or she "has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld." Petitioner gave the following response: Yes. DUI and DWI 1981 and 1982. Upon further investigation by the Division, it learned that Whitaker had been arrested for a DUI in 1982 and that no arrest had occurred in 1981. However, it also learned that Whitaker had been arrested for the following incidents: March 17, 1984 - Arrest for resisting police officer with violence. April 17, 1984 - Arrest for forgery - possession of forged or altered driver's license August 31, 1984 - Burglary of a dwelling; adjudication withheld. August 31, 1984 - Grand larceny; adjudication withheld. August 31, 1984 - Arson; adjudication withheld. Armed with this new information, respondent advised petitioner by letter dated December 2, 1987 that his application had been denied. This decision was later reaffirmed by letter dated February 4, 1988 and cited respondent's "criminal record" as the basis for the agency's denial. That prompted this proceeding. Petitioner, who is now twenty-nine years old, is a December, 1982 graduate of Florida State University with a degree in economics. After graduation, he worked eight months as a stockbroker for Alan Bush Brokerage Company in West Palm Beach, Florida. In 1983 petitioner began receiving medical treatment for what he thought was depression. As a part of the treatment, he took an antidepressant drug. He later learned he had a manic-depressive condition, a more serious mental illness, and the antidepressant medication was actually aggravating this condition. Before his real illness was discovered, Whitaker experienced manic episodes which were manifested by grandiose ideas, slurred speech and extremely poor judgment. As a result, Whitaker was arrested in 1984 for the series of incidents enumerated in finding of fact 3. The first two charges were dismissed while adjudication of guilt was withheld as to the remaining three charges. For those latter charges, Whitaker was placed on five years' probation, or to and including August, 1989. Whitaker stated he did not intend to lie about these matters and did not list the 1984 arrests on his application because he thought that if a charge was dropped, or adjudication of guilt withheld, he did not have to disclose the matter. Since having his illness properly diagnosed in 1984, Whitaker has taken medication (lithium) to prevent the recurrence of the symptoms and sees a physician at least once a month. He must remain on medication for the rest of his life in order to control the illness. With the exception of one flare-up about a year ago, his condition has stabilized. After his arrests in 1984, Whitaker was hospitalized for a period of time and then moved into a halfway house. He now lives in his own apartment. He has held several jobs, including a food service job in a West Palm Beach hospital and a timeshare unit salesman for his uncle in California. Presently, he is employed in a public relations capacity for a consumer club in West Palm Beach. He eventually wants to enter the real estate business, and for this reason, desires a license. Because his mother is a broker-realtor in Palm Beach Gardens, he expects no difficulty in obtaining a real estate position. Petitioner presented the testimony of his mother, a retired business executive and a family friend who is also a real estate salesman. The mother described the nature of petitioner's illness while the retired executive recalled petitioner as having "industrious," self-motivating" and "honest" characteristics and being a terrific salesman. The family friend described petitioner's present conduct to be normal now that he had controlled his illness. Finally, a number of letters were offered by various local businessmen, including one from a professional golfer and businessman (Jack Nicklaus), a physician, a stockbroker and a financial planner. However, all letters predate petitioner's arrests and therefore are irrelevant to the issue in this proceeding.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of John K. Whitaker for licensure as a real estate salesman by examination be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June 1988.

Florida Laws (2) 120.57475.17
# 2
RODOLPHO A. HERRERA vs. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, 89-000475 (1989)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 89-000475 Latest Update: Apr. 10, 1989

Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: Approximately three years ago, when he was 21 years of age, Rudolpho A. Herrera ran afoul of the law. He made arrangements to have a friend obtain from another acquaintance of Herrera's between four to seven grams of cocaine. Herrera's friend received the cocaine and transported it across state lines to North Carolina where his scheme was uncovered and he was arrested. When questioned by the authorities, the friend revealed Herrera's involvement in the matter. Herrera was subsequently extradited to North Carolina and charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Section 846. He pled guilty to the charge and, on September 2, 1986, was convicted in federal district court of the offense. Never before had he, nor has he since, been convicted of any crime. Because of his cooperation following his apprehension, Herrera was treated leniently by the court. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment, the first six months of which he was to spend in a community treatment center. The remainder of his three-year sentence of imprisonment was to be suspended and he was to be placed on five years probation after his release from the community treatment center. While confined to the community treatment center, Herrera was a model inmate. As a result of his exemplary behavior, he was released from the center and placed on probation two months early. During the time that Herrera has been on probation he has been a law abiding citizen. Moreover, he has complied with all of the terms and conditions of his probation. Herrera is now, and has been since the period of his confinement at the community treatment center, gainfully employed. For the past year and a half he has been employed by Five Stars Furniture Corporation as a manager of a furniture store. He is a trusted employee who has been given the keys to the store and the code to its alarm system. Herrera has been fair and honest in his dealings with his employer, his subordinates and his customers. Although his current employment situation is a positive one, Herrera wants to enter the real estate field to better himself. Charles W. Cadman, the Vice-President of Coconut Grove Realty Corporation, has expressed a willingness to assist Herrera in obtaining his real estate salesman license and to employ Herrera once he obtains his license.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman, without prejudice to Petitioner filing a subsequent application when he is able to show that his rehabilitation is sufficiently complete to entitle him to such licensure. See Karl v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 229 So.2d 610, 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)(Commission may not preclude an applicant whose application has been denied because of a prior felony conviction from reapplying for licensure and showing subsequent rehabilitation. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Juan DeJesus Gonzalez, Esquire 2153 Coral Way, Suite 601 Miami, Florida 33145 Lawrence Gendzrier, Esquire Assistant Attorney General 400 West Robinson Street Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller Director, Division of Real Estate Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

USC (1) 21 U.S.C 846 Florida Laws (3) 475.17475.181475.25
# 3
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. GEORGE A. HEYEN, 75-002052 (1975)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 75-002052 Latest Update: Mar. 22, 1977

Findings Of Fact George A. Heyen is a duly registered real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission, and was so registered and has been so registered continuously since October 1, 1972, as evidenced by Petitioner's Exhibit number 1. While serving in the capacity as a real estate salesman, the Respondent entered into a listing agreement with one Thomas S. Bowers and Brenda L. Bowers, his wife. This agreement was drawn on December 11, 1973 and is Petitioner's Exhibit number 4. On February 6, 1974, a purchase and sell agreement was drawn up by the Respondent and entered into between Maria A. Hindes and the Bowers. This purchase and sell agreement is Petitioner's Exhibit number 3. This contract of February 6, 1974 was submitted to Molton, Allen and Williams, Mortgage Brokers, 5111 66th Street, St. Petersburg, Florida. The contract, as drawn, was rejected as being unacceptable for mortgage financing, because it failed, to contain the mandatory FHA clause. When the Respondent discovered that the February 6, 1974 contract had been rejected, a second contract of February 8, 1974 was prepared. A copy of this contract is Petitioner's Exhibit number 5. The form of the contract, drawn on February 8, 1974, was one provided by Molton, Allen and Williams. When, the Respondent received that form he prepared it and forged the signature of Mr. and Mrs. Bowers. The explanation for forging the signatures as stated in the course of the hearing, was to the effect that it was a matter of expediency. The expediency referred to the fact that the parties were anxious to have a closing and to have the transaction completed, particularly the sellers, Mr. and Mrs. Bowers. Therefore, in the name of expediency the signatures were forged. Testimony was also given that pointed out the Bowers were very hard to contact in and around the month of February, 1974, and some testimony was given to the effect that the Bowers made frequent trips to Ohio, but it was not clear whether these trips would have been made in the first part of February, 1974. The Bowers discovered that their name had been forged when they went to a closing on April 11, 1974. They refused to close the loan at that time. On April 24, 1974, a new sales contract was followed by a closing which was held on April 26, 1974 and a copy of the closing statement is Petitioner's Exhibit number 6. The Respondent has received no fees or commissions for his services in the transaction and there have been no further complaints about the transaction. Prior to this incident, the Respondent, George A. Heyen, was not shown to have had any disciplinary involvement with the Florida Real Estate Commission and has demonstrated that he has been a trustworthy individual in his business dealings as a real estate salesman.

Recommendation It is recommended that the registration of the registrant, George A. Heyen, be suspended for a period not to exceed 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 George A. Heyen c/o Gregoire-Gibbons, Inc. 6439 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33710

Florida Laws (1) 475.25
# 4
KRISTIN M. YANICK vs. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, 87-003020 (1987)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 87-003020 Latest Update: Oct. 02, 1987

Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure by examination as a real estate salesman sometime prior to July 14, 1987 but her application was denied because she had been convicted of the possession of cocaine. On July 15, 1986, the Petitioner, Kristin M. Yanick, was arrested in Martin County, Florida, and charged with possession of cocaine, resisting an officer without violence, and possession of narcotics equipment. Thereafter, the court withheld adjudication of guilt on the possession of cocaine charge and dismissed the others, and, in November, 1986, placed her on probation for five years, assigning her to Mr. Martin T. Zientz, a Probation Officer. Petitioner successfully carried out the terms of her probation until sometime in May, 1987 when one of her periodic drug analysis reports requested by the Probation Officer came back positive for cocaine. Petitioner immediately and voluntarily entered a detoxification unit and Mr. Ziantz considers this an isolated incident. Since her release from the detoxification unit he considers her conduct to have been exemplary. Petitioner has taken a job and, according to interviews conducted with her supervisors is doing well. Mr. Zientz is convinced that Petitioner will stay clean of drugs because of her strong goal of getting a real estate license. He is willing to work with the Real Estate Commission to ensure she remains free of drugs if such could be made a condition imposed by the Commission. Mr. Zientz does not feel Petitioner is manipulating the system. She works closely with him and he would consider her to be in the top 15 percent of his probationers. She will be eligible for termination of probation when she has completed one-half her sentence. He considers her to be a responsible individual and he believes she could serve effectively as a real estate salesman. These sentiments are shared by Deputy Johnson who has known Petitioner for about two years including the period of her difficulty with drugs. Subsequent to her treatment, he has seen a considerable difference in her attitude and outlook. She is working and has taken over the care of her own children who previously were with her parents and she appears to have improved physically. Johnson, too, feels that she is not a manipulative person and is sincere in her efforts to be a responsible individual. Petitioner is quite active in her church and its Sunday School. According to Jacqueline Esker, Petitioner has filled in as a substitute Sunday School teacher and Mrs. Esker feels that Petitioner is making a sincere effort to get on with her life and her children. She is active in other church activities as well. Mrs. Esker is aware of Petitioner's problems with drugs and would nonetheless, have no hesitancy in allowing Petitioner to teach her children in Sunday School. She feels safe with her children in Petitioner's care. Petitioner worked for Mr. Edward Bessemer several years ago. He is aware of her drug problem and can see a night and day difference in her since her rehabilitation. While she was working for him, she had the keys to his office and his home and had access to petty cash. Even when she was involved with drugs, she never violated his trust and he would trust her with his life. He considers her to be responsible, conscientious, and an honest person. If it were possible for him to do so, he would hire her on a full time basis. Sherry Ketchum, a former member of the Ethics and Standards Committee of the Martin County Board of Realtors, worked with Petitioner in the same real estate office during the period Petitioner was having trouble with drugs. Since her rehabilitation , Petitioner has become a conscientious employee with a good attitude. She is punctual and responsible and Ms. Ketchum has no reservations about Petitioner sitting for the real estate examination. When they were working together for a developer, Petitioner showed homes for Ms. Ketchum and had access to private property. There was never any indication of Petitioner's dishonesty and were she able to do so, Ms. Ketchum would hire Petitioner. Frances J. Yanick, mother of Petitioner's estranged husband, has known her for approximately 5 to 6 years and is aware of Petitioner's drug problem. Mrs. Yanick has seen a tremendous change in Petitioner's behavior. She has taken hold of her life and is going to work every day; her children are well taken care of; she is active in the church; and has made a responsible effort to manage her time and set a goal for herself. Mrs. Yanick, does not feel that Petitioner is manipulating the system. She believes that Petitioner should be allowed to sit for the examination since she has proven she is capable, honest, and trustworthy and would be no threat to the public. If Petitioner is allowed to earn her license, Mrs. Yanick intends to hire her. Petitioner admits she is guilty of possessing cocaine. However, she contends, prior to her arrest, she enrolled in the Palm Beach Institute, a drug rehabilitation facility, on her own because she knew she needed help. She has learned a lot about her addiction. Petitioner has wanted to be a real estate agent even prior to her arrest but at that time, did nothing about it. After her arrest, she decided she had to do something positive or she would never get her life in shape. She stopped using drugs, voluntarily entered a drug rehabilitation program, and enrolled in real estate school. Petitioner admits that in April, 1987, she again used cocaine. For the most part, however, she has continued with mental health counseling , has entered Alcoholics Anonymous , and has enlisted the support of her pastor and her mother-in-law. She believes this is a very strong support system and will be instrumental in keeping her drug-free. She now has hope instead of despair and courage instead of depression. She got rid of all her old friends and has new ones; she has developed a routine to live by; and, most important, she has grown up. She has self-discipline and has opened a new relationship with her children , and , hopefully, with her husband. Understanding the legitimate concern of the Real Estate Commission and recognizing that licensing is a privilege with responsibilities attendant thereto and not a right, she feels confident she can handle these responsibilities. She believes her dependency is sufficiently under control that she can handle the responsibilities that would go with licensing as a real estate salesman . Her support system is sufficient to bolster her when things do not go as she would hope. She is willing to work under any conditions imposed by the Commission. Petitioner submitted a package of letters from numerous individuals testifying to her rehabilitation and recovery. These include her addiction counselor at the Indian River Mental Health Center; her sister; her pastor; Mr. Johnson; Mr. Lucien Roy, a former employer in the investment business; her mother-in-law; her husband; the church secretary; neighbors; other real estate professionals; co-workers; and acquaintances; all of whom support her in her effort toward licensure. In their opinion, she is honest, sincere, dependable, enthusiastic, and conscientious and should not be continually penalized because of her one mistake with drugs. Petitioner's sister, Ms. Silva, who was herself an addict, is now a rehabilitation professional in Palm Beach County. She concludes that Petitioner has all the right things going for her. The biggest thing in Petitioner's favor at the moment is her participation in Alcoholics Anonymous. She believes that Petitioner, honestly recognizing that she has and will continue to have a drug addiction, can nonetheless manage it with continuing success.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Kristin Yanick be permitted to sit for the examination for licensure as a real estate salesman in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 2nd day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3020 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 1 and 2. 4 and 5. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 1 and 2. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 3-5. For the Respondent 1 and 2. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 1 and 2. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 3 and 15. Rejected as a restatement of the evidence and cumulative. Rejected as a restatement of the evidence or comment thereon. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce M. Wilkinson, Esquire 55 East Osceola Street Suite 100 Stuart, Florida 34994 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street Room 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller, Acting Director Department of Professional Regulation Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802

Florida Laws (3) 120.57475.17475.25
# 5
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. GEORGE N. OSBURN, 82-000175 (1982)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 82-000175 Latest Update: Oct. 04, 1982

Findings Of Fact The Respondent, George N. Osburn, is a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0065910 and he was so licensed on or about February 26, 1979. The Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Real Estate (now Florida Real Estate Commission), is an agency of the State of Florida, having jurisdiction over licensing and regulatory matters concerning real estate salesmen and brokers. On February 26, 1979, the Respondent went to the home formerly occupied by his former wife and himself prior to their divorce, which was final before the above date. The Respondent went to her house to obtain some records which he needed to execute his Federal Tax Return. The Respondent came on the porch of the house and walked into the house where his former wife and a Mr. Lacey were seated on the couch. The Respondent's former wife told the deputy who investigated the incident that night, and who testified at the hearing, that she had invited the Respondent in. Mr. Lacey testified at the hearing that the Respondent simply walked in uninvited. The deputy, in the deposition taken prior to the hearing, acknowledged that Mrs. Lacey, the Respondent's former wife, told him on the evening of the investigation of the incident that the Respondent came in at her invitation. Mrs. Lacey and Charles Lacey maintained at the hearing that the Respondent came in their premises uninvited. Thus, the evidence is conflicting on whether the Respondent entered the premises of his former wife without permission, but there is no preponderant evidence which establishes that he entered without invitation. There is no question, however, that he did not force entry. The former Mrs. Osburn discovered no items of property missing from her premises after the Respondent left. The Respondent was ultimately charged with burglary and upon his attorney's advice at the time, entered a "best interest" plea of nolo contendre to the charge in return for which he was promised and received a one-year probation with adjudication of guilt withheld. The acts the Respondent was charges with committing as a basis for the burglary charge occurred February 26, 1979. The Order of the Circuit Court placing the Respondent on one-year probation, with adjudication of guilt withheld, was entered on approximately May 7, 1981. The Respondent was not shown to have any previous violations assessed against his license.

Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record and pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, George N. Osburn, be found not guilty and that the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause be DISMISSED and case number 82-175 be hereby CLOSED. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 20th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark P. Kelly, Esquire FREEMAN & LOPEZ, P.A. 4600 West Cypress, Suite 410 Tampa, Florida 33607 Bernt Meyer, Esquire 2072 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 33579 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 C. B. "Joe" Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Florida Laws (2) 120.57475.25
# 6
EARNESTINE D. DAVIS vs. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, 80-002343 (1980)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 80-002343 Latest Update: Aug. 24, 1992

Findings Of Fact The Petitioner applied to the Board of Real Estate for licensure as a real estate saleswoman on or about July 28, 1980. After due deliberation the Board informed the Petitioner, on October 31, 1980, that she had been denied licensure due to her answers to question 6 of the application which revealed that she had a criminal record involving an arrest for larceny. The Petitioner exercised her rights to a formal proceeding pursuant to Chapter 120.57, Florida Statutes, and appeared at the hearing pro se, without witnesses, being permitted to testify on her own behalf. The Petitioner admitted that in 1977 she had been arrested and convicted in Leon County for the crime of grand larceny by embezzlement. She was employed as Manager of a Burger King restaurant at the time and was, in effect, convicted of embezzling bank deposits for the restaurant. The Petitioner pled not guilty to the charge but was found guilty pursuant to jury verdict. Upon her conviction she was sentenced to six months in the Florida State Prison at Lowell, Florida, followed by four years probation. The Petitioner remains on probation for that conviction and is making restitution payments to replace the money stolen. She was unable to testify precisely when her probationary period will expire, but it is to be approximately in October, 1981, and would have been sooner had she not fallen in arrears in making restitution payments. She is now making her payments currently and regularly and there is no other impediment to her being released from probation once full restitution is made. During the course of her cross-examination the Petitioner also admitted that she had been arrested by the Tallahassee Police Department in 1972 for the crime of larceny and further admitted that she had not disclosed this arrest on her application with the Board of Real Estate. The Petitioner indicated she had forgotten about the arrest and she felt that it was so remote in time as to not be pertinent to the application process. She was found guilty of the charge of larceny in connection with the 1972 arrest, the sentence being payment of a fine and restitution to the victim. Subsequent to her release from prison, the Petitioner has married, and is the mother of two young sons. She is currently employed by the Polk County School Board as a teacher's aid for disabled children. In order to qualify for this employment position she had to have a high school degree and sufficient college credit hours to meet the requirements for employment as a teacher's aid. Prior to this job she was employed in Polk County as a substitute teacher. The Petitioner is a member of a church and attends regularly and her general demeanor and the overall tenor of her testimony demonstrates that she has matured significantly since the unfortunate criminal behavior in which she engaged end has achieved a stable family life and employment pattern. She has demonstrated significant maturity of character since the time of the arrest and conviction, measured by the fact that she has accepted and successfully discharged the responsibility of marriage, the rearing of two children, and the concomitant duties and responsibilities of employment for the partial support of her family.

Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as well as the candor and demeanor of the witness, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Real Estate denying the application of Earnestine D. Davis for licensing as a real estate saleswoman at this time, but that she be given prompt and beneficial consideration for licensure upon appropriate reapplication when her current criminal probationary status has terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 7th day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Earnestine D. Davis 880 Parkham Court Bartow, Florida 33830 Jeffrey A. Miller Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Office of Attorney General Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nancy Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Florida Laws (3) 120.57475.17475.25
# 7
DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs. ALBERT R. HURLBERT, T/A HURLBERT REALTY, 84-003490 (1984)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 84-003490 Latest Update: Feb. 27, 1985

The Issue Whether the respondent's license as a real estate broker should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined because respondent entered a plea of guilty to the offense of unlawful compensation.

Findings Of Fact Respondent is and was at all times pertinent to this proceeding a licensed real estate broker with the State of Florida, holding license number 0166810. On June 18, 1982, an information was filed in the circuit court charging that between the dates of December 10, 1980 and December 1, 1981, the respondent "did corruptly request, solicit, accept or agree to accept money not authorized by law for past, present, or future performance, to wit: by sending business to Don's Alignment Shop, which said ALBERT RONALD HURLBERT did represent as having been within his official discretion in violation of a public duty or in performance of a public duty, in violation of Section 838.016, Florida Statutes." On July 16, 1982, the respondent appeared before Judge Thomas Oakley and entered a plea of guilty to the offense of unlawful compensation as charged in the information. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and respondent was placed on probation for a period of four years. Respondent was given an early release from probation on August 30, 1984.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter an order finding that the respondent has been convicted or found guilty of a crime which involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing and revoking the respondent's real estate license. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Albert R. Hurlbert c/o Hurlbert Realty 8117 Lakeland Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Howard Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802

Florida Laws (3) 120.57475.25838.016
# 8
KIMBERLY D. COYLE vs. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, 82-002152 (1982)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 82-002152 Latest Update: Nov. 01, 1982

Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Kimberly D. Coyle, filed her first application for licensure as a real estate salesman in 1979 with Respondent, Department of professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission. She did not pass the examination and resubmitted a second application in February, 1980. However, she did not take the examination at that time. By application dated November 2, 1981, she filed another application for licensure with Respondent. All responses on the application at that time were complete and correct. The application was returned to Petitioner in January, 1982 with a request that she resubmit the same and enclose a passport photograph and a set of her fingerprints which had been previously omitted. Because Petitioner was in a hospital at that time, her mother returned the original application together with the requested fingerprints and photograph. These were received by the Commission on February 10, 1982. The November application was refiled a third time on March 4, 1982 because the required $25 application fee had not been included with the prior two submissions. Applicant was thereafter approved for licensure, and successfully passed the salesman examination. On December 8, 1981, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County and charged with three counts of possessing a controlled substance. She was later placed in the South Miami Hospital Addiction Treatment Program on December 11, 1981 where she remained for six weeks. On March 1, 1982, Coyle was accepted as a participant in the State Attorney's Diversion Program and has been a successful participant since that time. As a result of her participation, adjudication on the charges has been withheld pending a successful completion of the conditions of her program. On April 30, 1982, the Commission wrote Petitioner a letter in which it advised her that the December 8 arrest had come to its attention, and requested that she forward a "complete explanation of these charges along with an explanation of (her) partial answer to. . .question (six)." Question six requires that the applicant answer whether she had ever been arrested without regard to whether she was convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled. Petitioner furnished a reply to the Commission's inquiry on June 8, 1982. She gave a full explanation of the charges and stated that a partial answer to question six was given on the March 4 submission because "as of March 4, 1982. . .(she) had not yet appeared in court." On July 2, 1982, Respondent notified petitioner that her application was denied on the ground that her answer to question six on the application "failed to reveal the 1981 drug charge." The denial precipitated the instant case. 1/ Petitioner is twenty-one years old. She is currently employed as a waitress in Miami. If her application is approved, she intends to work for her mother's real estate firm in Marco Island, Florida. Coyle stated that when her application was originally submitted in November, 1981, it was complete and accurate. The resubmissions in February and March, 1982 were made by her mother, and simply involved the refiling of the November application with the additional items (photograph, fingerprints and check) requested by the Commission. There was no intent on the part of Coyle to deceive the Commission, and when asked to clarify her response to question six, she did so in a full and truthful manner.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Kimberly D. Coyle for licensure as a real estate salesman be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1982, 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 28th day of September, 1982.

Florida Laws (5) 120.57120.60475.17475.181475.25
# 9

Can't find what you're looking for?

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