The Issue The issues in this case concern the attempt by Petitioner to collect $11,684.62 in attorneys fees and costs associated with the defense of the case of State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, Petitioner, vs. Donald L. Hilgeman and Marilyn Hilgeman, d/b/a DLH Enterprises; and Pat Montgomery, as park owners of Lake Waldena Resort, Respondents, DOAH Case No. 89-4100, and $931.50 in attorneys fees and costs attributable to the pursuit of the present case to collect those attorneys fees and costs attributable to the defense of the administrative prosecution. See Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this inquiry Petitioner was a mobile home park owner as defined by Section 723.003(7), Florida Statutes (1987). Petitioner, Marilyn Hilgeman, his former wife, and Pat Montgomery had administrative charges brought against them through a notice to show cause. In that notice to show cause those three individuals were identified as park owners of Lake Waldena Resort in Silver Springs, Florida. In particular the present Respondent charged the Petitioner and the others with violating Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes (1987) for having refused to meet with a designated mobile home owners committee within 30 days of giving notice of a lot rent increase and having been requested to conduct that meeting for purpose of discussing the reasons for the increase in the lot rental amount. The accused sought a formal hearing as envisioned by Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. That hearing was conducted by the undersigned and a recommended order entered on April 18, 1990, in the aforementioned DOAH Case No. 89-4100. For reasons set out in the conclusions of law found within the recommended order, the suggested disposition of that case was one which found the several Petitioners innocent of any wrong doing and called for the dismissal of the administrative prosecution. On July 25, 1990 the prosecuting agency entered its final order in DOAH Case No. 89-4100. It accepted the fact-finding in the recommended order; however, it modified the conclusions of law and recommended disposition. Unlike the recommended order, the final order in its conclusions of law specifically found that the present Petitioner and the others accused had violated Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes, wherein at page 17 it was held "Therefore, it is concluded Respondent violated Sections 723.037(3), Florida Statutes." The conclusions of law in the final order went on to say that in mitigation of the violation the prosecuting agency had considered the apparent confusion of those Respondents regarding the affect of Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code, as it might influence the actions of the accused and in particular, the present Petitioner. In the final order concerning the mitigating affects of Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code, it was decided that notwithstanding any misunderstanding the accused had as to the significance of the Rule it could not alter the statutory requirements of having a meeting within 30 days of the notice of lot rental increase as described in Section 723.037(3), Florida Administrative Code (1987). The language within Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code, stated: If requested to do so by the park owner or subdivision developer, the committee shall certify that it has been selected as described in Rule 7D-32.003, Florida Admin- istrative Code. This certification shall include a certificate of all members of the committee attesting to its proper formation under the statute and these rules. For reasons expressed in the recommended order that rule was seen as tolling the 30-day requirement for meeting expressed in Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes (1987) on the facts found in both the recommended and final orders. This was based upon a recognition that the present Petitioner had employed the rule in an attempt to gain a certification from the committee of mobile home owners prior to the conduct of a meeting to discuss the increase in lot rentals. Again, this belief that the rule tolled the requirement for conducting the meeting within 30 days of the notice of lot rental increase expressed in the recommended order was rejected in the final order. The final order controls absent further relief by resort to the appellate court process. In describing the reasons why the prosecution maintained that the rule could not alter the statutory requirement for holding a meeting within 30 days, the final order states that there are policy considerations that make it important for the committee and the park owner to meet within 30 days and those reasons concern the fact that the rent increase becomes effective within 90 days over the notice, the informational value of having the reasons explained for the lot increase as a prelude to any request to having a dispute about lot rental increases submitted to mediation within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. The final order goes on to describe, through its conclusions of law, that the meeting to discuss lot rental increase was not held until November 14, 1989 over a year after the notice of lot rental increase. That statement comes immediately before the conclusion of law that the present Petitioner had violated Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes. In the conclusions of law set out in the final order the prosecuting agency in its paragraph describing the mitigating circumstances acknowledges the possible confusion on the part of the accused as well as the mobile home owners committee when it describes, as did the recommended order, the filing of a complaint by the committee as a means of ostensibly preserving the right to have the meeting envisioned by Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes (1987), when taken against the background of the opportunity to have a credential check of mobile home owners committee members as envisioned by Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code. This refers to the issue of whether a meeting could be held after 30 days from the notice of intended lot rental increase absent such a complaint. In the statement on mitigation the final order recognizes that the administrative prosecution was penal in nature and that Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes (1987) and Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code needed to be read in context and should be strictly construed with ambiguities favoring the accused. The final order cites to State v. Pattishall, 99 Fla. 296, 126 So. 147 (1930) and Davis v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 457 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 1DCA 1984). The treatment of those cases and the resolution of the dispute through final order is one which finds the accused in violation of Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes (1987), but mitigates the disposition in the way of the penalty based upon the reading given Pattishall and Davis, supra. That factual impression is given when the order in disposition is examined wherein it is stated through the final order, "Based upon the consideration of the facts found, the conclusions of law reached, and the mitigation evidence, it is ordered that the notice to show cause is hereby dismissed." On August 22, 1990, the present Petitioner noticed an appeal of the final order in the administrative prosecution but later abandoned that appeal before the court had the opportunity to speak to its merits. On October 22, 1990, the present Petitioner filed a petition for collection of attorneys fees and costs spoken to in the statement of issues. The petition for attorneys fees and costs were subjected to a motion to dismiss based upon a claim of untimeliness and that motion was denied by order of December 10, 1990. The present Respondent requested an evidentiary hearing as contemplated Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code, and the evidentiary hearing was conducted on the date described before. When the present Petitioner abandoned his appeal to the District Court, he necessarily was placed in the position of arguing that the final order drawn by the prosecuting agency constituted the basis for the claim that he was a small business party who had prevailed in the dispute related to DOAH Case No. 89-4100. See Section 57.111(3)(c)1, Florida Statutes. Contrary to his assertion the final order as described in these facts did not favor the present Petitioner. Although the prosecuting agency did not choose to impose a penalty against the present Petitioner based upon its assessment of matters in mitigation and dismissed the case without exacting a penalty, it had found the present Petitioner in violation of a substantiative provision of law, i.e. Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes (1987). Thus, the disposition cannot be said to favor the present Petitioner. Having decided this mixed question of fact and law against the present Petitioner, it is not necessary to make findings of fact concerning whether the present Petitioner is a small business party as defined at Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes and whether the present Respondent was substantially justified in this administrative prosecution related to law and fact as contemplated by Sections 57.111(3)(e) and (4)(a), Florida Statutes, or to examine whether special circumstances exist that would make the award of attorneys fees and costs unjust.
Findings Of Fact Michael Weiss is part owner of Suncoast International, Inc. and general manager of the corporation's only business, a trailer park in Flagler County known as Flagler by the Sea Mobile Home Park. At all pertinent times, the park has leased or offered for lease a total of 44 mobile home lots. In mid-1985, Mr. Weiss received a letter from petitioner Department of Business Regulation (DBR) informing him that park owners were required by law to prepare and distribute prospectuses to mobile home tenants. Efforts to draft a prospectus meeting petitioner's approval began in August of 1985. After several revisions, the petitioner approved a prospectus on June 13, 1986, No. 1802171P, for all lots. Mr. Weiss received written notice of approval, together with a copy of the prospectus to which it pertained, with attachments, on June 26, 1986; and promptly arranged for a copier to produce 50 uncollated copies of everything received from the petitioner, see Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, including the cover letter. With the assistance of Mr. and Mrs. Whaley, who worked for the company at the park, he tried to assemble at least 44 complete sets of these materials. In late May of 1986, Mr. Weiss had given all tenants notice by registered mail of his intention to raise rents, effective September 1, 1986. Realizing he needed to distribute prospectuses before any rent increase, he had simultaneously informed tenants that a then current (but unapproved) version of the prospectus was available for inspection. Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. Hand Delivery As instructed, Ms. Whaley encouraged tenants to pick copies of the prospectus up when they paid their rent. She kept a list of persons to whom she distributed copies of the prospectus. Part of the list survived and has been received in evidence. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. One tenant, Mary Oetken, received a copy of the approved prospectus on July 29, 1986. But the prospectus given to Ms. Oetken did not contain rules and regulations, a copy of the lot rental agreement, a lot layout plan, or the number of her lot. Ms. Oetken already had a copy of her lot rental agreement, and park personnel customarily distributed copies of rules and regulations to each tenant, before tenancies began. On August 29, 1986, another tenant, Betty Marinoff, wife of Peter, received a copy of an approved prospectus. Before September 1, 1986, Ms. Whaley hailed Mr. Philip H. Bird, and handed him a copy. Whether these copies of the approved pro-spectus included all attachments the evidence did not disclose. Robert Onusko, who has leased a lot in Flagler by the Sea Mobile Home Park continuously since August of 1981, has had a copy of the park's rules and regulations since he moved in. As did all other tenants, he paid increased rent beginning September 1, 1986. Although Mr. Onusko himself received no copy of an approved prospectus until January of 1989, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, Angela Whaley gave his daughter Marilyn a copy of the prospectus when Marilyn paid rent in July or August. Taped to Doors Not all tenants were then in residence at the park. About half lived there full time. (T.127) With respect to lots whose lessees were away, Mr. Weiss directed Mr. and Mrs. Whaley to tape copies of the prospectus on trailer doors. "That was common procedure with late payments or whatever . . . " T.112. In mid-August of 1986, Ms. Whaley told him that prospectuses had been distributed for each lot, either by delivery to a tenant or by posting. Clarence Rainey leased a lot from 1977 to 1989 at Flagler by the Sea Mobile Home Park, where he lived part of the year, returning to Illinois in the summer. Told by a neighbor that they were available, he asked for and received a prospectus in November of 1986. He had not received one earlier. With her husband Roger, Madeline DuJardin resided at Flagler by the Sea from February of 1979 until February of 1988. She did not get a copy of the approved prospectus before the rent increased on September 1, 1986, from $125.00 to $150.00 per month. Neither Mr. and Mrs. Rainey nor Mr. and Mrs. DuJardin received copies when they were originally distributed. Their trailers were among those to which copies were taped, weeks or months before their return in cooler weather. Charles A. Bond, who shared a trailer with a half-brother, resided at Flagler by the Sea from November 21, 1985, until December 31, 1988. While he lived at the park he never received a prospectus. Brothers surnamed Karcher each leased lots from respondent. Ms. Whaley gave one Mr. Karcher a copy of the approved prospectus, before September 1, 1986. But Richard Karcher, who in those days only spent a week at a time in the park, at intervals of several months, did not receive a copy of the approved prospectus before the rent increased. Richard Karcher had obtained a preliminary draft of the prospectus, but it differed in important respects from the draft which was eventually approved. In June of 1988, he obtained another copy of the prospectus, the copy, he testified, which he gave DBR's investigator, which also differs in important respects from the approved version. Attached to the copy Mr. Karcher gave DBR's investigator was a set of the park rules and regulations. It is not clear whether Ms. Whaley told Mr. Weiss that she had taped an approved copy to Mr. Richard Karcher's door. (T. 126, 128) Change of Law Effective July 1, 1986, statutory changes altered prospectus requirements. Petitioner mailed advice concerning the new requirements when it sent out annual fee statements to mobile park owners. Mr. Weiss did not personally receive this advice nor any written notice of the nine workshops petitioner conducted in August of 1986 to acquaint park owners with the statutory changes. Although approved a few days earlier, respondent's prospectus did not conform to all the new requirements. In early 1988, Mr. Weiss heard from Gloria Thompson, a DBR employee in its Tampa office, in connection with a complaint filed by Charles Jagde, the same person whose complaint led to the investigation that gave rise to the present proceedings. Ms. Thompson found no violation on the original complaint. Respondent's Exhibit No. 6. Eventually Mr. Weiss learned that revisions to prospectus No. 1802171 were necessary. On November 18, 1988, he filed another proposed prospectus with petitioner. After its approval on January 30, 1989, park personnel distributed the revised, approved prospectus, No. 1802171P86, to the tenants.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DBR enter an order requiring respondent to send complete copies of currently approved prospectuses by registered mail to all tenants who have not received such copies personally and signed receipts so stating. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 6, 9, 11 through 14 and 16 through 19 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, the evidence did not establish the contents of the copy of the prospectus the Miranoffs received. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 8, Mr. Onusko's adult daughter Marilyn received a copy of the prospectus before the rent increased. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 10 pertains to subordinate matters only. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 15, Mr. Karcher so testified, without contradiction. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 5, 7 through 10, 12 through 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27 through 30 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 6, the prospectus had not been approved at that time. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11, she did not personally deliver prospectuses to all tenants. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 20, the differences were material. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 23, 25 and 26 are immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P.A. The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Debra Roberts, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Paul Martz, Esquire Martz & Zimmerman 3 Palm Row St. Augustine, FL 32084 Stephen R. MacNamara Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Continental Country Club is a residential subdivision consisting of several mobile home lots located in Wildwood, Florida. Each of the residents in the subdivision owns his or her mobile home and, although some residents lease their lots from Continental Country Club, Inc., the great majority of the residents own lots in the subdivision which were purchased from Respondent, or its predecessors, and upon which the residents' mobile homes are placed. This administrative action relates solely to the individuals owning lots in the subdivision. All of the property in the Continental Country Club subdivision is subject to an instrument entitled "Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictions," recorded on January 27, 1975, in the Public Records of Sumter County, Book 160, page 315 (Exhibit A). The only modification to the declaration referenced in paragraph 3 above is a document dated September 9, 1983, which applies only to certain lots and is entitled "Amendment to Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictions" (Exhibit B). The Respondent, Continental Country Club, Inc., is the current developer of Continental Country Club and has succeeded to the rights of Continental Country Club Community, Inc., the previous developer of the subdivision. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent owned and operated a portion of the Continental Country Club subdivision, or amenities exclusively serving the subdivision, including a marina, streets, street lights, and drainage facilities. Exhibit C contains a true and correct graphical description of the Continental Country Club subdivision. Prior to March 1, 1985, each lot owner was required to pay a monthly maintenance charge of sixty-five dollars ($65.00) as provided in paragraph 3 of the Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictions (Exhibit A). On or about February 20, 1985, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictions, Respondent mailed a notice to the lot owners in the subdivision (Exhibit D), advising them that effective March 1, 1985, the monthly maintenance charge would be one hundred thirty-five dollars ($135.00). This was the first notice the lot owners received regarding the increase in maintenance fees. On or about July 8, 1985, Respondent sent the lot owners a letter regarding maintenance charges (Exhibit E). On or about July 12, 1985, Respondent, through its attorney, Chris Ford, mailed another letter to the lot owners (Exhibit F). The fact that the above-referenced July 8 and July 12 letters, regarding the notice of increase in maintenance charges, were mailed to each of the lot owners is not at issue in this case. Subsequent to mailing the above-referenced letters, Respondent has billed lot owners at Continental Country Club for maintenance charges at a monthly rate of one hundred thirty-five dollars ($135.00) effective June 1, 1985. Pursuant to the declaration of restrictions (Exhibit A), Respondent has sent notices of intent to file liens and has recorded liens against lots in the subdivision based upon the failure of the lot owners to timely pay the increased portion of maintenance fees charged after June 1, 1985. Rules and regulations for the Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictions are as contained in Exhibit G. All lot owners at closing were given a copy of the declaration of restrictions (effective December 16, 1974, Exhibit 3). Paragraph 3 thereof provides for owners to pay monthly maintenance charges which "shall be subject to adjustment at any time during the term hereof and shall be effective as far as each owner is concerned upon receipt of an invoice containing a new maintenance charge." These purchasers were also told that the covenants and restrictions outlining the duties and responsibilities of the developer and lot owners ran with the land and followed the property to subsequent purchasers. The warranty deed to the lot purchased conveyed these lots subject to "covenants, conditions, restrictions, rules and regulations of record, together with amendments thereto" (Exhibit 4.) Two lot owners testified in these proceedings that they did not recall receiving a copy of these covenants and restrictions at closing but both of them signed an acknowledgment that they had received a copy at closing (Exhibits 5 and 8).
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these Findings of Fact, the Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0317497. In 1985, the Respondent operated his own real estate brokerage firm, Kline Real Estate, Inc., which acted as a marketing agent for Majestic Builders, a construction company. Both Kline Real Estate, Inc., and Majestic Builders did business in and around the Spring Hill, Hernando County, Florida, area. Majestic Builders was owned by George Orlando. In early 1985, Majestic Builders' qualifying general contractor was Stephen Cannon. In early 1985, the Respondent was contacted by the Whitmarshes of Lynchburg, Virginia, who expressed interest in having a modified version of a Majestic Builders model home built on a piece of property in Spring Hill, Florida. Eventually, the Whitmarshes selected a lot on which to have the residence built, and the Respondent brokered the purchase of the lot (from a third party) and the construction contract. Both contracts were entered into on or about April 27, 1985. Both contracts required that the Whitmarshes make a deposit, $1,000 on the lot purchase and $5,000 on the construction contract. Both deposits were made into the escrow account maintained by Kline Real Estate, Inc. The $1,000 deposit was disbursed without incident at the closing of the lot purchase on or about May 7, 1985. The construction contract between the Whitmarshes and Majestic Builders provided in connection with the deposit: DEPOSIT TO FIX HOME PRICE FOR PERIOD OF 6 MOS. [MONTHS), DURING WHICH COMMENCEMENT MAY BEGIN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTIFICATION AND INITIAL PAYMENT OF 30% OF BALANCE. SHOULD COMMENCEMENT BE AFTER 6 MOS., DEPOSIT WILL STILL APPLY BUT TO NEW PURCHASE PRICE OF MODEL AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. For the balance of the spring and summer of 1985, the Whitmarshes continued to consult with the Respondent and, primarily through the Respondent, with George Orlando regarding the modifications the Whitmarshes desired to make to the Majestic Builders model, but they were not particularly anxious to commence construction for personal, family health reasons. In addition, they understood and knew from the contract provision and from conversation with the Respondent that their $5,000 deposit was supposed to be credited to the price of the home they eventually built even if commencement was more than six months from the contract date. On or about November 11, 1985, the Respondent advised the Whitmarshes by telephone, confirmed in writing: This [is] notification, that in accordance with your contract, you are legally in default. This letter is written out of legal necessity and has no bearing on your deposit which will bw [sic] applied to the agreed upon purchase price of a Majestic Home. The default merely is to state the builder is no longer held to the prices quoted. And any changes either up or down will be reflected in the new contract price. (Emphasis added.) Notwithstanding his November 11 letter, the Respondent withdrew the Whitmarshes' $5,000 deposit from the Kline Real Estate, Inc., escrow account and deposited it in the Kline Real Estate, Inc. operating account. Of the $5,000, $1,000 was used the purchase of a building lot for Majestic Builders, and $1,500 was paid directly to George Orlando, to whom the Respondent believed the $5,000 belonged. 1/ The Respondent is unable to account for the balance of the $5,000. 2/ On or about March 21, 1986, the Respondent received a letter from Mr. Whitmarsh stating: "With this letter I authorize you to use $500 from my escrow account to obtain a new floor plan and prepare a cost estimate for my revised version of your Wind and Wildfire Model Home." The Respondent, who had had a heart attack in September, 1985, and was in the process of closing out Kline Real Estate, Inc., and getting out of the real estate business, passed the letter on to George Orlando. Orlando balked at the request, taking the position that the purpose of the $5,000 was not for use to draw up revised plans. But it is the Respondent's understanding that Orlando eventually relented and agreed not to require the Whitmarshes to pay for the revised plans with new money. It is unclear from the evidence whether revised plans ever were drawn. 3/ In approximately June or July, 1986, the Respondent closed Kline Real Estate, Inc., and got out of the real estate business. He never heard anything else from the Whitmarshes about the transaction and assumed that Orlando and the Whitmarshes had satisfactorily concluded their business dealings. But in fact in approximately early 1987, the Whitmarshes received information that Majestic Builders was not a licensed contractor. Although, on checking, they learned that Majestic Builders then had a licensed qualifying contractor, the Whitmarshes still did not feel comfortable with Orlando and Majestic Builders. In about April, 1987, the Whitmarshes decided to hire another builder and asked Orlando for the return of their deposit. Orlando refused, saying that the Respondent had the money. 4/ Nonetheless, the Whitmarshes never contacted the Respondent for the return of the deposit. Later, the Whitmarshes and Orlando became involved in another dispute arising out of the alleged improper use of Orlando's Wind and Wildfire drawings by the Whitmarshes and the builder they eventually hired, Stephen Cannon, who had been Majestic Builders' qualifying general contractor but had left to start his own construction company with the understanding that Cannon would not use any of Majestic Builders' drawings. The Respondent had no knowledge of any of these disputes between Orlando and the Whitmarshes until he was interviewed by a Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) investigator in August, 1988. The DPR had begun an investigation of Orlando on the Whitmarshes' complaint of alleged violations of the laws regulating construction contractors and learned that the dispute involved a deposit that had been held in trust by a licensed real estate broker. DPR then began an investigation of the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding the Respondent, Ronold E. Kline, guilty of violating portions of paragraph (b) and paragraphs (d) and (k) of Sections 475.25(1), Florida Statutes (1987), and suspending his license for a period of one year. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 15th day of December, 1989.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the charges, Respondent Robert K. Hunter (hereinafter referred to as Respondent Hunter) was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0135423, and Respondent Hunter was the owner, president and qualifying broker for Respondent Hunter Real Estate, Inc., a corporation registered as a real estate broker, holding license number 0157660. Hunter Enterprises, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida. In 1982 and 1983, the principal officer was Respondent Hunter as president/director, In 1984 and 1985, Respondent Hunter was president, secretary and director. No other officers or directors are listed for the years 1984 and 1985. No annual reports have been filed for the year 1986. In 1982, Roy Pitts went to Respondent Hunter for the purpose of investing some money with Respondent Hunter. Mr. Pitts was seeking a higher return on his money than he was currently receiving from a Federal Credit Union. On or about April 22, 1982, Roy Pitts gave to Respondent Hunter the sum of $1,000. This $1,000 was to be invested in a program called Buy/Renovate. Mr. Pitts received from Respondent Hunter a memorandum dated April 22, 1982, acknowledging receipt of the $1,000 from Mr. Pitts. Although this memorandum is on the stationery of Hunter Enterprises, Inc., Respondent Hunter signed it in his individual capacity. The Buy/Renovate program was an investment program whereby a house would be purchased, renovated, and then sold. Mr. Pitts was to receive back his original investment plus half of the net profit from the sale of the house. On or about April 30, 1982, Roy Pitts gave to Respondent Hunter the sum of $4,000 to be invested in the Buy/Renovate program. Mr. Pitts received from Respondent Hunter a memorandum dated April 30, 1982, acknowledging receipt of the $4,000 from Mr. Pitts. Although this memorandum is also on the stationery of Hunter Enterprises, Inc., Respondent Hunter signed it in his individual capacity. On or about May 3, 1982, Roy Pitts gave to Respondent Hunter the sum of $9,687.70 to be invested in the Buy/Renovate program. The total sum to be invested was $10,000, but because Mr. Pitts withdrew the money early from his credit union he sustained an early withdrawal penalty. The balance of the $10,000 was to be made up by Respondent Hunter. Mr. Hunter received from Respondent Hunter a memorandum dated May 3, 1982, acknowledging receipt of $10,000 from Mr. Pitts, and detailing the Buy/Renovate program. On or about May 3, 1982, Roy Pitts also gave to Respondent Hunter the sum of $9,687.70 to be invested in an interest only investment program. Again, the total sum to be invested was $10,000, but due to the early withdrawal of the money from his credit union Mr. Pitts sustained another penalty. The balance of this $10,000 was also to be made up by Respondent Hunter. Mr. Pitts received from Respondent Hunter another memorandum dated May 3, 1982, acknowledging receipt of this $10,000 from Mr. Pitts, and detailing the interest only program. The interest only program involved the investment of funds in a program which would yield interest daily at the rate of 18 percent per year. Pursuant to a request by Mr. Pitts, Respondent Hunter reported to Mr. Pitts in an accounting statement that as of August 15, 1984, the investment profit was $9,294.66. The interest only program was to terminate and the principal plus interest was to be paid to Mr. Pitts at his request. The investment in the Buy/Renovate program was to last 90-120 days. Mr. Pitts allowed the Buy/Renovate program to run beyond the 90-120 days, but in the first part of 1985 Mr. Pitts requested that Respondent Hunter return to him the total he had invested, amounting to $25,000, plus his interest or profits. Respondent Hunter told Mr. Pitts that he would deliver to Mr. Pitts his money by May 5, 1985. Respondent Hunter did not return any money to Mr. Pitts by May 5, 1985, as promised. Subsequent to May 5, 1985, but still in 1985, Mrs. Pitts also requested that Respondent Hunter return the money. Respondent Hunter told Mrs. Pitts he would return the money in three weeks. Respondent Hunter failed to deliver any money to the Pitts. Finally, in June, 1985, Mr. Pitts retained attorney Allen Poucher for the purpose of seeking the return of his money from Respondent Hunter. On behalf of Mr. Pitts, attorney Poucher has made a demand on Respondent Hunter for the return of the money, and has filed a civil suit against Respondent Hunter seeking to recover the funds. To date, Respondent Hunter has not delivered to Mr. Pitts any of his $25,000 investment, or any of the interest or profits from the investment, nor has Respondent Hunter made any accounting to Mr. Pitts since the accounting which was made as of August 15, 1984, detailing an investment profit of $9,294.66. Mr. and Mrs. Gooderham entered into an agreement with Respondent Hunter whereby the Gooderhams would exchange their house with a house owned by Respondent Hunter. The Gooderhams were to receive title to Respondent Hunter's house, and Respondent Hunter was to receive title to the house owned by the Gooderhams. Pursuant to this agreement, Respondent Hunter tendered to the Gooderhams a check for $10,000. At the same time, Respondent Hunter had the Gooderhams execute what the Gooderhams believed to be a receipt for this money. Instead, it was a deed to their house. Recorded in the official records of Clay County is a warranty deed at Official Record Book 812, pages 328 & 329, conveying the property owned by the Gooderhams, to Respondent Hunter. Mrs. Gooderham did not intend to sign a deed conveying her property to Respondent Hunter until she and her husband could exchange deeds to both of the properties with Respondent Hunter. Mrs. Gooderham recognizes the bottom portion of the warranty deed conveying her property to Respondent Hunter, and this bottom portion is what she believed to be her receipt for the money paid to her by Respondent Hunter. Following their receipt of the $10,000 from Respondent Hunter, the Gooderhams moved into the property owned by Respondent Hunter as agreed. Although the Gooderhams have deeded their house to Respondent Hunter, apparently without their knowledge, Respondent Hunter has failed to convey to the Gooderhams his house pursuant to the terms of their agreement for exchange of properties. Instead, by deed executed on September 1, 1985, Respondent Hunter conveyed his house to Doctors Investment Service, Inc.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a Final Order and therein: Dismiss Counts III-XIX of the Administrative Complaint. Suspend the license of Keith Allen Miller for 90 days and impose a fine of $2,000 based upon Counts I and XX of the Administrative Complaint. Suspend the license of Keith Miller Realty Company for 90 days and impose a fine of $2,000 based upon Counts II and XXI of the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 18th day of December, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard Hadley, Esquire 827 Deltona Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725 James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all material times, the Respondent Jay R. Toll ("Toll") was a licensed real estate broker, acting as the sole qualifying broker and officer of the Respondent The Home Agency Real Estate Corporation ("Home Agency"). At the time of the hearing, the licenses of the Respondent Toll and the Respondent Home Agency had expired, and were thus in inactive status. From October of 1980 to April 8, 1981, Laura Oxford was employed as a salesman for Home Agency. On April 8, 1981, Laura Oxford expired. By letter dated June 10, 1981, Attorney W. J. McNaughton, representing the estate of Laura Oxford, notified the Respondent Toll that he was to retain all commissions, together with a full accounting thereof, in Toll's escrow account until McNaughton advised Toll as to the time when the money should be delivered to the estate. By letter dated June 19, 1981, Toll responded that he owed Laura Oxford $883.73 for the Hawkins to Macaluso sales transaction, and that he would keep that sum in escrow. By letter of October 22, 1982, McNaughton informed Toll to forward the check for all commissions due to Laura Oxford to the estate of Laura Oxford. Hearing no response from Toll, McNaughton again wrote to both Respondent Toll and Respondent Home Agency and requested them to forward the commissions due Laura Oxford. McNaughton also stated that if he had not heard from Toll within seven days of Toll's receipt of the letter, he would report Toll to the Florida Real Estate Commission. Again hearing no response, McNaughton wrote to Toll on January 5, 1983 requesting the $883.73, and also indicated to Toll that McNaughton was aware of four real estate deals at the time of Oxford's death, for which she may have been owed commissions. This letter was sent to Toll at his home address, and to Home Agency at its business address, certified mail, but both were returned unclaimed. When this last attempt at communication with the Respondents' failed, McNaughton advised Ralph Oxford, personal representative of the estate of Laura Oxford, to file a complaint with the Florida Real Estate Commission. On February 26, 1982, Toll's escrow account in which the $883.73 in commission due Laura Oxford had been maintained was closed, and the funds were thereafter not maintained in escrow. The complaint Ralph Oxford filed against the Respondents was investigated from April 20, 1983 to May 27, 1983, by Department Investigator Frank King. On May 20, 1983, Frank King interviewed Toll with regard to Mr. Oxford's complaint. During that interview, Toll admitted that he owed the estate of Laura Oxford $927.50 for the Miller to Rivera sales transaction and $75 for the Price to Rosario sales transaction. Ralph Oxford first became aware that there were commission monies due Laura Oxford in excess of $883.73 when investigator Frank King so notified him during the course of investigation of Toll. At no time prior to May, 1983 did Toll report to McNaughton or Ralph Oxford that additional monies were due Laura Oxford. Toll utilized the commissions due the estate of Laura Oxford for his own use and benefit without the prior knowledge and consent of Laura Oxford or her estate. On July 25, 1980, Toll submitted an application for licensure of The Home Agency Real Estate Corporation, listing Jill Harris, wife of Harvey Harris, as vice president and registered agent of the corporation, and listing Harvey Harris as a 50 percent owner in the corporation. On July 29, 1980, Harvey Harris gave Toll a check in the amount of $2,550 as partial payment for ownership of 50 percent of Home Agency. The total purchase price for 50 percent of the stock of Home Agency was $3,500.00. The original agreement between Harvey Harris and Toll was that Harris was to own 50 percent of the profits of the corporation. The stock was never issued. On August 19, 1980, Harvey Harris became employed by Home Agency as a real estate salesman and remained so employed until approximately April 22, 1981. Early in Harris' employment, Toll told Harvey Harris that he did not want partners in the corporation, and offered instead to make Harvey Harris sales manager with Harvey Harris receiving 60 percent of listings and sales and Home Agency receiving 40 percent. Harvey Harris was also to get $100 for each deal that came in the office and $50 a week toward car allowance. Toll's agreement with Harvey Harris included the provision that Toll be placed on all of Harvey Harris' listings so that if Harris was out of the office canvassing or training salespeople and customers called to inquire about a listing, Toll would be able to take the calls. Further, if Harris took a listing and was also selling salesman for the listing, he would retain 70 percent of the money with 30 percent going to Home Agency. Through several payments, Toll paid back the $3,500 originally paid to him by Harvey Harris for the stock. Harris was the listing salesman in the Brown to Herrara transaction. Toll took no part in the listing which was sold by another real estate office. Under the terms of the agreement between Toll and Harris, Harris should have received 60 percent of Home Agency's share of the commission. Home Agency received $2,349 as commission, and Harris was to receive $1,404.00. Instead, Harvey Harris received nothing. When Harris demanded his commission, Toll told him that he needed the money to keep Home Agency open and stated that he would pay Harris back. Harvey Harris was the listing salesman in the Lassiter to O'Bier transaction. Toll procured the purchasers, the O'Biers. In that transaction Home Agency received $3,750.00. Toll should have received 60 percent of that amount, but instead received nothing. Harris discussed the commission with Toll and was again told by Toll that he needed the money to keep the office open. Harvey Harris was both the listing and rental salesman in the Temple Israel to Mishel rental transaction. As such, he was entitled to 70 percent of the $700 commission. Instead Harvey Harris received $175.00. When he confronted Toll about the additional monies due him, Toll told him that that was all he would receive. Harris was the selling salesman in the Carsaglia to Caveras transaction. The listing was held by 4 percent Realty. Toll had no involvement in the transaction, other than rewording the contract. Harris was due 60 percent of the commission in the Carsaglia to Caveras transaction. Home Agency received approximately $2,200.00. Harris received $570.19, significantly less than the approximately $1,320 that he was entitled to receive. Harris was the listing salesman and selling salesman in the Force to Albertoria transaction. Home Agency received $3,720 in commissions from that transaction. Under the terms of his agreement with Toll, Harris was to receive 70 percent of that commission. Instead, Toll paid Harris $116 initially, with twelve payments of $88.85 due monthly. Toll did not pay the last two payments in the amount of $88.85 to Harris. Harris received no other monies from Toll on the commissions previously discussed, and when he requested the commissions and pursued the point he was fired. After leaving Toll's employment, Harris repeatedly requested the commissions and Toll failed to deliver them. The Respondent Toll presented no defense to the allegations involving Laura Oxford, but did defend the statements of Harris by presenting testimony that Harris in fact was indebted to Home Agency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding the Respondents guilty of Count One of the Administrative Complaint and suspending the licenses of Jay R. Toll and The Home Agency Real Estate Corporation for a period of three (3) years. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1984, 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 30th day of March, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was arrested in 1979 and convicted in 1980 of the third- degree felony of attempted trafficking in cannabis. He served 25 months of a five-year sentence. For about five months during 1978, Petitioner cultivated a marijuana crop consisting of about 120 plants. Although Petitioner's participation did not extend to the sale of the cannabis, he was aware of the commercial purpose for which it was being cultivated. Petitioner earned about $13,000 for his efforts. Shortly following his release from prison, Petitioner moved to the St. Petersburg area where he began to work in the roofing industry as a roofing laborer and, later, supervisor. He has continuously worked in the St. Petersburg area since, except for a period of about nine months during which he resided out of state. For the past two years, following an on-the-job injury, Petitioner has worked as a roofing sales representative. For the past nine months, he has worked as a sales representative for Ron Webb Roofing, where he worked as a roofing laborer and supervisor from 1983 through 1985 prior to his injury. Petitioner has never had a customer complaint while working in the roofing industry. As a sales representative, he is required to handle cash entrusted to him for his employer, and he has never mishandled any of these funds. Petitioner was married last July to a cardiac care nurse. He has since adopted her 16 year-old son, and the couple is expecting a baby in June. Petitioner is an active member of the PTA at his son's school. He also attends Northside Methodist Church nearly every week. Petitioner pursues as a hobby the practice of magic. He is a member of the Society for American Magicians, and this year is the president of the St. Petersburg assembly, which has 196 members and is currently the fifth largest in the United States. Petitioner has freely donated his magician services for the entertainment of the less fortunate. Recently, he performed for free for the Special Olympics in Clearwater, nursing homes, church groups, and birthday parties. Petitioner has rehabilitated himself and is of good moral character.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order issuing Petitioner a license as a home improvement seller. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E MEALE 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 6th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan D. Watson, Esquire Yeakle and Watson, P.A. 890 Florida Federal Building One Fourth Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Stephen M. Christian, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of Comptroller 1313 Tampa Street Suite 615 Tampa, Florida 33602-3394 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Charles L. Stutts General Counsel Plaza Level The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether, on three separate occasions, the Respondent raised the rent at Minerva Mobile Home Park without first delivering to the lessees an approved prospectus, as alleged in the Notice to Show Cause, Docket No. MH89446, issued on November 1, 1989; and (2), if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Haines City Investment, Inc., is the owner of Minerva Mobile Home Park located in Haines City, Florida. There are approximately 72 lots for lease in Minerva Mobile Home Park. On or about January 6, 1988, a Final Order was entered by the Petitioner finding, among other things, that the Respondent had raised the rent on lots in Minerva Mobile Home Park, effective January 1, 1986, without first filing a prospectus with the Petitioner (and therefore also without delivering to the homeowners an approved prospectus.) Among other things, the Final Order fined the Respondent $3,000 and ordered the Respondent to deliver an approved prospectus to each homeowner entitled to receive one within 15 days. During the pendency of a court appeal of the Final Order, on or about April 29, 1988, the Respondent entered into an Agreement to Remit Civil Penalty and Annual Fees. Effective January 1, 1987, the Respondent increased the monthly lot rental in Minerva Mobile Home Park by $11. Effective January 1, 1988, the Respondent increased the monthly lot rental in Minerva Mobile Home Park by $4.50. Effective January 1, 1989, the Respondent increased the monthly lot rental in Minerva Mobile Home Park by $6. Effective January 1, 1990, the Respondent increased the monthly lot rental in Minerva Mobile Home Park by $12.50, to $134.50 per month. The 11 homeowners who testified all paid all rent increases charged by the Respondent. The Respondent first filed a prospectus for Minerva Mobile Home Park for approval by the Petitioner in October, 1986. By this time, the Respondent had given the homeowners a copy of the proposed, but unapproved prospectus. However, the proposed prospectus was not approved by the Petitioner, and several revisions were made. The final revision was not approved until May 20, 1987. The approved prospectus was not delivered to the homeowners of the Minerva Mobile Home Park until some time in March, 1990.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a final order requiring that the Respondent refund the illegal rent increases to the homeowners (or former homeowners) in Minerva Mobile Home Park and requiring the Respondent to pay a $1,500 civil penalty. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 26th day of November, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Debra Roberts, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Albert Labossiere, President Haines City Investment, Inc. 2800 Minerva Park Haines City, Florida 33844 E. James Kearney, Director Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1007
The Issue Whether Respondents committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state governmental agency charged with the licensing and regulation of real estate brokers and sales associates, pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this cause, Mr. Chancey was not a licensed Florida real estate agent/sales associate or broker. Prior to the alleged misconduct giving rise to this proceeding, Mr. Chancey registered the fictitious name "Rental Search" with the Florida Department of State and conducted business under that name. On or about December 13, 2006, Mr. Chancey placed an advertisement in a publication known as "www.theflyer.com"3 (hereinafter "the Flyer"), which read as follows: EFFICIENCY-$120/WEEK Apartment $195/week Includes Utilities. Furnished Unfurnished. Also Nice Houses For Rent. 954-607-1949 (Emphasis in original). In the following days, a copy of the Flyer was delivered to Daniel Kerrigan, who noticed Mr. Chancey's advertisement. Mr. Kerrigan called the telephone number listed in the advertisement and was connected to an automated message, which advised that a "Rental Search directory" could be obtained at Hollywood Postal, a pack and ship store located in Hollywood, Florida. The automated message further informed Mr. Kerrigan that the Rental Search directory contained over 3,000 properties that were readily available for rent. On or about December 18, 2006, Mr. Kerrigan secured a copy of the Rental Search directory for $125 at the Hollywood Postal store. At the time of purchase, Mr. Kerrigan signed a pre-printed form, which provided in relevant part: Under this Agreement, RENTAL SEARCH provides our LANDLORDS TELEPHONE DIRECTORY which contains almost every landlords' telephone number within 20 miles of HOLLYWOD POSTAL, Hollywood, FL. We list each landlord's telephone number, the type of property formerly marketed, the area and price. Often the landlords have other rentals of the exact same type, as formerly advertised, available, or soon coming available. It shall be your responsibility to call the landlords for availability. Today's directory has about 3,000 listings. Updates are placed online and are free to clients. Landlords Telephone Directory is the source that enables you to reach the landlords who are not in today's newspaper so you can learn of the new rentals BEFORE they are advertised. We require a $125 deposit to back up your word that you will: SELECT A RENTAL either from our LANDLORDS TELEPHONE DIRECTORY or from any current newspaper or publication where the landlord had placed an ad. (A rental from any publication will qualify for your refund). REGISTER YOUR SELECTED RENTAL prior to move-in with sixty days from today's date below. (This means you have up to 60 days to choose a place, and you must register your rental before you move in.) STAY SIX MONTHS MINIMUM in your selected rental complying with all rental terms. PAY YOUR RENT ON TIME during the rental period. GIVE A 2-WEEK NOTICE of your intent to move out, to the landlord, and register your intent to move out two weeks before you move, with our office. If you do the above, we will be pleased to refund your $125 deposit upon move-out. If you FAIL to do the above your $125 will not be returned. (Emphasis added). Upon contacting various landlords in the directory and learning that no properties were available, Mr. Kerrigan unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a refund of his $125 payment. The undersigned finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Mr. Chancey acted as a real estate broker without a valid license, contrary to section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and is therefore subject to discipline pursuant to section 455.228, Florida Statutes. Jurisdiction
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, issue a final order, as follows: Finding Respondent Roger Chancey guilty of acting as a broker without a license, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500. Dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2011.
