Recommendation Based on the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, I recommend that the information filed herein be dismissed in it's entirety. Done and Entered this 24th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Walsh and Associates By Gerald M. Walsh, Esquire 404 Courthouse Square Building 200 Southeast Sixth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Findings Of Fact During December of 1979, Fred H. Greene and his wife Marie L. Greene, decided to sell their residence located in St. Augustine, Florida. They listed the property with Respondent for a selling price of $55,000. Ms. Farrell holds a real estate salesman's license issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. At all times pertinent to this case she has been so licensed. In January 1980, Ms. Farrell presented an offer to purchase the Greene's home for $50,000. They agreed to the offer and entered into a Contract for Purchase and Sale on January 15, 1980. In the course of discussing how to structure the financing of the sale, Ms. Farrell suggested that the Greenes take back a $6,000 second mortgage from the purchasers, Harry and Margaret Carlyle. Mr. Greene wanted to know from Ms. Farrell how much in proceeds he would receive when the parties closed the sale. She made the following calculations: $50,000.00 Purchase Price -$31,000.00 Greene's First Mortgage held by McCaughn $19,000.00 $19,000.00 -$ 3,562.00 ----------- $15,438.00 Commission and Closing Costs tary Stamps, Abstract Cost) (Documen- $15,438.00 +$ 8,490.00 (Six Thousand Dollars Second Mortgage ----------- and Interest thereon at 10 percent) $23,928.00 These computations are incorrect. At closing the $6,000 second mortgage was not to be part of the cash distribution to the Greenes, but, was a debit against the cash proceeds. The above incorrect calculation is the only error made by Respondent in discussing the sales transaction with the Greenes. At all times relevant the Greenes were properly apprised of all the other details concerning the sale of their house. The miscalculation was an honest mistake on the part of Ms. Farrell. There is no evidence that it was made with the intent of misrepresenting anything to the Greenes. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the miscalculation was made negligently. Neither Ms. Farrell nor the Greenes knew she had made a mistake until the closing which was held on March 24, 1980. During the closing Ms. Judy White who was the closing agent for St. Johns Title and Abstract Company began to explain to the Greenes their closing statement. Mr. Greene pushed the statement away and said, "That's not what I expected to get." The statement showed that his cash proceeds were $9,144.46. The statement properly reflected the $6,000 second mortgage as a sellers' debit. Ms. White explained the statement to Mr. Greene several times, but he still did not understand why the cash proceeds did not equal the amount computed for him by Ms. Farrell during their early discussion. Mr. Greene was visibly upset and directed several angry questions towards Ms. Farrell concerning the discrepancy. Because she felt a need to control the closing proceedings, Ms. White vigorously intervened and attempted to answer Mr. Greene's questions. Both of the buyers who were also present at the closing urged the Greenes not to sign the closing documents if they had any questions or doubts about the sale. During the closing Ms. Farrell was not aware of her original mistake in miscalculating the closing proceeds. Neither the Carlyles, Ms. Farrell or Ms. White did anything to influence Mr. Greene to execute the closing documents. During his heated discussion of the figures with Ms. White, Mr. Greene's wife repeatedly urged him to be quiet and execute the documents. At one point she said, "Oh sign it, you son-of-a-bitch." Finally Mr. Greene relented and executed all of the closing documents which were then recorded. The proceeds of the sale were then disbursed. Prior to executing the closing documents the Greenes were fully apprised of all significant financial facts concerning the sale of their home to Harry and Margaret Carlyle. During the foregoing transaction Ms. Farrell represented the Greenes as their real estate salesperson. She did not become aware of the mistake in her calculation of the closing proceeds, until she discussed the matter with her real estate sales manager after the closing. Ms. Farrell has an excellent reputation for competency in the real estate profession, both in St. Johns County where the above transaction took place and in Broward County where she is now employed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent, Mary P. Farrell be DISMISSED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October,1982
Findings Of Fact The facts here involved are undisputed. At all times here relevant Leroy Herron, Respondent, was registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a broker and active firm member of Chase Realty, Inc. Chase Realty, Inc. was a corporate broker, one hundred percent of whose stock was owned by Carl F. German, a non-registrant. At and prior to August 1977, Respondent Herron was employed at the Ramada Inn at Lake Worth as bartender. He had received his real estate broker's registration two or three years before, but had never actively participated in a real estate office or sold real estate. Carl F. German, a former comptroller for the business owning Ramada Inn, came into the Ramada Inn several times per month and during a conversation with Herron learned that Herron was a registered broker. German said he was in need of a broker and asked if Herron was interested. The conversation was general and no specific employment agreement was reached. Although German had Herron registered with the Petitioner as active firm member of Chase Realty, Inc., Herron was assigned no duties, provided with no office space or was ever invited to come to the office. German explained the firm's business at this time did not involve real estate sales and that he had Herron available in case a deal came up involving a real estate transaction. In August 1977 German brokered a deal to sell a liquor lounge known as Crazy Jim's to one Sheridan, who gave German a $5000 deposit on the transaction. Herron had no involvement in this deal and was totally unaware of it until Sheridan contacted him after he had, been unable to get his deposit back from German. The Deposit Receipt and Contract for Sale and Purchase (Exhibit 2) was prepared by the attorney for the seller and stated "This represents the purchase and sale of personal property only and the lease of the real estate." The contract provided for a commission of $5000 to Chase Realty, Inc. or one-half of the deposit in case the buyer forfeited. The $5000 down payment was deposited by German in an account of Chase Realty, Inc. on which German was the only authorized signature. When the transaction failed to close and the buyer demanded return of his deposit, German refused to return the deposit. A complaint by the buyer to the Petitioner led to the investigation and the charges here involved. German contends that the transaction was for the sale of a business only and that he was not involved with the lease recited in Exhibit 2, as that was between the buyer and the lessor. German readily acknowledged that he had made no specific arrangements with Herron to perform the functions of an active firm member broker but insisted that at this time the company was not engaged in any real estate transactions and that he had no need for a registrant. Upon being advised that he had been registered as active firm member of Chase Realty, Inc. Herron had his certificate removed from the Chase Realty Office and presumably placed his registration in an inactive status. He cooperated fully with the investigator for Petitioner and with the buyer regarding the return of the buyer's deposit. Carl F. German was tried on criminal charges resulting from the transaction leading to the charges preferred against Herron. Those criminal charges against German involved acting as a real estate broker without a license. The business card German showed to Herron had the name Carl F. German, President, Chase Realty, Inc. (address) Real Estate Brokers. Herron was not aware that German was not a registered real estate broker or that Herron was to be registered as the active broker of Chase Realty, Inc. when he agreed to have his license registered with Chase Realty, Inc.
The Issue Whether Respondent has been convicted of a crime which involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing in violation of subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is now and was at all times material to this cause a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida having been issued License No. 10931734 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On August 29, 1986, a two-count information was filed in the Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County, Florida, against respondent and four other individuals. Count I of the information charged a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act. Count II of the information charged conspiracy to violate the RICO Act. Specifically, Count II of the information alleged that respondent, and five other individuals, on a continuing basis from November 14, 1985, through December 21, 1985, "did knowingly, willfully and unlawfully, conspire, combine, confederate or agree together with each other and with other persons . . . to violate the laws of the State of Florida, to wit: The laws prohibiting any person employed by or associated with any enterprise from conducting or participating either directly or indirectly, in the affairs of said enterprise through a pattern or [sic] racketeering activity as prohibited in Florida Statute 895.03(3), in violation of Florida Statute 895.03(4), and it was a part of said conspiracy that the above- named defendants were associated with an enterprise to wit: a group of individuals associated in fact, although not a legal entity, for the purpose of engaging in various criminal activities in violation of Chapter 849 of the Florida Statutes relating to gambling, including but not limited to: bookmaking, (2) unlawful betting, and (3) criminal conspiracy in violation of Florida Statute 895.03(4), to the evil example of all persons in like cases offending and contrary to the statute in such case made and provided against the peace of dignity of the State of Florida." By letter dated March 20, 1986, the respondent advised the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, that she had been arrested on felony charges. On September 10, 1986, respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of conspiracy to violate Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, as charged in Count II of the information. Adjudication was withheld, and respondent was placed on probation for two years with a special condition that she cooperate fully with law enforcement. On October 8, 1986, respondent sent a letter to the petitioner stating that she had entered a plea of nolo contendere, "to the charge of `conspiracy to violate RICO' for bookmaking." Respondent stated in the letter, "In short, I was betting on football and basketball games and placing bets with a bookie in Ft. Myers." Respondent's husband, John Flanagan, was named as a co-defendant and co-conspirator in the information. At the hearing, respondent testified that her only role in the betting activity was to take telephone messages for her husband. She explained that when her husband was not home, she would answer the phone and take messages for him from friends wishing to place bets on football games. She would write down the message, i.e., what the bet was and the amount of the bet, and leave the message for her husband. However, this testimony is not entirely consistent with her statement in the letter of October 8, 1986, where she stated that she was betting on football and basketball games and placing bets with a bookie in Ft. Myers. Thus, from respondent's admissions it appears that she was involved with gambling activity by taking bets over the phone, which bets were passed on to her husband, by betting on football and basketball games herself, and by placing bets with a bookie in Ft. Myers. Further, respondent admitted that she pleaded nolo contendere to the charge of conspiracy to violate the RICO act "for bookmaking." Respondent determined to plead nolo contendere to the conspiracy charge, a first degree felony, to protect her family and because she knew adjudication of guilt would be withheld and she would be placed on probation. Respondent also contends that she pleaded nolo contendere to the first degree felony of conspiracy to violate the RICO Act, rather than the underlying third degree felony of bookmaking, because adjudication of guilt could not be withheld under the bookmaking statute. Respondent's husband, John Flanagan, who also pleaded nolo contendere to Count II of the information, is a certified public accountant. When his case was presented to the probable cause panel of the State of Florida Board of Accountancy, the panel decided that there was no moral turpitude or fraud involved in the crime and decided to issue a letter of guidance under a different disciplinary provision. Respondent's arrest and subsequent disposition of the felony charges have not had an adverse-effect on respondent's real estate business. Respondent's friends and associates find her to be honest and of the highest moral integrity.
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 that respondent has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and imposing an administrative fine of $500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway The Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2274 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: 1. Accepted in #1. 2-3. Accepted in #4. Accepted in #`s 3 and 5. Accepted in #2. Respondent's proposed findings of fact: 1-2. Rejected, not a finding of fact. Accepted in part in #2, remainder rejected as not a finding of fact. Accepted in #7, to the degree it is a finding of fact, not a legal conclusion, which might be considered in mitigation of penalty. Accepted as stated in #8. 6-7. Accepted as stated in #6. 8. Accepted in that there was no finding that a fine was imposed. 9-10. Rejected as not a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation - Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Stacey Lee Flanagan, pro se 3364 Country Oaks Boulevard Bradenton, Florida 34243 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Florida Real Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Tom Gallagher Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact On October 9, 1992 Petitioner executed a sworn application for licensure as a life and variable annuity and health insurance agent. Such application was filed with the Department on October 13, 1992. At the Department's request, the Petitioner sent a second application by facsimile transmission on February 19, 1993. This second application was unexecuted, that is, unsworn but was on the same form as previously described in paragraph 1. On each copy of the application, Petitioner responded "yes" to the question: Has your application for a license ever been declined or denied by this or any other Insurance Department or has your License or eligibility to hold a license ever been declined, denied, suspended, revoked, placed on probation or an administrative fine or penalty levied? On each copy of the application, Petitioner responded "no" to the question: Does any insurer or general agency claim that you are indebted under any agency con- tract or otherwise? If yes, please attach a letter of explanation. When the Department requested additional information regarding Petitioner's answer to the question described in paragraph 3, the Petitioner gave a response that led to the review of a final order entered by the Department on October 30, 1990. As set forth in the final order and the recommended order attached thereto, the basis for the Petitioner's prior revocation, was a pattern of deceit evidenced by false statements on applications for insurance, by the forgery of names on applications for proposed insureds, and by forging names for requests for cancellation of coverage. As a result of the actions described in paragraph 6, the insurer for whom Petitioner worked at the time, Colonial Life and Accident Insurance Company (Colonial), took legal action against Petitioner for damages incurred or to be incurred by the company as a result of the deceit. That civil suit was settled by the entry of a settlement judgment in which Petitioner agreed to repay Colonial damages in the amount of $60,000. The amount was to be repaid pursuant to a payment schedule. At the times Petitioner filed applications with the Department (October and February), such monies had not been repaid and Petitioner was, in fact, in default on the payment schedule. Colonial is currently owed approximately $32,000 of the original settlement. Additionally, when Colonial sought to enforce its judgment against Petitioner, he filed for bankruptcy to protect his assets and to restructure his debt. Thus when Petitioner answered in the negative to the question outlined in paragraph 4, such answer was incorrect and misleading. On February 24, 1993, the Department notified Petitioner that his application for licensure had been denied. The actions complained of, and which gave rise to Petitioner's prior revocation, were fully established in the prior proceeding. Petitioner's misstatement on the current application gives concern as to whether misleading statements or misrepresentations may recur.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order that denies Petitioner's application for licensure. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 11th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2587 The Petitioner submitted proposed findings in the form of a letter. Only the second and third paragraphs of that letter set forth findings of fact, the remainder of the letter is hereby rejected as argument, comment, or conclusions of law, not fact. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: With regard to the second paragraph, it is accepted that the Department was aware of the Petitioner's indebtedness to Colonial. That Petitioner, or his agent, wrote to Mr. O'Neil is rejected as irrelevant. Further, such letter is not accepted for the truthfulness of the matters asserted in it. When confronted, Petitioner has been truthful regarding the indebtedness to Colonial; such indebtedness, however, was not accurately depicted on the application for licensure. With regard to the third paragraph, it is accepted that Petitioner has repaid some of the indebtedness to Colonial; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as not supported by the credible evidence presented in this case. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence Sherman Lowe, III, pro se 9150 South West 23rd Street, Apt. D Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324 John R. Dunphy Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, whether any disciplinary action against his licensure status is warranted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material herein, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 00335420. The last license issued was as a salesman, c/o Ancla Realty, Inc., 292 Aragon, Coral Gables, Florida 33134. Respondent, on or about January 24, 1983, in Dade County, Florida, did unlawfully obtain or use, or did endeavor to obtain or use the property of another, Steffi Downs or Joann Downs, being a lamp, with the intent to deprive that person of the right to the property or of a benefit therefrom, or to appropriate the property to his own use or to the use of any person not entitled thereto, in violation of Subsection 812.014 (1) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes. As a result thereof, an information alleging petit theft was filed against the Respondent on March 1, 1983. Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the information and by order of April 22, 1983, Respondent was found guilty of petit theft, adjudication was withheld, Respondent was placed on six months probation and was assessed $100.00 court costs.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is Recommended that a Final Order be entered which would: Dismiss Count I of the Administrative Complaint; Find the Respondent guilty of the violation charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; and Revoke the Respondent's license, without prejudice to his reapplication for licensure upon a showing of rehabilitation. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 24th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Eddie Garcia 1260 N. W. 124th Street North Miami, Florida 33167 Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando Florida 32801
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent provided the Florida Real Estate Commission with false information in his application to take the broker's examination, in violation of Sections 475.25(1)(b)and (l), Florida Statutes, or whether he is guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, or dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device in any business transaction, in violation of Section 457.25(1)(b), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent became a licensed real estate salesperson on September 27, 1993. On this date, he placed his license with Brokers Realty of Naples, Inc. Respondent has not pursued the real estate profession as his primary business. He has not bought or sold any real estate under his license and has not put any time into it. Respondent's profession is the ministry. He as been a minister for 20 years and has been the senior pastor of Gulf Shore Community Church for five years. Respondent is a member of the Christian Missionary Alliance. In June 1993, Respondent was assigned the responsibility of forming a church in Naples. Respondent's wife was more interested than Respondent in pursuing a real estate career, and Respondent took the course with her more for moral support. While in class, they met a broker with whom they agreed they would place their salesperson's licenses. After receiving their salesperson's licenses, Respondent and his wife placed their licenses under the broker, as they had agreed. However, the broker closed her office after a couple of months. In the meantime, Respondent's wife had met David Bayer of Century 21 Old Naples Realty, Inc. (Century 21). In November 1993, she decided to place her license with Century Respondent agreed that he would do the same. Busy with starting a church, Respondent did not attend to the details of transferring his license. He believed that someone else was doing this for him, but no one did. Respondent's inattention allowed his licensing status to lapse. Unknown to Respondent at the time, his salesperson's license became invalid on November 16, 1993, for lack of an employing broker, according to Petitioner's records. Respondent's license remained invalid until March 31, 1995, when it became inactive, according to Petitioner's records. Respondent's wife later decided to pursue her broker's license. Again for moral support and to help her with preparing for the examination, Respondent agreed that he would also apply for his broker's license. In attempting to obtain the necessary paperwork to take the broker's examination, Respondent discovered in late August 1995 that Petitioner's records had not been updated to reflect the transfer of his license to Century 21. It appears that Respondent was not yet aware of the other above-described impediments to licensure. Trying to update Petitioner's records, Respondent submitted the two forms that are the subject of the present disciplinary proceeding. The first form was a Request for License or Change of Status, which Respondent faxed to Petitioner. Respondent completed the top section of this form, which is to be completed by the licensee. He signed it beside a typed-in date of December 30, 1993, which was the effective date of the transfer of his license to Century 21. Petitioner has not objected to anything in this section. The next section is to be completed by the broker/employer or nonlicensed owner/employer. At the bottom of this section are the words, "Broker or Non-Licensed Owner Sign Here:". Respondent hand-wrote Mr. Bayer's name in what he described as printing, but, on a blurry fax, could be mistaken for a signature for someone unfamiliar with Mr. Bayer's signature. Beside Mr. Bayer's name "December 30, 1993" was typed in. Petitioner has objected to Respondent's undisclosed signing of Mr. Bayer's name on this form. On September 11, 1995, Petitioner received another Request for License or Change of Status form. The bottom section of this form was signed by Mr. Bayer at the bottom in script considerably different from that of the earlier form. The top section of this form is filled out exactly as the earlier form, with Respondent's signature beside the typed-in date of "December 30, 1993." Petitioner objected to the typed-in date because it was nearly two years prior to the date that the form was filed. As to the second objection, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Respondent was trying to file paperwork with Petitioner in 1995 that was misdated so as to suggest that it was filed two years earlier. The 1993 date was the effective date of the license transfer. The form does not state "Date Signed"--only "Date." There is no place on the form to show an earlier effective date. Not only was Respondent not trying to mislead Petitioner with the date on the form, but it is almost impossible to find that the date was misleading. There is no way to conceal that the forms were filed in September 1995, not December 1993. Respondent even sent the second form certified, return receipt requested, so as to document further that the form was sent in 1995. In the absence of another place on the form to show the effective date of the transfer, Respondent's use of the date line to show the effective date was reasonable and not misleading. Thus, Respondent did not intend to mislead with this date entry, and no one could reasonably have claimed to have been misled by this date entry. Interestingly, Petitioner did not claim that Respondent's first form, which had a similar date entry, was misleading as to the date. As to the first form, Petitioner's objection is more substantial: Respondent signed Mr. Bayer's name without disclosing that he was doing so. Mr. Bayer testified that he would have signed the form in December 1993 or September 1995 because Respondent in fact had transferred his license to Century 21 in December 1993. The record does not establish that Mr. Bayer authorized Respondent to sign the form before he did so, but the record clearly established that he ratified the signature. A few days after the first form was faxed, Mr. Bayer signed a form and sent it to Petitioner. Clearly, Respondent's handling of the signature of Mr. Bayer does not rise to misrepresentation, false promises, or dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device. There was not fraudulent intent. The question is closer as to whether Respondent's handling of the signature rises to the level of making or filing a false report or record which the licensee knows to be false. Given the standard of evidence imposed upon Petitioner, there is considerable doubt whether the factual basis supporting a finding that Respondent signed as the agent of Mr. Bayer, who immediately ratified the act to eliminate any doubt as to its authorization, is sufficient to find that Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent knowingly made or filed a false report or record. However, the parties stipulated to a violation of at least one count, and the administrative law judge accepted the stipulation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order either dismissing the Administrative Complaint or finding Respondent guilty of knowingly making or filing a false record or report and issuing a notice of noncompliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven D. Fieldman, Chief Attorney Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jeanette Martinez Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur 4501 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 400 Naples, Florida 34103 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Brian H. Morgenstern, holds and at all times material hereto held, Florida Real Estate Salesman's License No. 0320190. From February 4, 1983 to December 2, 1983, Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesman in the employ of E & I Realty, Inc. Mr. Ira Messinger was the qualifying broker for E & I Realty, Inc. On July 12, 1983, Respondent, purporting to act on behalf of E & I Realty, Inc., solicited and obtained a two-year lease agreement between Craig Brass, lessor, and James Joss, lessee, for condominium unit No. 705, Towers of Oceanview, 400 Leslie Drive, Hallandale, Florida. Pursuant to the express terms of the lease agreement, the lessee agreed to pay a monthly rental of $450.00 for the first year, and a monthly rental of $475.00 for the second year. In consideration for securing the lease agreement, Dr. Brass agreed to pay a broker's fee of $925.00, representing one month's rent for the first and second year of the term. Respondent delivered an E & I Realty receipt to Dr. Brass evidencing the receipt of the first month's rent, the last month's rent, and a security deposit, for a total sum of $1,375.00. From this $1,375.00 the receipt evidenced a deduction of $925.00 as a broker's fee, and delivery of the balance of $450.00 to Dr. Brass. There is disagreement between the parties whether the Respondent actually received $1,375.00 from Mr. Joss. Respondent insists that Mr. Joss, an acquaintance, could only raise $450.00 so be and Mr. Messinger "agreed" to forego receipt of the broker's fee of $925.00 and, in effect, loan such sum to Mr. Joss. There is, however, no promissory note or other memoranda to commemorate such an agreement. Mr. Messinger insists that his office made no such agreement, that he had no knowledge of the transaction, and that no monies were ever received by his office. Dr. Brass testified to a conversation on a speaker phone between Mr. Joss and the Respondent wherein the Respondent admitted receiving the funds. Further, Kenneth Rehm, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, personally interviewed Respondent and the Respondent admitted he had collected the full $1,375.00 and that be had retained $925.00 as a broker's fee. Respondent further insists that his version of the incident is given credence by the commission structure he had with Mr. Messinger. Under their agreement, Respondent was to receive 90 percent of any commission earned on business he produced. Therefore, Respondent argues, it would be "foolish" for him to risk his license for $92.50 (10 percent of the $925.00 commission). While Respondent's argument appears at first blush to have merit, the value of money is relative. On February 23, 1984, Respondent entered into a written agreement with Dr. Brass to pay him $350.00 within 17 days in consideration of which Dr. Brass would not file any complaints with anyone, including the Department of Professional Regulation. Respondent did not have the funds necessary to pay Dr. Brass, and in point of fact has never paid Dr. Brass. If Respondent did not have $350.00 to circumvent these proceedings, then $92.00 may well have been of import to him. The clear and consistent testimony of Dr. Brass, Ira Messinger, and Kenneth Rehm, Respondent's conflicting statements and testimony together with his demeanor, render Respondent's testimony inherently improbable and unworthy of belief. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer finds that the Respondent did in fact receive $1,375.00 from Mr. Joss, that he delivered $450.00 to Dr. Brass, and retained $925.00 for his own use and benefit without the knowledge or consent of his registered broker.
The Issue The Florida Real Estate Commission, herein sometimes called the Plaintiff or the Commission, seeks to revoke or suspend the license of the Defendant, Alan Leavitt, a registered broker, based on allegations that he violated Subsections 475.25(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in its administrative complaint filed on December 9, 1976. As is set forth more particularly in its two count administrative complaint, the Commission alleges that the Defendant, while employed as an active broker for Special Realty Corp., acted in his own behalf by advertising and selling several unimproved lots located in Walton County, Florida. It is further alleged that the Defendant made statements in an effort to sell said lots indicating that the lot sizes were 50 feet wide and 150 feet deep, whereas in actuality the lots were only 25 feet wide and 105 feet deep. The complaint alleges that the purchaser consummated the sale for the above referred lots based on the representations made respecting the lot sizes and upon subsequent examination found that the lot sizes were substantially less whereupon the purchaser demanded a refund from Defendant, to no avail. Based thereon, it is alleged that the Defendant is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, etc., in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. In count two it is alleged that the Defendant, while registered as an active real estate broker, permitted Isaac Shelomith and Barry Shelomith, registered real estate salesmen, to unlawfully operate as real estate salesmen out of his offices and encouraged them to engage in the sale of lots in Walton County, Florida by means of unscrupulous and unlawful methods involving fraud, and other breaches of trust in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), and (b), Florida Statutes. For all of the foregoing reasons, the complaint alleges that the Defendant is guilty of a course of conduct or practices which show that he is so dishonest and untruthful that the money, property, transactions and rights of investors or those with whom he may sustain a confidential relation, may not safely be entrusted to him, in violation of Subsection 475.25(3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, the pleadings and the admissions contained therein including the arguments of counsel, I make the following: The Defendant, who holds license number 0051095, was a registered real estate broker during times material to the allegations contained in the administrative complaint filed herein. During early October, 1975, Defendant placed in the classified section of the Miami Southside Newspaper, an ad relative to real property located in Walton County, near DeFuniak Springs. On October 14, 1975, Mr. Lionel G. Rush, an unemployed marketing executive, responded to the aforesaid ad to inquire about the advertised lots. He later purchased four lots from the Defendant for the sum of $1,500. The four lots were described in a warranty deed dated October 17, 1975, from Defendant to Lionel G. Rush and Susie M. Rush, his wife. (See Commission's Exhibit #4). Mr. Rush stated that the Defendant advised him that each individual lot was 50 feet in width and 150 feet in depth and it was based on these representations that he purchased the four lots described in the above referenced warranty deed. Mr. Rush, after purchasing the lots, investigated the lot sizes, approximately three weeks later by calling the county clerk for Walton County who advised that the lot sizes were approximately 25 by 105 feet each. He thereafter contacted the Defendant who checked to determine the accuracy of the lot sizes and was able to determine that the lot sizes were 25 by 105 feet as Mr. Rush had informed. Mr. Rush indicated that but for the inaccurate lot sizes, he was pleased with the property purchased from the Defendant. Mr. Rush testified that he advised the Defendant that there were in his opinion, several options available to satisfy or otherwise cure his purchase problems. He first suggested that the Defendant refund a portion of his purchase money to reflect the actual lot sizes conveyed or alternatively Defendant deed over to him another four lots to compensate for the alleged inadequacy of the lot sizes. Alan Leavitt, the Defendant herein, acknowledged that he sold four lots to Mr. Lionel Rush and his wife in Country Club Heights in Ft. Walton Beach. He denied that the lot sizes were recorded by him or upon his direction as the description is now reflected on the warranty deed entered herein. (See Exhibit 4). Defendant testified that after selling the lots to the Rushes, he received a phone call approximately three weeks later from Mr. Rush complaining about the lot sizes. Mr. Rush expressed his desire to get a refund of the purchase money paid or to seek some other restitution. Defendant checked into the matter and was able to determine that the lot sizes were in fact 105 feet by 100 feet. When Defendant was unable to resolve the matter with the Rushes, he offered to return their money back and in fact purchased a money order for the full amount of the purchase price and agreed to absorb all incidental costs connected with the purchase of the property. He stated that the refund offer was made after Mr. Rush tried to bargain over price and in his opinion was trying to get the lots for what was in his opinion, a "ridiculously low price." He testified that when he discerned this, he had no further dealings with Mr. Rush and was only interested in refunding the purchase money price once the Rushes executed a proper deed returning the property to him. He (Defendant) denied ever misrepresenting the lot sizes. Isaac Shelomith, a registered real estate salesman during times material, was called and denied having any employment relationship with the Defendant in any manner during times material to the allegations contained in the administrative complaint filed herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the administrative complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David B. Javits, Esquire 3628 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33137 Alan Leavitt 7100 Fairway Drive Miami Lakes, Florida 33014 Bruce I Kamelhair, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789
Findings Of Fact The Respondent A. G. Ennis Realty, Inc. is a corporate real estate broker having been issued license number 0133016. The Respondent Thomas E. Ennis is the licensed real estate broker of record for A. G. Ennis Realty, Inc., and he holds broker's license number 0025105. The Respondent Marshall J. Hungerford is a licensed real estate salesman who has been issued license number 0042181. The Respondent Mildred B. Hardin is a licensed real estate salesman holding license number 0130139. In February, 1980, the Respondent Mildred Hardin commenced negotiations with Henry Roehr for the purchase of a lot on which he wished to build a condominium. During these negotiations, the Respondent Marshall Hungerford had deposits from ten parties for units in a condominium to be constructed. These parties wanted to live together, but they did not want to go into the particular location where the condominium was to be built because it was across the street from a public boat ramp. Negotiations on this first lot began to lag, because the owners were in Europe. The Respondent Mildred Hardin suggested that Henry Roehr purchase another lot for his proposed condominium. By letter dated March 18, 1980, Mildred Hardin forwarded a proposed contract for the purchase of Lot 35, Block 357, Unit II Replat, Marco Beach Subdivision. In this letter, the Respondent Mildred Hardin reminded Henry Roehr to keep her informed of what was happening so that Marshall Hungerford could tell his prospective buyers something. The terms of the contract for the purchase of Lot 35, generally, called for Henry Roehr to deposit $38,000 as earnest money against a selling price of $360,000. Mr. Roehr made the required deposit by check to the Respondent A.G. Ennis Realty, Inc., to be held in escrow. After Henry Roehr received assurances from the Respondent Mildred Hardin that the ten persons who had given deposit checks to Marshall Hungerford would purchase condominium units on Lot 35, Henry Roehr by letter dated April 7, 1980, authorized the Respondent Mildred Hardin to release to the seller the signed contract and check for the purchase of Lot 35. In this letter he stated that the only reason he was purchasing the lot was because of the representations that had been made to him that Marshall Hungerford had ten firm purchasers for condominium units. Before this transaction closed, the Respondent Marshall Hungerford accompanied Henry Roehr to two banking institutions for the purpose of obtaining a construction loan for the condominium units. During these visits, the Respondent Marshall Hungerford represented to the banking institutions that he had ten firm purchasers for units in the proposed condominium. The transaction closed on July 13, 1980. When Henry Roehr began to request more information about the prospective buyers of condominium units, the Respondent Marshall J. Hungerford, by letter dated July 29, 1980, forwarded to Henry Roehr the names and addresses of ten individuals who were represented to "have deposited checks with us and have expressed a desire to purchase a condominium, as proposed for the above reference project". In this letter he further stated, "its my personal opinion knowing all of these people that they are certified buyers and are interested and capable of entering into a purchase contract". When the Respondents presented no contracts for the purchase of condominium units from any of the people who were represented to be buyers, Henry Roehr suspected that he had been deceived, and tried to sell some of the condominium units himself. However, when the combined efforts of Henry Roehr and the Respondents failed to pre-sell enough units to warrant construction of a condominium, the plan to build was abandoned. The representations made by the Respondents, Marshall Hungerford and Mildred Hardin, that they had deposits from ten buyers for condominiums were false. These representations were made while they were salesmen employed by the Respondents, A.G. Ennis Realty, Inc., and the broker for A.G. Ennis Realty, Inc., Thomas Ennis. Thomas Ennis was aware of the transaction and participated in it as a broker, and collected a commission on it. Henry Roehr purchased Lot 35 in reliance upon these false representations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the licenses of the Respondents, Thomas E. Ennis, Marshall J. Hungerford, Mildred B. Hardin, and A.G. Ennis Realty, Inc., be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. William B. Thomas 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 6th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Thomas E. Ennis A.G. Ennis Realty, Inc. 821 South Barfield Drive Marco Island, Florida 33937 Marshall J. Hungerford Post Office Box 432 Marco Island, Florida 33937 Mildred B. Hardin Post Office Box 121 Georgetown, Florida 32039 William M. Furlow, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
