Findings Of Fact On July 3, 1985, Petitioner applied for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission. On this application Petitioner responded "yes" to Question 6 of the application form which asked if he had ever been convicted of a crime. The details of the conviction supplied by Petitioner, that he had been convicted of delivery of paraphernalia, adjudication was withheld, he was fined $1,000 and placed on probation for five years, were also accurate. At the time of his arrest Petitioner and his brother were partners in a record store. For sale in this store was a milk sugar known as Mannitol. Unbeknownst to Petitioner prior to his arrest, Mannitol is a controlled substance. Drug paraphernalia, the delivery of which Petitioner was arrested and brought to trial, was this Mannitol that was in the record store for sale. At his trial on March 18, 1985, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge against him, adjudication of guilt was withheld, he was fined $1,000 which he has paid, and he was placed on probation for five years. This is the only time Petitioner has ever been arrested. He has fully complied with all terms of his parole and his probation officer will recommend an early termination of his parole in March 1987 (Exhibit 6). Subsequent to his trial Petitioner has sold his interest in the record store and disassociated himself from any business dealings with his brother. He is currently employed as a planning technician with the Lee County Zoning Department. Petitioner is 34 years old, has been married for five years, and is the father of a 2-1/2 year old son. He has owned a residence in Lee County for 10 years. References submitted by Petitioner to the effect that Petitioner was honest and trustworthy were submitted by individuals who were aware of his arrest and trial. This one arrest for delivering a substance that Petitioner was not even aware was illegal does not establish that Petitioner is not honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character. To the contrary, from the evidence presented at the hearing, Petitioner has those qualities necessary for licensure as a real estate salesman.
The Issue Whether the petitioner meets the qualifications for licensure as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact On July 6, 1984, the petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Department of Professional Regulations Division of Real Estate. The petitioner responded in the affirmative to question 6, which asked whether the applicant had "ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. . .", and set forth the details as follows: "Attempted Possession of Stolen Property" (New York) Bronx Date of Probation May 29, 1984 Date of Conviction November 16, 1983 Probation Officer Ms. English 212-590-3101 By letter dated September 24, 1984, and undated letter filed October 31, 1984, the petitioner was informed that the Commission had denied his application for licensure. In pertinent part the letter stated as follows. "The power of the Commission to review and deny applications is based upon Sections 475.17 and 475.25, Florida Statutes. Subsection 475.17(1) calls for the applicant to be "honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character, and shall have a good reputation for fair dealing. . ." The reason for the Commission's action is based on your answer to Question(s) 6 of the licensing application and/or your criminal record according to the appropriate law enforcement agency. The petitioner owned a secondhand jewelry business in New York, similar to a pawn shop. He dealt with people all over the world, mainly wealthy people, and they sold him antiques and jewelry. He informed anyone coming in his store that he did not buy stolen goods and had a sign on his wall so stating. One gentleman, that had been a client for approximately three years, came into the store about every six or seven months to sell something. The last time this individual came into the store, about four weeks before the petitioner closed his business and moved to Florida, the individual implied that the gold he was selling might not belong to him. However, petitioner wasn't paying particular attention at that time to what the individual was saying since the petitioner had had previous dealings with him. After moving to Florida, in February of 1983, Petitioner was notified that he had been indicted in Bronx, New York. He flew back to New York and turned himself into the authorities. He discovered that the gentleman with whom he had been dealing for three years was a New York police officer and that their conversations had been taped. The tape revealed that during the last transaction the officer had implied that the gold he was selling did not belong to him. Petitioner pleaded guilty to attempted possession of stolen property, a felony, and was placed on probation for five years beginning in December, 1983. Petitioner has had a very good record while on probation. The petitioner held a real estate license in New York for over 10 years which has now expired. The license was never suspended or revoked and petitioner never had any other type of problem while in the real estate business. Since petitioner has been in Florida he has held responsible jobs handling large amounts of money. His employers, friends and coworkers have been impressed with his reliability, integrity and honesty. Petitioner presented sufficient evidence to show that since living in Florida he has been honest, truthful, trustworthy, of good character, and has a good reputation for fair dealing. Nevertheless, respondent pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted possession of stolen property and is still on probation for that crime. Although an isolated unlawful act or criminal conviction in the past does not necessarily mean that an individual is presently dishonest, untrustworthy or of bad character, 1/ it must be concluded that when an individual is presently on probation for a crime involving dishonest dealing, the unlawful act or conviction is not so remote that it can be deemed an isolated incident in the past. Because Petitioner is still on probation for a crime that involves dishonesty and a lack of trustworthiness, petitioner has not established that he meets the requirements of Section 474.17(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for licensure be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 12th of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1985.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order DENYING Charles A. Pantino's application for licensure as a real estate salesman. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9673 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1984.
Recommendation Deny the application of Petitioner for Registration as a salesman for the Florida Real Estate Commission. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building MAIL: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Dwaine Eugene Spann Route 2, Box 376S Sarasota, Florida 33582
Findings Of Fact On May 3, 1982, Petitioner applied to Respondent for licensure as a real estate salesman. Question No. 6 on the application filed by Petitioner read as follows: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? If yes, state details including the outcome in full. In response to this question, Petitioner answered as follows: Yes--Please see attached letter. [sic] class C felony. I was put on probation for 2 yrs and paid restitution[sic] this occurred in May of 1978. The letter attached to Petitioner's application read, in part, as follows: On May 24, 1978, I was convicted of burglary, a class C Felony, in Circuit Court, Oneida County, Wisconsin. My sentence was withheld and I was placed on probation for two years. The court ordered that I also pay $9 court cost and restitution to the victim. The record in this cause establishes that on February 13, 1978, Petitioner was arrested in Oneida County, Wisconsin, and charged with feloniously entering a building with intent to steal, a felony punishable under Wisconsin law by imprisonment for up to ten years. On May 24, 1978, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge of burglary stemming from her arrest. Petitioner was found guilty of burglary, but adjudication was withheld, and she was placed on probation for two years and ordered to make restitution to the victim of her crime. Subsequently, Petitioner made restitution in the amount of $137.45. In addition, she successfully completed her two-year period of probation, and was terminated from probationary status on May 24, 1980, and her civil rights were restored. Subsequent to her arrest and conviction, both during her probationary period and thereafter, Petitioner has diligently pursued employment in a variety of fields in both Wisconsin and in Florida. While on probation in Wisconsin, Petitioner was employed in a mental health center where her duties included working as a receptionist-secretary, receiving clients, receiving telephone calls, setting up appointments for clients, taking care of bill payments, receiving money on behalf of the center, and maintaining confidentiality of client files. Her employers at the mental health center were aware of her arrest and conviction, and closely evaluated Petitioner prior to hiring her, including administering the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory to determine whether she should be employed. She not only was employed after this analysis, but performed in a highly commendable fashion during the one-year period in which she held this position. Subsequently, Petitioner has worked as a waitress in various restaurants in Wisconsin, and has served as co-manager of a mobile home park in Florida. In the latter position, it was her responsibility for the general upkeep of the park, and to collect rentals and forward them to the park owner. At the time of final hearing, Petitioner was working as a salaried employee of a time-sharing resort development. In this position, she acts as a tour guide and salesperson, and receives deposits from purchasers and remits them to her employer. Petitioner's testimony and demeanor during the course of the final hearing was that of a mature and responsible wife and mother who feels genuine shame and contrition for the mistake which led to her criminal conviction. Her personal history since the date of the offense demonstrates that she has assumed responsibility for her behavior, and has determined to function effectively as a productive member of society. Accordingly, the record in this cause clearly establishes that because of the lapse of time since her conviction and her subsequent good conduct, that the interests of the public and investors would not likely be endangered by allowing her to become registered as a real estate salesperson.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, George N. Osburn, is a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0065910 and he was so licensed on or about February 26, 1979. The Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Real Estate (now Florida Real Estate Commission), is an agency of the State of Florida, having jurisdiction over licensing and regulatory matters concerning real estate salesmen and brokers. On February 26, 1979, the Respondent went to the home formerly occupied by his former wife and himself prior to their divorce, which was final before the above date. The Respondent went to her house to obtain some records which he needed to execute his Federal Tax Return. The Respondent came on the porch of the house and walked into the house where his former wife and a Mr. Lacey were seated on the couch. The Respondent's former wife told the deputy who investigated the incident that night, and who testified at the hearing, that she had invited the Respondent in. Mr. Lacey testified at the hearing that the Respondent simply walked in uninvited. The deputy, in the deposition taken prior to the hearing, acknowledged that Mrs. Lacey, the Respondent's former wife, told him on the evening of the investigation of the incident that the Respondent came in at her invitation. Mrs. Lacey and Charles Lacey maintained at the hearing that the Respondent came in their premises uninvited. Thus, the evidence is conflicting on whether the Respondent entered the premises of his former wife without permission, but there is no preponderant evidence which establishes that he entered without invitation. There is no question, however, that he did not force entry. The former Mrs. Osburn discovered no items of property missing from her premises after the Respondent left. The Respondent was ultimately charged with burglary and upon his attorney's advice at the time, entered a "best interest" plea of nolo contendre to the charge in return for which he was promised and received a one-year probation with adjudication of guilt withheld. The acts the Respondent was charges with committing as a basis for the burglary charge occurred February 26, 1979. The Order of the Circuit Court placing the Respondent on one-year probation, with adjudication of guilt withheld, was entered on approximately May 7, 1981. The Respondent was not shown to have any previous violations assessed against his license.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record and pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, George N. Osburn, be found not guilty and that the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause be DISMISSED and case number 82-175 be hereby CLOSED. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark P. Kelly, Esquire FREEMAN & LOPEZ, P.A. 4600 West Cypress, Suite 410 Tampa, Florida 33607 Bernt Meyer, Esquire 2072 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 33579 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 C. B. "Joe" Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact George A. Heyen is a duly registered real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission, and was so registered and has been so registered continuously since October 1, 1972, as evidenced by Petitioner's Exhibit number 1. While serving in the capacity as a real estate salesman, the Respondent entered into a listing agreement with one Thomas S. Bowers and Brenda L. Bowers, his wife. This agreement was drawn on December 11, 1973 and is Petitioner's Exhibit number 4. On February 6, 1974, a purchase and sell agreement was drawn up by the Respondent and entered into between Maria A. Hindes and the Bowers. This purchase and sell agreement is Petitioner's Exhibit number 3. This contract of February 6, 1974 was submitted to Molton, Allen and Williams, Mortgage Brokers, 5111 66th Street, St. Petersburg, Florida. The contract, as drawn, was rejected as being unacceptable for mortgage financing, because it failed, to contain the mandatory FHA clause. When the Respondent discovered that the February 6, 1974 contract had been rejected, a second contract of February 8, 1974 was prepared. A copy of this contract is Petitioner's Exhibit number 5. The form of the contract, drawn on February 8, 1974, was one provided by Molton, Allen and Williams. When, the Respondent received that form he prepared it and forged the signature of Mr. and Mrs. Bowers. The explanation for forging the signatures as stated in the course of the hearing, was to the effect that it was a matter of expediency. The expediency referred to the fact that the parties were anxious to have a closing and to have the transaction completed, particularly the sellers, Mr. and Mrs. Bowers. Therefore, in the name of expediency the signatures were forged. Testimony was also given that pointed out the Bowers were very hard to contact in and around the month of February, 1974, and some testimony was given to the effect that the Bowers made frequent trips to Ohio, but it was not clear whether these trips would have been made in the first part of February, 1974. The Bowers discovered that their name had been forged when they went to a closing on April 11, 1974. They refused to close the loan at that time. On April 24, 1974, a new sales contract was followed by a closing which was held on April 26, 1974 and a copy of the closing statement is Petitioner's Exhibit number 6. The Respondent has received no fees or commissions for his services in the transaction and there have been no further complaints about the transaction. Prior to this incident, the Respondent, George A. Heyen, was not shown to have had any disciplinary involvement with the Florida Real Estate Commission and has demonstrated that he has been a trustworthy individual in his business dealings as a real estate salesman.
Recommendation It is recommended that the registration of the registrant, George A. Heyen, be suspended for a period not to exceed 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 George A. Heyen c/o Gregoire-Gibbons, Inc. 6439 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
The Issue Whether Petitioner has demonstrated that he is honest, truthful, trustworthy, of good character and has a good reputation for fair dealing as required by Section 475.17(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, a consideration of the post-hearing memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. On February 13, 1982, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Commission. Petitioner, prior to moving to Florida, was employed as a deputy sheriff for the Los Angeles County (California) Sheriff's Department for approximately seven (7) years. He was honorably discharged from the Sheriff's Department. By letter dated April 27, 1982, the Commission denied Petitioner's application, stating therein that the specific reasons for its (the Commission's) actions were based on his answer to question number six (6) of the licensing application. The application form for licensure as a real estate salesman includes a question number six (.6), which inquires: Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any munici- pality, state or nation, including traffic offenses . . . without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? The Petitioner responded "yes" to the inquiry. The question goes on to request: "If yes, state details, including the outcome in full." In response to this inquiry, Petitioner submitted the following: "Possession of a counterfeit substance, not found guilty, terms of probation, expunged record." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, a certified copy of judgment and sentence, shows that Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the charge of sale of counterfeit controlled substance, Section 817.563, Florida Statutes, and on February 12, 1982, was sentenced to five (5) years of probation with the Florida Department of Corrections. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. Petitioner is presently serving the five (5) years of probation. (Tr. pp. 15-16) Petitioner acknowledges that the court informed him as to the charges against him in open court. (Tr. p. 26) Petitioner claims that he pled no contest to possession of a counterfeit controlled substance. Finally, Petitioner admitted that the arrest record for sale of a counterfeit controlled substance was not expunged. (Tr. p. 22) Petitioner has appealed the order of court on constitutional grounds and stated his belief that expungement will be granted upon satisfactory completion of his probationary term. At present however, his record relative to that charge has not been expunged.
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 denying Dwayne Lee Hill's application for a real estate license pursuant to Subsection 475.17(1), Florida Statutes. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1982.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was licensed as a real estate broker with the Florida Real Estate Commission and was employed by Hernando County Realty as a broker-salesman. The active broker for Hernando County Realty was Doris M. Wysong. Prior to the contract hereafter discussed, Respondent had only sold three or four properties since she was first licensed as a real estate salesman in 1984. Respondent obtained a listing for several houses being built by a developer and placed a Hernando County Realty sign on one of these properties. The developer, Carl L. Lawson, advertised this house for sale in the newspaper with his telephone number listed to contact. In response to that advertisement, Frank and Josephine Mello called Lawson to see the house. Lawson made an appointment and called Respondent who showed up while Lawson was showing the house to the Mellos. The Mellos liked the house. After leaving the premises, the Mellos decided to buy the property and called Lawson to tell him. Lawson arranged for them to return to sign a contract, and so advised Respondent. At this meeting the following day, on April 7, 1986, Respondent arrived with a contract which she completed. The buyers and seller negotiated a few additional items the buyers wanted and, although Respondent offered to put these items in the contract, both buyers and seller demurred. Buyers and seller agreed that seller could use the down payment to cover the cost of the additional work. Mello made the earnest money deposit payable to Lawson even though the check was clearly marked for deposit, and after making a copy of the check for the office records, Respondent returned the check to Lawson who cashed it. When the contract was signed on April 7, 1966, Mello asked Lawson to lock up the building to keep people from coming in and messing it up. Lawson agreed but Mello visited the property frequently between April 7 and the closing date of May 15, 1986, but never found the house locked. He complained to Lawson about this and about a settling crack that appeared in the garage wall. On Sunday, May 13, 1986, Mello again visited the house to show it to his son and daughter-in-law. They went in and Mel1o saw the crack in the garage wall appeared to be getting bigger. He again telephoned Lawson about this. Monday, May 14, was scheduled for a final inspection. Early that morning, before the time for the inspection, the Mellos went to the property and found Lawson removing some of the debris from the grounds and doing some cleaning. Respondent was also there. When Mr. and Mrs. Mello went into the house to inspect, Mello saw the crack in the garage had not been corrected and he and Lawson got into a violent argument, nearly culminating in fisticuffs. Mrs. Mello returned to her car crying, while Lawson and Mello shouted. At this time, Lawson told Respondent to get the Mellos out of his house and to forget about the contract. To settle the controversy before fisticuffs erupted, Respondent wrote void across the contract and Mello left. Respondent then returned to the real estate office and told her broker, Doris Wysong, what had transpired. Wysong reminded Respondent that she should have had the deposit made out to the realty office and placed it in escrow, but if the transaction didn't close, that she should get Lawson to refund the deposit. The parties didn't cool off sufficiently to complete the transaction, the sale didn't close, and Lawson refused to return the deposit which he had apparently used for the additions requested by Mello. Mello went to the real estate office and talked to Respondent and to Wysong. The latter called her attorney, who advised her not to refund money she never had received. Mello then went to the consumer affairs office in New Port Richey where he was advised to report the incident to the Florida Real Estate Commission. That was subsequently done and this administrative complaint and hearing resulted. Shortly after this incident, Respondent placed her license in an inactive status.
