Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witness and their demeanor while testifying, the following; relevant facts are found. Mitchell E. Verdell is registered with the Florida Board of Real Estate as a salesman. On or about July 17, 1978, the Respondent, Mitchell E. Verdell, filed with the then Florida Real Estate Commission, now Board of Real Estate, an application for registration as a Real Estate Salesman. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2.) On the Respondent's application for licensure, he failed to disclose that he had been arrested in Daytona Beach, Florida, on May 7, 1974, and tried for unlawful possession of marijuana. Respondent entered a plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance over five (5) grams for which he was place on probation for a period of two (2) years and an adjudication of guilt was withheld. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3.) Mitchell E. Verdell appeared and testified that his only witness, his probation officer, was ill and thus could not appear at the hearing. Mr. Verdell acknowledged his failure to disclose on his application for licensure with the Board the fact that he appeared in court on a charge of possession of a controlled substance. He also acknowledged the fact that he was placed on two (2) years probation. His probation officer, Bill Gross, advised Mr. Verdell with reference to his conviction and the manner in which he should handle it that since the judge withheld adjudication, he should never disclose it for a job when questions respecting his arrest were asked. He testified that he relied on Officer Gross, who bad been a probation officer for a few decades. (TR 9-10)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Mitchell E. Verdell's license to practice real estate as a salesman be REVOKED without prejudice to filing an application that is proper. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Board of Real Estate Post Office Pox 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Glenn Anderson, Esquire Post Office Pox 9159 Winter Haven, Florida 33880
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: Approximately three years ago, when he was 21 years of age, Rudolpho A. Herrera ran afoul of the law. He made arrangements to have a friend obtain from another acquaintance of Herrera's between four to seven grams of cocaine. Herrera's friend received the cocaine and transported it across state lines to North Carolina where his scheme was uncovered and he was arrested. When questioned by the authorities, the friend revealed Herrera's involvement in the matter. Herrera was subsequently extradited to North Carolina and charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Section 846. He pled guilty to the charge and, on September 2, 1986, was convicted in federal district court of the offense. Never before had he, nor has he since, been convicted of any crime. Because of his cooperation following his apprehension, Herrera was treated leniently by the court. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment, the first six months of which he was to spend in a community treatment center. The remainder of his three-year sentence of imprisonment was to be suspended and he was to be placed on five years probation after his release from the community treatment center. While confined to the community treatment center, Herrera was a model inmate. As a result of his exemplary behavior, he was released from the center and placed on probation two months early. During the time that Herrera has been on probation he has been a law abiding citizen. Moreover, he has complied with all of the terms and conditions of his probation. Herrera is now, and has been since the period of his confinement at the community treatment center, gainfully employed. For the past year and a half he has been employed by Five Stars Furniture Corporation as a manager of a furniture store. He is a trusted employee who has been given the keys to the store and the code to its alarm system. Herrera has been fair and honest in his dealings with his employer, his subordinates and his customers. Although his current employment situation is a positive one, Herrera wants to enter the real estate field to better himself. Charles W. Cadman, the Vice-President of Coconut Grove Realty Corporation, has expressed a willingness to assist Herrera in obtaining his real estate salesman license and to employ Herrera once he obtains his license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman, without prejudice to Petitioner filing a subsequent application when he is able to show that his rehabilitation is sufficiently complete to entitle him to such licensure. See Karl v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 229 So.2d 610, 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)(Commission may not preclude an applicant whose application has been denied because of a prior felony conviction from reapplying for licensure and showing subsequent rehabilitation. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Juan DeJesus Gonzalez, Esquire 2153 Coral Way, Suite 601 Miami, Florida 33145 Lawrence Gendzrier, Esquire Assistant Attorney General 400 West Robinson Street Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller Director, Division of Real Estate Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, at all times material to this matter, has been registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman. On or about April 3, 1978, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, entered a judgment and commitment order which adjudicated the Respondent guilty of the offense of shoplifting on a military reservation in violation of Section 812.022, Florida Statutes. The Respondent pled guilty to the offense, and the adjudication was based upon her plea. A short sentence was imposed, the execution of which was suspended; a fine was imposed; and she was placed on supervised probation for a period of two years, with several special conditions of probation. The Respondent was directed to undergo psychiatric or psychological care and counselling. The Respondent is being supervised in her probation by Larry Burris, a Federal Probation Officer. Officer Burris testified on her behalf at the hearing. The Respondent had never been in any serious trouble prior to the incidents giving rise to the shoplifting charges, and she has been cooperative during the period of her probation. The expiration date of her probation is April, 1980, but it is possible that she will be released from probation before that date. The Respondent has undergone psychiatric care and treatment during her probation. Reports from her physician indicate that she has confronted serious emotional difficulties that she had, that her condition has improved, and that she will soon be released from psychiatric care. The Respondent is not presently working as a real estate salesman.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a Florida-certified general real estate appraiser, holding license number RZ 2678 and doing business as Easthill Valuation and Consulting (Easthill). He has been doing real estate appraisal work since 1986. Respondent also holds a Florida real estate broker license. HBK Investments (HBK) is a hedge fund headquartered in Dallas, Texas. On June 23, 2006, HBK entered into a written agreement with Easthill in which Easthill agreed, for a $7,500.00 fee, to appraise for HBK the value of the remaining unsold inventory of an uncompleted high-rise, residential condominium project being developed by WCI Communities, Inc., on a barrier island in Pompano Beach, Florida (Ocean Side Project). The agreement did not specify, nor did HBK indicate at any time during the negotiations leading to the agreement, that time was of the essence in completing the appraisal. The agreement2 read, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * The purpose of this appraisal/consultation is to estimate the market value of the fee simple estate reflecting the unsold inventory in the subject property. The report is intended to be used in making internal management decisions related to potential investment by [HBK] related to specific properties, interests, direct investments and/or securities issued by WCI. The assignment is to be a limited appraisal in a summary report format in conformance with, and subject to, the Standards of Professional Practice and Code of Ethics of the Appraisal Institute and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) developed by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. The scope of [Easthill's] assignment is to evaluate the subject property based upon the estimated remaining inventory as of the date of value for the current development based upon information obtained by the appraiser through market research and analysis. [HBK] hereby acknowledges that the subject property is owned, controlled and in the process of development by WCI. [HBK] understands and agrees that [Easthill] will receive information for the report from third party sources and that [Easthill] bears no responsibility (and shall not be liable) for the accuracy or completeness (or lack thereof) of such information. [HBK] understands that despite [Easthill's] best efforts to obtain accurate direct data pertinent to the analysis, such as but not limited to the number of sold and/or unsold units, actual transaction prices, actual or proposed development costs, current price schedules, documents pertaining to the declaration and proposed operation of the condominium development, may not be available. [Easthill] will incorporate market derived information in an effort to estimate these variables in the analysis. [HBK] acknowledges that market derived estimates may vary considerably from the actual amounts expended by WCI and can therefore reflect diverged value indicators which reflect a higher degree of subjectivity versus an analysis performed had the actual information been made available. * * * [Easthill's] fee for this assignment will be $7,500.00 and requires a 50% retainer payment prior to commencement of work with the balance due upon delivery of the report. [Easthill] will provide one bound hard copy and one electronic copy of the report via email in PDF format. The report will be completed and delivered to [HBK} within approximately four (4) to six (6) weeks from receipt of this fully executed engagement letter, the retainer fee and any additional relevant information provided by [HBK]. In the event the assignment is canceled prior to completion, an invoice will be prepared reflecting the percentage of work completed as of that date. Any credits to [HBK] will be promptly returned or any remaining balances to the appraiser will be indicated on the invoice. * * * HBK made the "50% retainer payment" by check dated July 6, 2006. The check (in the amount of $3,750.00) was deposited in Respondent's account at BankAtlantic on July 11, 2006. Thereafter, Respondent began work on the appraisal. Matthew Luth of HBK attempted to contact Respondent by telephone to inquire about the status of the appraisal after four to six weeks had gone by and he had not heard anything from Respondent. Mr. Luth was unsuccessful in his efforts to speak with Respondent, but he did leave "voice mail" messages. Mr. Luth also sent Respondent three e-mails (on August 8, 2006, August 25, 2006, and September 8, 2006) requesting an update on the appraisal. Respondent received neither Mr. Luth's "voice mail" messages, nor the e-mails Mr. Luth had sent. Jon Mosle, HBK's General Counsel, subsequently sent the following letter, dated September 26, 2006, to Respondent: I am the General Counsel for HBK Investments L.P. On June 23, 2006, HBK engaged your company to perform an appraisal related to the Pompano Beach condominium development to be known as Oceans Side. A copy of our signed engagement letter is attached. Promptly after signing the engagement letter, HBK paid the initial $3,750 payment for your services (via our check #2611, which cleared our bank on July 11, 2006). The engagement letter stated that your appraisal would be completed and delivered within approximately four to six weeks, a time frame now long passed. To date, we have seen no evidence of any work on your part. Matt Luth (the business person at HBK, who is responsible for this project) and myself have now tried to contact you numerous times and you have chosen not to return our calls or to provide any update regarding the project. From this information, I can only conclude that you are attempting to steal our retainer. Please be assured that we will not simply stand by and let this happen. If you do not call Matt Luth in the next three days to discuss this matter, we will immediately file a complaint with the State of Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. We will then investigate the process for reporting this as a criminal matter to the appropriate authorities. Respondent received Mr. Mosle's letter on October 14, 2006.3 Within a day or two of receiving the letter, Respondent contacted HBK and spoke with Mr. Luth. Respondent apologetically told Mr. Luth that "the report had been delayed," but he "was finishing the assignment and would have it to [HBK] within about a week." Mr. Luth said "that would be fine." The next day, however, Respondent received a telephone call from Mr. Luth, who told him that HBK was "canceling the assignment" because it "no longer needed the report." At the time of HBK's "cancel[lation of] the assignment," Respondent "had completed just about everything there was to complete except for actually writing the narrative report." He had obtained information about the Ocean Side Project, as well 14 other, comparable projects in the area, through public records reviews, on-site visits, and discussions with project staff. The information gathering process had not proceeded as quickly as Respondent had planned inasmuch as it had turned out that project staff were not always accessible at the times it was convenient for Respondent to meet with them. Respondent spent a total of approximately 60 hours collecting and analyzing data for the appraisal. Although the percentage of work that Respondent had completed was greater than the percentage (50%) of the "consultant's fee" he had been paid, Respondent did not ask HBK to pay him any additional monies (notwithstanding that his agreement with HBK authorized the making of such a request). But for HBK's "cancel[lation of] the assignment," Respondent would have delivered the "limited appraisal in summary report format" that he had agreed to provide to HBK.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 20th day of February, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: Phillip S. Wong is a convicted felon. On December 6, 1982, after entering a plea of guilty, he was adjudicated guilty of one count of each of the following crimes: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill, in violation of Section 784.021(1)(a), Florida Statutes; false imprisonment, in violation of Section 787.02, Florida Statutes; burglary of a dwelling during which an assault was made, in violation of Section 810.02, Florida Statutes; conspiracy to commit a felony, to wit: trafficking in cocaine, in violation of Sections 777.04 and 893.135, Florida Statutes; trafficking in cocaine, in violation of Section 893.135, Florida Statutes; and possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statues. For these offenses, all of which were committed in August of 1982, Wong received five 1/ separate three-year sentences of imprisonment that ran concurrently with one another. As a prisoner, Wong's conduct was exemplary. Accordingly, in May, 1984, he was placed in a work release program. He completed serving his sentence in September, 1985. Since his return to the community, Wong has married and become a father. To help support his family, he works as a chef in a French restaurant, a position he has held for the past four and a half years. Wong is now a dedicated family man concerned about the welfare of his wife and their two and a half year old child. This concern has prompted him to seek a career in real estate so that he will be better able to provide for his family.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure to practice as a real estate salesman, without prejudice to Petitioner filing a subsequent application when he is able to show that his rehabilitation is sufficiently complete to entitle him to such licensure. See Karl v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 229 So.2d 610, 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)(Commission may not preclude an applicant whose application has been denied because of a prior felony conviction from reapplying for licensure and showing subsequent rehabilitation). DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission hereafter) by its representative, Charles F. Borer (Plaintiff hereafter) filed an Administrative Complaint on December 17, 1976, alleging that the Defendant, on or about April 29, 1975, was found guilty in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court of this state of engaging in lewd and lascivious acts or assault upon or in the presence of a child and that by reason thereof, the Defendant is guilty of a crime of moral turpitude fraudulent or dishonest dealing in violation of subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Based thereon, the Commission seeks to revoke or suspend the licensee and his right to practice thereunder. The Commission introduced into evidence an Information filed January 20, 1975, against the Defendant for engaging in Involuntary Sexual Battery, Lewd and Lascivious Act or Assault upon or in the Presence of a Child in violation of Chapter 794.021(e) and Chapter 800.04 Florida Statutes. On April 29, 1975 a jury found the Defendant guilty as charged. See Commission's Exhibit #1. Chapter 475.25 Florida Statutes set forth grounds for which the Commission may revoke or suspend a registrant's license. Subsection (e) thereof provides in pertinent part that the Commission may suspend a registrant's registration based upon a finding that the registrant has "been guilty of a crime against the laws of this state or any other state or of the United States, involving moral turpitude The documentary evidence introduced and received in this case provides ample basis for a finding that the registrant has been guilty of a crime within the meaning of Chapter 475.25(1)(e). Based thereon, I make the following:
Recommendation 1. That the Defendant's registration as a real estate salesman be suspended for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this day of April, 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: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Frank L. Pepperel c/o ITT Community Development Corp. 5225 Northwest 87th Avenue Miami, Florida 33166
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
The Issue The parties stipulated on the record that the issues for determination in this proceeding are: Whether the crime of manslaughter for which Ms. Antel was convicted is a crime of moral turpitude, and Whether sufficient rehabilitation has taken place since the crime was committed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Donna Antel, submitted her application for license as a real estate salesperson on August 1, 1966. In that application she revealed information regarding conviction of a crime. In December 1982, Donna Antel moved to Florida with her husband, to start a new life after a series of business, financial and personal problems in New York State. Shortly afterwards, it became obvious that the problems also moved with them--the ex-wife began harassing them and the husband's children came to stay, causing severe financial and emotional stress on the relationship. In August 1983, Ms. Antel sat in the bedroom with a rifle, contemplating suicide. He husband walked in, and she shot him. She was tried for 1st degree murder. On December 14, 1984, she was convicted of manslaughter in a jury trial, in Brevard County, Florida. Ms. Antel was sentenced to ten years in prison; she served eleven months in prison and six months on a work release program. On May 6, 1986, she was released on parole. After release from prison, Ms. Antel received psychological counseling and has completed her course of therapy. She has committed no parole violations and is due to be fully released sometime in 1993. For the six months proceeding the final hearing Ms. Antel was employed as an assistant property manager.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 20th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the Respondent. Adopted in Paragraph #1. Adopted in Paragraph #1. Adopted in Paragraph #3 Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph #2. Adopted in paragraph #2 Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph #3. Adopted in paragraph #3. Petitioner's post-hearing submittals were filed on July 15, 1987, well after the established deadline. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Vincent W. Howard, Jr., Esquire Howard & Reyes, Charter 210 North Park Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Prior to the hearing, counsel for the parties orally stipulated that the allegations set forth in the administrative complaint filed against the Respondent on October 1, 1980, were true and correct. The purpose of the hearing was to present testimony explaining the circumstances surrounding the Respondent's guilty plea to one count of income tax evasion and attesting to the good character and reputation of the Respondent within the South Florida community where he and his family presently reside. In 1975, the Respondent was part owner and treasurer of Blanchard Associates, a small company located in Portland, Maine, which dealt in fire apparatus and supplies. In the spring of 1975, the company was audited by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and a number of discrepancies were found during the course of a continuing three year audit. One of the discrepancies involved the failure to report as income the sale of two used fire trucks worth approximately $4,700.00 each. The audit resulted in an eight count information being filed on January 17, 1979, in the Southern District of Maine charging both the Respondent and his partner, Shirley T. Hamel, with two counts and the Corporation, Blanchard Associates, with four counts of income tax evasion. On January 19, 1979, the Respondent pled guilty to one count of income tax evasion for the year 1973 and was placed on probation for two years and ordered to pay a fine of $5,000.00 and any interest and penalties found to be due. Additionally, a 30-day jail sentence was imposed. The Respondent voluntarily advised the Florida Real Estate Commission and his broker of his conviction, which action resulted in the filing of the administrative complaint. No administrative complaint or criminal indictment or information has been filed against the Respondent regarding any misconduct occurring as a real estate salesman. The Respondent enjoys an excellent reputation in the Ft. Myers area and has been a successful salesman since moving to Florida in January, 1977. While residing in Portland, the Respondent was involved in numerous civic activities including serving on the South Portland School Board, the Portland City Council and the Maine School District Commission.
