Findings Of Fact Stuart Jacobs is a registered real estate salesman holding registration certificate No. 0161986 as a non-active real estate salesman. See EXHIBIT 1, Affidavit of C. B. Stafford. Stuart Jacobs first applied for registration with the Florida Real Estate Commission on March 16, 1976, which was received by Florida Real Estate Commission on March 17, 1976. See EXHIBIT 2, Affidavit of C. B. Stafford. In answer to Question No. 6, Jacobs answered "Yes," and explained in the space provided as follows: "1. Traffic offenses (accident) 2. Charged with grand larceny but no conviction of record." On or about July 20, 1976, Mr. Robert J. Corda, investigator for Florida Real Estate Commission, contacted Stuart Jacobs and arranged to meet with Jacobs to discuss Jacobs' response to Question No. 6, specifically as it related to Jacobs' having been charged with grand larceny. Shortly thereafter a meeting was held between Corda and Jacobs and at that meeting Jacobs prepared .and submitted another application. The original of that application was produced at the hearing from Mr. Corda's file which was received as EXHIBIT 7. Also produced from the Florida Real Estate Commission's file at the hearing was a letter dated July 22, 1976 from Mr. Jacobs to Mr. Corda, which was received as EXHIBIT 6. Mr. Corda was fully advised of Mr. Jacobs' status at the meeting and of the facts behind Jacobs' trial by letter. Jacobs was found guilty of the criminal charges but adjudication was withheld. See EXHIBIT 3, Criminal Information #CR74-2526; EXHIBIT 4, Jury Verdict finding Jacobs guilty of the offense charged in Information #CR74-2526; and EXHIBIT 5, Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt and Placing Defendant on Probation. Jacobs was registered by the Florida Real Estate Commission effective September 4, 1976, as a non-active salesman, two and one half months after this interview and correspondence with Corda.
Recommendation There being absolutely no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment by Jacobs which resulted in his registration as a real estate salesman, the Hearing Officer recommends no action be taken against the license of Stuart Jacobs. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 Mr. Ralph V. Hadley, III DAVIDS, BENSON & HADLEY, P.A. Post Office Box 1312 Winter Garden, Florida 32787
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0413725. On November 8, 1983 Respondent submitted a Request for Active Salesman's License indicating the name of the firm at which he would be employed as Corporate Investments of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Corporate Investment Business Brokers and his broker as Lynne Levy. Respondent worked as a salesman with Lynne Levy as his broker until he was terminated by her on or about May 22, 1984. Respondent testified he was not told of his termination until 4:00 p.m. on May 25, 1984 at which time Lynne Levy also resigned as broker with Corporate Investments of Florida, Inc. Respondent's license was cancelled on May 29, 1984 due to the fact that his license was no longer placed with a broker. From May 29 until July 9, 1984 Respondent's license was not placed with a broker and was therefore in a "cancelled" status. On July 9, 1984 Respondent's license was reactivated since he had been employed by another real estate broker. On or about June 1, 1984 Respondent attempted to have Mr. Bert Malone register as broker for Corporate Investments of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Corporate Investment Business Brokers, but that application was never accepted by the Florida Real Estate Commission due to Respondent's failure to submit information requested by the Commission, including a copy of the corporation's minutes when Lynne Levy's resignation was accepted and Respondent was elected an officer or director. Respondent was co-owner with Robert L. Levy, Lynne Levy's husband, of Corporate Investments of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Corporate Investment Business Brokers. Lynne Levy was President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Corporation, as well as its broker. Robert L. Levy and Respondent each owned 50% of the corporation, but Respondent held a 51% voting interest to Levy's 49%. Respondent obtained his franchise on June 17, 1983 to open an office in Florida from Corporate Investment Business Brokers, Inc., a franchisor. Respondent contributed the franchise to the corporation he formed with Levy and agreed to keep the franchise current. The franchisor terminated its franchise agreement with Respondent on May 17, 1984 due to Respondent's failure to make payments due thereunder. On June 12, 1984 the franchisor notified Respondent that it would not reconsider the termination of the franchise. On or about May 30, 1984 Respondent attended the closing of a real estate transaction between Fred Hage, seller, and Frank De Santo, buyer. This was while Respondent's license was cancelled and inoperative. The property had been listed by Respondent and he received a check for $9000 made out to Corporate Investments of Florida, Inc., which represented the broker's commission. On the same day Respondent opened a checking account at Barnett Bank of Central Florida, Longwood Office, and deposited the $9000 commission check in that account without the knowledge or consent of Lynne Levy, his former registered employing broker. On August 16, 1984 Respondent disbursed $3750 to Robert L. Levy, Lynne Levy's husband, from this checking account as the co-partner's share of the $9000 commission. Respondent had obtained the listing agreement from Fred Hage on this property on March 14, 1984 at which time Respondent and Hage agreed to a $6000 commission, or 12% of the total price upon consummation of a sale. Or or about April 4, 1984 Hage signed another listing agreement which reflected a $9000 commission. When the transaction closed on or about May 30, Respondent collected the $9000 commission. Hage signed the closing statement and the purchase contract for this transaction, both of which disclosed the $9000 commission. Hage did not question the commission amount at the closing but waited until June 6, 1984 to raise his objection in a letter to Lynne Levy. On or about May 21, 1984 Respondent discussed with Paul Russell, II, the acquisition of a 50% partnership interest in his real estate franchise in the central Florida area for $50,000. Respondent admits that he was informed on May 17, 1984 that his franchise had been terminated and this termination was reconfirmed on June 12, 1984. Respondent did not inform Russell during their discussions that his franchise had already been terminated, but Russell decided not to go through with the deal. On or about June 2, 1984 while his license was cancelled and inoperative, Respondent received a check for $400 from Kenneth L. and Mary Lou Welker which represented one- half of the appraisal cost on certain property they were selling through Respondent as the selling agent. Respondent represented that he immediately ordered the appraisal as the Welkers requested, but Mrs. Welker learned that it had not been ordered by June 5 and stopped payment on the check.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In pertinent part Petitioner contends that Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for having been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) having failed to account for or deliver a share of a real estate commission to a person entitled thereto or to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission concerning doubts or conflicting demands being placed upon such funds as required by Section 475.25(1)(d): and having failed to immediately place with his registered broker money entrusted to him by persons dealing with him as a real estate salesman in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), F.S. Petitioner also urges that Respondent violated Sections 475.42(1)(a) and (b), F.S., by operating as a broker or real estate salesman without a valid and current license, or for a person not registered as his employer. Finally, it is alleged that Respondent violated Section 475.42(1)(d), F.S. which states, in part: No salesman shall collect any money in connection with any real estate brokerage transaction, whether as a commission, deposit, payment, rental, or otherwise, except in the name of the employer and with the express consent of the employer: . . . The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that between May 29 and July 9, 1984, Respondent did not have a current active salesman's license due to his termination by his broker, Lynne Levy. Yet during this time when his license was inoperative and cancelled, Respondent engaged in real estate transactions with Fred Hage on May 30, and with Kenneth L. and Mary Lou Welker on June 2. In each transaction Respondent collected money from these persons without the express consent of an employing broker since Respondent's license had been cancelled and was not placed with an employing broker at the time. Respondent did not immediately place these moneys which he received while acting as a salesman with a registered broker. Thus, Respondent violated Sections 475.42(1)(d) and 475.25(1)(k) on these two occasions. His actions on these occasions also constituted violations of Sections 475.42(1)(a) and (b) since he was operating during these real estate transactions as a salesman without a current valid license and without a registered employing broker. Respondent also violated Section 475.25(1)(d) by improperly placing the $9000 commission he received from Fred Hage in a checking account he opened on the same day he received the commission check. At the time he was not properly licensed to engage in real estate transactions and receive commissions, and he should reasonably have foreseen that doubts would arise and conflicting claims would be made for these funds, as in fact they were. Under these circumstances, Respondent was required to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of such doubts or conflicting demands, which he never formally did. Respondent did subsequently resolve the conflicting demand on these funds with the disbursement $3750 to Robert L. Levy on August 16, 1984, but his technical violation of Section 475.25(1)(d) by failing to formally notify the Commission remains. The evidence presented at the hearing does not establish clearly or convincingly that Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), F.S. It cannot be concluded that Respondent dealt fraudulently or dishonestly with Fred Hage when he collected a $9000 commission from the transaction on May 30. Although Hage had previously signed a listing agreement with Respondent that provided for a lesser commission, Hage did sign a second listing agreement on April 4 which called for the $9000 commission. There is no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation in the execution of this second agreement. In fact, Hage specifically acknowledged the $9000 commission at closing by signing the closing statement and the purchase contract, both of which disclosed the commission amount. Hage did not object to the commission until June 6, one week after the closing and two months after he signed the second listing agreement with Respondent which provided for this commission. Respondent's discussions with Paul Russell, II, about acquiring an interest in his franchise do not constitute a violation of Chapter 475. Although at the time of these discussions on May 21 Respondent had been notified by his franchisor of the termination of his franchise, the franchisor did not reconfirm this termination until June 12. By this time Russell had already decided not to go through with the deal or pursue discussions with Respondent. Russell was not harmed by these discussions and the simple fact that these discussions took place prior to the reconfirmation of the franchise's termination does not constitute a violation of Section 475.25(1)(b). In summary, it has been clearly and convincingly established that Respondent violated Sections 475.42(1)(a)(b) and (d) and 475.25(1)(k) in his dealings with Fred Hage and the Welkers on May 30 and June 2, 1984, and also that he violated Section 475.25(1)(d) in his handling of the $9000 commission he received from Hage. However, no violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) has been established. The violations in this case arise from two transactions occurring within a three day period. There is no evidence that Respondent engaged in a recurring course of conduct which would justify the imposition of the penalty of revocation of his license under the circumstances as established herein. Pauline v. Borer, 274 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973) Kopf v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 379 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980). Therefore, a reasonable suspension of Respondent's license is appropriate in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a period of ninety (90) days. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of July, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 17th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Wallace E. Hunter 214 East Hornbeam Drive Longwood, Florida 32779 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed various violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, sufficient to justify the imposition of disciplinary measures against her license as a licensed Real Estate Salesperson.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Barbara Gordon Schneider, at all times material to this matter, was a licensed Florida Real Estate Salesperson, holding license no. 0481077 with an address of 5825 Indian Trail, Keystone Heights, Florida 32656-9773. As a consequence of previous disciplinary action, Respondent’s license has been suspended since February 17, 1995, due to non-payment of a fine. Basically, that case revolved around a finding of Respondent’s guilt of culpable negligence and operating as a broker while licensed as a salesperson. Respondent did not inform her then current employer, Coursey and Associates Real Estate (Coursey and Associates) of the February 1995 suspension of her license. Additionally, as documented by a certified copy of judgment admitted at final hearing as Petitioner’s Exhibit 2, Respondent also failed to notify Petitioner of Respondent’s plea of guilty to a felony charge of obtaining property in return for a worthless check in the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Clay County, Florida, on December 19, 1989. Adjudication was withheld by the Court and Respondent was placed on probation for 18 months. On or about July 14, 1995, while employed as office manager and selling manager for Coursey and Associates, Respondent prepared a contract for sale and purchase for Flint and Jessica Banther as buyers for property located at 2276 Chablis Court, West, Orange Park, Florida. Also, Respondent negotiated an occupancy agreement whereby the Banthers agreed to rent the property they were planning to purchase. Kevin Coursey, the broker for Coursey and Associates, had no knowledge of this transaction although Respondent signed the occupancy agreement on behalf of Coursey and Associates. On or about July 14, 1995, the Banthers gave Respondent a $500 cash binder for the purchase of the Chablis Court property. The money was not turned over to her employer by Respondent. Respondent had previously procured, on or about May 17, 1995, a listing agreement on behalf of Coursey and Associates for a home owned by Gary J. and Agnes Beagles which was located at 4854 Gopher Circle North, Middleburg, Florida. Respondent rented the Beagles’ home to Christine and Jim Weaver, without the knowledge or permission of Kevin Coursey on behalf of Coursey and Associates. Coursey and Associates were not in the business of brokering rental property and had no insurance to cover such activity. Respondent was accepting checks from the Weavers and depositing them into the Beagles’ bank account. On or about June 23, 1995, Christine Weaver made check no. 2952 in the amount of $250 payable to Coursey and Associates. Respondent endorsed the check by writing “Coursey & Assoc.” On the back of the check and signed her name with “co-owner” written under her name. Kevin Coursey did not authorize Respondent to endorse the check. Respondent never informed Kevin Coursey of the check’s existence and deposited it into her personal bank account at the Jax Navy Federal Credit Union without Coursey’s authorization. Respondent also procured renters for the Weavers’ home without the knowledge and consent of her employer. Initially, Robert and Pamela Campbell, the renters of the Weaver home, gave Respondent a check which was returned for insufficient funds. When the check was returned, the Campbells gave Respondent cash in the amount of $600 in place of the check. Respondent did not turn the cash over to the Weavers and, as a result, Coursey and Associates were later compelled to pay the Weavers the $600. Sometime around July 26, 1995, Respondent prepared a contract for sale and purchase for Charles Crum as the buyer of property located at 5615 Indians Trail, Keystone Heights, Florida. Crum gave Respondent a binder for the property consisting of three money orders totaling $500. The money orders were payable to Coursey and Associates, but Respondent did not deliver the funds to her employer. Approximately three weeks later, Respondent did deliver the binder, in the form of a different set of money orders, to Kevin Coursey. At some point prior to July 30, 1995, Respondent negotiated the rental of property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Richard J. Connell. The renter was James Cawley. This was accomplished without knowledge or consent of Kevin Coursey, although Respondent led the Connells to believe that the property was being rented through Coursey and Associates. The Connells never received the cash security deposit paid to Respondent by Cawley. By letter dated September 19, 1995, Richard J. Connell and James L. Cawley informed Coursey and Associates of Connell’s entry into a rental agreement with that firm on February 25, 1995. Respondent had negotiated the agreement which provided that Cawley would initially rent the property for $350 a month until he established credit for the purchase. Respondent, it was agreed, on behalf of Coursey and Associates, would collect the rent every month. Coursey and Associates would receive a ten percent commission on the rental proceeds and also retain $65 per month in escrow for repairs. Respondent signed the Connells’ names to the agreement without their consent. Respondent left the employ of Coursey and Associates, without notice, on or about July 30, 1995, and contacted Martha J. O’Shields, co-broker for Century 21 Bryant and O’Shields Realty, about coming to work for O’Shields. Respondent did not tell O’Shields that Respondent’s salesperson license was suspended. O’Shields hired Respondent. On or about August 2, 1995, Respondent negotiated a contract for sale and purchase of the property owned by the Beagles. Coursey and Associates were, of course, the listing agents. Instead of presenting the offer to Coursey and Associates, Respondent presented the offer directly to the owners. Respondent signed the contract on behalf of Coursey and Associates, although she was then working for O’Shields. Respondent had the buyers of the property sign a consent to dual agency although she was not acting as a dual agent and had not been authorized by O’Shields to present the offer in this fashion. On or about August 2, 1995, Respondent proceeded to list the buyers’ property located at 1594 Twin Oaks Drive West in Middleburg, Florida, on behalf of Bryant and O’Shields. O’Shields discovered on or about August 15, 1995, that Respondent had taken all files upon which she was working from the office. By letter dated August 18, 1995, O’Shields notified Petitioner that she had terminated Respondent’s employment on August 15, 1995. According to O’Shields’ notification, Respondent had sales pending and O’Shields had not been previously aware of Respondent’s license suspension.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of counts I through V, counts VII through VIII, counts X through XII, counts XV through XVI, and counts XIX through XXI of the Administrative Complaint and revoking Respondent’s license. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 28th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Barbara Gordon Schneider 5086 Granny's Place Keystone Heights, Florida 32656 James Kimbler, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in Count I is whether Section 475.42(1)(j) absolutely prohibits a broker or salesman from filing a lien or other encumberance against real property to collect a commission. The issue in Count II is whether the Respondents violated a lawful order of the Commission by failing to remove the motion of lis pendens contrary to Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Conclusions Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: "No real estate broker or salesman shall place, or cause to be placed, upon the public records of any county, any contract, assignment, deed, will, mortgage, lien, affidavit, or other writing which purports to affect the title of, or encumber, any real property, if the same is known to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property, maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce the payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person, or for any unlawful purpose." Clearly the Respondents placed or caused to be placed the notice of lis pendens in question. A notice of lis pendens is clearly an "other writing which purports to effect the title of, or encumber, any real property." The Florida Real Estate Commission argues that this provision is an absolute bar to the filing of any lien for the purpose of collecting a commission. The Respondents argue that this provision is not an absolute bar and there are circumstances when a broker may file a notice of lis pendens. They also assert that the notice of lis pendens falls within the exception because the Circuit Court refused to remove the notice of lis pendens upon motion of the property owner. Lastly, it is argued that the notice was filed by counsel for the Respondents in good faith on an action at law and that this mitigates their action even if there was a violation. The language of Section 475.42(1)(j) cannot be read to absolutely prohibit a broker from obtaining a lis pendens. When given this construction, it effectively denies brokers and salesmen access to the courts for redress of injury as provided in Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Section 475.42(1)(j) is a complex provision which is subject to two interpretations. One interpretation would prohibit a broker or salesman from filing an encumberance if the same were known to him to be false, void or not authorized by law; if not authorized to be upon the public records; if not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded; if the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property; if maliciously (filed); if for the purpose of collecting a commission, if to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person; or if for any other unlawful purpose. This first interpretation would consider each clause a separate limitation on filing an encumberance. The facts analyzed under this interpretation do not show any knowledge by Respondents that the lis pendens was false, void or not authorized to be filed or not on a form entitling it to be recorded. The facts do not show that Respondents filed the lis pendens maliciously, for the purpose of collecting a commission, or for the purpose of coercing payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. The nature of lis pendens would not require the owner's authorization of execution for recording. The facts show that the lis pendens was filed by Respondent's attorney in conjunction with a suit brought by the Respondents against Perrin. The record also shows that the circuit court determined that the lis pendens was recordable when it denied the motion to remove it. The notice of lis pendens was neither malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting the commission. The notice was for the purpose of perfecting the claim against the property for execution of the judgment if the Respondents prevailed in the suit. Executing on a judgment is different from collecting the commission or coercing payment. Under this interpretation the Respondents have not been shown to violate Section 475.42(1)(j). A second interpretation would read the clause, ". . . if the same is known to to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been authorized by the owner of the property. . ." as the first of two criteria to be met to establish a violation. The second criteria would consist of proof that the encumberance was recorded maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. Again the facts do not show there was knowledge by the Respondents of the falsity, or impropriety of the notice of lis pendens, as stated above. Again the facts show that the lis pendens was filed in conjunction with a law suit pending between the Respondent and the property owner, and that the court before which the action was pending refused to remove it. The file of the notice by Respondent's counsel was a legitimate method of perfecting the Respondent's claim should they prevail and obtain judgment. The facts do not indicate that the filing of the notice was malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting a commission. Under either interpretation, Respondents did not violate the statute. COUNT II The Respondents are charged in Count II with violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that the registration of a registrant may be suspended for up to two years for violation of a lawful order of the Commission. Clearly, the facts reveal that the Respondents had a substantial interest involved in the litigation with Perrin. The order, of the Florida Real Estate Commission to remove the notice of lis pendens substantially affected their rights in this litigation. Therefore, any final order directing Kay to remove the notice of lis pendens should have issued after an opportunity for hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The evidence reveals that the Florida Real Estate Commission did not notice a hearing under Section 120.57, and therefore its order cannot be "lawful." The provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d) require that registrants not violate lawful orders. The Respondents have not violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by not removing the notice of lis pendens as directed by the order of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the Respondent, Sam Kaye and Sam Kaye, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William E. Boyes, Esquire Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, P.A. Post Office Box 3466 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Richard C. Lightner, was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0408120. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker, with a home address of 1221 Duval Street, Key West, Florida 32040. Respondent, or a representative on his behalf, did not appear at the hearing to refute or otherwise contest the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: The Department enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's Real Estate brokers license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of July, 1988, 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 4th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Raymond O. Bodiford, Esquire 515 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE Petitioner vs. Case No. 0154510 DOAH No. 87-3668 RICHARD C. LIGHTNER III Respondent /
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Philip Marzo was a real estate broker licensed under the laws of the State of Florida, holding license No. 0217167; and Respondent All Cities Realty, Inc., was a real estate brokerage corporation licensed under the laws of the State of Florida, holding license No. 0217166. At all times material hereto, Respondent Marzo was the qualifying broker for Respondent All Cities Realty, Inc. On May 9, 1981, Gladstone Keith Russell entered into a Service Agreement with All Cities Realty, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of that Agreement, Russell paid $75 in cash to Respondent All Cities Realty, Inc., as an advance rental information fee in exchange for which All Cities Realty, Inc., agreed to provide Russell with listings of available rentals. On or about May 13, 1981, Respondents provided to Russell one listing, which listing was not suitable to Russell. No other listing information was ever provided by Respondents to Russell. Russell obtained his own rental within thirty days from the date of the Service Agreement. This rental was not obtained pursuant to any information supplied to him by Respondents. Within thirty days of the date that All Cities Realty, Inc., contracted to perform real estate services for Russell, Russell telephoned Respondent All Cities Realty, Inc., to demand a return of his $75 deposit. The salesman who took Russell's advance fee was no longer employed at All Cities Realty, Inc., and Russell spoke with Respondent Marzo. Although Russell demanded a refund of his money, Respondent Marzo did not make a refund to Russell. When Russell spoke with Marzo on the telephone, Marzo, instead of returning Russell's money, used delaying tactics and attempts to keep from making the refund. Since his telephone calls proved unsuccessful, Russell returned to the All Cities Realty, Inc., office to obtain a refund from Marzo. Upon arriving at the office, Russell found that All Cities Realty, Inc., had gone out of business, and he was unable to locate Respondent Marzo. Russell has never received a refund of his $75 advance fee paid to the Respondents.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: Default be entered against Respondents, Philip Marzo and All Cities Realty, Inc., and that a final order be entered finding Respondents, Philip Marzo and All Cities Realty, Inc., guilty of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaints and revoking their real estate licenses. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 24th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Philip Marzo 2920 Missionwood Avenue, West Miramar, Florida 33025 Mr. Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the charges, respondent was a licensed real estate salesman, on inactive status, holding license no. 0330793., and residing in Lake Worth, Florida. In early October, 1983, Jack Barlage entered the offices of Colony Real Estate in Lake Worth, Florida. He was a builder and looking for acreage to purchase. Joyce Adams, a real estate salesman with Colony Real Estate, met with him and, two or three days later, showed him a 5.207 acre tract of land in sunny Urban Meadows, an unrecorded subdivision located west of Loxahatchee, Florida. He expressed an interest in the property; she told him that the owner, Richard Moore, might be willing to sell it. A day or two later, Mr. Barlage called Ms. Adams and asked if she would call owner Moore and obtain a purchase price. She responded that she would not get a commission from selling the property and that he should deal with "Leon," who would be able to contact Mr. Moore, the owner. A day or two later, Ms. Adams introduced Mr. Barlage to "Leon," who was Leon Dennis, respondent's husband--the original developer of Sunny Urban Meadows. This meeting took place at a nearby coffee shop in Royal Palm Beach, called Sandy's. John Adams, Ms. Adams' husband and a real estate salesman, was also present. Respondent did not attend this meeting and there is no evidence that she was, at this point in time, involved in the transaction. This coffee shop meeting was Ms. Adams' last contact with Mr. Barlage, and she had no further involvement in this real estate transaction. A contract for "purchase and sale" of the Sunny Urban Meadows tract was prepared at this meeting and signed by Mr. Barlage, the prospective purchaser. Leon Dennis, respondent's husband, retrieved the form "purchase and sale" contract from his car, returned to the coffee shop, and completed it in the presence of the others. He filled in the terms, including a $28,000 purchase price. He arrived at this figure based on her knowledge of current land values in the area. The form "Brokerage Fee" provision on the bottom of the contract, however, was not filled in; no sales commission was indicated and no broker identified. Mr. Dennis told purchaser Barlage that he would have the contract presented to owner Moore. At that time, Mr. Barlage had not yet had any contacts with respondent, Mr. Dennis's wife. Mr. Dennis, with the help of a relative who was a close friend of Mr. Moore's, then had the contract delivered to Mr. Moore, in Punta Gorda, Florida. Approximately a week earlier, respondent had telephoned Mr. Moore, asking if he wanted to sell the subject property. At that time, a sales commission was not discussed; neither did she represent that she was a licensed real estate salesman or broker. But when the original contract was subsequently delivered to him by Mr. Moore's relative, the "Brokerage Fee" provision had been completed, providing for payment of ten percent of the gross price or $2,800 to Pat Dennis, the respondent. Her name was hand printed above the line labeled, "Name of Broker." Upon receiving the contract and discovering the sales commission, Mr. Moore telephoned respondent and told her that he would not pay a ten percent commission--he said he would agree only to a six percent commission, to be split between her and his own real estate brokerage firm. He also told her that if those terms were not acceptable to her, he "would go ahead and do it without her and give-her her money after the deal was done." (TR-21) Mr. Moore then arranged to meet directly with Mr. Barlage, the prospective purchaser. On October 9, 1983, Mr. Barlage drove to Punta Gorda and met Mr. Moore in a hospital parking lot to finalize the contract. Mr. Moore, noting the "Brokerage Fee" provision, said "Who are these people?" and "Well, I'll take care of them," or words to that effect, (TR-10). He then drew a line crossing out the "Brokerage Fee" provision and initialed it. He then told Mr. Barlage he wanted to do a credit check; one or two days later, he called Mr. Barlage and told him he was going to accept the contract. It was at that time, on or about October 9, 1983, that Mr. Moore executed the contract as seller. For reasons not material, the contract of sale was never carried out by the parties. Mr. Barlage unilaterally cancelled the contract. When Mr. Moore called him to inquire about the $500 earnest money deposit, which the contract had indicated was held by "Stewart Title," Mr. Moore learned that a deposit had not been received by Stewart Title; in fact, Mr. Barlage had made no deposit at all. There is conflicting testimony as to whether respondent ever communicated with Mr. Moore concerning this real estate transaction. Respondent denies any direct involvement. Her denial is rejected and the testimony of Mr. Moore, who had no discernible bias or motive to falsify, is accepted as persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's license as a Florida real estate salesman be revoked for violating Section 475.25(1)(a) and (b) and 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in the manner described above. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 25th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard McClain, Esquire 6167 Haddon Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Findings Of Fact Respondent Donald E. Swagler is now and was at all times material a licensed real estate broker or broker/salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0139756, in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At all times alleged in the Administrative Complaint, respondent Donald Swagler was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker for and an officer of respondent Swagler Realty, Inc., which is now and was at all times material a corporation licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0169035, in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material, Fern Z. Taylor was a licensed real estate broker with an office in Bonita Springs, approximately a twenty-minute drive south from the offices of Swagler Realty Company in Ft. Myers. On April 10, 1980, Andrew W. Kuchmaner was working part-time as a licensed real estate salesman in the employ (as that term is defined in Section 475.01(2), Florida Statutes) of Swagler Realty Company. Kuchmaner was a new salesman and had not yet had occasion to present a buyer's purchase offer to a client seller. During the early months of 1980, Kuchmaner was also working in the employ of, and receiving a salary from, Jim Walter Homes Company. Philip R. and Susan B. Workman first met Kuchmaner in January or February 1980 while visiting a Jim Walter's Homes sales office in Ft. Myers where he was working in his capacity as a Jim Walter Homes salesman. Kuchmaner advised the Workmans to find and purchase a lot for the Jim Walter home they had selected, and then they could purchase the Jim Walter home. Jim Walter Homes Company requires lot ownership prior to building one of their homes. Prior to selecting a lot, the Workmans had already decided on the Jim Walter home they were going to purchase, and Kuchmaner was going to do the paperwork for Jim Walter. Throughout the first quarter of 1980, the Workmans searched for a lot on which to construct their home in the Bonita Springs area of southern Lee County. During their search, the Workmans came upon a vacant lot with a sign saying it was for sale by Fern Z. Taylor. Upon seeing her real estate for sale sign, the Workmans went to Fern Taylor's office to inquire about the property and seek her assistance in their purchase of a lot in the Bonita Springs area. Fern Taylor advised the Workmans that, in addition to the lot they had already seen bearing her sign, she had Dust that morning listed and had for sale another lot in the Bonita Springs area which they would be interested in seeing. Earlier that same morning, Taylor took a long distance telephone call from a Charles A. Bennett, a resident of Arizona. Bennett said he had a lot he wanted to sell and gave Taylor the price ($7,000) and a description--Lot 20, Block E, Rosemary Park No. 2, in Bonita Springs. Bennett had not seen the property in some time and gave no landmarks or street address for Taylor's guidance. Back in 1925, Rosemary Park No. 2 was subdivided into eight blocks of 24 140' x 50' lots each and two larger blocks containing 16 larger 162' x 300' lots each. One of the smaller lots bore the legal description: "Lot 20, Block E of Rosemary Park No. 2 according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 6 at Page 30, of the Public Records of Lee County. This is the lot Bennett owned and was trying to sell. It is located on First Street. In 1926, Rosemary Park No. 2 was re-subdivided. The two larger blocks of the prior subdivision were re-subdivided into eight blocks of 24 140' x 50' lots each. Unfortunately, in a stroke of singular lack of vision, the new blocks and lots were designated with the same letters and numbers already assigned to the smaller blocks and lots in the original 1925 subdivision. As a result, there is another lot in Rosemary Park No. 2 designated as Lot 20, Block E: Lot 20, Block E, Rosemary Park, resubdivision of the East 1/2 of No. 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 32, in the Public Records of Lee County, Florida. This other Lot 20, Block E, is owned by the Fyfes of Maine and is on Fifth Street. Taylor, who was quite busy, quickly checked a plat book in her office to locate the lot and the tax rolls to attempt far to verify Bennett's ownership and left to put her sign on the lot she thought Bennett owned and was trying to sell. Through a combination of the confusing legal description, the incomplete description and paucity of information Bennett gave Taylor, and Taylor's admitted negligence, Taylor put her for sale sign on the Fyfes' lot on Fifth Street instead of on Bennett's lot on First Street. Taylor had no listing agreement with the Fyfes, and the Fyfes' property was not for sale. Fern Taylor drew a map for the Workmans providing them with directions to this purportedly newly listed lot on which she had placed her "For Sale" sign. In reliance on Fern Taylor's map and representations as to her listing agreement, the Workmans drove to the Fifth Street lot and viewed the property as well as Fern Taylor's "For Sale" sign. Approximately one week after seeing the Fifth Street lot, the Workmans summoned Andrew Kuchmaner to Bonita Springs to view the lot and give them his opinion as to how the Jim Walter home they had previously selected would sit on the lot. The Workmans had their minds pretty well made up that they wanted to purchase the Fifth Street lot before summoning Kuchmaner. Kuchmaner never took the Workmans to any property but, upon their request, traveled to Bonita Springs to meet them and was thereupon shown the Fifth Street lot. While viewing the Fifth Street lot, Kuchmaner advised the Workmans that the Jim Walter's home they had selected would sit nicely on that lot. He also told the Workmans for the first time that he had a real estate license and would be glad to help them out with placing an offer for the lot on their behalf. The Workmans used Kuchmaner to make their $6,000 offer on the lot to save time because it was late in the afternoon and they lived in North Ft. Myers. When Fern Taylor first met Kuchmaner, he had been represented to her by the Workmans as a Jim Walter salesman. Kuchmaner went to Taylor's office and requested she prepare the contract because he would have to go all the way back to Ft. Myers to write it up. Taylor provided Kuchmaner with the legal description "Lot 20, Block E, Rosemary Park #2" and advised him he would have to write his own contract. Kuchmaner also proposed to Taylor that they not tell Swagler or Swagler Realty about the sale so they could divide Swagler's quarter of the 10 percent commission ($150 of the total $600 commission). Taylor refused and told Swagler what had happened. Swagler had an angry confrontation with Kuchmaner and was about to fire him, but Kuchmaner begged for a second chance and promised not to try to cut Swagler out of a commission again. Swagler relented and kept Kuchmaner on as a salesman. Kuchmaner filled out a contract on a Swagler Realty form and brought it to Donald Swagler for his review. He advised Swagler that he had gotten the legal description from Fern Taylor and had been to see the property. Swagler generally does not sell property in the Bonita Springs area and is not familiar with the area. He relied on Taylor to provide an accurate legal description of the property being sold. Kuchmaner hand delivered the contract offering to purchase the Bennett parcel to Taylor. Taylor checked the contract before she sent it to Bennett to see that the legal was the same that she had, and it was. She also checked it again when it was sent back from Bennett. Fern Taylor had received and checked the contract, title insurance binder, seller's closing statement and a copy of the warranty deed from Bennett to Workman prior to the closing The Workmans had the property they thought they were purchasing surveyed by William R. Allen, a registered and licensed land surveyor. He received the request to survey the property from Susan Workman. Over the phone, she advised Mr. Allen she had purchased a lot in Rosemary Park, Specifically lot far 20, block E. Mr. Allen informed Mrs. Workman that there are two Block E's in Rosemary Park and that they should be careful. He inquired as to which street she had purchased property on and was told, "We're on Fifth Street." Allen surveyed the Fifth Street lot and certified his survery, using the actual legal description of the Fifth Street (Fyfes') lot. Allen never saw any document with the legal description of the Bennett lot. Fern Taylor did not know that the Workmans had ordered a survey and did not see a copy of the survey until well after the closing. Although she attended the closing, she saw no discrepancies among the documents cursorily reviewed at the closing. Neither did the Workmans or the closing agent. The evidence was not clear whether there was a copy of the survey among the documents at the closing. The lender (Jim Walter Homes) and the title insurance company got a copy of the survey before closing. Neither of their professionals noticed that the legal description on the survey (the Fyfe lot) did not match the legal description on the deed and other documents (the Bennett lot). When a real estate broker has placed his sign ("For Sale") on a parcel of property, it is a reasonable conclusion that he is authorized to sell that parcel. It is customary for a broker to rely on the listing broker to provide a correct legal description for the property they have listed. At no time before the closing did Swagler or Kuchmaner have reason to suspect that the Workmans were purchasing a parcel of property different from the parcel they believed they were purchasing. Neither Swagler nor Kuchmaner were at the closing of the Workmans' purchase. But their presence would not have made any difference. It is not the real estate broker's or salesman's lob to scrutinize the documents being signed to make sure the legal descriptions on all the documents match (unless he has reason to believe the legal descriptions might be wrong.) He has the right to rely on the other professionals--the listing broker (especially since Fern Taylor was familiar with the Bonita Springs area and Swagler was not), the lender's attorney, the title company, the closing agent and, if any, the surveyor and the buyer's attorney. Fern Taylor and perhaps others were culpably negligent. Swagler and Kuchmaner were not. What happened to the Workmans is not their fault.
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 dismissing the Administrative Complaint against respondents, Donald E. Swagler and Swagler Realty Company, in this case. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of February, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 9th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3502 These rulings on proposed findings of fact are made in compliance with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated. 5. Rejected as contrary to facts found. (Kuchmaner did not "solicit" or "obtain" them.) 6.-14. Accepted and incorporated. 15. Rejected as contrary to facts found. (Taylor's "investigation" or "attempt" to ascertain the legal description was deficiently and negligently performed.) 16.-17. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as incomplete ("compare the deed" with what?); second sentence, rejected because it was not proved Taylor had access to a copy of the survey before the closing. Rejected as unnecessary and potentially misleading. (A Final Judgment was entered; Taylor paid the portion against her; the other defendants have not paid the portions against them.) Rejected. Swagler Realty Company was a defendant in the case; Donald E. Swagler was not. 21.-24. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proved whether they "failed," "refused" or "neglected." (The fact is that neither has paid the Workmans any money in satisfaction of the portion of the Final Judgment against Swagler Realty Company.) Accepted but unnecessary. B. Respondents' Proposed Findings Of Fact. 1. Accepted but unnecessary. 2.-10. Accepted and incorporated. 11. Accepted but unnecessary. 12.-23. Accepted and incorporated. 24.-28. Accepted and incorporated. 29. Accepted but unnecessary. 30.-36. Accepted but cumulative. 37.-42. Accepted and incorporated, along with additional findings. 43. Accepted but unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Fl 32802 J. Michael Hussey, Esquire 3443 Hancock Bridge Parkway Suite 501 North Ft. Myers, Fl 33903 Van B. Poole Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32301 Wings S. Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32301 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Fl 32802
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker salesman in the State of Florida at all times material hereto having been issued license number 0158288 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On June 10, 1985 a Recommended Order was entered by the undersigned Hearing Officer in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85-0118 concerning Respondent, which recommended that "a Final Order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a period of two (2) years and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000)." On July 16, 1985 the Florida Real Estate Commission entered a Final Order imposing the penalty against Respondent which had been recommended by the undersigned Hearing Officer in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85-0118. The Final Order provided further that, "This Order shall be effective thirty (30) days from the date of filing, with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation." The Final Order was filed with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation on July 24, 1985. To date, Respondent has not paid the $1,000 fine imposed by the Florida Real Estate Commission in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85- 0118. Petitioner contends that Respondent was required to pay the $1,000 fine within thirty (30) days of entry of the Final Order, referenced above. Rule 21V-10.31, Florida Administrative Code, imposes a thirty-day time limit for the payment of fines imposed by the Florida Real Estate Commission from the date of imposition by order of the Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued revoking Respondent's license-number 0158288. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 24th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0989 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Hartman, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Roy Ahringer 232 Harmony Avenue Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings S. Benton, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues presented in This case are whether the Respondents committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and whether such acts constitute a violation of the statutes. Petitioner submitted post hearing findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order To the extent that the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Frank R. Jansen, is a broker salesman holding license number 0317199. The Respondent, Lillian LaCrampe, now Soave, is a real estate salesperson holding license number 0137930. In June 1980, Jansen held an individual broker's license in the State of Florida. In late summer of that year, he entered into an agreement with Flora Harwood, a licensed broker in the State of Florida and owner of Select I Realty. Under this agreement, Jansen and Harwood would form a corporation and participate in a brokerage company under the name Select I Realty, in which Jansen would open and operate a branch office of Select I Realty. The exact details of the corporation and the division of shares were not worked out between the parties; however, Harwood undertook to have a corporation formed the name Jansen and Harwood, Inc., and two attempts were; made to register Jansen as a broker with Jansen and Harwood, Inc., doing business as Select I Realty. These applications were rejected by the Florida Real Estate Commission for various reasons, to include the requirement that a corporation operate only in the corporate name and the failure of the applicants to submit corporate papers. The incorporation and application to the Commission were handled by Flora Harwood's attorney. The last denial of the application was on October 22, 1980. During the period the applications were being filed with the Commission, Harwood became disenchanted with the idea of the corporation because of her perception that Jansen was not cooperating with her. Therefore, after the second application was denied, Harwood did not take action to timely file a third application. Although Jansen was aware of the denial of the application, the evidence does not show that he was aware that Harwood delayed the third application. By the end of 1980, Jansen and Harwood had both independently abrogated their agreement, and shortly thereafter Jansen left the business totally. Until he left, Jansen continued to actively manage the branch office of Select I Realty, which he had established and organized and from which he conducted his real estate business as a broker for Jansen and Harwood, Inc. The policy of the Florida Real Estate Commission with regard to applications is that the applicant may operate if a license application is not returned. If the application is returned for correction and corrected and resubmitted timely, the applicant may continue to operate. If the application is not returned in a timely fashion, the applicant may not work. The failure of Jansen and Harwood to eventually incorporate, followed by the severance of their business relationship, intensified the conflict between them, out of which several of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint arose. On September 5, 1980, the Respondent LaCrampe contracted to buy for herself Lot 3 of Ozona Shores from Preston and Grace King. On January 5, 1981, LaCrampe closed the transaction with the Kings. At that closing, a check for $825 in commissions to Select I Realty was disbursed by the closing agent to the Respondent Jansen. Jansen deposited said check to his personal account. Flora Harwood asserted a claim to a share of the commission on the purchase of the property by LaCrampe. When Harwood discovered that this sale had occurred, she checked with the closing agent and found that a commission check had been paid to Jansen. She further discovered that Jansen had deposited this check to his personal account, and because the check was made out to Select I Realty Harwood had the bank take action to collect the $825 and pay it to her, which the bank did. Harwood's claim to the $825 was based upon an office policy applicable to employees which required that commissions on real estate purchases for investment purposes by employees of Select I Realty be shared with the office. However, this contract closed on January 5, 1981, after the relationship between Jansen and LaCrampe had been severed with Harwood. The competing claims between Jansen and Harwood to the $825 in commission are part of the severance of the business relationship between two persons operating as co-brokers. Testimony was received that in the operation of the branch office Jansen had authority to receive checks, deposit checks, and write checks. On or about December 10, 1980, Jansen participated in the rental of a condominium by Eugene Donahue from Glen and Mary Mitchell. The rental contract incorporated an option to purchase. Said rental contract required that Donahue pay $400 per month, $50 of which was a maintenance fee. Jansen received the first check from Donahue in the amount of $400, negotiated the check, and received a bank check in the amount of $350 payable to Glenn Mitchell and $50 in cash. It is asserted in the Administrative Complaint that Jansen received the $50 in cash as a commission payment to which he was not entitled. However, Respondent's Exhibit numbered 4 reflects that Glenn and Mary Mitchell here in arrears on their maintenance payment in the amount of $49.75, and the policy of Coachman Creek Condominium Association was not to grant any approval of lease or sales contracts until all maintenance payments were up to date. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 4 shows that approval of the subject rental contract was granted when Jansen produced the late payment. Several allegations of the Administrative Complaint relate to real estate transactions in which the Respondents Jansen and LaCrampe were involved with Heinz Lehman and allege fraud and misrepresentation arising from failure of Jansen to identify LaCrampe as his mother to Lehman. The first occasion on which Lehman met the Respondents was when Lehman visited a store in a strip shopping center which Jansen was selling as a broker. Lehman testified that Jansen identified LaCrampe at that time as a real estate associate and his "girl Friday." Lehman's testimony revealed that he knew LaCrampe was a real estate salesperson and an associate of Jansen but did not know that LaCrampe was Jansen's mother until after their series of transactions had occurred. Lehman did not buy the strip store but later purchased a condominium through Jansen and then sold it through Jansen after fixing it up. In November 1980, Lehman contracted to purchase Lot 3 of Ozona Shores (see paragraph 8 above) from LaCrampe. On January 5, 1981, after LaCrampe had purchased the property, she in turn sold the property to Lehman on the same day. In November 1980, prior to entering into the contract for the purchase of Lot 3, Lehman had visited Ozona Shores and had looked at several pieces of property. Thereafter, Jansen presented him with the opportunity to purchase Lot The evidence is clear that Jansen never identified Lot 3 on the, ground or by plat to Lehman. Lehman purchased the property without a survey and without reference to any plat. After he had purchased the property, Lehman found that Lot 3 was not tie lot which he though it was. At a later date, after being unable to finance a house on this property for speculative purposes, Lehman let the lot, 90, back to LaCrampe. On or about January 22, 1981, Jansen visited Florence Smith, who was interested in selling a house which she owned at 1550 Laura Street, Clearwater, Florida. Without obtaining a listing contract, Jansen thereafter advised Smith that he had a potential purchaser. On January 29, 1981, Smith contracted to sell her house to LaCrampe for nothing down and a $37,000 mortgage payable to Smith. Thereafter, Smith determined that she would prefer a balloon note, and LaCrampe agreed to a balloon note if the price were reduced to $36,000, to which Smith agreed. This slightly reduced the monthly payments to Smith. On February 12, 1981, LaCrampe contracted to sell this property to Lehman for $5,000 down, assumption of the second mortgage to Smith, and payment of a $1,400 commission by Lehman to Jansen. LaCrampe obtained modification of her contract with Smith to permit LaCrampe to assign her contract to purchase. In this transaction, Jansen did not identify LaCrampe as his mother or as a real estate salesperson and his associate. Jansen did not explain to Lehman that the money which Lehman paid down was to be paid to LaCrampe. On or about March 10, 1982, Leo Huddleston, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, visited Jansen's office at the address at which Jansen was registered. Huddleston did not find the required sign at the office identifying it as that of Frank Jansen, a real estate broker. At that time, Jansen had registered as broker for Suncoast Investments and Realty, Inc., and was renting office space with telephone-answering and secretarial services in an office suite complex. Although the building directory listed the suite as the office of Jansen as a real estate broker, the office suite did not have Jansen's real estate brokerage sign. When this matter was brought to Jansen's attention, an appropriate sign was provided. In November 1980, the Respondent LaCrampe was licensed as a real estate salesperson with Jansen and Harwood, Inc.
Recommendation Having Found the Respondent, Frank R. Jansen, in technical violation of Rule 2IV-10.24, Florida Administrative Code, an thereby Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that Jansen receive a cautionary letter. Having found the Respondents, Frank R. Jansen and Lillian LaCrampe, now Soave, guilty of one violation each of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that their licenses be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 16th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Frank R. Jansen 108 Harbor Drive Post Office Box 247 Ozona, Florida 33560 Ms. Lillian LaCrampe Soave 114 Harbor Drive Post Office Box 247 Ozona, Florida 33560 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0013099 0017680 FRANK R. JANSEN and 0021257 LILLIAN LaCRAMPE DOAH NO. 82-2891 Respondent. /
