The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents are guilty of mishandling an escrow deposit.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Vu is and was at all material times a licensed real estate broker, holding Florida license number 0394778. He is and was at all material times the qualifying broker for Respondent American Homes and Investment Realty, Inc., which holds Florida license number 0250718. Respondent Vu owns Respondent American Homes. In 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Serge Delisfort contacted Respondents about purchasing a residence. The Delisforts eventually signed a contract to purchase a home and paid the $500 earnest money deposit to Respondents. Later learning that they would be liable to pay an annual homeowners' fee of $72, the Delisforts told Respondent Vu that they did not want to complete the purchase. The listing broker, which was not either Respondent, omitted mention of the homeowners' fee from the listing information supplied Respondents and the Delisforts. The sellers refused to release the deposit. Confronted with the dispute, Respondent Vu promptly requested an escrow disbursement order from the Florida Real Estate Commission on March 29, 1991. Due to the presence of a factual or legal dispute, the Florida Real Estate Commission informed Respondents, in a 47-word letter dated October 16, 1991, that it could not issue an escrow disbursement order. The October 16 letter warns Respondents to "immediately choose one of the other two alternatives available to you under ss. 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, to settle this dispute, i.e., arbitration or a civil court." Instead, Respondents did nothing. The Delisforts periodically contacted Respondent Vu and asked if he could release their deposit. The sellers sold their house to another party and moved to Puerto Rico. The Delisforts contacted another broker and purchased a different house through the new broker. Eventually, the Delisforts contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission and asked its help in obtaining the deposit. An investigator for the Division of Real Estate interviewed Respondent Vu on March 1, 1994. Explaining the reason for the delay, Respondent Vu, possibly confused, stated that the buyers had left Orlando for awhile. In fact, the buyers had remained in Orlando. At the suggestion of the investigator, Respondent Vu contacted both parties, and they agreed to split the deposit equally. Respondent Vu prepared the paperwork, which the parties signed on March 11, 1994. At that time, Respondents paid each party $250. The Delisforts have since listed their home for sale by Respondents. While improperly holding the $500 deposit, Respondent Vu was preoccupied by the illnesses and deaths of his parents, who remained in Vietnam. Despite the possibility of trouble upon his return to Vietnam, Respondent Vu traveled to Vietnam at least once during this time to care for one or both of his parents. Respondents failed to implement timely the remedies established by law and identified by the Florida Real Estate Commission in its letter of October 26, 1991. Respondent Vu acted two and one-half years later, only after one of Petitioner's investigators contacted him. It is no excuse that the costs of arbitration or court would have consumed a large part of the amount in dispute. Confronted with that prospect, the sellers or the Delisforts would probably have settled the matter. If not, that would have been their problem, not Respondents'. The fact is that Respondents failed to discharge their obligations by presenting the dispute for resolution in a timely fashion. Nonetheless, the amount involved is modest. Neither party had a clear claim to the funds, nor was either party exceptionally troubled by Respondents' casual handling of the matter. The Delisforts contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission, but did not realize that they were in effect filing a complaint against Respondents, in whom they entrusted the sale of their current home. A final order issued July 18, 1988, involves Respondents' mishandling of a salesperson's commission. The husband of the salesperson owed Respondent Vu some money, and both men agreed that the debtor's wife would work off the debt by selling real estate at Respondent American Homes. However, the debtor's wife was of a different mind. After earning her first commission, she refused to allow Respondents to credit it against her husband's debt. When Respondent Vu ignored her demand for payment, she filed a complaint, which resulted in the final order and Respondents' proper payment of the commission.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding both Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25((1)(d)1, reprimanding both Respondents, and requiring Respondent Vu to take a thirty-hour broker management course. ENTERED on February 22, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on February 22, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section--Suite N-308 Hurston Bldg., North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32802-1772 Dau Viet Vu 1048 Pine Hills Rd. Orlando, FL 32808
The Issue Whether the Respondent's real estate salesman license in Florida should be disciplined based upon the charge that his real estate broker's license in another state was revoked in April 1988.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Janikula was a licensed real estate salesman in Florida, having been issued license number 0488507 through the Division of Real Estate. Evidence presented at hearing revealed that the license was active on or before March 6, 1987. The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, by real estate salesmen licensed in Florida. The Minnesota Department of Commerce is the state agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute violations of Chapter 82, Minnesota Statutes, by real estate brokers licensed in Minnesota. On April 21, 1988, a final order of license revocation was entered by the Commissioner of Commerce, Department of Commerce, State of Minnesota, against the real estate broker's license of the Respondent Janikula which had previously been issued by that state. The license was revoked as a result of the following: On or about May 13, 1987, Respondent Janikula received $15,000.00 from Mr. Ben Hackman as earnest money in connection with Mr. Hackman's purchase of an apartment building in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which was listed for sale through the Respondent. The Respondent was the real estate broker at the time he received the earnest money, and the funds were trust funds under Minnesota law. When the transaction could not be completed, the Respondent delivered a check to Mr. Hackman for $15,000.00 on a closed checking account. The disciplinary hearing on this matter was held on March 1, 1988. On the date of hearing in Minnesota, the Respondent had not returned the $15,000.00 to Mr. Hackman. The Respondent's broker's license was revoked upon the determination that Respondent failed, within a reasonable time, to account for and remit money coming into his possession as a real estate broker to the person entitled to it. In addition, it was determined that, while licensed as a real estate broker, the Respondent converted trust funds belonging to another person that he obtained in connection with a real estate transaction. In mitigation, the Respondent presented evidence which demonstrated that between April 19, 1988, and July 8, 1988, three checks totalling $15,000.00 plus $1,350.00 in interest were received by Mr. Hackman for restitution purposes. In addition, it was called to the attention of the Hearing Officer that Respondent does not handle trust funds in his capacity as a real estate salesman in Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent Janikula guilty of the charge filed in Case No. 88-5774. That the Respondent's Florida real estate salesman's license be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 29th day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Department of Professional Regulation - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Neil F. Garfield, Esquire Neil F. Garfield, P.A. Envirwood Executive Plaza, Suite 200 5950 West Oakland Park Boulevard Lauderhill, Florida 33133 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of obtaining his license by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker, holding license number 0500228. Respondent’s licensing cycle ends on March 31 every two years. He duly renewed his broker’s license prior to its expiration on March 31, 1994. During the ensuing two-year licensing term, Respondent executed on January 1, 1996, a Request for License or Change of Status and submitted the form to Petitioner. The purpose of submitting the form was to notify Petitioner that Respondent had adopted a corporate form of doing business as a real estate broker. Section A of the form contains a series of options. Respondent selected “other” and wrote in “change to corp.” Section B contains identifying information, and Respondent completed this section. Section C is irrelevant to the change that Respondent was making, and he did not fill in this section. The instructions for Section A direct the person filing the form as follows: “If this is a renewal of your license, it must be accompanied by the required fee and sign this: I hereby affirm that I have met all statutory and rule requirements regarding education for license renewal.” Respondent signed this statement even though he was not seeking a renewal of his license. The instructions for Section B told the person filing the form how to complete Section B. But these instructions required no representations. The next form generated in this case was another renewal notice, as Respondent’s license neared the end of its term, which expired March 31, 1996. This form states: “By submitting the appropriate renewal fees to the Department . . ., a licensee acknowledges compliance with all requirements for renewal.” By check dated December 30, 1995, Respondent timely submitted his license renewal fee of $95 in response to the renewal notice. He was unaware at the time that he had not met the continuing education requirement for relicensing, which called for 14 hours of education. In reliance on the implied representation that Respondent had completed the required continuing education, Petitioner renewed Respondent’s license. Later, during a random audit, Petitioner discovered that Respondent had not completed the necessary courses and commenced this proceeding. Respondent was cooperative during the audit. Upon discovering that he had not complied with the continuing education requirement, he promptly undertook the necessary coursework, which he completed by August 6, 1996.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint against Respondent. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 4, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 4, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Attorney Andrea D. Perkins Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen Frederick H. Wilsen & Associates, P.A. Law Office of Gillis & Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: Phyllis I. Reaves is now and was at all times material to these proceedings, a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0351816. Annette J. Ruffin is now and was at all times material to these proceedings, a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0076385. From May 2, 1983 to October 18, 1984, Respondent Phyllis I. Reaves was licensed and operating as a real estate salesman in the employ of Respondent Annette J. Ruffin, as broker, c/o International Investment Development Center, Belleair, Florida or Century 21 A Little Bit Country, Brandon, Florida. At all time material hereto, Respondent Phyllis I. Reaves was a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida. DOAH CASE NO. 85-1008/1138. COUNT I No evidence was presented concerning the allegations in Count I.. COUNT II No evidence was presented concerning the factual allegations of Count II. COUNT III No evidence was presented concerning the allegations of Count III. COUNT IV On June 10, 1983, Respondent Reaves entered into a real estate sales contract with Emmett K. Singleton, as seller to purchase certain real estate through the use of a land trust. The sales contract listed a total purchase price of $67,000. C-21 A Little Bit Country was listed on the contract as escrow agent of the binder deposit. The property had an existing first mortgage of approximately $33,854. Respondent Reaves agreed to assume the new mortgage and requested that Mr. Singleton obtain a second mortgage in the principal amount of $26,400. Reaves agreed to assume this second mortgage amount while allowing Mr. Singleton to keep the proceeds. Mr. Singleton agreed that the balance of the sales price would be paid via a purchase money mortgage to Respondent Reaves in the principal amount of $9,643.99. Respondent Phyllis I. Reaves executed a Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement which read as follows: "Phyllis Reaves does agree to hold Emmett K. Singleton harmless and does idemnify him against any future liability or losses related to the mortgage on subject property at 1912 Hastings Drive, Clearwater, Florida." The sales transaction closed on July 7, 1983, and Respondent Reaves received a real estate brokerage commission in the amount of $1,955. The contract provided that the "listing agent agrees to pay C-21 A Little Bit Country cooperating agent 3.5% of the total purchase price on closing." The purchase money mortgage note was actually signed by Michael R. Fisher, as trustee, and not by Respondent Reaves. Respondent Reaves requested that Mr. Singleton give her the mortgage payment booklets and she would assume and pay off the existing and second mortgages. Singleton trusted Reaves and relied upon her statements that she would do as she promised. Respondent Reaves failed to assume and pay the notes and mortgages and thereby caused the seller to become delinquent with the lenders. After closing, Respondent Reaves, acting as the owner, obtained tenants for the property and collected rental payments. Respondent Reaves solicited and obtained $3,000 in connection with a lease/option agreement. The lease/option agreement provided that the sales price of the home would be $78,000 in three years. The rent would remain at $495 per month for three (3) years. The agreement further provided that $3,000 per year would be paid for three (3) years which would reflect a total down payment of $9,000. This down payment was considered the "option consideration." The agreement provided that one third of the option money would be returned if the option were not exercised. The tenants paid Respondent Reaves a total of $3,000 of the option consideration. The renters became concerned when they began to receive notices from Freedom Mortgage Company stating that certain mortgages on the home were overdue. The renters did not exercise the option to buy the home. The renter requested, but did not receive, $1,000 of the $3,000 option consideration back from Respondent Reaves. COUNT V On July 6, 1983, Respondent Reaves entered into a real estate sales contract with Stephen B. Barnes, as seller, to purchase certain real estate through the use of a land trust. The property was not listed", but a broker from Tam-Bay Realty approached Barnes and stated that he had a buyer. The purchase and sale agreement provided for a total purchase price of $91,000. The agreement listed "C-21 A Little Bit Country" as escrow-agent for the binder deposit. In addition, the purchase and sales agreement provided that: "Listing agent Tam-Bay agrees to pay C-21 A Little Bit Country cooperating agent 3.5% of the total purchase price on closing." The seller agreed that he would allow Respondent Reaves to assume the existing mortgage of approximately $52,990. Mr. Barnes then agreed to obtain a second mortgage in the amount of $18,925. The seller agreed that the balance of the sales price would be paid via a purchase money mortgage in the principal amount of $16,670.91 to be paid by Respondent Reaves. In addition, Mr. Barnes obtained a home improvement loan in the amount of $4,900. According to the agreements between Respondent Reaves and Mr. Barnes, Mr. Barnes was to keep the money obtained by the second mortgage and the home improvement loan. Respondent Reaves agreed to assume the existing mortgage, the second mortgage and the home improvement loan. Respondent Reaves advised Mr. Barnes to state to the lender that the purpose of the loans were for home improvements. Respondent Reaves executed a hold harmless and indemnity agreement which stated as follows: "Phyllis Reaves does agree to hold Stephen. B. Barnes harmless and does indemnify him against any future liability or losses related to the mortgages on property at 13222 - 88 Place North, Seminole, Florida." The sales transaction closed on August 10, 1983, and Respondent Reaves received a real estate brokerage commission in the amount of $2,513.45 and a mortgage brokerage fee of $946.25. Respondent Reaves failed to assume and pay the notes and mortgages and thereby caused the seller to become delinquent with the lenders. COUNT VI On September 3, 1983 Respondent Reaves entered into a real estate sales contract with Floyd and Christine Erwin, as sellers, to purchase certain real estate through the use of a land trust. The contract concerned Floyd and Christine Erwins' home located at 2805 Candlewood Drive in Clearwater, Florida. The purchase and sale agreement provided for a total purchase price of $53,000. The agreement listed C-21 A Little Bit Country as escrow agent for the binder deposit. The agreement further provided that the "listing agent agrees to pay C-21 A Little Bit Country cooperating agent 3.5% of the total purchase price on closing." Respondent Reaves agreed to assume the existing mortgages of $16,766.29 and $17,457.94. In addition, the sellers agreed to obtain a new mortgage in the principal amount of $4,900 and a $1,500 personal loan. Upon the advice of Respondent Reaves, the sellers stated to the lender that the purpose of the loans were for home improvements. Respondent Reaves and the sellers agreed that the sellers would keep the money obtained by the loans and that Respondent Reaves would assume the mortgages and make all of the required loan payments. The sellers agreed that the balance of the sales price was to be paid via a purchase money mortgage, payable by Respondent Reaves, in the principal amount of $12,375.77. Respondent Reaves executed a hold harmless and indemnity agreement which stated as follows: "Phyllis Reaves does agree to hold Floyd S. Erwin and Christine E. Erwin harmless and does indemnify them against any future liability or losses related to mortgages or liens on the subject property at 2805 Candlewood Drive, Clearwater, Florida." Floyd and Christine Erwin's home was listed with a broker, and the Erwins understood that Reaves was not their agent. Respondent Reaves told the Erwins that she was representing "some investors." The purchase money mortgage note was actually signed by "Michael R. Fisher, as trustee and not personally." Respondent Reaves made some payments on the purchase money mortgage note which was signed by Michael Fisher. The sales transaction closed on September 23, 1983, and Respondent Reaves received a real estate brokerage commission in the amount of $1,555.50. Respondent Reaves failed to assume and pay the mortgages and notes. Respondent Reaves has not made the payments due on the mortgages and notes and has caused the Erwins to become delinquent with their lenders. COUNT VII The evidence presented concerning Count VII consisted solely of documentary evidence. For reasons enumerated in the Conclusions of Law section, infra, the documents alone are insufficient to establish the basis of any offense. Therefore, a discussion of those documents would serve no useful purpose. COUNT VIII On October 16, 1983, Respondent Reaves entered into a real estate sales contract with Patricia and William Willis as sellers, to purchase certain real estate through the use of land trust. The contract concerned the Willis' home located at 417 North Missouri Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. The purchase and sale agreement provided for a total purchase price of $54,000. The agreement listed C-21 A Little Bit Country as escrow agent for the binder deposit. The agreement further provided that the listing agent ". . . agrees to pay C-21 A Little Bit Country cooperating agent 3.5% of the total purchase price on closing." Respondent Reaves and the Willis' agreed that Respondent would assume the existing mortgage of $15,396.52. The sellers agreed to obtain the new mortgage in the principal amount of $34,100. The sellers agreed that the balance of the sales price would be paid via a purchase money mortgage in the principal amount of $8,898.45 to be paid by Respondent Reaves. Respondent Reaves agreed to assume the existing mortgage and the new mortgage in the amount of $34,100 and make all of the required loan payments. Respondent Reaves advised the Willis' to state to the lender that the purpose of the $34,100 mortgage loan was for home improvements. The Willis' applied for the loan but refused to state that the purpose of the loan was for home improvements. Respondent Reaves executed a hold harmless agreement which stated as follows: "Phyllis Reaves does agree to hold Patricia L. Carrah, a/k/a Patricia L. Willis and William Willis harmless and does idemnify them against any future liability for losses related to any mortgages or liens on the subject property " The sales transaction closed on November 23, 1983 and Respondent Phyllis Reaves received a real estate brokerage commission in the amount of $3,213 and a mortgage brokerage fee of $2,216. Respondent Reaves failed to assume the notes and mortgages and thereby caused the sellers to become delinquent with their lenders. COUNT IX No evidence was presented concerning the allegations of Count IX. COUNT X No evidence was presented concerning the allegations of Count X. COUNT XI No evidence was presented concerning the factual allegations of Count XI. COUNT XII No evidence was presented concerning the factual allegations of Count XII. COUNT XIII No evidence was presented concerning the factual allegations of Count XIII. No evidence was presented concerning the factual allegations of Count XIV. COUNT XV on January 13, 1984, Respondent Reaves entered into a real estate sales contract with Clifford and Virginia Miner, as sellers, to purchase certain real estate through the use of a land trust. The contract concerned the Miner's home located at 1247 Burma Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. The purchase and sale agreement provided for a total purchase price of $62,000. The agreement listed "C-21 A Little Bit Country" as escrow agent for the binder deposit. In addition, the agreement provided that the listing agent ". . . agrees to pay C-21 A Little Bit Country cooperating agent 3.5% of the total purchase price on closing." Respondent Reaves and the sellers agreed that Respondent Reaves would assume the existing mortgage of $34,424.82. Respondent Reaves advised the sellers to obtain a $20,000 second mortgage that she would also assume. The sellers were to obtain the mortgage and keep the money as their equity, and Respondent Reaves was to assume the mortgage and make the payments. The sellers agreed that the balance of the sales price was to be paid via a purchase money mortgage in the principal amount of $6,865.33, payable by Respondent Reaves. Respondent Reaves promised the sellers that she would make all the required loan payments and assume the mortgages. Respondent Reaves executed a hold harmless agreement which stated as follows: "Phyllis Reaves does agree to hold Clifford S. Miner and Virginia N. Miner, his wife, harmless and does idemnify them against any future liability or losses related to any mortgages or liens on the subject property . . . ." The purchase money mortgage note was actually signed by Michael R. Fisher, "as trustee and not personally." Respondent Reaves told Mr. Miner that the hold harmless agreement provided additional assurance that she would personally assume all of the mortgage and loans. The sales transaction closed on January 31, 1984, and Respondent Phyllis Reaves received a real estate brokerage commission in the amount of $1,823.25 and a mortgage brokerage fee of $949.48. Respondent Reaves failed to assume and pay the notes and caused the Miners to become delinquent with their lenders, requiring them to "catch up" on the delinquent loan. COUNTS XVI, XVII AND XVIII. The evidence presented concerning Count XVI, XVII and XVIII consisted solely of documentary evidence. For reasons enumerated in the Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order, the documents alone are insufficient to establish the basis of any offense. Therefore, a discussion of those documents would serve no useful purpose. COUNT XIX During the later part of 1984, an investigator, representing the Department of Professional Regulation, went to speak to Mrs. Ruffin at her "Little Bit of Country" office concerning this case. The investigator requested that he be provided with the records from all of Respondent Reaves' transactions. Respondent Ruffin stated that she was unaware of the particular real estate transactions in question, but that she would check and provide the records at a later date because she was in the process of moving the location of her office. After subpoena was served, Respondent's counsel provided one of the documents in question. COUNT XX Respondent Ruffin employed Respondent Reaves as a salesman. Respondent Ruffin thought of Respondent Reaves as "an independent contractor." Respondent Reaves decided on her own hours and took care of her own transportation. Respondent Ruffin and Respondent Reaves were on an 85%-15% split fee arrangement. Respondent Ruffin knew that Reaves was interested in "buying a lot of property." Respondent Ruffin was basically aware of the method that Respondent Reaves was using to obtain property. Respondent Ruffin did not feel that the method was wrong, however, she did ask Respondent Reaves to leave employment after she received many calls complaining about Respondent Reaves and information that Respondent was in a "tight financial situation." Respondent Ruffin admitted that she had very little time to provide assistance or guidance to Respondent Reaves. DOAH CASE NO. 85-2454 COUNT I There was no evidence presented concerning the factual allegations of Count I. COUNT II There was no evidence concerning the factual allegations of Count II. COUNT III On October 2, 1984, an investigator, representing the Department of Professional Regulation, went to speak with Respondent Ruffin at her office. The investigator requested certain records relating to Respondent Reaves' transactions concerning the charges herein. Respondent Ruffin stated that she was unaware of the particular real estate transactions in question, but that she would check and provide the records at a later date because she was then in the process of moving her office. After a subpoena was served, Respondent Ruffin's attorney provided one of the documents in question. COUNT IV There was no evidence presented concerning the factual allegations of Count IV of DOAH Case No. 85-2454.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Respondent Phyllis I. Reaves' license as a real estate salesman be revoked; and, RECOMMENDED that Respondent Annette J. Ruffin be issued a written reprimand and assessed an administrative fine of $500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1986. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 and 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Matters not included therein are rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20 and 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37 and 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 36 and 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49. Adopted in Findings of Fact 49 and 50. Adopted in Finding of Fact 55. Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 58. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gerald Nelson, Esquire 4950 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33809 E. A. Goodale, Esquire 14320 Indian Rocks Road Largo, Florida 33540 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Bangert was a licensed real estate salesman with State of Florida license number 0312002. On or about May 1, 1986, Cynthia Green (now Cynthia Tyson) listed her house at 408 Lakeview Drive, Altamonte Springs, Florida, under an exclusive right of sale contract with J. Scott Jones, a licensed real estate broker. Through his broker, Help U. Sell (Thomas Jafek and Thomas Jafek II), Bangert offered $64,900.00 to Ms. Tyson for the Lakeview house. The contract for sale offered a $1,000.00 deposit note, with two mortgages, including a balloon mortgage, payment of $3,000.00 fix-up costs by the seller, and cash to the seller at closing in the amount of $15,659.00 The offer was rejected by Ms. Tyson. J. Scott Jones negotiated over the telephone with Thomas Jafek II, and then with Bangert. The basic requirement of Ms. Tyson was that she wanted $50,000.00 net at closing. She also wanted a cash deposit, as she had a previous negative experience with a deposit note. J. Scott Jones does not recall that he told Bangert that a cash deposit was required, but he knows the issue came up sometime during the telephone discussion. He did not speak to both Jafek and Bangert at the same time. A second contract offer was signed by Bangert and was accepted by Ms. Tyson on August 30, 1986. The purchase price and method of payment was set out as follows: PURCHASE PRICE $ 68,500.00 PAYMENT: Deposit(s) to be held in escrow by Help-U-Sell of College Park, upon acceptance in the amount of $ 1,000.00 Subject to AND [sic] assumption of Mortgage in good standing in favor of To Be Obtained having an approximate present principal balance of $ 40,000.00 Purchase money mortgage and note bearing interest at 9 percent on terms set forth herein below, in the principal amount of 360 payments of 189.10 to Balloon at 60th mo. $ 23,500.00 Other Purchase Money Mortgage @ 10 percent in a single payment at 60th mo. $ 5,000.00 Balance to close (U.S. cash, LOCALLY DRAWN certified or cashier's check), subject to adjustments and prorations $ 68,500.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit #4) The Contract also provided for the $50,000.00 net at closing to the seller. Bangert gave Thomas Jafek a deposit note in the amount of $1,000.00. Jafek did not know how to put a note in a trust or escrow account, so he held it in his files at Help U. Sell. Jafek had dealt with Bangert before in real estate transactions and had acted before as the escrow agent. In those dealings Bangert only put down notes, never cash. Jafek understood that Bangert's role was as a principal buyer and that Bangert intended to assign the contract for sale. The transaction was initially scheduled to close on September 26, 1987. On September 30, 1986, the parties agreed to extend the closing until October 10, 1986. When J. Scott Jones met with Bangert to get the extension signed, he learned that a note, rather than cash deposit had been made. The transaction never closed. For reasons that are not material to this proceeding, Bangert did not appear at the closing. Cynthia Tyson retained an attorney, Garrick N. Fox, who sent letters to Jafek and to Bangert on October 17, 1986. The letter to Jafek provides, in pertinent part: As per the contract for sale and purchase, your company holds one thousand dollars in escrow and we may [sic) hereby make demand that you remit to this law office the one thousand dollars held in escrow as partial damages for the default of the contract. (Petitioner's Exhibit #6) The letter to Bangert does not mention the deposit, but states that the contract is in default. The final paragraph states: It is my sincere desire that we can settle this matter amicably without the necessity of litigation. If you can close on this contract forthwith, all of these problems can be settled. If not I would appreciate it if you would have your attorney contact [sic] so that we can immediately take the proper steps to minimize Miss Green's damages. (Petitioner's Exhibit #7) The attorney never made an oral demand on Bangert for the $1000.00. Jafek did not consider his letter to be a present demand, but rather a statement of intent to make a demand in the future. Jafek did not tender the note and the $1000.00 was not paid. Bangert had no intent to make a cash deposit. He claims that he told "Tom Jr." " (Thomas Jafek II) to type "a deposit note" on the second contract offer, but that even without that language, a note, rather than cash, was not precluded by the contract terms. Bangert intended that the transaction take place and did not have an intent or motive to defraud the seller. If the transaction had closed, he claims he would have honored the note. As far as he knows, Jafek still has the note. Bangert claims also that it was an oversight that he did not reveal his real estate license status on the contract. The Jafeks knew he was a real estate salesman. Further, he and Scott Jones were teaching at the same real estate school and he felt that Jones should have known his status. He did not intend to hide the fact of his license from anyone. His business in the last three years has been actively serving as a principal buyer and seller for other parties. Bangert's liability on his note is not at issue. In the absence of clear evidence of his knowledge of the seller's conditions, I cannot find that he is guilty of fraud in putting a note cash on deposit. Nor did he deliberately misrepresent a material fact to the seller by failing to disclose that he was a licensed real estate salesman. Ms. Tyson never met Bangert. Both parties were dealing at arms length through their own brokers. Conclusions of Law The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S. and Section 455.225(4) F.S. Section 475.25(1) F.S. provides that the Florida Real Estate Commission may impose discipline if it finds that a licensee, (b) Has been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction... DPR has the burden of proving the allegations of this complaint through evidence that is clear and convincing. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2nd 292 (Fla. 1987). It is apparent now that Ms. Tyson wanted a cash deposit as one condition of accepting an offer to buy her property. It is not clear that the condition was communicated to Bangert by either his broker, Thomas Jafek, II, or by Ms. Tyson's broker, J. Scott Jones. Without this material evidence it cannot be established that Bangert deliberately engaged in a subterfuge. Without evidence of dishonest or illicit intent, there is no guilt under Section 475.25(1)(b), F.S. Morris v. Department of Professional Regulation 474 So.2nd 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). No rule nor provision of law has been cited to require a real estate licensee to reveal his status as such when engaging in the purchase and sale of property in his personal capacity. Nor was evidence produced that would establish and justify such a policy by the Board. In Santaniello v. Department of Professional Regulation 432 So.2nd 84 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1983), the court upheld the Board's right to determine that a broker violated Section 475.25(1)(b) F.S. when he failed to reveal that a purchaser was his mother-in- law. In that case, the court observed that the broker owed his allegiance to the sellers and was obligated to inform them of anything which might influence their decision to sell. Because of that, the existence of the mother-in-law relationship was deemed a material fact. No such foundation for a duty to inform was established here, therefore there was no violation of section 475.25(1)(b) F.S.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint against Larry G. Bangert be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of December, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Office 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 17th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3044 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioner. Adopted in paragraph #1. Adopted in paragraph #2. Adopted in substance in paragraphs #3 and #4. Adopted in substance in paragraph #4. Evidence did not establish that Bangert was aware of the cash deposit condition by Ms. Tyson. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The face of the contract does not require cash. Adopted in paragraph #7. Adopted in paragraph #8. Adopted in paragraph #6. Adopted in substance in paragraph #7. Adopted in paragraph #11. Adopted in paragraph #7. Adopted in part in paragraph #10. Bangert contended that the contract did not specify cash. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in paragraph #9. Rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Copies furnished: DOAH Case No. 87-3044 James R. Mitchell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Legal Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32802 Larry G. Bangert 103 Cashew Court Longwood, Florida 32750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact In February of 1988, Petitioner took the real estate broker's examination compiled by Respondent, and otherwise complied with all applicable licensure requirements. The Petitioner received a grade of 74 on the written examination. A grade of 75 or higher is required to pass the test. Had Petitioner answered question number 62 with the answer deemed by Respondent to be correct, Petitioner's score would have been 75 and, as such, would have entitled him to licensure. Question number 62 reads as follows: The Department of Professional Regulation may withhold notification to a licensee that the licensee is being investigated IF: NOTIFICATION COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE INVESTIGATION. NOTIFICATION COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE LICENSEE. THE ACT UNDER INVESTIGATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. Possible answers to question number 62 were as follows: I only. II only. I and III only. I, II and III. The answer to question number 62 chosen by Petitioner was D. The Respondent determined the correct answer should have been C. The Respondent's examining board followed a standard procedure for conducting and grading the examination. Statistically, 58 per cent of candidates taking the examination and placing in percentile rankings 50 through 99, answered the question correctly. Of those candidates taking the examination and placing in the lower half (0-50 percentile), 33 per cent answered the question correctly. The results obtained to question number 62 from all applicants taking the examination revealed the question exceeded effective testing standards. Question number 62 and the appropriate answer to that question are taken directly from section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes. The purpose of the question is to determine if an applicant is knowledgeable of the law governing real estate broker licensees. The Respondent adopts the position that section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, mandates that Respondent shall notify a licensee of any investigation of which the licensee is the subject and authorizes withholding notification to that licensee only where such notification would be detrimental to the investigation, or where the act under investigation is a criminal offense. The Petitioner takes the position that section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, does not prohibit withholding notification of an investigation from a licensee when such notification would be detrimental to the licensee. The Petitioner bases this contention on the broad power provided the Real Estate Commission by section 475.05, Florida Statutes. The Commission has not, however, adopted any rule, regulation or bylaw supportive of Petitioner's position and the statutory mandate is clear. Further, the statute referenced by Petitioner specifically does not support an exercise of this power of the Commission if the result is a conflict with another law of the State of Florida. Section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, states Respondent "shall" notify "any person" of an investigation of that person. Under that section, discretionary authority to refrain from such notification is allowed only where there is a potential for harm to the investigation, or the matter under investigation is a criminal act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered confirming the grade of the Petitioner as previously determined. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2442 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings The Petitioner submitted a document entitled summary of hearing and consisting of seven numbered paragraphs. They are treated as follows: Rejected as unnecessary. Included in findings 5, and 7. Rejected, contrary to the weight of the evidence. 4.- 6. Rejected, contrary to evidence adduced. 7. Rejected as argument. Respondent's Proposed Findings The Respondent submitted a three page document entitled "argument" and consisting of eight unnumbered paragraphs. Numbers 1-8 have been applied to those paragraphs. They are treated as follows: 1.-5. Rejected as conclusions of law. 6. Included in findings 8, 9, and 10. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller Acting Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Phillip I. Salerno 11812 Timbers Way Boca Raton, Florida 33428 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Gloria Corsoro, has been a licensed real estate broker. She is the qualifying broker for the company known as Orange Management Corp. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating real estate licensees in the State of Florida. On or about July 20, 1994, the Respondent, Gloria Corsoro, entered a plea of nolo contendere to the crime of unlawful use of a notary. As a result, the Respondent was adjudicated guilty, placed on probation for a period of six months, and required to make payments and serve community service as directed by the court order. The plea and conviction stemmed from Respondent's conduct in connection with a warranty deed (the deed) which was recorded in the public record for Indian River County, Florida, on October 12, 1993. The deed conveyed a condominium unit from Leon R. Leavitt to the G. Corsoro Family Trust. The deed, notarized on October 1, 1989, purportedly bore the signatures of Leon R. Leavitt, the grantor; Mamie Cellura, a witness; Marie Copley, a witness; and Joseph Cellura, the notary before whom the document was executed. In fact, the document was not signed by Marie Copley or Leon R. Leavitt. At the time of the hearing, Mamie Cellura and Joseph Cellura were deceased. They were the parents of Marie Copley and her sister, the Respondent. At the time the deed was executed, Respondent signed Mr. Leavitt's name under a power of attorney he had reportedly given to her. Respondent further claims that Mamie Cellura signed for herself as a witness, signed for Marie Copley as a witness, and signed her husband's name with him (he had Parkinson's disease) as the notary. All this was completed, according to Respondent, Marie Copley, and Leon R. Leavitt, with everyone's full consent and knowledge. Marie Copley and Leon R. Leavitt were not present when the document was executed. Since they claim Respondent was authorized to execute the document, they are not concerned as to who signed the document but believe Mamie Cellura and Respondent signed as represented by Respondent. According to Nicholas Burczyk, the Respondent signed the document for all signatories on the instrument. Even by Respondent's account, the named parties did not execute the deed as presented on the face of the document. Respondent was originally charged with uttering a forged instrument and forgery. She chose to enter the plea as to the misdemeanor charge of unlawful use of a notary because she was "financially unable to pay to go to trial."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, through the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order determining the Respondent, Gloria Corsoro violated Section 475.25(f), Florida Statutes, and imposing a reprimand together with an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 10th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0334 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is accepted as stated in findings of fact paragraphs 6 through 14 above; otherwise rejected as incomplete statement of fact. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. Respondent's assessment of the charges against Respondent together with the argument has been considered in the preparation of the foregoing. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel Villazon Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Michael F. Berry MICHAEL F. BERRY, P.A. 2145-15th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Lawrence R. Dennis is now and was at all times pertinent hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0148366 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was a broker, c/o Dennis & Associates, Inc., 4141 North Miami Avenue, #300, Miami, Florida 33127-2847. Respondent, Dennis & Associates, Inc., is now and was at all times pertinent hereto a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0236428 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was at the address of 4141 North Miami Avenue, #300, Miami, Florida 33127-2847. Sometime in September or October 1990 Janet Carter saw an advertisement in the Miami Times newspaper for a home for sale by Dennis and Associates, Inc. Mrs. Carter called the telephone number listed in the ad and talked with Mr. Dennis. After speaking with Mr. Dennis about the advertised property Mrs. Carter and her husband viewed the property and ultimately executed a contract to purchase the property which was owned by Dennis and Associates, Inc. Mrs. Carter knew that Mr. Dennis was a licensed real estate broker and felt that she was dealing with him in his capacity as a broker. Mrs. Carter understood that Mr. Dennis's corporation (Dennis & Associates, Inc.) was the owner and seller of the property. Mr. Dennis did not live in the home that the Carters were interested in buying and at all times the Carters were under the assumption that they were negotiating the purchase of a home through a licensed broker. There was, however, insufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Dennis misled the Carters into believing that he was acting in any capacity other than as the president of the corporation that owned the subject property. On or about October 22, 1990, Ms. Carter and her husband, Ruben, executed a Purchase and Sale Contract and Receipt for Deposit for property located at 2001 Northwest 53rd Street, Miami, Florida (Carter contract). The seller of the property was Dennis and Associates, Inc. In the first paragraph of the Carter contract, the receipt of the sum of $500.00 from the buyers as a deposit on account of the purchase price is acknowledged by the seller. The form language in that paragraph referring to the deposit being held in escrow is crossed out. The crossed out language is not signed or initialed by any of the parties to the transaction. 2/ On the second page of the Carter contract, the following provision was not altered by the parties: "Deposit check will be deposited, and the funds held in an escrow account until the sale has been closed." The $500.00 deposit was not paid by the Carters until November 19, 1990. Mrs. Carter believed the earnest money deposit was to be held in an escrow account. After signing the Purchase and Sale Contract and Receipt for Deposit the Carters took the contract to attorney Keith Levarity who prepared a two page Modification of Contract and attached it to the original contract. The Modification of Contract allowed the Carters, at their expense, to obtain a roof and termite inspection. The parties to the transaction agreed to that modification of the contract. Another provision in the Modification of Contract agreement provided that the earnest money deposit in the amount of $500.00 would be held in Mr. Levarity's trust account. Respondents did not agree to that modification and that provision was deleted from the Modification of Contract agreement. The Carters agreed to allow Mr. Dennis to hold the earnest money deposit in his escrow account and that portion of the Modification of Contract that referred to Mr. Levarity holding the earnest money deposit was crossed out, initialed by the Carters and by Mr. Dennis, and dated November 19, 1990. The Modification of Contract also provided that if defects were noted by the inspections, repairs to the house would be made by the sellers prior to the closing of the transaction. On November 19, 1990, Janet Carter gave Respondent Lawrence Dennis check number 541 in the amount of $500.00 as an earnest money deposit for the purchase of the property located at 2001 Northwest 53rd Street, Miami, Florida. The transaction never closed because certain repairs to the property were never made by the Respondents as agreed. On January 14, 1991, Mr. and Mrs. Carter advised Mr. Dennis by letter that they wished to cancel their contract and wanted a full refund of the $500.00 deposit. In addition to the letter of January 14, 1991, Mrs. Carter verbally told Mr. Dennis that the contract was cancelled and that she wanted her $500.00 earnest money deposit refunded. In December 1990, Respondents ordered a roof inspection to determine the extent of the repairs that would be needed. This inspection cost Respondents the sum of $50.00. Under the terms of the Carter contract as modified, the Respondents were to bear the cost of paying for that roof inspection. The Carters never ordered a roof inspection and were not, under the terms of their written contract, obligated to pay for the roof inspection ordered by Mr. Dennis. On or about February 25, 1991, Janet and Ruben Carter signed a release on deposit receipt provided by Mr. Dennis. The release on deposit provided that Mr. Dennis would return $450.00 of the $500.00 earnest money deposit made by the Carters. Mr. Dennis insisted on retaining the sum of $50.00 to pay for the roof inspection that he had ordered. Although the Carters believed they were entitled to the return of all of their earnest money deposit, they agreed to accept the sum of $450.00 on the advice of their attorney. On or about March 8, 1991, Janet Carter filed a complaint against Respondents with the Department of Professional Regulation. As of the time of the formal hearing, the Respondents had not repaid the Carters any portion of the $500.00 earnest money deposit they had made. Kenneth George Rehm is an experienced real estate investigator who had been employed by the Department of Professional Regulation for the ten years preceding the formal hearing. In March or April of 1991 Mr. Rehm went to the registered location of the office of Respondents to talk with Mr. Dennis about the complaint filed with the Department of Professional Regulation by Mrs. Carter. There was no sign indicating that the premises was a real estate office or that Lawrence Dennis was the broker of a real estate office either on the primary entry to the office or on the lobby directory. When Mr. Rehm brought the lack of a proper sign to Mr. Dennis's attention he put up a piece of paper with his name and the name of the company. Respondents established that at one time they had signs on the outside of Mr. Dennis's office suite and on the lobby directory, but that both signs had been stolen. It was not established when the thefts occurred or whether these thefts were the reason there were no signs in March or April 1991. Respondents had replaced their signs by the time of the formal hearing. Mr. Rehm interviewed Mr. Dennis about the Carter transaction on April 8, 1991. When Mr. Rehm asked to review the escrow account, Mr. Dennis told him that the Respondents did not have an escrow account and that, consequently, the Carter deposit was not being held in escrow. When informed by Respondent that there was no escrow account Mr. Rehm asked to review the operating account. Mr. Dennis refused to permit Mr. Rehm review of the operating account. Mr. Dennis telephoned Frederick H. Wilsen, Petitioner's Chief Staff Attorney, and inquired as to whether he had to give the operating account records to Mr. Rehm. After talking with Mr. Wilsen, Mr. Dennis agreed to allow Mr. Rehm review of the records for the operating account. On April 9, 1991, Mr. Rehm prepared a subpoena duces tecum directing Mr. Dennis as broker for Dennis and Associates, Inc., to produce at Petitioner's offices in Miami on April 15, 1991, all monthly bank statements, bank deposit slips, and cancelled checks for operating accounts and/or escrow accounts for the period of April 1, 1990, to the time of service of the subpoena on April 9, 1991. During Mr. Rehm's initial interview of Mr. Dennis he was told by Mr. Dennis that he could bring the subpoena to Respondents's office the following day at approximately 10:00. Mr. Rehm attempted to serve the subpoena at that time but Mr. Dennis was not at the office. Mr. Rehm contacted Mr. Dennis who indicated he would be at his office at approximately noon. Mr. Rehm was at Respondents's office at noon and Mr. Dennis was not there. Mr. Rehm returned to Respondents's office a third time in the afternoon and successfully served the subpoena duces tecum on Mr. Dennis. Mr. Dennis came to Mr. Rehm's office on April 15, 1991, but did not produce all the documents outlined in the subpoena duces tecum. On April 15, 1991, Mr. Rehm asked Mr. Dennis to produce cancelled checks and a bank statement for March of 1991. Mr. Dennis never complied with that request. The request for these records was within the scope of the subpoena. In response to the subpoena, Mr. Dennis gave Mr. Rehm a copy of two of the monthly bank statements for an escrow account (account number 20300562106) in the name of Dennis and Associates, Inc., at Eagle National Bank. The monthly statement for the period ending November 30, 1989, reflected that an overdraft in the amount of $8.91 existed in the account resulting from a bank service charge. The monthly statement for the period ending January 10, 1990, reflected a zero balance. There was no evidence of any activity in the escrow account subsequent to January 10, 1990. Mr. Dennis asserted the position that he did not have to provide records for an escrow account because Respondents did not have an active escrow account. That position is rejected. The evidence establishes that Respondents had, as of January 10, 1990, an escrow account at Eagle National Bank, and there was no persuasive evidence that this account had ever been closed. The documentary evidence introduced in this proceeding establishes that, as of January 10, 1990, the escrow account had a zero balance, but it does not establish that the account was closed. Mr. Dennis's testimony that he had asked that the account be closed is insufficient to establish that the account was closed, nor did it establish that Respondents were relieved of their duty to provide documentation in response to the subpoena that would enable Mr. Rehm to either audit the escrow account or verify that the account had been closed. When Mr. Rehm discussed the Carter contract with Mr. Dennis in late March 1991, Mr. Dennis stated he would return $450.00 of the $500.00 earnest money deposit to the Carters in the first week of April 1991. As of the date of the formal hearing Respondents had not refunded any of the earnest money deposit to the Carters. On or about November 30, 1990, a Final Judgment in case #90-2559-SP020 in the County Court in and for Dade County, Florida, was entered against Respondent Lawrence R. Dennis d/b/a Dennis & Associates, Inc., in favor of Nathaniel A. Greenidge and Joycelyn B. Greenidge. The award of the Final Judgment was for the principal sum of $3,200.00, prejudgment interest of $44.80, costs of $70.50 and attorneys' fees of $200.00 for a total of $3,515.30. The Final Judgment obtained by the Greenidges was a result of Respondents's refusal to refund an earnest money deposit taken by Respondents in conjunction with a real estate transaction involving Respondents as the seller of the property. Respondents refused to honor said Final Judgment, so the Greenidges had to levy on the subject real property and set it for Sheriff's sale on April 3, 1991. In an effort to obtain the debt owed by Respondents, the Greenidges entered into an agreement to cancel the Sheriff's sale in exchange for receipt of $3,500.00 from a third party purchasing the property. The agreement set a closing on or before 30 days from the date of the agreement. Respondents did not timely pay the Greenidges. On or about March 27, 1992, Respondents paid the Greenidges approximately $3,000.00, which they accepted in satisfaction of the final judgment. On or about October 16, 1990, the Respondents were issued a letter of guidance from the Florida Real Estate Commission for a violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21V-10.032, Florida Administrative Code. On or about February 19, 1991, a Final Order was issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission in DOAH Case No. 90-5124 (DPR Case Nos. 0148366 and 0236428) incorporating a stipulation disciplining Respondent for breach of trust in a business transaction, failure to account and deliver a deposit and failure to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of a deposit dispute. That proceeding pertained to dealings between Respondents and Gwendolyn King and Roxie Ann King. On or about August 26, 1991, Mr. Wilsen, sent a letter to Respondents in reply to a letter sent to Mr. Wilsen by Respondents on or about July 31, 1991. Mr. Wilsen's letter stated, in pertinent part: It is a matter of private agreement as to who will hold the deposit and where the account will be maintained. As the property owner, you may hold the funds so long as you have the mutual prior knowledge and consent of the parties you are dealing with in the transaction." The King, Greenidge, and Carter transactions all occurred prior to Respondents's July 31, 1991, letter to Mr. Wilsen. Mr. Dennis did not rely on Mr. Wilsen's reply in his dealings with the Kings, the Carters, or the Greenidges.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which adopts the findings of fact contained herein and which suspends the licensure of both Respondents for a period of one year and which assesses an administrative fine in the total amount of $500.00. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 9th day of July, 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was licensed as a real estate broker by the Florida Real Estate Commission. In May 1988, he was working as a broker-salesman with G.V. Stewart, Inc., a corporate real estate broker whose active broker is G.V. Stewart. On April 20, 1989, Respondent submitted a Contract for Sale and Purchase to the University of South Florida Credit Union who was attempting to sell a house at 2412 Elm Street in Tampa, Florida, which the seller had acquired in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. This offer reflected a purchase price of $25,000 with a deposit of $100 (Exhibit 2). The president of the seller rejected the offer by striking out the $25,000 and $100 figures and made a counter offer to sell the property for $29,000 with a $2000 deposit (Exhibit 2). On May 9, 1989, Respondent submitted a new contract for sale and purchase for this same property which offer reflected an offering price of $27,000 with a deposit of $2000 held in escrow by G.V. Stewart (Exhibit 3). This offer, as did Exhibit 2, bore what purported to be the signature of William P. Murphy as buyer and G. Stewart as escrow agent. In fact, neither Murphy nor Stewart signed either Exhibit 2 or Exhibit 3, and neither was aware the offers had been made at the time they were submitted to the seller. This offer was accepted by the seller. This property was an open listing with no brokerage firm having an exclusive agreement with the owner to sell the property. Stewart's firm had been notified by the seller that the property was for sale. Respondent had worked with Stewart for upwards of ten years and had frequently signed Stewart's name on contracts, which practice was condoned by Stewart. Respondent had sold several parcels of property to Murphy, an attorney in Tampa, on contracts signed by him in the name of Murphy, which signatures were subsequently ratified by Murphy. Respondent considers Murphy to be a Class A customer for whom he obtained a deposit only after the offer was accepted by the seller and Murphy confirmed a desire to purchase. Respondent has followed this procedure in selling property to Murphy for a considerable period of time and saw nothing wrong with this practice. At present, Respondent is the active broker at his own real estate firm.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that William H. McCoy's license as a real estate broker be suspended for one year. However, if before the expiration of the year's suspension Respondent can prove, to the satisfaction of the Real Estate Commission, that he fully understands the duty owed by a broker to the seller and the elements of a valid contract, the remaining portion of the suspension be set aside. ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 29th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: John Alexander, Esquire Kenneth E. Easley 400 West Robinson Street General Counsel Orlando, Florida 32802 Department of Professional Regulation William H. McCoy 1940 North Monroe Street 4002 South Pocahontas Avenue Suite 60 Suite 106 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Tampa Florida 33610 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, George Sherbon, was a licensed real estate broker having been issued broker's license number 0348688 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed as a salesman for V. P. Stone, Inc., a real estate firm located at 5905 Gulf Boulevard, St. Petersburg Beach, Florida. On April 1, 1987, Paul D. and Anna Martin entered into a listing agreement with Century 21 Spinning Wheel Ent., Inc. (Century 21) to sell their home at 2543 58th Terrace South, St. Petersburg, Florida. The listing agent was Cheryl Coudry, now known as Cheryl Hutton, a licensed salesperson with Century 21. On September 11, 1987 respondent solicited and obtained a contract for sale on the Martin property executed by Frank Dicenzo, a resident of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who had a daughter living in the St. Petersburg area. Dicenzo had responded to an advertisement run by Sherbon in a Pittsburgh newspaper. After a week or so of negotiations, the parties eventually agreed to a sales price of $92,500, and the final contract was executed on September 20, 1987. The contract called for Dicenzo to make an initial $100 deposit when the contract was executed and an additional deposit of $19,900 by September 25, 1987, or a total deposit of $20,000. Dicenzo gave respondent the initial $100 which was deposited into the escrow account of V. P. Stone, Inc. The contract provided further that the sale would be contingent on Dicenzo obtaining a $72,500 first mortgage. Finally, in accordance with Dicenzo's request, the contract provided that Dicenzo could take occupancy of the premises four weeks after the loan was approved. It is noted that Dicenzo initially asked for occupancy by October 16, 1987. On September 18, Sherbon introduced Dicenzo to Tony Black, a loan officer at Savings of America, a local lending institution, for the purpose of Dicenzo making a loan application. On September 24, or the day before the additional deposit was due, Dicenzo became ill with what he described as a bleeding ulcer and decided to return to Pittsburgh and stay at his mother's home. Before he left, Dicenzo did not make the additional deposit as required by the contract. According to Dicenzo, he placed no great significance on the September 25 due date and felt that if the deposit was made "within a reasonable time," it would be okay. Respondent was aware of the September 25 deadline and attempted to get a check for the $19,900 deposit from Dicenzo's daughter but was unsuccessful. Respondent contends he kept trying to contact Dicenzo in Pittsburgh during the next five week period but was unable to reach him. Dicenzo acknowledged he knew that Sherbon was trying to contact him but still made no effort to talk to Sherbon. Instead, he simply told his daughter he would take care of the matter when he returned to Florida in late October. Whether this message was conveyed to Sherbon is not of record. Sherbon prepared contemporaneous notes concerning the transaction and used these to refresh his recollection at hearing. He pointed out that such notes were kept on all real estate transactions. According to his notes, he telephoned Coudry and Black on September 24 concerning Dicenzo's illness and the fact that he was having difficulty obtaining the additional deposit from Dicenzo. Although Black recalled talking with Sherbon, he denied that Sherbon told him that there was no deposit and said such information was a material item that would have prompted him to stop processing the application until the deposit could be verified. Likewise, Coudry, who could not recall many aspects of the transaction, did recall speaking with Sherbon but remembered Sherbon simply telling her that he was in the process of showing Dicenzo various commercial properties and would be obtaining the deposit at that time. Their testimony is deemed to be more credible and persuasive and is hereby accepted. Coudry assumed that Sherbon had received the additional deposit since she was never specifically told otherwise by Sherbon. Accordingly, she did not contact the Martins until several weeks after the September 25 due date. Coudry did not learn that no deposit had been collected until mid-January 1988 when Anna Martin disclosed to her this fact. In the meantime, although the Martins knew the contract was contingent on Dicenzo obtaining a loan, they nonetheless assumed that Dicenzo would have no problem securing a loan and that such a loan would be approved in a week or so. Also, they knew the contract called for possession of the property by Dicenzo four weeks after the loan was approved. Because of these assumptions, and having received no advice from Coudry that the full deposit had not been made on September 25 as required by the contract, the Martins made application around September 28 to buy another home in a nearby modular home park and asked that the application be expedited. Unfortunately for the Martins, they were far more successful than Dicenzo in securing prompt approval of their loan application. Once approved, and after a closing was held, the Martins had the utilities hooked up, erected a storage shed, and incurred other expenses. Also, they began making mortgage payments on the second house. On October 24, 1987 the Martins telephoned Sherbon and told him their listing with Century 21 had expired. During the conversation, Sherbon did not mention that Dicenzo had failed to make the $19,900 deposit. Dicenzo's application with Savings of America was denied on October 30, 1987 because of Dicenzo's "ratio of ... expenses to ... total income." By this time, Dicenzo had returned to Florida and had spoken with Sherbon. At respondent's urging, Dicenzo reapplied to the same institution and was turned down a second time on November 12, 1987. In addition, at Coudry's suggestion, Dicenzo had already visited another lender in October but refused to pay a $250 application fee and consequently did not file an application. Also, through Sherbon, Dicenzo was given the name of a mortgage lender suggested by the Martins but, after three visits, decided not file an application. Information regarding the second Savings of America denial was conveyed to Coudry around mid-November but, for whatever reason, she did not contact Sherbon regarding the status of the contract. It is noteworthy that at that time Sherbon did not tell Coudry that Dicenzo had still failed to make an additional deposit as required by the contract. Despite the loan application denials, Sherbon encouraged Dicenzo to keep trying to arrange financing so that the deal could go through. Dicenzo agreed to do so but, as noted in the following finding of fact, at that point Dicenzo considered the contract to be "null and void." Sherbon's efforts to find financing continued until mid-January 1988. When the loan application was denied on November 12, Dicenzo construed the contract to be void since the financing contingency was not met. According to Dicenzo, he did not believe the property was tied up while his contract was pending, felt no obligation to make the $19,900 deposit because it meant he would have to transfer funds from a money market account he purportedly maintained in Pittsburgh, and felt no moral obligation to the Martins even though by then they had committed themselves to a second home. The Martins were advised by telephone on the evening of November 12 of the second turn down of Dicenzo's loan application. By then, however, they were already committed to the second purchase. They claimed they did not learn of Dicenzo's failure to make the $19,900 deposit until mid-January 1988 when Sherbon visited their home and disclosed this fact. This is also borne out by a letter from the Martins' attorney to Dicenzo on December 1, 1987 advising Dicenzo that the contract was void and a claim might be made on his deposit for damages. When the Martins learned that only $100 had been deposited, they filed a complaint with the Division. That prompted this proceeding. Because of the failed contract, the Martins were unable to maintain two mortgage payments and were ultimately forced to give up the second home at a substantial monetary loss. They have since returned to their first home. The evidence shows that in the real estate trade, it is not customary or proper for the buyer's realtor to personally contact the seller. Rather, the practice and custom is for the buyer's agent to advise the listing broker of all pertinent developments and the listing broker then relays any necessary information to the seller. Thus, Sherbon had no responsibility to personally advise the Martins of any information pertaining to the contract. Rather, this responsibility rested with Coudry. Respondent contended he kept Coudry abreast of all developments concerning Dicenzo and that he assumed Coudry would advise the Martins that no deposit had yet been collected. To the extent this version of events conflicts with previous findings, it is not accepted. Sherbon expressed sympathy for the Martins' plight but maintained he was not at fault. There is no evidence that Sherbon has been subjected to prior disciplinary action by the Division.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1987) to the extent noted in the conclusions of law and that his broker's license be suspended for three months. All other charges should be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4688 Petitioner: 1-2. Covered in finding of fact l. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 2. 5-7. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 10. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected since respondent owed a duty to Coudry, and not the Martins, to keep her abreast of all pertinent matters. Covered in findings of fact 7 and 12. Covered in findings of fact 7 and 8. Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in findings of fact 6 and 10. Rejected as being subordinate to other findings. Covered in finding of fact 11. 18-19. Covered in finding of fact 6. Respondent: Respondent's proposed order contains sections entitled "admitted facts", "unrebutted facts" and "uncontested facts". They are ruled upon in that order. Admitted facts: Covered in finding of fact l. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in background. Unrebutted facts: Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 15. Covered in finding of fact 10. 4-6. Covered in finding of fact 6. 7-8. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 12. Rejected since Sherbon learned of the loan denial even though he did not receive a written copy of the turn-down letter. Covered in finding of fact 13. Covered in finding of fact 8. Rejected since the testimony of Anna Martin is accepted as being more credible on this factual issue. Uncontested facts: Rejected as being cumulative. Partially covered in findings of fact 6, 7 and 16. The remainder is rejected as being cumulative, argument of counsel or not supported by the more credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Daniel B. Schuh, Esquire 248 Mirror Drive St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Darlene Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
