Findings Of Fact On July 3, 1985, Petitioner applied for licensure as a real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission. On this application Petitioner responded "yes" to Question 6 of the application form which asked if he had ever been convicted of a crime. The details of the conviction supplied by Petitioner, that he had been convicted of delivery of paraphernalia, adjudication was withheld, he was fined $1,000 and placed on probation for five years, were also accurate. At the time of his arrest Petitioner and his brother were partners in a record store. For sale in this store was a milk sugar known as Mannitol. Unbeknownst to Petitioner prior to his arrest, Mannitol is a controlled substance. Drug paraphernalia, the delivery of which Petitioner was arrested and brought to trial, was this Mannitol that was in the record store for sale. At his trial on March 18, 1985, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge against him, adjudication of guilt was withheld, he was fined $1,000 which he has paid, and he was placed on probation for five years. This is the only time Petitioner has ever been arrested. He has fully complied with all terms of his parole and his probation officer will recommend an early termination of his parole in March 1987 (Exhibit 6). Subsequent to his trial Petitioner has sold his interest in the record store and disassociated himself from any business dealings with his brother. He is currently employed as a planning technician with the Lee County Zoning Department. Petitioner is 34 years old, has been married for five years, and is the father of a 2-1/2 year old son. He has owned a residence in Lee County for 10 years. References submitted by Petitioner to the effect that Petitioner was honest and trustworthy were submitted by individuals who were aware of his arrest and trial. This one arrest for delivering a substance that Petitioner was not even aware was illegal does not establish that Petitioner is not honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character. To the contrary, from the evidence presented at the hearing, Petitioner has those qualities necessary for licensure as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the post-hearing memorandum and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found: By letter dated February 18, 1983, the Florida Real Estate Commission (sometimes herein referred to as the respondent or the Commission) advised the petitioner that his application for licensure as a real estate salesman was denied based upon petitioner's answer to question 6 of the licensing application and his criminal record. On September 1, 1982, petitioner held a Mutuel Clerk's Occupational License (NOP-00455) issued by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Department of Business Regulation, State of Florida. While acting in the capacity of a mutuel clerk at Calder Race Course in Dade County, Florida, Petitioner, on September 1, 1982, cashed a winning one dollar ($1.00) trifecta ticket for the eighth race on August 28, 1982, valued at six hundred thirty-six dollars and eighty cents ($636.80) for Metro-Dade Organized Crime Bureau Detective, Jonas Sears, for a cash fee payable to Petitioner. Petitioner did not require Detective Sears to complete the necessary internal revenue service form W-2G which is required of any patron winning six hundred dollars ($600.00) or more. On October 22, 1982, petitioner entered into a consent order with the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering wherein petitioner agreed to certain findings. Based on those findings, petitioner agreed to a suspension of his pari-mutuel license for a period of seventy-five (75) days. A clerk who engages in such conduct violates Section 550.16(7), Florida Statutes and Rule Section 7E- 6.07(3)(6), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner also admitted to deducting sixty dollars and eighty cents ($60.80) as a cash fee payable to him for not requiring Detective Sears to complete the necessary Internal Revenue Service form W-2G.
Recommendation That the respondent enter a Final Order denying petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of September, 1983 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 14th day of September, 1983.
The Issue Whether Dorothy M. Azar answered Question 6 on her application incorrectly with the intent to obtain her license by fraud, misrepresentation or concealment.
Findings Of Fact Dorothy M. Azar is a registered real estate saleswoman holding License No. 0164341 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Azar applied for licensure initially on June 7, 1976. See Exhibit 1, pages 1 and 2. Azar subsequently reapplied on August 24, 1976. This application was stamped received by the Florida Real Estate Commission on August 27, 1976. Azar was arrested on June 9, 1976 pursuant to the Information filed by Robert Eagan, State Attorney, Ninth Judicial Circuit, State of Florida, which charged Azar with a violation of Florida Statute 812.021 and alleged that she took, sold or carried away property; to wit: clothing, the property of Robert Kleinmann as custodian and of a value of more than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) with the intent to permanently deprive Kleinmann of the clothing. This criminal information was received as Exhibit 2. When Azar completed her second application on August 25, 1976, no action had been taken on the criminal charges pending against her. On or about this date, according to her testimony, she went from Lehigh Acres, Florida, to the Florida Real Estate Commission Offices in Winter Park, Florida, to review the examination which she had taken and failed in July. While there, she filled out her second application, pages 3 and 4 of Exhibit 1. According to her testimony, Azar was very rushed because her review appointment was for only one hour and she had arrived late. She stated that prior to her review she was given an application to fill out and that she did not even read the questions but copied her answers from her first application. She further testified that she had at first copied her old address in Orlando on the second application, correcting it to her new address in Lehigh Acres in the margin of the application. See page 3, Exhibit 1. On September 8, 1976, the Florida Real Estate Commission made a check of any arrests of Azar as indicated by the annotation on the second application under Question 6. On November 30, 1976, Azar entered a plea of no contest to the charge of attempted grand larceny and adjudication was withheld. See the Court Minutes, Exhibit 3, and the testimony of Azar. On November 15, 1976, the Florida Real Estate Commission issued Azar her license as a registered real estate saleswoman. The answers to Questions 4 and 5 on the second application filed by Azar differ slightly from the answers given to those questions on her first application. Although Azar testified that she did not read the questions on the second application but recopied her answers from her first application, the fact that the entries on the second application to Questions 4 and 5 differ from those on the first application indicates that Azar at least read the two questions preceding Question 6. This fact and the content of Question 6 lead to the conclusion that Azar did read Question 6. Further, an arrest on a charge of Grand Larceny within the preceding ninety days would be sufficiently memorable for Azar to recall when prompted by reading Question 6. Having determined, that Azar did in fact read Question 6 and would have remembered her arrest, one must conclude that Azar knowingly did not correctly answer Question 6 and therefore intended to conceal her arrest.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer, based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission revoke the registration of Dorothy N. Azar as a registered real estate salesman with leave for Azar to immediately refile her application. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 E. G. Couse, Esquire 2069 First Street, Suite 202 Post Office Drawer 1686 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent Bruce R. Dowell was licensed as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida and presently holds license number 0022658. The Respondent is employed as a real estate salesman by Allen Pacetti, a licensed real estate broker doing business as Pacetti Realty Company, 49 Cordova Street, St. Augustine, Florida 32084. Mr. Pacetti has a policy within his office of permitting his real estate salespersons to assist members of their immediate families with real estate transactions without involving the office or notifying the broker. Accordingly, the Respondent did not inform Mr. Pacetti of his efforts to rent his daughter's home. The Respondent's daughter and son-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. William Kasperski, owned a residence next door to the Respondent at 202 Coquina Avenue, St. Augustine, Florida, which they rented while they were out of the state for extended periods of time. The home would be shown to prospective tenants by either Mr. Dowell, his wife or other family members depending upon who was home when prospective tenants arrived. The rental property had been leased to at least two other tenants prior to the incident which prompted the instant complaint. In March, 1980, the Respondent placed an ad in the general classified section of the St. Augustine Record advertising the Kasperski home for rent. The advertisement was seen by a co-worker of Mr. and Mrs. G. David Petty who inspected the home and recommended it to them. Mr. Petty and his wife Frances Petty subsequently examined the home and orally agreed to a monthly rental of $265. Neither the Petty nor the Respondent requested or offered to sign a written lease. The Respondent informed the Petty that the owner was not expected to return to Florida for at least a year. The Pettys made an initial payment to the Respondent of $85 which represented a pro-rata share of the March rent. The Respondent would collect the checks from the Pettys and forward them to the Kasperskies who at the time were residing in Pennsylvania. The Respondent did not receive a fee, commission or any other renumeration in return for renting his daughter's home. During the course of the Petty three-month occupancy, the Respondent became concerned over the condition of the home and alterations which were made by the Pettys without prior authorization from the owners. The Respondent conveyed his concerns over the condition of the property to his son-in-law who in turn contacted an attorney in Pennsylvania, Louis D. Poulette. Mr. Poulette informed the Pettys by letter that the lease was terminated by the owners effective July 31, 1980. The Pettys vacated on July 15, 1980, and were refunded the balance of their rent payment for July, 1980. On August 1, 1980, the Respondent readvertised the property and it was rented in September, 1980 for $265 per month.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent, Bruce R. Dowell. DONE and ORDERED this day 3 of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L.SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 2400 Independent Square One Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robert F. Spohrer, Esquire ZISSER ROBISON SPOHRER WILNER & HARRIS, P.A. 303 Liberty Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether Petitioner is qualified for licensure as a real estate salesman.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application be granted based on his having satisfied all statutory criteria for licensure. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee Florida. R. L. CALEEN 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 3rd day of December, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a registered salesman with the Commission since November 2, 1972. On or about June 14, 1979, Respondent submitted to the Commission an application for registration as a salesman which contained the following questions: 17. (a) Has any license, registration or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation or vocation been denied, revoked, annulled or suspended in this or any other state, province, district, territory, possession or nation, upon grounds of fraudulent or dishonest dealing or violations of law; or is any proceeding now pending? (b) Have you ever resigned or withdrawn from, or surrendered, any license, registration or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation or vocation, while such charges were pending? Respondent responded negatively to both the above quoted questions on his application form. In reliance on these statements, the Commission registered the Respondent as a real estate salesman on November 22, 1972. Prior to his submission of an application for registration as a Florida real estate salesman, Respondent had been a practicing attorney in the State of New York. In the course of his practice of law, Respondent had been investigated by the Brooklyn Bar Association and charged with defrauding clients of proper shares of settlements; failing to maintain a special escrow account, and commingling personal funds with those of his clients; giving false testimony before a Grievance Committee of the Brooklyn Bar Association; failing to obtain court approval of infants' settlements; filing numerous retainer and closing statements which he knew to contain false information; failing to file retainer and closing statements with the Judicial Conference; grossly neglecting the prosecution of clients' cases; concealing the infancy of clients and failing to have guardians appear for infants in court action; representing conflicting interests; and engaging in systematic solicitation of negligence cases. While the above-mentioned charges were pending, Respondent submitted his resignation as a member of the Bar of the State of New York, effective February 1, 1971. Respondent's resignation was accepted by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York by Opinion issued March 1, 1971. On February 24, 1970, Respondent applied for membership in the Florida Bar. In his application for membership in the Florida Bar, Respondent answered falsely to an inquiry concerning whether any charges or complaints, formal or informal, had ever been made or filed, or proceedings instituted against him while practicing law in any other jurisdiction. Subsequently, Respondent's license to practice law in Florida was revoked by Opinion of the Florida Supreme Court dated July 21, 1971.
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner, Walter L. Jordan, (Jordan) is entitled to licensure as a real estate salesman in the State of Florida. Petitioner presented his own testimony. Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, (Commission) had two exhibits admitted in evidence. The transcript of the proceedings was filed on November 18, 1987. At hearing the parties agreed to file proposed orders within ten days of the filing of the transcript The Commission's proposed order was filed on December 2, 1987, and is therefore untimely. Jordan has failed to file a proposed order. Accordingly, while the Commission has filed a proposed order, it has not been considered and no rulings will be made on the Commission's proposed findings of fact.
Findings Of Fact Jordan filed an application for a real estate salesman's license on or about February 14, 1987. In that application, Jordan acknowledged an arrest and conviction for possession of marijuana on February 12, 1976; an arrest and conviction for possession of a firearm in October, 1983; an arrest for aggravated assault in October, 1983, which was allegedly withdrawn by the prosecuting authority; and an arrest and conviction for breach of peace and disorderly intoxication in April, 1984. Based upon these convictions, the Commission denied Jordan's application by letter dated August 27, 1987. Jordan acknowledges these arrests and convictions, but does not believe he should be disqualified from licensure based on "two misdemeanors and one adjudication withheld." Further Jordan testified that it [the convictions] "doesn't prove I'm the best character in the world, but that's no real mar on my character, I wouldn't assume." Jordan presented no evidence of rehabilitation except that he worked for a company named Hubbard from June, 1986, to December, 1986; he was self- employed or unemployed from December, 1986, to April, 1987; he has worked for his father doing construction work since April, 1987; and he is the father of four children that he is taking care of alone.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order denying Walter L. Jordan's application for licensure as a real estate salesman. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 8th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Walter L. Jordan 3225 Rosselle Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Lawrence S. Gendzier Department of Professional Regulation Fla. Real Estate Comm. 400 West Robinson, Room 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the relevant oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: The petitioner is a real estate salesman registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission. In September of 1978, petitioner submitted an application to the Florida Real Estate Commission for registration as a real estate broker. By an Order dated December 4, 1978, the respondent denied the application for the reason that the applicant had not made it affirmatively appear that he possessed the necessary qualifications under F.S. 475.17. Specifically, the Commission found "That it appears to the Commission that Salesman Dunkum signed Broker Wallace W. Staff's name as a witness to Dunkum's signature on a contract offer to purchase real estate without authorization. In addition, Salesman Dunkum signed Broker Staff's name to a listing agreement without authorization." The petitioner timely requested an administrative hearing on the denial of his application and the undersigned Hearing Officer was duly designated to conduct the proceedings. The petitioner Dunkum admits that he did sign broker Staff's name as a witness to his own signature on a contract for the sale of real estate. Mr. Dunkum has been a notary public for approximately fifteen years and was aware that he should not have signed Staff's name as a witness. Petitioner was the purchaser under the contract and did in fact purchase the real estate. Thus, neither the purchaser nor the seller was harmed by the wrongdoing. The petitioner further admits that he did sign broker Staff's name to a listing agreement. He admits that he was wrong to sign Staff's name, without adding his initials or name under the signature. Petitioner believed he had the authority to sign Staff's name to listing agreements in Staff's absence. Mr. Staff testified that he never gave petitioner authority to sign his name and that all listings were to be under his signature. Mr. Staff was aware that petitioner had signed his name on documents prior to September of 1978. Nevertheless, on September 18, 1978, Mr. Staff entered into a three year independent contractor agreement with petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioner's application for registration as a real estate broker be DENIED, but that petitioner be permitted to submit another application for registration nine (9) months after the Order of the Commission dated December 4, 1978. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Rupert E. Dunkum 5900 94th Avenue Pinellas Park, Florida 32802
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 By application originally executed on March 6, 1987, petitioner, Paul Elden, sought licensure as a real estate salesman by examination with respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). The application reflects it was received by the Division on July 27, 1987. Question six on the application requires the applicant to state whether he or she "has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld." Petitioner answered in the affirmative and gave the following response: March 1986 for bookmaking was given two years probation. Upon further investigation by the Division, it learned that on March 17, 1986 in the Broward County Circuit Court, Elden was adjudicated guilty of two counts of bookmaking. In addition, adjudication of guilt was withheld for a third count of possession of gambling paraphernalia. All counts were felony charges. For these charges, Elden was placed on two years' probation. The probation was successfully completed in March, 1988. Based upon this information, but without citing relevant statutory grounds, the Division denied the application by letter dated January 21, 1988. Elden freely acknowledged his mishap with the law. It occurred in December, 1985 when a Hallandale undercover police officer entered his book store in Hallandale and asked Elden to place two bets on football games. Elden took the bets and placed them with a bookie who frequented the store for the purpose of taking bets from Elden and other customers. Elden was later charged with two felony counts of bookmaking and, after a notebook with names of betting customers was found on the premises, he was also charged with possession of gambling paraphernalia. Elden no longer owns the book store in which the gambling occurred. At the time of hearing, Elden was a sales representative for a local health maintenance organization. If his application is granted, he intends to place his license with a North Miami Beach broker who has offered him a position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Paul Elden for licensure as a real estate salesman by examination be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0350 Respondent: Covered in findings of fact 1 and 2. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Paul Elden 2049 South Ocean Drive Hallandale, Florida 33009 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Room 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Division of Real Estate 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
