Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, David J. Zachem, is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license number 0194936. The last license issued was as a broker c/o Sunstate Tax Consultants, Inc., 220 East Madison Street #512, Tampa, Florida, Respondent, during times material, was licensed as a broker/salesperson with Gary Levone Hall, t/a Gary L. Hall & Associates, 243 Timberland Avenue, Longwood, Florida. On or about July 24, 1991, the Resolution Management Associates, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, engaged Henry Mazas, the principal of H.R. Mazas & Associates, an accounting firm to perform an appraisal of real property located in Seminole, Florida (called Seminole Landing) which was owned or controlled by the Federal Resolution Trust Corporation, the federally affiliated agency which is selling off failed savings and loan associations financed or mortgaged properties. While Respondent was licensed as a broker/salesperson with Hall, Mazas engaged Respondent to assist in the appraisal of the Seminole Landing property. Respondent assisted Mazas by doing what is commonly referred to in the trade as the "leg work" such as visually inspecting the property, reviewing public records, compiling comparables and other raw data which was utilized by Mazas in completing his appraisal. Respondent signed on the appraisal letter evidencing his assistance as a consultant who assisted Mazas in completing his appraisal. C.W. Marlow, contracts manager of Resolution Management Associates, received a bill from Mazas for the appraisal service in the amount of $4,830.00, which amount was paid to Mazas on or about October 29, 1991. Mazas deposited the check into his account and thereafter paid Respondent $2,321.11 via a check dated November 5, 1991. On November 8, 1991, Respondent and his wife, Patricia Zachem, endorsed the check for payment. At the time that Respondent assisted Mazas in compiling the raw data to complete his appraisal, Mazas was unaware of Respondent's affiliation with Gary Hall. Respondent signed off on the appraisal to fully disclose to everyone concerned that he consulted with Mazas in compiling the raw data for the appraisal. Gary L. Hall, is a licensed real estate broker since approximately 1982. Hall has known Respondent since 1988. They are friends who assist and consult with each other primarily about political activities. Respondent placed his license with Hall as a matter of convenience and was never active in either buying, leasing or selling real property to the public. Respondent and Hall had no agreement respecting the splitting of fees that Respondent would earn for commissions that he received. According to Hall, Respondent "would have been able to keep the entire commissions that he receive for any work that he performed." Hall knew that Respondent was active in preparing appraisals when he became affiliated with his agency. Respondent is the holder of a real estate salesman's license since 1978 and a broker since 1979. Respondent while licensed as a broker, joined the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Office. Respondent has been employed in two county property appraiser's offices (Broward and Pinellas counties). Respondent was a senior deputy in Broward County with his employment commencing sometime in 1981. He was so employed until January 1989 when he was employed by Pinellas County. In Pinellas County, Respondent was the chief deputy and the chief appraiser. Since 1980, Respondent has principally been a "mass appraiser" while working in Broward and Pinellas counties. Respondent is the qualifier for Sunstate Tax Consultants, which he is the president. Respondent is a Certified Florida Evaluator (CFE). To be qualified as a CFE, one must have worked in a property appraiser's office in the mass appraisal element for a period in excess of two years and have successfully passed four appraisal courses which are designated courses. Specifically, these courses are income to evaluation, the mechanical application of appraisals, appraisal assessment jurisdiction and vacant land. After successfully completing these courses, the property appraiser for whom the applicant is employed writes a letter of recommendation to the certification committee of the Department of Revenue. That committee reviews the applicant's qualifications and either grant or deny the CFE certificate. Respondent primarily placed his real estate license with Hall such that he could qualify as an expert in the numerous petitions filed with the Value Adjustment Board where the evaluation of properties are subject to litigation. Those appraisers who have an active broker license is an indication that they are fully qualified in the appraisal and real estate business. Respondent, as stated, never engaged in the typical brokerage business of buying, selling, leasing or renting property to the public. Specifically, Respondent's understanding with Hall was that if he engaged in any business that was governed by Petitioner, Hall would be notified. Respondent was never engaged to conduct an appraisal or to act as an appraiser for Mazas or the Resolution Management Associates. Respondent would have so advised Hall had he been involved in such a relationship or any activity that was governed by Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Eugene Davidson, an ad valorem tax consultant. was tendered and received as an expert appraiser. Davidson was one of three founders that founded the National Society of Fee Appraisers more than 35 years ago. Davidson holds a senior designation as an ASA member. Davidson is a member of the Institute of Real Estate Management and hold the designation as a certified property manager (CPM). Davidson is certified with Florida as a general real estate appraiser. Davidson was a professor at the University of Miami, the University of Florida and in the Bahamas (Nassau and Freeport). Davidson knows Respondent as a person on high morals and integrity and who is knowledgeable in real e stte and appraisinng. Davidson has known Respondent more than twelve years. An appraisal is the act or process of estimating value, or an opinion of value. Consulting is the act or process of providing information, analysis of real estate data and recommendations or conclusions on diversified problems in real estate other than estimating value. Respondent's engagement, to compile raw data, was as a consultant. He was not engaged, nor did he offer an opinion of value or an estimate of value. It is normal industry practice for consultants to sign appraisals when they provide or otherwise furnish significant information to the appraiser and, in doing so, complies with standard 2-3 of Chapter 475, Part II. See Sections 475.611 and 475.624, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Counts I-IV of the Administrative Complaint filed herein. 1/ DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 31st day of March, 1993.
Findings Of Fact During the period January-April 1980 Respondents Grace Mukach and Nelye Bunch were licensed as salesmen by the Florida Board of Real Estate and until March 5, 1980, both were registered as salesmen with Ramada Properties, Inc. They worked closely together on sales and listings and shared all commissions. Bunch served as office manager, and the broker at Ramada Properties was Pedro Fernandez. Subsequent to May 1980 Respondent Bunch became registered as a real estate broker and is currently so licensed. In January 1980 Respondent Mukach learned that property known as Captain Kidd's Campground was for sale but this fact was not advertised. In late January or early February 1980 Mukach was contacted by Leonard Hameroff, who was interested in acquiring investment property in Florida. She showed him, among other properties, the Captain Kidd's Campground property, on which the asking price was $2,000,000. Subsequent to inspection of the Captain Kidd's property, Hameroff learned the property could be acquired for less than $2,000,000. There is conflict in the testimony at this point. Hameroff, in his deposition (Exhibit 2), testified that Mukach was instrumental in negotiating with the owner and in getting the price to a more realistic figure before he and Mukach went to Atlanta on February 28, 1980. Mukach testified that she had only one communication with Great American Properties, Inc., the owner of Captain Kidd's Campground, and that was before she met Hameroff. Regardless of which version is true, Hameroff, in company with Mukach, flew from Orlando to Atlanta on February 28, 1980, to negotiate for the purchase of Captain Kidd's Campground property. Upon arrival in Atlanta Hameroff and Mukach went to the offices of Great American and met with Great American's representative, Wayne Godfrey. Here again, Hameroff and Mukach differ in their version of this meeting. Mukach testified that Godfrey told them that Great American had filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Law, and any offer less than $2,000,000 would have to be presented to the Board of Directors. She further testified that near the end of the meeting she left the room to call a taxi to take her and Hameroff back to the airport and waited some ten minutes for Hameroff to come out. Hameroff testified that he and Godfrey agreed on a price for the property and, to seal the deal, he called his bank in Philadelphia to wire $50,000 to Great American as a binder on the oral agreement they reached. This was accomplished and the deposit was accepted by Great American pending the drafting of a contract by the attorneys for Hameroff and Great American. Hameroff and Mukach then flew back to Orlando. Hameroff made no reference to Great American being in bankruptcy proceedings or of anyone else needing to approve the agreement he negotiated with Godfrey. It is likely that any offer less than the asking price would have to be approved by the referee in bankruptcy for a company being reorganized under Chapter 11. If not in bankruptcy proceedings, approval of the Board of Directors of any offer less than the asking price would depend upon the authority given to Godfrey. Accordingly, the testimony of Mukach appears suspect and greater weight is given to the events as described by Hameroff. At or about this same time Mukach and Bunch were contemplating opening a real estate office of their own. Since neither held a broker's license, it was necessary for them to have a licensed broker to be active firm member for the corporation. Mukach called Herbert O. Stahl in late February or early March to discuss opening a real estate office. Stahl went to Mukach's house to discuss opening such an office owned by Mukach and Bunch, with Stahl as active broker. During these negotiations with Stahl Mukach stated she had a client to purchase Captain Kidd's Campground. In view of this testimony by Stahl Bunch's testimony that the idea of leaving Ramada Properties was reached at lunch on 5 March 1980, and no prior arrangements for obtaining a broker had been made, is not credible. On the afternoon of 5 March 1980 Bunch returned from lunch to Ramada Properties and advised Fernandez she and Mukach were leaving to form their own real estate firm. Although denied by Bunch, the testimony of Fernandez that Bunch presented him with Exhibit 1, an unsigned document showing the commissions due to Bunch and Mukach by Ramada when properties listed thereon were sold, is deemed accurate. Fernandez made corrections to the figures on this document which included, among other things, reducing the percentage claimed by Respondents for Captain Kidd's Campground from 70 percent to 60 percent. On 5 March 1980 the corporate papers for AA Realty, Inc., were executed and on 6 March 1980 the corporate broker's license was issued to AA Realty, Inc., with Herbert O. Stahl as active broker. The owners of AA Realty, Inc., are Mukach and Bunch. On 19 March 1980 an associate of Hameroff brought an unexecuted contract for the purchase and sale of [the Captain Kidd's property] for $1.2 million to the office of AA Realty, Inc., for Stahl to sign as broker for AA Realty acknowledging that he consented to the $50,000 commission provided for in the contract. Stahl signed. This contract, Exhibit 7, was taken to Atlanta and executed by Great American and Hameroff. It provided that the real estate commission would be paid by the purchaser and that closing would be April 2, 1980. At the closing on April 2, 1980, Mukach was present and signed the closing statement, Exhibit 4, for AA Realty acknowledging receipt of $50,000 commission from the purchaser. As a matter of fact no money was paid to Mukach or AA Realty at closing. Prior to the closing Mukach and her husband had become friends with Hameroff, and Mr. Mukach had entered into an agreement with Hameroff to mine clay from the Captain Kidd's property when the sale closed. Grace Mukach borrowed $6,000 from Hameroff to purchase equipment for AA Realty when the office opened. Exhibit 6, prepared by Bunch, shows the split in the $50,000 commission on the sale of Captain Kidd's property with 5 percent to Stahl, 15 percent to Hameroff, and 40 percent each to Mukach and Bunch. Shortly after closing, Stahl, accompanied by Mukach, went to the Captain Kidd's Campground to inquire about the payment of the commission from Hameroff. He was advised by Hameroff that the latter did not have the money at that time as all of his cash had been used at the closing. However, Hameroff signed a promissory note, at no interest, for $36,500 payable to AA Realty. This sum was arrived at by deducting the $6,000 loan to AA Realty and Hameroff's 15 percent ($7,500) of the $50,000 commission. Hameroff subsequently purchased the promissory note for $22,000, which was divided between Stahl and Respondents. Civil litigation brought by Ramada Properties against Great American for commission on the sale of Captain Kidd's Campground resulted in Ramada settling for payment of $20,000 by Hameroff. Bunch received her license as a real estate broker a few months after AA Realty opened. On December 15, 1980, Stahl was fired as active broker allegedly because he left the office bowling team and Bunch became active broker. By her own admission Mukach performed no services in connection with the sale of Captain Kidd's Campground after her return from Atlanta on February 28, 1980, until she went to the closing on April 2, 1980. Bunch was out of town for two and one-half weeks before March 3, 1980, and learned of the negotiations involving the purchase of Captain Kidd's campground property by Hameroff after she returned. Neither of the Respondents professed to know why AA Realty was shown on Exhibit 7 as the broker procuring the purchaser for this transaction and entitled to the $50,000 commission. However, the testimony of Stahl, that Mukach discussed the sale of this property with him before AA Realty was formed, clearly indicates Mukach fully expected to obtain a commission on this transaction. Both Respondents testified the reason they left Ramada Properties was because Fernandez had failed to pay them the commissions they had earned. Fernandez denied that he had failed to pay commissions due and also denied Respondents' testimony that he gave them the files for which they had obtained listings. The fact that Fernandez swore out a warrant for the arrest of Respondents for stealing the Captain Kidd's Campground contract from Ramada Properties' office lends credence to Fernandez' testimony that he did not give Respondents any files when they departed his employ on March 5, 1980.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint in the manner specified therein and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a Florida-licensed real estate broker, holding license number BK-475943. At no time during the time Respondent has held this license has any disciplinary action been taken against her. Respondent was at all times material to the instant case, the sole officer and director of Bright Star Realty and Investments, Inc. (Bright Star), a Florida corporation. At no time material to the instant case was Bright Star a Florida-registered brokerage corporation.2/ In October 2008, Milton Gibbons entered into a contract (Purchase Contract) to purchase from Jason and Jennifer Van Buskirk property located at 8510 Northwest 46th Street, Lauderhill, Florida (Purchase Transaction). The Purchase Contract was drawn on a pre-printed "'As Is' Contract for Sale and Purchase" form approved by the Florida Association of Realtors and The Florida Bar. Respondent, acting on behalf of her unlicensed brokerage corporation, Bright Star, represented to Mr. Gibbons in the Purchase Transaction. Bright Star was listed in the Purchase Contract as a "[c]ooperating [b]roker" and the "only broker[] entitled to compensation in connection with this Contract." No other broker, including a listing broker, was mentioned in the Purchase Contract, notwithstanding that AmeriStar Properties of South Florida, Inc., had listed the property pursuant to an "Exclusive Right of Sale Agreement" it had with the Van Buskirks which was still in effect at the time Mr. Gibbons and the Van Buskirks entered into the Purchase Contract. Under the terms of the Purchase Contract, Mr. Gibbons was required to make a deposit totaling $9,600.00 to be "held in escrow by Bright Star," which was designated in the Purchase Contract as the "Escrow Agent." The Purchase Transaction never closed, and a dispute arose concerning the appropriate distribution of the $9,600.00 that had been deposited by Mr. Gibbons and was being held in escrow in accordance with the Purchase Contract. Pursuant to section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-10.032, Respondent, on behalf of the "Escrow Agent," Bright Star, notified Petitioner of the dispute in writing, using a form developed for that purpose. On the completed form that Respondent submitted, which was signed by her and dated May 11, 2009, she indicated that she was the "broker" and Bright Star was the "brokerage firm" involved in the real estate transaction in question; that her address was "520 NW 165 St. Rd. Suite 112, Miami Fl 33169"; and that the "amount in dispute" was $9,600.00. The Van Buskirks subsequently filed a complaint against Respondent with Petitioner. The complaint was investigated by one of Petitioner's investigators, Felix Mizioznikov. His investigation began in September 2009, and concluded in August 2010. On or about May 3, 2010, Mr. Mizioznikov sent to Respondent, by certified United States Mail, two packages containing the complaint and other materials. One package was sent to what Petitioner's computerized records reflected was Respondent's "license location"--12865 West Dixie Highway, #201, North Miami, Florida 33161. The other package was sent to what those same records reflected was Respondent's "mailing address"--520 Northwest 165th Street, #112, Miami, Florida 33159. Both packages were returned to Mr. Mizioznikov by the United States Postal Service. The returned package that had been sent to the 12865 West Dixie Highway address was stamped "MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS." The returned package that had been sent to the 520 Northwest 165th Street address was stamped "UNCLAIMED." In June 2010, Mr. Mizioznikov visited both the 12865 West Dixie Highway address (where, he discovered, a law firm was located) and the 520 Northwest 165th Street address. There was no indication that Respondent had a business presence at either location. On June 21, 2010, Mr. Mizioznikov sent to Respondent's attorney, Joseph Gibson, Esquire, by facsimile transmission, an Office Inspection & Escrow/Trust Account Audit Form (signed by Mr. Mizioznikov), requesting that Respondent, within five days "provide [her] Broker business records and monthly reconciliation escrow statements for dates 5-2008-Current." Mr. Mizioznikov later contacted Respondent herself and requested her to produce these records. As of the date of the hearing, Respondent had not produced the requested records.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a Final Order (1) dismissing Count One of the Administrative Complaint; and (2) finding Respondent guilty of Counts Two and Three of the Administrative Complaint and disciplining her therefor as described above. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 2012.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein the Division of Real Estate was the state agency responsible for the licensing of real estate sales persons and brokers and the regulation of the real estate profession in Florida. Respondent, Diana C. Verdi, was licensed as a real estate salesperson under license number 0545114, and Respondent, Realtec Group, Inc., was licensed as a real estate broker under license number 0273784. Respondent, Verdi, was employed by Respondent, Realtec, at its office at 3474 Tampa Road, Palm Harbor, Florida. On October 23, 1993, Respondent Verdi, while working for Respondent, Realtec, solicited and obtained an offer from James and Maureen Herhold, to purchase residential property owned by J. and K. Griffin. The contract called for the placement of a $50,000 non-refundable deposit with Realtec, and allowed the Herholds to move in on October 30, 1993, with closing to be held on November 30, 1993. The contract also provided that once the Herholds moved into the house, the Griffins would no longer be responsible for any repairs or maintenance needed by the property. Prior to moving in, the Herholds requested that Respondent, Verdi, obtain for them a seller's disclosure statement which would list any material defects in the property known to the sellers. In that regard, the Griffins' listing agent, Marta Shank, had previously requested they prepare such a statement. The statement was prepared on August 20, 1993, and reflected that the only known defect was a shower leak which had purportedly been fixed and a shower wall which had purportedly been replaced. Notwithstanding the Herholds repeatedly requested the disclosure statement from Respondent, Verdi, and notwithstanding such a statement had been prepared by the Griffins, the statement was not furnished to Respondent, Verdi, by Ms. Shank and, thereafter, to the Herholds until after they moved into the property. Consistent with the terms of the contract, the Herholds were required to pay for the repairs to the shower and shower wall which, it appears, were not properly repaired prior to their move into the property. At closing the Herholds requested the Griffins reimburse them for the cost of the repairs, which was not done. In the interim, however, and before the Herholds moved into the property, Respondent, Verdi, as was her custom in all residential sales, insisted that the Herholds obtain an independent inspection of the home. Mr. Herhold admits she did this. She claims she would not sell a home without this being done. This inspection, conducted by an inspector of the Herholds' choosing, failed to disclose any defect in the shower or shower wall. Respondent, Verdi, also suggested that since her repeated efforts to obtain the disclosure statement were unsuccessful, Mr. Herhold contact the Griffins or their agent directly. She also suggested to him that if he were not satisfied with the condition of the house, or if he had any qualms about moving in without the disclosure statement, he should not move in until he received it. This was verified by Ms. Kissner. Herhold elected not to do this, however, because he feared he might lose his deposit. Respondent, Verdi, represents herself as being an experienced and successful real estate salesperson, and there appears little reason to doubt that representation. She contends that though she never went to Shank's office to pick one up, she repeatedly asked Ms. Shank, the selling agent, for a disclosure statement as she always does, and her testimony in this regard is supported by that of both Ms. Kissner and Mr. Scarati. Both repeatedly tried to contact the selling office to obtain a disclosure statement but their calls were either nonproductive or not returned. There is some indication that when Ms. Verdi asked Ms. Shank for a disclosure statement, she was told that none existed. After the closing, when Mr. Herhold was unable to obtain a reimbursement from the Griffins for the cost of repairs, he filed suit against Realtec, Verdi, Shank and her agency, Coldwell Banker and his own inspection service. He admits that, at court, when he was asked by the judge who he believed was responsible, he did not know. He sued Verdi because he had asked her for a disclosure statement which she did not give him. He claims the sale was not an "as is" sale. At hearing, he was awarded $835.20 plus costs against Verdi and Realtec. She did not pay right away and sought the advice of counsel. When Herhold found she was listing her own home for sale, he filed a lien against it. As a result of that action, because she determined that fighting the lien would cost more than the amount involved, she paid the judgement even though she believed the judgement to be in error. Realtec paid nothing. No evidence was presented as to exactly when the judgement was satisfied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed in this matter against Respondents Diana C. Verdi and Realtec Group, Inc., t/a Re/Max Realtec Group, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 6th day of September, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Diana C. Verdi 2474 Tampa Road Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Realtec Group, Inc. percentRe/Max Realtec Group 3474 Tampa Road Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue Whether the respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 21, 1996, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. The Florida Real Estate Commission operates within the Department and is the entity directly responsible for licensing and disciplining those licensed under chapter 475. Section 475.02, Fla. Stat. The Division of Real Estate operates within the Department and assists the Commission in carrying out its statutory duties. Section 475.021, Fla. Stat. Prudencio Garcia is now and was at all times material to this proceeding a licensed Florida real estate broker, having been issued license numbered 0203682. He is currently licensed as a broker-salesperson with Hamilton Realty, Inc. At all times material to this proceeding, Continental Landmark Realty, Inc., was Mr. Garcia's registered employer. Mr. Garcia has been licensed as either a real estate salesperson or a real estate broker for eighteen years, and he has not previously been the subject of a license disciplinary action. Either on or about November 1, 1994, or on or about December 1, 1994,1 a Residential Lease, an Option to Purchase, and a Contract for Sale and Purchase were executed whereby Sergio Montero and Mayte Rosabal agreed to lease real property owned by Ramon and Gladys Rodriguez for a term of six months and to purchase the property subject to the terms of the Option to Purchase. and the Contract for Sale and Purchase. Mr. Garcia solicited Mr. Montero and Ms. Rosabal for this transaction on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez, who needed to sell their house as soon as possible because they had purchased and moved into another home and were having trouble paying two mortgages. Mr. Garcia was acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez and Mr. Montero and Ms. Rosabal. The lease, option, and contract were signed at the offices of Continental Landmark Realty. Mr. Garcia signed the option and the contract on behalf of Continental Landmark Realty, which was his employer at the time. Both the option and the contract provided that Continental Landmark Realty would receive a $6,000 commission upon the sale of the property. Neither Continental Landmark Realty nor Mr. Garcia were to receive any fee or commission in connection with the lease of the subject property. Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez expected to receive $4,000 at the time the lease, option, and contract were executed.2 Mr. Montero gave them $700 in cash at the time of execution and $800 in cash the day after the documents were executed. Mr. Montero gave Mr. Garcia the remaining $2,500 owed to Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez, in cash. Mr. Garcia did not promptly deliver these monies to Continental Landmark Realty for deposit in the company’s escrow account. He did not promptly deliver the $2,500 to Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez, despite their repeated requests that he do so. Rather, he claimed that he was robbed and the money taken from him.3 After Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez threatened to take legal action against him, Mr. Garcia gave them $2,425 of the $2,500 he had received on their behalf.4 The broker of record for Continental Landmark Realty was not aware of the transaction between Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez and Mr. Montero and Ms. Rosabal until Mrs. Rodriguez went to her office and complained about not having received the $2,500 from Mr. Garcia. The evidence is sufficient to establish that Mr. Garcia was acting as an agent of Continental Landmark Realty in connection with the subject real estate transaction, that he received monies in connection with the transaction and failed to deliver them promptly to Continental Landmark Realty, and that he committed a breach of trust by failing to deliver the monies promptly to Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez, the parties to the real estate transaction entitled to receive them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Prudencio Garcia guilty of violating section 475.25(1)(b), (e), and (k), Florida Statutes (1995), and rule 61J2-14.009, Florida Administrative Code, and Suspending Mr. Garcia’s real estate broker’s license for a period of one (1) month; Following the suspension, placing Mr. Garcia on probation for a period of one (1) year with a condition of probation that he successfully complete a thirty-hour broker management course during the term of probation; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 this 18th day of March, 1997.
The Issue Whether Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints and the amended administrative complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact On May 26, 1989, the Department of Professional Regulation (now, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation), Board of Auctioneers (Petitioner) licensed Irwin Sherwin (Respondent Sherwin) as an auctioneer. He was issued license number AU 0000720. However, Respondent Sherwin was initially denied licensure. On December 29, 1986, Respondent Sherwin submitted an application for licensure, without examination, as an auctioneer to the Petitioner. By order dated October 22, 1987, the Petitioner denied Respondent Sherwin's application on the basis that Respondent Sherwin had been charged with grand theft. Respondent Sherwin requested an informal hearing on his denial. By final order dated September 14, 1988, and filed September 19, 1988, the Petitioner granted Respondent Sherwin's application, subject to certain special conditions, including payment of a $10,000 fine, posting of a $300,000 auctioneer bond,3 and imposition of a period of probation after licensure, with Respondent Sherwin, during the probation, practicing under the supervision of an approved auctioneer. Subsequently, through agreement made by Respondent Sherwin at Petitioner's meeting held on February 16, 1989, the Petitioner modified the bond requirement by order dated March 4, 1989, and filed March 9, 1989, to include the following: (a) a $10,000 auctioneer bond and a $25,000 auction business bond, within 30 days of February 16, 1989, to permit licensure; and (b) a $25,000 auctioneer bond and a $50,000 auction business bond, within 30 days of the date of the order, in order for Respondent Sherwin to maintain licensure. On or about October 20, 1989, after Respondent Sherwin was licensed by the Petitioner, Respondent Sherwin obtained a $25,000 auctioneer bond from American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida. On November 6, 1989, Respondent Sherwin posted the bond with the Petitioner. On February 19, 1990, Respondent Beach Auction House, Inc. (Respondent Auction House) was licensed by the Petitioner as an auction business. Respondent Auction House was issued license number 0000531. As a condition of licensure, Respondent Auction House was required to obtain a bond for an auction business. On or about December 1, 1989, Respondent Auction House obtained a $25,000 bond as a auction business from American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, the same surety for Respondent Sherwin. The president of Respondent Auction House was Respondent Sherwin's son, Louis Sherwin. The address for Respondent Auction House was 2009 Northeast 2nd Street, Deerfield Beach, Florida. On December 1, 1993, Respondent Auction House's license became delinquent for failure to renew its license. Respondent Auction House's license has remained delinquent since December 1, 1993. Case No. 95-3710 In August 1974, the North Carolina Auctioneer Licensing Board (North Carolina Auctioneer Board) licensed Respondent Sherwin as an auctioneer and licensed Blowing Rock Auction Galleries, Inc., his business, as an auction firm. On March 14, 1994, in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Wake County, North Carolina, Case Nos. 94-CRS-2435, 2441, 2443, 2448, pursuant to a plea agreement, Respondent Sherwin pled guilty to two felony counts of embezzlement of state property and two felony counts of embezzlement of county property. The embezzlement related to unpaid sales tax due the State of North Carolina and one of its counties by Respondent Sherwin's business, Blowing Rock Galleries, Inc., for which Respondent Sherwin was responsible under the law of the State of North Carolina. As part of the plea agreement, among other things, Respondent Sherwin was sentenced to 6 years in North Carolina's state prison, but his sentence was suspended, and he was placed on unsupervised probation for 5 years under certain specific conditions. On advice of counsel, Respondent Sherwin entered into the plea agreement.4 The felony convictions against Respondent Sherwin have not been set-aside or voided by a court of competent jurisdiction. By Consent Order dated December 21, 1994, the North Carolina Auctioneer Board took action against Respondent Sherwin and Blowing Rock Auction Galleries, Inc., related to several improprieties, including the embezzlement felonies, under the laws and rules governing auctioneers in the State of North Carolina. As to the improprieties, Respondent Sherwin, his son, Louis Sherwin and Blowing Rock Auction Galleries, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement in which they agreed, among other things, that their licenses, issued by the North Carolina Auctioneer Board, would be surrendered and that their licenses would be considered permanently revoked. By the Consent Order, the North Carolina Auctioneer Board approved the settlement agreement and pursuant to the settlement agreement, ordered, among other things, the surrender of the licenses of Respondent Sherwin, his son, and Blowing Rock Auction Galleries, Inc., subject to the conditions and limitations of the settlement agreement. Case Nos. 95-5044 and 95-5046 On March 17, 1994, Tanya Braunshteyn and her husband, Michael Braunshteyn, while on vacation, attended an auction at Respondent Auction House. Respondent Sherwin was present at the auction but did not conduct the auction. The Braunshteyns were successful bidders on a picture or framed sculpture, a ring, and a china set at a total cost of $3,483.30. The Braunshteyns did not purchase the merchandise at that time but left a deposit. The following day the Braunshteyns returned to Respondent Auction House to retrieve and pay for their merchandise. They paid $3,250 in cash as partial payment for the merchandise and received the picture or framed sculpture and the ring, together with a receipt, written descriptions of the merchandise received, and certificates of valuation. Respondent Sherwin agreed that the Braunshteyns could pay the balance, $233.30, for the china by check at a later time and that the china would be shipped to them after receipt of the check. On March 26, 1994, Mrs. Braunshteyn mailed a check to Respondent Sherwin in the amount of $233.30 for the balance on the china. On April 11, 1994, the check cleared her bank. However, the Braunshteyns did not receive the china. They made several telephone calls to Respondent Auction House and spoke with Respondent Sherwin several times inquiring about the china. The Braunshteyns received several different and unsatisfactory reasons as to why the china was not sent to them. On March 18, 1995, approximately 11 months after the balance was paid on the china, the Braunshteyns were again vacationing in Florida. They visited the Respondent Auction House with the specific intent of receiving a refund of the money they paid for the china that they never received. At that time, Respondent Sherwin refunded their money in full for the china. Case No. 95-5045 After inquiry from the Petitioner, by letter dated May 19, 1995, American Bankers Insurance Company notified the Petitioner that Respondent Sherwin's surety bond had been cancelled. The Bond Notice of Cancellation, accompanying the letter, indicates that the auctioneer's bond was cancelled effective November 18, 1990, due to an underwriting decision by the surety. Respondent Sherwin does not dispute that a surety bond was not maintained and in force for either him, as an auctioneer, or for Respondent Auction House, as an auction business.5 Case No. 95-5047 In 1989 Louis Carusillo consigned to Jack Beggs approximately 1000 items of merchandise, including furniture, jade, and sculptures, worth between $600,000 and $800,000. Mr. Beggs owned an auction business located in Sarasota, Florida. Sometime in 1990, without Mr. Carusillo's knowledge or consent, Mr. Beggs re-consigned and delivered a substantial portion of Mr. Carusillo's merchandise to Respondent Sherwin in Blowing Rock, North Carolina. Respondent Sherwin received the merchandise in two or three truckloads at his auction gallery, Blowing Rock Auction Galleries, Inc., in Blowing Rock. At the time of delivery, Respondent Sherwin failed to inventory Mr. Carusillo's merchandise. As a result of the failure to inventory, Mr. Carusillo's merchandise was commingled with merchandise belonging to Respondent Sherwin at Blowing Rock Auction Galleries. All of Mr. Carusillo's merchandise were tagged with his initials on them. At some point in time, Respondent Sherwin noticed Mr. Carusillo's initials on the merchandise. Respondent Sherwin recognized Mr. Carusillo's initials, due to a prior business dealing in years past in which Mr. Carusillo had consigned some merchandise to Respondent Sherwin. In the summer of 1990, Respondent Sherwin telephoned Mr. Carusillo regarding Mr. Carusillo's merchandise at Blowing Rock Auction Galleries received from Mr. Beggs. The telephone conversation with Respondent Sherwin was the first time that Mr. Carusillo had knowledge of the merchandise that he had consigned to Mr. Beggs being delivered to Respondent Sherwin. Mr. Carusillo viewed his past transaction with Respondent Sherwin as unsatisfactory and had no intentions of allowing Respondent Sherwin to possess and sell his merchandise. Mr. Carusillo conveyed his position to Respondent Sherwin. Mr. Carusillo refused to consign any of his merchandise to Respondent Sherwin and refused to sign any written agreement authorizing Respondent Sherwin to sell any of the merchandise. Despite knowing of Mr. Carusillo's position and despite having no written agreement authorizing the sale of any of Mr. Carusillo's merchandise, Respondent Sherwin retained Mr. Carusillo's merchandise and sold some of the merchandise at both Blowing Rock Auction Galleries and at Respondent Auction House. (In the winter of 1990, Respondent Sherwin had Mr. Carusillo's merchandise delivered to Respondent Auction House.) In 1991, Mr. Carusillo filed a civil action against, among others, Respondent Sherwin and his son, Louis Sherwin, in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 91-03351. Through the law suit, Mr. Carusillo sought, among other things, the return of his merchandise in the possession of Respondent Sherwin, an injunction to stop further sales of his merchandise by Respondent Sherwin, and an accounting of his merchandise from Respondent Sherwin. An Agreed Temporary Injunction was entered by the Court on February 14, 1991, forbidding, among other things, the sale or removal of Mr. Carusillo's merchandise and ordering an accounting of his merchandise. An Agreed Order as to Replevin was entered by the Court on May 9, 1991, allowing, among other things, Mr. Carusillo to remove his merchandise from Respondent Sherwin's possession. Even though Respondent Sherwin rendered an accounting of Mr. Carusillo's merchandise, the accounting was not satisfactory. Furthermore, even after Mr. Carusillo removed what he thought was all of his merchandise, Respondents sold other merchandise belonging to Mr. Carusillo. After protracted litigation, by an Amended Final Judgment dated April 26, 1995, entered nunc pro tunc August 18, 1994, the Court entered judgment against Respondent Sherwin, his son (Louis Sherwin), and Mr. Beggs. As to Respondent Sherwin and his son, the Court found that they were jointly and severally liable and awarded Mr. Carusillo, among other things, the sum of $468,959.74, which included the following: a total pecuniary loss of $113,639.30 (including interest of $12,167.80), pre- judgment interest of $44,347.28, treble damages for civil theft, which brought the total to $473,959.74, and a credit to Respondent Sherwin and his son, which reduced the total to $468,959.74. The Amended Final Judgment was appealed but was upheld by the appellate court. At the hearing in the instant case, Respondents attempted to show that the monetary loss to Mr. Carusillo, as evidenced by the Amended Final Judgment, was incorrect and improper. However, the evidence presented by Petitioner at hearing was clear and convincing that the monetary judgment entered by the Court should not be disturbed. Respondents failed to present evidence to overcome Petitioner's showing. By Order dated September 27, 1996, the Circuit Court of Broward County directed payment to Mr. Carusillo for the judgment from the Auctioneer Recovery Fund in the amount of Mr. Carusillo's "actual and direct losses occurring subsequent to October 1, 1991." Subsequently, Mr. Carusillo made a claim for payment of the judgment from the Auctioneer Recovery Fund. On December 6, 1996, Petitioner considered Mr. Carusillo's claim. On December 31, 1996, Petitioner entered an order on the claim ordering, among other things, that Mr. Carusillo be paid $94,575 from the Auctioneer Recovery Fund and that $47,287.50 of the $94,575 was attributable to Respondent Sherwin. On or about January 15, 1997, a warrant from the State of Florida was issued for $94,575, representing payment to Mr. Carusillo from the Auctioneer Recovery Fund.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Auctioneers enter a final order: Finding that Irwin Sherwin violated Subsection 468.389(1)(l) and (k), Florida Statutes, of Counts I and II, respectively, in Case No. 95-3710. Finding Beach Auction House violated Subsection 468.389(1)(e), Florida Statutes, in Case No. 95-5044. Finding Irwin Sherwin, d/b/a Beach Auction House, Inc., violated: Subsection 468.389(1)(j), Florida Statutes, of Counts I and II in Case No. 95-5045. Subsection 468.389(1)(e), Florida Statutes, in Case No. 95-5046. Subsection 468.389(1)(j), Florida Statutes, of Count I in Case No. 95-5047. Subsection 468.389(1)(e), Florida Statutes, of Count II in Case No. 95-5047.6 Subsection 468.389(1)(h), Florida Statutes, of Count III in Case No. 95-5047. Subsection 468.389(1)(c), Florida Statutes, of Count V in Case No. 95-5047. Imposing a $8,000 administrative fine against Irwin Sherwin. Imposing a $6,000 administrative fine against Beach Auction House, Inc. Revoking the license of Irwin Sherwin. Revoking the license of Beach Auction House, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1998.
The Issue The issue is whether either Respondent committed the violations alleged in Counts I through VIII of their respective Administrative Complaints.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board is the state agency charged with regulating real estate appraisers who are, or want to become, licensed to render appraisal services in the State of Florida. At all times pertinent, Ms. Green was licensed as a certified residential real estate appraiser. Ms. Green held license number 3236 in accordance with Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes. Ms. Moody was licensed as a registered trainee appraiser. Ms Moody held license number 16667 in accordance with Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes. In October 2008, Ms. Moody received a license as a certified residential appraiser, license number RD 7444. On March 8, 2007, Ms. Moody signed an appraisal of real property located at 11735 Chanticleer Drive, Lot 16, Block B Grand Lagoon, in Pensacola, Florida. She signed as appraiser. Ms. Green signed the report as supervisory appraiser. The listed borrower was James W. Cobb, and the lender was Premier Mortgage Capital. Respondents developed, signed, and communicated this report. Subsequently, the borrower, Mr. Cobb, who was also the buyer, complained to the Division with regard to the appraisal on the property, and the Division investigated the matter. The investigation resulted in an investigative report dated December 21, 2007. According to the appraisal, the property was listed for $1,030,000 in the multiple listing service, and the contract price was $790,000. The appraisal report valued the property using both the sales comparison approach and the cost approach. Both approaches resulted in a value of $1,030,000. These facts were reported in a six-page Uniform Residential Appraisal Report, Fannie Mae Form 1004 March 2005. At the time of the hearing, the property was the subject of a foreclosure action. The USPAP provides guidance to those involved in the business of conducting real estate appraisals. Real estate appraisers typically use both a "sales comparison approach" and a "cost approach" in attempting to arrive at a value. A "sales comparison approach" uses data obtained from sales of similar properties and adjusts for differences. A "cost approach" starts with the cost of an empty building site and adds to that the cost of building an identical structure and adjusts for enhancements and depreciation. Both approaches were used by Respondents and were reported on the Form 1004. The Division's expert witness, Sylvia G. Storm, reviewed the Form 1004 and all of the available supporting data. She did not make an appraisal herself and did not visit the property in question. Ms. Storm was accepted as an expert as provided by Section 90.702, Florida Statutes, because she had "specialized knowledge" regarding real estate appraisals. This was the first time that Ms. Storm testified as an expert witness in a case involving appraisals. The same was true in the case of the expert witness presented by Respondents, Victor Harrison. It is noted that these experts were only minimally qualified, and their testimony is given little weight. Ms. Storm commented on the fact that the property was called "new" in the improvements section yet on the following sales comparison approach it was listed under actual age, "27/E New-2." This suggests the property with improvements is 27 years old, but has an effective age of new to two years. In fact, in the improvements section it was noted that the property has been completely reconstructed. It is clear from the Form 1004, and the hearing record, that the property was essentially destroyed during Hurricane Ivan and was rebuilt above the surviving foundation. It is found that the house was essentially new at the time of the appraisal. Ms. Storm believes some of the deficiencies she noted in the Form 1004, discussed in more detail below, and the supporting documentation contained in the work file, affect the credibility of the report. She believes that some of these deficiencies amounted to a violation of USPAP. Ms. Storm stated that an appraiser should do a complete analysis of the contract and that if it is not done the appraiser is not being reasonably diligent. She also testified that an appraiser, who failed to discuss the large difference between the contract price and appraised value, and who failed to document the analysis, is not being reasonably diligent. Mr. Harrison, on the other hand, testified that after his analysis of the report he found no indication at all of a lack of reasonable diligence. Ms. Storm opined that two or more appraisers, appraising the same property may arrive at two or more numbers and that there is nothing unusual when that occurs. Ms. Moody testified under oath that the supporting information contained in the work file was adequate and that references to other documents, such as public records, were plentiful and complied with the requirements of USPAP. This testimony was adopted by Ms. Green. In order to provide clarity, actual allegations contained in the Administrative Complaints will be discussed in seriatim. As will be addressed more fully in the Conclusions of Law, the Division must prove its factual allegations by clear and convincing evidence. In evaluating the evidence presented, that standard will be used below. The factual allegations will be presented in bold face type, and the discussion of the proof will be in regular type: Respondent made the following errors and omission in the Report:"Failure to discuss or explain why the Subject Property was listed for sale for $1,030,000 and the contract price was $790,000." Ms. Storm opined that the discussion of the contract price did not go into the details as to the history of the property, or list price history, or who the contracting parties were or any fees to be paid by either party. She believes the Form 1004 should have reported when the property was listed and how many days it had been on the market. She believes that USPAP requires the appraiser to analyze the contract completely. She believes the Form 1004 should have commented on the large difference between the sales price and the appraised price. The Form 1004 states, "I did analyze the contract for sale for the subject purchase transaction." Ms. Moody testified under oath that they analyzed the difference between the appraisal price and the selling price. She stated that there was no requirement to discuss it in the Form 1004. Ms. Green adopted this testimony. Ms. Moody also stated that the contract price of a piece of property does not affect the value of the property as reported in the Form 1004. This factual allegation was not proven. "Use of an outdated FEMA map for the Subject Property." Respondents used a FEMA flood map that was outdated. This occurred because the computer program Respondents were using, InterFlood.com, presented an out-of-date map. The map used in the appraisal was dated February 23, 2000, but the most current edition of the map available at the time of the appraisal was dated September 26, 2006. The later map was no different from the map Respondents used. The Form 1004 notes, with regard to the flood status, "It appears to be located in FEMA Flood Zones X and AE. A survey would be needed to confirm flood zones." In sum, there is nothing incorrect or misleading with regard to flooding potential. The Division's expert witness, Ms. Storm, concluded that Respondents did not err with regard to the FEMA flood map. This factual allegation was not proven. "Misstatement of PUD Homeowner's Association Fees for the Subject Property." Respondents asserted the homeowner's association fee to be $100 annually. The by-laws of the Grande Lagoon Community Association, Inc., in effect during all times pertinent, state unequivocally that annual dues of the Association are $100. The Division's investigator stated that he learned through a telephone call with a "Mr. Broome," who was possibly an officer in the homeowner's association, that at the time of the appraisal there was an annual assessment by the homeowner's association of $250 for canal maintenance, and that this amount was to increase to $500 annually in 2008. Information about this assessment was not readily available to Respondents. An assessment is different from a homeowner's fee. The Division's expert witness stated that if there is a homeowner's fee it should be stated on the Form 1004, but that it is not a USPAP requirement. This factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to differentiate view of Subject Property and comparable sale 2, when the Subject Property is located on a canal and the comparable had an open water location." Comparable Sale 2 is located on Star Lake, a small, lagoon- like body of water with access to Pensacola Bay, similar to the location of the appraised property, which is on a canal with access to open water on Big Lagoon. The views on these properties are sufficiently similar that no adjustment is required. This factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to note financial assistance in the sales contract, where seller was to pay all closing costs." The agreement whereby seller would pay $20,000 in closing costs was not made until March 28, 2007, 20 days after the appraisal was completed. This factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to note consulting fee to Investor's Rehab in the sales contract." This allegation is true in that the consulting fee was not mentioned. Ms. Storm opined that it should be analyzed in the appraisal report. She asserted that persons who were not privy to the contract might make decisions in reliance upon the appraisal report and, therefore, the Form 1004 should mention the consulting fee. However, Ms. Moody pointed out that the consulting fee had no effect on the value of the property and stated that it was intentionally omitted. This factual allegation was proven to the extent that the consulting fee was not mentioned, but this omission did not affect the accuracy or credibility of the appraisal report. "Failure to explain range of effective age dates for the Subject Property and comparable sale 1." As discussed in Finding of Fact 8, the subject property was essentially new at the time it was appraised. As pointed out by Mr. Harrison, the effective age was new. Effective age is an estimate of the physical condition of a building. The actual age of the building may be shorter or longer than the effective age. The determination of effective age is largely a matter of judgment. In the case of Comparable Sale 1, it was built in 1980 and last sold in August 2005. Respondents reported the age in 2007 as 26 years with an effective age of 1-5 years. The Form 1004, therefore, presented a one year error as to actual age, which is insignificant. The allegation is that Respondents failed to explain the range of effective age dates. However, it is found that the Form 1004 adequately informs anyone reading it. Accordingly, this factual allegation is not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 1 for its effective age difference." No evidence supporting this allegation was presented. The unrebutted testimony of Ms. Moody, adopted by Ms. Green, was that there was no market data suggesting that there was a need for adjustment. There was no evidence that an explanation for no adjustment was required. Accordingly, this factual allegation is not proven. "Incorrect site size adjustment for comparable sale 1; the $17,000 should be in the positive direction." The site size adjustment for Comparable Sale 1 is in the amount of $40,000. It appears that the intentions of the Administrative Complaints were to allege an error in gross living area. The result is that the record provides no proof of this allegation. "Adjustment for both the room count and square footage, without explanation of its necessity or market support of its accuracy, for comparable sale 1." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Incorrect actual age for comparable sale 1." In the case of Comparable Sale 1, it was built in 1980 and last sold in August 2005. Respondents reported the age in 2007 as 26 years with an effective age of 1-5. The Form 1004 therefore presented a one-year error. This error is insignificant. "Failure to explain inconsistent site size adjustments made to comparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3." The subject property was located on a site (or lot) that was .3 acres. Comparable Sale 1 was located on a site that was .52 acres. Respondents subtracted $40,000 from the sale price of Comparable Sale 1. Comparable Sale 2 was located on a site that was .7 acres. Respondents subtracted $60,000 from the sale price of Comparable Sale 2. Comparable Sale 3 was located on a site that was .44 acres. Respondents added $25,000 to the sale price of Comparable Sale 3. It is the appraiser's duty to value a comparable in such a way that differences between the comparable and the subject property are accounted so that a common denominator may be found. For example, Comparable Sale 1 was approximately .2 of an acre larger than the subject property and thus more valuable solely because it is on a larger site. To equalize the situation, the price of Comparable Sale 1 must be reduced, and it was. Comparable Sale 2 also was reduced, but Comparable Sale 3 that was on a larger lot than the subject property, was credited with a $25,000 addition to its price. Nothing in Respondents' work file provides how the figures for the comparables were found. Moreover, if two of the comparables experienced a downward adjustment because of a larger lot size, then the third comparable, having a larger lot size, should have been adjusted downward also. Therefore, there were inconsistencies requiring explanation, and no explanation was found in the file. "Failure to note that comparable sale 1 has a fireplace." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this factual allegation was not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 1 for its fireplace." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this factual allegation was not proven. "Incorrect actual age for comparable sale 2." Comparable Sale 2 was built in 1990. At the time of the appraisal, it was approximately 17 years old. It last sold November 2006. It was reported to be 16 years of age with an effective age of five years on the Form 1004. This is both incorrect and insignificant. "Adjustment for both room count and square footage, without explanation of its necessity or market support of its accuracy, for comparable sale 2." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Incorrect actual age for comparable sale 2." This allegation repeats that stated in "O" above. "Failure to not [sic] that comparable sale 2 has three fireplaces." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this allegation was not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 2 for its multiple fireplaces." The Division's expert witness said that the failure to adjust for the fireplaces was of no consequence. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the failure to adjust for fireplaces was necessary. Accordingly, this allegation was not proven. "Failure to make an adjustment or provide an explanation for no adjustment on comparable sale 2 for its lake view." Comparable Sale 2 is located on Star Lake, a lagoon-like body of water with access to open water, similar to the location of the appraised property, which is on a canal with access to open water on Big Lagoon. The views on these properties are sufficiently similar that no adjustment is required. This allegation was not proven. "Incorrect actual age of comparable sale 3." Comparable Sale 3 was built in 1989. At the time of the appraisal, it was approximately 18 years old. It last sold in August of 2005. It was reported to be 16 years of age with an effective age of 10 years on the Form 1004. This age was reported incorrectly. "Use of comparable sale 3 which sold 19 months prior to the Report." The Form 1004 noted that finding comparables was difficult due to market disruption caused by Hurricane Ivan. As noted by Ms. Storm, the change in the real estate market during the years 2004, 2005, and 2006, have been profound everywhere. Primarily, market prices have declined during those years. She was of the opinion that the August 18, 2005, sale date of Comparable Sale 3 was too remote. She stated, correctly, that a market condition adjustment should have been made to the price reported for Comparable Sale 3. Ms. Storm found in the work file analyst listings of the comparables that were utilized, and pages from the Marshall and Swift, but did not see any actual paired sale analyses for any of the adjustments that were used in the report. She could not determine from where they obtained these sales and the adjustments for differences. She opined that this made the report less credible. According to Ms. Storm, the insufficient analysis runs afoul of USPAP. The opinion of Ms. Storm, however, fails to take into account the insufficient data in the Pensacola area that resulted from hurricane-induced market disruption and the consequent lack of sales. Because of the lack of viable alternatives, using this property as a comparable was necessary. This factual allegation was not proven. "Adjustment for both room count and square footage, without explanation of its necessity or market support of its accuracy, for comparable sale 3." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Failure to calculate and list the net adjustment and gross adjustment totals for comparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3." The Division's expert found this to be inconsequential. There was no proof adduced indicating that this was a violation of any standard. "Failure to utilize current Marshall & Swift information for the Cost Approach section of the Report." Marshall and Swift is a reference service that is used to develop information in the cost approach analysis. It provides "local multipliers" to provide for cost differentials in various geographic areas, including differentials for garages and two-story houses. It also provides "local multipliers" for the cost per square foot for construction. The pages used by Respondents expired at the end of February 2007, eight days before the Form 1004 issued. Respondents receive quarterly updates. The issue after February 2007 showed no change. To the extent Respondents failed to get the most current information, it had no impact on the appraisal amount. "Failure to complete the PUD information section of the Report, when Subject Property, as noted by Respondent in Report, is located in a PUD." The Division acknowledged during the hearing that there was no support for this allegation, and withdrew it. AA) "Failure to date when Respondent inspected the Subject Property and comparable sales listed in the Report." (This allegation was made in the case of Ms. Green, but not in the case of Ms. Moody.) In the blocks on the Form 1004, below the Supervisory Appraiser's signature, Ms. Green signed statements indicating that she inspected the interior and exterior of the subject property and that she inspected the exterior of the comparable sales properties. She did not date either of these statements. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $40,000 "site size" adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "site size" of Comparable Sale 1. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $60,000 "site size" adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "site size" of Comparable Sale 2. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $25,000 "site size" adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "site size" of Comparable Sale 3. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $50,000 "view" adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Comparable Sale 1 is on Big River. The Form 1004 notes that Big River is similar to Big Lagoon. A $50,000 downward adjustment was made in the "view" category. Ms. Storm stated that she had searched for documentation and did not find it. The work file does not have documentary support for the adjustments. Respondents and Ms. Storm agreed that the lack of sales in the area made such adjustments like this problematic. As Ms. Storm said, "I know there haven't been that many sales of waterfronts so it's really difficult to arrive at that data." Nevertheless, the lack of any information in the work file to support the adjustment means that this factual allegation is proven. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $5,000 "age" adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "age" of Comparable Sale 2. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $10,000 "age" adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment to the "age" of Comparable Sale 3. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $3,000 "triple garage" adjustment made to comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. A downward adjustment of $3,000 was made to Comparable Sale 3 because of its triple garage. No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, includes Marshall and Swift data for garages. Although exactly how the $3,000 adjustment was calculated is not clear, the Marshall and Swift information was in the file and provided a method for making the calculation. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $10,000 "dock/pier" adjustment made to comparable sale 1 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. A downward adjustment of $10,000 was made to Comparable Sale 1 because of the presence of a "dock/pier." No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $15,000 "pool" adjustment made to comparable sale 2 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. A downward adjustment of $15,000 was made to Comparable Sale 2 because of the presence of a pool on the property. No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, does not contain documentation for this adjustment. There is no documentation in the work file to support the $39/square foot adjustment for gross living area made tocomparable sale 1, comparable sale 2, and comparable sale 3 in the Sales Comparison section of the Report. No testimony supporting this allegation was presented. The Division has not directed the attention of the Administrative Law Judge to any reference in the record to a "$39/square foot adjustment for gross living area." An independent search of Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, did not reveal documentation for this adjustment or any documentation mentioning it. Accordingly, this allegation is not proven. The work file lacks current Marshall and Swift pages for the time frame that the Reports were completed, as well as any local builder information, to justify the dwelling square footage price in the Cost Approach section of the Report. Marshall and Swift is a reference service that is used to develop information for use in the cost approach. It provides "local multipliers" to provide for cost differentials in various geographic areas, including differentials for garages and two-story houses. It also provides information used to calculate the construction cost per square foot. The pages used by Respondents expired at the end of February 2007, eight days before the report issued. Respondents receive quarterly updates. The issue subsequent to February 2007 showed no change. To the extent Respondents failed to get the most current information, it had no impact on the appraisal amount. The work file lacks any documentation to support the $30,000 As-Is Value of Site Improvements adjustment in the Cost Approach section of the Report. As-is value of site improvements adjustment, in the cost approach section, is a positive value of $30,000. There is no explanation in the record as to what an "as-is value of site improvements adjustment" is or from what source came the $30,000 value. The work file lacks any documentation to support the $60,000 Porches/Appliances adjustment in the Cost Approach section of the Report Respondents' work file, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaints, contains Marshall and Swift information for porches and appliances. Thus, documentation is present.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board find Respondents guilty of violating Subsection 475.624(14), Florida Statutes, by failing to document adjustments made to comparable sales and reprimand Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas M. Brady, Esquire 3250 Navy Boulevard, Suite 204 Post Office Box 12584 Pensacola, Florida 32591-2584 Robert Minarcin, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801 Frank K. Gregoire, Chairman Real Estate Appraisal Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue Whether the Defendants have been guilty of violating Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Florida Real Estate Commission and should have their corporate and personal licenses annulled, suspended or revoked.
Findings Of Fact United Real Estate Association, Inc. holds License Number 0134096 as a corporate real estate broker operating out of the principle office and branch offices in various cities throughout the State of Florida. The five (5) Defendants, Stuart R. Snively, Lic. No. 0083024, Clark Roberts, Lic. No. 0074117, Juanita M. Robbins, Lic. No. 0145920, Yvonne Yount, Lic. No. 0099456 and Vivian R. Whitney, Lic. No. 0156013, were listed as brokers for and officers of the corporation. Mrs. Elizabeth C. Dyer was employed by the Defendant, United, at its Winter Park office from March 1, 1975 through May 5, 1975. During the time of her employment, two checks were returned to her - one for "insufficient funds" and one for "account closed". At the time of discharge, United owed Mrs. Dyer money for work done. The Defendant Juanita Robbins later paid Mrs. Dyer all monies owed her by United. United failed to refund a fee to Mr. and Mrs. Browne after promising a refund due customers because of unsatisfactory service. During the time Mrs. Dyer was employed by United, part of her duties was to call owners of properties to obtain rental listings. Other employees also worked for United obtaining and servicing the rental business. No personal inspection was made of many of the properties on which United took rental listings, nor did the employees of United accompany those who were charged a fee to examine the rental list to the listed property. Properties were listed by United which were not properly described thereby misleading those who paid a fee to obtain a list of rental properties. There were many people who were dissatisfied with the services rendered by United and their rental listings. Houses were listed at a certain rental fee and after customers paid their $25 to $30 for the use of the rental listings, houses as advertised could not be located. The Defendant United Real Estate Association, Inc., leased furniture from the American Furniture Company and failed to pay the amount owed. Ultimately the bonding company paid a portion of the $3,509 owed by United. Part of the amount owed was for rent and part was for furniture that was not returned. Monies are still owed by several of the offices owned by United. Thomas J. Capobianco was the manager of United Real Estate Association and signed rental agreements as secretary/treasurer of the corporation. (As the date of this hearing, Mr. Capobianco had bought five of the offices from United.) The office in which Mr. Capobianco was employed in Winter Park, Florida and supervised by Defendant Stuart R. Snively, was closed in March or April of 1975. When United closed its office, it owed money to the Sentinel Star newspaper and the American Furniture Rentals. The Orlando Sentinel Star, through a court proceeding, was awarded a sum exceeding $8,000, in a proceeding brought by the Sentinel Star against United Real Estate Association, Inc. for monies due. At one time the Star refused to accept advertisement from United for the reason that the advertising was not accurate and there were complaints from the readers. Some of the complaints were verbal and some were written to the publisher of the Sentinel Star or to the Better Business Bureau of Orlando. Misrepresentations of the property were the majority of the complaints and most were directed at the Winter Park office. The Defendant Juanita Robbins was affiliated with the corporation Defendant United Real Estate Association, Inc. in March of 1975 and severed her relationship in September 1975. United had offices on the east coast, an office in Winter Park and offices in Bradenton, St. Petersburg, and Sarasota. Defendant Robbins was responsible for the St. Petersburg, Sarasota and Bradenton offices but exercised supervisory direction only over the office in the Tampa Bay Area. Defendant Stuart Snively was in charge of the office of United in Winter Park. All of the defendants were listed as brokers of each office. The complaint against United is mainly a complaint about the Winter Park office operated by Mr. Snively. No trust or escrow bank accounts were maintained as required by Section 475.25, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21V.14, F.A.C., for the deposit of fees collected by United at any of the offices. Insufficient evidence was adduced to prove the employment of a non-registered salesman by United.
Recommendation Revoke the Corporate License Number 0134096 of United Real Estate Association, Inc. Suspend the license of Stuart R. Snively for a period of not less than thirty (30) days. Dismiss Complaint as to the defendants, Clark Roberts, Juanita M. Robbins, Yvonne Yount and Vivian R. Whitney. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of January, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: S. Ralph Fetner, Jr., Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Albert P. Schwarz, Esquire 255 Royal Ponciana Way Palm Beach, Florida 33480
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a state certified general appraiser, holding license number RI 0000912. In late 1993 First Sarasota Mortgage Company hired the appraisal company for which Respondent worked to prepare a "small income property report." This was a short form appraisal report used for multifamily housing, up to seven attached units. Respondent visited the subject duplex to meet the borrower and inspect the property. He found the duplex in bad disrepair. The building was constructed in 1928. Forty or fifty years ago a prior owner removed a second story from the building, leaving it a single-story building. The interior walls are the original walls of the building, which is a legal nonconforming use in an area without other duplexes or similar properties. The building also suffered from a serious termite inspection. Respondent reported what he had seen to the loan officer at First Sarasota. He told her that the property had considerable deferred maintenance and was not as represented by the borrower to the bank. Contrary to the borrower's assurances, the building was infested with termites, either uninsured or underinsured, and not owner-occupied. The loan officer instructed Respondent to continue the appraisal and try to find comparables. After about two and one- half days of research over a five day period, during which time he kept the loan officer informed of his lack of progress, Respondent contacted the loan officer and told her what he had found. After searching in a 15 mile-radius Respondent had still been unable to find properties that did not require large adjustments due to the age or condition of the property. The loan officer agreed that the comparables were useless. Respondent asked her whether he should continue the project or stop. She said that she would talk to the borrower and get back to Respondent. The loan officer called Respondent the next day and said stop working on the project. The loan officer denied the loan application, evidently due to the inadequacy of the property to be mortgaged. Although the lender ordered the appraisal, the borrower had paid the lender in advance for the appraisal. Respondent went to his supervisor and explained that the borrower had already paid $450, and Respondent felt uncomfortable not giving him anything. Respondent suggested that they provide the lender with a letter of opinion based on their opinion of the worth of the property using a cost approach, omitting the market and income approaches due to the absence of comparables. The supervisor approved the issuance of a letter of opinion. A copy of the letter went to the borrower. Respondent did not hear from the borrower for some time after issuing the letter of opinion. Then the borrower asked for a formal appraisal report. Respondent offered a partial refund or the letter of opinion, but the borrower insisted on a formal appraisal report. which Respondent could not provide. The letter of opinion is on the letterhead of Respondent's employer and is dated October 4, 1993. Addressed to First Sarasota, the letter, which is signed by Respondent, describes the property and states: After a thorough inspection of the property, an intensive search of the Lee County Property appraisers tax records, the last three years of recorded sales taken from the Lee County REDI records, sales from the past two years taken from the Ft. Myers MLS and telephone interviews with local realtors and appraisers, it is our opinion that if an appraisal were to be per- formed on this property, the estimated fair market value of the subject property as of the date of inspection, 09/02/93, would be $65,000 to $75,000. The one-page letter explains in detail the calculations under the cost approach for the property, leading to a total value of $92,000 for land and building. A note adds that the cost approach was given little weight due to the magnitude of needed repairs, including repairs for termite damage. The final sentence of the letter states: "This is a letter of opinion only and is not meant to be misinterpreted or utilized as an appraisal." Twice, the letter disclaims being an appraisal report. The letter is accurate, reasonably detailed, and carefully conditioned. The main issue in the case is whether the letter of opinion is a permissible alternative to a formal appraisal report under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) that are incorporated into the disciplinary statutes. Statement of Appraisal Standards No. 7 was adopted on March 22, 1994, and is included in the 1995 USPAP. Statement No. 7 addresses the situations under which an appraiser may perform an assignment that calls for something less than, or different from, a formal appraisal, as required by USPAP standards. The commentary identifies the issue as follows: Throughout the history of real property appraisal practice, a perception has existed that certain types of transactions in the real estate market require something less than or different from a Complete Appraisal. The phrase something less than or different from in this context has meant a Limited Appraisal and a condensed report. To distinguish this type of assignment from a Complete Appraisal, different names have been created for this activity, including Letter Opinion of Value, Update of an Appraisal, Recertification of Value, and, more recently, Evaluation of Real Property Collateral. 1995 USPAP, page 73. Statement No. 7 proceeds to describe a "complete appraisal" and "limited appraisal" and a "self-contained appraisal report," "summary appraisal report," and "restricted appraisal report." Mentioning a provision that permits an appraiser to enter into an agreement that "calls for something less than, or different from, the work that would otherwise be required by the specific guidelines," Statement No. 7 explains: This provision goes on to permit limited departures from specific guidelines provided the appraiser determines the appraisal process is not so limited as to mislead the client and intended users of the report, the appraiser advises the client of the limitations and discloses the limitations in the report, and the client agrees that the limited service would be appropriate. 1995 USPAP, page 73. After an extended discussion of the types of appraisal reports and appraisals, Statement No. 7 concludes in part: Clarification of Nomenclature Various nomenclature has been developed by clients and client groups for certain appraisal assignments. The development of this Statement on Appraisal Standards is a response to inquiries about several types of appraisal assignments, and it is appropriate to clarify the meaning of these terms for future reference. The term Letter Opinion of Value has been used to describe a one-page letter sent to a client that stated a value estimate and referenced the file information and experience of the appraiser as the basis for the estimate. This type of service does not comply with USPAP, and should be eliminated from appraisal practice. . . . The Restricted Report is the minimum report format and replaces the concept of the Letter Opinion of Value. 1995 USPAP, page 75. The 1993 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, which was in effect at the time of the subject transaction, does not contain Statement No. 7 because the statement was not in effect at the time, nor at the time of the subject transaction. Appraisers have historically used letters of opinion and not been disciplined. Statement No. 7 represents an attempt, in 1994, to provide and clarification "for future reference." Nothing in Statement No. 7 nor the 1993 USPAP supplies Petitioner with any basis for disciplining Respondent for the use of the letter of opinion in 1993. The client in this case was First Sarasota, to which the borrower paid the appraisal fee. Respondent's letter is directed to the client, not the borrower. Nothing in the letter could possibly mislead the client or the borrower. The limitations of the letter are largely apparent in the letter itself. Perhaps most important, Respondent consistently kept the client informed about the project and disclosed for his client the abject condition of the property and misrepresentations of the borrower. Respondent's diligence in fact engendered the complaint from the borrower that resulted in this case. After the subject transaction the restricted appraisal report replaced the letter of opinion. Respondent discontinued use of letters of opinion since the October 4, 1993 letter. In October 1993, however, Petitioner could not discipline an appraiser for the use of a letter of opinion, at least under the facts of this case. The October 4, 1993 letter was not an appraisal report under either then-existing USPAP standards, but was a widely recognized alternative to a formal appraisal report. In October 1993, as is clear from the language of Statement No. 7, USPAP had not created the alternative of the restricted appraisal report and had not limited all communications from appraisers to one of three types of reports. There is absolutely no evidence that Respondent failed to use reasonable diligence in the preparation of an appraisal report.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. ENTERED on December 21, 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 this 21st day of December, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Gary A. Berleue, pro se 13604 Wainwright Ave. Port Charlotte, FL 33953 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900
