The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents are guilty of mishandling an escrow deposit.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Vu is and was at all material times a licensed real estate broker, holding Florida license number 0394778. He is and was at all material times the qualifying broker for Respondent American Homes and Investment Realty, Inc., which holds Florida license number 0250718. Respondent Vu owns Respondent American Homes. In 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Serge Delisfort contacted Respondents about purchasing a residence. The Delisforts eventually signed a contract to purchase a home and paid the $500 earnest money deposit to Respondents. Later learning that they would be liable to pay an annual homeowners' fee of $72, the Delisforts told Respondent Vu that they did not want to complete the purchase. The listing broker, which was not either Respondent, omitted mention of the homeowners' fee from the listing information supplied Respondents and the Delisforts. The sellers refused to release the deposit. Confronted with the dispute, Respondent Vu promptly requested an escrow disbursement order from the Florida Real Estate Commission on March 29, 1991. Due to the presence of a factual or legal dispute, the Florida Real Estate Commission informed Respondents, in a 47-word letter dated October 16, 1991, that it could not issue an escrow disbursement order. The October 16 letter warns Respondents to "immediately choose one of the other two alternatives available to you under ss. 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, to settle this dispute, i.e., arbitration or a civil court." Instead, Respondents did nothing. The Delisforts periodically contacted Respondent Vu and asked if he could release their deposit. The sellers sold their house to another party and moved to Puerto Rico. The Delisforts contacted another broker and purchased a different house through the new broker. Eventually, the Delisforts contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission and asked its help in obtaining the deposit. An investigator for the Division of Real Estate interviewed Respondent Vu on March 1, 1994. Explaining the reason for the delay, Respondent Vu, possibly confused, stated that the buyers had left Orlando for awhile. In fact, the buyers had remained in Orlando. At the suggestion of the investigator, Respondent Vu contacted both parties, and they agreed to split the deposit equally. Respondent Vu prepared the paperwork, which the parties signed on March 11, 1994. At that time, Respondents paid each party $250. The Delisforts have since listed their home for sale by Respondents. While improperly holding the $500 deposit, Respondent Vu was preoccupied by the illnesses and deaths of his parents, who remained in Vietnam. Despite the possibility of trouble upon his return to Vietnam, Respondent Vu traveled to Vietnam at least once during this time to care for one or both of his parents. Respondents failed to implement timely the remedies established by law and identified by the Florida Real Estate Commission in its letter of October 26, 1991. Respondent Vu acted two and one-half years later, only after one of Petitioner's investigators contacted him. It is no excuse that the costs of arbitration or court would have consumed a large part of the amount in dispute. Confronted with that prospect, the sellers or the Delisforts would probably have settled the matter. If not, that would have been their problem, not Respondents'. The fact is that Respondents failed to discharge their obligations by presenting the dispute for resolution in a timely fashion. Nonetheless, the amount involved is modest. Neither party had a clear claim to the funds, nor was either party exceptionally troubled by Respondents' casual handling of the matter. The Delisforts contacted the Florida Real Estate Commission, but did not realize that they were in effect filing a complaint against Respondents, in whom they entrusted the sale of their current home. A final order issued July 18, 1988, involves Respondents' mishandling of a salesperson's commission. The husband of the salesperson owed Respondent Vu some money, and both men agreed that the debtor's wife would work off the debt by selling real estate at Respondent American Homes. However, the debtor's wife was of a different mind. After earning her first commission, she refused to allow Respondents to credit it against her husband's debt. When Respondent Vu ignored her demand for payment, she filed a complaint, which resulted in the final order and Respondents' proper payment of the commission.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding both Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25((1)(d)1, reprimanding both Respondents, and requiring Respondent Vu to take a thirty-hour broker management course. ENTERED on February 22, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 22, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Legal Section--Suite N-308 Hurston Bldg., North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32802-1772 Dau Viet Vu 1048 Pine Hills Rd. Orlando, FL 32808
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(a), 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Phillip F. Niles, is and was, at times material to this matter, a licensed real estate broker. His license number is 0173298. Respondent's license was inactive from August 2, 1996, through March 31, 1997. It was invalid due to non-renewal from March 31, 1997 through May 28, 1997. From May 29, 1997 through August 20, 1997, Respondent was an active broker. From August 21, 1997 through June 10, 1998, Respondent was an inactive broker. From June 11, 1998, through the date of the formal hearing, Respondent was an active individual broker. The address of his last license was 1700 Ridge Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida 32117. Sam L. Berry owned a condominium located at 840 Center Street, Unit 101, Holly Hill, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the property). Sometime prior to April 27, 1997, Mr. Berry asked Respondent to sell the property. Mr. Berry wanted to receive $20,000 for the property. Mr. Berry told Respondent that he could keep any amount of the sales price in excess of $20,000. Respondent placed an advertisement for the sale of the property in the newspaper. Thereafter, he prepared a Contract for Sale and Purchase (the contract) for the sale of the property with $20,000 as the sales price. The buyer's name was John Richards. Meanwhile, Peggy Holloway became interested in the property after seeing Respondent's advertisement. Ms. Holloway contacted Respondent at the number referenced in the advertisement. Subsequently, she met Respondent at the property. At that time Respondent's broker's license was inactive. Ms. Holloway made an offer on the property. In order to make a commission or profit on the sale, Respondent decided to sell the property to her. He changed the existing contract by marking through Mr. Richard's name and adding Ms. Holloway's name as the buyer. Respondent changed the sales price on the contract to $23,000. On April 27, 1997, Ms. Holloway signed the contract as the buyer. That same day, Mr. Berry signed the contract as seller. As part of the contract, and pursuant to Respondent's instructions, Ms. Holloway made a check out to Respondent, personally, in the amount of $500. Respondent assured Ms. Holloway that he would place the money in an escrow account. The contract stated that the $500 deposit would be held in escrow. Respondent did not place Ms. Holloway's money in escrow. He cashed her check and kept the $500. At all times material to the transaction Ms. Holloway believed that Respondent was a licensed real estate broker. Additionally, the contract contained language stating that Respondent was a real estate broker. During subsequent conversations with Ms. Holloway about financing arrangements for the purchase of the property, Respondent appeared drunk. As a result of those conversations, Ms. Holloway became suspicious about Respondent's intentions and his competence to handle the real estate transaction. Ms. Holloway contacted Petitioner and learned that Respondent's license was inactive. On or about May 6, 1997, Ms. Holloway telephoned Respondent. She told him that she did not want to go through with the contract. She demanded that Respondent return her $500 deposit. Respondent failed to return Ms. Holloway's $500 deposit. Ms. Holloway then began to deal with Respondent's brother, Peter Niles, who is an attorney. Respondent's brother prepared a document for Mr. Berry to sign acknowledging receipt of the $500 deposit. Mr. Berry signed the document prepared by Respondent's brother even though Respondent never gave the $500 deposit to Mr. Berry. Ms. Holloway eventually decided to deal directly with Mr. Berry. They agreed on a sale price and closed the transaction with no assistance from Respondent, his brother, or any other individual. Ms. Holloway sued Respondent in the County Court of Volusia County, Florida. In Case No. 97-31586, the County Judge entered a judgment against Respondent in favor of Ms. Holloway. Respondent had not satisfied the judgment as of the date of the formal hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for a period of ten years and requiring him to pay a fine in the amount of $1,000 within one year of the date of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 15th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Phillip F. Niles 5747 Sweetwater Boulevard Port Orange, Florida 32127 Phillip F. Niles Apartment 503 100 Seabreeze Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Herbert S. Fecker, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Bobbie G. Scheffer, who holds license No. 0073955, was a real estate broker for Rivard Realty, Inc. in Fort Walton Beach, Florida; and Ralph S. Ecoff was a licensed real estate salesman, employed by Rivard Realty, Inc. He holds license No. 0454969. In the spring of 1988, another salesman in the employ of Rivard Realty, Inc., Wayne Thompson, obtained the listing for the three-bedroom, one-story house at 28 East Casa Loma Drive in Mary Esther, Florida, from its then corporate owner, Roman Acts, Inc. He received information about the property from a representative of the corporation. Without verifying the information, Mr. Thompson entered it into a computer. Misled by the owner's representative, he reported the house's age as eight years. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. In fact, the house had been built in 1974. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. A public water supply serves the house, but a septic tank, not a public sewer, receives wastewater from the house. Aware of these matters, Mr. Thompson, when confronted with a blank on a form labelled "WATR/SEW", filled in "Pub. Wat." Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. No more than another letter or two could have been squeezed into the blank on the form displayed on a computer video terminal. Respondent Ralph S. Ecoff saw the house in the course of showing it to prospective buyers, and decided to buy it himself. After a representative of Roman Acts, Inc. accepted his offer (but before the closing), Mr. Ecoff and a partner set about refurbishing the house. Mr. Ecoff, a septuagenarian who bought the house with the intention of reselling it, finds computers intimidating. Still another real estate salesman in the employ of Rivard Realty, Inc., Steve Kehran, volunteered to enter a revised listing in the multiple listing service computer, to let it be known that the property was again for sale. As instructed by Mr. Ecoff, Mr. Kehran raised the price and "changed the blurbage" (to read "EVERYTHING NEW AGAIN. COMPARES WITH NEW HOME. LOW INTEREST RATE," etc.) Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. In keeping with Mr. Ecoff's instructions, Kehran relied on the superseded listing for other information about the house. That is why the age of the house was again inaccurately reported as eight years. Extrapolating innocently but inaccurately from the earlier listing's "Pub. Wat.," Mr. Kehran assumed public sewers accompanied the public water supply and filled in the "WATER/SEW" blank with the abbreviation "Comm Sew." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. Mr. Ecoff had read the listing from which Mr. Kehran took the information but, he testified, he did not read it carefully. Whether he read over what Mr. Kehran wrote at any time before the Stacys complained of the inaccuracies is not clear. Mr. Ecoff has said all along that he was aware the property had a septic tank. He testified to this effect at hearing and also testified that he was aware the house was more than eight years old when the Stacys agreed to buy it. If he had read the listing Mr. Kehran entered in the computer for him with proper care and due regard for the importance of its accuracy, he would have discovered the misinformation it contained. Although Mr. Stacy had physical possession of a multiple listing sheet bearing the information Mr. Kehran introduced into the computer data bank at Mr. Ecoff's behest, while he and his wife drove around with Ms. Scheffer, looking at houses, and may well have read it at that time, the evidence did not show that either Ms. Scheffer or Mr. Ecoff reiterated the information verbally. (It was not clear whether Mr. Stacy retained the sheet Ms. Scheffer furnished him after seeing the house.) Engaged by a mortgage company, an appraiser who was familiar with the neighborhood reported the true age of the house, but put its "effective age" at ten years, after two visits to the property. The appraiser's report, which recited inaccurately, as the listing had, that a public sewer served the property, was furnished to the mortgage company that financed the Stacys' purchase. Once the report reached the mortgage company, it was available to the Stacys, although they did not in fact see it, as far as the evidence showed, before the closing, which took place on August 24, 1988. On or before January 1, 1991, Mr. and Mrs. Stacy will be required to cause pipe to be installed to connect the house to a public sewer main, itself yet to be laid. Mr. Stacy has been told the hook-up will cost $1,600.00 over and above the $600.00 it will cost to install the connector. Even so, the evidence did not establish that the house's dependence on a septic tank affected its market value in 1988. The evidence also failed to show that the house's age materially affected its value. Ms. Scheffer encourages salespersons in her employ to take advantage of courses the local Board of Realtors offers, and scheduled Mr. Ecoff for every such course available. She has not personally instructed salespeople to verify information sellers give them by independent inspection. Perhaps because the practice of relying on sellers' representations is widespread, the multiple listing sheets all bear the disclaimer, "INFORMATION DEEMED RELIABLE, BUT NOT GUARANTEED." The evidence did not show how carefully Ms. Scheffer read the inaccurate listing that salesmen in her employ generated, or that she would have been or should have been aware of the inaccuracies, however carefully she had examined the listing. Although Mr. Ecoff said he knew there was a septic tank on the property because the grass was so green in part of the backyard, Mr. Stacy testified that the septic tank is buried in front of the house. It was not proven that even an experienced real estate broker like Ms. Scheffer should necessarily infer an actual age of more than eight from an effective age of ten years. In short, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that respondent Scheffer actually knew or had reason to know the listing was inaccurate.
Recommendation It is, in accordance with Rule 21V-18.008, Florida Administrative Code, recommended: That petitioner suspend respondent Ecoff's license for thirty (30) days. That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint, insofar as it alleges that respondent Scheffer violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989). RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1990.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in the proceeding concern whether the Respondent’s license as a Florida real estate broker should be subjected to discipline for allegedly being guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction, in purported violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with licensing and regulating the practice and entry into practice of real estate brokers and salesperson. Included within that responsibility is a duty to prosecute administrative complaints upon findings of probable cause that regulated licensees have violated the laws of Florida pertaining to real estate licensure and practice, most particularly in this proceeding Section 475.25, Florida Statutes. The Respondent at all time pertinent hereto was and still is a real estate broker licensed as such in the State of Florida. He has been issued license number 0505444 in accordance with relevant provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is also a licensed general contractor or residential contractor in the State of Florida. On December 1, 1993, the Respondent, as President of Sandlot Construction Company, negotiated a contract between that firm, as seller, and Edward D. and Ruby M. Crawford, as buyers, whereby the buyers purchased Lot 23 at Holley by the Sea Subdivision in Santa Rose County. The purchase price for the lot paid by the Crawfords was $13,000. On that date the Respondent, as Pesident of Sandlot Construction Company, negotiated a construction agreement between Sandlot Construction Company and the Crawfords for construction of a home for the Crawfords residence on that lot. Months later, on September 8, 1994, the Crawfords paid Sandlot Construction Company $800, by check, to pay for the building of a fireplace in the house under construction by Sandlot Construction Company. When the construction was completed in the latter part of 1994, the buyer discovered that certain sub-contractors and suppliers had placed mechanics’ and materialmens’ liens on the property. This was a surprise to the Crawfords because they had paid all outstanding amounts agreed upon for the construction of the home. This situation occurred, however, because the Respondent had received the moneys for the various items of labor and materials for the construction of the house but had failed to pay the subcontractors and suppliers who had filed the subject liens on the real property in question. This difficulty arose because the Respondent diverted the funds which should have been used to pay the subcontractors and suppliers to other purposes. This situation caused the unhappy result that, in December 1994, the Crawfords were forced to pay these subcontractor and suppler lienors approximately $6,547.50 to defray their outstanding claims and to secure the satisfaction of their liens on the property. In December of 1994, the buyers also discovered that the Respondent had failed to pay the fireplace vendor, “Hearth and Home” the $800 price for the fireplace which had been ordered. The vendor built the fireplace in the home under construction and the buyers were thus obligated to pay for the fireplace. The Respondent failed to pay for the fireplace out of the construction moneys derived from the buyers which had been placed at his disposal as contractor and President of Sandlot Construction Company, to pay for all construction costs. The fireplace vendor filed a mechanics lien against the property for failure to pay the $800 claim. On December 20, 1994, the buyers thus were forced to pay an additional $800 to the Hearth and Home Company in order to satisfy the lien placed on their real property. Consequently, the buyers, as a result of the Respondent’s use of their funds for other purposes, which may even have included other aspects of the construction, were forced to pay the subcontractors and suppliers $7,347.50 more for the construction of the home than they had contracted with the Respondent to pay. The Respondent acknowledged that he was obligated to pay this amount of money to the subcontractors, suppliers and materialmen involved in the liens and that he simply had run out of funds because the funds had been used for other purposes (it was not proven that he diverted the funds for his personal use). The Respondent has thus acknowledged that he owes the Crawfords this sum of money, fully intends, and prior to this proceeding had assured them he intended, to re-pay them. He has not done so as yet. The Respondent, and the above-named company of which he is President, is in straitened financial circumstances. Nevertheless, at the time the Respondent had the custody and control of the construction funds in question and failed to use them for the proper purpose of paying the subcontractors, suppliers and materialmen who filed the liens, he knew that the funds in question should have been used for the proper purpose and failed to do so, causing the above-referenced pecuniary loss to the buyers.
The Issue Whether the application of the Respondent, Robert A. Whittemore, III, for registration should have been denied.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert A. Whittemore, III, filed an application for registration as a real estate salesman with the Petitioner Commission on April 18, 1978. The application was denied, and Respondent by letter requested an administrative hearing to "prove that I do meet with the qualifications" for licensure. Respondent was sent notice of hearing on two (2) occasions by mail, and the notices were not returned. He did not appear to testify and sent no representative to testify in his behalf. Respondent had been licensed as a real estate broker in New York, New York, which license expired on October 31, 1973. The application submitted by Repondent showed that he was convicted of conspiracy in the third degree by the Supreme Court in the State of New York on August 19, 1976, and of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree on December 5, 1976, and sentenced on June 16, 1976. Thereafter a certificate of relief from disabilities on his real estate license was issued by a justice of the Supreme Court, State of New York, on October 20, 1977. Said certificate was submitted by Respondent at the time of his application for registration. No memorandum of law was submitted by either party involved in this administrative hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Respondent's application for registration be denied. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of August, 1979. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Robert A. Whittemore, III 5501 North Ocean Boulevard Ocean Ridge Palm Beach, Florida 33435
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Fetters has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, trading as RONTRON Realty and Investment, with offices in Largo, Florida, and Choudhury has been a licensed real estate salesperson at RONTRON Realty. Fetters was Choudhury's broker at all times material hereto. Stanley and Mary K. Jankiewicz listed their home for $189,000 with Harvey Seybold, a licensed real estate broker, and neighbor. On January 28, 1988, Choudhury contacted Seybold and asked to see the Jankiewicz house. Seybold showed the house that same day. On January 30, 1988, Choudhury presented a contract for the sale and purchase of the home to Seybold and Jankiewicz. The purchasers, John and Gail Taylor, offered $185,000, but this offer was unacceptable to Jankiewicz because it called for him to hold a $150,000 purchase money mortgage. Jankiewicz proposed a counteroffer, which still provided for a sales price of $185,000, but only required him to hold a purchase money mortgage of $25,000. It also required the Taylors to obtain a firm financing commitment within 45 days for a first mortgage in the amount of $129,000. The Taylors accepted this counteroffer, and the transaction was scheduled to close on March 30, 1988, as proposed in Jankiewicz' counteroffer. Jankiewicz and Seybold testified that Choudhury told them, on January 30, 1988, that the Taylors had a net worth of from $2 to $3 million, and that he had a copy of their financial statement in his office, which he had reviewed. They claim that he promised to provide them with a copy of this financial statement on February 1, 1988. Jankiewicz testified that Choudhury's representation about the financial condition of the Taylors was a significant inducement for him to propose his counteroffer, and he would not have gone through wish this sale had he known on January 30, 1988, what he subsequently learned about their net worth. Choudhury denies making any representation about the Taylors' net worth. He testified that he had only met the Taylors on one occasion, and had no way of knowing their net worth since he denies having a copy of their financial statement at that time. When the Taylors' financial statement was not provided on February 1, 1988, Jankiewicz and Seybold made repeated attempts to contact Choudhury, most of which were futile. He would not return their calls. Finally, on March 7, 1988, Choudhury did send Seybold a copy of the Taylors' financial statement, and Seybold immediately forwarded it to Jankiewicz. The financial statement is dated January 31, 1988, and indicates a net worth of $238,100. Choudhury testified that he forwarded this financial statement to Seybold as soon as he received it from the Taylors, but that when he looked it over he was "shocked". Choudhury offered no credible explanation of why he would be "shocked" to see the Taylors' financial statement, unless he had expected a far higher net worth. Yet, he testified that he had no knowledge of their net worth. Based upon the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the testimony of Choudhury, Seybold and Jankiewicz, as well as Choudhury's unexplained testimony about being "shocked" to see the Taylors' net worth, it is found that Choudhury did represent to Jankiewicz and Seybold on January 30, 1988, that the Taylors had a net worth of from $2 to $3 million. This statement was false, but it was a material inducement which led Jankiewicz to make his counteroffer, accepting a $25,000 purchase money mortgage. The contract for sale did not provide any contingency which addressed Jankiewicz' concerns about the Taylors' net worth. He and Seybold believed Choudhury's representations, and admitted at hearing that it was an oversight on their part not to insist on a contingency in the sales contract. They simply took Choudhury's word that he had seen their financial statement, and it showed a net worth of $2 to $3 million. When he received the Taylors' financial statement in early March, 1988, Jankiewicz tried to back out of the deal, but because there was no contingency in the sales contract, and because the Taylors threatened to sue him for breach of contract if he did not close, he went through with the sale. The sale closed, as scheduled, on March 30, 1988. The Taylors had obtained a first mortgage through bank financing in early March, and have subsequently made payments to Jankiewicz under the purchase money mortgage which he holds, although on occasion they have been late with their payments. At no time did Fetters participate in the discussions which took place with Jankiewicz and Seybold concerning this sale. Choudhury made all contacts with them, presented the sales contract, and attended the closing. The Petitioner's investigator, Leo Huddleston, visited Fetters on June 28, 1988, to examine Fetters' records concerning the Jankiewicz transaction, but Fetters brought no records with him to this meeting. He claimed that Choudhury had all of these records. Subsequently, he did provide Huddleston with escrow records showing a $20,000 deposit in his escrow account, and copies of three checks from the Taylors totaling $20,000, which he claimed he received as their deposit on the Jankiewicz house, and which he stated he then deposited in his escrow account. These checks do indicate on their face that they were for a house deposit. However, Fetters was never able to produce a copy of his deposit slips or bank records which would directly establish that the Taylors' checks were in fact deposited into his escrow account. There was no indication on the face of the checks that they were deposited into his escrow account, or that he had an escrow account established for this purpose. Fetters testified at hearing, that he had lost his bank records, and presumed that a former tenant had taken them when he moved. Fetters failed to keep adequate records of his escrow account that would allow an audit of funds deposited into, and withdrawn from, such account. He could not establish that he had an escrow account on which he was signatory. He was also negligent in failing to safeguard any such records which he may have had, and could not produce complete records of his escrow account which would establish that the Taylors' deposit checks were placed in his escrow account, and remained there until they were withdrawn by a $20,000 cashier's check that was exchanged at closing. Following initial investigation of a complaint filed by Jankiewicz against Fetters and Choudhury, a probable cause panel decided not to issue an Administrative Complaint, and they were informed, in August, 1988, that this complaint file had been closed. Subsequently, however, new evidence was discovered concerning the fact that Seybold had also been present on January 30, 1988, when Choudhury met with Jankiewicz, and Seybold confirmed Jankiewicz' recollection of Choudhury's statements. Thereupon, this complaint was resubmitted to a probable cause panel, and the Administrative Complaint which is at issue in this case was filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent Fetters license for a period of six months, and suspending Respondent Choudhury's license for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX The Petitioner did not timely file Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent Choudhury did file a Memorandum of Law which contains unnumbered paragraphs under a section referred to as "Facts". This Memorandum has been considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order, but specific rulings cannot be made on the matters contained in the section labeled "Facts" since this consists largely of argument on the evidence without any citation to the record as required by Rule 22I-6.031(3), F.A.C. Rulings on the Respondent Fetters' Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding 1. 3. Adopted in Findings 2, 8. 4-5. Adopted in Findings 3, 4. Rejected in Finding 5, and as argument on the evidence, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 10, 11. Rejected in Finding 11. Not a proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: ARTHUR R. SHELL, ESQUIRE DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE P. O. BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 LESLIE M. CONKLIN, ESQUIRE 2120 U.S. 19, SOUTH SUITE 210 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34624 RONALD P. TEEVAN, ESQUIRE 200 NORTH GARDEN AVENUE SUITE A CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34615 DARLENE F. KELLER DIVISION DIRECTOR P. O. BOX 1900 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 KENNETH EASLEY, GENERAL COUNSEL NORTHWOOD CENTRE 1940 NORTH MONROE STREET SUITE 60 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0792 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed real estate broker and salesman. In proceedings on January 9, 1981, in the Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in Case No. 80-8846 CF, and in the absence of the Respondent, Respondent's Counsel first indicated to the judge that he was entering a plea of no contest for the Respondent but changed that plea to one of guilty of misdemeanor trespass (Section 810.08) on the basis of the entry of an adjudication withheld. The court noted the Respondent's authorization of his Counsel to enter the plea. The court withheld adjudication and placed the Respondent on probation for six months, and assessed as a special condition of the probation $150 in court costs and restitution in the amount of $100.
Recommendation The Board has not demonstrated a violation of Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by the Respondent. Therefore, the charges should be dismissed, and no disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent based upon the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ORDERED this day 4th of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. Jordan, Esquire Post Office Box 14723 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 James Curran, Esquire 200 South East Sixth Street, Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are: (1) whether Respondents, who are licensed real estate brokers, failed within a reasonable time to satisfy a civil judgment relating to a real estate commission; (2) whether Respondents failed to maintain trust funds in an escrow account as required; and (3) whether disciplinary penalties should be imposed on Respondents, or either of them, if Petitioner proves one or more of the violations charged in its Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Marlene Montenegro Toirac ("Toirac") is a licensed real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Real Estate Commission ("Commission"). Respondent Home Center International Corp. ("HCIC") is and was at all times material hereto a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission. Toirac is an officer and principal of HCIC, and at all times relevant to this case she had substantial, if not exclusive, control of the corporation. Indeed, the evidence does not establish that HCIC engaged in any conduct distinct from Toirac's in connection with the transactions at issue. Therefore, Respondents will generally be referred to collectively as "Toirac" except when a need to distinguish between them arises. Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Commission. At the Commission's direction, Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Veloso Judgment Toirac and Elena Veloso ("Veloso") did business together and wound up as opponents in court. Veloso got the better of Toirac, obtaining, on June 5, 2001, a judgment in the amount of $4,437.60 against her and HCIC from the Dade County Court. The judgment liquidated a real estate commission that Veloso claimed the defendants owed her. On June 12, 2001, Toirac filed a Motion to Set Aside Final Judgment, wherein she asked the county court to (a) vacate its judgment in favor of Veloso, on the ground that the defendants had not been served with process and (b) consolidate Veloso's county-court proceeding with an action then pending in circuit court, which Toirac had brought against Veloso.1 As of the final hearing in this case, Toirac's motion, after four years, had not been heard or decided. As of the final hearing in this case, Toirac had not satisfied the judgment in favor of Veloso. The Escrow Account Shortfall On January 24, 2002, Tibizay Morales, who was then employed by Petitioner as an investigator, conducted an audit of Toirac's records. (The impetus for this audit was Petitioner's receipt, on or about June 20, 2001, of a complaint from Veloso.) Pursuant to the audit, Ms. Morales determined that the balance in Toirac's escrow account was $4,961.05. Ms. Morales determined further that Toirac's trust liability, i.e. the total amount of money that she should have been holding in escrow on her clients' behalf, was $12,242.00. Thus, there existed a shortfall of $7,280.95 in Toirac's escrow account. Toirac was not able, at the time of the audit, to explain the shortfall. A few weeks later, however, by letter dated February 13, 2002, Toirac informed Ms. Morales that the shortfall had been caused by the issuance, "in error," of a check in the amount of $7,345.00, which was drawn on HCIC's escrow account and payable (evidently) to HCIC; HCIC had deposited the funds into its operating account, thereby creating, according to Toirac, an "overage" of $7,345.00 in the latter. To correct the problem, Toirac had arranged for the transfer of $7,345.00 from HCIC's operating account to its escrow account, which was accomplished on or about February 1, 2002. The Charges In counts I and IV, Petitioner charges Respondents with failing to account for and deliver trust funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes.2 Petitioner's position is that Respondents failed within a reasonable time to satisfy the county-court judgment in favor of Veloso. In counts III and V, Petitioner accuses Respondents of having failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow account until disbursement was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's position is that the escrow account shortfall identified on January 24, 2002, is proof that funds held in escrow had been disbursed without proper authorization. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no dispute (for Toirac admitted at final hearing) that the judgment debt owed by Respondents to Veloso relates to a real estate commission. It is also undisputed that, as of the final hearing, the county-court judgment had not been satisfied. The undersigned determines that Respondents have failed to satisfy the civil judgment in Veloso's favor within a reasonable time.3 Therefore, the undersigned finds Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes.4 It is determined that the erroneous transfer, via check, of funds from HCIC's escrow account to its operating account constituted an unauthorized disbursement of funds entrusted to Toirac by others who had dealt with her as a broker. While this might have resulted from the simple mistake of an incompetent bookkeeper, as Toirac maintains, nevertheless the disbursement was unauthorized and substantial——amounting to approximately 60 percent of Toirac's total trust liability. Therefore, the undersigned finds Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has established the charges set forth in counts I, III, IV, and V of its Administrative Complaint, by clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order that: (a) finds Respondents guilty as charged in counts I, III, IV, and V of the Administrative Complaint; (b) suspends Respondents' respective real estate licenses for 90 days; and (c) imposes an administrative fine of $2,500 against Respondents, jointly and severally; and (d) places Respondents on probation for a period of at least 3 years, subject to such lawful conditions as the Commission may specify. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of September, 2005.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Cluett Realty, Inc., is a licensed corporate real estate broker having been issued license number 0216798 and whose last known address is 4720 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida. The Respondent, Ernest H. Cluett II, is a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0191613 and at all material times was employed as a licensed real estate broker by Cluett Realty, Inc. In November, 1981, Mary Ann Knopic was shown a home in Cape Coral by the Respondents. She offered the owners $92,500 for the home with a $500.00 earnest money deposit. When the home was sold to another buyer, the Respondents and Knopic agreed that the Respondents would retain the $500.00 and attempt to find another home for the complainant. In December, 1981, the Respondents showed Knopic the Soviero home and Knopic made an offer on the home and secured the offer with an additional $1,500 security deposit. In late February, 1982, the complainant informed the Respondents that she would not close on the Soviero home. The complainant decided not to close because the cost of renovating the home exceeded the original estimate. Under these circumstances, the complainant was willing to lose her $2,000 deposit rather than spend $6,000 to renovate the Soviero home. On June 8, 1982, after the complainant agreed to the February disbursement, she sent the Respondents a letter demanding either a copy of the contract which amended the earnest money amount or a refund of her $1,500. Walter V. Horn, a Respondent, was not properly served and at final hearing the petitioner agreed that he was not a proper party to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondents, Cluett Realty, Inc., Ernest H. Cluett II and Walter V. Born. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH 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 11th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Legal Section Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida Herbert A. Fried, Esquire 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 103 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Mr. Walter V. Horn 4732 Dee Prado Boulevard Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, (Division), was the state agency responsible for the regulation of the real estate profession in Florida. At the same time, Respondent, Thomas Twitty, Jr. was a licensed real estate broker in Florida, operating under license number 0090569, and was broker for the Respondent, Twitty and Company, Ltd., which operates under license number 0211681 at 13090 B. Starkey Road, Largo, Florida. Respondent, Lonnie A. Fitton, was a licensed real estate salesman under license number 0442127. On March 12, 1985, while employed as a salesman with Twitty & Company, Ltd., Fitton solicited and obtained from James L. Schneider a sales listing for Schneider's house located at 1316 Kennywood, Largo, Florida. The listed sales price was $129,500.00. Mr. Schneider had purchased the property, along with another individual no longer involved, Mr. Daly, from Pioneer Federal Savings and Loan Association in December, 1984 for $50,000.00 in a distress sale. The property had been occupied but was abandoned, and Pioneer, which had held the mortgage on it, gained title in a foreclosure action. When Schneider purchased the house, it was in poor condition. The walls and cement slabs on which it rested were severely cracked in numerous places. The foundation, pool decking, and decorative block walls were severely cracked, and it was determined that this condition was due to an abnormal settling and subsidence of the ground on which the house had been constructed. This settling caused and continues to cause door and window frames to fall out of square resulting in a poor fit and, in many cases, large gaps and along the window and door parameters. After Mr. Schneider purchased the property, Fitton, along with Fitton's father, both of whom resided next door to the property in question, assisted Mr. Schneider in making repairs to the property. Cracks were filled in with cement, plaster and caulking, and the property was painted which covered up the filled in cracks and gaps which had existed. When the repairs were completed, the property was put on the market with Fitton securing the listing. There is little evidence as to how the repairs were made to the property other than that the cracks were filled and painted. No effort was made to correct the soil conditions which underlay the problem. No evidence was produced to indicate whether the corrective actions taken by Mr. Schneider, along with the Fittons, was appropriate to correct problem causing the cracks or if filling was the appropriate method of correction. Also, it was not clearly established how much and of what nature the work was accomplished by Respondent, Fitton. Whereas he indicates his participation was limited to only carrying away trash and debris, Ms. Renshaw indicates he was actively engaged in actual repair work. Whatever the actual work involvement, it is clear that he knew of the condition of the house and was familiar with the steps taken to correct the deficiencies. In May, 1985, Yvonne L. and Lorraine Renshaw, sisters, were shown the property by Diane Y. Palcelli (Booth), a salesperson employed by a different realty company. The Renshaws made an initial offer of $96,000.00, and Ms. Palcelli transmitted the offer, through Fitton, (and Twitty & Co.), to Mr. Schneider who resided out of state. A series of proposals by both sides followed and ultimately, on June 1, 1985, the parties agreed upon a sales price of $106,000.00. After the sales price had been agreed upon and the contract for sale signed, during the interim period leading up to closing, which was held in late July, 1985, the Renshaws, along with their agent and friends, visited the property on numerous occasions even going so far as to commence decorative work to fix it up to their tastes. Also during this period, Fitton, who had done some work on the repairs to the property, advised his broker, Twitty, that there had been defects in the property and asked if it was necessary to disclose this. Mr. Twitty, who himself had, at this point, not seen the property, asked if the defects had been corrected, and when told that they had been, advised Fitton it was not necessary to make any further disclosure. During the course of their repeated visits to the property, the Renshaws noted some minor cracking which they brought to Fitton's and Daly's attention. Fitton mentioned this to Twitty who suggested they have someone out to look at them. Someone was called, reportedly an engineer, who looked at the cracks and agreed to fix them. Daly indicated insurance would cover the repairs and agreed to have the cracks repaired. They were. Ms. Palcelli, (Booth), also advised the Renshaws to have the property examined by their own expert to insure it was structurally sound. The Renshaws did not do this. The sale was closed on July 23, 1985 for the $106,000.00 purchase price and both Fitton and Twitty & Co. received their respective shares of the commission. Several months after the closing, the Renshaws noticed cracks beginning to open in the walls of the house and between the pool deck and the house wall. They contacted Ms. Palcelli, (Booth) who examined the property and then tried to contact Fitton. Both Fitton and Twitty disclaimed any responsibility for the damage. Thereafter, the Renshaws filed suit against Schneider, Daly, Fitton, Twitty and Twitty & Company in Circuit Court in Pinellas County alleging one Count of fraud and one Count of grand theft. On February 22, 1991, the Court entered its Order granting Defendants', (Respondents') Motion to Dismiss the Count alleging grand theft, but denied a similar motion relating to the fraud Count. That same date, the Court entered a Final Judgement concluding that the knowing representation the property was in "excellent" condition when they knew it was not, in an anticipation of making a profit on the sale, constituted fraud. Twitty was faulted for not having inquired of Fitton, his "novice employee", more thoroughly before advising him no disclosure to the buyers was necessary. Fitton is faulted by the Court for having: ... intentionally, knowingly and fraudulently misrepresented to the [Renshaws] the high quality, excellent condition and good value of the property, intending that the [Renshaws] would rely on those representations; [they] hid the true condition of the property from the [Renshaws] and induced them to make the purchase, believing that they were purchasing a quality property worth the price being asked. The Court also concluded that the [Respondents] were obligated to disclose to the [Renshaws] the information and knowledge which they had regarding the cracking and repairs. Fitton has moved for a rehearing on the basis that the property was described as excellent on the listing sheet by Mr. Schneider, not by him. However, he was obviously aware of the condition of the property from his frequent visits to the site while it was being readied for sale. In addition, the Judgement has now been appealed to the Second District Court of Appeals by Twitty and Twitty & Company, Ltd..
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered herein providing that: The salesman's license of Respondent, Lonnie A. Fitton, be reprimanded, and he be placed on probation, under such terms and conditions as may be stipulated by the Division, for a period of two years, and The licenses of Respondents, Thomas J. Twitty, Jr. and Twitty & Co., Ltd., be reprimanded and they be placed on probation, under such terms and conditions as may be stipulated by the Division, for a period of six months. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of March, 1991, 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 21st day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1608 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. First, second and fourth sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Third sentence modified to reflect that Fitton concealed but Twitty was culpably negligent in failing to disclose. FOR RESPONDENT, TWITTY AND TWITTY & CO. LTD.: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4. Accepted. 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. 9. Accepted, but Twitty's agent, Respondent, Fitton, worked on and was familiar with the condition of the property prior to sale. Accepted. FOR RESPONDENT, FITTON: 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4. Accepted except for the assertion that the individual who viewed the cracks was an engineer. There was no proof of this. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Dominic E. Amadio, Esquire 100 34th Street North, Suite 305 St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Daniel J. Grieco, Esquire 19139 Gulf Blvd. Indian Shores, Florida 34635 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
