Findings Of Fact Respondent Cherylyn Stoppler, at all times pertinent hereto, was licensed as a real estate saleswoman in the State Of Florida, holding license No. 0467803. Her last and current license was issued authorizing practice at Escambia Realty, Inc., 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. Respondent Dorothy Diane Owens, at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license No. 0380831. Respondent Escambia Realty, Inc., at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed corporate real estate brokerage holding license No. 0232503. Its address is 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, related to the licensure of real estate brokers and salesmen, the real estate professional practice standards embodied in that chapter and with prosecuting alleged violators of those standards. On April 13, 1986, Kenneth and Linda Williams, also known as Linda Brewer, requested that Cherylyn Stoppler show them rental property consisting of a single family residence located at 6853 Lake Charlene Drive in Pensacola. They had observed the Respondent corporate broker's sign on the front of that premises, advertising it for rental. Respondent Stoppler, Respondent Owens and the Escambia Realty, Inc. represented the owners of the property. Kenneth and Linda Williams examined the property and decided that they wanted to rent it. In their discussion with Cherylyn Stoppler concerning the terms of the rental arrangement, they requested that they be allowed to paint the premises and that the garage door be repaired. Respondent Stoppler agreed to this and indicated the owners would supply two gallons of paint and the prospective tenants, the Williamses, could do the painting with the owners ensuring repair of the garage door. Respondent Stoppler and the Williamses agreed to those terms and to the rental amount of $625 per month. They also agreed to pay Respondent Stoppler a $400 deposit, on behalf of the owners. Ms. Stoppler informed the Williamses that if they did not consummate the lease arrangement, upon which they had verbally agreed, the $400 would be retained and remitted over to the owners of the property. The Williamses agreed to this arrangement. The Williamses and Ms. Stoppler returned to Ms. Stoppler's office and she noted these terms on a lease agreement form with the additional term that the owner would steam clean the carpet in the house. The lease terms also provided that the premises would be used by no more than two adults and "zero" children, but the lease agreement has the "zero" stricken through indicating that that term was to be deleted. The striking of the zero on the term concerning the number of children to occupy the premises appears to have been executed with the same pen, inasmuch as the ink is the same color as the rest of Mrs. Stoppler's handwritten terms on the lease form. In any event, the Williamses were anxious to return to their home in Louisiana directly from the Respondent's office that same afternoon and to accommodate them Ms. Stoppler agreed to mail the lease form to them to be executed, urging them to send it back immediately. When they left the premises that day, Respondent Stoppler removed her firm's sign from the front of the premises and also told the Williamses that the property would be off the market as of that day, hence her admonishment to them to waste no time in returning the executed lease since the property would be off the market during the interim on the strength of the verbal agreement. The Williamses did not inform Ms. Stoppler that Mr. Williams had two children who might visit them from time to time or live with them at the premises. The Williamses returned to Louisiana and the lease was mailed to them by Ms. Stoppler. The Williamses decided not to execute the lease and to not consummate the rental arrangement. They informed Ms. Stoppler of this by phone on April 24, 1986, as well as communicating on that day with Respondent Owens. They indicated they did not desire to rent the premises and one reason given was that they felt that the two children were precluded by the lease terms from living on the premises for any period of time with them. In fact, the Williamses had never mentioned that they had any children and had sought to negotiate a reduction in the rent when they originally discussed the matter with Ms. Stoppler on the basis that only the two of them would live in the premises. The terms and conditions of the rental arrangement were those given to Ms. Stoppler by the Williamses themselves. When they conferred with Ms. Owens and Ms. Stoppler, they were again informed that the $400 would be retained and transmitted to the owners, to which they did not then object. In fact, they never did make any demand upon the Respondents for return of the $400 which was actually communicated to the Respondents. There is a letter in evidence (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) which the Respondents never received, as is shown by the certified mail receipt card and by Respondents' and Ms. Celano's testimony. The Williamses objected to consummating the lease because they contended that Ms. Stoppler had assured them that they could 1ive in the premises rent- free from the beginning of the lease, April 26, until May 1, during the time in which they would be painting the house and instead they were being charged $84 for those days. Mrs. Williams' testimony is somewhat equivocal in this regard in that she exhibited an incomplete memory regarding certain critical dates in the transaction, for example, the date she allegedly called Mrs. Stoppler to inform her of their refusal of the rental and the date she believed the lease was to commence. Mrs. Stoppler's testimony was corroborated by that of Ms. Owens, and was not refuted by the Williamses. It is accepted over that of Mrs. Williams in establishing that indeed the lease period and the rental there for was to commence on April 26. The Respondents' testimony shows that the house was off the rental market from April 13, when the verbal agreement with Ms. Williams was entered into and the sign was removed from the property and that both Respondents informed Mrs. Williams on two occasions that the $400 was not refundable but would be remitted to the owners of the property. The Respondents also established that Escambia Realty, Inc. followed a consistent policy of retaining deposit monies and remitting them to the owners without refund to prospective tenants when the tenants agreed to lease the premises after being informed that the deposit would be retained and the property taken off the market, when such tenants elect of their own volition to negate a lease or rental agreement. The Williamses additionally maintained that they did not want to consummate the lease arrangement because, in their view, the Respondents and the owners would not permit any children unrestrictedly visit or to live on the premises. That was established not to be the case. They also objected because they would not be allowed to live in the premises rent-free for several days during the time in which they were painting the premises. Additional objections involved various inconsequential technical deficiencies, such as misspellings, in the content of the lease. The employment position Mr. Williams was to have taken in the Pensacola area, and which was in large measure their reason for moving to Pensacola and renting the subject premises, failed to materialize. Ultimately, however, the Williamses moved to Pensacola and rented a different house at the lower rate of $600 per month. In short, the complaining witnesses contend that they did not want to execute the lease because of the problem of the $84 prorated rent required of them by the Respondents and the owners for the days when they thought they would live rent-free while painting the premises, because they felt that Mr. Williams' children by a previous marriage were precluded from unrestricted visits at the rental premises and because they felt that the proffered lease did not contain the proper initial date of tenancy. Thus, the Williamses breached the agreement because the Respondents refused to "correct" the lease according to the Williamses' desires. Those desires were not communicated to the Respondents until, at the very earliest, the phone conversations of April 24, 1986, some twelve days after the verbal agreement to rent the premises to the Williamses had been entered into and the $400 deposited with the Respondents on behalf of the owners. During that time, and longer, the property was taken off the rental market and the Respondents and the owners forbore the opportunity to secure other tenants. The Williamses themselves acknowledged that the letter by which they sought return of the $400 deposit was never actually received by the Respondents. Further, Ms. Williams in the telephone conversation on April 24, 1986, acknowledged that the owners were entitled to the $400 deposit. Even so, Ms. Owens waited approximately 25 days before remitting the funds over to the owners. Thus, no dispute as to the deposit was ever communicated to the Respondents, and the Respondents never misrepresented to either Mr. or Mrs. Williams the manner of disbursement of the deposit funds. It is noteworthy that Mrs. Williams is a licensed realtor herself and had some experience in similar real estate transactions. The Respondents carried out their portion of the bargain. Finally, it has been demonstrated that Respondent Owens is a well- respected real estate practitioner in the Pensacola area, having served as an officer and director of her local board of realtors and having been accorded a number of honors and certifications in connection with her professional performance as a realtor and her securing of advanced training in the field of real estate brokerage. Ms. Stoppler is relatively new to the profession, but neither she nor Ms. Owens have been shown to have ever engaged in any questionable practice or conduct in the course of their practice and neither have been shown to have been the subject of any other complaint of any nature resulting from a real estate transaction.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Respondents Cherylyn Stoppler, Dorothy Diane Owens and Escambia Realty, Inc. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3982 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Rejected as to its material import. 7-9. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 10-11. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 17-18. Accepted. 19. Rejected as to its material import. 20-21. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but rejected as to its material import. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 29-30. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 31. Accepted, but not as to its material import. 32-35. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but not to the effect that a demand for refund was made. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 39-41. Rejected. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: Specific rulings are not separately made here because Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact are inseparably entwined with legal argument and recitations of, and arguments concerning, the weight and credibility of testimony and evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Cherylyn Stoppler Dorothy Diane Owens Escambia Realty, Inc. 310 South Pace Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32501 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent, Private Money Mortgage Company (PMMC), was a mortgage brokerage business in the State of Florida holding License Number HB592732699 that had been issued by Petitioner. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Frank Donahue was a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida holding License Number HA267474770 that had been issued by Petitioner. The Department of Banking and Finance, the Petitioner in these proceedings, is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. In 1985, Mr. and Mrs. A. Charles Cinelli bought a house in Palm Beach County, Florida, and moved from upstate New York to Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent, Frank Donahue, assisted Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli in obtaining financing for the home the Cinellis purchased in Palm Beach, County. In connection with this 1985 transaction, Mr. Donahue forwarded to the Cinellis an "Exclusive Broker Agreement", which they executed and returned to him. Because this 1985 transaction involved a purchase, Mr. Donahue ordered an appraisal for this property and charged its cost as a part of the Cinelli's closing costs. Subsequent to that transaction, Mr. Donahue and his wife, Brenda, saw Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli at occasional social events. Franklin T. Smith is a certified public accountant who performed professional services for Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli and for Mr. and Mrs. Donahue. Mr. Smith referred the Cinellis to Mr. Donahue in 1985 and advised the Cinellis during the transaction that is the subject of this proceeding. Prior to December 2, 1988, Mr. Cinelli contacted several mortgage brokers in the Palm Beach County area to discuss the possibility of obtaining a mortgage on certain real property located in upstate New York. Mr. Cinelli contacted Mr. Donahue by telephone and discussed with him his desire to raise capital to begin a business in Florida. Mr. Cinelli estimated that he would require approximately $1,000,000 to start this business. Mr. Cinelli told Mr. Donahue that he and Mrs. Cinelli owned certain commercial real property in upstate New York and that State Farm Insurance Company held an option to purchase this property for the sum of $1,450,000. Mr. Cinelli did not want to wait to learn whether State Farm intended to exercise this option to purchase and he discussed with Mr. Donahue the possibility of obtaining the desired capital by securing a mortgage on this property. Mr. Donahue advised Mr. Cinelli that he could expect to secure a mortgage for approximately $700,000 (which was approximately 50% of the amount of the option contract) and that he would need a current appraisal. Mr. Donahue also informed Mr. Cinelli that he would require the sum of $2,500 as a non-refundable deposit to begin seeking such a commitment. On or about December 2, 1988, Mr. Cinelli provided Mr. Donahue with a copy of the option agreement with State Farm and with a copy of the agreement dated September 21, 1988, which extended the time within which State Farm could exercise its option for an additional six months. Mr. Cinelli reiterated to Mr. Donahue that the option price was for $1,450,000 and that he wanted to mortgage the property for $1,000,000. Mr. Cinelli also provided Mr. Donahue with the name, address, and telephone number of Mr. Wayne Lupe, who was represented by Mr. Cinelli to be his MAI appraiser in Schenectady, New York. On December 15, 1988, Mr. Donahue sent to Mr. Cinelli a letter which attached an "Exclusive Broker Agreement" that had been executed by Mr. Donahue on December 15, 1988. This was the same "Exclusive Broker Agreement" form that Mr. Donahue had used for the 1985 Cinelli transaction. The body of the letter provided as follows: Enclosed please find a copy of my exclusive brokers agreement detailing the probable terms of the loan which you are seeking. This agreement is the same agreement which you signed when you purchased your current resi- dence. The agreement calls for both you & Joan to sign and return along with a nonrefundable deposit in the amount of $2500.00 to Private Money Mortgage Corp. The above noted deposit shall be credited towards your closing costs at the time of closing, if a commitment is offered. I have spoken to several of my investors about your concerns and I am awaiting confirmation of their substantial interests prior to ordering the appraisal. I will contact you as soon as I have received the return of this agreement along with your deposit in order to fill you in on our efforts to secure you the most competitive loan on your desired terms. The Exclusive Broker Agreement reflected that the amount of the mortgage would be $700,000 and disclosed that the total estimated costs that would be incurred in securing the mortgage was $78,346, which included a broker's fee of $35,000 and an estimated appraisal fee of $3,500. The Exclusive Broker Agreement, signed by Mr. Donahue on December 15, 1988, contained the following provision: DEPOSIT: In consideration of the sum of $2,500, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in compliance with Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, Broker accepts this application and agrees to exert his/her best effort to obtain a commitment for loan in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. This deposit shall be credited toward closing costs at the time of closing the permanent loan or commitment, less Broker's expenses. Among the "Standards" which were incorporated as terms and conditions of the Exclusive Broker Agreement was the following: Deposit. Client simultaneously with execution of this agreement has deposited with broker the amounts stated in this agreement in order to secure the obligations owed by client to broker in the event of default of client as provided in the agreement and to reimburse broker of any and all expenses, including telephone charges, lodging, and administrative fees for credit checks and processing appraisals and the like, including upon any cancellation by client, reimbursement for broker's time expended incurred by broker, whether or not a loan commitment is obtained by broker. Mr. Cinelli was concerned that he would be incurring substantial fees and costs if Mr. Donahue obtained a commitment and Mr. Cinelli decided not to accept it. Mr. Smith advised Mr. Cinelli that the estimated expenses were not abnormally high, but he suggested that his liability should be limited. In response to those concerns, Mr. Donahue prepared and delivered between December 15, 1988, and the end of the year an addendum to the Exclusive Broker Agreement that would have limited Mr. Cinelli's liability to the sum of $7,500. That addendum provided, in pertinent part, as follows: It is hereby understood and agreed by the parties that in the event a loan commitment is offered to the applicants & they decide to refuse this commitment, the applicants liability will be limited to the sum of Five Thousand Dollars plus the original deposit of $2,500.00 for a total amount of $7,500.00. It is further understood that said commitment must bear approximately the same terms and conditions as the attached agreement. Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli gave Mr. Smith the sum of $2,500 in cash to deliver to Mr. Donahue, but there is conflicting testimony as to when this money was delivered to Mr. Smith for delivery to Mr. Donahue. Mr. Cinelli testified that the money was delivered before the Exclusive Broker Agreement dated December 15, 1988, was prepared. Mr. Donahue testified that the money was delivered after both the Exclusive Broker Agreement and the addendum thereto had been delivered to Mr. Cinelli. Mr. Donahue also testified that the statement contained in the Exclusive Broker Agreement that he signed on December 15, 1988, acknowledging his receipt of the $2,500 deposit was false. He did not explain why the addendum referred to the sum of $2,500 as "the original deposit". Mr. Smith did not recall when he delivered this money to Mr. Donahue, but he did recall having delivered the cash the same day he received it from the Cinellis. While his testimony is that he received the $2,500 during his initial meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli (which would be before Mr. Cinelli received the Exclusive Broker Agreement) this testimony lacks credibility because of Mr. Smith's lack of certainty as to dates. In addition, this testimony conflicts with the letter Mr. Smith wrote to Mr. Donahue at Mr. Donahue's request on August 28, 1989, which clearly indicates that the $2,500 was not paid until after the addendum to the Exclusive Broker Agreement had been prepared. This conflict is resolved by finding that the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the sum of $2,500 was delivered by Mr. Smith to Mr. Donahue after Mr. Cinelli had received both the Exclusive Broker Agreement and the addendum thereto. Mr. Donahue did not provide the Cinellis with any type of written agreement, other than his letter of December 15, 1998, the Exclusive Broker Agreement, and the addendum when he received the cash from Mr. Smith. There was no written receipt for these funds, nor was there any written memorandum of understanding between Mr. Donahue and the Cinellis as to whether payment for the appraisal that Mr. Donahue and Mr. Cinelli had discussed would be made from the $2,500. Mr. Cinelli was of the belief that $2,000 of the $2,500 deposit would be earmarked for the payment of the appraisal. Mr. Donahue was of the belief that the $2,500 was a non-refundable retainer and he treated that sum as an earned fee. There was no meeting of the minds between Mr. Cinelli and Mr. Donahue as to the nature of the $2,500 deposit, other than it was non-refundable. Specifically, there was no agreement as to what costs, if any, would be paid from that deposit. Mr. Donahue's normal business practice in transactions involving a refinance of property is different than his practice in transactions involving a purchase of property. In purchase transactions (such as the 1985 Cinelli transaction), Mr. Donahue arranges for the appraisals and treats the costs of the appraisal as an expense to be paid by the purchaser at closing. In refinance transactions (such as the 1988 Cinelli transaction), it is his practice to require his customer to deal directly with the appraiser in ordering and paying the costs of the appraisal. Respondents failed to establish that in the subject transaction, Mr. Donahue made it clear that Mr. Cinelli would be responsible for ordering and paying the cost of the appraisal. Mr. Cinelli believed that $2,000 of the $2,500 he later gave Mr. Donahue would be earmarked for the payment of the appraisal. Neither Mr. Donahue's letter of December 15, 1998, the Exclusive Broker Agreement, nor the addendum clearly resolved the dispute. There was a dispute between Mr. Donahue and Mr. Cinelli as to who ordered the appraisal. Mr. Cinelli denied that he ordered the appraisal and that his calls to his appraiser, Mr. Lupe, was only to advise him of Mr. Donahue's forthcoming call. Mr. Donahue denied that he ordered the appraisal and that his contacts with Mr. Lupe were after Mr. Cinelli had ordered the appraisal. Mr. Donahue contends that his contacts with the appraiser were merely to give the appraiser instructions as to the information that should be reflected by the appraisal. This dispute is resolved by finding that Mr. Cinelli ordered the appraisal through Mr. Lupe and that Mr. Donahue advised Mr. Lupe as to the information that should be reflected by the appraisal. It was determined from conversations between Mr. Donahue and Mr. Lupe that Mr. Lupe was not qualified to perform the appraisal and that Mr. Lupe would engage Albert L. Friedman, MAI and William J. McEvoy of Capitol Real Estate and Appraisal Company of Schenectady, New York, on Mr. Cinelli's behalf to perform the work. Messrs. Friedman and McEvoy prepared the appraisal and certified the same to Mr. Cinelli on March 13, 1989. The appraised value of the property was $2,100,000. As of the date of the formal hearing, the appraiser's bill of $2,000 had not been paid. Capitol Real Estate and Appraisal Company had billed both Mr. Donahue and Mr. Cinelli and an attorney representing Capitol Real Estate and Appraisal Company had written Mr. Cinelli a demand letter. It was the dispute over the payment of the appraiser's fee that prompted the complaint the Cinellis filed against Respondents. The Cinellis did not execute the Exclusive Broker Agreement and the addendum because they wanted to wait on the appraisal to see if the appraised value would permit them to borrow more than $700,000 and because they were not satisfied with the amount of the projected costs of consummating the transaction. Mr. Cinelli misled Mr. Donahue as to his intentions to execute these agreements. Mr. Donahue made several requests to the Cinellis that they execute the Exclusive Broker Agreement and addendum and return them to him. Despite the absence of an executed brokerage agreement, Mr. Donahue exerted considerable effort to seek a commitment consistent with the Exclusive Broker's Agreement and succeeded in securing such a commitment in April 1989. No part of the $2,500 Mr. Donahue received from Mr. Smith on behalf of the Cinellis was placed in escrow by Mr. Donahue. Respondents have made no accounting of the $2,500 and have paid no part of the appraisal bill. Mr. Donahue claims the deposit as a non-refundable earned fee, despite the absence of a written agreement to that effect. The Cinellis sold the subject property to State Farm in June 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered by Petitioner which finds: that Respondents violated the provisions of Rule 3D-40.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, by accepting the $2,500 deposit from the Cinellis without a written agreement as to the disposition of those funds; that Respondents violated the provisions of Section 494.055(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and Rule 3D-40.006(6)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to place said deposit in escrow; and that Respondents violated the provisions of by Section 494.055(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by failing to account for said deposit. It is further recommended that an administrative fine be levied against Respondents in the total amount of $1,000.00 for said violations. It is further recommended that the final order place the licenses of Respondents on probation for a period of one year with three special conditions of probation. The first special condition of probation would require Respondents to pay Capitol Real Estate and Appraisal Company the sum of $2,000 within sixty days of the Final Order. The second special condition of probation would terminate Respondents' probation upon timely compliance with the first special condition of probation. The third special condition of probation would prohibit Respondents from conducting any business as mortgage brokers within the State of Florida for a period of six months should Respondents fail to timely comply with the first condition of probation. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of January, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4708 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 3-10, and 13 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 2 and 11 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being argument. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-3 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 4-6, 14, and 17 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The characterization of the Cinellis having a "long standing relationship" with Mr. Donahue is rejected as being ambiguous and unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 9-11 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent that they are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12 and 13 are rejected as being recitation of testimony or as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or as being contrary to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah Guller, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 111 Georgia Avenue, Suite 211 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5293 Marie A. Mattox, Esquire Douglass, Cooper, Coppins & Powell Post Office Box 1674 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1674 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a real estate broker should be suspended or revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 475, F.S. as set forth in Administrative Complaint dated December 22, 1981. This proceeding arises from the filing of an administrative complaint by the Board of Real Estate against Jack Braunstein on December 22, 1981, which alleges that he failed to refund an advance rental fee to Annette Richard on May 13, 1980, thus violating a duty imposed upon him by law or by the terms of a listing contract in a real estate transaction in violation of subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The complaint further alleges that Respondent thereby violated subsection 475.25 (1)(d), Florida Statutes, in failing to account to Ms. Richard, and violation of Section 475.453, Florida Statutes, for failing to provide repayment of any amount over 25 percent of the fee for rental information, if the prospective tenant does not obtain a rental. Respondent requested an administrative hearing, and the case was referred to this Division for assignment of a Hearing Officer on February 8, 1982. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated as to the truth of Paragraphs 2-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 19-20 of the Administrative Complaint. The parties further stipulated that Respondent was licensed by Petitioner at the time of the incident alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent objected to the proceeding on various grounds, as reflected in the transcript of the hearing. The Hearing Officer treated the objection as a motion to dismiss and denied the same. Petitioner moved to amend Paragraph 22 of the Complaint to correct a typographical error to allege a violation of subsection 475.25(1)(d), F.S. in lieu of the inadvertent recitation of a violation of subsection 475.25(d), F.S. The motion was granted. The post-hearing submission by the Petitioner has been fully considered, and those portions not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, irrelevant, or unwarranted in fact or law.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Jack Braunstein is licensed as a real estate broker and was so licensed at all times relevant to the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent operates Rent-Aid, Inc. located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a corporate real estate broker, He is the active broker for that firm. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1-2, Stipulation) On April 15, 1980, Annette H. Richard went to Respondent's firm to ascertain the availability of an apartment for rent in the school district where her child attended school. She had previously talked to Respondent by telephone concerning her needs, and Respondent had informed her that rentals were abundant and that she should come into the office. After she arrived, Respondent turned her over to his associate Jeannie Nemett who took down the information concerning Ms. Richard's apartment requirements. Ms. Nemett informed her that they could find her an apartment in the area, but had nothing available at that time. Although Ms. Nemett looked through the firm's book of apartment listings, she did not permit Ms. Richard to do so. Ms. Nemett told her that there was a new duplex listing not far from the desired area and Ms. Richard agreed to look at it. Ms. Nemett had explained the fact that the firm's services were available for a $50.00 "membership" fee. Since Ms. Richard did not have the money with her, she and Ms. Nemett stopped at the bank on the way to see the property and, after paying the requisite fee, Ms. Nemett gave her a copy of the "membership" agreement. She then showed the duplex and one other rental apartment to Ms. Richard. (Testimony of Richard, Nemett, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) A few days later, Ms. Nemett, having identified some existing available apartments in the school district area in her book of listings, called Ms. Richard several times but could not reach her. The messages were recorded on a telephone answering device. Ms. Richard did not return the calls immediately. About four days after having been shown the duplex by Ms. Nemett, she found an apartment which met her needs as a result of a newspaper ad. Prior to locating this apartment, Ms. Richard had also left telephone messages for Ms. Nemett which had not been returned. About a week or ten days after their initial meeting, Ms. Richard telephoned Ms. Nemett and informed her that she had secured her own apartment and did not wish Rent-Aid, Inc. to proceed any further in her behalf. (Testimony of Nemett, Richard, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) The agreement signed by Ms. Richard with Rent-Aid, Inc. included the following statement: If you do not obtain a rental you are entitled to receive a return of seventy-five percent of the fee paid, if you make demand within thirty days of this contract date. All notices shall be sent by certi- fied mail. A rental has been obtained when company provides a guaranteed available rental unit upon the terms specified and requested by member. (Emphasis added) By letter dated May 10, 1980, Ms. Richard requested a refund of her $50.00 fee from Rent-Aid, Inc., but by letter dated May 13, 1980, signed by Ms. Nemett, Ms. Richard was informed that a refund could not be made, as follows: It has been construed that the obtaining of rental property is when you receive listings--available, shown by us, in your price range and area, or any other listings which you agree to see. We did, in fact, show you available rental property under the terms of the Rent-Aid policy #011061. Also at that time, I left messages on your answering machine, concerning other avail- able rentals. Under the conditions and terms of this policy--a refund cannot be made. On advice of counsel, Respondent refunded the amount of $37.50 to Ms. Richard on January 11, 1982. (Testimony of Richard, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 4-5) On March 27, 1980, Respondent's attorney wrote to Salvatore A. Carpino, Staff Attorney of the Department of Professional Regulation enclosing Rent-Aid, Inc.`s contract form and requesting review of it to determine whether or not it met the requirements of Chapter 475. The form sent to Mr. Carpino contained the same language as that used in the Richard transaction. By letter of April 1, 1980, the attorney informed Respondent that he had heard from the Department of Professional Regulation about the case and that the form would be acceptable if he deleted the word "registered" in "registered mail." Thereafter, on May 8, 1980, the attorney again wrote Mr. Carpino enclosing print sizes of the form to determine if it met the Department's print size requirements. By letter of May 15, 1980, Carpino informed the attorney that the Respondent could continue to use the existing forms "with the changes that we have previously discussed." Respondent utilized the contract form in question in reliance upon the advice given to him by his attorney in the above regards, and believed that he was operating properly in accordance with the Department's requirements. He had inserted the definition of "obtaining a rental" in the contract form in order to eliminate the vagueness of the statute pertaining to refunds. (Testimony of Braunstein, supplemented by Respondent's Exhibits 1-2)
Recommendation That the Florida Real Estate Commission (formerly Board of Real Estate) issue a private reprimand and impose a $100 administrative fine against Respondent, Jack Braunstein, pursuant to subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1982. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 20th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John P. Gaudiosi, Esquire 3801 North Federal Highway Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 Mr. C. B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a licensed real estate salesman with license number 0364554. On or about August 13, 1982, Richard J. and Gav Greco entered into a lease purchase agreement with James C. and Phyllis Waid for residential property located at 1685 Markham Woods Road, Longwood, Florida. The purchase price of the Waid property was $190,000 towards which the Grecos made a $10,000 non-refundable deposit and agreed to pay a monthly rental of $1000. On or about November 14, 1982, the Grecos executed an Agreement with Respondent and his wife by which the Grecos assigned all rights and privileges relating to the lease and purchase of the residence at 1685 Markham Woods Road to the Alvarados. The consideration to be given for this Agreement was a payment of $10,000 by the Alvarados to the Grecos, with $5000 payable upon signing of the Agreement and $5000 payable within six months. The Alvarados, as assignees, agreed to abide by all provisions of the lease purchase agreement and were to make their first $1000 monthly lease payment to the Waids on December 4, 1982. Respondent gave Richard J. Greco a check in the amount of $5000 dated November 14, 1982 and requested that he hold the check for a couple of days before depositing it. Greco complied with the request, but was advised on December 3, 1982 that Respondent's $5000 check had been returned unused by Respondent's bank due to the fact that Respondent's account had been closed. Respondent has never paid the Grecos any part of the $10,000 due them under the assignment executed November 14, 1982. Respondent made no monthly lease payments on the property to the Waids. By letter dated February 25, 1983, James C. Waid notified the Grecos and the Alvarados that the lease purchase agreement was in default and that the $10,000 deposit paid by the Grecos was being forfeited because the rent was in arrears. The Grecos paid the Waids an additional $4000 on March 1, 1983, which represented the unpaid lease payments, for a general release from all obligations under the lease purchase agreement. Respondent and his wife executed a promissory note on March 1, 1983 whereby they agreed to pay the Grecos $10,000 on or before March 16, 1983, but no payments have ever been made pursuant to this promissory note. The Grecos brought suit against Respondent and his wife for damages arising out of this transaction, and obtained a Final Judgment on June 30, 1983 in Case No. 83-1191-CA-03-P, Circuit Court in and for Seminole County, in the amount of $15,101.28. The Grecos have not been able to execute this Final Judgment and therefore no payments on this judgment have been made to them by the Respondent or his wife. At the time of this transaction, the Alvarados were family friends of the Grecos. Richard J. Greco entered into this transaction with Respondent primarily because of the personal acquaintance and not because Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman. However, Greco knew that Respondent was licensed and therefore assumed that he was a man of integrity who would deal fairly with him in this real estate transaction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a Period of one (1) Year. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl. 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Hartmann, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson St. Orlando, Fl. 32802 Ignacio J. Alvarado 5166 Glasgow Avenue Orlando, Fl. 32819 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Fl. 32802 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Fl. 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Fl. 32301
The Issue In relation to DOAH Case No. 05-0515, does the case involve the sale of securities as described in Chapter 517, Florida Statutes (2002), that would confer jurisdiction upon OFR to proceed to a hearing on the merits of the Administrative Complaint that forms the basis for DOAH Case No. 05-0515, and to what extent, if any, the named Respondents have been involved with the sale of securities sufficient to declare jurisdiction over their activities? Preliminary to that determination is the related issue concerning the possible pre-emption of OFR's regulatory authority by virtue of the regulatory action previously taken by the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (DBPR) under authority set forth in Chapter 721, Florida Statutes (2002)? Argument has also been set forth concerning the significance of court cases as they might influence OFR's ability to declare their regulatory authority in this instance.
Findings Of Fact * * * 2. RESPONDENT is the 'creating developer' of the Universal Luxury Lease Plan, a personal property 'timeshare plan' as those terms are defined in sections 721.05(9)(a) and 721.05(37), Florida Statutes, located in the city of Sanford, Florida. * * * On or about July 10, 2003, DIVISION was made aware of a newspaper advertisement for Universal Luxury Lease Plan. This advertisement, promoted the purchase of a timeshare interest in the Universal Luxury Lease Plan as an investment that offered purchasers a 10 percent per year return on their investment. On July 25, 2003, DIVISION'S investigators were given an application package containing the Universal Luxury Lease Plan Enrollment Forms, CD-ROM, Public Offering Statement, Contracts and Motor Coach Brochures. The application package stated that it was advertising material being used for the purposes of soliciting timeshare interests. It described a component of the timeshare plan called the 'Affinity Rental Program' and stated that the program will typically produce a monthly income of 10 percent of the lease-hold ownership interest.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That an order be entered by OFR finding jurisdiction to proceed with the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 05- 0515 on its merits. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 6th day of January, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Shirley Holland was registered with Petitioner as a real estate salesman in January, 1976, associated with Vern Duncklee Real Estate and Insurance, Inc., Naples, Florida. He is presently registered as a real estate broker. (Stipulation) On January 5, 1976, W. H. Ragan gave the Duncklee firm a listing to sell real property consisting of approximately one and one-quarter acres located in Collier County, Florida, for a selling price of $7,500. Respondent was the listing salesman. (Testimony of Respondent, Ragan, Duncklee, Petitioner's Exhibit 6). Respondent also was a builder who operated as Holland Investment Company. It was his practice to purchase various properties, remodel existing structures on the same, and thereafter sell them at a profit. There was a two- room shed located on the Ragan property that had no inside finishing work, electricity, or septic tank. Respondent decided to take an option on the property in order to remodel it by adding a room and to place it in a habitable condition. He broached the subject to Ragan on January 6, 1976, and Ragan told him on January 7, that he was agreeable to such a contract. On January 8, Respondent and Ragan and his wife entered into a Sales Contract and Option to Buy for $7,500. The contract provided that closing would take place within twelve months and that the seller would give possession of the property to the purchaser on January 8, 1976. This was pursuant to an accompanying rental agreement dated January 8, 1976, between the parties for a period of twelve months which provided that Respondent could exercise his option at any time within the stated twelve-month period whereby all rents paid would be applied toward the down payment on the property of $1,900 which was to be made at closing of the sale. The rental agreement further provided that if Respondent did not exercise his option within the required time, any improvements made by him on the property during that period would be considered liquidated damages of the owner. Pursuant to these agreements, Respondent made a payment of $100 at the time they were executed, which represented an initial deposit on the contracts and as rent for first month of the term. The Option Agreement also gave Respondent authority to remodel the building on the property and it further reflected that Respondent was a registered real estate salesman and would be selling the property for profit. (Testimony of Respondent, Duncklee, Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 7) On January 5, 1976, Respondent showed Harold and Ruby Stacy several houses in the area that were for sale. On January 9, Respondent went by the Stacy residence to see if they were interested in any of the houses he had shown them. They were not interested in those houses and Respondent told them of property that he had recently acquired which was the Ragan property. He showed it to Mr. Stacy that night and the next day Mrs. Stacy went with him to look at the premises. During the course of their conversations, Respondent offered to rent the property to them for $100 for the period January 10 to February 1, 1976. It was his intention to rent it to them for $125 per month commencing in February on the condition that they clean and fix up the property. They also discussed the possibility of purchase at a later date. Respondent told them that he would sell to them for $13,000 if Harold Stacy would do the remodeling work on the shed with Respondent supplying the materials. Respondent quoted a possible sales price of $14,500 if he was obliged to provide both labor and materials for renovating the shed and providing for utility services. Respondent and the Stacys entered into a rental agreement on that day for the initial period of some three weeks and Ruby Stacy gave him a check dated January 10 for $100 with a notation thereon that it was a deposit on land. Respondent explained to Mrs. Stacy that he was merely renting the property at that time and added the word "rent" at the bottom of the check. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, 2) Thereafter, the Stacys proceeded to clean the premises and commence installing a ceiling in the building located on the property. They also installed a septic tank. At some undisclosed date, Ragan came to the property to obtain some of his belongings and found the Stacys there. He learned that they supposedly had purchased the property from Respondent, Ragan was of the opinion that Respondent had purported to sell the property before he had obtained the option thereon and that he had therefore defrauded the Stacys. Ragan thereupon filed a complaint against Respondent with the local Board of Realtors in latter January, 1976. About the same time, Respondent had been in the process of obtaining local permits to install the septic tank and do the other work. He discovered that the Stacys had installed a septic tank without his authorization and without obtaining a permit. He thereupon, by letter of January 21, 1976, informed the Stacys that they had done work on the property without a building permit or approval of the County Health Department and therefore was refunding the rental payment of $100. He enclosed his check in that amount, dated January 21, 1976. Although Respondent later attempted to exercise his option to purchase the property, Ragan refused to fulfill the agreement and later sold the property to the Stacys himself for $7,500. (Testimony of Respondent, R. Stacy, Ragan, Petitioner's Exhibits 3,4) Mrs. Stacy testified at the hearing that she was under the impression that she and her husband had purchased the property in question on January 10, 1976, and that the $100 payment had been a deposit for such purchase. She was under the further impression that they were to make a $2,500 down payment in February to consummate the deal. She further testified that they made the improvements on the land because of their understanding that they were going to purchase it. Mrs. Stacy had never been involved in a prior purchase of real property and is unfamiliar with contract documents and terminology. It is found that Mrs. Stacy honestly believed that she and her husband had a valid agreement to purchase the property. Her testimony that she and her husband entered into the rental arrangement in January to enable them to work on the property until they could make the down payment in February is deemed credible. (Testimony of R. Stacy) Ragan and Respondent had been involved in a prior real estate transaction and Respondent testified that Ragan had not been satisfied with that transaction, but Ragan testified to the contrary. However, Ragan talked to Respondent's broker in January, 1976, about the Stacy situation, at which time Ragan stated that he had a chance to get even with Respondent for the prior transaction and that he was going to do so. (Testimony of Respondent, Ragan, Duncklee, D. Holland)
Recommendation That the Administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Doherty, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Ed R. Miller, Esquire Suite 212 - 1400 Gulf Shore Boulevard Naples, Florida 33940
The Issue The issues in this case are as follows: Was Respondent Daniel Oldfather legally responsible for accounting and refund? Were the refund provisions of the receipt form printed in type as required by Rule 21V-10.15, Florida Administrative Code? Was Richard Vanicek due a 75 percent refund? Was Vanicek due a complete refund because of inaccurate information given him? Did Vanicek make written demand for a refund, and was a written demand for the refund necessary?
Findings Of Fact In September of 1979, Sun Rentals and Management, Inc., was a corporate real estate broker holding license number 0208997 and doing business at 2703 East Oakland Park Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. At that time, Victor Stevens was a licensed real estate salesperson employed by Sun Rentals. Stevens, as an employee of Sun Rentals, interviewed Richard D. Vanicek concerning Vanicek's rental needs. Vanicek entered into a contract with Sun Rentals (Petitioner's Exhibit number 1) under which he paid Sun Rentals $45 and Sun Rentals was to provide him with rental information on available rentals. Vanicek received a receipt (Petitioner's Exhibit number 3) which provided in pertinent part as follows: ... Notice, pursuant to Florida Law: If the rental information provided under this contract is not current or accurate in any material aspect, you may demand within 30 days of this contract date a return of your full fee paid. If you do not obtain a rental you are entitled to receive a return of 75 percent of the fee paid, if you make demand within 30 days of this contract date. ... It was agreed that the receipt was printed totally in ten-point type. Vanicek attempted to visit one of the listings provided to him by Sun Rentals. He encountered difficulty in locating the listing; however, his lack of familiarity with Fort Lauderdale may have contributed to his difficulties. Vanicek found a rental through his own efforts and requested a refund of 75 percent of his $45 fee by telephone. He made his request first to Stevens, who referred him to Daniel Oldfather pursuant to office policy. As a result of this referral Vanicek spoke with a man at Sun Rentals, who may have been Oldfather, and restated his request for a refund. His request was denied. Daniel Oldfather was the licensed broker/salesman for Sun Rentals during September, 1979. He was the office manager of Sun Rentals at that time. Martin Katz was broker for Sun Rentals in September of 1979 (Transcript; Page 261, L 21). Oldfather was the next man in authority at the office under Katz (Transcript; Page 235, L 6). Katz delegated to Oldfather the authority to make refunds. The rental forms, including the rental receipt form (Petitioner's Exhibit number 3), were submitted to the Board of Real Estate.
Recommendation Having found that Daniel Oldfather was not guilty of any of the allegations in the amended Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that Counts I, II and III against him be dismissed. Having found that Sun Rentals and Management, Inc., is not guilty of the allegations contained in Count III of the amended Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that Count III against Sun Rentals be dismissed. Having found that Sun Rentals is guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(d) and 475.453(1), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the license of Sun Rentals be suspended for 60 days, during which time the officers and directors of said corporation may not engage in the practice of real estate sales or brokerage under their names or in any other corporate name. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of May, 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 May, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. Jordan, Esquire Post Office Box 14723 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 James Curran, Esquire 200 SE Sixth Street, Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this matter are whether the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Petitioner) proved that Derek Welling (Respondent) is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and whether Petitioner proved that Respondent is guilty of failing to account and deliver funds in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes; and if so, what is the appropriate discipline?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed realtor and has been at all times material hereto, having been issued license number 0582890 under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. In 1989, Respondent founded UK Realty, a real estate brokerage firm, with his son-in-law, Russell Christner. From 1989 thru the summer of 1996, Respondent primarily served as UK Realty's international sales representative while Mr. Christner served as its qualified broker. Respondent traveled to various trade shows primarily in Europe and encouraged customers to purchase rental properties in the central Florida area. In 1991, Respondent and Mr. Christner formed a short- term rental property management company known as Connoisseur Homes, Inc. (Connoisseur) to manage the rental properties of UK Realty's domestic and international clients. In 1993, Respondent and Christner sold a one-third interest in Connoisseur to Mr. Graham Greene, who immediately became president of Connoisseur and served as its day-to-day operations manager. Although Respondent maintained a one-third ownership in Connoisseur, he remained the company's international sales associate. Respondent was generally not involved in the day-to-day management and operations of Connoisseur and had little personal knowledge of the factual circumstances surrounding the client complaints that form the basis of Petitioner's allegations. Each of the allegations levied against Respondent in Petitioner's Amended Administrative Complaint involves complaints filed by property owners relating to contract services with Connoisseur. There is no evidence in the record that any of the property owners was dissatisfied with the services of Respondent or Connoisseur prior to the summer/fall of 1996. Hart Property In 1994, Michael Hart, a resident of England, engaged the services of UK Realty and purchased a rental home property in Davenport, Florida. Mr. Hart was referred to Mr. Richard Wilkes, a representative of Connoisseur, to manage his property. On May 17, 1995, Mr. Hart contracted with Connoisseur to provide rental management services. Mr. Hart placed an initial deposit with Connoisseur to purchase various items and maintained a $1000 balance in an escrow account to pay the annual taxes and monthly expenses associated with the management of the property. Pursuant to his contract with Connoisseur, Mr. Hart received periodic statements from Connoisseur detailing all moneys collected from tenants, escrow balances, and any other activity in his account. According to the statements Mr. Hart received, Connoisseur booked nine persons to stay in his property between October of 1996 and January of 1997. While Connoisseur received approximately $9,844.60 for these rentals, Mr. Hart received none of the rental proceeds. On or about January 3, 1997, Mr. Hart received notice from the Polk County tax collector indicating that the "tourist development tax" associated with his property was delinquent for the months of September, October, and November of 1996. In addition, the letter indicated that Connoisseur made a payment to Polk County for September 1996 that was returned for insufficient funds. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hart was advised that the cable and electricity to the property had been disconnected for non-payment. Glass Property In May 1993, Mr. Colin Glass purchased a rental home in Davenport, Florida, and contracted with Connoisseur to manage the property. Pursuant to the contract, Connoisseur agreed to advertise and list the property, manage the reservations and timely pay the rental property's expenses. Mr. Glass agreed to receive $500.00 for each week that the property was rented minus a cleaning fee. Pursuant to the contract, Mr. Glass placed a $1000 deposit with Connoisseur to pay the initial maintenance costs associated with the property. Thereafter, Mr. Glass received periodic statements from Connoisseur detailing the funds received, occupancy, and expenses paid to manage his property. The statement for the month ending November 30, 1996, indicates that Connoisseur collected $5,290.00 in rental proceeds from tenants who rented the property between August of 1996 and January of 1997 and paid $110 for cleaning services on November 8 and 21, 1996. In November, 1996, Mr. Glass requested a detailed accounting from Connoisseur regarding his property. On December 6, 1996, Mr. Glass received a written letter on Connoisseur stationary, signed by Kelleen Newman, a Connoisseur employee responsible for preparing accounting statements during the relevant period. The letter advised Mr. Glass that Connoisseur owed Mr. Glass approximately $1,750.00 for payments received pursuant to bookings under the names Beaumont and Tullet. To date, Mr. Glass has not received the rental proceeds. In addition, Connoisseur failed to pay the property tax bill associated with the Glass property as required by the management contract, and it became delinquent. Hamlyn Property On September 22, 1993, John Hamlyn purchased a home in Davenport, Florida. Five months later, on February 22, 1994, Mr. Hamlyn hired Connoisseur to manage his rental property. Pursuant to the contract, Connoisseur agreed to advertise and rent the property, manage the collections, and pay the operational expenses. Mr. Hamlyn placed a $500.00 deposit with Connoisseur to perform the contract and was required to maintain that balance in the account. In November of 1995, Respondent and Connoisseur increased the required escrow balance to $1000.00. In January of 1997, immediately following the demise of Connoisseur, Mr. Hamlyn maintained an escrow account with Connoisseur. Mr. Hamlyn did not receive an accounting of the escrowed funds or a refund of the balance. The evidence is undisputed that Mr. Hart, Mr. Glass, and Mr. Hamlyn each delivered funds in trust to Connoisseur which were not accounted for or returned. The evidence is undisputed that Connoisseur, in 1996, received rental proceeds as agents on behalf of Mr. Hart and Mr. Glass, which were not remitted to the owners. The evidence is undisputed that Connoisseur, in 1996, failed to pay certain utility bills and tax bills as required in its contracts with Mr. Hart and Mr. Glass. Connoisseur's Collapse Connoisseur's operational and financial failure surfaced on September 13, 1996, when Mr. Green, the company's co-owner and day-to-day operations manager, without notice, resigned as President of Connoisseur and formed a competing property management company. To make matters worse, within days, Mr. Green hired key staff away from Connoisseur including Richard Stanton, Connoisseur's office manager, accountant and licensed real estate broker, as well as Dyer Scott, the company's book-keeper. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Green's new company was operational and selectively securing new management agreements with Connoisseur's client list. In response, Respondent immediately evaluated Connoisseur's financial and operational status and attempted to manage its problems. Respondent advised all of Connoisseur's homeowners of the company's status, including the departure of the key operational owner and employees, but tried to assure them that the company was headed in the right direction. In fact, in a news update dated October 15, 1996, Respondent advised all of the clients, including Mr. Hart, Mr. Glass, and Mr. Hamlyn of the following: Upon investigation we were appalled to find that most of our homeowners are waiting on payments and upon further investigation we found that in many cases payment had never been collected from the tour operator. This situation is being corrected immediately and manual invoices are being prepared for collection . . . I'm happy to say that approximately $200,000 in back bookings will be properly allocated to our homeowners this month. Connoisseur did not recover. Within two months, 150 of Connoisseur's 270 homeowners cancelled their management contract with Connoisseur and on January 1, 1997, Respondent sold his interest in Connoisseur to Richard Wilkes and received a total of $15,000.00. Respondent experienced complete financial loss as a result of the demise of Connoisseur. His home was foreclosed and his vehicle was repossessed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this matter be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 3rd day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Victor L. Chapman, Esquire Barrett, Chapman & Ruta, P.A. 18 Wall Street Post Office Box 3826 Orlando, Florida 32802-3826 Christopher J. DeCosta, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Hurston Building, North Tower 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N809 Orlando, Florida 32801 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Nancy P. Campiglia, Acting Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801
