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
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 5th day of April, 1982.
The Issue Whether Respondents committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 19, 2004, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.125 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereto. Its powers and duties more broadly include the licensing, regulation, and discipline of individuals licensed as real estate brokers, as well as corporations which provide real estate brokerage services to the public. Spill is at all relevant times a licensed real estate broker subject to Petitioner's regulatory jurisdiction. Spill was the holder, at all relevant times, of Florida real estate license number BK 0627838. Network is at all relevant times a corporation registered as a Florida real estate broker and, like Spill, subject to Petitioner's regulatory jurisdiction. Network, at times relevant to this case, held a state corporate license number CQ-1007295. At all relevant times Spill owned and operated Network under the trade name Exquisite Properties. Spill marketed himself and Network to members of the public as real estate brokerage service providers. Spill and Network were both licensed at relevant times to conduct brokerage business at 1680 Michigan Avenue, Suite 915, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. As Network's owner and operator, Spill, had at all relevant times, exclusive control over Network as to all matters which are the subject of this case. Spill was entirely responsible for Network's compliance, as well as his own, with Florida law governing the conduct of real estate brokers. Brokers have particular legal obligations with reference to the maintenance, safekeeping, and eventual disbursement of funds entrusted to them by clients in connection with real estate transactions. In partial fulfillment of such obligations, Spill at all times material to this case maintained at Miami's City National Bank an escrow account bearing the number 2001684438 (the escrow account). Spill had full control of this account on his own and Network's behalf at all material times. On or about June 16, 2003, Petitioner, acting through its duly authorized investigator, Jason Fiedler (Fiedler), conducted an audit of Spill's business records, including the escrow account (the audit). In connection with the audit, Fiedler properly requested Spill to produce documentation which Respondents were required by law to prepare on at least a monthly basis, and to make available to authorized individuals, including Petitioner's investigators. Such documents include, but are not limited to, monthly bank statements and other documents relating to the reconciliation of the escrow account. Spill stated at the time of the audit, and the evidence established, that Spill failed to prepare monthly reconciliation statements for the escrow account for the six- month period prior to the audit. The audit revealed a shortage of $2,875.00, when bank balance and trust liabilities were reconciled. On or about the date of the audit, Spill transferred $7,086.00 from his operating account to his escrow account. This sum was an estimate by Spill of the amount necessary to correct shortages. On or about January 31, 2003, Spill received a $2,000 deposit from a client in connection with a transaction the parties referred to as the Lincoln Road transaction. Spill did not deposit this sum into his escrow account, as he was required to do. Rather, he deposited the funds to his operating account. On or about September 19, 2002, Spill received a $1,000 deposit from a client named Rolando Martinez in connection with a transaction the parties referred to as the Martinez transaction. Spill did not deposit this sum into his escrow account until the date of the audit, some nine months later. On or about February 26, 2003 Spill received a $10,000 lease deposit from a client named Tracy Shellborne in connection with a transaction the parties referred to as the Grand Bay transaction, which deposit has not been accounted for. On or about June 6, 2003, Spill was named escrow agent in a real estate contract which the parties referred to as the Coad contract. The Coad contract provided for a $5,000 deposit to be placed with Spill. Spill could only account for $3,000 of that sum. On or about November 19, 2002, Spill received an $1,800 security deposit, in cash, from an unidentified client. The cash was not deposited into Spill's escrow account. On or about December 18, 2002, Spill received a 2,500 rent payment, in cash, from an unidentified client. The cash was not deposited into Spill's escrow account. Spill knowingly commingled personal and escrow funds, making deposits to his operating account and withdrawals from the escrow account without appropriate client authorization. Spill's failure to balance his escrow account on a monthly basis, and to maintain records documenting same, are, standing alone, serious violations of Florida law governing brokers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order that: a) dismisses Counts I and VI; b) finds Respondents guilty as charged in Counts II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, and X.;(c) suspends Spill’s real estate license for one year; and (d) imposes an administrative fine of $8,000 against Respondents, jointly and severally. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 25th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Steven W. Johnson, P.A. 100 South Bumby Avenue, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32803 Alfonso Santana, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Guy Sanchez, Chairman Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Respondent's Florida real estate license should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for violations of Sections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to enforce the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. At all material times, Respondent, Lee Scott Marose, was a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license No. 0584225, pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. From December 10, 1993 to June 6, 1994, Respondent was employed as a real estate salesperson with Tam-Bay Realty, Inc., in Hillsborough County, Florida. On or about February 1, 1994, Respondent solicited and obtained a residential lease between Richard Akers, Sr. (Owner), and R. Dugan Fry (Tenant) for property located at 1731 Staysail Drive, Valrico, Florida. The lease provided for rental payments of $850.00 per month. On or about May 1, 1994, in accordance with the lease, the Tenant sent Respondent a check in the amount of $850.00 payable to Tam-Bay Realty. Respondent did not deliver the May 1, 1994 check to Tam-Bay Realty, but instead caused the Tenant to issue another check dated May 9, 1994, in the amount of $850.00 payable to Respondent. Respondent received the May 9, 1994 check, cashed the check, and diverted the funds to his own use. Due to Respondent's actions, Tam-Bay Realty refunded the money to the Owner, and dismissed Respondent from its employment. During the investigation of this matter by Petitioner, Respondent admitted to Petitioner's investigator the conversion of the rental check, but explained that his actions were an attempt to shorten the "turn-around" time on the rental check, and that he had been unable to replace the funds because money had been stolen from his personal checking account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be found in violation of the above-cited statutory provisions, and that Respondent's Florida real estate license be revoked. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of September, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON 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 8th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX As to Petitioner's proposed findings: 1.-9. Accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson,, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lee Scott Marose 18950 U.S. Highway 144, #133 Mount Dora, Florida 32757 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The testimony revealed that during late December, 1975, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., a Florida Corporation, filed application with the Florida Real Estate Commission seeking registration as a corporate real estate broker. The application revealed that Defendant Frank Viruet (FREC Progress Docket 2856) was to become the Active Firm Member Broker, and Vice President of the company; that Carol Bauman was to become Secretary-Treasurer and Director of the company; that Lee Klein was to become President and Director of the company. Testimony shows that Carol Bauman is the wife of Defendant Bernard Bauman (Progress Docket 2857); that Lee Klein is the sister of Carol Bauman and that Jeffrey Bauman (FREC Progress Docket 2858) is the son of Bernard Bauman. Subsequent to filing said corporate application For registration with the Commission, evidence reveals that the name was changed to Noble Realty Corporation and shortly thereafter to Deed Realty, Inc. and that along with each change, a new application For corporate registration was later filed with the commission. It was noted that the stated officers and active firm members broker remain as stated in the initial corporate application For registration. Thus, it can be concluded For all legal purposes that the above corporate entities are one and the same. Count I of the Administrative Complaint filed herein, reveals that according to the certificate filed with the Commission's chairman dated December 3, which was offered into evidence by Plaintiff and admitted, during the period November 1, 1975 to the date of said certificate, i.e., December 3, 1976, which covers all dates material to the complaint herein, no registration was issued to or held by either of said corporations, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., Noble Realty Corporation or Deed Realty, Inc. This was further confirmed by the testimony of Bernard Bauman who was to have become a salesman associated with the above entities and by Frank Viruet, who was to have become the active firm member broker For the above entities. Approximately December 2, 1975, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc. entered into a written lease For office premises known as Room 212, Nankin Building, 16499 N.E. 19th Avenue, North Miami Beach, Florida For the period January 1 through December 31, 1976 (A copy of the lease was entered into evidence by stipulation.) The unrebutted testimony of Plaintiff Reagan reveals that he observed during his investigation of this cause a building directory on the ground entrance floor to the Nankin Building displaying the name Noble Realty, Inc., Room 212 and a similar display on the building directory which was located on the second floor. Plaintiff's witness Peter King, a representative of and For Southern Bell Telephone Company testified that on December 27, 1975, three phones were installed in Room 212 of the Nankin Building in the name of Land Re-Sale Service, Inc. and that from January 2 to January 16, approximately 575 calls were made from the stated phones all during evening hours to out-of-state numbers. Jeffrey Bauman admitted to having made phone calls to out-of-state numbers For purposes of soliciting real estate sales listings, but failed to recall specifically the number of calls nor did he have records to substantiate this fact. Bernard Bauman testified that from such solicitations, approximately 4 listings were obtained accompanied by an advance fee of $375.00 For each listing. When he was advised by the Commission's Investigator that the operation they were conducting was in violation of the licensing law by reason that no registration had been issued to the company and that all who are engaged in real estate activities therein were in violation of the license law (Chapter 475, F.S.) the premises were closed and all real estate activities ceased. This was further confirmed and unrebutted by plaintiff Reagan. As to Count II, the evidence established that, as stated above, the Defendants Bernard and Jeffrey Bauman had solicited real estate sales listings with representations to out-of-state property owners that listings would in fact be published and disseminated to brokers nationwide. Both Jeffrey and Bernard Bauman admitted that their listings were never published or otherwise disseminated to brokers. Bernard Bauman's testimony reveals that no monies received were returned to senders. There is no evidence introduced to show that Defendant Jeffrey Bauman knew, at the time of soliciting, that no bona fide efFort would be made to sell the property so listed with Noble Realty Corporation. As to Count III, plaintiff alleges that the above acts as set Forth above established a course of conduct by defendant upon which his revocation or registration should issue.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with licensing and regulating the practice of real estate salesmen and brokers by the various provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Included in those duties and enforcement authorities is the duty to investigate conduct by realtors allegedly in violation of Chapter 475, and related rules, and prosecuting administrative proceedings filed as a result of such investigations in order to seek imposition of disciplinary measures against the licensure status of miscreant realtors. The Respondents, at all times pertinent hereto, were licensed real estate brokers or salesmen in the State of Florida, having been issued the license numbers depicted in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent Hurbanis last was issued a license as a broker/salesman located at Sanibel Realty, Inc., Sanibel, Florida. Respondent Pauline Seely was last licensed as a broker/salesman located at VIP Realty Group, Sanibel, Florida. Respondent John M. Parks was licensed as a broker/salesman, last issued for a location at The Realty Shoppe of Lee County in Fort Myers, Florida. Respondent Jean Maxwell was licensed as a broker/salesman located at Suite 205, 1619 Periwinkle Way, Sanibel, Florida. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondents were licensed and operating in the real estate brokerage business in the employ of VIP Realty Group, Inc., a licensed corporate real estate broker. Concerning the charges in Count I, one Eric Rosen, a real estate salesman employed by VIP Realty Group, Inc., the same firm employing Respondent Pauline P. Seely, obtained Nicholas Fontana and John Priebbe as purchasers of a certain piece of property by sales contract which was owned by Clarence Liebscher and Joseph Kubosch. The sales contract was entered into June 3, 1983, and reflected a purchase price of $315,000, including the sale of certain furniture and other personal property. The complaint alleges that former Respondent Rosen and Respondent Hurbanis, together with the purchasers and sellers, conspired to enter into a second bogus sales contract (so called "double contracting") substantially similar to the first contract, except the sales price was shown to be $350,000 and the terms concerning sale of furniture and other personalty was deleted. It is alleged that this contract was prepared by Rosen under the direction and approval of Respondent Hurbanis for the purpose of obtaining a mortgage loan from a lending institution in an amount greater than the normal percentage of the sales price that the banking laws and policies of such lenders provide as the maximum amount of mortgage financing which can be obtained on a given piece of property. It is alleged that these Respondents were thus attempting to obtain a loan commitment in an amount greater than could have been obtained had the actual sales price of $315,000 been revealed to the lender. The bogus contract showing the $350,000 sales price was allegedly submitted to the lender, AmeriFirst Savings and Loan Association, without the Respondents notifying AmeriFirst that the actual sales price was $315,000. Although witness Rosen for the Petitioner, testified that he believed the contracts involved in this count had been discussed with Mr. Hurbanis he could not say for certain and could not recall the conversation. In fact, another Petitioner witness, Brandy Vallois, stated several times that Mr. Hurbanis was on vacation during the time that the contract was negotiated, executed and submitted to the lender and that, although Respondent Hurbanis was the office manager at VIP Realty Group at the time, others were serving in his stead at the time he was on vacation (the time of the incident alleged in Count I). Although the Department elicited testimony to the effect that seminars had been given where the Respondent, as well as other realtors, had discussed "creative financing," there was no testimony or other evidence that such lectures by the Respondent or others advocated a policy of "double contracting" or in effect deluding lenders into lending more money for real estate purchases than they normally would have if true purchase prices were disclosed. In any event, both the seller and buyer were aware of the situation concerning this transaction and the lender was never deceived or misled because in fact the loan never closed and no funds were disbursed. There was no evidence that the true particulars of this transaction were not disclosed to the lender. Count II Count II concerns a transaction in which Respondent John Parks was the listing and selling salesman and Respondent Hurbanis was the office manager with the same real estate firm. Allegedly, Respondent Hurbanis directed and approved Respondent Parks' preparation of two sales contracts on or about December 16, 1982, calling for the purchase and sale of certain real estate by Mike Volker from Dr. Robert Pascotto and Gaspar Turanna. Both contracts were similar and pertained to the same parcel of property, but one reflected an actual sales price of $149,000, whereas the allegedly bogus, second contract reflected a total sales price of $157,000. It is thus alleged that these two Respondents conspired with the purchasers and sellers to enter into the higher priced, bogus contract for the purpose of obtaining a mortgage loan commitment principal amount at a greater percentage of the sales price than could have been obtained if the actual sales price had been disclosed to the lender. It is alleged that these two Respondents submitted the bogus contract reflecting the $157,000 false sales price together with loan application documents to First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Fort Myers without informing that institution that the actual sales price was $149,000. No competent, substantial evidence was offered, however, to show that Respondent Parks was anything other than the listing salesman. It was not established that he drafted the contract nor that he submitted either contract to the lender. Concerning Respondent Hurbanis, although it was shown that he was the office manager at the time of the incident, it was not established that he directed or approved the drafting of either contract, directed or approved the submission of either contract to the named lender nor that he was involved in the negotiation or closing stage of the transaction in any way. In fact, although the two contracts show differing purchase prices, neither contract depicts any different amount to come from mortgage financing by First Federal. In fact, both contracts reflect that a mortgage would be obtained from First Federal in the amount of $125,600. Nothing any different was disclosed to First Federal. The difference comes in a differing deposit amount held in escrow by VIP Realty Group, Inc., according to the terms of the contract. One contract, that with the lower purchase price, reflects $7,000 in deposit money toward the purchase and the second contract reflects $15,000 deposit money held toward the purchase. This accounts for the $8,000 difference in the amount of the two contracts, but, in any event, the amount to be obtained by mortgage funds from First Federal was the same on each contract. There was no evidence to prove that the deposit amounts depicted on either contract were bogus or other than the result of bona fide arm's length negotiations between the parties. In any event, there was no evidence that First Federal or its lending officers were not aware of any of the particulars in the transaction. There was no showing that that the lender relied on either contract to its detriment. Count III Respondent Pauline Seely, as listing salesman and owner of certain real property, with former Respondent (since dismissed) James O'Neill as selling salesman, and allegedly with Respondent Charles Hurbanis' direction and approval, prepared and obtained execution of two sales contracts on or about December 30, 1982, for the purchase and sale of her real property by Thomas and Sheila Floyd. Both contracts were substantially similar and pertained to the same parcel, but one contract reflected an actual earnest money deposit of $8,660 and a purchase money mortgage in the amount of $24,000, whereas the supposed bogus, second contract reflected a total earnest money deposit of $14,000 and a purchase money mortgage in the principal amount of $18,660. It is alleged that the Respondents then submitted this to the lending institution for the purpose of obtaining a greater percentage of the sales price in mortgage funds than could have been obtained had the actual sales price, terms and conditions been revealed to the lender. In fact, testimony of record and Respondent Seely's Exhibit 2 reveals that the lender was furnished all documents with regard to this transaction which revealed to the lender, as the loan officer involved stated in the letter constituting this exhibit, that the buyers and the seller had agreed that the seller would take back a second mortgage in the amount of $24,000 and that a contract addendum existed (which is in evidence) reflecting this second agreement. Thus, AmeriFirst, the lender, did in fact have a copy of the agreement stating that the seller would hold the second mortgage for the above amount and that AmeriFirst was aware of all details concerning the transaction. In point of fact, both contracts in evidence, one of which reflects a purchase money mortgage of $18,660 which the seller would hold and which reflects that $7,000 would be paid in cash to the seller at the time of contracting, and the second contract, are identical as to purchase price. The second contract also shows a purchase price of $125,000, the difference being essentially that the second contract shows the $24,000 purchase money mortgage amount instead of the figure of $18,660 shown on the first contract. Both contracts merely call for assumption of a mortgage already made in favor of AmeriFirst in the amount of $92,340. There is no evidence that any additional funds are being sought from AmeriFirst at all. There was no evidence that any action by the Respondents would result in any impairment of the security of AmeriFirst's first mortgage lien on the premises. The purchase money mortgage referenced in the testimony and evidence, regardless of its ultimate amount as that relates to the manner in which the total purchase price would be paid the seller, would, in all events, be a subordinate mortgage lien and it is difficult to see how AmeriFirst could rely on either contract to its detriment, even had it not known of one of the contracts. They both represented a purchase price of $125,000 and merely varied as to ways the purchase price would be paid, over and above the $92,340 outstanding first mortgage loan (which was to be assumed). In all events, however, AmeriFirst and its lending officer was fully aware of all details of this transaction and had no objection to the manner in which the transaction was to be closed and disbursements made, nor to the conditions of the assumption of its mortgage. The so called "double contract" that Ms. Seely is alleged to have entered into was shown thus to be an innocent modification of terms of the original sales contract. No wrongdoing or concealment was shown to have been committed by Respondent or any person who participated in the sale of Pauline Seely's property to Thomas and Sheila Floyd. Count V Concerning Count V, it is alleged that Respondents Seely, Parks and Hurbanis obtained two sales contracts on or about January 24, 1983, for the purchase and sale of certain real property by Computer Maintenance Corporation, purchaser, from James and Loretta Cottrell as sellers. Both contracts pertain to the same piece of real property. Both contracts showed a "purchase price" item of $310,000. One contract, however, actually reflected a total price of $344,000, arrived at by combining a $279,000 "90 percent mortgage loan" with a $60,000 purchase money mortgage and a $5,000 cash deposit. This contract contains a notation at the bottom that the "seller agrees that a separate contract for purchase will be given to the Savings and Loan for loan approval." The other contract related to this sale lists a total purchase price of $310,000 only, with a $5,000 deposit noted with no purchase money mortgage being shown, rather there is shown, in addition to the $279,000 90 percent mortgage loan, a balance of $26,000 cash being paid to the seller. This contractual situation is somewhat mysterious and it may indeed be that an attempt was made to conceal the $60,000 purchase money mortgage on the first contract and make it appear to the lender that the purchaser was actually putting up an additional $26,000 in cash at the closing as an inducement to obtain the principal first mortgage of $279,000 from Naples Federal Savings and Loan, AmeriFirst or some other lender. In point of fact, however, the witness, Ms. Heavener, from AmeriFirst indicated that the bank did not act upon the advice contained on the face of the contract, but rather loaned a percentage of their own independent appraisal value and thus did not act to its detriment upon any information contained on the face of either contract. She indicated that that lender was fully informed about all aspects of this transaction in any event. The evidence does not reflect that Mr. Hurbanis nor Ms. Seely had any part in drafting the contract nor presenting it to the lender. Seely's only involvement was as listing agent, that is, the realtor who obtained the listing from the sellers. There is no evidence to indicate that she participated in any fashion in the sale of the property, the negotiations, nor the drafting or presenting of the contracts. No evidence was offered to show for what purpose, whether illicit or innocent, the two different contracts were drafted. In any event, Ms. Seely was not involved in the preparation of the contracts. Mr. Hurbanis was not connected by any competent, substantial evidence, with any activity concerning the drafting of the contracts nor the presenting of them to the lender. A representative of the lending institution testified that she did not recall any discussions at all with Mr. Hurbanis concerning this transaction and upon cross-examination clearly indicated that the lending institution had protected itself against a "double contract" situation by reliance upon its own independent appraisal in making its lending decision, rather than the contract or contracts themselves. Count VI In this count, it is alleged that Hurbanis obtained a sales contract on January 22, 1983, between T N T Partners, a general partnership as seller and Christopher Smith as purchaser. The pertinent terms of the sale were $30,000 total purchase price, $3,000 deposit and $4,500 cash to be allegedly furnished at closing, together with a $22,500 new note and mortgage on the property. It is alleged, in essence, that Respondent Hurbanis falsely represented to Naples Federal Savings and Loan Association that the purchaser would pay $4,500 cash at closing. The transaction closed on April 15, 1983, but instead of the cash, the seller took back a purchase money mortgage in the amount of $4,500. Thus, the issue here is whether the $4,500 mortgage was properly disclosed to the lender. The evidence is silent as to any connection of Mr. Hurbanis with this transaction. In any event, however, it would appear from the face of the contract itself that the lending institution could not have been deceived by the parties to the contract nor any realtor involved, since the contract itself does not require cash in the amount of $4,500 but rather requires "cash or equivalent at closing." Thus, even if there had been a participation by Respondent Hurbanis in this transaction, which was not proven, it is impossible to detect any concealment or deception since the words "or equivalent" would clearly not preclude the use of a purchase money mortgage in the amount of $4,500 as consideration for this portion of the purchase price, rather than actual cash. Indeed, any other thing of equivalent value could have been used as consideration in this particular without violating the terms of the contract, of which the lender clearly had notice.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the evidence of record, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed in its entirety as to all Respondents. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 7th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0140 Petitioner: Petitioner filed no Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Respondent Hurbanis: The Proposed Findings of Fact by Respondent Hurbanis are subsumed in those made in this Recommended Order to the extent that that Respondent's submissions constitute bona fide Proposed Findings of Fact. In the main, the "Findings of Fact" in the Post-Hearing Submission by this Respondent constitute largely recitations of evidence and testimony, discussion of the weight thereof, inextricably intermingled with Proposed Findings of Fact which cannot be separately ruled upon because of multiple factual findings, legal argument and evidence discussion intertwined in the same paragraph. Respondents Maxwell's and Seely's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-12. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 John P. Milligan, Jr., Esquire Suite 201, Royal Palm Square 1400 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Suite C 2700 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Johnny W. Parks c/o The Realty Shoppe of Lee County 12635 Cleveland Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, 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
The Issue Whether Weston Professional Title Group, Inc. (Respondent) committed the violations alleged in Counts I, II, III, V, VI, and VII of the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times, Petitioner has been the entity of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility to regulate title insurance agencies. At all times relevant to this proceeding Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a title insurance agent in the State of Florida. As of the formal hearing, Respondent had ceased its operations due to the lack of business. Petitioner's investigation of Respondent was initiated by a complaint from a man named Robert Anderson. Mr. Anderson represented to Petitioner that he discovered that his name and address had been used as the buyer of the two residences discussed above. Respondent was the title and settlement agent for both transactions. The Collonade Drive transaction settled on November 14, 2006, with disbursement of the funds on November 16, 2006. The Vignon Place transaction settled and the funds were disbursed on December 15, 2006. Mr. Anderson reported to Petitioner his belief that his identity had been stolen by a person named Pamela Higgins. Mr. Anderson reported to Petitioner that he had not participated in either transaction, and asserted that he did not sign any of the documents that purport to contain his signature as the buyer. Respondent was required to comply with the provisions of RESPA in completing the HUD-1 for the Collonade Drive closing and the Vignon Place closing. RESPA required that disbursements at closing be consistent with the HUD-1 as approved by the parties to the transaction and by the lender. COLLONADE DRIVE CLOSING On September 15, 2006, Robert Anderson (or someone impersonating Mr. Anderson) signed a "Contract for Sale and Purchase" (Collonade contract), agreeing to buy the Collonade Drive property from Mark Mariani and Kathy Mariani, for the purchase price of $1,375,000.00. The Collonade contract reflected that a deposit had been made to "FLORIDA TITLE & ESC." in the amount of $5,000 with an additional deposit of $5,000 to be made within ten days. Two loans with separate mortgages constituted the financing for the purchase of the Collonade Drive property. The first mortgage was $962,500.00. The second mortgage, as reflected on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement with the disbursement date of November 14, 2006, was $263,430.08.3/ First Magnus Financial Corporation, an Arizona corporation, was the lender for both loans. Agents of America Mortgage Corp. served as the mortgage broker for the transaction. Juan Carlos Rodriguez, an employee of Agents of America Mortgages, signed Mr. Anderson's loan application as the "interviewer." The following was a special clause of the Collonade contract: "BUYER AGREES TO PAY FOR TITLE INSUANCE [sic] FEE ONLY (LINE 1108 OF SELLERS' SETTLEMENT STATEMENT), ONLY [SIC] IF SELLERS AGREE TO USE BUYER'S TITLE COMPANY OF CHOICE. BUYER IS A LICENSED FLORIDA REAL ESTATE AGENT." Petitioner established that Robert Anderson was not a licensed Florida real estate agent. The Collonade contract represented that there were no real estate brokers representing either party. On or about November 1, 2006, Respondent received a "Request for Title Commitment" from Claudit Casanova, a mortgage broker with Agents of America Mortgage Corp., for the Collonade Drive transaction. This was a revised request. The first request had been sent to Respondent on or about October 3, 2006. A copy of the Collonade contract had been forwarded to Respondent with the first request. In connection with the Collonade Drive transaction, Respondent prepared two HUD-1s,4/ each of which was approved by the parties and the lender.5/ The first HUD-1 had an anticipated closing date of November 14, 2006. That HUD-1 was revised in response to the lender's instruction to move the disbursement date from November 14, 2006, to November 16, 2006. The revision of the HUD-1 slightly reduced the amount of cash the buyer needed to close as a result of interest beginning to run on the loans as of November 16 instead of November 14. This was a mail-away closing, in that a packet of the documents the buyer was to sign was sent to someone named Laurie Martin at a title agency in Glendale, Arizona. Ms. Marrero testified she mailed the packet pursuant to instructions without specifying who gave her those instructions. The packet of documents was returned to Respondent, with signatures purporting to be Mr. Anderson's. Laurie Martin appears to have served as the notary public when the documents were signed. The transaction closed pursuant to the revised HUD-1 with the disbursement date of November 16, 2006, which, as approved by the parties and the lender, reflected that the sellers were to receive $477,884.93 upon closing. Upon closing, Respondent drafted a check in the amount of $477,884.93 made payable to the sellers. The sellers voided the check and based on instructions from the sellers, Ms. Marrero redistributed the sellers' proceeds by wire transfer as follows: $116,112.85 to sellers; $170,250.00 to Pamela Higgins; and $191,508.08 to Unlimited Advertising USA. Fourteen dollars were spent on wire transfer charges. The actual disbursement of the seller's proceeds was inconsistent with the HUD-1 and unknown to the buyer and the lender. Respondent violated the provisions of RESPA by disbursing the proceeds of the sale in a manner that was inconsistent with the HUD-1. $195,000 DEPOSIT The Collonade contract reflected that a $5,000 deposit had been made to "Fla. Title & Esc." required for the buyer to pay an additional deposit of $5,000 within ten days. There was no evidence establishing any relationship between Respondent and "Fla. Title & Esc." Both HUD-1s for the Collonade Drive transaction reflected that the buyer had provided to the sellers a deposit in the amount of $195,000. These HUD-1s, reflecting that the sellers were holding a deposit in the amount of $195,000, were approved by the parties and the lender. Ms. Marrero testified that she was instructed to include the $195,000 deposit on the HUD-1s without specifying who gave her those instructions. Ms. Marrero did not attempt to verify that the $195,000 deposit was actually being held by the sellers. FRAUD Petitioner alleged that the Collonade Drive transaction was fraudulent. Mr. Wenger's testimony, based in part on reports of mortgage fraud prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, supported that allegation. Other evidence supporting that allegation included the following facts The first mortgage quickly went into foreclosure; A mailing address given for Robert Anderson did not (as of April 19, 2011) exist. The address of Unlimited Advertising USA was also the address of Claudia Rodriguez, a former Florida title agent whose license had been suspended by Petitioner for failing to disburse in accordance with HUD statements and disbursing on uncollected funds; The address of Unlimited Advertising USA was also the address of Juan Carlos Rodriguez (the person who supposedly took the credit application from Robert Anderson); The address of Unlimited Advertising USA was also the address of Agents of America Mortgage Corporation (the mortgage broker for the Collonade closing. Juan Carlos Rodriguez supposedly notarized the document authorizing disbursement of part of the sellers' proceeds to Pamela Higgins. Mr. Anderson's purported signatures on different documents are inconsistent. The address for Mr. Anderson as it appears on the HUD- 1 Settlement Statements is 14233 W. Jenan Drive, Surprise, Arizona. Prior to the closing Ms. Marrero sent by Federal Express a copy of the unexecuted closing documents to "Pam Higgins c/o Robert S. Anderson" 12211 N. 85th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona. Following the closing, Ms. Marrero sent a copy of the closing documents by Federal Express to Robert S. Anderson, at the address 12211 N. 85th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona. Ms. Marrero testified that she acted on instructions in sending the two packages, without identifying who gave her those instructions. There was no evidence that anyone employed by Respondent knew anyone connected to this transaction prior to being asked to provide a title commitment. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent had anything to do with the buy-sell agreement between the buyer and the sellers or the efforts by Mr. Anderson (or the person or persons impersonating Mr. Anderson) to obtain financing for the purchase. While there was significant evidence that the Colonnade Closing was a fraudulent transaction, there was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent was complicit in that fraud. VIGNON COURT CLOSING On a date prior to November 6, 2006, Maribel and Timothy Graves signed a "Contract for Sale and Purchase" offering to sell their Vignon Court residence to Robert Anderson for the purchase price of $1,975,000.00. Mr. and Mrs. Graves were represented by counsel during this transaction. The copy of the contract admitted into evidence had not been signed by Mr. Anderson and did not bear a legible date. The contract provided an acceptance date of November 6, 2006. The fully executed contract was not admitted into evidence. On October 4, 2006, Claudit Casanova of Agents of America Mortgage requested Respondent to provide a title commitment for the Vignon Court transaction. In that request, the sales price was stated as being $1,975,000; the loan amount was $1,481,250 and the mortgagee was American Brokers Conduit. Preferred Properties, Int., Inc., was listed as being the real estate broker for the transaction. Respondent prepared a HUD-1 for the Vignon Court transaction that reflected a closing and disbursement date of December 15, 2006. DEPOSIT The unexecuted (by the buyer) and undated copy Purchase Agreement required a deposit of $100,000 at the time of acceptance with an additional $50,000 being due within ten days thereafter. There was no evidence as to the terms of the completely executed Purchase Agreement. Line 201 of the HUD-1 reflected a deposit of $250,000 paid on behalf of the buyer. Respondent did not verify that deposit had been made. The HUD-1 specified that the deposit was being held by the sellers. The buyer, sellers, and lender approved the HUD-1, which reflected the existence of a deposit of $250,000, prior to closing. GASPARE VALENTINO On December 6, 2006, Mr. and Mrs. Graves entered into a "Joint Venture and Property Resale Agreement" (Resale Agreement) pertaining to the sale of the Vignon Court residence with Gaspare Valentino. On February 5, 2002, Gaspare Rino Valentino was issued a license by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation of the type "Real Estate Broker or Sales" and of the rank "Sales Associate." That license was valid at the times relevant to this proceeding. Paragraph 2 of the Resale Agreement provides as follows: (2) SALE EFFORTS: CONTRACT PROCEEDS. Valentino agrees to use reasonable efforts to obtain a third party purchaser (a "Purchaser") for the Property. Valentino is not required to advertise the Property or list the Property for sale, but shall have such right to do so. Valentino does not guaranty [sic] the procurement of a Purchaser. The parties agree that the intention is for Valentino to secure a Purchaser who will pay a purchase price sufficient in order to (i) satisfy the existing debt upon the Property, (ii) pay ordinary and reasonable closing costs of the transaction, (iii) generate a net proceeds [illegible] to Owner not less than ONE HUNDERED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100,000); and (iv) generate such further sums beyond the foregoing in order to pay Valentino a fee for services rendered as set forth in this Agreement. In accordance with such understanding, Owner agrees to enter into and fully execute a Contract for Purchase and Sale with a Purchaser procured by Valentino which is consistent with the terms set forth in this Agreement, including without limitation, a designated sales price which enables Owner to receive at closing a net proceeds sum equal to ONE HUNDERED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100,000) (the "Owner's Sale Proceeds") after payment of the Property Sale Expenses, hereinafter defined as set forth in Paragraph 3. Owner agrees that any net sales proceeds in excess of the Owner's Sale Proceeds shall be payable to Valentino (the "Excess Proceeds Fee), as Valentino's fee for the efforts of Valentino as set forth herein. Paragraph 3 (i) of the Resale Agreement reiterates that after the payment of the "Property Sale Expenses" as follows: Owner shall receive the Owner Sale Proceeds consisting of exactly ONE HUNDERED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100,000) from the net sales proceeds . . . Paragraph 3 (ii) of the Resale Agreement reiterates that after the payment of the "Property Sale Expenses" and the "Owner Sale Proceeds": Valentino shall receive the Excess Proceeds Fees, constituting all remaining net sales proceeds in excess of the Owner Sale Proceeds, as a fee for services rendered by Valentino pursuant to this Agreement. Paragraph 7 of the Resale Agreement is as follows: 7. Licensed Agent: Valentino represents and discloses that Valentino is a licensed real estate agent in the State of Florida. Notwithstanding such, Valentino is individually entering into this Agreement using his own resources to assist Owner in the improvement and sale of the Property, and as such is a principal in this transaction earning the Excess Proceeds Fee. The parties acknowledge that Valentino is an investor in this transaction and as such at closing is entitled to and shall receive the Excess Proceeds Fee as set forth in Section [Paragraph] 3(ii) of this Agreement. Under RESPA, Section 700 of a HUD-1 is appropriately used for reporting the payments for commissions to real estate salesmen and/or brokers as part of the "Settlement Charges." Such payments can also be reported under Section 1300 ("Additional Settlement Charges"), if the payments are appropriately labeled. Respondent reflected the payment of $527,656.92 as "Payoff" to Gaspare Valentino at line 1307 of Section 1300." Prior to closing the buyer, sellers, and lender had approved the HUD-1 for the Vignon Court transaction. The lender was aware of the Resale Agreement. Mr. Marrero is an attorney licensed to practice law in Florida. Mr. Marrero construed the payments to Mr. Valentino to be other than a real estate commission. Although it is clear that Petitioner considers that payment to Mr. Valentino to be a real estate commission, the terms of the Resale Agreement entitled Mr. Marrero to treat that payment as being to an investor. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent erroneously stated the payment to Mr. Valentino on the HUD-1. SURETY BOND As a condition of licensure, a title agency is required to provide to Petitioner a $35,000 security deposit or a $35,000 surety bond. In connection with its application for licensure on August 29, 2002, Respondent filed the required surety bond with Petitioner. The bond was issued by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland with bond number 133046577. On July 14, 2004, Petitioner received from Respondent a surety bond issued by Western Surety Company in the amount of $35,000, effective as of August 29, 2004. The bond number was 69728435. On May 28, 2010, Petitioner received a letter from his surety dated May 24, 2010, which advised that bond number 69728435 would be voided or cancelled as of August 29, 2010. That letter of cancellation showed a copy being furnished to Respondent at the address "1820 North. Corporate Lakes Boulevard, Suite 105, Weston, Florida 33326." On June 11, 2010, Petitioner advised Respondent by letter sent to "1820 North Corporate Lakes Boulevard, Suite. 105, Weston, Florida 33326" that it had received the cancellation letter. The letter stated, in part, as follows: If we do not receive a replacement bond within 30 days of the dated letter, we will forward your file to the appropriate division for disciplinary action. If you do not plan to continue transacting business and wish to terminate your license, you must submit a request to us immediately. Prior to May 24, 2010, Respondent moved its offices from 1802 North Corporate Lakes Boulevard, Suite 105, Weston, Florida, to Suite 304 of the same building. Mr. Marrero testified that he had no recollection of receiving the letters cancelling the surety bond or the letter from Petitioner dated June 11, 2010. Respondent was without a surety bond between August 29, 2010, and November 18, 2010. Petitioner did not establish that Respondent's failure to maintain it surety bond during that period was willful within the meaning of section 626.8437(9). No prior disciplinary action has been brought against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of subsections 626.8473(2) and (4) as alleged in Count I of the Amended AC; and guilty of failing to maintain a surety bond as required by section 626.8418(2) in violation of section 626.8437(1), as alleged in Count III of the Amended AC. It is further recommended that the final order find Respondent not guilty of all other violations alleged in the Amended AC. For the violations found as to Count I, it is recommended that Respondent's licensure be suspended for a period of six months. For the violations found in Count III, it is recommended that Respondent's licensure be suspended for a period of three months. It is further recommended that the periods of suspension run concurrently. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2012
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether the Florida Real Estate Commission should discipline Judy K. Palmer (Palmer) and her real estate brokerage, ERA Solutions in Real Estate, Inc. (ERA Solutions in Real Estate), for alleged violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (1997).
Findings Of Fact The charges alleged violations arising out of four factual settings. At all times material to the charges, the Respondent, Judy K. Palmer (Palmer), was a licensed Florida real estate broker under license number 0574496. Palmer was the qualifying broker for Palmer Realty of Central Florida, Inc. (Palmer Realty), from January 1996 until Palmer Realty was deactivated. Although the evidence is not clear, it appears that Palmer Realty was deactivated in June 1996. Palmer claims that she did not intend to deactivate Palmer Realty in June 1996 but only had her office inquire as to deactivation procedures. In late 1996 (Palmer testified to late 1997, but she must have misspoken), Palmer entered into negotiations to purchase an ERA franchise. Complications arose, and the transaction was not completed until March 1997. Although it is alleged in the Administrative Complaint against Palmer that Palmer applied for licensure of the Respondent, ERA Solutions in Real Estate, Inc. (ERA Solutions in Real Estate), in March 1997, it appears from the evidence that Palmer actually applied on June 13, 1997. The application was approved, and it appears from the evidence that Palmer became the qualifying broker for ERA Solutions in Real Estate effective on June 13, 1997. At the same time, Palmer conducted business as a principal and officer of a brokerage of mobile homes on leased property, an activity that does not require licensure as a real estate broker or salesperson. Initially, Palmer conducted her business through an entity called Affordable Lifestyle Homes, Inc. (Affordable Lifestyle). At approximately the time she began to conduct her real estate business through ERA Solutions in Real Estate in March 1997, Palmer began to conduct her mobile homes sales business through ERA Solutions, Inc. (ERA Solutions). Palmer testified without contradiction that she was not a broker in the mobile homes sales business. However, because her real estate brokerage was conducted in the same building as her mobile home sales business, customers sometimes confused the two businesses, and mobile home customers sometimes believed that they were doing business with the real estate brokerage and that Palmer also was a broker for the sale of mobile homes on leased property. The Hinkles and Conklin The Administrative Complaint against Palmer alleged violations arising out of the handling of a $1,000 deposit on the purchase of real property in Lakeland, Florida. Actually, no real property was involved. It also was alleged that the deposit was placed in the Affordable Lifestyles escrow account. Actually, the money was placed into an ERA Solutions account; it is not clear from the evidence whether it was an escrow account. It also was alleged that the deposit eventually was returned to the buyer; actually, it eventually was returned to the seller. In early 1997, Joanne Conklin went to the offices of Affordable Lifestyle and Palmer Realty to list and sell a mobile home on leased property that had belonged to Conklin's recently deceased father. The evidence indicated that Conklin dealt with an individual named Bruce Shefler, but it did not seem to be clear to Conklin whether Shefler worked for Affordable Lifestyle or Palmer Realty, or both, or whether there was a difference between the two. Conklin did, however, understand that not all realtors sold mobile homes on leased property and that her choices were limited. Starting approximately March 1997, Conklin began to receive documentation bearing the name of ERA Solutions. Disillusioned with the services she was getting, Conklin complained to Palmer, who tried to satisfy Conklin by switching her property to another mobile home salesperson named Sandi Stone. Still confused as to the relationship between the realty and the mobile homes sales entity, Conklin appears to have assumed incorrectly that Shefler and Stone were realtors. On or about July 15, 1997, Don and Janet Hinkle made an offer to purchase Conklin's mobile home at close to the asking price, with a $1,000 deposit and a September 1, 1997, closing date. Conklin considered this to be the first "major offer," and she was inclined to accept. However, Conklin did not think the deposit was enough to take the property off the market for the September closing date. It is not clear from the evidence what happened at that point. Conklin thought the closing date was being changed to August 16, 1997, to allay her concerns. The face of the contract itself also indicates such a change of the closing date; however, it is not clear whether the change was made before or after the Hinkles signed the contract, or if the change ever was presented to them. Stone accepted the Hinkles' deposit by check made payable to ERA Solutions and placed the money in an ERA Solutions bank account. It was not clear if it was an escrow account. Shortly before August 16, 1997, Stone telephoned Conklin and told her that the Hinkles' financing had been delayed and that closing would have to be delayed until September 1, 1997, after all. Conklin was upset and telephoned the Hinkles directly to inform them that she would require an additional deposit to hold the property off the market until September 1, 1997. The Hinkles in turn became upset because they professed not to have any knowledge of a closing prior to September 1, 1997. They also did not like the way the transaction was proceeding and decided they no longer wanted to buy Conklin's mobile home. When told that the Hinkles would not close the contract, Conklin asked Palmer for the $1,000 deposit. Palmer told Conklin that that the property would go back on the market and that the deposit would be returned to the Hinkles. When the Hinkles asked for the $1,000 deposit, Palmer told them that the deposit would be paid to Conklin and that the Hinkles might also have to pay for the mobile home. Based on this advice, the Hinkles felt that they were at the mercy of Conklin as to the return of the deposit. Palmer did not report to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (the Division), that the demands had been made for the return of the deposit. The Hinkles complained to the Division that their deposit had not been returned. During the investigation of the Hinkles' complaint, Palmer returned the deposit to them on December 11, 1997. Conklin did not object to the return of the deposit but would have objected to Palmer, ERA Solutions in Real Estate, ERA Solutions or Affordable Lifestyle keeping it. The Snow Contract The Administrative Complaint against Palmer alleged that Palmer continued to conduct business as Palmer Real Estate after it was deactivated by entering into a listing contract with the Snows between November 1996 and March 1997. But the Administrative Complaint alleged in two places that deactivation occurred on June 20, 1997. Palmer Real Estate actually appears to have been deactivated in June 1996, perhaps accidentally. See Finding 2, supra. Palmer and Palmer Real Estate performed the Snow listing contract without any problems and to the satisfaction of the Snows. The Karolishyn Contract The Administrative Complaint against Palmer alleged that Palmer conducted business as ERA Solutions in Real Estate before it was licensed. On or about March 13, 1997, Palmer, on behalf of ERA Solutions in Real Estate, entered into a listing contract with Beatrice Karolishyn. Palmer and ERA Solutions in Real Estate performed the Karolishyn listing contract without any problems and to the satisfaction of Karolishyn. Alleged Misappropriation of Escrow Funds In addition to the allegations against Palmer arising out of the Conklin/Hinkles transactions, the Administrative Complaint against Palmer and ERA Solutions in Real Estate alleged specific as well as wholesale misappropriation of escrow funds. The Administrative Complaint against Palmer and ERA Solutions in Real Estate alleged that, on or about December 31, 1997, Donald J. (Jack) Miller, a salesperson employed by the Respondents, accepted a $100 deposit from Geneva McCoy on the purchase of a mobile home on leased property. It further alleged that, prior to closing, the Respondents converted the $100 to their own use and that the sellers were unable to fund the purchase of tags and title. The evidence was that, after the McCoy deposit, the sale of Palmer's ERA franchise to another broker was initiated, and there was confusion as to whom McCoy was supposed to write her check for the balance of the purchase. In addition, McCoy wanted title to the mobile home to be taken in the names of both her and her son; title was delayed while information required by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles was obtained from her son. There was no evidence that the $100 deposit had anything to do with the delay in obtaining title to the mobile home. On or about February 4, 1998, Palmer's ERA franchise was transferred to another broker. Miller was permitted to, and chose to, join the successor franchisee. At the McCoy closing, Miller discovered that McCoy was $100 short because the deposit had not been made available for the closing. Miller paid the $100 out of his own pocket. The Administrative Complaint against Palmer and ERA Solutions in Real Estate also alleged that, on or about February 10, 1998, Miller accepted a $1,000 deposit from Maxine Reed on the purchase of real property from Barbara L. McCarty. In fact, as reflected in the sales contract and deposit check attached to the Administrative Complaint, and confirmed by the evidence presented at the hearing, the deposit was accepted on or about January 17, 1998. When the McCarty/Reed transaction closed on February 20, 1998, Miller participated in the closing in his new capacity as salesperson for the successor broker. As with the McCoy deal, the deposit was not made available for the closing. In order to proceed with the closing, Miller had to charge back the $1,000 against the broker's sales commission. The evidence was that, after agreeing to sell her ERA franchise to another broker, Palmer attempted to renege and rescind the sale. She took the position that, at the time of the agreement, she was not thinking clearly because she was on medication for continuing emotional difficulties from the sudden and tragic death of her daughter in a car accident in 1994. Palmer sought to rescind the sale and viewed the transaction as a hostile takeover against her will. The evidence did not prove why the McCoy and Reed down payments were not available for their closings. The money apparently remained in the ERA Solutions in Real Estate escrow account. On or about March 18, 1998, after both the sale of the ERA franchise and the closings, Palmer withdrew all funds from her ERA brokerage accounts (including the ERA Solutions in Real Estate and ERA Solutions escrow accounts) and closed the accounts. She used the funds in the account for her own purposes. These funds included the McCoy and Reed deposits. It was Palmer's position that the successor broker was responsible for making the funds available for the closings and that the money in the ERA brokerage accounts rightfully belonged to her. There was no evidence as to the terms of the sale of the ERA franchises or the contemplated handling of the escrow funds. There also was no evidence that either Miller or the successor broker made a claim to the funds. There also were general allegations in the Administrative Complaint against Palmer and ERA Solutions in Real Estate that the Respondents wrote payroll checks out of the ERA Solutions in Real Estate escrow account at Barnett Bank between August 1997 and January 1998. However, those allegations were not proven. There also were general allegations in the Administrative Complaint against Palmer and ERA Solutions in Real Estate that the Respondents "obtained deposits and misappropriated the deposits by improperly disbursing them to the operating account at Barnett Bank and/or by directly converting them to the use of the Respondent Judy K. Palmer." The only evidence of such a direct conversion of escrow funds was that Palmer once wrote a $200 to $400 check out of the escrow account for a personal health insurance premium. However, another broker brought this to Palmer's attention, and Palmer replaced the money, saying she accidentally had picked up the wrong check book. The evidence was that this occurred in December 1996, before Palmer began operating as ERA Solutions in Real Estate. There also were general allegations in the Administrative Complaint against Palmer and ERA Solutions in Real Estate that the Respondents "converted approximately $14,200 in trust funds to the Respondents' general account and/or to Respondent Judy K. Palmer's own use." As reflected in the bank statement attached to the Administrative Complaint, the evidence proved that $14,200 was transferred out of the ERA Solutions in Real Estate escrow account during July 1997, but the evidence did not prove who transferred the funds, where the funds were transferred, or what they were used for. The Administrative Complaint against Palmer and ERA Solutions in Real Estate also alleged that, on or about January 28, 1998, First Union Bank froze all of the Respondents' accounts, including escrow accounts, because of checks (including payroll checks) returned by reason of insufficient funds. The evidence proved that there was not much activity in the escrow account but that there was a substantial problem with deposits in the general accounts and that they were overdrawn by almost $6,500 at the end of January 1998. There also was evidence that, as before, vendors were not being paid and were dunning the brokerage for payment and that checks on the general account were bouncing, including payroll checks.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order revoking the licenses of Judy K. Palmer and ERA Solutions in Real Estate, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Suite N-308A 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Judy Palmer Post Office Box 24734 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James Kimbler, Acting Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact In December, 1976, Respondent Murray was registered with Petitioner as a real estate broker and Respondent Doyle was registered as a real estate salesman associated with Murray. Negotiations conducted between Murray, Doyle and representatives of Cameron-Brown led to the execution of an Exclusive Right of Sales Agreement, dated December 1, 1976 (Exhibit 1). This agreement was negotiated between the parties with the final draft prepared by Cameron-Brown legal staff and approved by R.E. Murray and Associated (REMA) by Murray and Cameron-Brown Company by a vice-president. The contract covered condominiums that had been foreclosed on by Cameron-Brown and which they were anxious to sell. In addition to providing commissions to be paid on sales, how down payments were to be handled, how the agreement could be terminated, reports to be submitted, defining responsibility for employees, and establishing the closing agent for Seller, the agreement, and Addendum A, provided that Doyle was to have sole control of managing and marketing the project. This latter provision was interpreted by the principal drafters of the agreement to indicate that Cameron-Brown was interested in having Doyle as sales manager of the project but in all respects working under Murray as broker. Little discretion was left to the agent in executing contracts which were provided by the Seller, handling of the escrow deposits or in preparing closing statements, as the manner of carrying out these duties was established by the agreement which also provided that all deposits were to be placed in escrow with the title company designated as closing agent for the Seller. During the period the condominium units were being sold this was the major, if not sole, real estate function performed by REMA. The agreement was carried out to the satisfaction of Cameron-Brown with all units sold quicker than had been expected. From the summer of 1976 through the selling of the condominiums, Respondent Murray, who is also a licensed broker in Minnesota, was engaged in a real estate development project in Minnesota and spent the major part of his time in Minnesota. Murray was in communication with his Clearwater office by telephone and discussed all aspects of the agreement with Doyle doing the negotiations. After the agreement was executed by Murray, he was also available by telephone and was contacted by Doyle and others in the office when they deemed it necessary. Murray signed all listing agreements and approved all salesmen employed. One sales person, Mrs. McGhan, was interviewed by a REMA salesperson and Doyle and her employment was approved by Murray. Because her registration was close to expiration when she was hired, Murray authorized Doyle to sign his, Murray's name to her application to be forwarded to FREC. No effort to emulate Murray's signature was made by Doyle in signing Murray's name on the McGhan application. During the period involving the sales of these condominiums Murray received weekly reports on the progress of the sales and was in frequent contact with the office. Procedures to be followed in the REMA office had been established by Murray orally and in written memoranda and were, after the charges herein involved were brought, published in a Procedures Manual, a copy of which was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 7. Respondent Doyle at all times here involved was employed by REMA as a salesman. Doyle holds an inactive real estate broker's license in California and has been a licensed Florida real estate salesman since March 1976. He passed the C.P.A. exam in California in 1970 and also holds a Florida Mortgage Broker's license. He has a Master's degree from UCLA in Real Estate and Urban Land Economics, and is a certified teacher at St. Petersburg Junior College, teaching Real Estate Finance since 1977. During the negotiations leading up to the Exclusive Right of Sale Agreement with Cameron-Brown, Doyle did most of the negotiations for REMA and John Sullivan, an employee of Cameron-Brown, did the negotiations for Cameron- Brown. In conducting these negotiations, Doyle was in frequent communication with Murray and Murray was the final approving authority for REMA. Doyle was authorized to sign checks drawn on the REMA escrow account, but no evidence was presented that he ever signed checks on this escrow account or that it would have been wrong had he done so. During the period Murray was spending most of his time in Minnesota, the principal efforts of REMA were involved in the condominium project and none of the earnest money deposits there received were placed in REMA escrow account.
