The Issue Whether the Respondent, a registered general contractor, violated Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes, (1979), by aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to evade the provisions of Part II, Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979), by knowingly combining or conspiring with an unlicensed person by allowing his license to be used by an unlicensed person. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1979), by acting in the capacity of a contractor under a name other than that listed on his license. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(d) Florida Statutes (1979), by failing to properly qualify his company pursuant to Section 489.119(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (1979).
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds currently active registered general contractor's license No. RG0005734 in the name of "Clarence O. Nielsen." On June 9, 1978, Respondent entered into a written Joint Venture Agreement with Walter J. Howard with respect to a dwelling on property owned by Mr. Howard in Volusia County, Florida. This agreement provided as follows: For proposed construction on a lot owned by Mr. Walter Howard at 200 Howard Ave. N.S.B. This construction to be undertaken as a joint venture between Walter Howard and C. O. Nielsen. Division of any profits from this venture to be shared as follows; [sic] A ten percent profit on total sale to Mr. Howard based on total cost of lot and loan costs and all material and labor (including Mr. Howard's salary). Should any profit remain from sale of property it shall be divided equally between Mr. Howard and Mr. Nielsen. On June 28, 1978, Walter Howard signed and filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, a Notice of Commencement indicating construction of improvements which were the subject of the aforementioned Joint Venture Agreement. On July 10, 1978, Volusia County Building Permit No. 16379B was issued to Respondent, and listed "Nielsen Construction Company" as the contractor on the project to be constructed on Mr. Howard's property as aforesaid. As previously mentioned, Respondent is licensed only in the name of "Clarence O. Nielsen." Respondent admitted, however, that he had registered the name "Nielsen Construction Company" as a fictitious name in compliance with Section 865.09(2)(b) Florida Statutes, although no evidence of such compliance was furnished to Petitioner. It is uncontradicted in the record of this proceeding that Respondent was on the job site which is the subject matter of this proceeding from two to three times a week during the course of construction. Respondent supervised work while it was in progress, and called for periodic inspections to be made by the Volusia County Department of Building. Respondent was in fact observed to be on the job site by officials of the Volusia County Department of Building on at least two of the several occasions when they made periodic inspections. These inspections were made by officials of the Volusia County Department of Building on July 11, 1978; July 20, 1978; July 25, 1978; August 3, 1978; October 9, 1978; and December 29, 1978. Although Mr. Howard was frequently on the job site; signed the Notice of Commencement; obtained financing from First Federal Savings and Loan Association in New Smyrna Beach, Florida; made draw requests to that financial institution; and submitted an affidavit on December 29, 1978, indicating that all outstanding liens concerning the project had been satisfied, there is absolutely no direct, credible evidence of record in this proceeding to contradict Respondent's assertion that he took an active part as a contractor in the construction of the improvements on the property. Sometime in either October or November of 1978 Mr. Howard was contacted by the eventual purchaser of the home. Negotiations between Mr. Howard and the purchaser culminated in a down payment being made on the home in early December of 1978. The purchaser moved into the home on December 19, 1978, and later experienced problems with the construction of the house. The purchaser lodged complaints concerning the construction of the house with the Volusia County Department of Building, which apparently ultimately led to these charges being filed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Don J. Lo Prince was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson, from December 29, 1975, to June 29, 1976. Until approximately two months before respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. At that time, one of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex had a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. On November 3, 1975, Walter J. Pankz, a real estate broker, began work with International Land Brokers, Inc. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc., manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salesperson had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc., was in business. As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc., began operation, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc., had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records. The last week of May, respondent telephoned Miss Claire K. Bassett of Lowell, Massachusetts, and urged her not to delay in executing a listing agreement with respect to Florida realty she owned. Another salesman, Marcel Cossette, had earlier spoken to Miss Bassett on several occasions and caused the agreement to be mailed to Miss Bassett. Respondent told her to hurry so that her parcels could be assembled into a tract which respondent represented was expected to be sold in September of 1976. Miss Bassett did execute the agreement and pay a listing fee.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of September 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire Mr. Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Don J. Lo Prince c/o Morton Wolf 19101 Collins Avenue Miami Beach, Florida 33160
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 15C-16.012(5)1/ (the “Rule”) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based on the testimony and exhibits admitted at the final hearing and the agreed facts in the pre-hearing stipulation. Parties Petitioner, FADA, is a not-for-profit trade association of licensed franchise motor vehicle dealers in Florida. FADA is organized and maintained for the benefit of approximately 800 members, which includes 85 to 90 percent of the licensed franchise motor vehicle dealers in Florida. FADA regularly coordinates the common interests of its members and represents its members before the Legislature with respect to legislation and rules affecting franchised dealers. Respondent, the Department, is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for regulating electronic filing system (“EFS”) and the EFS agents. The Department adopted the Rule, which became effective December 14, 2010. The Rule was amended on November 22, 2011, but has not been amended since that time. Titling and Registration of Vehicles Every motor vehicle that is to be driven on a road in Florida must be registered with the Department. § 320.02(1), Fla. Stat. The initial registration a customer receives may either be temporary or permanent. If the initial registration is temporary, there is a period of 30 days during which the temporary registration must be converted to a permanent registration. In Florida, sellers of motor vehicles are required to effect transfers of title and registration as part of a sale of motor vehicles. The EFS provides an electronic method for the titling and registration of motor vehicles. EFS agents are those persons or entities who are engaged in selling products for which a title or registration is needed. Fla. Admin. Code R. 15C-16.010(1)(a) and (b). A substantial number of FADA’s members are EFS agents. The EFS was developed in the 1990s to permit dealers to make titling and registration more efficient. The system also enhanced safety during a roadside stop for law enforcement by making registration information readily available. At the beginning of the process, an EFS agent, who could be a motor vehicle dealer, like the members of FADA, sells a vehicle and electronically submits information through the EFS to a Certified Service Provider (“CSP”). The CSP provides the software system that is used by EFS agents to submit titling and registration transactions for processing. Tax collectors are also part of the process and are responsible for preparing the paperwork that is submitted to finalize a titling or registration transaction. Some tax collectors outsource these responsibilities to private entities, which function as private tag agents (“PTAs”). While the EFS is a comprehensive method to electronically file vehicle title and registration transactions, there is also a limited sub-system of the EFS, Electronic Temporary Registration (“ETR”). The ETR is limited to temporary registration of vehicles. It does not involve titling. There are multiple methods for submitting the necessary paperwork for titling and/or registering a motor vehicle. This can be done manually by taking it to a public or private tag agency, and electronically by using the ETR and the EFS or the EFS only. EFS agents are subject to statutes and rules pertaining to titling and registration of motor vehicles in Florida. Rule and Statutory Authority The rule at issue in this case concerns the Department’s authority over the EFS. The Rule, 15C-16.012(5), provides: If an EFS agent charges a fee to the customer for use of the electronic filing system in a title or registration transaction, the fee shall be disclosed separately and in a clear and conspicuous manner in the sales agreement along with the other options for titling and registration. The EFS agent may not disclose or disguise this as a State or Government fee. The Rule requires that an EFS agent charging a fee to use the EFS, disclose the EFS filing fee separately and in a clear and conspicuous manner and provide other options for titling and registration. The Rule cites section 320.03(10)(a), Florida Statutes, as the law being implemented. Section 320.03(10) provides: Jurisdiction over the electronic filing system for use by authorized electronic filing system agents to electronically title or register motor vehicles, vessels, mobile homes, or off-highway vehicles; issue or transfer registration license plates or decals; electronically transfer fees due for the title and registration process; and perform inquiries for title, registration, and lienholder verification and certification of service providers is expressly preempted to the state, and the department shall have regulatory authority over the system. The electronic filing system shall be available for use statewide and applied uniformly throughout the state. An entity that, in the normal course of its business, sells products that must be titled or registered, provides title and registration services on behalf of its consumers and meets all established requirements may be an authorized electronic filing system agent and shall not be precluded from participating in the electronic filing system in any county. Upon request from a qualified entity, the tax collector shall appoint the entity as an authorized electronic filing system agent for that county. The department shall adopt rules in accordance with chapter 120 to replace the December 10, 2009, program standards and to administer the provisions of this section, including, but not limited to, establishing participation requirements, certification of service providers, electronic filing system requirements, and enforcement authority for noncompliance. The December 10, 2009, program standards, excluding any standards which conflict with this subsection, shall remain in effect until the rules are adopted. An authorized electronic filing agent may charge a fee to the customer for use of the electronic filing system. Section 320.03(10) gives the Department regulatory authority over the EFS and requires the Department to adopt rules to administer the EFS. The statute also requires that the Department adopt rules to replace the 2009 program standards. Section 320.03(10) also explicitly provides that an EFS agent is permitted to charge a fee to the customer for use of the EFS. However, there is no requirement in the statute that an EFS agent satisfy any conditions when charging the fee. Specifically, the statute does not require that the EFS agent make any type of disclosure regarding the fee or other options for titling or registration. 2009 Program Standards Respondent relies upon the language in the statute related to replacement of the 2009 program standards to support its position that section 320.03(10) provides authority for the Rule. Over the course of legislative sessions in 2009 and 2010, the regulatory authority for the EFS was transferred from the Florida Tax Collectors Service Corporation (“FTCSC”) to the Department as provided in section 320.03(10). The 2009 program standards were a set of standards used by the FTCSC for administering participation in the EFS when the FTCSC had responsibility for administering the EFS. The 2009 program standards were to remain in place until adoption of the Rule. The 2009 program standards expressly regulated certain participation requirements placed upon dealers seeking to become an approved Limited Branch Office (“LBO”), which is the equivalent of an EFS agent. One of the 2009 program standards required that dealers seeking “appointment as a participating LBO” must submit a letter agreeing to comply with certain disclosure requirements as part of a sale, including the contents of a buyer’s order. The “buyer’s order” referenced in the 2009 program standards has the same meaning in the industry as the term “sales agreement” in rule 15C-16.012(5). Under the 2009 program standards, failure of a dealer to adhere to the standards could result in loss of its LBO status. The relevant portions of the LBO participation requirements are discussed further below. Section III.A.2.a. of the 2009 program standards provided that the letter requesting approval for LBO status shall include a statement that use of the EFS will be an optional transaction and will be disclosed on the buyer’s orders as “Electronic Filing.” Similarly, section V.C.2.(d)4.b.ii. provided that a dealer’s application for LBO status may be rejected if the letter provided to the tax collector does not mention the information required in section III.A.2.a. Section III.A.2.c. provided that a dealer seeking LBO status must include in their letter to the tax collector a statement that the dealer will not represent to the EFS customers that they are required to transact title transaction business through the EFS. Likewise, section V.C.2.(d)4.b.iv. provided that a dealer’s application for LBO status may be rejected if the dealer’s letter does not include a statement that the dealer agrees not to represent to potential EFS customers that the customer is required to transact title transaction business through the EFS and pay additional charges, if applicable. The undersigned finds that these requirements of the 2009 program standards required dealers utilizing the EFS at that time to make certain disclosures for the purpose of participation as an LBO. The disclosure of fees charged to customers for use of the EFS system was not addressed in the 2009 program standards. In fact, the 2009 version of section 320.03(10) provided that a dealer “may charge a fee to the customer for use of the electronic filing system, and such fee is not a component of the program standards.” § 320.03, Fla. Stat. (2009). Different Methods for Titling and Registration In addition to the requirement to disclose the fee for use of the EFS, the Rule requires EFS agents to disclose “other options for titling and registration.” In the motor vehicle industry, there are multiple methods for titling and registration. Dealers can deal directly with county tax collectors for titling and registration, which is performed manually. Dealers can use ETR vendors for the temporary registration process. Like with the EFS, the ETR providers charge dealers a fee for use of the ETR system. A dealer that has a contract with one of the PTAs in Florida can use that PTA to process components of the titling and registration process. PTAs are entities that dealers may hire as a service provider to process registration and titling work manually. Like with EFS providers and ETR providers, PTAs charge dealers a fee for the services they provide in the titling and registration process. Given that dealers must have contracts with PTAs in order to utilize their services and that PTAs charge dealers a fee for use of their services, a dealer using a PTA for components of the titling and registration processes is not the same as a dealer interacting directly with a county tax collector. The multiple methods for titling and registration could result in multiple options for EFS agents. Uncertainty about Meaning of “Other Options” During and after the rulemaking process, Mr. Smith, the president of FADA, expressed concern about the interpretation of the requirement in the Rule to disclose “other options for titling and registration.” Mr. Smith sent a number of emails seeking clarification regarding this requirement. On December 8, 2010, Mr. Smith sent an email on behalf of FADA to Julie Baker at the Department inquiring whether the Rule meant that a dealer would have to disclose all the potential options available in the marketplace or only those options available to that particular dealer. On December 19, 2010, Mr. Smith received a response from Boyd Walden, the Department’s then chief of the Bureau of Titles and Registrations, stating that a legal opinion on the issue was being requested. Mr. Smith never received the legal opinion on the issue. Approximately two years later, on January 7, 2013, Mr. Smith sent Mr. Walden another email notifying the Department that the importance of this issue had escalated because FADA members were being sued by consumers or their representatives for failure to comply with the Rule. Mr. Smith requested guidance from the Department regarding interpretation of the Rule. Mr. Walden, as the then director of the Division of Motorist Services, responded on January 8, 2013, and offered an example of other options. For example, he suggested “the dealer informing the buyer of the option for the dealer to file the paperwork with the tax collector manually.” On January 8, 2013, Mr. Smith emailed Mr. Walden and requested a letter from the Department’s counsel clarifying what the Rule required. On October 30, 2013, Mr. Smith emailed Mr. Walden notifying the Department that dealers were continuing to be sued regarding compliance with the Rule and requesting clarification regarding the Rule. On October 30, 2013, Mr. Walden stated, “there are other options such as manual registration through the tax collector. How you offer those ‘other options’ is up to you.” Mr. Walden continued that FADA’s legal team “should decide how to best meet the ‘other options’ requirement based on the level of risk your clients are willing to assume.” Mr. Smith still had questions regarding compliance with the Rule. Mr. Walden’s responses did not clarify the meaning of “other options for titling and registration.” For example, the Rule fails to provide guidance whether the options include all possible options or only options available to the specific individual dealer. The Rule did not provide specific clarification regarding the type (permanent or temporary) of titling and registration. The ETR is an option that offers titling. However, use of EFS would be required to complete the permanent registration. Further, the Rule requires that a dealer disclose other options for titling and registration, but did not provide guidance regarding the type of options, (i.e., manual, electronic, private, or public). It also specifies “other options” but does not specify whether the disclosure includes other options that also may involve a fee. There are both electronic and manual options that require a fee. Standing The Rule affects EFS agents that charge a fee to customers for EFS filing. A substantial number of FADA members are EFS agents and charge a fee to their customers and are, thus, directly and substantially impacted by the Rule.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Roberta D. Lawrence was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson, from October 30, 1974, to May 26, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex had a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salesperson had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc., was in business As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property, paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc., began operation, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts, when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc., had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire and Mr. Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Roberta D. Lawrence 16508 Northeast 26th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33160
Findings Of Fact Respondent Harold Reiz was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate broker-salesman, from January 16, 1975, to September 7, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex had a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salespersons had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc. was in business. As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc. a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc. began operations, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc. bad bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire and Mr. Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. I. Richard Jacobs, Esquire 300 Roberts Building 28 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130
Findings Of Fact Respondent Judy Simons was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson, from July 28, 1975, to August 20, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex had a regular telephone line and a WATTS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc., manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salesperson, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salesperson had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc., was in business. As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, as salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the even of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc., began operation, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc., had bought from unspecified individuals, or complied from county tax records.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Louis B. Guttman, III, Esquire Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Judy Simons c/o Harry Kern 2121 North Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33137
Findings Of Fact Respondent James E. Dean was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson, from February 10, 1975, to September 17, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex had a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salesperson in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, acid inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salesperson had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc., was in business. As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc., began operation, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc., had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire and Mr. Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. James E. Dean 2870 Northeast 214th Street Apartment 1 Miami, Florida 33161
Findings Of Fact Respondent Larry Webman was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson, from October 25, 1974, to November 24, 1974. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex had a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salesperson had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc., was in business. As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc., began operation, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc., had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire and Mr. Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Larry N. Webman c/o K.K.W., Inc. 143 North East 79th Street Miami, Florida 33138
Findings Of Fact Respondent Zelda Fogel was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson, from April 7, 1975, to September 5, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex has a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salespersons had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc. was in business. As a general rule, a week after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc. a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc. began operations, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc. had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records. In the latter part of August of 1975, Morton Finkelstein telephoned Marc A. Rouslin at his home in Providence, Rhode Island, on behalf of International Land Brokers, Inc. He encouraged Mr. Rouslin to list certain Florida real estate with International Land Brokers, Inc., and to pay an advance listing fee of two hundred eighty-five dollars ($285.00), which was to be applied against the commission of ten percent, in the event of sale. Mr. Finkelstein caused various materials to be mailed to Mr. Rouslin, including a listing agreement. After they went over the agreement item by item on the telephone, Mr. Rouslin mailed the agreement, together with his check, to Mr. Finkelstein. Subsequently, Mr. Rouslin received a proof of what purported to be a page in a catalogue on which appeared a description of the property he had listed. Although Mr. Rouslin made his decision to list his property with International Land Brokers, Inc. on the basis of Mr. Finkelstein's representations, he spoke to respondent over the telephone on one occasion and she told him that International Land Brokers Inc. was "going to do a background searching to get a comparable selling price for today's market." Exhibit No. 22, p. 12.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire and Mr. Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. I. Richard Jacobs, Esquire 300 Roberts Building 28 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130
