The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated sections 475.25(1)(e), 475.42(1)(b), and 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2011), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2- 14.009, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the real estate industry in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed real estate sales associate having been issued license number 3101946. During the time relevant to this case, Respondent was a sales associate affiliated with Bahia Real Estate ("Bahia"), a brokerage company owned by Raul and Ricardo Aleman, with offices located in Miami, Orlando, and Tampa, Florida. Respondent was employed in Bahia's Miami location. In 2010, Respondent acted as a sales associate on behalf of Michael Perricone for a real estate transaction involving the purchase of a condominium in the Blue Lagoon Towers ("Blue Lagoon") in Miami which was purchased as an investment. Mr. Perricone's sister, Francesca Palmeri, and her husband, Santo Palmeri, were present at the closing where they met Respondent for the first and only time. During the closing, which lasted approximately one hour, the Palmeris indicated to Respondent that they would be interested in making a similar purchase of investment property if another comparable condominium unit became available at Blue Lagoon. The Palmeris had no further interaction with Respondent until he contacted them at their home in Pueblo, Colorado, in 2011 to advise them of the availability of a condominium for sale at Blue Lagoon. On or about October 6, 2011, Respondent faxed a partially completed Bahia form "'AS IS' Residential Contract for Sale and Purchase" to Mrs. Palmeri for the Palmeris to use in making an offer on a condominium unit located at 5077 Northwest Seventh Street, Miami, Florida. Prior to forwarding the document to Mrs. Palmeri, Respondent wrote on the form the property description, the escrow agent name and address, the initial escrow deposit amount and additional deposit, the time for acceptance, the closing date, and listed himself as the "Cooperating Sales Associate" with "Bahia Realty Group, LLC." The Palmeris decided to offer a $125,000.00 purchase price. Respondent directed Mrs. Palmeri to complete the contract and provide a ten percent escrow deposit. Mrs. Palmeri entered a purchase price of $125,000.00, initialed each page, and signed the form as "Buyer." Respondent provided Mrs. Palmeri with instructions on how to wire the funds for the escrow deposit. On October 7, 2011, Mr. Palmeri wired $12,000.00 to J.P. Morgan Chase, which was then deposited in an account for Bonaventure Enterprises, LLC ("Bonaventure").1/ The Palmeris had no knowledge of Bonaventure, but, based upon the representations of Respondent, they understood the money they were asked to wire to the J.P. Morgan Chase account of Bonaventure was an escrow deposit for the property they intended to purchase at Blue Lagoon. The Palmeris had no discussion with Respondent regarding the reason for sending the escrow deposit to Bonaventure. They assumed that Bonaventure was somehow related to the seller or its title company. The condominium unit in question was bank owned; however, the Palmeris were not informed of this. No evidence was presented that Respondent had an ownership interest in Bonaventure. However, Bonaventure is owned by Respondent's brother and sister-in-law. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the managing member of Bonaventure. Bonaventure is not a licensed real estate broker. Bahia does not maintain an escrow account, and its sales associates are authorized to use title companies of their choice for receipt of escrow deposits. Respondent was aware that he was unable to accept the escrow deposit of the Palmeris in his own name, because, as a licensed real estate sales associate, he is prohibited from receiving the money associated with a real estate transaction in the name of anyone other than his broker or employer. In fact, Respondent was disciplined in 2010 for a similar violation.2/ Respondent claims that the Palmeris entrusted him with their $12,000.00 to hold for possible investments, not necessarily related to real estate transaction, and he was doing it as a favor for them as "friends." Respondent contradicted himself by stating his intention in directing the Palmeris to deposit their money into the Bonaventure account was to help them have cash on hand in Florida in order to meet the Blue Lagoon condominium seller's requirements to make the escrow deposit with the seller's title company within 24 hours after an offer was accepted. The Palmeris had no knowledge of the seller's unique restrictions on the escrow money. Further, Respondent's asserted motive in requesting the $12,000.00 to have cash on hand in Florida is undermined by the fact that, if the Palmeris could wire $12,000.00 to Bonaventure's bank account, they could also wire the funds directly to a title company chosen by the selling bank after acceptance of their offer. Shortly after returning the contract to Respondent and sending the escrow deposit, Mrs. Palmeri discussed increasing the purchase price by $1,000.00 for a total of $126,000.00. Based upon the language of the proposed contract, the Palmeris expected a response to their offer within 24 hours. Immediately thereafter, Respondent told the Palmeris that they were "in negotiations." However, almost a month passed before they heard from Respondent regarding the status of the purchase of the condominium. On or about November 4, 2011, Respondent contacted Mrs. Palmeri and stated that he had "good news." He indicated that the seller would be willing to sell the property for a price of $129,500.00. According to Respondent, the seller requested documentation from the Palmeris' bank indicating their ability to pay. Mrs. Palmeri indicated that this was not an acceptable counter-offer. Respondent suggested that he could negotiate a sales price of $129,000.00, but he needed the Palmeris to send an additional $9,000.00 to put into escrow. Mrs. Palmeri told Respondent that she was no longer interested in the property because their maximum offer was $126,000.00. During the same conversation, Mrs. Palmeri asked for the return of her deposit. Respondent expressed agitation that she was retreating from the possible purchase because he had done "so much work." Respondent clearly anticipated he would receive a commission if the deal was consummated. The Palmeris did not get an immediate return of their escrow deposit. Mrs. Palmeri called Respondent repeatedly and received no answer. She also sent an e-mail to J.P. Morgan Chase trying to find out the status of the deposit and received no reply. Mrs. Palmeri again attempted to contact Respondent on November 18, 2011, and left him a message that he needed to call her regarding the deposit. After receiving no response, she contacted Bahia and spoke with Ricardo Aleman. Mrs. Palmeri explained to Aleman that she had signed a real estate contract with Respondent on October 6, 2011. She no longer wanted to pursue this real estate transaction and wanted the escrow deposit returned. Aleman was unaware that Respondent was negotiating a real estate transaction for the Palmeris or had accepted their deposit money. Aleman contacted Respondent who confirmed by email that the Palmeris were no longer interested in purchasing the condominium at Blue Lagoon. Respondent wrote, "After a month of hard work . . . the client decided to drop. It was a little bit problematic. I lost time and money because the offer was already accepted and she had no reason to negotiate." Respondent assured Aleman he would return the deposit to the Palmeris. In accordance with Bahia's policies and procedures, its sales associates are required to complete a deposit form at the time of receipt of funds for escrow. No such receipt was received by Bahia from Respondent with regard to the transaction involving the Palmeris. However, it was not unusual for Bahia not to receive information regarding real estate transactions conducted by their sales associates until the time of closing. After discussing the matter with Aleman, Respondent advised the Palmeris that he could return their money within ten days. Respondent advised Mrs. Palmeri that he would send her two checks for the total amount--one check which she could cash immediately and a second check which would be postdated. In order to get a return of their deposit, Mrs. Palmeri agreed. On or about November 28, 2011, the Palmeris received two checks, each in the amount of $6,000.00, including one postdated for December 16, 2011. These checks were written on the account of Bonaventure and signed by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order imposing on Alfonso Miranda an administrative fine in the amount of $6,000.00 and suspending the real estate sales associate license of Alfonso Miranda for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 2nd day of April, 2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent Charles Randolph Lee was the holder of a Florida real estate license number 0455641 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The license issued was as a broker, c/o Show-N-Save of West Palm Beach, Inc., 1800 Forest Hill Blvd., West Palm Beach, Florida 33406. Christopher and Lee Ann Germano made a written offer to purchase Lot 41, Block 72, Sugar Pond Manor, Palm Beach County, Florida (the "construction site") from Charles and Ruby Collins (the "owners") by executing a Contract for Sale and Purchase of the construction site on April 14, 1987, and submitting a check for $500 payable to and held in escrow by Hank Keene Real Estate Escrow Account. 1/ On April 15, 1987, the Germanos executed an Agreement for Construction of a house that was to be constructed on the construction site by J. Long Construction, Inc. A check payable to J. Long Construction, Inc., in the amount of $3,755, was submitted by the Germanos with the Agreement for Construction, which was expressly contingent upon the Germanos' purchase of the construction site. The check to J. Long Construction, Inc., was an escrow check to be held in escrow for the Germanos until contingencies in the Agreement for Construction, including the purchase of the construction site, either failed to occur or were satisfied. Carol Pearson and Terry Gallagher, the sales agent for Hank Keene Real Estate, were present with the Germanos in a model home of J. Long Construction, Inc., when the Germanos wrote the check, and it was their collectively stated intent that the check was to be held in escrow pending the completion of the purchase of the construction site. The check for $3,755 was labeled by the maker as an escrow down payment for construction of the house. 2/ J. Long Realty, Inc., and Hank Keene Real Estate were acknowledged in the Agreement for Construction as the exclusive brokers in the transaction with commissions to be paid respectively in the amounts of 3.5 and 1.5 percent. 3/ The Agreement for Construction was executed by J. Long Construction, Inc., on April 15, 1987. The Agreement for Construction was null and void if not executed by both parties on or before April 19, 1987. The Germanos executed the Agreement on April 15, 1987. Their copy of the Agreement is not executed by J. Long Construction, Inc. However, the original Agreement, bearing a date of April 15, 1987, shows the signature of the president of J. Long Construction. The original Agreement was admitted by stipulation as Respondent's Exhibit 2. Insufficient evidence was presented to establish that the original was executed at any other time or by any one other than the purported signatory. 4/ Respondent began functioning as the broker for J. Long Realty, Inc., on or about April 16, 1987, 5/ at the request of the previous broker who resigned due to illness on April 15, 1987. The Contract for Sale and Purchase of the construction site was rejected by the owners on April 16, 1989. 6/ The rejection was communicated to the Germanos telephonically by Terry Gallagher on the same day. 7/ The fact that the purchase of the construction site had failed to occur was communicated to Respondent on April 20, 1987, and return of the check to J. Long Construction, Inc., in the amount of $3,755, was requested at that time. Mr. Germano telephoned Mr. Pearson on April 20, 1989, advised him that the offer to purchase the construction site had been rejected by the owners, and requested return of the check. Mr. Pearson testified that upon receiving a telephone call from Mr. Germano, Mr. Pearson communicated those facts to Respondent. Mr. Pearson further testified that Respondent stated there would be no problem but required the request for refund and reasons to be stated in writing. Respondent first knew of the transaction when he received a telephone call from Mr. Germano asking for a return of the check. Respondent further testified that he opened the file, saw the check, and deposited it. The check was deposited on April 21, 1987, to the account of J. Long Construction, Inc. 8/ Respondent testified that the check was not deposited to any account of J. Long Realty, Inc. 9/ J. Long Construction, Inc., had no escrow account at the time of the deposit. Testimony by Ms. Fischer, and Petitioner's Exhibits 7 and 9 established that J. Long Construction, Inc., had no escrow account at the time of the deposit. There was no evidence that Respondent was an officer or director of J. Long Construction, Inc., or that Respondent was authorized to sign on the account to which the check was deposited. Petitioner's Exhibit 9 established that Respondent was authorized to sign on the account of J. Long Realty, Inc., and on the account of J. Long Companies, Inc. Neither the name or account number of either of those accounts corresponded to the name or account number of the account to which the check was deposited. 10/ Respondent functioned in the capacity of accountant, bookkeeper, and employee of J. Long Construction, Inc., prior to functioning as the broker of J. Long Realty, Inc. Respondent and Mr. Long reviewed each contract submitted by sales agents. Respondent received written notice on April 27, 1987, and on May 1, 1987, that the Germanos' offer to purchase the construction site had been rejected by the owners. Jean Keene, Broker, Hank Keene Real Estate, advised J. Long Construction, Inc., by letter dated April 24, 1989, that the Germanos' offer had been rejected and that the $500 in escrow had been returned to the Germanos. 11/ The Germanos also wrote a letter to J. Long Construction (sic) on April 24, 1987, asking for return of the deposit because their offer to purchase the construction site had not been accepted by the owners. The Germanos' letter was by return receipt which was dated May 1, 1987. A letter dated May 11, 1987, from Robert E. Zensen, President, Zensen Homes, Inc., formerly J. Long Construction, Inc., 12/ advised the Germanos that they were in default under the Agreement for Construction. The letter stated the "default has been established by the contingency not being met," but in the next paragraph required documentation that the contingency had not been met. 13/ On May 8, 1987, Carol Pearson removed his license from J. Long Realty, Inc. 14/ Evidence suggests some acrimony between Mr. Pearson and Respondent concerning the conduct of business transactions at J. Long Realty, Inc. 15/ Mr. Pearson testified that deposits were not being returned to customers who were entitled to return of their deposits. On May 16, 1987, Mary E. Bartek, citing ill health, resigned from J. Long Realty, Inc., as Broker-Salesman and as shareholder, and resigned her position as Vice-President, director, shareholder, officer, or agent from J. Long Companies. 16/ On June 15, 1987, Respondent resigned as "Broker of Record" for J. Long Realty, Inc. 17/ The Germanos made numerous requests to Respondent to return their check in the amount of $3,755. Mr. Pearson received at least 3 or 4 calls from the Germanos. Each time Respondent and Mr. Long agreed that the Germanos were entitled to have their check; except the last time when Mr. Long told Mr. Pearson to "forget about it." Mr. Pearson testified that it was his impression that Mr. Long prevented Respondent from returning the check. The Germanos made numerous requests to Mr. Pearson for return of their check. Each time Mr. Pearson stated that Respondent had said he would return the check. On one occasion, Lee Germano met with Respondent to request that the money be returned, but the money was not returned.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of: culpable negligence and breach of trust in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b); failure to account and deliver nonescrowed property upon demand of the person entitled to such property in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(d); and failure to place a check in escrow in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(k). Since this was apparently Respondent's first offense, involving a single act, it is recommended that Respondent be reprimanded. Since the offense involved the misuse of funds, disregard of the entitlement to funds, and Respondent offered no evidence of restitution, it is recommended that Respondent be fined $1,000 for each violation. In order to enhance Respondent's regard for the entitlement to funds in business transactions and in order to facilitate due care in his future transactions, it is recommended that Respondent be placed on probation for a period not to exceed one year. The conditions of probation may include any of those prescribed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 21V-24.001(2)(a) except those that would require the Respondent to submit to reexamination and to be placed on broker-salesman status. In the event that Respondent fails to pay any fines imposed or to complete the terms of any probation imposed, it is recommended that Respondent's license be suspended for two years. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of June 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 19th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact On September 4, 1984, Idus B. Bowen and his wife, Jean, were shopping for a lamp in Respondents' furniture store in Palatka, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Bowen had recently retired and moved to Palatka where they intended to settle. The clerk they dealt with at the furniture store, who happened to be the Respondents' daughter, in the course of conversation regarding the Bowens' move, indicated that her father had a place for sale on the water. When the Bowens indicated some interest, she got some of the details as to size, location, and price from her father and discussed the matter with the Bowens. As they seemed to show some interest, she introduced them to her father, Respondent Richard Woodall, who discussed it with them and, that same day, took them out to see the property which was, at the time, occupied by his wife and him. When Woodall first talked with the Bowens about the property in his office at the furniture store, he advised the Bowens that he was a real estate broker but that he was selling this property, his personal home, as the owner and not the broker. Several times that day, both on the way to the house and at the house, he advised the Bowens he was selling as an owner and not as a broker. On the first visit to the house, Mr. Woodall showed the Bowens both the inside and the outside. They stayed approximately an hour and a half and the Bowens got a full view of the house and the property on which it was located and Mr. Woodall gave Mr. Bowen a plat of the property. No agreement was reached that day, however. Two days later, on September 6, 1984, Mr. Bowen again went to the furniture store to talk over the terms Mr. Woodall was offering on the sale. At this time he was advised by Mr. Woodall that there was an outstanding loan on the property of approximately $39,400.00 at 8 1/2% interest. This figure was determined by Mr. Woodall through a call to the lending institution and he received a tentative approval for the Bowens to assume this loan at a rate of 11 7/8%. Mr. Woodall passed this information on to the Bowens but in doing so, mistakenly stated the assumption percentage rate as 11.78%. In reality, the figure was 11 7/8% which, when converted to a decimal presentation, is reflected as 11.875%. Mr. Bowen did not realize this difference, however, until some time after the contract was signed. On this same date, September 6, 1984, after receiving the financing information from the lending institution, Mr. Woodall suggested that the Bowens again go out to the house so that his wife could show the property from a woman's point of view. When the Bowens agreed, an appointment was made for the showing by Mrs. Woodall for the next day, September 7, 1984. On the 7th, Mrs. Woodall showed the Bowens the house in detail. After doing so, she suggested that the Bowens stay for coffee and refreshments and when the Bowens agreed, called her husband to come home and join them. Before Mr. Woodall got there, however, Mrs. Woodall asked if the Bowens were ready to sign a contract. The Bowens indicated they were not. When Mr. Woodall arrived, he and Mr. Bowen went out for a walk around the property during which Mr. Bowen asked about the need for a fence around the swimming pool. Mr. Woodall assured him that since the house was located on the water, it was not necessary to fence the pool area all the way around. Mr. Woodall, while admitting Mr. Bowen asked about the water level in the canal, states there was no discussion of flooding and he further contends that Mr. Bowen did not discuss the issue of the fence until after he went to the County office subsequent to signing the contract. No doubt Mr. Woodall answered the questions asked by Bowen to the best of his knowledge and belief. Based on this information they went back to the house where Mr. Bowen agreed to sign a contract for the purchase on Saturday morning, September 8, 1984, in the Respondents' office in the furniture store. On September 8, 1984, both the Bowens and the Woodalls signed a contract for the sale of the Woodall's property for a purchase price of $125,000.00 with $5,000.00 to be placed in escrow in Respondent, Rich Hill Realty's escrow account. The contract also called for the Bowens to assume a mortgage in the amount of $39,400.00 at 11.78% and the balance due was to be paid in cash at closing to be held as soon as possible. The contract was conditioned upon the purchaser obtaining a firm assumption commitment within 15 days. At the time of signing the contract, Mr. Bowen gave the Woodalls a check for $5,000.00. When the Bowens arrived, the contract had already been prepared and signed by Mrs. Woodall. Once all remaining parties had signed, Mr. Woodall had it witnessed. The contract called for the deposit of $5,000.00 to be placed in escrow and Mr. Bowen assumed that it would be so placed because the sellers were both real estate professionals. He contends that if he had not thought the deposit would be placed in escrow, he doubts he would have paid a deposit to the Woodalls at that time. In all his previous real estate purchases, the money was placed into escrow and not drawn out until later. On September 10, 1984, after further consideration of the purchase and based on the fact that the pool was the same depth from one end to the other, a depth beyond the height of his non-swimming wife, Mr. Bowen went to Mr. Woodall to see if he would release him from the contract. When Mr. Woodall refused, however, he accepted the refusal. He immediately made application to assume the Woodall's loan with Security 1st Federal Savings & Loan Association, which, on September 18, 1984, furnished him a good faith estimate of settlement charges which reflected the interest rate at 11.875%. Just about this time, Mr. Bowen also became concerned as to whether the property was in the flood zone and called the Putnam County Zoning Board where he was advised that the property in question was in fact in the flood plain. When he also asked if the pool needed to be fenced, he was told that where there was a pool, it was required to be fenced a],1 around with a four foot high fence with lockable gates. When Mr. Bowen received this information, he immediately reported it to Mr. Woodall who said he would check with the County and get it straightened out. Mr. Woodall thereafter called Mr. Bowen back and told him that the property was declared to be in the flood plain sometime in 1983 and that the pool regulation became effective sometime before that, but that since the house was built before either regulation came into effect, it was grandfathered in and the rules would not apply. In the meantime, Mr. Bowen's application to assume the Woodall's loan was approved. No assumption agreements were ever signed by the Bowens because by this time Mr. Bowen had determined that the deal was not good for him and he had decided that he would not go through with it. Mr. Bowen consulted an attorney who discovered some additional minor discrepancies in the transaction such as (1) the legal description of the property was incorrect, and (2) the estimate of closing costs had not been furnished by the seller. Neither of these discrepancies are relevant to the issues for consideration at this hearing, however. On the basis of what he had already discovered and this additional information, Mr. Bowen refused to close on the contract as called. for on September 25, 1984, and requested a refund of the $5,000.00 deposit by a letter from his attorney to the attorney for the Woodall's. Mr. Bowen did not receive an answer to his demand for refund of the deposit and despite several subsequent requests, the money has never been refunded. No action has been filed in court to force return, however. On November 28, 1984, Respondents notified the Bowens their deposit had been forfeited for failure to close. Mr. Bowen admits that Mr. Woodall advised him on their first trip to the property that he was a real estate broker but that he did not deal ,with the public. He only dealt in real estate for his own investments. Mr. Bowen also admits that he did not read the contract in full before he signed it. He admits that there were no special clauses inserted in the contract at his request nor did he request that any comments be made in the contract regarding the flood plain or the pool. When he signed the contract, however, he claims he was relying on the representations made to him by Mr. Woodall which he checked out only after affixing his signature to the contract. Both Mr. and Mrs. Bowen declined to sign the contract contending they felt the property had been misrepresented by Mr. Woodall in the particulars regarding the alleged misrepresentation dealing with the fence around the pool, the fact that the property is located on the flood plain, and the fact that there is a discrepancy in the interest rate. The $5,000.00 deposit was in fact placed into the Rich Hill Realty escrow account by Mr. Woodall. However, on January 31, 1985, more than three months later, Mrs. Woodall, an officer of Rich Hill Realty, drew the amount out of the escrow account and purchased a certificate of deposit with the Citizen's 1st National Bank of Crescent City with it. This certificate has been rolled over upon maturity since that time. With regard to the state of the County Ordinances concerning fences around swimming pools in this County, according to Peter M. Christensen, the Codes Administrator for Putnam County, pools built before 1975 would not require fencing. The requirement for a four foot fence was enacted by the County Commission in 1976. With regard to the flood plain situation, the area where the property in question is located is classified A- 3,which means that the first floor of any dwelling must be at least six feet above mean sea level. Mr. Christensen cannot say for certain whether this particular property is located in the flood plain because he did not have the maps available to him at the hearing. However, the majority of the property in the area where the Woodall property is located is within the flood plain. According to Ms. Ann Keele, a specialist in the residential lending service of the Security 1st Federal Savings & Loan Association, which holds the mortgage on the Woodall property, at the time the Woodalls secured their loan, there was no requirement for flood insurance because there was no flood plain regulation in effect. She recalls the flood insurance program as coming into effect sometime in 1980 and her bank's policy is to require flood insurance if (1) the community is participating in the flood insurance program, or (2) if the area is prone to flooding. When the flood insurance program went into effect, the bank did not notify existing borrowers of the need to take out flood insurance. Since the Woodalls purchased their property and got their mortgage prior to 1980, they well may not have known of the change in the law and the requirement for flood insurance. As a matter of fact, had the Woodalls kept their property, they would not have had to purchase flood insurance. Upon assumption, however, a new purchaser would have to buy it. To determine those properties requiring flood insurance, the bank uses flood maps provided by a governmental agency. Most real estate agencies use the same maps but Ms. Keele cannot be sure whether Respondent had one or not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondents here be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 7th day of November, 1985. APPENDIX The Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact have been considered and are, as to each: Paragraphs 1-6 Accepted 6 Accepted except that portion of the Finding which states the Buyer had relied upon Woodall's assurances that the 11.78% interest rate could be assumed. The evidence, while reflecting that the Bowens believed the rate was 11.78%, fails to establish that this was a major fact on which they relied. 8-10 Accepted 11 Accepted except for the term "neglected." The evidence clearly shows the refusal to return was based on full knowledge of the situation and not a matter of neglect. 12-13 Accepted. Respondents' Proposed Findings Of Fact have been considered and are, as to each: Paragraphs Accepted Accepted in part and denied in part. The evidence does reflect some conflict as to whether the Bowens were advised the property was in the flood plain or not and whether they were advised the pool had to be fenced. It has been found by the undersigned that Respondents' information given to the Bowens was in error but from ignorance rather than from design and that said negligence was simple and not culpable. 3-4 Accepted 5 Accepted as to the preparations for and failure of closing. Rejected as to the course of conduct attributed to the Bowens for the reasons implied and rejected as immaterial to the Findings Of Fact as to the availability of the courts to rectify a dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur Shell, Jr., Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801 Earl Nicholson, Esq. 407 St. John's Avenue Palatka, FL 32077 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301 Harold Huff Executive Director. Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301
Recommendation The Hearing Officer would recommend that the Florida Real Estate Commission place L. B. Slater on probation for a period of one year for the failure of Slater to properly maintain the records of his escrow account. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 L. B. Slater 1940 Harrison Street Hollywood, Florida 33020
The Issue Whether either Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 475, Florida Statutes,1/ regulating real estate sales associates, as alleged in the administrative complaints, and if so, what sanctions are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Real Estate Commission, created within the Department, is the entity charged with regulating real estate brokers, schools, and sales associates in the State of Florida. The Division of Real Estate is charged with providing all services to the commission under chapters 475 and 455, Florida Statutes, including recordkeeping services, examination services, investigative services, and legal services. In 2006, Ms. Linda Fiorello and Ms. Catherine Lichtman, associates at another brokerage, decided to open up their own real estate business, with each owning a fifty-percent share. They created Luxury Realty Partners, Inc. (“the corporation”), a licensed real estate corporation in the State of Florida. While Ms. Lichtman was initially the qualifying broker, she soon stepped down from that position and a series of other individuals served as brokers for the corporation. Neither Ms. Fiorello nor Ms. Lichtman was licensed as a real estate broker at any time relevant to the Administrative Complaints. The corporation sold, exchanged, or leased real property other than property which it owned and it was not an owner-developer. On April 23, 2010, Mr. Brian Davis was added as the sole officer and director of the corporation, and he became the qualifying broker. At all times material to the complaints, Ms. Fiorello and Ms. Lichtman were licensed as real estate sales associates in the State of Florida, Ms. Fiorello having been issued license number 659087 and Ms. Lichtman having been issued license number 3170761. They worked together at the corporation, nominally under the direction, control, and management of Mr. Davis. The corporation did not maintain an escrow account. Mr. Davis did not manage any of the corporation’s bank accounts. He was not a signatory on the operating account. He did not collect brokerage commissions or distribute them to sales associates. He testified he went into the office “maybe once, once or twice a month.” When he agreed to become the qualifying broker for the corporation, he did not even know all of the names of the agents he was supposed to be responsible for. Mr. Davis stated: Well, basically, I was just doing a favor and I was – I put my license there until one of the other two could get their Broker’s license. I was just really stepping in for a short term to – to fill the time frame until one of them could get their Brokerage license, and I didn’t go on any management or any other books or anything of that nature. As Ms. Patty Ashford, one of the sales associates testified, Mr. Davis was seldom in the office. Ms. Ashford would turn in her contracts to Ms. Fiorello or Ms. Lichtman, who would review them. Ms. Ashford testified that her commission checks were then paid by checks signed by Ms. Lichtman. In short, Mr. Davis effectively provided no direction, control, or management of the activities of the corporation or its sales associates. In December of 2009, Ms. Jennie Pollio was living at 10861 Royal Palm Boulevard in Coral Springs, Florida (the property), a Section 8 property that she had been renting from Mr. Jimmy Laventure for about nine years. The property was in foreclosure. Ms. Pollio thought that she might be able to buy the property. She consulted Ms. Victoria Guante, a real estate sales associate with Luxury Realty Partners, Inc. Ms. Pollio knew Ms. Guante because they both had sons who played baseball on the same team. Ms. Guante told Ms. Pollio to get $40,000.00 in cashier’s checks and put it in escrow with Luxury Realty Partners, Inc., so that she could make a strong offer and show that she really had the money. Although they were not produced as exhibits at hearing, Ms. Pollio testified that she signed a couple of different contracts for the property in early 2010. On or about April 29, 2010, Ms. Guante accompanied Ms. Pollio to the bank to get cashier’s checks. Ms. Pollio received five Bank of America cashier’s checks made out to “Luxury Partner Realty,” four in the amount of $9000.00, and one in the amount of $4000.00. Ms. Pollio understood that the property could be purchased for a total of $40,000.00, which included $37,000.00 for the property, and the balance in closing costs. The cashier’s checks were not given to a broker. Ms. Pollio gave the $40,000.00 to Ms. Fiorello as a deposit on the property when she met with her in the corporation office on State Road 7. Ms. Pollio made a copy of the cashier’s checks and Ms. Fiorello wrote a note on the bottom of the copy, “Received by Linda A. Fiorello for Luxury Escrow deposit on contract 10861 Royal Palm Blvd Coral Springs FL 33065” and gave it back to Ms. Pollio.2/ Although the payee name on the cashier’s checks was transposed, Ms. Pollio gave the checks to Ms. Fiorello as agent of the corporation as a deposit on the property, and Ms. Fiorello accepted the checks on behalf of the corporation for the same purpose. Ms. Fiorello did not advise Mr. Davis that the checks had been received. Instead, she deposited the checks in an account formerly belonging to Luxury Property Management, an entity unaffiliated with Luxury Realty Partners, Inc.3/ Luxury Property Management had never been a licensed real estate brokerage corporation, and was no longer in existence, as it had been dissolved. The account had never been properly closed. The account usually had a low balance. Just prior to the deposit of Ms. Pollio’s money, the balance was $10,415.15. Ms. Lichtman had no ownership or interest in Luxury Property Management, but she was aware of the account. The corporation did not have an escrow account, and the Luxury Property Management account was sometimes used to hold money “in escrow,” as Ms. Lichtman was aware. As he testified, Mr. Davis knew nothing about this account and did not authorize Ms. Fiorello to place Ms. Pollio’s deposit there. Ms. Fiorello’s contrary testimony that she told Mr. Davis of the transaction and had his authorization was not credible and is rejected. Ms. Guante was negotiating for the property on Ms. Pollio’s behalf. She testified: At that point the guy was asking (unintelligible) I think was sixty-five, and then we made the offer for $40,000.00. The guy came back and say “no,” and then we went back and make another offer for $50,000.00, and then by that time the guy still say “no.” And then her and I get into an argue because baseball game that don’t have nothing to do with the real estate and then she decided she don’t want me no more as her agent. Ms. Guante called Ms. Fiorello and told her that Ms. Pollio didn’t want to work with Ms. Guante anymore. Ms. Fiorello told Ms. Guante not to worry about it, that the corporation would handle the transaction for Ms. Pollio. On September 23, 2010, a check in the amount of $40,000.00 was written from the Luxury Property Management, LLC, account to Luxury Realty Partners. It is undisputed that the hand writing on the “amount” and “pay to the order of” lines on the check was that of Ms. Lichtman, while the signature on the check was that of Ms. Fiorello. This check, posted into the corporation’s operating account the same day, along with a check for $6000.00, left a balance of only $684.15 in the Luxury Property Management, LLC, account. The two sales associates gave completely different explanations for the check. Ms. Fiorello testified that she always left one or two signed checks locked in the office when she was out of town. She testified that only she and Ms. Lichtman had keys to the lock. Ms. Fiorello testified that without her knowledge, Ms. Lichtman had removed a signed check and filled in the top portion. She testified that although it was her account, she did not realize that the money had been removed until around May 2011, some eight months later.4/ On the other hand, Ms. Lichtman testified that on numerous occasions, the two associates would write out checks together, and that in this instance they discussed the transfer in connection with the opening of a Rapid Realty real estate office in New York which involved Ms. Fiorello’s son. Ms. Lichtman testified that she filled out the top portions of the check, and Ms. Fiorello then signed it. Ms. Lichtman testified that the $40,000.00 “represented monies coming back into Luxury Realty Partners from Rapid Realty.” Ms. Lichtman did not explain why funds from Rapid Realty to repay a loan from Luxury Realty Partners would have been deposited into the Luxury Property Management account, and records for the Luxury Property Management account do not reflect such deposits. On November 4, 2010, a little over a month later, Ms. Lichtman transferred $40,000.00 from the corporation operating account into an account for Chatty Cathy Enterprises, an account controlled by her, and inaccessible to Ms. Fiorello. Ms. Lichtman’s explanation for these transfers, that the $40,000.00 came from the New York real estate venture in repayment of a loan made from the corporation, was unpersuasive, and is rejected. First, the only documentary evidence of a loan made to the “start-up” was an unsigned half-page note dated April 30, 2010. That document indicated that an interest-free business loan in the amount of 25,000 would be made from the corporation to “Rapid Realty RVC and its owners” and that re- payment of the loan would be made in monthly payments to the corporation. No amount was specified for these payments. Similarly, there was no evidence of any repayment checks from Rapid Realty to Ms. Fiorello, Ms. Lichtman, or the corporation. A document dated November 5, 2010, purports to be a “formal release” of that loan. It states in part: The above stated note lists a dollar amount of $25,000 dollars which is inaccurate. The total balance of the loan was approximately $48,000 dollars that was loaned by Luxury Partners Realty (sic), Catherine A. Lichtman and Linda A. Fiorello. This is the formal dollar amount of the loan that is considered paid and satisfied in full. This release appears to be signed by Ms. Lichtman and Ms. Fiorello. Even assuming that the loan had been repaid in full by the New York venture (although no corporation account deposits indicate this), it is not credible that Ms. Lichtman believed she was personally entitled to a payment of $40,000.00 for repayment of a $48,000.00 loan made by the corporation. The spreadsheet of itemized expenses of the New York office and offered by Ms. Lichtman as proof of amounts loaned has no apparent correlation to a spreadsheet prepared by Ms. Lichtman purporting to show checks and cash amounts transferred to New York.5/ In January 2011, Ms. Teresa Ebech, the listing agent for the property with First United Realty, took another contract for the Royal Palm property to Ms. Pollio. This contract referenced a $40,000.00 deposit and listed “Luxury Property Mgt. Escrow” as the escrow. This contract indicated a total purchase price of $55,000.00, and called for a February 21, 2011, closing date. Ms. Pollio signed the contact. The closing did not occur. Ms. Pollio decided to stop trying to buy the property and get her money back. No other party ever acquired an interest or equity in the deposit. Ms. Pollio had difficulty getting in touch with Ms. Fiorello about getting her money back. When Ms. Pollio finally was able to ask Ms. Fiorello for a return of her deposit, Ms. Fiorello did not return it, but told Ms. Pollio that she should get it from Ms. Lichtman. On or about April 28, 2011, Ms. Pollio, with help from her friend, Ms. Joyce Watson, prepared a letter to cancel the contract. The letter noted that the $40,000.00 had been in escrow for over a year and stated that due to the inability of Luxury Realty Partners to close on the property, Ms. Pollio requested immediate return of the deposit. The letter was sent to Catherine Lichtman at the Luxury Realty Partners, Inc., address. Ms. Lichtman’s testimony that she never received the letter is discredited. Ms. Ashford, another real estate sales associate at the corporation, had never met Ms. Pollio, but was in the Luxury Realty Partners, Inc., office one day in May of 2011 when Ms. Pollio came in with her husband. Ms. Ashford testified: She came in with her husband pretty much screaming and yelling from the minute she stepped foot in the door. She was very angry, very upset. I looked at her and said, you know, Ma’am please calm down. She said I’m not calming down. She pointed at Cathy, she said she knows exactly why I’m f’in here. This has nothing to do with you. Ms. Lichtman asked Ms. Ashford to call her husband, which Ms. Ashford did, thinking this was unusual because he never had anything to do with what went on at the office. Ms. Pollio yelled at Ms. Lichtman, and Ms. Lichtman yelled back, each becoming more and more agitated. Ms. Lichtman then left the room and locked the door. The police were called, though Ms. Ashford was not sure if it was Ms. Pollio or her husband, or perhaps Ms. Lichtman’s husband, who called them. Ms. Ashford testified that when the police officer arrived, Ms. Lichtman lied and told him that her name was Victoria. The officer tried to calm both parties, and told them it was a civil matter. The police officer finally persuaded Ms. Pollio and her husband to leave. Ms. Ashford testified as follows about the conversation that took place between Ms. Lichtman and Ms. Ashford after Ms. Pollio left: Q What did you say? A I asked her point blank what the hell was going on and she responded. Q What did she respond? A That yes, she had her money. The money was-– Q When you said her money. What-–what are talking about? A She had Jennie’s money. Q She-- A It was a deal, a transaction. “She came into our office with cash coming out of her boobs and I don’t have to give it back.” Were her words. Q Did you tell Cathy that she had to return the money? A Yes, I did. I said “Cathy, its escrow money, it doesn’t matter where she got it from,” and Cathy went on about “it’s illegal she’s a dancer, she’s on Section 8. I’m going to report it to the IRS. She thinks she buying a f’in house.” Ms. Lichtman’s admission to Ms. Ashford after Ms. Pollio left showed that Ms. Lichtman knew that she had money in her possession that had been given by Ms. Pollio to buy a house. Ms. Ashford testified that she was upset, as an agent with the corporation, about what appeared to be going on. She and Ms. Fiorello met with Mr. Davis in April of 2011. Ms. Fiorello told Mr. Davis that Ms. Lichtman had stolen funds. Mr. Davis reviewed the January contract that Ms. Fiorello gave him, and concluded that it didn’t make much sense. He had not given any authorization to place escrow funds into the Luxury Property Management, LLC, account. He did not have access to that account or to any of the corporation’s operating accounts to determine if money was missing. After the meeting, Mr. Davis asked Ms. Lichtman what she knew about the accusation. Ms. Lichtman denied that she took any money from an escrow account. Mr. Davis called the Florida Real Estate Commission and reported the incident. At some point, Ms. Lichtman advised Ms. Pollio that the cancellation letter was not sufficient, and provided Ms. Pollio with a “Release and Cancellation of Contract for Sale and Purchase” form. Mr. Laventura signed the form in June 2011, and Ms. Pollio signed the form when she returned it to Ms. Lichtman at the Luxury Realty Partners, Inc., office. The form released Luxury Partner Realty from liability and indicated that the escrow agent should disburse all of the $40,000.00 deposit to Ms. Pollio. At the time of the final hearing, Ms. Pollio had yet to receive her $40,000.00 deposit back. The testimony and documentary evidence in this case clearly demonstrates a recurring and systematic disregard of the legal entities and procedures intended to provide structure and accountability to business and real estate transactions by both Ms. Fiorello and Ms. Lichtman. Ms. Fiorello and Ms. Lichtman employed a qualifying “broker” for the corporation, but intentionally assumed the responsibilities of that position themselves during the time relevant to the Administrative Complaints. In doing so, they each operated as a broker without being the holder of a valid and current active brokers’ license. No evidence was introduced at hearing to indicate that the professional license of either Ms. Fiorello or Ms. Lichtman has ever been previously subjected to discipline.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that final orders be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission: Finding Linda Fiorello in violation of sections 475.25(1)(k), 475.25(1)(d), 475.42(1)(d), 475.42(1)(a), 475.25(1)(b), and 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and imposing an administrative fine of $10,000.00, reasonable costs, and revocation of her license to practice real estate; and Finding Catherine A. Lichtman in violation of section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing an administrative fine of $1000.00, reasonable costs, and revocation of her license to practice real estate. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 11th day of June, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of chapter 475, Florida Statutes (2016),1/ regulating real estate sales brokers, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what sanctions are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Ms. Murata is a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license numbers BK 3266198, 3326041, 3330594, 3334183, 3338731, 3345773, 3346456, 3346845, 3350300, 3364670, 3366527, 3366441, 3368235, 3369788, 3372663 and 3378303. Ms. Murata is under the jurisdiction of Petitioner and subject to applicable statutes and rules. Ms. Murata is the owner of the Florida Qualifying Broker of Record Service and maintains the Internet website, http://floridabrokerofrecord.com, which states its business model to be an opportunity for Florida real estate sales associates to run their own real estate companies without having to share their commissions with the broker of record. Friendly International Realty, LLC ("Friendly"), was formed in June 2011. From March 3, 2016, to June 7, 2016, Ms. Murata was the qualifying real estate broker for Friendly. Ms. Murata agreed to receive a monthly fee of $289.00 in exchange for being the qualifying broker of record for Friendly. Ms. Murata did not physically visit the license location of Friendly, at 937 Northeast 125th Street, North Miami, Florida, 33161, during the time that she was the qualifying broker. Ms. Murata was not a signatory on any escrow account used by Friendly. Ms. Murata did not keep any of Friendly's brokerage records. From March 4, 2016, to November 21, 2016, Jean Berthelot was a registered real estate sales associate with Friendly. He acted as an independent contractor. Ms. Murata was aware that Mr. Berthelot was doing business on the Multiple Listing Service ("MLS"). After she became the broker for Friendly, Ms. Murata activated one sales associate to help Mr. Berthelot. Joan Feloney is the owner of the subject property. Audrey Flanders is a real estate broker acting on behalf of Ms. Feloney in her efforts to lease the subject property. Ms. Flanders received a contract to enter into a lease from Tamara Stanton, a real estate sales associate at Friendly, on behalf of Paul Allicock. Ms. Feloney accepted the offer. Mr. Allicock paid $2,350.00 to Friendly toward lease of the subject property in the form of signed money orders dated March 6 and March 18, 2016. The money was placed in a Friendly escrow account. These money orders were paid to engage the services of Friendly and Ms. Murata as broker in the rental of the subject property. Pursuant to a written statement signed by Ms. Feloney, $550.00 of this amount was to be paid to Friendly, and $1,650.00 was to be paid to Ms. Feloney. A lease agreement between Mr. Allicock as tenant and Ms. Feloney as landlord and owner of the subject property was executed on March 21, 2016. Mr. Berthelot wrote a check from the Friendly escrow account to Ms. Feloney for $1,650.00 on the same date. Ms. Feloney attempted to deposit the check, but on April 14, 2016, the check was returned to her marked "NSF," indicating that insufficient funds were in the account. She was charged a $15.00 return item fee. Under the agreement between Ms. Murata and Friendly, Mr. Berthelot was not authorized to have an escrow account or otherwise hold funds or assets on behalf of a third party. As for brokerage transactions, he was supposed to e-mail transactional records to Ms. Murata or place them in a dropbox. Neither Ms. Stanton nor Mr. Berthelot ever placed documents in the dropbox. But, as Ms. Murata told Investigator Percylla Kennedy, she did learn that Friendly was doing business on the MLS. Ms. Murata became aware of the Friendly escrow account on April 26, 2016, in connection with a complaint about a transaction unrelated to this Administrative Complaint. She discussed the escrow account with Mr. Berthelot on April 27, 2016. Ms. Murata requested that Mr. Berthelot close the escrow account, submit proof that he had closed the account, and turn over all contracts between Mr. Berthelot and current clients. Ms. Murata did not want to perform a reconciliation of the escrow account. As she testified in deposition: Q: When you learned that there were third party funds being held by Friendly International Realty, did you demand the records of that account so you could perform a reconciliation? A: No, because [sic] was to be closed, because I did not want to manage an escrow account. So when I discovered what he was doing, the agreement was that he was going to close it immediately. I was not going to manage an escrow account for him, so I demanded, what I demanded was proof that the account was closed and proof that he had engaged in a written agreement with a title company for all escrow funds. Q: Approximately when did you make that demand? A: The moment that Jessica Schuller came up and he confessed that he had kept the account from his previous broker. That he had not told me because he was going to close it. I threatened I was going to resign once he paid those funds to Jessica. But then I agreed to continue if he closed that account immediately. On May 10, 2016, a complaint was filed with the Department against Ms. Murata, as broker of Friendly, regarding the lease transaction involving the subject property. After Ms. Murata became aware that Friendly owed money to Ms. Feloney, she maintained regular contact with her brokerage in an attempt to ensure that the money owed to Ms. Feloney was paid. Ms. Murata cooperated with the Department's investigation. Ms. Feloney, through Audrey Flanders, requested on June 2, 2016, that the $1,650.00 and an additional service charge of $82.00 be paid within 15 days or a case would be filed with the state attorney's office. The parties stipulated that on June 7, 2016, Ms. Murata resigned from her position as broker of record for Friendly. She testified that she resigned because she had not received the documents or actions that she had requested of Mr. Berthelot. Ms. Murata did not write a check to Ms. Feloney to pay the amount Friendly owed her because, with an investigation underway, Ms. Murata did not want it to be construed as an admission that she had personally collected funds from Mr. Allicock. She also evidently believed that since she had resigned, she was not professionally responsible for obligations that arose during the time that she had been the broker. Ms. Murata convincingly testified that in another, unrelated, situation, she became involved as the broker to resolve a potential dispute by ensuring that the party entitled to funds was paid. On June 25, 2016, a Bad Check Crime Report was filed with the Broward County State Attorney's Office. By letter dated June 8, 2016, the Department requested that Ms. Murata provide copies of monthly reconciliation statements; bank statements and records; and sales, listing, and property management files of Friendly. As Ms. Kennedy testified, Ms. Murata never provided those accounts and records to the Department, saying she did not have them. While Ms. Murata insists that any failure was only because Mr. Berthelot actively kept information from her, the parties stipulated that Ms. Murata failed to maintain control of, and have reasonable access to, some of the documents associated with the rental of the subject property. Mr. Trafton, an experienced real estate broker and expert in real estate brokerages, reviewed chapter 475; Florida Administrative Code Rule Title 61J; the deposit paperwork of Mr. Allicock; the Bad Check Crime Report; the investigative report; and the Administrative Complaint. He prepared an expert report to the Department. As Mr. Trafton testified, the usual and customary standard applicable to brokers is that they must promptly deliver funds in possession of the brokerage that belong to other parties. Mr. Trafton also testified that the standard of care applicable to a broker in supervising sales associates requires active supervision. He also testified that a broker must maintain the records of the brokerage. Mr. Trafton testified that in his opinion, Ms. Murata failed to meet these standards. Ms. Murata failed to promptly deliver funds to Ms. Feloney that were in possession of the brokerage. Ms. Murata failed to manage, direct, and control Real Estate Sales Associate Berthelot to the standard expected of a broker of record. She did not actively supervise him, instead relying completely on Mr. Berthelot and other associates to provide her any information she needed to know. Ms. Murata failed to preserve accounts and records relating to the rental or lease agreement of the subject property. Petitioner did not clearly show that Respondent was guilty of either "culpable negligence" or "breach of trust." As Investigator Kennedy testified, and as corroborated by cost summary reports maintained by the Department, from the start of the investigation of this complaint through September 14, 2017, costs incurred by the Department were $1,443.75, not including costs associated with an attorney's time.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission: Finding Maria Camila Murata in violation of sections 475.25(1)(d)1., 475.25(1)(u), and 475.25(1)(e) as charged in the Administrative Complaint; imposing an administrative fine of $2,250.00; imposing license suspension for a period of two months; and imposing costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the case. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 2nd day of January, 2018.
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether Respondents violated specified subsections of Section 475.25 Florida Statutes with regard to alleged misuse of escrow funds.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent Mary L. Cluett was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0197523 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Mary L. Cluett was as a broker, c/o Cluett Realty, Inc., 4720 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33905. (pre-hearing stipulation, Paragraph 2). Respondent Cluett Realty, Inc. is now, and was at all times relevant, licensed as a real estate broker in the state of Florida, having been issued license number 0021798 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Cluett Realty, Inc. was at the address of 4720 Palm Beach Boulevard, Ft. Myers, Florida 33905. (pre-hearing stipulation, paragraph 2). The qualifying broker for Cluett Realty, Inc. is Ernest H. Cluett, husband of Mary L. Cluett. Mary Cluett is the vice-president of the corporation. On October 17, 1984, Charles and Pamela Darr signed a multiple listing agreement with Cluett Realty, Inc. to sell their home at 598 New York Drive, Ft. Myers. (Petitioner's Exhibit #2). On February 4 and 5, 1985, the Darrs and Irving and Beverly Lockner signed a contract for sale and purchase of the New York Drive house. The terms provided for purchase price of $44,000.00; a $500.00 deposit in the form of a promissory note to be redeemed by February 26, 1985; the assumption of an existing mortgage; a second mortgage in the amount of $3,000.00 and a balance to close in the amount of $2500.00. The closing date was set for "March 14, 1985, or as soon as possible". (Petitioner's Exhibit #5). The Darrs and Lockners were told on March 14, 1985 that the paperwork was not ready for closing. The Darrs had already moved out of the house and into a leased apartment and the Lockners had travelled from their home in Baltimore with furnishings to move in. Reluctantly, Pamela Darr agreed to let the Lockners move in that day and pay rent for the rest of the month. It was understood by Ms. Darr that the closing would be on April 1st. (tr. 27,28,29) On March 14, 1985, Mrs. Lockner gave Cluett Realty $1500.00. The receipt signed by Helen Weise, an employee of Cluett Realty, is marked "escrow deposit on property, 398 New York Avenue". (Petitioner's Exhibit #1). On March 22, 1985, Beverly Lockner gave Cluett Realty $500.00; the receipt signed by Mary L. Cluett is marked "Escrow, Darr/Lockner". (Petitioner's Exhibit #3) On April 15, 1985, the Lockners gave Mary Cluett another $500.00 in the form of two checks: one for $362.64 from MSC, Inc. to Irving Lockner ( a paycheck), and a personal check to Cluett Realty from Beverly Lockner in the amount of $137.36 (tr. 17,18, Petitioner's Exhibit #4, Beverly Lockner testimony p. 17) The $2500.00 was placed in the Cluett Realty, Inc. escrow account. (tr-19) The Lockner/Darr transaction closed on June 10, 1985, (Prehearing Stipulation, Paragraph 2) In the meantime, on March 26, 1985 and April 25, 1985 Mary Cluett paid the Darr's mortgage payments for April and May with checks drawn on the Cluett Realty, Inc. escrow account in the amount of $425.38 each, payable to United Mortgage Company. (Prehearing Stipulation, paragraph 2) Beverly Lockner did not give Mary Cluett permission to use the escrow money for the Darr's mortgage. She did not know the money was being taken out until she found Mary Cluett's handwritten note left on her door which indicated that closing would be on May 6, 1985 and showed that two payments totalling $850.76 had been deducted from the $2500.00 escrow account. She called Ms. Cluett and had a confrontation about the deductions. Beverly Lockner intended that the $2500.00 be used for the closing balance. When the transaction finally closed on June 10, she had insufficient funds to close so she gave Cluett Realty a third mortgage and borrowed $500.00 from Pamela Darr. (Beverly Lockner testimony, pp. 6,7,9,16 23-26) The Darrs did not give Mary Cluett permission to use the escrow money to pay the mortgage, although Ms. Darr was concerned that the mortgage be paid. On March 14th, Pamela Darr was aware that the April mortgage payment would be taken out of the escrow account when she picked up a form, alleged signed by the Lockners, with a notation at the bottom about the payment. Pamela Darr went to Mary Cluett's office at 5:30 on that day to pick up the form. (tr. 25, 118, 119, 122, Respondent's Exhibit #1) The form in question provides as follows: [Cluett Realty, Inc. letterhead] March 14, 1985 To Whom It May Concern: We Irving N. and Beverly T. Lockner buyers, of property situated 598 New York Dr., Ft. Myers, Fl. inspected the above property on March 14, 1985 (date) and have found the property to be to our satisfaction and accept property "as is" and taking possession as Owners today. Sellers are not responsible for any maintenance on the house of any kind. (SIGNED) [Beverly Lockner Signature] (Buyer) [Irving Lockner Signature] (Buyer) WITNESS: [Mary Cluett Signature] DATE: [dated 3-14-85] NOTE: OUT OF THE ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ($1,500,00) DOLLARS deposited with CLUETT REALTY ESCROW ACCOUNT THE FIRST MONTH'S PAYMENT OF $425.38 shall be made. (Respondent's Exhibit #1) The testimony of Mary Cluett and that of her employee, Helen Weise, differ substantially from Beverly Lockner's testimony regarding Respondent's Exhibit #1. Mary Cluett claims that the form was completed and signed by the Lockners in her office on March 14, 1985, and that after a phone call from Pamela Darr the note at the bottom was added before the Lockners signed. (tr- 68) She claims that by agreeing to the notation, the Lockners's clearly knew about the intended use of the escrow money for the mortgage. Beverly Lockner distinctly remembers the form. She claims that when Mary Cluett came to the house on New York Drive on March 14th, she took the blank form from her case and told the Lockners they needed to sign it that day in order to take over the house. Mrs. Lockner signed her husband's name as he had gone out to the yard. The blanks on the form were not typed in, nor was the note on the bottom. This was one of several blank forms in Mrs. Cluett's case. (testimony of Beverly Lockner, p. 6, 11-13) Helen Weise claims she typed the entire form, all but the letterhead, in the office while the Lockners were there. (tr-88) This testimony is inconsistent with the appearance of the exhibit. Mary Cluett's testimony about this form and about the purpose of the escrow money from Beverly Lockner is not plausible. For example, she claims that when the Lockners came in with the $1500.00 on March 14th the purpose was to pay the note for $500.00 referenced on the Contract for Purchase and Sale and to provide money for the mortgage payments. However, on the 14th of March, while no one knew for certain when the closing would be, it was anticipated that it would take place on April 1st. In that case only one mortgage payment would have been necessary. The amounts and timing of Mrs. Lockner's payments into the escrow account are consistent with her testimony that she was putting aside the funds necessary for closing. Assuming, for argument's sake that Mrs. Lockner did know about and approve the first payment, there is no evidence that she knew about or acceded to the second payment prior to its deduction from the escrow account. Respondent's Exhibits #2, 3, and 4 are dated May 28, 1985, May 6, 1985, and May 11, 1985, respectively. Each are notations on Cluett Realty, Inc. stationery showing the April and May deductions from the escrow account, the account number of the mortgage to be assumed, the balance required for closing and other information related to closing. Mary Cluett testified that these were delivered to Mrs. Lockner's house and copies were sent to the Darrs at the New York Avenue address as she did not know the Darr's apartment address. Pamela Darr denies receiving any of these notices. Beverly Lockner said she received only the one dated May 6th. (testimony of Beverly Lockner, P. 9) Ernest Cluett testified that the notice dated May 6, 1985 was delivered on that same date.(tr- 101) By then the second payment from the escrow account had already been made. From the testimony and evidence it is apparent that considerable confusion existed regarding the Darr/Lockner transaction. Both buyer and seller thought the deal would close on March 14th. They learned that day that it would not close and hasty arrangements were made for the Lockners to occupy the house since they had moved their belongings from Baltimore. No firm financial arrangements were made, other than an oral agreement for the Lockners to pay a pro-rated rent for the remainder of March. The closing did not take place on April 1st or the several subsequent dates that it was set, until June 10th. Meanwhile, the mortgage payments were due and no arrangements had been made for their payment. Mary Cluett prepared the March 14th form to satisfy Pamela Darr that the payments would be made, but neglected to clear the arrangement with Beverly Lockner. Mrs. Lockner figured the payments were not her responsibility because the house was not hers; the failure to close as scheduled on March 14th was not her fault. She blamed Mary Cluett for not notifying the parties sooner since she would not have left Baltimore. (testimony of Beverly Lockner, pp. 18-22)
