Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, respondent, Richard M. Kessler, was a licensed real estate broker and real estate school permit holder having been issued license number 0119097 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation. Division of Real Estate (Division). Respondent, Aldo J. Papaleo, is a licensed real estate broker and real estate school instructor having been issued license number 33367 by petitioner. Kessler has operated a real estate school in Broward County Florida since 1977. When the events herein occurred, the school operated under the trade name "Investors Property Management and Read Estate, Inc." in Coral Springs, Florida. Among other things, the school is designed to offer the pre- licensing education necessary for persons desiring to become licensed as real estate salesmen. According to rules promulgated by petitioner in 1983, the course format had to have sixteen three-hour sessions with a one-hour quiz and review session at the end of each three hour block of instruction. In addition, each student had to take a three-hour examination at the end of the classroom work and achieve a grade of 70 percent or better in order to take the real estate salesman examination. Kessler offered a six week salesman pre-licensing education course beginning on March 23, 1983, which consisted of three three-hour sessions per week in the evenings. The course was offered at his offices located in Coral Springs, Florida. Jeffrey (last name unknown), who was considered an outstanding instructor, was going to teach the course, but was out of the country at that time. Needing a replacement instructor, Kessler advertised for one in the local newspaper. Papaleo, who is also known as Alan A. Parker, had just received his instructor's license that month and answered the ad. Papaleo was a college graduate, had previously taught insurance licensing courses (but not real estate) for over twenty years in New York and Connecticut, and in addition to holding a broker's license, was designated as a GRI (graduate of real estate institute) and CRS (certified residential specialist). The latter two designations are awarded to real estate licensees who take additional coursework beyond the salesman and broker level. Finding his qualifications to be satisfactory, Kessler hired Papaleo to teach the course. Before the first session, Kessler reviewed all course materials with Papaleo, and the format to be followed. The course materials included the March, 1983 Syllabus and Instructor's Guide prepared by the Florida Real Estate Commission and the FREC Handbook, and students were required to purchase an approved real estate textbook authored by C C. Curtis. Papaleo was specifically told to "conform" and "abide" by the teaching syllabus. Nine individuals enrolled in and completed Kessler's course, each paying $95.00 for the instruction and $9.00 for the Curtis textbook. At least two of the nine enrolled in the class because of its "excellent reputation" while several others were attracted by its location in Coral Springs and the evening instruction format. The complaint herein stems from four students in Papaleo's course, three of whom testified at final hearing. They characterized the instruction offered by Papaleo as "confusing," not "adequate," and insufficient to enable them to pass the final examination. They complained that Papaleo read much of the class instruction from the syllabus and textbook, that he did not encourage class participation, and did not devote a great deal of time to reviews and answering questions. They also complained that course material used in other real estate courses (for example, Bert Rogers) was better and easier to understand. Because of what they perceived to be deficiencies in the level of instruction, three of the students approached Kessler one day after much of the course had been completed. In their meeting with Kessler they complained about Papaleo's teaching techniques, and their dissatisfaction with his instruction. Kessler promised to look into it, and later spoke with Papaleo. He instructed Papaleo to explain the course material in even greater detail so that the complaining students would better comprehend the subject, and he monitored the first thirty minutes of the next session. Finding Papaleo's instruction to be "appropriate," he thought the problem had been resolved. About a week later, Mrs. Kessler received an anonymous telephone call complaining that Papaleo was not a good instructor and asking that he be "removed" from the classroom. At that point, Papaleo and Kessler mutually agreed that Papaleo should leave. The remaining week of the course was taught by Kessler's son, Scott, without any complaint from the students. After the course ended, the four students demanded that Kessler return their $95.00 tuition fee. When he refused they wrote him a letter on May 14, 1983, advising him that the course instruction by Papaleo was inadequate and that unless he refunded their fees, their "only recourse would be to register a formal complaint with the DPR." Interpreting this to be blackmail, and believing their claims to be without merit, Kessler refused their demands to refund the fees. The issuance of the administrative complaint followed. In teaching the course, Papaleo used only those materials approved by the Division. Even though some of it was read directly from the syllabus and FREC handbook, there is no evidence that this technique is prohibited by the Division. Moreover, there was no expert testimony as to what instruction is or is not "approved," or what constitutes an "adequate" level of instruction. The complaining students knowledged that they were allowed to ask questions, but that one student consumed much of the time with detailed questions that they did not understand. They also conceded that Papaleo frequently used the blackboard, and expounded on the text material by giving examples from his own personal experiences in real estate. Although the record is conflicting as to whether an appropriate amount of time was devoted to a quiz and review session after each block of instruction, it is found that Papaleo did not deviate from the Division requirements. It is further found that Papaleo did not discourage students from "class participation" as alleged in the complaint. Of the three students testifying at final hearing, two passed the end of course examination and were qualified to then take the salesman examination. In accordance with his school policy Kessler offered a free repeat of the course to any students who did not pass the final examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Richard M. Kessler 9381 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, Florida 33065 Mr. Aldo J. Papaleo 259 Commercial Boulevard Lauderdale-by-the-Sea. Florida 33308 =================================================================
