The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offense alleged in the amended administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Carolee Harse, is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0493946. The last license issued was as a broker- salesperson with William S. Frank Associates, Inc., 120 U.S. Highway 1, Tequesta, Florida 33469. In August 1993 respondent showed a home to Mr. and Mrs. Jose Manzo that had been listed with the Multiple Listing Service by Jupiter By The Sea, a brokerage business in Jupiter, Florida. The house was owned by Mr. and Mrs. David Couch and Cynthia Nixon. Effective August 11, 1993, respondent obtained a contract between the Manzos, as buyers, and Couch/Nixon as sellers. Pursuant to the contract, the buyers' initial deposit of $200 was held in escrow by respondent's broker, William S. Frank Associates, Inc., and an additional escrow deposit of $3,000 was to be made by the buyer within five days of the effective date of the contract, to wit: by August 18, 1993. 1/ Following execution of the contract, the Manzos returned to their home in Mexico; however, they were scheduled to return on August 16, 1993, and arrangements were made for them to meet with respondent on August 17, 1993, to make the additional deposit. Unfortunately, Mrs. Manzo apparently required surgery while in Mexico, and Mr. Manzo did not return until the evening of August 17, 1993. Respondent spoke with Mr. Manzo by telephone the evening of August 17, 1993, and an appointment was made for him to meet with her broker, Mr. Frank, on August 18, 1993, to make the additional deposit. As respondent explained to Mr. Manzo, she would be out of town on August 18, and her broker would take care of the deposit. Indeed, respondent did have plans to be out of town on that date, and those plans had been made well prior to the subject contract. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that respondent and her husband had prior plans to attend a class reunion in Long Island, New York, and that they left Florida at 6:29 a.m., August 18, 1993, and did not return until late afternoon Sunday, August 22, 1993. Respondent advised the listing agent at Jupiter By The Sea that she would be out of town that week, and that Mr. Frank was scheduled to meet with Mr. Manzo on February 18 to receive the additional deposit. Upon her Sunday return, respondent telephoned Mr. Frank and learned that Mr. Manzo had not made the additional deposit. The next day, respondent spoke with the listing agent by telephone, and advised her that the additional deposit had not been made. 2/ Respondent also advised the agent that she would follow up with the Manzos and try to secure the additional deposit; however, such efforts to secure the additional deposit failed, and by August 25, 1993, it was evident that the Manzos would not proceed with the purchase. Although Respondent promptly advised the listing agent that the additional deposit had not been made, she did not personally undertake to notify the sellers. Rather, she assumed the listing agent would, in turn, notify that agent's client. Such assumption, given the circumstances, was reasonable. Standard of Practice 21-18 of the National Association of Realtors, received into evidence without objection, provides: All dealings concerning property exclusively listed, or with buyer/tenants who are exclusively represented shall be carried on with the client's agent, and not with the client, except with the consent of the client's agent. Petitioner offered no proof, either by rule or community standard, which would have placed a different obligation on respondent. Accordingly, there being no proof to the contrary, it is found that respondent's notification to the listing agent was appropriate, and she was under no obligation to also notify the sellers. Rather, that obligation rested with the listing agent. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered which dismisses the amended administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of October 1994. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 3rd day of October 1994.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, allegedly committed by real estate brokers who are licensed in Florida. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Anglickis was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued licensed number 00001869 through the Division of Real Estate. Respondent American was a corporation registered as a real estate broker, having been issued license number 0169478. Both licenses were issued to the following address: 102 East Leeland Heights Boulevard, Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936. Respondent Anglickis was the qualifying broker for Respondent American, and held the office of president within the corporation. On April 19, 1989, the Respondents' accounting records were reviewed in a random, routine audit conducted by an investigator with the Division of Real Estate as part of the agency's regulatory functions. During the audit, the investigator determined that Sun Bank Account No. 013684, which was maintained by the Respondents in order to hold funds entrusted to them in pending real estate transactions, contained an overage of $9,639.83. According to the real estate company's records that were presented to the investigator, these funds were not being held for the benefit of any parties to any pending real estate transactions. At hearing, the Respondents' presented evidence to show that the funds in question in this particular trust account had been deposited as part of a number of pending real estate transactions involving installment lot sales from May 1986 through December 1986. During this time period, Respondent Anglickis was handling the bookkeeping matters within the company. He undertook this responsibility until he was able to find a replacement for the previous bookkeeper, who left on short notice. All the disbursements of funds were made on behalf of the buyers and sellers in the installment lot sales transactions except for the commissions belonging to the Respondent American. These funds were left in the trust account by Respondent Anglickis. When the new bookkeeper was hired, she reconciled the accounts every month from the time she came to the real estate company. The $9,639.83 was carried forward every month, and was never discussed again once the bookkeeper learned the money belonged to Respondent American early in her employment. This resulted in the isolation of these funds in the pending sales escrow account even though the sales had been completed and the files were considered as closed files within the office. By the time the evidence was presented at the administrative hearing, the Respondents had gone through the closed accounts involved in the installment lot sales during the period in question during 1986. The overage was shown to be the amount due to Respondent American for commission from these sales. These funds were then removed from the pending sales escrow account. Interest Bearing Sales Escrow Account In addition to the sales escrow/trust account at Sun Bank, the Respondents maintained an interest bearing account for the same purpose at the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Fort Myers, Account No. 101222355. Unless a real estate client specifically allowed the Respondents to place the funds involved in a pending sale into an interest bearing account, they were required to place the funds in a non-interest bearing escrow account. In order for the Respondents to receive the interest on the money, full disclosure in writing had to be presented to the client, and written consent had to be obtained and documented. During the review of the Respondents' files and records relating to funds within the interest bearing sales account during the audit, the investigator was unable to locate the necessary disclosure forms for three clients whose funds were placed in the interest bearing account. When the investigator informed Respondent Anglickis of the real estate company's failure to comply with the disclosure requirements on the three pending contracts, the Respondent Anglickis indulged in a verbal tirade. It appeared from the evidence that this tantrum was unsuccessfully staged in order to either dominate or intimidate the young female investigator. During his harangue, the Respondent Anglickis said he would have his friend Harry Powell sign and backdate the required disclosure that was missing from Mr. Powell's file. The Respondent planned to then conveniently "find" the document misfiled in another file. Once he proposed this course of misconduct, the Respondent taunted the investigator concerning her inability to do anything about it if he chose to solve the problem in this manner. On her return visit to the offices on May 3, 1989, the investigator was presented with a copy of the required disclosure form for Harry Powell. The Respondent Anglickis informed the investigator that the agreement had been misfiled and was located in another file belonging to Mr. Powell. Mr. Harry Powell signed the disclosure statement during the actual sales transaction, as set forth on the form. In spite of his ongoing business relationship with Respondent Anglickis, he never backdated this disclosure, nor was he asked to do so by anyone at anytime. Charles Tucker, the real estate salesman with Respondent American who handled Mr. Powell's real estate purchase, had the client sign the disclosure statement during the sales transaction. This is a required sales procedure within the company. The bookkeeper located the disclosure in another closed file belonging to Mr. Powell within the real estate company. Mr. Powell purchased distressed properties within Lehigh Acres on a routine basis and had a number of closed files within the office. One of the other disclosure forms for a different client was sent to the title insurance company along with other documents. It was returned to Respondent American after the audit and was placed in the proper location. This form had been timely signed by the clients and allowed the Respondents to place the funds in the interest bearing account. The third and final missing disclosure form was in the possession of the real estate salesman who had it signed by the client before the escrow funds were placed in the interest bearing account. While the sales personnel are required to maintain a duplicate file, the office file in this case had not yet received the disclosure form from the salesman when the audit occurred. The Respondent Anglickis did not participate in any misconduct in order to advance the scheme he had proposed to the investigator during his tantrum. The Department's decision to prosecute the Respondents in this proceeding was proper due to the way in which the Respondent Anglickis' proposed scheme to circumvent the findings of the audit coincided with the later presentation of the missing disclosure statements.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent Anglickis and Respondent American be found not guilty of Counts I-VII as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and that the charges be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 26th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-5414 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Accept that during the audit, the records pur- portedly revealed an overage in the escrow account. See HO #4. The bookkeeper's statements are rejected as uncorroborated hearsay. Accepted. See HO #8 - #10. Accepted. See HO #11 and #12. Accepted. See HO #13. However, the investigator is not the ultimate trier of fact and did not have all of the evidence presented to the Hearing Officer which refuted that the proposed misconduct by Respondent Anglickis had occurred. See HO #19. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #15 - #18. Accepted. See HO #4 - #7. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert P. Henderson, Esquire 1619 Jackson Street Post Office Box 1906 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondents' license as real estate brokers in the state of Florida should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined based upon the allegations of misconduct in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Deering, was licensed as a real estate broker in the state of Florida, having been issued license number 0563366. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Advantage, was licensed as a real estate broker, having been issued license number 0273342. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Deering, was licensed and operating as the qualifying broker for Respondent, Advantage. On October 22, 1992, Petitioner conducted an office inspection and audit of Advantage. The audit reflected what appeared to be a shortage in Advantage's security deposit escrow account (Number 027000122700) in the amount of $580.00, calculated as $6,600.00 in total trust liability, but only $6,020.00 as a reconciled bank balance. The audit also reflected what appeared to be a shortage in Advantage's rental distribution escrow account (Number 27000121900) in the amount of $369.40, calculated as $3,174.82 in total trust liability, but only $2,805.42 as reconciled bank balance. The audit also reflected that Deering, as the qualifying broker, failed to sign and properly reconcile Advantage's escrow accounts by comparing the total trust liability with the reconciled bank balance of the escrow accounts for the months of September and October, 1992. Marie Deering, Respondent, Deering's, wife and a corporate officer of Respondent, Advantage, signed the reconciliation form for the months of September and October, 1992. It appears from the record (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Respondents' Licensure file) that Roger J. Kathman was the Broker of Record for Respondent, Advantage until August 21, 1992, when he resigned. Apparently, part of the problem stemmed from using a form developed by the previous real estate agency which was not the form suggested by the Petitioner for this purpose. Since being advised about the form and that comparing the total trust liability of each escrow account with the reconciled the bank balance of each escrow account and signing the reconciliation form was the responsibility of the broker of record, Deering has been properly fulfilling that responsibility and reporting on the correct form. The total trust liability of Advantage's security deposit escrow account should have been $5,700.00 rather than the $6,600.00 indicated by the audit because the $900.00 included in the audit figure from the San Juan lease should not have been included since this amount was not to be escrowed pursuant to the lease. This was a verbal agreement between the parties that was later executed as an addendum to the lease. Advantage's reconciled bank balance for the security deposit escrow account should also be $5,700.00, calculated as $6,020.00 reflected in the audit, minus $1,000.00 that was erroneously disbursed from the Rental distribution escrow account (also called the property management escrow account) instead of the security deposit escrow account , plus $680.00 that was erroneously deposited into the rental distribution escrow account instead of the security deposit escrow account ( $6,020.00 - $1,000.00 + $680.00 = $5,700.00). The total trust fund liability of the rental distribution escrow account should be $3,175.42, calculated as $3,174.82 as reflected in audit plus $0.60 to correct bookkeeping error ($3,174.82 + $0.60 = $3,175.42). The reconciled bank balance for the rental distribution escrow account should be $3,175.42, calculated as $2,805.42 reflected in the audit, plus $1,000.00 transferred from the security deposit escrow account as reflected in Finding of Fact 8, minus $680.00 transferred to the security deposit escrow account as reflected in Finding of Fact 8, plus a deposit of $50.00 to correct an error made in crediting a tenant account with $50.00 more than was deposited from tenant ($2,805.42 + $1,000.00 - $680.00 + $50.00 = $3,175.42). Although there were clerical or bookkeeping errors made in the handling of Advantage's escrow accounts, there was no evidence that Deering failed to immediately deposit funds received in trust in an escrow account, albeit not always the correct one. After the audit, Respondent, Deering promptly and properly corrected the escrow accounts and accounted for the funds resulting in balanced escrow accounts. While the Respondents were negligent in the handling of the escrow accounts, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Respondents were culpably negligent or that there was a breach of trust. The Respondents' license as real estate brokers in the state of Florida has never been disciplined.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent Deering and Respondent Advantage guilty of technical violations of Section 475.25(1)(e) and (k), Florida Statutes. For such violations, Respondent Advantage should be given a written reprimand and Respondent Deering should be given a written reprimand and required to complete a 30-hour broker management course. Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. In making this recommendation, consideration has been given to the mitigating factors in relation to the disciplinary guidelines set out in Chapter 21V-24, Florida Administrative Code. Also, taken into consideration was the purpose of regulating any profession, the protection of the public by requiring compliance with those laws governing the profession. In this case, the recommended penalties will serve that purpose, the public has not been harmed, compliance has been accomplished and the penalty sufficient to remind the Respondents to be more diligent in the future. Adding any further penalty, including an administrative fine, would be unduly punitive. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 12th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0606 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Unnecessary. 2.-12. Adopted in substance as modified by Findings of Fact 1 through 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 4, 5 and 8 through 13. Adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Hurston North Tower #308A 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Albert R. Deering, Pro se c/o Advantage Realty of Sarasota, Inc. t/a Century 21 Advantage 4121 Bee Ridge Road Sarasota, Florida 34233 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1900
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate. Petitioner is also responsible for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent, John P. Wickersham ("Wickersham"), is licensed as a real estate broker under license number 0095775. Respondent, Aladdin Real Estate of Rockledge ("Aladdin"), is a Florida corporation registered as a real estate broker under license number 0213244. Wickersham is the qualifying broker and corporate officer for Aladdin. Respondents maintain their escrow account at the Barnett Bank of Cocoa. On April 28, 1994, Ms. Marie Ventura, Petitioner's investigator, audited Respondents' escrow account. Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had a liability of $46,287.30 and a reconciled balance of $43,557.26. Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had a shortage of $2,730.04. Respondents provided Ms. Ventura with additional information. On May 16, 1994, Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had a liability of $43,546.21 and a reconciled balance of $42,787.26. Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had an excess of $11.05. Respondents never had a shortage in their escrow account. Respondents maintained an excess of $11.05 in their escrow account since September, 1993. In September, 1993, Respondents converted their method of bookkeeping to a computer system. The computer system failed to disclose an excess of $11.05 due to Respondents' misunderstanding of the appropriate method of labeling inputs to the software system. Respondents discovered and corrected the error prior to the formal hearing. Respondents properly made and signed written monthly reconciliation statements comparing their total escrow liability with the reconciled bank balances of their escrow account. Although Respondents did not use the form suggested in Rule 61J2- 14.012(2), Respondents satisfied the substance of the requirements for record keeping and reporting. Respondents maintained the information required in Rule 61J2-14.012(2) in bank statements, ledger cards, and checkbooks. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondents presented the information in a form that complied with the requirements of Rule 61J2-14.012(2). The shortage determined by Petitioner on April 28, 1994, was caused, in part, by errors made by Petitioner's investigator. It was the investigator's first audit, and the information provided by Respondents was not in an easily discernible form. However, Respondents never withheld any information, and Respondents maintained and provided all information required by applicable law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b) and Rule 61J2-14.012(2). RECOMMENDED this 18th day of January, 1996, 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 18th day of January 1996.
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)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the real estate license issued to the Respondent, James P. Hudson, should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: At all pertinent times, Respondent, James P. Hudson, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license No. 0148841 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been operating as a broker from an office at 413 South Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida 33435. Respondent maintains an escrow account No. 018200602689 at Sun Bank in Boynton Beach, Florida into which he deposits trusts funds received in his capacity as a real estate broker. Sometime in the early part of September 1989, Petitioner initiated a random audit of Respondent's business. Prior to the audit, Petitioner's investigator advised the Respondent that he would need to produce all the records related to his escrow account. An investigator for Petitioner visited Respondent's office on or about September 18, 1989 to conduct an audit of Respondent's escrow accounts. Based upon the investigator's review of the records, five different transactions were identified as allegedly involving delays or mishandling of escrow funds by Respondent. Those transactions are the basis for several of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Each transaction is addressed separately below. The first transaction involved a contract for the sale and purchase of real property between Fitz as buyer and Kerstin as seller (the "Fitz Contract"). Included in Respondent's files on this transaction was a copy of a contract for sale and purchase that was dated and signed by the buyer on September 6, 1989 and dated and signed by the seller on September 9, 1989. The buyer in the Fitz Contract gave Respondent a check for $1000 as a deposit to be held in escrow in connection with the transaction. The Respondent's written receipt for that check is dated September 7, 1989. The evidence established that this initial deposit check was delivered to Respondent on Thursday evening, September 7, 1989. Respondent was out of town on Friday, September 8 and returned on Monday evening, September 11. The check was deposited on the afternoon of September 12 and is reflected in the bank records as a deposit on September 13. The sellers (the Kerstins) signed the contract on September 9, 1989. However, in executing the contract, they crossed out the $900,000 sales price submitted by the buyer and increased the price to $1,400,000. In other words, the sellers made a counteroffer with respect to this contract. The initial deposit was timely returned to the sellers when the counteroffer was rejected. Petitioner's investigator erroneously assumed that Respondent did not timely collect the additional deposit required under this contract. While Petitioner's investigator considered this signed contract in Respondent's files to be a binding agreement on the parties, it is clear that the change in sales price was only initialed by the sellers and, therefore, there was no enforceable agreement. The parties to the Fitz Contract subsequently executed another written contract. This second agreement provided for a sales price of $1,100,000. That contract was executed by the buyer on September 20, 1989 and by the sellers on September 24, 1989. This second contract called for a $49,000.00 deposit upon acceptance. The buyers gave Respondent a check dated September 25, 1989 in the amount of $49,000.00. That check was deposited by Respondent in his escrow account on the afternoon of September 26, 1989. The $49,000 deposit is reflected in the bank records as being deposited on September 27, 1989. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay by Respondent in collecting or depositing the funds into escrow. The second transaction identified by Petitioner's investigator involved a contract for the sale and purchase of real property between Campanis as buyer and Hoffman as seller. The buyer in this transaction gave Respondent a check dated September 6, 1990 to be held as a deposit for this contract. A photocopy of the check presented to Petitioner's investigator included a handwritten note that states "hold until Friday 9/8/89." The evidence did not establish who wrote this note. The evidence established that the check was received by one of Respondent's sales associates on September 7 and left on the Respondent's desk on September 8. Respondent is the only company employee authorized to deposit checks or otherwise handle transactions involving the escrow account. As indicated above, Respondent was out of town from September 8 through the evening of September 11. The check was deposited on the afternoon of September 12 and is reflected in the bank records as being credited to the escrow account on September 13. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was not delinquent in depositing these funds. The third transaction involved a contract for the purchase and sale of real property between White as buyer and Adkins as seller (the "White Contract.") The White Contract was executed by the buyer on July 26, 1989 and by one of the sellers on July 27 and by the other seller on Friday, July 28. The contract called for an initial deposit of $500.00 with an additional deposit of $1,700 upon acceptance. The initial deposit check was dated July 26, 1989. That deposit check was attached to the contract executed by the purchaser and presented to a cooperating real estate agent who was to present the proposed contract to the seller. The executed contract was not returned to Respondent until sometime during the weekend of July 29 and 30. The initial deposit check along with the additional deposit were then deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Monday, July 31, 1989. Under the circumstances, the evidence established that there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money. The next transaction identified by Petitioner's investigator involved a contract for sale and purchase of real property between Milera as buyer and Twillie as seller (the "Milera Contract.") The Milera Contract provided for an additional deposit due upon acceptance. The contract was accepted by Twillie on August 23, 1989. The parties to the contract agreed that the time for making the additional deposit would be extended for two days. The check for the additional deposit was dated and received by Respondent on Friday, August 25, 1989. The check was deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Tuesday, August 29, 1989. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money. The final transaction involved a contract with the sale and purchase of real property between Gerrety as buyer and the estate of John Walsh as seller (the "Gerrety Contract.") The Gerrety Contract was executed by the purchaser on August 10, 1989. The deposit check was given to one of the Respondent's associates on that Thursday evening. The deposit check was not delivered to Respondent until after business hours on Friday, August 11. The check was deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Monday, August 14. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money on this transaction. During the audit, Petitioner's investigator determined that Respondent was holding deposits on two separate rental properties in his escrow account. At the time of the audit, Petitioner's investigator was not provided with any leases or other documentation regarding these transactions even though Respondent was supposed to produce records for all sums in the escrow account. Respondent contends that he did not realize he was supposed to produce his rental files, was never specifically asked to produce these files and did not know that Petitioner was questioning these transactions until he received the Administrative Complaint in this action. While there was apparently some miscommunication at the time of the audit, adequate documentation for these rental deposits was produced at the hearing. Therefore, Petitioner's allegation that Respondent did not maintain adequate documentation regarding these deposits is without merit. Petitioner has also charged that Respondent did not produce all of the deposit slips in connection with the escrow account and did not produce any evidence of reconciliation of the escrow account. The evidence at the hearing established that all deposit slips are available even though they were not all kept with the bank statements. Moreover, the evidence failed to substantiate the allegation that Respondent did not reconcile his escrow account. Thus, these charges were not substantiated. At the time of the audit, Respondent advised Petitioner's investigator that the escrow account included some commission money that had not yet been removed. In the past, Respondent would sometimes collect his commissions at the close of a transaction from the funds held in escrow. (Respondent no longer collects commissions in this manner.) In auditing Respondent's escrow account, Petitioner's investigator determined that there was an overage of approximately $8,178.17 in the account. Within thirty days of the completion of the audit, Respondent removed $7,500 of the overage which represented his commission on two previously closed transactions. While Respondent believed that the remaining amount of the overage was also his commission money, he refrained from removing any more money until completion of a year-end audit by his accountant. Respondent's records reflected a slight difference in the amount of the overage than the amount calculated by Petitioner during the audit. Respondent wanted to be absolutely certain that only the proper amount was removed from the escrow account. At the conclusion of the audit on September 18, 1989, Respondent signed an office inspection report form prepared by Petitioner which contained the following pre-printed statement: ...I certify that to the best of my knowledge all records pertaining to my sales escrow/trust account(s) and my rental property management account(s) have been provided to the investigator. The above violations are brought to my attention this date and thoroughly explained. I will take corrective action within thirty days and furnish photo/sketches of corrections and documents on the same... There is some confusion as to what additional documentation Respondent was expected to provide following the completion of the September, 1989 audit. Respondent did not believe he was required to provide any additional evidence to Petitioner or its investigator and no further documentation was provided by Respondent until Petitioner's investigator returned to his office in January of 1990. Petitioner's investigator returned to Respondent's office on January 17, 1990. At that time, $7500.00 of the overage had been removed from the escrow account. The remaining amount of the overage was removed later in January. It does not appear that Respondent provided Petitioner's investigator with copies of the rental agreements or the second contract in the Kerstin transaction during the January visit by Petitioner's investigator. Respondent contends that this information was never specifically requested. It is clear that communication between Respondent and Petitioner's investigator had deteriorated from bad to worse by the time of this January visit. There is no indication that Respondent ever used the escrow account for improper purposes or withdrew money from the escrow account for his own personal or business use. The Florida Real Estate Commission adopted new record keeping requirements regarding escrow accounts in July of 1989. The new rules require a written monthly reconciliation of a broker's escrow account. At the time of the audit, Respondent was not keeping the minimum written statement comparing broker's total liability with the reconciled bank balance of all trust accounts as required by the new rules. Even after the audit in September, Respondent did not keep the written reconciliations in the format required by the new rules. Respondent was reconciling the account on his computer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondent guilty of Counts III and IV and reprimanding him for minor and techinical violations of those counts and imposing a fine of $100.00. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of December, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 31st day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3589 Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on each of the parties' proposed findings of fact. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Addressed in the preliminary statement. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in pertinenet part in Findings of Fact 3. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5. 8. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 11. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 15. Subordinate 23. to Findings of Fact 8, 9 and Subordinate to Findings of Fact 23. This subject is also addressed in paragraph 9 of the conclusions of law. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. 19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 20. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 23. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 24. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 25. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. 26. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17. Rejected as not established by competent susbstantial evidence. The subject matter is addressed in Findigns of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19 and 20. Rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. The subject matter is addressed to some degree in Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected as irrelevant. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are not numbered. The numbers below refer to the numerical sections contained in the findings of fact section of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order. Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. The first two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6-9. The second two sentences are rejected as irrelevant. This subject matter is addressed in some degree in Findings of Fact 21. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentencess are subordinate to Findings of Fact 10. The next two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentence are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. The third sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first three sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. The second sentence is rejected as vague. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17 and 25. The first three sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18, 19 and 22. The fourth sentence is rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. This subject matter is addressed in part in Findings of Fact 19. The fifth and sixth sentences are rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 James P. Hudson 413 South Federal Highway Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Respondent violated the real estate licensing law, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to account and deliver a deposit; failing to maintain a deposit in a real estate brokerage escrow account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized; and/or being guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, and/or breach of trust in a business transaction.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0360741. The last license issued was as a broker, c/o Consolidated American Realty Services, Inc., in Tampa, Florida. From June 6, 1983, through June 25, 1984, Respondent was licensed and operating as a real estate broker under the trade name, "Benjamin Realty," in Tampa, Florida. For sometime prior to June 2, 1984, Eileen Cumbie attempted to sell a lot owned by her located at 1102 26th Avenue, Tampa, Florida. On June 2, 1984, the Respondent contacted Ms. Cumbie and informed her that he had a client interested in purchasing the property. Ms. Cumbie informed the Respondent that as long as she netted a certain amount, she would be willing to sell the property. Ms. Cumbie allowed the Respondent to put together a contract for the sale of the lot. In connection therewith, the Respondent prepared a sales contract with Danilo Castellanos, as purchaser, and Eileen W. Cumbie, as seller, for the purchase and sale of the property. Pursuant to the purchase and sales agreement, the Respondent received in trust from Mr. Castellanos a $500 earnest money deposit via check dated June 2, 1984. On June 5, 1984, the Respondent deposited the check into his real estate brokerage account maintained at the Central Bank of Tampa, 2307 W. Rennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Mr. Castellanos entered into the contract for the benefit of his son and daughter-in-law who resided in New Jersey but were planning to relocate to the Tampa area. Mr. Castellanos' daughter-in-law went to look at the lot on June 10, 1984 and decided that she did not like the area in which it was located. The closing of the transaction was set for June 15, 1984. On approximately June 13, 1984, Mr. Castellanos' daughter- in-law informed the Respondent that they were no longer interested in purchasing the property. Ms. Cumbie was out of town during the time of the scheduled closing, but had prepared and signed all of the paperwork in advance. When she returned after June 15, 1984, she called Respondent to find out how the closing went. The Respondent informed her that the buyers failed to go through with the transaction. The contract provided in part as follows: ". . . If the buyer fails to perform this contract within the time specified herein, time being of the essence of this agreement, the deposit made by the buyer shall be disposed of in the following manner: To the Broker an amount equal to his earned commission, but not to exceed 1/2 of the deposit which shall discharge the sellers obligation to him for that service; remainder to the seller to be credited to him against his damages accrued by reason of the breach of contract. " After the transaction failed to close, Ms. Cumbie requested that Respondent give a portion of the deposit to her. The Respondent told Ms. Cumbie that he would give her the entire deposit because she had paid for the survey and a few other items to facilitate the closing of the transaction. Over the next several months, the Respondent, on several occasions, promised to deliver a check to Ms. Cumbie. However, the Respondent never delivered any such check to Ms. Cumbie. Because the Respondent failed to provide Ms. Cumbie with a share of the earnest money deposit, she initiated a civil action in the County Court of Hillsborough County. On October 15, 1985, Ms. Cumbie was awarded a final judgment in the amount of $250 against Respondent for her share of the forfeited earnest money deposit. As of the date of the final hearing, the Respondent had not satisfied the judgment and Ms. Cumbie had not received any proceeds from the forfeited earnest money deposit. Shortly after the transaction failed to close, the purchasers requested that the Respondent return the earnest money deposit to them. However, the Respondent informed them that they were not entitled to the return of the earnest money deposit. The earnest money deposit was never returned to the purchasers. On July 31, 1984, the balance in Respondent's escrow account was $568.83. However, on September 1, 1984, the balance in the Petitioner's escrow account fell to S18.83. From October 31, 1984 to January 1, 1986, the balance in the Petitioner's escrow account remained $3.83.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the registration of Fortunato Benjamin- Pabon as a real estate broker be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fortunato Benjamin-Pabon 2729 N. Ridgewood Avenue, #1 Tampa, Florida 33602 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Notice to Show Cause and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating yacht and ship brokers and salespersons pursuant to Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed yacht and ship broker salesman. He has been licensed since 1990. In December 1990, Respondent was issued license number 1322, as a yacht and ship broker salesman for Seafarer Brokerage, Inc. (Seafarer). In October 1998, he renewed his license, which had an expiration date of October 28, 2000. On July 31, 1997, Lorraine Woods, the President of Seafarer, wrote to Peter Butler, section head of the yacht and ship section of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, notifying him that Respondent was the broker of record for Seafarer. Ms. Woods' license had been suspended, and Respondent knew that her license had been suspended prior to his becoming broker of record for Seafarer. As the broker of record, Respondent knew that he was solely responsible for safeguarding the money of all clients in the brokerage's escrow account. Respondent did not know the details involving the suspension of Ms. Woods' license. He was not aware that Ms. Woods had abused the control of Seafarer's escrow account for her own benefit by taking client funds from the escrow account to pay for Seafarer's operating expenses. Mr. Butler was very concerned with the abuse of Seafarer's escrow account committed by Ms. Woods. He demanded assurance from Respondent that Ms. Woods would not have access to the escrow account, and Respondent provided that assurance. On August 4, 1997, Respondent wrote to Mr. Butler confirming that he (Respondent) was the broker of record for Seafarer. In his written communication, Respondent confirmed certain details of the escrow account of Seafarer, including that he was broker of record and that the account was located at First Union National Bank of Florida, with the address and account number listed. Moreover, Respondent indicated that, as of July 30, 1997, he became the sole signatory on the account. Respondent personally provided the signatory card, showing that he was the sole signatory on the account, to the bank. Even though the bank did not have a record of such a signatory card, the undersigned is persuaded that Respondent's testimony is credible and that he provided the signatory card to the bank. Even though Respondent was the broker of record for Seafarer, Respondent looked upon Ms. Woods as the employer and himself as the employee, resulting in an employer-employee relationship. Seafarer consisted of two persons, Respondent and Ms. Woods. If Respondent was unavailable for a situation in which a check had to be written and executed, he would prepare a blank check with his signature on it and give it to Ms. Woods. She continued to maintain the business records. Ms. Woods maintained all the operating and escrow records, checks, and bank statements in a locked drawer for which she had the only key; Respondent did not have free and unobstructed access to these documents even though he was Seafarer's broker of record. Respondent and Ms. Woods continued this procedure for over a year without incident. On April 2, 1999, Warren Scott made an offer on a 1974 CAL2-46, a 46-foot yacht, with Seafarer. He placed a $6,000.00 deposit on the yacht. Mr. Scott's dealings, regarding the yacht, were with Ms. Woods. He had dealt with Seafarer and Ms. Woods on a prior occasion, had made a deposit, and had his deposit refunded. As a result, Mr. Scott felt comfortable dealing with Seafarer and Ms. Woods even though he had not purchased a yacht from Seafarer. On April 5, 1999, Mr. Scott's check was deposited in Seafarer's escrow account. On April 5, 1999, check numbered 1144, made payable to cash for $4,305.00, bearing Respondent's signature was written. The check bore the notation at the bottom left corner at the "FOR" space: "CAL2-46 (illegible) Enterprises." This check cleared Seafarer's escrow account on April 7, 1999, leaving a balance of $2,512.34. Respondent had signed the check and left it for Ms. Woods to fill-in the details. The check was signed by Respondent in March 1999 for a closing that was taking place at the end of March, but the check was not used at the closing in March. Ms. Woods had written the check to pay the rent for Seafarer. Even though Respondent had signed the check, the undersigned is persuaded that he did not know that Ms. Woods was going to use the check for a purpose other than for what it was written. On April 27, 1999, Respondent signed a check for $100.00, payable to Complete Yacht Service for engine repair to the CAL2-46. This check cleared Seafarer's escrow account on April 30, 1999, leaving a balance of $5,796.36. After a sea trial and survey, Mr. Scott wrote to Ms. Woods on April 30, 1999, indicating that he had decided not to purchase the 1974 CAL2-46 pursuant to their arrangement of April 2, 1999. On May 3, 1999, Mr. Scott again wrote to Ms. Woods that his offer to purchase the 1974 CAL2-46 for $55,000.00 in the conditional acceptance of vessel agreement, dated April 29, 1999, was expiring on May 3, 1999, at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Scott went to Seafarer on May 4, 1999, to obtain a refund of his deposit from Ms. Woods. Respondent informed him that Ms. Woods was out and that they would have to wait for her return, which was going to be in about an hour. Mr. Scott was unable to wait. He left Fort Lauderdale, returning to Nevada, with the understanding that his deposit, less $100.00 for the engine survey, would be returned to him. Mr. Scott expected the monies within a week to ten days. On May 5, 1999, a deposit of $4,700.00 was made to Seafarer's escrow account, leaving a balance of $9,136.36. On May 5, 1999, Seafarer's escrow account contained sufficient monies to give Mr. Scott a full refund of his deposit, less the $100.00. Respondent left for a vacation to the United Kingdom on May 17, 1999, with his return on June 15, 1999. Prior to his leaving, Respondent signed two blank checks, numbered 1153 and 1154, from Seafarer's escrow account. The checks were written for an upcoming business transaction during his absence, regarding a closing and Respondent's commission on the closing. On May 18, 1999, Seafarer's escrow account balance fell to $5,192.21, after three checks cleared the account. Two of the three checks, signed by Respondent, were payable to Seafarer in the amount of $1,360.00 for "comm.-37'Irwin." During May 1999, checks totaling $6,900.00, which were signed by Respondent, cleared Seafarer's escrow account. Mr. Scott made several telephone calls to Seafarer regarding the return of his deposit. Each time Mr. Scott spoke with Ms. Woods and he was not provided with a satisfactory response from her. On June 16, 1999, Mr. Scott received a check, check numbered 1153, for $5,900.00 from Seafarer. He also received a telephone call that same day from Ms. Woods requesting him not to deposit the check until the end of the month; Mr. Scott agreed. Respondent was not aware that check numbered 1153 was going to be used to refund Mr. Scott's deposit. Respondent was unaware that the check was used for a purpose other than for what it was intended. On June 17, 1999, check numbered 1154, made payable to Seafarer for $1,000.00 for "petty cash" cleared Seafarer's escrow account. The check was used by Ms. Woods to pay Seafarer's telephone and utility bills. Respondent was unaware that check numbered 1154 was going to be used for a purpose other than for what it was written. When Respondent returned from his vacation, he was contacted by Mr. Scott who advised Respondent of the problem with the return of his refund. Respondent checked the bank statements for Seafarer's escrow account and discovered that Ms. Woods had not used the checks for their intended purpose and that she had used funds from the escrow account for improper purposes. On June 25, 1999, Mr. Scott deposited the check that he received from Seafarer. The check, payable to Mr. Scott, was posted to Seafarer's escrow account on June 29, 1999, leaving a negative balance of $2,667.22. For 67 days, between April 5, 1999, when Mr. Scott's deposit of $6,000.00 was deposited in Seafarer's escrow account, and June 29, 1999, the date Mr. Scott's refund of $5,900.00 cleared, Seafarer's escrow account did not have sufficient funds to pay the refund. The period between May 5, 1999, and May 17, 1999, was the only time period, during the 67-day period, that Seafarer's escrow account had sufficient funds to pay the refund. Mr. Scott indicates that his refund was received in his account in July 1999. Respondent remained with Seafarer long enough to ensure that Mr. Scott received his refund. On July 8, 1999, Respondent notified Mr. Butler that he was no longer the broker for Seafarer. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action.
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 Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, enter a final order: Sustaining the Notice to Show Cause and finding that John Scales violated Subsections 326.002(1) and 326.005(1), Florida Statutes (1997). Suspending Respondent's license for three years. Imposing a civil penalty of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Janis Sue Richardson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Tracy J. Sumner, Esquire 1307 Leewood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Ross Fleetwood, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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.
