Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility for regulating the real estate profession in the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent was a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0189734 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On July 16, 1991, Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Respondent which contained certain factual allegations and which charged Respondent with violating certain statutory provisions and rules regulating licensed real estate professionals in the State of Florida. The matter was assigned Case No. 9181335 by Petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Florida Division of Administrative Hearing (DOAH) for formal proceedings pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Upon being referred to DOAH, the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 91-4852. On October 31, 1991, a formal hearing was conducted by a DOAH Hearing Officer. The Respondent was represented by counsel at that formal hearing. Following the formal hearing, a Recommended Order was duly entered by the Hearing Officer which contained findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended disposition of the proceeding. The Hearing Officer found that Petitioner had proved the violations alleged against Respondent by clear and convincing evidence and recommended that Petitioner impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000. On April 3, 1992, Petitioner entered a Final Order that adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended disposition submitted by the Hearing Officer in DOAH Case 91-4852. The Final Order imposed an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000. Respondent thereafter appealed the Final Order to the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida where it was assigned Case No. 92-01033. On June 3, 1992, Petitioner entered an "Order Granting Stay" which stayed the Final Order pending the appeal. On September 21, 1992, Respondent's appeal was dismissed by order of the Third District Court of Appeal. The Final Order entered by Petitioner on April 3, 1992, was lawfully imposed, is final, and is binding on Respondent. At the time of the formal hearing conducted in this proceeding, Respondent had not paid the $1,000 administrative fine that was imposed upon her by the Final Order entered in Case No. 9181335 (DOAH Case No. 91-4852) on April 3, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(e) and of Section 475.42(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and which suspends Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson for ten years. It is further recommended that the final order provide that the suspension of Respondent's license be terminated upon her paying the $1,000.00 administrative fine that was imposed upon her by the Final Order entered in Case No. 9181335 (DOAH Case No. 91-4852). DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 13th day of October, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gary, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Cecelia M. Smile 810 Rutland Drive, Apartment 726 Lincoln, Nebraska 68512 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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, the following relevant facts are found. During times material herein, Respondent, George May, was a licensed real estate broker (License No. 00056693) whose principal business address is 2300 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 202, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311. On April 24, 1980, George Aro, a licensed real estate salesman, was employed by Respondent and entered into an employment agreement whereby salesman Aro, while acting in his capacity as a real estate salesman, would receive a sixty percent (60 percent) share of commission fees paid when salesman Aro was the procuring cause of a realty transaction which resulted in the payment of a commission. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On August 29, 1980, salesman Aro discussed, negotiated, and obtained a contract for purchase whereby Peter Licato agreed to purchase a vacant lot in Palm Beach County, Florida. The transaction closed during September, 1980, with Respondent receiving a commission of approximately $300.00 on the Licato transaction. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Pursuant to the employment agreement entered between Respondent and salesman Aro, Messr. Aro demanded his pro-rata share of the commission paid, which was received by Respondent. Respondent refuses to account for, or otherwise deliver to salesman Aro any portion of the commission received from the Licato transaction. On August 9, 1980, salesman Aro, while acting in his capacity as salesman with Respondent, negotiated and obtained a contract of the sale of a vacant lot in Palm Beach County, Florida from seller, Mrs. Nicholas Deickmann to purchaser, Hooshang Abid. The transaction closed sometime during September of 1980, and Respondent received a commission of approximately $330.00. Pursuant to the party's employment agreement, salesman Aro demanded his pro-rata share of the commission received, and Respondent refuses to remit or otherwise deliver to salesman Aro his portion of the commission received. In this regard the Respondent does not dispute and stipulated that salesman Aro was the procuring cause of the above-referred-to transactions, and admits that the commissions were received. Respondent's Defense Respondent defended his failure to account for or otherwise deliver to salesman Aro commissions received from the above transactions on the theory that salesman Aro failed to attend the closings of the above transactions, or that salesman Aro obligated his firm to pay certain expenses which were connected with the closing, which were not authorized. Respondent's defense was considered by the undersigned and rejected for lack of proof. Moreover, the undersigned advised Respondent during the hearing herein that the proper procedure to seek redress from salesman Aro for those claims asserted herein, which were not a part of the subject administrative complaint, is through the filing of a written complaint properly executed, with the Board of Real Estate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's real estate broker's license be suspended for a period of two (2) years. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 25th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Huskins, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George May 2300 West Oakland Park Blvd. Suite 202 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cherylyn Stoppler, at all times pertinent hereto, was licensed as a real estate saleswoman in the State Of Florida, holding license No. 0467803. Her last and current license was issued authorizing practice at Escambia Realty, Inc., 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. Respondent Dorothy Diane Owens, at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license No. 0380831. Respondent Escambia Realty, Inc., at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed corporate real estate brokerage holding license No. 0232503. Its address is 310 South Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32501. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, related to the licensure of real estate brokers and salesmen, the real estate professional practice standards embodied in that chapter and with prosecuting alleged violators of those standards. On April 13, 1986, Kenneth and Linda Williams, also known as Linda Brewer, requested that Cherylyn Stoppler show them rental property consisting of a single family residence located at 6853 Lake Charlene Drive in Pensacola. They had observed the Respondent corporate broker's sign on the front of that premises, advertising it for rental. Respondent Stoppler, Respondent Owens and the Escambia Realty, Inc. represented the owners of the property. Kenneth and Linda Williams examined the property and decided that they wanted to rent it. In their discussion with Cherylyn Stoppler concerning the terms of the rental arrangement, they requested that they be allowed to paint the premises and that the garage door be repaired. Respondent Stoppler agreed to this and indicated the owners would supply two gallons of paint and the prospective tenants, the Williamses, could do the painting with the owners ensuring repair of the garage door. Respondent Stoppler and the Williamses agreed to those terms and to the rental amount of $625 per month. They also agreed to pay Respondent Stoppler a $400 deposit, on behalf of the owners. Ms. Stoppler informed the Williamses that if they did not consummate the lease arrangement, upon which they had verbally agreed, the $400 would be retained and remitted over to the owners of the property. The Williamses agreed to this arrangement. The Williamses and Ms. Stoppler returned to Ms. Stoppler's office and she noted these terms on a lease agreement form with the additional term that the owner would steam clean the carpet in the house. The lease terms also provided that the premises would be used by no more than two adults and "zero" children, but the lease agreement has the "zero" stricken through indicating that that term was to be deleted. The striking of the zero on the term concerning the number of children to occupy the premises appears to have been executed with the same pen, inasmuch as the ink is the same color as the rest of Mrs. Stoppler's handwritten terms on the lease form. In any event, the Williamses were anxious to return to their home in Louisiana directly from the Respondent's office that same afternoon and to accommodate them Ms. Stoppler agreed to mail the lease form to them to be executed, urging them to send it back immediately. When they left the premises that day, Respondent Stoppler removed her firm's sign from the front of the premises and also told the Williamses that the property would be off the market as of that day, hence her admonishment to them to waste no time in returning the executed lease since the property would be off the market during the interim on the strength of the verbal agreement. The Williamses did not inform Ms. Stoppler that Mr. Williams had two children who might visit them from time to time or live with them at the premises. The Williamses returned to Louisiana and the lease was mailed to them by Ms. Stoppler. The Williamses decided not to execute the lease and to not consummate the rental arrangement. They informed Ms. Stoppler of this by phone on April 24, 1986, as well as communicating on that day with Respondent Owens. They indicated they did not desire to rent the premises and one reason given was that they felt that the two children were precluded by the lease terms from living on the premises for any period of time with them. In fact, the Williamses had never mentioned that they had any children and had sought to negotiate a reduction in the rent when they originally discussed the matter with Ms. Stoppler on the basis that only the two of them would live in the premises. The terms and conditions of the rental arrangement were those given to Ms. Stoppler by the Williamses themselves. When they conferred with Ms. Owens and Ms. Stoppler, they were again informed that the $400 would be retained and transmitted to the owners, to which they did not then object. In fact, they never did make any demand upon the Respondents for return of the $400 which was actually communicated to the Respondents. There is a letter in evidence (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) which the Respondents never received, as is shown by the certified mail receipt card and by Respondents' and Ms. Celano's testimony. The Williamses objected to consummating the lease because they contended that Ms. Stoppler had assured them that they could 1ive in the premises rent- free from the beginning of the lease, April 26, until May 1, during the time in which they would be painting the house and instead they were being charged $84 for those days. Mrs. Williams' testimony is somewhat equivocal in this regard in that she exhibited an incomplete memory regarding certain critical dates in the transaction, for example, the date she allegedly called Mrs. Stoppler to inform her of their refusal of the rental and the date she believed the lease was to commence. Mrs. Stoppler's testimony was corroborated by that of Ms. Owens, and was not refuted by the Williamses. It is accepted over that of Mrs. Williams in establishing that indeed the lease period and the rental there for was to commence on April 26. The Respondents' testimony shows that the house was off the rental market from April 13, when the verbal agreement with Ms. Williams was entered into and the sign was removed from the property and that both Respondents informed Mrs. Williams on two occasions that the $400 was not refundable but would be remitted to the owners of the property. The Respondents also established that Escambia Realty, Inc. followed a consistent policy of retaining deposit monies and remitting them to the owners without refund to prospective tenants when the tenants agreed to lease the premises after being informed that the deposit would be retained and the property taken off the market, when such tenants elect of their own volition to negate a lease or rental agreement. The Williamses additionally maintained that they did not want to consummate the lease arrangement because, in their view, the Respondents and the owners would not permit any children unrestrictedly visit or to live on the premises. That was established not to be the case. They also objected because they would not be allowed to live in the premises rent-free for several days during the time in which they were painting the premises. Additional objections involved various inconsequential technical deficiencies, such as misspellings, in the content of the lease. The employment position Mr. Williams was to have taken in the Pensacola area, and which was in large measure their reason for moving to Pensacola and renting the subject premises, failed to materialize. Ultimately, however, the Williamses moved to Pensacola and rented a different house at the lower rate of $600 per month. In short, the complaining witnesses contend that they did not want to execute the lease because of the problem of the $84 prorated rent required of them by the Respondents and the owners for the days when they thought they would live rent-free while painting the premises, because they felt that Mr. Williams' children by a previous marriage were precluded from unrestricted visits at the rental premises and because they felt that the proffered lease did not contain the proper initial date of tenancy. Thus, the Williamses breached the agreement because the Respondents refused to "correct" the lease according to the Williamses' desires. Those desires were not communicated to the Respondents until, at the very earliest, the phone conversations of April 24, 1986, some twelve days after the verbal agreement to rent the premises to the Williamses had been entered into and the $400 deposited with the Respondents on behalf of the owners. During that time, and longer, the property was taken off the rental market and the Respondents and the owners forbore the opportunity to secure other tenants. The Williamses themselves acknowledged that the letter by which they sought return of the $400 deposit was never actually received by the Respondents. Further, Ms. Williams in the telephone conversation on April 24, 1986, acknowledged that the owners were entitled to the $400 deposit. Even so, Ms. Owens waited approximately 25 days before remitting the funds over to the owners. Thus, no dispute as to the deposit was ever communicated to the Respondents, and the Respondents never misrepresented to either Mr. or Mrs. Williams the manner of disbursement of the deposit funds. It is noteworthy that Mrs. Williams is a licensed realtor herself and had some experience in similar real estate transactions. The Respondents carried out their portion of the bargain. Finally, it has been demonstrated that Respondent Owens is a well- respected real estate practitioner in the Pensacola area, having served as an officer and director of her local board of realtors and having been accorded a number of honors and certifications in connection with her professional performance as a realtor and her securing of advanced training in the field of real estate brokerage. Ms. Stoppler is relatively new to the profession, but neither she nor Ms. Owens have been shown to have ever engaged in any questionable practice or conduct in the course of their practice and neither have been shown to have been the subject of any other complaint of any nature resulting from a real estate transaction.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Respondents Cherylyn Stoppler, Dorothy Diane Owens and Escambia Realty, Inc. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 28th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3982 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Rejected as to its material import. 7-9. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 10-11. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 17-18. Accepted. 19. Rejected as to its material import. 20-21. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Also rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but rejected as to its material import. Accepted. Rejected as to its material import. 29-30. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 31. Accepted, but not as to its material import. 32-35. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as to its material import. Accepted, but not to the effect that a demand for refund was made. Rejected as to its material import and as not in accord with the credible testimony and evidence adduced. 39-41. Rejected. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: Specific rulings are not separately made here because Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact are inseparably entwined with legal argument and recitations of, and arguments concerning, the weight and credibility of testimony and evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Cherylyn Stoppler Dorothy Diane Owens Escambia Realty, Inc. 310 South Pace Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32501 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact In February of 1988, Petitioner took the real estate broker's examination compiled by Respondent, and otherwise complied with all applicable licensure requirements. The Petitioner received a grade of 74 on the written examination. A grade of 75 or higher is required to pass the test. Had Petitioner answered question number 62 with the answer deemed by Respondent to be correct, Petitioner's score would have been 75 and, as such, would have entitled him to licensure. Question number 62 reads as follows: The Department of Professional Regulation may withhold notification to a licensee that the licensee is being investigated IF: NOTIFICATION COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE INVESTIGATION. NOTIFICATION COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE LICENSEE. THE ACT UNDER INVESTIGATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. Possible answers to question number 62 were as follows: I only. II only. I and III only. I, II and III. The answer to question number 62 chosen by Petitioner was D. The Respondent determined the correct answer should have been C. The Respondent's examining board followed a standard procedure for conducting and grading the examination. Statistically, 58 per cent of candidates taking the examination and placing in percentile rankings 50 through 99, answered the question correctly. Of those candidates taking the examination and placing in the lower half (0-50 percentile), 33 per cent answered the question correctly. The results obtained to question number 62 from all applicants taking the examination revealed the question exceeded effective testing standards. Question number 62 and the appropriate answer to that question are taken directly from section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes. The purpose of the question is to determine if an applicant is knowledgeable of the law governing real estate broker licensees. The Respondent adopts the position that section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, mandates that Respondent shall notify a licensee of any investigation of which the licensee is the subject and authorizes withholding notification to that licensee only where such notification would be detrimental to the investigation, or where the act under investigation is a criminal offense. The Petitioner takes the position that section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, does not prohibit withholding notification of an investigation from a licensee when such notification would be detrimental to the licensee. The Petitioner bases this contention on the broad power provided the Real Estate Commission by section 475.05, Florida Statutes. The Commission has not, however, adopted any rule, regulation or bylaw supportive of Petitioner's position and the statutory mandate is clear. Further, the statute referenced by Petitioner specifically does not support an exercise of this power of the Commission if the result is a conflict with another law of the State of Florida. Section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, states Respondent "shall" notify "any person" of an investigation of that person. Under that section, discretionary authority to refrain from such notification is allowed only where there is a potential for harm to the investigation, or the matter under investigation is a criminal act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered confirming the grade of the Petitioner as previously determined. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2442 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings The Petitioner submitted a document entitled summary of hearing and consisting of seven numbered paragraphs. They are treated as follows: Rejected as unnecessary. Included in findings 5, and 7. Rejected, contrary to the weight of the evidence. 4.- 6. Rejected, contrary to evidence adduced. 7. Rejected as argument. Respondent's Proposed Findings The Respondent submitted a three page document entitled "argument" and consisting of eight unnumbered paragraphs. Numbers 1-8 have been applied to those paragraphs. They are treated as follows: 1.-5. Rejected as conclusions of law. 6. Included in findings 8, 9, and 10. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller Acting Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Phillip I. Salerno 11812 Timbers Way Boca Raton, Florida 33428 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issues presented in This case are whether the Respondents committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and whether such acts constitute a violation of the statutes. Petitioner submitted post hearing findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order To the extent that the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Frank R. Jansen, is a broker salesman holding license number 0317199. The Respondent, Lillian LaCrampe, now Soave, is a real estate salesperson holding license number 0137930. In June 1980, Jansen held an individual broker's license in the State of Florida. In late summer of that year, he entered into an agreement with Flora Harwood, a licensed broker in the State of Florida and owner of Select I Realty. Under this agreement, Jansen and Harwood would form a corporation and participate in a brokerage company under the name Select I Realty, in which Jansen would open and operate a branch office of Select I Realty. The exact details of the corporation and the division of shares were not worked out between the parties; however, Harwood undertook to have a corporation formed the name Jansen and Harwood, Inc., and two attempts were; made to register Jansen as a broker with Jansen and Harwood, Inc., doing business as Select I Realty. These applications were rejected by the Florida Real Estate Commission for various reasons, to include the requirement that a corporation operate only in the corporate name and the failure of the applicants to submit corporate papers. The incorporation and application to the Commission were handled by Flora Harwood's attorney. The last denial of the application was on October 22, 1980. During the period the applications were being filed with the Commission, Harwood became disenchanted with the idea of the corporation because of her perception that Jansen was not cooperating with her. Therefore, after the second application was denied, Harwood did not take action to timely file a third application. Although Jansen was aware of the denial of the application, the evidence does not show that he was aware that Harwood delayed the third application. By the end of 1980, Jansen and Harwood had both independently abrogated their agreement, and shortly thereafter Jansen left the business totally. Until he left, Jansen continued to actively manage the branch office of Select I Realty, which he had established and organized and from which he conducted his real estate business as a broker for Jansen and Harwood, Inc. The policy of the Florida Real Estate Commission with regard to applications is that the applicant may operate if a license application is not returned. If the application is returned for correction and corrected and resubmitted timely, the applicant may continue to operate. If the application is not returned in a timely fashion, the applicant may not work. The failure of Jansen and Harwood to eventually incorporate, followed by the severance of their business relationship, intensified the conflict between them, out of which several of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint arose. On September 5, 1980, the Respondent LaCrampe contracted to buy for herself Lot 3 of Ozona Shores from Preston and Grace King. On January 5, 1981, LaCrampe closed the transaction with the Kings. At that closing, a check for $825 in commissions to Select I Realty was disbursed by the closing agent to the Respondent Jansen. Jansen deposited said check to his personal account. Flora Harwood asserted a claim to a share of the commission on the purchase of the property by LaCrampe. When Harwood discovered that this sale had occurred, she checked with the closing agent and found that a commission check had been paid to Jansen. She further discovered that Jansen had deposited this check to his personal account, and because the check was made out to Select I Realty Harwood had the bank take action to collect the $825 and pay it to her, which the bank did. Harwood's claim to the $825 was based upon an office policy applicable to employees which required that commissions on real estate purchases for investment purposes by employees of Select I Realty be shared with the office. However, this contract closed on January 5, 1981, after the relationship between Jansen and LaCrampe had been severed with Harwood. The competing claims between Jansen and Harwood to the $825 in commission are part of the severance of the business relationship between two persons operating as co-brokers. Testimony was received that in the operation of the branch office Jansen had authority to receive checks, deposit checks, and write checks. On or about December 10, 1980, Jansen participated in the rental of a condominium by Eugene Donahue from Glen and Mary Mitchell. The rental contract incorporated an option to purchase. Said rental contract required that Donahue pay $400 per month, $50 of which was a maintenance fee. Jansen received the first check from Donahue in the amount of $400, negotiated the check, and received a bank check in the amount of $350 payable to Glenn Mitchell and $50 in cash. It is asserted in the Administrative Complaint that Jansen received the $50 in cash as a commission payment to which he was not entitled. However, Respondent's Exhibit numbered 4 reflects that Glenn and Mary Mitchell here in arrears on their maintenance payment in the amount of $49.75, and the policy of Coachman Creek Condominium Association was not to grant any approval of lease or sales contracts until all maintenance payments were up to date. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 4 shows that approval of the subject rental contract was granted when Jansen produced the late payment. Several allegations of the Administrative Complaint relate to real estate transactions in which the Respondents Jansen and LaCrampe were involved with Heinz Lehman and allege fraud and misrepresentation arising from failure of Jansen to identify LaCrampe as his mother to Lehman. The first occasion on which Lehman met the Respondents was when Lehman visited a store in a strip shopping center which Jansen was selling as a broker. Lehman testified that Jansen identified LaCrampe at that time as a real estate associate and his "girl Friday." Lehman's testimony revealed that he knew LaCrampe was a real estate salesperson and an associate of Jansen but did not know that LaCrampe was Jansen's mother until after their series of transactions had occurred. Lehman did not buy the strip store but later purchased a condominium through Jansen and then sold it through Jansen after fixing it up. In November 1980, Lehman contracted to purchase Lot 3 of Ozona Shores (see paragraph 8 above) from LaCrampe. On January 5, 1981, after LaCrampe had purchased the property, she in turn sold the property to Lehman on the same day. In November 1980, prior to entering into the contract for the purchase of Lot 3, Lehman had visited Ozona Shores and had looked at several pieces of property. Thereafter, Jansen presented him with the opportunity to purchase Lot The evidence is clear that Jansen never identified Lot 3 on the, ground or by plat to Lehman. Lehman purchased the property without a survey and without reference to any plat. After he had purchased the property, Lehman found that Lot 3 was not tie lot which he though it was. At a later date, after being unable to finance a house on this property for speculative purposes, Lehman let the lot, 90, back to LaCrampe. On or about January 22, 1981, Jansen visited Florence Smith, who was interested in selling a house which she owned at 1550 Laura Street, Clearwater, Florida. Without obtaining a listing contract, Jansen thereafter advised Smith that he had a potential purchaser. On January 29, 1981, Smith contracted to sell her house to LaCrampe for nothing down and a $37,000 mortgage payable to Smith. Thereafter, Smith determined that she would prefer a balloon note, and LaCrampe agreed to a balloon note if the price were reduced to $36,000, to which Smith agreed. This slightly reduced the monthly payments to Smith. On February 12, 1981, LaCrampe contracted to sell this property to Lehman for $5,000 down, assumption of the second mortgage to Smith, and payment of a $1,400 commission by Lehman to Jansen. LaCrampe obtained modification of her contract with Smith to permit LaCrampe to assign her contract to purchase. In this transaction, Jansen did not identify LaCrampe as his mother or as a real estate salesperson and his associate. Jansen did not explain to Lehman that the money which Lehman paid down was to be paid to LaCrampe. On or about March 10, 1982, Leo Huddleston, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, visited Jansen's office at the address at which Jansen was registered. Huddleston did not find the required sign at the office identifying it as that of Frank Jansen, a real estate broker. At that time, Jansen had registered as broker for Suncoast Investments and Realty, Inc., and was renting office space with telephone-answering and secretarial services in an office suite complex. Although the building directory listed the suite as the office of Jansen as a real estate broker, the office suite did not have Jansen's real estate brokerage sign. When this matter was brought to Jansen's attention, an appropriate sign was provided. In November 1980, the Respondent LaCrampe was licensed as a real estate salesperson with Jansen and Harwood, Inc.
Recommendation Having Found the Respondent, Frank R. Jansen, in technical violation of Rule 2IV-10.24, Florida Administrative Code, an thereby Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that Jansen receive a cautionary letter. Having found the Respondents, Frank R. Jansen and Lillian LaCrampe, now Soave, guilty of one violation each of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that their licenses be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 16th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Frank R. Jansen 108 Harbor Drive Post Office Box 247 Ozona, Florida 33560 Ms. Lillian LaCrampe Soave 114 Harbor Drive Post Office Box 247 Ozona, Florida 33560 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0013099 0017680 FRANK R. JANSEN and 0021257 LILLIAN LaCRAMPE DOAH NO. 82-2891 Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts were found: Respondent, Robert E. Zimmerly (Zimmerly) is a licensed real estate broker having been issued license No. 0127833, with last known address of 500 Hinson Avenue, Haines City, Florida and at all times pertinent to these proceedings was licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate broker. Respondent, Haines City Realty, Inc. (Haines City) is a licensed corporate real estate broker having been issued registration No. 0146307, with its last known business address of 500 Hinson Avenue, Haines City, Florida and at all times pertinent to these proceedings was licensed by the State of Florida as a corporate real estate broker. Haines City's license is currently in an inactive status. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Zimmerly was the sole broker, of and for Haines City, and was its President. Several weeks prior to April 23, 1981, the date N. B. Willoughby (Willoughby) signed the first offer to purchase the property (offer), Zimmerly along with Barbara Costello (Costello) and Chancellor I. Hannon (Hannon) showed the property described as "Lots 230 and 233 of the Lucerne Park Fruit Association Subdivision, P1at Book 3, Page 67, Public Records of Polk County, Florida" (property), consisting of approximately 20 acres and contiguous to the city limits of Winter Haven, Florida to Willoughby, a prospective buyer, along with Ray Workman (Workman), Willoughby's associate. Costello at the time was a sales person for American Realty of Haines City, now known as American Realty of Polk County, Inc., (American Realty). Zimmerly was representing Haines City. Hannon was representing Ridge Holding Association, Inc., (seller) the owner of the property. The property had originally been listed with Haines City but presently was considered as being listed with American Realty. Subsequent to having seen the property, Willoughby instructed Zimmerly to prepare an offer to purchase, with a purchase price of $70,000, subject to the condition, among others, that the seller would obtain a special exception for a mobile home park. A deposit check for $500 was submitted along with the offer. Costello submitted the offer to Hannon for seller. Sometime around April 25, 1981, Hannon notified Costello that the seller had rejected Willoughby's offer because of the condition concerning a special exception for mobile home park. Within a day, Costello notified Zimmerly of the rejection. Zimmerly requested rejection in writing which Hannon did not furnish until May 11, 1981 due to his involvement in personal matters. Willoughby was not notified of seller's rejection of his first offer until around May 11, 1981. On April 27, 1981, after a verbal notification by Costello of rejection of Willoughby's offer, Zimmerly prepared and submitted an offer to purchase (Ridge offer) from Ridge Crest, Ltd., Agent, (This was apparently meant to be Ridge Crest Villas, Ltd.) signed by Bob Zimmerly, a general and limited partner, to seller, with a purchase price of $72,000, subject to the condition, among others, that seller furnish a letter requesting a special exception for mobile homes park. The Ridge offer was submitted to Hannon for the seller and was accepted by seller on May 5, 1981. On May 18, 1981 Willoughby submitted his second offer to purchase (second offer), with deposit, to seller through Zimmerly. The second offer was identical to the first offer except for the deletion of the condition requiring a special exception for mobile home park. Zimmerly did not advise Willoughby at this time, or at any other time material to the transaction, that Zimmerly was involved in an attempted purchase of the property through Ridge Crest Villas, Ltd. even though the Ridge offer had been accepted on May 5, 1981. Although the Ridge offer indicated a closing date of May 15, 1981, the transaction did not close for reasons not clear in the record, until May 27, 1981. The warranty deed and the mortgage deed executed on day of closing shows Ridge Crest Villas, Ltd. as the Grantee and Mortgagor, respectively. The deposits submitted with both of Willoughby's offers were timely refunded by Zimmerly. Willoughby was notified by Hannon after the closing that his second offer was rejected. On November 6, 1980, a limited partnership known as Ridge Crest Villas Ltd., was filed with the Secretary of State. The record is not clear, but apparently this limited partnership was involuntarily dissolved for failure to file an annual report and on October 14, 1981, an identical limited partnership, with the same name was filed with the Secretary of State. Both limited partnerships listed Robert E. Zimmerly as a general partner with 5 percent interest and listed Robert E. Zimmerly and Dolores J. Zimmerly as limited partners with 45 percent and 50 percent interests, respectively. Respondent Zimmerly's testimony was that: (1) he wanted a written (firm) rejection before notifying Willoughby because of previous dealings with Willoughby; (2) it is not uncommon to use limited partnerships in real estate transactions because of the availability of tax advantages when using a limited partnership; (3) he was acting for Jones and Destefano when he made the offer and purchased the property in the name of the limited partnership; (4) he intended for Jones and Destefano to own the property through the limited partnership and took a promissory note for the down payment; (5) he did not advise Willoughby of his involvement in the purchase of the property, other than in general terms "that some fellows from up north are interested" (Destefano is "from up North") because he had been taught in real estate schools, and it was his policy, not to discuss one prospective buyer's offer with another prospective buyer; and (6) it is common practice to have a "backup" offer as with Willoughby's second offer because you are never sure if a particular transaction will close. Mainly, this testimony went unrebutted by the petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of a violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes 1981) For such violation, considering the mitigating circumstances surrounding the violation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a letter of Reprimand and impose an administrative fine of $1,000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite 308 P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Arthur C. Fulmer, Esquire P.O. Drawer J Lakeland, Florida 33802 Mr. 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 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state 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 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Paul F. Savich is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0077390 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Ernest M. Haefele, is a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0517821 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On October 1, 1984, the Respondents, purchasers in their individual capacities, entered into a contract for deed to a tract at the Tropical Acres Subdivision, with Tropical Sites, Inc., and Angie S. Crosby and Eugene T. Crosby, at a sales price of $9,046.50. Said amount to be paid at the rate of $90 per month until paid. Pursuant to the agreement, the Respondents agreed not to assign the agreement without the permission of Tropical Sites, Inc. A closing was held on May 8, 1990, and the Respondents transferred possession of the tract by assignment of contract to Leroy H. and Charlotte Beard. A mobile home on the real property was part of the purchase price for a total sales price of $39,000.00 The agreement called for a down payment of $2,000 to the Respondent Savich. The Beards also signed a mortgage note in favor of the Respondents Savich and Haffele, for $37,000. The note was payable at the rate of $373.15 per month. Upon payment in full, Respondents were obligated to deliver a good and sufficient deed to the property to the purchasers. At the closing, Respondent Haefele was not present. The Beards received two documents at closing, a contract for sale and one other document, but did not receive a copy of the original agreement for deed, a disclosure statement, or a title to the trailer on the tract. In addition, Respondent Savich did not seek permission of Tropical Sites, Inc., prior to the closing. Prior to the closing, the Beards moved onto the property, and subsequently began making monthly payments of $373.15 to Respondent Savich. The Beards had purchased two or three pieces of property in the past, but had always gone through a bank. In relation to this agreement, they understood the nature of the transaction at the time of the closing. In early 1991, Mr. Beard made a telephone inquiry to the County property appraiser's office as to the status of the property for homestead exemption purposes. He was advised that Tropical Sites, Inc. was the current owner of the tract, and that he was not eligible for homestead exemption. The Beards did not apply for homestead exemption at the appraiser's office. In August 1991, the Beards stopped making payments to the Respondents on the advice of their attorney, but continued to reside on the premises until December 1991. In November 1991, an attorney acting on behalf of the Beards made a demand upon Respondent Paul F. Savich for the return of the $2,000.00 deposit. The Respondents did not return the $2,000.00 deposit or otherwise pay the money claimed by the Beards. In his dealings with the Beards, Respondent Savich did not withhold information, lie or mislead the purchasers. They simply were unhappy with the agreement, and decided to get out of it when they recognized that they would not receive title to the mobile home and property until the note was paid in full. In early 1992, the Beards quitclaimed their interest to the property to Respondent Savich's former wife, and they were released from their obligations under the note.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondents Paul F. Savich and Earnest M. Haefele be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 30th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Adopted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7(in part),8,9(in part)10,11,12,13 Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 7(in part: the $2,000 was a down payment, not an earnest money deposit), 9(in part: the Beards moved on to the property prior to closing. Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Respondent submitted a proposed order with unnumbered paragraphs which partially recounted the testimony of several of the witnesses and combined facts and conclusions of law. Therefore, a separate ruling on Respondent's proposals are not possible. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Senior Attorney DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street #N-308 Orlando, FL 32801-1772 J. Stanford Lifsey, Esquire 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1465 Tampa, Florida 33602 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Jan Tomas is and was at all times pertinent hereto the holder of real estate broker registration certificate No. 0089450 from the Florida Real Estate Commission. The pleadings in this case show that on April 21, 1976, a Notice of Hearing was mailed to Jan Tomas by the Florida Real Estate Commission at two addresses; the first being Post Office Box 10887, Tampa, Florida 33609 and the second address being 364 Candler Park Drive, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30307. This Notice of Hearing was for hearing to be held on May 19, 1976, the date of the final hearing herein. This Notice was received by Jan Tomas as evidenced by the letter marked Exhibit 6 to Delphene C. Strickland, the then assigned Hearing Officer in this cause. On March 22, 1974, Jan Tomas applied for renewal of his certificate of registration as an active real estate broker. In his application he listed his business address and residence address as 417 A E Hanlon Street, Tampa, Florida 33604. Tomas was issued renewal certificate No. 099351 at the foregoing address which certificate expired September 30, 1975. By application dated February 7, 1975, Jan Tomas applied for a renewal of his active broker registration certificate setting forth his business and residence address as 105 South Hale, Tampa, Florida 33609. Pursuant to that application he was issued renewal certificate No. 207246 at the foregoing address which certificate expired September 30, 1975. At no time during 1974 or 1975 did Jan Tomas occupy the premises located at 417 A E Hanlon Street, Tampa, Florida either in a business capacity or in a residential capacity. Throughout 1974 and 1975, 105 South Hale, Tampa, Florida was a vacant lot. At no time during 1974 or 1975 did Jan Tomas maintain a business or residence at 105 South Hale, Tampa, Florida. Nor, during 1974 or 1975 did Jan Tomas maintain a business or residence at 103, 104 or 107 South Hale, Tampa, Florida.
