Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a licensed real estate salesman with license number 0364554. On or about August 13, 1982, Richard J. and Gav Greco entered into a lease purchase agreement with James C. and Phyllis Waid for residential property located at 1685 Markham Woods Road, Longwood, Florida. The purchase price of the Waid property was $190,000 towards which the Grecos made a $10,000 non-refundable deposit and agreed to pay a monthly rental of $1000. On or about November 14, 1982, the Grecos executed an Agreement with Respondent and his wife by which the Grecos assigned all rights and privileges relating to the lease and purchase of the residence at 1685 Markham Woods Road to the Alvarados. The consideration to be given for this Agreement was a payment of $10,000 by the Alvarados to the Grecos, with $5000 payable upon signing of the Agreement and $5000 payable within six months. The Alvarados, as assignees, agreed to abide by all provisions of the lease purchase agreement and were to make their first $1000 monthly lease payment to the Waids on December 4, 1982. Respondent gave Richard J. Greco a check in the amount of $5000 dated November 14, 1982 and requested that he hold the check for a couple of days before depositing it. Greco complied with the request, but was advised on December 3, 1982 that Respondent's $5000 check had been returned unused by Respondent's bank due to the fact that Respondent's account had been closed. Respondent has never paid the Grecos any part of the $10,000 due them under the assignment executed November 14, 1982. Respondent made no monthly lease payments on the property to the Waids. By letter dated February 25, 1983, James C. Waid notified the Grecos and the Alvarados that the lease purchase agreement was in default and that the $10,000 deposit paid by the Grecos was being forfeited because the rent was in arrears. The Grecos paid the Waids an additional $4000 on March 1, 1983, which represented the unpaid lease payments, for a general release from all obligations under the lease purchase agreement. Respondent and his wife executed a promissory note on March 1, 1983 whereby they agreed to pay the Grecos $10,000 on or before March 16, 1983, but no payments have ever been made pursuant to this promissory note. The Grecos brought suit against Respondent and his wife for damages arising out of this transaction, and obtained a Final Judgment on June 30, 1983 in Case No. 83-1191-CA-03-P, Circuit Court in and for Seminole County, in the amount of $15,101.28. The Grecos have not been able to execute this Final Judgment and therefore no payments on this judgment have been made to them by the Respondent or his wife. At the time of this transaction, the Alvarados were family friends of the Grecos. Richard J. Greco entered into this transaction with Respondent primarily because of the personal acquaintance and not because Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman. However, Greco knew that Respondent was licensed and therefore assumed that he was a man of integrity who would deal fairly with him in this real estate transaction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a Period of one (1) Year. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl. 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Hartmann, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson St. Orlando, Fl. 32802 Ignacio J. Alvarado 5166 Glasgow Avenue Orlando, Fl. 32819 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Fl. 32802 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Fl. 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Fl. 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observations of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its one-count Administrative Complaint filed herein on April 3, 1980, the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, alleged that the Respondent, William O'Brien, violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), due to his failure to deliver a security deposit to a property owner and that Respondent thereafter tendered a protion of the deposit in the form of a check which, when presented for payment, was not honored due to insufficient funds. During times material, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner and is the holder of Florida Real Estate License No. 168869. Gary ;Heide is the owner of the duplex apartment situated at 2407 Northeast 33rd avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The pertinent facts surrounding the allegations herein are, for the most part, simple and undisputed. The subject premises had been leased by owner Heide to Maurice L. LaReau. LaReau had leased the premises for approximately eleven (11) months when he found a residence that he intended to purchase and was therefore desirous of subletting the subject property with the owner's permission in an acceptable manner such that he would not incur any losses due to his vacating the premises prior to the expiration of the lease term. He, therefore, approached owner Heide and advised him of his intentions. According to LaReau, Heide gave him "carte blanche" authority to find a tenant to sublease the apartment but that he would appreciate it if he would "screen" the sub-lessee. Heide suggested that LaReau place an ad in the newspaper to secure a tenant and he also made known to LaReau his overall objective of not sustaining any loss of rents due to a vacancy in the apartment. During that conversation Heide also advised LaReau that he would be leaving for a vacation in Germany shortly. When LaReau leased the subject premises from Heide he entered a twelve (12) month lease and paid a $900.00 fee which included the first and last month's rent plus a security deposit. During times material, Respondent was the registered corporate broker for Exclusively Rentals and Management Company (Exclusively). Through the efforts of Respondent and Exclusively, Gregory A. Costa, III, was secured as a tenant to sublet the subject property from Maurice LaReau on or about October 8, 1977. Respondent had been approached by owner Heide to manage the subject property while Respondent was visiting an apartment complex adjacent to the Heide property on which Exclusively had the managing contract. According to the agreed terms for the subletting of the Heide property from LaReau to Costa, Costa agreed upon an occupancy date of October 15, 1977, for a total rental of $150.00 plus payment for the twelfth month rent for a fee of $300.00; a security deposit of $300.00 and a $150.00 commission to Exclusively for a total of $900.00. This amount was paid to tenant Maurice LaRaeau. Exclusively retained the agreed upon commission which represented on- half the monthly rental, or a fee of $150.00 See Respondent's Exhibit 1. Additionally, Messer. LaReau signed an agreement representing that the subletting was done with owner Heide's knowledge and was in accordance with his instructions. (Respondent's Exhibit 2). Upon returning from Germany, owner Heide became upset that LaReau had sublet the premises to Costa and contended that the subletting was only to have been done through the aid and assistance of another rental management firm know as Home Finders Real Estate Brokers. Heide contended that Audrey Lester was the only agent connected with that firm who had the authority to accept tenants or sub-lessees in his absence. Heide, therefore, contended that he was entitled to recoup from Respondent, through its corporate entity, Exclusively Rentals and Management Company, the entire $900.00 in addition to a continued retention of the $900.00 deposit which had been paid by the tenant, LaReau. Although Heide contended that he never used Exclusively to rent or otherwise secure tenants for any of his apartments, he acknowledged that he signed a new lease and accepted Costa as a tenant for the subject property. Heide's other complaint with Respondent is that a check dated November 10, 1977, in the amount of $150.00 and signed by Michael J. Cochran was not honored when presented for payment due to insufficient funds. An examination of that check does not reveal that it was returned by the bank upon which it was drawn or that it was even presented for payment as testified to by Messer. Heide (see Petitioner's Exhibit D). Respondent was approached by owner Heide to act as an agent to secure tenants for his property as vacancies occurred while Respondent was visiting an adjoining rental property through which Respondent's agency represented, the Ocean Gardens Apartment building. Heide also visited Respondent's office building prior to the subject incident (TR. 37 of the June 3, 1981, hearing). Respondent did not sustain any loss of rents due to the subletting of the subject property from LaReau to Costa through the efforts of Respondent and/or Exclusively Rentals and Management. Respondent credibly testified that there were ample monies in the account of Exclusively to pay the $150.00 check drawn by that firm to owner Heide in November of 1977, had it, in fact, been presented for payment. Respondent severed his relations with Exclusively and advised all of the associates of that severance during December of 1977. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: 1. That the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of July, 1981. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1981.
Findings Of Fact This case concerns what is-called a "Turnkey Lease". The program was developed by the State of Florida in 1971. It encompasses a situation where by agencies seeking space for their operations may, after a specific need is determined that cannot be filled by existing adequate space, solicit competitive bids from developers for the provision of land and the construction of a building thereon sufficient to-meet the agency's needs, for lease specifically to the agency requesting it. The Bureau of Property Management within DGS was given the initial responsibility to develop the guidelines, promulgate the rules, and seek statutory authority for such a program. The Bureau's current role is to work with agencies requesting this program. The agency certifies the need to the Bureau in addition to the fact that there is no available existing space present. The Bureau then determines agency needs and gives the agency the authority to solicit the bids for the turnkey project. Once the bids are then received, evaluated, and a recommendation for an award is forwarded by the agency to DGS, DGS reviews the supporting documents required by the provision of the Florida Administrative Code and either concurs or does not concur in the recommendation. If DGS concurs, the submitting agency is notified and is permitted to then secure the lease. Once the lease has been entered into; it is then sent back to DGS for review and approval as to the conditions; and thereafter the plans and specifications for the building are also referred to DGS for review and approval as to the quality and adequacy as well as code compliance. Section 255.249 and Section 255.25, Florida Statutes, set forth the requirements for soliciting and awarding bids for lease space in an amount in excess of 2,500 square feet. This provision requires that an award of this nature be made to the lowest and best bidder, and DCS utilizes that standard in evaluating and determining whether or not it will concur with an agency's recommendation. In the instant case, DHRS advertised for bids for the construction of office space in Palatka, Florida for its District III facilities. Before seeking to solicit bids, the District III staff conducted a search for other possible existing space within a five mile radius of the downtown area and located no adequate facilities. Thereafter, a Certification of Need was processed for a solicitation of proposals and approval was granted by DGS to follow through with the solicitation. A preproposal conference was advertised and held on October 14, 1983, and after project review by those present at the conference, bid opening date was set for November 22, 1983. Thirty-two bid packages were distributed and twelve bidders submitted proposals. The public bid opening was held as scheduled at 2:00 p.m., on November 22, 1983, in Palatka, Florida by Robert E. Litza, Facilities Services Coordinator for DHRS District III. Of the bids submitted by the twelve bidders, the lowest hid was rejected because of the failure of the bidder to comply with the requirements of the bid package. Of the remaining eleven bids, the four lowest were evaluated with the understanding that additional higher bids would be evaluated if the four lowest bids were found to be unacceptable. Among the four bids considered were bids of Chuck Bundschu, Inc., Kenneth R. McGurn, one of the Intervenors (McGurn submitted five prices scheduled for his bid and of these, only one was considered); Elizabethan, Petitioner herein; and TSU. Only three bids are pertinent to the discussion here. They are #8-C (McGurn); #11 (Elizabethan); and #12 (TSU). In pertinent particulars, these bids provided as to rental costs: 8-C 11 12 1st yr $14.00/$220,808 $8.95/$ 61,916.10 S 7.16/$ 49,532.88 2nd yr 14.00/ 220,8088 8.95/ 141,159.40 7.35/ 115,924.20 3rd yr 14.00/ 220,808 8.95/ 141,159.40 7.62/ 120,182.64 4th yr 14.00/ 220,808 8.95/ 141,159.40 8.08/ 127,437.76 5th yr 14.00/ 220,808 8.95/ 141,159.40 8.33/ 131,380.76 6th vr 14.00/ 220,808 8.95/ 141,159.40 8.59/ 135,481.48 7th yr 14.00/ 220,808 8.95/ 141,159.40 8.86/ 139,739.92 8th yr 14.00/ 220,808 8.95/ 141,159.40 9.19/ 144,944.68 9th yr 14.00/ 220,808 8.95/ 141,159.40 9.58/ 151,095.76 10th yr 14.00/ 220,808 8.95/ 141,159.40 10.09/ 159,139.48 Renewal Option 1st yr3.00/47,316 9.93/ 156,615.96 10.51/ 165,763.72 2nd yr3.00/47.316 9.93/ 156,615.96 10.99/ 173,334.28 3rd yr3.00/47.316 9.93/ 156,615.96 11.48/ 181,062.56 4th yr3.00/47.316 9.93/ 156,615.96 11.99/ 189,106.28 5th yr3.00/47.316 9.93/ 156,615.96 12.51/ 197,307.72 Total Basic Overall Lease 1-15 yrs $1,971,500 $2,115,430.50 $2,181,434.12 Average Sq.Ft. for 15 yrs $8.60 $9.20 $9.58 A recommendation by the evaluation committee which met at DHRS District III, that McGurn's bid be selected, was forwarded to DGS in Tallahassee through the Director of DHRS's General Services in Tallahassee on December 22, 1983. The terms of the successful bid and the reasons for its being considered lowest and best are discussed below. The successful bid for the lease in question, lease number 590:8030, upon completion of the committee's evaluation was also evaluated by Ms. Goodman in the Bureau of Property Management of DGS. She also considered the McGurn bid to be the lowest and best of the eleven non-disqualified bids. In that regard, not only Mr. McGurn's bid but all of the twelve bids received were considered and reviewed not only at the local level but at DHRS and DGS headquarters as well. In her evaluation of the proposal and the bids, Ms. Goodman considered the documentation submitted by DHRS. This included a letter of recommendation supported by a synopsis of all proposals, the advertisement for bids, and any information pertinent to the site selection process. In determining the McGurn's bid was the lowest as to cost of all the bids, Ms. Goodman compared the average rate per square foot per year for each. This did not take into con- sideration pro-ration of costs per year, but strictly the average over the fifteen year probable term of the lease (ten years basic plus five year option). According to Ms. Goodman, this same method of calculating cost has been used in every lease involving a turnkey situation and in fact in every lease since 1958 - as long as she has been with DGS. This particular method, admittedly, is not set forth in any rule promulgated by DGS. However, the agencies are instructed by DGS to advertise and bidders to bid on an average square foot basis, the basis utilized by Ms. Goodman and her staff in analyzing the bids submitted. In that regard, the request for proposals does not, itself, indicate how the calculation of lowest cost would be made by DHRS and DGS but it does tell prospective bidders what information to submit. This procedure has been followed exclusively in situations like this for may years and many of the bidders here have bid before using this same system. All bidders are considered on the same footing in an evaluation. They are notified of what information will be considered along with that of all the other bidders. Further, anyone who inquires as to the basis for evaluation will be given a straight and complete answer as to the method to be used. Petitioner contends that McGurn's bid does not conform to either the normal bidding procedure followed by contractors in this type of procurement over the past years or to the normal bidding procedures adopted by Respondent, DHRS. It urges that the questioned bid is non-responsive and front-end loaded to the detriment of DHRS. With regard to the front-end loading objection, Mr. Taylor, testifying for Petitioner, attempted to indicate by graphic evidence that Elizabethan's bid, which he claims is not front-end loaded, is cheaper to the State than that of McGurn. Due to the large rental cost of the McGurn bid in the opening years of the lease, the State would have to borrow money to make the large rental payments; the interest cost of which, when added to the $3.00 cost in the option years, raises the cost considerably and makes the bid not the lowest. Though Mr. Taylor testified to this he failed to produce any independent evidence to support it. In addition, Taylor urges, under the McGurn schedule, McGurn would recoup his entire construction debt (approximately $423.00 plus interest) in the first four years of the lease: Comparing the two bids, it appears that the State would pay McGurn approximately $494,500.00 more than it would pay Elizabethan for the same period during the first seven years of the lease. Considering this, it is Taylor's belief that McGurn's profit after the fourth year is excessive. He contends also that when, after the tenth year, McGurn's rental rate drops to $3.00 per square foot for the remaining five years which constitutes the option period of the lease, the State could not afford to leave the low figure and as a result, the ten year lease is converted to a l5 year lease which is unresponsive. Further, the $3.00 figure for the last years, which would ostensibly show a loss to McGurn, is misleading in that there would be sufficient income from the advance profit garnered in years 5 to 10, when invested, to cover the soft costs and more in these later years. Admitting that because of its involvement in other turnkey projects in Florida, Elizabethan is aware of the State policy on cost evaluation, Taylor contends that while his bid does not violate State policy, McGurn's bid does because it would be fiscally irresponsible for the State to pay so much up front. This conclusion is his opinion, however, and not supported by any independent evidence. Both expert witnesses, Respondents Scott and Perry, who testified for the Intervenor, TSU, agree that the present value of money should be considered in evaluating rental costs. Their major point of difference is in the percentage of discount rate to be applied. Dr. Perry urges that use of the 10% rate mandated by the U. S. Government in its procurements of this nature. Dr. Scott, on the other hand, considers this to be too high and urges a rate in the area of 3% be used. The significance of this is that at the lower of the range spread, McGurn's bid is lowest. At the higher end, TSU's bid is lowest. From 5.7% up to below 6%, Petitioner's bid is lowest. Whichever would be appropriate, the State has not adopted the present value of money methodology and the policy followed by the State is not to consider that methodology in analyzing costs. State policy is to use only the average rental methodology. There is, in addition, no prohibition against front- end loaded bids encompassed within this policy. By the same token, there is nothing in the bid package issued to all prospective bidders that in any way stipulates the method of computing lease costs or prohibits from loaded bids. DGS zone rates, criteria stipulating the maximum agencies can send on rent without approval by DGS, are not part of the bid package and do not constitute a factor in determining whether a bid is conforming or not. These zone rates may be waived by DGS at the time the proposed award is submitted for DGS approval. In practice, within the memory of Joseph Lambert, HRS' Administrator of Facilities Services, who administers the Department's leasing program, he cannot recall DGS ever denying a DHRS request for waiver of the maximum zone rate in any case where it was pertinent. In this case, since the lease payments at-least in the second through tenth years-of the McGurn bid exceed the zone limits, the award would have to be approved by the Governor and Cabinet in addition to DGS. It has not yet been placed on the Cabinet agenda because of the protests filed. As was stated before, there are no rules governing the evaluation of bids for leases of this nature. Oral instructions given to each agency, when applied here, reveal that the McGurn bid, as was seen above, has an average cost of $8.86 per square foot per year. TSU's bid costs $9.58 per square foot per year, and Elizabethan's bid costs $9.29 per square foot per year. These same calculations are followed on all turnkey and non- turnkey leases in the State. The reason the State uses this process instead of the present value of money methodology is that it is easy. DGS statistics indicate that at least 50% of the landlords in the approximately $32,000,000 worth of leases presently existing with the State are "Mom and Pop" landlords. These people are not normally trained lease evaluators. By using the straight average rental rate method, there are no arbitrary variables. It has always worked because people can understand it and all agencies which lease property in the State follow this procedure. In the opinion of Ms. Goodman, the costs involved in utilizing the present value of money methodology would far outweigh the paper savings to be gained, notwithstanding the testimony of Dr. Perry to the contrary. With regard to the option issue, it was the position of DGS in reviewing the proposals that the very low $3.00 lease cost per square foot in the last five years (the option period) did not make the McGurn bid unresponsive. There were no limits imposed upon the bidders except that a five year option to a ten year lease be included. Were it not there, the bid would be unresponsive. DGS would issue approval for a ten year lease with a five year option but not a fifteen year lease. Ms. Goodman cannot recall a situation in which an option was not exercised by it if the need for the space continued though there have been some instances where option costs have been renegotiated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore; RECOMMENDED THAT DHRS License Number 590:8030 be awarded to Kenneth R. McGurn. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkwav Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood 8Oulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Morgan Staines, Esquire 2204 East Fourth Street Santa Ana, California 92705 Thomas D. Watry, Esquire 1200 Carnegie Building 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Steven W. Huss, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Thomas, Executive Director Department of General Services 115 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven W. Huss Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary J. Anton, Esquire P.O. Box 1019 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Harden King, Agency Clerk Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondents' licenses as real estate brokers should be suspended or revoked, or the licensees otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, dated September 28, 1981. This proceeding is based on an administrative complaint filed by Petitioner, Board of Real Estate, alleging that Respondents, while engaged in a rental service business which advertised and sold rental property information or lists, for an advance fee to prospective lessees, utilized a contract or receipt agreement which included language defining when a "rental has been obtained" that was contrary to the intent of Rule 21V-10.30, Florida Administrative Code, and that therefore Respondents had violated Subsection 475.453 and 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. It further alleged that Respondents failed to refund 75 percent of an advance fee to specific prospective tenants as required by Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes and therefore constituted a violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties submitted a Proposed Stipulation of facts which was accepted by the Hearing Officer and constitutes the Findings of Fact hereinafter. No witnesses testified at the proceeding nor were any exhibits entered in evidence other than the four exhibits attached to the Stipulation. (Exhibit 1)
Findings Of Fact Respondent Jack Braunstein is a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0146924. The last known address of this Respondent is 916 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304. Respondent Rent Aid, Inc., is a licensed corporate real estate broker having been issued license number 0133234. The last known main office address of Rent Aid, Inc., is 916 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304. At all times material herein Respondent Braunstein was the sole active broker of and for Respondent Rent Aid, Inc., doing business at the corporate main office located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. As said active broker, Braunstein was responsible and liable for the acts and/or omissions of the associates of Rent Aid, Inc. performed in the scope of their employment; and was responsible and liable for the acts and/or omissions of Rent Aid, Inc. At all times material herein, Respondent Rent Aid, Inc., was engaged in a full service real estate brokerage business which included representing potential buyers and sellers of real property and potential landlords and tenants with regard to rental properties. As part of the business Rent Aid, Inc. entered into contracts with prospective tenants for an advanced fee, as shown by Exhibit "A" to the Complaint and incorporated herein by reference. That the contract or receipt agreement forms provided by the Respondents, have inserted therein additional language as to specifically stating that "a rental has been obtained when company provides a guaranteed available rental unit upon the terms specified and requested by member. On or about September 16, 1980 Jan Spear and Deborah Nigro entered into the contract, an accurate copy of which is appended to the Complaint as Exhibit "A", with Rent Aid, Inc. That under the terms of the contract, Respondent had the discretion to refuse any and all refunds if they had shown to the prospective tenant an available rental unit which met the terms specified and requested by the prospective tenant, even if the prospective tenant declined to rent said unit and demanded a refund of the paid fee within the required time frame. That Respondent's practice was to refuse demands for refund made where, in Respondent's opinion, a bona fide effort had been made to obtain a rental, which efforts had been unsuccessful through no fault of Respondent's. Jan Spear and Deborah Negro made written demand upon Respondent's for a partial refund of the fifty ($50) fee which they had paid Respondent's pursuant to the contract. This demand was made within thirty days of the contract date as shown by therefund refusal dated October 12, 1980, attached to the Complaint as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference as true and accurate. The contract utilized by Respondent's does not strictly conform to the refund required by Rule 21V-10,30 in that the conditions under which a refund would be payable are restricted beyond the scope of said Rule, and SS 475.453(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent utilized the Contract form in question in reliance upon advice received from his prior counsel, Gregory Jones, as shown by a letter dated April 1, 1980. A true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Sal Carpino, attorney for the Department of Professional Regulation, had been provided with a copy of the form utilized by Respondent and had approved the format of said form without approving a discrepancy of the language in question in this proceeding, to wit: "a rental has been obtained with company (Rent Aid, Inc.) provides a guaranteed available rental unit upon the terms specified and requested by members." In response to this proceeding, Respondent has made full and complete refund to Jan Spears and Deborah Nigro and has agreed to voluntarily stop all use of the Contract form in question, and use only such a form as strictly complies with 475.453(1) and Rule 210-10.30 and to furnish a copy of said form to the Department conformance with said Rule."
Recommendation That the Board of Real Estate issue a private reprimand and impose a $100 fine against Respondents Jack Braunstein and Rent Aid, Inc. for violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 5th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306 John P. Gaudiosi, Esquire 3801 North Federal Highway Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C.B. Stafford, Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact The Declaration of Condominium for Oaks of Broward was filed by Margen, a Florida Partnership, in May, 1974 in the Public Records of Broward County and with the Petitioner. All documents required to be filed by Margen with Petitioner were filed and the fees paid. Simultaneously a recreational lease was filed of property adjacent to the condominium in which Barnett Bank of Hollywood was named as Trustee and Lessor, and The Oaks Condominium Association, Inc. of Broward as Lessee. Between May 1974 and early 1976 Margen sold to individuals 39 condominium units at Oaks of Broward. In early 1976, Housing Investment Corporation, mortgagee, began foreclosure proceedings which resulted in title to all of the Oaks condominium property, except for the 39 units previously sold, being taken by The Oaks of Broward, Inc., Respondent. Thereby Respondent became successor in title to the previously unsold 75 units in the building and to the position of the Lessor on the long-term recreational lease. On or about August 1977, Respondent offered for sale the 75 condominium units pursuant to prospectus admitted into evidence as Exhibit 2. In addition thereto and as part of the sales effort Respondent executed and recorded the Declaration Waiving Rents, a copy of which was admitted into evidence as Exhibit Neither of these documents was filed with Petitioner. The 75 units owned by Respondent were sold with the recreational lease rents waived. Pursuant to the terms of the recreational lease the original 39 buyers pay $20 per month, either to the Association or directly to the Lessor. This lease is a net/net lease, which means the Lessor performs no services except to provide the premises themselves. The Condominium Association is responsible for and pays all maintenance, taxes, upkeep and expenses for the operation of the Recreation Area. All condominium units, the original 39 as well as the remaining 75, pay to the Association, as part of the common expenses, their pro rate share of those operating expenses. It is this disparate treatment of the two groups of unit owners with respect to the recreational lease rent payment of $20 per month that is one subject of Petitioner's request for a cease and desist order. The second subject of the Petition for a cease and desist order is Petitioner's contention that Respondent is a Developer and is required to file documents and pay a $10 filing fee for each of the 75 condominiums sold, regardless of whether fees for these 75 units were paid by Respondent's predecessor in title.
The Issue In relation to DOAH Case No. 05-0515, does the case involve the sale of securities as described in Chapter 517, Florida Statutes (2002), that would confer jurisdiction upon OFR to proceed to a hearing on the merits of the Administrative Complaint that forms the basis for DOAH Case No. 05-0515, and to what extent, if any, the named Respondents have been involved with the sale of securities sufficient to declare jurisdiction over their activities? Preliminary to that determination is the related issue concerning the possible pre-emption of OFR's regulatory authority by virtue of the regulatory action previously taken by the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (DBPR) under authority set forth in Chapter 721, Florida Statutes (2002)? Argument has also been set forth concerning the significance of court cases as they might influence OFR's ability to declare their regulatory authority in this instance.
Findings Of Fact * * * 2. RESPONDENT is the 'creating developer' of the Universal Luxury Lease Plan, a personal property 'timeshare plan' as those terms are defined in sections 721.05(9)(a) and 721.05(37), Florida Statutes, located in the city of Sanford, Florida. * * * On or about July 10, 2003, DIVISION was made aware of a newspaper advertisement for Universal Luxury Lease Plan. This advertisement, promoted the purchase of a timeshare interest in the Universal Luxury Lease Plan as an investment that offered purchasers a 10 percent per year return on their investment. On July 25, 2003, DIVISION'S investigators were given an application package containing the Universal Luxury Lease Plan Enrollment Forms, CD-ROM, Public Offering Statement, Contracts and Motor Coach Brochures. The application package stated that it was advertising material being used for the purposes of soliciting timeshare interests. It described a component of the timeshare plan called the 'Affinity Rental Program' and stated that the program will typically produce a monthly income of 10 percent of the lease-hold ownership interest.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That an order be entered by OFR finding jurisdiction to proceed with the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 05- 0515 on its merits. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 6th day of January, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Mini-Warehouses At Kendall, Ltd., d/b/a A+ Mini-Storage (Petitioner) is a business located in Dade County, engaged primarily in the rental of storage space. Petitioner employs 20 to 21 employees and has been operating for 13 to 14 years. Petitioner's property on which its business is located consists of approximately four acres and abuts property owned by the Florida Department of Transportation (Respondent), known as Parcel 0739, which contains approximately .0986 acres. On June 28, 1985, Petitioner executed a written lease agreement leasing Parcel 0739 from Respondent. The lease terms provided that it was a year-to- year lease, automatically renewable yearly until terminated by either party upon a 30-day notice, and that the yearly rental cost was $2,400 plus tax. Petitioner leased Parcel 0739 from Respondent because the parcel provides better access to Petitioner's property from the rear and prevents water from encroaching onto Petitioner's property. The same lease agreement was renewed yearly until 1991. In 1991, prior to the expiration of the lease, Respondent notified Petitioner that a new lease form would have to be executed. Respondent provided Petitioner with its Lease Agreement Form 225-080-03, OGC-00031, dated 7/92 (Form Lease) for execution. The Form Lease was developed by Respondent's Office of General Counsel and the General Counsel of each of its Districts, so that there would be a standard lease form statewide with minimal review by Respondent. The Form Lease contains blanks to be completed by Districts to comport with their specific situations. The Form Lease dramatically changed the terms and conditions of leasing Parcel 0739. Petitioner attempted to modify Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the Form Lease, but Respondent refused to agree to any modifications. Paragraph 6 of the Form Lease provides: 6. Indemnification. Lessee shall indemnify, defend, save and hold Lessor, its agents and employees, harmless of and from any losses, fines, penalties, costs, damage, claims, demands, suits and liabilities of any nature, including attorneys fees (including regulatory and appellate fees), arising out of, because of, or due to any accident, happening or occurrence on the leased land or arising in any manner on account of the exercise or attempted exercise of Lessee's rights hereunder, whether the same regards person or property of any nature whatsoever, regardless of the apportionment of negligence, unless due to the sole negligence of Lessor. Lessee's obligation to indemnify, defend, and pay for the defense or at the Department's option, to participate and associate with the Department in the defense and trial of any claim and any related settlement negotiations, shall be triggered by the Department's notice of claim for indemnifica- tion to Lessee. Lessee's inability to evaluate liability or its evaluation of liability shall not excuse Lessee's duty to defend and indemnify within seven days after such notice by the Department is given by registered mail. Only an adjudication or judgment after the highest appeal is exhausted specifically finding the Department solely negligent shall excuse performance of this provision by Lessee. Lessee shall pay all costs and fees related to this obligation and its enforcement by the Department. Department's failure to notify Lessee of a claim shall not release Lessee of the above duty to defend. Under Paragraph 6, Respondent intended to limit lessee's liability to its (lessee's) own negligence or damages it causes. Paragraph 8 of the Form Lease provides: 8. Eminent Domain. Lessee acknowledges and agrees that its relationship with Lessor under this Lease is one of Landlord and Tenant and no other relationship either expressed or implied shall be deemed to apply to the parties under this Lease. Termination of this Lease for any cause shall not be deemed a taking under any eminent domain or other law so as to entitle Lessee to compensation for any interest suffered or lost as a result of termination of this Lease, including but not limited to (i) any residual interest in the Lease, or (ii) any other facts or circumstances arising out of or in connection with this Lease. Lessee hereby waives and relinquishes any legal rights and monetary claims which it might have for full compensation, or damages of any sort, including but not limited to special damages, severance damages, removal costs or loss of business profits resulting from its loss of occupancy of the leased property specified in this Agreement, or adjacent properties owned or leased by it, when any or all such properties are taken by eminent domain proceedings or sold under the threat thereof. This waiver and relinquishment applies whether (i) this Lease is still in existence on the date of taking or sale; or, (ii) has been terminated prior thereto. Under Paragraph 8, Respondent did not intend for the lessee to waive any of its eminent domain rights or relinquish such rights subsequent to the termination of the lease, which would be improper. Presently, Respondent refuses to lease the Parcel to Petitioner unless Petitioner executes the Form Lease without modification. However, at hearing Respondent admitted that it has no intention of requiring Petitioner to agree to Paragraph 8 of the Form Lease. Rule Chapter 14-19, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth Respondent's rules on right-of-way property management. Rule 14-19.002 provides that the purpose of Chapter 14-19 is to set forth standardized methods for, among other things, the leasing of surplus property owned by Respondent. In 1992, the Form Lease was incorporated by reference in Rule Chapter 14-19. Rule 14-19.0012 specifically provides that the Form Lease is one of the forms incorporated by reference in and made a part of Chapter 14-19. Moreover, Rule 14-19.013 requires the Form Lease to be used for short term leasing. Chapter 14-19 is silent as to whether the Form Lease must be used in any of Respondent's other lease situations. Rule 14-19.013, Florida Administrative Code, does not apply to the circumstances of this case. Respondent has a Right Of Way Manual (Manual) for statewide use. Chapter 10, Section 6 of the Manual, entitled "Right of Way Property Leases" and effective January 21, 1993, provides in its "Purpose" section that the purpose of Section 6 is to establish uniform procedures for leasing property owned by Respondent. Also, the Manual's "Procedure" section mandates the use of the Form Lease for all of Respondent's leases. Prior to this mandate, Respondent had no standard lease form for its leases. In October 1992, Respondent required the Form Lease to be used in surplus property leases. The Form Lease is applicable statewide and implements procedures and policies involved in leasing surplus property. Parcel 0739 is considered by Respondent to be surplus property. The Manual is silent as to whether the Form Lease may be modified. Since the implementation of the Form Lease for surplus property, Respondent's District Offices have modified the Form Lease but rarely. In the rare instances when modification has been made, it has been on a case-by-case basis and only with approval of the District General Counsel. Respondent's Office of the Right-Of-Way Administrator under which the responsibility for leasing falls has no authority to approve or disapprove modifications made to the Form Lease by District Offices. However, Respondent's Office of General Counsel does have such authority, but it has not exercised its authority in any of the District situations in which the Form Lease has been modified. Even though there have been modifications to the Form Lease by Respondent's District Offices, although rare, no District Office has modified Paragraphs 6 or 8. Respondent admits that Petitioner has standing in this proceeding.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a real estate broker in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issue herein the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, and the Florida Real Estate Commission were the state agencies responsible for the licensing of real estate professionals and the regulation of the real estate profession in Florida. Respondent was licensed as a real estate broker with license number 0414476. Respondent was operating as a real estate broker and operated a real estate brokerage under the name Roney Realty located at 424 Beach Drive Northeast, Number 205, in St. Petersburg. In early 1995, Kathleen M. Mitchell, a single mother and licensed practical nurse, while attending a garage sale, noticed a two bedroom house for sale at 805 59th Street South in Gulfport and called the broker's telephone number shown on the sign. Respondent was the broker listed. On the basis of that telephone call, Respondent and Ms. Mitchell met at the house, owned by Respondent's sister. At the time, Ms. Mitchell advised Respondent that she had credit problems and was burdened with a previous FHA mortgage which was in default. In response, Respondent urged her not to worry and assured her he could get her financing even though she had undergone a prior bankruptcy. He also indicated that the selling price for the house was variable, depending on financing and the amount of the down payment. Ms. Mitchell contends that Respondent indicated to her that he would represent both buyer and seller in a dual agency arrangement, which he got her to acknowledge in writing, and claimed he would not take a commission on the sale. The initial contract signed in this case, however, lists a commission of $1,925.00 to be paid by the seller. This inconsistency was not explained. As a result of the initial negotiations which began in January, 1995, Ms. Mitchell signed a contract for the purchase of the property on February 13, 1995, which, she claims, was to be effective in March, 1995. This agreement, reflecting a sales price of $55,000 also indicates that Ms. Mitchell had made a $200.00 cash down payment, and called for an additional payment of $800.00 within 5 days of signing and an additional $650.00 at closing, to include buyer's closing costs and prepaid items or prorations. This left a balance to be financed of $53,350. There were no other handwritten clauses placed on the contract form. Ms. Mitchell paid the initial $200.00 and agreed to pay the additional $800.00 when she moved in. On the basis of that contract and the deposit made, Ms. Mitchell was allowed to move into the house. Approximately two weeks later, when it became obvious that her financing was going to be a problem, Mr. Roney brought a second contract to the house for her to sign. At this time, Mr. Roney suggested that while the parties were waiting for her financing to be approved, Ms. Mitchell could rent the house for $500.00 per month. Ms. Mitchell agreed to do this if all the defects in the house, which she had identified and reported to Respondent, were fixed. She claims that he verbally agreed to fix everything and she thereafter signed the second contract, which is undated as to signature, but which bears an effective date of April 20, 1995. The second contract reflects a purchase price of $56,650, a deposit of $2,832.50, and a balance to finance of $53,817.50. Ms. Mitchell admits to having made the $200.00 down payment, and it is not clear whether she also paid the $800.00, but at one point in her testimony indicated that is all she paid by way of down payment. She has no idea where the figure of $2,832.50 comes from. Yet, at another point in her testimony, she claims to have given Mr. Roney $1,650.00 on March 1, 1996, which money he put into Stewart Fidelity Title Company's escrow account. The contract also reflects that the deposit is being held in escrow by Stewart Fidelity Title Co. No information was presented as to the current state of the deposit. This contract shows substantial hand-written modification to the standard contract clauses which clearly reflect that changes were made on July 7, 1995, and were "added after signing." However, there are substantial, modifications to paragraph 21 of the contract form, "additional terms", which are confusing as to when they were added and what they mean. For example, one added clause calls for the buyer to make monthly payments of $600.00 until closing ($100.00 per month credited back to buyer at closing). Another provides that the buyer accepts the property as is from day of possession and agrees to maintain the property until closing. A third indicated that the seller agrees to credit $650.00 toward buyer's costs upon closing, and a fourth states that if the buyer cannot obtain a mortgage within one year of possession, the seller may convert the agreement to a lease. The difficulty in interpretation of the above rests in the fact that arrows pointing to various of the comments are not defining in their application. For example, one arrow comes from the word "closing" down the side of the paper into the Acceptance/Rejection section where is stated, "as is meant landscaping [sic]." Another arrow points to the word "may" in the last addition and reflects, "7-7-95 added." Ms. Mitchell adamantly contends that when she signed the second contract, none of the hand-written additions were on it. Mr. Roney admitted as much at hearing, but no informationwas presented to indicate if the additions were agreed to by Ms. Mitchell at any time. She contends that when she saw those post-signing additions, she took the document to her mortgage person who directed her to contact Respondent and stop further proceedings. When Ms. Mitchell did that, she claims, she wastold by Mr. Roney not to talk to her mortgage man again, and that his, Mr. Roney's, mortgage broker would handle the obtaining of her mortgage from then on out. When Ms. Mitchell recounted those instructions to her original mortgage broker, he advised her to contact Respondent's escrow agent, get her deposit back and cancel the contract. Respondent admits to having requested Ms. Mitchell use a different mortgage broker but asserts this was because her broker was not having any apparent success in getting her qualified. Ms. Mitchell lived in the house in question for two months before she moved out. Upon the advice of an attorney, she claims, she paid no rent while she occupied the premises. While she occupied the property, she paid $250.00 to have it appraised by a state certified residential real estate appraiser who opined that as of May 9, 1995 the property was valued at $49,500. In the addendum to the appraisal report, the appraiser stated: The roof has active leaks and improperly installed areas; The front soffit has loose conditions; The electrical system has unsafe wiring and improper size fuses; The heating and AC units are not operating properly ("No source of heat"); The plumbing system has some deficiencies and possible leaks; The pool is in need of "Major Repair", including repair of leaking conditions at the main drain and tiles; termite damage was noted; the water heater needs repair (or replacement), and it is exposed to weather conditions; Window and door screens are missing; The lawn sprinkler is damaged and partially disassembled The storage shed has rust conditions. Though at hearing Respondent attempted to dismiss this appraisal as being based on the home inspection reports done at Ms. Mitchell's request previously and given the appraiser, and not his personal inspection, a review of the document clearly indicates the conditions noted above were determined from review of that report "and/or observation by the appraiser." Ms. Mitchell experienced first hand many of the problem areas noted in the appraisal report. When she mentioned to Respondent that the screen door was missing, he reportedly told her it wasn't necessary. When she complained to Respondent that she had no hot water for several days, he sent over a repairman who ultimately corrected the problem. The repairman's statement, dated "May, 1995", reflecting a charge of $445.00 for his service, indicates he repaired a water leak on the hot water heater; unblocked a restriction in the hot water supply pipe; and replaced defective control knobs on the shower. He also cut the side of the kitchen counter to fit in a new stove and delivered a replacement refrigerator with an ice maker and reconnected the water line to it. This latter installation was the result of Ms. Mitchell's continuing complaint that the refrigerator did not work for quite a while which resulted in her losing a substantial amount of perishable food. The first time that happened, she though it might be her fault and she replaced the lost food. However, when it happened again, she complained to Respondent and he told her to get it fixed. She did, at a cost to her of $100.00, which Respondent did not pay back. Finally, a refrigerator repair man was sent to the property on both April 4 and April 19, 1995. He finally recommended the unit not be repaired but replaced. This was done. When Ms. Mitchell complained to Respondent that the heating and air conditioning unit in the living room did not work, and that the bedroom unit did not heat, she admits that Respondent had a repairman come out and look at the unit. Though she claims the repairman told her it would take $483.00 to repair it, she appears to have confused the appliances, as the repairman's statement, dated April 19, 1995, refers to an estimated cost of $483.00 to replace the compressor on the refrigerator, not the heater/air conditioner. There is no evidence to indicate how the problem with those units was resolved. Ms. Mitchell contends that when she first saw the swimming pool, before she contracted to buy the house, it was clear and the pump was running. When she thereafter heard a noise in the pump, in February, 1995, before she moved in, she reported this to the Respondent. Nothing was done about it. After she moved in, the pool rapidly became unusable. The pump motor was inoperative and the water turned green. Ms. Mitchel claims she called Respondent almost daily about the pool. He told her his sister had the motor removed for repairs and he would get it back. The motor was subsequently returned, along with the pool equipment which had been removed, but the pool leaked, requiring her to add water every day, and she could not keep the water clear. In late April, 1995, a pool man was sent to the property who, according to Ms. Mitchell, indicated that there was a need to replace loose tiles and mastic because of the age of the pool, and a leak at the main drain. It is not clear from the evidence presented if these repairs were made. When the appraisal report was rendered, showing a fair market price considerably less than what she had contracted to pay, Ms. Mitchell advised Respondent on several occasions that she to cancel the contract. On May 2, 1995, after she had seen an attorney and another real estate broker, she wrote to Respondent requesting either that he refund the deposit money she had placed with him and reimburse her in the amount of $500.00 for her personal expenses, in which case she would vacate the property within one week of receipt of the money, or return her deposit within one week, in which case she would vacate the property by June 1, 1995. In either case, she indicated she would pay no more rent. In that regard, it appears she had paid no rent up to that time, though she had agreed to pay rent in the event they could agree upon the terms of a contract and the property was repaired. She claims she did not expect to live in the property rent free, but believed that what she had paid out in repairs was fair rent for her occupancy. No clear total figure for what she paid out was provided. In response, Ms. Mitchell received a letter from the Respondent in which he demanded payment of the rent due. Thereafter, on June l, 1995, Ms. Mitchell received a second letter from the Respondent in which he stated he assumed she had agreed to deduct the amount due for rent from the deposit money she had placed with him and which he held in escrow. According to Respondent's calculations, Ms. Mitchell owed $1,271.56 in back rent after crediting her with $100.00 of the $600.00 per month rent payment she was to make. When this $1,271.56 was deducted from the $1,603.45 escrow balance held by him, $331.89 would be left in the escrow account. Respondent gave her the choice of doing that or of paying what was owed in case, leaving the entire escrow account untouched. He advised her she must make her choice and advise him and the escrow agent within forty-eight hours. Respondent did not satisfactorily explain his calculations at hearing. From the state of the evidence presented, it was impossible for the undersigned to determine exactly how much money Ms. Mitchell paid by way of deposit, rent, or repairs. Between the receipt of Respondent's first and second letters, Ms. Mitchell spoke with him about the condition of the house and what she wanted to do with regard to it. At no time did she authorize Respondent to make any deduction from the amount in escrow. In the interim, she began to look for another house and to seek alternative funding. She also tried to contact Respondent but she was unable to do so, reaching only his pager. Finally, she received a three-day notice dated June 20, 1995 to pay the rent due or vacate. In response, she wrote an undated letter to Respondent in which she said she was sending $1,000.00 to pay $500.00 rent for both May and June, 1995, but neither mailed the letter nor sent the money. Thereafter, she received a second three day notice dated June 30, 1995, directing her to pay the rent due or move out. This notice was left in her mail box by the Respondent. She neither paid the rent nor moved out at that time. Ms. Mitchell finally moved out of the property in issue on July 18, 1995 and thereafter, on a weekly basis, either verbally or in writing, demanded return of her deposit. She did not get it back. Mr. Roney's account of the beginning of the parties' relationship is consistent with that of Ms. Mitchell, except that Ms. Mitchell initially indicated the property could not be worth more than in the mid-forty thousand dollar range. In response, Respondent claimed to have done a market analysis on the property which supported the asking price, and because his sister had put a lot of money into the property, it could not be sold for a price as low as even in the high forty thousand dollar range. It would appear from the independent appraisal done of the property, the true value was closer to Ms. Mitchell's estimation rather than Respondent's. Nonetheless, Ms. Mitchell liked the property and agreed to buy it at the asking price, after she had looked it over with a contractor friend of hers. Respondent admits that Ms. Mitchell was forthright with him in disclosing her financial problems. She told him of her bankruptcy of several years previous, and in response to his questioning, noted several other problems, none of which, by her account, were her fault. When Ms. Mitchell called Respondent on February 13, 1995, indicating she was ready to sign, he referred her to a mortgage company which he felt could help her. Based on what information Ms. Mitchell had provided, Respondent had been told that her financial problems were "fixable". As a result, the first contract was signed and the financing process initiated. On March 18, 1995, Ms. Mitchell called Respondent and indicated she wanted to move into the house prior to closing because her current landlord would neither acknowledge nor fix defects in her property, and she had to get out. Therefore, on or about March 20, 1995, Respondent re-wrote the contract and requested she use another mortgage broker as a condition of taking possession prior to closing. Respondent claims that the seller's disclosure as to the condition of the property was accurate but Ms. Mitchell wanted an independent inspection done to which Respondent agreed. He insisted, however, that if she wanted to move in before closing, she would have to take the property "as is." He advised Ms. Mitchell that his sister had not lived in the property for a year. It was not clear from the evidence presented whether the property was vacant for that entire year or whether it had been rented out. Ms. Mitchell moved in after signing the second contract. Respondent claims Ms. Mitchell called almost daily with some complaint or other and he would have each one fixed. Finally, he met with her and the handyman and they went around to check everything out. She seemed satisfied. Nonetheless, after that Ms. Mitchell called to complain about the swimming pool. Respondent's sister and the handyman both went to the house to explain how to work the filtration system. To insure that there was no leak in the pool, Respondent gave Ms. Mitchell the name of the pool company which had serviced the pool for ten years so that if anything went wrong, she could contact them directly to have it checked and get instruction. While Respondent contends the pool company report indicated no leak and no major problems, Ms. Mitchell wrote on the invoice submitted by the repairman dated April 25, 1993, "... notified me and Mr. Rony [sic] of need to replace loose tiles and main drain leak and re- mastic due to extreme age of pool." Unfortunately, no direct evidence was presented which resolves the apparent inconsistency in the evidence. Mr. Roney claims he tried to remedy any problem Ms. Mitchell had with the house. For example, on April 3, 1995, she called to complain about the refrigerator. On April 4, 1995 he told her to call whomever she wanted, and if the estimate were reasonable, she could deduct the repair charge from the rent. If the charge were estimated to be major, she was instructed to call back. When she called and said the charge would be $100.00, he authorized it. However, a week later, Ms. Mitchell again called and complained about the refrigerator and Mr. Roney replaced it the next day. The problems with the refrigerator are documented by independent evidence of record. The replacement there was admitted by Ms. Mitchell. Respondent asserts that the delinquency notices and track toward the closing. When he found out that Ms. Mitchell was trying to get an appraisal done on the property, he tried to tell her that an appraisal would be done as a part of the mortgage process, but she wanted her own. The results of that independent appraisal were discussed previously. Sometime thereafter, Ms. Mitchell told Respondent she wanted out of the contract. The seller agreed to let her out if Ms. Mitchell would pay some rent for the period she occupied the property. As a result, Respondent tried to get her to pay. When she would not, he sent the eviction notices. Respondent admits he did not receive $2,853.00 in deposit money from Ms. Mitchell. That figure cited was the result of her representations to him that she could come up with it. When the contract was signed, she gave him a check for a part of it and said she'd come up with the balance, but she never came up with the full amount. Any deposit payments made by Ms. Mitchell were deposited with Stewart Title Company where it remains. It is impossible to determine how much was paid as deposit by Ms. Mitchell and how much, if any as rent. Respondent asserts Ms. Mitchell never made any claim to him for return of her deposit. Any claims for return were all made to Stewart Title. Ms. Roney, the owner, did not want to lease the property or sell it on a lease option. She wanted to sell it outright because she needed the money for other investments. She agreed to a lease-purchase arrangement only because the mortgage broker assured her Ms. Mitchell could clear her credit and the sale could go through. She also agreed because Ms. Mitchell had had the property inspected and appeared to be satisfied with its condition. Ms. Roney claims she had no problems with the pool when she lived there and also claims that since the property has been sold, the new owners have not contacted her regarding any problems with the pool. She would not approve a refund of deposit under the conditions of this dispute. Respondent contends there have been no complaints filed against him for the practice of his real estate profession in the 15 years he has been licensed. No evidence of prior misconduct was shown.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of misrepresentation and breach of trust in a business transaction and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Paul H. Roney, Jr. 424 Beach Drive Northeast, Suite 205 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether or not Respondent's real estate license should be disciplined, because, as alleged, Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises and pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction; failed to place a trust deposit with her employing broker and operated as a broker while licensed as a salesman in violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(b), and (k), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact During times material hereto, Respondent, Barbara B. Wise, was a licensed real estate salesman in Florida, having been issued license number 0484022. The last license issued Respondent was as a salesman, c/o Grover Goheen Realty, Inc., at 414 Twelfth Avenue, North, St. Petersburg, Florida. During October 1988, Respondent, while licensed and operating as a salesman in the employ of her broker, Goheen Realty, Inc., solicited and obtained a lease listing agreement from Michael Riggins. As a result of that listing, Marsha Tenny contacted Respondent and requested assistance in obtaining a seasonal lease for the period January 1989 through April 30, 1989. Ms. Tenny made Respondent aware of her needs respecting a lease property to include wheelchair access as her husband was wheelchair bound. As a result of visiting approximately three available units, Respondent secured a seasonal lease from Michael Riggins for Marsha Tenny. The lease agreement for the Tenny's was the first rental listing that Respondent had obtained and it suffices to say that she was a novice in the area of securing lease agreements. Likewise, her employing broker did very little volume in rentals as her broker was of the opinion that the net commissions were not sufficient to defray the time and effort involved for several reasons including the limited availability of rental properties. As a result, her broker was unable to provide guidance. Pursuant to the aforementioned lease agreement, Respondent named several options by which Marsha Tenny could secure the apartment to include sending a personal check to her and after negotiating it she would in turn pay the rental fees directly to the landlord. Other options included Ms. Tenny sending separate checks to the landlord for the apartment and a check for the commission fees to her employing broker or she could deal directly with the landlord and remit a separate check to her employing broker for fees. Ms. Tenny elected to send a money order in the amount of $1,500.00 to Respondent. After she negotiated the check she received from Marsha Tenny, Respondent retained her commissions and did not pay her broker the pro-rata share that the broker was entitled to. Respondent did not inform her broker of the Riggins/Tenny lease agreement when she received the deposit from the Tennys on or about October 23, 1988. Respondent negotiated the Tenny's deposit check by depositing same into her personal account and drew a check in the amount of $1,100.00 as the rental deposit and remitted it to Mr. Riggins on October 2.1, 1988. Respondent retained the $400.00 balance as her fee. Respondent tendered her employing broker its portion of the commission fees ($174.00) on February 24, 1989. During early February 1989, the Tennys expressed dissatisfaction with the apartment and demanded a refund from Respondent. Respondent wrote the Tennys a letter of apology and submitted a money order to Marsha Tenny in the amount of $50.00 on February 3, 1989. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) As stated, Respondent was inexperienced with the rental business in Pinellas County. She was at the time undergoing other family problems, including tending to a sister in Orange County, Florida, who was very ill. At the time, Respondent commuted from Pinellas County to Orange County several times per week to visit with and assist her sister. Additionally, Respondent's office was being relocated and the staff was having to relay messages to her through her husband and other salesman employed with her broker. In addition to sending the Tennys a money order in the amount of $50.00, Respondent agreed to repay the Tennys the entire remaining balance of the finders fee that she received from the Riggins/Tenny leasing agreement as soon as she was financially able to do so. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be issued a written reprimand and placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. During the probationary period, Respondent shall enroll in an approved post-licensure course and shall satisfactorily complete the same prior to termination of probation. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 4th day of April, 1990. Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Barbara B. Wise 1059 42nd Avenue, N.E. St. Petersburg, Florida 33703 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Kenneth E. Easley, Esq. Division of Real Estate Department of Prof. Reg. 400 West Robinson Street 1940 North Monroe Street Post Office Box 1900 Suite 60 Orlando, Florida 32802 Tallahassee, FL 32399
