Findings Of Fact Frederick Hodgdon (Hodgdon) has held Florida real estate broker license 0206805 at all times pertinent to this case. Hodgdon is owner and qualifying broker for Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., (Pelican Realty), through which Hodgdon conducts business and which also is named as a respondent. At all times pertinent, Pelican Realty has held Florida corporate real estate broker license 0223934. July 24 through August 6, 1984, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-Daze: DO YOU KNOW ... that all Florida real estate brokers are agents for the seller and CANNOT legally propose any lower than listed prices or better terms for the benefit of the buyer? UNLESS ... the broker legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer. As a Buyer's Broker Pelican Realty CAN and DOES exactly this and a lot more! Buyers pay no fees or commissions. Call or send for our informative brochure, you will be glad you did. The real estate buyer's best bet for the best price is to have a Buyer's Broker. On February 19, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Marco Island Eagle: 1/ BUYER BEWARE! DON'T BUY REAL ESTATE ON MARCO ISLAND. ... before consulting an attorney or carefully reading Paragraph 5) and 7) of the 1985 Revision of the Sales Contract as approved by the Naples Area Board of Realtors and the Marco Island Area Board of Realtors and the Collier County Bar Association contract Revision Committee. The Contract states quote: "The Buyer has inspected the property sold by the Contract and there are no other inspections permitted or required. The property is acceptable in its AS IS condition as of date of this offer. INCREDIBLE! ... What happens to the unwitting Buyer who intends to have termite, structural and seawall inspections AFTER his offer is accepted? He just may have to buy a termite ridden house that needs a new roof and a seawall that is on the verge of collapse. Thats what! ... Taken at face value the Sales contract calls for the buyer to spend several hundred dollars for inspections BEFORE making an offer that may well be turned down. INCREDIBLE! .... Paragraph 7) states quote: "Buyer's decision to buy was based on Buyer's own investigation of the property and not upon any representation, warranty, statement or conduct of the Seller, or broker, or any of Seller's or broker's agents" (Excluding those rare occasions when the seller and his agents remain silent.) INCREDIBLE! ... The above subject sections of Paragraphs 5) and 7) of the 1985 Sales Contract in our opinion may well violate the Realtor's Code of Ethics Article 7) "to treat fairly all parties to the transaction." There is nothing Pelican Realty could say or do to better emphasize the Buyer's need to have an advocate on his side. ... As a Buyer's Broker we recommend striking out any and all terms and conditions of the Sales Contract that are prejudicial to the Buyer's best interests. ... Pelican Realty would appreciate the opportunity to discuss with any interested parties the many advantages of working with a Buyer Broker. Our services are at NO additional expense to the buyer. CALL US FOR FURTHER DETAILS. NOW!! On March 11, 1986, respondents placed the following newspaper advertisement in the Sun-News: CASH BACK FOR THE REAL ESTATE BUYER. THAT'S INCREDIBLE! Pelican Realty GUARANTEES CASH BACK to every buyer on every sale. The bigger the sale, the bigger the cash gift to the buyer. On top of this Pelican Realty (a Buyer's Broker) goes all out to get the lowest possible price for the buyer at NO additional cost to the buyer. Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller. The thousands you SAVE already belong to you. THINK ABOUT IT! Call us for further details NOW! "WE PAY OUR BUYERS TO DO BUSINESS WITH US" There is nothing false or fraudulent about the three advertisements. However, the following statements in the advertisements are deceptive or misleading in form or content: The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that buyers pay no fees or commissions. In form, the buyer perhaps does not pay brokerage fees or commissions. But in substance, the buyer does indirectly pay his broker a brokerage fee or commission when the seller pays fees and commissions out of the proceeds of the sale. The representation in the July 24 through August 6, 1984, Sun-Daze advertisement that a buyer's broker "legally qualifies himself as an agent for the buyer." Although perhaps technically correct, this representation implies separate state regulation and qualification procedures for licensure as a buyer's broker. In fact and in law, any licensed real estate broker can become a buyer's broker simply by entering into an agreement with a buyer to be the buyer's broker. The representation in the March 11, 1986, News-Sun advertisement: "Other realtors must get the highest price for the seller." Read carefully in context, this representation is true--realtors other than those representing a buyer must try to get the highest price for the seller he represents (while being open, honest and fair to the buyer). But, as written, the representation could lead one to believe that the respondents have an ability no other realtors have when, in fact and in law, any realtor or other licensed real estate broker who represents a buyer can try to get the best price for the buyer. Although respondents have offered cash rebates, no client has seen the offer or asked for a rebate. Although respondents have maintained their innocence, they changed the ads to meet the criticism of the Department of Professional Regulation.
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 (1) reprimanding respondents, Frederick Hodgdon and Pelican Realty of Marco Island, Inc., and (2) fining them $500 each for violations of Section 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). RECOMMENDED this 21st day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 21st day of July, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Sexsmith is a licensed real estate broker, having held License Number 0079448 at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent Bellitto is a licensed real estate salesman, having held License No. 0204206 at all times relevant to Case No. 81-2630. Respondent Select Realty, Inc., is a licensed corporate real estate broker, having held License No. 0157174 at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent Sexsmith founded Select Realty, Inc., in 1975. He was a full time realtor until his employment by the Hollywood Fire Department in 1976. Select Realty thereafter became inactive. In 1979, Respondent Sexsmith was contacted by a Mr. Jim Holmes, who was seeking to register the corporate name, Select Realty. Sexsmith agreed to permit the name Select Realty to be used by Holmes and his associates to open a real estate office at 3045 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale. Sexsmith also applied to Petitioner for certification as a director and active broker with this company. His application was granted in June, 1979, and he remained affiliated with Respondent Select Realty, Inc., in this capacity until about April, 1980. Respondent Sexsmith did not participate in Select Realty operations and received no compensation for the use of his name and broker's license. He was slated to open and manage a branch office in Hollywood, but this project failed to materialize. Petitioner produced Mr. Tom Ott and Ms. Terri Casson as witnesses. They had utilized the services of Select Realty, Inc., in December, 1979 (Ott) and February, 1980 (Casson). Both had responded to advertisements in which Select Realty offered to provide rental assistance for a $45 refundable fee. These witnesses understood money would be refunded if Select Realty did not succeed in referring them to rental property which met their specifications. Mr. Ott was referred to several properties which did not meet his requirements. He sought to have his fee or a portion thereof returned, but was refused. His demand for such return was made within the 30-day contract period (PX-11). Ms. Casson was similarly dissatisfied with the referrals and sought the return of her fee within the 30-day contract period (PX-7). However, she was unable to contact this company or its agents since the office had closed and no forwarding instructions were posted or otherwise made available to her.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Select Realty, Inc., and Gary Lee Sexsmith be found guilty as charged in Counts Three and Four of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 81-2630. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges against these Respondents and other Respondents named in DOAH Cases 81-2630 and 81-2490 be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that the corporate broker's license of Select Realty, Inc., be revoked. It is further RECOMMENDED that the broker's license of Gary Lee Sexsmith be suspended for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 18th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101, Kristin Building 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 William Grossbard, Esquire Suite 6175M 6191 Southwest 45 Street 6177 North Davie, Florida 33314 Anthony S. Paetro, Esquire Bedzow and Korn, P.A. Suite C 1125 Northeast 125 Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Lawrence J. Spiegel, Esquire Spiegel and Abramowitz Suite 380 First National Bank Building 900 West 49th Street Hialeah, Florida 33012 Mr. Gary Lee Sexsmith 321 Southwest 70t Avenue Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023 Mr. Guiseppe D. Bellitto 2635 McKinley Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Select Realty, Inc. c/o Mr. Gary Lee Sexsmith last acting Director and Trustee of Select Realty, Inc. 321 Southwest 70th Avenue Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023 Mr. Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner and, if so, whether Respondent's real estate license should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes; Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes; and the rules adopted pursuant thereto. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Jared A. White T/A Jerry White Realty was a licensed real estate broker, having been issued license number 0187087 pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker with an address of 231 Skiff Pt. 7, Clearwater, Florida 34630. TITLE TO THE PROPERTY The matters at issue began with Respondent's retention as a real estate broker to bid at a foreclosure auction for a beachfront house and lot at 235 Howard Drive in Belleair Beach, Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent was hired to submit the bid on behalf of Dr. Moshe Kedan and/or his wife, Ella Kedan. Prior to the auction on August 17, 1995, Respondent had no contact with the Kedans. Kathy MacKinnon of Viewpoint International Realty in Clearwater was Respondent’s point of contact with the Kedans. It was Ms. MacKinnon who obtained Respondent's services to bid on behalf of the Kedans, and Ms. MacKinnon who negotiated with Dr. Kedan as to the financial arrangements for both the bid and any ensuing commissions for Respondent. Neither Ms. MacKinnon nor Dr. Kedan was called as a witness in this case. Respondent attended the foreclosure auction and tendered the winning bid on the property. Respondent bid in his own name. Respondent testified that he had bid at several similar sales in the past, and his practice was to bid in the name of the person who would hold title to the property. Respondent did not follow his usual practice here because Ms. MacKinnon failed to instruct him as to whether the property would be titled in the name of Dr. Kedan, Mrs. Kedan, or one of their corporations. Ms. MacKinnon told Respondent she would know on August 18 how the property was to be titled. Respondent's testimony regarding the initial titling of the property is supported by a handwritten note faxed by Ms. MacKinnon to Dr. Kedan on August 17, shortly after the auction. Ms. MacKinnon's note provides instructions regarding payment of the purchase price, indicating that the money must be submitted to the Clerk of the Court no later than 10:30 a.m. on the morning of August 18. The note specifically asks, "Also, whose name do you want the house in?" Respondent testified that on August 18, he went to Atlanta on business, with the understanding that Ms. MacKinnon would handle the payments to the Clerk of the Court and the titling of the property on that date. This testimony is consistent with the handwritten note in which Ms. MacKinnon indicates that she will take the Kedans' checks to the court. The record evidence shows that the payments were made to the Clerk of the Court and that title insurance on the property was timely issued. However, the title and the title insurance policy listed Respondent as owner of the property. Respondent was unaware the property had been titled in his name until he received the certificate of title in the mail, approximately two weeks after the auction. Upon receiving the incorrect certificate of title, he went to the title company and signed a quitclaim deed, effective August 17, 1995, in favor of Ella Kedan. Respondent testified that he had learned from Ms. MacKinnon that the property would be titled in Ella Kedan’s name at sometime during the two-week period after the auction. The quitclaim deed was not notarized until October 9, 1995, and was not recorded until October 10, 1995. However, the face of the deed states that it was made on August 17, 1995. It is plain that the signature line of the notary statement on the quitclaim deed has been altered from August 17, 1995 to October 9, 1995. Respondent had no knowledge of how the quitclaim deed came to be altered. Respondent also had no clear recollection as to why he dated the quitclaim deed August 17, 1995, in light of his testimony that he signed it approximately two weeks after that date. A reasonable inference is that Respondent so dated the quitclaim deed to clarify that Mrs. Kedan's ownership of the property commenced on August 17, the date on which Respondent submitted the winning bid. Respondent also had no knowledge of why the title company failed to record the quitclaim deed at the time he signed it. He testified that on or about October 9, 1995, he checked the Pinellas County computer tax records and discovered that he was still the owner of record. At that time, he returned to the title company to make sure the quitclaim deed was recorded the next day. Petitioner offered no testimonial evidence regarding the events surrounding the titling of the property. Respondent's uncontradicted testimony is credible, consistent with the documentary evidence, and thus credited as an accurate and truthful statement of the events in question. THE CONTRACT FOR REPAIRS Shortly after the auction, Respondent began discussing with Dr. Kedan the possibility of Respondent’s performing repairs on the just-purchased property. Because Dr. Kedan did not testify in this proceeding, findings as to the substance of the negotiations between Respondent and Dr. Kedan must be based on the testimony of Respondent, to the extent that testimony is credible and consistent with the documentary evidence. Respondent testified that Ms. MacKinnon approached him after the auction and asked him if he would be interested in fixing up the house for the Kedans. Respondent testified that he was agreeable to contracting for the work because his carpenter was between jobs and could use the money. Respondent thus met with Dr. Kedan at the doctor’s office to discuss the repairs. Dr. Kedan explained to Respondent that his ultimate plan was to demolish the existing house on the property and to build a more elaborate residence. Dr. Kedan wanted to rent out the house for five years before tearing it down, and wanted Respondent to affect such repairs as would make the house rentable for that five-year period. Respondent testified that Dr. Kedan expressly told him he did not want to spend a lot of money on the repairs. Respondent quoted Dr. Kedan a price of $20,000.00, which was the price it would take to pay for the repairs, with no profit built in for Respondent. Respondent testified that he sought no profit on this job. He had made a substantial commission on the purchase of the property, and anticipated doing business with Dr. Kedan in the future, and thus agreed to perform this particular job more or less as a “favor” to Dr. Kedan. After this meeting with Dr. Kedan, Respondent walked through the house with Irene Eastwood, the Kedans’ property manager. Ms. Eastwood testified that she and Respondent went from room to room, and she made notes on what should be done, with Respondent either concurring or disagreeing. Ms. Eastwood typed the notes into the form of a contract and presented it to Respondent the next day. On September 21, 1995, Respondent signed the contract as drafted by Ms. Eastwood. There was conflicting testimony as to whether Respondent represented himself as a licensed contractor in the negotiations preceding the contract. Respondent testified that he never told Dr. Kedan that he was a contractor, and that he affirmatively told Ms. Eastwood that he was not a contractor. Ms. Eastwood testified that she assumed Respondent was a licensed contractor because Dr. Kedan would not have hired a nonlicensed person to perform the contracted work. She denied that Respondent ever told her that he was not a licensed contractor. The weight of the evidence supports Respondent to the extent it is accepted that Respondent never expressly represented himself as a licensed contractor to either Dr. Kedan or Ms. Eastwood. However, the weight of the evidence does not support Respondent’s claim that he expressly told either Dr. Kedan or Ms. Eastwood that he was not a licensed contractor. Respondent’s subcontractors commenced work immediately upon the signing of the contract. Ms. Eastwood was in charge of working with Respondent to remodel the house, and she visited the site every day, often two or three times. She only saw Respondent on the site once during the last week of September, and not at all during the month of October. She did observe painters and a maintenance man regularly at work on the property during this period. Respondent concurred that he was seldom on the property, but testified that this was pursuant to his agreement with Dr. Kedan that he would generally oversee the work on the property. Respondent testified that he was on the property as often as he felt necessary to perform his oversight duties. Ms. Eastwood testified as to her general dissatisfaction with the quality of the work that was being performed on the property and the qualifications of those performing the work. She conveyed those concerns to the Kedans. Respondent testified that he did not initially obtain any permits to perform the work on the house, believing that permits would not be necessary for the job. On or about October 11, 1995, officials from the City of Belleair Beach shut down Respondent’s job on the Kedans’ property for lack of a construction permit. Respondent made inquiries with the City as to how to obtain the needed permit. City officials told Respondent that a permit could be granted to either a licensed contractor, or to the owner of the property if such property is not for sale or lease. Respondent checked the City’s records and discovered that, despite the fact that he had signed a quitclaim deed on August 17, he was still shown as the owner of the property. Respondent then proceeded to sign a permit application as the homeowner, and obtained a construction permit on October 11, 1995. Respondent testified that because the City’s records showed him as the record owner of the property, he committed no fraud in obtaining a construction permit as the homeowner. This testimony cannot be credited. Whatever the City’s records showed on October 11, 1995, Respondent well knew he was not the true owner of this property. Respondent cannot be credited both with having taken good faith steps to correct the mistaken titling of the property and with later obtaining in good faith a construction permit as the record owner of the property. Respondent testified that in obtaining the construction permit under false pretenses, his main concern was to keep the job going and to finish it in a timely fashion. He testified that there was no financial advantage to him in having the property in his name: he was making no profit on the job, and actually lost money because he had to pay for another title policy in the name of the Kedans. While there may have been no immediate financial advantage to Respondent, he was clearly motivated by the prospect of future profits in projects with Dr. Kedan. The City’s closing down this project jeopardized Respondent’s anticipated continuing relationship with Dr. Kedan, and Respondent took the improper step of obtaining a construction permit as the property owner to maintain that relationship. The Kedans ultimately dismissed Respondent from the job. A claim of lien was filed against the property by the painter hired by Respondent, and the cabinet maker sent the Kedans a lawyer’s letter threatening to file a claim of lien. Mrs. Kedan testified that she paid off both the painter and the cabinetmaker in full. Ms. Eastwood estimated that the Kedans ultimately had to pay an additional $20,000 to $50,000 to complete the repairs to the house, some of which included correctional actions for the improper repairs performed by Respondent’s workers. ALLEGED PRIOR DISCIPLINE Respondent has been the subject of a prior disciplinary proceeding by the Florida Real Estate Commission. In that prior proceeding, the Division of Real Estate's Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent was guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b) and (1)(k), Florida Statutes. On September 25, 1995, Respondent and the Division of Real Estate entered into a Stipulation disposing of the Administrative Complaint. Under the terms of the Stipulation, Respondent agreed to pay a fine of $1,000, and be subject to one year of probation, during which he would complete 30 hours of post-license education for brokers. The Stipulation expressly stated that Respondent neither admitted nor denied the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint. The Florida Real Estate Commission entered a Final Order approving the Stipulation on November 14, 1995. Respondent's broker license was suspended by the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 24, 1996. The cause for this suspension was Respondent's failure timely to pay the $1,000 fine imposed by the Stipulation. Respondent paid the fine on February 19, 1996, and late renewed his license on April 24, 1997. In the instant proceeding, Respondent testified that by entering into the Stipulation, he had no intention of pleading guilty to any of the allegations, and that he would never have entered into the Stipulation had he known it would be construed in any way as a guilty plea.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing Counts One and Three of the administrative complaint, and finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Two of the administrative complaint, and suspending Respondent’s real estate license for a period of three years and fining Respondent a sum of $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey T. Kirk, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 John Bozmoski, Jr., Esquire 600 Bypass Drive, Suite 215 Clearwater, Florida 34624-5075 Jared White White Realty 231 Skiff Point, Suite Seven Clearwater, Florida 34630 Henry M. Solares Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent acted as a real estate agent/sales associate without being the holder of a valid and current real estate license in violation of Section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and therefore, in violation of Section 455.228, Florida Statutes; and, if so, (b) what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the real estate industry pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. As such, Petitioner is authorized to prosecute cases against persons who operate as real estate agents/sales associates without a real estate license. At all times material, Respondent was not a licensed Florida real estate agent/sales associate or broker. From January 2005 to June 2007, Respondent worked as a secretary/administrative assistant to Gail Gee, licensed Florida real estate agent and broker affiliated with Tradewinds of Mandalay, Inc., trading as Tradewinds Realty, a brokerage corporation located in or near Crystal River, Florida. Respondent was not the only secretary in the office. In 2005, Ms. Gee had three real estate sales offices. The offices were located in Beverly Hills, Ozello, and Crystal River, Florida. Respondent began working at Ms. Gee's main office in Ozello, Florida. Ms. Gee was at that office seven days a week in 2005. Ms. Gee paid Respondent hourly wages. Respondent's duties included the following pursuant to Ms. Gee's instructions: (a) answering the phone and taking messages; (b) faxing documents and e-mail listings; (c) placing advertisements; (d) drafting contracts; and (e) researching public property records. Ms. Gee took Respondent to a convention so they could participate in a class where the need for an agent to have a policy and procedure manual was discussed. Ms. Gee bought a computer disc of the proposed manual and subsequently used it to create one of her own. Ms. Gee had all of her associate agents and employees sign the manual. The manual advised the employees, including Respondent, what they could and could not do. Sometime before February 2005, Bruce Sculthorpe of Ann Arbor, Michigan, found some property in Citrus County, Florida, listed for sale on the internet. One property was located at 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace, in the Crystal Manor area of Crystal River, Florida. The other property consisted of two lots, Lots 206 and 207, in Waterman Subdivision, in Citrus County, Florida. Mr. Sculthorpe then contacted Ms. Gee to make further inquiries about the properties. On or about February 7, 2005, Bruce and Julie Sculthorpe brought the property located at 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace from Mary Lynn Netzel, for $25,063.50. As a result of this transaction, Ms. Gee received a commission in the amount of $2,500. The Sculthorpes bought the property without seeing it. On or about February 8, 2005, the Sculthorpes listed their property located at 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace, Crystal River, Florida, with Ms. Gee. The exclusive listing agreement indicates that the sale price for the property was $75,000 and that the Sculthorpes agreed to pay Ms. Gee a 10 percent commission. Later in February 2005, Mr. Sculthorpe learned that Respondent worked for Ms. Gee. Neither Ms. Gee nor Respondent ever represented to the Sculthorpes that Respondent was a licensed real estate agent. In March or April of 2005, Julie Sculthorpe came to Florida to see the property located at 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace for the first and only time. Ms. Sculthorpe made the trip with two female friends. Ms. Sculthorpe was over an hour late to her appointment with Ms. Gee who had another appointment pending. Ms. Gee understood that Ms. Sculthorpe just wanted to see her property and was not interested in purchasing property or doing any business. Ms. Gee introduced Ms. Sculthorpe to Respondent as her secretary/assistant. Ms. Gee asked Respondent to use Ms. Gee's van to take Ms. Sculthorpe and her friends to see the Sculthorpes' property and the surrounding properties because they were unfamiliar with the area. Respondent did not "show" Ms. Sculthorpe other properties with the intent to interest the Sculthorpes in future purchases. The trip consisted of going to 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace and back without stopping anywhere else to look at property. During the trip to 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace, Ms. Sculthorpe was not impressed with the surrounding property. She indicated that she and her husband would not be interested in property that looked like "Sanford and Son," with "trailers and license plates in their decorative stuff all over the front of their yards and stuff." Respondent did not advise Ms. Sculthorpe to lower the price on the property located at 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace in order to sell it quickly. Ms. Gee eventually made that suggestion to the Sculthorpes. The record is silent regarding the circumstances of the Sculthorpes’ purchase of property in the Waterman subdivision. On or about June 28, 2005, the Sculthorpes listed their properties, Lots 206 and 207, in the Waterman Subdivision, Crystal River, Florida, with Ms. Gee. The listing price for each lot was $175,000. The Sculthorpes agreed to pay Ms. Gee a commission in the amount of 8 percent on each lot. On or about August 1, 2005, Gustavo Roperto and Nathalie Roperto of West Palm Beach, Florida, bought property located at 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace, Crystal River, Florida, from the Sculthorpes for the contract sales price of $70,000. As a result of this transaction, Tradewinds Realty and Exit Realty, of Naples, Florida, each received $2,800 in commission. The Sculthorpes made about $40,000 in profit in about six-months time. Ms. Gee negotiated the sale price of the property located at 9844 North Burr Oak Terrace. Respondent's only involvement in the sale was in facilitating communication between the Sculthorpes and Ms. Gee. Respondent did not locate the buyers, Mr. and Mrs. Roperto, or make any decision or make any statement about the property to the Sculthorpes, other than as instructed by Ms. Gee. On September 3, 2005, Julie Sculthorpe's son died. Mr. Sculthrope had subsequent conversations with Respondent regarding the need to find a home for the deceased son's dogs. Later, Mr. Sculthorpe talked to Respondent about other personal matters, like finding a Christmas gift for his wife, Julie Sculthorpe. On or about September 21, 2005, the Sculthorpes signed a contract to purchase property located at 1106 South Ozello Trail in Citrus County, Florida, from Willard Radcliffs of Brooksville, Florida. The property is also described as Lots 9 and 10, St. Martians Esturary Retreats, Unit 1, in Citrus County, Florida. The Sculthorpes agreed to pay Mr. Radcliffs $285,000.00 for the property. The sales contract indicated that Tradewinds Realty would receive commissions as the selling and listing real estate agent. The sale of the property located at 1106 South Ozello Trail closed on October 27, 2005, giving the Sculthorpes title to the property. Tradewinds Realty received a commission in the amount of $17,000 for the sale of the property. On or about October 7, 2005, the St. Lucie Development Corporation, located in Vero Beach, Florida, bought property described as Lot 206, Waterman Subdivision in Crystal River, Florida, from the Sculthorpes for the contract sales price of $160,000. As a result of this transaction, Tradewinds Realty and Kevin S. Hawkins each received commissions in the amount of $6,400. On or about October 7, 2005, Orion Property and Sales, Inc., located in Ft. Pierce, Florida, bought property described as Lot 207, Waterman Subdivision in Crystal River, Florida, from the Sculthorpes for the contract sales price of $160,000. As a result of this transaction, Tradewinds Realty and Kevin S. Hawkins each received commissions in the amount of $6,400. Lots 206 and 207, located in the Waterman Subdivision in Crystal River, Florida, are sometimes referred to in the record as the Hunt Point Lots. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent had any involvement in the sale of the Hunt Point property to St. Lucie Development Corporation and to Orion Property and Sales, Inc., other than as instructed by Ms. Gee. On or about November 15, 2005, the Sculthorpes listed the property located at 1106 Ozello Trail (Lots 9 and 10 in St. Martians Estuary Retreats) for sale with Ms. Gee. The Sculthorpes signed on exclusive listing agreement to sell Lot 9 for $249,000. They signed another exclusive listing agreement to sell Lot 10 for $249,000. In both agreements, the Sculthorpes agreed to pay Ms. Gee a commission in the amount of 8 percent. Ms. Gee subsequently advertised Lot 9 in St. Martians Estuary Retreats as for sale for $214,000. At the time of the hearing, the Sculthorpes still owned the property located at 1106 Ozello Trail (Lots 9 and 10 in St. Martins Esturary Retreats). When the Sculthorpes purchased the property at 1106 Ozello Trail, there was a stilt house on one lot and a screened enclosure with a fireplace on the other lot. The Sculthorpes paid to have both structures removed before listing the lots for sale. Respondent was not involved in finding someone to remove the structures for Bruce and Julie Sculthorpe. Respondent began working part-time for another real estate broker/developer, John Holdsworth, sometime toward the end of 2005. Mr. Holdsworth owned a restaurant across the street from Ms. Gee's office. Mr. Holdsworth hired Respondent to manage the restaurant because of her prior experience owning and operating a pizzeria. Ms. Gee and Mr. Holdsworth paid Respondent by the hour for time spent in each respective business. Ms. Gee hired another secretary around December 2005, to do the work Respondent no longer had time to do. During his business relationship with Ms. Gee, Mr. Sculthorpe would call her, repeatedly asking, "What's next?" He also called Respondent repeatedly, wanting information about his properties or just to discuss his personal life. Mr. Sculthorpe used e-mail and Instant Messaging so much that, on one occasion, Ms. Gee instructed Respondent to turn off the computer so she could get other work done. Ms. Gee and Respondent were not the only people in the office answering Mr. Sculthorpe's calls. Other secretaries in the office answered some of the calls. On some occasions, the office staff would look at each other and ask who wanted to take the call. On other occasions, Respondent placed Mr. Sculthorpe's call on speakerphone. Mr. Sculthorpe "would talk and talk and talk and talk" while Respondent continued to do her work. At some point in time, Mr. Sculthorpe advised Respondent that he did not like paying commissions to Ms. Gee. Respondent then recommended that Mr. Sculthorpe take the same real estate licensure course that she was taking. Respondent gave Mr. Sculthorpe the web site for the real estate school. At some point in time, Mr. Sculthorpe's sister-in-law, Linda Wilkinson went to Crystal River. Ms. Wilkinson was a real estate agent in another state. Ms. Gee showed Ms. Wilkinson some property located in an area known as Bimini Bay. Respondent never met with or talked to Ms. Wilkinson. During the hearing, Mr. Sculthorpe testified that Respondent encouraged him to buy another piece of property. According to Mr. Sculthorpe, Respondent asked him to refer her to another buyer after he refused to buy the property. Mr. Sculthorpe's testimony in this regard is not persuasive. Toward the end of the Sculthorpes' relationship with Ms. Gee, Respondent was still working only part-time with Ms. Gee. After Mr. Holdsworth closed the restaurant, Respondent continued to work for Ms. Gee. In June 2006, Ms. Gee moved Respondent from the Ozello office to a new office that became Ms. Gee's primary office. In June 2007, Respondent quit working for Ms. Gee because she could no longer afford to pay Respondent a salary. At $33 per hour for an investigator's time, Petitioner spent $412.50 investigating this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is Recommended: That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Leigh Blakeman, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Cara S. Cacioppo 5756 West Costa Mesa Lane Beverly Hills, Florida 34465 Heather A. Rutecki, Esquire Rutecki & Associates, P.A. Bank of America Tower 100 Southeast Second Street, Suite 2950 Miami, Florida 33131 Thomas W. O’Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent Theodore Dorwin is a registered real estate broker, registration certificate number 0022474, 561 N.E. 79th Street, Miami, Florida. He also is now and was at all times alleged in the Administrative Complain the president and active firm member of Respondent Intermart, Inc., a registered corporate broker located at the same address. As broker with Intermart, Respondent holds registration certificate number . 0157090. Intermart is registered under certificate number 0157081. The registrations of both Dorwin and Intermart were suspended by Petitioner on July 21, 1976, for a period of ninety (90) days. By order, dated December 16, 1976, Petitioner denied Respondents' petition for reactivation and return of registration certificates. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1) Intermart, Inc. was formed in the middle of 1975, but did not commence active operations until February, 1976. Prior to 1975, Dorwin had been a general real estate broker for various land companies in Florida. In 1975, he became associated for a brief period of time with a firm called Property Resales Service, Inc., of Miami, an organization that solicited listings for the resale of property. During the period February, 1975, until 1976, Dorwin was connected successively with International Land Brokers, Inc. (hereinafter "International") and Florida Landowners Service Bureau (hereinafter "Service Bureau"), both of which firms engaged in the solicitation of advance fees from out of state property owners for listing agreements whereby they undertook to advertise and sell the property for a ten percent commission. The listing agreements of these firms provided that the advance fee would be credited against the commission. In February, 1976, Intermart, Inc. was activated and began operations at the same office and with the same salesmen who had been used by Dorwin in his activities for the Service Bureau. It used virtually the identical "Listing and Brokerage Agreement" and promotional material as had the other firms. The change was brought about by the fact that commission checks received from the Service Bureau had "bounced." (Testimony of Dorwin, Petitioner's Exhibits 2,5,6,7,23,26,27,28) Respondents operated the advance fee business in the following manner: Lists of primarily out of state owners of land in large developments in Florida and other states were purchased by Respondents from individuals who sold such lists "on the street." In like manner, lists of prospective purchasers of such land were purchased. Information was placed on cards containing the name, address and phone number of the landowner, together with information as to the development where the land was located. A staff of some fifteen to twenty real estate salesmen were utilized to solicit listings from the prospective sellers over the telephone. Each salesman had a cubicle in a small office with a .telephone. These individuals worked in two shifts, six days a week, during the evening hours. Each salesman averaged about twenty to twenty-five telephone calls a night. When Intermart succeeded Dorwin's operation for the Service Bureau, there was little or no change in any of the above procedures. The average, listing fee was $350 , of which the soliciting salesmen received approximately one-third. The salesmen were provided a "script" or "opening statement" by Dorwin to use as a selling "pitch." The persons called were asked if they were interested in reselling their property. They were told that foreign investors around the world were interested in buying blocks of land in Florida and were quoted a sale price that usually was somewhat in excess of the current market value of the property. If the property owner expressed interest in listing his land for sale, literature was mailed to him which consisted of information about Intermart and the experience and qualifications of its officers, together with a form "Listing and Brokerage Agreement," and reprints of newspaper and other articles concerning the interest of foreign investors in land in the United States, and similar subjects. About two weeks later, the salesman would call the individual again to urge that he send in his advance fee, along with the signed listing agreement. The proposed selling price was fixed by the salesman from a large chart in the office that showed sample original purchase prices and amounts to be quoted as selling prices based on the number of years since purchase of the property. These amounts were used in all cases, regardless of where the property was located. The only deviation from the standard selling price was in cases where water or canal front property, golf course or business property was involved, in which case, $500 to $1,000 was added to the quoted figure. During the initial call, the salesman asked for the legal description of the lots in question and, if a listing was obtained, a copy of the agreement for deed or warranty deed was also requested. However, no efforts were made to check the legal descriptions of the property nor were any visits made to the property by Dorwin or other personnel of the firm. The sales man had nothing to do with actual sales of the property and did not contact prospective purchasers. Neither Dorwin nor one of his former salesmen who testified at the hearing was aware of any actual sales of listed property made by Intermart or the Service Bureau. No credible evidence was submitted that the property was ever checked for zoning restrictions or that prospective purchasers were contacted by anyone. Respondents did occasionally send a form letter to those listing property stating that Intermart "had the opportunity to present your property" to a named individual and that they would "endeavor to interest the prospect further." However nothing ever came of these supposed contacts. During the telephone conversations with sellers, the alesmen made statements to the effect that Intermart was making sales, and that the land would usually be sold within eight to nine months. In one case, a seller was told by one of Respondents' salesmen that Intermart had sold all of the property that had been listed with it. Further representations were that Argentine buyers loaded with money" wanted to invest in American real estate. One salesman represented that Respondents advertised all over the world in all foreign countries and in every state in the Union. A letter enclosed with promotional materials stated that Respondents advertised or had proposed advertising pending in a number of countries via major magazine and newspaper publications, and in Miami, Los Angeles, New York City, Boston and Chicago. Another landowner was told that the company had been in business for a period of ten years. It was also represented that Intermart had a computer printout on the latest market values of land and that this was used in determining their estimate of a selling price. In one instance, the salesman told the seller that they had identified a buyer for his land which would be part of a large block package to be sold to the individual and that a rapid decision had to be made whether or not to list. the property so that he could participate in the deal. He was further told that it would take about three months to close the sale with a Venezuelan investor. Attempts by the property owners to obtain copies of the listing agreement signed by Respondent proved to be futile, in spite of promises from its representatives to provide the same. In one instance, to induce a listing, the sales man told the landowner to cross out the amount shown on the listing contract that previously had stated a sale price and to pencil in an increased sales price. He also told him to make pencil corrections on the proposed agreement to indicate that the purchaser rather than the seller would pay the ten percent commission of the sales price. (Testimony of Judkins, Ladabauche, Nicholas, Burke, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, Petitioner's Exhibits 5,6,7 [depositions]) Respondents' promotional literature and information that was sent to prospective sellers of property contained various promises and representations that were not kept, as follows: Respondents stated that it would "analyze" the property to arrive at a correct selling price by reviewing the status of development and zoning in the immediate area of the property. In fact, the selling price was based solely on an arbitrary figure selected from a chart on the wall that did not take into consideration the precise location of the property or zoning considerations. Respondents stated that "Your property legals are checked thoroughly." In fact, any legal description of the property was obtained solely from copies of agreements for deed or warranty deeds supplied by the owner , and were not further checked in any manner. Respondents stated "In order for us to successfully merchandise and receive the highest offer for your property (ies) considerable expense is involved because a great deal of time is put forth on your behalf and many of the property(ies) are being offered for sale sight unseen." In fact, only a small amount of money and little or no time was expended to sell the property. After the property owner had submitted his advance fee and listing agreement to Respondents, no further efforts were made on his be half nor was he ever contacted thereafter by the firm. (Testimony of Lewis, Judkins, Ladabauche, Nicholas, Petitioners' Composite Exhibit 2, Petitioners' Exhibits 57, 23) In the "Listing and Brokerage Agreement," Respondents a greed to use its "efforts to secure a purchaser for the property" and to include the property in its directory of "available properties, to be distributed to other real estate brokers." It also contained A the following pertinent undertakings: "4. In consideration of this listing, you agree: To cause said property to be included in your listing directory and in two successive issues of said directory within a period of one year. Contemporaneously with the appearance of said listing in the directory, you agree to direct the efforts of your organization to bringing about a sale of my property; To advertise said property as you deem advisable in magazines or other mediums of merit: I understand that this agreement does not guarantee the sale of my property, but that it does guarantee that you will make an earnest effort pursuant to the aforementioned provisions." (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 23) Respondent Dorwin testified that he planned to issue a catalog of listed properties in June, 1976 to be distributed to various investors and brokers in the United States and foreign Mailings this depend 7 countries. of catalog were to on responses to .advertisements placed in newspapers around the world and in the United States in April. No action toward any of these goals was taken until March, 1976 when Intermart entered into an agreement with Currency Control Advertising, Miami, Florida, to act as an advertising agency for brochures, printing, copy, layout, typesetting, art, newspaper and magazine advertising, public relations, radio and television. Under this contract, small, one insertion newspaper ads were placed in approximately seven newspapers of various foreign countries and Canada, and in newspapers in Chicago, Los Angeles and New York, costing approximately $500. These ads read as follows: "U.S. Investments Catalogue . . . $9.95 U.S. Complimentary to Investors and to the Trade." Property listings for the catalog were not provided to the advertising agency until the last half of July, 1976. It was not published until August 20th but has not been mailed due to Respondents' current suspension by Petitioner. A few responses were received as a result of the newspaper advertisements but Dorwin testified that nothing was done to follow-up such inquiries because he was waiting for the catalog to be published. Five thousand copies of the catalog were printed at a cost of some $4,500. At the present time, Intermart owes the advertising firm about $2,500 for its work. Dorwin testified that he planned to distribute the catalog to several thousand investors and brokers listed in the International Real Estate Federation, of which he was a member, but that he was unable to do so because of his suspension by Petitioner in July. During the period January-June, 1976, Intermart's records reflected a gross income from the advance fee business of approximately $190,000. About forty-eight per cent of this amount was paid to salesmen for commissions on listing fees, twenty-eight per cent for officers salaries, and about one and one-half per cent was paid for advertising. (Testimony of Dorwin, Weinstein, Stowe, Leader, Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 825) During the last half of June, 1975, Intermart, upon advice of Counsel, in anticipation of a new state law regulating advance fee contracts, stamped on their listing agreements a statement that the parties agreed the advance fee did not constitute trust funds and that the monies therefrom could be expended for expenses. Listing fees received after July 1, 1976, were placed in an Intermart, Inc. trust account of the Capital Bank of North Bay Village, Florida, Account 10452, and as of December 31, 1976, this account showed a balance of $5,083.35 that is being retained by Respondents pending the outcome of present proceedings. (Testimony of Dorwin, Petitioner's Dorwin testified that, although he was aware the other advance fee firms with which he had been associated did not follow through on listings to attempt to make sales, he planned to do so by his newspaper advertisements and issuance of the catalog. However, he admitted that no information was ever sent to any prospective purchaser, that no advertisements were ever placed that described individual parcels of property, and that the only contact ever made with prospective purchasers was by telephone calls. He further admitted that no one from the firm ever checked public records involving the property listed for sale to assure the accuracy of information provided by the owners, and only token visits were ever made to view the listed properties by any member of the firm. He maintained that salesmen were not given a "script" to use but merely an "opening statement" and that they were free to deal with property owners as individuals. He was unaware of where the chart showing sample property values had been obtained and stated that such a chart was not used during Intermart's operations but had been used only during the previous operation at the same address. He denied ever telling salesmen to inform expected sellers that the firm was selling blocks of land but acknowledged that in monitoring telephone conversations of the salesmen, they did exaggerate at times. (Testimony of Dorwin) In view of the totality of the evidence, it is found that the operations of Intermart, Inc. were designed and carried out with the sole intention of extracting monies from landowners with no intent to carry out the stated promises of "earnest efforts" to sell the property.
Recommendation That the certificates of registration of Theodore Dorwin and Intermart, Inc. be revoked pursuant to subsection 475.25(3), F.S. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Louis B. Guttmann, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Harold Mendelow, Esquire Manners and Amoon, P.A. 4349 N.W. 36th Street, Suite 106 Miami, Florida 33166
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Steven Hall, at all times pertinent hereto, was a licensed real estate salesman and broker. Upon February 15, 1984, he became licensed as a broker. The Respondent was registered with and employed by J. Arnold Ausley Realty from March 31, 1983 to February 15, 1984. J. Arnold Ausley was a licensed real estate broker and operated as Ausley Properties during times pertinent hereto. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure and practice of realtors in the State of Florida and enforcing the practice standards for realtors embodied in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On February 4, 1984, the Respondent, in his capacity as a licensed salesman for Ausley Properties, arranged a contract between Champak Bhoja and Kishor Patel, as purchasers of a certain piece of real estate owned by one John D. Gilbert. In connection with that contract the Respondent obtained a $2,000 check as a deposit from Mr. Patel. At Mr. Patel's request the Respondent held this check without negotiating it awaiting Patel's instruction that sufficient funds were on deposit to honor the check. The Respondent waited four weeks and received no such instructions from Mr. Patel. The Respondent therefore contacted Patel, who was in Nebraska at the time, to tell him that he felt legally obligated to deposit the check. The check was deposited and was returned for insufficient funds. On March 19, 1984, Mr. Patel gave the Respondent a replacement check in the amount of $2,000. Mr. Hall asked Mr. Patel to make the check out to him since he had in the meantime become a broker and wanted credit for this transaction in his own business. He also informed Mr. Patel that he would need to use the money for his own personal expenses, in the nature of a "loan." Mr. Patel, however, made the check out to the "Ausley Properties Escrow Account." The Respondent and Mr. Patel had been involved in other business ventures together during the course of which Mr. Patel had already lent the Respondent, on different occasions, a total of approximately $4,000. This course of dealing was continued in the present instance, from the Respondent's viewpoint, when the Respondent informed Mr. Patel that he needed the $2,000 for personal expense purposes and would pay it back as a loan. He believed Mr. Patel assented to that arrangement at the time. The sales contract at issue ultimately failed to be consummated due to Mr. Pate1 and Mr. Bhoja not meeting the required contingency regarding debt financing. Approximately fifteen days after the contract's closing date passed, Mr. Patel made a demand upon the Respondent for the return of the $2,000 deposit. The Respondent failed to return it at that time but assured Mr. Patel that he would repay the money and needed more time to obtain the necessary funds. The Respondent had not deposited the check in the Ausley Properties Escrow Account because such an account did not exist, although the Respondent had urged Mr. Ausley on a number of occasions to set up such an account. The Respondent rather cashed the $2,000 check and used the proceeds for his own benefit, as he had informed Patel he would do. He used the money to meet certain operating expenses and personal expenses, being in severe financial straits at the time. Pate1 knew he was experiencing financial difficulties and had lent him the previously mentioned $4,000 to help him with operating expenses and personal expenses during the pendency of the closing of their various other real estate ventures. The Respondent informed Patel he would use the subject $2,000 for similar purposes, however, the record does not clearly reflect that Patel consented to this, as opposed to his intent that the money be placed in an account as his deposit of consideration for the contract. His testimony to this latter effect is borne out by the fact that in spite of the Respondent's request that the check be made out to him personally, instead Patel made it out to the "Ausley Properties Escrow Account." That account did not exist but the method of drafting the check reveals his intent that the money was to be used as a deposit. In any event the Respondent made no misrepresentation to Mr. Patel as to what he intended to do with the money, but at the same time he did not deposit it in an appropriate account to be held as a deposit toward the purchase of the property involved in the sales contract. Patel made numerous demands for the money and each time Respondent acknowledged this and the other debt to Patel and promised to pay. He ultimately began paying back a small portion of the indebtedness to each of his creditors starting out at a rate of $10 per month. Ultimately, the Respondent paid the entire $2,000 predicated on receipt of his 1985 income tax return.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Petitioner finding that the Respondent has violated Section 475.25(1)(b),(d,)(e) and (k) only to the extent delineated in the above conclusions of law and that his real estate broker's license be subjected to a six months suspension. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of August, 1986 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 1st day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Steven R. Hall 8880 Old Kings Hwy., Apt. 30-W Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Michael Sheahan, Esquire Two South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings Slocum Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Florida Rea1 Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected, although the evidence establishes that Patel intended the funds to be escrowed. Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected as not comporting with the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact:* Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted, but irrelevant to the charges. Accepted Accepted Accepted as to the first sentence only. The second sentence concerning Patel's response is not clearly supported by record evidence. Accepted Accepted Accepted * Although Respondent is proposed findings are accepted, some are inculpatory, some are not material and some support the conclusion that no fraudulent conduct was committed.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the "formal hearing," and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since October of 2000, a licensed real estate sales associate in the State of Florida, holding license number 695252. He is currently associated with AAA Realty, Inc., a broker corporation doing business in Broward County, Florida. From March 1, 2001, through June 26, 2001, Respondent was an active real estate sales associate with Allen Real Estate, Inc. (Allen), a broker corporation doing business in St. Lucie County, Florida. From June 27, 2001, through August 13, 2001, Respondent was an active real estate sales associate with Realty Unlimited, Inc. (Unlimited), a broker corporation (affiliated with GMAC Real Estate) with offices in Port St. Lucie and Stuart, Florida. Unlimited is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, owned by Kevin Schevers, a Florida-licensed real estate broker. Gary Sprauer is a Florida-licensed real estate sales associate. He is currently associated with Unlimited. Like Respondent, Mr. Sprauer began his association with Unlimited on June 27, 2001, immediately after having worked for Allen. Respondent and Mr. Sprauer worked as "partners" at both Allen and Unlimited. They had an understanding that the commissions they each earned would be "split 50-50" between them. On February 7, 2001, Allen, through the efforts of Respondent and Mr. Sprauer, obtained an exclusive listing contract (Listing Contract) giving it, for the period of a year, the "exclusive right to sell," in a representative capacity, commercial property located at 3800 South Federal Highway that was owned by Vincent and Renee Piazza (Piazza Property). Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Listing Contract addressed the subjects of "compensation," "cooperation with other brokers," and "dispute resolution," respectively, and provided, in pertinent part as follows as follows: COMPENSATION: Seller will compensate Broker as specified below for procuring a buyer who is ready, willing, and able to purchase the Property or any interest in the Property on the terms of this Agreement or on any other terms acceptable to Seller. Seller will pay Broker as follows (plus applicable sales tax): 8% of the total purchase price or $15,000 maximum, no later than the date of closing specified in the sales contract. However closing is not a prerequisite for Broker's fee being earned. * * * (d) Broker's fee is due in the following circumstances: (1) If any interest in the Property is transferred . . . , regardless of whether the buyer is secured by Broker, Seller or any other person. * * * COOPERATION WITH OTHER BROKERS: Broker's office policy is to cooperate with all other brokers except when not in the Seller's best interest, and to offer compensation to: Buyer's agents, who represent the interest of the buyer and not the interest of Seller in a transaction, even if compensated by Seller or Broker Nonrepresentatives Transaction brokers. None of the above (if this box is checked, the Property cannot be placed in the MLS). * * * 10. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: This Agreement will be construed under Florida law. All controversies, claim and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof will be settled by first attempting mediation under the rules of the American Arbitration Association or other mediator agreed upon by the parties. . . . Shortly after they left the employ of Allen and began working for Unlimited, Respondent and Mr. Sprauer showed Nicholas Damiano the Piazza Property. Mr. Damiano thereafter made a written offer to purchase the Piazza Property, which the Piazzas accepted, in writing, on July 4, 2001. The sales price was $165,000.00. Mr. Damiano put down a $10,000.00 deposit, which, in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the contract between Mr. Damiano and the Piazzas (Sales Contract), was "held in escrow by [Unlimited]." The obligations of Unlimited, as escrow agent, were described in paragraph 6 of the Sales Contract, which provided as follows: ESCROW. Buyer and Seller authorize GMAC, Realty Unlimited Telephone: . . . Facsimile: . . . Address: . . . to receive funds and other items and, subject to clearance, disburse them in accordance with the terms of this Contract. Escrow Agent will deposit all funds received in a non- interest bearing account. If Escrow Agent receives conflicting demands or has a good faith doubt as to Escrow Agent's duties or liabilities under this Contract, he/she may hold the subject matter of the escrow until the parties mutually agree to its disbursement or until issuance of a court order or decision of arbitrator determining the parties' rights regarding the escrow or deposit the subject matter of the escrow with the clerk of the circuit court having jurisdiction over the dispute. Upon notifying the parties of such action, Escrow Agent will be released from all liability except for the duty to account for items previously delivered out of escrow. If a licensed real estate broker, Escrow Agent will comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. In any suit or arbitration in which Escrow Agent is made a party because of acting as agent hereunder or interpleads the subject matter of the escrow, Escrow Agent will recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs at all levels, with such fees and costs to be paid from the escrowed funds or equivalent and charged and awarded as court or other costs in favor of the prevailing party. The parties agree that Escrow Agent will not be liable to any person for misdelivery to Buyer or Seller of escrowed items, unless the misdelivery is due to Escrow Agent's willful breach of this Contract or gross negligence. Paragraph 12 of the Sales Contract addressed the subject of "brokers" and provided as follows: BROKERS. Neither Buyer nor Seller has utilized the services of, or for any other reason owes compensation to, a licensed real estate broker other than: Listing Broker: Allen Real Estate, Inc. who is a transaction broker and who will be compensated by x Seller _ Buyer _ both parties pursuant to x a listing agreement _ other (specify) Cooperating Broker: GMAC Realty Unlimited who is a transaction broker who will compensated by _ Buyer x Seller _ both parties pursuant to _ an MLS or other offer of compensation to a cooperating broker _ other (specify) (collectively referred to as "Broker") in connection with any act relating to the Property, included but not limited to, inquiries, introductions, consultations and negotiations resulting in this transaction. Seller and Buyer agree to indemnify and hold Broker harmless from and against losses, damages, costs and expenses of any kind, including reasonable attorneys' fees at all levels, and from liability to any person, arising from (1) compensation claimed which is inconsistent with the representation in this Paragraph, (2) enforcement action to collect a brokerage fee pursuant to Paragraph 10, (3) any duty accepted by Broker at the request of Buyer or Seller, which duty is beyond the scope of services regulated by Chapter 475, F.S., as amended, or (4) recommendations of or services provided and expenses incurred by any third party whom Broker refers, recommends or retains for or on behalf of Buyer or Seller. The Damiano/Piazza transaction was originally scheduled to close on July 25, 2001. At the request of the Piazzas, the closing was rescheduled for August 7, 2001. A few days before August 7, 2001, Mr. Sprauer asked Respondent "where the closing was going to take place" and "what title company" would be handling the matter. Respondent replied that the closing was "going to be delayed again because Mr. Damiano . . . was going to have to have some type of cancer surgery." It turned out that the closing was not "delayed again." It took place on August 7, 2001. At the closing were Mr. Damiano, the Piazzas, Respondent, and the closing agent from the title company, First American Title Insurance Company (First American).3 Neither Mr. Schevers, nor Mr. Sprauer, was in attendance. Mr. Sprauer did not even know that the closing was taking place. He was under the impression, based on what Respondent had told him, that the closing had been postponed. Had he not been misinformed, he would have attended the closing. Respondent did not contact Mr. Sprauer following the closing to let him know that, in fact, the closing had occurred. Mr. Schevers, on the other hand, was made aware that closing would be held on August 7, 2001. He was unable to attend because he had "prior commitments." It was Respondent who informed Mr. Schevers of the August 7, 2001, closing date. The morning of August 7, 2001, Respondent went to Unlimited's Stuart office and asked Mr. Schevers for the $10,000.00 Unlimited was holding in escrow in connection with the Damiano/Piazza transaction, explaining that he needed it for the closing that was going to be held later that day. Before complying with Respondent's request, Mr. Schevers contacted First American and asked that he be faxed a copy of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Settlement Statement (HUD Statement) that First American had prepared for the closing. As requested, First American faxed a copy of the HUD Statement to Mr. Schevers. Upon reviewing the document, Mr. Schevers "immediately noticed that [it indicated that] the entire commission [of $7,000.00] was going to Allen." Mr. Schevers "then proceeded to call First American" and asked why Unlimited was not "reflected on this settlement statement." Mr. Schevers was told that a First American representative "would get right on it and get back to [him]." Mr. Schevers did not wait to hear back from First American before handing an "escrow check" in the amount of $10,000.00 to Respondent. He instructed Respondent, however, to "not give anybody this check unless that statement [the HUD Statement] [was] changed and reflect[ed] [Unlimited's]" share of the commission earned from the sale of the Piazza Property. He further directed Respondent to telephone him if this change was not made. Respondent did not follow the instructions Mr. Schevers had given him. He delivered the $10,000.00 "escrow check" to the closing agent at the closing, even though the HUD Statement had not been changed to reflect Unlimited's sharing of the commission. At no time during the closing did Mr. Schevers receive a telephone call from Respondent. According to the HUD Statement that Mr. Damiano, the Piazzas, and the closing agent signed at the closing, Allen received a commission of $7,000.00 "from seller's funds at settlement." The document makes no mention of any other commission having been paid as part of the closing. On or about August 9, 2001, Respondent received a "commission check" from Allen. The check was made payable to Respondent and was in the amount of $3,000.00. Under the "DOLLARS" line on the check, the following was typed: 4200 Total Comm[4] 1200 ADVANCE[5] Typed next to "MEMO" on the bottom left hand corner of the check was "DAMIANO-PIAZZA 165,000 S&L." It has not been shown that the "commission check" Respondent received from Allen was for anything other than the commission Allen owed Respondent for services performed when Respondent was still employed by Allen. Mr. Schevers' consent to Respondent's receiving this $3,000.00 "commission check" was neither sought nor given. Less than a week after the closing, having spotted Mr. Damiano mowing grass on a vacant lot that Mr. Damiano owned, Mr. Sprauer walked up to him and asked "how his surgery [had gone]." Mr. Damiano "acted very surprised [like] he didn't know what [Mr. Sprauer] was talking about." Mr. Damiano's reaction to his inquiry led Mr. Sprauer to believe "that the closing had probably taken place." He "immediately contacted [Mr. Schevers] and asked him to check into it." Mr. Schevers subsequently learned from First American that Allen "had gotten all of the [commission] check" at the closing. Mr. Schevers then telephoned Respondent. This was the first communication he had had with Respondent since before the closing. Respondent told Mr. Schevers that "he got the check" and "he would be right over with it." Respondent, however, did not keep his promise. After his telephone conversation with Respondent, Mr. Schevers discovered that Allen "had cut [Respondent] a check and [Respondent] had gone immediately and deposited it." This discovery prompted Mr. Schevers to place another telephone call to Respondent. This telephone conversation ended with Mr. Schevers telling Respondent "he was terminated." Mr. Schevers thereafter notified Petitioner in writing that Respondent was no longer associated with Unlimited. He also filed with Petitioner a complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent had "acted inappropriately" in connection with the Damiano/Piazza transaction. Mr. Schevers had expected Unlimited to receive, for the role it played in the Damiano/Piazza transaction, "50 percent of the total commission," or $3,500.00, in accordance with the provisions of the "multiple listing service for St. Lucie County."6 He holds Respondent responsible, at least in part, for Unlimited's not receiving these monies.7 At the time of the Damiano/Piazza transaction, Unlimited had contracts with its sales associates which provided that the associates would receive "70 percent of the net" of any commission Unlimited earned as a result of the associates' efforts. Had Unlimited received a commission as a result of the Damiano/Piazza transaction, it would have "split" it with Respondent and Mr. Sprauer as required by the contracts it had with them.8
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent in the instant case in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 7th day of July, 2004.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner was the state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute Administrative Complaints alleging misconduct by practitioners of the real estate profession in this state. The Florida Real Estate Commission is the state agency responsible for licensing real estate sales persons and brokers in Florida and for regulating the real estate profession in this state. By Administrative complaint dated May 1, 1992, Respondent and Nicholas G. Patsios were charged with various violations of Section 475.25(1), Florida Statute. At the time, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesperson at Gulf Beaches Realty, Inc. (Gulf Beaches) in Holmes Beach. Gulf Beaches was licensed as a real estate broker for which Mr. Patsios was the qualifying broker. However, Respondent was actually the owner of Gulf Beaches and registered as an officer of the corporation. On January 16, 1992, an investigator for the Department had attempted to audit Gulf Beaches' escrow account but could not do so because the records were not in order. This was the impetus for the investigation into the operation which resulted in the filing of the Administrative Complaint. Respondent actually operated the brokerage, and in the Administrative Complaint was alleged to have been registered as an officer of a brokerage corporation while licensed as a salesperson. She was also charged with having operated as a broker while licensed as a salesperson. By Final Order dated August 18, 1992, the Florida Real Estate Commission found Respondent guilty of the alleged misconduct, fined her $100.00, reprimanded her and placed her on probation for one year conditioned, inter alia, upon her not violating any other provisions of Chapter 475. On May 21, 1993, the Department again charged Respondent with violations of Chapter 475, alleging that she: (1) continued to operate as a broker while licensed as a salesperson; (2) operated as a broker without holding a valid broker's license and (3) violated an order of the Commission. Though the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, Respondent failed to respond to the Administrative Complaint, and pursuant to a motion to relinquish jurisdiction, the matter was returned to the Commission. Thereafter, by Final Order dated November 7, 1993, the Commission revoked Respondent's license as a salesperson. In the interim between that action and the filing of the instant Administrative Complaint, Peggy Jean Lasser, a licensed broker, became the qualifying broker for Gulf Beaches. She allowed Respondent, the owner of the brokerage, to control its operations, including interfacing with clients. When the Commission initiated action against Ms. Lasser for that infraction, she did not dispute the allegations, and as a result, by Final Order of the Commission dated August 15, 1995, her license was suspended for two years. Ms. Lasser immediately ceased operating as the broker for Gulf Beaches. To the best of her knowledge, however, Gulf Beaches is still operating as a real estate office without a broker, and Respondent is still operating as a salesperson without a broker. On July 29, 1996, George Sinden, an investigator for the Department, went to Gulf Beaches' office accompanied by another investigator. He found the door to the office open and Respondent seated at a desk beside the door. She was alone in the office. There were office machines present and it appeared to Sinden that the office was operating as a real estate office. During his visit, Mr. Sinden could find no one with a valid license as a broker or salesperson. Respondent indicated she was trying to find a broker to qualify the company. She admitted she was currently operating a real estate business. Respondent also indicated she had four rentals which she was managing and for which she was depositing funds into a trust account for the owners. She also claimed to have an escrow account with over $2,000 in it. Sinden found that Respondent was not complying with the Commission's monthly reconciliation requirements and he could not determine to whom the funds in the escrow account belonged. Respondent claims this money was deposit money placed by a prospective purchaser in a sale between two parties, both of whom trusted her to hold the funds. She claims she was to receive a 5 percent fee. Records of Secretary of State's office showed Ms. Lasser as the only officer of Gulf Beaches. However, she no longer holds a valid broker's license. Respondent indicated she was the sole owner of Gulf Beaches. She claimed when Sinden interviewed her and at the hearing, where she again admitted the matters set forth above and in the Complaint, that she has not take in any new business since Ms. Lasser left. Respondent admits that she has attempted to divest herself of her clients but claims that because the Complaints filed against her by the Department have damaged her reputation, no broker will work with her or her business since the action in 1992. Respondent either cannot or will not accept the fact that she is operating illegally. Her primary concern seems to be the fact that this business is her way of making a living. She is 80 years old and seeks only to operate for two more years, at which time she will "meet her maker." The evidence is clear that since 1992, and before, Respondent has been the owner of Gulf Beaches. From the departure of Mr. Patsios to the incumbency of Ms. Lasser, and after the departure of that individual up to the present, Respondent has operated the corporation without a broker. It is also clear that since November 1993, Respondent has operated as a salesperson without a valid license.
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 guilty of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, consistent with the provisions of Section 455.228, Florida Statutes, impose an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven D. Fieldman, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Geraldine Ruesel, pro se 5351 Gulf Drive Holmes Beach, Florida 34217 Lynda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
