Findings Of Fact On October 3, 1975, Respondent filed an application with Petitioner for registration as a real estate broker (Stipulation, Petitioner's Exhibit 2). That said application contained therein Question 8 which is set forth in paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint and to which Respondent answered "No." (Stipulation, Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) That thereafter the application was approved and the Respondent subsequently received his registration as a real estate broker and has been continuously registered the Petitioner as a broker since December 22, 1975 (Stipulation.) That at the time of the execution of the application, as aforesaid, Respondent'S answer to Question 8 was incorrect in that he failed to reveal, disclose and fully explain a Complaint filed against him on August 6, 1973, in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for Pinellas County, by one Kenneth Beard, an individual, which complaint alleges false representations on the part of the Respondent in a business transaction. A judgment of the aforesaid Circuit Court in the above-mentioned action was in the process of appeal at the time Respondent filed his application for registration as a real estate broker (stipulation.) Respondent testified at the hearing substantially as follows: After the civil action had been filed against him, he sought the advice of counsel who informed him that the complaint therein was defective as a matter of law. He was therefore of the opinion that there was not a viable suit against him at the time he filled out his application, and thus was not attempting to mislead or hide any facts from the Petitioner. He also felt that, since he had not, in fact, committed any fraud or misrepresented any matters to the purchaser of the business in question, a negative answer on the question in the application was justified. However, upon reflection at the hearing, he conceded that, probably he had misread the question and misconstrued its meaning. Respondent's good reputation for truth and veracity in the community and in his business dealings was attested to by past officials of the Clearwater, Largo, Dunedin Board of Realtors (Testimony of Merhige, Blanton).
Recommendation That the Complaint against Respondent, William D. Folz, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick W. Jones Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Richard B. Moritz, Esquire 801 West Bay Drive Suite 704 Largo, Florida 33540
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the charges against Respondent, Linda N. Phillips, be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1981.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer having found factually that the Respondents did not violate the provisions of Chapter 475 Florida Statutes, as charged, recommends that no action be taken against the registration of any of the Respondents. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of June, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 Spencer Fox, Esquire Suite 107, 9065 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33176
The Issue Whether respondent's real estate broker's license should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on the grounds: (1) that he operated as a real estate broker without holding a valid and current license, and (2) that he is guilty of misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, and breach of trust in a business transaction. Background By administrative complaint dated October 30, 1981, petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission 1/ ("Department"), charged respondent William A. Canty ("respondent") with six violations of the Florida Real Estate Law, Chapter 475, Florida Statutes (1979). Respondent disputed the charges and requested a Section 120.57(1) proceeding. On November 30, 1981, the Department forwarded this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. Hearing was thereafter set for April 23, 1982. At hearing, the Department voluntarily dismissed Count Nos. Three through Six, inclusive, leaving only Count Nos. One and Two. Count One alleges that respondent's broker's license expired; that he then negotiated a real estate transaction in violation of Sections 475.42(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). Count Two alleges that in connection with this real estate transaction, respondent signed a sales contract incorrectly acknowledging receipt of a $5,000 earnest money deposit, when, in fact, he had received a demand note; that the seller was led to believe that he held a $5,000 earnest money deposit in escrow; that such actions constituted misrepresentation, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, and breach of trust in a business transaction, all in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979). The Department called Robert S. Harrell and Alfred C. Harvey as its witnesses, and offered Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3 into evidence, each of which was received. Respondent testified in his own behalf and Respondent's Exhibit 2/ No. 1 was received in evidence. The transcript of hearing was received on April 27, 1982. Neither party has filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined:
Findings Of Fact As to Count One Respondent is a licensed Florida real estate broker. He holds license No. 0012715 and his business address is 988 Woodcock Road, Orlando, Florida. (Testimony of Canty; P-1.) Since obtaining his broker's license in the early 1970s, respondent has earned a livelihood as a real estate broker. He has been a sole practitioner, having never employed any other person in connection with his practice. (Testimony of Canty.) A real estate broker's license must be renewed every two years. Effective April 1, 1978, respondent paid the requisite fee and renewed his then existing broker's license the new expiration date was March 31, 1980. (P-1.) On March 31, 1980, respondent's broker's license expired for failure to renew. His failure to timely renew was due to simple inadvertence; he admits that it was an oversight on his part. (Testimony of Canty; P-1.) As soon as he realized his omission, he filed a renewal application and paid the requisite $40 fee in addition to a $15 late fee. His license renewal became effective on July 25, 1980. (Testimony of Canty; P-1.) In May, 1980, respondent negotiated, prepared, and assisted in the execution of a written contract for the sale and purchase of 1.6 acres, including a 21,000 square-foot warehouse, located at 315 West Grant Street, Orlando, Florida. The seller was Alfred Harvey, the buyer was Preferred Services, Inc., and the purchase price was $208,000. The contract called for the buyer to pay the sales commission under separate agreement with respondent. The commission agreement never materialized since the sales transaction failed to close. But, the buyer understood that he had an obligation to pay a real estate commission, and respondent fully expected to receive one. (Testimony of Canty, Harrell.) As to Count Two Prior to the parties' execution of the sales agreement mentioned above, respondent and the buyer, Robert Harrell, of Preferred Services, Inc., discussed with Alfred Harvey, the seller, the acceptability of using a demand note as the $5,000 earnest money deposit required by the agreement. (The buyer wished to avoid tying up his funds in escrow during the extensive time required to obtain Small Business Administration approval for assuming the existing mortgage loan.) The seller agreed to the depositing of a $5,000 demand note. 3/ (Testimony of Canty, Harrell.) When the sales contract was executed by the parties, respondent acknowledged on page 2 that he held the specified earnest money deposit in escrow. The deposit was a $5,000 demand note. He did not indicate on the face of the contract that the deposit was in the form of a demand note. But, neither did he indicate that the deposit was in cash or check form. Respondent acknowledges that he was "sloppy" in failing to indicate on the contract that the deposit was a demand note. (Testimony of Canty.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 475.42(1) and 475.25(1)(a), F.S., and reprimanded. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 19th day of May, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R.L. CALEEN, JR. 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 19th day of May, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to these proceedings, respondents Barry P. Rifkin and Flag Realty, Inc. were registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as brokers, and respondent Sandra Mae Rifkin was registered as a broker-salesman. Respondents caused to be placed in the yellow pages of a Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company telephone directory for Hollywood a full page advertisement containing the words "Free Appraisals by Licensed Real Estate Appraiser". As noted above, all the respondents were registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission, but none were specifically licensed as appraisers by any governmental or regulatory agency regulating only appraisers. Bobby Glenn Johnson, who was a broker for Flag Realty, Inc. at the time the ad was placed, had received on December 1, 1971, a certificate from an instructor of the Broward County Public Schools, Division of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education, certifying that ,he had met the requirements of a 36-hour course of training in real estate appraising. Prior to November or December of 1974, respondent Barry Rifkin and one Arnold Savader each held a fifty percent interest in Broward Investment Company. The purpose of this company was to purchase from the owner derelict houses needing repair or houses going into foreclosure, fix them up and then resell them. It appears from the testimony that at the time houses were originally purchased by Broward Investment, respondent Rifkin was nothing more than a silent partner an investor who at times gave advice to Savader regarding the value of the property to be purchased. After the houses were repaired or restored by Savader, they were listed with Flag Realty, Inc. for resale. The homes purchased were put in Savader's name, and only Savader's name appeared on the Company's business card. It appears that prior to purchasing the homes and listing them with Flag Realty, all contact with prospective clients was done by Savader. A form of advertising used by Broward Investment Company was a door- hanger advertisement stating in part "No Brokers Involved (No Commissions)". There was no evidence that brokers' commissions were ever charged to the sellers.
Recommendation In consideration of the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the charges contained in the information based upon the offenses of misleading advertising be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of December, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Nora Hames is a registered real estate salesperson who at the times in question was employed part time with Guardian Realty. Gillott is a registered real estate salesman who at the time in question was employed by Yon Realty. Zedwadski is an attorney-at-law, who as agent for his mother, had given an oral open listing to Yon Realty to sell real property located, on Anna Maria Island. The testimony received at hearing regarding the events surrounding the transaction which is the subject of the complaint is conflicting on almost every determinative and collaborative factual issue. In summary, Hames stated that she was having a discussion with classmates during a class break while taking a real estate course in which she let it be known she was looking for some beach front property. Gillott mentioned that his office, Yon Realty, had had a listing some time before and that he thought it was still available. After several discussions of the property, Gillott called Hames and they drove to Anna Maria Island where they tried to locate the property. Gillott was unable to pinpoint the location, according to Hames, because he had not been able to find a listing or file on the property at the Yon Offices. After an unsuccessful attempt to find the property, Gillott told Hames that the only thing he could remember was that it was for sale by an attorney whose last name began with "Z." Hames said that when they returned she called the attorneys whose names began with "Z", and eventually spoke with Zedwadski. She asked Zedwadski if she could pick up the file and see the property. She saw Zedwadski, introduced herself as a real estate saleswoman referred by Gillott, picked up the file, and went back to Anna Maria Island that day. The following day she made Zedwadski am offer to buy for herself and in the discussion regarding price she asked Zedwadski if he would sell for $36,000 if there were no commission to be paid. Zedwadski said he would but that he had made a contract with Yon Realty to sell and that he thought they might be entitled to a commission, even though the listing was an open listing. Zedwadski told him that she did not think that Gillott had earned a commission by his efforts. Zedwadski suggested that she obtain a release from Gillott, which Hames attempted to do. When Gillott asserted that he claimed a commission, Hames reported this to Zedwadski and said she disagreed. Zedwadski them agreed to enter the contract for sale on the basis that (1) the contract states that Hames represented that no commissions were due, and (2) that Hames agreed to indemnify his mother if a claim for commission was made and it was adjudged that Yon Realty had earned it. The contract was prepared together with an indemnity agreement which both parties executed. Gillott testified that Hames asked him if he knew of any beach front property for sale, and that he remembered a parcel that Yon Realty had had. She and he discussed this parcel several times, and he checked with the owner's agent to determine if it were still for sale. He picked up the papers on the property from Zedwadski, took the file with him to Anna Maria Island, and based on information in the file took Hames to see the property. After showing the property, he didn't hear from Hames again until she called to say she was buying the property, and that she wanted to pay him a small finder's fee in turn for a release. He asked his broker about accepting a finder's fee and was advised that a finder's fee was not acceptable to his broker, Yon. Subsequently he filed a complaint with the, Florida Real Estate Commission and Yon Realty sued Zedwadski on the oral contract for the commission. 1/ Zedwadski's testimony was very uncertain regarding when some of his contacts with Yon occurred relative to when he and Hames signed the contract; however, he clearly remembered that he had the papers on the property when Hames came to see him. It was also clear from Zedwadski's testimony that he was aware of the conflict between Hames and Gillott and entered the contract and closed knowing full well there would be litigation, and depending on Hames' indemnity agreement to protect his client and not Hames' conclusion regarding whether Gillott's actions earned a commission. Yon stated that the papers had gone back to Zedwadski some time before when Zedwadski had requested them back to show another prospect. T-l46 Yon also stated he call Zedwadski for Gillott, which conflicted with Gillott's testimony, and that he did not know if Gillott used the office file. Yon also stated that when he was advised by Gillott, that Hames wanted to give Gillott a finder's fee. Yon told Gillott that Yon Realty had no finders fees, that they split commissions. The basic fact question is whether Gillott introduced Hames to the property. His ability to do this would have been dependent upon the data available to him. The availability of that data was dependent upon the file. There is substantial and competent evidence that the file was returned to Zedwadski prior to April 25th when Gillott and Hames went to Anna Maria Island. Zedwadski's testimony is very clear that he had the file, although someone had called about picking up the file, when Hames first came to his office. According to Hames' testimony, Zedwadski had the file and she kicked it up from Zedwadski. The following day they entered the contract, so Gillott never had an opportunity to pick up Zedwadski's file. According to Gillott it was from Zedwadski's file that he obtained the information he passed on to Hames. However, Zedwadski and Hames clearly pointed out that Zedwadski had the file when Hames went to his office the day the property was shown. Considering the relative disinterest of Zedwadski, and the fact that his testimony collaborates with that of Hames, the testimony of Hames is accepted and that of Gillott rejected. Further, the fact that Hames was willing to indemnify Zedwadski must be given weight in resolving the conflict because, regardless of the accuracy of her legal conclusion regarding Gillott's entitlement to a commission, she was willing to indemnify Zedwadski if her conclusion was wrong. In this case Hames acted in reliance of the representation regarding the commission, not Zedwadski who entered the contract based upon the indemnity agreement. Hames conduct in entering the indemnity agreement is inconsistent with the proposition that Hames didn't believe in the accuracy of her representation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no disciplinary action against Hames. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Respondent Lynde1 Gale Goodwin is a licensed real estate broker with license number 0032681 Respondent Florida Appraisal Department, Inc., is a corporation licensed as a broker having been issued license number 0233195. Goodwin's last license was issued as a broker c/o Florida Appraisal Department, Inc., at 2990 North Federal Highway, Ft Lauderdale, Florida 33306 which is the business address of Florida Appraisal Department, Inc. Respondent Goodwin was operating as a real estate broker and as sole qualifying broker and officer of Florida Appraisal Department, Inc., at all times material hereto. On or about March 21, l984 an appraisal on certain real property owned by Robert and Martha Silva, located at 633 Lime Lane, Marathon, Florida was completed and submitted to Government Employees Corporation on behalf of Respondents by Charles Stange, an associate of Respondent Goodwin. At the time Stange held a real estate salesman's license, was receiving training from Goodwin on appraising and was also investing in Florida Appraisa1 Department, Inc. Stange bad been assigned the Silva appraisal by Respondent Goodwin, who accompanied him on a trip to Marathon to inspect the property and to locate comparable properties on which to base the appraisal. When they arrived in Marathon, Stange initially dropped Goodwin off so he could take care of some other business, and Stange proceeded to the Silva property, entered the house, drew a sketch. took picture6 and also attempted to locate three comparables. After completing his business, Goodwin joined Stange and assisted with the measurement of the Silva property. When they returned to their offices at Florida Appraisal Department, Inc , Stange prepared a draft of the appraisal report on the Silva property. When Respondent Goodwin reviewed this draft, he noted a problem with two of the comparables and instructed Stange to get two more comparables since the ones he had chosen were not suitable. Stange objected to having to locate two more comparables because it meant having to make another trip to Marathon. He did not return to Marathon, but redrafted the appraisal using falsified comparables. The addresses he used included what was, in fact, a trailer park and a non-existent address. He also showed the source of these comparables as "Realtron" which is a computerized multiple listing service that does not even serve Marathon. The falsified appraisal was submitted to Government Employees Corporation on or about March 21, 1984 over Respondent Goodwin's signature, and based thereon a loan was approved. Respondent Goodwin does not remember signing the Silva appraisal and disputes the signature appearing thereon as being his. However, after weighing all the evidence and demeanor of the witnesses, it appears that Stange simply changed the information on two of the Silva comparables to satisfy Goodwin's concerns, and presented the redrafted appraisal to Goodwin who assumed, but did not check, that Stange had return d to Marathon to obtain the corrected comparable data. Goodwin thereupon signed the Silva appraisal and it was submitted to Government Employees Corporation. Stange and Goodwin split a $150 fee for this appraisal. Respondent Goodwin does not routinely follow up on appraisal he has assigned to others to perform even though some of those appraisals are sent out over his signature. He has no way of knowing if an appraisal is overdue, other than by the person who ordered it calling to ask about the status. Florida Appraisal Department, Inc., does over 1,000 appraisals a year and employs seven licensees and two clericals. The Silva appraisal report misrepresented that the subject property had been analyzed with reference to single family residential property in the area that had been sold in the last six (6) months. It further misrepresented two of the comparables, one of which was non-existent and the other of which was a trailer park. Finally, the appraisal misrepresented the source of the comparables by indicating "Realtron" which in fact does not serve the Marathon area. Government Employees Corporation required Respondent Goodwin's signature to appear on all appraisals it ordered from Florida Appraisa1 Department, Inc.
Findings Of Fact The alleged acts here complained of occurred during the months of May through June, 1974. Certifications received during the course of this hearing revealed that Defendant, Robert Saltzman, broker, and Randolph E. Kout, salesman, are registrants with the Commission. (See Florida Real Estate Commission's Exhibits 3 and 4.) Evidence reveals further that Southern Realty Resale, Inc., is a corporate real estate broker (presently delinquent) and was such, during times material to the allegations filed herein. (See Florida Real Estate Commission Exhibit number 5.) Ronald Myers, the Commission's Investigator, conducted an investigation of the Defendant's operation, based on a complaint received during March, 1975, from David W. Peterson of Wisconsin. During the investigation, Myers spoke to Saltzman who advised that his employee complement consisted of salesmen Randolph E. Kout and Ronald P. Morgan. Saltzman, according to Myers, operated the business during March through June of 1974 for the purpose of selling local properties to out of state owners. Myers testified that Saltzman admitted to having received advance fees for which he intended to list the properties with National Multiple Listing Services of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Saltzman advised Myers that the monies received were spent on office expenses, sales, commissions, etc. During approximately June of 1974, Southern Realty Resale, Inc. went bankrupt. To carry on this business, the Defendant corporation sent out cover letters to prospective property owners in an effort to obtain an advance fee (See, for example, Florida Real Estate Commission Exhibit number 1). In that letter, the representation was made that the corporation had been in business for approximately fifteen years when, in actuality, the business had only been operational for approximately three months. Harris Small, Jr., Vice President of National Multiple Listings of Fort Lauderdale, testified that the listing service is one that prints and distributes listings for real estate brokers on a nationwide basis. Mr. Small checked National Multiple Listings' file and found no evidence that Southern Realty Resale, Inc., had utilized the listing service to disseminate listings. According to Small, the fee averages $15.00 for a local listing in one county, to thousands of dollars to list a property nationwide. Myers was recalled and testified that Saltzman advised during his investigation that he advised prospective listers that he would research the property to determine if any defects exist and that if none existed, the property would be put up for sale on the National Multiple Listing Services. The Commission introduced copies of the corporation's banking account which revealed that the firm's account was open by an initial deposit of $1,000.00 and that thereafter several deposits and checks were received during the course of this operation, however, it suffices to say that they are not at all instructional or enlightening to resolve any of the issues posed herein. Subsequent to June of 1974, there was no evidence introduced of any brokerage activity having been conducted by the Defendants.
Recommendation 1. That the administrative complaint filed herein be dismissed as it relates to Defendants Randolph E. Kout, Robert C Saltzman and Southern Realty Resale, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John Buskins, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Hylan H. Kout, Esquire 420 Lincoln Road Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Gus Efthimiou, Jr., Esquire Alfred I. Dupont Building Suite 207 Miami, Florida 33131
