The Issue Whether Carleen Chalk Lund, an active broker in Lund Realty, Inc. , a licensed corporate broker, failed to account or deliver to Daisy and Kenneth Parnell money in the form of a deposit which had come into her hands and which was not her property or which she was not in law or equity entitled to retain, under the circumstances, and at the time which was agreed upon or which was required by law or, in the absence of an agreed upon time, upon demand of the Parnells, who were entitled to such an accounting or delivery.
Findings Of Fact Carleen Chalk Lund and Norman Wayne Lund are registered real estate brokers holding current registration from the Florida Real Estate Commission and are active brokers in Lund Realty, Inc., a corporate broker registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission. On or about January 4, 1975, Daisy and Kenneth Parnell, the buyers, signed an offer to purchase the following real property from David and Wilma Hammer: East 184.5 ft. of NW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Sec 6, Twp. 26 S, Range 29 E, N Osceola County. Said offer was accepted by the sellers. Subsequently, the buyers sent a telegraphic money order in the amount of $2,200 to Lund Realty, Inc. Therefore said money was deposited in the escrow account of Lund Realty, Inc. $2,000 as deposit on the Hammer's property and $200 to be used for closing costs. The following provisions of the Contract for Purchase between the buyers and the sellers are specifically noted and referenced: In accordance with provisions of paragraph 4, the contract was to be closed and the deed delivered on or before January 31, 1975. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6, the seller was to convey title to the aforesaid property to the buyer by agreement for deed. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7, the costs, if any, of preparation of closing documents and closing fee shall be borne equally by the seller and buyer. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 9, all closing costs were to be divided equally between the buyer and seller including title insurance. In accordance with paragraph G of said standards, if the buyer failed to perform any of the covenants of the contract within the time specified, the deposit paid by the buyer might be retained by or for the account of the seller as consideration for the execution of the contract and in full settlement of any claims for camages and all parties would be relieved of all obligations under the contract and each party would execute a separate release of the other at that time. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph P of the standards, in the event that the buyer failed to perform and the aforesaid deposit was retained, the amount of the deposit was to have been divided equally between the realtor and the seller provided that the amount to be retained and received by the realtor would not exceed the full amount of the commission and that any excess would be paid to the seller. In accordance with the provisions of the paragraph "Commission to Realtor", the seller acknowledged the employment of Lund Realty, Inc. and agreed to pay Lund Realty a commission in accordance with the commission agreement. On January 25, 1975, copies of the articles of agreement, closing statement, and title insurance cost disclosure were sent by Chelsea Title and Guaranty Company to Mrs. Daisy Parnell at 88 North Pasack Road, Spring Valley, New York, 10977. The letter accompanying the aforementioned documents indicated that the sellers had executed the closing papers on that date. Said letter further indicated that as soon as the papers were signed by the recipient, that Dee A Burttram, manager of Chelsea Title and Guaranty Company, would record the articles of agreement and insure title to property. These papers were net signed and returned to Chelsea Title, and on February 14, 1975 a subsequent letter was addressed from Dee A. Burttram to airs. Daisy Parnell at the aforestated address indicating that Chelsea Title had not received the documents forwarded to Mrs. Parnell and offering further information if they had not been completed. See Composite Exhibit 10. Between January 25 and February 28, 1975 efforts were made by Lund Realty, Inc. to contact airs. Daisy Parnell without success. On February 28, 1975 it was determined that Frank Townsend, Attorney at Law practicing in Kissimmee, had been engaged by Sidney Schwartz, Attorney at Law practicing in New York, to review the contract entered into by Mrs. Daisy Parnell. According to his testimony, Frank Townsend recommended to Schwartz that Mrs. Parnell not go through with the contract until certain discrepancies in the contract were clarified. The discrepancies involved were the conflict between the provision of paragraph 2 stating that $8,000 purchase money note and mortgage to the seller while paragraph 6 indicated that the seller would convey title by an agreement for deed; the lack of a scribner's statement note on the papers to be filed with the Court; and a discrepancy between the amount of monthly payment as stated in the Contract for Sale and Purchase and the Agreement for Deed. However, by his letter of March 5, 1975 to Mrs. Daisy Parnell, Townsend refers only to problems involving the use of the Agreement for Deed which he concluded was not a problem if the sellers insisted on that form of conveyance, and the fact that the Agreement for Deed is unacceptable because it is unrecordable (an apparent reference to the fact that a scribner's notation was not made on the Agreement for Deed). By his letter of April 3, 1975 to Mr. Sidney Schwartz, Mr. Townsend indicates that he had completed all back ground work on the transaction and had advised Mr. Murray W. Over street, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Hammer three weeks prior that he (Townsend) was ready to provide a note and mortgage in exchange for a Warranty Deed and had requested that Overstreet arrange a closing date. Mr. Townsend closes indicating that he had again contacted Mr. Overstreet reminding him that the Parnells wished to close. Several things are apparent from Townsend's letters of March 5 and April 3, 1975. It is apparent from the letter to Mrs. Parnell from Townsend dated March 5, 1975 that substantial concern existed on the part of Schwartz that the use of an Agreement for Deed in the transaction would provide to Mrs. Parnell less protection than she would have in a situation in which a note and mortgage was used. However, as stated above, Townsend pointed out that the use of an Agreement for Deed under the Florida Law would afford Mrs. Parnell the same protection as a mortgage. It is also clear from the April 3 letter that all problems related to the Parnell-Hammer transaction had been resolved, that they were ready to close but insisted upon a note and mortgage in exchange for a warranty deed, and their position had bean communicated to counsel for the Hammers. The demand for the use of a note and mortgage by the Parnells is contrary to the provisions of the Contract for Sale and Purchase between these parties entered into on January 4, 1975 and as of April 3, 1975 was the only reason for the Parnell's refusing to close. On April 3, 1975, Mr. Murray Overstreet attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Hammer, advised Frank N. Townsend, attorney for Mrs. Parnell, that the Hammers considered their Contract for Sale and Purchase with Mrs. Parnell to be null and void because the transaction was to be closed on or before January 31, 1975 and that as of April 3, 1975 the matter had not been completed. Mr. Overstreet further advised that his clients made no claim on the deposit made to Lund Realty and that said deposit might be returned to the buyers. A copy of this letter was sent to Lund Realty, Inc. Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph G of the Contract for Sale and Purchase referenced above, upon default of the buyer, the deposit paid by the buyer could be retained by or for the account of the sellers as consideration for the execution of the contract and in full settlement of any claims for damage. Under the provisions of paragraph P of said contract, said deposit would be divided equally between the realtor and seller; provided, however, that the amount retained or received by the realtor was not to exceed the full amount of the commission, in this instance $600. On April 4, 1975 in response to the copy of the letter from Overstreet to Townsend in which the Hammers declared the Contract for Purchase and Sale null and void, Lund Realty, Inc. wrote Frank Townsend advising him that the expenses for sales commission, cancellation fee, and termite inspection should be considered before any escrow funds were disbursed and requesting that Lund Realty be advised as to how Mrs. Parnell would like to handle the charges. Clearly, Lund Realty considered the Parnells to be in default and asserted a claim for commission. No evidence was received regarding any response from Townsend to the letter of Lund Realty, Inc. dated April 4, 1975. On May 14, 1975 Lund Realty wrote Mrs. Daisy Parnell sending her a check in the amount of $1,466, the amount of her deposit less expenses incurred by her for sales commission, cancellation fee, termite inspection, and insurance. The amounts of each of the expenses and copies of statements were enclosed. Although the check in question was retained by Mrs. Parnell, Lund Realty received a letter from Sidney Schwartz dated May 23, 1975 which states in pertinent part as follows: "I am led to believe that the seller in the proposed transaction did not perfect title and waived and/or released its interest in the contract. If this be so, the entire down pay ment of Mrs. Parnell must be returned to her imme- diately. Please inquire into this matter. You no doubt are aware that Mrs. Parnell has retained Florida counsel, namely, Frank N. Townsend, Esquire, Post Office Box 847, Kissimmee, Florida. This is further to advise that in the event there has been a wrongful retention of any of Mrs. Parnell's funds, complaints shall be lodged with all appropriate authorities including licen- sing authorities in the State of Florida." The next contact between the parties was a letter to Lund Realty from Frank Townsend dated June 19, 1975. In that letter, Mr. Townsend stated as follows: "This confirms our request in accordance with Mr. Overstreet's letter wherein no demand is made for any funds on behalf of the Hammers, the return of all funds deposited with you by the Parnells is specifically requested." A second follow-up letter was addressed to Lund Realty on July 14,1975 requesting a response to the aforementioned letter of June 19, 1975. It is clear that the basis for demand of return of the deposit receipt in its entirety was based on the statements in Overstreet's letter to Townsend dated April 3, 1975, that the Hammers made no claim to the deposit to Lund Realty, Inc. This position of the Hammers was subsequently clarified by Mr. Hammer in his letter of August 12 (Exhibit 7) and by Mr. Overstreet, who at the hearing, testified that the Hammers never intended to waive the amount of the commission and the cost. Lund Realty was entitled to its commission and the Hammers would have had a cause of action against the Parnells under the contract for the entire amount of the deposit. However, the existence of a dispute over claims to all or portions of the escrow funds developed slowly, and was based on whether the Hammers waived their rights to all or any portion of the escrow funds. In September 1975 Lund Realty requested an advisory opinion of the Florida Real Estate Commission regarding its duties. The conclusion of that advisory opinion was that disbursement should be made to the Parnells, and that the claims that Lund, Chelsea Title and any other individuals should be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. The advisory opinion was silent, however, on Hammer's subsequent claim for the commission and cost from the deposit. As of the date of hearing, the $2,200 was on deposit in the escrow account of Lund Realty, Inc.
Recommendation The position and actions of the various individuals should also be considered in this case in arriving at a penalty because none of the parties have completely "clean hands." The Parnells precipitated the breach by insistence on a note and mortgage; the Hammers have made no attempt to clarify the situation by paying the commission and cost; and the attorneys kept Lund Realty completely in the dark about what was transpiring. The Lunds are the only ones involved in the transaction who have tried to carry out their obligation. Further, they also are the only ones who stand to lose financially without seeking judicial relief. While they have held the money, it has remained in escrow since the dispute arose. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and other factors bearing on the case, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Florida Real Estate Commission place Carleen Chalk Lund on probation for one year. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of January 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Carleen Chalk Lund 612 West Vine Street Kissimmee, Florida 32741
The Issue Whether Respondents' registrations with Petitioner should be suspended or revoked for alleged violation of Sections 475.25(1)(a), (c), and (i), Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated march 24, 1978.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Madeline Rose Parr is now and was at all times alleged in the Administrative Complaint a registered real estate broker in the State of Florida. She also was at the times alleged in the complaint president, treasurer and active firm member of Exhibit Homes Realty, Inc., a registered corporate broker at Sarasota, Florida. Her husband, Charles H. Parr, III, was secretary of the firm. (Testimony of C. Parr, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4) In September 1973 Exhibit Homes Realty, Inc., was the listing broker for certain real property located in Sarasota County, Florida, owned by R. David Beebe, Elizabeth Beebe, Ellen Brewster, Elizabeth B. Klavun, Lucius Beebe and Dorothy Beebe. An offer was made to purchase the property by I. Z. Mann, as Trustee, which was transmitted by Respondent's firm to the sellers on September 24, 1973. On that same date, the prospective purchaser deposited with Respondent's firm a check in the amount of $25,000.00 payable to Exhibit Homes Realty, Inc.'s, escrow account as an earnest money deposit. The check was deposited on September 25 in the escrow account maintained by Exhibit Homes Realty, Inc., Account No. 082-716, in the Palmer First National Bank and Trust Company of Sarasota. The authorized signatories on this account were Respondent and her husband. The transaction was to involve co-brokerage between Respondent's firm and I. Z. Mann Realty Corporation with a 50% division of the 6% brokerage fee to each firm. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, 5, 6, Testimony of Mann, Shropshire, Respondent, C. Parr) The contract for the sale and purchase of the property was executed by the purchaser, sellers, and Respondent for Exhibit Homes Realty, Inc., on February 8, 1974. The contract recited receipt of the $25,000.00 deposit and provided that the transaction would be closed on or before June 1, 1974. It further provided that if the buyer failed to perform the contract within the time specified, all deposits would be retained for the account of the seller or that the seller could elect to enforce any other remedy available because of such default. The contract also stated that if the buyer should default and the earnest money was retained, it should be applied first to pay seller's expenses and the balance divided equally between the broker and the seller. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The closing of the transaction was scheduled for May 31, 1974. John F. Burket, Jr., the Sarasota attorney for the sellers, proceeded to obtain an executed warranty deed from the sellers on the property. On May 28, 1974, Burket was advised that the purchaser had decided to default under the contract and would not attend the scheduled closing. Burket wrote to Exhibit Homes Realty, Inc., informing it of this fact and instructing the broker to make tender of the deed of conveyance at the appointed time for closing if anyone attended in behalf of the purchaser. However, the purchaser failed to appear at the closing and, as a consequence, Respondent returned the deed and other closing documents to Burket and informed him that she would continue to hold the earnest money of $25,000.00 in the escrow account until further instructions from the sellers. The reason for the default was that the purchaser was unable to obtain financing for the prospective use of the property as a multifamily housing development. (Petitioner's Exhibits 8-11, Testimony of Mann, Burket) Negotiations ensued between the attorneys for the sellers and the purchaser resulting in an agreement to exchange releases from liability in consideration of the purchaser's forfeiture of the $25,000.00 deposit and any portion of the real estate commission earned by I. Z. Mann Realty Corporation. In the latter half of November 1974, Burket attempted to contact Respondent by telephone to advise her that an agreement had been reached as to disposition of the deposit, but was unable to contact her. He did inform Respondent's former employee, Maxine Shropshire, who had originally listed the property and obtained the contract thereon, and asked her to advise Respondent of the status of the matter. Mrs. Shropshire did speak to Respondent and told her that Burket had stated that the deposit money was ready to be disbursed. However, Respondent did not communicate with Burket and he therefore wrote her on January 28, 1975, concerning the forfeiture of the earnest money deposit and enclosing a memorandum setting forth the seller's expenses and the division of the deposit in accordance with the contract. The memorandum reflected seller's expenses of $7,994.86 and the amount of $8,502.57 to be retained by Respondent. The letter requested that Respondent provide an escrow check for the balance of $16,497.43 payable to Burket's trust account from which appropriate disbursements would be effected. (Petitioner's Exhibits 12-14, Testimony of Mann, Schropshire, Burket) In the fall of 1974, Charles H. Parr was experiencing financial difficulties in connection with a real estate project in Bradenton due to the recession of that period. He testified that he was beset with creditors, liens and other problems connected with the real estate subdivision "Harbor Woods." In November 1974, he was pressed for funds and therefore wrote four checks on the Exhibit Homes Realty, Inc., escrow account during the period November 1 through November 20, 1974, in the total amount of $25,000.00, thus reducing the balance in the escrow account to $200.00. His explanation for this action was that he intended to have Respondent obtain a $25,000.00 loan which would replace the amount disbursed from the escrow account, but that she was not present at the office. He, therefore, wrote checks on the one account of some fourteen separate bank accounts that he and his wife maintained which had any sizable amount of money in it. However, he testified that he never said anything to the Respondent about using the escrow money to pay his various debts. He subsequently embarked on a series of trips within and without the state, at times accompanied by Respondent, to attempt to obtain financing from foreign and domestic lending institutions. These trips extended into early 1975. During their various returns from these sojourns, the Parrs avoided picking up their mail at the local post office for fear that they would be served with process. As a result, Respondent did not obtain Burket's letter of January 28, 1975, until some time in late February of that year. Mr. Parr testified that his action in writing checks on the escrow account was a mistake and that he was not actually aware that he was using escrow funds until his wife received the letter from Burket, checked the bank account records, and discovered that the deposit money had been spent. Respondent corroborated the above testimony as to the time when she first learned of the depletion of the escrow account. Mr. Parr's testimony that he was unaware that the monies which he spent were from the escrow account is not deemed credible. He wrote checks on the account four separate times during the month of November 1974 and the checks themselves are imprinted "Exhibit Homes Realty, Inc. Escrow Account" in bold type. However, it is also found that Respondent was unaware of the disbursement of the funds until February 1975. It is further found that her failure to learn of the request for an accounting of the deposit money was due to her own negligence in not reviewing monthly bank statements and the check book for the account, or obtaining her mail and that of the firm on a timely basis. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6-7, Respondent's Exhibit 3, Testimony of Respondent, C. Parr) Upon learning of the status of the escrow account, Respondent contacted an attorney to arrange a meeting with Burket. The meeting took place in late March or early April 1975, at which time Burket agreed to accept a third mortgage and promissory note for $16,500.00 on the Parr's residence as security for the obligation. At that time, the Parr's had no available funds and informed Burket that they were initiating Chapter XI proceedings in bankruptcy. Such proceedings were initiated in May 1975 and Burket, as Trustee, was listed as a creditor by reason of the third mortgage on the real estate. Subsequently, mortgage foreclosure proceedings were pursued by the second mortgage on the property. Burket did not receive official notice of the bankruptcy proceedings nor was he made a party to the foreclosure proceedings. Later efforts by the Parrs to negotiate a settlement of the indebtedness with Burket have been unavailing; however, the Parrs are willing to satisfy the indebtedness out of funds received from the sale of lots in the Harbor Woods development over the period of the next two years, subject to the approval of the bankruptcy court. (Petitioner's Exhibits 15-16, Respondent's Exhibits 1-2, 4-6, Testimony of C. Parr, Respondent, Ball, Burket) Respondent enjoys a good reputation for honesty and fair dealing in real estate and other business transactions in the community. (Testimony of Tabler, Elmore, Hansen)
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED: That the registration of Respondent Madeline Rose Parr as a real estate broker be suspended for a period of six months for violations of Subsection 475.25(1)(c) and (i), Florida Statutes, but that enforcement of the suspension be stayed and the Respondent be placed on probation for a like period under such terms and conditions as determined by Petitioner Florida Real Estate Commission. That Respondent Madeline Rose Parr be administered a public reprimand for the above-cited violations of Chapter 475. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Scherr, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire 1800 West Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32804
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, both respondents held real estate broker's licenses. The corporate license is No. 0222663 and the individual license is No. 0159888. The individual respondent has been the only owner of the corporate respondent and the only broker the corporation has ever employed. At one time Angela Lewis worked for Broker Jim, Inc. as a licensed real estate salesperson. On October 6, 1981, it was she who signed, on the broker's behalf, a listing agreement with Laverne Lockhart and Faith Willis, the sisters who jointly owned the house at 1535 NW 116th Street in Miami, Florida (the house) . Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Kenneth G. Wilson, who wanted to buy the house, had $5000 available. The house was encumbered with a mortgage in the approximate amount of $33,000 and the sisters eventually agreed to take $44,000 for the property. On the form contract signed by both owners and Mr. Wilson, and dated November 25, 1981, under the heading "Terms and conditions of Sale:", the following was typewritten: 1,000 as mentioned above. Purchaser agrees to make an additional deposit in the amount $4,000 before closing. Purchaser agrees to assume an existing first mortgage in the Approx. amount $33,000, payab[l]e $340.00 P.I.T.I at 10.5 percent per annum in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein. Purchaser to obtain a P.M. 2nd mort[g]age in the amount of $6,000 at 18 percent per annum payable Approx. $152.37 for a period of 5 yrs. Balance of purchase price to be paid in cash or cashier check at time of closing. Property being purchased in its present as is condition. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Elsewhere on the printed form appears the following: When this contract is executed by the purchaser and the seller and the sale is not closed due to any default or failure on the part of the purchaser, the seller, at his option, may seek to enforce this contract, or else the seller may direct the holder of the deposit to pay the broker his brokerage fee not to exceed one-half of the deposit and to pay the balance of the deposit to the seller as consideration for execution of this agreement, and the holder of the deposit shall be held harmless by all parties for disbursement in accordance with this agreement. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Ms. Lewis prepared the form contract. Mr. Muhammad, as he is now known, read it over and approved it. In retrospect, he believes this was a mistake, because the contract fails clearly to reflect the parties' understanding that the offer was contingent on Mr. Wilson's ability to borrow $6,000, to be secured by a second mortgage on the house. A deposit ticket dated November 25, 1981, accompanied Mr. Wilson's check for $1000 when respondents deposited it to their escrow account. The bank credited the escrow account on December 1, 1981. Neither Mr. Wilson's efforts to obtain a loan, nor those of respondents on his behalf, availed, and word reached Ms. Lockhart that the transaction was doomed for want of sufficient purchase money. Over the phone, Ms. Lockhart told Helen Jackson, respondents' secretary, that she wanted a "refund" of the deposit. A lawyer Ms. Lockhart consulted communicated a similar demand to respondent Muhammad personally. Respondents gave Ms. Lockhart no money and no accounting. The money stayed in respondents' escrow account until it was used on Mr. Wilson's behalf in the purchase of another house respondents had listed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Joyce Chandler, prior to February 2, 1982, was a real estate salesman employed by Frank Ambrose, a real estate broker. On February 2, 1982, Chandler became licensed as a real estate broker with the State of Florida, and holds license number 0348072. On February 8, 1982, the Respondent drafted an offer to purchase for herself property located at 811 Perrine Avenue in Miami, which belonged to Dr. Harry Moskowitz. The purchase price of the offer was $140,000. The Respondent took the offer to Carol Rebhan, the listing salesman of the property who was employed by Tauber-Manon Red Carpet Realty. The offer provided that an earnest money deposit of $100 would be placed in the escrow account of Roberta Fox, the Respondent's attorney, with an additional $5,000 to be deposited in Roberta Fox's escrow account within three working days of acceptance of the offer. The contract also called for a ten percent brokerage fee to be divided equally between the Respondent and Tauber-non Red Carpet Realty. Carol Rebhan and the Respondent presented the offer to Eugene Lemlich, attorney for the seller Dr. Harry Moskowitz. After contacting Dr. Moskowitz in Texas, Lemlich accepted the offer on his behalf. Three working days after the offer was accepted, Carol Rebhan called Roberta Fox's office repeatedly to determine whether the additional $5,000 deposit had been placed in escrow. Fox's office advised Rebhan that they did not have the $5,000 deposit. Rebhan confronted the Respondent with this information, and the Respondent stated that she was going to deposit the monies with Frank Ambrose at Landmark Title. The next day, Rebhan contacted Landmark Title and was informed that they did not have the deposit in escrow. On or about the 14th of February, 1982, Rebhan contacted Frank Ambrose personally and inquired about the $5,000 deposit. Ambrose told Rebhan that Landmark Title was in possession of the deposit. This was not true. Rebhan requested that Ambrose send her an escrow letter acknowledging possession of the $5,000 deposit. By letter dated February 18, 1982, Ambrose informed Rebhan that Landmark Title was in possession of the $5,000 deposit. On February 18, 1982, the Respondent gave Ambrose a $5,000 check payable to Landmark Title Company. The check was for the additional deposit on the Moskowitz property and was post-dated to February 28, 1982. The check was deposited on February 19, 1982. On February 25, 1982, Ambrose was informed that there were insufficient funds in the Respondent's account to pay the check. Ambrose notified the Respondent that the check had been returned unpaid. She advised him that she was expecting some funds, and would make the check good within a few days. Ambrose took no action to notify the parties at this time. In the first week of March, 1982, when Ambrose had still not received funds from the Respondent to cover the check, he contacted Carol Rebhan and informed her of the series of events which had occurred with regard to the deposit check. When Rebhan subsequently contacted the Respondent and told her that her $5,000 check had bounced, the Respondent seemed shocked at the news. The Respondent has not made good the check returned to Landmark Title Company, nor has she placed the $5,000 deposit in escrow in accordance with the terms of the contract with Dr. Moskowitz. Throughout the entire transaction, the Respondent misled the parties involved with regard to the location and existence of the earnest money deposit, she represented that she would replace the dishonored check or make it-good but has not done so, and she has thereby breached her contract to purchase the subject property from Dr. Moskowitz. The Respondent contends that she informed all parties that the $5,000 check would be post-dated, but there is not sufficient evidence to support this assertion. Nevertheless, the post-dated check given by the Respondent has never been made good, so the Respondent's contention that she advised the parties at the outset that the $5,000 check would be post-dated, is irrelevant.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the license of the Respondent, Joyce A. Chandler, be suspended for a period of one year. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Joyce A. Chandler 11231 S.W. 201st Street Miami, Florida 33189 William M. Furlow, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The Administrative Complaint alleges the following: Count I alleges that Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, and the like, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by failing to notify a seller's agent that the earnest money deposit he received was a check with contingencies on its face preventing its deposit in a trust account. Count II alleges that Respondent is guilty as a salesman of violating Section 475.256(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by failing to place with his employer a deposit check entrusted to him. Count III, admitted to by Respondent, alleges that he violated Sections 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by acting as a broker while licensed as a salesman, or by operating as a salesman for a person not registered as his employer. The issues are whether these violations occurred and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact In 1986 and 1987, at all times relevant to the complaint, Jeffrey Robert Horne was licensed as a Florida Real Estate salesman, holding license number 0433763. At that time he was employed by Realtyline, Inc., Post Office Box 800, Sebastian, Florida 32958. Jeffrey Horne is currently licensed as a real estate broker, c/o The Peoples Realty, Inc., 951-C Fellsmere Highway, Sebastian, Florida 32958. On June 6, 1987, Jeffrey Horne, while employed at Realtyline, Inc., obtained from John F. Baer, Jr., as trustee for Colonial Realty Trust, eleven written offers to purchase eleven lots in an unrecorded subdivision in Brevard County. The lots had various owners, although the owner of one of the lots was unknown at the time. On that same date John F. Baer gave Jeffrey Horne a check in the amount of $5,000, payable to "Realtyline c/o Jeff Horne," representing a $500 earnest money deposit for each of the lots. The face of the check bears this lengthy notation: This check to be held by Jeff Horne pending notification that all contingencies have been satisfied on Parker Rd. offers. At that time it will be replaced with a check for 2500 for each contract negotiated and then deposited to escrow. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) The contingencies, described in an addendum to the contracts, included the provisions that all eleven contracts be accepted for the same offer and that certain permits and local development approvals be obtained. At the hearing, John Baer explained that he wanted the check held by Jeffrey Horne because he had been dealing with Horne on the property. He knew that the realty company was in transition and did not want the deposit stuck in an escrow account if the firm "went under." Furthermore, he had operated in this manner in the past with other firms. Peter S. Tarbell was the qualifying broker for Realtyline, Inc. During this time Jeffrey Horne was attempting to get a partner and purchase the company from Tarbell. The negotiations were acrimonious and both men were dealing through attorneys. Tarbell was aware of the Baer offers on June 6, 1987, and read one of the contracts with the addendum. He vehemently denies that he was aware of the deposit check with its restrictions. Horne just as strongly insists that he told Tarbell about the check. It is uncontroverted, however, that Tarbell instructed Horne to hold on to the contracts until he got the deposit money. Horne went back to Baer and asked to have the restrictions removed from the check. Baer refused and told him to get the contracts changed to reflect the restrictions on the check. The contracts, as executed, provided for $500 deposit each, to be held in escrow by Realtyline, Inc. On six of the contracts Jeffrey Horne signed as escrow agent, under the following preprinted statement: "Deposits under 1.(a) received. (If check, subject to clearance.)" Rhoda Swiger, a broker with Atha and Swiger Real Estate, Inc., had the listing to sell the lots. When Baer was in Horne's office executing the contracts, Horne called her to find out if there were prior offers on the lots. Horne told her that Baer was getting ready to make his offer. Horne became nervous holding the contracts. He knew that Rhoda Swiger was expecting them but he also knew that Tarbell had told him to hold them. He could not get another deposit from Baer. He admits that he committed an error in judgment, but contrary to Tarbell's instructions, he took six of the contracts to Rhoda Swiger after they had been in his desk drawer for several days. He told her he had the deposit check but did not tell her about the restrictions on the check. Sometime later Rhoda Swiger called Realtyline to say that the offers were accepted. Tarbell took the call and found out that Horne had released some of the contracts against his wishes. Tarbell obtained the check and remainder of the contracts from Horne and terminated his employment. In Baer's words, the deal then "fizzled." The record does not disclose any past violations by this licensee, either as a salesman or a broker. He cooperated fully with the investigation and readily admitted, in his affidavits and at the hearing, his participation in the events which led to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMEND that a final order be entered finding Jeffrey Robert Horne guilty of violations of Subsections 475.25(1)(a), (b) and (k); that he be reprimanded and fined $500 per count, for a total of $1,500. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 20th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 George B. Turner, Esquire Gateway Business Center 1333 Gateway Drive Suite 1025 Melbourne, Florida 32801-2623 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Eduardo A. Cardounel (Cardounel), was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license No. 0013037. Cardounel was the owner and sole qualifying broker for Respondent, Alexena Realty, Inc., a Florida corporation, registered as a real estate broker, license No. 0000851. In 1981 the Hamptons Development Corporation of Dade had under construction a condominium development in North Miami Beach, Florida, to be known as the Hamptons. In August 1981 Cardounel introduced Harold and Amparo Carvajal and Ulpiano and Maria Barona to the Hamptons project, and represented that he was the broker for the development and that these condominiums could be a good investment for them. Respondents concede they acted as agents for the Carvajals and Baronas at all times material to these proceedings. The Carvajals and Baronas each decided to purchase two units at the Hamptons. To guarantee the reservation of the units they had selected, they were required to place a small deposit and by December 31, 1981, have on deposit with the Hamptons a total of 10 percent of the purchase price of each unit. Dr. Carvajal left $4,000 with Cardounel, and Mr. Barona left $7,500, for the reservations deposits. The Carvajals and Baronas are residents of Columbia, South America. American dollars are not readily available, and the transfer of funds out of that country is not an easy task. Accordingly, the Carvajals and Baronas had to make arrangements to ensure that any funds which might be required to effect their purchases were available in the United States as those sums became due. The manner in which monies were delivered to Cardounel was, therefore, quite natural and necessary under the circumstances. On December 31, 1981, in Columbia, South America, Cardounel personally delivered four purchase and sale agreements for the Hamptons units to the Carvajals and Baronas for execution. The Carvajals executed agreements to purchase Units 905 and 1503, for $197,000 and $216,000, respectively. The Baronas executed agreements to purchase Units 605 and 1405 for $194,000 and $201,000, respectively. These agreements provided that the purchase price be paid as follows: Ten percent upon execution of the agreement, An additional 5 percent when the slab was poured on the floor on which the unit lies, An additional 5 percent when the slab was poured on the main roof, and The balance at time of closing. Prior to execution of the agreements, the Carvajals and Baronas had made arrangements to have those monies available in the United States. On November 9, 1981, Dr. Carvajal delivered an additional $37,300 to Cardounel for his initial 10 percent deposit. These monies, together with the $4,000 already on deposit, totaled the 10 percent deposit due for Units 905 and 1503. In September 1981 Mr. Barona delivered an additional $30,000 to Cardounel toward the initial 10 percent deposit that would be due on his units. Mr. Barona instructed Cardounel to place these funds in a "terminal deposit," a certificate of deposit, earning interest until the monies were due. 1/ On December 31, 1981, upon execution of the agreements, Mr. Barona delivered an additional $2,000 to Cardounel, which sum, together with the prior sums, totaled the 10 percent deposits due on his units. The record is unclear as to when the 10 percent deposit monies the Carvajals and Baronas had entrusted to Cardounel were paid to the Hamptons. They were paid, however. Initially the parties anticipated that the first additional 5 percent deposit would be due the latter part of 1982, and the second additional deposit in June 1983. Accordingly, in April 1982, Dr. Carvajal delivered $50,000 to Cardounel with instructions that the monies be invested in an interest-bearing account pending payment of the additional 5 percent deposits, and with the correspondent understanding that these monies would be available to pay the deposits as they came due. Mr. Barona transferred $30,000 to Cardounel, $10,000 in September 1982 and $20,000 in October 1982, to be applied toward the 5 percent additional deposits as they became due. Mr. Barona, consistent with his prior instructions, directed that these monies be held in a certificate of deposit, earning interest until the additional 5 percent deposits became due. By letters dated February 24, 1983, and March 2, 1983, to Dr. Carvajal and Mr. Barona, respectively, Cardounel advised them that the 5 percent deposits had not been paid in December 1982 because the Hamptons was late in construction and it had refused to pay interest on any deposits. In his letter to Mr. Barona, Cardounel advised him that the 5 percent deposit on Unit 605 would be due the end of March and on Unit 1405 the middle of April. In his letter to Dr. Carvajal, Cardounel advised him that the 5 percent deposit on Unit 905 would be due approximately April 1, and on Unit 1503 approximately the middle of April. Subsequent to Cardounel's letters, the Hamptons inquired directly of Mr. Barona concerning his failure to make the additional deposits. By letter of March 20, 1983, Mr. Barona replied that the monies for these deposits had been delivered to Cardounel and authorized the Hamptons to secure the monies from Cardounel. Mr. Barona also instructed Cardounel to immediately deliver the deposits to the Hamptons. At the end of March 1983, Dr. Carvajal and Mr. Barona, having been informed by friends that there might be a "problem" with the purchase of the Hamptons units, traveled to South Florida to confer with Cardounel regarding the status of their agreements and their deposit monies. Their initial meeting occurred on Sunday, at which time Cardounel informed them that he could not get them the monies because the bank was closed. They arranged to meet at his office the next day. On the following day, Dr. Carvajal and Mr. Barona met with Cardounel, but no monies were tendered. Instead, Cardounel exhibited to Dr. Carvajal two original promissory notes purportedly executed by a corporation known as Marfred International Investment, Inc. The first promissory note, dated April 17, 1982, in the amount of $50,000, was for a term of six months, and was represented by Cardounel to be an investment of the $50,000 Dr. Carvajal had entrusted to him. This note was purportedly secured by real property of a value of $120,000. The second promissory note exhibited to Dr. Carvajal, and payable to his order, was an unsecured note dated January 18, 1983, for a term of six months, in the sum of $36,000. This note, purportedly a reinvestment of the proceeds of the first note, did correctly reflect the balance that was due Carvajal, since $14,000 had, with his consent, been previously used for other purposes. This was, however, the first Dr. Carvajal had seen or heard of the January 1983 note. At the sane meeting, Cardounel exhibited four original unsecured promissory notes to Mr. Barona. These notes were not models of draftsmanship. They variously described the payor as Florida Investors Const. Co., Inc., and Florida Investors Const. Co., Inc., and one even named Florida Investors Const. Co., Inc., as payer but was executed by Florida Investors Const. Co., Inc. The notes exhibited to Mr. Barona were as follows: A note dated January 27, 1983, for a term of six months, in the sum of $20,500, A note dated February 2, 1983, for a term of six months, in the sum of $10,250, A note dated October 1, 1983, for a term of 90 days, in the sum of $10,000, and A note dated October 16, 1983, for a term of 9 days, in the sum of $20,000 2/ Prior to this meeting, Mr. Barona had no knowledge of the promissory notes, nor that his monies had not been invested as he had instructed. Dr. Carvajal and Mr. Barona voiced objection to the fact that Cardounel had "invested" their money in the fashion he had, since the monies would not be available as they became due under their agreements with the Hamptons. Further, Cardounel had violated Mr. Barona's instructions to place the sums in a certificate of deposit. In "satisfaction" of the notes, Cardounel issued four postdated checks, payable to Young, Stern and Tannenbaum-- escrow agents for the Hamptons- -and drawn on the personal account of "Eduardo Cardounel or Ena Cardounel." Check No. 4082, in the sum of $20,650, and check No. 4083, in the sum of $19,750, each dated April 7, 1983, represented the amount of monies needed to make the first 5 percent deposits on the Carvajal and Barona units. Check No. 4087, dated July 18, 1983, in the sum of $18,050, and check No. 4088, dated August 2, 1983, in the sum of $12,845, were to be applied to the respective accounts of Carvajal and Barona towards their second 5 percent deposits. Dr. Carvajal and Mr. Barona tendered their respective checks to Young, Stern and Tannenbaum. Each of the checks was deposited on the due dates and each was dishonored and returned for insufficient funds. To date, despite demand, Cardounel has failed to deliver the monies due Dr. Carvajal or Mr. Barona. The events which transpired after Cardounel's receipt of the Carvajals' and Baronas' additional monies are suspect. Cardounel concedes that commencing in 1982 through 1984 his real e state business had not produced any income for him. He had been compelled to sublease space in his offices just to keep his office open, and even then was losing money. Notwithstanding this downturn in the real estate market, Cardounel "invested" the monies entrusted to him with two small development companies with whom he was intimately connected. The monies which Dr. Carvajal entrusted to Cardounel, in April 1982, were purportedly lent to Marfred International Investment, Inc. (Marfred), as evidenced by a secured promissory note dated April 17, 1982, and a renewal unsecured promissory note dated January 18, 1983. Marfred is a Panamanian corporation authorized to do business in Florida. According to Cardounel, Marfred was a real estate developer to whom he had sold property. Cardounel admitted he was the registered agent for Marfred, but denied he was ever an officer of that company. Further, Cardounel could not recall the names of the corporate officers. The records in the office of the Secretary of State, State of Florida, confirm that Cardounel was the registered agent for Marfred, that he filed every Annual Report for Marfred, and that he was a vice president of Marfred in 1983 and 1984. While the first promissory note executed by Marfred, April 17, 1982, purported to be secured by real property of a value of $120,000, the property was described only by lot and block number with no city, county, or state designated. No mortgage on the real property was executed or recorded in connection with this promissory note. Cardounel concedes that absent a mortgage, the promissory note was unsecured, and further testified that he had no idea as to the real value or actual location of the property in question. Cardounel had no explanation as to why the second promissory note, January 18, 1983, was unsecured. The $30,000 which Mr. Barona entrusted to Cardounel, between September and October 1982, was purportedly evidenced by unsecured promissory notes executed by Florida Investros Const. Co., Inc., Florida Investors Const. Co., Inc., or named as payer, Florida Investros Const. Co., Inc., but executed by Florida Investors Constr. Co., Inc. These notes were unconditionally guaranteed by Cardounel. Cardounel was the registered agent for Florida Investros Const. Co., Inc. Coincidentally, Cardounel testified that contemporaneously with his meeting with Dr. Carvajal and Mr. Barona in March 1983, he learned that both Marfred and Florida Investros Const. Co., Inc., were in trouble and there was serious doubt that they could repay the monies. Notwithstanding this "fact," Cardounel tendered to Dr. Carvajal and Mr. Barona his four postdated checks in "satisfaction" of the promissory notes. It is worthy of note that the six promissory notes Cardounel exhibited to Dr. Carvajal and Mr. Barona were all originals, which Cardounel had retained in his possession. Additionally, Cardounel, upon tender of his checks in "satisfaction" of the promissory notes, at no time requested or obtained an assignment of those notes but, rather, had them marked "paid."
