The Issue The issues in this case are whether the respondents, Dorothea L. Prisament and Warricks Real Estate , Inc., should be disciplined on charges filed in a six-count Administrative Complaint, three counts for each respondent, and alleging that the respondents: (1) were culpably negligent in allowing their escrow account to have a negative balance, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989); (2) failed to maintain trust funds in a properly maintained escrow account, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1989); and (3) failed to maintain a proper office sign, in violation of F.A.C. Rule 21V-10.024 and Sections 475.25(1)(e) and 475.22, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Dorothea L. Prisament and Warricks Real Estate, Inc., are now, and were at all times material hereto, licensed as real estate brokers in the State of Florida. Dorothea L. Prisament was the active real estate broker for the corporate broker, Warricks Real Estate. On or about August 16, 1989, investigator Marjorie G. May conducted an office inspection and audit of the escrow accounts of the respondents. Ms. May also reviewed the outer office of the respondents. The entrance sign did not have the name of Dorothea L. Prisament on it; however, the sign did have Warricks Real Estate correctly identified and identified as a licensed real estate broker. Ms. May advised Ms. Prisament of the fact that Ms. Prisament's name needed to be on the sign and identified as a real estate broker. Ms. Prisament had a new sign made which fully complies with the statutes and rules. There was no evidence introduced at hearing to show that the escrow account of the respondents had a shortage in any amount; directly to the contrary, both the Department of Professional Regulation investigator and Ms. Prisament agreed that there was no shortage in the account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and in light of the fact both that the respondents' violation was a very minor and technical one which was immediately corrected and that the respondents had to undergo the costs of defense of this case and suffer the mental duress of defending this case, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing Counts I through IV of the Administrative Complaint and reprimanding the respondents for a minor and technical violation under Counts V and VI. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine A. Bamping, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire One Urban Centre, Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 Darlene F. Keller Director, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
The Issue Whether the Respondent's Florida real estate license should be disciplined because the Respondent was guilty of false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondent is guilty of operating Bellwether Developments, Inc. as a broker, without holding a valid license as a broker in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondent is guilty of failure to account or deliver a share of a commission in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. The Respondent, Joseph C. McAuliffe, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida. He was issued license number 0260690 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license was issued as a broker percentBellwether Realty, 526-A Emmett Street, Kissimmee, Florida 34741. On January 9, 1990, and August 9, 1990, Respondent in his own capacity and as the chairman and secretary of Bellwether Development, Inc. (not licensed) entered into written contracts to sell four lots to Jerry P. and Kimberly M. Wray. Pursuant to addendum II of the contracts and the agreement dated January 25, 1990, the Respondent agreed to resell the lots within one year at minimum prices of $16,000; provide the buyers with reimbursement for the total closing cost of $689.08 on three lots; and reimburse the buyers for the monthly payments and any other ordinary and necessary expenses related to the lots. Additionally, if no sale were made by Bellwether, the Respondents agreed to buy back the lots and to provide the buyers a 25 percent return on their investment. The Respondent breached the contracts and the January 25, 1990 agreement by failing to sell the lots or repurchase the lots in accordance with the written agreement. Afterward the buyers lost title to the lots as a result of actions in foreclosure. On February 26, 1992, the buyers filed a civil complaint against the Respondent and Bellwether Development, Inc. based, inter alia, on breach of contract, fraud, constructive fraud, and misrepresentation. On July 14, 1993, the Circuit Court in St. Lucie County entered a judgment against the Respondent individually and as an officer of Bellwether Development, Inc. for damages of $67,542.70. The Respondent has failed to satisfy the $67,542.70 judgment or to otherwise pay the money claimed by the buyers, and said debt remains outstanding. Beginning October, 1987 through January, 1989, the Respondent registered Bellwether Realty, Inc., Bellwether Management, Inc. and Bellwether Development, Inc. with the Secretary of State. On October 14, 1987, and on January 18, 1989, Respondent registered Bellwether Realty, Inc. and Bellwether Management, Inc. with the Petitioner. According to Petitioner's official records Respondent maintained a licensed office located at 526A Emmett Street, Kissimmee, F lorida for Bellwether Realty, Inc. and a licensed office located at 200 Albany Avenue, Stuart, Florida for Bellwether Management, Inc. On or about October 9, 1992, the Secretary of State involuntarily dissolved Bellwether Realty, Inc. and Bellwether Development, Inc. for failure to file an annual report. The Respondent was an officer of both corporations. The Respondent operated Bellwether Development, Inc. as a brokerage without a valid license. In late 1990, Annkarol Cemer was employed through Bellwether Realty, Inc. to solicit and negotiate sales contracts. On August 31, 1990, the Respondent, in dissolving that relationship, agreed to pay Annkarol Cemer $4,647.50 in real estate sales commission and $1,000 vacation pay by December 31, 1990. After December 31, 1990, Annkarol Cemer demanded the payment of the $4,647.50 in commissions owed and $1,000 in vacation pay. Respondent received and kept those commissions and refused to share the commission with Cemer. On February 25, 1993, Cemer obtained a Final Judgment in the County Court of St. Lucie County, Florida in the amount of $6,422.60 against Respondent individually and Bellwether. Said judgment remains outstanding.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the evidence of the record, including the contents of the several exhibits received into evidence, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of violating the aforementioned statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and that his real estate license be suspended for two years. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent McAuliffe be fined $1,000.00, payable within 30 days of the entry of a final order, and such other and further conditions as the Commission deems just and reasonable. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-17. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Florida Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Joseph C. McAuliffe, Jr. 3846 S.W. Savoy Drive Palm City, Florida 33990 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0702
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Michael Leon Thomas (Thomas), held real estate salesman license number 00088326 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). He has been licensed by petitioner since at least 1981. When the events herein occurred, Thomas was registered as a salesman with Mike Lally Real Estate Company, Inc., a firm in Miami, Florida. Presently, Thomas is associated with Captain Realty, Inc. in Dania, Florida. Thomas is a full-time airline captain with a major air carrier. When not flying, he has successfully pursued a second career in real estate investments. On occasion, these endeavors have involved other airline personnel with whom he works. The complaint herein relates too one such investment endeavor involving a retired flight attendant (and her brother) who felt she did not receive all monies due on a $10,000 investment made in 1982. The origins of this story go back to the late spring or early summer of 1982 when one Waler B. Duke, Jr. (Duke), also an airline captain and then a business partner of Thomas in a corporation, signed a contract, as trustee, to purchase two small but valuable parcels of property at the corner of I-95 and Stirling Road in Dania, Florida. Thomas, who has an eye for a good investment, had initially spotted the property and, with the foresight of a clairvoyant, realized that after rezoning and certain improvements, the property could be turned over for a handsome profit. According to the contracts received in evidence as petitioner's exhibits 3 and 4, Duke, as trustee for a "Florida Limited Partnership to he formed," agreed to pay a total of $271,000 for the two parcels. The closings were to be held that fall, and eventually took place on October 19 and November 23, 1982. Like other entrepreneurs, Duke and Thomas needed capital to complete the deal. To acquire such capital, Duke and Thomas contacted various acquaintances who they thought would be interested in making a good return on an investment. One of the persons contacted by Duke was Kathleen Ireland (then Kathleen De Bellas). At that time Ireland was a non-practicing lawyer and an active flight attendant for the same airline for which Thomas worked. However, Ireland and Thomas did not know each other. With other potential investors, Ireland attended a meeting hosted by Duke in September, 1982 explaining the fundamentals of the deal. Thomas was not present at that meeting, and was unaware of the representations made by Duke to Ireland. In addition to Duke's pitch, Ireland received from him an unsigned copy of a trust agreement and various other documents concerning the matter, including a proposal containing a pro forma statement. The Duke-Thomas investment was set up in the form of a limited partnership (known as Stirling 95 Land Trust) with Thomas-Duke Enterprises, Inc. (TDI) acting as the general partner, (presumably to shield Duke's and Thomas' personal liability), and the investors assuming the role of limited partners. Each share required an investment of $10,000. After she had reviewed the material given to her by Duke, Ireland decided to make an investment, and with her brother Joseph, she committed $10,000 to the project, which represented a one-seventeenth interest in the partnership. Ireland thereafter received two copies of the "trustee and joint venture agreement," one of which she signed and returned to Duke. Other investors in the venture included at least one lawyer, an array of airline pilots, and a property manager. In all, Duke and Thomas collected $155,000 in investment capital. Just exactly what Duke said to Ireland at the meeting in September, 1982 is not of record since Duke did not testify at final hearing, and the record contains only hearsay declarations concerning these statements. However, paragraph 2.3 of the trustee agreement provided that Duke and Thomas would receive a 6 percent sales commission from the transaction, while the pro forma statement reflected the partnership would acquire the property at a cost basis of $4.00 per square foot, or a total cost of $318,506. This was approximately $47,500 more than Duke would actually pay to acquire the property under the two outstanding contracts. It is this latter amount that eventually piqued the curiosity of Ireland, and resulted in her filing a complaint with the Division of Real Estate and a lawsuit against Thomas in Broward County circuit court. What Thomas did in this case was no different than his actions on numerous other prior and subsequent deals. Because he had used his expertise in locating the property, and putting together the deal, Thomas "stepped-up" or increased the cost of the property for the limited partnership to $4.00 per square foot in order to realize an entrepreneurial fee for himself and Duke. This was a common practice in limited partnership arrangements. The fee was paid to Thomas and Duke by separate checks, was not labeled as a commission, and was not intended to be one. Indeed, their fee ($47,500) was compensation for their expertise. The only problem was Ireland claimed Duke did not disclose this fee to her prior to her investment, and she now contends she is entitled to one-seventeenth of this amount. But, even if the nondisclosure contention is true, Thomas did not authorize Duke to omit this information when he explained the deal to potential investors in September, 1982. As to the investors obtained by Thomas, they are all pleased, and were aware of the markup. In the words of one investor who testified at final hearing, Thomas was entitled to this fee for putting together the deal and allowing small investors like him to participate in such a fine investment. It is noteworthy that of all the investors, only Ireland was dissatisfied. After learning of the $47,500, Ireland contacted Thomas and requested an accounting. She told him she was unaware of the fee, and that she needed the true cost of the property to compute her cost basis for tax purposes. 2/ But her real concern was her failure to get a pro rata cut of the entrepreneurial fee. After his explanation did not satisfy her, Thomas asked the trustee's attorney to have an accountant prepare an "explanation and reconciliation" of funds he received from the Stirling 95 Land Trust. An unsigned draft copy of a report was sent to her on February 29, 1984. The accountant who purportedly prepared the report was not at final hearing, and the contents of such report are clearly hearsay and are deemed to be unreliable. In 1984, Thomas bowed out of the limited partnership because of Ireland's complaints. The partnership has continued, however, and the property was sold in December, 1985 for $11.00 per square foot, or almost a 200 percent return for the investors. This was a higher return than was forecast in the pro forma statement. When Thomas learned of Ireland's dissatisfaction in 1983 or early 1984, he offered to return her $10,000, as well as the one-seventeenth of the markup on the fee. Not wanting to give up a good return on her investment, Ireland declined the offer and is now pursuing the matter in circuit court.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Counts III and VI of the administrative complaint filed against respondent be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 24th day of February, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Evidence reveals that during late December, 1975, Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., a Florida Corporation, filed application with the Florida Real Estate Commission seeking registration as a corporate real estate broker. Said application revealed that Defendant, Frank Viruet, was to become the Active Firm Member Broker, and Vice president of the Company; that Carol Bauman was to become Secretary-Treasurer and Director of the company; and that Lee Klien was to become president and Director of the company. The application also revealed that Carol Bauman is the wife of the Defendant Bernard Bauman (Progress Docket #2357); that Lee Klien is the sister of Carol Bauman; and that Defendant Jeffrey Bauman (Progress Docket #2858) is the son of Bernard Bauman. Subsequent to filing the above corporate application For registration, the name was changed to Noble Realty Corporation and shortly thereafter to Deed Realty, Inc. and that at each such change, new application For corporate registration was filed with the Commission. Further, the stated offices and Active Firm Member Broker remained the same. Thus, For all legal purposes, the above corporate entities are one and the same. As to Count One of the complaint, according to the certificate of the Commission's Chairman, dated December 3, 1976, (which was offered and received into evidence without objections), during the period November 1, 1975 through the date of said certificate, no registration was issued to or held by either of the three corporations above referred to. This was confirmed by testimony of Bernard Bauman who was to have become a salesman associated with the above entities and by Frank Viruet the broker, who was to have become the Active Firm Member Broker For the above entities. Approximately December 2, 1975, evidence reveals that Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., entered a written lease For office premises known as Room 212, Nankin Building, which is located at 16499 N.E. 19th Avenue, North Miami Beach, For the period January 1 through December 31, 1976. (A copy of the lease was entered into evidence by stipulation). The unrebutted testimony by Plaintiff Reagan was that he observed during his investigation of this cause, a building directory on the ground floor entrance to the Nankin Building displaying the name Noble Realty, Inc., Room 212 (2nd Floor). A similar display on the building directory appeared on the second floor. Plaintiff's witness, Peter King, a representative of and For Southern Bell Telephone Company, testified that on December 27, 1975, three phones were installed in said room 212 of the Nankin Building in the name of Land Re-Sale Service, Inc., and that from January 1 through January 16, 1976, approximately 575 phone calls were made from such phones during evening hours to out-of-state numbers. Jeffrey Bauman and Bernard Bauman admitted to having made phone calls to out-of-state numbers For purposes of soliciting real estate sales listings, but did not recall nor introduce records as to how many calls were in fact made. Jeffrey Bauman testified that Frank Viruet had also made phone calls from the stated phones but did not state whether they were solicitations. On this point, Frank Viruet denied making solicitation calls although he admitted using the phone For other purposes. Bernard Bauman testified that approximately four listings were obtained with an advance fee of $375.00 For each listing received. He further testified that upon being advised, by the investigator with the Commission, that the operation was in violation of the licensing law by reason that no registration had been issued to the applicant company, and that all who were engaged in real estate activities For said company were in violation of the licensing law, the premises were closed and all real estate activities ceased. This was confirmed by nominal Plaintiff Reagan. Frank Viruet denied having knowledge of real estate activities being conducted by the Baumans. He further denied knowledge that office space in Room 212 of the Nankin Building was occupied by Land Re- Sale Service, Inc. and used by the Bauman's. He admitted to signing the application For registration which was submitted to the Commission as the corporate Active Firm Member Broker to be. As to Count Two, evidence established as stated above, that defendants Jeffrey and Bernard Bauman had solicited real estate sales listings with representations to property owners that the listings would in fact be published and disseminated to brokers nationwide. However, the Baumans, admitted by their own testimony that their listings were never published or otherwise disseminated to brokers either intrastate or nationwide. Bernard Bauman testified that no money was ever returned to senders. There was no evidence received to show that Defendant Frank Viruet knew that no bona fide efFort would be made to sell the property so listed with Noble Realty Corporation; nor that Viruet was aware that solicitations were being made. As to Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that the acts and doings set out in Counts One and Two establish a course of conduct by defendants upon which revocation of their registration should issue.
The Issue Whether Hellender violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Hellender is a registered real estate broker holding license number 0038269 issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Hellender had a listing for the sale of real property owned by Horace E. and Margaret C. Young. An offer to lease with option to purchase was made by Richard W. and Diane B. Milligan through their realtor, Susan Seligman, who was in contact with Seligman several times November 26 concerning the availability of the property and terms of the lease-purchase agreement. Both the Youngs and the Milligans did not live in the Orlando area where the two realtors and property were located. Susan Seligman, a broker-salesperson, presented Ralph E. Hellender with a Contract for Sale and Purchase when she met with Hellender between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. on the evening of November 26, 1976. This offer, which was received into evidence as Exhibit 1, expired at 12:00 noon on November 27. Hellender took the contract and indicated that he would communicate the offer to the Youngs. Susan Seligman did not accompany Hellender to communicate the offer as is the general custom, because she needed to pick up her children from a football game that evening. Mrs. Ingrid Hellender, a broker salesperson, received a call later on the evening of November 26, 1976, from Susan Seligman. The general topic of the call was the fact that the contract which Seligman had given Mr. Hellender earlier that evening provided for conventional financing of the purchase, and Seligman had second thoughts about the Milligans' desires on financing. She requested that she be given the opportunity to check with the Milligans to determine whether they intended to use conventional or FHA financing. At this point a conflict developed in the testimony of Mrs. Seligman and Mrs. Hellender regarding whether Mrs. Seligman requested that Mr. Hellender hold the contract or whether Mrs. Seligman requested that he present the offer with reservations concerning the nature of the financing. In any event, Mrs. Hellender advised her husband to hold the contract. Similarly, a conflict exists in Mr. Hellender's and Mrs. Seligman's testimony concerning whether Hellender said that the offer has been accepted by the Youngs. Mrs. Seligman stated that Mr. Hellender advised her on November 27, 1976, that the Youngs had accepted the offer. Hellender stated that he did not present the offer and therefore there was no basis for him to communicate an acceptance to Mrs. Seligman and did not communicate an acceptance to her. It should be particularly noted that Mrs. Seligman stated that on November 27 she had Mr. Hellender agreed that the Milligans should execute a new contract on Hellender's forms when the Milligans were to be in Orlando on December 1, 1976. It is also noted that Mrs. Seligman did not request telegraphic confirmation of the acceptance by the Youngs of the offer which she initially submitted to Mr. Hellender, although telegraphic confirmation is the generally accepted practice when dealing with an out-of-city seller and was not standard practice in the real estate firm with which Mrs. Seligman worked. The Hearing Officer discounts the testimony of Mrs. Seligman that Hellender told her the Youngs had accepted the offer because she did not request written confirmation of the acceptance, and because Mrs. Seligman stated that a second written offer was to be prepared on December 1, 1976. All the realtors who testified stated that it was the custom to obtain telegraphic confirmation of an offer from an out-of-town seller. Mr. Seligman, the broker for Mrs. Seligman's company, stated this was the general procedure for his company. Although the record is unclear whether Mrs. Seligman talked with Mr. Hellender before noon or after noon, she was aware the offer expired at noon November 27 and she did not press for written confirmation of acceptance before noon. Instead, she agreed to the preparation of a second offer is totally contrary and repugnant to any theory of acceptance of the first offer. Therefore, the Hearing Officer finds that there was no acceptance of the first offer communicated by Hellender to Mrs. Seligman. Mrs. Seligman may have formed the opinion that there was an acceptance because Mr. Hellender agreed to the terms presented in the first offer, but her agreement to a second offer to be prepared is in fact and law inconsistent with any assertion that the first offer was accepted. Mrs. Seligman stated, that it is clear from the actions of Mr. Hellender, that they expected a second contract to be presented in behalf of the Milligans. This explains his call to Mrs. Seligman advising her on December 5 that there was activity of the property. It also explains why December 6 he did accept a second offer on the property which was presented by Joe Deligna which he and Delinga communicated to the Youngs together as is the general custom after no offer was presented by the Milligans on December 1. Lastly, it explains why Hellender contacted Mrs. Seligman immediately after the Youngs had accepted the offer by the Maccagnanos and confirmed it telegraphically.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against the registration of Ralph E. Hellender. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of March, 1978. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esq. 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Mark A. Koteen, Esq. Post Office Box 3431 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Petitioner graduated from the University of Texas at El Paso in 1976. Since that time she taught school in Texas for six years, entered a stockbroker training program, qualified, but did not work as a stockbroker. She completed one semester of pre-law before moving to Florida in 1983. Since her arrival in Florida she ran an antique restoration business, taught at a private school for girls, and did a lot of volunteer counseling services principally in the evenings in group sessions. Her primary interest in the field of counseling has been to help rape victims and abused children. While carrying out these counseling services, Petitioner came into contact with a family of three children, the father of whom had recently remarried after the death of their mother. They were experiencing difficulties with their stepmother, and ultimately the father sided with his children and separated from the new wife. Although Petitioner has never met this woman, she evidentally blamed Petitioner for her failed marriage and commenced a program of harassment of Petitioner that included threatening phone calls, discontinuance of Petitioner's telephone service, and access to confidential information about some of Petitioner's clients she was counseling. Unable to get any protection from the police absent some overt act by the harasser, Petitioner succumbed to the pressure and in desperation, paid two young men $100 to rattle the woman's door and tell her to leave Petitioner alone. The two men did not carry out the intimidation and shortly thereafter Petitioner notified the police of her plans. She was subsequently arrested and brought to trial on a charge of solicitation to commit burglary. Upon advice of counsel, she pleaded guilty, adjudication of guilt was withheld by the court, and she was placed on probation for four years. In her application for licensure Petitioner accurately reported this incident. Petitioner has never before been arrested or otherwise involved with the police on the wrong side of the law. She has been an exemplary parolee and her probation will likely be reduced to two years if Petitioner continues on her present course. Since this incident Petitioner has been named guardian advocate for a party placed in involuntary placement due to incompetence. Raul Martin, a registered real estate broker, has known Petitioner and members of her family for many years. He is fully aware of the criminal charges that were brought against Petitioner and that as supervising broker, he would be responsible for her actions as a real estate salesman. He will hire her as a salesman if she is allowed to take, and successfully passes, the real estate examination for salesman.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's Florida real estate license should be disciplined based upon the charge that the Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility to Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of he State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statues, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Doris Duke is now and was at all material hereto a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0441054 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On June 13, 1989, the Respondent solicited and obtained a listing for the sale of an adult care center from seller Shirley Holland. The listing price was $300,000. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The property had been on the market for sometime and seller was anxious to sell. S. L. Patterson and Anne M. Reese had been interested for sometime. On January 19, 1990, the Respondent solicited and obtained an offer to purchase the adult care center from S. L. Patterson and Anne M. Reese, buyers, in the amount of $225.000. The contract was contingent upon financing. The Respondent presented the offer to the seller on or about January 20, 1990. Seller would have received approximately $25,000 and a second mortgage for $65,000. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Subsequently the buyers were unable to obtain financing, and the contract was void at this point. In an effort to consummate the sale, Respondent arranged financing for the buyers. The terms of this transaction as reflect in the closing documents, FREC 4, showed a sales price of $125,00, with a first mortgage of $100,000, a second mortgage of $46,250 and a third mortgage to seller of $84,500. However, this financing required an added $25,000 which came from the $25,000 originally to the seller. The Respondent advised the seller of the changes the day before the closing; however, the changes to the contract were not reflected in writing either in the contract or in an addendum. Instead the changes were reflected in the closing documents (FREC 4). Instead of receiving about $2,000 the seller had to pay $68.08 at closing. The Respondent and Respondent's employer Century 21 Harris Real Estate & Associates, Inc. profited in the amount of a $22,500 commission, an amount which they earned under the listing contract. Subsequently, the purchasers, who were black and operated an adult congregate living facility, were the targets of racially motivated vandalism and hate crimes. As result they were unable to make a financial success on the venture. The buyers defaulted on their mortgage payments, and foreclosure was initiated by one of the principal mortgagees.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that charges against the Respondent be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1991. APPENDIX CASE NO. 91-4554 The Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order was read and considered. The following is a list of the findings which were adopted and which were rejected and why. Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 were adopted. Paragraph 3 was rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 6 was rejected as irrelevant and contrary to the best and most credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Senior Attorney Florida Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Doris Duke 6676 Cedar Point Road Jacksonville, Florida 32226 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether respondents' licenses as real estate brokers and salespersons should be disciplined for alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, culpable negligence, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, violation of a duty imposed by statute and contract, and aiding and conspiring with other persons engaged in misconduct-- all in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1981).
Findings Of Fact On March 25, 1981, Elaine P. Stein, a licensed real estate salesperson, showed Mordechai and Nuti Antebi a house for sale at 1704 North 44th Avenue, Hollywood, Florida. The house was owned by Wayne L. and Gladys E. Hunter and listed with Murray Realty. The listing broker for Murray Realty was Warren Stein, and the salesperson directly involved in the listing was Alex Olson. Elaine Stein was a salesperson in the Emerald Hills office of Chinelly Real Estate, Inc.; the manager for that office was Frederick A. Lewis, a licensed real estate salesperson. (Testimony of Stein, Antebi, Olson, Lewis.) The Antebis, who were in the process of selling their present Pembroke Pines house through the Hollywood Hills office of Chinelly Real Estate, Inc., liked the house and expressed a desire to purchase it. They were told that if they assumed the existing mortgage on the Hunters' house, the interest rate would escalate on the day of closing. (Testimony of Olson, Stein.) The Antebis and Ms. Stein then returned to the Emerald Hills office where a written offer was prepared by Ms. Stein, Vilma Sardiello--a licensed real estate salesperson who frequently worked with her--and Alex Olson, the listing Murray Realty salesperson. Ms. Antebi told Ms. Stein and Ms. Sardiello that she had only $500 to place as an earnest money deposit. The purchase price was $106,000. Ms. Stein then spoke with Mr. Lewis, who advised her that the problem could be handled by executing an assignment of funds. Such an assignment would allow proceeds from the scheduled sale of the Antebis' Pembroke Pines house to be used in the Hunter-Antebi transaction. Ms. Stein, who was unfamiliar with assignments, then procured a written assignment of funds from Ms. Antebi for the sum of $19,500 and prepared a written offer. Ms. Antebi signed the offer and provided a $500 earnest money deposit. (Testimony of Stein, Olson, Sardiello, Antebi; P-1, R-1.) Immediately thereafter, Alex Olson, Murray Realty's listing agent, telephoned the offer to the Hunters in Ocala, Florida. He informed them that the Antebis were offering to purchase their house for $106,000, consisting of a $20,00 deposit, $15,000 at closing, and assumption of the current mortgage of approximately $43,000 at the prevailing interest rate. In addition, the Hunters were to take back a $28,000 purchase money mortgage at 12 percent for five years, with only interest payable monthly (He did not inform them that $19,500 of the $20,000 deposit was in the form of, an assignment of funds from the sale of the Antebis' Pembroke Pines house. He was unaware of the assignment, which Ms. Stein had inadvertently failed to disclose in the written offer.). The Hunters telegraphed their acceptance of the offer pursuant to Mr. Olson's instructions. (Testimony of Olson, W. Hunter, G. Hunter, Antebi, Stein; P-1, P- 4.) After receiving the Hunters' telegram, Ms. Stein realized that the phrase, "assignment of funds," had been mistakenly omitted from the written offer. She alerted Mr. Lewis, who, in turn, contacted Mr. Olson on March 26, 1981, and advised him that $19,500 of the deposit would come from an assignment of the proceeds from the sale of Antebis' Pembroke Pines house. Mr. Olson responded that he would not transmit another offer to the Hunters without a written letter from Chinelly Real Estate, Inc., verifying the amount of deposit held in escrow on the Hunter-Antebi transaction. (Testimony of Olson, Lewis, Stein.) Consequently, on March 26, 1981, Mr. Lewis telephoned Ann Shetter, bookkeeper and accounts supervisor at Chinelly Real Estate, Inc.`s main office. He asked her for the amount of money on deposit in the escrow account for the Antebi transaction. She replied that there was $8,000 held in escrow on the Antebi transaction; but she failed to indicate whether she was referring to the Hunter-Antebi transaction or the Antebi sale of their Pembroke Pine house which was being handled by another Chinelly Real Estate, Inc., office at that time. Mr. Lewis reasonably (although mistakenly) assumed that she was referring to the Hunter-Antebi transaction, the only Antebi transaction being handled by his office (He was unaware that the Antebis' Pembroke Pines house was being sold by another office of Chinelly Real Estate, Inc.). Instead, Ms. Shetter was referring to $8,000, which was being held in escrow, on the Antebis' sale of their Pembroke Pines house. (Testimony of Lewis, Shetter.) Mr. Lewis then in response to Mr. Olson's request, signed and delivered an escrow letter to Mr. Olson on March 26, 1981, verifying that Chinelly Real Estate, Inc., was holding $8,000 in escrow on the Hunter-Antebi transaction. (Testimony of Lewis; P-6.) Mr. Olson then telephoned the Hunters in Ocala on March 26, 1981, and told them that the deposit would be $8,000 instead of $20,000, and that $27,000 would be paid at closing instead of the agreed upon $15,000 (These changes did not affect the total purchase price.). He also told them that be felt an $8,000 deposit would be sufficient. The Hunters agreed to the changes and at Mr. Olson's request, sent a confirming telegram to the Emerald Hills office of Chinelly Real Estate, Inc. (Testimony of Olson, Hunter, Stein; P-5.) Shortly thereafter, Mr. Olson picked up the revised contract which had been prepared by Ms. Stein and signed by the Antebis; without reading it, he sent it to the Hunters for execution. This contract, fully executed by buyers and sellers, provided for a purchase price of $106,000, an initial $500 deposit, an additional deposit paid to Chinelly Real Estate, Inc.`s trust account on or before March 26, 1981, in the amount of $7,500, an assumption by buyers of an existing first mortgage held by American Savings and Loan at prevailing interest rate in the principle amount of $43,000, a $28,000 purchase money mortgage bearing interest at 12 percent for five years, interest only, payable monthly, balloon in five years, and approximately $27,000 due at closing, including $12,000 provided by assignment of funds from the sale of the Antebis' current house. (Testimony of Stein, Olson, W. Hunter, G. Hunter; P-2.) On April 9, 1981, Nancy Gooch, vice-president in charge of processing transactions for Chinelly Real Estate, Inc., discovered the discrepancy in the Hunter-Antebi transaction, that the contract indicated that $8,000 would be deposited in the firm's escrow account while, in fact, only $500 had been deposited. She alerted her boss, John Chinelly, Jr., a licensed real estate broker, who, upon further investigation, found the Lewis letter which mistakenly represented that $8,000 was held in escrow on the Hunter-Antebi transaction. (Testimony of Chinelly; P-9.) Mr. Chinelly, who was about to depart on a four-day religious retreat, called in Reginald D. Lucas, general sales manager and a licensed real estate broker, and instructed him to find out the facts surrounding the discrepancy and solve the problem. On April 9-10, 1981, Mr. Lucas called Mr. Lewis and obtained his explanation of the escrow discrepancy; after discussing alternative courses of action, Mr. Lucas told him to meet with Ms. Stein and Ms. Sardiello and decide how they would solve the problem. Various options discussed included: (1) canceling the transaction, (2) persuading the Antebis to place an additional $7,500 into escrow, and (3) depositing the personal funds of Mr. Lewis, Ms. Stein, and Ms. Sardiello to cover the escrow shortage. On Friday, April 10, 1981, and during the ensuing weekend, they discussed among themselves possible penalties, such as loss of their jobs and licenses, and what course of action would be ethical and proper. After Ms. Stein failed to persuade Ms. Antebi to place an additional $7,500 into escrow, the three real estate salespersons--Mr. Lewis, Ms. Stein, and Ms. Sardiello--reluctantly agreed to each loan the Antebis $2,500 to make up for the Hunter-Antebi escrow shortage (They obtained a promissory note dated April 10, 1981, from the Antebis requiring repayment when the Pembroke Pines house was sold.). (Testimony of Lucas, Stein, Lewis; R-5.) Mr. Lewis, Ms. Stein, and Ms. Sardiello acted on their belief that Murray Realty and the Hunters had been told of the escrow discrepancy and consented to their loaning money to the Antebis to make up for the difference. Mr. Lucas led them to believe that such was the case. Between April 10 and 13, 1981, he had telephoned Mr. Olson to tell him about the escrow shortage. Because Mr. Olson was out of town, he spoke with Warren Stein (unrelated to Elaine Stein), the listing broker for Murray Realty. He and Mr. Stein agreed that they should promptly notify the Hunters of the situation. (Testimony of Lewis, Stein, Sardiello, Lucas.) Shortly thereafter, on April 13, 1981, Mr. Lucas went to Mr. Stein's Murray Realty office for the purpose of jointly notifying the Hunters. In the ensuing telephone call, the Hunters were told of a problem with the escrow account, that the three sales persons--Ms. Stein, Ms. Sardiello, and Mr. Lewis- -had agreed to make up for the shortage by depositing $7,500 of their own money into escrow, and that the closing would be unaffected. The Hunters knew of and consented to the three salespersons contributing $7,500 into escrow (There is conflicting testimony on whether the Hunters were told of this $7,500 contribution. The Hunters deny it while Mr. Lucas insists they were told of and consented to the arrangement. Mr. Lucas's testimony on this question is accepted as persuasive. The Hunters' testimony conflicts with the statements contained in their complaint filed with the Department.). (Testimony of Lucas; R-7.) When Mr. Olson returned to Murray Realty on April 14, 1981, and learned of the events which had transpired in his absence, he requested written verification from John C. Chinelly, Jr., that the three real estate salespersons had placed the $7,500 in escrow. Mr. Chinelly verified that the money had been placed into escrow and wrote a letter to Murray Realty confirming that fact. At that time, Mr. Chinelly--based on his conversations with Mr. Lucas and Mr. Stein--also believed that the Hunters had consented to the salespersons depositing the additional $7,500 into escrow. (Testimony of Chinelly, Olson, Lucas; P-7.) Closing of the Hunter-Antebi transaction was scheduled for April 28, 1981. At closing, the Antebis complained about the condition of the roof, pool, and air conditioner. The Antebis also did not have sufficient funds to close the transaction. The transaction failed to close. (Testimony of Stein, Antebis, Olson.) Subsequently, the Antebis closed on the scheduled sale of their Pembroke Pines house. As a condition to this closing, $7,500 was placed into escrow pending a court decision on a complaint for interpleader filed in Broward County Circuit Court by Chinelly Real Estate, Inc., concerning the Hunter-Antebi transaction. At all times material to the proceeding, respondents John C. Chinelly, Sr., Richard M. Chinelly, Paul James Fleck, Nancy J. Gooch, Mary E. Hulsey, James A. Chinelly, John C. Chinelly, Jr., Shana Munden, Joseph Tresser, Reginald D. Lucas, Harold E. Whitter, Asa F. Brand, Josephine B. Shanefelt, Brett A. Slabe, William F. Kuemerle, Jr., and Marshall Feinsilber were the qualifying brokers for Chinelly Real Estate, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the two administrative complaints and all charges against respondents be dismissed, with prejudice. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 14th day of June, 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 14th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 45 Southwest 36 Court Miami, Florida 33135 Howard Todd Jaffe, Esquire 1915 Harrison Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Rodger L. Spink, Esquire 6600 Taft Street, Suite 404 Hollywood, Florida 33024 Michael J. Garavaglia, Esquire 3111 Cardinal Drive Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Vilma Sardiello 5207 Hayes Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate should be denied on the ground set forth in the Florida Real Estate Commission's April 24, 2007, Notice of Intent to Deny.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is 26 years old. He lives in Orlando and works as a server at Hue, an upscale restaurant located in downtown Orlando. Hue is owned by Urban Life Management, a company that owns several restaurants and a real estate brokerage company. Petitioner also serves as an office manager at the real estate office, and would work as a sales associate in that office after obtaining his license. On or about August 28, 2006, Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate sales associate with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate ("Division"). On that application, he answered in the affirmative to question number one in the Background Information section. Question number one states, in pertinent part, "Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to, even if you received a withhold of adjudication"? By letter to Petitioner, dated September 8, 2006, the Division requested additional information from Petitioner regarding his answer to question number one. In response, Petitioner submitted documentation showing that he had been convicted in November 2002 of trafficking in amphetamine, particularly MDMA (ecstasy), in violation of Subsection 893.135(1)(f), Florida Statutes, a first degree felony. Petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 90 days, followed by 18 months of probation. Petitioner successfully completed his probation on July 14, 2004. At the time of his offense, Petitioner was a 20-year old student at the University of Central Florida ("UCF"). On August 19, 2001, Petitioner acted as the middleman in a drug transaction, delivering 5,000 ecstasy pills to a purchaser for $41,250.00. Petitioner expected to receive about $5,000 for his participation in the deal. However, the prospective buyer of the pills was a confidential police informant, and Petitioner was arrested. As a consequence of his guilty plea, Petitioner was expelled from UCF. Subsequent to his arrest, Petitioner cooperated with law enforcement authorities by acting as a confidential source. Petitioner's extensive cooperation led to a greatly reduced sentence based on the recommendations of law enforcement officials. The drug trafficking conviction is Petitioner's only criminal offense. Petitioner currently works two jobs. He works as a server at Hue in the evening and as office manager for the real estate company during the day. Both of Petitioner's supervisors testified in support of Petitioner's application. Neal Barton is the general manager of Hue and has been Petitioner's direct supervisor at the restaurant since hiring him in August 2002. Mr. Barton testified that Petitioner disclosed his criminal record at the time he was hired. Mr. Barton testified that Petitioner is an exemplary employee, honest, reliable, and dedicated. Mr. Barton relies on Petitioner to train other servers, and to check their work. Lisa Gould is Petitioner's supervisor at the real estate company. She has worked with Petitioner for approximately five months, and testified that Petitioner disclosed his criminal record to her. Ms. Gould testified that Petitioner is honest and hardworking. She would not hesitate to use Petitioner as a sales associate under her broker's license. Craig Ustler, the president and owner of the companies that employ Petitioner, testified in support of Petitioner's application. Mr. Ustler is a real estate broker and appraiser, and testified that he would not hesitate to hire Petitioner as a sales associate. In addition to working, Petitioner pursued higher education after serving his time in jail. In May 2004, he received his Associate in Arts degree from Valencia Community College. He then re-applied to UCF, and was admitted subject to disciplinary probation for his entire enrollment. As part of the readmission process, Petitioner was required to participate in therapy with Laura Riddle, a professional training consultant and "life coach." Ms. Riddle submitted a letter of support for Petitioner, in which she described him as honest, and a man of integrity and strong moral character. Petitioner graduated from UCF with a degree in finance on May 4, 2007. Petitioner attributed his criminal conduct to growing up in an environment of substance abuse that led him into a period of drug dependence. At the time of his arrest, Petitioner was an ecstasy user. Petitioner completed a six- month program at the Center for Drug Free Living in Orlando, as well as an aftercare program, and credibly testified that he has not used drugs since his arrest in August 2001. Petitioner's license application was considered by the Commission at its meeting on March 21, 2007. Petitioner appeared at the Commission meeting and responded to questions from members of the Commission. The Commission voted at the meeting to deny Petitioner's license application. The denial was memorialized in a Notice of Intent to Deny dated April 24, 2007. The grounds for denial listed in the Notice of Intent to Deny included Petitioner's criminal record, as revealed in the license application; the recent nature of Petitioner's criminal offenses; and the fact that Petitioner is a convicted felon.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: The Florida Real Estate Commission issue a Final Order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of September, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Daniel Villazon, P.A. 1020 Verona Street Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Nancy S. Terrel Hearing Officer Department of Business and Professional Regulations Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Poul Hornsleth, Chairman Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulations 400 W. Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801
