Findings Of Fact Wallace Adams was a registered real estate salesman with Continental Marketing Services from November, 1975, until May, 1976. The depositions of Robert Cline, Donald Brawdy and Jean Sue Brawdy were received into the record without objection. The depositions of the Brawdys reflect that they received a telephone call from an individual identifying himself as Wallace or Wally Adams. The deposition of Robert Cline reflects that he received a call from an individual whom Cline identified only as Mr. Adams. The deponents indicated that the caller stated he represented Continental Marketing Services, a real estate sales organization. The caller represented that Continental Marketing Services desired to list property which they owned in Florida and Arizona for sale. The caller represented that their property would be advertised nationally and internationally, and that foreign buyers were interested in purchasing such property. Cline indicated that he was called in approximately November of 1975, and the Brawdys indicated that they were first contacted in February of 1976. The caller suggested the potential sales prices of the property to be listed, and the deponents eventually entered into a listing contract with Continental Marketing Services, paying advance listing fees ranging from $350 to $1,125. None of the deponents indicated that they ever met the Respondent, Wallace E. Adams.
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 Wallace E. Adams as a registered real estate salesman. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Grimes, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Wallace E. Adams c/o Dory Auerbach 456 NE 29th Street Miami, Florida 33137
Findings Of Fact This cause came on for consideration based upon the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission vs. Cecil V. Cancer t/a Cancer Realty, Respondent. The Respondent has opposed the Administrative Complaint and demanded a formal hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The Florida Real Estate Commission is an agency of the State of Florida which has as its primary function the regulation of certain licensees who hold various registrations with the Petitioner. The Respondent, Cecil V. Caneer t/a Caneer Realty, holds License No. 0012862, under the authority of the Florida Real Estate Commission. This license entitles the Respondent to act as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent has been so licensed. On August 12, 1974, the Respondent entered into a management agreement with James Thomas Quinn and his wife, Phyllis J. Quinn, to manage certain property in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, located at 5639 Minocqua Street. The terms and conditions of that management agreement may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. This management agreement entitled the Respondent to receive certain brokerage fees for his services to the Quinns in leasing, collecting rents, maintaining the property, entering into service contracts, effecting certain repairs and making disbursements from the owners' proceeds and with a portion of the rents to be deposited for purposes of satisfying the mortgage payments owed on the property. In addition, the Respondent was responsible for making periodic itemized statements of receipts, expenses, charges and accruals, and to remit the net proceeds to the owners. The Quinns, through the management agreement, agreed to pay the various percentages set forth in the brokerage fee arrangement and to assume the full responsibility for the payment of expenses and obligations incurred in connection with the exercise of the Respondent's duties under the management agreement. The owners left the State of Florida at a time when the management agreement was still in force and effect. In November and December, 1976, the property was in a state of disarray, and a number of items needed to be repaired. Under the terms and conditions of the management agreement and with the written permission of Mrs. Quinn, dated December 20, 1976, the Respondent made a number of repairs to the property. The letter spoken of may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. The Respondent also made two mortgage payments in behalf of the Quinns for the months of December, 1976, and January, 1977. An itemized statement of the monies expended by the Respondent, less the security deposit of the tenants who were living in the rental property in late 1976, may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The Respondent requested the Quinns to reimburse him for the money that he had paid in making repairs and for the mortgage payments made on the property. The Quinns refused to pay the Respondent, and acting on the advice of his attorney, the Respondent filed a claim of lien against the subject real property at 5639 Minocqua Street, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, which is the property of the Quinns. The Claim of Lien may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. It sets out that the Respondent spent $220.58 for certain repairs and payments for other repairs, with the total value of materials and labor being $441.79. In fact, the $220.58 was spent for the mortgage payments on the property for the months of December, 1976, and January, 1977. The balance of the $441.79 was for the items of repairs as itemized in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, less the security deposit spoken of. At the time the lien was placed, the Respondent was also of the persuasion that the Quinns intended to sell the property. Under these facts as shown, the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, is convinced that the Respondent has violated certain laws pertaining to his licensure by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Specifically, the Petitioner feels that the act by the Respondent of placing the lien upon the public records of Duval County, Florida, against the property of the Quinns, was a utilization of a document which purports to affect the title of, or encumber, the real property of the Quinns and was for the purpose of collecting a commission or to coerce the payment of monies in violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner believes that these acts constitute a violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and finally, that for these acts the Respondent is guilty of dishonest dealing, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The lien in question does purport to affect the title of and encumber the real property of the Quinns, and it has been placed by the Respondent, a real estate broker licensed by the Florida Real Estate Commission. It has been placed in the public records of Duval County, Florida. However, it was not placed for the purpose of collecting a commission or to coerce the payment of money to the Respondent. The Respondent was acting under the express authority of the management agreement and letter of instruction of December 20, 1976, from Mrs. Quinn, and pursued his legal remedies by filing the lien, when it was determined that the Quinns did not intend to reimburse him for the authorized expenditures and mortgage payments on the rental property. Likewise, there has been no showing that the Respondent is guilty of dishonest dealings in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. When the alleged violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(d) Florida Statutes, failed, the allegation under Subsection 475.25(1)(d) becomes irrelevant, due to the fact that the purpose of Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, is to implement the penalties found in Section 475.25, Florida Statutes, in the event of any violation of provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, other than Section 475.25, Florida Statutes violations.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, dismiss the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Cecil V. Caneer t/a Caneer Realty, and allow the Respondent to go forth without further necessity to answer to those allegations. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 David C. Goodman, Esquire 1387 Cassat Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205
Findings Of Fact Prior to the commencement of hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation of fact, a copy of which is attached and constitutes the findings of fact in this hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take action to cause Holdridge's name to be placed on the list of active brokers and to have current registration papers issued. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 2nd day of May, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Michael E. Crane, Esquire 521 Landmark Building Naples, Florida 33940 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined based upon the allegations that Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b) Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined based upon the allegation that Respondent is guilty of failure to account and deliver funds, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's real estate broker's license should be disciplined based upon the allegation that Respondent is guilty of failure to maintain trust funds in a real estate brokerage escrow bank account or some other proper depository until disbursement thereof was properly authorized, in violation of Section 475.005(1)(k), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Leslie L. White is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0095441 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to the Respondent was as a broker with an address of Les White Realty, 6313 Wynglow Lane, Orlando, Florida, 32818-1311. Respondent's license is currently under suspension for failing to pay a fine and failure to complete certain education courses. On or about September 28, 1993, Respondent negotiated a contract between himself, doing business as Les White Enterprises, as seller, and Charles and Greta White, as buyers, (no apparent relationship to Respondent) to purchase Lot Number 18, Whisper Ridge subdivision in Orange County, Florida and build a house thereon for the total sum of $79,000. Respondent prepared the contract, using the standard Contract for Sale and Purchase form approved by the Florida Association of Realtors and The Florida Bar. Les White Enterprises was listed as the "Seller" and Charles White and Greta White, his wife, were listed as "Buyers". The Buyers agreed to purchase Lot 18 and to have a house constructed on the site by the Seller. The Buyers agreed to seek "new financing at prevailing interest rates" in the amount of $75,550; put down a $2,000 deposit and pay an additional $1,450 at closing. The contract called for the deposit to be held in escrow by Les White Realty/Builders. The $2,000 deposit was paid in cash by the Buyers and given to Respondent. The Respondent did not place the $2,000 deposit in an escrow account contrary to the express terms of the contract. Respondent did not acknowledge receipt of the deposit in his capacity as a broker. At the time the contract was signed, the Buyers knew that the Respondent did not own or have title to Lot 18, and that the purchase price of the lot exceed the amount of the deposit. The Buyers consented to the Respondent using the funds to acquire the property. Respondent was unable to purchase Lot 18, and sought the Buyers' permission to purchase Lot 2 instead and construct a house on it in accordance with the parties' prior agreement. The Buyers reluctantly agreed. On February 18, 1994, Buyers gave Respondent a cashier's check for $1,200 for the purpose of clearing the land and beginning construction of a home for them on Lot 2. The funds were not placed in escrow. The Respondent utilized the funds received from the Buyers and acquired title to Lot 2 in his name alone on or about February 25, 1994. The Respondent cleared Lot 2 in preparation for construction, obtained building plans and applied for building permits in connection with building a house on said lot. Shortly thereafter, Respondent notified the Buyers that the private investors, who approved their loan application, had discontinued financing of the Respondent's construction loan and he was unable to construct the house. The transaction failed to close and the Buyers demanded that Respondent return the earnest money deposit. Respondent was unable to return to return the $3,200 earnest money deposit to the Buyers. Respondent filed for personal reorganization under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Throughout the course of this transaction, Buyers dealt with Respondent in his capacity as a broker/builder. In 1994 and 1995, the Florida Real Estate Commission found Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(b) and (1)(d)1., Florida Statutes on three occasions. Following the third offense, Respondent's license was suspended for six months and it is presently under suspension for failure to pay his administrative fines and complete other requirements of probation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue and file a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (d)1., and (k), Florida Statutes; and guilty of having been found guilty for a second time (or more) of misconduct that warrants suspension, in violation of subsection 475.25.(1)(o), Florida Statutes; it is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's licensed be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Gillis and Wilsen 1415 East Robinson Street, Suite B Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Robert Hartnett was at all times pertinent to this complaint a registered real estate broker. Bill Dew and Dave Allman sought to lease a specific piece of real property for business purposes. In this regard they contacted William Hartnett, who had previously leased a piece of real property which included the specific piece of property Messrs. Dew and Allman desired to lease. Messrs. Allman and Dew entered into an agreement to sublease a portion of the Hartnett leasehold. A contract was prepared by William Hartnett and delivered by Robert Hartnett to Dew and Allman, who executed the contract. Although there is conflicting testimony, the testimony of Robert Hartnett is accepted as the more accurate explanation of his role in the transaction. Robert Hartnett had no interest in William Hartnett's business venture or in the leasehold, and did not appear or function as a real estate broker in this transaction. The owner of the property, Mr. Grossinger, testified he agreed to lease the property to William Hartnett. Hartnett was permitted to occupy the premises and paid rent. William Hartnett prepared a written lease which was not signed by the owner, Mr. Grossinger. Grossinger terminated the agreement when Hartnett subleased the premises to Allman and Dew without notifying him and instituted legal action to evict William Hartnett. Under the circumstances, there was an oral lease between Hartnett and Grossinger. Messrs. Dew and Allman made arrangements with contractors to make modifications to the subleased premises, and the modifications were begun. These modifications were in part the cause for the owner terminating the lease with William Hartnett. Messrs. Dew and Allman or their agents did have occupancy of the premises.
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 Respondent Robert Hartnett. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Louis M. Jepeway, Esquire 619 Dade Federal Building 101 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a real estate broker should be suspended or revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violation of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as set forth in Administrative Complaint, dated December 4, 1981. This proceeding involves allegations by the Florida Board of Real Estate (now Florida Real Estate Commission) that Respondent, James R. Siebert, violated Subsection 475.25(1)(h) Florida Statutes, by sharing a commission with a person not properly licensed under the real estate law, and that he employed a person as a salesman who is not the holder of a valid license, in violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(c) , Florida Statutes, and therefore in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The incident which prompted the Administrative Complaint involved an auction sale of a restaurant in Brooksville, Florida which was conducted by an auctioneer who did not have a license to practice real estate in Florida. Respondent requested an administrative hearing and filed an answer to the Administrative Complaint admitting the occurrence of the auction, but denying that it involved the sale of real estate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, James L. Siebert, is a licensed real estate broker at Orange Lake, Florida, and was so licensed at all times relevant in this proceeding. (Stipulation) On several occasions prior to February 21, 1981, Respondent had gratuitously assisted Albert W. (Billy) Mitchell, an auctioneer, in conducting auctions by serving as a "ring man" and clerk. A "ring man" normally is one of several such individuals at an auction who assists the auctioneer by encouraging bidding and identifying bidders. Mitchell is not licensed under real estate laws of Florida, but operates under a local occupation license. None of the prior auctions in which Respondent assisted Mitchell involved the sale of real estate. (Testimony of Respondent, Mitchell) On January 28, 1981, Mitchell entered into an "auction sale contract" with Welberta Pruitt whereby Mitchell agreed to sell at auction to the highest and best bidder: . . . the following described business and personal property owned by the Party of the First Part: Pruitts Golden Wagon Steak House Restaurant and Contents on attached inventory list and located 1702 Howell Avenue, Brooksville, in Hernando County, State of Florida. The terms of this sale shall be 10 percent of the amount of the purchase price to be paid on day of sale and the balance to be paid as follows: On delivery of title - There is a mortgage on the business of $67,838.20 with interest at 8 3/4 percent on the unpaid balance. The attachment to the contract listed various items of food supplies and restaurant furniture and equipment, plus decorative items of personal property. Pruitt and her husband had purchased the real property on which the restaurant building was located under an agreement for deed in 1979 which provided that the Pruitts would make the payments on a mortgage of about $67,000 from the sellers to the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Citrus County and, when such mortgage was paid in full, the sellers would convey title to the property by warranty deed. The contract reflected that the total purchase price of the property was $75,000, and that a down payment had been made in the sum of $7,000. Mrs. Pruitt owned furniture, fixtures and equipment which she transported from Tennessee to operate a restaurant on the premises. (Testimony of W. Pruit Kelly, Mitchell, Johnston, Respondent's Exhibits 1,2) It was the understanding of the parties to the auction agreement that only the personal property in and around the restaurant building would be sold to the highest bidder, and it was anticipated that the successful bidder would take up the mortgage payments on the real property. The equity which the Pruitts had acquired by prior mortgage payments was to be "given" to whoever purchased the "business" at the auction. Accordingly, on February 20, 1981, the day preceding the auction, Mrs. Pruitt issued a "notice" that she would sell her "entire Restaurant, business, furnishings, equipment, and Inventory at Public Auction". The notice further stated that she would give her equity in the real estate to the purchaser on which there was an existing mortgage of $67,821.36 "that you may assume". The noticewas placed on the door of the restaurant. In addition, Mitchell issued a brochure advertising the auction wherein it was stated that the "entire business, furnishings, equipment, and stock" would he sold at absolute auction and that the purchaser would have the "privilege of assuming the payments on the existing mortgage." Mitchell had Respondent's name placed at the bottom of the brochure without Respondent's knowledge because he thought it would be a good advertisement for him. (Testimony of Mitchell, W. Pruitt, Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Mitchell asked Respondent to assist at the Pruitt auction and told him that since Mrs. Pruitt and her attorney were having a disagreement, it might be necessary for Respondent to write the contract resulting from the auction. No fee for Respondent's services was discussed prior to the auction. (Testimony of Mitchell, Respondent) On February 21, 1981, the auction was conducted at the restaurant in Brooksville, and Respondent was present to act as a "ring man". There were only about 3 individuals who entered bids at the auction. Prior to receiving bids, Mitchell announced that he was auctioning the contents of the business and that whoever bought the property would take over the payments on the mortgage. The successful bidder was Robert Shrader, who bid $9,600. He made a 20 percent down payment at the time in the amount of $1,920 which Mitchell retained as a commission on the sale. Mitchell had not described the real estate at the auction, but merely stated that he was auctioning the business and that Mrs. Pruitt would give the successful bidder her equity in the property. After accepting Schrader's bid, Mitchell gave the figures on the sale to Respondent who prepared a standard contract for sale and purchase of the real estate in the total amount of $77,421.36. The contract reflected a deposit of $1,920 to be held in escrow by Billy Mitchell and Associates, that the contract was subject to assumption of a mortgage of $67,821.36, and that there would be a balance of $7,680. Shrader and Mrs. Pruitt signed the agreement on February 21, 1981, which was witnessed by Mitchell and Respondent. Although no brokerage fee was listed, Respondent signed as broker on the contract. He testified at the hearing that he had done this out of habit. A real estate contract was prepared rather than merely a bill of sale of the personal property in order that the parties would have the figures they needed to close which they could take to the closing attorneys. After the auction, Mitchell gave Respondent $200 as a gift for his gasoline and other expenses on the Pruitt and prior auctions. Respondent testified, and Mitchell confirmed, that the latter insisted that he accept that amount as reimbursement for expenses. (Testimony of Mitchell, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) On April 6, 1981, Joseph P. Johnston, an attorney in Brooksville, closed the transaction by means of a bill of sale for the furnishings and equipment in Pruitts restaurant, and assignment of the Pruitt interest in the mortgaged real property. The closing statement reflected that a "broker's commission" in the amount of $1,920 was held by the "broker" to apply on commission, In actuality, the sum retained by Mitchell as a commission was based solely upon a percentage of the personal property sold at auction. (Testimony of Johnston, Mitchell, Petitioner's Exhibit 2)
Recommendation That the Florida Real Estate Commission dismiss the charges against Respondent, James R. Siebert. DONE and ENTERED this 3d day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 3d day of June, 1982 COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harvey R. Klein, Esquire Klein & Klein 333 North West 3rd Avenue Ocala, Florida 32670 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. C. B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue in Count I is whether Section 475.42(1)(j) absolutely prohibits a broker or salesman from filing a lien or other encumberance against real property to collect a commission. The issue in Count II is whether the Respondents violated a lawful order of the Commission by failing to remove the motion of lis pendens contrary to Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Conclusions Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: "No real estate broker or salesman shall place, or cause to be placed, upon the public records of any county, any contract, assignment, deed, will, mortgage, lien, affidavit, or other writing which purports to affect the title of, or encumber, any real property, if the same is known to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property, maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce the payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person, or for any unlawful purpose." Clearly the Respondents placed or caused to be placed the notice of lis pendens in question. A notice of lis pendens is clearly an "other writing which purports to effect the title of, or encumber, any real property." The Florida Real Estate Commission argues that this provision is an absolute bar to the filing of any lien for the purpose of collecting a commission. The Respondents argue that this provision is not an absolute bar and there are circumstances when a broker may file a notice of lis pendens. They also assert that the notice of lis pendens falls within the exception because the Circuit Court refused to remove the notice of lis pendens upon motion of the property owner. Lastly, it is argued that the notice was filed by counsel for the Respondents in good faith on an action at law and that this mitigates their action even if there was a violation. The language of Section 475.42(1)(j) cannot be read to absolutely prohibit a broker from obtaining a lis pendens. When given this construction, it effectively denies brokers and salesmen access to the courts for redress of injury as provided in Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Section 475.42(1)(j) is a complex provision which is subject to two interpretations. One interpretation would prohibit a broker or salesman from filing an encumberance if the same were known to him to be false, void or not authorized by law; if not authorized to be upon the public records; if not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded; if the execution of recording thereof has not been duly authorized by the owner of the property; if maliciously (filed); if for the purpose of collecting a commission, if to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman or other person; or if for any other unlawful purpose. This first interpretation would consider each clause a separate limitation on filing an encumberance. The facts analyzed under this interpretation do not show any knowledge by Respondents that the lis pendens was false, void or not authorized to be filed or not on a form entitling it to be recorded. The facts do not show that Respondents filed the lis pendens maliciously, for the purpose of collecting a commission, or for the purpose of coercing payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. The nature of lis pendens would not require the owner's authorization of execution for recording. The facts show that the lis pendens was filed by Respondent's attorney in conjunction with a suit brought by the Respondents against Perrin. The record also shows that the circuit court determined that the lis pendens was recordable when it denied the motion to remove it. The notice of lis pendens was neither malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting the commission. The notice was for the purpose of perfecting the claim against the property for execution of the judgment if the Respondents prevailed in the suit. Executing on a judgment is different from collecting the commission or coercing payment. Under this interpretation the Respondents have not been shown to violate Section 475.42(1)(j). A second interpretation would read the clause, ". . . if the same is known to to him to be false, void, or not authorized to be placed of record, or not executed in the form entitling it to be recorded, or the execution of recording thereof has not been authorized by the owner of the property. . ." as the first of two criteria to be met to establish a violation. The second criteria would consist of proof that the encumberance was recorded maliciously or for the purpose of collecting a commission, or to coerce payment of money to the broker or salesman, or for any unlawful purpose. Again the facts do not show there was knowledge by the Respondents of the falsity, or impropriety of the notice of lis pendens, as stated above. Again the facts show that the lis pendens was filed in conjunction with a law suit pending between the Respondent and the property owner, and that the court before which the action was pending refused to remove it. The file of the notice by Respondent's counsel was a legitimate method of perfecting the Respondent's claim should they prevail and obtain judgment. The facts do not indicate that the filing of the notice was malicious, coercive or for the purpose of collecting a commission. Under either interpretation, Respondents did not violate the statute. COUNT II The Respondents are charged in Count II with violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that the registration of a registrant may be suspended for up to two years for violation of a lawful order of the Commission. Clearly, the facts reveal that the Respondents had a substantial interest involved in the litigation with Perrin. The order, of the Florida Real Estate Commission to remove the notice of lis pendens substantially affected their rights in this litigation. Therefore, any final order directing Kay to remove the notice of lis pendens should have issued after an opportunity for hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The evidence reveals that the Florida Real Estate Commission did not notice a hearing under Section 120.57, and therefore its order cannot be "lawful." The provisions of Section 475.25(1)(d) require that registrants not violate lawful orders. The Respondents have not violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by not removing the notice of lis pendens as directed by the order of the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the Respondent, Sam Kaye and Sam Kaye, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September 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: Bruce I. Kamelhair, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William E. Boyes, Esquire Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, P.A. Post Office Box 3466 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, George N. Sullivan, held real-estate license number 0128470 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission. His current address is 22 East Spruce Street, Orlando, Florida. At one time, respondent also held a registered general contractor's license and operated a construction firm under the name of George N. Sullivan, Inc. in Vero Beach, Florida. On or about December 7, 1979, George N. Sullivan, Inc. and Vero Fore, Incorporated entered into a construction agreement wherein Sullivan agreed to construct a residence at Lot 27, Unit III, the Moorings of Vero Beach, in Indian River County for a price of $155,628. The difference between this price and the price of $171,688 alleged in the administrative complaint is due to "extras" agreed upon by the parties to be added to the project. Sullivan began construction on the residence but abandoned the project before it was completed. When he left the job he had been paid all sums due under the agreement except one final $18,000 draw. Vero Fore later discovered that approximately $66,000 in unpaid bills were left by Sullivan. It also learned that Sullivan had obtained releases from three material suppliers by issuing worthless checks in the amounts of $5,849, $2,883.48, $1,913.14, $4,988.92 and $3,847.23. To date, Vero Fore has not been repaid by Sullivan. Sullivan was later adjudged guilty of passing worthless checks by the circuit court of Indian River County on July 8, 1981 and was sentenced to eighteen months probation and required to make restitution to the subcontractors. The official records of Indian River County reflect that Sullivan was found to be in violation of probation on March 23, 1983 for failure to make restitution. It is unknown what, if any, penalties were imposed upon him for this violation, or if restitution has ever been made. On or about September 5, 1980, Sullivan entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. James L. Cain to remodel their residence located at 2075 DeLeon Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida. The agreed upon price was $46,900. The Cains paid Sullivan $46890, or 10 percent, as a downpayment for the work on September 8, 1980. Sullivan sent three men to the Cains' house a few days later to build a platform. No other work was ever done. Sullivan did not pay the three workmen and the Cains were forced to pay them $788 to obtain a release of liens. To date, they have never been reimbursed by respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent George N. Sullivan be found guilty as charged in Counts I, III, and IV and that Count II be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent's real estate sales license be suspended for a period of ten years with the condition that said license be reinstated after a period of three years if respondent can demonstrate that restitution to the three material suppliers, Vero Fore, Inc. and the Cains has been made. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Lee Printy, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. George N. Sullivan 22 East Spruce Street Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact In 1983 the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Solicitor's License and the Respondent continued to act as a Mortgage Solicitor until July 15, 1984. That on July 15, 1984, the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Broker's License holding license No. HB15055. That in August 1984 and August 1985 the Mortgage Broker's License of the Respondent was renewed by the Department of Banking and Finance. That from 1983 until the present date, the Respondent has processed approximately five hundred (500) mortgage loan applications with an approximate value of $50,000,000.00. That to the knowledge of the Respondent, no complaints have been made to the Department of Banking and Finance concerning any activities of the Respondent conducted in his capacity as a Mortgage Solicitor or Mortgage Broker. That during the period of time the Respondent has held his Mortgage Solicitor's and Mortgage Broker's Licenses, the activities conducted by the Respondent pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 494, have been his sole means of financial support for himself and his family. That on June 29, 1983, the Florida Real Estate Commission suspended the Respondent's Real Estate Broker's License for a period of five (5) years. Copies of the Stipulation and Final Order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, evidencing said suspension are attached hereto as Exhibits "1" and "2" respectively; conformed copies of said Exhibits were attached to the Petitioner's Request For Judicial Notice filed in this cause and dated April 24, 1986. Christensen's Stipulation which was confirmed by the Final Order of the Florida Real Estate Commission recites that Christensen was "served with the Administrative Complaint, copy attached," charging Christensen with violating certain provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and admits that the Administrative Complaint contains no disputed issues of material fact. But the Administrative Complaint itself apparently is not attached to the Stipulation approved by the Florida Real Estate Commission. It is not attached to the Stipulation filed in this case and is not found anywhere in the evidentiary or official record of this case. The Stipulation filed by the parties in this case does not state whether the suspension of Christensen's real estate broker license was based on fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, enter a final order dismissing the Amended Notice Of Intention To Suspend Or Revoke And Administrative Charges And Complaint against Respondent, Terry E. Christensen, in this case. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 10th day of June, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: John B. Root, III Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gorham Rutter, Jr., Esquire Gorham Rutter, Jr., P.A. 338 N. Magnolia Avenue, Suite D Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 EXHIBIT 1 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, Petitioner vs. CASE No. 86-0328 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent. / S T I P U L A T I O N The Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, by and through its undersigned counsel, and the Respondent, TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, hereby stipulate and agree as to the following facts upon which the parties respectfully request the Hearing Officer herein to render his decision: In 1983 the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Solicitor's License and the Respondent continued to act as a Mortgage solicitor until July 15, 1984. That on July 15, 1984, the Respondent duly obtained his Mortgage Broker's License holding license No. HB15055. That in August, 1984 and August, 1985 the Mortgage Broker's License of the Respondent was renewed by the DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE. That from 1983 until the present date, the Respondent has processed approximately five hundred (500) mortgage loan applications with an approximate value of $50,000,000.00. That to the knowledge of the Respondent, no complaints have been made to the DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE concerning any activities of the Respondent conducted in his capacity as a Mortgage Solicitor or Mortgage Broker. That during the period of time the Respondent has held his Mortgage Solicitor's and Mortgage Broker's Licenses, the activities conducted by the Respondent pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 494, have been his sole means of financial support for himself and his family. That on June 29, 1983, the Florida Real Estate Commission suspended the Respondent's Real Estate Broker's License for a period of five (5) years. Copies of the Stipulation and Final Order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, evidencing said suspension are attached hereto as Exhibits "1" and "2" respectively; conformed copies of said Exhibits were attached to the Petitioner's Request for Judicial Notice filed in this cause and dated April 24, 1986. The parties respectfully request the Hearing Officer to render his decision in this matter based upon the foregoing stipulated facts and in lieu of an evidentiary hearing. DATED this 13th day of May, 1986. JOHN B. ROOT, III, ESQUIRE GORHAM RUTTER, JR., ESQUIRE Office of the Comptroller GORHAM RUTTER, JR., P.A. 400 W. Robinson St., Suite 501 338 N. Magnolia Ave., Suite D Orlando, Florida 32801 Orlando, Florida 32801 ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT Telephone: (305) 423-5116 Telephone: (305) 841-7667 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent EXHIBIT 1 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0024293 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent. / DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE, Petitioner, CASE NO. 0021931 vs. TEC REALTY, INC. AND TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent. / S T I P U L A T I O N Terry E. Christensen; TEC Realty, Inc. and Terry E. Christensen, (Respondents), and Department of Professional Regulation, (Department), hereby stipulate and agree to the issuance of a Final Order by the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC), adopting and incorporating the provisions of this Stipulation in reference to the above-styled case. STIPULATED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondent Terry E. Christensen is now a broker-salesman, but at times material herein was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0174505. Respondent TEC Realty, Inc. was at times material herein a licensed corporate real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0212593. Its registration is now in "limbo". Respondents admit that they are subject to the provisions of Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of the Department and of the FREC. Respondents admit that they have been served with the Administrative Complaint, copy attached, which charges the Respondents with having violated certain provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, (and the rules enacted pursuant thereto). Respondents admit that the Administrative Complaint contains no disputed issues of material fact. Respondents admit that the stipulated facts contained in the Administrative Complaint support a finding of the Real Estate Practice Act. STIPULATED DISPOSITION Respondents shall not in the future violate Chapters 455 or 475, Florida Statutes, or the rules enacted pursuant thereto. The licenses of Respondents and of each of them, shall be suspended for five (5) years; and Respondents shall pay a total fine of $500 which fine shall be paid by cashier's check or money order made payable to the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Final Order. The action taken as reflected in the Final Order shall be published in the FREC News and Report Quarterly. It is expressly understood that this Stipulation is subject to the approval of the Department and of the FREC, and this Stipulation has no force and effect until a Final Order has been issued and filed. This Stipulation is executed by the Respondents for the purpose of avoiding further administrative action with respect to this cause. In this regard, Respondents authorize the FREC to review and examine all investigative file materials concerning Respondents prior to or in conjunction with the consideration of this Stipulation. Furthermore, should this Stipulation not be approved by the FREC, it is agreed that presentation to and consideration of this Stipulation and other documents and matters by the FREC shall not unfairly or unlawfully prejudice the Department, the FREC or any of its members from further participation, consideration or resolution of these proceedings. Respondents and the Department fully understand that this Stipulation and resulting Final Order adopting and incorporating the provisions of this Stipulation shall in no way preclude any other disciplinary proceedings by the Department or the FREC against the Respondent for acts or omissions not specifically set forth in the attached Administrative Complaint. Respondents expressly waive all notice requirements and right to seek judicial review of or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity and enforcement of this Stipulation and resulting Final Order of the FREC adopting and incorporating this Stipulation. SIGNED this day of , 1983. (filed document undated) SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED Respondents before me this 9th Terry E. Christensen, individually, day of June, 1983. and as broker and officer of TEC Realty, Inc. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission Expires June 26, 1986 Bonded Thru Troy Fain Insurance, Inc. Approved this 21st day of June, 1983. John Huskins, Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street, 308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 (305) 423-6134 Approved this 13th Fred Roche, Secretary day of June, 1983. Department of Professional Regulation JH/dm 6/6/83 EXHIBIT 2 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0024293 DOAH NO. 83-346 TERRY E. CHRISTENSEN and TEC REALTY INC. CASE NO. 0021931 DOAH NO. 83-345 Respondents /
