Findings Of Fact I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation was at all times material to this proceeding a corporation registered as a real estate broker with the Commission, with its principal business address at 240 North Washington Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, 33577. Irving Z. Mann was at all times material to this proceeding a real estate broker registered with the Commission, and the holder of two registration certificates: one as an individual broker with an office at 2197 Princeton Street, Sarasota, Florida 33577; and the other license as president and active broker of I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation. Stanley M. Robbins was at all times material to this proceeding a registered real estate salesman in the employ of I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation. At all times material to this proceeding Fritz K. Grolock was a registered real estate salesman, and from April 12, 1972, to February 2, 1976, he was registered with the Commission as a real estate salesman in the employ of I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation. From February 2, 1976, to November 29, 1976, Mr. Grolock was registered with the Commission as a real estate salesman in the employ of I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. At all times material to this proceeding Irving Z. Mann was president, and Stanley M. Robbins was vice president, assistant secretary, treasurer and general sales manager of I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation which was the owner and developer of the Palma Sola Harbor condominium development in Sarasota County, Florida. On or before February 4, 1976, Mr. Grolock and Mr. Robbins had agreed that Mr. Grolock would receive for his services as a real estate salesman for I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. a three percent commission based upon the sales price of individual condominium units sold at Palma Sola Harbor. Commissions were to be paid to Mr.Grolock at the end of the month in which the sale of each such unit was consummated. Mr. Robbins explained to Mr. Grolock at the time of this agreement that I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. was short of cash, and that should Grolock make any sales, he might have to wait for some indefinite period of time to receive his commission. Mr. Grolock indicated his willingness at the time to proceed on that basis. No testimony was adduced, and no documentary evidence was offered to establish that Mr. Grolock was employed by I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., at any time material to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint. During the course of his employment as a real estate salesman with I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc. Mr. Grolock solicited and obtained a real property sales contract between Elmer C. Sutter and Ruth W. Sutter, as purchasers, and I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., as seller, for a condominium unit in the Palma Sola Harbor project. The purchase price of the unit was $26,450, and the evidence established that Mr.Grolock is due, and has not been paid, a commission of $793.50 for that sale. During the course of his employment as a real estate salesman with I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc., Mr. Grolock solicited and obtained a real property sales contract between Martin G. Tepatti and Dorothy L. Tepatti, as purchasers, and I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., as seller, for a condominium unit in the Palma Sola Harbor project. The purchase price of the unit was $37,450, and the evidence established that Mr. Grolock is due, and has not been paid, a commission of $1,123.50 for that sale. During the course of his employment as a real estate salesman with I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc., Mr. Grolock solicited and obtained real property sales contract (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) dated April 29, 1976, between Donald F. Brown and Barbara S. Brown, as purchasers, and I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc. as seller, for a condominium unit in the Palma Sola Harbor project. The purchase price of the unit was $37,450, and the evidence established that Mr. Grolock is due, and has not been paid, a real estate commission of $1,123.50 for that sale. Mr. Grolock did not attend the closing of any of the three transactions referenced above and described in the Administrative Complaint. However, the only evidence of record establishes that these transactions resulted in "negative closings" that is, after deductions of amounts due on the pre-existing construction mortgage, charges for documentary stamp taxes, tax pro-rations and the like, no funds remained for disbursement to I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, Inc. for payment to Mr. Grolock as a commission. Neither Mr. Mann, Mr. Robbins, I.Z. Mann Realty Corporation, nor I.Z. Mann & Associates, Inc. received any funds at the closing of these transactions. Some time after the closings of the three transactions described in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Grolock spoke with Mr. Robbins concerning non- payment of his commissions. Mr. Robbins explained t6hat the three transactions had resulted in "negative closings," but that if Mr. Grolock would be patient he would be paid his commissions in due course. Mr. Robbins discussed the commissions once or twice thereafter with Mr. Grolock, each time explaining that the company was short of money but that Mr. Grolock would be paid eventually. Because of poor market conditions in the condominium industry, I.Z. Mann Realty & Associates experienced financial problems which ultimately resulted in the company's insolvency. The company eventually voluntarily relinquished its assets to creditors, or had its interest in those assets foreclosed, and at the present time is no longer actively engaged in business. By letters to Mr. Robbins dated December 7, 1976, and January 19, 1977, (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) Mr. Grolock demanded that some arrangements be made for payment of his past due commissions. When he received no reply to these letters, Mr. Grolock sent a letter (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) to Mr. Mann dated April 25, 1977, listing the transactions which resulted in $3,040.50 being owed to him for real estate commissions. Shortly after receiving this letter, Mr. Mann telephoned Mr. Grolock, on May 5, 1977, and told him ". . . the company had been inactive for a long time, but that I would see to it that he would get paid eventually. Just give us a chance to get some money to do it." (Transcript, p. 63). Mr. Grolock agreed at that time to wait for payment of his commissions. Some time after his May 5, 1977, telephone conversation with Mr. Mann, Mr. Grolock filed a complaint with the Commission ". . . [b]ecause I found no other recourse. . . [t]o obtain my commission . . . ." (Transcript, p. 26).
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its Administrative Complaint filed March 1, 1982, the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, seeks to suspend, revoke or take other disciplinary action against Donna Migone and Pedro Realty, Inc., as licensed real estate salesperson/corporation, respectively, who have been issued License No. 0304648. 2/ On August 8, 1980, Mrs. Mary Perez, c/o Douglas Spring, Esquire, 15211 N.W. 60th Avenue, Miami Lakes, Florida 33014, entered into a listing agreement with Respondents Migone and Pedro Realty, Inc., for the sale of Mrs. Perez' property located at 414 West 67th Street, Hialeah, Florida. The asking purchase price of the subject property was $69,900. On August 18, 1980, Mrs. Perez was presented with a contract for the sale of her residential property by Donald E. Morton, a licensed real estate broker employed by International Realty Association and Investment Corp. and Respondent Donna Migone, the listing salesperson for Respondent, Pedro Realty, Inc. The contract/offer presented was for the sum of $66,000. Mrs. Perez reviewed the contract/offer presented by Respondent Migone and thereafter Respondent Migone filled out a form entitled "Approximate Seller Expenses" to explain to Mrs. Perez how the proceeds of the sale would be disbursed. During this explanation, Respondent Migone computed the commission due herself and Donald Morton both on the basis of a sales price of $56,000 and $66,000 pursuant to the contract/offer presented. In this regard, Mrs. Perez agreed to hold a $10,000 second mortgage to assist the purchasers in securing the financing to purchase the property. During that time, August 18, 1980, the purchasers gave Donald E. Morton a $4,000 purchase-money deposit for the subject property to be held in escrow until closing. On December 5, 1980, the closing occurred in a typical manner whereby the seller and the buyer separately delivered their respective documents and monies to the Amerifirst Federal Savings & Loan, 900 N.E. 125th Street, Suite 200, North Miami, Florida. There was no formal gathering of the parties and Respondent Migone and Donald E. Morton were notified on or about December 10, 1980, by Mrs. Perez' attorney, Douglas Spring, that the closing had occurred. Respondent Migone and Donald E. Morton computed the commission on the basis of six percent (6 percent) of the full purchase price of $66,000. This amounted to $3,960 as computed by Respondent Migone on one of the two net sheets presented to Mrs. Perez. On December 18, 1980, Respondent Migone and Donald E. Morton were paid $1,980 each from the escrow fund, and Donald E. Morton sent Mrs. Perez a check for $40.00 representing the balance due her from the escrow deposit fund. Petitioner contends that the commission should have been computed by Respondents Migone and Pedro Realty, Inc., on the basis of six percent (6 percent) of the amount of $56,000 or $3,360 as reflected on one of the net sheets presented to Mrs. Perez by Respondent Migone. On this point of dispute, evidence reveals that when the contract/offer was presented to Mrs. Perez, Mrs. Perez reviewed the offer and at that time was presented with two forms filled out by Respondent Migone entitled "Approximate Seller Expenses" to reflect how the proceeds of sale would be disbursed. During this discussion, Mrs. Perez agreed to the $66,000 offer and agreed to hold a $10,000 second mortgage to assist the purchasers in completing the real estate transaction. The testimony reflects that Mrs. Perez was interested in receiving a monthly income check and the income from the $10,000 mortgage was a means whereby this could be achieved. During the course of these discussions, one of the forms computed by Respondent Migone for the commissions reflected that commissions would be computed based on $56,000 whereas another form was computed reflecting the total purchase of $66,000. A careful reading of the testimony of Mrs. Perez reflects that she understood that she would be paying the commission based on the total purchase price of $66,000 and not based on the $56,00 as the Petitioner contends. Mrs. Perez indicated that she knew that she was selling the property for $66,000 and the six percent (6 percent) commission (on that basis) was no surprise to her. (TR 33, 40, 41, 57, 65, 72, and Respondent's Composite Exhibit B). Further, Respondent Migone credibly testified that there was a great deal of discussion of the $56,000 versus the $66,000 and the manner in which the $10,000 second mortgage would be written up; however, there was no evidence presented to reflect that no commission would be paid on the $10,000 second mortgage as contended by the Petitioner other than the "net sheet" computed by Migone reflecting the commission computed on six percent (6 percent) of $56,000. Further, Respondent Migone testified that Mrs. Perez never discussed paying a commission only on $56,000 versus the $66,000 as was computed and deducted by the Respondents. A review of the documentary evidence indicates that there are no variations of the six percent (6 percent) commission of the total sales price. (TR 66)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondents, Pedro Realty, Inc., and Donna Migone, be DISMISSED in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 24th day of January, 1983.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Philip Marzo was a real estate broker licensed under the laws of the State of Florida, holding license No. 0217167; and Respondent All Cities Realty, Inc., was a real estate brokerage corporation licensed under the laws of the State of Florida, holding license No. 0217166. At all times material hereto, Respondent Marzo was the qualifying broker for Respondent All Cities Realty, Inc. On May 9, 1981, Gladstone Keith Russell entered into a Service Agreement with All Cities Realty, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of that Agreement, Russell paid $75 in cash to Respondent All Cities Realty, Inc., as an advance rental information fee in exchange for which All Cities Realty, Inc., agreed to provide Russell with listings of available rentals. On or about May 13, 1981, Respondents provided to Russell one listing, which listing was not suitable to Russell. No other listing information was ever provided by Respondents to Russell. Russell obtained his own rental within thirty days from the date of the Service Agreement. This rental was not obtained pursuant to any information supplied to him by Respondents. Within thirty days of the date that All Cities Realty, Inc., contracted to perform real estate services for Russell, Russell telephoned Respondent All Cities Realty, Inc., to demand a return of his $75 deposit. The salesman who took Russell's advance fee was no longer employed at All Cities Realty, Inc., and Russell spoke with Respondent Marzo. Although Russell demanded a refund of his money, Respondent Marzo did not make a refund to Russell. When Russell spoke with Marzo on the telephone, Marzo, instead of returning Russell's money, used delaying tactics and attempts to keep from making the refund. Since his telephone calls proved unsuccessful, Russell returned to the All Cities Realty, Inc., office to obtain a refund from Marzo. Upon arriving at the office, Russell found that All Cities Realty, Inc., had gone out of business, and he was unable to locate Respondent Marzo. Russell has never received a refund of his $75 advance fee paid to the Respondents.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: Default be entered against Respondents, Philip Marzo and All Cities Realty, Inc., and that a final order be entered finding Respondents, Philip Marzo and All Cities Realty, Inc., guilty of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaints and revoking their real estate licenses. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 24th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Philip Marzo 2920 Missionwood Avenue, West Miramar, Florida 33025 Mr. Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Carlos B. Stafford Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Joseph D. Chaitkin, operated as a broker although he had no broker's license. Whether the salesman's license #0149332 of Respondent should be suspended, or whether other disciplinary measures should be imposed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Joseph D. Chaitkin, be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Joseph D. Chaitkin 133 Allamanda Avenue Port Richie, Florida 33568
Findings Of Fact Respondent is now and was at all times material to this action a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0064475. Respondent operated his own real estate brokerage firm under his license. The firm was located in Niceville, Florida. In addition to his real estate brokerage business Respondent maintained and managed his personal real estate investments. Several of these personal investments included rental property which Respondent would later sell. One such piece of property was located at 104 Perdido Circle, Niceville, Florida, and is the property involved in this action. Prior to July 6, 1985, the Respondent, as seller and not as a broker, advertised for sale the Perdido property. Sometime around July 6, 1985, Robert L. Mitchell and June F. Mitchell looked at the Perdido property. Frank Ray, a salesman for John Brooks Realty, an unrelated real estate firm showed the property to the Mitchells. They liked the property and wanted to buy it. Frank Ray made arrangements for himself and the Mitchells to meet with Respondent in order to discuss the terms of the potential purchase contract. They met on July 6, 1985. The meeting lasted approximately an hour to an hour and a half. During the lengthy meeting Respondent went over the purchase terms contained in the contract of sale. The Mitchells main concern was to have immediate occupancy of the house. Special terms were developed for renting the property. At some point during the meeting the down payment came under discussion. Originally, the Mitchells had planned on a $1500 down payment which was acceptable to Respondent. However, as the meeting progressed the Mitchells decided they would like to reduce the amount of the down payment. Respondent informed the Mitchells that the only way he could decrease the $1500 down payment was to make the money a non-refundable option payment. Respondent then marked out the $1500 down payment figure contained in the purchase contract and inserted a $1200 figure. Respondent concurrently added the language "option payment" next to the $1200 figure. The remainder of the contract was discussed and the Mitchells signed the amended document. The Mitchells then wrote a check to Respondent, personally, in the amount of $1200. The note section of the check the Mitchells wrote contained the language "house down payment." The exact discussion on the down payment/option is not clear. What is clear from the evidence is that neither party had a meeting of the minds over what the $1200 check was. The Mitchells being very inexperienced in real estate thought it was a down payment. Although it is doubtful the Mitchells understood the legal meaning of the term "down payment." Respondent thought it was a non- refundable option payment. Absolutely no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of Respondent was demonstrated. Likewise, there was no evidence that Respondent in any way used his knowledge or expertise in the real estate market improperly. The final result of the negotiations was that the Mitchells had entered into what on its face purports to be a rental contract with an option to buy. However, since there was no meeting of the minds over the option, the option was eventually unenforceable. Since there was no meeting of the minds regarding the $1200 the money was not properly escrowable property. In essence the $1200 was neither a down payment nor an option payment. This lack of escrowability is borne out by the sales contract which calls for another escrow agent. 1/ The Mitchells took possession of the property for approximately three months. The Mitchells failed to obtain financing. The contract was conditioned upon the Mitchells obtaining financing, and the transaction failed to close. A dispute arose between the parties concerning the down payment/option money. When the dispute could not be resolved by the parties, the Mitchells filed a lawsuit against Nevin H. Nordal demanding a refund of the $1200 "house down payment." As a result of the Mitchell's lawsuit the County Court, in Okaloosa County, Florida, Summary Claims Division, by Amended Final Judgment dated January 20, 1987, awarded the sum of $1,028,87. The judgment figure is the balance of the $1200 after deduction of a counterclaim of $171.13 for cleaning the house after the Mitchells evacuated the property. Additionally, the Respondent was required to pay costs in the sum of $57 for a total of $1,087.87 due the Mitchells. The judgment amount is bearing interest at a rate of 12 percent per annum. The County Court judgment contains no findings of fact as to the Judge's reasoning on the judgment award. The Mitchells have repeatedly demanded of the Respondent that he pay the judgment. He has repeatedly refused to pay the judgment. Respondent did account to the Mitchells for the money when he told them he had deposited the check and had spent the funds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint failed against Respondent, Nevin H. Nordal, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 4th day of March, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Respondent-licensee Edison Realty, Inc., was during all times material herein a corporate registered real estate broker and Respondent-licensees, Richard G. Gibbs and Shirley Puhala were registered real estate brokers with the Commission and were operating and registered as active brokers with the official capacity of President and Secretary-Treasurer respectively of Respondent- licensee, Edison Realty, Inc. See Commission's Composite Exhibit #1. Pursuant to a trust agreement dated June 21, 1971, Respondent-licensee, Richard G. Gibbs, as trustee, and Walter Johnson, as beneficiary, entered Into a trust arrangement for certain properties known as Orange River Ranchettes located In Lee County, Florida. (A copy of the trust agreement is attached to the administrative complaint filed herein as exhibit "A".) Testimony adduced during the course of the hearing revealed that approximately 300 acres were purchased which the parties subdivided into 5 acre ranchettes. Pursuant to sale of the ranchettes, approximately $200,000 to $215,000 was received and invested as trust funds. At the end of calendar year 1975, Respondent-licensee, Richard G. Gibbs, obtained without the consent or permission of the remaining trustees, approximately $127,486.74 in exchange for two promissory notes executed and delivered by Respondent Gibbs, as President of Edison Realty, Inc. (A copy of the promissory notes are attached to the administrative complaint as exhibit "B"). Although the above promissory notes are now due with Interest, Respondent Gibbs refuses to pay despite demands from the trustees. Evidence reveals further that Edison Realty, Inc., received during the course of conducting its real estate brokerage business, during the period of approximately April 23, 1976 thru March 31, 1977, escrow deposits entrusted totaling approximately $37,720.00 and an examination of its escrow account maintained at First National Bank in Ft. Myers, Florida, reveals a closing balance of $5,419.76. Evidence reveals further that Edison Realty, Inc., In the course of conducting its real estate brokerage business is In charge of the management of real property known as Parklane Village Trust, Tamiami City Trust, Union Trust, Kenwood Trust, Pindel Trust, Sancarlo Trust, Broadway Trust and Captain's Quarter. For its management responsibilities, Edison received and was entrusted with funds totaling $19,625.28 and an examination of its escrow account respecting the above trust reflects closing balance of only $5,419.76. Evidence reveals further that Respondent-licensee Richard G. Gibbs, was the only person authorized to and made withdrawals from the above trust account and that as of March 31, 1977, he converted approximately $51,932.52 to his own use or to that of some other person other than the true owner or person entitled thereto. H. Freeman Bigelow, Norma Jane Morris, Allen Higgens, Hubert R. Foster, Boyd Strasbaugh, Lorelei Jane Irons, Harriet Ann Houck were all former licensed and registered salespersons with the Commission and employed by the Respondent- licensee, Edison Realty, Inc. During the course of their employment with Edison Realty, Inc., they received as payment of their share of commissions earned, checks which were returned to them for insufficient funds. Despite repeated requests by them for their share of commissions earned, Respondent-licensee, Edison Realty, Inc. and Richard G. Gibbs, as President, has failed to honor their demands. No evidence was introduced to establish that Respondent-licensee, Shirley Puhala, by any means engaged in or assisted Respondent Gibbs in the withdrawal, conversion or other appropriations for his own use of monies entrusted to him individually or in his official capacity as a trustee or President of Respondent-licensee, Edison Realty, Inc. To the contrary, it appears that Mrs. Puhala was most cooperative in assisting the Commission's investigator in his investigation of this matter. Pursuant to the emergency suspension hearing before the Commission, Carol Arnold who is presently the President of Edison Realty, Inc., entered an arrangement with Attorney C. Michael Jackson to wind up the corporate affairs of Edison Realty, Inc. The Commission directed them to refrain from engaging in any new corporate business or activity. They were further advised to establish a trust fund for monies received to be disbursed to creditors.
Recommendation Based In the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, recommended as follows: That the Respondent-licensee, Edison Realty, Inc., registration with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a registered real estate corporate broker be revoked. That the Respondent-licensee, Richard G. Gibbs, registration with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker be revoked. That the complaint allegations filed herein respecting the Respondent- licensee, Shirley Puhala, be dismissed and that the suspension of her registration be vacated. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of July, 1977, In Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 C. Michael Jackson, Esquire Post Office Drawer 790 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 Ms. Shirley Puhala c/o Edison Realty, Inc. 2373 West First Street Ft. Myers, Florida 33901
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter its final order directing Capitol Rental and Realty, Inc. and Lawrence D. Van Ore cease and desist from using non-registrants as real estate salesmen and further from failing to use the full name of the registrant and the term "Broker" or "Realtor" within its classified advertisements. The Hearing Officer further recommends that the registration of the registrant be suspended until the corporate broker and associate broker Lawrence D. Van Ore have complied with said order of the Commission. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John Gough, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Don Scarlet, Esquire 801 Magnolia - Suite 317 Orlando, Florida 32803
The Issue The issues presented in this case concern an Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent, accusing the Respondent of failing to account or deliver, upon demand, money which he would not be entitled to retain, which money was due and owing to a real estate salesman employee of the Respondent broker, all in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On December 9, 1981, Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, now Florida Real Estate Commission, filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent alleging the violation referred to in the Issues statement of this Recommended Order. Respondent who is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0137645, requested a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, to resolve the factual disputes between the parties and the case was subsequently referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration. This request for assignment of a Hearing Officer was received on January 28, 1982, by the Division and a formal hearing was conducted on April 29, 1982. Notwithstanding notice provided to the parties, Respondent did not attend the hearing. At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, George F. Lewis, was the record broker for George F. Lewis Realty, Inc., located at 4237 Cape Coral Bridge Road, Fort Myers, Florida, 33907, the address listed with Petitioner as the business premises for Respondent. On December 2, 1981, Eleni Kaklis, a licensed Florida real estate salesman, employed by George Lewis Realty, Inc., while acting in the capacity of real estate salesman for that corporation, participated in the execution of a contract for sale and purchase in Lee County, Florida. The sellers were James Henry and Ruth Elizabeth Aalderink, and the purchasers were Stanley M. and Mary Jo Shaver. The terms and conditions of that contract may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, which is a copy of the contract admitted as evidence. The contract concerned residential property, and that property had been the subject of a listing through a real estate firm unaffiliated with the Lewis corporation. The listing broker was Aloia Realty. Kaklis had reviewed the multiple listings book in her office with the purchasers and had shown several other residences before the Shavers decided to purchase the Aalderink property. She also prepared the purchase contract which has been discussed. Respondent was not involved in the transaction, in the sense of actively showing property or consulting with the clients or in the preparation of the contract. A real estate closing was held on the Aalderink property in February, 1981. On February 17, 1981, George Lewis Realty, Inc., was paid a commission in the amount of $1,587.00, which represented the fifty (50) percent commission entitlement for the selling broker, with an equal amount being due the listing broker, Aloia Realty. The money paid the Lewis corporation was by a check which check was cashed by George Lewis. See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3. In keeping with the terms and conditions of the employment agreement between Kaklis and George F. Lewis Realty, Inc., set forth in Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6, specifically the numbered paragraphs 4 and 5, at page 11 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, Kaklis was to receive fifty (50) percent of the commission paid to George F. Lewis Realty, Inc., less franchise fees due to Better Homes and Gardens. (Petitioners Exhibit No. 5, is constituted of a copy of excerpts of the contract between Kaklis and Lewis Realty, Inc., in the person of George Lewis, and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 is a format of the complete contract signed by Kaklis with the corporation through the offices or George Lewis, broker for the corporation.) Respondent was responsible for and obligated to Kaklis for the payment of her commission fee, which had been given to him by Kaklis by the delivery of a title company check which has been discussed herein. Nonetheless, Kaklis did not receive the commission fee for the sale of the Aalderink property and has been refused that commission in the face of repeated demands, on at least three (3) occasions. Respondent has always answered that request by stating that he did not have the money.
