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).
The Issue The Administrative Complaint alleges that the Respondents are guilty of fraudulently withholding a commission and failing to account for said commission. The Respondents contend that there was no commission owed to the salesperson because the salesperson did not obtain the listing contract upon which the transaction closed and had been discharged for cause before a contract for purchase was obtained. The factual issues upon which the case is determined is whether the listing contract upon which the transaction closed was obtained by the salesperson who claimed the commission, and whether the contract for purchase was received before the salesperson was discharged for good cause. Both parties submitted posthearing findings of fact, which were read and considered. Those findings not incorporated herein are found to be either subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary, or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint and at the time of hearing, the Respondent, Jacqueline B. Ousley, held real estate broker's license number 0333339 and operated the Respondent corporation, Touch of Class Realty, Inc., which held corporate real estate broker's license number 0218522. Both licenses were issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Diane Carroll was employed by the Respondents as a real estate salesperson from February to June l2, 1982. On June 13, 1982, Ms. Carroll was discharged for good cause by the Respondents. On May 25, 1982, Ms. Carroll obtained an open listing on the Breezeway Motel, 2001 North Dixie Highway, Lake Worth, Florida, from Carl C. Summerson. This listing was good through June 25, 1982. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) Based upon this contract, the Respondents showed the property to prospective buyers, to include Anthony and Deborah Hedley, the ultimate purchasers of the property. However, after the Hedleys had become interested in the property, the Respondents became aware that Summerson was not the sole owner of the Breezeway Motel. Because of the interest of the Hedleys and the prospects of selling the property, the Respondents sought and obtained an exclusive listing agreement from both owners of the motel, Carl Summerson and Roy Chapin, which was signed on June 14, 1982. As an exclusive listing, this contract supplanted the open listing obtained by Ms. Carroll on May 25, 1982. The Respondents obtained an offer to purchase the Breezeway Motel from the Hedleys on June 16, 1982, which offer was accepted by Summerson and Chapin. This transaction closed, and the Respondents received one-half of the ten percent commission, $33,800. The custom of the profession is that salespersons earn a listing commission on a listing contract obtained by them while they were employed if a contract for the purchase of the property is obtained before the salesperson leaves the broker's employment. The Respondents tendered a "referral fee" of $845 to Ms. Carroll, as opposed to a salesperson's share of the commission which was $5,070. Ms. Carroll has a civil action pending, seeking to obtain payment of the commission.
Recommendation Having found the Respondents not guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission dismiss the Administrative Complaint against the Respondents, Jacqueline B. Ousley and Toch of Class Realty, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 3rd day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Donald P. Kohl, Esquire 3003 South Congress Avenue, Suite 1A Palm Springs, Florida 33461 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1973, Mr. and Mrs. Delmar D. Carter purchased the Buccaneer Motel and Woodside Apartments [the motel] from C.E.K., Inc., whom respondents represented in the sale. Respondents agreed to accept less from C.E.K., Inc., as their commission on the sale, that they might have otherwise, because the Carters agreed to give respondents the exclusive right to resell the motel for a period of five years. Two years after they purchased the motel, the Carters asked O.B. Linkous to try to sell the motel, but the Carters sell held the motel when the resale agreement expired in late 1978. One of the obligations assumed by the Carters in exchange for the motel was secured by a mortgage that C.E.K., Inc., had executed in favor of O.B. Linkous Realty, Inc., on December 14, 1972. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. This assumed obligation required the Carters to make certain monthly payments to the corporate respondent including a payment of $862.19 on January 1, 1979. Under the mortgage agreement, the entire principal (originally $88,247.93) would become due if a "default continue for a space of 30 days." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. On January 25, 1979, Mr. Carter delivered to Mr. Linkous a check in the amount of $862.19, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, as payment of the amount due on January 1, 1979. When he handed the check to respondent Linkous, Mr. Carter told him that the funds in the account on which the check was drawn were insufficient for the drawee to pay the check, but that he would deposit sufficient funds on the following day. Respondent Linkous answered that he saw no problem since he intended to deposit the check in his own account in another bank and assumed it would be at least a day before the check was presented to the drawee. On the following day, Mr. Carter deposited $865.96 in the account on which the check was drawn. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. On January 31, 1979, the balance in the account was $1,000.32. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Instead of depositing the check, respondent Linkous took the check, on the same day he received it, to the Flagship First National Bank of Ormond Beach, on which it was drawn, and persuaded a teller there to stamp it so as to indicate that it had been dishonored because sufficient funds were not on deposit. On February 7, 1979, a mortgage foreclosure complaint was filed against the Carters and C.E.K., Inc., (as holder of a junior mortgage), in which respondents' attorney alleged that the Carters had "defaulted under the note and mortgage by failing to pay the payment due January 1, 1979, and all subsequent payments." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The Carters retained counsel who filed an answer and counterclaim in which it was alleged, inter alia, that Linkous "deliberately with premeditated design, deceived and tricked [the Carters]." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. After these pleadings had been filed, the Carters agreed to respondents' counsel's suggestion that they grant the corporate respondent the exclusive right to sell the motel for another five-year period in exchange for an end to the litigation, and executed an agreement to that effect. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. The parties stipulated that both respondents hold real estate licenses issued by petitioner.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondents' licenses for a period of five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Ralph Fetner, Jr., Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Hadley, Esquire 827 Deltona Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725
Findings Of Fact The Defendant was at all material times registered with tie Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman in the employ of Razook Real Estate, Inc. Razook Real Estates Inc. is a duly registered real estate broker. During 1973, the Defendant negotiated the sale of a business known as Carvel Ice Cream Supermarket number 1034, located in Riviera Beach, Florida, between Philip Caruso and Dorothea Caruso, as sellers, and Beverly Barratt, as purchaser. The Carusos and Ms. Barratt entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement on May 14, 1973. (See: Defendant's Composite Exhibit 1). The agreement included assignment from the sellers to the purchaser of a lease covering the property on which the business was located. The lease assignment was incidental to the sale of the business, and was not a prime factor in the transaction. The Defendant negotiated the sale as a business broker employed by Rabern Business Associates, Inc., and not as a real estate salesman employed by Razook Real Estate, Inc. The Defendant was not registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate salesman for Rabern Business Associates, Inc. When she signed the contract on May 14, 1973, Ms. Barratt delivered to the Defendant a $4,060 check made out to Rabern Business' Associates, Inc. which amount was to serve as a deposit. The contract provided that the sale would be subject to the approval of Carvel Corporation the franchisor of the business. On August 15, 1973, the transaction between the Carusos and Ms. Barratt was closed, except that the approval of Carvel Corporation had not yet been received. It was the clear understanding of the parties that the approval of Carvel Corporation was essential and that the closing was conditional upon that approval. The sellers were represented at the closing by Attorney Walter Colbath. Ms. Barratt was represented at the closing by Attorney Gustave Broberg. Shortly after the closing, Ms. Barratt went to New York to participate in a training program offered by Carvel Corporation for franchisees. Carvel Corporation would not approve the transaction unless the new franchisee completed this program. Upon her arrival in New York, Ms. Barratt was advised by representatives of Carvel Corporation that the Carusos owed Carvel Corporation more than $8,000, which amount was not reflected in the agreement between the Carusos and Ms. Barratt nor in the closing statement dated August 15, 1973. This is the first occasion upon which Ms. Barratt was apprised of this indebtedness on the part of the Carusos to Carvel Corporation. Carvel Corporation reluctantly permitted Ms. Barratt to participate in their training program with the hope that a resolution of the indebtedness could be made. Carvel Corporation would not approve the agreement between the Carusos and Ms. Barratt unless an arrangement was made respecting the indebtedness. When Ms. Barratt returned to Florida, negotiations respecting the $8,000 commenced, and although at one juncture the parties were close to an agreement, no final resolution was reached. The transaction was therefore not concluded. At no time did Carvel Corporation approve the sale as set out in the contract of May 14, 1973, or in the closing statement dated August 15, 1973. On October 23, 1973, Mr. Broberg, representing Ms. Barratt, wrote to Mr. Colbath, the attorney for the Carusos, stating that the transaction could not be consumated, and demanding that monies held by Attorney Colbath be returned to Ms. Barratt. He further stated in the letter: "It would be appreciated if you would forthwith inform Mr. Ralph J. DePaola of Rabern Business Associates, Inc. that the sale has terminated and request that he return the $4,000, which he is holding, to Mrs. Barratt." A copy of this letter was sent to Mr. DePaola. (See: Defendant's Composite Exhibit 1). On December 19, 1973, Mr. Colbath wrote to Mr. Broberg concerning monies that had been held by him, and with respect to the monies held by Mr. DePaola stated as follows: "The balance of $4,000 that was originally deposited with Mr. DePaola has, as you know, been retained by him as his commission. I am by copy of this letter informing Mr. DePaola what has transpired since we last talked and ask that you contact him directly." A copy of this letter was sent to Mr. DePaola. (See: Defendant's Composite Exhibit 1). No further demands were made by Ms. Barratt, or on her behalf, to the Defendant for the return of the $4,000. The Defendant did not have any agreement with Ms. Barratt that Ms. Barratt would be responsible to pay any commission to the Defendant. Four thousand dollars is listed on the August 15, 1973 closing statement as a sellers' expense. Mr. DePaola testified at the hearing that he considered the matter closed as of August 15, 1973; however, Mr. DePaola did know, or should have known, that approval by Carvel Corporation had not been obtained, and was necessary. Mr. DePaola has retained the $4,000, and it has not otherwise been returned to Ms. Barratt. The Defendant was not aware of the additional $8,000 obligation which the sellers owed Carvel Corporation on May 14, 1973, when the Purchase and Sale Agreement was signed, or on August 15, 1973, when the transaction was preliminarily closed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Count I of the Information against Ralph J. DePaola be dismissed. That Count II of the Information against Ralph J. DePaola be dismissed. That Count III of the Information against Ralph J. DePaola be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of February, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for registration as a real estate salesman, pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner field applications for registration as a real estate salesman with respondent on October 10, 1977. Question 16 of the application reads as follows: 16. Have you, in this state, operated, attempted to operate, or held yourself out as being entitled to operate, as a real estate salesman or broker, within one year next prior to the filing of this application without then being the holder of a valid current registration certificate authorizing you to do so? The petitioner answered "no" to Question 16. On December 8, 1977, respondent Florida Real Estate Commission issued an order denying the application based on its determination that the applicant had operated, attempted to operate or held himself out as a real estate broker or salesman within the one year period prior to filing his application. Petitioner thereafter requested a hearing in the matter. (Exhibit 1) Petitioner is the president of Marketing Institute Corporation of the Americas, Ltd. of San Jose, Costa Rica. (MICA) The firm operates as a real estate sales organization under the laws of Costa Rica, and is owned by Insco S.A., a Costa Rican holding company. (Testmony of McIntire, Figueredo) In 1975, petitioner became associated with William W. Landa, president of Costa del Sol, a condominium project in Miami, Florida. His function was to produce sales of condominium units as a result of sales efforts in Latin America. Part of the informal arrangement was the petitioner occupied a rental villa at the condominium project. His success in producing sales was limited and, as a result, the association was terminated sometime in 1976. In a letter to Lands, dated January 21, 1977, petitioner sought an accounting of expenses incurred in the operation and stated that he had produced three purchasers for which commissions were payable at the rate of "10% for foreign sales and 5% on domestic sales." Although no explanation of the terms "foreign sales" and "domestic sales" was presented, Landa testified at the hearing that petitioner did not sell in Florida for Costa del Sol. (Testimony of Landa, Figueredo, Exhibits 2-3) On December 1. 1976, the receiver in bankruptcy of the estates of Grandlich Development Corporation and Fisher Development Corporation, Fred Stanton Smith, president of the Keyes Company, Miami, Florida, Wrote petitioner and offered to pay his firm a 10% commission on "all sales closed by you of all Commodore Club Condominiums sold to your prospects." The commission was to be payable to MICA through its agent in the United States, Transcontinental Properties, Inc. of Miami, Florida, a corporate broker, The Commodore Club is a condominium project located at Key Biscayn, Florida. Hemisphere Equity Investors, Inc. was the registered broker for the sales of the condominiums and kept sales agents on the premises. Smith instructed Hemisphere to cooperate with foreign brokers in the sales of the properties. Petitioner proceeded under this arrangement to obtain and refer prospective foreign purchasers to Transcontinental who arranged to show the condominium units to the clients and consummate any resulting sales. Although petitioner had desk space in the Transcontinental office from September, 1976, to August, 1977, he was not supposed to show properties to clients or be involve in any real estate sales functions. In September, 1976, the president of Transcontinental placed a telephone call to respondent's legal office at Winter Park, Florida and ascertained that commissions could be paid to a foreign broker. However, he was informed by the Commission representative that it was a "gray" area and, although the foreign representative could serve as an interpreter for foreign clients during transactions in the United States, he could not perform any of the sales functions himself in Florida. Sales were made in this manner and commission checks were paid to petitioner's firm during the period January - September, 1977. (Testimony of Smith, McIntire, Figueredo, Exhibits 4, 5, 12, 13, 15) On July 1, 1976, Alexander Sandru purchased a condominium at the Commordore Club through the Keyes Company as broker. He was a friend of petitioner's from Caracas, Venezuela, and the latter had recommended his purchase of the condominium. However, petitioner was not in the United States at the time Sandru viewed the property and purchased it. Petitioner claimed a commission on the sale and it was paid to his firm through Transcontinental's predecessor company. A dispute arose over the payment of the commission because a saleswoman of Hemisphere Equity Investors, Inc. had shown the property to Sandru and assumed that she would earn the commission on any resulting sale. (Testimony of Lundberg, Nelson, Murragy, Exhibits 8-11) On several occasions in 1976 and 1977, petitioner accompanied Latin American individuals to the Commodore Club where a representative of Hemisphere showed them various condominium units. During this time, petitioner would inquire concerning maintenance charges and the like and transmit such information to the individuals in Spanish. Several of these persons were connected with petitioner's foreign firm and were not prospective purchasers. (Testimony of Lundberg, Figueredo, Exhibit 7) On January 30, 1977, Insco S.A. entered into a purchase agreement for a Commodore Club condominium unit. Petitioner signed the agreement on behalf of his firm MICA as broker for the transaction. However, the deal was never consummated. (Testimony of Figeredo, Exhibit 14)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application for registration as a real estate salesman under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, be denied. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of March, 1978. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard J. Mandell, Esquire 748 Seybold Building Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Janis K. Hinsch (Hinsch), was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license No. 0350063. Hinsch was the vice president and sole qualifying broker of Respondent, Huntco of Marco, Inc., a Florida corporation, licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, license No. 0222987. During all times material hereto Huntco was the owner of the Sea Oats Beach Club, a condominium located in Charlotte County, Florida. Huntco marketed the Sea Oats Beach Club under a time-share plan. The gravamen of the complaint in this case involves the sale of eight time-share units during the period of April 9, 1983 through August 11, 1983. The purchase agreements executed by the eight purchasers in question provided in pertinent part: 8. CLOSING AND TITLE At closing, . . . Seller shall deliver its warranty deed conveying fee title to the Unit Week(s) to Buyer under a plan of Interval Ownership as defined in the Declaration of Condominium . . . . The closing will be . . . not later than one (1) year from the date of this Agreement. Petitioner contends Hinsch and Huntco are guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, because the deeds for the eight units were not delivered to the clerk of the court for recording within one year of the date the purchase agreements were executed. Petitioner's assertion is ill-founded. The deeds for each of the units in question were executed within 30 days of the date the purchase agreements were executed. The deeds, together with other pertinent documents, were delivered to a title company for closing and for issuance of an owner's title insurance policy. The title company, subsequent to closing, was to have forwarded the deed to the clerk for recording and, upon return of the recorded deed by the clerk, to have delivered the deed to the purchaser(s). However, the title company, through a clerical error, failed to deliver the deeds for these eight units to the clerk for recording. Respondent, upon receiving notice that purchasers had not received their deeds, immediately inquired of the title company to discern the reason, the error was discovered, and the deeds were promptly recorded. Admittedly, the deeds were not recorded within one year of the date the purchase agreements were executed, but the purchase agreements only required that the closing be held within one year. There is no evidence to suggest that the deeds in question were not delivered to the title company, or that these transactions were not closed, within one year of the date the purchase agreements were executed.
The Issue Are the corporate names, Dunes of Panama Rental Association, Inc. and Dunes of Panama Rental Management Association, Inc. deceptively similar to each other? If the names are deceptively similar to each other, may the Department of State require the later chartered corporation to amend its Articles of Incorporation and registration to reflect a new name?
Findings Of Fact At 7205 Thomas Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida, there is a cluster of condominiums known colloquially as the Dunes of Panama. The Dunes is a phased condominium development constructed and sold by A. W. Hirshberg, Inc. At the time of hearing there were three units of the development completed and a fourth under construction. Each unit, known respectively as Phase I, Phase II, Phase III and Phase IV, is contained in a freestanding building approximately 100 feet apart from the next unit. Construction of Phase 1 began in 1974. It was completed and sold by 1977. In that year the Dunes of Panama Phase I Association, Inc. was incorporated and chartered by the Department of State. As each succeeding unit was completed and sold a new owner's association was chartered until there are now Dunes of Panama Phase I Association, Inc., Dunes of Panama Phase II Association, Inc., and Dunes of Panama Phase III Association, Inc. Phase IV will be incorporated upon the completion of its building. To provide a service to the condominium owners in Phase I the developer established a rental office to assist in renting the condominiums to third parties. On July 1, 1977, this service was incorporated and received a corporate charter from the Department of State in the name of Dunes of Panama Rental Association, Inc. In September of 1977, when the developer Hirshberg conveyed all condominium assets of Phase I to the new owner's association, Dunes of Panama Phase 1 Association, Inc., he also transferred to the association all the assets of Dunes of Panama Rental Association, Inc. As each new phase of the development has been completed Rental has offered its rental management services to the new condominium owners in that phase. During December, 1980, a rival rental office was established by some condominium owners (primarily those in Phase III) to offer rental services to all condominium owners in each phase of the Dunes of Panama. This office was later, incorporated on February 4, 1980, as Dunes of Panama Rental Management Association, Inc. The services it offers its clients are exactly the same as those offered by Rental. All three existing units at the Dunes of Panama have the same street address, 7205 Thomas Drive. Each of the three buildings containing condominiums are designated by the letters "A," "B," and "C." The office of Rental is located in Building A. The office of Management is located in Building C. If the building letter is left off the address of mail to either Rental or Management, as frequently happens, there is considerable confusion among the postmen as to where the mail should be delivered. Frequently Management receives telephone calls for Rental and vice-versa. There is ample evidence that members of the public do not distinguish between the names of Rental and Management. Because the offices genrally cooperate with each other, the confusion from the similarity of their names is not always harmful but it does mean that, for instance, a person who made a rental agreement with Rental might send his deposit to Management, who may not be sure if that deposit is from one of its own customers or should be forwarded over to Rental. Both Rental and Management presently represent owners in Buildings A (Phase I), B (Phase II), and C (Phase III). The name Dunes of Panama Rental Management Association, Inc. is deceptively similar to the name Dunes of Panama Rental Association, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Secretary of State enter a final order requiring Intervenor- Respondent Dunes of Panama Rental Mangement Association, Inc. to amend its Articles of Incorporation and registration with the Department of State to reflect a name other than Dunes of Panama Rental Management Association, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 1981.
Findings Of Fact From January 23, 1976, to March 31, 1976, Sherman was a registered real estate salesman in the employ of FAR, a registered corporate broker, located in Dade County, Florida. During that period of time, FAR was engaged in an enterprise whereby advanced fee listings were obtained from Florida property owners. Salesmen known as "fronters" or "qualifiers" were employed to place calls to Florida property owners whose names and phone numbers had been provided to the salesmen by FAR. The prospects were asked if they cared to list their real estate with FAR in anticipation of resale. It was explained that there would be a refundable fee to be paid by the property owner for the listing. The refund was to occur upon sale of the property. If the prospect was interested, then certain literature was mailed out to them. Other salesmen were employed as "drivers" who would make the second contact of the prospect who indicated an interest in listing his property. The driver would secure a signed listing agreement along with a check for $375.00 which constituted the refundable listing fee. There was no evidence that any of the listings obtained by FAR were ever resold. There were, however, three parcels of land in negotiation for sale when the operations of FAR were terminated in June, 1976. There was to be a division separate and apart from the "fronters" and "drivers" to do the actual selling of the property. The listings here advertised in the Fort Lauderdale area but there was no evidence to establish whether or not other advertising occurred. There was a total absence of evidence and, hence, a failure of proof as to the allegations of misrepresentations by Sherman. FREC introduced no evidence to show that Sherman represented that the property could be sold for several times the purchase price, that it would be advertised nationwide and in foreign countries or that the company had foreign buyers wanting to purchase United States property listed with the company. There was no evidence introduced to show that Sherman either made the representations or knew them to be false. There was no evidence introduced to show that Sherman knew that no bona fide effort would be made to sell the property listed. There was no evidence of any nature introduced by FREC to show that Sherman was dishonest or untruthful. No evidence was introduced to establish the amended allegation that Sherman was guilty of a violation of a duty imposed by law.
