Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is a Florida licensed real estate broker and has been at all times material hereto, having been issued license number 0094373. On or about October 18, 1991, a contract to purchase real estate was entered into by Michael E. Toppin and Velma Richardson, as buyers, with Steven and Kenneth Halpern, as sellers. In accordance with the terms of the contract, an earnest money deposit of $3,000 was given to Respondent to be placed in escrow. The deposit was paid by Ms. Richardson in two checks: one for $1,000 on October 15, 1991, and one for $2,000 on October 29, 1991. The contract did not close because the buyers failed to qualify for sufficient financing, which was a contingency of the contract. Since the contract did not close, Ms. Richardson and Mr. Toppin requested Respondent to return the $3,000 earnest money deposit, but Respondent refused. Ms. Richardson and Mr. Toppin contacted Petitioner for assistance in obtaining the return of the deposit. Respondent was unsure as to who--the buyers or the sellers--should receive the earnest money deposit, so he requested, pursuant to Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, the Florida Real Estate Commission to issue an escrow disbursement order. In an order, dated May 20, 1992, the Commission ordered Respondent to disburse the earnest money deposit to the buyers, Mr. Toppin and Ms. Richardson. In accordance with the Commission's order, Respondent issued a $3,000 check, dated June 3, 1992, from his escrow account to the buyers. The buyers endorsed the check and deposited it into Ms. Richardson's account on or about June 8, 1992. The check was returned for non-sufficient funds in Respondent's escrow account. Ms. Richardson contacted Respondent about the returned check. Respondent immediately contacted his bank and deposited sufficient funds to cover the returned check. Respondent failed to contact Ms. Richardson to inform her that sufficient funds were now in the escrow account. Ms. Richardson wanted to be certain that the check would be processed the second time around, so she waited a few days before re-depositing it. On or about June 18, 1992, Ms. Richardson re-deposited the returned check. This time the check cleared. Respondent's escrow account statements reveal that the buyers' checks for $1,000 and $2,000 were deposited into his escrow account on October 15, 1991, and October 29, 1991, respectively--the same day he received them. 2/ However, at no time, during the month of October 1991, did Respondent's escrow account have a balance of $3,000. During October 1991, Respondent made cash withdrawals from his escrow account totalling $975.00, all for personal use. 3/ Also, he paid personal obligations from his escrow account totalling $429.30. At the end of October 1991, Respondent's escrow account had a balance of $2,174.89. Consequently, the escrow account had a shortage of $825.11, as it relates to the $3,000. In November 1991, Respondent's escrow account had activity of six transactions. There were cash withdrawals totalling $2,000, and only twice was the daily balance $3,000 or above. In December 1991, Respondent's escrow had again six transactions of activity, with only one cash withdrawal of $300. Furthermore, Respondent withdrew $1,404.30 for his personal use. The escrow account's daily balance was below $3,000 for three of the six transactions. In January 1992, there were three transactions, including a cash withdrawal of $125. No daily balance was below $3,000 for this month. In February 1992, six transactions were made. Cash withdrawals were made totalling $650. 4/ For February, no daily balance was below $3,000. In March 1992, only two transactions were made. Respondent's escrow account had a cash withdrawal of $320. March contained no daily balance below $3,000. From April 1992 through June 1992, Respondent's escrow account had a daily balance consistently below $3,000. In April 1992, Respondent's escrow account had four transactions, with a cash withdrawal of $1,100. In May 1992, there were five transactions, with cash withdrawals totalling $350. In June, the month that the Respondent wrote Ms. Richardson a $3,000 check from the escrow account, 13 transactions were made and the daily balance was above $3,000 only on three of the transactions. At the end of June 1992, Respondent's escrow account had a negative balance of $406.87. At the end of July 1992, Respondent's escrow account had a positive balance of $11.13. Only three transactions were made for the month. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the only authorized signatory for the escrow account. Respondent admitted that at no time did he prepare and sign written monthly reconciliation statements comparing his total trust liability with the reconciled bank balances even though he was aware that he was required to make the reconciliation statements. The Hearing Officer does not find persuasive Respondent's argument at hearing that he also believed that there were sufficient monies in the accounts at all times equalling escrowed amounts. The escrow bank's monthly statements clearly showed, if Respondent had reviewed them, that the escrow account was for several months below the escrowed amount of $3,000. At all times material hereto, Respondent did not have an operating account for his real estate business. He believed that he could withdraw funds from the escrow account for his personal use if the funds withdrawn were due him in accordance with real estate contracts or agreements. 5/ Respondent did not believe that he had to or was required to transfer those monies due him to a separate account and write checks from that separate account. Respondent has been licensed for approximately 20 years and has had no disciplinary action taken against his license. Respondent presented mitigating circumstances in his behalf. He explained the period of time material hereto as very stressful and as a time in which real estate was not a primary concern for him. Around May 1991, his sister had a reoccurrence of cancer. His sister and his mother who had Alzheimers disease lived together in southeast Miami, Florida, and his sister took care of their mother. As his sister's condition worsened, Respondent spent more and more time with his sister and mother, and less time on his real estate business. His sister died on October 13, 1992. Another mitigating factor presented was that Respondent has had no disciplinary action taken against his license in his approximately 20 years of licensure.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order: Determining Henry M. Weiss guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d)1, and 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing an administrative penalty comprised of an administrative fine in the amount of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000), a 90-day suspension, and one year probation, commencing after the suspension, under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Real Estate Commission. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of April 1993. ERROL H. POWELL 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 8th day of April 1993.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, the Division of Real Estate, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, (the "division" or the "department,") created by Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and, in part, comprised of the Florida Real Estate Commission, provides "[a]ll services concerning [Chapter 475, Florida Statutes], including ... recordkeeping services, examination services, legal services, and investigative services, and those services in Chapter 455 [general provisions in regard to the state's regulation of professions and occupations] necessary to perform the duties of [Chapter 475, Florida Statutes]." Section 475.021, Florida Statutes. Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, is the law which regulates real estate brokers. Respondent, Maria E. Vaca t/a Vaca Realty, is now, and at all times material to this case, has been a real estate broker licensed by the State of Florida. The number of her license, originally issued in June 1, 1981, is 0333239. Her license, current through September 30, 1997, shows the location of her brokerage to be 120 E. Oakland Park Boulevard 105, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33334. Books, Accounts and Records to be Available Section 475.5015, Florida Statutes, requires that "[e]ach broker shall keep and make available to the department such books, accounts and records as will enable the department to determine whether such broker is in compliance with the provisions of this chapter." Rule 61J2-14.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, implements Section 475.5015, Florida Statutes. The rule provides: A broker who receives a deposit as previously defined shall preserve and make available to the BPR, or its authorized representative, all deposit slips and statements of account rendered by the depository in which said deposit is placed, together with all agreements between the parties to the transaction. In addition, the broker shall keep an accurate account of each deposit transaction and each separate bank account wherein such funds have been deposited. All such books and accounts shall be subject to inspection by the BPR or its authorized representatives at all reasonable times during regular business hours. Attempts at an Audit In March of 1994, the department decided to conduct an audit of Respondent's escrow account. Two of the department's investigators, Monroe Berger and Margaret Hoskins, with fifteen years of experience at the department between them, scheduled a meeting with Ms. Vaca for April 11, 1994, in order to conduct the audit. Ms. Vaca, indicating that her records were in storage, cancelled the meeting. A second meeting was scheduled for April 20, 1994, in order to allow Ms. Vaca to retrieve the records. Ms. Vaca failed to attend the meeting. Instead, she transmitted by facsimile to Investigator Hoskins copies of nine bank statements under the name of "Vaca Realty Trust Account," for what appears to be the period from June 5, 1993 through April 5, 1994. (Generally monthly statements, one of the statements appears to be for the first quarter of 1994, from January 6 through April 5, 1994.) There were no reconciliation statements attached to the bank statements. The bank statements provided were insufficient to conduct an audit of the escrow account. On April 21, 1994, another meeting was scheduled with Ms. Vaca for April 29, 1994. In addition, Investigator Berger sent Ms. Vaca a letter confirming the April 29, 1994, meeting and asking Ms. Vaca to bring with her specific records necessary to allow the audit to be conducted. Investigator Berger wrote: This is to confirm our telephone conversation of 4-21-94. It is unfortunate that some personal problems have caused you to cancel the two previous appointments with Investigator Hoskins. In any event we are looking forward to seeing you on 4-29-94 at 1:00PM, at which time you will provide your office records for the last year. They will include but not be limited to (i) Trust liability reconciliations, (ii) Bank statements with cancelled check vouchers and deposit slips and (iii) files relating to both closed and open transactions. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Ms. Vaca failed to appear for the April 29, 1994, meeting. Again, another meeting was schedule, this one for May 2, 1994. Ms. Vaca failed to appear for the May 2, 1994 meeting. On September 22, 1994, Investigator Berger and his supervisor, Don Piersol, went to Ms. Vaca's office to conduct the audit. Ms. Vaca did not have her escrow account records on hand. She agreed, however, to bring them to a meeting scheduled for October 10, 1994. At the October 10, 1994 meeting, Ms. Vaca provided a check book but she did not provide any trust liability reconciliations or deposit slips for the previous year's transactions. Without these records an audit cannot be conducted. In addition, Ms. Vaca did not provide all files relating to open and closed transactions for the previous year, which also are necessary to conduct an audit. Ms. Vaca remembers missing only one, (perhaps two) of the meetings scheduled by the department and that because of the emergency hospitalization of her father. Certainly, her father's illness excuses abrupt cancellation of a meeting. This record is clear, however; Ms. Vaca repeatedly failed to produce the required records. Production at Hearing At hearing, Ms. Vaca produced six bank statements for what appears to be the period of the first week of September 1993 through May 5, 1994. (Five of these statements match five of the nine statements faxed to the department in April of 1994. Again, the statements are for one month's time, with the exception of the quarterly statement for the first quarter of 1994.) Attached to each of the six bank statements is a Real Estate Trust Account Monthly Statement Reconciliation form including a "Brokers Trust Liability Reconciliation." Had the reconciliation statements been provided earlier, there still would not have been enough records provided for an audit to be conducted. Deposit slips and cancelled check vouchers, records necessary to conduct the audit, have never been provided the department. Nor has Ms. Vaca to date produced all the files of transactions, open or closed, conducted during the year prior to whenever an audit has been attempted. As of the date of hearing, Ms. Vaca continued to fail to appreciate what records should be provided the department, records she was clearly on notice of as deemed necessary to an audit by the department at least since Mr. Berger's letter in April of 1994. This record does not disclose any legitimate reason for Ms. Vaca's repeated failure to produce the requested records. As of the date of hearing, an audit had still not been conducted of Ms. Vaca's escrow accounts because the department has never been given access to the records necessary to conduct the audit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Commission suspend the license of Maria E. Vaca t/a Vaca Realty for six months and that at the end of the suspension Ms. Vaca be placed on probation for as long as it takes to attend and complete a seven-hour course in management of escrow accounts. In addition, probation should be conditioned upon production of the records the Department needed to conduct the audit attempted in 1994. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY, 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 27th day of September, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-2347 1. Paragraphs 1 through 16, insofar as material, are adopted, with the exception of the statement in paragraph 8 that respondent sent by facsimile "six copies of her escrow account bank statements to Investigator Hoskins." (e.s.) Respondent sent copies of nine bank statements by facsimile. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801-1900 Ms. Maria E. Vaca 1731 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, arguments of counsel and the parties, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found.2 John B. Roberts, a/k/a John B. Roberts, Sr., is registered as a real estate broker; is licensed as a broker salesman and has been issued License No. 0145010. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) As such, Respondent is subject to the licensing provisions contained in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. During times material, Respondent was the active firm member broker of, and for, Gemco Realty Corporation which was, at that time, situated with an office at 3200 North Federal Highway, Boca Baton, Florida. On or about March 26, 1979, Respondent negotiated a Contract for Sale and Purchase wherein Jerald H. Malis agreed to purchase, for $190,000.00, Tract 87, Block 71, Palm Beach Farms Co., Plat No. 3, also known as 8298 Bridal Path, as recorded in Plat Book Pages 45/54 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, from Louise and Marvin Norris. The stated property was listed for sale with Patterson and Workman, Inc., corporate brokers with offices located in Boca Raton, Florida. According to the subject contract, Respondent was to retain a $25,000.00 escrow deposit and the transaction was scheduled for closing on June 15, 1979. Marlene Patterson Rooks, a real estate broker since 1972, and a part owner of the brokerage firm, Patterson and Workman, Inc., represented the Norrises in the subject transaction. On numerous occasions from the time that the contract was entered through the scheduled closing dates, Ms. Rooks made inquiry of Respondent to ascertain whether the $25,000.00 earnest money deposit was in fact in escrow as required per contract. These inquiries were prompted based on an interoffice policy of Patterson and Workman, Inc., to verify escrow deposits when it is the listing agent and is selling through a brokerage office that it has not had prior dealings with. After repeated requests, including a personal visit to Respondent's office by Ms. Patterson, Respondent tendered to Ms. Patterson, a deposit receipt for what appears to be a $22,500.00 deposit which is, according to Respondent, a verification of the $25,000.00 earnest money deposit receipt. Respondent contends that the remaining difference was in fact placed in an escrow account of Creative Home Designs.3 Ms. Patterson had doubts as to whether the $22,500.00 deposit actually represented the $25,000.00 deposit which is the subject of this transaction inasmuch as the deposit receipt pre-dated the execution date of the subject contract by approximately one week. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 11 and 12). When Ms. Patterson was told that the subject transaction failed to close, she later received a mailgram declaring that the subject contract had been cancelled. (Respondent's Exhibit 5). Ms. Patterson immediately requested that a portion of the deposit monies be retained since, in her opinion, said commission monies had been earned by the listing agency. (Respondent's Exhibit 6). Eleanor Britter, a loan officer for First Federal of Broward, processed a loan application for the purchaser, Jerald H. Malis. The loan application was approved by First Federal at an interest rate of 11 1/2%. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13, and Respondent's Exhibit 7). On August 23, 1978, Gemco Realty Corporation's active firm member broker and owner was Michael Eisenrod. During this period, Deborah Parnell was a registered real estate salesperson associated with Gemco Realty. On August 23, 1978, salesperson Parnell negotiated a Contract of Purchase and Sale whereby Lou Demarco, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Lou Demarco individually, agreed to sell Lot 38, Block 4, Boca Raton, Bath and Tennis Club, also known as 2000 N.W. 29th Road, Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida; and to build thereon a house for purchaser de Buitrago on which contract de Buitrago gave a $15,000.00 earnest money deposit to Gemco Realty Corporation. That deposit was placed into the escrow account of Gemco Realty Corporation. (Credited Testimony of Eisenrod.) On September15, 1978, Respondent then a registered real estate salesman, became associated with Gemco Realty Corporation. In November, 1978, Respondent became registered as a real estate broker and on February 19, 1979, Respondent purchased Gemco Realty Corporation from its owner-broker, Michael Eisenrod, and became the corporation's only active firm member-broker. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3.) At the time of the purchase, the stated $15,000.00 deposit on the Demarco contract was in the escrow account of Gemco Realty. At this time, the Demarco contract had not closed. The Demarco contract ultimately failed to close and the parties to the contract agreed to disburse the $15,000.00 deposit as follows: $12,500.00 to purchasers; $1,100.00 to salesperson Deborah Parnell; and $1,400.00 to Michael Eisenrod, the former active firm member-broker and owner of Gemco Realty Corporation. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8). Confirmation of this disbursement agreement was acknowledged by Respondent in his letter dated June 20, 1979, to Respondent's lawyer, John Downing of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Pursuant to the terms outlined in the referenced letter, Respondent was to deliver to attorney Downing, his escrow check in the amount of $13,600.00 which represented the total disbursement to the purchaser and salesperson Parnell.4 Respondent has not returned the deposit monies referred to from the Demarco contract to date. Rebecca Ritter, the head bookkeeper for Royal Beach Trust Company of Palm Beach, Florida, appeared and acknowledged that Respondent had escrow accounts at Royal Beach Trust Company during the period January, 1979, through July 30, 1979. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 15). During times material herein, Respondent was the only active firm member of and for Gemco Realty Corporation. During this period, Respondent has his trust and escrow accounts in general accounts in the following banking institutions: First Bank and Trust Company of Boca Raton, Florida; Boca Raton National Bank, Boca Raton, Florida; and Royal Trust Bank of Palm Beach, Boca Raton, Florida. On April 30, 1979, Respondent issued, on its trust account at First Bank and Trust Company of Boca Raton, checks numbered 0548 and 0549, each in the amount of $50,000.00, payable to Creative Home Designs, Inc. Neither check was honored when presented for payment and the reason being that the checks were returned due to "uncollected funds." (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Also, on April 12, 1979, Respondent issued on its trust account at First Bank and Trust Company of Boca Raton, Florida, its check No. 0592 in the amount of $3,000.00 payable to Lou Demarco, Inc., and Nicholas Brooks. This check was also not honored when presented for payment for reason "uncollected funds." Respondent's defense to these allegations are that he had in fact made the $22,500.00 deposit in a timely manner and that an additional deposit was on hand in the deposit of another company that he owned, Creative Home Designs, in the amount of $2,500.00. He contends that Ms. Patterson requested evidence to ascertain that the escrow deposit was in fact made and that such evidence was provided her. Respondent further contends that when purchaser Malis considered the contract to purchase cancelled, he merely related Malis' request to Ms. Patterson and that he presented Malis a refund in the form of a $25,000.00 check which Malis never processed. Respondent contends further that an accounting of the escrow accounts from Gemco Realty indicated that the accounts were in shambles when he purchased the operation and that there was less than the $15,000.00 deposit on hand when he assumed ownership of the corporate escrow accounts. Respondent acknowledged that several checks were returned inasmuch as he was attempting to separate the new escrow deposits from the old in an effort to get a true accounting of the escrow accounts. Respondent expressed his opinion that the $15,000.00 escrow deposit respecting the Demarco transaction was never placed in the escrow account. Further, Respondent contends that to the extent that monies were made on the Demarco transaction, that that payment was partially repaid in the form of a $3,000.00 check which represented a partial payment. (Respondent's Exhibit 4). Respondent also acknowledged that he agreed to the disbursement of deposit funds from the Demarco transaction as set forth herein but that they buyer later refused to close the transaction and forfeited, in Respondent's opinion, his deposit. According to Respondent, he then attempted to get the earnest money deposits returned to the purchasers. Respondent opined that the buyer forfeited the escrow deposit tendered to Gemco Realty. Finally, Respondent contends generally that the Gemco accounts were incorrect and that he was "duped" into accepting Messr. Eisenrod's accounting as of the date that he assumed, control of the Gemco Realty Corporation's escrow accounts. Respondent also allowed that he had on deposit,, two (2) $50,000.00 checks which were returned and as a result also created checks that he had written to also be dishonored when presented for payment.5
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's license to practice real estate as a broker be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1981. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 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 June, 1981.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the charges brought against the Respondent, Jimmy D. Hill, he was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0144888. On June 20, 1983, a contract for the purchase of Unit 219 in Polynesian Village in Bay County, Florida, was signed by Margaret Gorshi and Glenn Coker. The buyers paid a total of $3,000 as an earnest money deposit which the Respondent deposited into his escrow account at Bay Bank and Trust Company in Panama City. This real estate transaction was subject to the buyers obtaining 90 percent financing, and it was scheduled to close on or before September 15, 1983. The transaction did not close because the buyers were not able to obtain the necessary financing, and in September of 1984 the buyers requested that their earnest money deposit be returned. On September 27, 1984, the Respondent's office manager forwarded a check for $3,000 dated September 24, 1984, to the buyers. This check was drawn on the Respondent's escrow account at Bay Bank and Trust Company in Panama City. This check was presented for payment in November of 1984, but it was not paid by the bank, and was returned because of insufficient funds in the Respondent's escrow account. The Respondent's escrow account was closed in July of 1985 without this check having been honored. Sometime prior to the issuance of the check to refund the buyer's deposit, another check in the amount of $5,400 was cashed at Bay Bank and Trust Company, drawn on the Respondent's business checking account at First National Bank. When this check was not honored by First National Bank due to insufficient funds, it was returned to Bay Bank and Trust Company. Upon receipt of this dishonored check, Bay Bank and Trust Company departed from its standard banking policy by charging the full amount thereof against the Respondent's trust or escrow account. As a result, the Respondent's escrow account became out of balance by $5,400. The Respondent's escrow account balance was at least $3,000 from June, 1983, through July, 1984. This balance was $1,600 on August 31, 1984; $1,600 on September 30, 1984; $600 on October 31, 1984; and from November 1984, through July, 1985, when the account was closed, the escrow account balance was $585. Without the unauthorized debit of $5,400, the balance was sufficient to enable the refund check to the buyers in the amount of $3,000 to clear. Although the Bay Bank and Trust Company issued a debit memo reflecting the charge of $5,400 to the Respondent's escrow account, the Respondent did not receive it. He testified that it must have been intercepted or diverted from him, by office personnel. The Respondent learned that his $3,000 check to the buyers had bounced in November or December, 1984. On February 25, 1985, the Respondent issued a replacement check for $3,000 to purchase a cashier's check which he intended to forward to the buyers. This check was given to an office employee to purchase the cashier's check, but the employee did not do so. Approximately three months later, in May of 1985, the Respondent was notified by an attorney for the buyers that they had not received the refund. The buyers had retained this attorney to obtain their refund from the Respondent, and after two or three discussions with the attorney, the Respondent finally forwarded his check for $3,400 plus, to counsel for the buyers in August of 1985. Although the Respondent's first refund check was caused to bounce by the bank's unauthorized charge of another check to his escrow account, the Respondent was negligent in not reviewing his escrow account statements so as to be informed of the bank's charge to his escrow account. The Respondent also failed to follow-up to assure that the buyers received the first replacement check when it was written in February, 1985. He did not regularly review the balances in his escrow account monthly after July of 1984, and only when he was contacted by the Real Estate Commission's investigator did he perform a thorough reconciliation of his escrow account in July, 1985. The Respondent also failed to supervise his employees and establish policies pertaining to review and verification of the balances in his escrow account.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Jimmy D. Hill, trading as Jim Hill Associates, be assessed an administrative fine of $1,000. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 25th day of September, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-1067 Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate vs. Jimmy D. Hill, t/a Jim Hill Associates Case No. 86-1067 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-10. Accepted. 11. Rejected because not a factual finding. 12-17. Accepted. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: (Paragraphs not numbered, but referred to in order.) Accepted. First sentence accepted. Second, third and fourth sentences rejected as not supported by corroborating evidence and thus are self-serving. Fifth, sixth and seventh sentences accepted. First sentence accepted. Second and third sentences rejected as not supported by corroborative evidence and thus are self-serving. Accepted. Accepted. First sentence accepted. Second and third sentences rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Michael C. Overstreet, Esquire 225 McKenzie Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings S. Benton, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Respondent Joan Jones Webb is a registered real estate broker, Certificate No. 0093903, and is the active broker for Coronet Realty Corporation, 1300 N.W. 167th Street, Miami, Florida. Coronet Realty Corporation holds Certificate No. 0017412 as a broker corporation. Both licenses were in effect at the time of the alleged violations herein. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 1,2). Respondents maintain a savings account, Number 3-15690, in the name of "Coronet Realty Corporation (Escrow)" with Washington Federal Savings and Loan Association of Miami Beach, Miami Beach, Florida (hereinafter Washington Federal). This interest-bearing account has been used by Respondents on relatively rare occasions as a depository for escrow deposits in real estate transactions involving personal friends of Respondent Webb or in those which required an undue length of time to close. In fact, from the time the account was opened in 1970 until the last of the transactions involved here which concluded in 1976, the account reflects only seven escrow deposits and withdrawals. At the time she opened the account, Respondent Webb was under the impression that there was no prohibition against placing real estate deposits in this type of an account and did so for the purpose of earning money for the corporation in the form of interest during the periods prior to closing a particular real estate sale. Respondents maintained another escrow account for their business in the Central Bank of North Dade, Miami, Florida, where they also had a regular business account for the firm. Most escrow deposits were placed in the escrow account of this bank. Over the years, the various deposits in the Washington Federal account earned interest amounting to $2,450.55. (Testimony of Szpak, Webb, Petitioner's Exhibit 9; Respondent's Exhibit 5). The pertinent facts involved in the transactions which are the subject of the alleged violations are as follows: Respondent Webb negotiated a Contract of Sale and Purchase, dated March 11, 1975, between Maurice A. Ferre as purchaser, and Marie Gabel as seller, of real property located in Dade County, Florida for a purchase price of $125,000.00. Although Webb acknowledged receipt of $12,500.00 as a deposit toward the purchase price of the property from the purchaser on that date, the purchaser's check in that amount made payable to "Coronet Realty Corp. Escrow Account" was dated February 14, 1975. This amount was deposited in the Washington Federal account by a deposit slip, dated March 28, 1975, and the account passbook reflects receipt of that amount on march 31, 1975. At the time the deposit was made, Webb inquired of the attorney for the seller if it was "all right" to place the deposit in a savings account. The attorney took the matter up with the seller and she expressed no objection to this procedure nor was she interested in being paid the interest earned while the sum was in the account because Webb was a friend of hers and she had explicit faith in her integrity. The representative of the buyer, who was the same person also representing the interests of the ultimate purchaser to whom the contract was assigned, was informed by Webb after the fact that the security deposit had been placed in the Washington Federal escrow savings account. The purchasers interposed no objection to this method of handling the money. The closing of the transaction did not take place until September 24, 1975. On September 18, 1975, Webb withdrew the $12,500.00 from the Washington Federal account and issued a check in that amount to the attorneys for the purchaser. That firm, in turn, issued a check in the same amount, dated October 7, 1975, to Coronet Realty Corporation, has broker's commission in the transaction. (Testimony of Hektner, Marlin, Webb, Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 4,9; Respondent's Composite Exhibits 2,5). Respondent Webb negotiated and secured a Contract of Sale and Purchase, dated March 17, 1975, between Agri-Life Farms, Inc., as Purchaser, and M.S. Marlin and Ronald O. Mackendree, Administrators C.T.A. of the estate of G.W. Gabel, a/k/a George W. Gabel as seller, of approximately 10 acres of real property located in Dade County, Florida, at a purchase price of $4,840.00 per acre. The contract reflects that Webb, for Coronet Realty Corporation, acknowledged receipt of the sum of $4,840 as an earnest money deposit toward the purchase price of the property. A cashier's check in that amount, dated March 28, 1975, payable to James A. Horland was endorsed to "Coronet Realty Corporation Escrow Account" on an undisclosed date and deposited by Respondents in the Washington Federal escrow account on April 22, 1975. As in the Ferre transaction, Webb obtained the consent of the same seller to place the deposit in the Washington Federal account. The purchaser also had acquiesced to the placement of the deposit in an escrow savings account. The transaction did not close because of title problems and therefore Respondents withdrew the said amount from the Washington Federal account on October 15, 1976 and transmitted it by check of the same date to Horland, the attorney representing Agri-Life Farms, Inc. Both parties to the transaction had been aware that the money was in an interest-bearing account and neither of them desired the accrued interest. (Testimony of Marlin, Webb; Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 5,9; Respondent's Composite Exhibits 4,5,8). Respondent Webb negotiated and secured a contract of sale and purchase dated June 15, 1975, between Hugh H. Jones, Jr. as Purchaser, and Marie Gabel, as Seller, of real property located in Dade County, Florida for the price of $85,000.00. The contract reflects that the purchaser deposited the sum of $5,000.00 with Respondents as an earnest money deposit toward the purchase price of the property on the contract date. In fact, the purchaser had given Webb a blank check made payable to "Coronet Realty-Escrow" to be filled-in by Webb at an appropriate time. The check was not so completed until November 7, 1975 on which date a deposit slip was prepared in that amount. The funds were received by Washington Federal on November 10, 1975. The seller had expressly assented to the deposit of the funds in an escrow savings account and the purchaser, from prior association with Webb, was aware that she used the said account for escrow funds and had no objection to this procedure. The transaction was not closed until April 5, 1976. On April 22, 1976, Respondent issued a check to the seller's attorney in the amount of $750.00 which reflected the difference between the amount of the deposit and the amount of her commission on the sale. Neither of the parties to the transaction desired payment of any interest earned while the funds were on deposit in Washington Federal. (Testimony of Jones, Webb, Marlin, Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 6,9; Respondent's Composite Exhibits 1,3,5). On February 24, 1976, Respondents placed an advertisement in the Miami News, Miami, Florida, concerning the availability of warehouse factory space at the Sunshine State Industrial Park, Miami, Florida. The advertisement reflected the words "Coronet Realty Corporation, Miss Jones 261-6501" but the term "broker" or "realtor" did not appear in said advertisement. Webb had instructed her secretary to place the ad and had provided her a brochure on the property for use in this connection which reflected the term "realtor" and the symbol of the National Association of Real Estate Boards. The secretary failed to include this pertinent information when placing the advertisement. When such omission was brought to Webb's attention by Petitioner's investigator in March, 1976, she took immediate steps to ensure that future ads contained the term "realtor" (Testimony of Szpak, Webb, Petitioner's Exhibit 3; Respondent's Exhibits 6,7).
Recommendation That Respondents Joan Jones Webb and Coronet Realty Corporation be administered a written reprimand for violations of Section 475.25(1)(d) and (i), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21V-10.10, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida H. Robert Koltnow, Esquire 3000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 306 Miami, Florida 33137
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate. Petitioner is also responsible for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent, John P. Wickersham ("Wickersham"), is licensed as a real estate broker under license number 0095775. Respondent, Aladdin Real Estate of Rockledge ("Aladdin"), is a Florida corporation registered as a real estate broker under license number 0213244. Wickersham is the qualifying broker and corporate officer for Aladdin. Respondents maintain their escrow account at the Barnett Bank of Cocoa. On April 28, 1994, Ms. Marie Ventura, Petitioner's investigator, audited Respondents' escrow account. Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had a liability of $46,287.30 and a reconciled balance of $43,557.26. Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had a shortage of $2,730.04. Respondents provided Ms. Ventura with additional information. On May 16, 1994, Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had a liability of $43,546.21 and a reconciled balance of $42,787.26. Ms. Ventura concluded that Respondents' escrow account had an excess of $11.05. Respondents never had a shortage in their escrow account. Respondents maintained an excess of $11.05 in their escrow account since September, 1993. In September, 1993, Respondents converted their method of bookkeeping to a computer system. The computer system failed to disclose an excess of $11.05 due to Respondents' misunderstanding of the appropriate method of labeling inputs to the software system. Respondents discovered and corrected the error prior to the formal hearing. Respondents properly made and signed written monthly reconciliation statements comparing their total escrow liability with the reconciled bank balances of their escrow account. Although Respondents did not use the form suggested in Rule 61J2- 14.012(2), Respondents satisfied the substance of the requirements for record keeping and reporting. Respondents maintained the information required in Rule 61J2-14.012(2) in bank statements, ledger cards, and checkbooks. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondents presented the information in a form that complied with the requirements of Rule 61J2-14.012(2). The shortage determined by Petitioner on April 28, 1994, was caused, in part, by errors made by Petitioner's investigator. It was the investigator's first audit, and the information provided by Respondents was not in an easily discernible form. However, Respondents never withheld any information, and Respondents maintained and provided all information required by applicable law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b) and Rule 61J2-14.012(2). RECOMMENDED this 18th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY, 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 18th day of January 1996.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaints are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact R. Granger Bruner is and at all material times has been licensed as a real estate broker, Florida license number 0010871. CASE NO. 90-2462 On or about September 9, 1989, Mr. Bruner obtained a contract from Alabama resident Earl W. Reed in which Mr. Reed offered to purchase certain property from owner Gary Salter. 1/ Mr. Reed, by his check, deposited with Mr. Bruner the sum of $1,000, as an earnest money deposit in connection with Mr. Reed's offer to purchase Mr. Salter's property. Mr. Bruner erroneously deposited Mr. Reed's earnest money deposit check into the Granger Bruner Realty operating account at People's National Bank of Niceville. Mr. Bruner's escrow account, where the earnest money deposit should have been held, was at the local Barnett Bank in the name of Granger Bruner Realty Trust Account. On or about September 14, 1989, the listing agent for Mr. Salter contacted Mr. Bruner's office and informed Mr. Bruner that Mr. Salter had withdrawn the property from the market. By letter dated September 21, 1989, Mr. Bruner notified Mr. Reed that the property had been withdrawn from the market and that the earnest money deposit was being returned. Enclosed with the letter was People's National Bank of Niceville check #509 drawn on the operating account of Granger Bruner Realty in the amount of $1,000 payable to Earl Reed. The letter and check were mailed to Mr. Reed at his address in Alabama. Mr. Reed apparently did not receive the letter or check, and became concerned about the return of his deposit money. The administrative complaint alleges that Mr. Reed continued to demand return of the deposit. Although the Department introduced a copy of Mr. Reed's complaint, Mr. Reed did not testify. The evidence does not establish that Mr. Reed made repeated demands on Mr. Bruner for return of the deposit. The complaint further alleges, but the evidence does not establish, that the September 21, 1989 check was not mailed until September 28, 1989. On September 30, 1989, Mr. Reed met in Crestview with Mr. Bruner and demanded the return of his earnest money deposit. Mr. Bruner issued check #2924 in the amount of $1,000 from Mr. Bruner's wife's personal account payable to Earl Reed. Mr. Bruner subsequently had a stop-payment order issued against the first check to Mr. Reed. CASE NO. 90-2463 Prior to October 6, 1989, Elaine Brantley, an auditor/investigator for the Department contacted Mr. Bruner and made an appointment to perform a routine audit on Mr. Bruner's accounts. Prior to October 6, 1989, Mr. Bruner was aware that his escrow account was short. On that date, Mr. Bruner deposited approximately $1,400 into his escrow account to cover the shortage. The deposit resulted in an overage in the account. Upon Ms. Brantley's arrival, Mr. Bruner informed her that the escrow account was short, that he'd gotten behind in bookkeeping, and that his secretary was depositing additional funds into the escrow account. Ms. Brantley had Mr. Bruner telephone the bookkeeping department at Barnett Bank. With Mr. Bruner's approval, Ms. Brantley asked for and obtained the balance of the escrow account by telephone from a bank employee. 2/ Mr. Bruner then informed Ms. Brantley that escrow account liabilities totaled $1,727.38. Ms. Brantley reviewed the account's check ledger and determined that the escrow account was indeed short. During the audit, Ms. Brantley noted an escrow account check #453 dated 7/25/89 in the amount of $500 made payable to Mr. Bruner. Ms. Brantley stated that Mr. Bruner said that he had disbursed the funds to himself to cover a mortgage payment he made to a third party identified as Ms. Penner. At hearing, Mr. Bruner testified that he had used his escrow account to cash a $400 check for another person, and that check #453 was drafted to recover his personal funds from the account. He stated that the check was written in error and that the transaction was not handled correctly. He admitted that he did not know the balance of the escrow account at the time the check was written. The recorded checkbook balance at the time was $340.19. At the time of the audit, Ms. Brantley also noted check #487 dated 9/26/89 in the amount of $500 to Ms. Penner. The evidence establishes that check #487 was Mr. Bruner's personal mortgage payment to Ms. Penner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order suspending the licensure of R. Granger Bruner for a period of 90 days, and imposing a total fine of $2,000, including $1,000 pursuant to Rule 2IV-24.001(3)(1), Florida Administrative Code, and $1,000 pursuant to Rule 21V-24.001(3)(c) and (f), Florida Administrative Code. It is further recommended that R. Granger Bruner be required to successfully complete a course of education related to management of operating and escrow trust accounts and be required to file escrow account status reports with the Commission at such intervals as the Commission deems appropriate. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-2462 The Petitioner did not file a proposed recommended order. The Respondent filed a "Proposed Order" which sets forth proposed findings of fact. The proposed findings are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: "Proposed Order" Accepted as to failure to prove exact amount of escrow account shortage. Rejected as to whether a shortage existed, contrary to evidence. Rejected. The testimony at hearing that certain deposits were not received is contrary to information provided to auditor and was not credited. Although the testimony related to the escrow account balance was unsupported hearsay, the auditor's testimony related to deposits and liabilities was based upon admissions by the Respondent. See Section 90.803(18), Florida Statutes. Rejected, conclusion of law. Rejected, not supported by weight of evidence. 8-9. Rejected, unnecessary. 10. Rejected, immaterial. 11-12. Rejected, unnecessary. "Finding of Fact" The Respondent also filed a separate statement entitled "Finding of Fact" which includes additional proposed findings of fact. The proposed findings are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Hurston North Tower 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Bart O. Moore, Esquire Moore, Kessler & Moore 102 Bayshore Drive Niceville, Florida 32578 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Hurston North Tower 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the real estate license issued to the Respondent, James P. Hudson, should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
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, I make the following findings of fact: At all pertinent times, Respondent, James P. Hudson, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license No. 0148841 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been operating as a broker from an office at 413 South Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida 33435. Respondent maintains an escrow account No. 018200602689 at Sun Bank in Boynton Beach, Florida into which he deposits trusts funds received in his capacity as a real estate broker. Sometime in the early part of September 1989, Petitioner initiated a random audit of Respondent's business. Prior to the audit, Petitioner's investigator advised the Respondent that he would need to produce all the records related to his escrow account. An investigator for Petitioner visited Respondent's office on or about September 18, 1989 to conduct an audit of Respondent's escrow accounts. Based upon the investigator's review of the records, five different transactions were identified as allegedly involving delays or mishandling of escrow funds by Respondent. Those transactions are the basis for several of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Each transaction is addressed separately below. The first transaction involved a contract for the sale and purchase of real property between Fitz as buyer and Kerstin as seller (the "Fitz Contract"). Included in Respondent's files on this transaction was a copy of a contract for sale and purchase that was dated and signed by the buyer on September 6, 1989 and dated and signed by the seller on September 9, 1989. The buyer in the Fitz Contract gave Respondent a check for $1000 as a deposit to be held in escrow in connection with the transaction. The Respondent's written receipt for that check is dated September 7, 1989. The evidence established that this initial deposit check was delivered to Respondent on Thursday evening, September 7, 1989. Respondent was out of town on Friday, September 8 and returned on Monday evening, September 11. The check was deposited on the afternoon of September 12 and is reflected in the bank records as a deposit on September 13. The sellers (the Kerstins) signed the contract on September 9, 1989. However, in executing the contract, they crossed out the $900,000 sales price submitted by the buyer and increased the price to $1,400,000. In other words, the sellers made a counteroffer with respect to this contract. The initial deposit was timely returned to the sellers when the counteroffer was rejected. Petitioner's investigator erroneously assumed that Respondent did not timely collect the additional deposit required under this contract. While Petitioner's investigator considered this signed contract in Respondent's files to be a binding agreement on the parties, it is clear that the change in sales price was only initialed by the sellers and, therefore, there was no enforceable agreement. The parties to the Fitz Contract subsequently executed another written contract. This second agreement provided for a sales price of $1,100,000. That contract was executed by the buyer on September 20, 1989 and by the sellers on September 24, 1989. This second contract called for a $49,000.00 deposit upon acceptance. The buyers gave Respondent a check dated September 25, 1989 in the amount of $49,000.00. That check was deposited by Respondent in his escrow account on the afternoon of September 26, 1989. The $49,000 deposit is reflected in the bank records as being deposited on September 27, 1989. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay by Respondent in collecting or depositing the funds into escrow. The second transaction identified by Petitioner's investigator involved a contract for the sale and purchase of real property between Campanis as buyer and Hoffman as seller. The buyer in this transaction gave Respondent a check dated September 6, 1990 to be held as a deposit for this contract. A photocopy of the check presented to Petitioner's investigator included a handwritten note that states "hold until Friday 9/8/89." The evidence did not establish who wrote this note. The evidence established that the check was received by one of Respondent's sales associates on September 7 and left on the Respondent's desk on September 8. Respondent is the only company employee authorized to deposit checks or otherwise handle transactions involving the escrow account. As indicated above, Respondent was out of town from September 8 through the evening of September 11. The check was deposited on the afternoon of September 12 and is reflected in the bank records as being credited to the escrow account on September 13. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was not delinquent in depositing these funds. The third transaction involved a contract for the purchase and sale of real property between White as buyer and Adkins as seller (the "White Contract.") The White Contract was executed by the buyer on July 26, 1989 and by one of the sellers on July 27 and by the other seller on Friday, July 28. The contract called for an initial deposit of $500.00 with an additional deposit of $1,700 upon acceptance. The initial deposit check was dated July 26, 1989. That deposit check was attached to the contract executed by the purchaser and presented to a cooperating real estate agent who was to present the proposed contract to the seller. The executed contract was not returned to Respondent until sometime during the weekend of July 29 and 30. The initial deposit check along with the additional deposit were then deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Monday, July 31, 1989. Under the circumstances, the evidence established that there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money. The next transaction identified by Petitioner's investigator involved a contract for sale and purchase of real property between Milera as buyer and Twillie as seller (the "Milera Contract.") The Milera Contract provided for an additional deposit due upon acceptance. The contract was accepted by Twillie on August 23, 1989. The parties to the contract agreed that the time for making the additional deposit would be extended for two days. The check for the additional deposit was dated and received by Respondent on Friday, August 25, 1989. The check was deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Tuesday, August 29, 1989. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money. The final transaction involved a contract with the sale and purchase of real property between Gerrety as buyer and the estate of John Walsh as seller (the "Gerrety Contract.") The Gerrety Contract was executed by the purchaser on August 10, 1989. The deposit check was given to one of the Respondent's associates on that Thursday evening. The deposit check was not delivered to Respondent until after business hours on Friday, August 11. The check was deposited into Respondent's escrow account on Monday, August 14. Under the circumstances, there was no undue delay in depositing the escrow money on this transaction. During the audit, Petitioner's investigator determined that Respondent was holding deposits on two separate rental properties in his escrow account. At the time of the audit, Petitioner's investigator was not provided with any leases or other documentation regarding these transactions even though Respondent was supposed to produce records for all sums in the escrow account. Respondent contends that he did not realize he was supposed to produce his rental files, was never specifically asked to produce these files and did not know that Petitioner was questioning these transactions until he received the Administrative Complaint in this action. While there was apparently some miscommunication at the time of the audit, adequate documentation for these rental deposits was produced at the hearing. Therefore, Petitioner's allegation that Respondent did not maintain adequate documentation regarding these deposits is without merit. Petitioner has also charged that Respondent did not produce all of the deposit slips in connection with the escrow account and did not produce any evidence of reconciliation of the escrow account. The evidence at the hearing established that all deposit slips are available even though they were not all kept with the bank statements. Moreover, the evidence failed to substantiate the allegation that Respondent did not reconcile his escrow account. Thus, these charges were not substantiated. At the time of the audit, Respondent advised Petitioner's investigator that the escrow account included some commission money that had not yet been removed. In the past, Respondent would sometimes collect his commissions at the close of a transaction from the funds held in escrow. (Respondent no longer collects commissions in this manner.) In auditing Respondent's escrow account, Petitioner's investigator determined that there was an overage of approximately $8,178.17 in the account. Within thirty days of the completion of the audit, Respondent removed $7,500 of the overage which represented his commission on two previously closed transactions. While Respondent believed that the remaining amount of the overage was also his commission money, he refrained from removing any more money until completion of a year-end audit by his accountant. Respondent's records reflected a slight difference in the amount of the overage than the amount calculated by Petitioner during the audit. Respondent wanted to be absolutely certain that only the proper amount was removed from the escrow account. At the conclusion of the audit on September 18, 1989, Respondent signed an office inspection report form prepared by Petitioner which contained the following pre-printed statement: ...I certify that to the best of my knowledge all records pertaining to my sales escrow/trust account(s) and my rental property management account(s) have been provided to the investigator. The above violations are brought to my attention this date and thoroughly explained. I will take corrective action within thirty days and furnish photo/sketches of corrections and documents on the same... There is some confusion as to what additional documentation Respondent was expected to provide following the completion of the September, 1989 audit. Respondent did not believe he was required to provide any additional evidence to Petitioner or its investigator and no further documentation was provided by Respondent until Petitioner's investigator returned to his office in January of 1990. Petitioner's investigator returned to Respondent's office on January 17, 1990. At that time, $7500.00 of the overage had been removed from the escrow account. The remaining amount of the overage was removed later in January. It does not appear that Respondent provided Petitioner's investigator with copies of the rental agreements or the second contract in the Kerstin transaction during the January visit by Petitioner's investigator. Respondent contends that this information was never specifically requested. It is clear that communication between Respondent and Petitioner's investigator had deteriorated from bad to worse by the time of this January visit. There is no indication that Respondent ever used the escrow account for improper purposes or withdrew money from the escrow account for his own personal or business use. The Florida Real Estate Commission adopted new record keeping requirements regarding escrow accounts in July of 1989. The new rules require a written monthly reconciliation of a broker's escrow account. At the time of the audit, Respondent was not keeping the minimum written statement comparing broker's total liability with the reconciled bank balance of all trust accounts as required by the new rules. Even after the audit in September, Respondent did not keep the written reconciliations in the format required by the new rules. Respondent was reconciling the account on his computer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint, finding Respondent guilty of Counts III and IV and reprimanding him for minor and techinical violations of those counts and imposing a fine of $100.00. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of December, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 31st day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3589 Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on each of the parties' proposed findings of fact. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Addressed in the preliminary statement. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in pertinenet part in Findings of Fact 3. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5. 8. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 11. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 15. Subordinate 23. to Findings of Fact 8, 9 and Subordinate to Findings of Fact 23. This subject is also addressed in paragraph 9 of the conclusions of law. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. 19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 20. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 23. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 24. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 25. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. 26. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17. Rejected as not established by competent susbstantial evidence. The subject matter is addressed in Findigns of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19 and 20. Rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. The subject matter is addressed to some degree in Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected as irrelevant. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are not numbered. The numbers below refer to the numerical sections contained in the findings of fact section of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order. Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. The first two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6-9. The second two sentences are rejected as irrelevant. This subject matter is addressed in some degree in Findings of Fact 21. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentencess are subordinate to Findings of Fact 10. The next two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentence are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. The third sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first three sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. The first two sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. The second sentence is rejected as vague. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17 and 25. The first three sentences are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18, 19 and 22. The fourth sentence is rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. This subject matter is addressed in part in Findings of Fact 19. The fifth and sixth sentences are rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 James P. Hudson 413 South Federal Highway Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Lee H. Davis, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued against him on August 16, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Division is charged with the responsibility for, among other things, regulating the practice of persons holding real estate brokers' and real estate salespersons' licenses in Florida. Section 20.165, and Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Lee H. Davis, is and was at all times relevant to this matter licensed as a real estate broker in Florida, issued License Number 0186063. The last license issued was as an involuntary inactive broker, c/o 815 New Waterford Drive, No. 204, Naples, Florida 34104. On or about August 24, 1995, Respondent executed a form 400.5 and submitted it to the Division to register as a salesperson with Sentry Realty and Property Management, Inc. ("Sentry"). At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was registered with the Division as employed by Sentry. On or about September 7, 1995, Respondent facilitated a contract for sale and purchase (the "contract") between Robert Trindle as buyer and John Petracelli as seller/builder for property described as Hallandale Park, Plat Book 12, Page 37, Block 37, Lots 6,7,8, a/k/a approximately 2801 North East 214 Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. Mr. Trindle testified that he intended to purchase a townhouse to be built by Mr. Petracelli as part of a project to include 40 to 50 townhouses. The contract provided that a $3,900 deposit was to be held by "Lee H. Davis Escrow Agent." Mr. Trindle gave Respondent two checks totaling $3,900, as the earnest money deposit on the purchase price of $130,000. The first check, dated October 9, 1995, was for $1,000. The second check, dated November 3, 1995, was for $2,900. The checks were made out to "Lee H. Davis-- Escrow." Also noted on the checks was "Davena Group Inc.," which Mr. Trindle understood to be Respondent's real estate company. Each check was negotiated by Respondent within a week of its receipt. At the time of this transaction, Respondent's registered broker was John Brouillette of Sentry. Respondent did not place the escrow deposit with Mr. Brouillette, who testified that he knew nothing of the transaction at the time it occurred and never saw the contract. Respondent represented to Mr. Trindle that he would maintain the escrow deposit as broker during this transaction. Mr. Trindle did not give Respondent permission to transfer the escrow deposit to the builder/seller, Mr. Petracelli. Correspondence from Respondent indicated that he did turn the escrow deposit over to Mr. Petracelli, without informing Mr. Trindle. Mr. Petracelli never built the promised townhouses. Rather, he left the country, absconding with Mr. Trindle's escrow deposit along with monies provided by other purchasers and/or investors in the project. Mr. Trindle attempted to contact Respondent regarding the status of his escrow deposit, but was unable to reach him prior to the filing of his complaint with the Division. As of the date of the hearing, the earnest money deposit had not been returned to Mr. Trindle.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner finding that Respondent has violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b), 475.25(1)(d)1, 475.25(1)(e), 475.25(1)(k), and 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent, and that Respondent's real estate license be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Sunia Y. Marsh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308A Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Lee H. Davis 815 New Waterford Drive, No. 204 Naples, Florida 34104 Herbert S. Fecker, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Richard Shindler has been a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0395044. The last license issued was as a salesman with Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. At all times material hereto, Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., has been a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 0223589. At all times material hereto, Mark H. Adler was licensed and operated as the qualifying broker and officer of Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. Adler's license is currently under suspension by agreement with Petitioner as a result of the activities complained of in the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause. At no time has Respondent Shindler been a director or officer of Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. At all times material hereto, Respondent Shindler has been the sales manager for Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc. As the sales manager, Respondent Shindler sometimes helped other salesmen structure financing and helped them with other problems. Respondent Shindler was not responsible for the collection of funds from individual salesmen. Each individual salesman was responsible for collecting funds from any real estate transaction and giving those funds to Respondent Global's bookkeeper for deposit. As sales manager, Shindler was a signatory on the escrow account in order to make disbursements for small transactions mainly involving rental properties. In addition, Respondent Shindler was responsible for the hiring and firing of office personnel. However, he had no control over the contracts of other salesmen. On March 13, 1989, Respondent Shindler, as a private purchaser, made two purchase offers for two pieces of property owned by the same sellers. The purchase offers were for $115,000 and $80,000, respectively, and required that Respondent Shindler place $6,000 and $5,000, respectively, into Respondent Global's escrow account as a deposit on the purchase of the properties. Respondent Global and real estate broker Jay Hirsch were to receive commissions on the sale of the properties. Those offers to purchase disclosed in writing that Respondent Shindler was also a licensed real estate salesman. Although both offers to purchase were accepted by the sellers, the transactions involving the purchase of these properties did not close due to Respondent Shindler's inability to obtain financing, which was a contingency of the contracts. In October, 1989, demands for the release of the escrowed monies were made by the sellers and by the sellers' broker Jay Hirsch. They made demand upon Respondent Global's attorney. Additionally, Jay Hirsch made demand on Mark Adler by telephone and then by demand letter to Adler, who, as the qualifying broker for Respondent Global, was responsible for the release of the escrowed funds. Subsequent to the demands made by the sellers and their broker, Respondent Global filed a complaint for interpleader. The escrowed deposits were eventually disbursed pursuant to a settlement among the parties claiming an interest in the escrowed deposits. In March, 1990, Petitioner began an investigation of the Respondents and Adler. Investigators Castro and Rehm both participated in the investigation. Investigator Castro believed Respondent Shindler to be the office manager of Respondent Global. During the initial interview with Respondent Shindler, he produced records which indicated that a deposit of $14,265.69 had been made on January 13, 1989, into Respondent Global's escrow account. This check had been given by Respondent Shindler to Global's bookkeeper for deposit. This deposit represented proceeds from the sale of property owned by Respondent Shindler's brother Paul, and was placed in escrow in anticipation of the offers to purchase made by Respondent Shindler on the two properties involved in this cause. Investigator Rehm examined the escrow account bank records and determined that for a two-month period the escrow account balance had dropped below the minimum $11,000 balance required by the two contracts in question herein alone. Initially, Respondent Shindler advised the investigators that the bank where the escrow account was maintained had represented that it had debited the escrow account as a result of a lien placed on that account by the Internal Revenue Service. Upon further investigation, Respondent Shindler advised the investigators that the bank itself had withdrawn $3,200 from Global's escrow account to cover a shortage in Respondent Global's operating account. At all times material hereto, both Adler and Respondent Shindler were signatories on the escrow account. As part of its investigation, Petitioner served a subpoena on Maria Aguerra, Respondent Global's bookkeeper, requesting from Adler, or Respondent Shindler, or the custodian of records for Respondent Global Real Estate, all contracts, leases, agreements, monthly bank statements, deposit slips, and cancelled checks for all accounts for the period of January 1, 1989, through March 22, 1990. Some of the requested documents were initially unavailable because they had previously been sent to the Florida Real Estate Commission. Although Adler testified that he was initially unaware that a subpoena had been served, he was given a 30-day extension to produce the records when he met with investigators Castro and Rehm on May 1, 1990. Although Adler had both the responsibility for and control over the records of Respondent Global, he was not fully familiar with the records, and the bookkeeping was in disarray. At all times material hereto, Adler, as the broker for Respondent Global, was responsible for operating the Global office, for overseeing Global's escrow account, for reviewing contracts, and for being aware of the day-to-day events in the Global office. In addition, as the broker, Adler was required to be an officer of the corporation, to be a signatory on the escrow account, to have prepared and to sign the monthly escrow account reconciliations, and to respond to Petitioner if there were complaints or requests for production of documents. Adler, as the broker for Respondent Global, did not reconcile and sign escrow account statements on a monthly basis since he was not aware of the requirement that he do so. However, Adler did testify that he was aware of his responsibility for escrowed funds. At no time did Respondent Shindler have the responsibility to maintain Global's escrow account or to reconcile the escrow account on a monthly basis. At no time did Respondent Shindler represent that he was the broker for Respondent Global or that he was a broker. Respondent Shindler did not state to investigator Rehm that he was acting as the broker for Global or that Adler had simply lent Adler's license to Shindler to use. At no time did Adler and Respondent Shindler enter into an agreement whereby Shindler would act as the broker for Global using Adler's broker's license, and Adler was never paid any monies for any use of his broker's license. Adler testified that his involvement with Global's business had declined as he had pursued his growing interest in performing appraisals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered: Dismissing Counts II, III, VII, VIII, and IX of the Administrative Complaint filed herein; Finding Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., guilty of the allegations contained in Count V of the Administrative Complaint; and Ordering Respondent Global Real Estate & Management, Inc., to pay a fine in the amount of $500 by a date certain. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of March, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4522 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-5, 7-9, 11-12c, 13, 14, and 16 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 15, and 17 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 12d has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-22 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The transcript of proceedings, together with Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 3, 5, and 8-14 and Respondents' Exhibit numbered 1 which were admitted in evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate - Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Suite 400 - One Datran Center Miami, Florida 33156 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
